'Social space' from 'The Production of Space' by Henry Lefebvre

To be honest, I had a great difficulty getting through the text partly because I am reading not on the native language, partly because the language Lefebvre uses is way too complicated. I found myself lost in complex ideas described with even more complex language structures. What I gathered out of this particular chapter is that social space is not 'a thing among other things, not a product among other products...' There is a great diversity of objects contained in this social space at different scales. But, for Lefebvre 'repetition has everywhere defeated uniqueness'. I would say that this observation of repetitiveness in the capitalist city echoes the concept of 'Generic City' that emerged in 1990 through Rem Koolhaas 'S,M,L,XL'. The social space should be a product of singular character, politically instrumental.

In the text Lefebvre used Venice to try and explain his meaning although his descriptions of the city where not factual. The way the city functioned was very well documented describing how the location of different businesses evolved around the city in order to make their businesses a lot more lucrative.of different businesses evolved around the city in order to make their businesses a lot more lucrative.

Lefebvre makes a huge distinction between 'product' and 'work'. He moves from a 'thing in space' to the 'actual production of space'. Building upon the Marxist idea of 'production' he acknowledges that the space itself is an 'active moment' that needs to be 'actively produced' and not just left to its own devices. He goes on to say that humanity is killing off nature with signs and images, and labour and products. When talking about social space he describes it as the outcome of a sequence, and set or operations, and so cannot be reduced to the rank of a simple object, but at the same time there is nothing imagined or unreal about it.

Personally I believe in the transition of spaces, their multifunctionality. 'An existing space may outlive its original purpose and the raison d`etre which determines its forms, functions and structures.' I don`t really have any specific conclusion on this text as I think there is a real skill in being able to convey a complicated idea in a way that makes it more easily understandable. This relates closely to our profession - to turn a complicated idea in your head into a language that anyone can start to understand. I’m sure many brilliant theorists would disagree with me argueing that what Lefebvre writes makes perfect sense, but I just think that writing in the way he does gives the impression that he is hiding in words.