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: