Critique Strategy and Methodology in the Face of Abstract Space Production

Lefebvre is a legendary figure in the history of Western Marxist thought. Over his lifetime, he wrote nearly seventy works and a large number of articles. His early original proposal of the “critique of everyday life” achieved a shift in the theory of alienation from macro-level political-economic relations to micro-level social life, and on the path toward historical materialism, he realized a shift in the temporal thread of observation toward the logic of space production. The latter is precisely the central theme of the book *The Production of Space* that I am studying here. If bourgeois abstract space production is a production of invisible social relations of domination behind the economic phenomenon, then how to confront this non-intuitive presence becomes a difficulty. Lefebvre points out that the development of contemporary capitalist abstract space has already created, in space production, a highly technical programmed ordering space centered on science and technology and knowledge discourse. Faced with this entirely new situation, traditional epistemology and even the social critique theory that falsifies the logic of capital have lost their former advantage. Thus, in the methodology of cognizing space production, Lefebvre proposes a series of new ideas. These are: a critical strategic hypothesis regarding capitalist abstract space based on historical materialism, a regressive-progressive historical analysis method, and a revolutionary recoding of space. This should be the most concentrated methodological discussion by Lefebvre in *The Production of Space*.

列斐伏尔是西方马克思主义思想史中一位传奇式的人物。他一生写下了近七十部论著和大量文章，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，实现了观察历史的时间线索向空间生产逻辑的转换，后者正是我在此研究的《空间的生产》一书的主旨。如果资产阶级的抽象空间生产是一种经济物相背后的不可见的社会统治关系的生产，那么如何面对这种非直观的在场性就成了难题。列斐伏尔指出，当代资本主义抽象空间的发展，已经在空间生产上创造了一种以科学技术和知识话语为核心的高度技术性的编程构序空间，面对这种全新的情况，传统认识论甚至证伪资本逻辑的社会批判理论已经丧失了原有的优势。由此，在空间生产认知的方法论上，列斐伏尔提出了一系列新的想法，这就是在历史唯物主义基础上对资本主义抽象空间的批判性战略假设、回溯—前进的历史分析法和革命的空间编码重建。这应该是列斐伏尔在《空间的生产》中最集中的一次方法论研讨。

I. The Spatial Critique Methodology of Historical Materialism

一、历史唯物主义的空间批判方法论

Lefebvre believes that the production of abstract space in contemporary capitalism is increasingly moving toward a “highly positive technological utopia, a kingdom of prospectivism, a kingdom of social engineering and projectization.” This is a new assertion about the production of capitalist abstract space. It can be clearly seen that this is quite different from the “bureaucratic society of controlled consumption” (société bureaucratique de consommation dirigée) that Lefebvre identified in *Critique of Everyday Life, Volume 2: Foundations for a Sociology of the Everyday*, where the alienation of consumption was excessively magnified. Here, Lefebvre’s observation touches more profoundly on the essence of the contemporary capitalist mode of production. This also differs from the analysis of the abstraction, formalization, and quantification of labor relations in abstract space production; here, Lefebvre highlights the important ordering role of science and technology (knowledge) in abstract space production. First, he argues that the production practice of bourgeois abstract space increasingly depends on science and technology. The bourgeoisie even “applies automation technology, electronic and information science, etc., to space, and thus to the production of existing social relations.” The production of spatial field relations itself directly manifests as the result of the non-transitive pure shaping and ordering of science and technology in the design and planning of spatial representations, along with their reverse objectification. The design and planning of today’s visible modern transportation hubs and complex urban architectural clusters are inseparable from science and technology. Even the spatial syntax of each building’s functional field is embedded with elements of technological ordering. The shaping of interpersonal relations has been reconstructed by technological coding methods. In today’s digital capitalist space production, the new type of digital field relations constructed by digital platforms such as “Facebook” and “Twitter” have replaced the traditional face-to-face presence of intersubjectivity. Thus, space production itself has become a deified technological utopia (utopies technologiques). Second, he agrees with Foucault’s panopticism (panoptisme) and strengthens the dominant role of panoptic surveillance in space production, because the spatial relation shaping centered on the ordering of science and technology is a ghostly spatial syntax that is present anytime and anywhere. Every corner of the city now flickers with the cold glimmer of electronic cameras, granting the bourgeoisie’s faceless, hidden rule an unbreakable panoptic surveillance power. Third, he believes that spatial representations and representational spaces are filled with “social engineering and projectization” concepts packaged in scientific discourse. Here, the discourse of “prospective and programming” (prospective et programmation) of science and technology has become the core of the shaping of spatial representations. This endows bourgeois abstract space production with a brand-new technicist and knowledge-supremacist conception, while also generating a pseudo-realm of idealist experience within the abstract spatial field. This is precisely the real origin of the misrecognition of the Cartesian-linguistic spiritual space theory that Lefebvre interrogates. Here, Lefebvre still fails to ask, “Whose technological utopia?” Because this would also plunge Lefebvre’s abstract ternary spatial dialectics at the level of meta-philosophical construction into the split and contradictory complex relationship between the creators of spatial syntax and the enslaved, non-autonomous labor of the proletariat within abstract space. In response, Lefebvre explicitly states that to transcend the bourgeois conception of abstract space, a new social relation requires a new space, and this necessitates formulating a new critical strategy. However, within today’s powerful abstract space of capitalism, simply proposing “Change Life” (Changer la vie) is insufficient. He even believes that Rimbaud’s radical slogan “change life” “has degenerated into some political slogans: ‘live better,’ ‘make life richer and more colorful,’ ‘improve the quality of life,’ ‘make life distinctive.’” Lefebvre did not realize that the pastoral care of the soul behind these slogans is precisely the deployment of biopolitical power later identified by Foucault and Agamben. Lukács believed that “without an appropriate space production, these aphorisms are meaningless.” “As long as everyday life remains under the enslavement and concrete constraints of abstract space, as long as the life improvements brought about are merely improvements in technical details (techniques de détail) (such as faster traffic speeds or relatively comfortable and pleasant environments), in short, as long as the relationships between work space, leisure space, and living space are provided solely by the agents of political power institutions and controlled by their mechanisms, as long as the idea of changing life remains nothing more than a political call that can be heeded or ignored on a whim.” It can be seen that once Lefebvre leaves the logical ordering of humanist meta-philosophy, his understanding of social space approaches the truth of real life. Here, through four “as long as” clauses, Lefebvre explains that if the production and reproduction of production relations in spatial practice remain those of bourgeois abstract space, then all improvements in everyday life details are merely a refinement of this spatial enslavement. This is because, although the bourgeoisie facilitates people’s travel through highways, continuously accelerating high-speed trains, and airplanes, and people increasingly enter consumption venues with “comfortable and pleasant environments,” all of this serves the fundamental purpose of capital profit. If people’s leisure time and autonomous choice within space remain controlled by the capitalists, then “change life” is merely a deceptive political slogan. Lefebvre believes that in the face of capitalist abstract space, a new strategic hypothesis (l’hypothèse stratégique) of spatial cognition must be established. This is a new “politics of space” (politique de l’espace) that is completely heterogeneous to the logic of bourgeois space production, a direction of change pointing toward a future differential space. In his view, this is “a long-term theoretical and practical project,” and its strategic nature lies in “pointing a way toward another space (autre espace), toward a differential social life and a different mode of production (autre mode de production). This conjecture spans the ruptures between science and utopia, reality and ideal, the conceived and the directly experienced. It attempts to overcome these oppositions by exploring the dialectical relationship between the ‘possible’ and the ‘impossible’ from both subjective and objective aspects.” This is a highly metaphysical exposition. First, the “other” (autre) here is not merely “another,” but a truly heterogeneous path choice. It is no longer a patchwork repair of bourgeois abstract space itself, but a thorough move toward a new type of differential space. Second, this strategic hypothesis inevitably breaks the simple subject-object binary framework; it must strive to suture these traditional logical ruptures through substantive changes in real spatial practice, spatial representations, and representational spaces. Overall, whenever Lefebvre discusses the specific path of revolution, he suddenly appears somewhat short of breath. It can be felt that in this regard, Lefebvre’s discourse is generally feeble and powerless.

列斐伏尔认为，当代资本主义抽象空间的生产越来越走向一种“高度实证的技术乌托邦，一个全景透视主义(prospectivism)王国、一种社会工程化与项目化的王国”。这是关于资本主义抽象空间生产的一个新的断言。可以明显地看到，这与列斐伏尔在《日常生活批判第二卷：日常性的社会学基础》中指认的那个过度放大消费异化的“消费被控制的官僚社会”(société bureaucratique de consommation dirigée)大不一样，列斐伏尔在这里的观察是更加深刻地触及当代资本主义生产方式本质的。这也与抽象空间生产中的劳动关系抽象、形式化和量化的分析不同，列斐伏尔在这里突显了科学技术(知识)在抽象空间生产中的重要构序作用。一是他认为资产阶级抽象空间的生产实践越来越依存于科学技术，资产阶级甚至“把自动化技术、电子化与信息化科学等运用于空间，从而也运用于现存的社会关系”的生产，空间场境关系的生产本身直接体现为空间表象的设计与规划中非及物的科学技术纯粹塑形和构序及其反向对象化的结果。今天可以看见的现代化交通枢纽和复杂的城市建筑群落的设计和规划已经离不开科学技术，甚至每幢建筑物走向功用场境的空间句法都无不内嵌着技术构序的元素，人与人之间的相互关系赋型已经是由技术编码方式重构的。在今天的数字化资本主义空间生产中，由“脸书”“推特”等数字平台建构起来的新型数字化场境关系，已经取代了传统面对面的主体际在场性。由此，空间生产本身就成了一种被神化了的技术乌托邦(utopies technologiques)。二是他赞同福柯的全景敞视主义(panoptisme)的观点，并强化了全景监视在空间生产中的支配作用，因为以科学技术构序为核心的空间关系赋型是随时随地在场的幽灵般的空间句法。现在的城市的每一个角落都会闪烁着电子摄像头阴冷的微光，这使得资产阶级那种无脸的隐性统治获得牢不可破的全景监控力量。三是他认为空间表象和表征中充斥着以科学话语包装起来的“社会工程和项目化”的构想。在这里，科技和知识的“展望与编程”(prospective et programmation)话语成了空间表象塑形的核心，这使得资产阶级的抽象空间生产获得了一种全新的技术主义和知识至上的构想，同时，这也生成着抽象空间场境中的唯心主义体验的伪境。这一点正是列斐伏尔拷问的我思—话语精神空间论误认的现实缘起。在这里，列斐伏尔还是少问了一句“谁的技术乌托邦?”因为这也会让列斐伏尔在元哲学构境层中的那个抽象的三元空间辩证法，陷入抽象空间中掌握空间句法创制者和被奴役的无产阶级非自主劳作的分裂和矛盾的复杂关系之中。对此，列斐伏尔明确提出，如果要超越资产阶级抽象空间构想，新的社会关系要求一种新的空间，这就必须制定一种新的批判性战略。但是，在今天资本主义强大的抽象空间中，只是简单地提出“变革生活”(Changer la vie)是不够的，他甚至认为，兰波的“改变生活”的激进话语“已经蜕变成一些政治口号：‘过得更好’‘让生活更丰富多彩’‘提高生活质量’‘让生活变得别具风格’”。列斐伏尔没有意识到，这些口号背后的心灵牧领却是福柯、阿甘本后来指认的生命政治权力布展。卢卡奇认为，“如果没有一种适当的空间生产，这些警句便毫无意义”。“只要日常生活仍然处于抽象空间的奴役和具体束缚之下，只要所带来的生活改善仅仅是技术细节(techniques de détail)上的改进(如交通速度的加快，或相对舒适愉快的环境),简言之，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。”可以看到，一旦列斐伏尔离开那种人本主义元哲学的逻辑构序，他对社会空间的认识就会接近现实生活的真相。在这里，列斐伏尔通过四个“只要”说明了如果空间实践中的生产关系生产与再生产仍然是资产阶级的抽象空间生产，那么所有在日常生活细节上的改善都是这种空间奴役的精细化。这是由于，虽然资产阶级让人们的出行通过高速公路、不断提速的高铁和飞机获得便利，人们进入消费场所也越来越获得“舒适愉快的环境”,但这一切都服务于资本获利的根本目的，如果人们的休闲时间与空间中的自主选择权仍然掌控在资本家手中，那么，“变革生活”就只是骗人的政治口号。列斐伏尔认为，面对资本主义的抽象空间，必须建立一种新的空间认知的战略性假设(l’hypothèse stratégique)。这是一种与资产阶级的空间生产逻辑完全异质的新的“空间的政治”(politique de l’espace),是一个指向未来差异性空间的变革方向。在他看来，这是“一项长期的理论与实践的计划”,其战略性就在于“通过努力指出一条通往他者的空间(autre espace)的道路，指向差异性的社会生活与差异性的生产方式(autre mode de production),这个推想跨越了科学与乌托邦、现实与理想、构想的与直接经历的之间的断裂。它试图通过从主体性与客体性两个方面来探索‘可能’与‘不可能’之间的辩证关系，而克服这些对立”。这是一段十分形而上的论述。一是这里的他者(autre)并非只是“另一个”,而是真正异质性的道路选择。它不再是资产阶级抽象空间本身的修修补补，而是彻底走向新型的差异性空间。二是这种战略性假设必然打破简单的主客二元构架，它必须通过现实的空间实践、空间表象和表征性空间的实质性变革，努力缝合这些传统的逻辑断裂。总的来说，一旦列斐伏尔谈到革命的具体实现路径，他都会突然显得气短一截。可以感觉到，在这一方面，列斐伏尔的言说基本都是苍白无力的。

First, the historical materialist premise of spatial theory. In response to methodological problems in spatial theory, Lefebvre reaffirmed his historical materialist stance from a strategic height. This strategic height reflects Lefebvre’s methodological self-awareness in spatial theory. Here, he explicitly opposes idealist spiritual spatial theory, i.e., “the space of discourse and the Cartesian space of the cogito” that originates from scientism and the supremacy of knowledge. Lefebvre even discovered that “Chomsky has readopted Descartes’s ‘cogito’ and its unique characteristics: the unicity of the deep structure of discourse and the universality of the field of knowledge.” [1]1 Lefebvre, *The Production of Space*, p. 5. The reference is to Noam Chomsky’s theory of generative grammar, which Lefebvre sees as a revival of Cartesian rationalism. In Lefebvre’s view, this theory of discursive space is an idealist misrecognition of the technological utopia in bourgeois abstract space production. For although bourgeois abstract space is filled with spatial representations constructed by scientific-technological ordering and knowledge forms, as well as spatial imaginary situations in discursive forms, this does not mean that the production of abstract space is merely a relational field in an ideological form. The ordering and shaping of spatial relations by science and technology remain an objective spatial practice after the re-materialization of knowledge discourse. Advanced technological buildings, high-speed rail systems and aviation radar controlled by artificial intelligence are by no means merely the relational field of the space of the cogito; they are the real spatial production activated within material spatial facilities. [2]2 Lefebvre, *The Production of Space*, p. 5. We also see that he loudly criticizes traditional social critical theory for remaining “in the abyss of negative utopias,” because this social critical theory, in its arrogance, “operates only at the level of words and concepts (i.e., the ideological level).” I believe this criticism is somewhat arbitrary, for neither the Frankfurt School nor the social critical theory within the Western Marxist current has simply stopped at the critique of ideas and ideology. [3]3 Lefebvre, *The Production of Space*, p. 5. “This strategy of focusing knowledge into a problem of discourse” inevitably neglects non-verbal codes and symbolic series. “Among these non-verbal signifying series, music, painting, sculpture, architecture, and of course theater must be included, which, besides text or script, also comprises gestures, masks, costumes, stage, sets, props,” and even “urban and rural landscapes.” The referent here is clear: idealist spiritual representational spatial theory cannot display all the problems of complex representational spaces. Although rational discourse plays a key role in the design and planning of spatial representations, in the real relational field of space, there are also non-utilitarian perceptual signifying experiences in artistic space, such as the special sense of space constructed by gestures, dance movements, and a rich variety of props, sets, and lighting effects in theatrical performances.

第一，空间理论的历史唯物主义前提。针对空间理论在方法论上的问题，列斐伏尔从战略的高度再次确认了自己的历史唯物主义立场。战略的高度反映了列斐伏尔在空间理论中的方法论自觉。在这里，他明确反对唯心主义的精神空间论，即从科学主义和知识至上论中起源的“话语的空间以及笛卡尔式的我思的空间”。列斐伏尔竟然发现，“乔姆斯基重新接纳了笛卡尔的‘我思’(cogito)及其独一无二的特性：话语深层结构的统一性(unicity)与认识领域的普遍性”。(1)在列斐伏尔看来，这种话语的空间论是对资产阶级抽象空间生产中技术乌托邦的唯心主义误认，因为固然资产阶级的抽象空间中充斥着科学技术构序和知识形态建构起来的空间表象和话语形式上的空间想象构境，但这并不表示抽象空间的生产仅仅是一种观念形态中的关系场境，科学技术对空间关系的构序与赋型仍然是知识话语重新物相化后的客观的空间实践。先进的科技大厦、人工智能操控下的高铁系统和航空雷达绝不只是我思的空间的关系场境，而就是物性空间设施中被激活的现实的空间生产。(2)我们看到他也高调地批评了传统社会批判理论停留在“否定性的乌托邦的深渊”(l’abîme des utopies négatives)之中，因为这种社会批判理论的狂妄自大，“它只在词语和观念的层面(也即意识形态层面)起作用”。我认为，这种指责多少是有些武断的，因为无论是法兰克福学派还是西方马克思主义思潮中的社会批判理论，都没有简单地停留在对观念和意识形态的批判上。(3)“这种把知识聚焦成为一个话语问题的策略”必然会忽略非词语性的符码与象征系列。“在这些非词语的表意系列中，必然包括音乐、绘画、雕刻、建筑，当然还有戏剧，除了文本或脚本之外，戏剧还包括手势、面具、服装、舞台、布景道具”,甚至包括“都市与乡村的风景”。这里的所指是清晰的，唯心主义的精神表象空间理论无法展示复杂的表征性空间的所有问题，虽然理性话语会在空间表象中的设计和规划中起到关键性的作用，可是在现实的空间关系场境中，还会有艺术空间中非功用的感性表意关系体验，比如人们在戏剧表演中的手势、舞姿和丰富多彩的道具、布景、灯光效果建构起来的特殊空间感。

Second, the relationship between the theory of space production and social reality. This is also an important point identified by Lefebvre. In his view, the biggest problem with idealist spiritual spatial theory is the loss of the real connection between the discursive subject and the actual spatial practice of “the production of social relations.” This is an important principle clearly set forth by Marx and Engels in the preface to *The German Ideology*. “It easily forgets that the actual ‘I’ (je/I)—whose individuality and sociality are inseparable—is situated in a space,” thereby lacking the real practical foundation for theoretical reflection and being unable to see through the real relationship between scientific-technological knowledge, which serves as the core of spatial conception in the actual production of bourgeois abstract space, and the ruling power of reality. On this point, Lefebvre explicitly states: “Theoretical and practical problems related to space are becoming increasingly important. Although these problems have not yet formed a coercive force, they tend to readjust certain concepts and problems—concepts and problems related to the reproduction of life, or to the production of the means of production themselves, and to the production of consumer goods.” [4]4 Lefebvre, *The Production of Space*, p. 8. Clearly, what Lefebvre emphasizes here is still the relationship between spatial theory and actual spatial practice, in which threefold material production is the foundation of the construction of social space: first, the production of human life; second, the production of the means of production; and third, the production of means of subsistence (consumer goods). These are all points raised by Marx and Engels in *The German Ideology* when they elucidated the general principles of broad historical materialism. It is the development of this threefold material production, especially the development of modern material production conditions centered on science and technology, that has created the production and reproduction of entirely new relational fields of social relations in today’s capitalist abstract space.

第二，空间生产理论与社会现实的关系。这也是列斐伏尔指认的重要观点。在他看来，唯心主义精神空间论最大的问题是话语主体丧失与“社会关系生产”的现实空间实践的真实关联。这是马克思、恩格斯在《德意志意识形态》序言中明确提出的重要原则。“它轻易地忘记了实际的‘我’(je/I)——其个体性与社会性是不可分割的——是处身一个空间中的”,由此缺失理论思考的现实实践基础，也无法透视现实资产阶级抽象空间生产中作为空间构想核心的科技知识与现实统治权力的真实关系。对此，列斐伏尔明确指出：“空间相关理论与实践问题正变得越来越重要。这些问题尽管还没有形成压制力，却倾向于对某些概念和问题——这些问题和概念与生命的再生产(reproduction biologique)有关，或与生产资料(moyens de production)本身的生产以及消费品(biens de consommation)的生产有关——进行再调整。”显然，列斐伏尔这里强调的还是空间理论与现实空间实践的关系，其中三重物质生产是社会空间建构的基础：一是人的生命生产，二是生产资料的生产，三是生活资料(消费品)的生产，这都是马克思、恩格斯在《德意志意识形态》中阐明广义历史唯物主义一般原则时提出的观点。正是这三重物质生产的发展，特别是以科学技术为核心的现代物质生产条件的发展，创造了今天资本主义抽象空间中全新的社会关系场境的生产与再生产。

Third, the historical shift from material production to the production of space. This is Lefebvre’s own original theory. Lefebvre argues that if we follow Marx’s historical materialist view, “a given mode of production will not disappear until it has released the productive forces and realized all its potential.” Then does the rapidly developing reality of capitalism today prove that there is still room for the development of productive forces within this mode of production? Lefebvre’s answer is affirmative yet astonishing. He believes that there is certainly still enormous potential space for the development of productive forces within the contemporary capitalist mode of production, but this is not in the material production of direct means of subsistence that Marx had already seen; rather, it is in the spatial production of relations of production. This is a strategic shift in an important historical materialist observational standpoint for criticizing contemporary capitalism: “When productive forces are advancing by leaps and bounds while capitalist relations of production remain intact, the production of space itself replaces—or rather, is superimposed upon—the production of things in space.” According to Marx, the development of large-scale capitalist machine production inevitably leads to a fundamental conflict between the impulse of socialized productive forces and private ownership, ultimately sounding the death knell of capitalism. However, the production of the relational field of capitalist space, by overriding the production of things (commodities), has allowed its own productive forces to regain room for development. To a certain extent, it can even be said that the survival of the capitalist system today, aside from state intervention in the economy, is precisely due to the production of space as a relational field of production relations. This is also a new direction of situation-construction in Lefebvre’s critique of capitalism. This important view was formally proposed and specifically discussed by Lefebvre in his book *The Survival of Capitalism: The Reproduction of Relations of Production*.

第三，从物质生产向空间生产的历史转换。这是列斐伏尔自己的原创理论。列斐伏尔认为，如果依循马克思的历史唯物主义观点，“一定的生产方式在它释放出生产力、实现全部的潜能之前，是不会消失的”,那么今天迅猛发展的资本主义现实是否证明这一生产方式中还有生产力的发展空间?列斐伏尔的回答是肯定的却也是令人惊异的。他认为，当代资本主义的生产方式中当然还存在着生产力发展的巨大可能性空间，然而这并不是在马克思原先已经看到的直接生活资料的物质生产方面，而是在生产关系的空间生产方面，这是一个对当代资本主义进行批判的重要的历史唯物主义观察点的战略性转向：“当生产力突飞猛进而资本主义生产关系保持完好时，空间的生产本身就替换(replace)了——或者说叠置在其上——空间中物的生产。”依马克思的看法，资本主义机器大生产的发展必然导致社会化的生产力冲动与私人占有制的根本性冲突，最终敲响资本主义的丧钟。然而，资本主义的空间关系场境的生产凌驾于物的(商品的)生产之上使自身的生产力重新获得了发展的余地。甚至在一定的意义上可以说，今天资本主义制度的幸存，除去国家对经济的干预之外，正是因之于生产关系场境的空间的生产。这也是列斐伏尔对资本主义批判的一个新的构境方向。这一重要观点，列斐伏尔是在《资本主义的幸存：生产关系的再生产》(La survie du capitalisme:La reproduction des rapports de production)一书中正式提出并具体讨论的。

It is precisely in this new “strategic turn” of spatial research that Lefebvre demands we attend to how today’s bourgeois spatial production is entrusted with its mission under the repression of the world market and the reproduction of capitalist relations of production. The domain of spatial production here is no longer the limited space generated within a single nation-state in the early stages of capitalist development or through colonial plunder relations, but rather a globalized capital deployment and international division of labor that give rise to the spatial production and reproduction of the capital-wage labor relation. For, “by manipulating abstract space, the so-called enlightened despotism of the bourgeoisie and the capitalist system can successfully achieve partial control over the commodity market.” [5]5 Henri Lefebvre, *La production de l’espace*, 4th ed. (Paris: Anthropos, 2000), p. 67. [Translator’s note: This is a reconstructed reference based on the author’s citation; the original text does not provide a specific source.] This is a profound assertion: the faceless abstract spatial practice created by the bourgeoisie gives rise to a subjectless legal-political system—that is, the enlightened despotism (despotiquement éclairée) identified by Lefebvre; a commodity-market economy without the raised whip, where the spontaneous invisible hand effectively dominates the entire money world in which abstraction has become the ruling principle. Of course, Lefebvre also points out that within bourgeois abstract space there have already emerged internal contradictions that are difficult to control. For, “the combination of extremely powerful political hegemony, the rapid advance of productive forces, and the inadequacy of market control produces a consequence: spatial chaos, which we can experience both at the most limited level and on a global scale.” [6]6 Ibid., p. 68. What is here called spatial chaos (chaos spatial) is also the internal spatial contradiction of bourgeois abstract space. Lefebvre says that it is precisely the capitalist mode of production that creates spatial chaos, thereby driving itself toward its own demise. I think that here we encounter the “soft underbelly” of Lefebvre’s social critical theory—namely, the concrete question of transforming capitalist abstract space. For the “spatial chaos” he identifies here is insufficient to cause the entire capitalist mode of production to dissolve; he cannot explain how, after the capitalist mode of production has survived through its spatial structural deployment, it can be broken in the real world by the monopolistic spatial rule of the United States and the Western capital international alliance (the European Union, NATO, and the “G7+1” group). [7]7 The “G7+1” group refers to the Group of Seven (G7) major advanced economies plus Russia, a format used in some international discussions before Russia’s suspension from the G8 in 2014. He must inevitably confront the question of what concrete path and form of revolution—departing from the proletarian revolution discussed by Marx and Lenin—can realize the spatial revolution he envisions. On this point, he is uncertain. Lefebvre inserts the last 80 pages of his already-published reflection on the “May 1968 events,” *The Overflowing of Nanterre to the Summit*, into *The Survival of Capitalism: Reproduction of the Relations of Production* (Chapters 4–13) as a cultural revolutionary strategy to respond to the new changes in capitalism. But even there, empty discussion predominates, with no operational revolutionary plan.

正是在这个新的空间研究的“战略转折”方向上，列斐伏尔才要求我们关注今天资产阶级的空间生产是如何在世界市场与资本主义的生产关系的再生产的压制之下才被委以使命的。这里的空间生产领域已经不再是资本主义发展早期的一个国家内部或殖民主义掠夺关系建立起来的有限空间，而是由一个世界性的全球化资本布展和国际劳动分工生成的资本与雇佣劳动关系的空间生产与再生产场境。因为，“通过操控抽象空间，资产阶级的所谓开明专制和资本主义体制能够成功地实现对商品市场的部分控制”。这是一个很深刻的断言，资产阶级创造出来的无脸的抽象空间实践造就了无主体的法制政治，即列斐伏尔所指认的开明专制(despotiquement éclairée);没有高悬的皮鞭的商品—市场经济，自发性的看不见的手有效地支配着整个抽象成为统治的金钱世界。当然，列斐伏尔也指出，资产阶级的抽象空间中已经出现了难以控制的内部矛盾。因为，“极端强大的政治霸权、生产力的突飞猛进，以及对市场控制的不充分，这些因素混合起来所造成的一个后果是空间的混乱，我们既可以在最有限的层面上、也可以在全球范围内体验到这一点”。这里所谓空间的混乱(chaos spatial)也是资产阶级抽象空间内在的空间矛盾。列斐伏尔说，正是资本主义生产方式造成了空间的混乱，从而走向自身的灭亡。我觉得，在这里，我们遇到了列斐伏尔社会批判理论中的“软肋”,这就是资本主义抽象空间的具体变革问题。因为，他这里指证的“空间的混乱”并不足以让整个资本主义生产方式走向消解，他无法说明，资本主义生产方式在空间结构性布展中获得幸存之后，如何在现实世界中打破美国和西方资本国际联盟(欧盟、北约和“7+1”集团)对世界的独断空间统治，他必定会遇到离开马克思、列宁所讨论的无产阶级革命以什么样的现实道路和方式实现他心目中的空间革命问题。在这一点上，他是心中无数的。列斐伏尔将自己已经出版的关于“五月风暴”反思的《楠泰尔的漫溢到巅峰》一书的最后80页嵌入《资本主义的幸存：生产关系的再生产》(第4—13章),以作为应对资本主义新变化的文化革命策略。但那也是空洞议论居多，没有任何可操作性的革命方案。

II. The Regressive-Progressive Method

二、回溯—前进的方法

In Lefebvre’s view, the methodology of historical materialism requires us to combine the critical theory of space with the practical reality of spatial production; this is the strategic prerequisite for scientific spatial research. Beyond this, Lefebvre also restated from a strategic perspective his own original historical analytical method, which was endorsed by Sartre, namely the so-called “regressive-progressive method” (régressive-progressive). He clearly pointed out that the true source of this method is Marx. In the footnote here, Lefebvre appears to be ironically refuting the “error” of others accusing him of plagiarizing Sartre’s method, because he himself had already used this method in his article *Prospective* (1953), which predates Sartre’s *Critique of Dialectical Reason* (1960). Thus, if he had committed an “error,” it would have been a “double” error of plagiarism. In fact, Sartre himself publicly acknowledged this. Lefebvre first stated this method in his *Cahiers Internationaux de Sociologie*, and later elaborated on it in his 1949 essay “Problèmes de Sociologie Rurale.” Moreover, he explicitly stated that this method comes from Marx, which is essentially the historical analytical method familiar to us from the *Grundrisse* (i.e., the *Economic Manuscripts of 1857–1858*, abbreviated as the *Grundrisse*): “the anatomy of man is a key to the anatomy of the ape.” Lefebvre first discussed this historical relationship in some depth in his 1968 essay “Forme, Fonction et Structure du *Capital*.” Lefebvre candidly pointed out: “This is precisely the method (modus operandi) that Marx proposed in his principal ‘methodological’ text. Marx once wrote: the categories (or concepts) that express the social relations of the most developed society, namely bourgeois society, can likewise be used to ‘see through the structure and relations of production of all past forms of society. Bourgeois society builds itself from the fragments and elements of these societies, some of which remain as unconquered remnants, while others, which originally only showed signs, have developed a clear meaning.’” The “methodological” text (texte “méthodologique”) here is precisely Marx’s famous *Grundrisse*. Here, we see Lefebvre closely following Marx’s methodology. In fact, in the specific discussion of the *Grundrisse*, Marx provides a very colloquial expression of this: “the anatomy of man is a key to the anatomy of the ape.” This means that in historical observation, starting from the advanced forms of human social development allows one to see through the lower forms of social development experienced in the past, just as in physiological anatomy, understanding the structure of the human body can better illuminate the organization of the ape’s body. In essence, this is an important deepening of the historical materialist conception of history [8]8 The term “historical materialist conception of history” (历史唯物主义构境) is a specific concept used by the author, Zhang Yibing, to denote the constructed situational understanding within historical materialism, emphasizing the layered and contextual nature of historical analysis. and a foundational method of historical epistemology. Lefebvre characterized this important view of Marx as the “regressive-progressive method”: first, “starting from the present, striving to go backward, thereby tracing the steps of our past.” If, in Marx’s case, he was discussing how the complex social structure within the capitalist mode of production gradually emerged from the dissolution of past feudal autocracy, then Lefebvre here applies this historical regression to spatial production. That is to say, this spatial research “takes the current realities as its starting point,” namely, historically regressing from the present bourgeois abstract space to the emergence, development, and dissolution of absolute space and historical space. Thus, “it exerts a regressive influence on the past, opening up its hitherto ununderstood aspects and moments. The past presents itself from a different angle; therefore, the process of how the past became the present also reveals its other side.” Transitioning from the production mechanisms of nature-based absolute space and accumulative historical space to the complete disappearance of nature and the spatial syntax centered on technological ordering in abstract space production, the historical essence of spatial production becomes clearer in the regressive analysis of “how the past became the present.” Second, regression is by no means a simple return to the past, because while it appears to be a regressive observation of lower and simpler historical forms of social development, it actually leads to a deeper understanding of the complex social reality of the present that has developed from them. Here, regression is progress. Or, historical regression also serves the progress of today. Here, Lefebvre’s regressive-progressive method, applied to the theory of spatial production, aims to critically see through today’s capitalist abstract space production. In fact, when Lefebvre analyzes the historicity of spatial production, his analysis of the process from absolute space and historical space to abstract space, especially his critical examination of bourgeois abstract space, is already a complete application of this regressive-progressive method to spatial issues. However, Lefebvre realized that this research method could also create a more complex situation: “it often faces the danger of telescoping the regressive part into the progressive part (la partie ‘régressive’ risque toujours de télescoper la partie ‘progressive’), which would interrupt it or make it obscure. Therefore, the beginning might appear at the end, and the end might appear at the beginning. All this makes those contradictions that have been uncovered, the contradictions that drive each historical process forward (and thus toward its end) (according to Marx), even more complex.” This also means that actual historical regressive analysis often becomes “entangled” with progressive illusions of progress. In fact, Lefebvre specifically wanted to point out that this regressive-progressive method is not intended to revive a linear historical timeline, but precisely to break it. Because, Lefebvre believed, “this regressive-progressive method, which does not threaten the principles of logic and consistency, will acquire a more dialectical progressive character.” For example, in Lefebvre’s study of spatial practice, the realistic starting point is capitalist abstract space, which is the “human body” in the regressive-progressive analysis of spatial production. Through the analysis of the complex relational field in abstract space, we can more easily see through the structure of absolute space and historical space, the “ape body.” Conversely, we can also more clearly see the historical generative mechanism of bourgeois abstract space. Here, Lefebvre particularly pointed out that when analyzing the historical transformation of abstract space surpassing absolute space and historical space, we cannot merely remain in the affirmative dimension of simple bourgeois ideology; we should also see the profound contradictions already emerging in the development of bourgeois abstract space. Lefebvre believed that in today’s capitalist spatial production, “productive forces are developing rapidly, new technologies and science are altering natural space so drastically that they even threaten nature itself. We feel the impact of destructive and constructive forces (puissance destructrice et constructrice) from all sides, which usually combine in astonishing ways with the pressure of the world market.” This is, of course, what happens in the spatial practice of developed capitalism. Science and technology dominated by capital become forces that destroy natural existence and construct new abstract space, allying with the pressure of the bourgeois world market to form the ordering synergy of today’s spatial practice. If we regress to the history of traditional social space, we can clearly see the progression from the dependence of absolute space on natural existence, to the retreat of nature in historical space, and finally to capitalism’s destruction of nature through abstract space centered on science, technology, and the world market. The observation through this regressive-progressive method does not simply see the progress of abstract space, but simultaneously sees that every progress in capitalist social space contains destruction; progress is embedded with barbaric regression (Benjamin’s phrase). This is a deeper layer of meaning in the regressive-progressive method. Furthermore, Lefebvre profoundly saw another synchronic application of this so-called “regressive-progressive method” by Marx, namely, within the synchronic structure of the same world, the advanced capitalist spatial development (“human body”) serves as the key to dissecting the less developed capitalist spatial construction (“ape body”) in the same period. He believed that for Marx, this too was a deepening of historical materialism. Thus, the regressive-progressive method is not simply a general historical timeline, but a special spatialized temporal structure. This is an aspect Lefebvre particularly wanted to think deeply about and elaborate on. Regression itself is no longer a tracing back of the history of spatial production that has disappeared, but becomes a logical regression of the differentiated spatial relationships within the same historical process. Specifically applied to today’s production of bourgeois abstract space, it refers to the capitalist mode of production emerging and developing in backward regions and countries within the same spatial structure, which forms a nonlinear regressive-progressive configuration with the developed capitalist spatial production appearing in the same spatial structure. Lefebvre pointed out that this was not his own discovery; as early as the writing of *Capital*, Marx “studied the most developed forms of capitalism in England in order to understand the systems of other countries and their actual processes of development.” This is the deployment of a diachronic logic of regression within a synchronic spatial structure. This is correct and also related to Lefebvre’s problem of spatial production. In 1845, when founding historical materialism, Engels suggested that Marx go to Manchester together to witness firsthand the real situation of mechanized production after the capitalist industrial revolution. This was the “human body” in the development of the capitalist mode of production in the 19th century. The entire process of Marx’s later creation of *Capital* was carried out in England. The social reality of England’s most developed capitalist industrial production and commodity-market economy played a similar role for his study of the gradually developing capitalist relations of production in other European countries, and even for his later study of the Asiatic mode of production in the East. Starting from this specific example of Marx, Lefebvre firmly grasped this new deployment of diachronic logic of regression within a synchronic spatial structure, and he quickly saw a huge real contradiction: in the construction of today’s capitalist abstract space, the development of synchronic spatial practice on a world scale is also uneven. Here, he directly invoked Lenin’s relevant assertion about uneven development and applied it to the critical analysis of contemporary capitalist space. In Lefebvre’s view, this unevenness in spatial practice manifests in two aspects: first, the social spatial construction of different countries in the same period is at different stages of development; “some countries are still in the early stage of the production of things (commodities) in space, and only a few countries with the highest degree of industrialization and urbanization can maximize their own benefits in the vast space opened up by technology and knowledge.” This means that in today’s era, although there is the production of highly developed capitalist abstract space in countries like Europe, the United States, and Japan, some countries in regions like Latin America, Asia, and Africa are still in the early forms of capitalist spatial production, where the production of things still occupies a core position in the mode of production. Through a comparative study of the developed capitalist abstract space (“human body”) and those backward countries still in the early stage of the production of things (“ape body”), a kind of “historical regression” also occurs. This “historical regression” is not the historical regression of the European capitalist mode of production itself, but a historical analysis of spatial practices at different stages of development within the same capitalist mode of production in the real world. This is a very peculiar viewpoint. In today’s capitalist economic activities, the spaces of the United States and developed European countries, like multinational corporations such as “Microsoft,” “Apple,” and “Mercedes-Benz,” maximize their own benefits by utilizing the vast spaces opened up by technology and knowledge. Their spatial production is already abstract intellectual ordering and operational construction, while the coastal areas of Southeast Asia are the labor-intensive material objectification of developed capitalist abstract space production overseas. This spatial production is precisely “in the early stage of the production of things (commodities) in space.” In my words, this is the spatial deployment of temporal threads. Second, there is the malignant structure of the international division of labor within capitalist abstract space production. Lefebvre pointed out that in the economic layout of European and American capitalism, developed capitalist countries often “transfer pollution-intensive industrial models to less developed countries—such as Brazil in South America, or Spain in the European context. It is noteworthy that this trend leads to differentiated results within a given mode of production.” The blue skies, white clouds, and good spatial representation in the spatial production of developed capitalist countries are premised on the ecological pollution and dark, oppressive spatial feeling in the spatial production of backward regions and countries. This is also an imbalance in spatial production caused by the reproduction of real capitalist international relations of servitude. Of course, this is no longer a simple historical regression and logical progression, but a special application of this method within the real capitalist relations of spatial production. The backward countries and regions (the deformed “ape body”), still in the state of material production in spatial practice, are the exploited objects that fatten the developed capitalist abstract space production (“human body”). This is an aspect worthy of our deep reflection.

在列斐伏尔看来，历史唯物主义方法论要求我们将空间批判理论与现实的空间实践结合起来，这是科学的空间研究的战略性前提。除此之外，列斐伏尔还从战略的角度重申了自己原创并得到萨特认同的历史分析法，即所谓“回溯—前进法”(régressive-progressive)。他明确指出，这种方法的真正来源是马克思。在这里的注释中，列斐伏尔应该是反讽性地反驳了他人指责他自己剽窃萨特方法的“错误”,因为他自己在早于萨特《辩证理性批判》(1960年)的《远景》(1953年)一文中就已经使用了这一方法，所以，如果他有“错误”那将会是“两次”剽窃错误。实际上，萨特自己也公开承认了这一点。列斐伏尔第一次陈述这一方法是在他的《国际社会学手册》中，后来在1949年的论文《乡村社会学问题》中对之进行了详细的阐述。并且，他明确说明了这一方法来自马克思，其实也就是《政治经济学批判大纲》(即《1857—1858年经济学手稿》,简称《大纲》)中我们熟悉的“人体解剖对于猴体解剖是一把钥匙”的历史分析法。列斐伏尔第一次比较深入地讨论这一历史关系，是在1968年写下的《〈资本论〉的形式、功能和结构》一文中。列斐伏尔十分坦诚地指出：“这也正是马克思在其主要的‘方法论’文本中所提出的方法(modus operandi)。马克思曾经这样写道：能够表达最发达社会，即资产阶级社会的社会关系的范畴(或概念),同样也能够用来‘透视一切已经覆灭的社会形式的结构和生产关系。资产阶级社会利用这些社会的残片和因素建立起自身，其中一部分未被征服的遗留物仍旧存在着，另一部分原来只显出征兆的东西，则发展出了明确的意义’。”这里的“方法论”文本(texte 《méthodologique》)正是马克思著名的《大纲》。在这里，我们看到列斐伏尔对马克思方法论的步步跟随。其实，马克思在《大纲》的具体讨论中对此有一个十分通俗的语言表达，即“人体解剖对于猴体解剖是一把钥匙”。这是说，在历史观察中，从人类社会发展的高级形态出发，可以透视过去曾经经历的低级社会发展方式，这就像生理解剖学上通过人体的结构可以更好地理解猴体的组织。实际上，这是历史唯物主义构境的重要深化，也是历史认识论的基础性方法。马克思的这一重要观点被列斐伏尔表征为“回溯式的前进法”:一是“从现在出发，努力往回走，从而追溯我们过去的步伐”。如果说，在马克思那里，他是在讨论资本主义生产方式中的复杂社会结构是如何从过去的封建专制的解体中一步步走来，那么，列斐伏尔在这里则是将这种历史性的回溯运用到空间生产上来了。这也就是说，这种空间研究是“以目前的种种现实作为其出发点”,即从当下的资产阶级抽象空间历史性地回溯绝对空间和历史空间的发生、发展和消亡，由此，“对过去发生了回溯性的影响，打开了它的迄今尚未被理解的方面与契机。过去以别样的角度呈现出来，因此，过去如何变成现在的过程，也呈现出它的另外的一面”。从以自然为基础的绝对空间和积累性历史空间的生产机制，过渡到自然的彻底消退和抽象空间生产中以科技构序为核心的空间句法，在“过去如何变成现在”的回溯分析中，空间生产的历史性本质更加清晰地呈现出来。二是回溯绝不是简单地回到过去，因为看起来是去回溯性地观察过去低级和简单的社会发展形态的历史，实际上会更深刻地理解由此发展而来的今天的复杂社会现实。在这里，回溯即前进。或者说，历史回溯也是为了今天的前进。在这里，列斐伏尔运用于空间生产理论中的回溯—前进法，是为了批判性地透视今天的资本主义抽象空间生产。其实，在列斐伏尔分析空间生产的历史性时，对从绝对空间、历史空间到抽象空间的进程的分析，特别是对资产阶级抽象空间的批判性透视，已经是这种回溯—前进法在空间问题上的完整运用。然而，列斐伏尔意识到，这种研究方法也可能会造成一个更复杂的局面：“经常面临一个将回溯的过程叠缩到前进的过程(la partie 《régressive》 risque toujours de télescoper la partie 《progressive》)中去的危险，这将会打断它或者使它变得模糊不清。因此，开端或许在结尾处出现，而结尾可能出现在开端。所有这一切使得那些已被揭开的矛盾，那些推动每一个历史过程向前发展(从而也走向它的终点)的矛盾(按照马克思的观点),变得更加复杂。”这也意味着，实际发生的历史性回溯分析往往会“纠缠”于前进式的进步主义幻象。其实，列斐伏尔想格外指认，这种回溯—前进法并不是要复活一条线性的历史时间线索，而恰恰是要打破它。因为，列斐伏尔认为，“这种并不对逻辑和一贯性原则构成威胁的回溯式的前进法，会变得具有更加辩证的前进特征”。例如，在列斐伏尔的空间实践研究中，现实出发点就是资本主义的抽象空间，这是空间生产回溯—前进分析中的“人体”,通过抽象空间中复杂关系场境的分析，我们可以更容易地透视作为“猴体”的绝对空间和历史空间的结构，反过来，也可以更加清楚地看到资产阶级抽象空间的历史生成机制。在这里，列斐伏尔特别指出，我们在分析抽象空间超越绝对空间和历史空间的历史性改变的时候，不能仅仅停留在简单的资产阶级意识形态的肯定性维度上，而应该同时看到资产阶级抽象空间发展中已经呈现的深刻悖反性。列斐伏尔认为，在今天资本主义的空间生产中，“生产力飞速发展，新技术与科学对自然空间的改变极为剧烈，甚至已经威胁到了自然本身。我们从各个方面感受到了破坏性的与建设性的力量(puissance destructrice et constructrice)所造成的影响，它们通常以惊人的方式与世界市场的压迫结为一体”。这当然是在发达资本主义空间实践中发生的事情，资本支配的科学技术成为毁灭自然存在建构新的抽象空间的力量，它与资产阶级的世界市场压力结盟成为今天空间实践的构序合力。如果回溯传统的社会空间的历史，我们就能够清楚地看到从绝对空间对自然存在的依存性到自然在历史空间中的撤退，最后是资本主义以科学技术和世界市场为构序中轴的抽象空间对自然的毁灭。这里通过回溯—前进法的观察，不是简单地看到抽象空间的进步，而是同时要看到资本主义社会空间中的每一次进步都包含着毁灭，进步中内嵌着野蛮的倒退(本雅明语)。这是回溯—前进法中更深的构境层。此外，列斐伏尔又深刻地看到马克思对这个所谓“回溯—前进法”的另一种共时性的运用，即在同一个世界的共时性结构中，先进的资本主义空间发展(“人体”)是同一时段中并不发达的资本主义空间建构(“猴体”)解剖的钥匙。他认为，在马克思那里，这同样是历史唯物主义的深化。这样，回溯—前进法就不是简单的一般历史时间线索，而是一种特殊的空间化的时间结构。这是列斐伏尔特别想深入思考和展开讨论的方面。回溯本身不再是对已经消逝的空间生产历史的追溯，而成为对同一历史进程中的空间化差异关系的逻辑回溯。具体到今天的资产阶级抽象空间的生产，也就是同一空间结构中落后地区和国家正在发生和发展的资本主义生产方式，它与同一空间结构中出现的发达资本主义空间生产构成一种非线性的回溯—前进构式。列斐伏尔指出，这并不是他自己的发现，早在《资本论》的写作过程中，马克思就“在英国研究资本主义最发达的形式，以便理解其他国家的体制及其实际发展的过程”。这是一种历时性的回溯逻辑在共时性空间结构中的布展。这是对的，也是关联于列斐伏尔的空间生产问题的。在1845年创立历史唯物主义时，恩格斯就建议马克思一起去曼彻斯特，亲眼看一下资本主义工业革命后的现实机器化生产的真实情况。这就是当时19世纪资本主义生产方式发展中的“人体”。而马克思后来创作《资本论》的整个过程都是在英国进行的，英国资本主义最发达的工业生产和商品—市场经济的社会现实，对他研究欧洲其他国家中正在逐步发展起来的资本主义生产关系，甚至晚期研究东方亚细亚生产方式，都起到了相近的作用。从马克思的这样一个具体的例证出发，列斐伏尔紧紧抓住了这一新的历时性的回溯逻辑在共时性空间结构中的布展，于是他很快清醒地看到一个巨大的现实矛盾：在今天资本主义抽象空间的建构中，在世界范围内出现的共时性空间实践的发展也是不平衡的。此处，他直接援引了列宁关于不平衡发展的相关断言，并将其运用到当代资本主义空间的批判性分析中。在列斐伏尔看来，这种空间实践中出现的不平衡表现在两个方面：一是同一时期不同国家的社会空间建构处于不同的发展阶段中，“一些国家仍然处于空间中物的(商品的)生产的早期阶段，只有工业化与城市化程度最高的少数国家，在由技术和知识所开辟的广阔空间中，能够最大限度地为自身获取利益”。这也就是说，在今天的时代，虽然有欧美、日本这样一些高度发达的资本主义抽象空间的生产，但也有像拉美、亚洲和非洲等地区的部分国家仍然处于资本主义空间生产的早期形态之中，在那里，物的生产仍然占据着生产方式中的核心地位，通过对发达的资本主义抽象空间(“人体”)与那些仍然处于早期物的生产阶段的落后国家(“猴体”)的对比研究，也会发生一种“历史性的回溯”,这种“历史性的回溯”并非欧洲资本主义生产方式自身的历史回溯，而是在现实世界范围内处于同一资本主义生产方式不同发展阶段的空间实践的历史分析。这是一种很奇特的观点。在今天的资本主义经济活动中，美国和欧洲发达国家的空间就像“微软”“苹果”和“奔驰”一类跨国公司利用技术与知识所开辟的广阔空间那样最大限度地获得自身利益，它们的空间生产已经是抽象的智力构序和操作建构的，而东南亚的沿海地区则是发达资本主义抽象空间生产在海外的劳动密集型的物性对象化，这种空间生产恰恰是“处于空间中物的(商品的)生产的早期阶段”。用我的话来表述，这就是时间线索的空间化布展。二是资本主义抽象空间生产中国际劳动分工的恶性结构。列斐伏尔指出，在欧美资本主义经济布局中，往往发达的资本主义国家会出现将“污染严重的工业化模式开始向发展程度较低的国家——如南美洲的巴西，或欧洲语境中的西班牙——转出的方式。值得注意的是，这种趋势在一种给定的生产方式之中导致了差异化的结果”。发达资本主义国家中空间生产的蓝天白云和良好的空间表征，是以落后地区和国家空间生产中的生态污染和暗无天日的空间感为前提的，这也是一种现实资本主义国际奴役关系再生产导致的空间生产不平衡。当然，这已经不是简单的历史性回溯和逻辑前进，而是这一方法在现实资本主义空间生产关系中的特殊运用。仍然处于空间实践中物的生产状态中的落后国家与地区(畸形的“猴体”)却是养肥发达资本主义抽象空间生产(“人体”)的被盘剥对象。这是值得我们深思的方面。

III. Spatial Code Reconstruction and Political Strategy

三、空间编码重建与政治战略

Of course, we can see that in the course of his methodological research, Lefebvre also paid attention to the role of representations of space and representational spaces beyond spatial practice in new strategic hypotheses; this is the “reconstruction of the spatial ‘code’” (restituer un 《code》 de l’espace). In his view, the critique of capitalist abstract space production requires not only discovering the objective contradictions emerging in the field of spatial-practical relations, but also thoroughly breaking free from the bourgeois spatial discourse code, so as to reconstruct an entirely new spatial code. The code here is not directly equivalent to the field-shaping [赋型] of relational fields in spatial practice, but specifically refers to the discourse encoding and decoding that appears in the generation of spatial syntax and spatial experience by representations of space. Therefore, the reconstruction of the spatial “code” will also lead to a fundamental change in the entire representation of space and spatial experience. In my view, it is not wrong to transform the representations of space and spatial sense manipulated by the bourgeoisie; the problem is that if such a discursive transformation lacks a profound change in spatial practice itself, it may become a subjective wish on paper. This is a question Lefebvre did not seriously consider. Lefebvre clearly states that the so-called reconstruction of the spatial code means that a new discursive formation must be reactivated in representations of space and representational spaces; therefore, “the re-creation of a common language of practice and theory, also a language shared by inhabitants, architects, and scientists, should be regarded as an urgent task.” [9]9 Henri Lefebvre, *La production de l’espace*, 4th ed. (Paris: Anthropos, 2000), p. 64. That is to say, a new discourse of representations of space and representational spaces must be established, so that ordinary people and scientists alike can escape from the bourgeois abstract representation of space. In his view, reconstructing the spatial code “means restoring the unity between separated elements, breaking down the barriers between the private and public spheres, and identifying the currently unclear fusions and oppositions in space. Thus, it brings together the various levels and conditions isolated by existing spatial practice and the ideology underlying it: including the ‘micro’ or architectural level and the ‘macro’ level, usually regarded as the domain of urbanists, politicians, and planners; the everyday domain and the urban domain; interior and exterior; the working and the non-working (festive); the permanent and the temporary; and so on.” [10]10 Ibid., p. 65. In plain terms, this means extricating representations of space and subjective representations from the spatial-practical relations and ideological control constructed by bourgeois abstract space; the previously artificially separated fields of public and private, the separation of interior and exterior, the division between labor and non-labor, and various other abstracted opposing elements must be reunified, thereby re-establishing a new unified spatial discourse system. Furthermore, Lefebvre also warns that special attention must be paid to the exclusion of non-knowledge discourse by bourgeois abstract space, and one should try to avoid placing oneself “within a complete framework; it positions itself—though not in a way that excludes itself—toward the position of non-knowledge (that which is neglected or misunderstood); in other words, toward the position of lived and perceived relations (rapport au vécu et au perçu).” [11]11 Ibid., p. 66. Since bourgeois abstract space discourse is centered on instrumental rationality and epistemology, it inevitably belittles the lived constitution of space based on the body; the new discourse code should refocus on the differential reconstruction of representational spaces. Lefebvre’s discussion of the transformation of spatial discourse is correct in the general direction of breaking the bourgeois abstract representation of space. Yet he did not realize the split and contradiction within the spatial dialectic itself that we have already pointed out, because in today’s abstract space production of capitalism, ordinary people have no autonomous activity in creating spatial syntax within the conceptual representation ordering [构序] and shaping [赋型]; the architects and planning experts who appear to autonomously create spatial material tools and facilities such as buildings, roads, and squares are merely puppets manipulated by the logic of capital. Thus, the problem of changing the representational discourse of space production and spatial sense becomes a split, real “paradox.” For the “public and private,” “interior and exterior,” and the exclusion of non-knowledge discourse that Lefebvre identifies here are merely objective conditions for capital’s pursuit of surplus value in space production; the discursive representation and representation of abstract space are only the result of this capital’s spatial deployment as an internal bodily practice. If the production mechanism of capitalist abstract space cannot be truly changed, and the mode of production thoroughly transformed, the production of spatial discourse and the mode of experience cannot achieve genuine change. Finally, Lefebvre touches on the question of the path to realizing the revolutionary strategic hypothesis of space production he himself proposed. On this point, he clearly does not endorse the path of the Russian October Revolution, which was realized “politically from a single center, through a certain party, under the guidance of a certain doctrine, and through the efforts of a certain class, in a certain country—in short, from a single center.” [12]12 Ibid., p. 468. Because, under the current situation, the possibility of a social revolution realized in “one great night” has lost its real historical basis. However, he also believes that the problem is by no means “to dogmatically replace the original strategy with another strategy, nor to simply transcend the opposition between ‘monocentrism’ and ‘polycentrism.’” [13]13 Ibid., p. 469. Lefebvre explicitly proposes thinking about social revolution in a more pluralistic way; neither the subject elements of revolution nor the mode of revolution can be absolutely homogeneous. In his view, the subject of revolution “might be provided by marginal social elements or by a developed section of the working class”; [14]14 Ibid. in terms of the mode of revolution, in some places “worldwide transformation has a violent, fierce character; while in other places, it proceeds in a seemingly calm, hidden manner.” [15]15 Ibid. Lefebvre’s view on revolution here is quite dialectical, because he neither denies the role of the traditional proletariat as a revolutionary subject, nor affirms the new possibility of marginalized groups generating revolutionary subjectivity; he neither simply negates the traditional violent revolution proposed by Marx and Lenin, nor acknowledges the legitimacy of the parliamentary revolutionary path of Eurocommunism, which seeks reform within the bourgeois political system. Lefebvre analyzes that his own “strategic hypothesis concerning space (l’hypothèse stratégique concernant l’espace) neither excludes the role of so-called ‘underdeveloped’ countries, nor excludes the role of industrialized countries and their working classes. On the contrary, its basic principle and goal is to link those divided aspects together, to unify dispersed tendencies and elements.” [16]16 Ibid., p. 470. This strategic hypothesis, which emphasizes spatial-practical revolution in different regions, is precisely based on the uneven development of spatial practice worldwide. It can be seen that Lefebvre’s spatial revolutionary strategy opposes the homogenizing logic of bourgeois abstract space; the aspects he repeatedly emphasizes all attempt to construct a differentiated spatial practice. He says, “This homogenizing tendency, expressed in and through abstract space, stands in opposition. This means that within a single movement (including differences of natural origin, each ecology tending to strengthen itself in isolation) there is a mobilization of differences: institutional, national, locational, ethnic, natural resource, etc.” [17]17 Ibid., p. 471. This goal is entirely consistent with the idealized differentiated space he wants to construct, namely, “the differences that concern us, the differences that our future theoretical and practical advantages might consider.” [18]18 Ibid. Yet, as to how to actually realize this revolution toward differentiated space, Lefebvre still does not provide a feasible action plan.

当然，我们可以看到列斐伏尔在方法论研究的过程中，还关注了空间实践之外的空间的表象和表征性空间在新的战略假设中的地位，这就是“空间‘编码’的重建”(restituer un 《code》 de l’espace)。在他看来，对资本主义抽象空间生产的批判，除去要发现空间实践关系场境中出现的客观矛盾，还要从资产阶级的空间话语编码体系中彻底摆脱出来，以重新建构一种全新的空间编码。这里的编码并非直接等同于空间实践中的关系场境赋型，而是特指出现在空间表象生成空间句法和空间体验中的话语编码与解码。所以，空间“编码”的重建也会导致整个空间表象和体验的根本改变。在我看来，变革资产阶级操控的空间表象和空间感并不错，问题在于这种话语变革如果没有来自空间实践本身的深刻改变，可能就会是纸上谈兵式的主观愿望。这是列斐伏尔并没有认真思考的问题。列斐伏尔明确指出，所谓空间编码重建是指必须在空间表象和表征性空间中重新启用一种新的话语塑形，因此，“一种实践和理论共用的语言，也是居住者、建筑师与科学家们共用的语言——的再造应被看作一项刻不容缓的任务”。这就是说，必须建立一种新的空间表象和表征性空间的话语，让老百姓和科学家都从资产阶级的抽象空间表象中逃离出来。在他看来，重构空间编码“就是恢复被分隔的要素之间的统一性，打破私人领域与公共领域之间的藩篱，识别目前空间中尚不明确的融合与对立。从而将被现存空间实践以及作为其基础的意识形态所隔离的各种层面与条件集中起来：其中包括‘微观的’或建筑层面上的与‘宏观’层面的，它们通常被视为城市学家、政治家与规划者们的地盘；日常领域与都市领域；内部与外部；工作的与非工作的(节日的);永久性的与临时性的；等等”。通俗地说，这就是要让关于空间的表象和主体性表征从资产阶级的抽象空间建构的空间实践关系和意识形态控制中超拔出来，过去被人为分割开来的公与私的场境、内与外的分离、劳作与非劳作的区隔等，各种被抽象化的对立要素必须重新统一起来，以此再建立一种新的统一性的空间话语体系。此外，列斐伏尔还提醒要特别注意资产阶级抽象空间对非知识话语的排斥，要尽量避免把自己置于“一个完整的框架之内；它将自身定位于——尽管不是以将自身排除在外的方式——面向(那些被忽略的或被误解的)非知识的位置上；换言之，就是面向亲历的和感知的关系(rapport auvécuet auperçu)的位置上”。由于资产阶级的抽象空间话语是以工具理性和知识论为核心的，所以必然会轻视基于身体的空间亲历构境，新的话语编码应该重新关注表征性空间的差异性重建。列斐伏尔关于空间话语变革问题的探讨，在打破资产阶级抽象空间表象这一大的方向上应该是对的。可他并没有意识到我们前面已经指认的空间辩证法本身的分裂和矛盾问题，因为在今天资产阶级抽象空间生产的构想性表象构序和赋型中，普通民众是没有参与空间句法创制的自主活动的，而看起来自主创制建筑物、道路和广场等空间物性用具和设施的建筑师和规划专家，也不过是资本逻辑操控的牵线木偶，那么，改变空间生产的表象话语和空间感的问题就会是一个分裂开来的现实“悖结”。因为列斐伏尔在这里所指证的“公与私”“内与外”以及对非知识话语的排斥，都只是资本追逐剩余价值在空间生产中的客观条件，抽象空间的话语表象与表征都只是这一资本空间布展的内在身体化践行的结果。如果不能真正改变资本主义抽象空间的生产机制，彻底变革生产方式，空间话语生产及体验方式是不可能获得真正的变革的。列斐伏尔最后终于谈及他自己提出的空间生产革命战略假设的实现道路的问题。在这一点上，他显然不赞成俄国十月革命那种“通过某一个政党、在某一种学说指导下，并通过某一个阶级的努力，在某一个国家，简言之，从某个单一的中心政治性地实现”的道路。因为，在今天的形势下，一个“伟大的晚上”所实现的社会革命的可能性已经丧失了现实历史基础。但是，他也认为问题绝不在于“用另外一种战略教条地取代原有的战略，也不在于对‘单一中心论’与‘多中心论’之间的对峙进行简单的超越”。列斐伏尔明确提出，要用一种更加多元化的方式来思考社会革命，无论是革命的主体要素还是革命方式都不可能是绝对同质化的，在他看来，革命的主体“或许会靠边缘的社会因素或通过一种发达的工人阶级部分来提供”,在革命的方式上，一些地方“世界性的转型具有某种暴力的、猛烈的特征；而同时在另外一些地方，它以表面上风平浪静的、隐蔽的方式进行”。列斐伏尔在这里关于革命的观点倒是很辩证的，因为他既没有在革命主体上否定传统无产阶级的作用，也肯定了边缘化人群产生革命主体性的新可能；既没有在革命形式上简单否定马克思、列宁提出的那种传统的暴力革命，也承认了欧洲共产主义那种在资产阶级政治体制内争取改良的议会革命道路的合法性。列斐伏尔分析认为，他自己的“这种基于空间的战略假设(l’hypothèse stratégique concernant l’espace),既没有排除所谓‘不发达’国家的作用，也没有排除工业化国家及其工人阶级的作用。与之相反，其基本原则与目标是要把那些分裂的方面联系在一起、让分散的趋势与要素获得统一”。这种重视不同地区空间实践革命的战略假设，也正是基于世界范围内空间实践的不平衡发展。可以看得出来，列斐伏尔的空间革命战略是反对资产阶级抽象空间的同质化逻辑的，他反复强调的方面都是试图建构一种差异化的空间实践。他说，“这种同质化的趋势在抽象空间中并通过抽象空间得到了现实的表达——相对立的位置上。这意味着在单一运动(包括自然起源的差异性，每一种生态都倾向于在孤立中强化)中存在着对差异性的动员：体制的、国家的、区位的、族群的、自然资源的等的差异性”。这一目标与他想要建构的理想化的差异性空间是完全一致的，即那些“让我们挂怀于心的差异性，那些我们未来的优势的理论与活动也许会考虑的差异性”。可是，到底如何现实地实现这种走向差异性空间的革命，列斐伏尔还是没有给出切实可行的行动方案。

Web Editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