Name: Andrew Wallis.

Subject: MA in American and Canadian Studies.

Course Module: Guided Reading
Tutor: Dr. Liam Kennedy
Essay Title: A Critique oI Henri LeIebvre's Spatial Theories in his The Production OI
Space.
Date: 22 January 1996.
2
A Critique of Henri Lefebvre's Spatial Theories in his !"# %&'()*+,'- ./ 012*#.
Published in 1974 (though not translated into English until 1991), Henri LeIebvre's inIluential
text The Production Of Space, can be seen to be the primary piece oI writing that reintroduced
spatial theories to the world oI academia. Originating Irom a Western Marxist background,
LeIebvre embellishes his thesis with the disciplines oI philosophy and history, continually
evoking the concepts oI Marx and Hegel. Although he uses these teachings to good eIIect when
examining how space is produced in a capitalist society, and through the history oI Ancient
Greece and Rome, I shall not be concentrating upon them in this essay. The reason Ior this
exclusion, is that I Ieel the acute detail he examines these with, has a tendency to position a veil
over his theories concerning space, diverting the reader Irom notions oI spatiality towards a
Marxist criticism oI capitalism. Yet, it is because oI his political persuasion that he is able to
explicitly witness the production oI capitalist space, and its inherent complexities and
contradictions.
Instead oI looking at the history and philosophy oI space, I shall attempt an analysis and
critique oI LeIebvre's key concepts and thoughts (though many oI his proposals are diIIicult to
argue against). This shall be done by looking at his discussions that move Irom absolute space
to abstract space, Irom contradictory space to the commodiIication oI this space, an
explanation oI how produced space is simultaneously homogenous and Iragmented, and
concluding with a truth, or science oI space. This should highlight some oI LeIebvre's complex
(sometimes conIusing) ideas on why there is a need to analyse the production oI mental, social,
and physical space to reach a 'truth oI space'.
Early on in his work, LeIebvre asserts that 'social space is a social product'
1
. II one is to make
sense oI this statement , one is required to examine what that production process is. LeIebvre
sees this process as being one conducted over time, that institutional or state powers 'produce' a
space, a space that was once deemed to be 'empty'. It is through this time consuming operation
that the dominant power is able to assert its hierarchical position and autonomy over this space,
yet will 'Iail to master it completely'
2
. This is all very well and straight Iorward, yet this space,
as an instrument oI power, has the eIIect oI producing and reproducing social spaces in a
variety oI complex ways.
Within the production oI a social space, dialectical relationships emerge that cause the
statement 'social space is a social product' to be not only too simplistic, but also problematic.
LeIebvre observes a dialectic emerging in this situation, that being the relationship between
1
LeIebvre, Henri - The Production Of Space (Blackwell Publishers, OxIord, 1994), p.26.
2
Ibid. p.26.
3
'social relations oI reproduction' (this basically being the Iamily sect), and 'the relations oI
production'
3
(the division oI labour and its related class system). These two interlocking
relations Iorm a dialectic, where each determines and inIluences the other, helping to produce a
social space. Yet, when this dialectic is positioned within a 'neo-capitalist' Iramework, LeIebvre
argues that this duality is insuIIicient. What is required, he says, is 'a conceptual triad'
4
with
which to work Irom..
A problem when looking at the production oI space, is that it contains many contradictions that
are inseparable Irom one another. The 'conceptual triad' that LeIebvre introduces Iorms the
basis Ior ways to examine this production; as David Harvey comments, it demonstrates 'a
dramatic tension through which the history oI spatial practices can be read'
5
. This triad that
runs through LeIebvre's essay (although continually changing Iorm), consists oI spatial
practice, representations oI space, and representational space. Spatial practice incorporates not
only the manner society produces space, but also the way space produces society, thus
supporting the statement mentioned above. To illustrate this, LeIebvre uses the networks oI
roads. This 'urban reality'
6
is given a space produced by society to maintain order and
cohesiveness. Yet it is also a space that is able to determine the power the hegemonic order has
over society, and is able to produce 'daily reality'
7
. It is a dialectical relationship that will be
shown later to have many contradictions; it is, however, suIIice to say at this junction that it is
the space oI the experienced.
The crux oI the triad emerges when looking at its two other aspects. LeIebvre sees a
representation oI space as being a conceptualised space, a space that relates its production 'to
knowledge, to signs, to codes'
8
. A space needs to be given codes oI language or semiotics to
obtain a spatial perception: what LeIebvre views as being essential Ior a conception oI the
production oI space. Correspondingly, this space is also imaginary and lived, which takes the
Iorm oI representational space. These spaces are, according to Harvey, 'mental inventions...that
imagine new meanings or possibilities Ior spatial practices'
9
, whilst also perIorming an active
role in the lived perIormance oI that space.
