Philosophy and Sociology of Space

Biagi, Francesco

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-52367-1_3

Francesco Biagi⁴

Part of the book series: Marx, Engels, and Marxisms ((MAENMA))

912 Accesses

Abstract

In this chapter, the examination was carried out with the ambition of introducing his point of view in the “Critical Theory of Space” as a first step towards a more complete re-conceptualization of these themes in the twenty-first century. Several scholars don’t include the full framework of his thought and consistently define Lefebvre as a “sociologist,” a “philosopher,” and an “urbanist,” among other definitions. My original point of view provides a full and complete reconstruction of Lefebvre’s theory of space. In the second part of the chapter, I show that Lefebvre, in reassembling the matter of the Commune as original experience of urban self-management and as collective feast destined to end tragically, gives us a glimpse of the ambivalence of the European city and the weight of its tradition, suspended between the claims for radical liberation and the load of the economical-political rule focused on the space’s hierarchization.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

eBook: USD 16.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 109.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 109.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
The anecdote is remembered in: L. Costes, Henri Lefebvre. Le droit à la ville. Vers la sociologie de l’urbain, Ellipses, Paris, 2009, p. 5.
2.
E. Morin, Commune en France. La métamorphose de Plodémet, Fayard, Paris, 1967.
3.
H. Lefebvre, The Production of Space, Blackwell, London, 1991, p. 20.
4.
See: Ibidem, pp. 26–27.
5.
Lefebvre’s mention is explicitly addressed to Gramsci. See: Ibidem, p. 10.
6.
See: M. Foucault, “Des espaces autres”, in Architecture, Mouvement, Continuité, n. 5, octobre 1984, pp. 46–49, now in D. Defert, F. Ewald (edited by), Dits et écrits, Gallimard, Paris, 1994, Vol. IV, pp. 752–762 (it was a conference held at the Cercle d’étude architectuales, Tunisi, March 14, 1967). See: H. Lefebvre, The Production of Space, p. 4.
7.
See particularly Discourse on the Method and Metaphysical Meditations. Lefebvre’s position is antithetic to the Cartesian space dualism between res extensa and res cogitans.
8.
H. Lefebvre, The Production of Space, p. 14.
9.
Ibidem, p. 14.
10.
Ibidem, p. 15.
11.
See: H. Lefebvre, Nietzsche, Syllepse, Paris, 2003. Id., Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche, Casteman, Paris, 1975.
12.
H. Lefebvre, The Production of Space, p. 190.
13.
Ibidem, p. 73.
14.
Ibidem, pp. 26–27.
15.
Ibidem, p. 85.
16.
Ibidem, p. 94.
17.
Ibidem, pp. 101–102.
18.
Ibidem, p. 137.
19.
S. Kipfer, “How Lefebvre urbanized Gramsci: hegemony, everyday life, and difference”, in K. Goonewardena, S. Kipfer, R. Milgrom, C. Schmid (edited by), Space Difference Everyday Life: Reading Henri Lefebvre, Routledge, London, 2008, p. 203.
20.
H. Lefebvre, The Production of Space, p. 124.
21.
Ibidem, p. 125.
22.
From the wide secondary literature available, I took my inspiration on the interpretation offered by Stanek. See: Ł. Stanek, “Space as Concrete Abstraction. Hegel, Marx, and Modern Urbanism in Henri Lefebvre”, in S. Kipfer, K. Goonewardena, C. Schmid, R. Milgrom (edited by), Space, Difference, Everyday Life, pp. 62–79. Within the Italian debate, even De Simoni highlights the Lefebvrian critique of the Bauhaus. See: Id., Filosofia politica dello spazio: il programma di ricerca di Henri Lefebvre e le sue conseguenze teoriche, pp. 132–134.
23.
See: C. Schmid, “Henri Lefebvre’s Theory of the Production of Space: Towards a Three-Dimensional Dialectic”, in S. Kipfer, K. Goonewardena, C. Schmid, R. Milgrom (edited by), Space, Difference, Everyday Life, pp. 27–45.
24.
H. Lefebvre, The Production of Space, p. 33. In his English translation Donald Nicholson-Smith chose these three translations: “spatial practice” [pratique spatiale], “representations of space” [représentation de l'espace] and “representational spaces” [espaces de représentation]. Other scholars—see Space, Difference, Everyday Life, edited by S. Kipfer, K. Goonewardena, C. Schmid, R. Milgrom—prefer to translate with “spatial practice,” “representations of space” and “spaces of representation.” I personally chose this second version, which I consider most commonly used. [author’s note]
25.
H. Lefebvre, Le langage et la société, p. 191.
26.
H. Lefebvre, The Production of Space, p. 33.
27.
Ibidem, p. 44.
28.
Ibidem, p. 33.
29.
Ibidem, pp. 38–39.
30.
Ibidem, p. 350.
31.
See: K. Marx, “The Capital” (1887), in Collected Works of Marx & Engels, Vol. 35, p. 81 (Sect. 4 “The Fetishism of Commodities”).
32.
See specifically the second part (above all the paragraph on the concept of “space”): M. Merleau-Ponty, Phenomenology of Perception, Humanities Press, New York, 1962.
33.
C. Schmid, “Henri Lefebvre’s Theory of the Production of Space: Towards a Three-Dimensional Dialectic”, in S. Kipfer, K. Goonewardena, C. Schmid, R. Milgrom (edited by), Space, Difference, Everyday Life, p. 39.
34.
H. Lefebvre, The Production of Space, pp. 4–5, 21, 61.
35.
Ibidem, pp. 182–184, 296–300.
36.
See: M. Merleau-Ponty, Phenomenology of Perception, pp. 243–244, 291.
37.
H. Lefebvre, The Production of Space, pp. 38–40.
38.
C. Schmid, “Henri Lefebvre’s Theory of the Production of Space: Towards a Three-Dimensional Dialectic”, in S. Kipfer, K. Goonewardena, C. Schmid, R. Milgrom (edited by), Space, Difference, Everyday Life, p. 33.
39.
This intuition appears already in 1939, with the publication of Dialectical Materialism, and is and is further developed in 1947 with Logique formelle, logique dialectique. In this text the author proposes the concept of dépassement, whose meaning refers both to the idea of Überwinden of Nietzsche, and to the Aufhebung of Hegel. In this regard Lefebvre uses Marx's point of view of a philosophy tangibly rooted in the fluxus of reality. At the same time, and in a heterodox way, it also accepts Nietzsche's contribution, to underline the coherence of theory with respect to human experience. That experience can be enriched through Art and Poetry (according to the Promethean metaphor of living as a “work of art”), offering new and unexplored possibilities. In my opinion the best book to highlight this Lefebvrian dialectic triad is Hegel Marx Nietzsche ou le royaume des ombres (1975).
40.
D. Harvey, The Condition of Postmodernity: An Enquiry into the Origins of Cultural Change, Blackwell, Oxford, 1989, p. 219.
41.
See: D. Harvey, The Enigma of Capital and the Crises of Capitalism, Profile Books, London, 2010. Id., Seventeen Contradictions and the End of Capitalism, Profile Books, London, 2014. In this regard, Guido Borelli on Chapter IV of his volume reduces the Lefebvrian theory of space substantially to the so called “secondary circuit of capital” that indicates the economic valuation of the housing and real-estate market. Despite the fact that Lefebvre elaborated further on the Marxian tradition, allowing it the access to spatial studies, I don’t think that the theory of space of the Hagetmau philosopher can be reduced to the correction of the Marxian theories on the Capital, realized through their application to the real-estate political economy. Surely, that insight is an important piece in the Lefebvrian thought, however it is solely a portion of a more ample constellation of the urban and spatial studies conducted by Lefebvre. If Harvey remembers Lefebvre mainly for the question connected to the right to the city, to the urban revolution and to the translation of Karl Marx’s thought into the spatial dimension, Borelli sticks to resuming a part of the third problem, more precisely, the “secondary circuit of capital,” a term that besides isn’t used by Lefebvre (see: G. Borelli, Immagini di città. Processi spaziali e interpretazioni sociologiche, Mondadori, Milano, 2012, pp. 61–88).
42.
E. Soja, Postmodern Geographies: The Reassertion of Space in Critical Social Theory, Verso, London, 1989. For a brief recognition of Soja’s point of view see: S. Elden, “Politics, Philosophy, Geography: Henri Lefebvre in Recent Anglo-American Scholarship”, in Antipodes, Volume 33, n. 5, 2001, pp. 809–825. Thierry Paquot instead argues his disagreement on post-modern interpretations: “Henri Lefebvre penseur de l’urbain”, in T. Paquot, C. Younès, Le territoire des philosophes. Lieu et espace dans la pensée au XX siècle, La Decouverte, Paris, 2009, p. 237.
43.
For instance, in the secondary literature Fredric Jameson recognizes in Lefebvre a resistance pole to post-modernism. See: F. Jameson, Postmodernism or the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism, Duke University Press, Durham (NC), 1991.
44.
E. Soja, Postmetropolis: Critical Studies of Cities and Regions, Blackwell, Oxford, 2000.
45.
E. Soja, Thirdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles and Other Real-and-Imagined Places, Blackwell, Oxford, 1996.
46.
M. Foucault, “Des espaces autres”, in Dits et écrits, Vol. IV, pp. 752–762.
47.
H. Lefebvre, The Urban Revolution, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 2003, pp. 38, 128–131.
48.
See: R. Shields, Lefebvre: Love and Struggle, Routledge, London, 1999, p. 120. S. Elden, Understanding Henri Lefebvre, Continuum, London, 2004, p. 37.
49.
H. Lefebvre, The Production of Space, pp. 116–117.
50.
M. Gottdiener, “A Marx for Our Time: Henri Lefebvre and The Production of Space”, in Sociological Theory, Volume 11, n. 1, 1993, pp. 129–134. M. Gottdiener, R. Hutchinson, The New Urban Sociology, Westview Press, Boulder, 2006. S. Zukin, “A Decade of the New Urban Research”, in Theory & Society, n. 9, 1980, pp. 575–601. J. Walton, “Urban Sociology: The Contribution and Limits of Political Economy”, in Annual Review of Sociology, Volume 19, 1993, pp. 301–320.
51.
See paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of Chapter IV: H. Lefebvre, The Production of Space, pp. 241–250.
52.
Ibidem, p. 247.
53.
See: H. Arendt, Was ist Politik? Fragmente aus dem Nachlass, Piper, Munchen, 2003, partly translated in English: J. Kohn (edited by), The Promise of Politics, Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group, New York, 2009.
54.
These perceptions of the democratic space as empty place were also developed during the Sixties and Seventies by Claude Lefort, founding member of the Socialisme ou Barbarie journal, a group the actively participated in the Parisian political life and that collaborated with the Situationists; the group Arguments and the French radical gauche, an atmosphere that Lefebvre also experienced (see: C. Lefort, “The Image of the Body Totalitarianism”, in The Political Forms of Modern Society: Bureaucracy, Democracy, Totalitarianism, MIT Press, Cambridge (MA), 1896). This is the course that guides the historical-political analysis of the French Revolution by Paolo Viola that re-appropriates the ancient image to describe the end of absolute monarchy in France (see: P. Viola, Il Trono vuoto. La transizione della sovranità nella Rivoluzione Francese, Einaudi, Torino, 1988). Por a systematic analysis of Lefort’s entire intellectual production regarding the node between “empty place” and “democracy.” See: M. Abensour, Democracy Against the State: Marx and the Machiavellian Moment, Polity Press, Cambridge, 2011.
55.
H. Lefebvre, The Production of Space, p. 243.
56.
Ibidem, p. 46.
57.
See Chapter IV: Ibidem, pp. 229–291.
58.
See Chapter VI: Ibidem, pp. 352–400.
59.
H. Lefebvre, “Introduction à l’espace urbain”, in Metropolis. Urbanisme planification régionale environnement, n. 22, October 1976, p. 30 (pp. 24–31).
60.
H. Lefebvre, The Production of Space, p. 48.
61.
Ibidem.
62.
See: Ibidem, p. 358.
63.
See: Ibidem, p. 50.
64.
Ibidem, p. 290 (in addition see also the complete paragraph XIV: pp. 285–291).
65.
Ibidem, p. 280. The question of the state sovereignty is later deepened by Lefebvre in the four volumes De l’Etat.
66.
Ibidem, pp. 355–356.
67.
Ibidem, p. 52.
68.
Contrary to the postmodern notion of “weak thought.” See: G. Vattimo, P. A. Rovatti (edited by), Weak Thought, SUNY Press, Albany (NY), 2013.
69.
With the expression French Theory I refer to the interpretation, developed in the United States, of the idea of postmodernism of some French authors. This concept is the product of American universities which attribute it to some philosophers who, while showing points of convergence with American scholars, maintain a substantial autonomy of thought that cannot be reduced to that type of marketing operation (see: F. Cusset, French Theory: How Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze, & Co: Transformed the Intellectual Life of the United States, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 2008). To highlight the contact between American hermeneutics and French philosophy, I am therefore forced to use the definition French Theory, despite my radical refusal from a theoretical point of view. Other critics use the same idea, in spite of many doubts (see the philosophical school that derives from the thought of Roberto Esposito who, in recent years, has constantly followed this course, mitigating his doubts and even assuming the existence of an Italian school). This vulgar reductionism, beyond the limits indicated by Cusset, redefines the philosophical and political debate through the principle of a nationalist idea, and it is the product of the impositions of the cultural industry, in which even “Philosophy” becomes “merchandize” for the public. Finally, as we will see in the last chapter, I demarcate myself not only from the political geographer Soja, within the debate of the United States, but also from the philosophical current of “post-workerism” which refers to the thought of Antonio Negri. This current interprets Lefebvre through post-structuralist categories, starting from the biopolitical instance, then considering the analysis of the metropolis produced by Negri himself, and finally approaching the category of “significant voids” of Laclau: it is through this course that this current proposes its reading of “right to the city.”
70.
Deleuze, as he inscribes his thought on Bergson’s trail (see the last paragraph of this chapter), is not compatible with the concept of “difference” as theorized by Lefebvre.
71.
See: J. Deridda, Writing and Difference, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1978. Id., Politics of Friendship, Verso, London, 1997.
72.
Foucault theoretically elaborates the concept of “difference” by identifying it on the subjects and identities at the margins of society. Similar multiple subjectivities and inscribed in the interstices that are, precisely, “marginal,” would create heterotopian dimensions of life, that is, alternative forms of life to society that co-exist at the borders of the dominating governmental apparatus. Obviously, such a point of view is not compatible with the concept of difference imagined by Lefebvre.
73.
H. Lefebvre, Le manifeste différentialiste, Gallimard, Paris, 1970, p. 60.
74.
Ibidem, p. 23.
75.
Ibidem, p. 103.
76.
H. Lefebvre, The Production of Space, p. 396.
77.
K. Marx, “The Civil War in France” (1871), in Collected Work of Marx & Engels, Vol. 22, p. 335.
78.
H. Lefebvre, The Production of Space, p. 410.
79.
H. Lefebvre, La proclamation de la Commune, Gallimard, Paris, 1965, p. 394.
80.
Despite Lefebvre’s not subtracting from historiography I believe it useful to also refer to these volumes: I. Cervelli, Le Origini della Comune di Parigi. Una cronaca (31 ottobre 1870–18 marzo 1871), Viella, Roma, 2015. P. O. Lissagaray, History of the Paris Commune of 1871, Red and Black Publishers, St Petersburg (FL), 2007. Id., Huit journées de mai derrière les barricades, Gallimard, Paris, 1968.
81.
I partially take some distance from De Simoni, who is very mush influenced by the reading of the metropolis as proposed by the contemporaneous post-workerism, that interprets the analysis of the Commune by Lefebvre as an attempt to elaborate an “archetype” of the political conflict of the urban riot. Despite the fact that her aesthetical-political interpretation of the urban riot from the Eighteen-hundreds until now is sharp and well argued, I think that it reduces the potentialities of that event only to “destitutioning power,” removing the “constituent power” that, conversely I here wish to highlight. See: S. De Simoni, “La Comune di Parigi come archetipo della rivoluzione urbana”, in F. Biagi, M. Cappitti, M. Pezzella, Il tempo del possibile. L’attualità della Comune di Parigi, monographic supplement to n. 3/2018 of “Il Ponte”, Firenze, pp. 101–110.
82.
In the first part of the book entitled Style et méthode, Lefebvre re-introduced the progressive-regressive method to the study of the communard insurrection. See: Ibidem, p. 31.
83.
Ibidem, pp. 389–390.
84.
See: Ibidem, p. 21.
85.
F. Jesi, Spartakus. Simbologia della rivolta, Bollati Boringhieri, Torino, 2000, p. 69. Besides see also: Id., “Lettura del Bateau ivre di Rimbaud”, in Il tempo della festa, Nottetempo, Roma, 2014, p. 47.
86.
Ibidem, pp. 45–46.
87.
M. Bakunin, “La Commune de Paris et la notion d’État”, in De la guerre à la Commune, Anthropos, Paris, 1972.
88.
In this regard I refer to the study by Léonard, who retraces with historical detail the debate around the Commune within the “First International” and its most famous militant theoreticians. See: M. Léonard, L’émancipation des travailleurs, une histoire de la Première Internationale, La Fabrique, Paris, 2011.
89.
H. Lefebvre, “La classe ouvrière et l’espace”, in Espace et politique. Le droit à la ville II, p. 168.
90.
H. Lefebvre, La proclamation de la Commune, p. 11.
91.
K. Marx, “The Civil War in France” (1871), in Collected Work of Marx & Engels, Vol. 22, p. 332.
92.
H. Lefebvre, La fin de l’histoire, Editions de Minuit, Paris, 1970, pp. 236–237.
93.
For these reflections I am grateful to the debate held in Rome with Mario Pezzella, during the Conference “Il Diritto alla Città” (24–25 November 2016, Dipartimento di Architettura dell’Università di Roma), organized by the “Fondazione per la Critica Sociale” and the journal “Il Ponte.” See also: F. Biagi, M. Cappitti, M. Pezzella, Il tempo del possibile. L’attualità della Comune di Parigi.
94.
H. Lefebvre, La proclamation de la Commune, p. 134.
95.
Ibidem.
96.
It must be added that Lefebvre doesn’t mention his friend Guy Debord and that decision will become one of the reasons for the mutual resentment that will put an end to the relation of the author with the situationist movement (see supra in Chapter 1 the paragraph dedicated to the relation between Debord and Lefebvre).
97.
H. Lefebvre, La proclamation de la Commune, p. 394.
98.
G. Debord, R. Vaneigem, K. Kotanyi, “Programme elementaire du Bureau d’urbanisme unitaire”, in Internationale Situationniste, n. 6, Août 1961.
99.
See: G. Debord, A. Kotanyi, R. Vaneigem, “Sur la Comune”, in Internationale Situationniste, n. 12, Septembre 1969. Conseil Central de l'International Situationniste, “Aux poubelles de l’histoire”, in Internationale Situationniste, n. 8, Janvier 1963.
100.
The reflections that are here displayed find inspiration and roots in the studies on the Paris Commune conducted by Kristin Ross that confirm Lefebvre’s inquiries, see: K. Ross, The Emergence of Social Space: Rimbaud and the Paris Commune, Verso, London, 2008. (In the French edition there is a more recent and valuable foreword by the author available online at the site of the Parisian publishers, see: id., Rimbaud, la Commune de Paris et l’invention de l’histoire spatiale, Les Prairies ordinaires, Paris, 2013.) See also: Id., Communal Luxury: The Political Imaginary of the Paris Commune, Verso, London, 2015.
101.
K. Ross, The Emergence of Social Space: Rimbaud and the Paris Commune, pp. 8–9.
102.
Ibidem, p. 42.
103.
E. W. Soja, Thirdspace, p. 57.
104.
On this hypothesis see: H. Lefebvre, La proclamation de la Commune, p. 300.
105.
Ibidem, p. 38.
106.
Ibidem, p. 390.
107.
Ibidem, p. 22.
108.
It is as follows: “We will work cooperatively toward our regeneration, the birth of communal luxury, future splendors and the Universal Republic” (“Federation of Artists Manifesto”, April 1871, in Communal Luxury. The Political Imaginary of the Paris Commune, p. 39).
109.
In French the significant is “luxe communal”, in English, Ross chooses “communal luxury.”
110.
H. Lefebvre, La proclamation de la Commune, p. 32.
111.
As is widely known, Lefebvre follows Marx’s analysis, who foresees in the Commune the most successful example of the overcoming and abolition of the state form (see particularly: H. Lefebvre, La proclamation de la Commune, pp. 390–391). Such concepts however deserve some clarification. The power of the State is already “superseded,” Marx writes after having defined the Commune as “local municipal liberty” (K. Marx, “The Civil War in France” (1871), in Collected Work of Marx & Engels, Vol. 22, p. 334). In German, Marx uses the verb absschaffen [abolish]—used to express for instance the death penalty or torture per decreto—to define the anarchic perspective on the problem of authority (represented in those years mainly by Proudhon and Bakunin). The other terms Marx uses in his Commune’s writings instead underline mostly a processual movement regarding a decision imposed by law and the terms are: the verbs absterben (to perish), auflösen e verschwinden (dissolve, disappear), fallen (fall by oneself) or einschlafen (fall asleep on one’s own, that is, “extinguish” in a figurated sense) often used in official documents as synonym of “dying.” Other formulas are “become superfluous, useless, deprive oneself of one’s own function.” Marx thus means to underline the process of erosion and extinction of the State political form through the practical acts and concrete decisions adopted by the Paris Commune such as: drastic reduction of the labor day, the change that occurs in the ownership relations and the radical socio-political change of work and human activities (also the question of the political institutions). In this regard see the precise argumentation by Daniel Bensaïd in: “Politiques de Marx,” foreword of K. Marx, F. Engels, Inventer l'inconnu, textes et correspondances autour de la Commune, La Fabrique, Paris, 2008.
112.
See: H. Lefebvre, La proclamation de la Commune, p. 32.
113.
Ibidem, p. 36.
114.
Ibidem, p. 150.
115.
See: F. Dupuis-Déri, Qui a peur du peuple? Le débat entre l’agoraphobie et l’agoraphilie politique”, Variations. Revue Internationale de théorie critique”, Éditions Burozoiques, n. 15, 2011. Id., La peur du peuple: Agoraphobie et agoraphilie politiques, Lux Éditeur, Montréal (QC), 2016.
116.
H. Lefebvre, Le Temps des Méprises, Stock, Paris, 1975, p. 107.
117.
H. Lefebvre, Le temps des méprises, p. 242.
118.
T. Paquot, L’utopie ou l’idéal piégé, Ed. Hatier, Paris, 1996, p. 75.
119.
See: F. Jesi, Spartakus. Simbologia della rivolta, pp. 18–33.
120.
See: M. Tomba, Attraverso la piccola porta. Quattro studi su Walter Benjamin, Mimesis, Milano, 2017.
121.
I explicitly refer to Hannah Arendt’s political thought who understands the concerted action in public space as an act similar to a miracle, to the point she ends up referring to revolutions and to the political forms of the Consiliarist tradition as a “lost treasure.” See: H. Arendt, On Revolution, Penguin, New York, 1990. Id., Was ist Politik? Fragmente aus dem Nachlass, Piper, Muenchen, 2003, partly translated in English: J. Kohn (edited by), The Promise of Politics, Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group, New York, 2009.
122.
M. Abensour, Hannah Arendt contre la philosophie politique?, Sens & Tonka, Paris, 2006.
123.
H. Lefebvre, “The Bureaucratic Society of Controlled Consumption”, in Everyday Life in the Modern World, The Penguin Press, New York, 1971, pp. 74–75.
124.
P. Latour, F. Combes, H. Lefebvre, Conversation avec Henri Lefebvre, Messidor, Paris, 1991, p. 18–19.
125.
I would like to highlight the connections between Lefebvre and Benjamin by means of the emblematic title that Tomba (2017) used for his last work on Benjamin. Benjamin’s “The Small Door” (La piccola porta) is a concept similar to the cracks, inside which the “breach of the utopia” as imagined by Lefebvre penetrates the linear time of progress. See: M. Tomba, Attraverso la piccola porta. Quattro studi su Walter Benjamin.
126.
H. Lefebvre, “Engels et l’utopie”, in Espace et politique. Le droit à la ville II, Anthropos, Paris, 2000, p. 90. There is an English version, but I prefer use the original volume. See: “Engels and Utopia”, in Marxist Thought and the City, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 2016.
127.
Ibidem, p. 87.
128.
Ibidem, p. 96. See also: E. Bloch, The Spirit of Utopia, Stanford University Press, Stanford, 2000.
129.
H. Lefebvre, “Engels et l’utopie”, in Espace et politique. Le droit à la ville II, p. 90.
130.
F. Engels, “The Housing Question” (1872), in Collected Works of Marx & Engels, Vol. 23, p. 385.
131.
F. Engels, “Anti-Dühring. Herr Eugen Dühring’s Revolution in Science” (1877), in Collected Works of Marx & Engels, Vol. 25, p. 248.
132.
H. Lefebvre, “Utopie expérimentale: pour un nouvel urbanisme”, in Du rural à l'urbain, Anthropos, Paris, 2001, p. 131.
133.
Ibidem, p. 137.
134.
Ibidem, p. 138.
135.
Ibidem, pp. 130–131.
136.
H. Lefebvre, “The Right to the City”, in Writings on Cities, Wiley-Blackwell, London, 1996, p. 151. See also: Id., “Humanisme et urbanisme. Quelque propositions”, in Du rural à l'urbain, pp. 153–158.
137.
H. Lefebvre, “The Right to the City”, in Writings on Cities, p. 155.
138.
See: H. Lefebvre, “Propositions pour un nouvel urbanisme”, in Du rural à l'urbain, p. 193.
139.
H. Lefebvre, The Urban Revolution, p. 38.
140.
Ibidem, pp. 128–130.
141.
Ibidem, pp. 128–129.
142.
In addition to the references contained in The Urban Revolution, see: H. Lefebvre, “La ville et l’urbain”, in Espace et politique. Le droit à la ville II, pp. 79–80.
143.
See: R. Hess, Henri Lefebvre et la pensée du possibile. Théorie des moments et construction de la personne, Anthropos, Paris, 2008. I summarize in this paragraph the theses of critique of everyday life on the spatial and urban studies of Lefebvre, however for a broader analysis see: C. Stenghel, Per una filosofia del quotidiano. Pensare il cambiamento a partire dalla riflessione di Henri Lefebvre, Phd Thesis, 24 April 2018, University of Padova (Italy).
144.
Lefebvre offers two concepts about the everyday life [la vie quotidienne] issue. “The everyday” [le quotidien]—that some scholars defined “the quotidian”—is different from “the everydayness” [la quotidienneté]. “The everydayness” represents “the modality of capital’s administration of atomization and repetition”, while “the everyday” represents “the modality of social transformation and class resistance.” See: H. Lefebvre, “The Everyday and Everydayness”, in Yale French Studies, n. 73, 1987, pp. 7–11. [author’s footnote]
145.
H. Lefebvre, The Critique of Everyday Life. Vol. I, Verso, London, 2008, p. 230.
146.
Ibidem.
147.
It is necessary to precise that Lefebvre resumes the concentration camp’s heritage born with totalitarism in order to read it along the course of development of the capitalist forms of life. Paradoxically the darkest moment in European history, would unveil, thus, showing the degeneration of its possibilities, the essence itself of everyday life inherent to the modern foundation: “ if Fascism represents the most extreme form of capitalism, the concentration camp is the most extreme and paroxysmal form of a modern housing estate, or of an industrial town. There are many intermediary stages between our towns and the concentration camps: miners’ villages, temporary housing on construction sites, villages for immigrant workers… Nevertheless, the link is clear” (Ibidem, pp. 245–246).
148.
Ibidem, p. 232.
149.
For an update on the research guidelines on everyday life in Lefebvre see: S. Aronowitz, “Henri Lefebvre: The Ignored Philosopher and Social Theorist”, in Against Orthodoxy: Political Philosophy and Public Purpose, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 2015.
150.
Ibidem, p. 248.
151.
Ibidem, p. 249.
152.
Ibidem.
153.
Man should consider is own life “not just as a means but as an end” (Ibidem, p. 199).
154.
See Introduction to Modernity and Everyday Life in the Modern World.
155.
See H. Lefebvre, The Critique of Everyday Life. Vol. II, Verso, London, 2008, pp. 10–11. On the relation between the everyday and colonization see also A. Raulin, La vie quotidienne entre colonisation et émancipation, in Henri Lefebvre. Une pensée devenue monde?, Paris, L’Harmattan, 2012.
156.
See: T. Adorno, M. Horkheimer, Dialectic of Enlightenment, Stanford University Press, Stanford, 2002.
157.
H. Lefebvre, La somme et le reste, Anthropos, Paris, 2008, p. 596.
158.
Ibidem, p. 597.
159.
Ibidem.
160.
See the two introductions to the Italian edition of Everyday Life in the Modern World: P. Jedlowski, “Henri Lefebvre e la critica della vita quotidiana”, in H. Lefebvre, La vita quotidiana nel mondo moderno, Il Saggiatore, Milano, 1979, pp. 7–31. A. Vigorelli, “Vita quotidiana e riproduzione dei rapporti di produzione”, in H. Lefebvre, La vita quotidiana nel mondo moderno, pp. 32–55.
161.
H. Lefebvre, Critique of Everyday Life. Vol. II, p. 19.
162.
Ibidem, p. 22.
163.
Ibidem, p. 23.
164.
See: Ibidem, p. 27.
165.
Ibidem, p. 32.
166.
Ibidem, p. 37.
167.
Ibidem.
168.
H. Lefebvre, Everyday Life in the Modern World, p. 68. That definition allow, in Lefebvre’s opinion, to hightight: on the rational character of society and on its limits (bureaucracy), on the object that regulates (consumption) and on the plan he refers to in its attempt to dominate it (the everyday).
169.
The English translation is: “Displays of reality have become a display trade and a display of trade” (Ibidem, p. 63). However this version does not correctly translate the Lefebvrian sociological idiolect: “Le ‘spectacle du monde’ devient consommation de spectacle and spectacle de consommation” (La vie quotidienne dans le monde moderne, Gallimard, Paris, 1968, p. 122).
170.
H. Lefebvre, “La re-production des rapports de production”, in L’Homme et la société, n. 22, 1971, pp. 3–23; later in: La survie du capitalisme: la reproduction des rapports de production, Anthropos, Paris, 1973, pp. 57–126; English trans.: “Reproduction of the Relations of Production”, in The Survival of Capitalism: Reproduction of the Relations of Production, S. Martin’s Press, New York, 1973, pp. 42–91.
171.
H. Lefebvre, “Reproduction of the Relations of Production”, in The Survival of Capitalism: Reproduction of the Relations of Production, p. 46.
172.
Ibidem, p. 85.
173.
H. Lefebvre, Critique of Everyday Life. Vol. II, p. 135.
174.
Ibidem, p. 40.
175.
Ibidem.
176.
Ibidem, p. 342. On the “theory of the moments,” Lefebvre’s references are, firstly, the pamphlet by Politzer (La fin d’une parade philosophique, le bergsonisme, 1929), secondly, Leibniz’s thought (see: Ibidem, p. 370 footnote 2).
177.
See: H. Bergson, Durée et simultanéité, à propos de la théorie d'Einstein (1922), PUF, Paris, 1998. Id., Essais sur les données immédiates de la conscience (1889), PUF, Paris, 2007.
178.
H. Lefebvre, Critique of Everyday Life. Vol. II, p. 342.
179.
Ibidem, p. 343.
180.
“In day-to-day language, the word ‘moment’ and the word ‘instant’ are almost interchangeable. However, there is a distinction between them. When we say ‘It was an enjoyable moment…’, for example, it implies a certain length of time, a value, a nostalgia and the hope of reliving that moment or preserving it as a privileged lapse of time, embalmed in memory. It is not just any old instant, nor a simple ephemeral and transitory one” (Ibidem, p. 343).
181.
Ibidem, p. 344. I highlight again the difference between Lefebvre and Deleuze, in fact, Deleuze follows the Bergson’s point of view.
182.
H. Lefebvre, La somme et le reste, p. 242.
183.
H. Lefebvre, Critique of Everyday Life. Vol. II, p. 348.
184.
“[the moment] conceives of a kind of twofold critical and totalizing experience, and of a 'programmatic' which would not be reduced to a dogmatism or a pure problematic: the uniting of the Moment and the everyday, of poetry and all that is prosaic in the world, in short, of Festival and ordinary life” (Ibidem, p. 349). “Festival only makes sense when its brilliance lights up the sad hinterland of everyday dullness, and when it uses up, in one single moment, all it has patiently and soberly accumulated” (Ibidem, p. 356). See also: R. Hess, Henri Lefebvre et la pensée du possibile, pp. 195–200.
185.
See: M. Pezzella, La memoria del possibile, Jaca Book, Milano, 2009, pp. 281–336; M. Tomba, Attraverso la piccola porta. Quattro studi su Walter Benjamin, pp. 77–114.
186.
H. Lefebvre, Critique of Everyday Life. Vol. II, p. 351.
187.
G. Debord, “Théorie des moments et construction des situations”, in Internationale Situationniste, n. 4, June 1960.
188.
See Lefebvre’s reference by Debord: Ibidem.
189.
G. Debord, “Rapport sur la construction des situations” (1957), in Oeuvres, p. 325. See also: Id., “Problèmes préliminaires à la construction d'une situation”, in Internationale Situationniste, n. 1, June 1958.
190.
For these reflections I am still grateful to Mario Pezzella for the dialogue we had in Rome during the conference “Il Diritto alla Città” (24–25 November 2016, Dipartimento di Architettura dell’Università di Roma). See: M. Pezzella, La Comune di Parigi. Un urbanesimo rivoluzionario, online: https://www.fondazionecriticasociale.org/2017/06/12/la-comune-parigi-un-urbanesimo-rivoluzionario/.
191.
W. Benjamin, “L’oeuvre d'art à l’époque de sa reproduction mécanisé” (1936), in Opere complete, Vol. VI, Einaudi, Torino, 2004, footnote 1, p. 532. This is the first French draft of the essay, at least in the numbering followed by the Italian edition, in accordance with the French version, the only one published in Benjamin’s life. See also: M. Löwy, Fire Alarm: Reading Walter Benjamin’s on the Concept of History, London, Verso, 2005, p. 76. G. Debord, “Contribution a une definition situationniste du jeu”, in Internationale Situationniste, n. 1, June 1958. Id., “Le retour de Charles Fourier”, in Internationale Situationniste, n. 12, 1969.
192.
See: M. Pezzella, La memoria del possibile, pp. 52–53. For a contextualization of the urban studies by the Situationists, see: T. Paquot (edited by), Les situationistes en ville, Infolio, Gollion, 2015. Finally a broadened and detailed account of the artistic-architectonic foundations of the situationist thought was edited by Gianfranco Marelli (see particularly the Chapters I and II): Id., L’amara vittoria del situazionismo. Storia critica dell’Internationale Situationniste 1957–1972, Mimesis, Milano, 2017. Id., Una bibita mescolata alla sete, BFS Edizioni, Pisa, 2015.
193.
G. Debord, “Critique de la géographie urbaine” (1955), in Oeuvres, p. 204.
194.
Ibidem, p. 207.
195.
G. Debord, “Écologie, psycogéographie et transformation du milieu humain” (1959), in Oeuvres, p. 460. See also: A. Khatib, “Essai de description psichogéographique des Halles”, in Internationale Situationniste, n. 2, 1958.
196.
G. Debord, “Critique de la géographie urbaine” (1955), in Oeuvres, p. 208.
197.
G. Debord, “Critique de l’urbanisme”, in Internationale Situationniste, n. 6, August 1961 (there are several references to Lefebvre in this article).
198.
G. Debord, “Écologie, psycogéographie et transformation du milieu humain” (1959), in Oeuvres. See also: Id., “Urbanisme unitaire à la fin des années 50”, in Internationale Situationniste, n. 3, December 1959. Constant, “Une autre ville pour une autre vie”, in Internationale Situationniste,, n. 3, December 1959. G. Debord, “Résolution sur le Bureau d'urbanisme unitaire”, in Internationale Situationniste, n. 5, December 1960. A. Kotanyi, R. Vaneigem, “Programme élémentaire du bureau d'urbanisme unitaire”, in Internationale Situationniste, n. 6, August 1961. R. Vaneigem, “Commentaires contre l'urbanisme”, in Internationale Situationniste, n. 6, August 1961. G. Debord, “L’urbanisme comme volonté et comme représentation”, in Internationale Situationniste, n. 8, August 1963.
199.
On the “Ludic city,” see: F. Careri, Walkscapes. Camminare come pratica estetica, pp. 74–76. And the volume dedicated to Constant’s thought: Id., Constant. New Babylon, una città nomande. For a recognition of the anti-functionalist artistic avant-gardes see: L. Lippolis, La rivoluzione delle avanguardie, in P.P. Poggio (edited by), L’Altro Novecento. Comunismo eretico e pensiero critico, Vol. 1, Jaca Book, Milano, 2010, pp. 97–112.
200.
G. Debord, “Critique de la géographie urbaine” (1955), in Oeuvres, p. 459.
201.
G. Debord, “Constant et la voie de l’urbanisme unitaire” (1959), in Oeuvres, p. 448.
202.
About the relationship between situationist thought and architectural debate, see the anthology edited by Leonardo Lippolis, Urbanismo unitario. Antologia situazionista, Edizioni Testo & Immagine, Torino, 2002, especially its foreword.
203.
A. Rimbaud, “Delirium I, Foolish Vergin, Hellish Bridegroom”, in A Season in Hell and Illuminations, BOA Editions, Brockport (NY), 1991, p. 23.
204.
H. Lefebvre, Critique of Everyday Life. Vol. I, p. 148. Id., Critique of Everyday Life. Vol. II, p. 41.
205.
R. Vienet, “Les situationnistes et les nouvelles formes d’action contre la politique et l’art”, in Internationale Situationniste, n. 11, 1967.
206.
G. Debord, “Perspectives de modification consciente de la vie quotidienne”, in Internationale Situationniste, n. 6, August 1961.
207.
I agree with Anselm Jappe’s thesis, but Jappe underlines majorly the conflict between Lefebvre and Debord, explicitly defending the situationist author and unjustly involving Lefebvre in the French Communist Party dogmatism. See: A. Jappe, Guy Debord, Manifestolibri, Roma, 1999, p. 92.
208.
G. Debord, “Perspectives de modification consciente de la vie quotidienne”, in Internationale Situationniste, n. 6, August 1961.
209.
Ibidem.
210.
Ibidem.
211.
Ibidem.
212.
Anselm Jappe underlines the differences between Lefebvre and Debord, referring the situationist critique to his “theory of the possibles.” Lefebvre is criticized for being too imprecise and for not having concretely founded the “change” in life practices (see: Id., Guy Debord, p. 96). However, I would like to highlight the common points of view of the two authors: if we don't limit our reading to the two volumes of the Critique, a global vision of Lefebvre's thought allows us to affirm that he accepted Debord's critique as presented in Thèses sur la révolution culturelle. Moreover, in the early sixties the critiques between Debord and Lefebvre were neither accusatory nor ironic, as instead will happen after their rift; indeed, during the first phase, it was a very prolific theoretical debate (see: G. Debord, “Thèses sur la révolution culturelle”, in Internationale Situationniste, n. 1, June 1958).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Department of Political Science, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy
Francesco Biagi

Authors

Francesco Biagi
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Francesco Biagi .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Biagi, F. (2020). Philosophy and Sociology of Space. In: Henri Lefebvre's Critical Theory of Space. Marx, Engels, and Marxisms. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52367-1_3

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52367-1_3
Published: 09 August 2020
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-52366-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-52367-1
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics