A Waste of Space

A Waste of Space? Towards a Critique of the Social Production of Space...Author(s): Tim UnwinSource: Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, New Series, Vol. 25, No. 1 (2000),pp. 11-29Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute ofBritish Geographers)Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/623315 .Accessed: 04/04/2011 00:16

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Blackwell Publishing and The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers) arecollaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Transactions of the Institute of BritishGeographers.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=rgs

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=rgs

http://www.jstor.org/stable/623315?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black

A waste of space? Towards a critique of the

social production of space ...

Tim Unwin

This paper outlines a framework for a critique of Henri Lefebvre's notion of the social production of space, undertaken around five intersecting themes: language and meaning, the separation of space and time, the processes of production and construction, empowerment and value, and space and place.

key words production of space Lefebvre

Department of Geography, Royal Holloway, University of London, Egham, Surrey TW20 OEX email: [email protected]

revised manuscript received 11 November 1999

Context

In the midst of a gloomy and exceedingly responsible business it is quite some trick to keep cheerful: and yet, what could be more necessary than cheerfulness? Nothing succeeds without high spirits playing their part. (Nietzsche 1998, 3)

The idea that space is socially produced, or constructed, has become one of the foundations of

contemporary social and cultural geography, generating a wealth of theoretical and empirical publications (for example, see the recent forum

published as Dixon 1999; Merrifield 1999; Price 1999; Shields 1999; Soja 1999). However, there remain fundamental problems with such a conceptualization of space, and this paper seeks to explore some of the implications of these difficulties. This is

inherently a highly complex task for at least two main reasons. First, by engaging with this literature one in a sense becomes part of it; credence can be given to the very ideas that are being challenged (Curry 1996). Second, the extensive volume of the literature means that any such critique can only be selective and thus partial.

The path chosen here has therefore been to concentrate primarily on a single influential work, Lefebvre's (1974; 1991) La production de l'espace (translated as The production of space) and to use it as a starting point from which to view some of the

terrain of geographical research that it has influenced. Particular attention will thus be paid to the work of David Harvey (1982; 1985; 1990) and Ed

Soja (1996; 1999) (but see also Merrifield 1993; Smith 1998). La production de l'espace was the culmination of a sequence of books written by Lefebvre in the 1960s and early 1970s on the 'nature of urbanization and the production of space' (Harvey 1991, 430; see also Hess 1988), and it is impossible to understand it without a grasp of some of his other works (see particularly 1968a; 1968b; 1970; 1980; 1981; for accessible works in English translation, see 1968c; 1996). However, The production of space is the work of Lefebvre that has been most

widely cited in the Anglo-American geographical literature, and, given the intention of using this

critique to highlight wider problems with geographers' uses of the idea of the social production and construction of space, it does provide a useful

starting point for this investigation. Lefebvre has by no means been alone among

eminent social theorists in challenging past conceptions of space (see, for example, Foucault 1980; 1986). Furthermore, within geography there has been a long tradition of concern with the claim that space can be shaped from the social meanings of people's lives. This can be traced back at least as far as some of Kirk's (1952) work in the 1950s and the emergence of a distinctive humanistic tradition within the discipline (see, for example, Ley and

Trans Inst Br Geogr NS 25 11-29 2000 ISSN 0020-2754 ? Royal Geographical Society (with The Institute of British Geographers) 2000

12

Samuels 1978). The strengthening of radical Marxist traditions within geography (Harvey 1973; Peet 1977) also provided a strong impetus to new conceptualizations of space, both directly through the writings of Marx, and also mediated through the interpretative filters of social theorists such as Lefebvre (1968c). Nevertheless, the increased and continued emphasis placed on Lefebvre's work, particularly since the English translation of La production de l'espace appeared at the beginning of the 1990s, warrants further critical attention.

I begin with a brief overview of the importance of these debates in geography, focusing in particular on the reincorporation of space into social and cultural theory (Duncan 1996). This is followed by an examination of some of Lefebvre's central arguments in The production of space, and of the ways in which these have been incorporated into geographical theory and practice. The critique is then developed around five interrelated themes: lan-

guage and meaning, the separation of space and time, the processes of production and construction, empowerment and value, and space and place. Given the huge corpus of Lefebvre's work, and the extensive use made of it by geographers in recent years (Soja 1989; Merrifield 1993; Benko and

Strohmayer 1997; Gregory 1997; Light and Smith 1998), it is only possible to sketch the outlines of such a critique here. My intention is primarily to

question some of the implications of Lefebvre's

arguments and in so doing to re-engage debates at the interface between philosophy and social theory, particularly concerning the ethical groundings of

geographical practices (Habermas 1978; Stoddart 1986; Livingstone 1992; Bauman 1993; Proctor 1998a; 1998b; Smith 1998; Strohmayer 1998; Proctor and Smith 1999).

Space, society and the contemporary world

Reassertion of the importance of space in social

theory in the English-speaking world has resulted from a diverse and sometimes contradictory range of influences (Sack 1980; Soja 1989; but see also

Agnew 1995). In substantial part, it has been influenced by the Marxist and modernist traditions of a radical critique of contemporary capitalism, reflected in the work of Harvey (1973; 1996) as well as of Lefebvre (see particularly 1968b; 1981). How- ever, more recently in the 1990s it has also resulted from diverse postmoder critiques of modernity,

Tim Unwin

and of attempts to understand the fragmented worlds of differences that constitute constructions of postmodernism itself (Duncan 1996; Couclelis and Gale 1986). At times, therefore, the contrasting interests of modernism and postmodernism have coalesced in their pursuit of the meaning of space. As one referee of an earlier draft of this paper so cogently observed, the translation of Lefebvre's The production of space into English 'coincided with the high days of the postmodern debate in social

theory and the fluidity of his work lent itself to

easy recuperation by the postmoderns'. The wider significance of space in social theory also reflects the increasing acceptance that the previously dominant rhetoric of temporal modes of explanation and understanding in the social sciences has failed sufficiently to account for the realities of contem-

porary existence (Gregory 1994). Moreover, such a realization has been heightened by the collapse of the former Soviet Union in the late 1980s, and the confusion into which this has thrown those intellectuals on the Left who had been brought up on the hope that historical materialism would reveal the fatal flaws of capitalism, and in so doing enable the global proletariat to throw off the shackles of its repression and exploitation (Pensky 1994; Gowan 1995).

Although 'space', however defined, has been at the heart of geographical enquiry since antiquity (Unwin 1992), the rapidity with which geographers and other social scientists in the 1980s and 1990s have adopted the idea that space is socially 'produced', or 'constructed', is worthy of note

(Swyngedouw 1992; Lagopoulos 1993). The con-

cept is now so widely accepted that it frequently appears in geographical publications with little

apparent need for justification (for recent exam-

ples, see Berg and Kears 1996; Clarke et al 1996; Pain 1997; Flint 1998). Sustained critiques by geographers of the concept, however, and of the com-

plex details of Lefebvre's own arguments, remain scarce (although see Merrifield 1993; Soja 1996; Casey 1998; Dimendberg 1998; Smith 1998). Moreover, most critiques have been broadly sympathetic to Lefebvre's argument; very few have yet been overtly critical of his overall project (although see Curry 1996).

Four main reasons can be adduced for the growing emphasis on the social production of space, and the rapidity with which the idea has been taken up as a cornerstone of contemporary social

theory. First, as Lefebvre (1974) himself has noted,

Towards a critique of the social production of space

attempts to understand the contemporary world that focus primarily on temporal change and

ignore spatial considerations are both partial and

incomplete. Second, such approaches have found resonance with many geographers, particularly those with a background in historical geography (Harvey 1961; Gregory 1982), who have long sought to grapple with the spatial and temporal dimensions of explanation and understanding. Third, as Harvey (1990), for example, has illus- trated, these arguments can be linked to those of

geographers in the wake of Higerstrand (1975), who have advocated a time-geographical approach to the interpretation of society, and also to those of other social scientists, such as Giddens (1984), who have developed concepts such as time-space distanciation and compression as analytical tools in their attempts to grapple with understanding con-

temporary society. A fourth reason lies in the

changing nature of the academy, and the way in which some geographers have increasingly sought to engage with colleagues in the wider social sciences, seeing the reassertion of space in social

theory as an opportunity to develop innovative

insights into contemporary social, economic and

political practices (Unwin 1992). The meanings that we attribute to space, and, for

that matter, time, are intimately tied up with our understandings of the world in which we live. They have thus become central to debates over modernity and postmoderity. As Harvey (1990, 201), following Berman (1982), has suggested, modernity can be seen as 'a certain mode of experience of space and time'. In a similar way, postmodernism can be conceived of as an exploration of different spaces and times, and also of different ways of thinking about space and time. It is here that Lefebvre's work is of such relevance. As Soja (1996, 6) has commented, Lefebvre 'has been more influential than any other scholar in opening up and exploring the limitless dimensions of our social spatiality'. Significantly, while Soja (1989) has been an ardent advocate of the need to explore these alternative postmoder geographies, Lefebvre's work follows in a long tradition of humanist Marxists concerned overtly with the modernist belief that it is possible to make the world in which we live a better place. In seeking to understand the ways in which space and time have been socialized as particular constructs of modernity, and also the ways in which their production play a significant part in shaping the character of

13

capitalist society, it may thus become possible to understand ways of changing the 'shape' of that

society.

Lefebvre and the social production of

space

Lefebvre's writings have received considerable critical acclaim, and engagements with his arguments are widely available (among geographers, see Harvey 1990; Merrifield 1993; Gregory 1994; Soja 1996; Light and Smith 1998). Rather than

trying to summarize the corpus of his work, itself an impossible task, this section therefore lays out a selection of some of his more significant arguments, so as to provide a basis for the

development of the subsequent critique. At the outset, though, it is important to stress the contradictions involved in this exercise. Lefebvre's arguments are constructed in such a way that they are not readily summarized; his project is designed to elicit debate and engagement, and the metaphors and illustrations he uses are not reducible to a

simple set of parameters. For his advocates this is indeed one of his strengths; for his critics, it remains problematic. The following exploration therefore seeks to explore a difficult path between these two positions. It is in no way an attempt to identify a single central core to Lefebvre's arguments, but at the same time it wishes to keep open the possibility that it is not itself subverted by them.

The form of Lefebvre's argument Working within the framework of a long tradition of French critical literature, Lefebvre's arguments in The production of space are not always easy to comprehend. This is particularly so for those versed in Anglo-Saxon quests for certainty and a classificatory logic in which everything has its clearly defined place. In part this is because of the breadth of his approach, ranging from the 'Roman state-city-empire' (Lefebvre 1991, 252) to the archi- tecture of Frank Lloyd Wright, from the space of medieval Christendom to the French Revolution, and from Heraclitus to Marx. While the initial outline upon which he builds his subsequent discourse is established in a relatively straightforward fashion in the first two chapters of the book, his subsequent arguments are very much more complex. Many commentators have therefore concen- trated largely upon the initial framework, and have

14

failed sufficiently to address some of the more challenging arguments developed later in the book, let alone the ways in which these relate to his other works.

The complexity of Lefebvre's arguments is closely related to the elusiveness with which he develops them. Reading The production of space can be compared to walking across quicksand, or trying to find the end of a rainbow. No sooner does one think that one has understood what he is trying to say, than he shifts his position, so that what was once thought to be acceptable is now shown to be problematic. At the heart of Lefebvre's project there is thus an intention to make complex the taken-for-granted, and to force the reader to question her or his own understandings of space. As well as being elusive, though, there is a tension within Lefebvre's work, because this very character of being contradictory, and lacking certainty, to some extent runs counter to his own certainty that

space is actually produced. This elusive character of Lefebvre's argument is

in part achieved through the way in which he

approaches his subject matter from a range of different perspectives. Soja (1996, 9), in grappling with the complexities of the book's organization, has thus commented that

I began to think that perhaps Lefebvre was presenting The Production of Space as a musical composition, with a

multiplicity of instruments and voices playing together at the same time. More specifically, I found that the text could be read as a polyphonic fugue that assertively introduced its keynote themes early on and then

changed them intentionally in contrapuntal variations that took radically different forms and harmonies.

Following the first two chapters outlining the book's initial framework, Lefebvre examines the same basic themes in chapters entitled 'Spatial architectronics', 'From absolute space to abstract

space', 'Contradictory space' and 'From the contradictions of space to differential space'. Each of these explores 'the mode of existence of social relations' (1991, 401) from a range of contrasting, but interconnected, perspectives. A key effect of this approach is to challenge the logic and spatial arrangement of traditional texts. As Soja (1996, 9) once again perceptively comments,

it was a way of spatializing the text, of breaking out of the conventional temporal flow of introduction-

development-conclusion to explore new 'rhythms' of

argument and (con)textual representation.

Tim Unwin

The temporal narrative of text thus appears to be

rethought according to some kind of spatialized form of logic.

This logic is in turn tightly structured through Lefebvre's insistent and consistent use of triads (see Blum and Nast 1996 and Gregory 1997 for Lefebvre's debt to Lacan here). For Lefebvre, these triads are not simply a traditional dialectic of

thesis/antithesis/synthesis, but are rather a way of

trying to develop a completely new form of con-

ceptualization, avoiding the temporal logic associated with both Hegelian and Marxist dialectics.

Soja (1996) thus describes this 'thirding' as a distinct form of 'othering', and uses it to develop his own concept of what he names 'Thirdspace'. Triads are everywhere in Lefebvre's argument. Two of the most commonly referred to are his physical, mental and social 'fields' (1991, 11), and his threefold

conceptualization of spatial practice, representations of space and representational spaces (33). However, many other examples of triads can also be found in The production of space, and among the most interesting of these is his discussion of the geometric, optical and phallic formants, or elements of the multiform character of abstract

space (285-7; for a critique focusing on his failure to develop a sufficiently robust theory of representation, see Dimendberg 1998, 37). Throughout his

analysis, he seeks to develop his argument around this threefold logic: it exists in his three moments of 'the great dialectical movements that traverse the

world-as-totality and help define it' (218); it is to be found in the three questions that need to be asked

beyond the idea of a "'plural", "polyscopic", or

"polyvalent" space' (292); and it is there in the three meanings that he attributes to Descartes' thesis (283).

Aims and content At the outset, it would appear that Lefebvre's

paramount intent in The production of space is to confront previous ways of considering space. Near the beginning of the book, he thus claims that

Most if not all authors ensconce themselves comfort-

ably enough within the terms of mental (and therefore neo-Kantian or neo-Cartesian) space, thereby demon-

strating that 'theoretical practice' is already nothing more than the egocentric thinking of specialized Western intellectuals - and indeed may soon be

nothing more than an entirely separated, schizoid consciousness.

Towards a critique of the social production of space The aim of this book is to detonate this state of affairs. More specifically, apropos of space, it aims to foster confrontation between those ideas and propositions which illuminate the moder world even if they do not govern it, treating them not as isolated theses or hypotheses, as 'thoughts' to be put under the microscope, but rather as prefigurations lying at the threshold of modernity. (24)

However, even here, he is arguing for much more than a simple reappraisal of the meaning and character of space, suggesting instead that one of his purposes is actually to understand the genesis of modernity. Elsewhere, he extends this argument to include an understanding of the ways in which the relationships between space and modernity have shaped particular expressions of capitalism. He thus begins his aptly titled final chapter 'Openings and conclusions' as follows: 'There is a question implicit in the foregoing analyses and

interpretations. It is this: what is the mode of existence of social relations' (401). Elsewhere, Lefebvre (410) also emphasizes his concern with

examining the particular ways in which space has become 'the principal stake of goal-directed actions and struggles', and with the way in which 'space is assuming an increasingly important role in supposedly "modem" societies' (412).

There is also another, more overtly political, aim in The production of space. As Lefebvre (419) comments,

This book has been informed from beginning to end by a project, though this may at times have been discern- ible only by reading between the lines. I refer to the project of a different society, a different mode of production, where social practice would be governed by different conceptual determinations.

Lefebvre appears, though, to have been troubled by this idea. As he alludes in the above quotation, this project is not always clear or as immediately recognizable as it is in some of his other works. Moreover, while he goes on to suggest that 'No doubt this project could be explicitly formulated' (419), he emphasizes that it would remain an abstract project, and that 'Though opposed to the abstraction of the dominant space, it would not transcend that space' (419). Soja (1996, 68), in his evocation of Thirdspace, seeks to make this political aim more explicit, describing 'lived space as a strategic location from which to encompass, understand, and potentially transform all spaces simultaneously'. More overtly, Soja claims a very specific practical intent in his work. As he states,

15

The praxis which guides our journeys to Los Angeles and other real-and-imagined places is organized around the search for practical solutions to the problems of race, class, gender, and other, often closely associated, forms of human inequality and oppression, especially those that are arising from, or being aggra- vated by, the dramatic changes that have become associated with global economic and political restruc- turing and the related postmodernization of urban life and society. (Soja 1996, 22)

A fundamental issue that this paper seeks to raise is whether or not Lefebvre's formulation, and likewise that of scholars, such as Soja, who have followed in his wake, actually enables this political project to be achieved.

Before Lefebvre's central conceptual triad is examined in more detail, it is important to note three other aspects of the context within which Lefebvre was writing. First, in his concern with the mode of existence of social relations, he chose to concentrate primarily on developing an understanding of capitalism and modernity. His focus, moreover, was on the urban world, particularly in a European context. He thus had very little to say about rural life, or about the conditions of people living in other parts of the world (although see Lefebvre 1970 for some discussion of rural interest; note that Lefebvre worked for ten years at the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique on rural interest and agrarian reform, but commented that 'At the end of ten years I realized that it was to no purpose whatsoever', Lefebvre 1987, 32). This eurocentric and urban bias in his writing is closely reflected in much social theory written in his wake (Harvey 1991) as well as under the banner of postmodernism (Soja 1996; although see Escobar 1995; Corbridge 1998). Second, Lefebvre's writing was grounded in a deep commitment to Marxism that was both theoretical and practical. Signifi- cantly his interpretations of the trajectory of capitalism also owed much to a surprisingly Leninist view of globalization. Lefebvre (65) thus commented that

Within this global framework, as might be expected, the Leninist principle of uneven development applies in full force: some countries are still in the earliest stages of the production of things (goods) in space, and only the most industrialized and urbanized ones can exploit to the full the new possibilities opened up by technology and knowledge.

His theoretical debt to Lenin is also reflected in some of his arguments concerning the character of

16

space, where he notes that Lenin suggested 'that the thought of space reflects objective space, like a

copy, or photograph' (5, 186). A third important introductory observation is that Lefebvre was

eager to reincorporate the body into his analytical framework. He was particularly concerned that

Western philosophy has betrayed the body; it has actively participated in the great process of metaphor- ization that has abandoned the body; and it has denied the body. (407)

Arguing that the living body, being subject and

object at the same time, 'cannot tolerate such

conceptual division' (407), he is eager to show how physical liberation can be achieved through a

production of space. Against this background, Lefebvre sets out an

initial conceptual plan for his work based on a triad of spatial practice, representations of space, and representational spaces (Harvey 1990; Merrifield 1993; Soja 1996). As he mentions, this is a triad to which he keeps 'returning over and over

again', and it is therefore worth citing in full (Lefebvre 1991, 33):

1 Spatial practice, which embraces production and reproduction, and the particular locations and spatial sets characteristic of each social formation. Spatial practice ensures continuity and some degree of cohesion. In terms of social space, and of each member of a given society's relationship to that space, this cohesion implies a guaranteed level of competence and a specific level of performance.

2 Representations of space, which are tied to the relations of production and to the 'order' which those relations impose, and hence to knowledge, to signs, to codes, and to 'frontal' relations.

3 Representational spaces, embodying complex symbol- isms, sometimes coded, sometimes not, linked to the clandestine or underground side of social life, as also to art (which may come eventually to be defined less as a code of space than as a code of representational spaces).

The other central triad developed in his initial plan is the distinction between social space, mental

space and physical space. For Lefebvre (27),

Social space will be revealed in its particularity to the extent that it ceases to be indistinguishable from mental space (as defined by philosophers and mathematicians) on the one hand, and physical space (as defined by practico-sensory activity and the perception of 'nature') on the other.

Much of the remainder of the book demonstrates that this

Tim Unwin

social space is constituted neither by a collection of

things or an aggregate of (sensory) date, nor by a void packed like a parcel with various contents, and that it is irreducible to a 'form' imposed upon phenomena, upon things, upon physical materiality. (27)

Two important implications are derived from these initial frameworks. First, Lefebvre is eager to show how every society produces a space, which can be seen and understood as its own space. He thus traces how the ancient city had its own spatial practice, and how various subsequent societies, notably Christian Europe and the modern capitalist city, each created and were shaped by their own distinct spaces. Second, he is also keen to point out how '(physical) natural space is disappearing' (30). This comment has important resonance for debates over the relationships between humans and the

physical or 'natural' world, and indeed for under-

standing the relationships between 'human' and

'physical' geography. Lefebvre (31) suggests that

although nature obsesses us, and we want to

protect and save it, 'Yet at the same time everything conspires to harm it'. His discussion of the

complex relationships between the physical world of nature, and human responses to it, though, remains ambivalent and uncertain. Thus, he argues that while natural space remains 'the background of the picture' (30) it 'will soon be lost to view' (31), and in just the same way 'Nature is also becoming lost to thought' (31). The rise of environmental movements, and the growing attention currently being paid, particularly by geographers, to the

relationships between nature and society (see, for

example, Proctor 1998a), would caution against the

apparent certainty with which Lefebvre makes such claims. Moreover, as the above quotations illustrate, there is at times a tendency for Lefebvre to conflate his notions of 'nature' and 'natural

space', or at least to shift from one to the other with considerable sleight of language. Indeed, as Smith (1998, 59) has commented, Lefebvre leaves

nature largely unreconstructed, and with it the relationship between space and nature ... Nature for Lefebvre is on the verge of becoming a corpse at the behest of abstract space.

In the remainder of The production of space, Lefebvre

develops the ideas outlined in his introductory chapter from a range of different perspectives. In a

largely historical account, he explores the way in which ideas about abstract space developed from those of absolute space, he undertakes a


compelling critique of Cartesian space, and then examines a series of contradictions in the nature of

space, focusing particularly on quantity and qual- ity, spaces of consumption and the consumption of

space, and the global and fragmentary character of

space. These explorations all serve to reinforce his view that 'Social relations, which are concrete abstractions, have no real existence save in and

through space' (404). In conclusion, he returns to the relevance of his theory of space to the rev-

olutionary movement today, suggesting that

although the bourgeoisie may have overcome

many of the contradictions of capitalism, it will be unable to 'resolve the contradictions of space' (420). Because political organizations are a result of

history, which they seek to maintain ideologically, Lefebvre suggests that they are therefore unable

satisfactorily to understand space.

Geographers and the social production of

space Two of the most significant geographers to have

engaged with Lefebvre's arguments and to have

incorporated them into their own work have been David Harvey (Katz 1998) and Ed Soja (Dixon 1999). This section of the paper therefore briefly seeks to establish the significance of Lefebvre's ideas for Harvey and Soja, and to note their more

widespread introduction into geographical theory and practice. Throughout Harvey's work (1982; 1985; 1989; 1990), he has been an ardent advocate of the need to examine the spatial implications of Marx's analysis of capitalism, with particular reference to the urban context. This espousal of the need to insert space into Marxist theory finds close echoes with Lefebvre's intentions in The production of space, and Harvey draws significantly on Lefebvre's arguments in developing his formulations of spaces and times in social life in his The condition of postmodernity (1990, especially Chapter 13; see also 1996, Chapter 10).

In referring to the everyday, Harvey (1990, 201) argues that:

Space and time are basic categories of human existence. Yet we rarely debate their meanings; we tend to take them for granted, and give them common-sense or self-evident attributions. (but see, for example, Adam 1998)

Geographers have for long debated the meanings of space and time. Indeed, from antiquity to the present day this concern with space and time

17

would seem to be one of the core characteristics not

only of geographical enquiry, but also of wider debate within philosophy, science and social theory (Sack 1980; Bird 1981; Pred 1981; Couclelis and Gale 1986; Livingstone 1992; Unwin 1992; more

recently, see Massey 1994; 1999; Golledge and Stimson 1997). What Harvey (1990, 203) seeks to do, though, is 'to challenge the idea of a single and

objective sense of time or space, against which we can measure the diversity of human conceptions and perceptions'. He suggests that from a materialistic perspective,

we can ... argue that objective conceptions of time and space are necessarily created through material practices and processes which serve to reproduce social life. (Harvey 1990, 204)

This is significantly different from Lefebvre's lines of argument on at least two counts. First, he uses the verb 'created' rather than 'produced'; indeed, here it is the conceptions of space and time, rather than space and time themselves that are seen as

being 'created' by society. Second, he refers to the

conceptions of both space and time as being created, whereas it is central to Lefebvre's (1974; 1991) argument that primacy is given to the

production of space alone.

Harvey (1989; 1990) nevertheless then incorporates Lefebvre's triad of spatial practices, representations of space and spaces of representation into the three rows of his grid of spatial practices (Harvey 1990, 220-21), the columns of which he chooses to represent as four more conventional

understandings of spatial practice (accessibility and distanciation, appropriation and use of space, domination and control of space, and production of space), influenced in part by his readings of

Hagerstrand, Bourdieu, Gurvitch and Giddens. In so doing, and in penning in several illustrative

'positionings' within the squares of the grid, Harvey (1990, 222) seeks to examine different positions of entry into 'the experience of space in the

history of modernism and postmodernism'. How- ever, by giving concrete expression to Lefebvre's

essentially fluid ideas, Harvey effectively destroys their enigmatic and uncertain character. Lefebvre's triad is continually in motion, and by trying to tie it down to four other elements, which are not necessarily independent, Harvey departs considerably from Lefebvre's original intentions.

Furthermore, Harvey's (1989; 1990) own use of the word 'space' is ambiguous and problematic,

18

shifting from an absolute to a relative usage, and then back again. For example, he is content to

argue both that money 'permits the separation of

buying and selling in both space and time' (Harvey 1989, 175) and that social power can be concen- trated in space (176), but at the same time he wants to accept that space can itself be controlled and that 'Command over space ... is of the utmost strategic significance in any power struggle' (186; for a wider discussion, see Unwin 1992, 173-4).

