A Marx for Our Time: Henri Lefebvre and the Production of Space
Author(s): M. Gottdiener
Source: Sociological Theory , Mar., 1993, Vol. 11, No. 1 (Mar., 1993), pp. 129-134
Published by: American Sociological Association
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/201984
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Wiley and American Sociological Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to Sociological Theory
This content downloaded from
161.9.141.3 on Fri, 11 Nov 2022 09:15:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
A Marx for Our Time: Henri Lefebvre and
The Production of Space
M. GOTTDIENER
University of California, Riverside
Henri Lefebvre, who died last year at an age between 86 to 89 (the records aren't clear),
was perhaps the greatest Marxian thinker since Marx, and certainly one of the greatest
philosophers of our time. Sociologists can appreciate his significance by realizing that
what they know of Marx's work itself is quite limited. The latter has been homogenized
and simplified by generations of textbook writing and misleading scholarship.' To understand Marx it is necessary first to know how he thought and analyzed social phenomena,
rather than what he said. By this I mean an understanding of the powerful dialectical
schema that Marx developed in his critique of both Hegel and Fichte.2 Lefebvre was one
of the very few analysts of society who really knew how Marx thought, and it is indicative
that one of his first books was on Marxian dialectics (Lefebvre 1939).3 This work contains
many of the themes that Lefebvre was to develop later.
In 1974 Lefebvre published a monumental book, The Production of Space, which has
just appeared in translation (1991) and which the publisher claims to be "his major
philosophical work." I would rank another work, his three-part book The Critique of
Everyday Life (which is being translated only now), as his most significant, but the book
on space must rank a close second. Yet Lefebvre also has made important contributions
to the theory of the state (a four-volume masterpiece), to the sociology of the arts, to
poststructuralism, to existentialism, to scholarship on Descartes, Pascal, Nietzsche (as
early as 1939), and Lukacs, among other thinkers, and to the theory of modernity/
postmodernity.4 What I like most about Lefebvre is how he engaged his time. He did not
write in isolation, but lived the life of a Parisian intellectual and participated in lively
debates with others about the nature of Marxism, political action, the intellectual foundations of structuralism, poststructuralism, postmodernity, and (reaching back) existentialism. Consequently he took the trouble both to read the work of others and to attempt
a dialogue in his writing-a rarity among American academics. When reading Lefebvre,
one can find all sorts of sometimes veiled, sometimes explicit references to the current
ideas and books in the Parisian milieu, which may escape the uninformed reader.5
Here I have in mind not only the simplistic introductory texts, which focus almost exclusively on the concept
of class and on Marx's "evolutionary" theory of history, but also the misleading and quite limited variations on
"conflict theory," which take conflict, a non-specified, naturally occurring phenomenon, and impute it to Marxian
historical analysis as the phenomenal core.
2 Some sociologists believe that the dialectic involves thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. In fact, this mode of
thinking belongs to Fichte and has nothing to do with Marx's dialectic. Marx's approach derives from Hegel's
notion of the phenomenon, the negation, and the negation of the negation, but he understands this movement
according to both the ontological position that all phenomena possess a base in the material world and the
epistemological position that movement across the dialectical moment is understood through the relation between
deep structure and surface level; This position also is adopted by realist theoreticians (Bhaskar 1979).
3 Lefebvre published 66 books. He started around the age of 30 and published some of his very best writing,
25 books, after the age of 65!
4 A complete bibliography appears at the end of Production of Space ([1974] 1991).
5 My favorite aside appeared in The Survival of Capitalism ([1973] 1974), where Lefebvre summarized his
response to Althusser's ponderous schema as follows: "If you can understand it, good luck to you."
Sociological Theory 11:1 March 1993
This content downloaded from
161.9.141.3 on Fri, 11 Nov 2022 09:15:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
130
SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY
I welcome the appearance in translation of The Production of Space,6 but it is not clear
how it will be received by the new urban geographers and by the sociologists who take
less sophisticated approaches, such as human ecology or the ideas in the much-publicized
book by Logan and Molotch (1987). Both Manuel Castells and David Harvey, often
claimed by urbanists to be the seminal thinkers of the new urbanism, owe an immense,
unacknowledged debt to Lefebvre. The latter, by writing a series of six books on urbanism
beginning in 1968, deserves the title of progenitor. Most important, both Castells and
Harvey developed several of Lefebvre's ideas which appeared before the culminating 1974
work on space, and which do not have the benefit of the polished, completed arguments.7
In Dialectical Materialism ([1939] 1968) Lefebvre analyzed Marxian political economy
at a time when he was breaking with Stalinism and the Communist Party. No doubt he
was reacting to dogmatism and orthodoxy (as well as to Stalin's politics), and this reaction
was reflected in a critical reading of Marx's Capital. Lefebvre noted that the latter work
was essentially about time-the extraction and circulation of surplus value. Lefebvre
believed that Marxian political economy neglected the material aspect of production: the
world of commodities existed in space as well as time. In 1939 he announced that the
dialectic was spatial as well as temporal, and that this realization put Marx's system in a
new light. Lefebvre went literally to the material dimension of dialectics. In his view, the
production activity of capitalism resulted in a space-that is, a materiality. Furthermore,
this "space" possessed its own dialectical moment. Like the other categories of Marxian
thought-money, labor power-it was a concrete abstraction. That is, space was both a
material product of social relations (the concrete) and a manifestation of relations, a
relation itself (the abstract). It was as much a part of social relations as was time. In
short, by applying Marxian thought to Marx, Lefebvre arrived at insights that transcended
Marxian political economy and pointed away from dogma. He needed the next 30 years
to work out the implications of these early revelations.
The Production of Space is a complex work, at once historical, philosophical, semiotic,
and Marxist. It was written at a time when both Althusserianism and deconstructionism
were salient, and there are many asides to thinkers who follow these persuasions. It is
also a mature work, in which Lefebvre's command of his dialectical thinking is quite
masterful. In Fichtean dialectics and in much deconstructionist or structuralist thought,
analytical categories are perceived as oppositions or antinomies. Lefebvre wants nothing
to do with this Manichean view because it usually results in static contrasts. Marx's
dialectical moments were flowing, manifold, and complex, especially with regard to "the
negation," a concept that I believe only Adorno and Lefebvre have really understood.
According to Lefebvre, dialectical moments are expressed as "triplicite"-as three terms,
not two. The third term instantly deconstructs static oppositions or dualisms, and adds a
fluid dimension to social process.8
6 My book The Social Production of Urban Space (1985) was inspired directly by Lefebvre. It is a critical
commentary on the writings of others, such as Castells and Harvey, in this light because of their reductionism
and their neglect of the concept "space," which is at once semiotic, political, and economic.
7 I can summarize the positions briefly as follows: Harvey used the writings of Lefebvre that appeared in the
late 1960s, before Lefebvre developed the more mature notion of "space," and made a contribution by systematically applying the categories of political economy to urban phenomena. But therein also lies Harvey's economic
reductionism. Castells wrote a critique of Lefebvre's writings from the 1960s, using Althusserian structuralism,
and presented an approach to urban social movements that was more comprehensive than Lefebvre's. Since
then, however, none of Castells's work has had much to do with "space," and lately he has lapsed into
technological reductionism. In sum, it is precisely by remaining true to Lefebvre's project, as outlined in the
book on space, that we avoid all forms of reductionism in the analysis of urban phenomena (see Gottdiener
1985; Gottdiener and Lagopoulos 1986).
8 Several years ago, for example, some theorists discussed the "micro/macro" split in social analysis. This
simple scheme can be deconstructed instantly by the addition of a third term, such as the "meso" level of society,
and thereby can acquire greater complexity.
