Henri Lefebvre: A Critical Introduction - autonomous learning
Henri Lefebvre: A Critical Introduction - autonomous learning Henri Lefebvre: A Critical Introduction - autonomous learning
U r b a n r e v o L U t i o n nature of urbanism.” 3 It was around the idea of an “urban revolution,” orbiting within a “secondary circuit of capital,” where Harvey bonded with Lefebvre. “Lefebvre makes a simplistic but quite useful distinction between two circuits in the circulation of surplus value,” says Harvey (p. 312). However, the contention that the secondary circuit supplants the principal circuit “requires,” Harvey notes, “some consideration” (p. 312). Since Social Justice and the City, Harvey has refined and deepened a lot of these ideas, because and in spite of Lefebvre. “The Urban Process under Capitalism: A Framework for Analysis,” for example, is a brilliant reinterpretation of the “secondary circuit of capital” thesis and remains a classic Marxist disquisition. 4 Another early, thought-provoking effort titled “Class-Monopoly Rent, Finance and the Urban Revolution” equally acknowledges its debt to Lefebvre, while turning up the analytical heat several degrees. “Distinctions between ‘land’ and ‘capital’ and between ‘rent’ and ‘profit,’ ” Harvey argues, “have become blurred under the impact of urbanization.” “It may be,” he continues, “that problems of ‘stagflation’ in advanced capitalist countries are connected to the land and property boom evident since the mid-1960s.” Thus, urbanization has changed “from an expression of the needs of industrial producers to an expression of the power of finance capital over the totality of the production process.” 5 (Harvey recently commented on the English translation of The Urban Revolution in a noteworthy review essay. “Rereading it anew,” he admits, after first encountering the book in 1972, “turned out to be much more than a trip down memory lane. The text has lost none of its freshness, its beguiling and tantalizing formulations. The questions it opens up are still with us and deserve a thorough airing.”) 6 In 1973, Harvey thought Lefebvre pushed things too far, argued too prematurely in favor of urbanization. “The two circuits are fundamental to each other, but that based on industrial capitalism still dominates” (p. 313). Notwithstanding, “to say that 5
H e n r i L e F e b v r e the thesis is not true at this juncture in history,” reckons Harvey, “is not to say that it is not in the process of becoming true or that it cannot become true in the future” (p. 313). Lefebvre insists that positing the urban over the industrial begets a new sort of “urban problem,” which imposes itself globally and locally—and ideologically. “Urban reality,” he says, “modifies the relations of production, without sufficing to transform them. It becomes a productive force, like science. Space and the politics of space ‘express’ social relations, but equally react back on them” (p. 25; p. 15). For those “specialists” involved in urban problems, these circumstances become what Lefebvre coins a “blind field,” something out-of-sight and out-of-mind. “Inasmuch as we look attentively at this new field, the urban, we see it with eyes, with concepts, shaped by the theory and practice of industrialization, with analytical thought fragmented and specialized in the course of an industrial epoch, thus reductive of the reality in formation” (p. 43; p. 29). From a Marxist perspective, a new dialectical reevaluation is called for, a revised theory of commodity production and surplus value extraction, a new spin on questions of class and economic growth. Indeed, at a time when dominant strands of Marxism— like Althusser’s structuralism—were “formalizing” Marxism, hollowing out its content, Lefebvre was adamant that “urban reality” wasn’t “superstructural,” wasn’t epiphenomenal to productive industrial forces, to the production of “tangible” commodities. * * * At the beginning of the 1970s—“the repugnant seventies,” as Guy Debord likened them—Lefebvre penned numerous diatribes contra Althusser’s structural Marxism and against structuralism more generally. Texts like L’idéologie structuraliste (1975) should be read alongside The Urban Revolution, for, in Lefebvre’s eyes, the reign of structuralism chimed nicely with the state’s structuration 6
- Page 69 and 70: H e n r i L e F e b v r e periphera
- Page 71 and 72: H e n r i L e F e b v r e Lefebvre
- Page 73 and 74: H e n r i L e F e b v r e feelings
- Page 75 and 76: H e n r i L e F e b v r e Lefebvre
- Page 77 and 78: H e n r i L e F e b v r e the Hotel
- Page 79 and 80: H e n r i L e F e b v r e found the
- Page 81 and 82: H e n r i L e F e b v r e thought i
- Page 83 and 84: H e n r i L e F e b v r e examinati
- Page 85 and 86: H e n r i L e F e b v r e with cohe
- Page 87 and 88: H e n r i L e F e b v r e in Quebec
- Page 89 and 90: H e n r i L e F e b v r e “the sc
- Page 91 and 92: H e n r i L e F e b v r e into a si
- Page 93 and 94: H e n r i L e F e b v r e common fo
- Page 95 and 96: H e n r i L e F e b v r e alienatio
- Page 97 and 98: H e n r i L e F e b v r e history,
- Page 99 and 100: H e n r i L e F e b v r e of a thou
- Page 101 and 102: H e n r i L e F e b v r e self-cons
- Page 103 and 104: H e n r i L e F e b v r e To some e
- Page 105 and 106: H e n r i L e F e b v r e nearby, c
- Page 107 and 108: H e n r i L e F e b v r e wherewith
- Page 109 and 110: H e n r i L e F e b v r e Estrada C
- Page 111 and 112: H e n r i L e F e b v r e twenty-th
- Page 114 and 115: 5 Urban Revolution It is in the cou
- Page 116 and 117: U r b a n r e v o L U t i o n revol
- Page 118 and 119: U r b a n r e v o L U t i o n real
- Page 122 and 123: U r b a n r e v o L U t i o n of ur
- Page 124 and 125: U r b a n r e v o L U t i o n globa
- Page 126 and 127: U r b a n r e v o L U t i o n the d
- Page 128 and 129: U r b a n r e v o L U t i o n the s
- Page 130 and 131: U r b a n r e v o L U t i o n exces
- Page 132: U r b a n r e v o L U t i o n deep
- Page 135 and 136: H e n r i L e F e b v r e illustrio
- Page 137 and 138: H e n r i L e F e b v r e intellect
- Page 139 and 140: H e n r i L e F e b v r e denigrate
- Page 141 and 142: H e n r i L e F e b v r e Here we h
- Page 143 and 144: H e n r i L e F e b v r e emergent
- Page 145 and 146: H e n r i L e F e b v r e rather th
- Page 147 and 148: H e n r i L e F e b v r e over and
- Page 149 and 150: H e n r i L e F e b v r e space, ex
- Page 151 and 152: H e n r i L e F e b v r e latter’
- Page 153 and 154: H e n r i L e F e b v r e In a 1985
- Page 155 and 156: H e n r i L e F e b v r e Guts, as
- Page 157 and 158: H e n r i L e F e b v r e Henri Lef
- Page 159 and 160: H e n r i L e F e b v r e work is p
- Page 161 and 162: H e n r i L e F e b v r e the blank
- Page 163 and 164: H e n r i L e F e b v r e better,
- Page 165 and 166: H e n r i L e F e b v r e against a
- Page 167 and 168: H e n r i L e F e b v r e a crucial
- Page 169 and 170: H e n r i L e F e b v r e Davos, Sw
H e n r i L e F e b v r e<br />
the thesis is not true at this juncture in history,” reckons Harvey,<br />
“is not to say that it is not in the process of becoming true or that<br />
it cannot become true in the future” (p. 313). <strong>Lefebvre</strong> insists that<br />
positing the urban over the industrial begets a new sort of “urban<br />
problem,” which imposes itself globally and locally—and ideologically.<br />
“Urban reality,” he says, “modifies the relations of production,<br />
without sufficing to transform them. It becomes a productive<br />
force, like science. Space and the politics of space ‘express’ social<br />
relations, but equally react back on them” (p. 25; p. 15).<br />
For those “specialists” involved in urban problems, these circumstances<br />
become what <strong>Lefebvre</strong> coins a “blind field,” something<br />
out-of-sight and out-of-mind. “Inasmuch as we look attentively<br />
at this new field, the urban, we see it with eyes, with concepts,<br />
shaped by the theory and practice of industrialization, with analytical<br />
thought fragmented and specialized in the course of an<br />
industrial epoch, thus reductive of the reality in formation” (p. 43;<br />
p. 29). From a Marxist perspective, a new dialectical reevaluation<br />
is called for, a revised theory of commodity production and surplus<br />
value extraction, a new spin on questions of class and economic<br />
growth. Indeed, at a time when dominant strands of Marxism—<br />
like Althusser’s structuralism—were “formalizing” Marxism,<br />
hollowing out its content, <strong>Lefebvre</strong> was adamant that “urban reality”<br />
wasn’t “superstructural,” wasn’t epiphenomenal to productive<br />
industrial forces, to the production of “tangible” commodities.<br />
* * *<br />
At the beginning of the 1970s—“the repugnant seventies,” as Guy<br />
Debord likened them—<strong>Lefebvre</strong> penned numerous diatribes contra<br />
Althusser’s structural Marxism and against structuralism more<br />
generally. Texts like L’idéologie structuraliste (1975) should be<br />
read alongside The Urban Revolution, for, in <strong>Lefebvre</strong>’s eyes, the<br />
reign of structuralism chimed nicely with the state’s structuration<br />
6