Lefebvre and Space

Response to The Production of Space by Henri Lefebvre
Tyler Thayer
September 15, 2010

Lefebvre calls to the attention of the reader the contradictions of architectural actions solely of a capitalistic driven society; however, it seems that these should be more rightly considered paradoxes, or the implications of a path chosen rather than contradictions. His assumption that space contains the same value within the eyes of all people is misguided. Nonetheless, Lefebvre properly argues that “spatial practice destroys social practice; social practice destroys itself by means of spatial practice.” The point is proper in that it illuminates the implications of adopting an existing spatial practice; that the existence of former “property and production relations erase” and “shatter” global, thoughtful ideals of spatial prospect conceptions found in the dreams of the new society.

An abstract space loses its meaning outside of its own social constructs. This begins to fragment space, which is the degradation of the global space, the overall conception of a grand space. In the case of the typical urban space, the capitalist fragments the space in order to produce, to buy and sell. The space is altered within many different paradigms and many different global conceptions, thus the production of this space is reduced to a mere function of economics. Its meaning is found within the economic transfers, not within the social ideals.  Social green spaces are reduced and fragmented and given to capitalistic dreams of productivity. Lefebvre calls this a contradiction, but it is not necessarily that. It is an implication or a consequence. Capitalism seeks to produce value, generally at all costs, and this value should always produce, yet, as Lefebvre mentions, this decreases that which produces only enjoyment and is “unproductive.”  However, bureaucracy is conscious of this, making decisions based on a production economy, not in a social economy mindset.  Therefore, this is a conscious path of social destruction, not a contradiction; it is an implication of slicing up space, one that precedes and leads to the other.

Though I disagree with Lefebvre on his classification of the problem, his nuance of space between the global and the fragmentary argues a strong case for the enlightenment of societal changers.  A new society naturally requires and demands a new thought and typology of space.  This new spatial typology must, though, remove the old. This reveals the problem, which is practical in nature.  How can one create a new spatial identity that defines the social if that which was once consumer and production related still exists?  There are two basic options, adapt to what exists or start fresh from a blank slate. Since the later is not easily done, one must adapt, but this directly degrades the ideal found in the new social movement, and in many scenarios could destroy that movement. To become social, a place must sustain social space. Where it is fragmented, it must be healed and reunited. Here lies the problem, and the need.

[Re]oriented Design – tylerthayer.com – © 2010

Advertisement