The Trouble with Henri: Urban Research and the Theory of the Production of Space

Abstract

Henri Lefebvre’s theory of the production of space is today one of the most widely quoted accounts on urbanization and the urban. However, this theory provides some important challenges to fully grasp its implications and to use it in concrete empirical research. This book chapter introduces this theory, analyses some of the difficulties arriving in applying it to urban research and identifies possible paths towards creative applications. It begins with the current state of reception, explains the fundamental structure of this theory, lays out Lefebvre’s epistemological strategy and analyses his understanding of the relationship between theory and empirical research. These points are then illustrated with examples of research on the urbanization of Switzerland, on planetary urbanization and on the urban development of Havana.

Translated by Christopher Findlay

This article was first published in: Stanek Ł, Schmid C, Moravánszky Á (eds) (2014) Urban revolution now: Henri Lefebvre in social research and architecture. Ashgate, Farnham, pp. 27–48.

Henri Lefebvre’s theory of the production of space, which he developed over a short period from the mid-1960s to the mid-1970s, is today widely quoted and the subject of intense debates. Just two decades ago, this theory was regarded as almost inaccessible, extremely difficult to apply and was consequently rarely used for empirical research. Since then, it has experienced widespread reception and application, both in the field of urban studies as well as in architecture and urban design.

This process of appropriation and application of Lefebvre’s theory has not been untroubled. Time and again, all sorts of confusions and problems have arisen. While these initially concerned mainly questions of interpretation and theoretical construction, more recent discussions have primarily focused on the question of how this theory can be successfully introduced into empirical analysis. Engaging with Lefebvre’s theory is indeed a remarkable experience: as in one of Hitchcock’s funniest movies, where the corpse of poor Harry suddenly disappears and then reappears in the most unexpected places, this theory creates all kinds of unforeseen trouble.¹ As soon as it seems that one problem is solved, another appears.

1 On the Third Wave of Lefebvre Interpretation

In the past years, the debate on the theory of the production of space has entered a new phase. While, in the 1970s and 1980s, mainly reductionist and one-sided interpretations were dominant in the English- and French-speaking debates, a new and more open appropriation of this theory has asserted itself in recent years.²

In the first phase, Lefebvre’s texts on urbanization and on space had an ambivalent reception: in France during the early 1970s, Lefebvre was pushed to the margins of intellectual life, mainly by the strong influence of Manuel Castells’s vehement critique of his broad and far-reaching conception of the urban revolution.³ This critique also influenced Lefebvre’s reception in the English-speaking world, where his work was almost absent from the debates of new urban sociology, radical geography or urban political economy—an important exception being David Harvey, who was especially inspired by Lefebvre’s rigorous analysis of the relationship between urbanization and the dynamics of capital accumulation.⁴ However, both theorists pursued different projects: while Harvey developed a relatively rigid and narrow political economy of space, Lefebvre had the much broader vision of a comprehensive theory of the production of space. But this project did not arouse much interest for quite some time.

This situation changed fundamentally in the 1990s, when, under the influence of the spatial and the cultural turn in social theory, Lefebvre's theory was ‘rediscovered’ and finally received with great interest and even enthusiasm.⁵ Accordingly, this second phase of Lefebvre reception was strongly influenced by postmodern and poststructuralist thought, which also manifested a reductionist tendency in presenting Lefebvre as a precursor of postmodernism and trying to narrow down his complex and dynamic theory of the production of space to a kind of a spatial ontology (see especially Soja 1989). However, it was very difficult to reconcile a postmodernist or poststructuralist approach with Lefebvre’s decidedly historical, materialist and dialectical epistemology.⁶

For some years now, a new and different form of access to Lefebvre’s work can be observed, which we may consider as the third wave of Lefebvre interpretation.⁷ It is marked first of all by the fact that it relates in a fundamentally different way to Lefebvre’s heterodox and open-ended materialism than earlier interpretations. It no longer tries to demarcate its position from Lefebvre’s epistemology, or conversely to functionalize his work for a specific theoretical approach, but rather to have an independent and open debate on his thinking.

Second, an informed and intense discussion of the epistemological and historical context of his theory was initiated, together with careful analysis of a wide range of aspects of his complex work.⁸ This development was much favoured by the translation of some of his most important texts into English,⁹ which made many aspects of his theory accessible to a broader audience—the lack of translations had long posed almost insurmountable obstacles to the English-language interpretation of his work. Thus, in recent years, it has been possible to clarify many open questions that had caused considerable confusion, especially concerning the construction of his theory. Furthermore, after the dominant Lefebvre interpretation had long focused mainly on the question of space, topics such as urbanization and the urban, the state and everyday life found a new or renewed interest.

Third, this reception is characterized by curiosity and an open-minded approach to Lefebvre’s work. An increasing number of texts take Lefebvre’s theory as a point of departure, place it in a contemporary context, and thus make it fruitful for further reflections and analysis. Among these are efforts to combine Lefebvre’s with other approaches and thus to open up new perspectives.

Fourth, there has been an increasing number of empirical applications. More and more studies are being published that not only cite Lefebvre’s work—such citations having become almost routine in certain fields of research—but integrate his theory into the very heart of the investigation itself.

In this way, the third wave of Lefebvre interpretation has brought about an important expansion of our horizon: it is rooted in an undogmatic reading, uses Lefebvre’s work as a point of departure for further reflection, and is at the same time more precise and more open than previous phases of reception.

