See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/385276893

Production of Space

Preprint · October 2024

DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/g2dpw

CITATIONS READS

0 1,538

1 author:

Husik Ghulyan
Cornell University
27 PUBLICATIONS 82 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Husik Ghulyan on 04 November 2024.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 1
P

2 Production of Space re-shaped by social, economic, and political 31

forces. Furthermore, it plays a crucial role in the 32

3 Husik Ghulyan reproduction of social relations and material 33

4 Cornell Institute of Archaeology and Material orderings (Brenner, 2004; Soja, 1980). This 34

AU1 5 Studies, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA approach to the relationships between society 35
husikghulyan@cornell.edu and space, social relations, and spatial forms is 36

based on dialectical reasoning. Hence, the propo- 37

AU2 6 Space as a Social Product sition is also framed as socio-spatial dialectic 38

(Soja, 1980, 1989) or three-dimensional dialectic 39

AU3 7 The theory of the production of space—conceived (Schmid, 2022). In line with the socio-spatial or 40

8 by French philosopher, sociologist, and Marxist three-dimensional dialectical logic, space can be 41

9 intellectual Henri Lefebvre in the 1970s—is a understood as a process (Brenner, 2004; Schmid, 42

10 complex yet influential theoretical construct in 2022), a constant flux of material and non- 43

11 urban studies and human geography, as well as a material assemblages that are shaped by social, 44

12 significant theoretical intervention into Marxism economic, or political forces—which in turn are 45

13 (Brenner & Elden, 2009; Elden, 2001, 2004; reconstituted by these assemblages. In sum, space 46

14 Kipfer et al., 2013; Merrifield, 2013; Shields, as a process is a constantly evolving set of 47

15 2013; Stanek, 2011). The theory was first elabo- relations. 48

16 rated by Lefebvre in the book of the same title The other key proposition of the theory— 49

17 published in French in 1974 (Lefebvre, 1974). closely related to the first one—is that since 50

18 Following the publication of the book’s English space is a social product, every society produces 51

19 translation in 1991 (Lefebvre, 1991), it became its own space. At its face very basic proposition, 52

20 more widely known, critically appraised, and this has important implications for any Marxist— 53

21 made its way into many academic disciplines. and thus dialectical materialist—interpretation of 54

22 Since then, much of the focus on the theory has the world. With this proposition and the dialecti- 55

23 been in the fields of geography, urban sociology, cal materialist approach to history, the production 56

24 and cultural studies (Elden, 2001; Ghulyan, of space theory conceptualizes the production of 57

25 2019). space as consecutive stages of production of abso- 58

26 The production of space theory postulates that lute, historical, abstract, and contradictory spaces 59

27 space is a social product (Lefebvre, 1991, (Boer, 2015; Schmid, 2022; Shields, 2005). 60

28 pp. 26–27), appearing not solely as a passive

29 backdrop or a container for individual or collec-
30 tive human activities; it is re-produced and
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2024
B. Warf (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Human Geography,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-25900-5_310-1
 2 Production of Space

61 Key Conceptual Frames communist society of the future (Boer, 2015; 105

Ghulyan, 2019; Shields, 2005). 106

62 Structurally and conceptually, it is possible to

63 differentiate two main interrelated frames in the Spatial Triad 107

64 Lefebvrean production of space (Ghulyan, 2019). According to the Lefebvrean spatial triad, there 108

65 The first frame is the history of space or the are three dimensions involved in the production of 109

66 periodization of space, which consists of absolute space (whether understood as a process, process 110

67 space, sacred space, historical space, abstract of production, or as a product), and every involves 111

68 space, contradictory space, and differential those three dimensions in various degrees of 112

69 space. The second main structural element is the intensity. Those dimensions are: perceived 113

70 spatial triad which consists of perceived space space, conceived space, and lived space. These 114

71 (spatial practices), conceived space concepts also appear in the theory as spatial prac- 115

72 (representations of space), and lived space tices, representation of space, and representational 116

73 (representational space) (Ghulyan, 2019; Shields, space (Lefebvre, 1991, p. 40). 117

74 2005).
Perceived Space 118

75 History of Space The perceived space pertains to everyday life, the 119

76 The periodization of space, despite being consid- experience of space in quotidian lived experience. 120

77 ered a “linear, Eurocentric modeling of historical It refers to material practices, flows, and intercon- 121

78 progress” (Shields, 2005, p. 170), appears as one nections that ensure production and social repro- 122

79 of the unique Lefebvrean interventions into the duction (Lefebvre, 1991, p. 33). It refers to the 123

80 theory of space and has the potential to offer a subjective, everyday experience of space by indi- 124

81 coherent frame for understanding “the long his- viduals, groups, or communities. It relates to the 125

82 tory of space,” which is not deducible to the ways individuals and communities interact with 126

83 history of an inventory of things in space or dis- space, make, produce, perceive it, and make sense 127

84 course about space (Lefebvre, 1991, p. 116). of it in their day-to-day activities. Since perceived 128

85 There is a coherence between the periodization space is bound to routines and activities of every- 129

86 of space framework and the general history of day life, this dimension is also conceptualized in 130

87 modes of production in Marxism. Arguably, the the theory as spatial practices. The spatial prac- 131

88 Lefebvrean approach to space refashions Marxist tices are not limited only to the visual perception 132

89 periodization in terms of space (Boer, 2015). As a and aesthetics of humans. It involves all the 133

90 result, within the framework of the periodization senses, since individuals engage with social 134

91 of space, absolute space appears to correspond to space through different sensory apparatuses, and 135

92 the dominant space produced by hunting and make sense of space through a simultaneous com- 136

93 gathering societies and Neolithic agriculture; bination of several senses that contribute to their 137

94 sacred space was the dominant product of Asiatic overall spatial cognition (Lefebvre, 1991, 138

95 mode of production or Feudalism; historical pp. 8, 38, 40–41, 199–202, 210–212). 139

96 space was produced by the polis (city-state) or Individuals and groups attach meanings and 140

97 oligarchic slave-holding society thus relates to values to space, they form space-bounded belong- 141

98 the ancient or classical mode of production; and ing and identity through spatial practices. This 142

99 abstract space was the dominant space produced sense-making of social space, and its production 143

100 in Early Capitalism. In the contemporary era, con- through the perceptive apparatus, plays a crucial 144

101 tradictory space refers to the production of space role in how individuals relate and interact to each 145

102 in Late Capitalism, while differential space is a other and space. At the same time, spatial prac- 146

103 speculative, imaginative, and utopian proposition tices are shaped by production, social relations, 147

104 pertinent to the production of space in the cultural contexts, and power dynamics. The ways 148

people interact with space, produce it, or make 149

sense of it in their daily life are not free from 150

 Production of Space 3

151 power dynamics (Lefebvre, 1991, 199–202, Lived Space 195

152 210–212). The lived space is deeply embedded in the inter- 196

play of perceived space and conceived space and 197

153 Conceived Space is a key dimension in understanding space pro- 198

154 The conceived space or representation of space duction. It pertains to the clandestine aspects of 199

155 refers to the abstract and planned aspects of space, social life (Lefebvre, 1991, pp. 33, 369). It is in 200

156 and its formal design and it pertains to all signs, this dimension that daily life unfolds, however, 201

157 significations, codes, and knowledge. It is the unlike conceived and perceived dimensions which 202

158 space conceived by urban and regional planners, operate at a communal scale, the lived dimension 203

159 architects, bureaucrats, and all types of actors in reflects personal routines, behaviors, and mean- 204

160 the power-technocracy-bureaucracy continuum. ings that individuals create. It is closely related to 205

161 On the representational level, it appears in the the emotional and symbolic attachments to places 206

162 formal design and organization of space such as and the space-identity-memory nexus. People 207

163 masterplans, zoning regulations, and cartographic usually form space-bounded identities on differ- 208

164 representations. It relates to the planning and ent scales through the re-production of lived 209

165 design of the space and involves all types of space. 210

166 formal processes that shape the space. Conceived The lived space dimension is also conceptual- 211

167 space is mostly a product of deliberate decision- ized as representational space since it relates to 212

168 making processes involving those with formal and how people make sense of space in their own 213

169 informal authority and power. Those deliberate spatial practices. It is a passively experienced 214

170 decisions reshape and transform landscape, ter- space, encountered through associated images 215

171 rain, and all possible elements of the environment and symbols (Lefebvre, 1991, pp. 39–41). It is 216

172 affecting the ways in which individual people and substantially shaped by spatial practices and can 217

173 communities use and relate to a given space. have personal and collective manifestations—dif- 218

174 Deeply embedded into the power-expertise- ferent individuals and groups form different—at 219

175 technology nexus, conceived space is inherently times antithetical—representational spaces. Since 220

176 political. It is mostly bound with a spatial ideol- it is more pertinent to the individual level of 221

177 ogy that aims to shape space in line with certain space-making and its sense-making, it is also a 222

178 values, beliefs, or economic interests in order to very fluid dimension, constantly reidentified, 223

179 reinforce the existing power structures and their re-produced, and reappropriated. As a result, this 224

180 component social relations or to dismantle them dimension is difficult to capture, conceptualize, 225

181 (Lefebvre, 1991, pp. 33, 38–40, 255, 311, 318). and understand. Representational space at the 226

182 Different groups, such as communities, inves- same time harbors the potential to seriously chal- 227

183 tors, and developers may have conflicting concep- lenge the dominant conceptions of space; it is 228

184 tions of space in connection with zoning mostly through this dimension that individuals 229

185 regulations, public transportation, housing, and communities subvert norms and navigate 230

186 redlining, racial segregation, gentrification, through the power structures, enforced spatial 231

187 etc. Notable contemporary examples of conflicts practices, and conceived space. 232

188 in conceived space include the ways in which

189 grappling with the colonial legacy of an area can
190 be observed through the contentious debates on Lefebvrean Spatializations 233

191 monuments and re-naming. Conceived space is 50 Years Later 234

192 never neutral—it is the product of power struggles

193 and reflects the interests and ideologies of those The theory of the production of space is a power- 235

194 involved in reshaping it. ful frame for understanding how space operates 236

and how it is experienced on different scales and 237

levels as a mode of analysis for the spatial dimen- 238

sions of human activities. The production of space 239

 4 Production of Space

240 describes how space is socially re-constructed, works that create dialogues between the 288

241 understanding resultant spatializations from a his- Lefebvrean theory, Marxism, and the anti-colonial 289

242 torical materialist perspective, and uncovers the intellectual legacies of Antonio Gramsci and 290

243 history of space, facilitating the understanding of Frantz Fanon (Biagi, 2020; Kipfer, 2022; Kipfer 291

244 space’s production through the interplay of mate- et al., 2008; Schmid, 2022; Schwarze, 2023). 292

245 rial and not-material assemblages of conceived,

246 lived, and perceived dimensions.
247 Overall, the theory is a highly relevant frame- References 293

248 work for understanding the complex relation-

249 ships—past and present—between society and Biagi, F. (2020). Henri Lefebvre’s critical theory of space. 294
Palgrave Macmillan. 295
250 space, social relations and spatial orderings, and
Boer, R. (2015). Marxist criticism of the Hebrew Bible 296
251 how space is socially produced. It offers critical (2nd ed.). Bloomsbury. 297
252 lenses for exploring the issue of space beyond the Brenner, N. (2004). New state spaces: Urban governance 298

253 geographic container, medium, or backdrop, and and the rescaling of statehood. Oxford University 299
Press. 300
254 thus offers a critical perspective toward under-
Brenner, N. (2014). Implosions/explosions: Towards a 301
255 standing the spatializations-power nexus. As a study of planetary urbanization. Jovis. 302
256 theory bringing together German dialectics and Brenner, N., & Elden, S. (2009). Henri Lefebvre on state, 303

257 Franco-German phenomenology (Schmid, space, territory. International Political Sociology, 3(4), 304
305
258 2022), the Lefebvrean production of space tran-
Brenner, N., & Schmid, C. (2011). Planetary urbanization. 306
259 scends disciplinary boundaries. In M. Gandi (Ed.), Urban constellations. Jovis. 307
260 The theory has been always a very popular one Buckley, M., & Strauss, K. (2016). With, against and 308

261 in Ango-Francophone scholarship, especially in beyond Lefebvre: Planetary urbanization and epistemic 309
plurality. Environment and Planning D: Society and 310
262 the fields of geography and urban studies (Elden,
Space, 34(4), 617–636. 311
263 2001; Schmid, 2022); however, the recent trans- Elden, S. (2001). Politics, philosophy, geography: Henri 312
264 lations of the Production of Space into Spanish Lefebvre in recent Anglo-American scholarship. Anti- 313

265 (2013), Turkish (2014), Russian (2015), and Chi- pode, 33(5), 809–825. 314
Elden, S. (2004). Understanding Henri Lefebvre: Theory 315
266 nese (2021) indicate recent global interest in
and the possible. Continuum. 316
267 Lefebvrean theorizations on spatial issues, with Ghulyan, H. (2019). Lefebvre’s production of space in the 317
268 the potential to catalyze new generative interpre- context of Turkey: A comprehensive literature survey. 318

269 tations of the theory through confronting its con- SAGE Open, 9(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/ 319
2158244019870537 320
270 ceptual constructs in different contexts and lived
Goonewardena, K. (2018). Planetary urbanization and 321
271 realities. totality. Environment and Planning D: Society and 322
272 Some current trends in Lefebvrean theory indi- Space, 36(3), 456–473. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 323

273 cate future directions for inquiry where there are 0263775818761890 324
Kipfer, S. (2018). Pushing the limits of urban research: 325
274 fertile grounds for further debates and productive
Urbanization, pipelines and counter-colonial politics. 326
275 appropriations of the theory and its elements. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 327
276 These include: discussions around the issues of 3 6 ( 3 ) , 4 7 4 – 4 9 3 . h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 11 7 7 / 328

277 the right to the city; planetary and extended urban- 0263775818758328 329
Kipfer, S. (2022). Urban revolutions: Urbanisation and 330
278 ization; the relationship between the state, capital,
(neo-)colonialism in transatlantic context. Brill. 331
279 and space; the promise and insufficiencies of the Kipfer, S., Schmid, C., Goonewardena, K., & Milgrom, 332
280 original Lefebvrean notions; as well as the recent R. (2008). Globalizing Lefebvre? In K. Goonewardena 333

281 neo-Lefebvrean or Lefebvre-inspired approaches et al. (Eds.), Space, difference, everyday life: Reading 334
Henri Lefebvre. Routledge. 335
282 (Brenner, 2014; Brenner & Schmid, 2011; Buck-
Kipfer, S., Saberi, P., & Wieditz, T. (2013). Henri Lefebvre: 336
283 ley & Strauss, 2016; Goonewardena, 2018; Debates and controversies. Progress in Human Geog- 337
284 Kipfer, 2018). raphy, 37(1), 115–134. 338

285 There are also a growing number of new inter- Lefebvre, H. (1974). La Production de l’Espace. Éditions 339
Anthropos. 340
286 pretations of the theory from different contexts
287 across the Global North and South, in addition to
 Production of Space 5

341 Lefebvre, H. (1991). The production of space Shields, R. (2013). Spatial questions: Cultural topologies 352
342 (D. Nicholson-Smith, trans.). Blackwell. and social spatialisations. Sage. 353
343 Merrifield, A. (2013). Henri Lefebvre: A critical introduc- Soja, E. (1980). The socio-spatial dialectic. Annals of the 354
344 tion. Routledge. Association of American Geographers, 70(2), 355
345 Schmid C. (2022). Henri Lefebvre and the theory of the 207–225. 356
346 production of space (Z. Murphy King, trans.). Verso. Soja, E. (1989). Postmodern geographies: The reassertion 357
347 Schwarze, T. (2023). Space, urban politics, and everyday of space in critical social theory. Verso. 358
348 life: Henri Lefebvre and the US City. Palgrave Stanek, L. (2011). Henri Lefebvre on space: Architecture, 359
349 Macmillan. urban research, and the production of theory. Univer- 360
350 Shields, R. (2005). Lefebvre, love, and struggle: Spatial sity of Minnesota Press. 361
351 dialectics. Routledge.

View publication stats