Outlining Lefebvre and 'The Production of Space'

(I will refrain from delving any further than a simplified and surface-level account of Lefebvre’s concepts for this section. Why? I’ve been researching his ideas through secondary sources [Lefebvre is renowned for being dense and obfuscating; reading any of his text will inevitably need a secondary source] Also, I had to limit myself, this module is short and I had to be sensible with how I prioritised my time. The most crucial secondary source was Dr Connolly who works at UCA as a lecturer. After discovering a presentation he created on spatiality, I emailed him, and he responded. In his response, he shared me the introduction to his PhD paper titled The Spatial Cinema, and the practical half of his PhD titled Machine Space (thirty-eight-minute film). Lefebvre acts as a backbone to both parts of his PhD - so, his own research and his emailed response played a significant role in helping me understand Lefebvre but also how to construct my own interdisciplinary practice consisting of writing and film.)

Henri Lefebvre was one of the most crucial theorists who assisted in informing my perspective and criticality of space was, specifically his book The Production of Space (1991, Blackwell). Within In/Different Space, Burgin states: “The most fundamental project of Lefebvre’s book [The Production of Space] is to reject the conception of space as ‘a container without content,’ an abstract mathematical/geometrical continuum, independent of human subjectivity agency.” (Burgin, 1996, pp.26-27) Instead, Lefebvre asserts space as inextricable from political and social practice – as a production, a process. In the introduction of The Spatial Cinema, Dr Connolly quotes (Merrifield, 2006, p.104) and describes Lefebvre’s The Production of Space as – “a rapprochement between physical space (nature), mental space (formal abstractions about space), and social space (the space of human interaction).“ (Connolly, 2018, p.11) This complex which constructs Lefebvre’s concept of space is referred to as a spatial triad. Dr Connolly outlines the three strands of the spatial triad:

"Lefebvre contends the social relations implicated in the production of space have implications for representation - the means by which space can be known and shared in the social world. As representation, space is manifest as three moments or dimensions. Space is produced as (1) spatial practice, as the embodied habitual experience of space; (2) the representation of space, as artefacts that ‘stand in’ for measured and quantified spaces; and (3) spaces of representation, as artefacts that ‘stand in’ for lived spaces. The three moments of space have mirror definitions as mental processes of (1) perceived space; (2) conceived space; and (3) lived or endured spaces." (Connolly, 2018, pp.14-15) (Outlined in The Production of Space, pp.38-39)

So, to simplify that: Spatial practice = Perceived space, Representation(s) of space = Conceived space, Spaces of representation (or, Representational space) = Lived (or endured) space. These three moments of space comprise a spatial triad. Below (figure 1) is a diagram sourced from Reading Design. I have edited on expanded and alternative definitions for each of the three terms.

On spatial practice, Lefebvre states - “As for spatial practice, it is observed, described and analysed on a wide range of levels: in architecture, in city planning or ‘urbanism’ […], in the actual design of routes and localities […], in the organization of everyday life, and, naturally, in urban reality.” (Lefebvre, 1991, p.413-414) In other words: spatial practice is the empirical, the perceivable, they are the outcomes of when social relations, in Lefebvre’s words, ‘hit the ground’. Spatial Practice is intended to be viewed as the outcome of the oppositional spaces of representation and representations of space.

Lefebvre defines representations of space as “conceptualized space, the space of […] planners, urbanists, […] This is the dominant space in any society […] Conceptions of space tend, [with exceptions] towards a system of verbal (and therefore intellectually worked out) signs.” (Lefebvre, 1991, p.38-39). Representation of Space is occupied by ‘planners and architects.’ Lefebvre then defines spaces of representation, which is occupied by ‘users’, as:

"directly lived through its associated images and symbols, […] This is the dominated – and hence passively experienced – space which the imagination seeks to change and appropriate. It overlays physical space, making symbolic use of its objects. Thus [spaces of representation) may be said [with exceptions] to tend towards more or less coherent systems of non-verbal symbols and signs." (Lefebvre, 1991, p.39)

Lefebvre defines another difference between representations of space (conceived space) and spaces of representation (lived space) as:

"Representations of space are certainly abstract, but they also play a part in social and political practice: established relations between objects and people in represented space are subordinate to a logic which will sooner or later break them up because of their lack of consistency. Representational spaces [spaces of representation], on the other hand, need obey no rules of consistency or cohesiveness. Redolent with imaginary and symbolic elements, they have their source in history – in the history of people as well as in the history of each individual belonging to that people." (Lefebvre, 1991, p.41)

Lefebvre’s analysis of space as a multi-level complex embedded with human agency, and not simply an abstract, mathematical problem, is crucial to my own analysis of space in Occupation, especially in the relation of power and space. For instance, according to Dr Connolly, aerial images are an example of representations of space images – the category of images that Lefebvre associated with power and control. My footage of maps and plans viewed from an aerial perspective adopted a new dimension of power associations which I had not recognised before. This recognition, indebted to the lens of Lefebvre, led me to treat the footage differently, to recognise their power dynamic, to adopt a form of self-awareness. Though it’s also Lefebvre’s Marxist approach to the criticality of space which influenced me. Most significantly how he examined power dynamics within the spatial triad through a Marxist lens which leads to a defence of social mobility and occupation.

Figure 1: Diagram based on The Spatial Production by Henri Lefebvre, with additional edits added by me. Follow the link for the source of the original diagram.

Bibliography:

Atelier Bow-Wow. (2008). 'ARCHITECTURAL BEHAVIOROLOGY'. Reading Design. Available at: https://www.readingdesign.org/architectural-behaviorology (Accessed: 16 March 2020)

Burgin, V. (1996). In/Different Spaces: Place and Memory in Visual Culture. Berkley, CA: University of California Press.

Connolly, S. (2018) The Spatial Cinema – Introduction. PaR PhD Thesis. University of Kent.

Lefebvre, H. (1991). The Production of Space. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.