Henri Lefebvre - Debates and Controversies PDF

http://phg.sagepub.
com/
Progress in Human Geography
http://phg.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/05/29/0309132512446718
The online version of this article can be found at:
DOI: 10.1177/0309132512446718
published online 29 May 2012 Prog Hum Geogr
Stefan Kipfer, Parastou Saberi and Thorben Wieditz
Henri Lefebvre: Debates and controversies
- Jan 18, 2013 version of this article was published on more recent A
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
can be found at: Progress in Human Geography Additional services and information for
http://phg.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:
http://phg.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Reprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Permissions:
What is This?
- May 29, 2012 OnlineFirst Version of Record >>
- Jan 18, 2013 Version of Record

at UNIV ESTDL PAULISTA DE MESQIT on October 15, 2014 phg.sagepub.com Downloaded from at UNIV ESTDL PAULISTA DE MESQIT on October 15, 2014 phg.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Article
Henri Lefebvre: Debates and
controversies
1
Stefan Kipfer
York University, Canada
Parastou Saberi
Thorben Wieditz
Abstract
Aided with French and German scholarship, this paper takes stock of Henri Lefebvres relevance in con-
temporary English-speaking urban research on social movements, postcolonial situations, the state, scale,
gender, urban political ecology, regulation, and the right to the city. What becomes clear from this survey
is that Lefebvres capacity to contribute to cutting-edge urban research requires a selective translation of his
work. While the modalities of translating Lefebvre vary depending on the subject matter, transfiguring
Lefebvre for today is most plausible when taking into account the dialectical nature of his urbanism and the
open-ended and integral character of his marxism.
Keywords
dialectical urbanism, Henri Lefebvre, marxism, radical geography, urban research
I Introduction
In Paris today, one could come across various
faces of Henri Lefebvre. The most recent re-
edition of his texts (the 1957 call for a revolu-
tionary romanticism) reminded one of the
Lefebvre who, shortly before his formal break
with the PCF, helped reformulate passionate
revolutionary sensibilities in left politics of the
postwar era (Lefebvre, 2011). In turn, a group
of politicians, planners, and architects close to
the Front de Gauche (an electoral alliance that
includes the Communist Party of France)
brought a social democratic Lefebvre to the
Presidential election campaign of 2012, one
whose right to the city is said to translate into
redistributive policies against segregation and
for affordable housing, transit, and other public
services (Appel Collectif, 2012). While the first
Lefebvre is likely to inspire those intellectuals,
squatters, and anti-gentrification activists who
insist on the poetic and anarchist streaks in his
marxism (Garnier, 2010; Lowy, 2008), the
second rendition speaks to those in the
Corresponding author:
Stefan Kipfer, York University, 4700 Keele Street,
Toronto M3J 1P3, Canada
Email: kipfer@yorku.ca
Progress in Human Geography
120
The Author(s) 2012
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
10.1177/0309132512446718
phg.sagepub.com
at UNIV ESTDL PAULISTA DE MESQIT on October 15, 2014 phg.sagepub.com Downloaded from
governmental left, notably those active in the
reform currents in Communist municipalities
who, in alliance with people close to the World
Social Forum and the Brazilian Workers Party,
resurrected the right to the city in the interna-
tional context of the alter-globalization move-
ment. Neither of these faces of Lefebvre will
convince those on the French left (including
some with a past in structuralist urban sociol-
ogy) for whom Lefebvre remains taboo because
of his lack of investigative rigour and political
predictability. As in several other contexts,
including Brazil, German-speaking Europe, and
Anglo-America, we can see that Lefebvres
image in France today is politically and theore-
tically variegated. In this production of a plural-
ity of French Lefebvres, it is impossible to
ignore the exercise of a certain North American
influence, which belongs to a broader trend of
repatriating French theory from the New World
back to the Continent, as evident from a recent
wave of translations of David Harveys impor-
tant works into French.
Against this backdrop, our paper intends to
make a modest contribution to Lefebvre scho-
larship by taking selective stock of recent
Lefebvre-inspired debates in the English lan-
guage. We do not assume that there is only one
plausible Lefebvre; or, for that matter, that
Lefebvre represents a panacea for strategy, the-
ory, and research. The fact that today there are
multiple Lefebvres floating about is due partly
to the circuitous character of Lefebvres work,
and partly to the current conditions of interpre-
tations which are characterized by deep political
uncertainties compounded by an enduring post-
modern eclecticism. In the spirit of openness,
we will provide here a survey of current
Lefebvre-inspired debates in the Anglophone
world, with due attention to key French and
German contributions. We do so, of course,
from our own perspective. As we will explain
in the first two sections, we insist that using
Lefebvre effectively and plausibly presupposes
sustained efforts to reflect upon the historical
context and overall orientation of Lefebvres
own work before deploying his concepts and
insights. Translating modifying, even trans-
forming Lefebvres work is inevitable and
desirable but requires care and reflexivity.
II Philosophy, politics, everyday life
By the late 1990s, Anglo-American scholarship
had virtually headlocked Lefebvre between two
antagonistic poles: political economy and
cultural studies. This is no longer the case.
A number of critical contributions (Capitalism
Nature Socialism, 2002; Elden, 2004; Kofman
and Lebas, 1996; Roberts, 2006; Ross, 1995;
Schmid, 2005) have pointed out that, once one
situates Lefebvrean insights within their politi-
cal and philosophical context, treating him only
as a general inspiration for a more rigorous
marxist geographical political economy
(Harvey, 1973, 1989a, 1989b, 2006), or absorb-
ing him into the postmodern version of the lin-
guistic and cultural turn in social theory (Soja,
1989, 1996, 1999) is limiting and, particularly
in the second case, misleading (Kouvelakis,
2008). As a result of these insights, it is now
possible to identify a third wave of Lefebvre
scholarship (Goonewardena et al., 2008). In this
mould, supposedly postmodern problems
(language, identity, the body, subjectivity, cul-
ture) can be tackled by drawing on the material-
ist, marxist, and dialectical theoretical strands
coming together in Lefebvre. From this angle,
Lefebvre appears as a representative of a hetero-
dox and open-ended, passionately engaged and
politically charged form of marxism. Consid-
erations of alienation, dialectics, and totality
remain essential for his empirical and political
projects to explore the possibilities inherent in
everyday life (Lefebvre, 1988, 1991a, 2002,
2008, 2009a; Lefebvre and Guterman, 1999).
This is also true for Lefebvres writings on urba-
nization and space, which recast his critique of
everyday life (Merrifield, 2002; Ross, 1997,
2008). Without recognizing the links between
2 Progress in Human Geography
Lefebvres urban contributions and his other
political and philosophical concerns, excavating
the former remains a geographical conceit
(Lebas, 2003: 70).
Lefebvres urban and geographical writings
are thus shaped not only by revolutionary politi-
cal engagements (anti-colonial agitation in the
mid-1920s, Communist party politics from 1928
to 1958, the anti-fascist Resistance during the
Second World War, the New Left and May
1968, a return to the PCF in the 1980s). They are
also infused with his philosophical encounters,
above all those with Marx, Hegel, Nietzsche, and
Heidegger (Elden, 2004; Schmid, 2005, 2008).
The relationship between these figures is a source
of typically productive tension in Lefebvre.
Lefebvres most important contribution to the
cartography of French critical thought (Keuche-
yan, 2010) was his early argument (most devel-
oped in Dialectical Materialism, 2009b) about
the various transformations of Hegel in Marxs
work. This argument yielded an open-ended con-
ception of dialectics and totality, which helped
define, through a reworked notion of alienation,
Lefebvres lifelong concern with a critique of
everyday life, and allowed him, ultimately, to
bridge old and new forms of left theory.
Nietzsche and Heidegger mattered in various
aspects of Lefebvres work, including his
endeavour to counter rationalist aversions to
lived experience, and the metaphilosophical
critique of philosophy that this entailed (Elden,
2004; Lefebvre, 1997; Merrifield, 2006;
Schmid, 2005). However, this theoretical inte-
gration of Heidegger and Nietzsche with Marx
and Hegel was fraught with deep problems, par-
ticularly in light of recent scholarship on those
two authors (Faye, 2009; Waite, 2008). These
interpretive problems also shed some serious
doubt about postmodern interpretations of
Lefebvres work. In Kanishka Goonewardenas
words:
Lefebvres spirited opposition to the theoretical anti-
humanism [of structuralism and poststructuralism]
championed by Althusser, Michel Foucault and
Jacques Derrida, with whom he shared several inter-
ests including ideology, power and language
renders the impressionable Anglo-American sketch
of him as a postmodern student of space philologi-
cally unsustainable. It also calls into question the
coherence of his own selective appropriations of Hei-
degger and Nietzsche, whose more rigorous readers
place these thinkers firmly within an anti-humanist
problematic, to which he was resolutely opposed.
Lefebvre for one unlike Derrida or Foucault
seems not to have received Heideggers famous Let-
ter on Humanism. (Goonewardena, 2011: 4546)
Neither structuralist nor deconstructive versions
of anti-humanism can withstand the new
non-liberal, dialectical humanist commitment
to dis-alienating life in all its aspects which one
finds throughout Lefebvres openly marxist
