A Waste of Space? Towards a Critique of the Social Production of Space...

Author(s): Tim Unwin Source: Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, New Series, Vol. 25, No. 1 (2000), pp. 11-29 Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British 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 unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may 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 printed page of such transmission. 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.

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

http://www.jstor.org

waste

of

space?

Towards

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: t.unwin@vms.rhbnc.ac.uk revised manuscript received 11 November 1999

Context In the midst of a gloomy and exceedinglyresponsible and businessit is quitesome trickto keep cheerful: yet, what could be more necessary than cheerfulness? Nothing succeeds without high spirits playing their part.(Nietzsche1998,3) 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 productionof 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). Laproductionde l'espacewas 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, Theproductionof 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

TransInst 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 productionde l'espaceappeared 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 Theproductionof 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: language 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).

TimUnwin 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 productionof 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 contemporary 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 concept is now so widely accepted that it frequently appears in geographical publications with little apparent need for justification (for recent examples, see Berg and Kears 1996; Clarke et al 1996; Pain 1997; Flint 1998). Sustained critiques by geographers of the concept, however, and of the complex 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,

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). However, more recently in the 1990s it has also resulted from diverse postmoder critiques of modernity,

a Towards critique thesocialproduction space of of 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 illustrated, 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 contemporary 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 differentways 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 space of

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 productionof 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 architecture 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 concentrated largely upon the initial framework, and have

14

TimUnwin 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

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 Theproductionof spacecan 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

trying to develop a completely new form of conceptualization, 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 productionof 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 was presenting I began to thinkthatperhapsLefebvre he seeks to develop his argument around TheProductionof Spaceas a musical composition, with a analysis, this threefold logic: it exists in his three moments of multiplicity of instruments and voices playing together at the same time. More specifically, I found that the text 'the great dialectical movements that traverse the world-as-totality and help define it' (218); it is to be could be read as a polyphonic fugue that assertively introduced its keynote themes early on and then found in the three questions that need to be asked changed them intentionally in contrapuntal variations beyond the idea of a "'plural", "polyscopic", or that took radically different forms and harmonies. "polyvalent" space' (292); and it is there in the

Following the first two chapters outlining the book's initial framework, Lefebvre examines the same basic themes in chapters entitled 'Spatial

three meanings that he attributes to Descartes'

thesis (283).

architectronics', 'From absolute space to abstract

space', 'Contradictory space' and 'From the contra-

dictions 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 introductiondevelopment-conclusion to explore new 'rhythms' of argument and (con)textual representation.

Aims and content At the outset, it would appear that Lefebvre's paramount intent in The productionof 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 comfortably enough within the terms of mental (and therefore neo-Kantian or neo-Cartesian) space, thereby demonstrating 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.

a Towards critique thesocialproduction space of of The aim of this book is to detonatethis state of affairs. More specifically, apropos of space, it aims to foster confrontation between those ideas and propositions which illuminate moder world even if they do not the govern it, treating them not as isolated theses or hypotheses, as 'thoughts' to be put under the microscope,but ratheras prefigurations lying at the thresholdof 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 productionof space. As Lefebvre (419) comments,

15 The praxiswhich guides our journeysto Los Angeles and other real-and-imaginedplaces is organized aroundthe searchfor practicalsolutions to the problems of race, class, gender, and other, often closely formsof humaninequalityand oppression, associated, especiallythose that are arisingfrom,or being aggravated by, the dramatic changes that have become associatedwith global economicand politicalrestrucof turingand the relatedpostmodernization urbanlife and society.(Soja1996,22)

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 Thisbookhas been informedfrombeginningto end by no purpose whatsoever', Lefebvre 1987, 32). This a project, though this may at times have been discernible only by readingbetween the lines. I refer to the eurocentric and urban bias in his writing is closely projectof a differentsociety,a differentmode of pro- reflected in much social theory written in his wake duction,where social practicewould be governedby (Harvey 1991) as well as under the banner of different conceptualdeterminations. postmodernism (Soja 1996; although see Escobar Lefebvre appears, though, to have been troubled 1995; Corbridge 1998). Second, Lefebvre's writing was grounded in a deep commitment to Marxism by this idea. As he alludes in the above quotation, this project is not always clear or as immediately that was both theoretical and practical. Signifihis interpretations of the trajectory of recognizable as it is in some of his other works. cantly capitalism also owed much to a surprisingly Moreover, while he goes on to suggest that 'No doubt this project could be explicitly formulated' Leninist view of globalization. Lefebvre (65) thus commented that (419), he emphasizes that it would remain an abstract project, and that 'Though opposed to the Withinthis global framework, might be expected, as abstraction of the dominant space, it would not the Leninist principle of uneven development applies in full force: some countries are still in the earliest transcend that space' (419). Soja (1996, 68), in his evocation of Thirdspace, seeks to make this political stages of the production of things (goods) in space, and only the most industrialized and urbanized ones can aim more explicit, describing 'lived spaceas a strateexploit to the full the new possibilities opened up by location from which to encompass, understand, gic technology and knowledge. and potentially transform all spaces simultaneously'. More overtly, Soja claims a very specific His theoretical debt to Lenin is also reflected in some of his arguments concerning the character of practical intent in his work. As he states,

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 in activelyparticipated the greatprocessof metaphorthe ization that has abandoned 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 Spatialpractice,which embraces production and reproduction,and the particular locations and of spatial sets characteristic each social formation. and ensurescontinuity some degree Spatial practice of cohesion.In terms of social space, and of each member of a given society's relationshipto that space, this cohesion implies a guaranteedlevel of
and a specific level of performance. competence 2 Representations space, which are tied to the relaof

Tim Unwin

of thingsor an aggregate (sensory)date,nor by a void and packedlike a parcelwith variouscontents, thatit is irreducible a 'form'imposeduponphenomena, to upon (27) things,upon physicalmateriality. 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 understanding 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

social space is constituted neither by a collection of

tions of productionand to the 'order'which those relations impose,and henceto knowledge,to signs, relations. to codes, and to 'frontal'

isms, sometimescoded, sometimesnot, linked to side or the clandestine underground of sociallife, as also to art (which may come eventually to be defined less as a code of space than as a code of spaces). representational The other central triad developed in his initial plan and naturelargelyunreconstructed, with it the relationis the distinction between social space, mental is shipbetweenspaceandnature... NatureforLefebvre space and physical space. For Lefebvre (27), on the verge of becoming a corpse at the behest of to Socialspace will be revealedin its particularity the abstract space. frommental extentthatit ceasesto be indistinguishable and definedby philosophers mathematicians) In the remainder of The production of space, Lefebvre space(as on the one hand, and physical space (as defined by develops the ideas outlined in his introductory of activityand the perception 'nature') chapter from a range of different perspectives. In a practico-sensory on the other. largely historical account, he explores the way in Much of the remainder of the book demonstrates which ideas about abstract space developed from those of absolute space, he undertakes a that this

3 Representational spaces,embodying complex symbol-

a Towards critique thesocialproduction space of of compelling critique of Cartesian space, and then examines a series of contradictions in the nature of space, focusing particularly on quantity and quality, 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 revolutionary 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.

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, of we can ... arguethat objective conceptions time and created practices throughmaterial spacearenecessarily and processes which serve to reproducesocial life. (Harvey1990,204)

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, Geographers and the social production of here it is the conceptionsof space and time, rather space than space and time themselves that are seen as Two of the most significant geographers to have being 'created' by society. Second, he refers to the engaged with Lefebvre's arguments and to have conceptions of both space and time as being incorporated them into their own work have been created, whereas it is central to Lefebvre's (1974; David Harvey (Katz 1998) and Ed Soja (Dixon 1991) argument that primacy is given to the 1999). This section of the paper therefore briefly production of space alone. seeks to establish the significance of Lefebvre's Harvey (1989; 1990) nevertheless then incorporideas for Harvey and Soja, and to note their more ates Lefebvre's triad of spatial practices, represenwidespread introduction into geographical theory tations of space and spaces of representation into and practice. Throughout Harvey's work (1982; the three rows of his grid of spatial practices 1985; 1989; 1990), he has been an ardent advocate (Harvey 1990, 220-21), the columns of which he of the need to examine the spatial implications of chooses to represent as four more conventional Marx's analysis of capitalism, with particular ref- understandings of spatial practice (accessibility erence to the urban context. This espousal of the and distanciation, appropriation and use of space, need to insert space into Marxist theory finds close domination and control of space, and production echoes with Lefebvre's intentions in The produc- of space), influenced in part by his readings of tion of space, and Harvey draws significantly on Hagerstrand, Bourdieu, Gurvitch and Giddens. In Lefebvre's arguments in developing his formu- so doing, and in penning in several illustrative lations of spaces and times in social life in his The 'positionings' within the squares of the grid, conditionof postmodernity(1990, especially Chapter Harvey (1990, 222) seeks to examine different positions of entry into 'the experience of space in the 13; see also 1996, Chapter 10). In referring to the everyday, Harvey (1990, 201) history of modernism and postmodernism'. Howargues that: ever, by giving concrete expression to Lefebvre's fluid ideas, Harvey effectively destroys of Spaceand time arebasiccategories humanexistence. essentially Yet we rarelydebate their meanings;we tend to take their enigmatic and uncertain character. Lefebvre's them for granted, and give them common-sense or triad is continually in motion, and by trying to tie it self-evident attributions. (but see, for example, Adam down to four other elements, which are not neces1998) sarily independent, Harvey departs considerably Geographers have for long debated the meanings from Lefebvre's original intentions. of space and time. Indeed, from antiquity to the Furthermore, Harvey's (1989; 1990) own use of present day this concern with space and time 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 concentrated 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 selfevident, 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 preventing 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 Secondspace 'through its prevailing representational discourses'. In contrast, his intention is for explorations of Thirdspace to be guided by an emancipatory 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

TimUnwin 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 interchangeably. 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 constructionof 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 reappropriation 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.

Towards a critique of the social production of space 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

a Towards critique thesocialproduction space of 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.

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 Theproduction spacein academic papers (Curry of Language and meaning 1996), suggest that this audience has indeed found In referring to previous interpretations of Lefebvre's work to be of value, even if those who Lefebvre's notion of abstract space by Gottdiener, cite him have not always read all of the book, nor Dear, Gregory, Pile and Smith, Dimendberg (1998, understood what he wrote. 18) comments that However, such a positive evaluation can be Eachof these understandings abstract of can be challenged through reference to the early space justifiedby referenceto differentpassages in ThePro- Wittgenstein's (1961, 3) famous assertion that ductionof Space,yet it remains difficultto grasp the 'What can be said at all can be said clearly, and specificity of the notion and its relations to these what we cannot talk about we must pass over in variousdefinitions. silence'. Why is it that complex arguments tend to The complexity of Lefebvre's arguments, and their be privileged over the simple? Is it not just possible elusive character, thus make it very difficult to that complexity reflects as much the inability of interpret precisely what he means at any particular an author to express ideas clearly, as it does any inherent difficulty in the subject that is being writjuncture. This is not only because he develops similar notions in different ways throughout the ten about? Language itself is a form of power. book, but also because his sentence construction is Restricted access to knowledge of the codes and frequently opaque. Moreover, short sentences are meanings of languages thus enables groups to often juxtaposed in ways that make it extremely maintain their elite status and control. If we really difficult to detect what exactly he meant by them. wish to reshape the power structures of contemDoes this matter? porary society, should we not be doing so in How do we even approach answering this ques- ways which seek to make our meanings readily tion? At one level, Lefebvre's project was to get accessible to as wide an audience as possible? people to rethink their ideas about temporal expla- Billinge (1983, 400), for example, has argued nations of society. Readers are forced to think anew powerfully with reference to a style of writing by the very complexity of the language that he uses prevalent in human geography in the early 1980s (see also Olsson 1991; 1998; Curry 1996). In this that sense, what matters is not so much what he wrote, Thisstyle whilst claimingto capturewith richnessand but rather the reactions that the book evokes in its subtletythe natureof the humansubjectand its mode readers. His style is therefore part and parcel of the of cognition, has in fact served differentand more covert purposes:the perversionof meaning,the disproject, although it does require that the reader is able profitably to engage with it. guise of mediocrityof sentiment,the inflationof the authors' and as This raises the question of the audience for self-regard the representation profound of ideas which are in realityclichedor banal. whom The productionof space was written, and for what purpose. Lefebvre's underlying political It is far from easy to reconcile these two contrasting project has been alluded to above, but the agents of interpretations of the value of complexity in writthis revolutionary practice have not, and Lefebvre ten style. At one level, it can be argued that himself remains strangely quiet about them different texts are, and should be, written for dif(although elsewhere he does devote considerable ferent audiences, and that a diversity of styles and attention to political practice: 1968a; 1968c). representations is to be applauded and encourLefebvre was writing primarily, if not exclusively, aged. However, at the same time, some caution is for social theorists and philosophers in the French- required in necessarily allocating primacy to the speaking world, and translating his work for an complex over the simple, to the contradictory over Anglo-American audience presents particular dif- the coherent, and to the obfuscating over the direct. ficulties. For example, the French 'espace'has rather A second difficulty with Lefebvre's use of landifferent connotations from the English 'space', as guage and meaning concerns the ascription of does 'lieu' from 'place'. However, subsequent 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, including '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:

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 viewpoints 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 comprehensiveness 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 overrideand incorporate binaryor dual nature,for its the way in whichit presentsitselfand theway in which it is represented different. not socialspacealways, are Is and simultaneously, both a field of action(offeringits extensionto the deploymentof projectsand practical intentions)and a basisof action(a set of placeswhence Is energiesderiveandwhitherenergiesaredirected)? 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 concreteextensionwhere unreplenished energiesrun out, where distanceis measuredin termsof fatigueor in termsof 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 The quasi-logical presupposition of an identity between mental space (the space of the philosophers 'space', Lefebvre, whether intentionally or not, and epistemologists)and real space createsan abyss draws upon a collective understanding of the prebetween the mental sphere on the one side and the vious meanings ascribed to space. Yet, he is also seeking to create a new meaning for the word and physicaland social sphereson the other. for the idea of space. A similar argument has been Here, we have not only the dilemma between the advocated by Curry (1996), where he suggests that mental and the physical, but also between the 'real' in making commitments to a set of conceptions spaces of physical and social geography, however about space in Western thinking, Lefebvre effecthese are defined. tively undermines his own possibility of developThis leads directly into a third broad problem ing a truly critical view of these concepts; he with Lefebvre's use of language and meaning, honours the very views that he seeks to criticize. which relates to his attempt to develop a new Moreover, this also raises the question of the all-encompassing definition and science of space relationships between words and what they sigthat would be acceptable to all (Lefebvre 1991, nify. Does space thus exist, or is it merely a figment 8-9). Lefebvre's arguments have, for example, of our collection imagination? But to ask this

Towardsa critique of the social productionof space

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 reintroduction 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

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 productionof 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 asserting 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 everyonelook at the space aroundthem.Whatdo they see? Do they see time?They live time, after all; they are in time. Yetall anyone sees is movements.In within space- in the very nature,time is apprehended heartof 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

22

TimUnwin

a formaldependencebetween the way in which the productionof spaceor the social constructionof space, spatial co-ordinates, on the one hand, and the temporal upon which attention has focused. Is there not on have to enterinto the natural co-ordinates, the other, therefore a danger that we are moving towards a laws. (emphasisadded) new kind of spatial fetish, albeit of a different form to that which emerged in geography during the There is not the opportunity here to develop these 1950s and 1960s? If space and time are so inter- arguments, but it is salient to recall Newtonconnected, why is it that we persist in separating Smith's (1986, 34) observation that 'The only conclusion that can be drawn with confidence is that them, and privileging either one or the other? It is here that some of the arguments of physi- there will be no purely philosophical nor a purely cists, philosophers and mathematicians (see, for physical resolution of this controversy'. Once example, Flood and Lockwood 1986) would seem again, we are brought back to the need to combine to have something important to offer. Despite not only our conceptions of space and time, but occasional forays into the realms of relativity and also the physical and mental worlds that Descartes quantum mechanics (Peterman 1994; Campbell sought to split asunder. In essence, there is a danger that by focusing on 1995; Harrison and Dunham 1998), geographers have been remarkably reluctant to engage this the production or construction of space, we may literature (although see Unwin 1992; Massey 1994; create a damaging new fetish of space. We need 1999). This is particularly true of those interested instead to heed Massey's (1994, 2) call 'that space in social and cultural geography, with Lefebvre must be conceptualized integrally with time; (1991), Harvey (1989; 1990) and Soja (1996), for indeed the aim should be to think always in example, all generally engaging a relatively out- terms of space-time' (see Unwin 1992 for a similar moded concept of mathematical and scientific argument). 'space'. In general, the detail of relativity and quantum theory have been decried as largely irrelevant to geographical enquiry, primarily The processes of production and construction of because it is claimed that they have little to say at space the scale of enquiry or research in which geogra- A further fundamental difficulty with the idea of phers are interested (for a wider discussion of time the production, or even construction, of space, is in geomorphology, see Thornes and Brunsden the way in which it places emphasis on the final 1977). However, this is to miss their most im- 'thing' that is produced, or constructed, namely portant significance, because, as Harrison and space. For Lefebvre (1987, 30), space is very much Dunham (1998) so capably stress, it is at the con- 'a social and political product', something that 'one ceptual and philosophical level that these theories buys and sells'. While the process of production, or are of such interest. As Massey (1999) has recently construction, is implicated in this action, it is the argued, there is much that can be learnt from a culmination of the process, space itself, that we are wider discussion of the theoretical linkages drawn to. In part this reflects the way in which between human and physical geography, and of a language shapes what we are able to communicate. re-examination of the potential of relativity and However, in referring to the production of space, quantum theory to contribute to the ways in which Lefebvre objectifies space; he gives it meaning, social and cultural geographers have conceptual- character and significance. Moreover, in this very ized space. I have highlighted elsewhere (Unwin process, he relegates all else to a secondary pos1992) the importance of Minkowski's (1964, 297) ition. There is, for example, a categorical difference claim in 1908 that 'space by itself, and time by between 'the production of space' and 'the producitself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, tion of human misery'. Lefebvre chooses to address and only a kind of union between the two will the former, mainly on the grounds that by so doing preserve an independent reality'. Likewise, as he can illuminate the latter. But in this very proRussell (1961, 786) has commented 'What is impor- cess, he draws our attention away from the misery, tant to the philosopher in the theory of relativity is from the lived experience of humanity, and the substitution of space-time for space and time'. towards an intellectual and arid conceptualization Moreover, as Einstein (1964, 282) himself stressed, of an idea, of space. As outlined above, both Harvey (1990) and the critical thing about his special theory of Lefebvre (1991) have deliberately addressed the relativity was that it created

Towardsa critique of the social productionof space

23

of production space, in large part to emphasize their commitment to a particularunderstandingof the way in which society is shaped. Harvey (1990, 183), for example, is specifically concerned with 'the production of new spaces within which capitalistproduction can proceed'. Lefebvre's emphasis on production, likewise, closely reflectshis engagement with Marxist theorizations of capitalism.As he has argued, If space is a product, our knowledge of it must be expected to reproduceand expound the process of The of production. 'object' interestmustbe expectedto but this formulationitself calls for much additional explanation.Both partial productslocated in spacethat is, things - and discourseon spacecan henceforth do no morethansupply clues to, and testimonyabout, this productiveprocess.(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 spacetime. 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 transcending the traditional divide between nature and antinature, 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
shift from things in spaceto the actual production space, of

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',andwhat is moreit implies a spaceagainstwhichviolence,whetherlatentor overt, is directed- a space establishedand constitutedby 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 remarkablethings 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 worryingly 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 simultaneously'. 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 presupposes a dialecticsof 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 influencing 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 constructionor productionof 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 Theproduction of space, he was eager to encourage people to become involved in social and political change, indeed in politicizing life itself. However, the evidence of many texts that have been written in the wake of The productionof space (Harvey 1990; Soja 1996; although for a rather different view, see Harvey 1996) is that their concern has primarily

TimUnwin 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 productionof 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 seriously 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 understandings 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

Towardsa critique of the social productionof space and transformation, we must simultaneously capture how they are in fact forged together in a dialectical unity. Building on Lefebvre's notions, Merrifield 525) seeks to expound the notion that: (1993,

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 localities, 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 intervention, 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

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 conflating 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 translating 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 inconsistency 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.

26 dominantrelationsand 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 productionof 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)spaceis a (Social)product'.Elsewhere, Casey (1997) has developed a powerful argument concerning the relationships between space and place, in which he suggests that an ancient view of space as placewas transformed into a view of placeas space just before the middle ages. Building on this, Casey (1998, 78) goes on to suggest that Lefebvre's concept of 'abstract space represents the triumph of space over place in such a way as to favor homogeneity 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 rankthem as it were, an effortthathas modern thought since Kant,shows the characterized insistentneed for a returnto placeas theirthirdtermone that combines both while allowing for their nuances and specificitiesall too often lacking in the of generalities spaceand time as generalcosmicmedia. 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

TimUnwin 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

Towardsa critique of the social productionof space

27 University of Oxford. I am very grateful to colleagues there for their hospitality and for providing 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 enormously 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 unknowingly, 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.

space-time through a particular ethical stance (see, for example, Sack 1999). Massey (1994, 263) has argued cogently that the social issues which we currentlyneed to whetherthey be the high-techpostmodern understand, world or questionsof culturalidentity,requiresomethingthatwould look ... like the 'modemphysics'view of space.It would, moreover, preciselyby introducing into the conceptof space that elementof dislocation/ enablethe politicization space/ of freedom/possibility, 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. immense,that it castsa shadow over the one who sets it down - such a destinyof a taskforcesyou to run out into the sunshineevery instantand shake off a heavy, seriousness.(Nietzsche1998,3) all-too-heavy Acknowledgements This paper was largely written during a period of sabbatical leave at the School of Geography in the
A revaluation all values,this question mark so black, so of

References
Adam B 1998 Timescapes modernity:the environmentand of invisiblehazardsRoutledge, New York Agnew J 1995 The hidden geographies of social science

and the myth of the geographical turnEnvironment and

Planning D: Societyand Space 13 329-80 Bauman Z 1993 Postmodernethics Blackwell, Oxford Benko G and Strohmayer U eds 1997 Space and social theoryBlackwell, Oxford Berg I D and Kears R A 1996 Naming as norming:

places in Aotearoa/New Zealand Environment and Planning D: Societyand Space 14 1 99-122 Berman M 1982 All that is solid melts into air: the experience of modernitySimon and Schuster, New York Billinge M 1983 The mandarin dialect: an essay on style in contemporary geographical writing Transactionsof the Institute of British Geographers 4 400-20 8 Bird J 1981 The target of space and the arrow of time Transactionsof the Institute of British Geographers6 2 129-51 Blum V and Nast H 1996 Where's the difference? The

'race', gender, and the identity politics of naming

heterosexualization alterityin Henri Lefebvreand of

Jacques Lacan Environmentand Planning D: Societyand Space 14 5 559-80 Campbell C 1995 Does quantum theory add to the geographic perspective Professional Geographer47 2 216-17 Casey E S 1997 The fate of place: a philosophicalhistory 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 geographyII: the productionof 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 Political Geography 6-7 457-89 15 S 1998 Development ethics: distance, differCorbridge 1 ence, plausibility Ethics,Placeand Environment 1 35-54 Couclelis H and Gale N 1986 Space and spaces Annaler 68B 1-12 Geografiska Curry M R 1996 Theworkin 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 Philosophyand geographyII: the productionof 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 89 Associationof AmericanGeographers 2 338-9 Duncan N 1996 Postmodernism in human geography in Earle C Mathewson K and Kenzer M S eds Conceptsin humangeographyRowman and Littlefield, Lanham MD 429-58 Einstein A 1964 Autobiographical notes in Smart J J C ed Problemsof spaceand time Macmillan, New York 276-91 the Escobar P 1995 Encounteringdevelopment: making and unmakingof 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 Environment1 2 197-222 Flint C 1998 Forming electorates, forming spaces - the Nazi Party and the social construction of space Scientist 41 9 1282-303 AmericanBehavioral 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 theoryof structurationPolity Press, Cambridge Golledge R and Stimson R J 1997 Spatial behavior:a geographicperspectiveGuilford 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 transformationand industrial woollen industry revolution:a geographyof the Yorkshire Macmillan, London - 1994 Geographical imaginationsBlackwell, Oxford - 1997 Lacan and geography: the production of space revisited in Benko G and Strohmayer U eds Spaceand social theoryBlackwell, Oxford 203-31

Tim Unwin Habermas J 1978 Knowledge and human interests 2nd edition (translated by J J Schapiro) Heinemann, London - 1984 Thetheoryof communicative action. Volume1: reason and the rationalization society Beacon Press, Boston of - 1987 The theory of communicativeaction. Volume 2: lifeworldand 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 Transactionsof the Institute of British 23 Geographers 4 501-14 Harvey D 1961 Aspects of agricultural and rural change in Kent, 1800-1900 Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Cambridge - 1973 Socialjustice and the city Arnold, London - 1982 The limits to capitalBlackwell, Oxford - 1985 Consciousnessand the urban experienceBlackwell, Oxford - 1989 The urbanexperienceBlackwell, Oxford - 1990 The conditionof postmodernity Blackwell, Oxford - 1991 Afterword in Lefebvre H The productionof space Blackwell, Oxford 425-34 - 1996 Justice, nature and the geography of difference Blackwell, Oxford et Hess R 1988 Henri Lefebvre l'aventuredu siecleEditions A M Metailie, Paris or, Jameson F 1991 Postmodernism; the cultural logic of late capitalismVerso, 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 88 Associationof AmericanGeographers 4 706-7 Kirk W 1952 Historical geography and the concept of the behavioural environment Indian GeographicalJournal Silver Jubilee Edition 152-60 Lagopoulos A P 1993 Postmodernism, geography and the social semiotics of space Environmentand Planning D: Societyand Space 11 3 255-78 Lefebvre H 1968a Le droiti la ville Anthropos, Paris - 1968b La vie quotidienne dans le monde moderne Gallimard, Paris - 1968c The sociologyof Marx Penguin, London - 1969 The explosion:Marxism and the Frenchrevolutionof May 1968 Monthly Review, New York - 1970 Du rural a l'urbainAnthropos, Paris - 1974 La productionde l'espaceAnthropos, Paris - 1980 La presenceet l'absenceCasterman, Paris - 1981 Critiquede la vie quotidienne,III:de la modernite au modernisme (pour une metaphilosophiedu quotidien) L'Arche, Paris

Towardsa critique of the social productionof space - 1987 An interview with Henri Lefebvre (interviewers G Burgel, G Burgel, M G Dezes, translated by E Kofman) and Environment Planning D: Societyand Space5 1 27-38 - 1991 The productionof space Blackwell, Oxford - 1996 Writings on cities (selected, translated and introduced by E Kofman and E Lebas) Blackwell, Oxford Ley D and Samuels M S 1978 Humanistic geography: prospectsand problemsCroom Helm, London Light A and Smith J M eds 1998 Philosophyand geography II: the productionof publicspaceRowman and Littlefield, Lanham MD tradition: episodesin Livingstone D N 1992 Thegeographical the history of a contestedenterpriseBlackwell, 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 24 of the Institute of British Geographers 261-76 Merrifield A 1993 Place and space: a Lefebvrian reconcili18 ation Transactions the Instituteof BritishGeographers of 516-31 - 1999 The extraordinary voyages of Ed Soja: inside the 'trialectics of spatiality' Annals of the Association of AmericanGeographers 2 345-8 89 Minkowski H 1964 Space and time in Smart J J C ed Problems spaceand timeMacmillan, New York297-312 of 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 Twilightof the idols or how to philosophize with a hannerOxford University Press, Oxford Olsson G 1991 Lines of power/limitsof languageUniversity of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis -1998 A critique of cartographical reason Ethics, Place and Environment1 2 145-55 Pain R H 1997 Social geographies of women's fear of crime Transactions the Institute of British Geographers of 22 2 231-44 Peet R 1977 The development of radical geography in the 1 United States Progressin Human Geography 3 64-87 Pensky M ed 1994 The past as future: Jiirgen Habermas interviewedby MichaelHaller Polity Press, Cambridge Peterman W 1994 Quantum theory and geography: what 46 can Dr Bertlmann teach us? ProfessionalGeographer 1-9 Pred A ed 1981 Spaceand 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 Associationof AmericanGeographers 2 342-44 89

29 Proctor J D 1998a The social construction of nature: relativist accusations, pragmatist and critical realist responses Annals of the Associationof AmericanGeographers 88 3 352-77 -1998b Ethics in geography: giving moral form to the geographical imagination Area 30 1 8-18 and Proctor J D and Smith D M eds 1999 Geography ethics: journeys in a moralterrainRoutledge, London Rose D B 1992 Dingo makesus human:life and land in an Aboriginal Australian culture Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Russell B 1961 History of WesternphilosophyAllen and Unwin, London Sack R D 1980 Conceptions of space in social thought Macmillan, London - 1999 A sketch of a geographic theory of morality 89 Annals of the Association of American Geographers 1 26-44 Said E 1994 Cultureand imperialism Vintage, London Shields R 1999 Harmony in thirds: chora for Lefebvre 89 Annals of the Association of American Geographers 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 Philosophyand geographyII: the production of public space Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham MD 49-70 the of Soja E 1989 Postmodern geographies: reassertion space in critical social theoryVerso, London - 1996 Thirdspace: journeys to Los Angeles and other realplaces Blackwell, Oxford and-imagined - 1999 Keeping space open Annals of the Association of AmericanGeographers 2 348-53 89 Stoddart D R 1986 On geographyand its historyBlackwell, Oxford Strohmayer U 1998 The event of space: geographic allusions in the phenomenological tradition Environment and Planning D: Societyand Space 16 1 105-21 Swyngedouw E A 1992 Territorial organization and the of space/technology nexus Transactions the Institute of 17 British Geographers 417-33 and Thornes J and Brunsden D 1977 Geomorphology time Methuen, London Unwin T 1992 The place of geographyLongman, Harlow Watson S and Gibson K eds 1995 Postmoderncities and spaces Blackwell, Oxford Wittgenstein L 1961 Tractatus-logico-philosophicus Routledge and Kegan Paul, London