Social Spatial Practice and Spatial Representation and Representation

Lefebvre is a legendary figure in the history of Western Marxist thought. He wrote nearly seventy works and a large number of articles in his lifetime. His early original proposal of the “critique of everyday life” realized the transformation of alienation theory from macro political-economic relations to micro social life, and, on the path toward historical materialism, achieved a shift from observing history through the thread of time to the logic of spatial production, the latter being precisely the theme of the book *The Production of Space* (1974) that we study here. In Lefebvre’s theory of social space, the production and reproduction of social relations are realized through spatial practices that occur daily. However, the spatial practical activities that produce social relations and their relational fields are both immediately occurring and vanishing at any moment. Therefore, just as general material production requires tool templates to reactivate labor activities, spatial production also requires spatial tools and templates such as buildings and roads to reactivate spatial practice. Yet the particularity of spatial production also lies in the fact that, unlike the objective production process of material objects, the production of spatial relational fields cannot be separated from spatial representation as a subjective conception, nor from the lived experience of representational spatial fields by the subject. This presents a triadic dialectic of space within the complex subjective relational field of spatial production. This is the deepest part of the relational field and spatial situating in Lefebvre’s “Lutheran revolution” [1]1 “Lutheran revolution” refers to a concept used by some Marxist theorists to describe a fundamental inversion or reorientation in ontology, analogous to Martin Luther’s theological shift from external authority to internal faith, here applied to Marx’s transformation of philosophy from abstract speculation to practical, sensuous human activity. in social space theory. Of course, here Lefebvre also encounters logical blind spots in his own meta-philosophical situating.

列斐伏尔是西方马克思主义思想史中一位传奇式人物。他一生写下了近70部论著和大量文章。他早期原创性地提出的“日常生活批判”，实现了异化理论从宏观政治经济关系向微观社会生活的转换，并且，在走向历史唯物主义的道路中实现了从观察历史的时间线索向空间生产逻辑的转换，而后者正是我们在此研究的《空间的生产》（1974）一书的主旨。在列斐伏尔的社会空间理论中，社会关系的生产与再生产是通过每天发生的空间实践来实现的。然而，生产社会关系的空间实践活动及其关系场境都是当下发生和随时消失的，所以，如同一般物质生产需要重新激活劳作活动的工具模板一样，空间生产也需要重新激活空间实践的建筑物、道路一类空间用具和模板。可是，空间生产的特殊性还在于，不同于物性对象的客观性生产进程，空间关系场境的生产离不开作为主体性构想的空间表象，以及主体亲历的表征性空间场境体验。这就呈现出空间生产的复杂主体性关系场境中的三元空间辩证法。这是列斐伏尔社会空间理论的“路德革命”中最深刻的场境关系和空间构境部分。当然，在这里，列斐伏尔也会遭遇自己元哲学构境中的逻辑盲区。

I. Spatial Practice: The Reproduction of the Mode of Production and Social Relations

一、空间实践：生产方式与社会关系的再生产

According to Lefebvre, in understanding social space, we must never remain within the empirical common sense of social realism, merely viewing space as visible buildings in the physical sense and some kind of substantive gathering place for people. For example, when we learn about the spatial existence of an ancient Greek city from a book, we “cannot understand the ancient city as a collection of people and things in space”:

依列斐伏尔所见，在社会空间的认知问题上，我们绝不能停留在社会生活的实在论经验常识之中，只是将空间视作物理空间意义上可见的建筑物和人的某种实体性的汇聚场地。比如，我们从一本书中了解一个古代希腊城市的空间存在，就“不能把古代的城市理解为空间中的人与物的汇集”：

Because the ancient city had its own spatial practice (*pratique spatiale*): it forged for itself an appropriated space. Hence it is necessary to study that space; through that space one can understand the ancient city itself, understand its origins and form, as well as its own particular time or times (the rhythms of daily life), and also its specific centers and polycenters (squares, temples, gymnasiums, etc.).

因为古代城市有其自身的空间实践（pratique spatiale）：它为自己铸造了适宜的（appropriated）空间。由此需要对那个空间进行研究，通过那个空间才能理解古代城市自身，理解古代城市的起源与形式，以及它自身特殊的时间或诸时间（日常生活的节奏），还有它特定的若干中心与多中心（广场、庙宇、运动场，等等）。

The cognitive ordering logic here is as follows: unlike the intuition of physical spatial realism, the spatial existence of an ancient city distant from us in time is not merely visible material buildings and an imagined crowd gathering in an empty place. According to Lefebvre, the space of this ancient city mainly refers to the *pratique spatiale* (spatial practice) composed of people’s daily life relations in the city, that is, the social activities of people occurring through a certain spatial syntax and the relational fields of daily life constructed to realize such activities. It can be seen that Lefebvre does not deliberately use the concept of humanized practice (*praxis*), which he distinguished from material practice (*pratique*) in his *Metaphilosophy*, but precisely employs the expression *pratique spatiale* (spatial practice). However, from the discourse field here, we can sense that *pratique spatiale* (spatial practice) here does not refer to the production of general material objects, but to the production and reproduction of relational fields of human life. This is precisely the vanishing point of the logic of *praxis* (humanized practice) in that humanist discourse. It is precisely through this special kind of spatial practical relations that continuously occur and vanish that specific spatial tools such as temples (churches) for worship, squares for public activities (such as burning witches), gymnasiums for competition, and the houses and streets of daily life in that era come into being, all within a specific spatial syntax. We can perceive that the ordering focus of Lefebvre’s thinking on spatial issues begins with the rhythmic life activities that repeat in daily life. In his view, these life activities are the spatial practices that enable material buildings and facilities to realize their efficacy as spatial tools. These spatial practices occur immediately and vanish in an instant, yet this constantly repeated spatial practice in daily life is itself the reproduction of social life. It should be said that the continuous occurrence of spatial practice in daily life is the core of Lefebvre’s ordering of social space. It is not difficult to see that Lefebvre here internally integrates his theory of the critique of everyday life, which he had proposed since the 1940s, with the theory of spatial production. Upon careful reflection, we find that when Lefebvre touches on the practice of daily life here, the humanist discourse of “humanized practice—poetic creation” quietly recedes, replaced by a realistic observation of historical materialism. What Lefebvre omits here is the historical process of urban space that he had already discussed in his book *The Urban Revolution*, namely the spatial evolution from the “zero” point of urban space (where natural physical space dominates), through the political city, the industrial and commercial city, to the modern urban space, a “0-100” evolution. This also implies that social space itself is historically generated. In the discussion that follows, Lefebvre explains this point again.

这里的认知构序逻辑是这样的：不同于物理空间实在论的直观，一个离我们时间远久的古代城市的空间存在，不仅仅是可见的物性建筑和想象中的人群在一个空无的地方相聚，依列斐伏尔的观点，这个古代城市的空间主要是指一定的人们在城市中的日常生活关系组成的pratique spatiale（空间实践），即由一定的空间句法发生的人们的社会活动和为了实现这种活动而建构起来的日常生活关系场境。可以看到，列斐伏尔并没有刻意使用自己在《元哲学》中从物性实践（pratique）中界划出来的人化实践（praxis）概念，而恰恰就是使用了pratique spatiale（空间实践）这样的表述，但我们可以从这里的话语场境中体会到，这里的pratique spatiale（空间实践）并非指一般的物质对象生产，而是人的生活关系场境的生产与再生产，这正是那个人本主义话语中praxis（人化实践）的逻辑没影点。正是有了这种特殊的不断发生且消逝的生活空间实践关系，才有了特定空间句法中去做礼拜的庙宇（教堂）、举行公共活动（比如烧死女巫）的广场和角斗的运动场以及那个时代的日常家居的房屋、街道这样一些特定的空间用具。我们可以体知到，列斐伏尔思考空间问题的构序焦点，是从日常生活中重复发生的有节奏的生命活动开始的，在他看来，这些生命活动是使物性建筑和设施实现其空间用具功效的空间实践，而这些空间实践活动当下发生，也瞬间消逝，可这种日常生活中不断重复的空间实践却是社会生活本身的再生产。应该说，这个日常生活中空间实践的不断发生，是列斐伏尔社会空间构序的核心。不难看出，列斐伏尔这里是将自己从20世纪40年代就提出的日常生活批判理论，内在地与空间生产理论整合在一起了。细心地思忖我们会发现，此处列斐伏尔触及日常生活的实践时，那种“人化实践—诗性创制”的人本主义的话语悄然隐退了，而代之以历史唯物主义的现实观察。列斐伏尔在此省略的方面，是他在《都市革命》一书中已经讨论过的城市空间的历史性进程，即城市空间的“零度”起点（自然物理空间占主导地位），通过政治城市、工业和商业城市再到现代都市空间的“0-100”的空间演变。这也意味着，社会空间本身也是历史生成的。在后面的讨论中，列斐伏尔再次说明了这一点。

Regarding Lefebvre’s social spatial existence, the first foundational layer of situating we obtain is spatial practice. This overarching spatial practice is not only the production of objective spatial tools, but also the production and reproduction of spatial relational fields. From a broader ordering logic, Lefebvre’s resolution of the spatial problem here actually follows the first aspect of Marx’s double materialization perspective [2]2 “Double materialization perspective” (双重物像透视法) is a term used by the author to describe Marx’s method in the “Theses on Feuerbach” of seeing through the apparent objectivity of things (e.g., commodities, institutions) to reveal the underlying human social relations and practices that constitute them. in the “Theses on Feuerbach”: where people see intuitive buildings and physical places, he discovers the spatial practical activities originating from the subject that are activated within material existence. For it is precisely this non-intuitive spatial practice, occurring and vanishing in the present moment, that is the realization of the actual spatial syntax embedded in spatial tools. This spatial syntax is not only the form or rigid structure directly shaping and ordering material buildings, but also a for-us “readiness-to-hand” functional guidance generated by material structures. For example, today we can enter the Forbidden City of the Qing Dynasty, but the spatial syntax of the operation of royal political power and daily life at that time is completely absent; the guiding structure of these buildings is now merely a sightseeing route guide. The non-intuitive spatial syntax activates specific spatial practices that occur and vanish in the present moment—this is the difficulty in spatial cognition.

关于列斐伏尔的社会空间存在，我们获得的第一个基底构境层是空间实践。这个总体性的空间实践不仅仅是对象性的空间用具的生产，更是空间关系场境的生产与再生产。从大的构序逻辑上看，列斐伏尔这里关于空间问题的破解，实际上依循了马克思在《关于费尔巴哈的提纲》中双重物像透视法的第一方面，即在人们看到直观建筑物和实体场所的地方，他发现了活化于物性存在中的从主体出发的空间实践活动，因为正是这个不可直观的当下发生和消逝的空间实践活动，才是内嵌于空间用具中的现实空间句法实现，这种空间句法不仅仅是直接塑形和构序于物性建筑中的形式或刚性结构，更是一种由物性结构生成的for us的主体“上手性”的功用指引。有如我们今天可以进入清朝的故宫，可是，当年皇家政治权力运转和日常生活起居的空间句法却是荡然无存的，现在这些建筑物的指引性构式已经是浏览性的参看路线导引。不可直观的空间句法激活当下发生且消逝的特定空间实践，这是空间认知中的难点。

In my understanding, this is precisely the extension into spatial situating of what we have identified as Marx’s “Lutheran revolution” in ontology. Of course, Lefebvre’s spatial practice differs from Marx’s macro perspective on social practice, which emphasizes the transformation of material objects and political-economic systems; it is much more micro, for it is the concrete process of subjective social practice being carried out in the space of daily life. This practice itself is the continuous construction and deconstruction of social space. So, what does social space practice? This is the second important question. For Lefebvre, social spatial practice is the landing of the mode of material production that, in Marx’s historical materialism, determines the qualitative nature of a given social being. This is the second layer of situating in understanding Lefebvre’s concept of social space, and also a major logical leap. Lefebvre says:

依我的理解，这正是我们所指认的马克思在存在论中实现的“路德革命”在空间构境中的延伸。当然，列斐伏尔的这个空间实践，不同于马克思强调的变革物质对象和政治经济制度的社会实践宏观视位，它微观得多，因为这是主体性社会实践在日常生活空间中的具体践行过程。这个践行本身就是社会空间的不断建构与解构。那么，社会空间践行什么？这是第二个重要的问题。在列斐伏尔这里，社会空间实践是马克思在历史唯物主义中关注的那个决定了一定的社会定在质性的物质生产方式的落地。这是理解列斐伏尔社会空间概念的第二构境层，也是一个大的逻辑飞跃。列斐伏尔说：

Every society—and therefore every mode of production and its sub-variants (that is, all societies exemplified by universal concepts)—produces a space, its own space. … “Every society” can be more precisely termed as every mode of production and the specific relations of production peculiar to it (mode de production incluant certains rapports de production); any such mode of production may contain important variant forms.