work.
Urban questions are not mere empirical
extensions or local derivations of Lefebvres
broader political and theoretical perspective.
They helped shape his theoretical development.
As ukasz Stanek (2011) has demonstrated with
great care, Lefebvres long-standing involve-
ment in detailed empirical research (both rural
and urban) represented a veritable labour pro-
cess through which Lefebvre forged the major
concepts in his theories of urbanization, space,
and state. His interest in considerations of archi-
tecture and urban planning did thus not shrink
his work to that of a specialist limited by
state-bound professional preoccupations. In
fact, Lefebvres most important contribution to
social theory may lie in his ultimate decision
(developed in the Urban Revolution) to place
the urban in the middle of an open-ended social
totality, as a level of reality in a mediating rela-
tionship to everyday life and state-bound and
global social institutions. Lefebvres urban
considerations play a constitutive, non-
reductive role in the social order even as they
refer back to lived experience and the state
(Goonewardena, 2005; Kipfer, 2009). This
insight is of profound political importance for
Kipfer et al. 3
Lefebvre, for whom social struggle never
ceased to be a decisive reference point in urban
research (Martins, 1982). In Goonewardenas
sharp formulation, the upshot of Lefebvres
placement of the urban in the heart of radical
theory is that there can be no socialist revolu-
tion without an urban revolution, no urban rev-
olution without a socialist revolution, and
neither without a revolution in everyday life
(Goonewardena, 2011: 60).
Given the place of the urban in Lefebvres
philosophy and politics, it is no surprise that his
understanding of the urban and space is infused
with time and history. His work does in fact jus-
tify arguments for a spatial turn of social theory
(Soja, 1989), but this turn should not be
conceived in ontological terms. As Lefebvre
(1991b: 96) has it, time may have been pro-
moted to the level of ontology of the philoso-
pher, but it has been murdered by society.
Since the production of abstract space is itself
implicated in this death of time (its reduction
to a linear succession of instants), it is impera-
tive that space be de-reified in the same way
Marx proposed to do for the commodity: by
treating spatial form not only as a powerful
social force but also as a product of necessa-
rily temporal processes, strategies, and proj-
ects. In turn, Lefebvre suggests that
contradictions of space in the late 20th century
those between abstract and differential space
are simultaneously tensions between the linear
and cyclical temporalities which inhere in
everyday life. As students of Lefebvres
(2004) rhythmanalytic approach to everyday
life have pointed out (Edensor, 2010; Gardiner,
2000; Highmore, 2005; Loftus, 2012), the
insight about the intimate relationship between
time and space is crucial to grasp his relevance
for research on the body (less as effect and more
as producer of time/space) and the contradictory
rhythms that shape political ecologies in our
urbanizing world. In this view, socialism
appears as a fundamental transformation of
neocolonial capitalisms time-space, not as a
redistributive and socially more just reorienta-
tion of otherwise unchanged forces and
relations of production.
Today, the anti-productivist leanings that
inhere in Lefebvres conception of time, space,
and everyday life appear at first sight to be of
obvious importance given the socio-ecological
state of the planet. But this the planetary
importance of Lefebvres work is one of the
thorniest questions in Lefebvre scholarship, one
that should be approached with a great deal of
caution (Kipfer et al., 2008). While Lefebvres
work in the 1970s and 1980s strove towards a
genuinely multipolar conception of knowledge
production and political struggle, the European
focus of his intellectual endeavours and lived
experiences prevented him from realizing his
own ambitions. Today, of course, the planetary
pertinence of Lefebvre is not contingent only on
his work but also on ongoing social processes
and political struggles. Accelerated urbaniza-
tion in the global South, the disintegration of
state socialism, and the contradictions of
Euro-American imperialism have contributed
to a situation where Lefebvrean insights are
taken in fresh directions in such places as Brazil
and Hong Kong (on the latter, see Ng et al.,
2010; Tang et al., 2012). Our own paper, itself
squarely situated in Euro-American debates,
will only be able to point to the fact that
Lefebvres ultimate fate for truly global analy-
ses will be determined by developments beyond
the North Atlantic.
III Dialectical urbanism: the urban
as form, level and mediation
Lefebvres dialectical approach to the urban
question (1970a, 1972, 1996, 2003) differs from
other marxist formulations about the city. It
foregrounds the role of everyday life, state, and
political action in centre-periphery relationships
rather than the role of collective consumption in
social reproduction (as in Castells, 1977) or the
role of switching crises of accumulation in the
political economy of the built environment (as
in Harvey). Much less concerned with projects
to isolate the objective determinants of the city
and urbanization than Castells and Harvey,
Henri Lefebvre identifies the urban with the
sociospatial form of centrality. This is a tricky
affair. For, as form, the urban is dialectically
tied to its content. The urban can be considered
an intermediate level (M) which mediates the
social totality as a whole. The urban is related
to the level of the large social order (G) (the
state and state-bound knowledge, the capitalist
world economy), on the one hand, and the con-
tradictory level of everyday life (P), the daily
rounds of lived experience, on the other.
Caught between macro and micro levels of
reality, the urban as form is not an independent
cause of particular ways of life (as Louis Wirth
and the Chicago scholars had it). Rather, it is a
social space produced by three-dimensional
(material, ideological-institutional, and ima-
ginary-affective) processes (Lefebvre,
1991b). The urban as centrality is thus not eas-
ily identifiable. Not reducible to physical mar-
kers (density, particular characteristics of the
built environment), it must live through
social practice. Of particular importance in this
regard are those practices which link social dif-
ferences either to produce economic surplus
and concentrate power or to create more fleet-
ing nodes of oppositional or alternative prac-
tice. Practices of centrality are sometimes
linked to physical forms in reasonably stable
ways. This is the case, for example, when eco-
nomic power is concentrated in downtown
financial districts or airport complexes. Some-
times, centrality remains momentary, however.
General strikes or semi-autonomous popular
festivals can create dense forms of subaltern
life or counter-power which leave few physical
traces.
The urban is particularly difficult to capture
in modern capitalist times. Over the last 250
years, urbanization the expansion of the
built environment, the functional integration
of formerly distinct social spaces, the industria-
lization of agriculture has led to the implosion
and explosion of historic cities, becoming
worldwide in the process (Lefebvre, 2003). In
this context, Lefebvres notion of urban revolu-
tion has a double meaning. Urbanization
implies the death of the city. By city,
Lefebvre refers here to the pre-capitalist
European city of the Middle Ages and the
Renaissance: a physically demarcated, often
walled spatial form with central (military, polit-
ical, commercial, religious) functions and forms
of social, political, and economic life that are
qualitatively distinct from the countryside. The
death of the city does not necessarily refer to the
destruction of the physical environment. It
describes the process by which the forms of
centrality and difference characteristic of the
historic city implode in the process of capital-
ist and neocapitalist urbanization. Due to
Haussmannization and functionalism, the urban
experience is thus characterized less and less by
the chaotic heterogeneity, cosmopolitanism,
and vibrant street life of the historic city or the
19th century metropolitan core but by dis-
persed, functionally disaggregated, and
politico-economically administered forms of
life. In turn, Lefebvre expects that the death of
the historic city opens up the possibility of per-
ipheralized social groups to claim the right to
the city (Lefebvre, 1996). In this second sense,
the city refers to the possible: the product of a
revolutionary claim to the social surplus and
political power, which is articulated through
struggles for spatial centrality.
Lefebvres notion of the right to the city,
although not rooted in 19th-century metropoli-
tan street life as in Marshall Berman (1982), is
also indebted at least residually to historical
forms: the cities of the Italian Renaissance or
the festivality of rural southern France. There
is no doubt that Lefebvres history of the city/
urbanization (in the Urban Revolution and The
Right to the City), which is recast shortly there-
after in his history of space (in The Production
Kipfer et al. 5
of Space), is modeled on the West European
experience. Lefebvres urbanism is not theoreti-
cally dependent on these historical views of the
urban good life, however (Harvey, 2011: 40;
Stanek, 2011: 170). It can be extricated fromthe
latter precisely because of his dialectical char-
acter. His revolutionary romanticism
(Lefebvre, 1971a, 1995) suggests that the past
cannot be restored in its lost organic unity; for-
merly rural versions of festivality, for example,
are transposed in form and thus take on a differ-
ent meaning in revolutionary urban moments
such as the Commune and 1968. Claiming the
right to the city is thus not about restoring his-
torical forms of the city (the street, organic
town life) or magnifying aspects of really exist-
ing urban life (heterogeneity). It is about assert-
ing revolutionary perspectives on urban society
that emerge out of struggles in social spaces
where the city may never have existed: moder-
nist company towns and the campuses, facto-
ries, and high-rises of French Fordism. One
could say that the implosion of the (histori-
cal) city under conditions of urbanization
(urban revolution I) is both obstacle and pre-
condition for claims to the city as a new
form of centrality in a postcapitalist society
(urban revolution II).
The right to the city doubles as the right to
difference. The latter term may lead one to sus-
pect that Lefebvre formulates a view of city life
reminiscent of liberal views of diversity (where
the good life is expressed by the individual(ist)
penchant for tolerance or the group practice of
multicultural co-presence) or in postmodern
views of hybridity (where individual or group
differences are in a permanent state of uncer-
tainty, flux, and playful renegotiation). But
Lefebvres concept of difference is not the
same as the liberal-pluralist diversity or the
postcolonial hybridity as one can find them
in Sandercock (2003) or Sojas (1996) third
space, for example. For him, difference is
transformational-dialectical, not affirmative
or deconstructive. The central clue for this
insight is Lefebvres (1970b, 2008) distinction
between minimal and maximal difference.
This distinction makes it clear that while cen-
trality is always built on processes linking and
concentrating social differences, these pro-
cesses can take qualitatively distinct forms.
Minimal or induced difference refers to man-
ifestations of difference typical of our current
social order. It denotes the actually existing
ensemble of differences that, however articu-
lated, must remain confined by the fragmented
alienations of private property, individualism,
the administered commodity form, the abstracted
linguistic sign, racism, and the patriarchal fam-
ily. Maximal or produced difference, however,
refers to the possibility of non-alienated forms
of individuality and plurality in a postcapitalist,
creatively self-determined urban society. Calls
for the right to the city (spatial and social-
political centrality) and associated experiences
of comradeship and festivity can potentially
function as prisms through which the minimal
differences of particular segregated groups are
transformed into demands for maximal differ-
ence. In his analysis of the Commune in 1871
(Lefebvre, 1965) and May 1968 (Lefebvre,
1969), Lefebvre suggests that the destruction
of the city (and thus also the production of
urban space as a patchwork of segregated, thus
homogenized, spaces) can be the starting point
for a dynamic where demands for centrality
(spatial and sociopolitical) are linked to
demands for maximal difference. May 1968
can thus be read as a dialectic of centre and
periphery that emerges out of a (sub)urban
revolt against the forms of segregation-
homogenization of the postwar metropolis
(Luscher, 1984).
IV Debating Lefebvre today
How can Lefebvres work (and his dialectical
urbanism) help us make sense of the contempo-
rary world? His manifold insights provide many
promising starting points to understand some of
the harsh realities of our urbanizing world order
and the unexpected openings these realities may
harbour for the future. Yet, for this purpose,
Lefebvres analyses, which often remain incon-
clusive, need to be translated: de- and recontex-
tualized. In the following, we do this by tracing
Lefebvres presence in debates on social move-
ments, colonialism, postcolonial conditions, the
state, scale, regulation, urban political ecology,
gender, sexuality, and the right to the city. As
we will see, actualizing Lefebvre sometimes
requires reading Lefebvres work against him-
self. For example, Lefebvres quest for a genu-
inely global and multipolar form of critical
knowledge can only be realized with the help
of other, counter-colonial and feminist insights.
1 Urban social movements
Henri Lefebvre is not usually listed as a contri-
butor to the study of collective action. Yet for
Lefebvre social struggle was, next to everyday
life, the key starting point in concept formation
and theory building. A number of his terms
(colonization, difference) can adequately
be described as struggle concepts insofar that
they emerged as problems in periods of intense
political mobilization. It is difficult to imagine
Lefebvres urban turn without his analyses of
the Commune and May 1968. Social struggle
thus represents a subjective entry point to
Lefebvres thinking about urbanization, city,
and space. In this regard, Lefebvre took the road
opposite from the structuralist Manuel Castells
and the neoclassical marxist David Harvey, for
whom social movements are much more deter-
mined by broader forces than determining
agents in historical change. As we will see
below, Lefebvres emphasis on the unpre-
dictable and uncertain role of social struggle
in the creation of events, moments, and new
knowledge has yielded crucial analyses of
territorial conflict as an active force in the
contestation and reorientation of historical
capitalism.
Substantially, Lefebvre sees the urban aspect
of social movements not so much in a theoreti-
cally circumscribed field or location: collec-
tive consumption (Castells, 1977, 1978), urban
culture (Castells, 1983), place-specific identity
(Castells, 1997), the structured coherence of
urban space (Harvey, 1989a), or land and its use
values (Logan and Molotch, 1987). He sees
collective action through the prism of spatial
relations, notably the hierarchical relations
between central and peripheral spaces at various
scales, including in metropolitan regions.
Within this context, Lefebvre is particularly
interested in how a plurality of unevenly devel-
oped and spatially disarticulated points of strug-
gle may be brought into a process of mutual
transformation. Lefebvres reluctance to reify
actually existing particularities of struggle is
of the utmost importance to come to terms with
the high degrees of sociospatial segmentation
that shape todays landscape of urban politics.
As we will see in the conclusion, this will be
especially important in contemporary debates
about the right to the city.
2 Colonialism and postcolonial situations
Henri Lefebvre has not figured large in the wave
of research on postcolonial conditions that has
swept through critical geography and urban
sociology. This is not surprising given that
Lefebvres historical and philosophical refer-
ence points were squarely European. Nonethe-
less, researchers have deployed his concepts to
analyze colonial and postcolonial conditions.
Manu Goswami (2004) has brilliantly demon-
strated how Lefebvres theories of state and
space can help us understand how India has
been produced as a social space through a his-
torical dialectic of colonization, decolonization,
and post-independence development. In this
endeavour, Goswami has been joined by Judith
Whitehead, whose study of dispossession in the
Narmada Valley shows that Lefebvres notion
of abstract space is vital to grasp how colonial
Kipfer et al. 7
and developmentalist strategies of disposses-
sing forest dwellers in Gujarat have been nor-
malized by the rise to the fore of a scientific
regime of accumulation that conceives space
as an empty, malleable grid to be improved
(Whitehead, 2010: 20).
Lefebvres usefulness to grasp dynamics of
space production in a colonial or neocolonial
context hinges, in part, on his sensitivity to con-
siderations of land (as well as labour and capi-
tal) in capitalist development (Coronil, 2000;
Hart, 2006) and his nuanced conception of the
countryside. Lefebvre did not grasp the urban
revolution in the linear terms of modernization
theory (as a transition from rural to urban) but
as a conflictual, uneven, and qualitative rela-
tionship between historical city and historical
countryside. Researchers have thus been able
to point to the uses of Lefebvres work on the
Pyr en ees, modernist company town planning,
and abstract space to understand the master-
planned, counter-revolutionary Rural City proj-
ect in Chiapas (Wilson, 2011), strategies of
slum clearance and military urbicide (Kipfer
and Goonewardena, 2007), and mobilizations
of colonized peoples, for example in Israels
occupied territories (Yiftachel, 2009). In this
respect, Lefebvre remains of particular rele-
vance to grasp the imperial as well as capitalist
dimensions of urbanization and depeasantiza-
tion in the global South (Mendieta, 2008).
Lefebvre himself repeatedly used the term
colonization, first as a metaphor to understand
how everyday life in metropolitan countries is
dominated in postcolonial conditions (in the
second phase of the critique of everyday life
in the early 1960s) (Lefebvre, 2002), and, sec-
ond, as a concept to grasp the role of the state
in organizing hierarchical relations between
dominant (central) and dominated (peripheral)
social spaces (in his writings on the state in the
late 1970s) (Lefebvre, 1978). Lefebvre discov-
ered this second, conceptual meaning of colo-
nization first in the late 1960s by observing
urban struggles (of immigrant workers in
France, shanty dwellers in Latin America,
African Americans in the USA) around the
period of 1968 and second through a subse-
quent engagement with the marxist theories of
imperialism of Lenin, Luxemburg and Amin
(Lefebvre, 1969, 1972, 2003). As a result,
Lefebvre saw these various movements in a
more explicitly anti-imperial and anti-colonial
light, interpreting them as examples of a world-
wide urbanization of revolutionary politics
aimed at creating a multipolar world (Kipfer
and Goonewardena, forthcoming).
To deploy Lefebvres colonization to
understand the imperial heartland in postcolo-
nial times requires considerable care. The con-
cept of colonization as a state strategy of
territorial organization is limited by the fact that
Lefebvre did not pay adequate attention to the
specificities of the colonial relation, which, as
we know from counter-colonial traditions, was
characterized by a peculiar, racialized combina-
tion of economic super-exploitation, territorial
domination, and everyday humiliation. Once
complemented by counter-colonial insights
about the geographies of historical (de)coloni-
zation (those of Frantz Fanon, for example)
(Hart, 2006; Kipfer, 2007; Ross, 1995), how-
ever, the notion of colonization can be used
productively to think about how colonial lega-
cies are reproduced, modified, and recreated in
todays urban worlds. It can be deployed, for
example, to make comparative sense of such
state-led redevelopment strategies as public
housing demolition in the global North (Kipfer
and Goonewardena, forthcoming; Kipfer and
Petrunia, 2009). Such a reworked notion of
colonization has distinct advantages com-
pared both to macro-political economies of
imperialism (as in Harvey, 2003, and Smith,
2005), which tend not to pay much attention to
the finer dynamics of territorial conflicts
beneath and across nation states, and to those
approaches, including postcolonialism, which
argue that in todays world order, deterritoria-
lizing forces (networks, flows, and hybridities)
have made a focus on territorial polarization
obsolete (Hardt and Negri, 2000; for critiques,
see Hallward, 2001; Sparke, 2001). Coloniza-
tion helps us understand the role of urban stra-
tegies in instituting and questioning imperial
and neocolonial forms of world order.
3 The state
Next to his engagement with matters colonial
and imperial, Lefebvres four volumes on the
state assembled under the title De lE
tat
(1968, 1976a, 1976b, 1977, 1978) conclude his
lifelong critique of the state and state-like
knowledge (savoir) as a form of alienation
(Brenner and Elden, 2009a; Schmidt, 1990;
Wex, 1999). Like his contemporary Nicos Pou-
lantzas, Lefebvre treats the state as an institu-
tional condensation of social power, but he
also emphasizes the presence of the state
(state-like thinking and symbolism) in everyday
life. On this basis, Lefebvre develops the notion
of the state mode of production (SMP) to scru-
tinize the productivist logics of mid-20th-
century state forms (Stalinism, fascism, Social
Democracy) (Lefebvre, 1977). In capitalist
contexts, he focuses on the changing role of
states in promoting, financing, subsidizing,
and regulating capitalism and the class com-
promises that sustained it in West Europe. To
the productivism of the SMP, Lefebvre coun-
terposes a new left notion of radical democ-
racy: the withering away of the state in
practices of self-management (autogestion).
Lefebvres critique of state productivism is
highly relevant for contemporary analyses of
neoliberalism and its productivist critics
(Brenner, 2008).
Lefebvres discussion of the state also repre-
sents an important reformulation of his theory of
the production of space. On the one hand,
Lefebvre underlines how the state plays a cen-
tral role in the production of abstract homoge-
neous, fragmented, and hierarchical space,
and, thus, the survival of capitalism. On the
other hand, Lefebvre makes it clear that states
are themselves spatialized, and this in a variety
of possible ways. As Neil Brenner (2004) and
Manu Goswami (2004) have pointed out for
West Europe and India, Lefebvre allows us to
understand state-space in its comparative spe-
cificities without the pitfalls of methodological
nationalism so characteristic of much state
theory and (neo)realist international relations
theory. As a consequence, territory including
the territorial hierarchies Lefebvre calls colo-
nial appears as similarly produced (Brenner
and Elden, 2009b). Despite its centrality to the
definitions of modern state, territory has
remained undertheorized (Agnew, 1994; Elden,
2009, 2010; Lussault, 2007; Painter, 2010). As
Neil Brenner and Stuart Elden (2009b: 367)
suggest, Lefebvres analysis allows us to think
territory, space, and state together, and thus to
examine the historically and geographically
specific political forms of the co-production of
space and territory (state space as territory)
through the dialectics of their perceived, con-
ceived, and lived dimensions. This approach
avoids the logical conflation of territory and ter-
ritoriality (Cox, 2002; Raffestin, 1980) or the
presupposition of territory as a pregiven,
bounded region (Weber, 1968), or bounded
space (Delany, 2005; Giddens, 1981; Storey,
2001). While the social weight of state territori-
ality can help naturalize state intervention
(Brenner and Elden, 2009b: 372373), it is ulti-
mately subject to conflict, contestation, and his-
torical malleability.
Today, when many have construed the rela-
tionship between states and globalization as a
zero-sum-game (more globalization equals less
state), and have called for disaggregating the
state and the border in order to conceptualize the
various sites and modes of bordering, an
emphasis on the production of state space is
imperative. First, it allows one to see how states
remain central agents in globalized contexts,
albeit in restructured and partly rescaled
fashion. As illustrated most recently by the
Kipfer et al. 9
bloodless coups d etats in Italy and Greece to
restore market confidence in the Euro zone
(Kouvelakis, 2011), authoritarian state inter-
vention is essential to manage and institute the
chaotic social forces of the contemporary world
order, leading to new conflicts and crises.
Rather than a national response to global
dynamics, state intervention has itself become
transnational. Second, a critical analysis of the
production of state space allows one to recog-
nize the centrality of territory in geopolitics
today, the shifts from previous imperial and
colonial eras notwithstanding. In contrast to the
naive, post-Cold War borderless world dis-
courses, the contemporary war on terror has
forced us to ponder how best to examine the
characteristics and spatial scales of borders
(Johnson et al., 2011). Lefebvres approach to
space and territory helps us comprehend the
specific forms of neocolonial space produced
by multiscalar state-strategies, notably those
oriented towards reconfiguring the geopolitical
architecture of the planet with projects of mili-
tarization and securitization.
4 Scale
Given the contemporary transnational rescaling
of states, it is no surprise that Lefebvre has
loomed large in debates about scale, either with
direct reference to Lefebvres work or indir-
ectly, via David Harveys geographical political
economy. While some theorize scale on the
assumption that Lefebvre had very little to say
about scale (Marston and Smith, 2001), others
have insightfully suggested that Henri
Lefebvres discussion of scale ( echelle), which
one can find in his work on the state, lends itself
to a critique of scalar presuppositions (Brenner,
2000). Just as space more generally, scale is not a
pregiven hierarchical frame of social action but a
historically contingent product of social pro-
cesses. In response to Brenner, some have
insisted, on specifically feminist grounds, that
Lefebvre-influenced scale debates should pay
much more attention to spatial scales, such as the
household or the human body (Marston, 2000;
Marston and Smith, 2001), while others have
argued that a focus on scale ( echelle) should not
displace Lefebvres persistent interest in levels
(niveaux) (Goonewardena, 2005; Kipfer, 2009).
As we have seen, Lefebvre understood the
urban as an intermediate level of totality (M),
which mediates the general, macro level (G)
of the far order (the state, capital, empire) and
the near order, the contradictory level of
everyday life (P). All of these levels can be
scaled, of course, but they are not synonymous
with scale. The urban is not reducible to metro-
politan regions, for example. In fact, Lefebvres
notion of the urban as level allowed him to con-
ceptualize the relationship between urbaniza-
tion and the urban (fleeting form of centrality)
in multiscalar, tendentially worldwide terms.
On this basis, some have gone as far as to sug-
gest that the urban represents the veritable epis-
teme of our time (Prigge, 1995). Most
importantly, the urban understood as level of
social reality ties urban analysis systematically
back to matters of everyday life, which, in turn,
is of paramount significance for considerations
of class, gender, race, and sexuality as lived,
bodily experience at level P everyday life. In
this light, the importance of scale as a particular
result of the production of space must be relati-
vized. On this point, the relativity of scale in
relationship to other spatial forms such as
territory and network, there is now an implicit
consensus in the literature (Jessop et al., 2008;
Schmid, 2003).
5 Gender and sexuality
If the scale debates are any indication, Lefebvre
was as little a feminist or queer theorist of gen-
der and sexuality as he was a theorist of colonial
history. In fact, Lefebvre had a basic tendency
to describe women and men in essentialist terms
or deploy gendered or heternormative imagery
to describe the world (Blum and Nast, 1996).
This has not stopped a number of feminists and
theorists of sexuality, heternormative or other-
wise, making good use of Lefebvres work,
however. For instance, Kristin Ross (1995) has
examined the gendered relationships between
domestic and late colonial culture in urban
France. Mary McLeod (1997) has excavated
Lefebvres relevance for feminist conceptions
of ordinary architecture, and Doreen Massey
(1994) has stressed the benefits of bringing
Lefebvre in touch with feminist debates about
economic geography and radical democracy.
More recently, Lefebvres work has been redir-
ected to show how the geographies of sex work
are best considered as produced conceived,
lived, and perceived social spaces (Hubbard
and Sanders (2003), and, more generally, how
the gendered and sexualized production of
space is a profoundly corporeal affair (Friedman
and van Ingen, 2011).
What makes Lefebvres work amenable to
critical analyses of gender and sexuality, despite
itself? In his critiques of everyday life, Lefebvre
consistently emphasized the degree to which the
institution of everyday life has taken place dis-
proportionately on the backs of women, who
carried the burden of privatized consumption
work under that very postwar capitalism which,
in advertising campaigns and womens maga-
zines, promised women new levels of economic
autonomy, affective fulfillment, and sexual lib-
eration. His research on architecture and urban
planning projects was persistent in its critique
of reproductive and nuclear conceptions of
family life that undergirded the bungalow dis-
tricts and apartment superblocks he analyzed
(Lefebvre, 1970a; Stanek, 2011). In The Pro-
duction of Space and De lE
tat, Lefebvre again

took up the critique of the gendered family
units of postwar urbanism, where he empha-
sized the masculinist (phallocentric) aspects
of abstract space and noted the particular role
of men in enforcing hierarchical territorial
forms. What are the most promising avenues
of taking Lefebvre into a feminist direction? His
work resists Lacanian perspectives on gender
and heteronormativity (Blum and Nast, 1996;
Gregory, 1995; Pile, 1996). As Frigga Haug
(2003) underscored, Lefebvre is theoretically
much closer to the materialist feminist and
anti-racist marxist approaches to everyday life
developed by Dorothy Smith (1987) and
Himani Bannerji (1995).
6 Urban political ecology
Lefebvre has rightly been criticized for deploy-
ing problematic and contradictory notions of
nature (Loftus, 2012; Smith, 2004; but see
Schmidt, 1972). Two things are clear, how-
ever. Lefebvres critique of everyday life reso-
nates strongly with eco-socialist sensibilities
(Ajzenberg et al., 2011: 7173). Throughout
his life, Lefebvre shared a commitment to a
form of lived and self-managed socialism
which remained incompatible with the quanti-
tative and productivist leanings of state social-
ism and statist social democracy. In this light,
some have gone as far as suggesting that
Lefebvres work pushes one to consider the pos-
sibility of an ecological mode of production
(Ajzenberg, 2011). Also, Lefebvres urban and
spatial writings at least gesture towards a non-
dualist perspective on nature. While his view
of nature as a mere material support for the pro-
duction of space is problematic, his argument
about the transformation of nature in the urbani-
zation process helps us show how natural forces
are not a mere shrinking backdrop in the modern
world. Key for Lefebvre is the process through
which first nature is transfigured into second
nature: urban nature (Schmid, 2005: 250252).
This process is dialectical, not linear. In urbani-
zation, first nature is not dead, but transposed,
recycled, and reinvented. Despite the weight
of abstract space, urban life remains fraught
with deep tensions between cyclical and linear
rhythms.
For Lefebvre, the transformation of first into
second nature (a key theme in critical marxism
Kipfer et al. 11
since Lukacs) thus takes place through the
urban revolution: the institution of capitalism
through the uneven imperial and sociospa-
tially differentiated process of urbanization.
This insight has been important for the forma-
tion of urban political ecology as a now well-
known research field (Keil, 2003; Kipfer et al.,
1996; Swyngedouw, 1996). For all its limita-
tions, Lefebvres urban understanding of second
nature and the contradictory rhythms that shape
it makes it difficult to uphold the dualistic
conceptions of nature and society which one can
find in environmentalist anti-urbanism and
technocratic or managerial urbanism alike. The
globalization of urban natures, of which ecolo-
gical imperialism is a key feature, means that
we cannot abstract ecological questions from
urban contexts or consider urban questions
without reference to ecological processes.
Urban space represents a socio-ecological land-
scape, which at once incorporates and disguises
societal relationships with nature (Heynen et al.,
2006). The political upshot of all this is clear: a
radical reconstruction of the planet for purposes
of ecological sustainability and environmental
justice today must take place through a pro-
found reorganization of urban life (Davis,
2010). As Alex Loftus (2012) argues forcefully,
the possibilities for such a reorganization can be
found as fragments in the here and now, in sen-
suous daily practices and creative collective
interventions.
7 Regulation
Most neomarxist theories of regulation have
remained blind to urban questions. Lefebvre has
been important, however, for attempting to
urbanize regulation theory. This seems
counter-intuitive given the distance between
French regulationists, the self-proclaimed rebel
sons of Althusser (Lipietz, 1987), and Lefebvre,
the most articulate contemporary critic of struc-
turalism (Ross, 1995: 176). The best-known
regulationists in France Alain Lipietz, Robert
Boyer, Hugues Bertrand, Michel Aglietta, Jaque
Mistral were polytechnicians, working at pre-
cisely those institutions that planned the Fordist
modernization of capitalism, such as the Institut
national de la statistique et des etudes
economiques (INSEE), the Centre d etude des
revenues et de co uts (CERC), and the Centre
d etudes prospectives d economie math ema-
tique appliqu ees a` la planification (CEPRE-
MAP) (Dosse, 1997; Scherrer, 2005; Vidal,
2000). Regulation theory emerged from within
the very institutions that promoted the territoria-
lization of the bureaucratic society of con-
trolled consumption with the help of Saint-
Simonian technocracy and the disciplinary
social sciences, which were set up with much
US support to stop the progress of Marxism
(Ross, 1995). When they abandoned marxism
altogether (Husson, 2008), major French regula-
tionists in a sense returned to their roots in post-
war technocracy.
Lefebvres (1971c) uncompromising critique
of structuralism as a movement complicit with
postwar capitalism because of its emphasis on
synchrony (over diachrony), reproduction (over
contradiction, struggle, and the dialectic), and
science/theory (over everyday life and embo-
died knowledge) thus holds to a significant
extent for regulationists. It is thus plausible in
one sense to mobilize Lefebvre to drumup argu-
ments in British autonomist political marxism
against neo-Poulantzian state and regulation
theory (Charnock, 2010). This manoeuvre over-
looks two crucial issues, however. First,
Lefebvres analysis of everyday life in the sur-
vival of capitalism asked the same question as
the early regulationists did: how can capitalism
survive despite its own conflictual and crisis-
prone character? Lefebvre shared this concern
with the regulationists even though his approach
differed from them emphasizing transduction
over reproduction, dialectical over formalistic
method. Second, Lefebvres marxisme anarchi-
sant was sympathetic to but not synonymous
with autonomism (or anarchism). His hatred
for the state (Merrifield, 2009: 947) and his
commitment to generalized self-management
and the primacy of struggle in change did not
lead him to consider the state as a force strictly
external to radical politics. Precisely because of
his grasp of the state-like as a social form with a
presence in everyday life, he did not shy away
from pursuing reform projects in-and-against
the state (Lefebvre, 1971b; Renaudie et al.,
2009; Stanek, 2011: 246).
Given these (limited) points of contact
between regulationist and Lefebvrean concerns,
Christian Schmids (1996, 2003) attempt at
urbanizing regulation theory makes eminent
sense. Connecting Lefebvre to DuPasquier and
Marcos original insight (1991), Schmid made
an intervention in German-speaking regulation
theory, which had remained marxist and con-
cerned with social struggle more and longer
than its French and English counterparts. He
suggests that the analysis of the territoriality
of social processes leads directly to the core
of the regulation approach (Schmid, 1996:
239; 2003). The modalities of organizing the
territorial relation (rapport territorial) tell us
how capitalist development is regulated in
urban terms. Defined by conflicts over the use
and the structure of hierarchically organized
social spaces, the territorial relation mediates
social relations more broadly speaking. Mul-
tidimensional in nature (material, cultural-
symbolic, and institutional-ideological), the
regulation of the territorial relation involves
struggle over various issues: the environment,
infrastructure, architecture and city building,
land use, the planning of spatial relations,
and definitions of urbanity. Schmids particu-
lar concern has been with the dialectic of
struggle at the heart of territorial relations.
While emerging from and tied to the contra-
dictions and vagaries of everyday life, strug-
gles over territory may give rise to relatively
durable territorial compromises: alliances or
modalities of action shared by political forces
in and around the state. This rejoins
Lefebvres insight that the extended state is
instrument, site, and product of hegemony
(Kipfer, 2008).
V Conclusion: politics and the right
to the city?
The right to the city and the right to difference . . .
are not natural or juridical rights but the legitimizing
theorization of multiple and contradictory social
practices. (Martins, 1982: 184)
In Anglo-America but not only there
Lefebvre is now taken in various directions.
This trend is welcome to the extent that it
enriches theory, research, and strategy while
proposing often much-needed critiques and cor-
rectives of Lefebvres work. It is also Lefebv-
rean in the sense of being open to a plurality
of struggles and theoretical currents. We have
also suggested, however, that in contemporary
debates, sustained points of contact should be
maintained to Lefebvres open, integral, and
differential marxism and the dialectical urban-
ism that helped shape it. Without such contact
to the form and content of Lefebvres work and
life, one risks sinking the metaphorical ship on
which Lefebvrean insights travel to new shores
(to speak in Edward Saids terms). Today, this
risk of translating Lefebvre arbitrarily and
superficially is evident in debates about the
right to the city. While empirically rich and
refreshingly informed by political struggles,
these debates have also given rise to opposite
interpretations of the same phenomena, most
glaringly with respect to evaluating American
housing policy (compare Duke, 2009, and Jones
and Popke, 2010).
Informed by 1968 (in France and else-
where), Lefebvre coined the notion of the right
to the city as a demand for a transformed and
renewed right to urban life (1996: 158). This
revolutionary demand links a quest for the
social surplus (and the political rupture neces-
sary to appropriate it) with a sociospatial
Kipfer et al. 13
struggle against segregation that produces new
forms of spatial centrality. In the 1970s and
1980s, urban activists, architects, and planners
in France (including Lefebvre himself) took
up fragments of Lefebvres revolutionary
urbanism to inject French urban life with forms
of centrality, festivality, and participation
(J-P Lefebvre, 2008). Lefebvrean terminology
thus reappeared in the discursive arsenal of the
French state, for example in the Banlieues
1989 projects, the formation of a Ministry of
Urban Affairs and the Loi dorientation pour
la ville of 1991, the best-known of the initia-
tives that responded to the history of riot and
revolt after 1979 (Costes, 2009; Dikec, 2007).
Typical for Lefebvres institutional travels is
Roland Castro, an architect, public intellectual,
and policy advisor (and former student of
Lefebvre) who has made a career of shrinking
the right to the city to a more manageable right
to urbanity, a right that can be operationalized
by architects and planners to introduce mea-
sures of urbanistic centrality, morphological
diversity, and social mixity into Frances post-
war suburbs in order to reinvent urban civiliza-
tion and fend off the threat of barbarism
emanating from social exclusion, segregation,
and the pre-political revolts of racialized
youth (Castro, 1994, 2007). Lefebvrean traces
thus reappear in the distinctly counter-revolu-
tionary round of urban transformations brought
about by contemporary urban strategies to
destructure working-class, (sub)proletarian, and
immigrant social spaces (Garnier, 2010; Khiari,
2008).
Today, state-bound renderings of the right to
the city can be found not only in France but also
in the corridors of municipalities and states
(notably in Brazil), the United Nations
(UN-Habitat and UNESCO), and a n ebuleuse
of NGOs and conferences (Habitat International
Coalition, The World Urban Forum). The insti-
tutional proliferation of Lefebvres clarion call
testifies to the fact that the right to the city has
emerged as a demand by an impressive array of
movements, from housing and slum-dweller
activists in Brazil, squatter and alternative mili-
eus in German-speaking Europe, to anti-
gentrification movements in the USA and the
activist networks coming together at the Social
Forum of the Americas and the World Social
Forum (Fernandes, 2007; Mayer, 2009; Merri-
field, 2006; Samara, 2007). This explosion of
right to the city discourses has spilled over into
lively academic debate (City, 2009; Rue Des-
cartes, 2009). Spurred on by urban struggles,
intellectuals have revisited Lefebvres revolu-
tionary concerns with surplus appropriation
(Harvey, 2008, 2011) or reformulated the right
to the city as a question resonating with strug-
gles about: public space (Mitchell, 2003); anti-
racist politics (McCann, 1999; Tyner, 2007);
migrant rights, citizenship, and multicultural-
ism (Carpio et al., 2011; Gilbert and Dikec,
2008; Goonewardena and Kipfer, 2005); racia-
lized strategies of privatizing education inte-
grated in gentrification politics (Lipman,
2011); and other issues Edward Soja (2010) has
recently summarized under the rubric spatial
justice.
If this proliferation of debate, institutional and
academic, is salutary, there is a danger that the
right to the city becomes fixed in state-
centred ways: operationalized in pragmatic-
empiricist fashion and translated, for purposes
of legal reformor policy evaluation, as a concrete
legal right to habitate or participate in con-
crete physical spaces called the city (Butler,
2009; Duke, 2009; Fernandes, 2007; Purcell,
2003). Such operationalizations not only lose
sight of the fact that the implementation of col-
lective rights (to housing, participatory deci-
sion-making), as desirable as they are in our
hyperliberal times, cannot resolve the contradic-
tion between citizen and bourgeois which,
Marx reminds us, defines the capitalist state.
They also miss the central point of the right to
the city, which, far from an isolated legal right
to particular physical spaces, was meant to high-
light the strategic importance of the urban in
social struggle (Uitermark, 2004), a usually fleet-
ing, not physically fixed, form of spatial and
social centrality produced in a convergence of
radical or revolutionary politics. Turning the
right to the city into sectoral rights may be use-
ful to translate concrete movement demands into
tangible reforms, but if such tactical moves come
at the expense of a broad, transformational per-
spective, they may become cases of misplaced
concreteness. Once narrowed to particular
reforms only, they become akin to earlier proj-
ects of reducing autogestion (which Lefebvre
understood as a generalized process of trans-
forming all aspects of life before, during and after
a revolutionary rupture) to a project of injecting
homeopathic doses of group work and co-
determination into workplace management
methods in late Fordist and state-socialist con-
texts (Rose, 1978).
Lefebvres right to the city is difficult to pin
down because it was a claim to something that
no longer exists and, indeed, never existed: the
historic city (Harvey, 2011: 42). Bemoaning
this lack of concreteness, some now suggest
abandoning the right to the city in favour of a
more indistinct, de-territorialized and de-
differentiated, conception of politics as a spon-
taneous encounter of horizontally networked
subjects (everybuddy) (Merrifield, 2011,
2012). By extrapolating from real, but particu-
lar currents in the Euro-American indignados
and occupy movements of 2011, this post-
Lefebvrean libertarianism misreads the global
political conjuncture (Davis, 2011). The mobili-
zations in Tunisia, Egypt, Spain, Greece, and
the USA teach us at least three things of rele-
vance for our purposes. They produced forms
of spatiopolitical centrality by appropriating
lAvenue Habib Bourgiba and Tahrir, Puerta del
Sol, Syntagma, and Liberty Squares. They did
so on the basis of a convergence of multiple,
socially differentiated and spatially uneven
political forces, many of which at the periphery
of capitals horizontal space of flows (Rous-
seau, 2011). The dynamic of the Tunisian
revolution, for example, was driven by the
struggles in the mining and agricultural districts
in the countrys peripheralized centre before
claiming the coastal cities of Sousse, Sfax, and
Tunis. Together, the revolts and revolutions of
2011 underscore Mendietas (2008: 151) point
that, froma truly global perspective on capitalist
and imperial dynamics of urbanization, the
demand of the right to the city has become as
urgent, if not more, than when Lefebvre pro-
claimed it in 1968. To make sense of this typi-
cally implicit demand in a neo-Lefebvrean spirit
requires that one pays special attention to how it
is situated within the uneven landscapes and
segmented rhythms of social struggle.
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any
funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-
for-profit sectors.
Note
1. This paper is an expanded, revised, and updated version
of Stefan Kipfer, Parastou Saberi, and Thorben Wie-
ditz, Henri Lefebvre, in Frank Eckardt (ed.), Hand-
buch Stadtsoziologie (Wiesbaden: Verlag fur
Sozialwissenschaften, 2012). Thanks to Kanishka Goo-
newardena and the anonymous reviewers for advice and
critique.
References
Agnew J (1994) The territorial trap: The geographical
assumptions of international relations theory. Review
of International Political Economy 1: 5380.
Ajzenberg A (2011) Vers un mode de production
ecologiste. In: Ajzenberg A, Lethierry H, and Bazinek
L (eds) Maintenant Henri Lefebvre: Renaissance de la
Pens ee Critique. Paris: LHarmattan, 121162.
Ajzenberg A, Lethierry H, and Bazinek L (eds) (2011)
Maintenant Henri Lefebvre: Renaissance de la Pens ee
Critique. Paris: LHarmattan.
Appel Collectif (2012) Rompre avec les politiques de
s egr egation. LHumanit e 12 February, 2.
Bannerji H (1995) Thinking Through: Essays on Feminism,
Marxism and Anti-Racism. Toronto: Womens Press.
Berman M(1982) All That is Solid Melts into Air: The Expe-
rience of Modernity. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Kipfer et al. 15
Blum V and Nast H (1996) Wheres the difference? The
heterosexualization of alterity in Henri Lefebvre and
Jacques Lacan. Environment and Planning D: Society
and Space 14: 559580.
Brenner N (2000) The urban question as a scale question:
Reflections on Henri Lefebvre, urban theory and the
politics of scale. International Journal for Urban and
Regional Research 24(2): 361378.
Brenner N (2004) New State Spaces: Urban Governance
and the Rescaling of Statehood. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Brenner N (2008) Lefebvres critique of state producti-
vism. In: Goonewardena K, Kipfer S, Milgrom R, and
Schmid C (eds) Space, Difference, Everyday Life. New
York: Routledge, 231249.
Brenner N and Elden S (2009a) Introduction. In: Brenner
N and Elden S (eds) State, Space, World. Minneapolis,
MN: University of Minnesota Press, 148.
Brenner N and Elden S (2009b) Henri Lefebvre on state,
space, territory. International Political Sociology 3:
353377.
Butler C (2009) Critical legal studies and the politics of
space. Social and Legal Studies 18(3): 313332.
Carpio G, Irazabal C, and Pulido L (2011) Right to the sub-
urb? Rethinking Lefebvre and immigrant activism.
Journal of Urban Affairs 33(2): 185208.
Castells M (1977) The Urban Question: A Marxist
Approach. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Castells M (1978) City, Class, and Power. New York: St
Martins Press.
Castells M (1983) The City and the Grassroots. Berkeley,
CA: University of California Press.
Castells M (1997) The Information Age: Economy, Soci-
ety, and Culture, Volume 2: The Power of Identity.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Castro R (1994) Civilisation Urbaine ou Barbarie. Paris:
Pion.
Castro R (2007) Faut-il Passer la Banlieue au Karcher?
Paris: lArchipel.
Charnock G (2010) Challenging new state spatialities: The
open marxism of Henri Lefebvre. Antipode 42(5):
12791303.
City (2009) The right to the city. Special Issue 13(23).
Coronil F (2000) Towards a critique of globalocentrism:
Speculations on capitalisms nature. Public Culture
12: 351374.
Costes L (2009) Henri Lefebvre: Le Droit a` la Ville. Paris:
Ellipses.
Cox K (2002) Political Geography. Oxford: Blackwell.
Davis M (2010) Who will build the ark? New Left Review
61: 2946
Davis M (2011) Spring confronts winter. New Left Review
72: 16.
Delaney D (2005) Territory. Oxford: Blackwell.
Dikec M (2007) Badlands of the Republic: Space, Politics,
and Urban Policy. Oxford: Blackwell.
Dosse F (1997) History of Structuralism. Minneapolis,
MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Duke J (2009) Mixed income housing policy and public
housing residents right to the city. Critical Social
Policy 29(1): 100120.
DuPasqier JN and Marco D (1991) R egulation Fordiste et
Post-Fordiste en Suisse depuis 1937. Geneva: Unit e
pour lE
tude de la R egulation en Suisse.

Edensor T (2010) Walking in rhythms: Place, regulation,
style and the flow of the experience. Visual Studies
25(1): 6979.
Elden S (2004) Understanding Henri Lefebvre: Theory
and the Possible. London: Continuum.
Elden S (2009) Terror and Territory: The Spatial Extent of
Sovereignty. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minne-
sota Press.
Elden S (2010) Land, terrain, territory. Progress in Human
Geography 34(6): 799817.
Faye E (2009) Heidegger: The Introduction of Nazism
into Philosophy. New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press.
Fernandes E (2007) Constructing the right to city in
Brazil. Social and Legal Studies 16(2): 201219.
Friedman MT and van Ingen C (2011) Bodies in space:
Spatializing physical cultural studies. Sociology of
Sport Journal 28: 85105.
Gardiner ME (2000) Critiques of Everyday Life. New
York: Routledge.
Garnier J-P (2010) Une Violence Eminemment Contem-
poraine. Paris: Agone.
Giddens A (1981) A Contemporary Critique of Historical
Materialismi Volume 1: Power, Property, and the
State. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Gilbert L and Dikec M (2008) Right to the city: Politics of
citizenship. In: Goonewardena K, Kipfer S, MilgromR,
and Schmid C (eds) Space, Difference, Everyday Life.
New York: Routledge, 285305.
Goonewardena K (2005) The urban sensorium: Space,
ideology, and the aestheticization of politics. Antipode
37(1): 4671.
Goonewardena K (2011) Henri Lefebvre. In: George
Ritzer and Jeff Stepnisky (eds) The Wiley-Blackwell
Companion to Major Social Theorists. Volume 2:
Contemporary Social Theorists. Chichester: Wiley-
Blackwell, 4464.
Goonewardena K and Kipfer S (2005) Spaces of differ-
ence: Reflections from Toronto on multiculturalism,
bourgeois urbanism and the possibility of radical urban
politics. International Journal of Urban and Regional
Research 29(3): 670678.
Goonewardena K, Kipfer S, Milgrom R, and Schmid C
(2008) Space, Difference, Everyday Life: Reading
Henri Lefebvre. New York: Routledge.
Goswami M (2004) Producing India: From Colonial
Economy to National Space. Chicago: Chicago Uni-
versity Press.
Gregory D (1995) Lefebvre, Lacan, and the production of
space. In: Benko G and Strohmayer U (eds) Geography,
History, and Social Sciences. NewYork: Kluwer, 1544.
Hallward P (2001) Absolutely Postcolonial: Writing
Between the Singular and the Specific. Manchester:
Manchester University Press.
Hardt M and Negri A (2000) Empire. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Hart G (2006) Denaturalizing dispossession: Critical eth-
nography in the age of resurgent imperialism. Antipode
38(5): 9771004.
Harvey D (1973) Social Justice and the City. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Harvey D (1989a) The Urban Experience. Baltimore, MD:
Johns Hopkins University Press.
Harvey D (1989b) The Condition of Postmodernity.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Harvey D (2003) The New Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Harvey D (2006) Space as keyword. In: Castree N and
Gregory D (eds) David Harvey: A Critical Reader.
New York: Routledge, 270294.
Harvey D (2008) The right to the city. New Left Review 53
(September-October).
Harvey D(2011) Le Capitalisme Contre le Droit a` la Ville:
N eoliberalisme, Urbanisation, R esistances. Paris: Edi-
tions Amsterdam.
Haug F (2003) Alltagsforschung. In: Haug F (ed.)
Historisches-Kritisches Worterbuch des Feminismus.
Hamburg: Argument Verlag, 614.
Heynen N, Kaika M, and Swyngedouw E (2006) In the
Nature of Cities. Urban Political Ecology and the
Politics of Urban Metabolism. New York:
Routledge.
Highmore Ben (2005) Cityscapes: Cultural Readings in
the Material and Symbolic City. New York: Palgrave.
Hubbard P and Sanders T (2003) Making space for sex
work: Female street prostitution and the production of
urban space. International Journal of Urban and
Regional Research 72(1): 7589.
Husson M (2008 [2001]) The Regulation School: A one-
way ticket from Marx to social liberalism?, translated
by Elliott G. In: Bidet J and Kouvelakis S (eds) Critical
Companion to Contemporary Marxism. Leiden: Brill,
175189.
Jessop B, Brenner N, and Jones M (2008) Theorizing
socio-spatial relations. Environment and Planning D:
Society and Space 26(3): 389401.
Johnson C, Jones R, Paasi A, Amoore L, Mountz A,
Salter M, et al. (2011) Interventions on rethinking
the border in border studies. Political Geography
30: 6169.
Jones KT and Popke J (2010) Re-envisioning the city:
Lefebvre, HOPE VI, and the neoliberalization of urban
space. Urban Geography 31(1): 114133.
Keil R (2003) Progress report: Urban political ecology.
Urban Geography 24(8): 723738.
Keucheyan R (2010) H emisphe`re Gauche: Une Cartogra-
phie des Nouvelles Pens ees Critique. Paris: Zones.
Khiari S (2008) La Contre-R evolution Coloniale en
France: De de Gaulle a` Sarkozy. Paris: La Fabrique.
Kipfer S (2007) Fanon and space: Colonization, urbaniza-
tion, and liberation from the colonial to the global city.
Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 25(4):
701726.
Kipfer S (2008) Hegemony, everyday life, and difference:
How Lefebvre urbanized Gramsci. In: Goonewardena
K, Kipfer S, Milgrom R, and Schmid C (eds) Space,
Difference, Everyday Life. New York: Routledge,
193211.
Kipfer S (2009) Why the urban question still matters:
Reflections on rescaling and the promise of the urban.
In: Keil R and Mahon R (eds) Leviathan Undone. Van-
couver: UBC Press, 6786.
Kipfer S and Goonewardena K (2007) Colonization and
the newimperialism: On the meaning of urbicide today.
Theory and Event 10(2).
Kipfer S and Goonewardena K(forthcoming) Urban marx-
ism and the postcolonial challenge: Henri Lefebvre and
colonization. Historical Materialism.
Kipfer et al. 17
Kipfer S and Petrunia J (2009) Colonization and public
housing in the competitive city: A Toronto case study.
Studies in Political Economy 83: 111139.
Kipfer S, Goonewardena K, Schmid C, and Milgrom R
(2008) On the production of Henri Lefebvre. In: Goo-
newardena K, Kipfer S, Milgrom R, and Schmid C
(eds) Space, Difference, Everyday Life. New York:
Routledge, 123.
Kipfer S, Hartmann F, and Marino S (1996) Cities, nature
and socialism: Towards an urban agenda for action and
research. Capitalism Nature Socialism 7(2): 59.
Kipfer S, SchmidC, Goonewardena K, andMilgromR(2008)
Globalizing Lefebvre? In: Goonewardena K, Kipfer S,
MilgromR, andSchmid C(eds) Space, Difference, Every-
day Life. New York: Routledge, 285305.
Kofman E and Lebas E (1996) Lost in transposition time,
space and the city. In: Kofman E and Lebas E (eds)
Writings on Cities. Oxford: Blackwell, 362.
Kouvelakis S(2008) Henri Lefebvre, thinker of urban moder-
nity. In: Bidet J and Kouvelakis S (eds) Critical Compa-
nion to Contemporary Marxism. Leiden: Brill, 711727.
Kouvelakis S (2011) The Greek cauldron. NewLeft Review
72: 19.
Lebas E (2003) Introduction. In: Elden S, Lebas E, and
Kofman E (eds) Key Writings. London: Continuum,
6970.
Lefebvre H (1965) La Proclamation de la Commune.
Paris: Gallimard.
Lefebvre H (1968) The Sociology of Marx, translated by
Guterman N. New York: Vintage Books.
Lefebvre H (1969) The Explosion, translated by Ehrenfeld
A. New York: Modern Reader Paperback.
Lefebvre H (1970a) Du Rural a` lUrbain. Paris:
Anthropos.
Lefebvre H (1970b) Le Manifeste Diff erentialiste. Paris:
Gallimard.
Lefebvre H (1971a) Le romantisme r evolutionnaire. In:
Au-dela` du Structuralisme. Paris: Anthropos, 2750.
Lefebvre H (1971b) La planification d emocratique. In:
Au-dela` du Structuralisme. Paris: Anthropos, 137164.
Lefebvre H (1971c) Au-dela` du Structuralisme. Paris:
Anthropos.
Lefebvre H (1972) La Pens ee Marxiste et la Ville. Paris:
Casterman.
Lefebvre H (1976a) De lE
tat I. LE
tat dans le Monde

Moderne. Paris: Union G en erale dEditions.
Lefebvre H (1976b) De lE
tat II. Paris: Union G en erale

dEditions.
Lefebvre H (1977) De lE
tat III. Le Mode de Production

Etatique. Paris: Union G en erale dEditions.
Lefebvre H (1978) De lE
tat IV. Paris: Union Generale

dEditions.
Lefebvre H (1988) Towards a Leftist cultural politics. In:
Nelson Cand Grossberg L (eds) Marxismand the Inter-
pretation of Culture. Chicago, IL: University of Illinois
Press, 7588.
Lefebvre H (1991a) Critique of Everyday Life, Volume 1,
translated by Moore J. London: Verso.
Lefebvre H (1991b) The Production of Space, translated
by Nicholson-Smith D. Oxford: Blackwell.
Lefebvre H (1995) Towards a new romanticism? In: Intro-
duction to Modernity, translated by Moore J. London:
Verso, 239388.
Lefebvre H (1996) Writings on Cities. Oxford: Wiley-
Blackwell.
Lefebvre H (1997) M etaphilosophie. Paris: Syllepse.
Lefebvre H(2002) Critique of Everyday Life: Foundations
for a Sociology of the Everyday, VII, translated by
Moore J. London: Verso.
Lefebvre H (2003) The Urban Revolution. Minneapolis,
MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Lefebvre H (2004) Rhythmanalysis, translated by Elden S
and Moore G. London: Continuum.
Lefebvre H (2008) Critique of Everyday Life, Volume 3.
London: Verso.
Lefebvre H (2009a) Everyday Life in the Modern World,
translated by Rabinovitch S. London: Transaction
Publishers.
Lefebvre H (2009b) Dialectical Materialism, translated by
Sturrock J. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota
Press.
Lefebvre H (2011) Vers un Romantisme R evolutionnaire.
Paris: Lignes.
Lefebvre H and Guterman N (1999) La Conscious
Mystif ee. Paris: Syllepse.
Lefebvre J-P (2008) Faut-il Br uler les HLM? Paris:
Harmattan.
Lipietz A (1987) Rebel sons: The Regulation School, an
interview with Alain Lipietz conducted by Jane Jenson.
French Politics and Society 5(4): 1825.
Lipman P (2011) The New Political Economy of Urban
Education: Neoliberalism, Race, and the Right to the
City. New York: Routledge.
Loftus A (2012) Everyday Environmentalism: Creating an
Urban Political Ecology. Minneapolis, MN: University
of Minnesota Press.
Logan J and Molotch (1987) Urban Fortunes. Berkeley,
CA: University of California Press.
Lowy M (2008) Le romantisme r evolutionnaire de Mai
1968. Contretemps 22.
Luscher R (1984) Einbruch in den Gewohnlichen Ablauf
der Ereignisse. Zurich: Limmat.
Lussault M (2007) LHomme Spatial: La Construction
Sociale de lEspace Humain. Paris: Seuil.
McCann EJ (1999) Race, protest, and public space:
Contextualizing Lefebvre in the US city. Antipode
31(2): 163184.
McLeod M (1997) Henri Lefebvres critique of everyday
life: An introduction. In: Burke D and Harris S (eds)
Architecture of the Everyday. New York: Princeton
Architectural Press, 929.
Marston SA (2000) The social construction of scale. Prog-
ress in Human Geography 24(2): 219242.
Marston SA and Smith N (2001) States, scales and house-
holds: Limits to scale thinking? A response to Brenner.
Progress in Human Geography 25(4): 615619.
Martins MR (1982) The theory of social space in the work
of Henri Lefebvre. In: Forrest R, Henderson J, and
Williams P (eds) Urban Political Economy and Social
Theory. Aldershot: Gower, 160185.
Massey D (1994) Space, Place, and Gender. Cambridge:
Polity Press.
Mayer M (2009) The right to the city in the context of
shifting mottos of urban social movements. City
13(2): 362374.
Mendieta E (2008) The production of urban space in
the age of transnational mega-urbes. City 12(2):
148152.
Merrifield A (2002) Henri Lefebvre: Urban revolution. In:
Merrifield A Metromarxism: A Marxist Tale of the
City. London: Routledge, 7192.
Merrifield A (2006) Henri Lefebvre: A Critical Introduc-
tion. New York: Routledge.
Merrifield A (2009) Review essay. The whole and the rest:
Remi Hess and les lefebvriens francais. Environment
and Planning D: Society and Space 27: 936949.
Merrifield A (2011) Crowd politics. Or, Here Comes
Everybuddy. New Left Review 71: 103114.
Merrifield A (2012) Ideas are bulletproof. Radical Philo-
sophy 171: 711.
Mitchell D(2003) The Right to the City: Social Justice and
the Fight for Public Space. New York: Guilford Press.
Ng MK, Tang W-S, Lee J, and Leung D (2010) Spatial
practice, conceived space and lived space: Hong
Kongs Piers saga through the Lefebvrian lens.
Planning Perspectives 25(4): 411431.
Painter J (2010) Rethinking territory. Antipode 42(5):
10901118.
Pile S (1996) The Body and the City: Psychoanalysis,
Space and Subjectivity. London: Routledge.
Prigge W (1995) Urbi et orbi zur Epistemologie des stad-
tischen [The city and the world on the epistemology
of urbanity]. In: Hitz H, Keil R, Lehrer U, Ronneberger
K, Schmid C, and Wolff R (eds) Capitales Fatales:
Urbanisierung und Politik in den Finanzmetropolen
Frankfurt und Zurich. Zurich: Rotpunktverlag,
176187.
Purcell M (2003) Citizenship and the right to the global
city. International Journal of Urban and Regional
Research 27(3): 564590.
Raffestin C (1980) Pour une G eographie du Pouvoir.
Paris: Libraire Techniques.
Renaudie S, Guilbaud P, and Lefebvre H (2009 [1986])
International competition for the New Belgrade urban
structure improvement. In: Bitter S and Weber W (eds)
Autogestion, or Henri Lefebvre in New Belgrade.
Vancouver: Filip and Sternberg Press, 132.
Roberts J (2006) Philosophizing the Everyday. London:
Pluto Press.
Rose E (1978) Generalized self-management: The position
of Henri Lefebvre. Human Relations 31(7): 617630.
Ross K (1995) Fast Cars, Clean Bodies: Decolonization
and the Reordering of French Culture. Cambridge,
MA: The MIT Press.
Ross K (1997) French quotidian. In: Gumpert L (ed.) The
Art of the Everyday: The Quotidian in Postwar French
Culture. New York: New York University Press, 1930.
Ross K (2008) Yesterdays critique, todays mythologies.
Contemporary French and Francophone Studies
12(2): 231242.
Rousseau M (2011) Le mouvement des immobiles. Le
Monde Diplomatique, Juillet 10.
Rue Descartes (2009) Droit de cit e. Special Issue 63.
Samara TR (2007) Gentrifying downtown. ColorLines
Issue 39 (JulyAugust).
Sandercock L (2003) Cosmopolis II: Mongrel Cities of the
21st Century. London: Continuum.
Scherrer C (2005) Die ecole de la r egulation: Franzosische
Wirtschaftstheorie mit Austrahlung jenseits des
Rheins. In: Beilecke F and Marmetschke K (eds) Der
Intellektuelle und der Mandarin. Kassel: Kassel
University Press, 143160.
Kipfer et al. 19
Schmid C (1996) Urbane Region und Territorialverhaltnis
zur Regulation des Urbanisierungsprozess der Neun-
ziger Jahre [Globalization and metropolitan politics:
Reflections on the urbanization process in the 1990s].
In: Bruch M and Krebs HP (eds) Unternehmen Globus:
Facetten Nachfordistischer Regulation. Munster:
Westfalisches Dampfboot, 224254.
Schmid C (2003) Raum und regulation: Henri Lefebvre
und der regulationsansatz [Space and regulation: Henri
Lefebvre and the regulation approach]. In: Brand Uand
Raza W (eds) Fit fur den Postfordismus. Munster:
Westfalisches Dampfboot, 217242.
Schmid C (2005) Stadt, Raum und Gesellschaft: Henri
Lefebvre und die Theorie der Produktion des Raumes
[City, Space and Society: Henri Lefebvre and the Theory
of the Production of Space]. Munchen: Franz Steiner.
Schmid C (2008) Henri Lefebvres theory of the produc-
tion of space. In: Goonewardena K, Kipfer S, Milgrom
R, and Schmid C (eds) Space, Difference, Everyday
Life. New York: Routledge, 2745.
Schmidt A (1972) Henri Lefebvre and contemporary inter-
pretations of Marx, translated by Heckmann J. In:
Howard D and Klare KE (eds) The Unknown Dimen-
sion. European MarxismSince Lenin. NewYork: Basic
Books, 322341.
Schmidt H (1990) Sozialphilosphie des Krieges: Staats-
und subjekttheroretische Untersuchungen zu Henri
Lefebvre und George Bataille. Essen: Klartext.
Smith D (1987) Everyday World as Problematic: A Fem-
inist Sociology. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Smith N (2004) Space and substance in geography. In:
Cloke P, Crang P, and Goodwin M (eds) Envisioning
Human Geographies. London: Arnold, 1129.
Smith N (2005) Endgame of Globalization. New York:
Routledge.
Soja E (1989) Postmodern Geographies: The Reassertion
of Space in Critical Social Theory. London: Verso.
Soja E (1996) Third Space: Journeys to Los Angeles and
Other Real-and-Imagined Places. Oxford: Blackwell.
Soja E (1999) Third space: Expanding the scope of the
geographical imagination. In: Massey D, Allen J, and
Sarre P (eds) Human Geography Today. Cambridge:
Polity Press, 260278.
Soja E (2010) Seeking Spatial Justice. Minneapolis, MN:
University of Minnesota Press.
Sparke M (2001) American empire and globalization:
Postcolonial speculations on neocolonial enframing.
Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography 24(3):
373389.
Stanek L (2011) Henri Lefebvre on Space: Architecture,
Urban Research, and the Production of Theory. Min-
neapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Storey D (2001) Territory. Harlow: Prentice Hall.
Swyngedouw E (1996) The city as a hybrid: On nature,
society and cyborg urbanization. Capitalism Nature
Socialism 7(2): 6580.
Tang W-S, Lee JWY, and Ng MK (2012) Public engage-
ment as a tool of hegemony: The case of designing the
new central harbourfront in Hong Kong. Critical
Sociology 38(1): 89106.
Tyner JA(2007) Urban revolutions and the spaces of black
radicalism. In: McKittrick K and Woods C (eds) Black
Geographies and the Politics of Place. Toronto:
Between the Lines, 218219.
Uitermark J (2004) Looking forward by looking back: May
Day protests in London and the strategic significance of
the urban. Antipode 36: 706727.
Vidal J-F (2000) Birth and growth of the Regulation
School in French intellectual context (19701986).
In: Labrousse Aand Weisz J-D(eds), Institutional Eco-
nomics in France and Germany: German Ordoliberal-
ism Versus the French Regulation School. Berlin:
Springer, 1347.
Waite G (2008) Lefebvre without Heidegger. In: Goone-
wardena K, Kipfer S, Milgrom R, and Schmid C (eds)
Space, Difference, Everyday Life. New York: Routle-
dge, 94114.
Weber M (1968) Economy and Society, edited by Roth G
and Wittich C. New York: Bedminster.
Wex C (1999) Logistik der Macht: Henri Lefebvres
Sozialtheorie und die Raumlichkeit des Staates. Doc-
toral thesis, Phillips-Universitat Marburg.
Whitehead J (2010) Development and Dispossession in the
Narmada Valley. New Delhi: Pearson.
Wilson J (2011) Notes on the rural city: Henri Lefebvre
and the transformation of everyday life in Chiapas,
Mexico. Environment and Planning D: Society and
Space 29: 9931009.
Yiftachel O (2009) Critical theory and gray space: Mobi-
lization of the colonized. City 13(2): 246263.

Henri Lefebvre - Debates and Controversies PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Henri Lefebvre - Debates and Controversies PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

http://phg.sagepub.

http://phg.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:

- May 29, 2012 OnlineFirst Version of Record >>

- Jan 18, 2013 Version of Record

tat, Lefebvre again

tude de la R egulation en Suisse.

tat dans le Monde

tat II. Paris: Union G en erale

tat III. Le Mode de Production

tat IV. Paris: Union Generale

You might also like