i on thomas paine reviews: origins of crisis in ussr - Common Sense

Triul by Space: Reflections on Lefehvre Puge 23
concepts can be carried to a higher level and would benefit by taking full account of space,
it is also argued here that Lefebvre's approach does appear to displace the central core of
Marx's theory and that, contrq to Lefebvre. Marx's exposition still holds.
Finally, Lefebvre rejects Mm's (and Hegel's) method as this "was based on an analysis of
historical time" (1991 p331) but today the problematic is that of space. 'To recognise
space, to recognise what 'takes place' there and what it is used for, is to resume the
dialectic", but "it is no longer Marx's dialectic, just as Marx's was no longer
Hegel's .... The dialectic today no longer clings to historicity and historical time." (1976 pp
17, 14) In other words, while the Hegelian dialectic displaced historical time in favour of
the fetishisation of space in the service of the state, Mm's "inversion" of this dialectic,
according to Lefebvre, not only marked a denial of idealism but also a rejection of space in
favour of a "vigorous reinstatement of historical time as revolutionary time." (1991 p21)
For Lefebvre the Marxian dialectic offers a limited perspective because "there are spatial
contradictions which imply and explain contradictions in historical time, though without
being reducible to them." (ibid.) The old dialectic is therefore no longer appropriate for
grasping modem society and must liberate itself from time. 'The dialectic thus emerges
from time and actualises itself, operating now, in an unforeseen manner, in space." (1991
p 128) This aspect of Lefebvre's work will be returned to below, but it is argued here that
the dialectic never went away and that Marx's was not a dialectic of time, but of the
presence of labour in capital. The result of Lefebvre's particular reading of Marx is that
Marx is sentenced to historical time and Lefebvre to wander in space. Therefore, while
Lefebvre provides many stimulating and thought provoking insights, it is never quite clear
what his theory of space is nor how or why his history of space changes from one form to
another.
On the production of space
Having found Marxism wanting, Lefebvre turns to develop his theory of space. This
theory, the production of space, is important to Lefebvre as it directly addresses both the
basis and functioning of social reality and therefore answers a fundamental, yet neglected
question within social theory: "what is the mode of existence of social relations?" (1991
p401) Lefebvre's answer is that "social relations, which are concrete abstractions, have no
real existence save in and through space. Their underpinning is spatial. In each
particular case, the connection between this underpinning and the relations it supports calls
for analysis." (1991 p404) This emphasis on space by Lefebvre, however, tends to
introduce a dualism which haunts his exposition: social relations appear to be aspatial and
are somehow connected to an asocial space as underpinning! According to Lefebvre, the
analysis involved must imply and explain a genesis and also constitute a critique of the
social forms (such as capitalism or feudalism) that have transformed the space under
consideration. This emphasis on genesis and critique is important as it means that the
knowledge sought is not directed at space itself, nor does it construct models, typologies
or prototypes of space; rather, it offers "an exposition of the production of space" in which
the critical moment - ie. a critique of established knowledge - is the essential thing. (ibid.)
"Knowledge of space so understood implies the critique of space." (1991 p 405)
Lefebvre starts by rejecting the dominant philosophical and scientific "conceptions" of
space in order to develop a "critical knowledge" of space, one which overcomes the
separation of concept and reality and which is therefore based on the concept and reality of