Soja's (1996) debt to Lefebvre is both more self- evident, and also more in the spirit of his project, than is Harvey's work. Soja's (1996) evocation of

Thirdspace is thus specifically and provocatively designed to challenge the ways in which we think about space and related concepts. This he achieves

through a juxtaposition of some of Lefebvre's ideas with those of other writers such as bell hooks and Foucault, but always with the intention of prevent- ing these formulations 'from solidifying into rigid dogma' (13). He also engages recent feminist retheorizations of spatiality and the spatial critique of historicism, before applying his own theoretical

arguments to Los Angeles and Amsterdam. For

Soja (22), Firstspace has been explored 'primarily through its readable texts and contexts' and Sec-

ondspace 'through its prevailing representational discourses'. In contrast, his intention is for explorations of Thirdspace to be guided by an emanci-

patory practice that is consciously spatial, and

designed 'to improve the world in some significant way' (22). Paradoxically, at the heart of his critique of modernism, and his evocation of the diversity of

postmodernism, there can therefore still be found an echo of the radical Enlightenment belief that it is possible to make the world a better place (see Gould 1999).

If the incorporation of Lefebvre's arguments into

geography has been most evident in the work of

Harvey and Soja, there have been numerous other

broadly sympathetic critiques of his work, most

notably Merrifield's (1993) use of his triadic framework to offer a dialectical interpretation of place, Dimmendberg's (1998) critique of his views on abstract space, and Smith's (1998) commentary on his conceptualization of nature. It is important, though, to emphasize that much contemporary geographical research purporting to reflect Lefebvre's ideas invariably only pays lip service to them, and frequently fails to incorporate the radical programme that he advocated (Berg and Kearns 1996; Clarke et al 1996). The so-called spatial turn in

Tim Unwin

cultural studies (Soja 1989; Smith 1998) is much broader than merely an incorporation of Lefebvre's

conceptualization into geographical practice, and also reflects the importance of other leading social theorists, such as Foucault (1986) and Said (1994) (see also Gregory 1994; Watson and Gibson 1995; Jameson 1991; 1998).

This can be exemplified by a brief consideration of the different meanings of 'production', 'construction' and 'creation' used by geographers with

respect to space. In much research, the terms 'social

production of space' and 'social construction of

space' have come to be used more or less inter-

changeably. To take but one example, Berg and Kearns (1996) note specifically that Lefebvre described space as a social product, and yet they focus particularly on place names as an expression of the social construction of space. Lefebvre (1991), though, was careful to apply a distinct, if complex and varied, set of meanings to the production of

space, that owed much to a very specific reappro- priation of Marx's conceptualization of production, the act of production and indeed modes of production. As Smith (1998, 54) has neatly summarized, for Lefebvre 'Space is in any meaningful sense

produced in and through human activity and the

reproduction of social relations'. This is therefore a much more restricted use of terminology than the more general argument that space is socially 'constructed', or indeed 'created' in the sense attributed to Harvey above. This distinction is important in

understanding the way in which such terminology has been incorporated into geographical enquiry in recent years. While most geographers have tended to use the more general phrase 'social construction of space', they frequently resort to Lefebvre's more restricted definition in theoretical support for their

arguments. Although the following critique is directed specifically at Lefebvre's conceptualization, it also has wider resonance for those who

argue in a general sense that space is socially constructed.


Set against this background, the remainder of this paper outlines five elements of a critique of Lefebvre's arguments concerning the social

production of space: language and meaning, the

separation of space and time, the processes of


production and construction, empowerment and value, and space and place. Although clearly interrelated, each of these elements engages with Lefebvre's arguments in a different way.

Language and meaning In referring to previous interpretations of Lefebvre's notion of abstract space by Gottdiener, Dear, Gregory, Pile and Smith, Dimendberg (1998, 18) comments that

Each of these understandings of abstract space can be justified by reference to different passages in The Pro- duction of Space, yet it remains difficult to grasp the specificity of the notion and its relations to these various definitions.

The complexity of Lefebvre's arguments, and their elusive character, thus make it very difficult to interpret precisely what he means at any particular juncture. This is not only because he develops similar notions in different ways throughout the book, but also because his sentence construction is frequently opaque. Moreover, short sentences are often juxtaposed in ways that make it extremely difficult to detect what exactly he meant by them. Does this matter?

How do we even approach answering this question? At one level, Lefebvre's project was to get people to rethink their ideas about temporal expla- nations of society. Readers are forced to think anew by the very complexity of the language that he uses (see also Olsson 1991; 1998; Curry 1996). In this sense, what matters is not so much what he wrote, but rather the reactions that the book evokes in its readers. His style is therefore part and parcel of the project, although it does require that the reader is able profitably to engage with it.

This raises the question of the audience for whom The production of space was written, and for what purpose. Lefebvre's underlying political project has been alluded to above, but the agents of this revolutionary practice have not, and Lefebvre himself remains strangely quiet about them (although elsewhere he does devote considerable attention to political practice: 1968a; 1968c). Lefebvre was writing primarily, if not exclusively, for social theorists and philosophers in the French- speaking world, and translating his work for an Anglo-American audience presents particular difficulties. For example, the French 'espace' has rather different connotations from the English 'space', as does 'lieu' from 'place'. However, subsequent

19

interpretations, reinterpretations and critiques, have helped to formulate wider debate about the importance of the production of space in contemporary society. The considerable number of such publications, and the numerous citations of The production of space in academic papers (Curry 1996), suggest that this audience has indeed found Lefebvre's work to be of value, even if those who cite him have not always read all of the book, nor understood what he wrote.

However, such a positive evaluation can be challenged through reference to the early Wittgenstein's (1961, 3) famous assertion that 'What can be said at all can be said clearly, and what we cannot talk about we must pass over in silence'. Why is it that complex arguments tend to be privileged over the simple? Is it not just possible that complexity reflects as much the inability of an author to express ideas clearly, as it does any inherent difficulty in the subject that is being written about? Language itself is a form of power. Restricted access to knowledge of the codes and meanings of languages thus enables groups to maintain their elite status and control. If we really wish to reshape the power structures of contemporary society, should we not be doing so in ways which seek to make our meanings readily accessible to as wide an audience as possible? Billinge (1983, 400), for example, has argued powerfully with reference to a style of writing prevalent in human geography in the early 1980s that

This style whilst claiming to capture with richness and subtlety the nature of the human subject and its mode of cognition, has in fact served different and more covert purposes: the perversion of meaning, the dis- guise of mediocrity of sentiment, the inflation of the authors' self-regard and the representation as profound of ideas which are in reality cliched or banal.

It is far from easy to reconcile these two contrasting interpretations of the value of complexity in written style. At one level, it can be argued that different texts are, and should be, written for different audiences, and that a diversity of styles and representations is to be applauded and encour- aged. However, at the same time, some caution is required in necessarily allocating primacy to the complex over the simple, to the contradictory over the coherent, and to the obfuscating over the direct.

A second difficulty with Lefebvre's use of language and meaning concerns the ascription of value to different definitions of space. In essence,

20

how do we judge between competing meanings, when their referential contexts have little in common? A widely adopted solution to such a question is to return to notions of utility, and to relate the values of meanings to their utility. However, if we reject the notion of meanings necessarily needing any universal utility, then even this form of logic becomes problematic (Habermas 1984; 1987). Two particular issues are pertinent in this context. First, although Lefebvre is very careful not to say specifically that notions of mental space or absolute space are 'wrong' or have no value, his whole enterprise is to encourage the acceptance of a new way of looking at, and understanding, space. He thus comments quite categorically that 'Absolute space has not disappeared' (Lefebvre 1991, 251), but at the same time he is extremely critical of most philosophers and scientists in their understandings and uses of space (6). More widely, many social and cultural geographers adopting Lefebvre's

arguments, and even those who adhere to more

general conceptualizations that space is socially constructed, have tended to reject outright scientific understandings of space as part of their wider

rejection of the modernist enterprise. As Soja (1996, 4) has put it, 'For some, the power of the critique has been so profound that modernism is abandoned entirely'. However, this raises the second

aspect of our understandings of the values attributed to different meanings of space, for to many in the 'physical' and 'natural' sciences, includ-

ing 'physical geographers', Euclidean space and Cartesian dualism still provide a valuable framework within which to practise research. Lefebvre (1991, 6) is very specific about his views on this matter:

The quasi-logical presupposition of an identity between mental space (the space of the philosophers and epistemologists) and real space creates an abyss between the mental sphere on the one side and the physical and social spheres on the other.

Here, we have not only the dilemma between the mental and the physical, but also between the 'real'

spaces of physical and social geography, however these are defined.

This leads directly into a third broad problem with Lefebvre's use of language and meaning, which relates to his attempt to develop a new

all-encompassing definition and science of space that would be acceptable to all (Lefebvre 1991, 8-9). Lefebvre's arguments have, for example,

Tim Unwin

failed to convince many physical scientists, who continue to find value and meaning in their traditional formulations of space. Moreover, their adoption by some social scientists has actually led to greater divisions between physical and social geographers, many of whom increasingly find little in common between their disciplinary languages (for an attempt to bring these contrasting view- points together, see Massey 1999). This problem is enhanced when the difficulties over his ideas about nature are taken into consideration (Smith 1998). Furthermore, there is a danger in the very compre- hensiveness of Lefebvre's conceptualization of space. His attempt to grapple with this enormity can be seen in the following quotation:

Social space can never escape its basic duality, even though triadic determining factors may sometimes override and incorporate its binary or dual nature, for the way in which it presents itself and the way in which it is represented are different. Is not social space always, and simultaneously, both a field of action (offering its extension to the deployment of projects and practical intentions) and a basis of action (a set of places whence energies derive and whither energies are directed)? Is it not at once actual (given) and potential (locus of possibilities)? Is it not at once quantitative (measurable by means of units of measurement) and qualitative (as concrete extension where unreplenished energies run out, where distance is measured in terms of fatigue or in terms of time needed for activity)? (1991, 191)

The danger here is that in revealing the complexity of space, Lefebvre makes the concept lose meaning; his all-inclusiveness takes meaning away from any definition that he attributes to space.

There is also a complex problem in the way in which Lefebvre's writings relate to previous uses of the meanings of space. By using the word

'space', Lefebvre, whether intentionally or not, draws upon a collective understanding of the previous meanings ascribed to space. Yet, he is also

seeking to create a new meaning for the word and for the idea of space. A similar argument has been advocated by Curry (1996), where he suggests that in making commitments to a set of conceptions about space in Western thinking, Lefebvre effec-

tively undermines his own possibility of developing a truly critical view of these concepts; he honours the very views that he seeks to criticize. Moreover, this also raises the question of the

relationships between words and what they sig- nify. Does space thus exist, or is it merely a figment of our collection imagination? But to ask this


question, is in a sense to answer it. By naming something we give life to it; just by naming '' in our imagination we make it real. However, is there

really something that we call space, or do we just use the word 'space' as a way of trying to understand the complex world in which we live, but which has no actual reality other than that? It is just such issues that Lefebvre explores in The production of space, but using the very word 'space' prevents him for escaping from the confines of the way in which the word has been used in the past.

Space, time and space-time The central tenet of the second element of this

critique is that in giving dominance to space, Lefebvre has dangerously reduced the significance of time. This is not to imply that a reincorporation of space into social theory was not long overdue, but it is to argue that any sustained analysis of society must incorporate an understanding of space-time. The logic involved in such an assertion can be applied equally to Lefebvre's concept of the production of space, as it can to arguments assert- ing the need for geographers to focus attention on the social construction of space in its many diverse forms.

In writing about space, Lefebvre frequently incorporates and subsumes an understanding of time. He thus comments that, 'if space is produced, if there is a production process, then we are dealing with history' (1991, 46), and

Let everyone look at the space around them. What do they see? Do they see time? They live time, after all; they are in time. Yet all anyone sees is movements. In nature, time is apprehended within space - in the very heart of space. (1991, 95)

It is an interesting experiment to transpose the words 'time' and 'space' in the above two quotations, and notice the differences that this makes to their meanings.

At the heart of Lefebvre's (1991), Harvey's (1989; 1990) and Soja's (1996) arguments is a tendency to treat both space and time as separate concepts, and yet they remain obstinately determined to try to bring them together. Why is the focus on the production of space alone, or should it be time, or should it be '...'? Lefebvre grapples with these issues in a diversity of ways, arguing that 'With the advent of modernity time has vanished from social space' (95), that 'time is distinguishable, but not separable from space' (175), and that 'time is

21

known and actualized in space, becoming a social reality by virtue of a spatial practice. Similarly, space is known only in and through time' (219). Given this position, it is important to try to understand why he remains so insistently fixated on space alone. In part, the answer lies in the aims of his book, which required an examination of space through history, rather than of time through geography. His particular concern was thus to understand the space of modernity, and he did so through an interpretation of space as a product of capitalism, a product that could be used and consumed, and as a means of production (85). Elsewhere, indeed, Lefebvre (1987, 33) has

acknowledged that 'time and space are intimately related', and he emphasizes the importance that Einstein's arguments played in helping him to formulate his own ideas about time and space. Yet he remains reluctant to abandon space and time for space-time.

Both Harvey and Soja have tackled the incorporation of time into their spatial arguments in somewhat different ways. Harvey (1989; 1990) is consistent in his attention to the experience of both space and time, but draws extensively on the concepts and terminology of time-geography and time-space compression in order to interpret the connectivities between space and time. Moreover, in the light of this theoretical context, he is insistent on the use of the term 'time-space', in opposition to the 'space-time' commonly used by physicists and philosophers. For Harvey (1990, 240) there is, nevertheless, no doubt that we have both 'spatial and temporal worlds'. Soja (1989; 1996) also draws heavily on Foucault's (1986; 1988) examination of space and spatiality. Interestingly, though, he does so by shifting the ground subtly from space and time to Foucault's examination of spatial and historical imaginations. Foucault's critique was essentially an argument against the privileging of historicality over spatiality, and for the reintroduc- tion of a critical spatial imagination into social thought, rather than the development of a specific new interpretation of space as such. While the development of a particular conception of spatiality was thus at the heart of much of his writing, as Soja (1996, 147) has acutely observed, Foucault 'never developed his conceptualizations of space in great self-conscious detail'.

What nevertheless remains strange about all of these arguments is the way in which they seek to privilege space over time. It is, after all, the

22

production of space or the social construction of space, upon which attention has focused. Is there not therefore a danger that we are moving towards a new kind of spatial fetish, albeit of a different form to that which emerged in geography during the 1950s and 1960s? If space and time are so interconnected, why is it that we persist in separating them, and privileging either one or the other?

It is here that some of the arguments of physicists, philosophers and mathematicians (see, for

example, Flood and Lockwood 1986) would seem to have something important to offer. Despite occasional forays into the realms of relativity and

quantum mechanics (Peterman 1994; Campbell 1995; Harrison and Dunham 1998), geographers have been remarkably reluctant to engage this literature (although see Unwin 1992; Massey 1994; 1999). This is particularly true of those interested in social and cultural geography, with Lefebvre (1991), Harvey (1989; 1990) and Soja (1996), for

example, all generally engaging a relatively out- moded concept of mathematical and scientific

'space'. In general, the detail of relativity and

quantum theory have been decried as largely ir- relevant to geographical enquiry, primarily because it is claimed that they have little to say at the scale of enquiry or research in which geographers are interested (for a wider discussion of time in geomorphology, see Thornes and Brunsden 1977). However, this is to miss their most im-

portant significance, because, as Harrison and Dunham (1998) so capably stress, it is at the con-

ceptual and philosophical level that these theories are of such interest. As Massey (1999) has recently argued, there is much that can be learnt from a wider discussion of the theoretical linkages between human and physical geography, and of a re-examination of the potential of relativity and

quantum theory to contribute to the ways in which social and cultural geographers have conceptualized space. I have highlighted elsewhere (Unwin 1992) the importance of Minkowski's (1964, 297) claim in 1908 that 'space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union between the two will

preserve an independent reality'. Likewise, as Russell (1961, 786) has commented 'What is important to the philosopher in the theory of relativity is the substitution of space-time for space and time'. Moreover, as Einstein (1964, 282) himself stressed, the critical thing about his special theory of

relativity was that it created

Tim Unwin

a formal dependence between the way in which the spatial co-ordinates, on the one hand, and the temporal co-ordinates, on the other, have to enter into the natural laws. (emphasis added)

There is not the opportunity here to develop these

arguments, but it is salient to recall Newton- Smith's (1986, 34) observation that 'The only conclusion that can be drawn with confidence is that there will be no purely philosophical nor a purely physical resolution of this controversy'. Once

again, we are brought back to the need to combine not only our conceptions of space and time, but also the physical and mental worlds that Descartes

sought to split asunder. In essence, there is a danger that by focusing on

the production or construction of space, we may create a damaging new fetish of space. We need instead to heed Massey's (1994, 2) call 'that space must be conceptualized integrally with time; indeed the aim should be to think always in terms of space-time' (see Unwin 1992 for a similar

argument).

The processes of production and construction of space A further fundamental difficulty with the idea of the production, or even construction, of space, is the way in which it places emphasis on the final

'thing' that is produced, or constructed, namely space. For Lefebvre (1987, 30), space is very much 'a social and political product', something that 'one

buys and sells'. While the process of production, or construction, is implicated in this action, it is the culmination of the process, space itself, that we are drawn to. In part this reflects the way in which

language shapes what we are able to communicate. However, in referring to the production of space, Lefebvre objectifies space; he gives it meaning, character and significance. Moreover, in this very process, he relegates all else to a secondary position. There is, for example, a categorical difference between 'the production of space' and 'the production of human misery'. Lefebvre chooses to address the former, mainly on the grounds that by so doing he can illuminate the latter. But in this very process, he draws our attention away from the misery, from the lived experience of humanity, and towards an intellectual and arid conceptualization of an idea, of space.

As outlined above, both Harvey (1990) and Lefebvre (1991) have deliberately addressed the


production of space, in large part to emphasize their commitment to a particular understanding of the way in which society is shaped. Harvey (1990, 183), for

example, is specifically concerned with 'the production of new spaces within which capitalist production can proceed'. Lefebvre's emphasis on production, likewise, closely reflects his engagement with Marxist theorizations of capitalism. As he has argued,

If space is a product, our knowledge of it must be expected to reproduce and expound the process of production. The 'object' of interest must be expected to shift from things in space to the actual production of space, but this formulation itself calls for much additional explanation. Both partial products located in space - that is, things - and discourse on space can henceforth do no more than supply clues to, and testimony about, this productive process. (1991, 36-37)

An important feature of this quotation, is that for Lefebvre it is 'the production of space' rather than 'space' itself that becomes the fundamental object of interest. He also puts both 'products in space' and 'discourse on space' on the same theoretical level, as clues to understanding the process of production. Moreover, by focusing specifically on space, this formulation would seem to deny the possibility that there might exist things in space- time. Another interesting feature of this quotation is its emphasis on the word 'must'; it brooks no possibility of uncertainty.

Lefebvre (1991, 124) suggests that this new awareness of space and its production emerged with the Bauhaus movement of the 1920s, which 'developed a new conception, a global concept, of space'. In exploring exactly what he means by the production of space, Lefebvre specifically links it to a new mode of production, and a leap forward in the productive forces. Moreover, this new mode of production is neither state capitalism nor state socialism, but rather 'the collective management of space, the social management of nature, and the transcendence of the contradiction between nature and anti-nature' (103). Once again, then, he is drawn into a consideration of ways of transcend- ing the traditional divide between nature and anti- nature, which can be seen as having close parallels with the interests of geographers concerned with the Cartesian dualism of the physical and human worlds of their discipline.

At this juncture, it is worth pondering some of the ramifications of Lefebvre's formulation, and to ask the question 'what are the implications of this for our empirical research practice?'. If our task is

23

to study the production of space, what exactly is it that we 'must' study? Take, for example, the question of political violence, of state formation, of ethnic cleansing in former Yugoslavia, or of the massacres in Rwanda and Burundi in the 1990s. In a descriptive account of the rise of the modern state from the sixteenth century onwards, Lefebvre (1991, 280) argues that

Sovereignty implies 'space', and what is more it implies a space against which violence, whether latent or overt, is directed - a space established and constituted by violence.

He goes on to assert 'that every state is born of violence, and that state power endures only by virtue of violence directed towards a space' (280). One of the remarkable things about his whole discussion of these fundamental geopolitical issues is that people never get a mention. It is not women, men and children to whom violence is meted out, it is not the voices of humans being slaughtered that cry out, it is not the pleading of a parent whose child is being violated that we hear, it is not the stench of mass graves being opened up that we smell, it is not the sound of exploding warheads that reaches our ears - it is 'space' against which violence is directed.

This distinction may seem to some to be merely one of semantics, but to me it is actually very much more important, and touches at the heart of contemporary geographical practice. Should our attention be drawn to the production and social construction of space, or should it address the causes of the inequalities that influence human existence in space-time? Lefebvre (1991, 33) claims that 'social space "incorporates" social actions, the actions of subjects both individual and collective who are born and who die, who suffer and who act', but in practice, these very people seem to be subsumed within a dehumanized conception of space. Lefebvre's focus on the production of space, is not only in danger of making nature a corpse (Smith 1998), but it is also worry- ingly silent about the lived experience of the human dimension of that nature. This in turn has profound implications for the political claims of Lefebvre's project.

Empowerment and value As the introductory section of this paper has outlined, Lefebvre, Harvey and Soja all lay claim to a particular political project, which, in Soja's (1996,

24

68) words, is to 'transform all spaces simul-

taneously'. Surprisingly, though, the way in which the production of space transforms into political action is one on which all of these authors remain

remarkably quiet. How do we enable people to transform space? Can we actually do so? Indeed, what is the difference between encouraging them 'to transform all spaces simultaneously' and to

encourage them to change things and processes in

space-time? Merrifield (1993, 526) has commented that 'For Lefebvre any emancipatory politics pre- supposes a dialectics of space', but precisely how this should be worked out remains unclear. At one level, it involves a reintegration of the global whole and the local everyday that has been separated by modernism. As Merrifield (1993, 527) has asserted, 'This deeper knowledge of the whole and the part, space and place, the global and the local must also be acted upon politically'.

However, there is a fundamental tension in this

argument, because it relies on a belief that society can indeed be made better, and that we, as geographers or indeed social theorists, can actually do

something about it. It is here that profoundly moral

questions about the role of academics in influenc-

ing social change, and the grounds upon which it is

possible to act in this way come to the fore (Proctor and Smith 1999). A difficulty with a focus on the construction or production of space in this context is that such action also takes place through time; spatial practices are not atemporal. This is indeed

acknowledged by Lefebvre, but concentration of attention on the production of space, detracts from the political, economic and ideological processes that shape inequality; by treating space as an end

product, it minimizes the significance of processes by which human life is mediated on a day-to-day basis (for a wider discussion of these issues, see Olsson 1991; 1998).

What then is the value of the production of space for the notion of empowerment? Lefebvre's practical involvement in the French Communist Party, and his commitment to social change, is well documented (see, for example, Lefebvre 1987; Harvey 1991). In writing books such as The production of space, he was eager to encourage people to become involved in social and political change, indeed in politicizing life itself. However, the evi- dence of many texts that have been written in the wake of The production of space (Harvey 1990; Soja 1996; although for a rather different view, see

Harvey 1996) is that their concern has primarily

Tim Unwin

been with getting the academy to think about

space in new ways; very little is said about how such thinking might transform society, and achieve the radical objective of creating a completely new kind of world. I suggest that it is not enough for

geographers merely to advocate social change; rather there is also a need for them to offer visions of alternative social and political formations, and

ways in which these might be achieved.

My argument here is very much more than

simply a criticism of Lefebvre and his followers for

writing for an intellectual audience. It is much more fundamentally that focus on the production of space means that Lefebvre is actually unable to address the crucial issues that shape inequality, deprivation and human misery. In part this is because Lefebvre dehumanizes space; indeed, despite his aspiration to bring back the body into his understandings of space, he fails to take seri-

ously the role that human agency has in shaping its own future. Moreover, by concentrating on an

essentially urban and Western intellectual history of space he is unable to consider the diversity of other human experiences of existence, which lie outside this framework. Aboriginal understand-

ings of the place of humans in the country thus

provide a significant alternative interpretation which Lefebvre, Harvey and Soja, among many others, are unable to understand (Rose 1992; Faulstich 1998).

In a nutshell, Lefebvre, Harvey and Soja waste

space from the viewpoint of actually implementing radical social and political change. To effect such

change, it is important to listen to other voices, and

perhaps even to leave space behind altogether. Moreover, if we seek to break free from Cartesian dualism, if we endeavour to understand the place of people in the world in which we live, we need to understand them in the diversity of instants that

shape place.

Place and space The final element of this critique concerns the

complex ways in which Lefebvre has sought to link the production of space to his ideas about place. This has already been the subject of a sensitive and

compelling analysis by Merrifield (1993, 520), who

argues that understanding the interaction between

space and place is crucial, and that

while we must distinguish between these different realms if we are to apprehend place construction


and transformation, we must simultaneously capture how they are in fact forged together in a dialectical

unity.

Building on Lefebvre's notions, Merrifield (1993, 525) seeks to expound the notion that:

everyday life becomes a practical and sensual activity acted out in place. The battle becomes the moment of

struggle between conceiving space through representation and living place through actual sensual experience and representational meaning. Place is synonymous with what is lived in the sense that daily life practices are embedded in particular places. Social practice is

place-bound, political organization demands place organization. Life is place-dependent.

However, in developing his own notions of the dialectics of space and place, Merrifield (1993) fails

sufficiently to note the problems with Lefebvre's formulation.

Lefebvre has a tendency to use the word 'place' in a variety of different ways, particularly conflat-

ing ideas about the place of social space and the notion that place is a particular kind of space. Once

again, this in part reflects the problems of translat-

ing the French 'espace' and 'lieu' into the English 'space' and 'place'. Nevertheless, on the one hand, he argues that

The places of social space are very different from those of natural space in that they are not simply juxtaposed: they may be intercalated, combined, superimposed - they may even sometimes collide. (Lefebvre 1991, 88)

However, elsewhere, he is eager to use the word 'place' to refer to a bounded space. The inconsist-

ency in his use of terminology can be seen in the

following quotation taken from his chapter on

spatial architectonics:

Every social space, then, once duly demarcated and oriented, implies a superimposition of certain relations

upon networks of named places, of lieux-dits. This results in various kinds of space:

1 Accessible space for normal use: routes followed by riders or flocks, ways leading to fields, and so on. Such use is governed prescriptively - by established rules and practical procedures.

2 Boundaries and forbidden territories - spaces to which access is prohibited either relatively (neighbours and friends) or absolutely (neighbours and enemies).

3 Places of abode, whether permanent or temporary.

25

4 Junction points: these are often places of passage and encounter; often, too, access to them is forbidden except on certain occasions of ritual import - declarations of war or peace, for example.

Here, (3) and (4) are mentioned as places, but Lefebvre chooses specifically to use the word

'space' for (1) and (2). What would the difference be between writing that boundaries and forbidden territories are 'places' not 'spaces'? Lefebvre comes

dangerously near implying that routes, boundaries and forbidden territories are spaces, whereas

spaces of abode and junction points are places. This distinction is far from clear.

On the whole, though, Lefebvre seems to use

'place' primarily to refer to the everyday and the lived. Merrifield (1993) thus draws attention to what he sees as the distinction between conceived

space and lived place. Even here, though, Lefebvre himself is ambiguous in his uses of the word

place. In referring to the growth in the forces of

production, he thus argues that

The forces of production and technology now permit of intervention at every level of space: local, regional, national, worldwide. Space as a whole, geographical or historical space, is thus modified, but without any concomitant abolition of its underpinnings - those initial 'points', those first foci or nexuses, those 'places' (localities, regions, countries) lying at different levels of a social space in which nature's space has been

replaced by a space-qua-product. (1991, 90)

Once again, the meaning of this remains confused,

although it would seem to suggest, first, that locali-

ties, regions and countries are places, second that these lie at three different levels of social space, and third that places are where some kind of space of nature is replaced by space as product. The observation that there are four levels of space can readily be resolved by introducing the idea of a place, the

world, at the worldwide level of space. Nevertheless, the precise translation from nature's space to

space-qua-product remains far from clear, and what Lefebvre seems to be implying is that there is some

space of nature untrammelled by human inter-

vention, which can then be replaced by the notion of space as a product. He seeks to explain this as follows:

In this way reflexive thought passes from produced space, from the space of production (the production of

things in space) to the production of space as such, which occurs on account of the (relatively) continuous growth of the productive forces but which is confined within the (relatively) discontinuous frameworks of the

26

dominant relations and mode of production. (Lefebvre 1991, 90)

Lefebvre's lack of detailed exegesis on place can be understood largely because of his concern with space. However, it does bring us back, once again, to the difficulties Lefebvre's formulation faces when confronted with nature and physical space. At one level, The production of space can be seen as espousing the radical thesis that all space is produced. Casey (1998, 72), nevertheless interprets Lefebvre's arguments to suggest that 'physical space as such is outside the realm of social production'. He derives such a conclusion in part from what he describes as 'the near-tautology' (Casey 1998, 72) of Lefebvre's (1991, 26) assertion that '(Social) space is a (Social) product'. Elsewhere, Casey (1997) has developed a powerful argument con-

cerning the relationships between space and place, in which he suggests that an ancient view of space as place was transformed into a view of place as space just before the middle ages. Building on this, Casey (1998, 78) goes on to suggest that Lefebvre's con-

cept of 'abstract space represents the triumph of

space over place in such a way as to favor homoge- neity over heterogeneity at every turn'. In this vein, it is possible to develop a powerful argument in favour of the abandonment of space altogether, and a refocusing of the attention of social theory on the

meaning and character of place. Again, as Casey (1998, 78) argues with reference to time and space,

The effort to establish primacy between these two dimensions, to rank them as it were, an effort that has characterized modern thought since Kant, shows the insistent need for a return to place as their third term - one that combines both while allowing for their nuances and specificities all too often lacking in the generalities of space and time as general cosmic media.

Beyond critique This paper has argued that Lefebvre's notion of the production of space, as well as the arguments of geographers who have incorporated this idea into their own work, are fundamentally flawed. Five key problems have been highlighted with Lefebvre's formulation. First, by using the word

'space', Lefebvre ties himself to old notions of

space which prevent him from achieving the radical task that he set himself. Second, by insisting on

separating notions of space from time, he is unable to develop the comprehensive framework for which he was seeking. Third, by concentrating on

Tim Unwin

the process of the production of space, he fails to address the complex everyday lived processes which help to shape human experiences, particularly those that generate inequality. Fourth, he did not sufficiently indicate how his notion of the production of space will necessarily and actually lead to a transformation of society; and fifth, his notion of place is confused and poorly articulated.

Although the arguments of this paper have

specifically addressed the notion of the 'production of space', the logic of many of these conclusions can also be applied to the more general concept of the 'social construction of space'. In particular, much research developed within such a framework fails

sufficiently to consider questions of temporality, and by focusing on space as the implicit end product, is unable to address the question of how to

change human society. The implication of this is that approaches that, for example, concentrate on the racializing or gendering of space provide only a

partial understanding of how to change our being in the world. To say that our ideas about space are

socially constructed is something very different from saying that space is socially constructed. There are two other important implications of these

arguments. The first concerns the relationships between the practice of what have come to be known as 'physical' and 'human' geography. In particular, the paper has sought to encourage geographers from different backgrounds to learn each other's

languages, particularly with reference to 'space'. If we fail to do this, we will only make our task of

understanding the physical-human totality of our existence that much more difficult. Second, though, it has important ramifications for social action. At the heart of this critique has been the conviction that we will never be able to change the world

merely by writing about the social production or construction of space. But that, of course, implies that, as academic geographers, we do indeed have a commitment to help others to make their worlds better places (see Proctor and Smith 1999).

In essence, I have sought to argue that we need to leave behind the space we cannot transform, because it does not exist save in and through its

relationship with time. Two immediate solutions seem pertinent: either we can explore further the notion of place along the lines alluded to by Casey (1997; 1998), or we can listen to Massey's (1994; 1999) plea for a more sensitive understanding of

physicists' conceptions of space-time. Better still, we might seek to engage the dialectics of place and


space-time through a particular ethical stance (see, for example, Sack 1999). Massey (1994, 263) has

argued cogently

that the social issues which we currently need to understand, whether they be the high-tech postmodern world or questions of cultural identity, require something that would look ... like the 'modem physics' view of space. It would, moreover, precisely by introducing into the concept of space that element of dislocation/ freedom/possibility, enable the politicization of space/ space-time.

These engagements, however, take place and find their expressions in particular places which people and societies create through space-time. Place can thus involve a reintegration of both the physical/ human and the space/time dualisms that have so beset geographical enquiry since the seventeenth

century. Whereas we cannot change space-time, we do have the means to influence place. The moral questions that then arise are 'how?' and 'for whom?'. Merely by understanding what makes places different, we cannot change them. A critical geography needs to engage with the everyday practices of all of us who live in the places that we do; it needs to focus on the needs and interests of the poor and underprivileged; it remains a very modern enterprise, retaining a belief that it is possible to make the world a 'better' place.

In this sense, Lefebvre was bound by his own place in space-time. His was not the totalizing discourse that some might claim, but rather a reflection of his place in France in the late 1960s and 1970s. Lefebvre as a person was very much more than his written texts, and his own commitment to activism and radical opposition, be it to the German invasion of France during the Second World War or through his inspirational lectures to French students in the 1960s, were equally as important to him as were his books (Lefebvre 1969). By engaging with his written words, one is caught up in the project that he and others set themselves: to rethink our taken for granted notions of space.

A revaluation of all values, this question mark so black, so immense, that it casts a shadow over the one who sets it down - such a destiny of a task forces you to run out into the sunshine every instant and shake off a heavy, all-too-heavy seriousness. (Nietzsche 1998, 3)

Acknowledgements

This paper was largely written during a period of sabbatical leave at the School of Geography in the

27

University of Oxford. I am very grateful to colleagues there for their hospitality and for provid- ing me with a place to think, as well as to Ron Martin for encouraging me to submit the outcome to Transactions. Earlier versions were presented at seminars at Kent State University, Ohio, and in the Universities of G6teborg, Stockholm, Uppsala, Manchester and Cambridge. I have benefited enor- mously from the comments and suggestions made by colleagues on these occasions. Many individuals have also influenced my exploration of place and space-time, and I would particularly like to record my appreciation here to Gunnar Olsson, Erik Swyngedouw, Michael Curry and Franco Farinelli who have all contributed, albeit probably unknow- ingly, to the ideas expressed here. I am also very grateful to Doreen Massey, Peter Gould and Rob Imrie, as well as to four anonymous referees, for their perceptive and helpful comments on earlier drafts of this manuscript.

References

Adam B 1998 Timescapes of modernity: the environment and invisible hazards Routledge, New York

Agnew J 1995 The hidden geographies of social science and the myth of the geographical turn Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 13 329-80

Bauman Z 1993 Postmodern ethics Blackwell, Oxford Benko G and Strohmayer U eds 1997 Space and social

theory Blackwell, Oxford

Berg I D and Kears R A 1996 Naming as norming: 'race', gender, and the identity politics of naming places in Aotearoa/New Zealand Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 14 1 99-122

Berman M 1982 All that is solid melts into air: the experience of modernity Simon and Schuster, New York

Billinge M 1983 The mandarin dialect: an essay on style in contemporary geographical writing Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 8 4 400-20

Bird J 1981 The target of space and the arrow of time Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 6 2 129-51

Blum V and Nast H 1996 Where's the difference? The heterosexualization of alterity in Henri Lefebvre and Jacques Lacan Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 14 5 559-80

Campbell C 1995 Does quantum theory add to the geographic perspective Professional Geographer 47 2 216-17

Casey E S 1997 The fate of place: a philosophical history University of California Press, Berkeley

- 1998 The production of space or the heterogeneity of place: a commentary on Edward Dimendberg and

28

Neil Smith in Light A and Smith J M eds Philosophy and geography II: the production of public space Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham MD 71-80

Clarke D B Doel M A and McDonough F X 1996 Holocaust topologies: singularity, politics, space Politi- cal Geography 15 6-7 457-89

Corbridge S 1998 Development ethics: distance, difference, plausibility Ethics, Place and Environment 1 1 35-54

Couclelis H and Gale N 1986 Space and spaces Geografiska Annaler 68B 1-12

Curry M R 1996 The work in the world: geographical practice and the written word University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis

Dimendberg E 1998 Henri Lefebvre on abstract space in

Light A and Smith J M eds Philosophy and geography II: the production of public space Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham MD 17-48

Dixon D 1999 Between difference and alterity: engagement with Edward Soja's 'Thirdspace' Annals of the Association of American Geographers 89 2 338-9

Duncan N 1996 Postmodernism in human geography in Earle C Mathewson K and Kenzer M S eds Concepts in human geography Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham MD 429-58

Einstein A 1964 Autobiographical notes in Smart J J C ed Problems of space and time Macmillan, New York 276-91

Escobar P 1995 Encountering development: the making and

unmaking of the third world Princeton University Press, Princeton NJ

Faulstich P 1998 Mapping the mythological landscape: an

aboriginal way of being-in-the-world Ethics, Place and Environment 1 2 197-222

Flint C 1998 Forming electorates, forming spaces - the Nazi Party and the social construction of space American Behavioral Scientist 41 9 1282-303

Flood R and Lockwood M eds 1986 The nature of time Blackwell, Oxford

Foucault M 1980 Power/knowledge Pantheon, New York - 1986 Of other spaces Diacritics Spring 22-7 - 1988 Politics, philosophy, culture Routledge, New York Giddens A 1984 The constitution of society: outline of the

theory of structuration Polity Press, Cambridge Golledge R and Stimson R J 1997 Spatial behavior: a

geographic perspective Guilford Press, New York Gould P 1999 Becoming a geographer (space, place, and

society) Syracuse University Press, Syracuse NY Gowan P 1995 Neo-liberal theory and practice for eastern

Europe New Left Review 213 3-60

Gregory D 1982 Regional transformation and industrial revolution: a geography of the Yorkshire woollen industry Macmillan, London

- 1994 Geographical imaginations Blackwell, Oxford - 1997 Lacan and geography: the production of space

revisited in Benko G and Strohmayer U eds Space and social theory Blackwell, Oxford 203-31

Tim Unwin

Habermas J 1978 Knowledge and human interests 2nd edition (translated by J J Schapiro) Heinemann, London

- 1984 The theory of communicative action. Volume 1: reason and the rationalization of society Beacon Press, Boston

- 1987 The theory of communicative action. Volume 2:

lifeworld and system Polity Press, Cambridge Hagerstrand T 1975 Space, time and human conditions in

Karlquist L Lundquist L and Snickars F eds Dynamic allocations of urban space Saxon House, Farnborough 3-12

Harrison S and Dunham P 1998 Decoherence, quantum theory and their implications for the philosophy of

geomorphology Transactions of the Institute of British

Geographers 23 4 501-14

Harvey D 1961 Aspects of agricultural and rural change in Kent, 1800-1900 Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Cambridge

- 1973 Social justice and the city Arnold, London - 1982 The limits to capital Blackwell, Oxford - 1985 Consciousness and the urban experience Blackwell,

Oxford - 1989 The urban experience Blackwell, Oxford - 1990 The condition of postmodernity Blackwell, Oxford - 1991 Afterword in Lefebvre H The production of space

Blackwell, Oxford 425-34 - 1996 Justice, nature and the geography of difference

Blackwell, Oxford Hess R 1988 Henri Lefebvre et l'aventure du siecle Editions A

M Metailie, Paris

Jameson F 1991 Postmodernism; or, the cultural logic of late

capitalism Verso, London -1998 The cultural turn: selected writings on the postmodern, 1983-98 Verso, London

Katz C 1998 Book review forum. Political and intellectual

passions: engagements with David Harvey's 'Justice, nature and the geography of difference' Annals of the Association of American Geographers 88 4 706-7

Kirk W 1952 Historical geography and the concept of the behavioural environment Indian Geographical Journal Silver Jubilee Edition 152-60

Lagopoulos A P 1993 Postmodernism, geography and the social semiotics of space Environment and Planning D:

Society and Space 11 3 255-78 Lefebvre H 1968a Le droit i la ville Anthropos, Paris - 1968b La vie quotidienne dans le monde moderne

Gallimard, Paris - 1968c The sociology of Marx Penguin, London - 1969 The explosion: Marxism and the French revolution of

May 1968 Monthly Review, New York - 1970 Du rural a l'urbain Anthropos, Paris - 1974 La production de l'espace Anthropos, Paris - 1980 La presence et l'absence Casterman, Paris - 1981 Critique de la vie quotidienne, III: de la modernite au

modernisme (pour une metaphilosophie du quotidien) L'Arche, Paris

Towards a critique of the social production of space - 1987 An interview with Henri Lefebvre (interviewers G

Burgel, G Burgel, M G Dezes, translated by E Kofman) Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 5 1 27-38

- 1991 The production of space Blackwell, Oxford - 1996 Writings on cities (selected, translated and intro-

duced by E Kofman and E Lebas) Blackwell, Oxford

Ley D and Samuels M S 1978 Humanistic geography: prospects and problems Croom Helm, London

Light A and Smith J M eds 1998 Philosophy and geography II: the production of public space Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham MD

Livingstone D N 1992 The geographical tradition: episodes in the history of a contested enterprise Blackwell, Oxford

Massey D 1994 Space, place and gender Polity Press, Cambridge

-1999 Space-time, 'science' and the relationship between

physical geography and human geography Transactions

of the Institute of British Geographers 24 261-76 Merrifield A 1993 Place and space: a Lefebvrian reconcili-

ation Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 18 516-31

- 1999 The extraordinary voyages of Ed Soja: inside the 'trialectics of spatiality' Annals of the Association of American Geographers 89 2 345-8

Minkowski H 1964 Space and time in Smart J J C ed Problems of space and time Macmillan, New York 297-312

Newton-Smith W H 1986 Space, time and space-time: a

philosopher's view in Flood R and Lockwood M eds The nature of time Blackwell, Oxford 22-35

Nietzsche F 1998 Twilight of the idols or how to philosophize with a hanner Oxford University Press, Oxford

Olsson G 1991 Lines of power/limits of language University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis

-1998 A critique of cartographical reason Ethics, Place and Environment 1 2 145-55

Pain R H 1997 Social geographies of women's fear of crime Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 22 2 231-44

Peet R 1977 The development of radical geography in the United States Progress in Human Geography 1 3 64-87

Pensky M ed 1994 The past as future: Jiirgen Habermas interviewed by Michael Haller Polity Press, Cambridge

Peterman W 1994 Quantum theory and geography: what can Dr Bertlmann teach us? Professional Geographer 46 1-9

Pred A ed 1981 Space and time in geography: essays dedicated to Torsten Higerstrand Lund Studies in Geography Series B 48

Price P 1999 Longing for less of the same Annals of the Association of American Geographers 89 2 342-44

29

Proctor J D 1998a The social construction of nature: relativist accusations, pragmatist and critical realist

responses Annals of the Association of American Geogra- phers 88 3 352-77

-1998b Ethics in geography: giving moral form to the

geographical imagination Area 30 1 8-18 Proctor J D and Smith D M eds 1999 Geography and ethics:

journeys in a moral terrain Routledge, London Rose D B 1992 Dingo makes us human: life and land in an

Aboriginal Australian culture Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Russell B 1961 History of Western philosophy Allen and Unwin, London

Sack R D 1980 Conceptions of space in social thought Macmillan, London

- 1999 A sketch of a geographic theory of morality Annals of the Association of American Geographers 89 1 26-44

Said E 1994 Culture and imperialism Vintage, London Shields R 1999 Harmony in thirds: chora for Lefebvre

Annals of the Association of American Geographers 89 2 340-42

Smith N 1998 Antinomies of space and nature in Henri Lefebvre's 'The production of space' in Light A and Smith J M eds Philosophy and geography II: the production of public space Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham MD 49-70

Soja E 1989 Postmodern geographies: the reassertion of space in critical social theory Verso, London

- 1996 Thirdspace: journeys to Los Angeles and other real-

and-imagined places Blackwell, Oxford - 1999 Keeping space open Annals of the Association of

American Geographers 89 2 348-53 Stoddart D R 1986 On geography and its history Blackwell,

Oxford

Strohmayer U 1998 The event of space: geographic allu- sions in the phenomenological tradition Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 16 1 105-21

Swyngedouw E A 1992 Territorial organization and the

space/technology nexus Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 17 417-33

Thornes J and Brunsden D 1977 Geomorphology and time Methuen, London

Unwin T 1992 The place of geography Longman, Harlow Watson S and Gibson K eds 1995 Postmodern cities and

spaces Blackwell, Oxford

Wittgenstein L 1961 Tractatus-logico-philosophicus Routledge and Kegan Paul, London

Documents

A Waste of Space