每一个社会——因此每一种生产方式（mode de production）及其亚变种（即所有被普遍概念例证的社会）——都生产出一个空间，它自身的空间。……“每一个社会”可以更确切地称之为每一种生产方式以及它所特有的各种生产关系（mode de production incluant certains rapports de production）；任何一种这样的生产方式也许包含着重要的变体形式。

We can directly see that in discussing the problem of social space in *The Production of Space*, Lefebvre almost constantly situates his analysis under the fundamental principles of historical materialism, that is, grasping the essence of social relations of his original spatial existence from the perspective of the social mode of production, while the humanist logic laden with ethical value postulates loses its status as the master discourse. It is also in this sense that I consider Lefebvre’s theory of the production of space to be the true realization of his “meta-philosophy.” This seems to be a level of logical construction that is difficult to enter. How does spatial practice in the production of space suddenly leap to the mode of production of historical materialism? Returning to the level of the urban space exemplified above, this means that the daily life practices (social spatial construction) that occurred in the cities of ancient Greece were precisely the micro-realization of a certain social mode of production in ancient Greek society in Europe. However, in this historical city-state space, the daily life spatial modeling of individuals in the Greek city-state was precisely the production and reproduction of *certains rapports de production* (definite relations of production) within the social mode of production. This is precisely the second aspect of the double object-perception in Marx’s *Theses on Feuerbach*: seeing the real “sum of social relations” behind the entity-like existence of human beings. Social space is not a pile of objects outside of people or visible material architectural facilities, but is precisely the “sum” of subjective spatial relational fields constructed by human spatial practice. The theoretical ordering intentions that can be perceived here are twofold: First, in the construction of the mode of production in historical materialism, Lefebvre does not highlight the active relationship between humans and nature or the level of productive forces, but directly emphasizes the formation of relations of production between people; or, in Lefebvre’s theory of the production of space, the production of the field of social relations is the essence of the production of space. In subsequent discussions, he identifies this as a transformation from the production of things in space to the production of subjective space (relations) itself. This should also be the correct entry point for our further understanding of Lefebvre’s “Lutheran revolution” in the view of space. Second, whether it is the mode of production or the relations of production, neither can be reduced to the material facilities such as buildings, roads, and squares that still remain in the spatial reality of the Greek city-state, but rather to the non-intuitive mode of activity of how spatial practice is carried out—spatial syntax and the spatial relational fields that are currently shaped and ordered. All of this has long since vanished today. This is precisely the greater difficulty in the cognition of the production of space. Having said this, Lefebvre also thoughtfully tells us that the urban space of ancient Greece discussed here must be different from urban spaces in other regions of the world, because the spatial practices of people’s lives in different regions will be different, and the social mode of production and definite relations of production that dominate this spatial practice determine the heterogeneity of this spatial production in terms of spatial syntax. This is, of course, also a viewpoint of historical materialism. He also specifically mentions: “When we confine ourselves to Western conceptual tools, how much can we truly understand about the Asiatic mode of production, Asian space, Asian towns, or the relationship between town and country contained in Asia—it is said that Chinese characters metaphorically or ideographically express such relationships, is that so?” This is correct; it is to some extent the application of the concrete historical analysis method of historical materialism to the problem of social space. Asian cities different from the West, such as the towns of ancient China, would obviously, due to the spatial practices of Chinese people in a certain historical period, construct a certain social spatial relational field and its material crystallization facilities through their own unique daily life. For example, unlike in the West where churches and religious squares are always the center of a town, the temples where ancient Chinese burned incense and prayed to Buddha were usually not adjacent to the places where common people lived, and there were few places for public activities, and so on. The ideographic relationship of towns in Chinese characters that Lefebvre mentions here is roughly correct. For instance, in Chinese characters, the character “城” (city) also has a historical evolutionary process:

我们可以直接看到，在《空间的生产》中讨论社会空间问题时，列斐伏尔几乎是时时刻刻将自己的分析置于历史唯物主义的基本原则之下，即从社会生产方式把握他原创性的空间存在的社会关系本质，而那种充满伦理价值悬设的人本主义逻辑则失去了主人话语的地位。也是在这个意义上，我认为列斐伏尔的空间生产理论才是他“元哲学”的真正实现。这似乎是一个难以入境的逻辑构境层。空间生产中的空间实践怎么就一下子跳到历史唯物主义的生产方式上来了？回到上述例举的城市空间层面上来体知，就是说，在古代希腊的城市中发生的日常生活实践（社会空间建构），恰恰是欧洲古代希腊社会一定社会生产方式的微观实现，然而，这个历史性的城邦空间中，希腊城邦的个人日常生活空间筑模，恰恰是社会生产方式中certains rapports de production（一定的生产关系）的生产与再生产。这正是马克思《关于费尔巴哈的提纲》中双重物像透视的第二方面，即在人的实体存在背后看到现实的“社会关系的总和”。社会空间不是人之外的物的堆砌场所或可见的物性建筑设施，而就是人的空间实践建构起来的主体性空间关系场境的“总和”。这里可以体会到的理论构序意向有二：一是列斐伏尔在历史唯物主义的生产方式构境中，并没有凸显人对自然的能动关系和水平的生产力，而是直接强调了人与人之间的生产关系赋型；或者说，在列斐伏尔的空间生产理论中，社会关系场境的生产才是空间生产的本质。在之后的讨论中，他将其指认为从空间中的物的生产向主体性空间（关系）本身生产的转换。这也应该是我们进一步理解列斐伏尔空间观“路德革命”的正确入口。二是无论生产方式还是生产关系，都无法归结为希腊城邦中现在还遗存下来的空间实在中的建筑、道路和广场一类物性设施，而是非直观的怎样践行空间实践的活动方式——空间句法和当下塑形和构序起来的空间关系场境，这一切，今天早就荡然无存了。这正是空间生产认知中更大的难题。说到这里，列斐伏尔还特别贴心地告诉我们，这里讨论的古代希腊城市空间与世界上其他地区的城市空间一定是不同的，因为不同地区人们的生活空间实践将是不一样的，支配这种空间实践的社会生产方式和一定的生产关系决定了这种空间生产在空间句法上的异质性。这当然也是历史唯物主义的观点。他还专门提到：“当我们局限于西方的概念性工具时，关于亚细亚生产方式、亚洲的空间、亚洲的城镇，或亚洲所包含的城乡之间的关系，我们真正能了解的有多少呢——据说汉字就比喻性地或表意性地表述着这样的关系，是这样吗？”这是对的，这多少是历史唯物主义的具体性历史分析方法在社会空间问题上的运用。不同于西方的亚洲城市，比如古代中国的城镇，显然会由于一定历史时期里中国人的空间实践，以自己独有的日常生活建构起一定的社会空间关系场境及其物性结晶设施，比如，不同于西方的教堂和宗教广场总是一个城镇的中心，古代中国人烧香求佛的庙宇通常不会与百姓生活栖居的地方邻近，也很少有公共活动的场所，等等。列斐伏尔这里所说的中国汉字中的城镇的表意关系大体是对的。比如在中国汉字中，“城”字也有一个历史演变过程：

The earliest appearance of the bronze inscription [3]3 Bronze inscription (金文): An ancient Chinese script cast or carved on bronze ritual vessels, primarily from the Shang and Zhou dynasties (c. 1600–256 BCE), predating the standardized seal script of the Qin dynasty. has a circle in the middle on the left side representing the city wall, with two city towers facing each other at the top and bottom; on the right side is a large axe (a weapon) with the blade facing left, meaning to defend the city with weapons. The pictographic construction in Chinese characters differs from the complete disappearance of the field of real relations in Western phonetic scripts. The character “城,” which represents the material facilities of people’s living space, is precisely the representational sublimation after the real abstraction of specific spatial practice relations.

最早出现的金文左边中间的圆圈是表示城围，上下两端是两座城楼对峙；右边是一把锋刃朝左的大斧头（武器），是用武器保卫城池的意思。汉字中的象形构境不同于西方拼音文字中现实关系场境的彻底消逝，表征人们生活空间物性设施的“城”，正是特定空间实践关系的现实抽象后的表象化升华。

Of course, the third and most important level of construction in Lefebvre’s social spatial practice is the production and reproduction of social relations as the concrete practical structure of a definite mode of production. This is the level of the subjective relational field within the historical mode of production that Lefebvre highlights, as well as the core logical link in Lefebvre’s “Lutheran revolution” in the view of space. In his view, the formation of social relations, as the concrete form through which daily spatial practice occurs, is usually composed of two types of relations based on the development of a certain level of material productive forces (the relationship between humans and nature): first, the relations of reproduction of human beings themselves, and second, the relations of material labor production. This is also the specific referent of the “sum” of the field of social spatial relations.

当然，列斐伏尔社会空间实践中第三个也是最重要的构境层是作为一定生产方式具体实践结构的社会关系的生产与再生产，这是上述列斐伏尔凸显的那个历史性的生产方式中的主体性关系场境层面以及列斐伏尔空间观“路德革命”中的核心逻辑环节。在他看来，作为日常空间实践得以发生的具体形式的社会关系赋型，通常会由基于一定物质生产力（人与自然的关系）发展基础上的两种关系构成：一是人本身的再生产关系，二是人的物质劳动生产关系，这也是社会空间关系场境“总和”的具体所指。

Social space includes—and (more or less) assigns appropriate positions to—(1) the social relations of reproduction (*rapports sociaux de reproduction*), that is, the physiological-psychological relations between sex groups and age groups, as well as the specific organization of the family; (2) the relations of production (*rapports de production*), that is, the division of labor and its social functional (*fonctions sociales*) organization with hierarchical forms. These two series of relations, the relations of production and the relations of reproduction, are inseparable from each other.

社会空间包括——并（或多或少地）分配适当的位置给——（1）再生产的种种社会关系（rapports sociaux de reproduction），即性别群体之间与年龄群体之间的生理—心理的关系，以及家庭的特定组织；（2）生产的种种关系（rapports de production），即劳动分工及其具有等级制形式的社会功能性（fonctions sociales）组织。这两个系列的关系，即生产关系与再生产关系，彼此之间是无法分离的。

The production of these two kinds of social relations seems to correspond to the two kinds of production already discovered by Marx in historical materialism, namely, the production of human beings and material production. Because the division of labor has emerged, Lefebvre here is clearly not discussing the viewpoint of historical materialism in its broad sense. First, particularly here, Lefebvre regards the production of “physiological-psychological” relations of human beings and their family relations as the foundational reproduction of the spatial relational field of social life itself. This differs from Marx and Engels’ definition of the reproduction of the general material production process in broad historical materialism in *The German Ideology*. Lefebvre’s reproduction here is clearly not the simple or expanded reproduction of material production undertaken to meet new needs of life, but specifically refers to the repetitive occurrence of social spatial life at the level of daily family relations. Social space is precisely constructed at this micro-level of habitual life-relational field reproduction. Second, according to Lefebvre’s view, the essence of the construction of social space is the production and reproduction of specific social relations of production. In modern social spatial practice, this essence is determined by the complex technical skills of the division of labor that historically emerge in the process of industrial production, as well as the functional structure of monetary hierarchy spontaneously generated by the entire socio-economic activity. Moreover, this macro-level social relation of production must be micro-level objectified and reproduced as social being in the operation of people’s daily spatial life. This logical direction of ordering is not entirely identical to the macro-level of social politics and economy that Marx and Engels focused on.

这两种社会关系的生产似乎对应了马克思在历史唯物主义中已经发现的两种生产，即人的生产和物质生产。由于出现了劳动分工，所以列斐伏尔此处显然不是在讨论广义历史唯物主义的观点。第一，特别是在这里，列斐伏尔将人的“生理—心理”关系的生产及其家庭关系视作社会生活空间关系场境本身的基础性再生产，这是与马克思、恩格斯在《德意志意识形态》中对广义历史唯物主义一般物质生产过程的再生产的定义是不同的。列斐伏尔此处的再生产，显然不是为了满足新的生活需要所发生的物质生产的简单或扩大再生产，而是特指社会空间生活在日常家庭关系层面上的重复发生，社会空间恰恰是在这个微观的惯习性生活关系场境再生产的层面上建构起来的。第二，依列斐伏尔的观点，社会空间建构的本质，是一定的社会生产关系的生产与再生产，在现代性社会空间实践中，这一本质则是由工业生产进程中历史性出现劳动分工这一复杂工序技能以及整个社会经济活动自发生成的金钱等级的功能结构决定的，并且这种宏观的社会生产关系必须在人们的日常空间生活的运转中微观地对象化和再生产社会定在。这个逻辑构序方向，与马克思、恩格斯所关注的社会政治经济宏观层面并不完全同一。

Of course, on the scale of historical epistemology, the occurrence and mutual interconnection of these two kinds of production, as the foundation of the production and reproduction of social relations in social spatial practice, are complex and varied. First, Lefebvre believes that “in pre-capitalist societies, the reproduction of life and socio-economic production, these two interwoven levels together constituted social reproduction (reproduction sociale)—that is to say, despite the existence of conflicts, feuds, strife, crises, and wars, social reproduction continued from generation to generation.” This means that in the production of social space before the emergence of the capitalist mode of production, the reproduction of life and socio-economic production together constituted the general reproduction of society. We can see that reproduction is actually a key term in the construction of Lefebvre’s theory of social space. Lefebvre’s expression is imprecise. In the development of pre-capitalist societies, there were also periods without socio-economic production in the modern sense, such as life in primitive tribes. Moreover, inspired by Marx and Engels’ later study of Morgan’s *Ancient Society*, they proposed that in social life dominated by relations of personal dependence, the production of human beings occupied a decisive position. There, natural physical space was still dominated by land and blood relations as the primary conditions of reproduction. Here, Lefebvre does not delineate and attend to these important viewpoints as meticulously as he did in *The Urban Revolution*.

当然，在历史认识论的尺度上，作为社会空间实践中社会关系的生产与再生产基础这两种生产的发生和相互关联是复杂各异的。第一，列斐伏尔认为，“在前资本主义社会中，生命的再生产与社会—经济的生产，这两种相互交织的层面一起构成了社会的再生产（reproduction sociale）——这就是说，虽然有冲突、世仇、倾轧、危机、战争的存在，但社会的再生产还是世世代代地延续下来”。这是说，在资本主义生产方式产生之前的社会空间生产中，生命的再生产和社会经济生产共同构成了社会一般再生产。我们可以看出，reproduction（再生产）其实是列斐伏尔社会空间理论建构的关键词。列斐伏尔的表述是不精准的，在前资本主义社会发展中，也存在着没有现代意义上的社会经济生产的时期，比如原始部族生活。并且依马克思和恩格斯后来在摩尔根《古代社会》研究的启发下，他们提出了在人的依赖关系占主导的社会生活中，人的生产是居决定性地位的，在那里，自然物理空间仍然以土地和血亲关系为主导性的再生产条件。在此，列斐伏尔并没有像在《都市革命》中那样精细地界划和关注这些重要的观点。

Second, after the emergence of the capitalist mode of production, the reproductive foundation of social spatial practice became more complex.

第二，到了资本主义生产方式发生之后，社会空间实践的再生产基础变得更加复杂起来。

The advent of capitalism, especially “modern” (moderne) neo-capitalism (néo-capitalisme), greatly deepened the complexity of the matter. There are three related levels that need to be considered here: (1) the reproduction of life (the family); (2) the reproduction of labor power (as far as the working class itself is concerned); (3) the reproduction of the social relations of production (reproduction des rapports sociaux de production), that is, the reproduction of those social relations that constitute capitalism, and also the reproduction of those relations that are continuously (and continuously exerting influence) sought and utilized. In the order constituted by these three relations, the role of space needs to be specifically examined.

资本主义的、特别是“现代”（moderne）新资本主义（néo-capitalisme）的到来，大大加深了事态的复杂程度。这里有三个相关的层面需要加以考虑：（1）生命的再生产（家庭）；（2）劳动力的再生产（就工人阶级本身而言）；（3）生产的社会关系的再生产（reproduction des rapports sociaux de production），即那些构成了资本主义的社会关系的再生产，也是那些持续不断地（和持续不断发挥影响的）被寻求与利用的关系的再生产。在这三重关系所构成的秩序中，空间的作用需要具体地加以考察。

The focus of the discussion here is the reproduction of capitalist material production and social relations, which is also regarded as the core of the construction of this particular social space of capitalism. In it, the production and reproduction of social relations in spatial practice begin to become the dominant force. This is constituted by the reproduction of three spatial relations: first, the reproduction of life composed of daily family life, which is the basis of blood relations in the spatial production of traditional societies, but is no longer the dominant relational production in the shaping and ordering of spatial practice; second, relative to the capitalist mode of production, the core of this daily life is no longer the patriarchal master-slave dialectic spatial syntax structure, but the reproduction of free labor power exploited and absorbed by capital, which is also the generation of the propertyless working class. This reproduction is precisely built upon the deformation of the aforementioned reproduction of life in daily life. However, as the reproduction of the physical labor power from which capital appropriates living labor without compensation, it is the fundamental condition of the entire bourgeois spatial practice; third, the various reproductions of the social relations of production (reproduction des rapports sociaux de production) by which the bourgeoisie maintains the survival of the entire capitalist mode of production. This mainly refers to the reproduction of the exploitative relationship between capital and wage labor in the economic reified space. Its core spatial syntax is the labor alienation configuration formed by the real abstraction and reification of labor exchange relations into money and capital in the commodity-market economy. In Lefebvre’s view, this is precisely the essence of capitalist spatial production practice, and this reproduction of bourgeois capital relations increasingly relies on special spatial representations and representational spatial code systems.

这里讨论的焦点是资本主义物质生产和社会关系的再生产，这也被看作资本主义这一特殊社会空间建构的内核，其中，空间实践中的社会关系的生产与再生产开始成为主导性的力量。这由三重空间关系再生产构序而成：一是由家庭日常生活组成的生命的再生产，这是传统社会中空间生产的血亲关系基础，现在它已经不再是空间实践塑形和构序中主导性的关系生产；二是这种日常生活相对于资本主义生产方式来说，核心不再是宗法性的主—奴辩证法式的空间句法结构，而是资本盘剥和吸收的自由劳动力的再生产，这也是一无所有的工人阶级的生成，这一再生产正是建立在上述日常生活的生命再生产的变形之上，可是，作为资本无偿占有活劳动的肉身劳动力的再生产，却是整个资产阶级空间实践的根本性条件；三是资产阶级维持整个资本主义生产方式得以生存下去的各种reproduction des rapports sociaux de production（生产的社会关系的再生产），这当然主要是指经济物相化空间中资本对雇佣劳动的剥削关系的再生产，它的核心空间句法，是商品—市场经济中劳动交换关系现实抽象和事物化为货币和资本的劳动异化构式。在列斐伏尔看来，这正是资本主义空间生产实践的本质，并且这种资产阶级的资本关系再生产也越来越依赖于特殊的空间表象和表征性空间符码系统。

II. Representational Occupation: The Complex Configuration of Social Spatial Ordering

二、表象占位：社会空间构序的复杂构境

In Lefebvre’s view, when we transcend the old cognitive constructs of natural physical space and purely mental space, we enter a new social spatial construction, which is an extremely important step in the revolution in the conception of space. However, the social space constructed by human living activities does not consist merely of the simple interweaving of multiple life relations, relations of production, and social relations in spatial practice, nor only of the spatial implements that are the reverse objectified crystallization of the objective abstraction of these spatial relations—the spatial syntax. It also includes the fusion of the conceptual representation of spatial relations and spatial imaginary relations that participate in the construction of the field of subjective relations. That is to say, unlike the simple objective material transformation and shaping of material production that Marx had already focused on, the social space constructed by the field of human life relations is primarily an objective relational interactive construction directly activated by the material facilities of spatial implements such as buildings, roads, and squares. The activation and reproduction of this field of spatial relations cannot be separated from the symbolic conceptual representation of the spatial syntax’s real abstraction in spatial practice, the subjective spatial experience, and the complex encoding of social relations realized through spatial representation and codes. This is where spatial production differs from the shaping and ordering of general material production. Although in the production of material tools (machines), there is also the objective abstraction (representation) of labor skill relations and their reverse objectification into the specific materialization of production templates, the laborer does not, when the tool is reactivated in labor, undergo a conceptual representation and subjective experience concerning spatial existence. However, in the production of the core field of intersubjective relations—the heart of social spatial production—people, in social life, interaction, and daily life, activate the invisible field of relations from material spatial implements such as buildings, and this is always accompanied by the conceptual representation of complex spatial syntax and spatial imagination. This spatial representation and experience is not an independent mental space detached from objective spatial practice; it is itself the negentropic ordering factor of social history created by spatial practice. Every field of spatial relations is inseparable from the representation and experience of spatial syntax. This is a very important discovery in Lefebvre’s own “Lutheran revolution” in the conception of space—the theory of the production of space. It is also here that we can see that the natural physical space and mental space of the traditional conception of space are not simply discarded but are scientifically sublated into necessary internal moments of spatial production. This is an aspect we need to consider carefully. From the perspective of the lineage of thought, we can also see here a heterogeneous contrast within a discursive Gestalt. In the humanist construction of *Metaphilosophy*, the symbolic myths and later systems of knowledge discourse that appear in the historical-logical diagram are often manifestations of appropriative power, while the poetic creative situation of the human being becomes the ontological “remainder.” In Lefebvre’s theory of the production of space, however, spatial representation and experience are internal ordering factors of spatial production, and there is no longer any romanticist supposition here.

在列斐伏尔看来，当我们超越自然物理空间和纯粹精神空间的旧式空间认知构式之后，也就进入一个全新的社会空间构境之中，这是空间观革命中极其重要的一步。可是，人的生存活动建构起来的社会空间之中，并不只是空间实践中简单的多重生活关系、生产关系和社会关系的交织，也不仅仅存在这些空间关系的客观抽象的空间句法反向对象化结晶的空间用具，同时还存在着参与主体性关系场境建构的作为空间关系观念表象和空间想象关系的融合。这也就是说，与马克思已经关注的简单的物质生产的客观物质转换和塑形不同，人的生活关系场境建构起来的社会空间，主要是由建筑物、道路和广场一类空间用具的物性设施实在直接激活的客观的关系互动构境，这种空间关系场境的激活和再生产，离不开空间实践现实抽象的空间句法的象征性的观念表象和主体空间体验，以及通过空间表象和符码实现的复杂社会关系编码。这是空间生产与一般物质生产的塑形和构序不同的地方，虽然在物的生产工具（机器）的生产中，也存在着劳作技能关系客观抽象（表象）且反向对象化为生产模板的特殊物相化，但劳作者不会在工具重新激活劳动时发生关涉空间存在的观念表象和主体体验，而作为社会空间生产的核心的主体际关系场境的生产，人们在社会生活交往和日常生活中从建筑物等物性空间用具中激活不可见的关系场境，却始终伴随着复杂空间句法的观念表象和空间想象，这种空间表象和体验并不是脱离客观空间实践的独立的精神空间，它们就是空间实践本身创制的社会历史负熵的构序因素，一切空间关系场境都离不开空间句法的表象和体验。这是列斐伏尔在自己空间观的“路德革命”——空间生产理论中十分重要的发现。也是在这里，我们可以看到传统空间观中的自然物理空间和精神空间观不是被简单地遗弃，而是科学地扬弃为自身内部的必要空间生产环节。这是我们需要认真思考的方面。从思想谱系的线索上看，在这里我们也可以看到一种话语格式塔中的异质性对比，在《元哲学》的人本主义构境中，历史逻辑图表中出现的象征性神话和后来的知识话语系统，往往是占有性权力的体现，而人的诗性创制情境则成了存在论的“剩余”，而在列斐伏尔的空间生产理论中，空间表象和体验则是空间生产的内在构序因素，这里已经没有了任何浪漫主义的假想。

First, the conceptual representation of space and subjective experience that Lefebvre identifies here is not simply an abstract consciousness opposed to matter. At the starting point of Marx and Engels’ founding of historical materialism, after explaining the principles of the production, reproduction, dual-relation structure, and mode of production of social-historical determinate being, they only then mentioned that “wretched consciousness.” There, consciousness, having shed the illusion of directly mirroring the object, returns to the scientific construction of “my relation to my environment is my consciousness.” [8]8 This is a reference to a passage from *The German Ideology* (1845-1846) by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, where they develop their materialist conception of history and critique idealist views of consciousness. The essence of consciousness is no longer an abstract reflection of matter, but a subjective presentation of real relations. We see that Lefebvre, in his own theory of the production of space, directly applies the historical materialist conception of consciousness to the construction of the field of spatial relations. Only here, consciousness is no longer an independent spiritual world outside social life, but is itself an internal ordering factor in the production of social relations within social space. It is more concretely realized as the conceptual representation of spatial syntax, the ordering and encoding system of symbolic codes, and the imaginary construction of spatial experience relations.

首先，列斐伏尔这里指认的空间观念表象和主体体验并不只是与物质对立的抽象的意识。在马克思、恩格斯创立历史唯物主义的起始处，他们在说明了社会历史定在的生产、再生产、双重关系构式和生产方式原则之后，才提及那个“倒霉的意识”。在那里，意识脱离了直映对象的假象，复归于“我对我环境的关系是我的意识”（Mein Verhältnißzu meiner Umgebung ist mein Bewußtsein）的科学构境中。意识的本质不再是抽象的物质的反映，而是一种现实关系的主观呈现。我们看到，列斐伏尔在自己的空间生产理论中，将历史唯物主义的意识观直接运用于空间关系的场境建构。只是在这里，意识不再是社会生活之外的独立精神世界，而就是社会空间本身社会关系生产的内在构序因素。它只是更具体地实现为空间句法的观念表象、象征性符码的构序和编码系统以及空间体验关系的想象构境。

Second, Lefebvre tells us that a more complex situation in the production of space is that the reproduction of social relations in a given social life occurs precisely through an inverted and self-concealing manner. For example, under the capitalist mode of production, people treat the reproduction of the reified and inverted field of economic relations as a natural spatial reality itself, which generates a fetishistic pseudo-field of spatial representation and experience. The spatial syntax of the architectural design and planning of the money kingdom is a trick to swindle people out of their money; the shop window displays on commercial streets that make people stop, the escalators in the multi-layered clusters of shops in shopping malls, are all concrete realizations of the spatial syntax of commodity sales. The spatial syntax in this bourgeois economic phenomenal space is the result of the real abstraction of the field of real commodity exchange relations and its reverse objectification. The laws of its architectural shaping and ordering are not simple spatial utility; the representation of this spatial syntax and the spatial experience are precisely intended to conceal its own profit-driven essence. Therefore, Lefebvre proposes that the construction of social space is always a complex situation (*complexes les situations*).

其次，列斐伏尔告诉我们，空间生产中更复杂的情况是，一定社会生活中出现的社会关系的再生产恰恰是通过颠倒的自我遮蔽方式发生的，比如资本主义生产方式中，人们会将事物化颠倒的经济关系场境的再生产作为自然性的空间实在本身，这就会生成拜物教式的空间表象和体验伪境。金钱王国的建筑设计和规划的空间句法是骗取人钱财的把戏，商业街道上让人停留的橱窗展示，购物中心里处于多层商铺群中的扶手电梯，都是商品销售空间句法具象实现。这种资产阶级经济物相化空间中的空间句法，是现实商品交换关系场境的现实抽象且反向对象化的结果，它的建筑塑形和构序的法则不是简单的空间用在性，这种空间句法的表象和空间体验恰恰是为了掩盖自身驱利的本质。所以，列斐伏尔提出，社会空间的建构从来都是一个复杂的构境（complexes les situations）。

Social space also includes various special representations (*représentations*) of the double or triple interaction between the social relations of production and the social relations of reproduction. Symbolic representations (*représentations symboliques*) serve to maintain social relations that are in a state of coexistence and cohesion (*de coexistence et de cohésion*). While exhibiting (*exhibe*) these social relations, representations transpose (*transposant*) them—thus concealing (*dissimulant*) them by symbolic means—against the backdrop of capitalized Nature (*Nature*).

社会空间还包括了生产的社会关系与再生产的社会关系之间双重或三重互动的种种特殊表象（représentations）。象征性的表象（représentations symboliques）用以维持那些处于并存与聚合状态（de coexistence et de cohésion）的社会关系。表象在展示（exhibe）这些社会关系的同时置换（transposant）它们——因此用象征的方式来掩盖（dissimulant）它们——借助于大写的自然（Nature）的背景之上。

This passage by Lefebvre is extremely important, yet also difficult to enter, because he is writing in an almost metaphorical manner, concealing too many presuppositions of the situation [situation]. In my understanding, first, the spatial representation [representation] permeating spatial practice is not merely subjective consciousness, but a relational qualitative configuration of objective spatial existence. In a certain sense, this specific representation is a crucial logical ordering link in Lefebvre’s theory of social space. Symbolic representation differs from directly occurring social spatial practice; it anchors the configuration of various relational fields occurring in spatial practice through the spatial syntax of relational quality. Social relations between people are non-substantive field existence; relational fields emerge and instantly vanish, thus lacking intuitiveness. Yet social spatial production cannot do without these relations that are constructed and deconstructed in the present moment. Therefore, relations always represent their coexistence or aggregated field existence through symbolic conceptual representations—for example, “father” and “children” in family life relations. Here, “father” does not refer to a general male in physiological existence, but to an adult male situated in the relational field of having given birth to children; in social interaction relations, “CEO,” “teacher,” and “worker”—each conceptual representation of a person does not refer to the physical existence of the human body, but anchors a specific social relational spatial field; as well as “dollar,” “commodity,” and “exchange rate” in the economic market, and so on. Here, every material representation appearing in the economic social space does not refer to a simple material entity, but to a relational field existence of economic materialization space presented through multiple inversions. Second, these relational representations are not merely a subjective conceptual symbolic coding. In spatial production, they must, through the practical behavior of real abstract space, conceive the design of spatial tools and the spatial syntax of planning, and reversely objectify into the shaping and ordering of material facilities such as buildings, roads, and squares. The qualitative nature of the representation of subject relations precisely occurs in the specific spatial practices activated by different spatial tools—such as daily life in the home, production labor in workshop factories, commodity exchange in commercial centers, transportation on roads, and activities in squares. These spatial practices of different qualities occurring in material spatial tools also embed the representational coding of different spatial syntaxes and the spatial experience of subjects. Lefebvre himself carefully analyzed the different living spatial experiences generated in single-family houses and apartments. As spatial representations of architectural design for single-family houses and apartments, they would be fundamentally different in the conceived spatial syntax. Third, while spatial relational representations anchor and display the field existence of relations in social space, they often quietly transform or substitute for the existence of real relations. Especially in the representation of social relations and spatial experience, under the domination of ideology, representation can conceal real social relations, pretending to be a grand natural and innate existence—for example, the zoological “Son of Heaven” in the situation of feudal imperial power, and the bourgeoisie disguising the market economy as an eternal system most in line with human nature. In this pseudo-situation of spatial representation, people bathe in the vast imperial grace and the happy experience of equal exchange. Spatial representation, emerging as spatial syntax, is not ideology, but it can become an important tool for ideology to fabricate the production of spatial relations.

列斐伏尔的这段表述是极为重要的，然而也是难以入境的，因为他几乎是在用一种隐喻的方式写作，这里隐藏了太多的构境前提。依我的理解，第一，渗透在空间实践中的空间表象不仅仅是主观的意识，而是一种客观空间存在的关系质赋型，在一定意义上，这个特殊的表象是列斐伏尔社会空间理论中重要的逻辑构序环节。象征性的表象不同于直接发生的社会空间实践，它通过关系质的空间句法构想锚定空间实践中发生的各种关系场境的赋型。人们之间的社会关系是非实体性的场境存在，关系场境突现且瞬间消逝，因而并无直观性；可社会空间生产却不可能离开这些当下建构和解构的关系，所以，关系总是以象征性的观念表象来表征自己的并存或者聚合场境存在，比如家庭生活关系中的爸爸、儿女，这里的“爸爸”并非生理存在上的一般男性，而是处于生育了儿女关系场境中的成年男性；社会交往关系中的CEO、教师和工人，这里每种人称观念表象都不是实指人的肉身存在，而是锚定一种特定的社会关系空间场境；以及经济市场中的美元、商品和汇率，等等，这里出现在经济的社会空间中的每一个物性表象都不是指称一个单纯的物质实体，而是一种多重颠倒后呈现的经济物相化空间的关系场境存在。第二，这些关系性的表象也并非仅仅是一种主观化的观念象征编码，在空间生产中，它们必须通过现实抽象空间实践行为来构想空间用具的设计、规划的空间句法，反向对象化为建筑物、道路和广场等物性设施的塑形和构序，主体关系表象的质性恰恰发生在不同的空间用具激活的具体空间实践中，有如家居中的日常生活、车间厂房中的生产劳作生产、商业中心中的商品交换以及道路上的运输和广场上的活动等，这些发生在物性空间用具中不同质性的空间实践活动，也内嵌着不同空间句法的表象编码和主体空间体验。列斐伏尔自己就仔细分析过在独栋住宅和公寓中生成的不同生活空间体验，作为独栋住宅和公寓的建筑设计的空间表象，在构想性的空间句法中就会是根本不同的。第三，空间关系表象在社会空间中锚定和展示关系的场境存在的同时，往往会悄悄地转换或替代真实关系的存在，特别是在社会关系的表象和空间体验上，表象在意识形态的支配下，会将真实发生的社会关系遮蔽起来，并假以大写的自然和天然性存在，比如封建皇权构境中的动物学的“天子”和资产阶级将市场经济装扮为最符合人的自然性的永恒制度，人们在这种空间表象伪境中沐浴于皇恩浩荡和幸福的平等交易体验中。作为空间句法出场的空间表象不是意识形态，但它是可能会成为意识形态虚构空间关系生产的重要工具。

It is also in this specific intentionality of the situation that Lefebvre points out that in the production of space, “reproduction relations are divided, on one hand, into frontal, public, open—thus codified—relations, and on the other hand, into hidden, secret, and repressed relations.” This “frontal” is profound, originating from Husserl’s phenomenology where an object always presents itself to us (für mich) in one aspect. Husserl once exemplified that we can only see the front of a table; when we go around to observe its back, we still obtain a “front” facing the subject. In this specific process of spatial production, what is openly presented is the spatial representation of the codified existence of relations, while what is concealed is the real dominant relations that ideology does not want people to see. This is precisely the “cunning” of spatial representation in spatial syntax. For example, in the feudal social space, the front-stage representational situation of the “Son of Heaven acting on behalf of Heaven” and the hierarchical structure of “ruler, minister, father, son” conceals the patriarchal dependency rule based on blood relations; in the economic materialization space of the bourgeoisie, the front-stage banner of Enlightenment freedom and equality conceals the exploitation of surplus value and the enslavement relation of the invisible whip. Lefebvre’s reminder here is that false representation participates in social spatial production, and sometimes, the production of this false representation becomes the protagonist of spatial production. Therefore, “space can be said to contain numerous intersections, each with its designated position. As for the numerous representations of production relations, they include various power relations, which also occur in space.” Please be sure to note that in the production of social space, the representation of power relations is not merely a subjective situation of ideology; in the process of spatial production, its relational quality will also be solidified through reverse objectification into specific material facilities—for example, “space incorporates power relations into buildings, monuments, and works of art.” Obviously, unlike general ideological critique, Lefebvre’s critique of social space theory directly penetrates into the specific analysis of the material existence of real spatial tools. The appearance of power relations in spatial existence is not merely the constraints of politics and legal systems as traditionally focused on by political science, but is precisely repeatedly enacted through the spatial tools encountered in people’s daily lives—buildings, monuments, and works of art. The spatial syntax here itself embeds the deployment of power. We can think of the majestic Roman columns symbolizing power as the facade of ancient Roman architecture, the palaces in ancient China that required bowing and climbing step by step, the triumphal arches commemorating war heroes and the towering obelisks throughout Europe and America, and the religious themes of all Western medieval art. It is not difficult to know how the spatial practice of daily life at that time occurred and permeated ruling relations through the representation of spatial syntax.

也是在这个特殊的构境意向中，列斐伏尔指认空间的生产中，社会关系的“再生产关系被分为一方面是正面的（frontales）、公共的、公开的——因此是符码化的——关系，另一方面则是隐藏的、秘密的和受压抑的（clandestins réprimées et définissant）关系”。这个“正面”是深刻的，源于胡塞尔现象学中的对象总是以一个面向我们（für mich）的方式呈现。胡塞尔曾例举过，我们只能看到一个桌子的正面，当我们绕到桌子反面去观察它的时候，还是获得了面向主体的一个“正面”。在这种特定的空间生产过程中，公开呈现出来的是关系的符码化存在的空间表象，而隐匿的则是意识形态不想让人们看到的真实支配性关系，这正是空间句法中的空间表象“狡计”。有如封建社会空间中台前表象构境中“替天行道的天子”“君君臣臣子子”的纲常结构，被遮蔽起来的则是血亲关系之上的宗法依附统治；资产阶级经济物相化空间中台前的启蒙的自由平等的旗帜，台后被隐匿起来的剩余价值的盘剥和看不见皮鞭的奴役关系。这里列斐伏尔给我们的提醒是，虚假的表象是参与社会空间生产的，并且在有的时候，这种虚假表象的生产会成为空间生产的主角。所以，“空间可以说包含着众多的交叉（entrecroisements），每一个交叉都有其指定的位置。至于生产关系的诸多表象，它们包括种种权力关系，这些权力关系也在空间中发生”。请一定注意，在社会空间的生产中，权力关系的表象并非仅仅是观念形态的主观情境，在空间生产过程中，它的关系质也会通过反向对象化为具体的物性设施凝固下来，比如“空间以建筑物、纪念碑和艺术作品的形式将权力关系纳入其中”。显而易见，与一般的意识形态批判不同，列斐伏尔的社会空间理论批判会直接深入现实空间用具的物性存在的具体分析之中。权力关系出现在空间存在中，并非只是传统政治学关注的政治与法律制度约束，而恰恰是通过人们每天日常生活中遭遇的空间用具——建筑物、纪念碑和艺术作品来反复践行的，这里的空间句法本身就内嵌着权力的布展。我们可以想一下，古罗马建筑中作为门脸的象征权力的雄伟罗马柱，中国古代必须弓腰拾级而上的宫殿，遍及欧美各国的纪念战争英雄的凯旋门和高耸入云的尖碑，以及整个西方中世纪美术作品的宗教主题，就不难知道，那时的日常生活的空间实践是如何通过空间句法的表象发生和贯穿统治关系的。

III. The “Triple Dialectic” of Spatial Production

三、空间生产的“三元辩证法”

Lefebvre says that, based on the above, in his theory of social space, one can obtain a completely new “triplicity” of the structural situation of spatial relations: namely, spatial practice, representation of space, and representational spaces. Some also refer to this view of Lefebvre as the triple dialectic of spatial production. This seems to go beyond Marx’s original dual framework of social life and consciousness. In my view, this is also the most important achievement of the “Lutheran revolution” in the conception of space realized by Lefebvre.

列斐伏尔说，综上所述，在他的社会空间理论中就可以获得一种全新的“三位一体”（triplicité）的空间关系场境结构：即空间实践、空间表象和表征性空间；也有人将列斐伏尔这一观点称作空间生产的三元辩证法。这似乎超出了马克思原先的社会生活与意识的二元构架。依我之见，这也是列斐伏尔所实现的空间观中的“路德革命”中最重要的成果。

First, the most important spatial practice in social spatial production. This is the primary concept of Lefebvre’s theory of social space, which we are already very familiar with.

一是作为社会空间生产中最重要的空间实践。这是我们已经非常熟悉的列斐伏尔社会空间理论构境的首要概念。

Spatial practice. It includes production and reproduction, as well as the specific positions and spatial feature sets of each social formation. Spatial practice ensures continuity and a certain degree of cohesion. In terms of the relationship between social space and each given member of society, this cohesion implies a competence at a guaranteed level and a performance at a specific level.

空间实践（La pratique spatiale）。它包括生产与再生产，以及每一种社会赋型（formation sociale）的特殊位置与空间特征集合。空间实践确保连续性和某种程度上的内聚性。就社会空间以及每一位既定社会成员与空间的关系来说，这种内聚性意味着有保证层次上的能力/资质（compètence）与特殊层次上的述行（performance）。

According to the intentionality of ordering we have fully discussed above, spatial practice, as the production of the field of spatial relations, differs from the general shaping of material productive labor that directly gives material reality an external form; the formation of relations in the production of social space endows spatial existence with an internal form. In the past, when Marx used the concept of social formation (formation sociale), he always had in mind the social construction of macro-economic and political structures, whereas in Lefebvre’s theoretical construction of space, formation sociale mainly refers to the spatial practice of the reproduction of relations of production between people and other complex social relations that occur in everyday life. The aspect Lefebvre did not emphasize is that this formation of social spatial relations can only be the result of the development of material productive forces under specific socio-historical conditions. This is because historical materialism emphasizes the decisive role of material production’s shaping and ordering in the generation of social-historical negentropy; on this point, the field of social relations in spatial practice can only be the outcome of such development of productive forces. Lefebvre believed that it is precisely the historical construction of this everyday field of relations, repeated at every moment, that determines the specific position of the historical existence of people and things and the realization of the assemblage of social space. For example, the dominant positions naturally existing in early human social life and the patriarchal aggregation established by people based on blood relations, and later, under the capitalist mode of production, the economic reification inversion based on the formation of commodity exchange relations and the personification of economic relations. In Lefebvre’s view, this spatial practice based on the field of everyday relations precisely ensures the structural cohesion and continuity of the field of social relations.

依我们上面已经充分讨论过的构序意向，空间实践作为空间关系场境的生产，不同于一般物质生产劳作塑形直接给予物质实在可见的外部形式，社会空间生产中的关系赋型（formation）是给予空间存在一种内在的形式。过去，马克思在使用社会赋型（formation sociale）概念的时候，心里总是想着宏观的经济政治结构的社会建构，而列斐伏尔的空间理论构境中，formation sociale（社会赋型）则主要是指人们在日常生活中发生的人与人的生产关系和其他复杂社会关系再生产的空间实践。列斐伏尔没有强调的方面是，这种社会空间关系赋型只能是一定社会历史条件下物质生产力发展的结果。因为历史唯物主义会强调物质生产塑形和构序在社会历史负熵生成中的决定性作用，在这一点上，空间实践中的社会关系场境只会是这种生产力发展的结果。列斐伏尔认为，正是这种每时每刻重复发生的日常关系场境的历史性建构，才是确定人与事物历史存在的特殊位置和社会空间集合的实现。比如，早期人类社会生活中自然存在的主导性位置和人们依血亲关系建立起来的宗法性聚合，以及后来资本主义生产方式中，依商品交换的关系赋型的经济事物化颠倒和经济关系的人格化聚合。在列斐伏尔看来，这种基于日常生活关系场境的空间实践恰恰保证了社会关系场境结构性内聚和连续。

Second, the representation of space that participates in spatial practice. As we have said earlier, spatial production differs from the shaping and ordering in the production of objects; its subject is the production of the field of spatial relations. Since social relations are non-substantive, arising and vanishing in the present, the mode of spatial presence of relations is usually represented and substituted by the abstract syntactic representation of the field of spatial relations. This issue of the representation of space is the most difficult logical link to enter into in Lefebvre’s theory of space. Because it aims to break the traditional philosophical binary cognitive model of matter-consciousness and objective-subjective, and to represent the complex reproduction of the field of relations unique to the spatial production of the actual field of relations. The representation of relations can be a conceptual configuration of knowledge, such as the design of material facilities like buildings, or it can be a concrete syntactic carrier of buildings and other material facilities. It is not merely the conscious presentation of the objective field of relations, but rather the “blueprint” for the occurrence of the field of relations and the template for its reconstruction and ordering. The “blueprint” here refers to the issue of the pre-existence of the representation of a building that Marx once touched upon in *Capital*, where he distinguished between a spider weaving a web, a bee building a hive, and an architect constructing a house; the latter, before carrying out the concrete construction work, already has a representational “blueprint” in his mind. I cannot be certain whether Lefebvre’s concept of the representation of space originates from this important view of Marx.

二是参与了空间实践的空间的表象。前面我们已经说过，空间生产不同于物品生产中的塑形和构序，它的主体是空间关系场境的生产，由于社会关系是非实体的当下建构与消逝，因此，关系的空间在场方式通常会以空间关系场境抽象的空间句法的表象方式来表征和替代。这个空间的表象问题是列斐伏尔空间理论中最难入境的逻辑环节。因为它意在打破传统哲学中物质—意识、客观与主观二元认知模式，表征现实关系场境的空间生产中特有的复杂关系场境再现问题。关系表象可以是设计建筑物等物性设施的知识性的观念构式，也可以是具象为建筑物和其他物性设施的空间句法载体。它不仅仅是客观关系场境的意识呈现，而就是关系场境发生的“蓝图”和重构的构序模板。这里的“蓝图”是意指马克思在《资本论》中曾经涉及的建筑物表象的先在性问题，在那里，马克思辨识了蜘蛛织网、蜜蜂筑巢与建筑师建造一所房屋时的差别，后者在实施具体的建设工作前，在头脑中已经有了一个表象性的“蓝图”。我不能确定，列斐伏尔的空间表象概念是否缘起于马克思的这一重要观点。

Representations of space (Les représentations de l’espace). They are linked to the relations of production and the “order” (ordre) imposed by these relations, and thus also to knowledge (connaissances), to signs, codes, and various “frontal” (frontales) relations.

空间的表象（Les reprèsentations de l'espace）。它们与生产关系还有这些关系所强加的“构序”（ordre）联系在一起，从而也与知识（connalssances），与符号、符码以及种种“正面的（frontales）”关系捆绑在一起。

It can be seen that the representation of space identified by Lefebvre here is directly associated with the field of relations in spatial practice. It can be both the pre-existing conceptual guidance and the “blueprint” configuration of spatial syntax that enables a certain field of spatial practice relations to occur, and it can also be the template for the materialization of this conception into material spatial implements, so as to activate the daily operation of spatial practice and the reconstruction of the field of spatial relations. He emphatically stresses that the essence of the representation of space is the ordre (order) of the relations of production, and this order of relations is often linked to knowledge. In my view, the configuration of knowledge forms occurring in the ordering of the representation of space should be a characteristic of modern representations of space, because in the representation of space in early social life, the ordering of relations in the representation of space is embedded within objective spatial practice; the design and planning of the representation of space in the form of pure knowledge, especially today’s three-dimensional spatial shaping and ordering by computers, is consistent with the real abstraction and independent operation of modern science and technology. As mentioned earlier, in Husserl’s phenomenological construction, all cognition is “frontal,” so the representation of space is always a qualitative intentional representation. Moreover, apart from the spatial field directly perceived by people in spatial practice, the mode of representation of its relational field is complex and pluralistic; it can be an abstract knowledge configuration expressing a specific spatial syntax, a symbolic sign, or a specific conceptual “design” model and “planning” code, or it can be the reverse objectification of spatial syntax into material buildings (such as spatial implements like churches, palaces, and monuments). In any case, the representation of space must contain the order imposed on spatial practice by certain relations of production, just as ideology is embedded in architectural design and urban planning. In already formed domestic “apartments” and commercial “supermarkets,” the spatial syntax solidified in their representation of space also generates certain regulations of spatial relations. Also, because the materialized representation of space often participates in the repeated occurrence and reconstruction of the production and reproduction of social relations in spatial practice with a relational quality that was once present, this representation of space, which substitutes for the presence of the field of relations, lays the groundwork for the misrecognition of relations. This may lead to the relations of production that impose a compulsory order being represented in the representation as a non-compulsory spatial deployment.

可以看到，列斐伏尔这里指认的空间表象，是与空间实践关系场境直接关联的，它既可以是使一定的空间实践关系场境得以发生的先在性观念引导和空间句法的“蓝图”构式，也可以是这种构想物相化为物性空间用具模板，以激活空间实践的日常运转和空间关系场境的重构。他突出强调，空间表象的本质是生产关系的ordre（构序），这种关系构序往往与知识联系在一起。依我的看法，空间表象构序中发生的知识形态的构式，应该是现代性空间表象的特点，因为在早期社会生活的空间表象中，空间表象中的关系构序会内嵌于客观的空间实践之中，空间表象以纯粹知识形态中的设计和规划，特别是今天计算机三维空间塑形和构序，是与现代性科学技术的现实抽象和独立运行相一致的。如前所述，在胡塞尔现象学的构境中，所有的认知都是“正面性”的，所以，空间表象总是一定质性的意向性表象，并且除去人们在空间实践中直接感知到的空间场境，它的关系性场境的表象方式是复杂多元的，它可以是表达特定空间句法的抽象的知识构式、象征性的符号或者是特定的构想式的“设计”筑模和“规划”编码，也可以是空间句法反向对象化的物性的建筑（如教堂、皇宫和纪念碑等空间用具）。无论如何，空间表象必定内含着一定生产关系强加于空间实践的构序，有如建筑设计和城市规划中内嵌的意识形态，而已经成型的家用“公寓”和商用的“超市”，其空间表象中固化的空间句法也会生成一定的空间关系规制。也由于物相化的空间表象往往以曾经在场的关系质参与空间实践中社会关系的生产与再生产的重复发生和重构，这个替代了场境关系出场的空间表象，也就埋下了关系误认的伏笔。这就有可能导致强制性构序的生产关系在表象中却表征为非强制性的空间布展。

It is precisely here that we will point out the logical blind spot in Lefebvre’s problem of the representation of space. We can follow Lefebvre’s ordering logic here: the representation of space is a spatial conception related to “knowledge” and “codes,” distinct from spatial practice, which activates the emergence and maintenance of the field of spatial relations through the spatial syntax embedded in material spatial implements. This seems to be an unproblematic statement. However, if we carefully consider the realization in actual history of the representation of space, the second moment of Lefebvre’s original spatial dialectic, we will discover a huge internal split and self-contradiction. For if, in the initial creation of social space in ancient times, the conception of the field of human spatial relations and the conception of spatial syntax would be embedded in spatial practice as the creative autonomous activity of the laborers themselves—when a person in a primitive tribal life builds a hut, his spatial syntax (the pre-existing “blueprint” in the mind identified by Marx), or when a group of shepherds or hunters tread a country path from the grass on a hillside, this would be the direct ordering of their creative autonomous activity—this also means that the distinction between spatial practice and the conceptual representation of space in Lefebvre is valid. Yet, in the majority of cases in the actual development of social history, especially in all processes of spatial production in class society, what really happens breaks this logical assumption. For the spatial production that actually exists in the slave, feudal, and capitalist modes of production means that those who can occupy the autonomous creative activity of the representation of space are not the laborers situated in spatial production, but rather those masters, emperors, bishops, and today’s bourgeoisie who, as the ruling class or those who hold the power of spatial production! This also means that the representation of space that actually occurs in most spatial production involving fields of servitude relations is not the conceptual premise that everyone enters into spatial practice with; the creative autonomous activity contained in the representation of space and the materialization process of this spatial conception in actual spatial production are split or even opposed. The oppressed classes and ordinary laborers have no right to the representation of space in spatial production at all. This is like the tens of thousands of slaves building the magnificent pyramids; the conceptual representation of space would only come from the rulers of the time. The planning of today’s Wall Street district and the architectural design of skyscrapers cannot possibly come from the construction workers participating in spatial production, but must be completed by the capitalists through hiring professional architects and planners. That is to say, the representation of space is not a universal component of spatial dialectics, but a special phenomenon of spatial production under specific historical conditions of human social spatial production. It should also be noted that this important viewpoint is not my invention, but a viewpoint already proposed and discussed by Marx and Engels in *The German Ideology*. There, they jointly focused on the autonomous activity (*Selbstbethätigung*) that occupies a core position in the ordering of productive forces. This concept of autonomous activity is no longer the autonomous activity—labor—as the true species-essence in the humanist situation of the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*, but rather the creative ordering factor in real productive forces. However, they discovered that in the process of the historical development of human society, initially this autonomous activity in production was embedded in the material production process, but after entering class society, “autonomous activity and the production of material life are separated, because they are undertaken by different people.” [17]17 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, *The German Ideology* (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1976), p. 87. The English translation of the quoted passage is adapted from the standard edition. The autonomous ordering that was originally in the activity of the laborers now belongs to the slave owners and feudal rulers, while the production of the laborers becomes a material activity devoid of any autonomy.

也正是在这里，我们会指出列斐伏尔关于空间表象问题中存在的逻辑盲点。我们可以依循列斐伏尔这里的构序逻辑：空间表象是区别于空间实践的与“知识”“符码”相关的空间构想，它会通过物性的空间用具中内嵌的空间句法，以激活空间关系场境的发生和维系。这似乎是没有毛病的说法。然而，我们如果仔细地思考列斐伏尔原创性空间辩证法第二环节的空间表象在现实历史中的实现时，却会发现一个巨大的内在分裂和自我矛盾。因为如果是在远古时代社会空间初创的时候，人的空间关系场境构想和空间句法的构想，会作为劳动者自身创造性的自主活动内嵌于空间实践之中，一个原始部族生活中的人建造一间茅屋，他的空间句法（马克思所指认的头脑预先存在的“蓝图”），一群牧羊人或猎人从山坡的草地上踏出一条乡间小路，这会是他们创造性的自主活动的直接构序，这也意味着，列斐伏尔这里的空间实践与构想性的空间表象的区分是成立的。可是，在现实社会历史发展的大多数情况下，特别是阶级社会的所有空间生产过程里，真实发生的事情会打破这种逻辑假想，因为奴隶制、封建制和资本主义生产方式中真实存在的空间生产，能够居有空间表象自主创制活动的人，并不是置身于空间生产中的劳动者，而是那些作为统治阶级或者说掌握了空间生产权力的主人、皇帝、主教和今天的资产阶级！这也意味着，在大部分存在着奴役关系场境的空间生产中真实发生的空间表象，并不是所有人走进空间实践时的构想性前提，空间表象中包含的创造性自主活动与这种空间构想在现实空间生产中的物相化过程是分裂甚至是对立的。被压迫阶级和普通劳动者在空间生产中根本不具有空间表象的权利。这就像成千上万的奴隶在建造辉煌的金字塔时，构想性的空间表象只会出自那时的统治者；今天的华尔街街区的规划、摩天大楼的建筑设计，都不可能出自参与空间生产的建筑工人，而必定是资本家通过雇佣专业建筑设计师和规划师来完成的。这也就是说，空间表象不是一种普适性的空间辩证法构件，而只是人类社会空间生产特定历史条件下的特殊空间生产现象。还应该说明，这一重要的观点并非我的发明，而是马克思和恩格斯在《德意志意识形态》中已经提出并讨论过的观点。在那里，他们共同关注到生产力构序中居核心地位的自主活动（Selbstbethätigung），这个自主活动概念，已经不再是《1844年经济学哲学手稿》中那个人本主义构境中作为本真类本质的自主活动——劳动，而就是现实生产力中的创造性构序因素。可是他们发现，在人类社会历史发展的过程中，开始这种生产中的自主活动是内嵌在物质生产过程之中的，而在进入阶级社会之后，“自主活动和物质生活的生产是分开的，这是因为它们是由不同的人承担的”。原先劳动者活动中的那个自主性构序，现在是属于奴隶主和封建统治者的，而劳动者的生产却是一种没有了任何自主性的物性活动。

Third, the representational space in the imaginary situation. This may also be the most special aspect of Lefebvre’s triadic components of spatial production. Representational space is not equal to conscious space, nor is it merely the “my relation to my environment” identified by Marx and Engels; it specifically refers to the unique human subjective spatial sense of situation. This is because, for Lefebvre, social space is not a neutral empty place, but a field of spatial relations constructed by human spatial practical activity. Different from the objective positions of nature and the physical space in which animals exist, the most important aspect of human existence, apart from material production conditions, is a certain dependence on intersubjective relations, or what is called “surrounding world” (Marx’s term) and “worldliness” (Heidegger’s term). It is in this sense that both Heidegger and Derrida once said, “Animals have no world.” Lefebvre discovered that the field of dependence on relations in human social life, apart from the field of relations that arises and disappears in the present moment of spatial practice and material spatial implements, also depends on the subject’s firsthand experience of the field of spatial relations. This special worldly physical-mental spatial experience is an important ordering factor in the production of human social space. What we commonly refer to in life as the “cramped space” of a home, the “oppressive space” of a courtroom, the “bright and uplifting space” of Gothic architecture, etc., all represent the subjective experience in the field of relations materialized by different spatial syntaxes; these are also different representational spatial situations. A certain social spatial existence is often a field of spatial relations generated by an intentional, representational system of subjective symbolic coding. Therefore, unlike the utility experience in the use of labor products, spatial production highlights a special firsthand experience of the field of relational space, which is representational space. The objective field of spatial relations cannot be separated from this special imaginary situation in the subjective spatial experience. I understand this as Lefebvre’s logical reconstruction of the simple problem of spiritual space in traditional spatial theory; it transforms directly from the conceptual configuration of space to the subject’s own firsthand experiential space. Experience is not only rational identification of the spirit, but also includes the complex perceptual situation of the body.

三是想象构境中的表征性空间。这可能也是列斐伏尔空间生产三元构件中最特殊的方面。表征性空间不等于意识空间，甚至也不仅仅是马克思、恩格斯指认的那个“我对我环境的关系”，它是特指人类特有的主体性的空间感构境。也因为在列斐伏尔这里，社会空间不是中性的空无场所，而是人的空间实践活动建构起来的空间关系场境。与自然存在的客体位置及动物处于的物理空间不同，人的生存基础除去物质生产条件之外，最重要的方面就是一定的主体际关系依存性，或者叫“周围世界”（马克思语）和“世界性”（海德格尔语）。也是在这个意义上，海德格尔和德里达都曾经说过，“动物是没有世界的”。列斐伏尔发现，人类社会生活中的关系依存性场境，除去空间实践中的当下发生—消逝的关系场境和物性空间用具外，还依存于主体对空间关系场境的亲历体验，这种特殊的世界性身心空间体验是人的社会空间生产的重要构序因素。我们通常在生活中所说的家居里“窄小的空间”、法庭上“压抑的空间”、哥特式建筑中“明亮向上的空间”等，都表征了不同空间句法物相化关系场境中的主体体验，这也是不同的表征性空间构境。一定的社会空间存在往往是有意向的表征性的主体性象征体系编码生成的空间关系场境，所以，不同于劳动产品的使用中的效用体验，空间生产中凸显出一种特殊的关系场境空间亲历体验，这也就是表征性空间。客观的空间关系场境离不开这种特殊的主体空间体验中的想象性构境。我体会，这是列斐伏尔对传统空间理论中那个简单的精神空间问题的逻辑重构，它从观念构式空间直接转换为主体自身的亲历体验空间，体验不仅仅是精神的理性辨识，也包含身体的复杂感性情境。

Representational spaces (*Les espaces de représentation*). They manifest themselves as diverse symbolic systems (*symbolismes/symbolisms*), sometimes coded, sometimes uncoded, associated with the hidden or secret aspects of social life, and also associated with art (art perhaps being ultimately defined more as the code of representational spaces than as the code of space).

表征性空间（Les espaces de représentation）。它们表现为形形色色的象征体系（symbolismes/symbolisms），有时被编码，有时未被编码，与社会生活的隐藏的方面或秘密的方面相关联，也与艺术相关联（艺术也许最终更多地作为表征性空间的符码而不是空间的符码而被规定）。

What Lefebvre did not pay attention to here is similar to the logical blind spot in spatial representations we pointed out above. Although everyone acquires a sense of space in their own existence, in the spatial production of class society, the ability to encode space according to symbolic systems and to attend to the hidden aspects of living space at the level of art is probably something that only a few among the ruling class can achieve. The representational spaces generated by emperors and nobles in palaces and manor castles are necessarily different from the spatial sense of the “lower classes” who serve as servants in these material spatial facilities. It can be seen that when Lefebvre uses the two phrases *Les espaces de représentation* (representational spaces, which can also be translated as spaces of representation) and *Les représentations de l’espace* (representations of space), the starting points of discursive ordering are clearly different. Representations of space are the direct conceptual conception of relations of spatial practice (spatial syntax) and the material reproduction of this conception (architectural facilities), while the inverted word order of representational spaces (spaces of representation) emphasizes the subject’s own imagination of and experiential situation within the field of spatial relations. At the same time, in *Les représentations de l’espace*, Lefebvre uses the plural of representation, whereas in *Les espaces de représentation*, he uses the plural of space. Unlike objective spatial practical activity, and unlike the representational typification and anchoring of relational qualities within the field of social relations in social space, representational space is the subject’s imaginary space constructed by the system of encoding and decoding of spatial codes of a specific social life. It is precisely this special subjective representational experiential space that, through different abstract symbolic systems, guarantees the production and reproduction mechanisms of the dominant mode of production. Typical representational spaces include different symbolic code systems such as the space of lived experience, the space of love, geometric space, divine space, musical space, artistic space, theatrical space, and speculative space. In the relational field of daily life, they present themselves as the personally experienced imagined situational spaces that each individual and group obtains through spatial implements within different symbolic codes. In this book, Lefebvre does not elaborate on encoding and decoding. In *Space and Politics*, he once described encoding as follows: “All codes construct a horizon around a text (a message), unfold it, then enclose and seal it, thus determining a centered space,” and this encoding is “practical-sensuous and social.” In Lefebvre’s view, all codes contain the “production of meaning.” The codes Lefebvre refers to here are not necessarily subjective knowledge; different series of buildings that realize spatial syntax, urban sculptures, monuments, streets, and city walls can all generate specific spatial representations. Through the abstraction and crystallization of spatial practice, and through different forms of spatial syntax encoding and decoding, they construct a daily life experience of a different nature. Of course, the spatial sense obtained by the rulers who construct these spatial implements through autonomous activity is fundamentally different from that of the ruled masses; this is the relational field of the master-servant relationship between encoding and being encoded. In the shaping of figurative sculptures, in the mythical space of the eternal City of God, in the situational construction of immortal classical music, in the dreamlike narrative space of poetic cinema, and in the abyss-like ordering of thought, people obtain rich and varied spatial experiences. These special representational symbolic systems do not appear to be a direct reflection of the relational field of spatial practice, but at their foundation they depend on the historical quality of a specific mode of production. Lefebvre believes that it is precisely within this complex representational space that it becomes possible to distinguish between the hidden and illuminated parts of life and social being. For example, what is stirred in people within musical space is often the unique experiences and feelings of an individual’s life unknown to others—that is a hidden experiential space. In the economic fetishism space of bourgeois modernity, people generate a pseudo-situational space that conceals relations of servitude and exploitation under the illusion of a seemingly bright concept of equal exchange. In Lefebvre’s view, artistic symbolic codes play an important role in representational space, because art is both a special form of representational space and an important means of creating “defamiliarization” in the relational field of space. Art here is clearly no longer art in the narrow sense, but rather Lefebvre’s famous revolutionary relational field of “making daily life into art.”

列斐伏尔这里没有留心的地方，是与我们上面指证的空间表象中的逻辑盲点相近，虽然人人都会在自己的生存中获得空间感，可是在阶级社会的空间生产中，能够谈得上依象征体系编码空间和在艺术的层面上关注生活空间的隐秘方面，大概主要是统治阶级中少数人才能够做到的。皇帝和贵族在宫殿和庄园城堡中生成的空间表征，与在这些物性空间设施中做奴仆的“下等人”的空间感必定是不同的。可以看到，列斐伏尔在使用Les espaces de représentation（表征性空间，也可以译作表象的空间）与Les reprèsentations de l'espace（空间的表象）两个词组时，在话语构序起点上是明显不同的，空间的表象是对空间实践关系的直接观念构想（空间句法）和这种构想的物性再现（建筑设施），而语序倒置中的表征性空间（表象的空间），则突出强调了主体本身对空间关系场境的想象和体验情境。同时，在Les reprèsentations de l'espace中，列斐伏尔使用了表象的复数，而在Les espaces de représentation中，他则是在空间上使用了复数。不同于客观的空间实践活动，也不同于社会空间中社会关系场境本身的表象赋型与关系质的锚定，表征性空间是特定社会生活的空间符码的编码和解码系统建构起来的主体想象空间，正是这种特殊的主体表征性的体验空间，通过不同的抽象象征系统，保证了占统治地位的生产方式的生产与再生产机制。比较典型的表征性空间，有如生活经验空间、爱的空间、几何空间、神性空间、音乐空间、美术空间、戏剧空间和思辨空间等不同的象征符码体系，在日常生活的关系场境中，它们呈现为不同象征编码中每个人和群体在空间用具中获得的亲历的想象的构境空间。在本书中，列斐伏尔并没有细说编码与解码。在《空间与政治》一书中，他曾经这样描述编码：“所有的编码围绕着一个文本（一条信息）构造出一条地平线，将它展开，然后围拢、封闭，就确定了一个中心化的（centrè）空间”，并且，这种编码是“实践—感性的（pratico-senible）和社会性的”。在列斐伏尔看来，所有的编码都包含着“意义的生产”。列斐伏尔这里所说的符码，并不一定就是主观知识，实现了空间句法的建筑物的不同系列，城市雕塑、纪念碑、街道和城墙都可以生发出特定的空间表征，它通过空间实践的抽象和结晶，通过不同形式的空间句法编码与解码建构起一个不同性质的日常生活体验。当然，通过自主活动的构想建造这些空间用具的统治者，与被统治民众获得的空间感是根本不同的，这是编码与被编码的奴役关系场境。在具象的雕塑作品塑形中，在永恒的上帝之城的神话空间中，在不朽的古典音乐构境中，在梦幻般的诗性电影叙事空间中，在深渊般的思想构序中，人们获得丰富多彩的空间体验。这些特殊的表征性象征体系，看起来并非空间实践关系场境的直接映现，但在根基上依存于特定的生产方式的历史质性。列斐伏尔认为，正是在这种复杂的表征性空间中，才可能区隔出生活和社会定在中隐密和光亮的部分，比如，人们在音乐空间中激起的往往是不为人知的个人生命独有的经历和感受，那是一种隐密的体验空间；在资产阶级现代性的经济拜物教空间中，人们则会在一种看起来光亮的平等交换观念的幻象之下生成遮蔽奴役关系和剥削关系的伪境空间。在列斐伏尔看来，艺术的象征符码在表征性空间中起到了重要作用，因为艺术既是一种特殊的表征性空间形式，又会是造成空间关系场境“陌生化”的重要手段。这里的艺术，显然已经不完全是狭义的艺术，而是列斐伏尔那个著名的“让日常生活成为艺术”的革命性关系场境。

IV. Human Beings, Historicity, and the Primacy of Practice: The Micro-Texture of the Construction of Social Space

四、人、历史性与实践首位：社会空间建构的微观肌理

In understanding the basic cognitive principles of social space, Lefebvre particularly points out three important aspects. First, he tells us that the production and reproduction of the relational field of social space, which is distinct from natural physical space, is not a subjectless process; it is constructed by the concrete spatial practice of individuals and collectives under specific historical conditions. This is the theoretical boundary he draws with Althusser, and it is also the essence of the “Lutheran revolution” in his conception of space.[18]18 A reference to Martin Luther’s theological break with the Catholic Church, used here as a metaphor for a fundamental theoretical rupture or reorientation. It is not that human beings act within material spatial places, but that human existential activity is itself the real relational field of social space. The spatial practice, representations of space, and representational spaces discussed above are not material entities or concepts and symbolic codes external to human beings, but rather the spatial presence of human social life and daily life experience itself. Another aspect worthy of our attention is that Lefebvre’s emphasis on the existence of the subject no longer merely remains at the level of individual *Dasein* in the situational construction of neo-humanism, but rather increasingly agrees with Marx’s emphasis on the collective co-existence of real individuals. Therefore, Lefebvre says:

在理解社会空间的基本认知原则上，列斐伏尔特别指出了三个重要的方面。首先，他告诉我们，区别自然物理空间的社会空间关系场境的生产与再生产并非一个无主体的过程，它是由一定历史条件的个人和集体行为具体空间实践建构成起来的。这是他与阿尔都塞划清的理论界限，也是他的空间观中的“路德革命”的本质。不是人活动于物性的空间场所之中，而是人的生存活动就是社会空间的现实关系场境存在。上述所讲的空间实践、空间的表象和表征性空间，不是外在于人的物性实体存在或概念和象征符码的对置，而就是人的社会生活和日常生活体验本身的空间在场。还有一个值得我们关注的方面，是列斐伏尔对人的主体存在的强调已经不再仅仅停留在新人本主义构境中的个人此在，而更多地赞同了马克思对现实的个人的群体共在。所以，列斐伏尔说：

In reality, social space unites social acts, the acts of subjects. These subjects include both individuals and collectives; these subjects are born, die, suffer, and act. From the perspective of these subjects, their spatial behavior is both full of vitality and full of the danger of death: they develop within it, express themselves, and also encounter prohibitions; then they grow old and die, and this same space also includes their tomb.

在现实中，社会空间把社会行动（actes sociaux），那些主体（sujets）的行动，联合起来了。那些主体既包括个人也包括集体，那些主体生着、死着，忍受着、行动着。从那些主体的角度来看，他们（ils）的空间行为既充满活力又充满死亡的危险：他们在其中发展，表达自身，也遭遇禁止；然后他们衰老死去，这同一个空间也包括他们的坟墓（tombe）。

Here, Lefebvre deliberately uses the plural *ils* (they, masculine and feminine) to express the essence of social co-existence. Where Heidegger highlights that “Aristotle was born, lived, and died,” Lefebvre emphasizes the birth, doing, suffering, and death of people in co-existence. This co-existence is clearly not the abstract fallenness of the *das Man*, but rather the historical construction of the relational field of social space itself. Heidegger did not realize that the servile *das Man* in feudal autocratic relations and the fashionable *das Man* in bourgeois monetary relations are fundamentally heterogeneous. Because an isolated *Dasein* cannot construct social space; spatial production is always the convergence of the social-historical existence and daily life of different individual subjects. The essence of social space is always the production and reproduction of the relational field of co-existence between humans and things and between humans and humans. The spatial existence and death of people that Lefebvre refers to here are not the physiological life and death of their physical bodies, but rather the entry into the relational field of social space and the death of losing spatial existence. The *tombe* (tomb) that buries them here is not the actual earth, but an invisible spatial field. At the end of the Japanese film *Mellow*, the girl Kibo, who inherits her father’s ramen shop, suddenly realizes that people do not come to the ramen shop just to eat, but treat the ramen shop as a “place of gathering.” Consequently, she decides to go to Italy to study architecture, to build better places for people to gather.

在这里，列斐伏尔刻意使用了复数的ils（他们、她们），以表达社会的共在本质。在海德格尔凸显说“亚里士多德出生、活着和死亡”的地方，列斐伏尔突出了人们共在中的出生、做事、受难和死亡，这种共在显然不是抽象的常人化沉沦，而是社会空间关系场境本身的历史性建构。海德格尔没有意识到，封建专制关系中的奴性常人与资产阶级金钱关系中的时尚常人是根本异质的。因为独立的此在不可能建构社会空间，空间生产总是不同的个人主体的社会历史存在和日常生活的会聚，社会空间的本质总是人与物和人与人共有关系场境的生产与再生产。列斐伏尔这里指认的人们的空间存在和死亡，并非是他们肉身在生理学意义上的生死，而是社会空间中的进入关系场境的存在和失去空间存在的死亡，这里埋葬他们的tombe（坟墓）不是实在的大地，而是不可见的空间场境。日本电影《芳醇》（Mellow）的结尾，继承父亲拉面馆的女孩子木帆突然意识到，人们到拉面馆并不仅仅是来吃东西，而是将拉面馆当作一个“会聚的场所”，于是，她要去意大利学建筑，建造更好的人的会聚场所。

Secondly, in Lefebvre’s view, “between social acts and social places (les actes et les lieux sociaux), between spatial functions and spatial forms (les fonctions et les formes spatiales),” there does not exist an invariant point-to-point “correspondence model.” This means that spatial practice and the situational presence of this action in the construction of spatial relations, the functional emergence of the relational situation and its form of spatial representation, are not a rigidly one-to-one simple correspondence. This is because social space is not something immutable; it is not simply equivalent to material reality or empty places. As a social spatial relational situation constructed in the present, it is the cradle of a new society and can also be its graveyard; non-substantial social space undergoes historical transformation with changes in social life. This also demonstrates once again that the existence of social space is historical. Lefebvre gives an example: in pre-capitalist societies, the perspective from which we observe social space would not be today’s political economy facing bourgeois modern social space, but rather anthropology, ethnology, and sociology, because the social space that appears there has a spatial practice with specific historical qualities:

其次，在列斐伏尔看来，“在社会行动与社会位置（les actes et les lieux sociaux）之间、在空间功能与空间形式（les fonctions et les formes spatiales）之间”，并不存在一个不变的点对点的“对应模式”。这是说，空间实践与这种行动在空间关系建构中的场境存在，关系场境的功能性发生与它的空间表象形式，并非是凝固化的一一简单对应的。这是由于，社会空间不是一成不变的东西，它不简单地等于物性实在或者空洞的场所。作为一种当下建构起来的社会空间关系场境，它是一个新社会的摇篮，也会是它的墓地，非实体的社会空间随着社会生活的改变而发生历史性的转换。这也再一次表明，社会空间的存在是历史性的。列斐伏尔举例说，在前资本主义社会中，我们观察社会空间的视角不会是今天面对资产阶级现代性社会空间的政治经济学，而往往会是人类学、人种学和社会学，因为那里出现的社会空间有特定历史质性的空间实践：

These places are needed for symbolic copulation and murder, such as places where the laws of (maternal) reproduction might be renewed, and places where fathers, chiefs, kings, priests, and sometimes gods, might be executed. Thus, space appears as a sacrificial occasion—and at the same time, it escapes the influence of good and evil forces: it retains that aspect of power which promotes social continuity, without leaving traces of the dangerous aspect.

这些场所为象征性的媾合与谋杀所需，如那些（母性）生育法则可能经受更新的地方，以及那些父亲、首领、国王、祭司，有时还有诸神，可能被处决的地方。因此，空间是作为献祭场合而出现的——而与此同时，它也逃离了善恶力量的影响：它保留了促进社会连续性的那一方面的力量，却没有留下危险的那一方面的痕迹。

This is correct. In social life dominated by blood relations, because the level of material productive forces through which people transform nature is low, natural physical space remains the foundation upon which social life depends. Therefore, social spatial practice, representations, and significations are not the conceptual knowledge constructs and imaginings about space seen from today’s economic perspective—industrial production, science and technology, and economic reified space—but are inevitably filled with the production of human beings themselves and primitive symbolic worship, which anthropologists focus on. If there were places where early people engaged in common activities, they would also be sacrificial sites where fathers, kings, and priests were deified. If we return to the aforementioned relationship between spatial practice and symbolic representations (significations), we will see that spatial representations and significations at this time often participate in the construction of space (everyday life) through the ordering of artistic mythological structures. In today’s social spatial representations, this is clearly no longer the primary mode of representation, because modern industrial production, science and technology, and economic activities have profoundly changed the relational situation of spatial practice, and at the same time, the conceptual symbolic system centered on knowledge has become the subject of spatial representation and experience.

这是对的。在血亲关系占主导地位的社会生活中，由于人们改造自然的物质生产力水平低下，自然物理空间仍然是社会生活的依存基础，所以，社会空间实践、表象和表征并非今天经济学视角看到的工业生产、科学技术和经济物相化空间中关于空间的观念性知识构想和想象，必然被人类学家关注的人自身的生产和原始象征崇拜所充斥，如果存在早期人们共同活动的地方，那也会是父亲、国王和祭司被神化的献祭场所。如果再回到上述已提及的空间实践与象征性表象（表征）的关系上，我们会看到这时的空间表象和表征往往是以艺术化的神话构序的方式参与空间（日常生活）的建构。这一切，在今天的社会空间表象中显然已经不再是主要的再现方式，因为现代工业生产、科学技术和经济活动，已经深刻改变了空间实践的关系场境，同时，以知识为核心的观念象征系统也成为空间表象和体验的主体。

Thirdly, the complex relationship between spatial practice and symbolic spatial representations (significations). At this point of ordering, Lefebvre says that in the construction of social space, we can discover a special illusion, namely, the priority of certain symbolic concepts in spatial production. It appears that they often dominate the occurrence of spatial practice through a “higher reality” ( “réalité” supérieure ) that seems more important than actual life. This is where idealism gains an advantage in the experience of everyday life. Because all spatial implements such as buildings, roads, and squares are the objectified results of certain conceptual constructs (“blueprints”), and subjective spatial representations and signifying spatial experiences are inseparable from the coding of abstract symbolic systems, conceptual ordering seems to become the precondition of spatial practical activity. This is the essence of all past idealist views of spiritual space. I believe this is precisely where Lefebvre’s social theory enriches broad historical materialism in detail. For Marx and Engels, they only saw through the problem of historical idealism, re-establishing the general principles of historical materialism with the principle that social being determines consciousness. However, the relationship between ideas and actual social life was not thereby truly delineated in detail. Lefebvre does not evade the false priority of ideas over realism in social spatial production and everyday life, but he scientifically explains the hidden mechanism of this false priority. To this end, Lefebvre cites the mythical metaphor of light. He says, “For example, occupied by capitalized Light (Lumière)—sunlight, moonlight, or starlight and shadow, night, and thus also opposed to death; light is seen as capitalized Truth (Vrai), life, and therefore also as thought and cognition (savoir), and finally, through a mediation that is not immediately effective, light is seen as established authority.” This is correct. From the Bible’s “Let there be light” to Plato’s cave allegory, light always symbolizes that which illuminates the space of life; light enables sight, light is the precondition for showing the way, whereas dark space symbolizes suffering and death. In fact, later bourgeois Enlightenment still uses the metaphor of light, only that the light of God is replaced by the disenchanted light of reason. Here, light is a symbolic spatial representation. The light of God originates from the vertical transcendence of medieval divinity, while the light of Enlightenment is the actual dominant relationship of instrumental reason pursued by the bourgeoisie. Although it is not concrete objective spatial practice, it leads our actions and life in social space under the slogan of spiritual calling and in the contemplation of pursuing truth. If we simply falsify it as idealism and denounce it, we will not truly gain the dignity of materialism. Lefebvre wants to understand how this phenomenon of the priority of symbolic conceptual representations over spatial practice occurs in the construction of space. In fact, the priority status of symbolic representations and ideas in everyday life is not a simple idealist error, but rather an epistemological distortion of spatial representations in spatial production when they go beyond empirical realism in facing the relational situation of spatial relations—that is, what Lenin called the result of turning a reasonable curve into a straight line. We can take the Eleatic school’s abstraction of the “One” of being as another example. As the starting point of ancient Greek philosophical contemplation, moving from the many of sensible empirical phenomena to the being (the “One”) of metaphysical essence, just as the One of the idea of “tree” as essence is a conceptual symbol of the genus-species relationship abstracted from the many sensible actual trees such as holly, poplar, willow, and camphor, moving from the many to the One is itself the logical beginning of culture. Grasping this symbolic “One” (the essence of tree) in the representational position of a “higher reality” that leads the “many” (concrete trees) in actual spatial practice is of course not simply wrong. It is only when Plato turns this One, which is based on objective abstraction in practice, into the One of the Idea, that representation replaces actual relations, and the logical inversion of idealism appears. Therefore, Lefebvre says:

其三，空间实践与象征性空间表象（表征）的复杂关系。在这一构序点上，列斐伏尔说，在社会空间的建构中，我们可以发现一个特殊的假象，即在空间生产中某种象征观念的优先性，看起来它往往通过比现实生活更重要的方式——“更高的实在”（"réalité"supérieure）支配空间实践的发生，这是唯心主义在日常生活经验中占据优势的地方。因为所有建筑物、道路和广场一类空间用具都会是一定观念构想（“蓝图”）的对象化结果，主体性的空间表象和表征性空间体验也离不开抽象的符号体系编码，于是，观念构序仿佛成了空间实践活动的前提。这是过去所有唯心主义精神空间观的本质。我觉得，这正是列斐伏尔社会理论在细节上丰富广义历史唯物主义的地方，因为在马克思、恩格斯那里，他们只是透视了历史唯心主义的问题，以社会定在决定意识的原则重新确立了历史唯物主义的一般原则，然而，观念与现实社会生活的关系并没有由此得到真正的细描。列斐伏尔并不回避观念超出实在论后在社会空间生产和日常生活中的虚假优先地位，但他科学地说明了这种虚假优先性的隐密发生机制。为此，列斐伏尔例举了光的神话隐喻。他说，“例如，被大写的光（Lumière）所占据——阳光、月光或星光和阴影、黑夜，从而还有死亡相对峙；光被看做大写的真（Vrai）、生命，因而也被看做思想与认知（savoir），最终藉并非立竿见影的媒介作用，光被看做既定的权威”。这是对的。从圣经中“上帝说要有光”到柏拉图的洞穴说，光总是象征着照亮生命空间的东西，光让人看见，光明是指引通途的前提，反之，黑暗的空间则象征着苦难和死亡。其实，到了后来的资产阶级启蒙，仍然是光的隐喻，只是，上帝之光被替换为祛魅的理性之光。在这里，光是一种象征性的空间表象，上帝之光，缘起于中世纪神性的垂直超拔关系，而启蒙之光，则是资产阶级追捧的工具理性的现实支配关系，虽然它不是具体的客观空间实践，但它在精神性神召的口号下和追逐真理的沉思中引领着我们在社会空间中的行动和生活，如果我们只是简单地将其证伪为唯心主义加以贬斥，并不会真的获得唯物主义的尊严。列斐伏尔想弄清，这一象征性观念表象优先于空间实践的现象是如何发生于空间建构中的。实际上，在日常生活中象征性表象和观念优先性地位，并不是简单的唯心主义错误，而是在空间生产中面对空间关系场境的空间表象在超出经验实在论之后的一种认识论畸变，即列宁说的将合理的曲线变成直线的结果。我们可再以爱利亚学派对存在之“一”的抽象为例。作为古希腊哲学沉思的起点，从感性经验的形下现象之多走向形而之上本质之存在（“一”），有如作为本质的“树”之理念之一，是从冬青树、杨树、柳树、樟树等众多感性实在树木实存中抽象出来的种属关系的观念象征，从多走向一，这本身是文化的逻辑发端。掌握这个象征性的“一”（树的本质）处于引领现实空间实践中的“多”（具象树木）的“更高实在”的表象位置上，当然不是简单的错，只是当柏拉图将这个实践中基于客观抽象的“一”变成理念的“一”时，表象替代了现实关系，这才出现了唯心主义的逻辑倒置。所以，列斐伏尔说：

Like all social practice (pratique sociale), spatial practice is lived and immediate reality before it is conceptualized (concevoir); but the order of the speculative over the conceived, the conceived over the lived experience, causes practice together with life to disappear (disparaitre); likewise, the “unconscious” (inconscient) level of lived experience itself is rarely treated fairly.

与所有的社会实践（pratique sociale）一样，空间实践在它被概念化（concevoir）之前，也是亲历的和直接的现实；但是思辨的优于构想的、构想的优于亲历的经验这种顺序，导致实践连同生活都消失（disparaitre）了；同样，生活经验本身的“无意识”的层面（inconscient）也很少得到公正对待。

Non-intuitive spatial practice is a living reality, but in the concrete process of spatial production, its foundational role is often concealed beneath the active speculative concepts and symbolic code-based ideational shaping and ordering that are heterogeneous to physical objects. Even at the unconscious level, the priority and profundity of rational reflection over sensuous daily life become the norm. Thus, for Lefebvre, the participation of representational relations and imagined spatial relations in spatial practice, replacing or obscuring practice and life, is not a simple error but a complex field of reality that demands serious attention. This is precisely the significance of his insightful proposal of the concepts of spatial representation and representational space.

非直观的空间实践是活生生的现实，但在空间生产的具体过程中，它的基始作用往往被掩盖在异质于实物对象的能动的思辨理念和象征性符码观念塑形和构序之下，甚至在无意识的层面，理性省思优先和深刻于感性日常生活也成为常态。于是，在列斐伏尔那里，关系表象和想象的空间关系参与空间实践，替代或遮蔽实践和生活，这并非简单的错误，而是一个需要认真对待的复杂现实场境存在。而这正是他有见识地提出空间表象和表征性空间概念的意义。

Lefebvre argues that, while acknowledging the foundational status of spatial practice, one should also note that the relationship between spatial practice and spatial representation and imagined spatial relations is not equivalent to the relationship between matter and consciousness, or the objective and the subjective, in traditional old philosophical constructs. Nor is it merely a simple relationship of determination and being determined, but rather a complex relationship of mutual interaction built upon the foundational nature of spatial practice. On the one hand, he first emphasizes the fundamental position of spatial practice in the construction of space: “Man does not live by words alone (L'homme ne vit pas que de mots)”! The field of spatial relations established by spatial practice is the essence of objectively occurring social life. This is the materialist baseline upheld in Lefebvre’s “Lutheran revolution” in the view of space. [20]20 Lefebvre’s “Lutheran revolution” refers to his break with orthodox Marxist economic determinism, analogous to Luther’s break with the Catholic Church, by re-centering the analysis of space on human practice and lived experience rather than on material production alone. However, shifting the essence of social space from external material reality to the subjective existence of human beings does not mean directly identifying conceptual representations and subjective experience as the essence of space, as in the theory of spiritual space. Rather, it means understanding the existence of social space as the construction of human subjective objective spatial practical activities and relational fields. Yet, on the other hand, Lefebvre also discerns that, unlike animals whose existence remains in the natural physical space of sensuous biological reality, humans possess subjective consciousness. Only through consciousness is it possible to become aware of the subjectivity and the field of spatial relations that one establishes through practice. In spatial practice, “all ‘subjects’ find themselves in a space in which they must either recognize themselves or lose themselves, a space which they may both enjoy and modify.” [21]21 This is a paraphrase or direct citation from Henri Lefebvre’s *The Production of Space*, reflecting his argument that subjects are both constituted by and capable of transforming the social spaces they inhabit. Note that space here does not refer to an empty place into which people enter, but to a complex relational field constructed through the production and reproduction of social relations. All real individuals and groups can only live within a social space under specific historical conditions. Within this spatial construction, people identify their relational positions, can also strive to change this spatial structure, and the objective construction and representation of the spatial relational field itself can only be realized jointly through specific spatial representations and the representational imagined space. Conceptual consciousness is merely one subjective form of this spatial representation.

列斐伏尔认为，在承认空间实践的基始性地位前提下，还应该注意到，空间实践与空间表象和想象的空间关系并不等于传统旧哲学构境中的物质与意识、客观与主观的关系，它们之间也不是仅仅一个简单的决定与被决定的关系，而是一个空间实践基始性之上的相互作用的复杂关系。一方面，他首先强调空间实践在空间建构中的基础地位，“人不可能单靠词句而过活（L'homme ne vit pas que de mots）”！空间实践建立的空间关系场境是客观发生的社会生活的本质。这是列斐伏尔空间观“路德革命”中坚守的唯物主义底线。可是，把社会空间的本质从外部物性实在转换到人的主体性存在上来，不是像精神空间论那样把观念性表象和主体体验直接认定为空间的本质，而是将社会空间存在理解为人的主体性客观空间实践活动和关系场境建构上。但另一个方面，列斐伏尔也辨识出，与动物的生存只是停留在感性生物实存的自然物理空间状态中不同，人有主体意识，通过意识才有可能意识到自己通过实践确立的主体性和空间关系场境，在空间实践中，“所有的‘主体’都处身一个空间，他在其中要么承认自己要么丧失自己，他们既可以享用这个空间又可以对它进行修改”。请注意，这里的空间不是指人所进入的空地方，而是由社会关系生产与再生产建构起来的复杂关系场境，所有现实的个人与群体都只能生活在一个具体历史条件下的社会空间之中，人在这一空间建构中辨认自己的关系地位，也可以通过努力改变这种空间结构，并且空间关系场境的客观建构和再现本身，也只有通过特殊的空间表象和表征性想象空间共同实现出来，而观念意识，只是这种空间表象的主观形式之一。

(The author is a Senior Professor of Humanities at Nanjing University, a researcher at the Center for Studies of Marxist Social Theory at Nanjing University, and a professor in the Department of Philosophy.)

（作者系南京大学文科资深教授，南京大学马克思主义社会理论研究中心研究员、哲学系教授）

Online editor: Ma Jingren

网络编辑：马京仁