Henri Lefebvre: A Critical Introduction - autonomous learning
Henri Lefebvre: A Critical Introduction - autonomous learning Henri Lefebvre: A Critical Introduction - autonomous learning
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
- 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 120 and 121: U r b a n r e v o L U t i o n natur
- 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: H e n r i L e F e b v r e work is p
- 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
- Page 171 and 172: H e n r i L e F e b v r e exploitat
- Page 173 and 174: H e n r i L e F e b v r e the mold
- Page 175 and 176: H e n r i L e F e b v r e followed
- Page 177 and 178: H e n r i L e F e b v r e excited b
- Page 179 and 180: H e n r i L e F e b v r e Coming ho
- Page 181 and 182: H e n r i L e F e b v r e the age o
- Page 183 and 184: H e n r i L e F e b v r e the Unhap
- Page 185 and 186: H e n r i L e F e b v r e people’
- Page 187 and 188: H e n r i L e F e b v r e conscious
- Page 189 and 190: H e n r i L e F e b v r e Modern ma
- Page 191 and 192: H e n r i L e F e b v r e idea. The
- Page 193 and 194: H e n r i L e F e b v r e and Nietz
- Page 195 and 196: H e n r i L e F e b v r e overcome
- Page 197 and 198: H e n r i L e F e b v r e knows not
- Page 199 and 200: H e n r i L e F e b v r e bad rap w
- Page 201 and 202: H e n r i L e F e b v r e claimed t
- Page 203 and 204: H e n r i L e F e b v r e The shift
- Page 205 and 206: H e n r i L e F e b v r e and revel
- Page 207 and 208: n o t e s 6. Manuel Castells, “Ci
- Page 209 and 210: n o t e s 20. Critique of Everyday
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