Lefebvre’s thoughtful memory collage
While preparing for an exhibition at the end of August, my attention was turned to human activities in an open space on campus located right in front of the gallery. I realized that there was a space that was occupied by a lot of people, and there was a room that was not occupied by many people.
Based on these observations, I was reminded of the “spatial practice” material that I received during my residency at GUDSKUL Ecosystem. The material tries to build an understanding of how and why space can be formed. Various theories and practices were introduced to the participants, including myself. It’s just that, there is one theory that I always remember and seems to match what I am observing. The theory comes from a French philosopher named Henri Lefebvre.
In his book Production of Space, Lefebvre tries to describe space and its close relationship with humans. In this book, Lefebvre sees space as something that is produced by every society. But is it true that each society produces its own space as Lefebvre said? If in this paper I try to explain Lefebvre’s thoughts about space and spatial dialectics.
***
Henri Lefebvre is an important French leftist philosopher, although not as popular as the Marxist philosophers of his time such as Althusser, Adorno, Benjamin, Marcuse, Heidegger, Habermas or Debord. Born in 1901 and died in 1991, Lefebvre was the only Marxist philosopher who experienced the struggles of European civilization from the beginning of modernism to postmodernism. At the end of his life, he finished a translated version of his magnum opus, “The Production of Space.”
The important starting point of “The Production of Space” is the contribution of thinking that there is no truly ‘ideal’ space because space itself spatially in modern capitalist society is a battle arena that will never be fought over and all interested parties will continue to try to find ways to dominate the use or utilization of space and reproduce all knowledge to maintain their hegemony over the use of that space. In this sense, spatial production of space will affect the mentality of its inhabitants, thus creating what Henri Lefebvre calls the production of social space, namely the production relation between spatial space and society. Therefore, Lefebvre recommends understanding space in relation to history and context-specific.
The production of space (both spatially and socially) is closely related to the development of the ‘mode of production’ of a modern society, where the production of knowledge about space is a reflection of the relationship between the two. The construction of space is essential in the development of capitalism. To understand this logic, I quote from Lefebvre as follows:
“Space is real in the same sense that commodities are real since (social) space is a (social) product”
(Lefebvre, 2000: 26).
Thus, ‘space’ (space) embodies the will to ‘show off oneself’ (a desire of self exhibition) because both space and commodities must be used (used) so that (both space and commodity) have value. In other words, modern capitalism has made space a ‘locus of production’ and at the same time away to articulate commodities that will continue to develop. As a result, the hegemony of knowledge continues to be reproduced to maintain the concept of space as a desire to show off oneself.
Production Space
Social space is formed by social action, either individually or collectively. It is a social action that gives “meaning” to how a spatial space is conceptualized by those who fill and animate the space. The production of social space is related to how spatial practice is manifested through perceptions of the environment which is built through networks that link social activities such as work, private life and leisure.
Lefebvre describes this as a dialectical relation between living (spatial and social) spaces, perceived spaces, and conceptual space, or what is called the ‘three conceptual series’ of space (a conceptual triad of social space production). Based on this point of view, Lefebvre explains how social space is generated. As follows :
(1) First: Spatial Practices.
Spatial practice refers to the production and reproduction of spatial relationships between objects and products. This is what ensures the continuity of production of social space and its cohesiveness. In this sense, social space also includes the involvement of every member of society who has a certain relationship or relationship to ownership of that space. It is in this context that the social cohesion of a space is determined by the degree of competence and the level of performance on the use of space (physical or material). This kind of spatial practice is understood as “lived space”.
(2) Second: Representations of Space.
The representation of space depends on a pattern of production relations and an order which aims to impose a certain pattern of relationships on the ‘use’ of a space. Thus, spatial representation is concerned with knowledge, signs, or codes, even attitudes or a ‘frontal’ relationship.
Therefore, the representations produced by a space become “diverse”. Such representations refer to a “conceptualized” space such as space for scientists, spatial planners, urban communities, technocrat reviewers and implementers and other social engineers. Such as from artists who have unique mental expressions and attitudes in identifying ‘space’ — while reviewers view the process of forming space as scientific engineering (scientific) — such as through study (study) or research by identifying what is alive space, what consequences are felt by the people in that ‘space’ and what they understand about that space and its dynamics. In this context, space is a production that emerges from the conception of a person and/or several people or people in general. In other words, it is a conceived space.
(3). Representational Space
Representational space refers to a space that is actually “living” and is directly related to the “various forms of images and symbols associated with it. This includes how the inhabitants of the space or the people who use it interact with each other. through practice and forms of visualization in space In this context, the conception of space emerges based on the real experiences experienced by everyone as a causal part of a dialectical relationship between spatial practice and spatial representation. specifically perceived by individuals, groups or society.
Lefebvre then also applied the ‘three sets of conceptions’ to this space as a method for analyzing spatial history. He argued that “social space is produced and reproduced within its relation to the various forces that affect the production of space and also to the various relations that are formed in the production of physical space or material. In this context, the forces that influence the production process of ‘social space’ are not merely a ‘competition’ for physical space which is completely ‘empty’ or ‘empty’ or even ‘neutral’; it is a process of attraction between various “forces” which influence each other in the attempt to inhabit a “material space” (physical) that actually already “exists”.
In concrete terms, Lefebvre describes that the parallel development of modern capitalism’s hegemony has logical consequences for the production of ‘abstract space’. In this “abstract” space, capitalism has created forms of homogenization, hierarchy and various other kinds of social fragmentation. On the other hand, capitalism and globalization — or capitalism that takes place globally and ‘spatially’ in various places give birth to various forms and patterns of ‘the same’ — ‘similar’ — ‘almost similar’ relations in various parts of the world, but also at the same time giving birth to various forms and patterns of relations. ‘differences’ on practice and the conception of a ‘space’ itself. Communal space, the local history of a place and the particularities that society has for the place they live in together are cultural processes that influence the conception of the “representational” space and its uniqueness.
Meanwhile, on the other hand, modernism and its implications for “physical space” form a mental pattern that almost leads to various forms of “uniformity” of mental attitudes — attitudes or behaviour towards the use or use of “space”. This is because modern life emphasizes various forms of ‘ownership’ as something which is rigidly based on ‘personal belonging’ — and how this concept of private ownership is propagated through the ‘market’ and the relationships that are built-in ‘relationships. Production’.
Reading list:
Goonewardena, et.al (eds), 2008. Space, Difference, Everyday Life: Reading Henri Lefebvre, Routledge: London
Lefebvre, Henri, 2000. The Production of Space. Georgetown University Press:NY
Lefebvre, Henri, 2003. The Urban Revolution. University of Minneapolis Press: Minneapolis.
Lefebvre, Henri, 2004. Rhythmanalysis: Space, Time and Everyday Life. Continuum: London and NY
Lefebvre, Henri, 2009. State, Space, World. University of Minnesota Press: Minnesota
Madden, David, 2011. ‘City becoming World: Nancy, Lefebvre, and the Global urban Imagination’, dalam Jurnal Environment and Planning D: Society and Space Vol.30, hal. 779–784.
This article was published in Highvolta Zine