It is this perIormance oI the lived experience that can (though not always) produce a space, or
spaces, via the imaginary, or via the use oI a pre-existing space. The relationship between
representations oI space and representational space is a conIusing one, Ior when looking at the
history oI space Irom a contemporary spatial perspective, one already is possessed with the
knowledge (connaissance) with which to understand and recognise it. A conceptualised and/or
3
LeIebvre, Henri - The Production Of Space (Blackwell Publisher, OxIord, 1994), p.32.
4
Ibid. p.33.
5
Harvey, David - The Condition Of Postmodernitv (Blackwell Publishers, OxIord, 1990), p.219.
6
LeIebvre, Henri - The Production Of Space (Blackwell Publishers, OxIord, 1994), p.38.
7
Ibid. p.38.
8
Ibid. p.33.
9
Harvey, David - The Condition Of Postmodernitv (Blackwell Publishers, OxIord, 1990), p.218-19.
4
imagined space oI history is already represented in the present, and thus cannot be perceived
but only represented through analysis and hindsight. Yet, LeIebvre argues that the relationship
between these two representations can be understood iI one views the producers oI space (the
architect, the government) as working with representations oI space, Ior they conceive it, whilst
the 'users', hence society, 'experience whatever was imposed upon them'
10
, and work with
representational space. It is a complex triad, especially when positioned in relation to the
diIIerent perspectives oI social space, and Irom the position oI one who already acknowledges
that these spaces are present and already produced. It does however, provide one with the
terminology and Iramework with which to Iully illustrate the contradictions oI spatial
production.
Having recognised this triad, oI the ways space can be seen to be produced, one can move
towards a deeper analysis oI the way society experienced a shiIt Irom absolute space - a
'natural' space like rivers and Iields that possessed codes to represent its signiIicance; towards
an abstract social space. This is the space where political powers and Iorces have restructured
or reproduced this 'natural' space to work in terms oI the construction oI the social labour
Iorce, something that LeIebvre sees as oIten being demonstrated through violence. He discusses
this abstract social space in much depth with regards to the class system, the emergence oI a
new capitalist space, the way language becomes knowledge, and the manner artists perIormed
its representational space. LeIebvre is at his strength though, when he reveals the dichotomies
and dialectics represented within this social space, and it is these that need attention.
Social space is produced in a variety oI ways, all oI which relate to each other. I shall attempt
(some may say crudely) to brieIly encapsulate the principle dialectics LeIebvre proposes, Ior
this shall hopeIully make things clearer later on. The relationship between use value and
exchange value has been heavily documented in terms oI the economic, yet in social space it
takes on a variety oI disguises. The use value oI space can be seen to be the manner space is
produced in terms oI labour output, the value it holds Ior individuals, and its 'natural'
resources. These clearly have a relationship with the exchange value, Ior LeIebvre sees these
spaces as becoming commodities in a capitalist society, obtaining a language allowing it to
have a content, and thus value. In the market place, this space is produced 'via money, and via
labour'
11
, having an economic, as well as political and social value placed upon it. Its use value
has determined its exchange value, which conversely determines its use. This dialectic takes its
Iorm in the relationship oI 'individual versus social, divided versus global', and cannot be seen
as homogenous or Iixed, Ior it is continually volatile to the production and reproduction oI that
social space.
10
LeIebvre, Henri - The Production Of Space (Blackwell Publishers, OxIord, 1994), p.43.
11
LeIebvre, Henri - The Production Of Space (Blackwell Publishers, OxIord, 1994), p.100.
5
Another dialectic LeIebvre sees as occurring in social space is between the demand and
command oI space. This, he argues, is 'a historical problem'
12
, Ior the production oI space
needs to have obtained a knowledge oI this relationship. The hegemonic powers that command
the production oI a space have to pay attention to its demand, and to the distinction between
material (stone and wood) and materiel (hammers and drills), Ior these apparently dictate
whether or not that space will survive its production. However, within this dialectic others
emerge, such as between the centre and the periphery (who demands and commands the centre
Ior example), and between dominated and appropriated space. What can be deduced here, is
that the analysis oI a produced space is by no means simple. One cannot say that social space
is determined merely by use value and exchange value, Ior this would be too narrow, and would
exclude what inIluences that dialectic and so on. However, these dialectical relationships are
vital to the analysis, yet what is also needed Ior this social space to become productive and
reproductive, is a language.
LeIebvre sees space obtaining markings and signs, not as a necessity, but as a command oI
power. These signs can be explicit, as in erected boundaries, or can be ideological in terms oI
do's and don'ts. Signs dictate within social space what to do, where to go, and how to behave,
Ior they are embedded in the notion oI power. LeIebvre views this to be a positive aspect, in
that signs are able to produce socio-spatial mobility and interaction; yet he also sees problems
in giving space a language, arguing that spaces are not receptable to readability. By this he
means that 'the reading oI space...comes last in the genesis oI space itselI'
13
. It is only when
space is produced and is the producer that it is able to have a language oI semiotics placed
upon it; Ior, as I see it, a reading oI social space depends upon the production oI that space
beIore any analysis oI the dialectics mentioned above can be made.
It seems that LeIebvre argues Ior and against this reading oI space, because his concern at this
stage, is with how space is produced, when it does not have a strict code or language oI power.
Ironically, what he is doing is giving this production a language, and thus seems to be
contradicting himselI. It is diIIicult to disagree with LeIebvre's discussion oI the semiotics oI
space, Ior a produced space needs to be read in order to grasp a knowledge oI its operations
and control oI society, the society oI everyday liIe. It would be interesting however, iI one could
position LeIebvre's ideas alongside Fredric Jameson's discussion oI the Bonaventure Hotel, in
which he Iinds it almost impossible to assign that space a language because oI it repetition and
distortion oI traditional spatial conceptions.
Now that a language has been established regarding the production oI space, one needs to
return to another dialectic proposed by LeIebvre. This is the concept oI space being both
12
Ibid. p.116.
13
LeIebvre, Henri - The Production Of Space (Blackwell Publishers, OxIord, 1994), p.143.
6
dominated and appropriated. He argues that space is dominated via the available technology
transIorming it, and 'in the modern world, instances oI such spaces are legion'
14
. It can be seen
that possibly the majority oI spaces in the modern western world are dominated, Ior one only
needs to look at the vertical buildings oI New York to see how that urban space is positively
and negatively dominated. But Ior this space oI New York to obtain its Iull meaning it needs to
be appropriated. The domineering vertical space oI New York becomes appropriated when it
enters everyday liIe, or the social sphere; Ior it is at this stage that certain social groups or
institutions give it meaning or codes oI power. The Empire State building not only dominates
the space it occupies, but it has obtained its Iull signiIicance oI representing wealth, power, and
advancement by being appropriated
15
. LeIebvre posits a basic example oI this dialectic as
being the distinction between the space oI the public and that oI the private. Public spaces such
as roads or parks, he suggests, are oIten established and dominated by the hegemonic social
order, whilst also perIorming a role in the dialectics previously mentioned, such as use and
exchange value. The domination oI these spaces is insuIIicient until they are appropriated by
society. The private space oI homes is an example LeIebvre shows as being appropriated.
Without inhabitants, homes are merely dominated, they become appropriated when human
subjects occupy that space. This may be seen as a weak example, Ior it does not distinguish the
diIIerences clearly. Yet it seems, that this is exactly LeIebvre's objective, Ior it reverts back to
the notion that without a language there could be no concept oI the dialectic oI domination and
appropriation, one would be unable to analyse how that space is produced within the social,
and it is Irom this language that one can examine the diIIerences.
What I have been discussing so Iar is LeIebvre's opinions on social space as absolute space,
where one needs to understand its semiology, and must recognise that this space cannot be
conIined to dualities, Ior it encompasses many diIIerent relationships and representations.
LeIebvre argues that a transIormation occured in this absolute space, 'a highly activated space'
1
6
, when it became dominated and appropriated during the middle ages Iorming the space oI
commercial towns, instead oI reIerring to religious or political sites (as was the case oI the
absolute space in Ancient Greece). This new space oI commodities and accumulation Iully
emerged during the sixteenth century, with the advent oI the town (the centre) becoming more
powerIul in the political economy than the traditional source oI wealth, that being the
agricultural countryside (the periphery). LeIebvre suggests that what occurred during this time,
was that the urban centre, the town, emerged as a social space having the political and
economic power with which to distribute commodities produced on the periphery, to whatever
space that power desired. This capitalist space oI the town developed to occupy even greater
14
Ibid. p.164.
15
An example oI this could be the classic movie King Kong, in which the Empire State building has been
appropriated by the movie to represent success and wealth dominating the United States.
16
LeIebvre, Henri - The Production Of Space (Blackwell Publishers, OxIord, 1994), p.236.
7
space over the years. LeIebvre sees this as emerging through its representational, produced, and
productive violence, bound up with the economic, becoming, what he terms, abstract space.
This established abstract space emerged Irom the dominating political Iorce oI violence, a Iorce
that attempted to eliminate diIIerence to produce a space that at 'Iirst...appears homogenous'
17
.
LeIebvre observes problems when examining this supposedly stable and comprehensible spatial
abstraction, and proposes that there is another triad in operation in this space. This triad oI
abstract space consists oI, what he terms, 'Iormants': the geometric Iormant, the optical
Iormant, and the phallic Iormant; two oI which help to position what I have been discussing in
a clearer light.
The geometric Iormant is a representation oI space that appears to be homogenous when
operating in the social realm, yet reduces 'the 'real'...to a 'plan' existing in a void'
18
, or rather it
reduces space to a state where it has the illusion oI representing homogeneity. This is similar to
what is at work in the optical Iormant. According to LeIebvre, this aspect is a situation where
the visualisation oI the spectacle and oI the written word 'become essential'
19
. The visual is
apparently dominant in this abstract space, in that what is seen, or what signs are seen, prevail
over the other bodily senses (what better example oI this than the space oI the cinema or the
television?). This visualisation correspondingly produces social space as being a 'purely visual
space', whereby what 'is merely seen is reduced to an image'
20
. The Iinal Iormant LeIebvre
proposes is that oI the phallic. This, to me, contains little relevance when looking at urban
space, and thus appears to be Iairly nonsensical. LeIebvre associates the dominance a political
power has over this abstract space, that being its tool oI violence, as having phallic importance
over spatial practice. This pseudo-psychological approach LeIebvre occasionally Ialls into
during his essay, is in my opinion the weakness oI his theories, Ior it positions space out oI its
social urban structure, into the (relevant, but not here) world oI Freud and Jung.
Despite my disagreement with LeIebvre's phallic Iormant, it can be seen that these three
Iormants do constitute an abstract space; a space whose use value is one oI political aims and
objectives, and whose exchange value is that oI a commodity. It is also a space that is reIlective
oI the power sought by the establishment. How this is done will be illustrated shortly, yet at the
moment this model does not inIorm us much about the practice oI everyday liIe operating
within this space. LeIebvre argues that one needs to go beyond this reIlective power oI abstract
space, to be able to witness abstract space's contents, its signs, and its lived space.
17
Ibid. p.285.
18
Ibid. p.287.
19
Ibid. p.286.
20
Ibid. p.286.
8
II this model oI abstract space is seen to be one oI homogeneity - because its surIace images act
as a spatial veil through which the violence oI politics is produced and sought; LeIebvre asserts
that it is simultaneously Iragmented. This Iragmentation occurs because the space disguises its
violence oI the political and the social, a disguise that LeIebvre views as being intrinsic to
capitalism (why not socialism?), causing the illusion that this abstract space is organised and
structured. This Iragmentation is created by the division capital causes between individuals
within a divided society, via its uneven distribution. This is all very well, but LeIebvre Iails to
acknowledge that abstract space is not autonomous in creating this, nor is capital, but that a
variety oI determinants inIluence this Iragmentation. He positions the Iragmentary nature oI
abstract space as being negative, and does not appear to realise that this is a socio-cultural
phenomenon, one that is oIten desired by the social being to oIIer greater Ireedom oI choice,
and Ireedom oI spatial mobility. LeIebvre seems to have taken this spatiality out oI its social
context, and sees it as being produced essentially by the violence oI the elite classes, not by the
desires and actions oI society as a whole, leaving one slightly bemused as to how this abstract
space aIIects those inhabitants within it.
LeIebvre does, however, introduce interesting and key concepts concerning the contradictory
nature oI abstract space. He discusses how these contradictions produce uneven development,
in a similar way to that oI Edward Soja. In his book Postmodern Geographies, Soja was
clearly indebted to LeIebvre's theory oI the production oI space, Ior, he argues, it enabled one
to observe the way the economic and social presence oI capitalism produces and reproduces
'geographically uneven development via simultaneous tendencies towards homogenisation,
Iragmentation, and hierarchisation'
21
. UnIortunately I do not have the 'space' to discuss uneven
development in great depth, yet it is useIul to appropriate when LeIebvre discusses the
dominance oI prohibition in abstract space.
The prohibition oI space is a valuable concept when analysing contemporary capitalist spaces
and uneven development, Ior it is a concept that is in continuous operation. A simple example
oI it, is that oI the division between the space occupied by the poor, and that space dominated
by the wealthy: a spatialisation caused by this uneven development. In this instance, the poor
are generally prohibited Irom being active within the space oI the wealthy, oIten because they
are seen as posing a threat to their secure property, or that they will spoil the optical Iormant oI
that space. The wealthy are seen to have greater control over their mobility, in that they can and
may enter the poorer sections oI this abstract space, Ior they are not directly prohibited because
oI their social status and class position. However, this 'open' space oI the poor may also be one
oI prohibition, because this space may pose to a threat to the upper-classes, in terms oI a high
crime rate, and thus this social class (the wealthy) may help cause this space to have the
21
Soja, Edward W. - Postmodern Geographies (Verso, London, 1989), p.50.
9
illusion oI being prohibited. This is a classic illustration oI this spatial operation
22
, one that
LeIebvre brieIly acknowledges. He, however, also oIIers an interesting example oI the
diIIerence between the space oI night and the space oI day. He argues that sexual activity is
welcome during the night, it has its space during this time, its abstract space is oI the dark.
This space is dominated by prohibition during daylight, Ior it is the space oI work that is
supposed to control space during this time oI day, and sexual pleasure has no existence. This is
an odd example, yet it does also illustrate how the prohibition oI abstract space inIluences the
everyday.
This perIormance oI uneven development is the crux oI abstract and contradictory space, yet
prohibition does not illustrate it to the Iull. It is the dialectic oI the centre and the periphery that
LeIebvre observes as embracing these contradictions. He proposes that today, centrality is seen
as total, it is the space that continually strives to 'concentrate wealth, means oI action,
knowledge, inIormation and culture'
23
, in order to survive being the centre. Although history
has proven the space oI centrality to be subject to change and mobility, whilst it is able to retain
its centralised power, it is continually positioned in a dialectical relationship with its peripheral
space, and its logic (its 'coherence and cohesiveness'
24
). The centre-periphery dialectic
inIluences a number oI spatial aspects: the commodiIication oI space (the exchange value oI
commodities controlling the space oI the centre and vice versa), the use value oI space (the
accessibility oI moving to and Irom the centre and the periphery), the consumption and
production oI the centre, and the relationship between quantitative and qualitative space (the
centrality oI the space oI the commodity against the peripheral space oI the quality a holiday
produces). Each oI these contradictory spatialites help the production oI space, an abstract
space that is constantly determined by the centre-periphery dialectic oI power, and it is
LeIebvre's discussion oI Paris that allows one to analyse this concept in progress.
Paris, he argues, is like any city in that there is always something happening, and thus his
analysis oI its space can be applied to any other city; or can it? Because LeIebvre comes Irom a
Marxist background, he has a tendency to concentrate on class politics, and as Paris is
traditionally (in the contemporary sense) a city divided between the haves and the have-nots, it
appears to be a prime example. Yet, his almost blinkered visions regarding other social Iactors,
may create complexities when applied to other cities such as Los Angeles, a city that is
supposedly a classless city. One must realise that although his reading oI Paris is admirable, it
does exclude many other Iactors that play a role in the determination oI a centralised space.
22
Explicit detail is paid to the eIIects this uneven development has within Los Angeles in Davis, Mike - Citv Of
Quart: (Vintage, London, 1990).
23
LeIebvre, Henri - The Production Of Space (Blackwell Publishers, OxIord, 1994), p.332.
24
Ibid. p.333.
10
Having put Iorward this complaint, I shall now examine LeIebvre's abstract space in operation.
He views the diIIerences within the centre-periphery dialectic as growing. This is due to the
centralised powers dominating the representational space oI the city centre, a space that has
been produced to represent wealth, and where the sections on the periphery are 'becoming more
working-class in character'
25
. This power not only determines who and what is positioned in
the centre, but also controls the exclusion and inclusion oI this contradictory space. Here one
can incorporate the above notion oI prohibition. LeIebvre argues that the reason the city centre
appears homogenous is because its produced space disguises those elements that cause it to
reveal its Iragmentary nature. This Iragmentation is illustrated through those sects oI society
that are prohibited Irom perIorming a role in the central visual-spatial space, and those who are
physically excluded and positioned on the margins (the periphery). The hegemonic political
power governs the spatial Iunctioning oI the city, creating a dominating eIIect. This is
undoubtedly 'true' oI all cities, yet what LeIebvre attaches to this is the notion that 'abstract
space is inherently violent'
26
. What he seems to be saying here, is that any threat oI
appropriation towards a 'politically dominated space'
27
, will be met with violence. An abstract
space needs to be secure in its Iunctioning oI the contradictory nature oI its space, and must
thereIore acknowledge that it is simultaneously homogenous and Iragmentary, otherwise that
centralised abstract space may be at risk oI losing its private, global, and dominated space.
What LeIebvre appears to be discussing here is that 'power aspires to control space in its
entirety'
28
. This can be applied to not only class politics, but also sexual politics, gender
politics, and race politics; all oI which are aspects that he seems to skim over regarding the
dominatory nature oI the centralised power. His observation that space is produced via the need
oI power and domination, a space that also produces that power, is a key concept when looking
at LeIebvre's Iinal 'contradiction between true space and the truth oI space'
29
.
True space apparently takes its Iorm as a mental space (the space oI 'theoretical man'
30
),
whereby the conceptions oI social space or rather absolute space, are transIormed into abstract
space. This mental space is correspondent to the space oI the political, the space oI power and
violence, which in turn produces the structure oI a space as whole:
'Representational space disappears into the representation oI space - the
latter swallows the Iormer; and spatial practice, put into brackets along with
social practice as a whole. endures only as the unthought aspect oI the
thought that has now pronounced itselI sovereign ruler.'
31

25
Ibid. p.385.
26
Ibid. p.387.
27
Ibid. p.387.
28
Ibid. p.388.
29
Ibid. p.397.
30
Ibid. p.398.
31
Ibid. p.398.
11
This notion oI true space prevails in society, it is the space that is commonly perceived within
the social realm. LeIebvre positions it in yet another dialectical relationship, combining it with
the truth oI space.
The truth oI space is speciIically what I have been discussing throughout, it is the stage when
social space is combined with the theory oI production (Ior this theory 'conIirms its truth'
32
), a
combination that is needed to Iully comprehend the similarities and diIIerences between social
space and mental space. It is a notion, or truth, that illustrates the way the centrality I have
been discussing operates; Ior it is the centre that encompasses the mental and the social,
regardless oI prohibition, or other determining Iactors. However, this centre can only operate in
accord with its dialectical relationship to the peripheral, a relationship that has been
demonstrated in all the qualities to the point oI near absorption.
LeIebvre thus leaves one with a sense that space is everything, that it is that 'truth oI space'
which deIines and controls the existence oI the social subject in its everyday liIe. It is because
he positions space as being the most inIluential determinant in the construction oI the social,
that LeIebvre has been criticised Ior elevating the 'urban spatial 'problematic' to an intolerably
central and apparently autonomous position'
33
. I Ieel that this is a justiIied complaint, Ior it
does, at times, seem that LeIebvre excludes too much Irom his account oI the production oI
space, such as socio-cultural determinants. He does however propose outstanding ideas when
concerned with the speciIic spatial constraints positioned within a modern capitalist society.
Although, Ior myselI, many oI his theories have seemed to be a little too 'out-there', too
conIusing, in that they are saturated in philosophical thought; LeIebvre's essay can be seen to
be, as David Harvey comments a 'magisterial'
34
text. I mention this, because his perceptive
notions oI the dialectical relationships involved in the production oI space, allow one to
consider the spatial operations involved in the make-up oI the contemporary urban city, and
convince one that a 'science oI space' can be established iI one were to use LeIebvre's ideas to
examine the oIten conIusing and contradictory nature oI postmodern spaces such as Los
Angeles and Las Vegas.
32
Ibid. p.399.
33
Soja, Edward W. - Postmodern Geographies (Verso, London, 1989), p.76.
34
LeIebvre, Henri - The Production Of Space (Blackwell Publishers, OxIord, 1994), p.425.
12
Bibliography
Davis, Mike - Citv Of Quart:. Excavating the Future in Los Angeles (Vintage, London,1990).
Harvey, David - The Condition Of Postmodernitv. An Enquirv into the Origins of Cultural
Change (Blackwell Publishers, OxIord, 1990).
LeIebvre, Henri - The Production Of Space, translated by Donald Nicholson-Smith (Blacwell
Publishers, OxIord, 1994).
Soja, Edward W. - Postmodern Geographies. The Reassertion of Space in Critical Social
Theorv (Verso, London, 1989).

13
!