05th Sep2012

Weekly Posts: Alex Carson

by alexcarson

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.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *