Henri Lefebvre: A Critical Introduction - autonomous learning

Henri Lefebvre: A Critical Introduction - autonomous learning Henri Lefebvre: A Critical Introduction - autonomous learning

selforganizedseminar.files.wordpress.com
from selforganizedseminar.files.wordpress.com More from this publisher
02.07.2013 Views

G L o b a L i z a t i o n a n d t H e s t a t e is necessary to struggle at all costs. There is no ‘good state’; today there is no state that can avoid moving towards this logical outcome: the State Mode of Production; that’s why the only criterion of democracy is the prevention of such an outcome.” 6 Lurking behind this new state form, behind a “simulacrum of decentralization,” is thus a right-wing Hegelian “ruse of reason.” The neoliberal state’s divestment from the public sphere in the name of personal liberty—epitomized by Margaret Thatcher’s 1980s maxim “There is no such thing as society, only individuals and families”—“merely transferred the problems,” Lefebvre reckons, “but not the privileges.” 7 No longer is government coughing up for public service provision and collective consumption budgets; instead it subsidized corporate enterprise, lubricated private investment into “the secondary circuit of capital,” and left it to grassroots groups and voluntary organizations to clear up the mess of market failure, to handle affairs of redistributive justice. The loosening or breaking down of the state’s centralized administration, its apparent rolling back and strengthening of civil society, is really “the crushing of the social between the economic and the political.” 8 Privatization and deregulation actually extend the domain of the state rather than restrict it. From being outside of civil society, the state henceforth suffuses all civil society. “If the state occupies three dominant sectors (energy, information technology, and links with national and world markets),” Lefebvre cautions, “it can loosen its reins somewhat towards subordinate units, regions and cities, as well as business … it can control everything without needing to monitor everything.” 9 * * * Abstract space and SMP orthodoxy have proliferated most forcefully in the post-1991 era. So forcefully, in fact, that the dialectical link between space and politics seems to have receded behind 125

H e n r i L e F e b v r e the blanket category of economic globalization. Neoliberal pundits like economist Richard O’Brien now suggest that because the economy is supposedly a totalizing force, footloose and fancyfree, everywhere and hence nowhere in particular, a Lefevbrian antithesis is in our midst: “The End of Geography.” 10 Here big finance and mobile money arguably run roughshod over specific geographical contouring, like national jurisdictional boundaries, and trample over politics itself. So the “end of geography” is, for O’Brien, tantamount to “death of politics,” the denouement of the New Right’s withering away of the state, because there’s now no political space for any alternative, no geographical niche or strategic spatial maneuvering for anything but neoliberal financial logic. It’s an inexorable inundation that no Noah’s ark can withstand. The SMP has calibrated society to such a finely tuned degree that it pervades everything and everybody. It’s the economy, state, and civil society all rolled into one. The post-Seattle Left has come up with its own, curious version of this thesis. In their Marxist blockbuster Empire, the hardhitting duo Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri don’t so much hail the end of geography as extend geopolitical frontiers to the absolute max. “Empire” is their slippery concept for disentangling a similarly slippery and entangled globalized world order, an order about as old as The Production of Space. Empire is different from the imperialist Empire of old, say Hardt and Negri; above all, it’s the Empire of globalization, a new kind of “decentered” sovereignty, having no boundaries or limits—other than the limits of planet Earth. While it flourishes off U.S. constitutionalism and frontierism, Empire isn’t simply American nor is the United States its center: Empire has no center. Its power dynamics don’t operate like any Hobbesian Leviathan; power isn’t repressive from the top-down, administered on the unruly rabble below. Rather, power is more “biopolitical,” regulating people from within, seeping into subjectivity and through the whole fabric of society. 11 126

G L o b a L i z a t i o n a n d t H e s t a t e<br />

is necessary to struggle at all costs. There is no ‘good state’; today<br />

there is no state that can avoid moving towards this logical outcome:<br />

the State Mode of Production; that’s why the only criterion<br />

of democracy is the prevention of such an outcome.” 6<br />

Lurking behind this new state form, behind a “simulacrum<br />

of decentralization,” is thus a right-wing Hegelian “ruse of reason.”<br />

The neoliberal state’s divestment from the public sphere in<br />

the name of personal liberty—epitomized by Margaret Thatcher’s<br />

1980s maxim “There is no such thing as society, only individuals<br />

and families”—“merely transferred the problems,” <strong>Lefebvre</strong> reckons,<br />

“but not the privileges.” 7 No longer is government coughing<br />

up for public service provision and collective consumption budgets;<br />

instead it subsidized corporate enterprise, lubricated private<br />

investment into “the secondary circuit of capital,” and left it to<br />

grassroots groups and voluntary organizations to clear up the mess<br />

of market failure, to handle affairs of redistributive justice.<br />

The loosening or breaking down of the state’s centralized<br />

administration, its apparent rolling back and strengthening of civil<br />

society, is really “the crushing of the social between the economic<br />

and the political.” 8 Privatization and deregulation actually extend<br />

the domain of the state rather than restrict it. From being outside of<br />

civil society, the state henceforth suffuses all civil society. “If the<br />

state occupies three dominant sectors (energy, information technology,<br />

and links with national and world markets),” <strong>Lefebvre</strong> cautions,<br />

“it can loosen its reins somewhat towards subordinate units,<br />

regions and cities, as well as business … it can control everything<br />

without needing to monitor everything.” 9<br />

* * *<br />

Abstract space and SMP orthodoxy have proliferated most forcefully<br />

in the post-1991 era. So forcefully, in fact, that the dialectical<br />

link between space and politics seems to have receded behind<br />

125

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!