Diagram 2: Lefebvre’s theoretical concept that allows an understanding
of the concept of relational space
The previous diagram provides a pictorial presentation of Lefebvre’s
theoretical concept. His understanding of the concept of relational
space can be understood, which includes a solid philosophical and
socio-theoretical framework, which creates a three-dimensional figure of
social reality. At the end of this introductory discussion, it is
essential to mention Prigge’s position (2008: 49) on Lefebvre’s thesis
on the dominance of space over time, which is associated with the
current phase of capitalist specialization. It is characterized by a
”totalizing tendency of urbanization” that must cause an epistemological
shift. Still, it is no longer an industry focused on capital and labor,
classes and reproduction, which make up the episteme, but urban and its
forms concentrate on everyday life and consumption, planning and
spectacle” that reveal the tendencies of social development in the
second half of the twentieth century.
Urban is, therefore, pure form; a place of meeting, gathering,
simultaneity. This form has no specific content, but it is the center of
attraction for life. It is an abstraction, but unlike the metaphysical
entity, it is an urban concrete abstraction, connected with the
practice. . . What creates a city? Nothing. Centralizes creation. Still,
it makes everything. Nothing exists without exchange, without
unification, without closeness, that is, without relationships. The city
creates a situation in which different things occur one after the other
and do not exist separately, but according to their differences. Urban,
which is indifferent to any diversity it contains . . . it just connects
them. In that sense, the city constructs identify and liberate the
essence of social relations. . . We can say that the urban rises above
the horizon, slowly occupy the epistemological field, and becomes the
episteme of an epoch. History and history continue to move away
(Lefebvre, 2003: 118-119).
2.2 The Triad Dialectic
According to Schmid (2008: 30-32), the starting point for understanding
Lefebvre’s work is related to dialectical thinking, which means
recognizing that social reality is marked by contradictions and can only
be understood through understanding these contradictions. The deeper
meaning of this debate arises with Hegel (das Aufheben des
Widerspruchs ) because according to him, Aufheben (sublation or
transcendence) has a double meaning. On the one hand, ”it is negation
and overcoming, and on the other, preserving and putting on a higher
level,” and that is why it ”does not mean finding a higher, so to speak,
final truth.” The contradiction strives for its resolution because the
resolution not only denies the old denial but, at the same time,
preserves it and brings it to a higher level. Thus, dismissal carries
within it the germ of a new contradiction. This understanding of
dialectics is characterized by a profound historical and dynamic
interpretation of development and history, and Lefebvre notes: ”movement
is, therefore, transcendence.” This could be read the other way around:
”transcendence (sublation) means (historical) movement.” Therefore,
according to Schmidt, these passages clearly show that Lefebvre’s
dialectic has excellent and different sources, which he connects with
the thinking of Hegel and Marx, and Nietzsche.
During his long creative endeavor, Lefebvre developed a very radical
critique of Nietzsche-oriented philosophy, articulating at the same time
a new triadic dialectic. Schmidt (2008: 33-34) notes that the most
crucial realization and application of this recent debate find its
expression in the ”Production of Space,” in which Lefebvre develops a
three-dimensional figure (three-dimensional dialectic) of social
reality.
In this way, the three-dimensional dialectical appears in a figure in
which three moments are dialectically interconnected: material, social
practice (Marx), language and thought (Hegel), and a creative, poetic
act (Nietzsche). Crucial is that with this three-dimensional figure, the
nature of dialectics has fundamentally changed. While Hegelian (and
Marxist) dialectics are based on two concepts opposed to each other and
sublimated through the third term, Lefebvre’s triad dialectic sets three
ideas. Each can be understood as a thesis, and each concerns the other
two, thus becoming a mere abstraction without the others. This triad
figure does not end in synthesis as in the Hegelian system. Instead, it
connects three moments that have remained different without reconciling
in the synthesis. These are the three moments in interaction, conflict
with each other or an alliance. Thus, these three concepts or moments
gain equal importance, and each takes a similar position about the
others. In this way, a new, three-dimensional, or triadic version of
dialectics appears (Schmidt, 2008: 33).
Schmidt (2008: 34) states that according to Lefebvre, the Hegelian triad
”thesis-antithesis-synthesis” allegedly interpreted the process of
origin of his theory of space production because it constructed only a
play. In contrast, the challenging Marxist triad
”affirmation-negation-negation-negation,” produced the process of
becoming. In comparison, Lefebvre advances his dialectics, ”triadic” or
”ternary,” through three-valued analysis. He establishes three moments
of equal value that ”relate to each other in different relations and
complex movements in which now one, now the other prevails the negation
of one or the other.” Lefebvre’s claim is no longer an interpretation of
becoming, not even the production of becoming, but an analysis of
becoming. Thus, the triad ”form-structure-function” appears several
times in different parts of his work, including the theory of language
(paradigmatic, syntactic, and symbolic dimension). In contrast, the
triad rhythmic analysis (melody-harmony-rhythm), according to Elden
(2004: 195), Lefebvre, by his admission, took over from Bachelard. In
the end, the fundamental triad unity is realized in the concept of
space-time (space-time-energy).
2.3 Language and space
Lefebvre is the first application of this three-dimensional He achieved
this principle in his work ”Language and Society” (Le Langage et
la Société ). He developed his Nietzschean-oriented theory of language.
Schmidt (2008: 35) notes that this theory has a three-dimensional
construction and represents a ”preliminary phase in the theory of space
production, even if Lefebvre does not explicitly point to it.” The
starting point of Lefebvre’s theory of language is Nietzsche’s poetics,
based on which he ”understands society as the space and architecture of
concepts, forms, and rules whose abstract truth prevails over the
reality of senses, bodies, desires, and passions.” Starting from such
considerations, Lefebvre develops a theory of the three-dimensionality
of language, adding a new, symbolic dimension and the syntactic and
paradigmatic dimensions. ”He admits that the concept of symbols is
confusing here, as they can be attributed different meanings.”
On the one hand, they are formalized mathematical signs, and on the
other hand, they are ”charged with images, emotions, affectivity, and
connotations.” Lefebvre aims precisely at this second meaning of the
symbol, which makes it ”substantiality, ambiguity, and complexity that
is an integral part of lived and living language.” The application of
this scheme in space now seems obvious, so Lefebvre again takes it for
granted that activities in space establish a system that corresponds to
a method of words up to a certain level. From this perspective, the
three-dimensional analysis of space production looks like this:
• Spatial practice: this concept signifies the material dimension of
social activity and interaction. Spatial classification means focusing
on the aspect of simultaneous action. Spatial practice, by analogy with
the syntactic extent of language, means a system resulting from the
articulation and connection of elements or activities. One can think of
networks of interactions and communications, which arise in everyday
life (e.g., residence and jobs) or in the process of production
(production and exchange relations).
• Representation of space: representations of space create an image and
thus also define space. Analogous to the paradigmatic dimension of
language, one spatial representation can be replaced by another, which
shows certain similarities but respects differences with others.
Representations of space are created at the level of discourse, speech
as such, and therefore include verbalized forms. Descriptions,
definitions, and especially (scientific) theories of space. Moreover,
Lefebvre contains maps and plans, information in pictures, and signs in
the representations of space. These performances are architecture,
spatial planning, and social sciences (critical geography).
• Spaces of representation: Lefebvre defined this third dimension of
space production as a (terminological) inversion of the representation
of space. This concerns the symbolic dimension of space. Therefore, the
spaces of representation do not refer to the spaces themselves but
something else: divine power, logos, state, the male or female
principle, and so on. This dimension of space production refers to the
process of marking that is associated with the (material) symbol.
Symbols of space could be taken from nature, such as trees or prominent
topographic formations; or they could be artifacts, buildings, and
monuments; they can also develop from a combination of both, for
example, as ”landscapes” (Schmidt, 2008: 36-37).
According to this scheme, (social) space can be analyzed about these
three dimensions. In the first, social space appears in the dimension of
spatial practice as an interconnected chain or network of activities or
interactions that rest on a specific material basis (morphology, built
environment). In the second, this spatial practice can be linguistically
defined and demarcated as space and form a representation of space. This
representation serves as an organization of schemes or a reference
framework for communication, allowing (spatial) orientation and thus
co-determines activity. Finally, in the third, the material ”order” that
appears on the ground can itself become a vehicle that conveys meaning.
In this way, (spatial) symbolism developed that expresses and evokes
social norms, values, and experiences.
2.4 French phenomenology
The third and critical segment of the neglected aspect of understanding
Lefebvre’s theory of space production refers to the contribution of
French phenomenologists Merleau-Ponty and Bachelard and reference
phenomenological terms: observed, imagined, and experienced. Since
perception is the central concept of phenomenology, does it explore how
the subject perceives an image, a landscape, or a monument? The
perception depends on the issue because we do not see our landscape the
same way as tourists who visit it for the first time. Based on this,
Lefebvre combines perception with the concept of spatial practice to
show that perception takes place mentally and is also based on
concrete-produced materiality. At the same time, he found significant
support for his concept in descriptive phenomenology, i.e., capital
works of French phenomenologists. Maurice Merleau-Ponty is the author of
the book Phenomenology perceptions”, in which he developed a theory
based on fundamental concepts: space, time, and the lived world (monde
vécu). In it, he made an explicit distinction between the perceived and
the experienced world, based on which he distinguished between physical
space, constructed by perception, from geometric space, conceptually
understood, and lived space (Espace vécu) ”mythical space, dream space,
schizophrenia, and art.”
The importance of the influence of other philosophers on Lefebvre,
especially Heidegger, was highlighted by Elden (2004: 76-82), while
Schmidt (2008: 38) emphasized the importance of Bachelard and his major
work ”Poetics of Space.” This book significantly impacted M. Foucault
and represents a classic phenomenological analysis of living space
through imagination, based on poetic images of ”happy space.” These
paintings seek to define the human value of ”espaces de possession,” a
space ”defended from enemy forces, beloved or sublime space.” Concerning
its protective matter are also imaginary values, which will become
dominant. Therefore, ”the space occupied by the imagination cannot
remain an indifferent space that is subject to measurements and
assessments of surveyors.” Still, he points out the difference between
the ”real” (material) aspect of space and the ”experienced” aspect, and
both aspects can refer to the same space. Therefore, a comfortable space
”is not only imagined or lived but has original, real protective values,
which also correspond to spatial practice.”
The third aspect is the lived space, which appears in Bachelard’s work
and is explicitly separated from the imagined space. Schmidt (2008: 39)
connects it with the ”context of the aesthetic about the hidden,” which
metaphorically deals with closets and drawers. Bachelard (1969:
xxxiii-xxxiv) states that ”an empty drawer is unthinkable. One can only
think of her. And for those of us who must describe what we imagine
before we find out, what we dream before we check, all the closets are
full. ”Lefebvre’s next passage, conceived as a critique, reads as a
continuation: ”Empty space, in the sense of a mental and social void
that facilitates socialization, of the still non-social realm is in fact
only a representation of space.” Thus, the final (reference) point of
the theory of space production is revealed by French phenomenology.
3. ECONOMIC-GEOGRAPHICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF RELATIVE SPACE
This aspect of Lefebvre’s work should be related to the stage of
development of capitalism in which he created. This is the period called
”30 glorious years” in France, and it refers to the post-war
economically accelerated growth, which enabled a significant increase in
the living standard of citizens.
3.1 Characteristics of the mixed economy in France
Essential assumptions of this development relate to the emergence and
development of a mixed economy associated with the free market.
Mutabdžija (2021: 92) states that it was, in part, managed by the
government, with the majority in the ownership structure being private
companies. The state has influenced the field of public service delivery
(health, education, i) and business regulation to prevent the emergence
of monopolies. She also reported the application of progressive taxes
and benefits based on wealth to reduce inequalities. In the domain of
prices, determined by market forces or the ”invisible hand,” the
government could regulate some goods through higher taxation (e.g.,
cigarettes and alcohol) to discourage their use. As a new economic
system, the mixed economy began to develop in the capitalist states of
Europe (West) after 1945. It was not a complete novelty but a series of
previously known elements that only received a new framework. According
to Berend (2009: 219), the essential component of the mixed economy
system was state interventionism, which was taken from the design of
regulated markets but supplemented by elements of ”countercyclical
measures, subsidies, foreign trade, and monetary regulation.” This led
to the establishment of a robust public sector in the economy, developed
by planning measures, best illustrated by the French experience of
indicative planning, which was based on the plans of the Planning
Commission and used various incentives to encourage public and private
actors to behave optimally.
Another essential feature of this system is the mixed ownership
structure, in which companies mainly were privately owned. Still, even
partial state ownership was not uncommon, as the idea of conducting
was to complement and improve market efficiency through indirect
planning. In this way, a departure was made from the old concept of
dirigisme, so France remained a capitalist economy focused on capital
accumulation, with companies maximizing profits and market distribution
of productive goods. Therefore, we can talk about the corporate
environment, which was inherited from the economies of Italy and Spain
and proved to be successful in conditions of non-market competition in
the pre-war Soviet Union.
Finally, the most crucial element concerns integrating elements of state
interventionism in the free trade system because it avoided the
emergence of an economy of self-sufficiency, which existed in the
interwar period through state regulation, protectionism, and state-owned
companies. Through free trade, an integrated market has been
established, as a precondition for the emergence of a common market,
first the EEC and then the EU. Blaas and Foster (1992: 2) emphasize that
this corporate system functioned in democratic conditions (without
authoritarian dictatorship) based on planned cooperation of independent
partners, unions, and employers, and equalization of wages and profits
by the state (fiscal policy) resulted in increased investment and
economic growth. For them, the state was not an external entity but ”an
integrative stabilizing factor, part of a productive, self-correcting
market economy.”
3.2 Commodification of knowledge
Some proponents of critical theory (Frankfurt School) noticed
immediately after the war changes in the previous way of producing
knowledge, which began to be treated as a commodity. Kipfer et al.
(2008: 4) suggest that Adorno pointed to such a prevalence of the
commodity form, which is why he complained about ”how practically
disarming, but hierarchically arranged procedures” encourage in
intellectual work the servile ”departmentalization of the mind” which
was ready to be used in all situations. This ”departmentalization” was
realized in the conditions of administered mass production, which was
partially replaced by even more intensive forms of instrumentalization
and commodification. As post-Fordist conditions were dominant in the
academic community, changing needs for creative and innovative
production emerged. This is indicated by the analogy between industrial
practice and knowledge production in the academic community, which has
increasingly taken on the character of goods through pronounced
commodification processes and knowledge quantification. According to
Castree and Macmillan (2004: 470), this pressure for ”continuous
intellectual innovation is symptomatic of academic capitalism.” It is
associated with Walter Benjamin’s (1999: 62-82) capital work on fashion.
He creates an ”entrepreneurial” an entrepreneurial scholarship that
brings time-space fashion closer and where the commodity fetish is
established through the worship of the marginally new but structurally
repetitive. ”
After this review of contemporary deviations in the domain of
epistemology, it is interesting to make an insight into the different
interpretations of Lefebvre’s work, primarily its ideological dimension.
Namely, in addition to numerous philosophers and social theorists who
have described this trend, geographers, spatial planners, and architects
have recognized it, for whom the interpretation of Lefebvre’s triad on
social space and its insistence on the ”political” nature of space is
now acceptable critical theory in geography, spatial planning, or
architecture. That is why it is unusual that Lefebvre’s work is more
prevalent in the USA than in France, as well as that the interest in his
work in Europe has a changing temporal character. For Kiefer et al.
(2008: 5), his popularity, especially in the New World, was part of the
prestige enjoyed by ”French theory” in English-speaking academic circles
and its transnational branches. The reason lies in the fact that he
represented a kind of antithesis to structuralists and
poststructuralists, who provided an excellent theoretical basis for
creating new policies. In the USA, it referred to cultural policies in
the conditions of neoliberal thinking, and in France to the fight
against ”totalitarianism (read: Marxism and the New Left) to turn France
into a bastion of neoliberalism.”
On the other hand, Cusset, the author of the French theory of the same
name, sublimates the influence of this group of French
poststructuralists on American public life and the formation of identity
policies through the power of Marxism on late capitalism, mentions
Lefebvre in three places. This influence of French theory on public life
in the United States, Cusset (2015: 211) describes as a twofold process
in which, on the one hand, strengthens nationalism and political
propaganda (America is back), and on the other, affects the
disintegration of socio-cultural fabric of the national identity
micro-groups. At the same time, intensive privatization and deregulation
took place in the background, which increased the impact of financial
capital on the economy.
4. ECONOMIC SPACE
An economic interpretation of space has emerged from previous
interdisciplinary discussions on the importance of social sciences for
regional development. This is most visible in the field of the regional
economy. After 60 years of its existence, it combines many approaches,
theories, and models based on which it interprets the choice of
locations and regional development paths. It possesses increasing
interpretive power, which characterizes different theoretical approaches
based on how space is built into these theoretical models. As economic
activity arises, grows, and develops in space, the understanding of
space has its evolution, which indicates its conceptualization and thus
different interpretations of growth and development. According to the
definition and classification of various aspects of spatial reality,
today we can recognize three approaches in using the term space in the
regional economy, with the name of Henri Lefebvre, mostly not mentioned,
and more about the lack of theoretical knowledge of the author. Space
or, on the other hand, about their ideological exclusivity. Whatever the
real reason, we cite three recent reference authors and their work on
the importance of space in the regional economy.
4.1 Capello: Variable relational space
Although she does not mention Lefebvre, Roberta Capello (2009; 2016) has
written a significant study on different types of economic space. She
notes that the earliest regional development theories were theories of
growth that sought to explain trends in income and employment during
periods of varying duration. The reason for this is that space affects
the functioning of the economic system because it is a source of
economic advantages (or disadvantages), such as factors of production.
Therefore, it assigns a particular group of theories, concepts, and
models to each of the four types of space (physical-metric,
uniform-abstract, diverse-relational, and diverse-stylized space),
ideas, and models, which were used in regional economic research. The
first group of these theories refers to location theories based on ”a
purely geographical concept of continuous, physical-metric space, which
can be determined in terms of physical distance and transport costs.”
From this concept of space arise the laws of variation of prices and
costs, as well as their consequences in terms of ”choice of location and
division of the market among firms.” This was the concept of space used
by great economists and geographers of the first half of the twentieth
century. Location theory sought to explain the distribution of
activities in space to identify factors influencing ”the location of
certain activities, the allocation of different parts of the territory
between different types of production.” division of the spatial market
among producers, and functional distribution of activities in space.”
Location models differ according to hypotheses about the spatial
structure of supply and demand, which reflect the goals that models
strive for. Accordingly, Capello (2016: 3) singles out three variants of
these models: identification of market areas, location of production
areas, and analysis of economic and spatial mechanisms. Regulate
territorial agglomerations’ size, functional specialization, and
territorial distribution.
The second concept of space is characteristic of the first theories of
regional growth, which were developed in the middle of the last century.
Economists abandoned the concept of physical-metric space used in
location theories. They replaced it with the notion of uniform-abstract
space, in which supply and demand conditions are identical throughout
the region. Geographical space is divided into ”regions,” i.e., a
limited physical-geographical size that essentially corresponds to
administrative units. Therefore, it is considered that the space has
become internally uniform and thus ”synthesized into a vector of
aggregate characteristics of socio-economic-demographic nature.” This is
the case with neoclassical theories of regional growth, which
deliberately ignore any economic diversity within the region with this
definition of space. They assume that the territory is unique, that
production processes do not have cumulative and synergistic effects, and
that there is no agglomeration economy, which plays a significant role
in location theories. This definition of space enables the
interpretation of the local growth phenomenon using macroeconomic models
adapted to the specifics of the local area. Capello (2009: 37) explains
the advantage of this uniform-abstract space, in which economic
variables assume the same values in the whole region (conceived as a
point in space), with the possibility of ”stylizing the economic
behavior of the region in aggregate macroeconomic models and theories.”
Therefore, the analyst can predict the development of the economy based
on the interactions between certain variables (e.g., the propensity to
import or consume or the ratio of capital to production). These settings
are essential for regional growth theories that tend to interpret ”the
trend of synthetic development indicators, such as income, with the
inevitable loss of qualitative information, but with the undoubted
advantage of analytical modeling of the development path.” This concept
of space was adopted by theories of neoclassical regional growth, export
base theories, and interregional trade theories, which developed from
various branches of the main directions of the economy during the 1950s
and 1960s, such as macroeconomics, neoclassical economics, development
economics, and economics of international trade.
The third interpretation of space refers to the diverse-relational
aspect of economic space. Unlike the previous performance, this approach
assumes the existence of marked polarity in geographic space and the
presence of specifics in relations between people, within society, and
the territory on which development is based. This conception of space
requires an analysis that enables the transition from a macroeconomic
and macro-territorial approach to a micro-territorial and
micro-behavioral one. Theories based on this conception of space can be
defined as development theories that do not seek to explain the
cumulative growth rate of income or output but identify all elements,
tangible and intangible, exogenous or endogenous, that characterize the
development process. This concept of space has been adopted, e.g., in
the theory of growth poles, while analyzing the role of multinational
companies in local development and studies on the spread of innovation
in space, seeking to identify (exogenous) causes of territorial
polarities on which growth depends. Great emphasis is placed on the role
of local relations in development, which explains why these theories
view space as ”relational” and diverse. That is why Capello (2009: 39)
emphasizes that this interpretation of space is most strongly expressed
by theories about ”industrial districts, milieu or learning regions”
because they look for endogenous determinants of development.
Space thus becomes an independent economic resource and factor of
production. It creates static and dynamic advantages for the companies
located in it, and this crucially determines the competitiveness of the
local production system. Since theories of endogenous development mainly
deal with external relations, localization, and economies of the region,
it can be said that they represent the core of the regional economy, a
discipline in which theories of location and development intertwine and
merge. These theories allow abandoning the notion of competitive
development, which resulted from the simple regional distribution of
aggregate growth rates, and instead adopted the idea of generative
development. The national growth rate represents the sum of growth rates
of individual regions (Capello, 2016: 7).
Finally, the fourth group is the latest theories, based on the concept
of diverse-stylized space, which is specific in that they encompass the
polarities that create development. These polarities do not have a
territorial dimension because they are stylized in simple points in
space. This concept has been adopted by theories of new economic
geography and views of endogenous growth, which allows them to construct
an elegant economic model that includes synergy and cumulative feedback
processes that emerge in space. Introducing the advantages of
agglomeration in a stylized form, through increasing yields, nullifies
the territorial dimension. Thus, these theories renounce the aspect of
the most significant importance for regional economists, which starts
from the fact that ”space, territorially defined as a system of
localized technological externalities, or as a set of tangible and
intangible factors, due to proximity and reduced transaction costs,
affect productivity. And enterprise innovation”.
4.2 Knoblauch - Löw: Space definition
The authors of this sociological theory of space quoted Lefebvre widely
in the introduction, who they say played a ”fundamental role in
reconstructing space, essential for understanding capitalism and
society.” They also note that thanks to him, we began to ”attend what
was called a spatial turn,” which they call a topographic or topological
turn. In this way, space has ceased to be seen as a social environment
marked by limited territories and defined by the code ”here and there.”
Still, it becomes a relational category based on social interaction and
interdependence. Although there is a lack of space research within the
framework of social theory, it has become evident that society, i.e.,
the spatial organization of sociability, has transformed rapidly over
the last decades. Due to the lack of an adequate conceptual framework
for this, Knoblauch and Löw (2017: 2) believe that our understanding of
these changes is unclear and compare it with existing incomplete
theories, such as Deleuze’s and Guattari’s (1988) concept of nodes); Mol
and Lou’s (1994) idea of fluid spaces; Castells’ (1996) idea of a
network society or Appadurai’s (1996) notion of landscape (scrapes).
They complement this view by saying that despite numerous publications
on space and society over the past twenty years, ”many critics complain
about the lack of continuation, elaboration, and specification of
spatial theory of sociality, which is considered insufficiently
theorized.” In doing so, they cite the assessments of relevant
authorities (Massey, 2005; Hubbard and Kichin 2011; Shields, 2013) who
believe that many studies refer to the notion of relational space only
rhetorically but do not theoretically substantiate it. Therefore, they
refer to Lefebvre, who explicitly confirmed that ”space” and
”spatiality” contribute to the constitution of the social order.
To achieve this, they predominantly referred to Schutz’s (1962) ideas of
reciprocity, Elias’s (1976) spatial figuration of society, as well as
Giddens’ (1991) theory of p. structures. This theoretical framework
provided them with an explanation of the spatial transformation of
modern society, which they called refrigeration, which for them
represents a ”preliminary general hypothesis that helps us understand
what we perceive as a fundamental change in our understanding of space.”
The elaboration of this hypothesis takes place through three processes,
the first of which is mediatization, which is the driving force of space
redefinition through digitalization. A new method of spatial development
is trans localization, which means that social units (families or
religious communities) have ”different locations that are connected by
the circulation of knowledge, ideas, and things.” The third process is
polycontexturalization, which views changing relationships within space
as ”contexts of different social activities, forms of communication and
social functions.” It follows that re-figuration ”does not only deal
with general social changes but requires continued thinking about what
is meant by space and how we can imagine the sociability of space,”
which was inspiring in the spatial turn towards a relational
understanding of space. This implies the existence of two parallel
processes, the first of which refers to the placement of objects in
certain places (with space), and the second refers to the conceptual
synthesis and design of the relational meaning of space in that space.
To connect these processes, Knoblauch and Lev (2017: 4) borrow the
geophysical term assemblage from Deleuze and Guattari, which implies the
connection of its axes with different assemblies. The horizontal axis
deals with ”machine body assemblies, actions and passions” and
”collective assembly of pronunciations, deeds, and statements of
infertile parts of body transformations.” In contrast, the vertical axis
has ”territorial or reterritorialize sides that stabilize it and cutting
edges of deterritorialization that carry it.” In this way, the authors
present space as a relational set of social goods and living beings in
specific places. They conclude figuration as an active practice and the
achieved synthesis.
Spaces are, therefore, always structured dynamically. This ongoing
process is a dynamic and situational developmental order, created based
on rules inscribed in material and physical resources structures, which
are used to stabilize space. The sensual modality of subjective
perception, the type of physical performance and materiality, and the
form of spatial objectification can vary greatly; moreover, subjects can
remember experiences, reproduce them as knowledge, and interpret them as
imagination; on the other hand, objectification arranged in space can
affect issues in different sensual ways, create an atmosphere and gain
meaning in such a way that they become part of assembled rows of signs
(such as maps), technology (such as CAD) or objects, such as which is
like built architecture (Knoblauch and Lev, 2017: 4).
To answer the importance of this new concept of space for the regional
economy, it is necessary to emphasize the importance of change in the
process of globalization, which has taken a new form. The authors
emphasize that this shift was caused by the new media, increased
transnational cooperation in the political and economic spheres, and the
new political map of Europe in 1991 (the fall of the Berlin Wall). This
event marked the end of the ”short” twentieth century. Social processes
had a dynamic and changing character because, after the 1970s, the
spatial reorganization of the social order included ”increasing
dominance of capitalist economies, neoliberalism and consequently
declining social welfare.” The recognizability of this refinement is
most visible in the domain of ”economic changes and development of
communicative capitalism, mass deindustrialization of the West, transfer
of advanced technologies to other parts of the world and reduction of
industrial labor due to replacement by automated, digitalized and
increasingly robotic production agents.” This means that ”the principle
of centrality, hierarchical order, and territoriality have given way to
trans local labor organizations, network structure, and
decentralization, which is especially expressed in the growing dominance
of multinational companies, increasing international interactions and
networking of production chains.” These new configurations can no longer
be understood in terms of ”spatially nested hierarchies” but must be
understood as ”networks that overlap with spatial dimensions while
concentrating organizational principles in enterprises.”
4.3 Suwala: spatial concepts in the regional economy
Lech Suwala (Suwala, 2021) does not mention Lefebvre. Still, based on
the concept of spatial refinement (Knoblauch and Lev, 2017), he creates
comparative research on space from the perspective of economic geography
and regional economy. Through the definition of space, he offers an
”abstract framework capable of understanding spatial relations of any
order” and, through various scales, discusses the use of four different
concepts of space (absolute, relative us, relational and thematic).
The concept of absolute space (an allusion to the physical container)
relies on the earliest ancient (Ptolemy) and modern ideas about space
(Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, and Descartes). It is a space that
reflects the external boundary of research objects into which particular
things from the physical-material world can be inserted. This concept of
space is widely used in everyday understanding and abstract
visualization of space in purely mathematical or idealized economic
models, economic geography, and regional economy. Suwala (2021: 4) notes
that the traditional understanding of this concept of space is based on
the early ideas of German economic geographers from the first half of
the twentieth century on economic space (Wirtschaftsraum), economic
landscape (Wirtschaftslandschaft), and economic formation
(Wirtschaftsformation). This concept implies three sub conceptions, the
first of which is the abstract visualization of space in pure
mathematical or idealized economic models in political economy and
regional economy, Suwala (2014, 2021) mentions ”Isolated State” (Von
Thünen, 1826) and ”Pure Location Theory.” (Weber, 1909), which were
expressions of ”abstract” spaces in pure and universal theories. This
has also been achieved in the regional economy, especially in Keynesian
and neoclassical approaches of regional growth. The second
sub-conception is uniform-abstract space. Supply (e.g., sectoral and
production structure) and demand conditions (e.g., consumer preferences)
are identical within a particular spatial entity, neglecting economic
diversity. The third sub-conception refers to diverse-stylized space,
which has been applied in endogenous growth models (Romer, 1986; Lukas,
1988) and new economic geography (Krugman, 1991; Fujita et al., 1999)
and refers to constant yield hypotheses. Or perfect competition within a
particular spatial entity. This model considers that (regional)
endogenous growth is generated by the abstract economy of the
agglomeration, stylized in the form of growing yields ”and can be
presented as spatial and scalar entities such as regions providing a
diverse framework/container.
Relative space is a concept in which space is identified with economic
location, which can be explained by supplementing Harvey’s (1973: 13)
definition according to which it is ”the relationship between objects
that exist only because objects exist and relate to each other” and
which is conceivable as a ”system of relative position (Lagebeziehungen)
and location (Standorte) of material objects from a certain perspective,
based on the problem” Suwala (2014: 121). Therefore, it is considered
that there are ”multiple geometries to choose from, and the spatial
framework critically depends on what and who relativizes” (Harvey, 2006:
122). Objects are no longer limited to the absolute space of the
Euclidean coordinate system. Still, depending on the purpose of the
research, they can be interpreted as locations on maps with different
reference scales because of relative positions. Suwala (2021: 8)
emphasizes that these ideas are reflected in a series of classical
models for individual location decisions made by respective companies
(Hoteling, 1929; Launhardt, 1882; Weber, 1909) or entire location
systems (Christaller, 1933; Isard, 1956; Lösch, 1940).
Relational space has the character of space as a social place. In
economic geography, Suwala (2021: 10) states that it serves ”as a
gateway between various other disciplines and based on which many
theories and methods were adopted, mostly from cultural sciences,
sociology and psychology, which makes it almost a public place
(Gemischtwarenladen) and probably the most influential concept. ”To
prove this, Suwala widely cited Harvey (1973), Capello (2012), etc. and
stated that some authors use the concepts of ”relational space” and
”relative space” as synonyms. Relational space means space as a social
place or network of relationships because it recognizes the ”difference
between here and there and this is what allows people to assess what is
near and far.” According to Suwala (2014, 2021), this concept stemmed
from the ”continuous maintenance of a relational network between active
agents who assign meaning to relationships,” emphasizing that the
notions of ”place, connections or relationships” categories by which he
understands relational space. Therefore, he emphasizes that relational
space ”arises only as a social place through the formation and constant
maintenance of a relational network between subjects and that over time
the relations of external actors internalize them and thus become
subjects of study.” The interactions between these actors (as active
subjects) thus constitute the space and at the same time enable the
actors to reach they give meaning to spaces as social places. Since
relational space is conceived as a form of different types of economic
proximity, it indicates the possibility of building efficient and
practical structures, either proximity or distance, that govern social
places constituted by economic forces.
Finally, the fourth concept is thematic spaces, in which space is
presented as a cultural landscape and whose constitution, according to
Suwala (2021: 13), was mainly contributed by Japanese scientists.
Namely, the philosopher Nishida (1999) developed a different conception
of space, which was then applied in management studies (Nonaka, 1991;
Nonaka & Konno, 1998), and then came to life in economic geography.
This understanding of space concerns the fundamental characteristics of
the behavior of Japanese society and its predominant organization in
small groups, which make up ”protected spaces.” In these spaces,
individuals are indirectly connected through space through the
individual-space (individual) relationship, which is called ”thematic
relationships” or ”topocentric relationships” and which differ from
relational (individual-individual) or polycentric relationships.
Although like relational space, the spatial metaphor changes from a grid
to a ”field,” where the field is ”the result of the intersection of
topocentric networks and can be visualized as the area above the
umbrella.”
Thinking on the ground requires a reversal of the entire everyday vision
of the social world, an idea interested only in those things that are
visible […], just as Newton’s theory of gravity could develop only
after breaking with Cartesian realism, physical activities other than
direct contact, in the same way, the concept of the field presupposes a
break with the realistic notion, which reduces the milieu effect to the
effect of direct action that takes place in interaction (Suwala, 2021:
14, based on Bourdieu, 1982).
Suwala (2021: 14) emphasizes that this conception of space proves an
integration of different insights from psychology and cultural studies
on the regional economy and compares it with the issue of economic
agency, which was current in the 1980s. This connects with the ”cultural
turn” in economic geography and the multitude of new metaphors or
topological propositions that represent space: from Foucault’s ”limited
regions” (1966), Latour’s ”network” (1996), Deleuze’s ”flows” (1971);
Bohme’s ”dual localities,” which indicate a ”polycentric” economic
geography that emphasized the qualitative diversity of economic spaces.
This is part of economic research that has found its way within a sub
discipline called behavioral (economic) geography.
CONCLUSION
Relational space arose because Lefebvre researched social practices. A
theoretical work enabled the broad application of the new concept of
space (relational) in many social sciences and their further
disciplinary readings. This also happened in the regional economy, which
was looking for new ways to include the territorial dimension in
theories that could combine different concepts of space. Therefore,
other aspects of economic space and geographical size have a foothold in
the regional economy and a completely different meaning. They arise from
interpreting economic activities that occur and develop in space. Since
economic actors choose economic locations in the same way as they choose
their production factors and technologies. With the existing inequality
of production resources, an imbalance is created in their geographical
distribution.
From this, the fact of the crucial importance of space and its multiple
impacts on the functioning of the economic system, through sources of
economic advantages or disadvantages, and the benefits arising from the
cumulative nature of production processes in space. In this regard, the
geographical distribution of exogenous factors (raw materials, natural
advantages) has far less impact on development than factors from recent
history, which concern: human capital, socially fixed capital, land
fertility, and accessibility. It is evident that with the spatial turn
and the understanding that space is a social construct, a new
(postmodern) phase in the social sciences occurs, which can be explained
by dialectical thinking. During this phase, space takes over the
dominance of time, which is first recognized, as usual, in the domain of
economic change.
LITERATURE
Bachelard, G. (1969). The Poetics of Space, Boston, US: Beacon Press.
Berend, I, (2009). Ekonomska istorija Evrope. Beograd: Arhipelag.
Benjamin, W. (1999). The arcades project. Cambridge, US: The Belknap
Press.
Blaas, W. & Foster, J. (1992). Mixed Economies in Europe: An
Evolutionary Perspective on their Emergence, Transition, and Regulation.
Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd
Capello, R. (2016). Regional economics . London, UK & New York,
US: Routledge.
Capello, R. (2009). Space, growth, and development. In Capello, R. i
Nijkamp, P. (Eds.). Handbook of Regional Growth and Development
Theories (p. 33-52). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Castree, N. & MacMillan, T. (2004). Old News: Representation and
Academic Novelty, Environment and Planning A , Vol. 36, p. 470.
Kise, F. (2015). French Theory. Beograd: Karpos.
Dear, M. (2000). The Postmodern Urban Condition. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Elden, S. (2004). Understanding Henri Lefebvre: Theory and the Possible.
London, UK: Continuum.
Fuko, M. (2005). Druga mesta. U: P. Milenković i D. Marinković, Mišel
Fuko Hrestomatija (p. 29-36). Novi Sad: Vojvođanska sociološka
asocijacija.
Goonewardena, K. (2005). The Urban Sensorium: Space, Ideology and the
Aestheticization of Politics, Antipode , Vol. 37 (1), p. 46–71.
Gregory, D. et al. (2015). Power, Knowledge, and Space: A Geographical
Introduction. In: D. Gregory, P. Meusburger, and L. Suarsana (Eds.).Geographies of Knowledge and Power, Knowledge and Space (p.
1-15). Rotterdam, NL: Springer.
Harvey, D. (1973). Social Justice and the City . Baltimore, US:
Johns Hopkins University Press.
Harvey, D. (1989) The Urban Experience . Baltimore, US: Johns
Hopkins University Press.
Harvey, D. (1990). Between space and time: Reflections on the
geographical imaginations. Annals of the Associations of American
Geographers , Vol. 80 (3), p. 418-434.
Isard, W. (1956). Location and Space Economy: A General Theory
Relating to Industrial Location, Market Areas, Land Use, Trade, and
Urban Structure . Boston, MA: Technology Press of MIT.
Knoblauch, H., Löw, M. (2017). On the Spatial Re-Figuration of the
Social World, Sociologica , Vol. 2, pp. 1-27.
Kipfer, S. et al. (2008). On the production of Henri Lefebvre. In K.
Goonewardena, S. Kipfer, R. Milgrom, Ch. Schmid (Eds.) Space,
Difference, Everyday Life-Reading Henri Lefebvre (p. 1-24). New York,
US: Routledge.
Lefebvre, H. (1968). Pravo na grad. U: L. Kovačević, T. Medak, P. Milat,
M. Sančanin, T. Valentić, V. Vuković (Ur.) Operacija: Grad.
Priručnik za život u neoliberalnoj stvarnosti (p. 16-29). Zagreb: Savez
za centar za nezavisnu kulturu i mlade.
Lefebvre, H. (1991). The Production of Space . Oxford, UK: Basil
Blackwell.
Lefebvre, H. (2003). The Urban Revolution . Minneapolis, US:
University of Minnesota Press.
Marshall, A. (1920). Principles of Economics . London: Macmillan
and Co.
Mutabdzija, G. (2021а). European economic clubs: Spatial planning
aspects of development . Columbia, US: Amazon KDP.
Mutabdzija, G. (2021b). Foucault’s geography: Spatial turn and genealogy
of a wedding in Sarajevo, 5. Serbian congress of geographers , p.
278-284.
Mutabdzija, G. (2021c). Sociological theory in geography: phase of
empirical - analytical science. Geobalcanica 7, p. 575-592.
Mutabdžija, G. (2020). Geofilozofija premoderne . Pale: Filozofski
fakultet, UIS.
Nijkamp, P. i Reggiani, A. (1992). Interaction, Evolution and
Chaos in Space . Berlin: Springer- Verlag.
Peet, R. (1998). Modern geographical thought . Oxford, UK:
Blackwell Publishers.
Prigge, W. (2008). Space and representation: Reading the urban
revolution. In K. Goonewardena, S. Kipfer, R. Milgrom, Ch. Schmid (Eds.)Space, Difference, Everyday Life-Reading Henri Lefebvre (p.
46-61). New York, US: Routledge.
Продановић, С. и Крстић, П. (2012). Јавни простор и слободно делање:
Фуко вс. Лефевр. Социологија , Vol. LIV (3), p. 421-436.
Schmid, C. (2008). Henri Lefebvre’s Theory of the Production of Space:
Towards a three-dimensional dialectic. In K. Goonewardena, S. Kipfer, R.
Milgrom, Ch. Schmid (Eds.) Space, Difference, Everyday
Life-Reading Henri Lefebvre (p. 27-45). New York, US: Routledge.
Schilds, R. (2011). Henry Lefebvre. In: P. Hubbard & S. Kitchen (Eds.)Key Thinkers on Space and Place (p. 279-285). London, UK: SAGE.
Sodža, E. (1989). Postmoderne geografije: Reafirmacija prostora u
kritičkoj socijalnoj teoriji . Beograd: Centar za medije I komunikacije.
Suwala, L. (2021). Concepts of Space, Refiguration of Spaces, and
Comparative Research: Perspectives from Economic Geography and Regional
Economics. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung /Forum:
Qualitative Social Research, 22(3), p. 1-48.