Reflecting on the Spatial Dimension of Critical Social Theory

As the foundational theory on which the Frankfurt School relies and continues to develop, critical social theory has evolved from its initial reliance on Marx’s critique of political economy to cultural critique, artistic critique, and then to technological critique, continuously generating multiple pathways of ideal pursuit and practical goals concerning human liberation and the search for a good life. Within this, the spatial turn, as a dimension of critical social theory, is not a simple paradigm restructuring, nor a purely theoretical distortion, but is more fundamentally a form of immanent critique at the philosophical level. It is precisely by seizing on spatiality as a key point that certain Western Marxists attempt, through macroscopic reflection on regions and cities and reference to concrete realities, to excavate the spatial dimension that critical social theory has neglected.

社会批判理论作为法兰克福学派得以立足和延续的基础理论，由最初凭借马克思政治经济学批判的思路，落脚到文化批判、艺术批判，再到技术批判，不断演化出多重路径的关于人的生存解放和寻求美好生活的理想追求与实践目标。其中，空间转向作为社会批判理论的一个维度，并非简单的范式重构，也不是纯粹的理论曲解，更多的是基于一种哲学层面的内在性批判。一些西方马克思主义者正是抓住空间性这一关键点，试图通过对区域和城市的宏观思考和现实参照去挖掘社会批判理论忽视的空间向度。

The Concept of Space and Spatiality

空间概念与空间性

In the view of some Western Marxists, the concept of space is not understood at the material level—as in the view of Edward W. Soja—but rather as constituted by the interweaving and interaction of various relations at the social level. Soja’s understanding of the concept of space was influenced by Henri Lefebvre and Manuel Castells, but unlike them, Soja tends to use the concept of spatiality to delve more deeply into his own views on the city as a social projection onto space, as well as into the most immediate modes of human existence and experience. This intertwining relationship between space and society is termed by Soja the “socio-spatial dialectic,” which was initially neglected in Western Marxist research. Antonio Gramsci was the first to break new ground, truly framing the concept of space within the inherent context of capitalist development. Soja discovered that the context and background discussed in Gramsci’s theory of hegemony and revolutionary strategy bear a marked regional character and relational structure.

在一些西方马克思主义者看来，空间概念并不是物质层面的理解，如苏贾（Edward W. Soja）的观点，而是由社会层面中各种关系的交织和交互而成的。苏贾对于空间概念的理解受到了列斐伏尔和卡斯特的影响，但与他们不同的是，苏贾更倾向使用空间性概念来深入解读自己对于城市这一社会对空间投射的看法，以及关涉最切身的人类生存方式和体验。而这种空间和社会之间的交缠关系被苏贾称为社会—空间辩证法，最初在西方马克思主义的研究中是被忽略的。葛兰西首开先河，真正将空间概念框定在固有的资本主义发展背景下。苏贾发现葛兰西的霸权理论及其革命策略中所论述的语境和背景，带有显著的地域性色彩和关系性架构。

In a certain sense, the philosophical substance of the spatial dimension of critical social theory originates from Martin Heidegger’s thought on spatiality. This is because Heidegger holds that spatiality determines space, while spatiality itself is determined by temporality. In understanding the concept of space, one must not confine oneself to the vulgar concept of space, but must transcend it and move toward spatiality. Consequently, when it comes to concrete and emerging urban and regional spaces, it becomes necessary to reconstruct the relationship between humans and space. At this point, space is no longer the surrounding world, but becomes the life-world. In other words, space becomes a place of dwelling, prompting a state of harmony between humans and the life-world, and between humans themselves. Especially when contradictions arise in new urban forms and regional layouts, the relationship between humans and space needs to be reversed.

从某种意义上说，社会批判理论之空间向度的哲学实质是从海德格尔的空间性思想中产生。因为海德格尔认为空间性决定空间，而空间性又是由时间性所决定的。在理解空间这一概念的时候，不能只局限于流俗的空间概念，而是要对此进行超越，走向空间性。那么关涉具体的以及新兴的城市和区域空间的时候，就需要重构人与空间之间的关系，这时的空间不再是周围世界，而成为生活世界。换言之，这时的空间成为一种栖居地，促使人与生活世界、人与人达到和谐状态，尤其是当新型城市形式以及区域布局出现矛盾时，就需要调转人与空间的关系。

According to Heidegger, space is merely one of the modes in which world-phenomena appear, rather than being something through which we understand the world by immersing ourselves in the ready-made space of the present. Only through the life-world can spatiality be better understood. Traces of Heidegger can be found in the understandings of space held by Lefebvre, David Harvey, and Castells. Lefebvre focused his phenomenological analysis on how individuals produce space and the relationship between space and the body, while also pioneering spatial critique. Harvey, drawing on Heidegger’s statement that “place is the locus of the truth of Being,” discussed the sense of time-space compression brought about by the development of the technological sphere, thereby reflecting on the significance of dwelling. Castells went further, subordinating the space of flows to temporality in order to tame space, reducing space to a structural element of society.

按照海德格尔的说法，空间只是世界现象的显现方式之一，而不是沉浸在如今这种现成的空间来理解世界，只有通过生活世界才能更好地理解空间性。在列斐伏尔、哈维和卡斯特对空间的理解上，能够搜寻到海德格尔的影子。列斐伏尔把关注点放在个体如何产生空间以及空间与身体之间的关系这一现象学分析上，同时也开辟了空间批判的先河。哈维则借助海德格尔所言的“地方是存在之真理的场所”，论述了随着技术领域的发展所带来的时空压缩感，进而反思栖居的重要意义。卡斯特则进一步将流动空间放入时间性之中来驯服空间，把空间还原为社会的结构性要素。

“Thirdspace” and Geographical Imagination

“第三空间”与地理学想象

Compared to Lefebvre, Harvey, and Castells, Soja’s uniqueness lies in his proposal of the concept of “Thirdspace.” For human existence, this not only realizes human freedom and liberation but also, while satisfying individuals’ sense of home, avoids phenomena such as urban alienation, consumption alienation, and labor alienation. Soja’s continuous elaboration on the issue of spatiality stems not only from his desire to construct a postmodern geography through urban and regional studies—which includes an emphasis on the spatial dimension of critical social theory, namely an ontological debate over spatiality guided by the socio-spatial dialectic—but also from his attempt, in the process of constructing this postmodern geography, to emphasize an epistemological issue of Thirdspace, that is, to construct a critical geographical imagination, thereby ensuring a contemporary awareness of spatiality. When confronting everyday life, Soja’s theory of Thirdspace draws on Jean Baudrillard’s notion of “hyperreality.” In Baudrillard’s view, “the city is no longer the political-industrial polygon of the 19th century; it is now a polygon of signs, media, and codes. Therefore, its truth no longer lies in geographical places like factories or traditional slums. Its truth is imprisonment in form/sign, which exists everywhere.” [1]1 Jean Baudrillard, *Simulacra and Simulation*, trans. Sheila Faria Glaser (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1994), p. 76. As the urban regions described in consumer society become enveloped by various spectacles, the buildings and all things within the city possess their own codes, losing their authentic meaning. It seems that people can only better understand the surrounding world through signs and codes. As for how people can survive in this world enveloped by signs, Soja attempts to find answers in the specific development and formation process of a city like Los Angeles.

相较列斐伏尔、哈维和卡斯特，苏贾的独特之处在于提出了“第三空间”的概念，这对人的生存来说不仅是实现人的自由解放，而且在满足个体家园感的同时又避免了都市异化、消费异化和劳动异化等现象。苏贾之所以不断围绕空间性问题展开论述，不仅是想通过城市和区域研究构建后现代地理学，其中包括社会批判理论空间向度的强调，即一种社会空间辩证法指引下的对于空间性问题的存在论争议；而且在这种后现代地理学建构过程中试图强调一种第三空间的认识论问题，也就是构建一种批判性的地理学想象，以此来保证对空间性的当代意识。苏贾的第三空间理论在直面日常生活的时候，借鉴了鲍德里亚的“超现实”说法。在鲍德里亚看来，“城市不再是19世纪那种政治、工业多边形，它现在是符号、传媒、代码的多边形。所以，它的真相不再处于工厂或传统贫民窟那样的地理场所。它的真相就是形式/符号中的监禁，这到处都存在”。随着消费社会中所描述的城市区域被各种景观包裹起来的情形，城市里的建筑和各种事物都有着各自的代码，失去了本真的意义，似乎人们只有通过符号和代码才能更好地认识周围的世界。而对于人们如何在这种由符号包裹起来的世界里生存下去，苏贾试图在洛杉矶这种城市的具体发展和形成过程中找寻答案。

The dazzling array of spectacles and the convergence of the virtual and the real endow the spatial dimension of critical social theory with characteristics of heterogeneity and differentiation, a process that also occurs during the long transition from the critique of modernity to postmodernity. Entering the Fourth Industrial Revolution, digital technologies represented by big data, cloud computing, and blockchain will have a certain impact on the regional distribution of new-type cities. Currently, urban planning focuses on conditions such as suitability for new digital infrastructure. Urban regions are no longer distributed with coal or the cotton textile industry as the center, but instead take digital platforms as nodes, forming an actor-network-style pattern. This space is not a space visible in the physical sense; it is a space given through algorithms. This platform space is closely related to mathematics; it is a topological structure of space. This topological space is a space manufactured from data. It does not exist in real life, yet it exerts an influence on the distribution of physical space in reality.

光怪陆离的景观以及虚拟和真实的交汇使得社会批判理论中的空间向度呈现出异质性和差异化特征，这同时也发生在从现代性批判转向后现代的漫长过程中。进入第四次工业革命，以大数据、云计算、区块链等为代表的数字技术会对新型城市的地域分布带来一定影响，目前城市规划将重心放在是否适合数字新基建等条件之上。城市区域不再是传统的以煤炭、棉纺织工业为中心来分布，而是以数字平台为节点，构成一种行动者网络式的格局。这种空间不是在物理学意义上可见的空间，它是通过算法给出的空间。这种平台空间与数学密切相关，它是一个空间的拓扑结构。这个拓扑空间就是用数据制造出来的空间，它不是在现实生活中存在的，但是却对现实的物理空间分布产生影响。

As we enter an urban space dominated by digital information technology, people live in a world encompassed by digital space. Everyone must transform themselves into a virtual entity to enter the digital world and then carry out corresponding daily life. The rapid development of digital cities makes people’s sense of surreality increasingly pronounced. On the surface, people can directly purchase what they need through the virtual world of the internet, but this in turn reveals that spatial distance is not the only path to bringing people closer emotionally and in communication. It seems that remote presence is still possible even across thousands of miles. People are immersed in this spatial illusion and pleasure brought by digital technology, but this is an alienation brought about by digital space, behind which still lies the power of capital.

随着进入以数字信息技术为主导的城市空间，人们生活在由数字空间所包含起来的世界之中，每个人必须将自己转化为虚拟实体才能进入数字世界，然后进行相应的日常生活。数字城市的快速发展使得人们的那种超越真实感愈加明显。从表面看，人们直接通过网络虚拟世界就能购买到自己所需要的事物，但是这反过来却暴露了空间距离并不是拉近人与人之间情感和沟通交流的唯一路径，似乎相隔千里仍然可以实现远程在场。人们沉浸在这种由数字带来的空间幻想和快感之中，但这是一种由数字空间所带来的异化，其背后依然是资本的力量。

Returning to Marx’s Point of Origin

返回马克思的思想原点

According to Marx’s analysis, whether the circulation process of capital extends outward in terms of location or breaks through geographical boundaries to create a world market, it all reflects the shadow of uneven development. Therefore, “capital by its nature drives beyond every spatial barrier. Thus the creation of the physical conditions of exchange – of the means of communication and transport – the annihilation of space by time – becomes an extraordinary necessity for it.” [2]2 Karl Marx, *Grundrisse der Kritik der politischen Ökonomie* (Berlin: Dietz Verlag, 1953), p. 438. English translation: Karl Marx, *Grundrisse: Foundations of the Critique of Political Economy*, trans. Martin Nicolaus (London: Penguin, 1973), p. 524. In Marx’s view, capital circulation requires a broader market and thus pursues spatial expansion, but this must be carried out on the premise of shortening circulation time, which is determined by the essential attributes of capital. Regardless of the historical period, urban and regional development will inevitably confront this issue. Hence, Soja points out the need to turn to a “critique of critiques of critiques.” [3]3 Edward W. Soja, *Postmodern Geographies: The Reassertion of Space in Critical Social Theory* (London: Verso, 1989), p. 76. Perhaps due to the limitations of his era, Soja’s discussion of digital space is insufficient; his theory, to some extent, cannot yet engage with the emerging phenomena of digital space. This is a key link that needs to be further advanced in the subsequent research on the spatial dimension within social critical theory.

按照马克思的分析，资本的流通过程无论是出现地点的向外延展，还是突破地域界限来打造世界市场，都映射出不平衡发展的影子。因此，“资本一方面要力求摧毁交往即交换的一切地方限制，征服整个地球作为它的市场，另一方面，它又力求用时间去消灭空间，就是说，把商品从一个地方转移到另一个地方所花费的时间缩减到最低限度。资本越发展，从而资本借以流通的市场，构成资本流通空间道路的市场越扩大，资本同时也就越是力求在空间上更加扩大市场，力求用时间去更多地消灭空间”。在马克思看来，资本流通需要更广阔的市场，从而追求空间的扩张，但必须是在缩短流通时间的前提下来进行，这是由资本的本质属性所决定的。无论是哪个历史时期的城市和区域发展，都必然会面对这一问题，所以苏贾指出，需要转入一种“批判之批判之批判”。也许是时代的局限，苏贾对于数字空间的论述还不够充分，他的理论在某种程度上还无法切入当下出现的数字空间现象，这是在后续的社会批判理论中空间向度的研究过程中需进一步推进的关键环节。

The philosophical essence of spatiality is unavoidable for both traditional spatial research and emerging digital spatial research. It is not only the theoretical foundation that prompts reflection on the new relationship between humans and space, but also the most profound internal critical path for examining the current new spatial configurations and the direction of human social civilization. However, some Western Marxists place excessive emphasis on the spatial dimension and an almost perfect ideal state of the city. Whether this can truly resolve the various injustices that subsequently emerge in urban space seems open to question. The spatial turn of social critical theory can find direct theoretical grounding in Marx’s writings. Although the newly emerging digital space was something Marx’s era never encountered, Marx provides the basic standpoints and perspectives for critical theory. In many cases, we must still return to Marx as the point of origin to draw ideological nourishment.

空间性这一哲学实质无论是对传统空间研究还是新兴的数字空间研究都是无法绕开的，这不仅是促使思考新兴的人与空间关系的理论基石，也是反观当下新的空间布局和人类社会文明走向的最为深刻的内在批判路径。但是一些西方马克思主义者过于注重空间维度和接近完美式的城市理想状态，能否真正解决后续城市空间中出现的种种非正义问题，似乎有待商榷。社会批判理论的空间转向能够在马克思的著作中找到直接的理论依据，尽管新出现的数字空间是马克思那个年代所没有遭遇到的，但是马克思为批判理论提供了基本的立场和观点，在很多时候，我们依然要返回马克思这个原点，来汲取思想养分。

Online editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