Clark University

Review
Author(s): Erik Swyngedouw
Review by: Erik Swyngedouw
Source: Economic Geography, Vol. 68, No. 3 (Jul., 1992), pp. 317-319
Published by: Clark University
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/144191
Accessed: 17-02-2016 18:27 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Clark University and Wiley are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Economic Geography.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 145.94.147.201 on Wed, 17 Feb 2016 18:27:57 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BOOK REVIEWS

References
Barif,R. A. and Knight,P. L., III. 1988. The
role of federal military spending'in the
timing of the New England employment
turnaround.Papers of the Regional Science
Association 65:151-66.

Billings, R. B. 1970. Regional defense impact-A case study comparisonof measurement techniques.Journal of Regional Science 10:199-216.

Markusen,A.; Hall, P.; Deitrick, S.; and

Campbell,S. 1991. The rise of the gunbelt.
New York:OxfordUniversityPress.

Production of Space. By Henri

Lefebvre. Translated by D. NicholsonSmith. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1991.

The

It has taken 17 years for Henri Lefebvre's seminal work, The Production of
Space, to appear in English translation. I
am quite convinced that an earlier publication would have resulted in a rather
different history of critical theoretical
debate in geography. Lefebvre's work
holds a unique position in the intellectual
history of Marxism and in the way this
history became appropriated by geographers from the late 1960s onward. Relatively few geographers in the Anglo-Saxon
world have taken serious notice of his
work. But those who have, such as David
Harvey, Edward Soja, and Neil Smith,
have made major contributions to advancing spatial theory.
Lefebvre's work stands out in several
ways. First, his views depart significantly
from the "official" Marxist doctrine as
spelled out by the French Communist
Party (PCF) in the 1950s and 1960s, but
they are also highly critical of the
humanist Marxism of Sartre or Garaudy.
Second, his views also depart from both
Althusserian Marxism and from the "poststructuralist" thinkers such as Foucault,
Derrida, and Barthes. From the former,
he does accept the importance of "reproduction" (contrary to the productivism of
the PCF), and from the latter he accepts
the importance of discourse, text, and
"representation." But he puts these ele-

317

ments together in a unique way in The

Production of Space. Lefebvre's political
biography is also quite distinct. Starting
off as a member of the PCF, he left the
party, became one of the theorists and
activists of the Situationist movement,
was one of the mentors and intellectual
leaders of the May '68 movement, and
remained an adamant grass roots activist
who campaigned vigorously against the
reconstruction of the Marais neighborhood in Paris (which now houses the
Centre Pompidou) and other "Grands
Projets" associated with the "Reconquest
of Paris."
The Production of Space is the culmination of a series of thoughts developed in a
total of four books, starting in 1968 with
La Pensee Marxiste et la Ville and
continued in the early 1970s with Le
Droit a' la Ville and La Revolution
Urbaine. In the long first chapter of The
Production of Space, Lefebvre outlines
his basic ideas, lays out the argument that
he will develop in the remainder of the
book, and introduces the key concepts he
needs to theorize space. His basic position
is that theorizing social space is not
independent from theorizing society. Society and social space are about each
other; they contain each other. A spatial
theory is a social theory and vice versa.
He starts off by addressing the thorny
issue of the relationship between "the
concept of space" (or, in postmodern
terms, the way in which space is discursively constructed in theory) and experiential social space. He correctly argues
that the inevitably discursively constructed representation of space (in "normal" science) on the one hand and lived
space on the other are not independent of
each other, but that the separation of
these realms in scientific practice serves
distinct ideological purposes. The perceived, conceived, and lived aspects of
social space cannot be captured or "understood" by reducing space merely to a
coded message and reducing science to a
representation of that code. Viewing the
knowledge of lived space as a reading and
representation of these codes avoids the

This content downloaded from 145.94.147.201 on Wed, 17 Feb 2016 18:27:57 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

318

ECONOMIC GEOGRAPHY

actual "knowing" of space-that is, the

generative process through which this
coding was constructed, or produced. To
unveil the ideological "knowledge" of
space, Lefebvre argues, we need a theory
of space (society) and we need to discover
or construct a theoretical unity linking
"fields" that in "normal"theoretical practice are apprehended separately-i.e.,
physical space (nature), mental space (the
discursive construction of space), and
social space (or experienced, lived space).
Lefebvre argues that this unity can be
theorized through the conceptualization
of space as a process, as being produced.
The notion of producing space (which
takes place practically, discursively, and
symbolically) may sound bizarre at first,
but, Lefebvre argues, unease with the
concept of "producing space" derives
from the dominance of the view that
empty space is prior to whatever ends up
filling it (as in the case of, for example,
classical location theory).
The aim, however, is not to construct a
discourse of space but to expose the actual
production of space by bringing together
the various kinds of space and the way
they came about (their genesis) within a
single theory. This suggests that we have
to decode, or read, space (and not start
from concepts, codes, and messages). The
reading of space, then, becomes the
construction and reconstruction of the
process of signification through socialspatial practices. The search for a unitary
theory of physical, mental, and social
space should start from the proposition
that social space is a social product and in
such a way that social space becomes
indistinguishable from mental and physical space. If space is a social product, then
knowing space assumes the reconstruction
of the production of space. This social
space embraces a multitude of intersections, which gives meaning to place.
Space is produced through the conflictual unity of a spatial triad: the perceived,
the conceived, and the lived. The perceived is captured as spatial practices,
which embrace production and reproduction and are expressed in daily routines,

in the practice of everyday life. The

conceived embodies representations of
space, which are tied to the relations of
production and to the "order" those
relations impose. It is the conceptualized
(discursively constructed) space used and
produced by, among others, planners,
architects, geographers, and social engineers, which codify, textualize, and hence
represent space. Lived space, or representational space, embodies complex symbolisms. It is the space of symbols and images, which the imagination continuously
seeks to change and appropriate (the turf
of gangs, for example). Perceived, conceived, and lived space constitute a unity,
but not necessarily a coherence. Each of
these categories is deeply conflictual-i.e.,
contradictory-and thus deeply political.
Social space, therefore, incorporates
social action (in practice, representation,
and symbolic meaning) and constitutes a
process-a process that assumes an act of
creation, a process of production. We
must, therefore, shift from the study of
things in space to the actual production of
space. The study of a spatial object will
not tell us anything, but the process of its
creation lays bare the contradictions of
capitalism. Geography, therefore, contains the code, but the construction of
actual geographical knowledge is achieved
through the excavation of this process of
codification.
A further implication of the understanding of space as a process of production is that space is historical. Each
combination of forces and relations of
production constitutes its own appropriate
space. Hence, transformative sociospatial
practices (social or class struggle) produce
new spaces. In fact, Lefebvre argues that
it is class struggle, necessarily inscribed in
space, that prevents the totalizing, homogenizing and abstract force of capital
from eliminating difference, from taking
over the whole planet, and from papering
over old differences. Class struggle,
broadly defined as acts of social resistance
to the totalizing force of commodities and
money, has the capacity to differentiate,
or to generate differences. As such, social

This content downloaded from 145.94.147.201 on Wed, 17 Feb 2016 18:27:57 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BOOK REVIEWS

struggle engenders difference through the

re-appropriation or the reconquest of
space. Both capital and its engendered
oppositional forces are, therefore, engaged in deeply geographical projects in
which homogenization (through the abstract force of money) and differentiation
(through spatial struggle over and through
the practice, representation, and symbolic
meaning of space) constitute a dialectic
through which space is produced and
perpetually changed. This geographical
struggle takes place in each of the realms
that constitute space. The differentiating
pleasures of Eros and the body, desire
and emancipation, face the totalizing and
exclusionary power of money and capital
for the appropriation of everyday space.
An emancipating struggle, therefore, becomes a struggle for and over "differential" space, over spaces of pleasure and
play, and over unoppressed desire and
"jouissance."
Lefebvre's book is not an easy read. It
draws from many disciplines and intellectual traditions, ranging from art, architecture, and culture to literature, politics,
economics, and philosophy. It demands
determination and perseverance, particularly for Anglo-Saxon readers who may
have difficulty with his often loose,
exploratory, and at first sight rather
abstract writing style. Nevertheless, it is
well worth the effort. There is no doubt
that the publication of The Production of
Space is a milestone which may require a
re-evaluation of the recent history of
theoretical debate in critical geography.
The book certainly shows a hitherto rarely
seen, let alone practiced, exploration of
how and why space matters.
Erik Swyngedouw
Oxford University

Hollow Promises: Rhetoric and Reality in

the Inner City. Edited by M. Keith and
A. Rogers. London and New York:
Mansell, 1991.
The inner city is a chaotic concept. It is
a poorly defined area of the city that is not

319

at all accurately understood, a focus of

public policy concerned more with social
control than with social emancipation, and
a handy peg on which to hang all manner
of ragtag ideas and projects, including this
book.
As a spatial adjective, the term lacks
real meaning. The inner city contains
some of the poorest but also some of the
richest residents, some of the plushest as
well as some of the most dilapidated
dwellings. To use the term to refer only to
the poor and dilapidated is to mask some
of the more subtle processes at work.
"Inner city" has become a kind of
shorthand for a whole variety of meanings,
from underclass to poverty, disenfranchisement, and more general issues of
social control. But it is a shorthand
notation that obscures rather than illuminates. The term condenses, elides, and
ultimately conceals very different things.
There is a very real need to look at the
term in some detail, give it historical
depth, assess its variety of competing
meanings, and note its different political
uses. Chaotic concepts need to be unearthed from the weight of multiple
meanings piled atop them. Like counterfeit bills, they are not what they appear at
first glance. They need to be separated
from their use in the general circulation of
ideas, and their buying power needs to be
assessed, measured, and explained.
The introductory chapter promises a
beginning in this direction. The editors
are aware of the problems in using the
term and begin to unpack its different
meanings and usages. They would have
had a better book had they expanded this
chapter into a complete volume. As it is,
their introductory chapter is too brief
accords the experience of Britain a wider
significance than is justified, and ends up
with some spurious justifications for an
eclectic range of papers. As a collection,
the subsequent papers fail to make any
coherent statement. Although they are
drawn from the United Kingdom and the
United States, their focus is so disparate
that no sense emerges. Two of the papers
make interesting reading. Bob Colenutt

This content downloaded from 145.94.147.201 on Wed, 17 Feb 2016 18:27:57 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions