Space, Place, and Identity in the Digital Age

Weekly Posts: Alex Carson

1: On page 16, Lefebvre postulates on whether language precedes or succeeds the appropriation of social space. Lefebvre notes the possibility of language itself as a space by which spaces can be logically interpreted, but in studies of prehuman hominids and other social animals such as bonobos and other primates we have been able to note the appropriation of spaces for activity. While Lefebvre does not explicitly rule out the notion of social space preceding language, I wonder what the implications of such a procession – with social spaces emerging before spoken language – are for the study of space and place. If language could have led to space, could space have been conducive to the physical and mental traits that make speech and language possible?

2: On pages 23 and 24 Lefebvre discusses the impact of the consolidation of space by the state from a Hegelian, Neitzsche-ian, and (after a fashion) Marxist point of view. Again, while Lefebvre does not explicitly denounce it, I wonder what role struggles outside of the Western notion of class struggle play in conflict in a world dominated by the concept of the state. As described by Mikhail Bakhtin and interpreted through Lefebvre, language is one space where conflict between peoples can happen. Is linguistic conflict part of the greater conflict between the bourgeois and the proletariat? Or does it have a difference character, and thus does it occupy different spaces, that merit further investigation and elaboration?

3: This may be me making too much of one statement, but on page 27 Lefebvre asks how social space as a social product is “concealed” as part of a broader capitalist system. Perhaps it is a consequence of the times we live in, but in my experience social space is fairly openly commoditized and turned into a product. Websites like Facebook have not only commoditized this space, but have turned the information exchanged through this space into a product for the acquisition of capital in and of itself. In a Marxist discourse, does this signify the full legitimization of a capitalist system? Or does it potentially have some other meaning?

Definitions:

Cartesian: The term Cartesian refers to the philosophical beliefs of Rene Descartes, who believed that the mind was separate from the body and held that there was such a thing as “inherent” knowledge (I think, therefore I am).

Semiology: The study of the functions of signs and symbols, as originally pioneered and organized by Saussure.

The Creation of Space

In the beginning of chapter 1 and continuing throughout (and emphasized in Simonson), Lefebvre refuses to acknowledge mental space as real or not as legitimate. Is mental space not real? Although he is concerned more with physical spaces (although space is not always/necessarily tangible) and acknowledgeable spaces that can be occupied by more than one person. Is this what constitutes space – multiplicity of occupation? Although there is acknowledgment of this mental space — I would have liked to have seen this idea pushed further, especially when our relationship to space is in part defined by the way we perform. Are our actions not based primarily in this occupied mental space. Maybe I’m looking to much into this, but this is a part of contention that I have with Lefebvre.

Lefebvre takes most of his inspiration from his origin in Marxist theory, which translates directly into his work on the body and space. Lefebvre is fetishizing the body and space as if to say that the two cannot exist without each other. In this instance I think it would be fair to say that Lefebvre is a space fetishist in the sense that he is giving meaning and a value (not monetary) to space through the body and the work that it produces (energy -> space -> time).

As I read through Simonson I start to wonder what a combination of Erving Goffman’s ideas of the performance of the everyday self would act in relationship with the creation of space. I ask this in relation to what Simonson says on page 7 of her article “…Lefebvre stresses how social/spatial practice, which is performed at the level of the perceived, presupposes the use of the body – of the hands, members and sen sory organs, performing gestures of work or of activity unrelated to work.”

Definition(s):

Space: an intangible ‘thing’ that invokes feelings (spiritual, positive, negative, or otherwise) rather than physicality. It would seem to express an expansion through prosthesis. It is an area of performance for the individual, group, or community. Space is subjective.