2 A General Historical-Materialist Theory of Society

Discussion of Lefebvre’s work has acquired a new quality in recent years. Key elements of his theory that had long been sources of considerable confusion have been clarified, and the main lines of his thinking can be laid open today. The reconstruction of his theory requires a twofold analysis: first of all, a historical reading that reconstructs the sequence of questions and fields arising in his work and that reveals how they have unfolded in the course of historical development. Second, it requires a synchronic reading that is capable of identifying the overall structure of Lefebvre’s theory and of positioning the various aspects in a general theoretical framework.

2.1 The Historical Production of Social Realities and Theoretical Concepts

A fundamental aspect of understanding Lefebvre’s thinking arises from the fact that he always developed and advanced his theoretical concepts through a thorough engagement with the social reality of his times. Thus, a range of new questions came to the fore in the course of his intellectual trajectory. His point of departure was a critical engagement with the philosophical debates of the 1920s and also with the avant-garde and artistic movements of his time—Dada and Surrealism, and later Situationism. He had not only helped to introduce Hegel and the early works of Marx into the French debate but continuously developed his own heterodox materialism through critical engagement with phenomenology, existentialism and structuralism. In this regard, the ‘German Dialectic’ based on the works of Hegel, Marx and Nietzsche played a crucial role, and would become a formative constant in his work. From those quite diverse sources, he developed his very specific approach of a heterodox, revolutionary, materialist and dialectical thinking.

This epistemological basis had an immediate effect on his theoretical and empirical analyses, in which a key topic gained prominence even before the Second World War: ‘everyday life’. This problematic, which was a very unusual subject for scientific research at the time, marked the consequent application of his strong critique of contemporary philosophical thought, his related claim to wrest philosophy away from pure contemplation, to make it practical and thus also to bring it down to earth—hence his attempts to grasp social reality through concrete investigations. Interestingly, Lefebvre began his empirical work in the countryside, in the Pyrenees, and soon extended it to an analysis of social reality in postwar France.¹⁰ The topic of everyday life remained a recurring theme of his work until the end of his life. He returned to it again and again and illuminated it from various angles. It is also reflected in his philosophical work, which in the 1960s dealt with questions of metaphilosophy, modernization and modernity, and also with language theory.¹¹

In the course of Lefebvre’s explorations of everyday life, a new phenomenon gradually emerged, indicating a fundamental historic transformation: urbanization. Once more based on his investigations in the Pyrenees, where Lefebvre had observed and analysed the construction of a new town, this new phenomenon gained prominence and soon became a dominant subject of his work.¹² The urban question also proved to be a key aspect of the emerging social protest that culminated in the revolts of the late 1960s and particularly in the events of May 1968 in Paris that marked a decisive experience for Lefebvre.¹³ His theoretical and practical explorations of the urban phenomenon led him to the identification of two decisive and interrelated aspects: on the one hand, he analysed the process of urbanization and placed it in the context of industrialization and modernization. On the other, he studied the conditions of the emergence of a (possible, virtual) urban society as a concrete utopia. He finally found and developed the central term signifying the epistemological shift from urbanization to urban society: difference.¹⁴

Soon after these pioneering works, which marked the beginning of critical urban studies in social science, Lefebvre dedicated himself to a further related question that initially won only little attention, but was later considered his most important contribution by many scholars: the question of space and its social production.¹⁵ This work, which is as comprehensive as challenging and difficult to access, anticipated not only the spatial turn but in some respects also the cultural turn in social science, thus providing the decisive point of reference for postmodern and poststructuralist interpretations. It is also in this work that Lefebvre fully developed and employed his three-dimensional dialectic.

Just two years later, Lefebvre’s intellectual trajectory once more took an unexpected turn when, at the very beginning of globalization, he provided a comprehensive discussion of the questions of the state and of mondialisation, before he returned to the question of everyday life and expanded it with an analysis of rhythms.¹⁶

In this impressive sequence of topics and research fields, a determining aspect of Lefebvre’s overall œuvre becomes visible: it follows the process of historic development, explores new aspects of social reality and identifies a whole range of new processes. This implies, for any appropriation and application of Lefebvre’s thinking, conceptualizing social reality as well as the production of theory as a historical process, analytically and empirically following the course of social dynamics and, therefore, consistently advancing his concepts.

2.2 A General Theory of Society in Space and Time

The apparently loose sequence of topics and questions emerging through the course of Lefebvre’s intellectual trajectory is thus not the incidental result of a cruise through the Zeitgeist, but the result of a careful study of the unfolding of social reality that can be embedded in an overall historical and theoretical context. A systematic reading reveals that Lefebvre’s theoretical construction displays great rigour and coherence on the one hand, but also offers a flexible framework that facilitates the continuous adoption of new developments and allows them to be integrated into the theory. Accordingly, a systematic reading reveals a very different depiction of Lefebvre’s theoretical concepts. Here, three core analytical categories may be distinguished: levels, dimensions and configurations.¹⁷

The category of ‘space–time levels’ of social reality refers to the social context of the production of space. Here, Lefebvre identifies first of all a general level or distant order; second, a private level or near order; and third, an intermediate and mediating level, the genuine level of the urban.¹⁸ Within this category, the four central topics that dominate Lefebvre’s later work can be related to each other and placed in a general scheme: ‘everyday life’, the ‘urban’, the ‘state’ and ‘space’. In this framework, ‘space’ is to be understood as the comprehensive category, while the other categories refer to specific space-time levels of space.

The category of ‘space-time dimensions’ of social reality refers to the fundamental aspects of any social practice: the perceived, the conceived and the lived (le perçu, le conçu, le vécu). Lefebvre superimposes upon these three phenomenological terms three corresponding terms derived from linguistics and semiotics: spatial practice, the representation of space and spaces as representation. The production of space may therefore be grasped analytically as the totality of three dialectically interlinked production processes that mutually imply each other: the production of material goods, the production of knowledge and the production of meanings. On a more general level, one might state that there are various ways of accessing social reality: it can be perceived (i.e. observed using the five senses); it can be conceived and constructed; and it can also be experienced. From this point of view, the three dimensions constitute a contradictory, three-dimensional or triadic unity.¹⁹

The category of ‘space-time configurations’ of social reality relates to the historicity and temporality of the production of space. Lefebvre refers to these configurations in various ways: at the level of the urban, he identifies a succession of the rural, the industrial and the urban field. At the general or global level, he sees a historical development from absolute to abstract and finally to differential space. These configurations refer to specific ways of the production of space that are relatively stable over time. One might also say that reference is made here to the trajectories and pathways, but also to the rhythms of social development.

In these diverse theoretical elements, we find nothing less than a general theory of society that integrates space and time as constitutive aspects into its basic structure. Such a theory offers decisive advantages in several respects: first of all, it can be applied at all scales—it allows general analyses of planetary urbanization as well as studies of a concrete urban situation on a street corner. Second, this theory opens up a broad range of applications ranging from the social sciences to architecture and urban design, and it provides productive links to many of the concepts in urban theory and research that have been developed in the past decades. Third, the famous ‘turns’ in the social sciences of recent decades, from the linguistic and the spatial to the cultural turn, are already included in this theory. For instance, questions of language and semiotics, but also questions of symbolisms and everyday experiences, are integrated as constitutive elements into this social theory. Long before concepts of the actor–network theory were introduced into urban research, Lefebvre had already explicitly integrated the materiality of the urban and of space into his theory and had opened it up to applications in the field of political ecology. Furthermore, his theory also bridges the divide between economic and cultural studies that was largely responsible for the rifts between political economy and postmodern and poststructuralist approaches. Fourth, not the least of its advantages is that it constitutes a general theory of society in its spatial and temporal conditions. As such, it not only offers some heuristic principles and guidelines but also enables the embedding of a vide variety of questions in an encompassing theoretical framework.

However, these advantages have a price: certain specificities of this theory must be accepted that resist any easy and fast appropriation and application.

3 On Lefebvre’s Epistemology

Even though the basic construction of Lefebvre’s theory has in the meantime gained visible contours, considerable difficulties remain in the appropriation of his theory. This is largely due to the fact that the epistemological base of Lefebvre’s thinking exhibits certain characteristics that are not widely appreciated in today’s strongly empirically oriented and often theoretically shallow debates.

3.1 A Three-Dimensional Dialectic

One of the fundamental characteristics is the dialectical construction of Lefebvre’s concepts, which entails that they are not easily accessible and comprehensible. The question of dialectics has repeatedly caused a great deal of confusion. Even today, it often remains little understood and continues to create significant problems. Another difficulty is the unusual version of this dialectic, which Lefebvre himself explained only at a late stage. Unlike the dialectics of Hegel and Marx, Lefebvre’s version is three-dimensional; that is, it relates three terms to each other. This is a basic principle that appears as early as in his texts and develops gradually in the course of his writings,²⁰ until it finally unfolds to achieve its full scope in The Production of Space, where it becomes the cornerstone of the three-dimensional theory of the production of space.

This dialectic has an immense potential, but it also makes comprehension of the related concepts difficult. For the dialectical movement of the concepts must be comprehended in its entirety and cannot be reduced to singular quotes—a frequent error in the interpretation of Lefebvre’s texts. Often, scholars and researchers try to circumvent this dialectic and apply only selected aspects of the concepts. However, if Lefebvre’s concepts are used in a non-dialectical way, they get detached from their underlying ‘deep’ structure and thus lose a significant part of their analytical power and effectiveness.

3.2 Concrete Abstraction

Directly related to this dialectic is the principle of ‘concrete abstraction’, Lefebvre’s ‘key to the real’ (Lefebvre 1977: 63). In his understanding, it is necessary not only to construct concepts but also to free them from their ontological seclusion and to comprehend them in the context of the concrete social reality itself. Therefore, he aims to trace the genesis of the concepts in the historical process and in the dialectic of mental abstraction and concrete reality. By way of exemplary explanation, Lefebvre refers to the ambiguous concept of the ‘commodity’ as developed by Marx at the beginning of the first volume of Capital: the commodity has an exchange value that is, however, always based on its use value. The use value is the material support of the exchange value, which in turn constitutes the social form of wealth in capitalist societies. The use value is absorbed in the social abstraction of exchange, but it can be realized only in use, in consumption. The commodity is therefore abstract, but at the same time always concrete and imbued with certain properties and qualities. Thus, the commodity has a general, abstract aspect (its exchange value) as well as a concrete, material aspect (its use value). It is necessary to advance from the abstract to the concrete in order to apprehend the contradictory nature of the social world.²¹

In Lefebvre’s view, therefore, abstraction is the result of a historical process and is generated by social reality. He conceives key terms such as ‘everyday life’, ‘the urban’ or ‘state’ as concrete abstractions.²² The application of this principle to space brought Lefebvre to his concept of ‘abstract space’, which is simultaneously homogeneous and fragmented: it is homogeneous and abstract because it is part of the global dominance of the commodity and because its existence is achieved only through the convertibility of all its constituent parts; at the same time, it is concrete and fragmented because, as such, it is a part of the material social reality and therefore always localized (Lefebvre 1991: 341f.).

3.3 Strategy of Knowledge

Based on these insights, Lefebvre also pursues a specific strategy of knowledge (Lefebvre 2000 [1972]: 28). He frequently introduced his terms as approximations, or ‘strategic hypotheses’, whose scope and range of applicability he explores in the course of his investigation. Accordingly, his terminology is also continuously shifting dialectically—it might be said that it is marked by a fluctuating underlying structure.

In Lefebvre’s understanding, terms emerge under certain historical conditions, both in social reality and in theoretical thought (Lefebvre 1980: 15f., 61). This is why terms must always be embedded in their historical context of emergence and understood historically. At the same time, these terms express not only a ‘truth’ but have also an ‘effectiveness’: they elucidate reality and simultaneously animate the future. Developing a concept therefore means situating it, consolidating it and also detecting its limitations until it can finally be used as an instrument of analysis and critique. Lefebvre’s theoretical and empirical procedure (démarche) consists of carrying out precisely this process in the course of an analysis, which is also reflected in his books: he usually sets out by offering a tentative definition of a concept in order subsequently to develop it. As he himself explains, the ‘truth’ of a concept does not make itself known until the end of a book as the result of a process of enquiry that reveals the dynamic nature of the concept. It is of course evident that this process will not stop at the end of a book—thus the concept will continue to evolve further in theoretical debates as well as in practice. However, this being the case, the theory as a whole must also be continuously developed; it must never stand still.

Thus, Lefebvre’s theory not only serves as an analytical framework, but might even become a generating force: it invites one to investigate certain questions that otherwise would have remained unconsidered, and it leads to certain logical conclusions, whether one likes them or not—this is the very practical value of such a theory. The point is therefore to reduce this theory not to a nice bouquet of quotations that may be used to decorate one’s empirical studies, but as an instrument of analysis and as a tool for practical application.

4 On the Relationship Between Theory and Empirical Research

How then can these complex theoretical concepts be used empirically? This brings us to the next source of possible trouble: while his theory has gradually found better understanding in recent years, and many of his concepts have been debated and clarified, the question of empirical application has long remained opaque. Lefebvre himself did not really offer clarification here, as his books remain elusive when it comes to this question, and the examples he gives are often more illustrative in character than presenting detailed results of concrete field research. In his recent book, Henri Lefebvre on Space, Stanek (2011) closed this lacuna. He meticulously traces how Lefebvre developed his theories on the basis of concrete empirical studies and how he repeatedly also participated in the elaboration of concrete architectural and urbanistic projects.²³ It is necessary in this context to clearly contest and rectify certain myths that have been spread time and again and are still used as arguments against empirical research on the basis of his theory: Lefebvre’s theory has an empirical background and is designed for empirical application.

However, Lefebvre himself did not develop any sophisticated methodology. He and his colleagues and assistants used the existing methods that were available at the time, based mainly on qualitative methodologies. It follows that there are no simple recipes or models that would allow us to apply his concepts. Many of those cannot be transferred directly, or only with a considerable effort. This is a problem in particular because working with Lefebvre’s theory is not simply about applying an existing repertoire of concepts, but about the necessity of continuously advancing the theory as part of an engagement with current developments in society. This is largely due to the specific dialectical relationship between theory and empirical research in Lefebvre’s understanding.

4.1 Transdisciplinarity

Lefebvre’s metaphilosophical point of departure is his comprehensive analysis of social processes. Accordingly he attempts to grasp the totality of social reality and he does not respect disciplinary boundaries, but on the contrary attempts to transcend and abolish them. Thus, he frequently fiercely criticizes the prevalent division of labour in academia and repeatedly states explicitly his opposition to the specialization, the parcelling and the resulting disciplining of knowledge. He understands the splitting up of knowledge into individual disciplines as seriously limiting the possibility of generating new insights (Lefebvre 1980: 37).

As Lefebvre stated in The Urban Revolution, grasping the problematic of urbanization in its entire breadth would justify the foundation of a university bringing together a wide range of disciplines; but it would also require the convergence of those disciplines (Lefebvre 2003 [1970]: 54, 56). Thus, his approach consists of rigorous transdisciplinarity: the point is not to split up knowledge and to reduce research questions to isolated aspects; instead, one should strive to comprehend the totality of a phenomenon. However, such an aspiration is a frequent cause of conflicts with the narrow institutional boundaries of the various disciplines.

4.2 Transduction

A second important aspect of Lefebvre’s research is transduction. His own metaphilosophical epistemology prevented him from attempting to systematize terms on the basis of a (new or old) speculative principle. Instead, his goal was to explore the meaning, the content, the boundaries and ultimately the conditions of the social validity of his concepts, which meant applying a double-edged procedure: a critique of the concepts through practice; and a critique of practice through the concepts. This means that (abstract) concepts must always be related to a concrete reality, and thus exposed to a real confrontation. Lefebvre’s ambition was to use his concepts as guidelines in order to understand society, by provoking a confrontation of the philosophical concepts with the non-philosophical world.²⁴

Thus, Lefebvre develops his concepts in mutual interaction with empirical research. His empirical approach is neither induction nor deduction, but dialectical transduction.²⁵ He regards this process as a dialectical movement: the first (dialectical) moment is the comprehension of concrete social practice; the second moment aims to approach lived experience without destroying it; the third and final moment consists of developing the concept that will simultaneously permit comprehension of the (historical) social process, a critique of the present and a prospective illumination of the horizon of the future (Lefebvre 1980: 37). Lefebvre’s theoretical concepts can therefore not simply be ‘applied’, that is, used as a theoretical framework for analysing and explaining various empirical case studies. Rather, the purpose is to confront these concepts with reality, or to immerse them in reality and thus make them productive.

4.3 Critique and Project

In order to understand this confrontation it is imperative to have a clear understanding of what Lefebvre’s project really was: in a universal sense, no less than a project for the emancipation of humankind (Lefebvre 2016 [1965]). Lefebvre’s goal was thus not, as is so often the case in academia, to solve puzzles, but to achieve a change in society and to apply the analysis itself as an instrument of transformation. Such an analysis is always both a critique and a project.²⁶ In this sense, the critique constitutes a theoretical act and thus an intervention into a social field.

This is what Lefebvre referred to as ‘metaphilosophy’: the philosophy becomes ‘realized’, part of the ‘world’. This means, however, that it has to give up its status as philosophy and become a project that realizes itself in the world and, through this very realization, negates itself in the process of (dialectical) sublation (Lefebvre 2016 [1965]: 62). Thus, the starting point has to be a radical critique of the present situation, which finally opens up the possibility of practical (and radical) change.

One cannot therefore adopt Lefebvre’s theory ‘as it is’, but must advance it conceptually in constant interaction with social reality. This is why the theory must also constantly be further developed: what is needed is an open and creative way of handling it. This will be explained in the following sections by several concrete examples

5 The Three-Dimensional Analysis of the Production of Space

Nowhere are both the problems and the potentials of Lefebvre’s theory more evident than in his famous three-dimensional conception of the production of space, the key epistemological element of this theory. As outlined above, what this conception refers to is not a set of three independent dimensions, but an ensemble of three contradictions and thus interdependencies between three poles. Therefore, the goal cannot be to use the three dimensions like drawers to be filled with corresponding empirical examples or as a scaffold that serves to order the abundance of social reality. Rather, it should be understood as an instrument that can be used to actively advance the analysis. Therefore, there are the dialectical relationships between the three poles that are of main interest. The aim must be to regard such relationships as active elements and not to study them independently, but rather to analyse the dialectical interplay of the dimensions. As Lefebvre emphasized again and again, the three dimensions or moments should be neither conflated nor separated.²⁷

Thus, there are many analyses that work with a three-dimensional outline, but only few that fully apply it and make it fruitful. This is due not least to the complexity of this theory: empirical studies that fully operate with this three-dimensionality require a huge effort, as they must first analyse spatial practice, that is, the material processes related to the production of space; second, examine the representations of space, that is, discourses, concepts, plans and so on; and finally also integrate the spaces of representation and thus lived experience into the analysis. That means applying a whole range of often demanding and laborious, mainly qualitative, methods. Additionally, the dialectical interdependencies between the three dimensions must be analysed, which is again not an easy task. Nevertheless, it is possible to carry out such analyses, and they can be very fruitful.²⁸

5.1 Networks, Borders, Differences

In order to allow a broader application, it is often useful to narrow down the research question or to develop a more accessible analytical framework. This is what we did in the project Switzerland—An Urban Portrait (Diener et al. 2006). This project, which involved architects Roger Diener, Jacques Herzog, Marcel Meili and Pierre de Meuron, about 150 students of architecture and 20 research assistants, aimed at developing a novel analysis of the urbanization of Switzerland. In order to allow the involvement of students in the empirical research, we developed a simplified theoretical concept or ‘field kit’ based on Lefebvre’s triad that is easy to comprehend and can be applied in the field, but at the same time is solidly anchored in theory. As a result we found a series of three terms that could guide and inspire our investigation: networks, borders and differences.

These three terms relate directly to the three basic concepts of Lefebvre’s triad (cf. Schmid 2006): first of all, spatial practice can be operationalized using the concept of networks. Urban space is a space of exchange, meeting and interaction. It is permeated by all sorts of networks that can be analysed in order to identify various urban constellations on different scales. Second, urban spaces are always permeated by manifold political, social and cultural borders: one may understand these as indicators of the urban condition of a territory and therefore use them as the basis of a critical investigation of various definitions of urban space. The methodological assignment here was always to frame the map in such a way that the borders are in the centre: in this way, the existing representations of space were decentred, while the borders between various areas became visible. It is often the case that maps are left with white spaces beyond the borders, as nothing is shown there, and thus they might conceal key elements of spatial development. An analysis of the ‘white realms’ of a map can therefore be particularly illuminating. Third, we used a term that often creates difficulties, but that is crucial for any analysis of urban spaces following Lefebvre’s approach: difference, which denotes a specific aspect of lived space. Our goal here was on the one hand to discover various forms of difference, and, on the other, to investigate differences as constitutive elements of urban territories. These three terms enabled a dynamic definition and analysis of urban areas and the development of a typology of different urbanization processes.

6 On the Analysis of Urban Territories

In order to apply this set of tools empirically, we followed Lefebvre’s classic procedure by taking his famous thesis of complete urbanization as the starting point of our analysis. This thesis had already proven to be very fruitful on many occasions. The first time that my colleagues and I, as students, applied this thesis to Switzerland,²⁹ it was a real provocation: we met with vigorous opposition from all sides—the thesis simply flew in the face of everyday observation and of the prevalent rural image of Switzerland, notwithstanding the fact that Switzerland had already become largely industrialized and urbanized in the nineteenth century. Even years later, this thesis continued to evoke objections. Finally, I came to end my lectures on the topic with a joke: ‘No doubt there are still cows on Swiss meadows—but they are not rural cows, they are urban cows!’ Indeed, in Switzerland (as in other countries), agriculture has become a modern industry using digital technology and is heavily subsidized by the government. At the same time, the so-called ‘rural’ areas are far removed from idyllic ideas of village communities: they have long become integrated into manifold urban networks; their territory is covered with all kinds of urban symbols and signals; standards of living and lifestyles have largely become similar to those of urban regions; and everyday life is oriented towards the needs of an urban population.

The contradiction between ‘city’ and ‘countryside’ has therefore been fundamentally transformed and can no longer serve as a fruitful starting point of an analysis. This means that the analysis should no longer focus on the differences between ‘urban’ and ‘rural’ areas, but examine the differences developing within the urban. It would be completely misleading to start from the assumption that the thesis of complete urbanization implies a homogenization of all territories. On the contrary, urbanization is a process that is constantly bringing forth new urban situations and thus also creating new differences. This also means not reducing urbanization to the production of the built environment, but understanding it as a comprehensive social process and developing a much broader definition of the urban, while also including other aspects in the analysis: the transformation of everyday life; the development of (different) urban lifestyles; the changing patterns of communications and mobility; the manifold interdependencies and linkages of social and economic life (see also Schmid 2013).

6.1 Complete Urbanization in Switzerland

In the project Switzerland—An Urban Portrait we finally took the thesis of complete urbanization as the basis for a systematic analysis of the urban conditions in Switzerland. The challenge was to proceed with a comprehensive analysis of urbanization for the entire territory, including so-called ‘rural’ areas, and to find a methodological design that allowed us to detect various forms of urbanization. We developed a methodological procedure that combined methods of social sciences and of architecture and also attributed great epistemological significance to the design process. Maps became the main instruments of this analysis; the texts were ultimately only commentaries on the maps—is was a cartographical analysis in the proper sense of the term. For this empirical enquiry, we applied a multi-step approach. First, we came up with the three theoretical categories—networks, borders, and differences—that would guide our investigation. Second, we developed a set of empirical methods that we called ‘drills’: a specific combination of classic field research methods such as interviews, participant observation and document research with which we explored the urban conditions in various places in Switzerland. Third, based on this empirical material, we used a specific form of mapping to construct and design the urban spaces of Switzerland, essentially following two methodological guidelines: on the one hand, we superimposed a wide range of indicators in order to grasp urbanization as a multilayered phenomenon, while, on the other, we avoided drawing sharp delineations of the various urban spaces in order to emphasize the blurriness and the processual nature of urbanization. Fourth, based on this cartographic analysis, we developed a typology of urbanized territories. The fifth and final phase saw the validation of this analysis through interviews and conversations with experts. This is particularly important in such a case, since the point is to test and consolidate these representations of space, benefiting from the wealth of implicit knowledge that local experts have, which is often much more substantial than statistical analyses.

The result of this work was a new image of Switzerland that avoided the term ‘rural’ altogether. We identified five different types of urbanized territories: metropolitan regions, networks of cities, quiet zones, Alpine resort, and Alpine fallow lands. We thus succeeded in shedding light on urbanization processes that are not usually within the scope of an urban analysis, especially various forms of peripheral urbanization.

6.2 On Planetary Urbanization

If we take this analysis one step further, it has manifold implications far beyond Switzerland alone. Urbanization today is a process that involves the entire territory of the planet and not only certain areas. There is no longer an ‘outside’ of the urban condition. A further-reaching concept is therefore required that is capable of comprehending, depicting and analysing the wide variety of urbanization processes that take place outside of the areas hitherto regarded as ‘urban’. This is why Neil Brenner and I developed the concept of ‘planetary urbanization’ (Brenner and Schmid 2011, 2015) that is also based on Lefebvre’s thesis of complete urbanization.

Lefebvre captured this observation in the powerful metaphor of ‘implosion–explosion’: the tremendous concentration of people, activities, wealth, goods, objects, instruments, means and thought, and, at the same time, the immense explosion, the projection of numerous, disjunct fragments into space (Lefebvre 2003 [1970]: 14). Based on these considerations, we developed a novel conception that understands urbanization as a dialectical relationship of ‘concentrated’ and ‘extended’ urbanization. It is designed not only to focus on processes of agglomeration alone, but also to take into account the concomitant wide expansion of urban networks, infrastructural arrangements and sociometabolic processes (Brenner and Schmid 2015).

7 Representations of Space and ‘Other’ Spaces

In Lefebvrean terms, we can understand such new images and definitions of urban areas, as discussed above, as ‘representations of space’. As Nietzsche has stated, we cannot see something without giving it a name (Lefebvre 1980: 39). Accordingly, we are not able to act within a space without having developed an idea of what that space looks like. In order to communicate this idea, we require terms, concepts, images, maps that delimit and denote this space. Thus representations of space are defined in a twofold manner—as (conceived) ideas and as (communicated) concepts.³⁰ They signify something, they prescribe something, they guide our actions and give them a direction. As Lefebvre tells us, such representations are never innocent: they are always associated with power.

What effects do such representations of space have? They privilege certain aspects and suppress others. This raises the question of what is present and what is absent, what is illuminated and what is hidden—what is not shown being often more important than what is shown. It was for good reason that Lefebvre called these phenomena ‘representations of space’, although, as he himself notes, they are close to ideologies. However, in his later work, Lefebvre preferred to develop a theory of representation instead of further employing the term ‘ideology’ (Lefebvre 1980: 27).³¹ For representations of space have an operational quality: their purpose is to denote something, to illuminate something, to change something. Thus proposing a different representation of space constitutes an intervention in the debate. Lefebvre’s theory is self-reflexive at this point and shows how the researcher himself becomes an actor in the process of the production of space. This directly poses the question of the responsibility of the researcher: as Lefebvre notes, the author has to take a personal responsibility in such operations and incurs risks, including the risk of error (Lefebvre 2000 [1972]: 28).

7.1 The Project: A New Image of Switzerland

This nexus can be illustrated particularly well in Switzerland - An Urban Portrait, which was conceived from the beginning not only as an analysis, but also as a project: its declared purpose was to create a new image of Switzerland, and to substitute it for the old image. This meant advancing the analysis to the point where it effectively turned into a project. Initially, frequent criticism was voiced that this portrait contained no concrete proposals—the notion of architects ‘only’ analysing without proposing a project was unacceptable to many. They overlooked the fact that this analysis simultaneously constituted a project. Primarily, it comprised a detailed critique of the existing representations of Switzerland, especially of the concept of ‘decentralized concentration’ that had been developed in the 1930s and been reissued and refined repeatedly ever since. This concept, which portrayed Switzerland as a compromise between ‘urban’ and ‘rural’ areas, called for a decentralized settlement of the country, which, however, ultimately constituted one of the key conditions for the complete urbanization of Switzerland. The image of Switzerland in the Urban Portrait, on the other hand, was diametrically opposed to such idyllic and outdated conceptions and revealed what many did not like to recognize: the presence of large-scale sociospatial inequalities, different speeds of development and varying qualities of urbanization. Our maps thus revealed what earlier studies—in particular those operating with statistical analyses—had carefully concealed: the unequal development of the territory. Thus, for instance, the category of ‘rural areas’ as shown in many statistics comprises two completely different types of areas: on the one hand, areas experiencing strong pressure of urbanization (we called them ‘quiet zones’), and on the other hand, areas marked by a continuous loss of social energy and activities (which we called ‘Alpine fallow lands’). This second type in particular gave rise to intense public debate and strong criticism. The long-time cultivated image of Switzerland as a decentralized, but well-organized, carefully balanced and regionally equilibrated country had developed cracks and fissures, which were clearly addressed and exposed in this new representation of space.

In this context, it was interesting to note other reactions, for example: ‘What you’re showing is nothing new—we’ve known that for years.’ In reality, however, we have found no publication that depicted Switzerland in a similar way before the Urban Portrait was published. Thus our representation was seen as so plausible that some regarded it as a statement of well-known facts. This observation, in turn, takes us back to the triadic analysis: it is impossible to perceive a space without previously having conceived it, and space cannot be conceived without having been experienced. The depiction must therefore be based on experience; it must re-present something that is rooted in a concrete reality.

Interestingly, the new image of Switzerland we proposed has largely established itself in the meantime. It marked the beginning of a paradigm shift in Swiss planning history and has left a significant mark on it, up to the point where it was used as the starting point for a new official planning concept for the spatial development of Switzerland.³²

7.2 Havana Profunda: ‘Forgotten’ Space and Alternative Project

The approach of the Urban Portrait was also adopted in another project, in order to elaborate an analysis for the future urban development of Havana (Peña Díaz and Schmid 2008). This analysis had obviously to cope with completely different conditions and to apply other means than those used in the Urban Portrait, mainly because of a blatant scarcity of statistics, data and information. We therefore organized a series of workshops with experts from academia and urban planning to elaborate a new conception of Havana’s urban structure.³³ Here, too, the identification and analysis of urban configurations revealed an urban structure that was very different form the hitherto dominant representation of this urban space, which is basically defined in strictly geographical terms: the prevailing planning concept, which has been applied for many years, subdivided the entire urban area of Havana into three zones—a central, a peripheral, and an intermediary zone. In contrast to this representation, two major urban configurations emerged from our analysis: the Blue Strip and Deep Havana.

The Blue Strip is our term for a heterogeneous strip of varying breadth along the coast in which the important institutions, facilities, restaurants and hotels are concentrated. It is the area that continues to determine the image of Havana today—where the image of a tropical, urban Eldorado, reproduced for decades in cinema, literature and advertisements, finds its world-famous iconography. Accordingly, the Blue Strip is also the part of Havana that draws the greatest international attention, as well as the crowds of tourists and visitors and the influx of investments. International architectural and research projects also focus almost exclusively on this area. By contrast, the south of the city features a large area that is also quite heterogeneous and comprises very diverse neighbourhoods. While it is located right in the geographical centre of Havana, it forms in many respects a remote, forgotten, neglected and disregarded part of the Caribbean metropolis, which is overshadowed by the famous neighbourhoods along the coast and is far away from the flows of visitors and capital. It also became clear that there are hardly any academic studies on this area. We called this area Deep Havana.

In this case, too, the elaboration of an ‘other’ representation of space was the key to addressing the issue of social and sociospatial inequalities that have developed in Havana. Although the full analysis has yet to be published, the two terms we coined have already entered the local debate on planning and urban development.

As these examples show, the full reach of the three-dimensional analysis unfolds here:

What representations of space reveal, illuminate, make explicit, are just as significant as what they leave in the dark and conceal. This allows us to identify ‘forgotten’ spaces, underappreciated spaces, disregarded spaces.

The mere exposure already has an effect in this context: it is important to disclose another reality and to draw a different map. The analysis reveals something and brings it to the surface; the point is to make something visible, to show a reality that was always present, but is not depicted, expressed and exposed in dominant representations and is therefore absent from discourse and not subject to debate. Introducing this reality and thus making it accessible to experience is one of the decisive moments of analysis and marks the beginning of a possible alternative project.

8 Beyond Lefebvre³⁴

How should the theory of the production of space be handled? These examples show only a few of the possibilities for mobilizing and applying this theory in a productive way, and of course there are many other possible ways for engaging with this theory. However, based on the reflections presented above, we can nevertheless sketch a few elements of a possible research strategy.

First of all, Lefebvre’s theory must be taken seriously if it is to deploy its full potential. It should not be regarded as a quantité négligeable; nor should it be used as a quarry of ideas and concepts. Rather, its principles of construction should be illuminated and the full potential of its effectiveness should be exhausted.

Second, it is important to remember that the most important texts on the theory of the production of space were written more than four decades ago, which means that their further development is inevitable. We live in a completely different world today: new developments have arisen, and we require new concepts to be able to understand this world. It is therefore important that Lefebvre’s work not be canonized, but continuously expanded in engagement with reality. Additionally, theoretical advances that have since been achieved should also be acknowledged and taken into account.

First and foremost, employing Lefebvre’s concepts means applying them, which implies following the core of Lefebvre’s procedure: always confronting the theory with concrete experiences, experimenting, continuously engaging with concrete practice in order to develop the theory further, immersing the theory in reality and making it fruitful—and thus ultimately also going beyond Lefebvre.

Notes

• 1. Alfred Hitchcock, The Trouble with Harry, Paramount 1955.

• 2. See Kipfer et al. (2008, 2012).

• 3. Castells (1977); cf. also Coornaert and Garnier (1994). Castells later revised his view on Lefebvre’s theory considerably; cf. Castells (1983).

• 4. See Harvey (1973) and (1982). One of the few other scholars who positively received Lefebvre’s theory was Gottdiener (1985).

• 5. See, e.g., Soja (1989, 1996), Gregory (1994), Dear (2000).

• 6. Cf. Kipfer et al. (2008) and Schmid (2008).

• 7. Cf. Schmid (2005, 2022), Kipfer et al. (2008).

• 8. The list of important publications on Lefebvre’s work has become very long in the meantime. To quote just a few: Hess (1988), Kofman and Lebas (1996), Shields (1999), Elden (2004), Schmid (2005, 2022), Merrifield (2006), Goonewardena et al. (2008), Brenner and Elden (2009), Stanek (2011), Ajzenberg et al. (2011), Stanek et al. (2014).

• 9. Since the English translation of La Production de l’espace in 1991, a whole series of further translations of books and articles on the city and urbanization, on everyday life and modernity and also on the state has been published.

• 10. Lefebvre (2008 [1947, 1958], 2000 [1972]), cf. Stanek (2011).

• 11. Lefebvre (2016 [1965], 1995 [1962], 1966).

• 12. Lefebvre (1996 [1968], 2003 [1972]).

• 13. Lefebvre (1969 [1968]).

• 14. Lefebvre (1970). Cf. Schmid (2005, 2022), Kipfer (2008).

• 15. Lefebvre (1991 [1974]).

• 16. Lefebvre (1976a, b, 1977, 1978, 2006 [1981], 2004 [1992]), Brenner and Elden (2009).

• 17. The theory of the production of space is reconstructed in detail in Schmid (2005).

• 18. Cf. also Goonewardena (2005).

• 19. Cf. Schmid (2008).

• 20. Cf. e.g. Lefebvre (2002 [1962], 1966, 1986).

• 21. Cf. also Stanek (2008).

• 22. Lefebvre (2003 [1972]: 87, 1991: 341).

• 23. Cf. also Bittner and Weber (2009).

• 24. Lefebvre (2016 [1965], 2000 [1972]: 28).

• 25. Cf. Lefebvre (2002 [1962]: 118; 2003 [1972]: 5).

• 26. Cf. Stanek (2011).

• 27. Cf. e.g. Lefebvre (1991 [1974]: 12, 413).

• 28. Cf. e.g. Stanek (2014), Bertuzzo (2009), Schmid (2012).

• 29. Hartmann et al. (1986).

• 30. Lefebvre (1980: 8) refers here to the German terms Vorstellung and Darstellung.

• 31. Cf. also Goonewardena (2005), Wachsmuth (2013).

• 32. Bundesamt für Raumentwicklung (2012).

• 33. This was a participative process involving around 50 experts in varying compositions; see also Peña Díaz and Schmid (2008).

• 34. This title refers to the conference ‘Urban Research and Architecture: Beyond Henri Lefebvre’ (ETH Zurich, 24–26 November 2009).