On Lefebvre’s Spatial Dialectic in the Context of the Critique of Political Economy

Human beings are spatial beings, and space is “an element of all production and all human activity.” [1]1 Henri Lefebvre, *The Production of Space*, trans. Donald Nicholson-Smith (Oxford: Blackwell, 1991), 85. Translation modified. However, for a long time, “at least in the past hundred years, time and history have occupied a favored position in the practical and theoretical consciousness of Western Marxism and critical social science.” [2]2 Edward W. Soja, *Postmodern Geographies: The Reassertion of Space in Critical Social Theory* (London: Verso, 1989), 11. Space has been regarded merely as a field, a place, or an empty container without content, lacking social and historical determination. Within the framework of the critique of political economy, Marx not only saw the world market opened up by the logic of capital and the globalization in the process of history’s transformation into world history, but also, in the unity of opposites between capital and labor, was the first to attend to the problem of the spatialization of time. Lefebvre, as an early Western Marxist, directly inherited this tradition of the critique of political economy and organically combined the critique of capital with the critique of space, incorporating Marx’s practical dialectic of labor and production into a spatial dialectic. For this reason, it is necessary once again to examine Lefebvre’s spatial dialectic as a specialized topic, in order to highlight its theoretical value and practical significance for Marx’s critique of political economy.

人类是空间性的存在者，空间是“一切生产和一切人类活动的要素。”然而，长期以来，“至少在以往的一百年中，时间和历史在西方马克思主义和批判社会科学的实践意识和理论意识中，占据了宠儿地位”。空间仅仅被看作一种场域、场所或无内容的空洞的容器，而缺少社会与历史的规定性。马克思在政治经济学批判的理路下不但看到资本逻辑所开辟的世界市场以及历史向世界历史转换过程中的全球化，而且在资本与劳动的对立统一关系中率先关注到时间的空间化问题。列斐伏尔作为早期的西方马克思主义者直接继承这一政治经济学批判传统，并将资本批判与空间批判有机结合，把马克思劳动—生产的实践辩证法探进到空间辩证法。为此，有必要再次将列斐伏尔的空间辩证法专题化加以考察，以彰显其之于马克思政治经济学批判的理论价值和现实意义。

I. The Production of Space: The Awakening and Ordering of Spatial Problem-Consciousness

一、空间生产：空间问题意识的自觉与构序

In *The Production of Space*, Lefebvre points out that previous historical materialism suffered from an “absence of space.” Traditional Marxists always focused their research on concrete, actual material production. However, with the urbanization, regionalization, and globalization of capitalism, we have long since entered an era of the production of space, in which space becomes a factor of production that “intervenes in the activity of production itself.” [3]3 Lefebvre, *The Production of Space*, 37. This has meant that the capital cycle based on the accumulation of space production ultimately replaces the capital cycle based on the accumulation of commodity production and circulation. Lefebvre recognized the importance of contemporary spatial problems. Therefore, in order to enhance the capacity of Marx’s thought to analyze and critique contemporary capitalism, he initiated a spatial turn in the Marxist critique of political economy oriented toward “dialectical critique” in the mid-to-late twentieth century.

列斐伏尔在《空间的生产》中指出，以前的历史唯物主义存在“空间缺场”，传统的马克思主义者总是围绕具体的、现实的物质生产展开研究，但随着资本主义的城市化、区域化、全球化，我们早已进入空间生产的时代，即空间成为一种生产要素“介入生产活动本身”，这使得以空间生产为积累方式的资本循环最终取代了以商品生产—流通为积累方式的资本循环。列斐伏尔意识到当代空间问题的重要性，因此，为了提升马克思思想对当代资本主义的分析与批判能力，在20世纪中后期开启了以“辩证批判”为取向的马克思政治经济学批判的空间化转向。

How does space become a theoretical problem for the critique of political economy? The answer to this question is the foundation and prerequisite for Lefebvre’s construction of a spatial dialectic. He argues that “the new political economy cannot, like the old science before it, concern itself only with things in space; on the contrary, it must become a political economy of space (and of the production of space).” [4]4 Henri Lefebvre, *The Survival of Capitalism: Reproduction of the Relations of Production*, trans. Frank Bryant (London: Allison & Busby, 1976), 21. In Lefebvre’s view, although Marx completely overturned the traditional political economy dominated by Smith and Ricardo, in Marx’s work political economy still only concerned itself with concrete material production, lacking consideration of the new problems and new challenges of political economy under the conditions of capitalist urbanization, regionalization, and globalization. This is mainly reflected in two aspects. First, the logic of material production has shifted to the logic of the production of space. The reason capitalist society has survived to this day is that it “has taken possession of and produced a space,” [5]5 Lefebvre, *The Survival of Capitalism*, 21. causing the former “production of things in space (hence, space indirectly produced, established as the combination, sum, and totality of things) to transition to the direct production of such space itself.” [6]6 Lefebvre, *The Production of Space*, 410. Second, the qualitative determination of the use-value of space has transformed into the quantitative determination of exchange-value. Initially, when space was considered “in the sense of artistic creation,” [7]7 Lefebvre, *The Production of Space*, 410. it tended to highlight its use-value, especially in pre-capitalist societies, where this use-value was more pronounced; it was mainly used as an instrument of domination—for example, rulers used “architecture, monuments, and works of art to incorporate power relations into them.” [8]8 Lefebvre, *The Production of Space*, 410. When space becomes “a product,” [9]9 Lefebvre, *The Production of Space*, 410. it transforms into a means for the valorization of capital. Particularly after entering the stage of monopoly capitalism, space is “concentrated, organized, hierarchized, symbolized, and projectified to an extreme degree,” [10]10 Lefebvre, *The Production of Space*, 410. becoming a liquid asset that can be freely exchanged.

空间何以成为政治经济学批判的理论问题？对这一问题的回答，是列斐伏尔建构空间辩证法的基础与前提。他认为，“新的政治经济学不能像之前的陈旧的科学一样，只关心空间中的事物；相反必须成为一门空间的（以及空间生产的）政治经济学”。因为在列斐伏尔看来，尽管马克思彻底颠覆了以斯密、李嘉图为主的传统政治经济学，但在马克思那里，政治经济学还仅仅是对具体的物质生产的关注，缺乏对资本主义都市化、区域化、全球化背景下政治经济学新问题、新挑战的考量。这主要体现在两个方面：一是物质生产的逻辑转向了空间生产的逻辑。资本主义社会之所以幸存至今，源于它“占有并生产出一种空间”，使以往的“空间中的物品生产（因而，被间接生产出来的空间，是作为物品的结合、总和与全体而建立起来的）过渡到了对这样空间的直接生产”。二是空间的使用价值质的规定转变为交换价值量的规定。起初，当“从艺术创造作品意义上来说”时，空间往往凸显出的是其使用价值，特别是在前资本主义社会，这种使用价值更为明显，它主要被当作一种统治工具，例如统治者利用“建筑、纪念碑和艺术作品的形式将权力关系纳入其中”；而当“空间作为一种产品”时，它又摇身变为资本增殖的手段，特别是进入垄断资本主义阶段以后，空间“被集中化、组织化、等级化、符号化、项目化到极端程度”，成为可以随意交换的流动资产。

Space is the carrier of relations of production and the actual field in which they are formed; therefore, it necessarily reflects and shapes the contradictory factors and various aspects of a given set of relations of production. Lefebvre points out that space “will be seen as embodying its own contradictions. Thus dialectics emerges from time and realizes itself, functioning in space in an unexpected way.” [11]11 Lefebvre, *The Production of Space*, 410. Dialectics extends from the dimension of time to the dimension of space, becoming the key to analyzing, critiquing, responding to, and handling spatial problems. As Lefebvre states, “the method for dealing with spatial problems cannot include only a formal, logical method; it should and must equally be a dialectical method, one that analyzes the contradictions of space in society and in practice.” [12]12 Lefebvre, *The Production of Space*, 410. Therefore, in the face of the spatial crises and predicaments of capitalism, he consciously situates the spatial dialectic within the context of the critique of political economy. Of course, the spatial dialectic is not a negation of the historical dialectic, but a further expansion of its field of inquiry. Fundamentally, Lefebvre’s ordering of the spatial dialectic is the establishment of the theoretical foundation and methodological principles of the spatial dialectic from the standpoint of historical materialism.

空间是生产关系的载体及其形成的现实场域，因此，必然反映并塑造着一定生产关系的矛盾诸因素和各个方面。列斐伏尔指出，空间“将被视为体现了它自身的矛盾。于是辩证法从时间中浮现出来，并使其自身得以实现，它正以一种意料不到的方式在空间中发挥作用”。辩证法从时间的维度延展到空间的维度，成为分析与批判、应对与处理空间问题的关键，正如列斐伏尔所讲的，“处理空间问题的方法不能够仅仅包括一种形式的、逻辑性的方法；它应该而且同样地能够是一种辩证的方法，对社会和实践中的空间的矛盾加以分析”。故此，面对资本主义的空间危机与困境，他自觉地将空间辩证法置于政治经济学批判语境中。当然，空间辩证法不是对历史辩证法的否定，而是对其研究视域的进一步拓展。从根本上说，列斐伏尔对空间辩证法的构序就是在历史唯物主义立场下，确立起空间辩证法的理论根基与方法论原则。

First, Lefebvre, grounding himself in historical materialism, provides a justification for the spatial turn in Marx’s critique of political economy. Through his analysis of the production of space, he reveals that the production of space under the domination of capital has not eliminated or dissolved the inherent contradictions of capitalist society, but has instead intensified them to a certain extent. Thus, it is evident that Lefebvre still elaborates spatial problems from the standpoint and interpretive principles of Marx’s historical materialism. For example, in his view, every stage of social and historical development has a corresponding spatial form, and the transformation of each spatial form is rooted in its inherent irreconcilable contradictions: “these contradictions cannot but leave their traces in space and cannot but provoke a revolution of space.” [13]13 Lefebvre, *The Production of Space*, 410.

首先，列斐伏尔立足历史唯物主义，对马克思政治经济学批判的空间化转向给予论证。他通过对空间生产的分析，揭示了资本宰制下的空间生产不但没有摆脱或者消解资本主义社会固有的矛盾，反而在一定程度上激化了矛盾。可见，列斐伏尔仍然是在马克思历史唯物主义立场和解释原则下来阐述空间问题的。例如，在他看来，任何一个社会历史的发展阶段都会存在与之相对应的空间形态，而每一种空间形态的变换都根源于其内在不可调和的矛盾，“这种矛盾不能不在空间中留下它们的印迹，并且不可能不引起空间的革命”。

Second, it is made clear that the practice of the production of space is the theoretical foundation of the spatial dialectic. “Space itself is the result of a series and sequence of operations and processes”; [14]14 Lefebvre, *The Production of Space*, 410. it is produced and participates as capital in the process of capitalist production and reproduction. The practice of social production is nothing other than the process of social production and reproduction. In this process, space not only serves as a direct factor of production, but also “plays a role in reproduction, that is, in the reproduction of the means of production and in expanded reproduction.” [15]15 Lefebvre, *The Production of Space*, 410. Therefore, the production of space naturally becomes a link in social production and reproduction. Taking this as his point of entry, Lefebvre gives the spatial dialectic an essential determination within the practice of the production of space. Among these, the practice of the production of space is the foundation for the operation of the spatial dialectic. If separated from the practice of the production of space, space would degenerate into a pure carrier, lacking social and historical determination, and naturally a spatial dialectic could not be formed.

其次，明晰空间生产实践是空间辩证法存在的理论根基。“空间本身是一连串和一系列动作过程的结果”，它是被生产出来的，并作为资本参与到资本主义生产和再生产过程中。社会生产的实践不外是社会生产与再生产的过程，而在这个过程中，空间不仅作为直接的生产要素，而且“发挥着再生产的作用，即在生产资料的再生产、扩大的再生产中发挥着作用”。所以，空间生产自然也就成为社会生产与再生产的环节。列斐伏尔以此为切入点，使空间辩证法在空间生产的实践中获得本质性的规定。其中，空间生产实践是空间辩证法运行的根本，如果脱离空间生产实践，空间就会沦为一种纯粹的载体，缺少社会与历史的规定性，自然也就不能形成空间的辩证法。

Third, establish the methodological principle of moving from the abstract to the concrete. Moving from the abstract to the concrete is the research method of political economy. It undergoes an evolutionary process from “abstract to concrete” based on Hegel’s speculative logic, to Marx’s “abstract to concrete” based on social reality, and then to Lefebvre’s “abstract to concrete” based on difference. Although the dialectical form is similar, the content undergoes substantive change. To put it further, Hegel’s conceptual movement is a process of self-negation; it completes the dialectical movement of the affirmation-negation-negation of the negation through the concept itself, wherein the negation of the negation condenses the content of affirmation and negation, and through the negation of the negation—sublation—it returns once again to the identity of the concept. Marx inherited the rational component of Hegel’s “abstract to concrete,” using “abstract determinations [that] lead towards a reproduction of the concrete by way of thought” to transform the limitations of conceptual logic. This is centrally embodied in *Capital*: Volume I reveals the general laws of capitalist operation through abstract research methods, abstractly “leaving aside all secondary effects arising from various circumstances outside this process”; Volume II concretely presents the content that Marx “left aside” in Volume I; Volume III, by synthesizing the first two volumes, reveals the overall process of capital movement. From the above, it can be seen that whether Hegel or Marx, they both follow the principle of identity, emphasizing in logical form that the third moment synthesizes the first and second moments. Lefebvre, guided by the principle of difference, emphasizes that the third moment is not a dialectical unity of the first two moments, but a third party or third term parallel to and independent of the first two, interacting and influencing the other two distinct terms as an independent one. Although he inherits the dialectical tradition from Hegel to Marx, his dialectic departs from the previous law of the unity of opposites, transforming into three mutually independent yet interrelated items of difference. Thus, Lefebvre makes “the theory of difference connect logic and dialectics.”

再次，确定从抽象到具体的方法论原则。从抽象到具体是政治经济学的研究方法，它经过黑格尔思辨逻辑基础上的“抽象到具体”，到马克思社会现实基础上的“抽象到具体”，再到列斐伏尔差异性基础上的“抽象到具体”的演进历程，尽管辩证形式相似，但是内容却发生了实质变化。进言之，黑格尔的概念运动是一种自否定过程，它通过概念自身完成肯定—否定—否定之否定环节的辩证运动，其中否定之否定凝结了肯定与否定的内容，通过对否定的否定——扬弃，进而再次回到概念的同一性之中。马克思继承了黑格尔“抽象到具体”的合理成分，以“抽象的规定在思维行程中导致具体的再现”，变革了概念逻辑的局限。这在《资本论》中得到了集中体现：第一卷以抽象的研究方法揭示了资本主义运行的一般规律，它通过抽象的方式“撇开了这个过程以外的各种情况引起的一切次要影响”；第二卷是对第一卷中马克思所“撇开的内容”的具体呈现；第三卷通过综合前两卷，揭示了资本运动的总体过程。由上可见，不论是黑格尔还是马克思，他们共同依循同一性原则，在逻辑形式上都强调第三环节对第一、二环节的综合。列斐伏尔则在差异原则主导下强调第三环节不是对前两个环节的辩证统一，而是平行且独立于前面两者的第三方或第三元，以独立的一元与其他区别开来的两元相互影响、相互作用。虽然他继承了从黑格尔到马克思的辩证法传统，但其辩证法从以往的对立统一规律中出离出来，转变为彼此独立的差异性存在却又相互关联的三项内容。进而，列斐伏尔使“差异理论把逻辑与辩证法两者连接起来”。

II. Abstraction, Contradiction, and Difference: The Three-Dimensional Picture of Spatial Dialectics

二、抽象、矛盾与差异：空间辩证法的三维图景

Lefebvre breaks the traditional binary opposition of spatial views, adding a third space—social life space—on the basis of the unity of opposites between material space and spiritual space. Thus, the traditional binary spatial dialectic evolves into a ternary spatial dialectic. The ternary spatial dialectic explains the dialectical relationship among “spatial practice,” “representations of space,” and “representational space.” Among them, “spatial practice” refers to space that can be experienced by people, that is, space is first the objectively existing material space as Marx explained, which can be concretely perceived through the human body; “representations of space” refers to space existing in thought activity, also the spiritual space in Hegel’s sense, manifesting as a spatial ideology; “representational space” refers to social life space, manifesting as an imaginary, artistic, emotional spatial form, containing visions of future space. It can be seen that, according to Lefebvre, space is the unity of the three forms: material space, spiritual space, and lived space. However, under the capitalist system, the relationship among the three becomes alienated. This alienated dialectical relationship, in the context of the critique of political economy, is concretized as the “spatial contradiction” derived from “differential space” sublating “abstract space,” and undergoes a process of capital’s “abstract space” domination, alienation, and the creation of new differential space through the sublation of alienation.

列斐伏尔打破传统二元对立的空间观，在物质空间与精神空间对立统一的基础上增添了一个第三元空间——社会生活空间。由此，传统二元空间辩证法演变成三元空间辩证法。三元空间辩证法阐释的是“空间实践”“空间表象”“象征性空间”三者之间的辩证关系。其中，“空间实践”是指能够被人们经验到的空间，即空间首先是马克思阐释的那种客观存在的物质性空间，它通过人的身体能够实实在在地被感知到；“空间表象”是指存在于思想活动之中的空间，亦为黑格尔意义上的精神性空间，表现为一种空间意识形态；“表征性空间”是指社会生活空间，表现为一种想象的、艺术的、情感的空间形态，内涵着对未来空间的畅想。可见，按照列斐伏尔的观点，空间是物质性空间、精神性空间、生活性空间这三元形态的合一。但是，在资本主义制度下，三者的关系发生了异化，这一异化的辩证关系在政治经济学批判语境中则具象化为“空间矛盾”衍生的“差异空间”对“抽象空间”的扬弃，并且经历了资本“抽象空间”统治、异化与异化扬弃创生新的差异空间的过程。

First, the domination of capital’s “abstract space.” Lefebvre believes that capitalist abstract space is essentially a process of spatial production and reproduction centered on exchange value. This process is further analyzed through the ternary dialectical relationship: “abstract space” alienates “spatial practice” through the coding of “representations of space,” ultimately affecting “representational space.” On one hand, it is the manipulation of “spatial practice” by capitalist “representations of space.” Representations of space are “the dominant space in any society (or mode of production),” and “spatial practice” submits to “representations of space,” making it “before the thought that proclaims itself supreme, it can only suffer in silence as a thoughtless side.” For example, in capitalist society, “digging piles, building docks, laying port facilities, constructing palaces—all these are labors carried out under the compulsion of the bourgeois will.” On the other hand, it is the manipulation of “representational space” by capitalist “representations of space.” Lefebvre argues that capitalism not only realizes the generality of exchange value through material production practices but also regulates “representational space,” incorporating it into the logic of capital production, so that art, emotion, culture, knowledge, etc., are confined within the scope of capital production logic.

其一，资本“抽象空间”的统治。列斐伏尔认为，资本主义抽象空间本质上就是以交换价值为核心的空间生产与再生产的过程。而这一过程又通过三元辩证关系得到了进一步的解析：“抽象空间”通过对“空间表象”的编码，进而异化“空间实践”，最终影响“象征性空间”。一方面是资本主义“空间表象”对“空间实践”的操控。空间表象是“在任何一个社会（或生产方式）中都占支配地位的空间”，“空间实践”服从于“空间表象”，使其在“自奉为最高统治者的思想面前，它只能作为无思想的一面而默默忍受煎熬”。例如，在资本主义社会中，“掘土打桩、建设码头、铺设港口设施、筑造宫殿——所有这些都是在……资产阶级意愿的强制下进行的劳动”。另一方面是资本主义的“空间表象”对“象征性空间”的操控。列斐伏尔认为，资本主义不仅通过物质的生产实践实现了交换价值的一般性，而且还规制着“象征性空间”，将“象征性空间”纳入资本生产的逻辑之中，使艺术、情感、文化、知识等被限定在资本生产逻辑的范围内。

Second, the fetishization of space. Following Marx’s commodity fetishism, another fetishism phenomenon in capitalist society is called “spatial fetishism” by Lefebvre. As mentioned above, capital’s “abstract space” makes space “become the most general object of the production of social labor products, and the result of surplus value.” Here, “the result of surplus value” refers to capitalized space being reified into a commodity, becoming a tool and means for the bourgeoisie to extract surplus value and realize capital accumulation. Thus, “an abstract economic fetishism is transforming into an abstract economic spatial fetishism. Space becoming a commodity develops the characteristics of commodities in space to the extreme.” In this way, commodity fetishism inevitably leads to spatial fetishism, and with the “fetishization of space,” space becomes an object of people’s infatuation and worship, turning it into a collection of money, wealth, and interests. Thus, spatial fetishism alienates space.

其二，空间拜物教化。继马克思商品拜物教之后，资本主义社会出现的又一个拜物教现象，被列斐伏尔称为“空间拜物教”。如前所述，资本的“抽象空间”使空间“成为社会劳动产品生产的最一般的客体，以及剩余价值的结果”。这里“剩余价值的结果”指的是资本化了的空间被物化为一种商品后，成为资产阶级获取剩余价值、实现资本积累的工具与手段。由此，“一种抽象的经济学拜物教，正在转变为一种抽象的经济空间拜物教。空间变成商品就将空间中商品的特性发展到了极致”。如是，商品拜物教也必然引发空间拜物教，而随着“空间拜物教化”，空间成为人们迷恋与崇拜的对象，这种崇拜使它化身为金钱、财富、利益的集合体。这样，空间拜物教使空间发生异化。

Spatial fetishism alienates space into a one-dimensional entity. Space is both a natural entity and a social entity; it has both existential attributes and economic attributes, etc. But under the logic of capital, after space is sanctified, its attributes tend toward singularity, thereby continuously highlighting its economic attribute. In other words, spatial production under the capitalist system is a means of profit-making, whose purpose is not to improve people’s material living standards, or rather, not to let people enjoy existing spatial achievements, but to guide people into false consumption by creating a false consumption space. It can be seen that spatial fetishism actually manifests as “exchange value swallowing up use value,” making space a one-dimensional entity.

空间拜物教使空间异化为单向度的存在物。空间既是自然存在物，又是社会存在物；既具有生存属性，又具有经济属性；等等。但在资本逻辑下空间被神圣化以后，空间的属性趋向单一化，由此使得空间的经济属性不断被凸显出来。换言之，资本主义制度下的空间生产就是一种牟利的手段，其目的不是提升人们的物质生活水平，或者说，不是让人们享用已有的空间成果，而是通过制造一种虚假的消费空间，进而引导人们进行虚假消费。可见，空间拜物教实际上表现为“交换价值吞并了使用价值”，并使得空间成为单向度的存在物。

Spatial fetishism alienates the production of space. The alienation of spatial production can be concretized as the alienation of spatial relations of production. Since space inherently contains various complex relations of production, when the attributes of space itself become alienated, the various complex relations of production within space inevitably become alienated as well. First, the alienation between humans and space. Spatial fetishism elevates space above humans, making it a tool for enslaving people, and people not only do not resist but willingly become objects of enslavement. As Lefebvre says, space “encounters a great fetishism, and the ‘users’ as well as the abstractions of so-called critical thinking lose all critical capacity.” Second, the alienation between humans. Spatial fetishism “mythologizes” space, as if whoever occupies space has absolute leadership, which in capitalist society forms a division and opposition between the propertied and the propertyless.

空间拜物教使空间的生产发生异化。空间生产的异化可具体化为空间生产关系的异化。由于空间本就包含着各种复杂的生产关系，所以，当空间自身的属性发生异化时，空间中各种复杂的生产关系也必然发生异化。一是人与空间之间的异化。空间拜物教使空间凌驾于人之上，成为奴役人的工具，而人不仅不会反抗，反而甘愿成为被奴役的对象。正如列斐伏尔所讲，空间“遭遇一种巨大的拜物教，‘用户’们以及所谓的批判性思维的抽象物，便失去了全部批判能力”。二是人与人之间的异化。空间拜物教“神话”了空间，似乎谁占有空间谁就具有绝对的领导权，而这在资本主义社会就形成有产者与无产者之间的分化与对立。

Spatial fetishism alienates space into a tool of political rule. Lefebvre believes that “as a fetishized space, it reduces possibilities and conceals conflicts and differences with an illusory unity and transparency, clearly functioning as an ideology.” It can be seen that spatial fetishism alienates space into a tool of political rule, that is, the bourgeoisie, through the penetration of ideology, makes space a tool for safeguarding bourgeois interests.

空间拜物教使空间异化为政权统治的工具。列斐伏尔认为，“作为一个被拜物教了的空间，它减低了各种可能，并以一种虚幻的统一与透明性掩盖了冲突和差异，它很明显地是在发挥一种意识形态的功能”。可见，空间拜物教使空间异化为政权的统治工具，即资产阶级通过意识形态的渗透，使空间成为维护资产阶级利益的工具。

Third, sublating abstract space toward differential space. “Differential space” is a conception of a possible space derived from “spatial contradiction” and taking the sublation of “abstract space” as its means. Among the two terms of spatial contradiction and abstract space, Lefebvre introduces a third party, differential space. “The third party is always that which is possible; it is precisely this possibility that creates the common measure between the two terms or between subjects distinguished in ‘reality,’ through the possibility of producing misunderstanding and ultimately reaching agreement.”[26]26 Henri Lefebvre, *The Production of Space*, trans. Donald Nicholson-Smith (Oxford: Blackwell, 1991), p. 178. Of course, the “third party” does not arise out of nothing; rather, as a contradictory quality of rebellion, it is latent within the first two terms. When these contradictions are continually intensified, the reproduction of social relations produced in abstract space faces the dissolution of old relations and the birth of new ones. “Thus, despite (or rather because of) its negativity, abstract space itself contains the seeds of a new kind of space, which I shall call ‘differential space.’”[27]27 Ibid., p. 365. Differential space differs from abstract space: it does not pursue the homogeneity of space but fully respects the difference and particularity of space. Hence it strives to restore the unity destroyed by capitalist space, “that is, the unity of the functions, elements, and moments of social practice.”[28]28 Ibid., p. 349. Clearly, differential space is a spatial reconstruction based on reflection upon capitalist abstract space, and it includes the following steps:

其三，扬弃抽象空间迈向差异空间。“差异空间”是从“空间矛盾”中引申出来的并以扬弃“抽象空间”为手段的一种可能性空间的构想。在空间矛盾和抽象空间这两项中，列斐伏尔引入了第三方的差异空间。“第三方总是那些具有可能的，正是这种可能性创造了两项或在‘现实’中区别的主体之间的共同尺度，通过产生误解和最终达成一致的可能性”。当然，“第三方”不是凭空产生的，而是作为反叛性质的矛盾蕴藏于前两项之中，当这些矛盾不断被激化时，抽象空间中生产的社会关系的再生产便面临着旧的关系的解体和新的关系的诞生。“因此，尽管（或者不如说由于）它的否定性，抽象空间本身也包含着一些新型空间的种子，我将之称为‘差异性空间’。”差异性空间不同于抽象空间，它不追求空间的同质性，而是充分尊重空间的差异性与特殊性，所以它力求恢复被资本主义空间破坏了的统一性，“即社会实践的功能、要素与环节的统一”。显然，差异性空间是对资本主义抽象空间反思基础上的空间重构，并包含以下步骤：

Reflection on abstract space. Lefebvre develops this from three aspects: first, the individual at the micro level. Under capitalism, this “fetishized abstract space gives rise to two actual results of abstraction: the individual in abstract space is ignorant of his own situation, and thought is unable to maintain a critical distance from this abstract space.”[29]29 Ibid., p. 56. Even when their spatial interests are greatly damaged, they do not resist, because under the discipline of capital’s power, “those users willingly allow themselves to be manipulated,”[30]30 Ibid., p. 361. losing critical and rebellious consciousness. Thus Lefebvre believes that the key to the dissolution of capital’s abstract space lies in the dissolution of the ideological system of the people trapped within it. Second, the social spatial structure at the meso level. Abstract space is devoted to creating a center-periphery social spatial pattern: the “periphery” is distant from and subject to the “center.” “The essence of centers is their activity of producing peripheries. Centers provoke and banish peripheries; they maintain and discard them.”[31]31 Ibid., p. 332. Examples include the urban-rural divide, the division between city center and suburbs, and between developed and underdeveloped regions. Third, the global macro level. The profit-seeking nature of capital inevitably pushes its rule from the national scale to the global scale, “extending the traditional concept and image of the city to the entire world,”[32]32 Ibid., p. 274. so that the world pattern becomes unbalanced under the logic of capital: the world’s center tends toward economically developed countries, while economically underdeveloped countries gradually become their appendages. Therefore, based on reflection at these three levels, Lefebvre calls on people to overthrow capitalist abstract space and establish a free and equal differential space.

对抽象空间的反思。列斐伏尔从三个方面展开：一是微观层面的个体。资本主义这种“被拜物教化了的抽象空间就引起了两种实际的抽象化结果，即个体在抽象空间之中对自身的处境茫然无知，而思想也无法与这种抽象空间保持批判性的距离”，即便他们的空间利益受到极大损害，他们也不会进行反抗，因为在资本权力的规训下，“那些用户们甘愿被操纵”，而丧失批判性与反抗的意识。所以，列斐伏尔认为资本抽象空间的解体关键在于被束缚其中的人们思想体系的解体。二是中观层面的社会空间结构。抽象空间致力于打造一个中心—边缘的社会空间格局，“边缘”远离且受制于“中心”，“中心的本质就是它们生产边缘的活动。中心挑拨并放逐边缘；维持并抛弃边缘”，例如城乡之间、城中与郊区之间、发达区域与欠发达区域之间。三是全球性的宏观层面。资本逐利的本性必然推动资本的统治从一国的范围走向全球的范围，“把传统意义上的城市概念与形象扩展至全世界范围”，以至于世界格局在资本逻辑的作用下失衡，世界的中心开始倾向于经济发达的国家，而经济欠发达的国家逐渐成为其附属品。故此，基于以上三个层面的反思，列斐伏尔呼吁人们推翻资本主义抽象空间，建立一个自由平等的差异空间。

Deconstruction of abstract space. Deconstructing abstract space is the necessary path toward differential space. On this, Lefebvre argues that it can only be achieved through spatial revolution, even though “apart from drawing an analogy with the great peasant (agricultural) revolution and the industrial revolution, we do not know how to imagine this process that can be called a ‘spatial revolution’ (which belongs to the category of urban revolution) … a new revolution bursts forth—accompanied by this eruption are great inventions and creations.”[33]33 Henri Lefebvre, *The Urban Revolution*, trans. Robert Bononno (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2003), p. 178. In essence, spatial revolution, as a new form of revolution in a new era, is often “a sudden insurrection, followed by a pause; then repression slowly takes shape; finally, at a higher level of consciousness and action, a new revolution bursts forth.”[34]34 Ibid., p. 179. Spatial revolution cannot do without the participation of individuals, especially the new proletariat exploited and oppressed by abstract space. Their consciousness of resistance against capital’s abstract space is the strongest, and they are the most likely to overthrow the rule of abstract space through organized spatial practical activities. On this, Lefebvre particularly emphasizes that the urban proletariat must use every possible means to unite with people in the peripheral areas of the city, forming a powerful revolutionary force capable of confronting the rule of abstract space, thereby laying the foundation for their own liberation and the establishment of a new space.

对抽象空间的解构。解构抽象空间是走向差异空间的必经之路，对此，列斐伏尔主张唯有通过空间革命才能实现，尽管“除了伟大的农民（农业的）革命和工业革命相类比之外，我们不知道该怎样想象这场可以称之为‘空间革命’（它属于城市革命之列）的进程……一场崭新的革命爆发出来——伴随着这种爆发的，是伟大发明和创造”。质言之，空间革命作为新的时代全新的革命形式，往往是“一场突然的暴动，紧接着是一个停顿；然后压制缓缓地形成；最终，在一个更高的意识和行动水平上，一场崭新的革命爆发出来”。空间革命离不开个体的参与，特别是那些受到抽象空间剥削与压榨的新无产阶级，他们对资本抽象空间的反抗意识最为强烈，也最容易通过有组织的空间实践活动推翻抽象空间的统治。对此，列斐伏尔还特别强调，城市无产阶级要采取一切可能的手段与城市边缘地区的人群联合起来，形成一股强大的能够对抗抽象空间统治的革命力量，进而为实现自我的解放以及新空间的建立奠定基础。

Reconstruction of space. Differential space is a reconstruction based on reflection upon and critique of abstract space; it is the result of sublating abstract space. Specifically, differential space has three orientations. First, differential space takes the construction of a good life as its value aim. The construction of a good life here is not an ideological product under the domination of political power, because in Lefebvre’s view, “as long as the relationship between work space, leisure space, and living space is merely provided by the agents of political power institutions and controlled by their mechanisms, and as long as the idea of changing life remains nothing more than a political slogan that can be taken up or not on a whim,”[35]35 Lefebvre, *The Production of Space*, p. 384. it will deviate from the orientation of a good life. Thus the differential space he seeks to construct is not an appendage of political power but a space that truly allows people to experience a good life. Second, differential space takes diversity as its form of expression. Differential space is devoted to creating a diversified space; it emphasizes the difference and particularity of different elements, but this difference and particularity do not fragment or disperse space; rather, they manifest as unity on the basis of diversity. Third, differential space is a space of aesthetic value. It sublates the domination of the logic of capital, no longer guided by economic rationality and instrumental rationality, but instead focuses more on constructing a space with aesthetic value.

对空间的重构。差异空间是在对抽象空间反思与批判基础上的重构，是扬弃抽象空间的结果。具体来讲，差异空间具有三重指向。一是差异空间以建构美好生活为价值旨趣。这里所讲的美好生活的建构不是政权统摄下的意识形态的产物，因为在列斐伏尔看来，“只要工作空间、休闲空间与生活空间之间的关系仅仅是由政治权力机构的代理人所提供且受它们的机制的控制，只要改变生活的想法仍然不过是某种出于一时之兴的、可为可不为的政治号召而已”，就会背离美好生活指向。所以，他所要建构的差异空间不是政权的附属物，而是真正能让人们体验美好生活的空间。二是差异空间以多元化为表现形式。差异空间致力于打造一种多元化的空间，它强调不同要素之间的差异性与特殊性，但这种差异性与特殊性并没有割裂与分散空间，而是表现为多元基础上的统一。三是差异空间是一种审美价值的空间。它扬弃了资本逻辑的宰制，不再以经济理性与工具理性为指引，而是更加注重建构一种具有审美价值的空间。

In sum, within the context of the critique of political economy, Lefebvre’s spatial dialectic both reveals the spatial alienation under spatial fetishism caused by the rule of capital’s “abstract space” and depicts the possibility of sublating abstract space toward differential space.

总之，列斐伏尔空间辩证法在政治经济学批判的语境下，既揭示资本“抽象空间”的统治所导致的空间拜物教下的空间异化，又描绘出扬弃抽象空间迈向差异空间的可能性。

III. The Contemporary Implications and Limitations of Lefebvre’s Spatial Dialectic

三、列斐伏尔空间辩证法的当代意蕴及其局限

Taking capital’s “abstract space” as its entry point, Lefebvre’s spatial dialectic offers a profound critique of late capitalism structured around “abstract space.” It not only broadens the theoretical horizon of Marx’s critique of political economy but also establishes a completely new spatialized research paradigm, driving subsequent studies of alienation and spatial issues.

列斐伏尔的空间辩证法以资本的“抽象空间”为切入点，对以“抽象空间”为座架的晚期资本主义进行深刻批判，不仅拓宽了马克思政治经济学批判的理论视域，而且也建立起一个全新的空间化研究范式，带动了其后的异化与空间问题研究。

First, Lefebvre’s spatial dialectic expands the dimension of Marx’s critique of political economy. On the one hand, it promotes the spatialization of dialectics. Dialectical materialism is the fundamental method by which Marx studied political economy; in *Capital*, Marx employs his dialectic throughout. With the advent of the spatial era, “space today constitutes the scope of the theories and systems that concern us.”[36]36 Henri Lefebvre, *The Survival of Capitalism: Reproduction of the Relations of Production*, trans. Frank Bryant (London: Allison & Busby, 1976), p. 17. The spatialization of dialectics thus becomes a necessary implication of this. Hence, in the process of critiquing political economy, Lefebvre was the first to consciously combine dialectics with the practice of spatial production. This not only shifts the object of critique to the field of geographical space but also advances to a “spatial critique of political economy,” enriching the content of Marx’s critique of political economy. On the other hand, the triadic spatial dialectic based on the principle of difference injects new vitality into the critique of political economy. Through his analysis of the triadic dialectical relationship, Lefebvre reveals that social space should be composed of material space (spatial practice), mental space (representations of space), and lived space (representational spaces) that partakes of both, and that these three are in a relationship of equality and coordination; if any one of them becomes more prominent than the other two, alienation occurs. Using the spatial dialectic, he analyzes the essence of capitalist spatial production and the phenomenon of alienation, expands the dimension of Marx’s theory of alienation and critique of reification, clarifies the dominant position and injustice of capital’s “abstract space,” and advocates that the proletariat, through the form of spatial revolution, overthrow capital’s “abstract space” and thereby construct a space of fairness and justice.

其一，列斐伏尔空间辩证法拓展了马克思政治经济学批判的向度。一方面，促成辩证法空间化的转换。唯物辩证法是马克思研究政治经济学的根本方法，在《资本论》中，马克思将其辩证法贯穿始终。随着空间时代的到来，“空间在当今构成了我们所关注的理论和体系的范围”。辩证法的空间化也就成为其题中应有之义。由此，列斐伏尔在政治经济学批判的过程中，率先自觉地将辩证法与空间生产的实践相结合，这不仅使批判的对象转向地理空间领域，而且进展到“空间政治经济学批判”，丰富了马克思政治经济学批判的内容。另一方面，基于差异原则的三元空间辩证法为政治经济学批判注入新活力。列斐伏尔通过对三元辩证关系的分析，揭示了社会空间应当由物质的空间（空间实践）、精神的空间（空间表象）以及兼具二者特质的生活空间（表征性空间）共同组成，并且这三者之间是一种平等与协同的关系，其中任何一项比另外两项突出，都会出现异化现象。他利用空间辩证法剖析资本主义空间生产本质和异化现象，拓展了马克思异化理论与物化批判向度，阐明资本“抽象空间”的统治地位和非正义性，并倡导无产阶级通过空间革命的形式，推翻资本的“抽象空间”，进而建构公平正义的空间。

Second, in response to the alienation of spatial production under the logic of capital, Lefebvre’s spatial dialectic ultimately arrives at the construction of a fair and just space — the necessity of a spatial revolution to “change the world.” Capital’s “abstract space” is in essence a capitalized space, and this capitalized space is a space of a commercial nature, or an economic space, whose purpose is to maximize economic benefits. The more capital accumulation expands, the more it strives to possess a larger consumer market, to the point that “space becomes increasingly narrow and expensive, and a system of luxury and private ownership is maintained through a practice and numerous strategies. While the city grows richer, accompanied by a monopoly of wealth and culture consistent with the centralization of power, it disintegrates under the weight of wealth.” [37]37 Henri Lefebvre, *The Production of Space*, trans. Donald Nicholson-Smith (Oxford: Blackwell, 1991), p. 375. [Citation as in original; note added for clarity.] That is to say, capital’s abstract space is a deformed, alienated space that necessarily leads to its own dissolution, and what replaces it must be a new form of space, namely a social space that stresses fairness and justice.

其二，针对资本逻辑下空间生产的异化，列斐伏尔的空间辩证法最终落脚到公平正义的空间建构——“改变世界”之空间革命的必然性上。资本的“抽象空间”实质上就是资本化了的空间，而这种资本化了的空间是一种商业性质的空间或者说是经济空间，它以实现经济利益最大化为目的，而资本积累越是扩大，越是力求拥有更大的消费市场，以至于“空间变得愈加狭小且昂贵，一种奢侈及私有性的体制通过一种实践和诸多策略得以保持。在城市逐渐富有的同时，伴随着与权力中心化相一致的财富和文化的垄断，它在财富的重压下解体”。也就是说，资本抽象空间是一种畸形的异化的空间，它必然导向自身的解体，而取而代之的必然是一种新的空间形式，即讲求公平正义的社会空间。

Third, Lefebvre’s spatial dialectic has also exerted a broad and profound influence on contemporary spatial theory. On the basis of inheriting and developing the triadic spatial dialectic, Harvey creatively proposes the view of the dialectical unity of “absolute space—relative space—relational space,” namely, “space itself is neither absolute, relative, or relational; it can, depending on the circumstances, become one of these, or all of them at once.” [38]38 David Harvey, *Cosmopolitanism and the Geographies of Freedom* (New York: Columbia University Press, 2009), p. 133. [Citation as in original.] Among these, absolute space is space in the Newtonian sense, detached from human practical activity; relative space is the relationship between existing things; and relationality is an extension of relative space. The three are in a dialectical unity. Foucault uncovers the power and knowledge embedded in space, and in disciplines such as urban architecture and planning, he emphatically elucidates the dialectical relationship among the three. Specifically, space plays a foundational role as the carrier of power and knowledge. In Foucault’s view, it is precisely through the occupation and domination of space that the bourgeoisie makes it a means and method for exploiting and oppressing workers. At the same time, power exerts a counter-effect on space and knowledge: the ruling class uses power to continuously consolidate and expand space and to reinforce knowledge favorable to the ruling class. Under the influence of Lefebvre’s triadic spatial dialectic, Soja, drawing on the triadic dialectic of the social, the historical, and the spatial, proposes a spatial dialectic of the modern metropolis: “Today, a third ontological dimension is challenging, injecting new modes of thought and interpretation into the traditional marriage of historicity and sociality… This triadic nexus of spatiality—historicity—sociality is bringing not only a profound change in the way we think about space, but is also beginning to lead to a major revision of the way we study history and society.” [39]39 Edward W. Soja, *Thirdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles and Other Real-and-Imagined Places* (Oxford: Blackwell, 1996), p. 11. [Citation as in original.] Following this “three-dimensional” analytical approach, Soja further explores three forms of urban space: firstspace is material space, the concrete space created by social productive practice; secondspace is mental space, a subjective reflection of firstspace, manifested as spiritual content such as thought, consciousness, concept, and imagination; thirdspace is the combination of firstspace and secondspace, a space of possibility — simply put, a beautiful conception of future space.

其三，列斐伏尔空间辩证法也对当代空间理论研究产生广泛而深远的影响。哈维在继承并发扬三元空间辩证法基础上，创造性地提出“绝对空间—相对空间—关系性空间”的辩证统一的观点，即“空间本身既不是绝对的、相对的或关系性的，它可以视情况而定，成为其中一种，或同时是全部”。其中，绝对空间就是牛顿意义上的超脱于人类实践活动之外的空间，相对空间就是存在事物之间的关系，而关系性是相对性空间的一种延伸，这三者之间是辩证统一的关系。福柯发掘了空间中蕴藏的权力与知识，并在城市建筑与规划等学科中着重阐明三者之间的辩证关系。具体来说，空间起着基础性的作用，是权力与知识的载体。在福柯看来，资产阶级正是通过对空间的占有与统治，使其成为资产阶级剥削与压榨劳动者的手段与方式。同时，权力对空间与知识又具有反作用，统治阶级凭借权力不断巩固与扩大空间、强化有关统治阶级的知识等。苏贾在列斐伏尔三元空间辩证法的影响下，依据社会、历史、空间的三元辩证关系，提出了关于现代都市的空间辩证法：“今天，一种第三存在维度正在挑战，在为历史性和社会性的传统联姻注入新的思考和解释模式……空间性—历史性—社会性的这一三面的情愫，正在带来的不仅是我们对空间思考方式的深刻变化，同样也开始导向我们历史和社会研究方式的巨大修正。”沿着这种“三维”的分析方式，苏贾进一步探讨城市空间三种形式：第一空间是物质空间，由社会生产实践创造出来的实实在在的空间；第二空间是精神空间，它是对第一空间的主观反映，表现为一种思想、意识、概念、想象等精神层面的内容；第三空间是第一和第二空间的结合体，它是一种可能性空间，简单说来就是对未来空间的一种美好构想。

While affirming the positive significance of Lefebvre’s spatial dialectic as discussed above, we should also reflect on its limitations and shortcomings.

当我们在肯定列斐伏尔空间辩证法的上述积极意义时，还应当省思其局限与不足。

First, Lefebvre’s spatial dialectic overemphasizes the spatial dimension and weakens the temporal dimension. It fails to fully highlight the dialectical unity of Marx’s logic and history, space and time, to a certain extent causing a closure of the dialectic and making it difficult to manifest the revolutionary and thoroughgoing character of the dialectic. Lefebvre himself once stated that the current spatial contradiction “is no longer the contradiction of historical time as analyzed by Marx after Hegel”; consequently, the dialectic that analyzes the contradictions of historical time naturally cannot explain the problem of spatial contradictions, so “the dialectic no longer relies on history and time.” [40]40 Henri Lefebvre, *The Survival of Capitalism: Reproduction of the Relations of Production*, trans. Frank Bryant (London: Allison & Busby, 1976), p. 17. [Citation as in original.] That is to say, the “dialectic” (spatial dialectic) that Lefebvre seeks to expound severs the dimensions of space and time, emphasizing the analysis and revelation of social phenomena from the spatial dimension. This to a certain extent reverses “the aphasia of spatiality under historical determinism,” but Lefebvre’s spatial dialectic goes to the other extreme, namely the suppression of time by space. However, in Marx’s view, “Time is the space of human development. A man who has no free time at his own disposal, whose entire life, apart from the purely physical interruptions of sleep, meals, etc., is devoted to serving the capitalist, is worse than a beast of burden. He is merely a machine for producing wealth for others, his body broken, his mind wild.” [41]41 Karl Marx, “Wages, Price and Profit,” in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 20 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1985), p. 148. [Citation as in original; note added for clarity.] Human liberation and development are inseparable from the workers’ acquisition of free time, and the increase in free time is inextricably linked to the saving of labor time on the basis of rising labor productivity. Even in a future society where alienated labor is transcended and labor becomes the primary need, “the saving of time, as well as the planned distribution of labor time among the different branches of production, remains the primary economic law on the basis of collective production.” [42]42 Karl Marx, *Grundrisse: Foundations of the Critique of Political Economy*, trans. Martin Nicolaus (London: Penguin, 1973), p. 172. [Citation as in original.] This means that escaping the state of alienation and reification is fundamentally the practical subject’s possession and rational disposition of free time. Therefore, the transcendence of Lefebvre’s spatial alienation must be premised on the temporalization of space — the restoration of free time. Time and space coexist in the objectified practical activity of human beings; history is nothing but the unfolding of human practical activity in time and space, manifested as a dual movement of the spatialization of time and the temporalization of space, thereby changing human beings themselves in the process of changing the objective world. Marxist dialectics cannot be separated from history and practice; the dialectic of history and practice can only be the premise of the spatial dialectic. A spatial dialectic that departs from the historicity and practicality of the temporal dimension inevitably loses its real foundation and degenerates into abstract dogma. In this regard, Harvey has also criticized Lefebvre as a “spatial independentist.” [43]43 David Harvey, *Spaces of Capital: Towards a Critical Geography* (New York: Routledge, 2001), p. 75. [Citation as in original.]

首先，列斐伏尔空间辩证法过于强调空间维度，弱化了时间维度。未能充分凸显马克思逻辑与历史、空间与时间的辩证统一关系，一定程度上造成对辩证法的封闭，难以凸显辩证法的革命性和彻底性。列斐伏尔也曾讲到，当前的空间矛盾“不再是马克思在黑格尔之后所分析的那种历史时间的矛盾”，那么分析历史时间矛盾的辩证法也就自然不能说明空间矛盾的问题，所以“辩证法不再依赖历史与时间”。也就是说，列斐伏尔所要讲述的“辩证法”（空间辩证法）割裂空间与时间的维度，强调从空间维度来分析与揭示社会现象。这在一定程度上扭转了“历史决定论下的空间性的失语”，但是，列斐伏尔的空间辩证法又走向另一个极端，即空间对时间的压制。然而，在马克思看来，“时间是人类发展的空间。一个人如果没有自己处置的自由时间，一生除睡眠饮食等纯生理上必需的间断以外，都是替资本家服务，那么，他就还不如一头载重的牲畜。他不过是一架为别人生产财富的机器，身体垮了，心智也狂野了”。人的解放与发展离不开劳动者对自由时间的赢获，而自由时间的增加又与劳动生产率提高的基础上劳动时间的节约密不可分，即使在扬弃异化劳动且劳动成为第一需要的未来社会，“时间的节约，以及劳动时间在不同的生产部门之间有计划的分配，在共同生产的基础上仍然是首要的经济规律”。这意味着，摆脱异化、物化的生存状态从根本上说就是实践主体对自由时间的占有与合理支配。因此，列斐伏尔空间异化的扬弃必须以空间的时间化——自由时间的复归为前提。时间与空间共存于人类对象化的实践活动之中，历史不外是人们的实践活动在时间与空间中的展开，表现为时间空间化和空间时间化的双重化运动，进而在改变对象世界的过程中改变人自身。马克思主义辩证法不能脱离历史与实践，历史—实践辩证法只能是空间辩证法的前提，离开时间之维的历史性与实践性的空间辩证法就必然丧失现实基础而沦为抽象的教条。对此，哈维也曾批判列斐伏尔是一个“空间独立论者”。

Secondly, the “triadic” relationship in Lefebvre’s spatial dialectic requires further investigation. He attempts to break with the previous dialectic of thesis-antithesis-synthesis under the principle of identity by adding the content of a “third term,” constructing a triadic dialectic composed of “spatial practice—representations of space—representational spaces” under the principle of difference. Although this endows the dialectic with a certain vitality to some extent, there remain problems in Lefebvre’s arrangement of the triadic dialectic, which is also where later spatial-studies scholars have raised doubts. For Lefebvre, the relationship among the three terms—spatial practice, representations of space, and representational spaces—is not a diachronic relation of affirmation-negation-negation of negation, but rather a synchronic relation of parallelism and equality. Because, “spatial practice, representations of space and representational spaces each contribute to the production of space in their own way, according to their own natures and attributes, according to the demands of society or, as it is termed here, the mode of production, and according to the requirements of the historical stage. The relationship among the three moments—the perceived, the conceived, and the lived—is never simple, never stable, nor is it a relationship of ‘positivity’ in the sense opposed to the term ‘negativity,’ that is, in the sense opposed to terms such as the indescribable, the unspeakable, the forbidden, or the unconscious. Are these elements and their interrelations in fact ‘conscious’? Yes. But at the same time, they are overlooked or misunderstood. Can they then be described as ‘unconscious’? That too is possible, because they are generally unknown, and because analysis—though it cannot guarantee never to err—can extricate them from their state of confusion. However, the fact is that their interrelations always need to be articulated, but this is not the same as being known.” [44]44 Henri Lefebvre, *The Production of Space*, trans. Donald Nicholson-Smith (Oxford: Blackwell, 1991), p. 40. Clearly, Lefebvre attempts to discuss the interrelations among the three as elements within a triadic structure; their commonality and interconnected aspects lie in the shared context of historical genesis in the sense of a genetic method, and in the commonality in the sense of functional theory, namely, that all three participate in the production of space. The former is precisely the question of time, the latter that of structural space. This not only once again indicates that Lefebvre’s spatial dialectic cannot be separated from time, but also, according to the latter part of this cited passage, one can clearly sense the difficulty and ambiguity in Lefebvre’s revelation of the triadic interactive relationship. As some scholars have observed, fundamentally, “because no internal dialectical relation has been established among the three terms, the ontological foundation of the triadic dialectic is in fact suspended.” [45]45 Liu Huaiyu, *Lefebvre’s Spatial Sociology* (Beijing: Beijing Normal University Press, 2013), p. 148. Moreover, while Lefebvre’s spatial dialectic highlights the co-presence and co-generation of the three elements, it obscures their mutual transformation and generation, and also stands in a certain tension with the sublation of abstract space by differential space as he expounds it, thereby compelling him to return to the historical-dialectical logic of the alienation of the production of space, the sublation of alienation, and the reconstruction of structure.

其次，列斐伏尔空间辩证法中的“三元”关系有待进一步探讨。他尝试通过添加“第三项”的内容来打破以往同一性原则下正—反—合的辩证法，建构差异原则下由“空间实践—空间表象—象征性空间”组成的三元辩证法。尽管这在一定程度上赋予辩证法以活力，但列斐伏尔在三元辩证法的设置上还存在一定问题，这也是后来空间研究学者们质疑的地方。对列斐伏尔而言，空间实践、空间表象和象征性空间这三项关系不是肯定—否定—否定之否定的历时态关系，而是一种平行且平等的共时态关系。因为，“空间实践、空间表象与表征性空间按照各自的性质与属性，按照社会的或者这里所说的生产方式的要求，根据历史阶段的要求，以各自不同的方式为空间生产做出了自己的贡献。感知的、构想的与亲历的（或活生生的），这三个环节之间的关系从来都既非简单明了的，又非一成不变的，也不是与‘否定性’这一术语相对立意义上的那种‘肯定性’关系，也就是说，不是与不可描述、不可说、被禁止或无意识等术语相对立意义上的‘肯定性’。这些要素及其相互关系在事实上是被‘意识到的’吗？是的。但与此同时，它们又是被忽视或被误解的。那么它们可以被描述为‘无意识的’吗？也可以，因为它们普遍不为人知，还因为分析能够——虽然不能保证永不出错——使它们摆脱混沌的状态。不过，事实上它们之间的关系总是需要说出来的，但这与被认识并不是一回事”。很明显，列斐伏尔试图在三元结构中讨论作为要素的三者之间的相互关系，其共同之处和相互联系的方面在于发生学意义上的历史性生成的共同语境，以及功能论意义上的共通性，即三者都参与了空间生产。前者恰是时间问题，后者是结构性空间问题。这里不仅再次表明列斐伏尔空间辩证法无法与时间剥离开来，而且根据这段引文的后半部分，可明显感到列斐伏尔揭示三元互动关系的困难与模糊性。正像有的学者所看到的那样，从根本上说，“由于三元之间没有建立起辩证法意义上的内在关联，所以三元辩证法的本体论基础事实上被悬置了”。此外，列斐伏尔空间辩证法在突出三要素共在共生的同时，却遮蔽掉它们相互间的转换与生成，与其所阐明的差异空间对抽象空间的扬弃也存在一定张力，由此迫使他不得不回到空间生产异化与异化扬弃及结构重建的历史辩证法理路上来。

Thirdly, there is a certain deviation between Lefebvre’s construction of a utopian “differential space” in his spatial dialectic and actual space. Lefebvre regards the “differential space” he constructs as something that can be sensed; in his own words: “I deliberately speak of an orientation. What concerns us is precisely this, no more and no less. What concerns us is something that can be called a ‘sense’: a sensory organ, a conceivable direction, and a movement toward the horizon that can be directly experienced. But we are not concerned with anything even slightly resembling a system.” [46]46 Henri Lefebvre, *The Production of Space*, p. 423. Undoubtedly, the differential space he constructs is more a matter of possibility and planning, lacking empirical operability, which stands in tension with his conceiving it as an experienceable movement. As Liu Huaiyu states, Lefebvre’s differential space is “a counter-cultural space or a space of anti-space—in the original utopian sense, a substitute for the actually existing ‘real’ space.” [47]47 Liu Huaiyu, *Lefebvre’s Spatial Sociology*, p. 148. To put it further, Lefebvre’s differential space is a space full of poetry and utopian coloring; it differs to a certain extent from actual space, after all, it is “on the horizon, at the farthest edge of possibility, there exists the question of producing a human space—a collective (common) work of humanity—in the form of what is commonly called ‘art.’” [48]48 Henri Lefebvre, *The Production of Space*, p. 422. Clearly, Lefebvre’s differential space can be understood, in a constructivist sense, as an artifact—humanized nature or a cultural product with aesthetic form—in the “form” of “art.” This implies that Lefebvre still inherits the utopian tradition of aesthetic redemption sought by Western Marxists, which inevitably endows his differential space with transcendence while lacking a certain realistic foundation, thereby differing from Marx’s exposition of the inevitability of the realization of a future society—communism—through realistic paths such as the transformation of the mode of production, economic movement, and social revolution.

再次，列斐伏尔空间辩证法对乌托邦式的“差异空间”的建构与现实空间存在一定偏差。列斐伏尔将其建构的“差异空间”视为可感觉的，用他自己的话来说：“我经过深思熟虑说出一种方向（un orientation）。我们所关注的不多不少就是这一点。我们所关注的是一种被称为‘感觉’（un sens）的东西：一个感知器官，一种可以构想的方向，和一场奔向地平线的、可以直接经历的运动。但是我们不关注哪怕稍微有点类似于体制（un systéme）的东西。”无疑，他所建构的差异空间更具有可能性和规划性，而缺乏实证的可操作性，这与他将其设想为可经历的运动是存有张力的。正如刘怀玉所言，列斐伏尔的差异空间是“反文化的空间或者反空间的空间——在最初的乌托邦的意义上，是对实际存在的‘真实’空间的替代”。进言之，列斐伏尔的差异空间是充满诗意的、具有乌托邦色彩的空间，它与现实空间存在一定的差距，毕竟，它是“在地平线上，在可能性的最遥远的边缘，存在着一个生产人类空间——这是人类集体性的（共同的）作品——的问题，以通常所说的‘艺术’的形式”。显然，列斐伏尔的差异空间可以在建构论的意义上将其理解成人工物——人化自然或具有美学形式的文化产品——“艺术”的形式。这也就意味着，列斐伏尔仍然继承了西方马克思主义者所诉求的审美救赎之乌托邦传统，必定使其差异空间具有超越性而缺少一定的现实基础，从而与马克思诉诸生产方式的变革、经济运动和社会革命等现实路径阐发未来社会——共产主义实现的必然性尚存有殊异。

Online editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