Liu Huaiyu: The Dance of Spatial Dialectics: Dissemination, Debate, and Dialectics of Lefebvre's Theory of the Production of Space in the English-Speaking World
This article attempts to study Lefebvre’s The Production of Space from a deeper perspective, particularly regarding the dissemination, influence, and debates surrounding its core ideas and concepts in the Anglophone world. Generally speaking, the book’s most crucial concept is the much-discussed and often disputed "triadic/three-dimensional dialectic" (une dialectique de triplicité). Revolving around these issues, this article—based on primary classical texts and referring to representative research by contemporary Western scholars—traces a path toward the theoretical horizon of the spatialization of historical materialism. At the same time, it critiques the tendency in Western academia (whether intentional or unintentional) to misread Lefebvre’s later spatial thought as postmodernism or post-Marxism. It emphasizes that understanding Lefebvre’s spatial dialectics requires a return to the context of German dialectics in which they arose, and contends that the most significant contribution of his theory of the production of space is not the promotion of a so-called postmodern spatial turn, but rather the proposal of a critical epistemology of social space and a dialectics of spatial contradictions.
I. Dissemination: A Philosophical "Enigma" of Unique Style and Heterodox Thought, and Its Tortuous and Complex History of Reception
Exactly half a century ago (1974), Henri Lefebvre (1901–1991), then over seventy years old, published the most influential work of his life, The Production of Space. To date, this book has become a masterpiece spanning many specialized fields in the humanities and social sciences; it is also a veritable classic in the history of Western Marxism, standing alongside such monumental works as History and Class Consciousness, Dialectic of Enlightenment, The Prison Notebooks, and The Arcades Project. The French edition of this book has seen four important versions (1974, 1981, 1986, 2000), and it has been translated into Italian (1975), Japanese (2000), Spanish (2013/2020), Korean (2011/2014), and Chinese (2021, 2022). It was the English translation (1991) in particular that exerted a broad and profound international academic influence. However, because this book was written in a "dictated" manner, combined with its "heavy theoretical argumentation, its many implicit references, difficult organization, and frequent digressions," the difficulty of understanding the book is increased. Specifically, because the book is not a "traditional text," its ideological exposition does not unfold in a typical step-by-step, linear fashion. Rather, it "is written in the form of a fugue. This is a polyphonic method... each of the seven chapters of The Production of Space is both a repetition of the other chapters and a starkly different interpretation. As if to emphasize the contrapuntal method, this fugue ends with a 'Conclusion' that is simultaneously a 'Beginning' or 'Opening.'" His text is full of polemics, flights of fancy, seemingly groundless digressions, and sudden, unexpected questions. In short, Lefebvre being Lefebvre means he always follows more nimble bursts of inspiration rather than conforming to rules or sticking to a closed system. The reason his theory is difficult to grasp and apply is primarily due to "the fluidity, dynamism, and openness of his thought, which can be most aptly summarized by his most common way of answering questions: 'Yes, but also no.'"
Reflecting this bizarre, unbridled, and far-ranging style—reminiscent of the Nanhua Jing [1] by Zhuang Zhou—and its inclusive, ambitious, encyclopedic nature, the dissemination and understanding of The Production of Space has undergone a complex and tortuous process: first, the lonely fate of not being accepted or understood by colleagues in his own country, followed by a history of being partially accepted, applied, and understood in Anglophone countries. Since the publication of The Production of Space, three waves or "constellations" of Lefebvrian studies have appeared in the Western Anglophone academic context: first, the critique of urban political economy initiated by David Harvey since the 1970s, which introduced Lefebvre’s urban Marxism and spatial dialectics to the Anglophone world; second, the postmodern geography research initiated by Edward W. Soja since the 1980s, which introduced Lefebvre’s thought into spatial culture and the linguistic turn in the social sciences and humanities; and third, the more empirical and extensive research and application of Lefebvre’s ideas since 2000, spanning numerous fields including socio-political theories of globalization, urbanization, and state space, as well as theories of difference and rhythms, architecture, art, and even pedagogy, ecology, and feminist issues.
II. The Dance of Spatial Dialectics: The Leading and Following of Lefebvre, Harvey, Soja, and Jameson
The most important concept in Lefebvre’s The Production of Space is the much-discussed and disputed "triadic/three-dimensional dialectic" (une dialectique de triplicité). Lefebvre’s various expressions of the "triadic spatial dialectic" served as a lead dance, while Harvey, Soja, Jameson, and others "danced along" around this issue.
(1) Lefebvre’s Multiple Expressions of the "Triadic Spatial Dialectic"
The most original and controversial issue raised in The Production of Space is the "trialectics" (triadic dialectics) proposed in the book. Regarding the spatial triad, he has several formulations: The first is a triadic spatial dialectic proposed by borrowing and transforming Hegel’s dialectical logic of the three forms of judgment—universality, particularity, and singularity: spiritual space corresponds to universality, physical space corresponds to singularity, and social space corresponds to particularity, with the synthesis or core being the dialectics of social space. The second formulation is based on the Hegelian syllogistic narrative mode of thesis-antithesis-synthesis, as well as Marx’s reproductive dialectic of social structure—namely, the triadic combination of mode of production, economic structure, and superstructure; this is the most famous triadic dialectic: "spatial practice or physical space, representations of space or mental space, and representational space, namely social space." The third triad is phenomenological or embodied: perceived space or space in the sense of sensory practice, conceived space or representations of space, and lived space or representational space.
There are other formulations of the spatial triad, such as in the linguistic sense: first, metonymic space as spatial practice, signifying syntagmatic combinations or syntactic structures in linguistic acts, manifested as social etiquette activities in everyday life practice; second, metaphoric space as representations of space, where representations of space are similar to the paradigmatic combinations or inflectional changes of language in linguistics—that is, paradigm shifts; the planning and design of spaces at levels such as urban areas and the state belong to representations of space; third, "synecdoche-rhetorical space" as representational space—this is not space itself but some other symbol, a process of linguistic meaning-endowment, thereby linking with certain material symbols, such as scenic spots. In short, "we can attribute syntagmatic structures (links, series, relations) to spatial practice. The paradigmatic dimension and its binary oppositions correspond to representations of space. While the symbolic dimension, with its monumentality and privileged positions, symbolizes the entire universe, the world, society, or the state, referring back to representational space." Lefebvre also mentioned that the triadic spatial dialectic consists respectively of Marx’s theory of the space of material production, Hegel’s theory of representations of space in mental production, and Nietzsche’s theory of representational space in cultural critique.
In this regard, some Anglophone scholars have commented: Lefebvre’s core contribution to spatial theory is highlighting the foundational status of space in social theory research and proposing a dialectical theoretical framework for the production of space. The meaning of his "triadic" spatial concept can be linked to the analysis of the operations of forms of power and meaning that create representational forms by connecting spatial practice and socio-spatial organization. Lefebvre’s complexity theory regarding the production of space is presented as a three-dimensional cubic combination, providing the necessary elements for articulating a true knowledge of spatial issues. His contribution to modernist social theory was to provide a structural framework for the social analysis of spatial issues, demonstrating the interaction of complex multiple elements and the importance of this interaction. That is, true knowledge of space can be obtained through the consideration of the essential elements of a dynamic triad; the questions requiring research, explanation, and verification are: how space is produced, how space is represented in analytical discourse, and the meaning of everyday life and how it affects representations of space while being simultaneously subject to them.
(2) David Harvey’s Triadic Spatial Dialectic: A Structural-Functionalist Understanding
In the Anglophone world, the primary scholar to creatively interpret and apply Lefebvre’s spatial dialectics is David Harvey. As early as in works like Social Justice and the City and Explanation in Geography, Harvey first publicly acknowledged that he understood Marx’s dialectical method primarily through the first book in the Anglophone world to discuss Marx’s dialectic of internal relations (essentially structural-functionalism)—Bertell Ollman’s Alienation: Marx’s Conception of Man in Capitalist Society. Subsequently, Harvey proposed the spatial triad, or three theories of space, as a fundamental methodological viewpoint. These are absolute space, relative space, and relational space. Absolute space (Newton) is the thing-in-itself, having an existence independent of matter, possessing a structure that can be used to categorize, locate, or individuate phenomena. Relative space (Einstein) is understood as the relationship between objects, existing only because objects exist and are related to one another. Relational space (similar to Leibniz’s "monad"), namely internal relations, is a variation of relative space; this space is contained within objects—that is, an object exists only when it contains and represents within itself its relations with other objects.
In The Condition of Postmodernity, Harvey argues that the basic idea of Lefebvre’s The Production of Space can be summarized as a comprehensive grasp of the dialectical relationship between three dimensions of space. It is not equivalent to the three stages or levels of Hegelian-Marxist negation of the negation, but rather three dimensions that coexist inseparably: First, material spatial practices—the natural and material flows, transfers, and interactions that occur in and across space to ensure the needs of production and social reproduction. Second, representations of space, including all signs and meanings, codes, and knowledge. Third, representational spaces—mental fictions—so as to provide the imaginary for spatial practices with some brand-new meaning or possibility.
Harvey believes that Lefebvre summarized the characteristics of the three dimensions of space as experience, perception, and imagination. But the problem is that while Lefebvre merely emphasized the dialectical rather than causal-determinist relationship between experience, perception, and imagination, Harvey still emphasized the "in the last instance" (Engels) [2] decisive significance of spatial practice in Lefebvre’s spatial triad, rather than a parallel dialectical relationship of mutual presupposition.
We can roughly make this assumption and deduction: Harvey’s absolute space (Marx’s "use value") corresponds to Lefebvre’s spatial practice; Harvey’s relative-correlative space (Marx’s "exchange value") corresponds to Lefebvre’s representations of space; and the relational space-time for which Harvey has a special affinity (Marx’s "value form") complements Lefebvre’s representational space.
(3) Edward Soja’s Thirdspace Theory: An Ontological Understanding of Triadic Dialectics
In the Anglophone world, the second figure to offer an original interpretation of Lefebvre’s spatial dialectics and exert unprecedented influence is Edward W. Soja, a leading figure of the Los Angeles School. He argues that Lefebvre’s spatial dialectic stems not primarily from the triad of spatial practice, representations of space, and representational space, but rather begins with a triad of nature, spirit, and society: Lefebvre fuses objective physical space and subjective mental space into social space. The concept of "Thirdspace" possesses the manifold meanings that Lefebvre consistently sought to grant social space. It is a space distinct from physical and mental space—or "Firstspace" and "Secondspace"—yet it is also a hybrid that transcends all spaces. Lefebvre maintained that every way of thinking about space and every domain of human spatiality (including the physical, mental, and social) must be viewed simultaneously as real-and-imagined, concrete-and-abstract, and material-and-metaphorical; however, this remained an aspirational goal. The fundamental task was to resolve the dualistic oppositions of spatial theory in the history of Western philosophy, which required first highlighting the sociality or "thirding" [3] of space. Othering or "thirding" goes far beyond the dialectical synthesis found in Hegel or Marx, as the latter is based on a complete thesis, antithesis, and synthesis within a temporal sequence. The "Third" introduces a critical alternative; it speaks and critiques through "otherness." That is to say, it does not arise from a simple additive combination of preceding binary terms, but from the deconstruction and provisional reconstruction of their assumed integrity, thereby producing an open-ended choice. "Thirding" reorganizes dialectics through invasive disruption; what is generated by "thirding" is best called a cumulative trialectic, which remains radically open to further otherness and the continuous expansion of spatial knowledge. In other words, adhering to "thirding" entails a radical deconstruction of the temporal structure of historical stagism—it is a chain of continuous, expansive disruption. It opens up closed, complete structures; this "thirdness" is not a holy trinity but a commitment to continued construction and the constant expansion of the production of knowledge beyond the known.
Lefebvre first critiqued the fetishism of "transparent space"—that is, mental space—prevalent in modern rationalism and idealism. Conversely, the "illusion of realism" emphasizes the concreteness of the world from the perspective of naturalism, mechanical materialism, and empiricism, holding that objective things are more real than thought. This is an "opaque illusion." By breaking through this dualistic confrontation of spatial concepts, Lefebvre charted the path toward Thirdspace. The Production of Space unfolds around this "thirding." From this, Lefebvre formed a trialectic of spatiality (triple dialectic / une dialectique de triplicité). This trialectic as an ontological concept is Soja’s most creative contribution to the understanding of Lefebvre’s thought, but it is also the root of frequent confusion and criticism. This so-called ontological trialectic refers to the triadic co-existence of spatiality, sociality, and historicalness. This means that Being (ontology) possesses a triadic or triple nature—a trinity of historicalness, sociality, and spatiality. On this basis, Soja proposed the ontological dimension of spatiality. Soja contends that prior to Lefebvre, ontology possessed only the two dimensions of sociality and historicalness, even though figures like Heidegger were aware of the ontological significance of space. "When the triple nature of Being is reduced to the dual relationship of historicalness and sociality, spatiality is usually marginalized to the background, acting as a reflective backdrop, a container, a stage, an environment, or an external constraint on human and social activity. We can read about the silent efforts to place space in a more central position in the works of everyone from Kant to Hegel to Heidegger and Sartre, as well as in social critical theorists such as Simmel, Kracauer, Benjamin, Giddens, and Harvey."
(4) Jameson: Cognitive Mapping or the Spatial Epistemological Dialectic of Totality
The third scholar in the Anglophone world to offer a creative interpretation of Lefebvre’s spatial dialectic, resulting in similarly broad influence, is Fredric Jameson. Although he has never produced a specialized, systematic textual study of The Production of Space, he profoundly appropriated Lefebvre’s concept of representational space to propose his famous theory of "spatial cognitive mapping."
While similarly valuing Lefebvre’s concept of Thirdspace, Jameson understands the problem of space from the perspective of social critical epistemology, differing from Soja’s postmodern, pluralistic ontological interpretation. If Lefebvre merely highlighted the importance of understanding modern society from a spatial perspective—arguing that capitalism had shifted from the production of things to the production of space, making space the core domain for both capitalist power control and the liberation of socialist everyday life—Jameson argues that postmodern society is a vast semiotic space, a hyperspace, a flat "society of the sign" that has lost depth, or a society of hyperreal hyperspace. Jameson views space both as a primary object of capitalist globalization's rule and as a dialectical mode of historical discourse used to critique the lack of historical consciousness in postmodern society. As capitalism successfully moved into a stage of globalized development characterized by greater institutional flexibility and technological momentum, the capitalist mode of production—as an abstract mechanism of temporal rule (i.e., speed)—extended time across the globe. Consequently, "simultaneous" time occurring at the limit of speed, which transcends all constraints of place and space, "paradoxically" transformed itself into "static" space, manifesting as the rule of homogeneous space over time. Therefore, "everything we try to seek according to temporality must first be expressed through a spatial substratum." All history has become "spatiality." Today, the Marxist historical dialectic must adopt the form of a spatial dialectic. To this end, Jameson proposed "cognitive mapping"—a concept that is both ontological and epistemological—or the concept of the representation of embodied spatial practice. Jameson’s theory represents a successful "transcoding" [4] of the logic of temporal narrative or the logic of the totality of consciousness of the historical subject found in Lukács’s History and Class Consciousness. It successfully converts Lukács’s critique of modernist capitalism (or highly reified monopoly capitalist society) into a spatial dialectic for the era of postmodern, globalized capitalism. In short, the historical dialectic centered on class consciousness is replaced by the spatial dialectical epistemology of cognitive mapping.
(5) Over-interpretation and Disputes Regarding the Third Term of Spatial Trialectics
In the first English monograph dedicated to Lefebvre’s thought, Lefebvre, Love and Struggle: Spatial Dialectics, Professor Rob Shields of the University of Alberta notes that from the beginning, Lefebvre gave a spatialized interpretation to the Hegelian "sublation" [5] of contradictions and conflicts in a temporal sense, incorporating it into a syllogistic synthesis of "both-and." This "both-and" model is more precisely "both" (affirming and denying) and "and" (the Third/the Other). This concept of dialectics in a spatial sense is often oversimplified as a transcendence occurring in the present. In reality, this "Other" is not the concrete, independent, and static third party or "the other" we usually speak of, but is always an active, indeterminate process of becoming and transformation. Becoming is not a self-affirming rupture, but a continuous transformation into an "elsewhere" and "otherness." Lefebvre’s intention was to re-spacialize dialectics, insisting that the negation of the negation is not a point placed in a linear process of movement, but a total outsider, a transcendent being, or an "Other" constituted on a foundation entirely different from its initial binary domain or points of affirmation and negation. Effectively, this is a shift from the syllogism of affirmation–negation–negation of the negation toward affirmation–negation–otherness. It resembles the ethics of the infinite Other and the political aesthetics discussed by Levinas, Homi Bhabha, and Bakhtin, rather than a dialectic of totality that maintains identity with itself.
Another important Lefebvre scholar in the Anglophone world, Professor Stuart Elden of the University of Warwick, points out that one cannot hastily assume—as Soja and Shields do—that The Production of Space transformed the Marxist historical dialectic into a spatial dialectic, changing dialectics from binaries into triplicities. "The fact that Lefebvre used Nietzschean overcoming rather than Marxist sublation [5] to understand and rethink the problem of space does not mean that the dialectic was spatialized, but rather that a non-teleological dialectic was used to clarify the problem of space." Most importantly, the emphasis on the significance of Lefebvre’s spatial writings must be combined with his rethinking of temporality and historicalness; space and rhythm together constitute the consistent theme of his work.
III. Returning to German Dialectics: A Three-Dimensional Epistemology, Not a Triadic Ontology
Comparatively speaking, I identify more with the grasp of Lefebvre’s spatial dialectic held by the German-speaking scholar Christian Schmid, a professor in the Department of Architecture at ETH Zurich. An architect who grew up amidst the 1980 "May Storm" [6] movement in Zurich, Switzerland, Schmid published the first German monograph on Lefebvre’s theory of the production of space in 2005 (his doctoral dissertation), Stadt, Raum und Gesellschaft: Henri Lefebvre und die Theorie der Produktion des Raumes (City, Space and Society: Henri Lefebvre and the Theory of the Production of Space). He subsequently became a core figure in the Lefebvre spatial dialectics research group in German-speaking academia and the "Zurich ETH Studio Basel" (Center for Applied Research in Urban Planning), as well as a founder of the International Network for Urban Research and Action (INURA). He explicitly challenged the Anglophone postmodern geography represented by Soja and the Los Angeles School. In 2022, he published this work in English. In this new book, he points out that the primary question of Lefebvre’s philosophy of space is to understand "what the production of space means," or "why the problem of space is ultimately a question of the 'production of space'" rather than "space itself" or "spatial objects." It is a question of the "process of space production" and the "results of production."
Schmid argues that Lefebvre proposed a three-dimensional dialectic (dreidimensionalen Dialektik) after distinguishing between the thesis-antithesis-synthesis logic of Hegelian dialectics and the affirmation-negation-negation of the negation logic of Marxist dialectics. This is a dialectic of the production of space (die Dialektik der Produktion des Raumes), or the three dimensionality of the production of space (die Dreidimensionalität der Produktion des Raumes), namely: spatial practice, representations of space, and representational space; natural, mental, and social space; perceived space as spatial practice, conceived space as representations of space, and lived space as representational space, etc. This dialectic is an open totality based on the production of space; it is a spatial dialectic that incorporates time into the process. Its theoretical subject is not space itself, nor even the order of things and artifacts within space. Space can only be understood as an active meaning, a network of relations, and as continuous, ongoing production and reproduction. Therefore, we can only understand the subject and object of analysis as a process of production—the production of space—actively occurring in time. In short, the three moments of the production of space must be understood with equal weighting. Space is simultaneously perceived, conceived, and lived. None of these dimensions can serve as an absolute starting point, just as none of the three themes has priority or explanatory exclusivity. This spatialization, by its very nature, will not settle into a fixed form or terminate, because it is constantly being reproduced and is therefore always inseparable from time.
The depth of Christian Schmid’s insight lies in how, by returning to the context of classical German dialectics, he recovers the true essence of Lefebvre’s dialectical materialism—namely, understanding the open nature of dialectics within contradiction and its infinite transformation, rather than within a closed logic of sublationary [7] unity. For Lefebvre, the core issue remains the "dialectic" itself, not the "trialectic" emphasized by Soja. The Ancient Greek prefix dia- does not mean "binary," but rather "through"; the dialectic understood by Hegel is a movement still based on contradiction (duality). Lefebvre's way of resolving the ills of the mandatory identity and closed ahistoricism of Hegelian logical philosophy is to employ Nietzsche’s conceptual game of the eternal return of the same. The result is a synchronic—that is, mutually presupposing and relational—picture of dialectics that is perpetually in a state of contradiction and transformation, being simultaneously the beginning and the end. Seen in this light, Schmid’s intention to understand multidimensional dialectics (including the spatial dimension) within the process of the transformation of contradictions is profound.
In Schmid’s view, David Harvey employs Bertell Ollman’s dialectics of internal relations to understand spatial dialectics; this is a naturalistic, functionalist, and even structuralist dialectic. The roots of Harvey's dialectic were influenced by Jean Piaget’s genetic epistemology and structuralism, as well as the spirit of Marx’s dialectical epistemology and historicism. While Harvey recognizes that dialectics must be understood within the process of contradictory transformation, his dialectic remains an expression of the self-perfection of structural functions. The fundamental problem with Soja’s spatialized dialectic is that he interprets Lefebvre’s total problem [8] of the production of space as a "turn" from historical dialectics to spatial dialectics. Lefebvre’s original intention, however, was to use Marx's dialectic of contradiction to "dialectize" the spatial question—that is, to understand space on the basis of the dialectic of contradiction, in the sense of the diachronic and synchronic resolution and manifestation of historical contradictions, and in the sense of the dialectic of the abstract and the concrete. In short, it is not a "spatialization" of dialectics, but a "dialectical" understanding of spatial issues; not a spatial-urban problematization of Marxism, but a Marxist dialectical interpretation of spatial-urban issues.
Lefebvre did not commit the error of "spatial fetishism," as Harvey and Castells have charged. Soja’s problem lies in converting Lefebvre’s epistemological vision of the three-dimensional spatial dialectic into a "trialectic" of space, intuitively and unreflectively understanding the spatial problem as one of three ontological monads (nature, society, and space). In particular, Soja exaggerates the transcendent and synthetic significance of the third dimension among "spatial practice," "representations of space," and "representational space." This remains a latent Hegelian logical coercion and teleological thinking characterized by the three-stage self-sublation of thesis-antithesis-synthesis.
Schmid further points out that, beyond the confusion caused by Harvey and Soja’s polarized interpretations, the essence of Rob Shields’s understanding of Lefebvre’s spatial dialectic is to ultimately integrate Lefebvre’s three dimensions into a fourth dimension—a spatialized dimension of synthetic unity containing both spatiality and temporality—which still inherits the chronic ailments of Hegelian synthetic dialectics. Although Stuart Elden’s understanding of Lefebvre’s spatial dialectical breaks through the defects of the "postmodern spatial turn" found in Soja and others—arguing that there is no "spatial turn" or "spatial dialectic" per se, but rather a breakthrough of traditional teleological coercion via spatial research—Elden posits that Lefebvre replaced the Hegelian narrative of teleological self-sublation with Nietzsche’s concept of "overcoming" (Überwindung). However, Schmid argues that Elden’s problem is his failure to realize that "overcoming" is often just "new wine in old bottles," an expression of using a Hegelian synthesis to terminate contradiction. Because overcoming implies transcending contradiction, it implies ending it. In reality, the dialectic of Marx and Lefebvre has no endpoint; it is an open totality of difference perpetually in a process of contradictory transformation and co-existence.
Building on Schmid’s pertinent views, I would further point out that theories such as Derek Gregory’s Geographical Imaginations and Fredric Jameson’s spatial mapping [9], while certainly breaking free from the constraints and delusions of postmodern spatial ontological intuition, attempt to understand the problem of spatial dialectics as a form of imagination and narrative for perspectivizing and grasping the synchronic, complex reality of global capitalist social contradictions. That is, spatial mapping reproduces, in the form of a dialectical epistemology, the reality of various intertwined and co-existing contradictions and imbalances in the development of capitalist globalization. This overcomes the abstract and simplistic shortcomings of traditional diachronic historical dialectics, which were unable to grasp complex contradictory realities. However, these theories still suffer from a one-sidedness that emphasizes the dimension of representational space while neglecting spatial practice.
Schmid’s understanding of Lefebvre’s spatial dialectic is a concrete dialectic of epistemological contradiction. In this regard, his research is broad and possesses internal rationality. Yet, I believe the ghost of latent pluralism and eclecticism is still at work here. In reality, Lefebvre’s dialectics is an open totality based on the reconciliation and fusion of Neo-Humanist alienation logic with Marxist contradiction dialectics, situated within infinite transformation and the repeating difference of alienation.
IV. Trialectics, or the Dialectics of Spatial Contradiction?
In the final analysis, Lefebvre’s spatial dialectic is the spatial manifestation of Marx’s dialectic of social contradiction. In other words, the trialectic of space is, ultimately, a dialectic of spatial contradictions or spatialized contradictions; it is the synchronic and concentrated manifestation of temporal contradictions from different stages of different historical eras. That is to say, spatial dialectics is the synchronic and concentrated expression of the historical/diachronic dialectic as understood by traditional Marxism.
Lefebvre actually unconsciously used a pluralistic trialectic of space to transcend the traditional Marxist dialectic of contradiction—or rather, he wanted to use a dialectic of differential space to replace or subvert the rule of capitalist, homogenized abstract space. Although he could not resist the temptations of postmodern pluralism and relativism in this process, in his heart of hearts, the most profound Marxist thought he wanted to express was a dialectic of spatial contradiction. Structurally, the weight of the book The Production of Space lies not in the first chapter (the introduction), which people usually prioritize, but in Chapter Five, "Contradictory Space," and Chapter Six, "From the Contradictions of Space to Differential Space." The reason many scholars conclude that the core of the book is the "trialectic" is that they only look at the concept as it is prominently introduced at the beginning, without carefully and meticulously reading the dialectical thought on spatial contradictions presented in the latter half of the work. On this issue, the aforementioned Derek Gregory is a striking exception. In addition to emphasizing the essence of Lefebvre’s spatial dialectic as a historical dialectic, he—like Jameson—discovered the significant meaning of Lefebvre’s thoughts on spatial contradiction.
What exactly are the "spatial contradictions" Lefebvre is concerned with?
First, the contradiction between quality and quantity, or between use-value and exchange-value. Historically, capitalist society differs from previous societies in that it destroyed previous historical spaces to produce "abstract space" for itself. Its origin lies in the globalization of the commodity economy or the world market. Thus, the contradiction between the quality and quantity of space stems from the ancient dualistic contradiction between the use-value and exchange-value of the commodity. The eternal contradiction between exchange-value and use-value is today "spatialized" and transformed into a dialectical contradiction between "global networks and the concrete locations of production and consumption."
Second, the contradiction between the production and consumption of space. Contemporary capitalist spatial production divides space in two: "one type of region is for the purpose of the production (of consumer goods) and develops by relying on that production; the other is for the purpose of the consumption of space and develops by relying on that consumption." The space for the production of consumer goods is a market space, and this space is strictly quantified. However, in the consumption of space (tourism, shopping, leisure), what customers demand is an authentic space. They require use-value that is high in quality, sufficient in quantity, and satisfying.
Third, the contradiction between the global (the whole) and the local—that is, between homogenized and fragmented space. For Lefebvre, this is the primary spatial contradiction. Just as Marx and Engels stated that the basic contradiction of capitalist society is the private ownership of the relations of production versus the socialization of the productive forces, the primary contradiction of space manifests in two aspects: on one hand, the fragmentation of space caused by private property; on the other hand, the scientific and technological (informational) ability to manage space on an unprecedentedly massive scale. On one hand is the ability to imagine and handle space on a global (or world) scale; on the other hand is the fragmentation of space—the self-fragmentation of space—caused by various production procedures or processes.
Fourth, the contradiction between the center and the periphery. Abstract space is a concentrated, radial space. The world market is defined by territory (from the perspective of flows and networks) and politics (from the perspective of centers and peripheries). By integrating and disintegrating the space of the nation-territory, a worldwide, strictly hierarchical space is taking shape.
Fifth, the contradiction between domination and appropriation. On the one hand, space becomes a dominated, private possession; on the other hand, space perpetually possesses a communal "usability" (appropriation) [10] characteristic that cannot be privately owned. On one side is dominated (and dominant) privatized space—that is, a space transformed and regulated by technology and practice; on the opposite side are those who believe there are public spaces or green belts in the world that can "never be privately owned," and they attempt to use the power of "appropriating" rather than "possessing" space.
However, which of these five pairs of contradictions is the most important? What is the fundamental way to resolve spatial contradictions? What are the future prospects for humanity? Lefebvre seems somewhat hesitant. On one hand, he says optimistically and confidently that the key to solving the problem is to realize the transition from capitalist spatial production to socialist spatial production—that is, moving from the privatized possession, commodified production, exchange, and consumption of space to the socialized appropriation or sharing of space. On the other hand, he pessimistically warns that if this transition is not realized, there will be an unacceptable and desperate future. The greatest obstacle to transitioning to a new mode of spatial production is that, while capitalist spatial production possesses vast resources and strategies on a worldwide scale, the current resistance to this power consists only of small-scale, dispersed interest groups and individuals.
Nevertheless, as a Marxist dialectician, he ultimately asserts with winning confidence that capitalism, due to its insurmountable spatial contradictions, must necessarily give way to a new society: "The contradictions of space do not eliminate the contradictions arising from historical time but leave history behind, elevating those old contradictions to a higher level simultaneously across the world... When the totality of these contradictions presents a new meaning, pointing toward 'something else'—another mode of production—some contradictions are weakened, while others are intensified." But what exactly is this new mode of production? Lefebvre does not state it clearly, only naming it somewhat mysteriously as "differential space." In this way, he returns from the dualistic dialectic of spatial contradictions back to the trialectic of space.