This content downloaded from
161.9.141.3 on Fri, 11 Nov 2022 09:15:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
LEFEBVRE AND THE PRODUCTION OF SPACE
131
The most important "triple" concerns grasping the importance of space according
manifestations as perceived, conceived, and lived. Ever since his early break with o
Marxism, Lefebvre had been concerned with avoiding reductionist economism. This
is meant to convey that space has a complex character and enters social relations
levels. It is at once a physical environment that can be perceived; a semiotic abstr
that informs both how ordinary people negotiate space (the mental maps stu
geographers) and the space of corporations, planners, politicians, and the like; and,
a medium through which the body lives out its life in interaction with other bodi
relations also are spatial relations; we cannot talk about the one without the other.
In working with this triple relation, Lefebvre attempts to avoid reductionism, w
it is of the economistic (Marxist) or the idealist (deconstructionist) kind. He prop
unitary theory of space that ties together the physical, the mental, and the social.
oping this generalized approach to space even further, Lefebvre introduces a secon
that amplifies the first. Space is simultaneously a spatial practice (an externalized,
environment), a representation of space (a conceptual model used to direct practi
a space of representation (the lived social relation of users to the environment).
In much of the early part of his book, Lefebvre applies this triple distinction
analysis of different environments. His approach combines geographical, historic
semiotic analysis, thereby avoiding reductionism. He focuses on how various soci
have particularized space in both form and meaning over time. Lefebvre accompl
this task by considering the distinction between abstract space and social space. A
space is constituted by the intersection of knowledge and power. It is the hierar
space that is pertinent to those who wish to control social organization, such as p
rulers, economic interests, and planners. Social space, in contrast, arises from pr
the everyday lived experience that is externalized and materialized through actio
members of society, even the rulers. Persons working from the model of abstra
continually try to reign in and control the social space of everyday life, with its c
changes, whereas social space always transcends conceived boundaries and regulated
forms.
Finally, both abstract and social space involve the triplicite: mental imaging, perceptions
of built forms, and social practice. In particular, the conception of space always precedes
spatial practice for humans; That is, mental projection, or the semiotic model of space,
and physical construction, or extemalization, are always related. Using these concepts,
Lefebvre walks the reader through western European history, attempting to show how
certain isolated changes in the triple conjuncture of space actually involved qualitative
historical movements. Greek space, for example, is ruled by a cosmic, abstract sense of
religion and geometry. Rome, in contrast, is sullied by the practice of power; space is
edified by humans themselves. Thus, says Lefebvre, the Greek agora (an abstract space)
is empty and is proportioned uniformly by the golden mean, so that the Greeks can meet
there and do what they will in unity with the cosmos. "The Roman Forum, on the other
hand, is full of objects" (1991, p. 275).
This part of the text, where Lefebvre applies his approach to history, lacks the strong
comparative understanding of Max Weber or Ferdinand Braudel; neither does it measure
up to the way in which some current geographers might undertake an historical analysis
of space. It also seems somewhat diffuse and nonsystematized as semiotic analysis,
compared to more recent attempts at defining a semiotic approach to space.10 To his credit,
9 This insight was adopted by Giddens and Jameson, among others.
10 Lefebvre's book is infused with urban semiotics. For example, he mentions the work of Lagopoulos in
passing (but see Gottdiener and Lagopoulos 1986).
This content downloaded from
161.9.141.3 on Fri, 11 Nov 2022 09:15:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
132
SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY
Lefebvre never suggests that there is some "evolutionary" principle altering the humanspace relation, only that this relation changes according to differences in social organization. In sum, his contribution lies in the balanced, integrated analysis that ties together
semiotics, political relations, and economic relations rather than solely in plumbing the
depths of historical analysis.
In the latter part of the book, beginning with Chapter 5, Lefebvre addresses capitalism
and the maturing industrial society, and here his work shines. He introduces his main
theoretical concept, "the production of space." Every mode of social organization produces
an environment that is a consequence of the social relations it possesses. In addition, by
producing a space according to its own nature, a society not only materializes into
distinctive built forms, but also reproduces itself. The concept "production of space"
means what Giddens calls the "duality of structure."" That is, space is both a medium of
social relations and a material product that can affect social relations. This dialectical idea
is a major tenet of the "new urban sociology."
The production of space under capitalism involves the fragmentation and homogenization of space, just as is the case with other commodities "under the law of the reproducible
and the repetitive" (1991, p. 375). Small wonder new suburbs all look the same. Lefebvre
introduces his approach into Marxian political economy, and at this point he reaches the
core of his theory: "All Marxist concepts are taken to a higher level without any one stage
in theory disappearing. The reconsideration of Marxist concepts develops optimally by
taking account fully of space" (p. 342). By appreciating space, by taking account of it
explicitly, we pass beyond Marxian political economy without abandoning the critical
approach to capitalism that Marx introduced.
For example, Lefebvre returns to the Marx of Capital and reminds us of a crucial point:
this book was only one part of a larger project (see The Grundrisse).12 Marx's analysis
of capitalism in the abstract was based on the contrast between abstract labor and capital,
according to a "binary" dialectical schema that involved oppositions such as wages-profits,
worker-capitalist, and so on. Yet in the historical conditions of capitalism's emergence a
third element, the land, also was present and supported a separate class in the early stages
of growth. Marx finally introduces this third term at the end of Capital, and calls its
relation to the other basic units of society the "trinity formula." Lefebvre likes this notion
of the trinity because it resonates with his dialectics, and he seizes on it as a way of
upgrading Marxian political economy.
According to Lefebvre, land and its advanced capitalist relations of production, which
he calls "real estate," constitute a second circuit of capital, even though a separate class
of landowners no longer exists. That is, the channeling of money, the construction of
housing, the development of space, financing, and speculation in land constitute a second
means of acquiring wealth that is relatively independent of the "first" circuit, industrial
production. Furthermore, through an extended discussion, Lefebvre shows that this second
circuit is one of the fundamental forces of society and a source of surplus value creation.
Finally, he argues effectively that it has a logic of its own, even though it is related to
the primary circuit. In short, the Marxian analysis of capitalism, by accounting for space,
will never be the same again.13 Furthermore, these concepts of Lefebvre's became the
basis for "the new urban sociology," which continues to expand its influence in the field.
n Giddens uses this concept in his writings but seems to be unaware that Lefebvre developed it.
12 As Marxist scholars know, The Grundrisse (Marx [1939] 1973), not Capital, is the comprehensive work.
It is also the best place to observe Marx's mastery of dialectics.
13 These ideas already have been put into practice. Harvey used the circuit model of capitalism with much
influence among geographers, although he compounded and altered it. Some urbanists, such as Logan and
Molotch (1987), suggest fallaciously that the separate class of landowners still exists, and their analysis suffers
accordingly. Gottdiener (1985, 1987) has elaborated further on Lefebvre's political economy of space. Many
This content downloaded from
161.9.141.3 on Fri, 11 Nov 2022 09:15:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
LEFEBVRE AND THE PRODUCTION OF SPACE
133
Whenever I read Lefebvre I am reminded of Barthes's phrase "the pleas
text," because he is a joy to read. In a virtuoso display of dialectical rea
example, he discusses how the advance of capitalist industrialization superimpo
space, the quantified space, everywhere. The qualitative aspect of space, how
be absorbed by this movement. "It re-emerges when the 'spaces of consumpt
the 'consumption of space"' (1991, p. 352). When does this occur? In to
example, "when people seek a qualitative space-sun, snow, the sea" (199
when capitalism transforms the circulation of commodities for people into th
of people through commodified places.
At another point in the text, Lefebvre's dialectic penetrates to the heart of a
matter and displays insights that transcend the narrow view of political econo
past, he suggests, commodities themselves were scarce but resources wer
Political economy was founded on asceticism-the necessity of making ch
scarcity. Today, in contrast, there is an abundance of commodities, but
resources have become scarce. "This dialectical movement has never been
itself-the focus on pollution, the environment, noise, exhaustion of resource
it" (1991, p. 376). With this insight the book becomes a great work of environ
According to Lefebvre, the individual aspects of environmental decay, such
economic, or chemical issues, are not of most concern. Rather, we must focu
production of space. In this case, capitalist industrialization has destroyed na
replacing it with a "second nature." The balance between the organic and
environment is disappearing across the globe because of the production and e
a second nature-the concrete, material world of organized society (1991,
That is the heart of the matter.
Finally, Lefebvre makes a brilliant contribution to our understanding of the
thinking is particularly pertinent when he analyzes the relation between powe
a characteristic that is wholly ignored by the new urban geographers, among
is not only homogenized and fragmented but also hierarchical and a framewor
Lefebvre's discussion of the relationship between the state and space is inspira
that the work is available in translation, I wonder whether, or how soon, it w
studies on the state, especially the historical role of state regulation through sp
Lefebvre would not be a critical theorist if he did not leave us with a liberato
that we could adopt after his extended philosophical discussion. Social change
to Lefebvre, cannot occur in a planned way without the production of a chan
As he suggests, the Russian revolution failed precisely when the drive to cre
revolutionary space, such as that implicit in the work of the Russian construc
failed. To change life means to change space as well. Before the appearance of
Lefebvre expressed this idea as "the right to the city;" along with other aspe
thought, it was highly influential among students during the events of May 19
The transformation of social relations, Lefebvre believes, means a transf
sociospatial relations, a production of a new, liberatory space.
In conclusion, I wish to make some observations about the translation
Nicholson-Smith. On the whole he has done a masterful job. In places he has
the citations more explicit. The translator has been very careful to preserve th
Lefebvre's ideas. For example, when describing the changes in Roman ci
other urbanists and, more recently, postmodern scholars, have incorporated the presence of a rel
omous spatial domain into their analyses. Jameson, for example, who says a great deal about
importance to postmodern thinking, was influenced greatly by Lefebvre. Feagin (1988) has wri
analysis of Houston, using this perspective. A new textbook on urban sociology soon will be pu
(Gottdiener forthcoming).
This content downloaded from
161.9.141.3 on Fri, 11 Nov 2022 09:15:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
134
SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY
Lefebvre uses an opposition-"crypt/decrypt"-to explain certain developments in the
relation to space. There is no English word "decrypt"; yet the translator preserves it in
order to follow the literal meaning of Lefebvre's analysis.
As in all translations, however, some aspects of the original are lost. Nicholson-Smith
tends to use sophisticated synonyms. One of the pleasures of reading Lefebvre, however,
comes from appreciating his exquisite use of language; he says things directly and clearly
but not simplistically. Some of this wonderful use of words is lost. Also, Lefebvre is in
the habit of making puns, and I'm afraid the translator missed these. Finally, the edition
by Blackwell Publishers includes an afterword by David Harvey. Considering how little
Lefebvre's influence has been acknowledged in the past, I found this inclusion of Harvey
in the project both ironic and, quite simply, just another example of appropriation.
REFERENCES
Bhaskar, Roy. 1979. A Realist Theory of Science. Leeds: UK Book Publishing.
Feagin, Joe R. 1988. Houston: Free Enterprise City. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
Gottdiener, M. 1985. The Social Production of Urban Space. Austin: University of Texas Press.
1987. "Space as a Force of Production." International Journal of Urban and Regional Resear
405-17.
Forthcoming. The New Urban Sociology. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Gottdiener, M. and A. Lagopoulos. 1986. The City and the Sign. New York: Columbia University Press.
Lefebvre, Henri. (1939) 1968. Dialectical Materialism. London: Jonathan Cape, 1968.
(1973) 1974. The Survival of Capitalism. London: Allison & Busby.
[1974] 1991. The Production of Space. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Logan, John and Harvey Molotch. 1987. Urban Fortunes. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Marx, Karl. (1939) 1973. The Grundrisse. New York: Vintage.
This content downloaded from
161.9.141.3 on Fri, 11 Nov 2022 09:15:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms