These three neglected aspects could contribute to a better understanding of Lefebvre’s work and a fuller appreciation of his essential and revolutionary theory of social production of space, which points to ”paradigmatic changes in the sociological conception of space and time.” The starting point is that ”(social) space is a (social) product,” whose understanding requires the rejection of the widespread knowledge of space which is conceived as an independent material reality that exists ”in itself.” In this regard, using the concept of space production, Lefebvre opposes a theory that understands space that is essentially related to social reality. It follows that this space can never serve as an epistemological starting point because space does not exist ”in itself” but is produced. In explaining this process, Lefebvre starts from the relational concept between space and time, in which, according to Schmid (2008: 29), ”space exists as simultaneity, asynchronous order of social reality; time, on the other hand, signifies a diachronic order, and thus a historical process of social production.” Society here does not denote either the spatial-temporal whole of ”bodies” or ”matter” or the sum of actions and practices. Central to Lefebvre’s materialist theory are ”human beings with their corporeality and sensuality, sensitivity and imagination, their thinking and their ideologies; human beings who enter into interpersonal relationships through their activity and practice.” Based on these assumptions, Lefebvre constructs his theory of the production of social space and social time, where space and time are not purely material factors that are understood as integral aspects of social practice. Lefebvre sees them as a social product, the result and precondition to produce society. Accordingly, space and time do not exist as universal categories but can only be understood in the context of a particular society (since they are socially produced). It follows from this that space and time ”are not only relational but also essentially historical categories,” whose analysis requires the inclusion of the social constellation, i.e., power relations and relevant conflicts in every situation.” Now is an excellent time to analyze the way of producing (social) space.
Diagram 1: Production of space according to (Source: Lefebvre, 1991).
According to Schmidt (2008: 30), the key to understanding Lefebvre’s theory lies dividing space production into three dialectically interconnected dimensions or processes, which Lefebvre calls the formants or moments of space production. They are doubly defined and accordingly double marked. On the one hand, they refer to the triad of ”spatial practices,” ”representations of space,” and ”spatial representations.” On the other hand, they refer to ”perceived,” ”imagined,” and ”experienced” space. This parallel sequence indicates a twofold approach to space: phenomenological, and the other is linguistic or semiotic. In Lefebvre’s work, these three dimensions ”exist in a state of uncertainty, where he first introduces them as approximations, and then explores their scope of validity and modifies them.” The meaning of these three dimensions becomes clear only in the overall context of the theory. It can be reconstructed only based on the entire Lefebvre work, which a diagram can conditionally represent: