Lefebvre: A political project that changes everyday life itself
Zhang Yibing
He is a senior professor of liberal arts at Nanjing University, director of the Research Center for Marxist Social Theory, and a doctoral supervisor of the Department of Philosophy
Marxism is not a rigid dogma, nor is it an eternal and unchanging absolute truth. Lefebvre believed that Marxism, as a living method and guide to action, should understand and change the world, and the world is constantly changing, so Marxism can only realize its historical mission by putting forward theoretical propositions to deal with new problems and new situations in social development. It is necessary to develop a completely new political programme for the radical transformation of everyday life, not a quantitative model of development of the bourgeoisie that does not shake the capitalist system itself, but a concrete realization of the slogan of "changing life" in the qualitative transformation of everyday life.
[Keywords] Lefebvre; "Towards a Left-Wing Cultural Politics: The 100th Anniversary of Marx's Death"; Critique of Everyday Life; use value
This article was originally published in Shandong Social Sciences, No. 2, 2024.
Lefebvre is a legendary figure in the history of Western Marxist thought. He wrote nearly 70 treatises and a large number of articles in his lifetime, and his early original theory of "Criticism of Everyday Life" realized the transformation of the theory of alienation from macro political and economic relations to micro social life, and in the process of moving towards historical materialism, realized the transformation of the time thread of observation of history to the logic of spatial production. In 1976, Lefebvre wrote the essay "Space: Social Products and Use Values"1, which was a general statement of his important theoretical discoveries after the publication of his book The Production of Space. In 1987, Lefebvre published the article "Towards a Left Cultural Politics: The 100th Anniversary of Marx's Death",2 which was not only a reaffirmation of his lifelong adherence to the banner of Marxism, but also his final view of a revolutionary political plan. This paper intends to give a preliminary discussion of the main points of these two important essays of Lefebvre in his later years.
01
Space Revolution: Priority over access and use value
Lefebvre's Space: Social Products and Use Values, published two years after the publication of his magnum opus, The Production of Space, shows that some of his ideas seem to be clearer, especially an important addition to the nature of socialist space production that has not been fully developed in the book The Production of Space.
Lefebvre makes it clear at the beginning of his essay that such a surprising concept as "spatial production" is in response to "recent events", namely, "the rapid expansion of cities of a certain history, the general urbanization of society, and the problem of spatial organization." Today, the analysis of production shows that we have moved from the production of things in space to the production of space itself"3. This is a point that we have been familiar with since the beginning of Urban Revolution. Obviously, Lefebvre's article does not discuss the general theory of spatial production as a metaphilosophy, but focuses on the nature of spatial production itself in contemporary capitalist society, which is very different from the book "The Production of Space". Lefebvre said that the shift from the traditional "production dans l'espace" to the "production de l'espace" of contemporary capitalism is, of course, "derived from the growth of the productive forces themselves", which is the view of historical materialism. It is not difficult to see that Lefebvre at this time still adhered to the basic methodological principles of historical materialism. "Production dans l'espace" refers primarily to the material production that takes place in social space, while "production de l'espace" refers to the production of space itself. This is also the transition from the production of objects to the production of space, which he has repeatedly explained. First, in Lefebvre's view, this development already involved "the direct intervention of knowledge in material production." We know that the direct intervention of knowledge in material production is also related to Marx's "fragment of machine theory", the difference is that the objectification of science and technology in material production mentioned by Marx in the past is still the production of things in space, and now Lefebvre believes that this kind of knowledge intervention will be transformed into knowledge about the production of space itself, especially through conceptual spatial representation (design and planning) and complex representational space will eventually become "information about the overall space". sur'espace entier)。 4 Note that at this time Lefebvre paid particular attention to the important role of information technology in the production of capitalist space, which was the main focus of his later years on the internal dynamics of the capitalist productive forces, and in his Critique of Everyday Life, vol. 3, 5, the question of information ideology and information fetishism became an important object of his discussion. Secondly, in this transformation from the production of things in space to the production of space itself, the production of things does not disappear, but is transformed into an economy that depends more on "a flow of energy, of raw materials, of labor, of information, etc." The units of industry and agricultural production are no longer isolated and isolated from each other. This shift has led to an important consequence: the planning of the modern economy tends to become the planning of space"6. That is to say, the production in space has also shifted from the material production of objects to the production of non-object functional flow energy, such as the flow of information in the market and the huge logistics system of direct spatial circulation, and in Lefebvre's view, the essence of this spatial production is precisely the relational existence of the field and its interactive network. Lefebvre said that now all production processes in space are no longer "isolated and isolated", and that the social space of capitalism is an objectively functional and interactive totality.
In order to enable the reader to understand the special provisions of the concept of social space discussed here, Lefebvre returns to the level of "metaphilosophy" to explain some important academic construction points that he repeatedly emphasizes in his book The Production of Space: First, Lefebvre's space is a special social existence, which is not a concept of space and place in the physical sense. l'espace nature) has irretrievably disappeared (éloigne). Although it is of course still the origin of social processes, nature has now been reduced to the material on which the productive forces of society manipulate (opéré)"7. If it is said that in the social life of ancient human beings, survival mainly depended on the material conditions in the external natural space, while the development of social history was a new type of social space generated by relying on the increasingly complex production forces and social relations of human beings, the past as the conditions for the natural survival of human beings no longer played a decisive basic role, but became the object of domination and control. Strangely, however, in the bourgeois view of space, "social space is always a product of society, but this fact is not recognized." Societies think that what they accept and transform is the natural space"8. Mistaking the social space relationship environment for the natural space where physical objects are piled up is the spatial fetishistic consciousness that emerges in bourgeois space production. In fact, according to our discussion above, this can be divided into two levels: the epistemological misidentification of anti-substantialism and the ideology of bourgeois economic fetishism. Second, he particularly emphasized the essence of the production and reproduction of social relations in the social space, which historically includes both the production of man's own blood relations and the production of man's "labor and the differentiation of its organization". Society, he said, "is permeated with social relations in space; It is not only supported by social relations, but also produced by and by social relations"9. This is also the theoretical thrust of his book "The Production of Space". Third, from a deeper perspective, the production of space must be carried out historically in a certain way, which is also the view of "how to produce" put forward by Marx in the book "German Ideology". In his characteristic words, Lefebvre said: "Every society is within a given structure of the mode of production (cadre), and the special properties inherent in this structure shape the space. The practice of spatiality defines space, designates space in dialectical interaction, and takes space as its premise. 10 This is an academic construct with complex layers, and if this overly metaphysical discourse is explained in layman's terms, it is: first, the spatial production of every society is in a specific historical "mode of production structure", or in other words, it is always based on a certain structure of the mode of production. Second, space production is constructed by space practice activities, but the spatial conditions generated by the historical specific mode of production are the premise of space practice, and space practice and the historical existence of space are a dialectical interactive process.
Of course, Lefebvre wants to focus on the problem of contemporary capitalist spatial production, that is, "the space of society managed and dominated by the bourgeoisie". In his view, the social space of capitalism is an abstract space in which exchange value reigns (l'espace abstrait), which is a view that we are already familiar with in The Production of Space.
"Capitalism and neocapitalisme (néocapitalisme) produce an abstract space that reflects, on a national and international level, the business world, the power of money and the 'politics' of the state. This abstract space relies on a vast network of banks, commerce and major production centers (énorme réseaux). We can also see that the network of highways (autoroutes), airports and information (réseaux d'information) is scattered throughout the space. In this space, the cradle of accumulation, the place of affluence, the subject of history, the center of the historic space – in other words, the city – expands rapidly. 11 The objective "l'espace abstrait" (abstract space) is the most difficult concept to understand in Lefebvre's socio-spatial theory. As mentioned earlier, the context of the abstract space here is not a conceptual subjective abstraction, but an objective abstraction of the value relations based on commodity exchange activities that emerged in the capitalist world discovered by Marx in his economic research. Here, of course, Lefebvre magnifies the value abstraction of the bourgeois commodity exchange into the entire dimension of capitalist spatial production. Abstract space is a concept used to characterize the particular nature of spatial production in capitalist society. In the above quotations, we see the following important points: first, abstract space is the essence of the social space of traditional capitalism and contemporary capitalism ("new capitalism"); Second, from the perspective of the totality of the international and the state, this objective abstraction of exchange value is based on the bourgeois commodity-market economy, the power of money and the politics of the state, these three levels of spatial relations are all non-intuitive practical relations, as a kind of "énorme réseaux" (huge network) of spatial production, commercial exchange and financial system integration, the spatial trajectory of exchange relations in the market is intangible, the abstract capital power becomes the dominant force, and the bourgeois state politics is "neutral". Lefebvre even said that "space has become the most important political tool of the state"; Third, at the level of concrete capitalist space facilities, highways, aviation, and information networks constitute the flow of goods and people in the exchange system, which guarantees the conditions for the production and reproduction of invisible economic and social relations; Fourth, as the cradle of capital and knowledge accumulation, the place where wealth is concentrated, and the birthplace of bourgeois creative practice, the central city with a historical spatial character now controls the entire social space through a rapidly expanding network of invisible urbanization domination, for which Lefebvre specifically cautions that "the city, the urban space, and the urban reality (reality) cannot be regarded as merely the sum total of the place where goods are consumed (commerce) and the place where production (enterprise) is made" 12. Because capitalist urbanization itself is a highly abstract relationship of domination. In this regard, Lefebvre exclaimed that today the abstract spatial existence of the bourgeoisie has itself been structured and commodified by exchange value. "Space, as a whole, enters the modern capitalist mode of production: it is exploited to produce surplus value. The earth, the underground, the air, and even the light are all included in the productive forces and products. The urban fabric becomes part of the means of production through its multiple networks of communication and exchange. Cities and their facilities (ports, train stations, etc.) are part of the capital. 13 It can be seen that the space that Lefebvre refers to here is not exactly the social space described above as the production of social relations, but all the spaces, including the natural space, all of which have been sold off by the bourgeoisie, the earth has become the basis of real estate business, the air passage has become a commodity of exchange, and even light constitutes the capacity for the production of wealth. Consistent with points 3 and 4 above, all physical facilities such as ports and stations in cities become organic components of constant capital, and the network dominated by urbanization is itself a tool of bourgeois exchange of value.
Lefebvre said that the abstract spatial existence of capitalism today is also a sudden totality, and this invisible abstract totality has also become a tool or means of production (moyendeproduction) for the bourgeoisie to produce surplus value. This "space," he says, is a means of production: the networks of exchange that make up space and the streams of raw materials and energy are themselves determined by space. The means of production are products themselves and cannot be separated from productivity, technology and knowledge; cannot be separated from the international division of social labour; cannot be separated from the state and other superstructures"14. These three "inseparable things" are of utmost importance, because the production of spatial exchange value in contemporary capitalism is inseparable from the development of productive forces with science and technology and other knowledge as the internal force, the international division of labor in society, and the political practice and ideological development of the bourgeois state. Of course, Lefebvre also forgot one of the most important "inseparables", that is, the international space exhibition that is inseparable from capital.
In Lefebvre's view, these contradictions are mainly "the contradiction between the pulvérisation of space caused by private property" and the totalization of scientific and technological processing of spatial information on a large scale, the contradiction between the bourgeois urban center and the enslaved periphery in globalization, and the emergence of the production of empty space" The logic of homogenization (l'homogénéité) and the strategy of repetition (stratégi edurépétitif) "contradict the conditions and outcomes of the bureaucratic space (espacebureaucratique) itself. 15 All this has begun to quietly generate a self-explosion of the abstract space of capitalism.
More importantly, Lefebvre argues, the fall of the capitalist world is exacerbated by the inclusion of class struggle in spatial production, because only class conflict can prevent the abstract space of the bourgeoisie from erasing all spatial differences and spreading globally, "only class action can create differences and rebel against the strategies, logics and systems inherent in economic growth"16. Lefebvre was very optimistic that the "consumer movement" that had emerged around the world questioning the abstract space of capitalism might be the latest form of what he called the class struggle to intervene in the production of space. These movements show that "space is not only economic, not all parts are interchangeable and have an exchange value", and that space is not a "political tool used by the bourgeoisie to homogenize the parts of society". In contrast, "space is a model, a prototypeperpétuel of use value, which, under the authority of the homogenized state, resists the universal exchange and exchange value of capitalism"17. Of course, Lefebvre believed that such a spontaneous movement had no future and should be guided "towards the space of socialism." Lefebvre, while denying the abstract space of capitalism, did not raise the concrete problem of the spatial production of socialism that replaced capitalism. And here, Lefebvre made the necessary additions.
02
Towards socialist space production
First, Lefebvre argues that such a turn can only be achieved under the guidance of Marxism, because "we cannot analyze the phenomena of the world unless we revise them to apply them to particular situations in the light of the basic categories of Marxism".18 That is to say, although Marxism is our guiding ideology and methodology for looking at the abstract spatial problems of capitalism, we cannot copy Marx's words, because the new problems that have emerged in the production of contemporary capitalist space are not things that Marx encountered during his lifetime, so the Marxist "illumination" insisted on by Lefebvre is the result of revision. By "revision" he is referring to specifically: "Although Capital does not analyze space, certain concepts, such as exchange value and use value, can be applied to space today." Now we must make a distinction that Marx did not mention—the domination of nature and the appropriation of nature. This conflict unfolds in space: between the space that is dominated and the space that is taken. More than in Marx's time, nature is now the source of all use value. ”19
Disproving the notion of "domination of nature" may be a revision of the basic principles of historical materialism. Reflections on man's domination over nature originated in Lefebvre's 1962 book Introduction to Modernity: Prelude,20 in which Lefebvre discusses this issue in detail in the ninth prelude, Nature et conquêtes sur la nature (Nature et conquêtes sur la nature). In Lefebvre's view, the concept of productive forces in Marx's historical materialism is still based on the concept of bourgeois Enlightenment ideology on the conquest and control of nature, and this is the fundamental problem that causes the exchange value to prevail over and replace the use value of today's capitalist abstract space. Thus entering a new type of socialist spatial production mode.
Second, the essence of the new type of socialist spatial production must be the superiority of appropriation over domination, the use of the logic that precedes exchange. "The production of socialist space implies the end of private property and the political domination of space by the state," Lefebvre said, "which in turn implies the transition from domination to appropriation (le passage de la dominationál'appropriation) and the primer de l'usage sur l'éxchange (use over exchange)." 21 This is the concrete implementation of the previous basic viewpoint of historical materialism in the production of space after being revised, and it is also the point that Lefebvre deliberately highlights in The Production of Space. In his view, "to 'turn the world upside down,' according to Marx, means to subvert the dominant space, to place access above domination, need over command, and use over exchange"22. Without this fundamental transformation, spatial production, which is still dominated by economic growth and exchange value that dominates nature, will never be socialist in nature.
Third, socialist space production is a space of difference. According to Lefebvre, bourgeois abstract space is "a space of quantification and homogenization (généralisation et d'homogénéité), a space of commercialization in which elements can be exchanged with each other (échangeable) and therefore interchangeable; It is a police space where a country cannot tolerate any resistance or obstruction. As a result, the economic and political spaces tend to converge and eliminate all differences"23. The socialist space is to change the homogeneous state of existence caused by the abstraction of exchange value, and truly realize the differentiated existence of space production.
Fourth, the way in which social space will change will be the autonomy of spatial production from the bottom up. For all Western left-wing scholars, critiquing capitalism is not actually the hardest, but the real problem that bothers them is the concrete way to liberate themselves from the reality of capitalism. The measure of social change given here by Lefebvre is the self-management of social universality (l'autogestiongénéral). In his view, "the social space that was previously produced from the 'top down' is reconstructed into a 'bottom-up' space, that is, universal self-management, that is, the management of units and production processes at various levels"24. "Top-down" refers to the exchange production in which the power of capital rules and dominates space from above, while "bottom-up" refers to the use of nature and space by the laborers themselves.
Fifth, the goal of social space production should be redefined as the real needs of society. Lefebvre said that this demand was made precisely by Marx. Marx defined production in a socialist society as production that satisfies social needs. Most of these social needs are related to space: housing, household equipment, transportation, the reorganization of urban space, and so on. They expand the scope of the capitalist production space and at the same time change its products to a greater extent. Doing so contributes to the transformation of everyday life, to the definition of development in a social rather than an individual way, without excluding the individual's mode of production. Individuals in a socialist society have the right to approach a space and to have urban life as the center of gravity of social life and so-called cultural activities. 25 Unlike the false need for exchange value in bourgeois spatial production, socialist spatial production is designed to satisfy the real needs of society and the development needs of every individual in society, that is to say, space is not for sale, but for everyone to use in everyday life. The revolutionary aim of space production is, of course, to radically change the everyday life of the bourgeoisie.
03
Hold high the banner of Marxism
Lefebvre's 1987 essay "Towards a Left Cultural Politics: The 100th Anniversary of Marx's Death" was actually a summary of his own Marxist outlook in his later years. In the synopsis of this article, Lefebvre makes it clear: "After the Second World War, capitalism succeeded in completely penetrating every aspect of everyday life. For Marxism, we need new concepts to maintain its potential: to help us understand and radically change the modern world that is completely commoditized. 26 Here, Lefebvre reminds us to pay close attention to the new problems of capitalist society, namely the invasion and enslavement of everyday life by the bourgeoisie, and Lefebvre argues that Marxism must use new concepts in order to see through these new problems. This is precisely what I call the fundamental characteristic of late Marxism.
First, Lefebvre considered himself a Marxist, a fighter who used Marx's standpoint, viewpoint and method to study and criticize the latest developments of contemporary capitalism. This is a respectable statement. Of course, he explicitly rejects all kinds of misinterpretations of Marx's thought: first, he opposes the fragmentation of Marx's texts, which specifically refers to "a Marxist tendency mainly around Althusser, that is, to reject Marx's writings as an ideology and philosophy." Can Marxism be defined only by the writings of Marx in the mature period of science? 27 This was the scientific Marxism that he had fought all his life, and this position remained unchanged in his superficial consciousness. Lefebvre argues that historical materialism is the humanistic discourse of Marx's early writings. The second is to oppose dogmatism in a pluralistic way, but it also confuses the "line of demarcation between Marxist and non-Marxist ideas", such as using existentialism to pretend to be historical materialism, and using structuralist viewpoints to illustrate Marx, etc., which is an evil path that Lefebvre could not tolerate. He always believed that "all the ideas of the entire 20th century were born from Marxism, and even those that opposed it or deviated from it, such as Schumpeter and Keynes, could not escape the influence of Marxism." 28 This is a remarkable assertion, which is close to Sartre's view that "Marx's thought is the unsurpassable ideological banner of our time" and that Derrida identified that "we are all Marx's debtors." In Lefebvre's view, many of the important transformations that have taken place in the development of contemporary capitalism have been influenced by Marx and Lenin, and Keynesianism, which highlights state intervention, is the application of socialist economic and political factors to the capitalist mode of production, which gives capitalism the possibility of survival.
Second, Marxism is not a dogma, but a living research method and ideological weapon, and this should be Lefebvre's increasingly clear theoretical attitude. He said explicitly: "In my opinion, Marxism is an instrument of research and discovery; It only works if we use it. Marx's thinking cannot be regarded as a 'pure' object of knowledge, nor is it an epistemological reflection of an object, nor is it even a gadget for deconstruction and reconstruction in an intellectual game. It is only useful if people are trying to understand what is happening in the modern world, and people are trying to set the course for it and change the world. 29 This is a perfectly correct view. Lefebvre rejected dogmatism because Marxism is not an absolutely correct doctrine, nor is it the result of a reflection of the external world. He was also opposed to Western Marxism, which treated Marx's ideas as objects of pure knowledge. For Marxists, "it is not a system or a dogma, but a guide", an ideological weapon that "works only when it is used", to see through the real society and change the world, this is the basic philosophical principle established by Marx when this new world outlook was first conceived in the Theses on Feuerbach in 1845.
Third, Marxism must face the developing world. Marxism is not a rigid dogma, nor is it an eternal and unchanging absolute truth, so Lefebvre believes that Marxism, as a living method and guide to action, should understand and change the world, and the world is constantly changing, and Marxism can only realize its historical mission by constantly studying and responding to new problems and new situations that arise in social development, and this seems to be the direction that Lefebvre believes he has been adhering to and working towards. In his view, "Marx's thinking constitutes a nucleus, a tenacious seed of life, an element of a concept of the world, the development of which has to be met with a whole whole whole of totally different undertakings, just as Freud and Nietzsche did." In the modern world, this ferment is present in the world and works on it by contributing to the change of the world (not that Marxist thought is the only factor that brings about this transformation)"30. Marx's thought is our scientific method of thinking and changing the world, it is like an atomic nucleus that can explode at any time, but its role will always encounter a new reality that has changed, we must "recall the development and changes of the capitalist mode of production in the past century", Marxism can only survive and develop itself in the problem of differentiation, this is a correct thesis. In my opinion, the above three aspects are the academic bottom line that Lefebvre has always adhered to in his later years, indicating his identity as the standard-bearer of Marxism in the middle and late postmodern frenzy.
Lefebvre said: "It has been more than a century since Marx's death, and so much has changed in this world. But there are still many things that remain the same, especially the so-called social relations. There is both progress and regression. In order to understand these changes, we need to add something to Marx's theories and vocabulary. 31 Lefebvre proudly said that, in accordance with the above principles, he himself had in the past few years provided a number of new concepts to Marx's theoretical treasury, the most famous of which was the concept of the "everyday". He said that a paper he published in 1982 entitled "The World" (LeMonde)32 was devoted to "the study of everyday life [laviequotidienne (dailylife]; Everyday [Iequotidien (theeveryday)]; A distinction is made between the three concepts of "everydayness" [laquotidienneté (everydayness)]. Let's define the everyday life simply, which has always been there, but is filled with values and myths. And the word 'everyday' implies that everyday life has entered modernity: the everyday, as an object of planning, unfolds by the equivalent system of the market, enforced through marketing and advertising. For 'everydayness', it emphasizes homogeneity, repetition and fragmentation in everyday life"33. This is Lefebvre's most important statement in his later years about the core concepts of his critical theory of everyday life, and it is also like a summary. There are three different levels of construction: one is the mystified "laviequotienne" (everyday life) that we encounter every day but cannot see through, which is a philosophical sense of everyday life. Lefebvre began to think about this question in the thirties of the 20th century, when Lefebvre tried to identify the social relations that dominate the mystification from the everyday life that people take for granted. "When I first rethought the everyday, Surrealism was already trying to find a way to summon the extraordinary and the magical in the midst of the ordinary," he admits. 34 The second is a specific "Iequotidien" (weekdays) that arises after the entry of everyday life into modernity. Lefebvre specifically identifies: "The English word 'everyday' is a less than perfect translation of the French word 'laquotidienne,' which refers to repetition in everyday life." Everyday life refers specifically to the everyday existence planned by bourgeois modernity and constructed by the market's equivalence endowment and the realization of false consumption of manufacturing desires, which is his new understanding starting from the first volume of "Critique of Everyday Life" and "Everyday Life in the Modern World". The third is the qualitative nature of "laquotidienneté" (everydayness), that is, the existential characteristics of the bourgeois abstract space through homogenization, repetition and fragmentation, which is the deepening of the concept from the second volume of the Critique of Everyday Life to the production of space. Turning to the perspective of the relationship between subject and object, Lefebvre said: "I have also expressed the following in the past: 'Everyday', in the modern world, is no longer a 'subject' (the subject of rich subjectivity), but has become an 'object' (the object of social organization). 35 This means that today's bourgeois daily life is no longer an active subsistence activity of man, but has become a kind of planned object existence, that is, a "second natural being" created by man in the sense of Lefebvre but beyond his control.
Lefebvre argues that in Western philosophy, it seems that metaphysics is an uneveryday way above the metaphysical sensual everyday life, "since Plato and Aristotle, philosophy has placed itself above the everyday and excluded it from the scope of thinking", Marx may have also paid too much attention to the workers' "labor, work, and productive activities", while the reality is that "the workers not only have factory life, but they also have social life, family life, and political life; They have life experience outside the field of labour". 36 The exploitation of wage labour by capital has permeated everyday life outside of labour. Ignoring the existence of daily life, ignoring the everydayness of existence, I am afraid that the existence of the whole traditional philosophy is a deviation. This is the origin of Lefebvre's efforts to pull philosophy back from the abstract heaven to the concrete life on earth and around us, or the historical reason for the generation of Lefebvre's critical theory of everyday life.
In another more important aspect, Lefebvre's practical reason for proposing the concept of everyday life is the total invasion of everyday life by contemporary capitalism. In this regard, Lefebvre made a historical analysis. In his view, there are three historical stages of development in daily life in real social life: the first stage is the period when daily life is still based on the rhythm of natural existence, and the use value is still the basis of the world. During this period, he co-authored with his wife, Catherine Reguillier-Lefebvre, the book "Project of Rhythm Analysis"37, which deliberately highlighted the concept of rhythm. In Lefebvre's view, this was also a time when "the everyday was still connected to nature, that is, to the immediate given". In his view, at this stage, "the rhythm of life is not yet distinguishable from the rhythms of nature such as day and night, week and month, season and year." This everyday life is still conceived in religion, and usevalue (in the Marxian sense) still dominates. Machines are almost indistinguishable from tools. The city is also indistinguishable from the countryside, it is still a huge rural area, or an expansion of the countryside. Capitalism in this period was still busy building locomotives, steamships, cannons, etc., but it did not yet deal with everyday life"38.
In terms of time, this is a long period of time, because it includes the pre-capitalist period and the early capitalist period of the entire human society. This historical period has the following three characteristics: First, the rhythm of human life is still based on the rhythm of nature, which is due to the fact that industrial production, which fundamentally changes the mode of existence and the law of movement, has not yet fully developed, and the existence of human life cannot be separated from the rhythm of natural existence, which is the qualitative nature of the natural economy of agrarian society and the life of early capitalist industrial society. The second is that the basic characteristics of this period depend on two key qualities, namely, that the daily life and use value dominated by witchcraft and theology dominated the existence of life, and that in the early development of the whole natural economy and capitalism, production activities were still aimed at the basic needs of man, and the use value of products remained the direct conditions of life. We must note that this concept of use value, which was once the purpose of human life, will replace the humanistic value suspension with the philosophical concept of appropriation, and become a historical critical measure of the alienation of the essential relationship of daily life today—the usurpation of exchange value and the rhythm of money. This is similar to the "Gewesenseins" of the initial labor exchange relationship that Marx later discovered in the Outline, which is the preceding reality scale of the scientific critique of labor alienation. Third, after entering the early period of capitalist development, the bourgeoisie was still busy with the basic construction of the industrial and commercial kingdoms, and had not yet extended its hand to everyday life.
The second stage is the period in which the bourgeoisie triumphs and replaces use value with exchange value and makes a full-scale invasion of everyday life. According to Lefebvre's judgment, this phase began at the end of the Second World War. The fundamental characteristic of the daily life in this period is that "a powerful wave of industrialization and urbanization has hit." Exchange value prevails over use value. Commodities, markets, and money occupy everyday life with an irreconcilable logic. The expansion of capitalism permeates the details of everyday life"39. This is obviously a mismatch with Marx's analysis of capitalism in the 19th century, that is, in the capitalist era in which Marx lived, exchange value had not yet completely triumphed over use value in social life, and the bourgeoisie had not yet penetrated domination and enslavement into people's daily life, but after the end of the Second World War, all this changed. The bourgeoisie has now allowed the logic of exchange to dominate the nuances of everyday life. I think Lefebvre's view is generally correct, but the following question deserves further discussion, that is, when Marx made an essential critique of the capitalist commodity-market economy, the value relations abstracted from the labor exchange relations, and the money-capital relations "abstracted into domination", were already a frenzied pursuit of "exchange value" (surplus value) away from the use value of commodities. Therefore, Lefebvre's point here is only legitimate if he retracts the logical boundary to the complete intrusion of exchange relations into everyday life. Lefebvre analyzes concretely that "needs and everyday life have now become programmed; Technology enters everyday life. It is extremely noteworthy that huge multinational corporations have entered the economic sphere through their daily lives. They produce detergents, clothes, and all everyday consumer goods. At this time, the technological revolution itself replaced the social and political revolution, however, capitalism occupied much of the land that had escaped its vision: everyday life"40. The key words here are bourgeois programming, transnational corporations, and technological revolutions that have invaded daily life: first, when the technology controlled by capital invades daily life in an all-round way, people's lives will begin to be managed and programmed by scientific ideology and technology, and daily life will no longer be people's own autonomous activities; The second is that the multinational corporations of monopoly capital began to control and produce all consumer goods in everyday life, "with technocrats controlling everything; They manipulate everyday life through the manipulation of advertising and the media", and the domination and exploitation of capital began to colonize everyday life deeply; Third, today's technological revolution is the greatest political revolution, and it is through the technologization of the world that the bourgeoisie has reoccupied all of everyday life.
The third stage is the period when consumption is manipulated by the mass media. Today, Lefebvre said, "the everyday is not only programmed, but it becomes entirely mediated and mass-mediated." Marketing can allow predictions to go up to a decade. The everyday is not only controlled, it is completely manipulated. It is managed, and it is largely a huge investment by multinational corporations"41. This is an upgraded version of Lefebvre's original "bureaucratic society in which consumption is controlled", and it should be said that it is related to the fact that Lefebvre has seen that information technology is used by capital, and that information dissemination is a key tool in the bourgeoisie-controlled mass media production landscape.
An important theoretical advance made by Lefebvre at this time was that when he discussed the everyday, everyday life and everydayness, he consciously or unconsciously no longer premised on the alienated logic of humanism, but based his critical perspective on the daily life of the bourgeoisie on Marx's historical materialism. Of course, Lefebvre did not mention alienation entirely, he would still talk about alienation, but by this time his alienation had become a subjective emotion of repressed unhappiness for women. 42 He said that the everyday is a complex phenomenon, but "it is a modality of the capitalist mode of production." Therefore, my analysis is a practical application of the analysis of the mode of production (analysisofthemodeofproduction) itself. It is true that the capitalist mode of production, and even property relations, has undergone a major revision"43. He declares that "my analysis is analysisofthemodeofproduction", which is of course a methodological self-consciousness. Although he still verbally opposed Althusser's "anti-humanism" from time to time and insisted on his own concept of alienation, once he penetrated into the specific critique of capitalism at that time, in the face of all the new situations and changes in the bourgeois daily life world, he always followed the historical materialist method of analysis of the mode of production, which was the core methodological principle and position of late Marxism. In Lefebvre's view, what is happening today in capitalist society is that "the everyday is not only a mode of production, but also a form of social governance (modality of administering society)." In both senses, it involves the dominance of repetition, repetition in time. This repetitive domination is a way of life. It is the basis of exploitation and domination. But it is also a relationship between human beings and the world"44.
Returning to the metaphysical realm, the everyday in Lefebvre's contemporary bourgeois world is not only a mode of production and reproduction of the relations of production, but also a form of governance that inadvertently consolidates social domination through the constant repetition of life, which can rise to the basic relationship between man and the bourgeois world.
It is here that Lefebvre returns to the paradox of his already discussed "capitalismwasgoingtodie" predicted by both Marx and Lenin, and why contemporary capitalism has developed instead of dying, in order to assert itself at the political level as a place to surpass Marx and Lenin, which is the subject of his book The Survival of Capitalism. Lefebvre admits that Luxemburg was the first to reflect on the conclusion that "capitalismwasgoingtodie" (capitalism was about to collapse), but that it was he who really solved the problem. "I have tried to continue this line of thinking, not only to answer how capitalism survives, but also how it grows. I have stressed that the capitalist mode of production integrates industry as soon as it is established in industry. It will integrate agriculture, it will integrate the historical city, it will integrate the space, and it will also produce what I call laviequotidienne. ”45
Obviously, this is Lefebvre's return to the question of the survival of the capitalist mode of production, but this time he directly links spatial production with the everyday. Therefore, today's social revolution "cannot merely change political departments and institutions; It must change the daily life (laviequotidienne) that has been completely colonized by capitalism"46. This is the revolution of everyday life, and of course it is also a new revolutionary goal.
Lefebvre argues that it is necessary to develop a completely new political project that radically changes everyday life, which is different from the quantitative mode of development of the bourgeoisie that does not shake the capitalist system itself, "completely different from the kind of quantitative growth, that is to say, the kind of pure and simple economic growth", which concretely realizes the slogan of "changing lives" in the qualitative change of everyday life. "It's a question of slowly but profoundly changing everyday life—a question of the body, of new uses of time and space, of sociality, etc.; It implies a kind of social and political planning; higher democracy, such as direct democracy in the cities; a definition of a new citizen; decentralization; participation in autogestion; And so on – this is a social plan, but also a cultural, social and political one. ”47
This is Lefebvre's specific plan of political action: first, he also realized that the revolution of everyday life will not be an overnight thing, but a historical process that will slowly change everyday life itself. The second is that it involves the use of the human body, that is, the role of the body in space production is deformed from the logic of exchange, so that the relationship between man and nature becomes time and space production again, and becomes the essence of sociality in social life. The third is to create a new type of social and political planning, which must reflect "higher democracy", such as "direct democracy" in the relationship between urban space and environment, shape the "new citizen" who is back to himself, adopt a "decentralization" strategy in urban space, eliminate the slavery and domination relationship between the center and the periphery, and truly realize human autonomy. In Lefebvre's eyes, it would be a "cultural, social, and political project" that involves the whole of it.
In the end, of course, Lefebvre will not forget the utopian and renewed humanism that he has been shouting about all his life. "They are implicit in Marx, in the sense of renewed humanism," he said. Borrowing from Hegel, Marx envisioned a future totalperson, developing as a body, as a relationship between sensation and thought. These scholarly studies approach a supreme and final question that transcends classical philosophy. 48 He couldn't forget his old philosophical signs, but ironically, he also knew that such ideas would be utopian. Is it a utopia? Yes, because utopian thinking is about what is possible and what is not. All thinking related to action has a utopian component. ”49
exegesis
1.Henri Lefebvre, L'espace:produitsocialetvaleurd'usage,Lanouvellererevue socialiste,n°18,1976,pp.11-20.这篇文章首发于《社会主义新杂志》1976年第18期,后应美国学者弗莱伯格(J.W.Freiberg,美国波士顿大学教授)之邀,1979年英译刊发于《批判社会学:欧洲的观点》一书。 Henri Lefebvre,"Space:SocialProductandUseValue,"J.W.Freiberg(trans.),inJ.W.Freiberg(ed.),Crit⁃icalSociology:EuropeanPerspectives,NewYork:IrvingtonPublishers,1979,pp.285-295.
2.HenriLefebvre,“TowardaLeftistCulturalPolitics:RemarksOccasionedbytheCentenaryofMarx’sDeath,”Eds.inCaryNelson,LawrenceGrossberge,MarxismandtheInterpretationofCulture,UniversityofIllinoisPress,1987,pp.75-88.这篇文章应该写于1983年,是列斐伏尔为纪念马克思逝世100周年而作｡
3. Lefebvre, Space: Social Products and Use Values, translated by Wang Zhihong, in Bao Yaming, ed., Modernity and the Production of Space, Shanghai Education Press, 2003, p. 47.
4.[法]列斐伏尔:《空间:社会产物与使用价值》,王志弘译,载包亚明编:《现代性与空间的生产》,上海教育出版社2003年版,第47页｡ 中译文有改动｡ 参见Henri Lefebvre, L'espace: produit social et valeur d'usage, La nouvelle revue socialiste, n°18, 1976, p.11.
5.参见Lefebvre, Critique de la vie quotidien, vol.3: Delamodernitéau modernisme: Pourunemétaphilosophie du quotidien, Paris: l'Arche 1981.
6. Lefebvre, Space: Social Products and Use Values, translated by Wang Zhihong, in Bao Yaming (ed.), Modernity and the Production of Space, Shanghai Education Press, 2003, p. 47.
7. Lefebvre, Space: Social Products and Use Values, translated by Wang Zhihong, in Bao Yaming, ed., Modernity and the Production of Space, Shanghai Education Press, 2003, p. 48.
8. Lefebvre, Space: Social Products and Use Values, translated by Wang Zhihong, in Bao Yaming, ed., Modernity and the Production of Space, Shanghai Education Press, 2003, p. 48.
9. Lefebvre, Space: Social Products and Use Values, translated by Wang Zhihong, in Bao Yaming, ed., Modernity and the Production of Space, Shanghai Education Press, 2003, p. 48.
10. Lefebvre, "Space: Social Products and Use Values", translated by Wang Zhihong, in Bao Yaming (ed.), Modernity and the Production of Space, Shanghai Education Press, 2003, p. 48.
11.[法]列斐伏尔:《空间:社会产物与使用价值》,王志弘译,载包亚明编:《现代性与空间的生产》,上海教育出版社2003年版,第49页｡ 中译文有改动｡ 参见Henri Lefebvre, L'espace: produit social et valeur d'usage, La nouvelle revue socialiste, n°18, 1976, p.13.
12. Lefebvre, Space: Social Products and Use Values, translated by Wang Zhihong, in Bao Yaming, ed., Modernity and the Production of Space, Shanghai Education Press, 2003, p. 49.
13. Lefebvre, Space: Social Products and Use Values, translated by Wang Zhihong, in Bao Yaming, ed., Modernity and the Production of Space, Shanghai Education Press, 2003, p. 49.
14. Lefebvre, Space: Social Products and Use Values, translated by Wang Zhihong, in Bao Yaming (ed.), Modernity and the Production of Space, Shanghai Education Press, 2003, pp. 49-50.
15. See Lefebvre, Space: Social Products and Use Values, translated by Wang Zhihong, in Bao Yaming, ed., Modernity and the Production of Space, Shanghai Education Press, 2003, p. 51.
16. Lefebvre, Space: Social Products and Use Values, translated by Wang Zhihong, in Bao Yaming, ed., Modernity and the Production of Space, Shanghai Education Press, 2003, p. 50.
17. Lefebvre, Space: Social Products and Use Values, translated by Wang Zhihong, in Bao Yaming (ed.), Modernity and the Production of Space, Shanghai Education Press, 2003, p. 53.
18. Lefebvre, Space: Social Products and Use Values, translated by Wang Zhihong, in Bao Yaming, ed., Modernity and the Production of Space, Shanghai Education Press, 2003, p. 54.
19. Lefebvre, "Space: Social Product and Use Value", translated by Wang Zhihong, in Bao Yaming (ed.), Modernity and the Production of Space, Shanghai Education Publishing House, 2003, p. 54.
20. Henri Lefebvre, Introduction to Modernity: Preludes, Paris: Editions de Minuit, 1962.
21. Lefebvre, "Space: Social Products and Use Values", translated by Wang Zhihong, in Bao Yaming (ed.), Modernity and the Production of Space, Shanghai Education Press, 2003, p. 55.
22. Lefebvre, Space: Social Products and Use Values, translated by Wang Zhihong, in Bao Yaming (ed.), Modernity and the Production of Space, Shanghai Education Press, 2003, p. 57.
23. Lefebvre, "Space: Social Products and Use Values", translated by Wang Zhihong, in Bao Yaming (ed.), Modernity and the Production of Space, Shanghai Education Press, 2003, p. 55.
24.HenriLefebvre,“TowardaLeftistCulturalPolitics:RemarksOccasionedbytheCentenaryofMarx’sDeath,”Eds.inCaryNelson,LawrenceGrossberge,MarxismandtheInterpretationofCulture,UniversityofIllinoisPress,1987,p.75.中译文参见鲁宝译稿｡
25.HenriLefebvre,“TowardaLeftistCulturalPolitics:RemarksOccasionedbytheCentenaryofMarx’sDeath,”Eds.inCaryNelson,LawrenceGrossberge,MarxismandtheInterpretationofCulture,UniversityofIllinoisPress,1987,p.76.中译文参见鲁宝译稿｡
26.HenriLefebvre,“TowardaLeftistCulturalPolitics:RemarksOccasionedbytheCentenaryofMarx’sDeath,”Eds.inCaryNelson,LawrenceGrossberge,MarxismandtheInterpretationofCulture,UniversityofIllinoisPress,1987,p.75.中译文参见鲁宝译稿｡
27.HenriLefebvre,“TowardaLeftistCulturalPolitics:RemarksOccasionedbytheCentenaryofMarx’sDeath,”Eds.inCaryNelson,LawrenceGrossberge,MarxismandtheInterpretationofCulture,UniversityofIllinoisPress,1987,p.76.中译文参见鲁宝译稿｡
28.HenriLefebvre,“TowardaLeftistCulturalPolitics:RemarksOccasionedbytheCentenaryofMarx’sDeath,”Eds.inCaryNelson,LawrenceGrossberge,MarxismandtheInterpretationofCulture,UniversityofIllinoisPress,1987,p.76.中译文参见鲁宝译稿｡
29.HenriLefebvre,“TowardaLeftistCulturalPolitics:RemarksOccasionedbytheCentenaryofMarx’sDeath,”Eds.inCaryNelson,LawrenceGrossberge,MarxismandtheInterpretationofCulture,UniversityofIllinoisPress,1987,p.77.中译文参见鲁宝译稿｡
30.HenriLefebvre,“TowardaLeftistCulturalPolitics:RemarksOccasionedbytheCentenaryofMarx’sDeath,”Eds.inCaryNelson,LawrenceGrossberge,MarxismandtheInterpretationofCulture,UniversityofIllinoisPress,1987,p.77.中译文参见鲁宝译稿｡
31.HenriLefebvre,“TowardaLeftistCulturalPolitics:RemarksOccasionedbytheCentenaryofMarx’sDeath,”Eds.inCaryNelson,LawrenceGrossberge,MarxismandtheInterpretationofCulture,UniversityofIllinoisPress,1987,p.77.中译文参见鲁宝译稿｡
32.HenriLefebvre,LeMonde,Sunday,Dec.19,1982,pp. IX,X.
33.HenriLefebvre,“TowardaLeftistCulturalPolitics:RemarksOccasionedbytheCentenaryofMarx’sDeath,”Eds.inCaryNelson,LawrenceGrossberge,MarxismandtheInterpretationofCulture,UniversityofIllinoisPress,1987,p.78.中译文参见鲁宝译稿｡
34.HenriLefebvre,“TowardaLeftistCulturalPolitics:RemarksOccasionedbytheCentenaryofMarx’sDeath,”Eds.inCaryNelson,LawrenceGrossberge,MarxismandtheInterpretationofCulture,UniversityofIllinoisPress,1987,p.78.中译文参见鲁宝译稿｡
35.HenriLefebvre,LaviequotldlenneansIemondemodern,Paris:Gallinard“Idees,”1968,p.116.
36.HenriLefebvre,“TowardaLeftistCulturalPolitics:RemarksOccasionedbytheCentenaryofMarx’sDeath,”Eds.inCaryNelson,LawrenceGrossberge,MarxismandtheInterpretationofCulture,UniversityofIllinoisPress,1987,p.78.中译文参见鲁宝译稿｡
37.Lefebvre,CatherineRegular-Lefebvre,"Leprojetrythmanalytique,"Communications41,1985,pp.191-199.
38.HenriLefebvre,“TowardaLeftistCulturalPolitics:RemarksOccasionedbytheCentenaryofMarx’sDeath,”Eds.inCaryNelson,LawrenceGrossberge,MarxismandtheInterpretationofCulture,UniversityofIllinoisPress,1987,p.79.中译文参见鲁宝译稿｡
39.HenriLefebvre,“TowardaLeftistCulturalPolitics:RemarksOccasionedbytheCentenaryofMarx’sDeath,”Eds.inCaryNelson,LawrenceGrossberge,MarxismandtheInterpretationofCulture,UniversityofIllinoisPress,1987,p.79.中译文参见鲁宝译稿｡
40.HenriLefebvre,“TowardaLeftistCulturalPolitics:RemarksOccasionedbytheCentenaryofMarx’sDeath,”Eds.inCaryNelson,LawrenceGrossberge,MarxismandtheInterpretationofCulture,UniversityofIllinoisPress,1987,p.79.中译文参见鲁宝译稿｡
41.HenriLefebvre,“TowardaLeftistCulturalPolitics:RemarksOccasionedbytheCentenaryofMarx’sDeath,”Eds.inCaryNelson,LawrenceGrossberge,MarxismandtheInterpretationofCulture,UniversityofIllinoisPress,1987,p.79.中译文参见鲁宝译稿｡
42. Lefebvre writes in a commentary: "The concept of alienation, transferred from Marxist thought to culture, loses its integrity and power. For example, young women may say that they are reluctant to have children because children represent self-alienation. I think that if you have a child who opposes your own will, that constitutes alienation. But if you want to have children, it's a completely different story. Alienation is not determined by the condition of the woman, but by the behavior of her will and desires. ”HenriLefebvre,“TowardaLeftistCulturalPolitics:RemarksOccasionedbytheCentenaryofMarx’sDeath,”Eds.inCaryNelson,LawrenceGrossberge,MarxismandtheInter⁃pretationofCulture, University of Illinois Press, 1987, p.84.
43.HenriLefebvre,“TowardaLeftistCulturalPolitics:RemarksOccasionedbytheCentenaryofMarx’sDeath,”Eds.inCaryNelson,LawrenceGrossberge,MarxismandtheInterpretationofCulture,UniversityofIllinoisPress,1987,p.80.中译文参见鲁宝译稿｡
44.HenriLefebvre,“TowardaLeftistCulturalPolitics:RemarksOccasionedbytheCentenaryofMarx’sDeath,”Eds.inCaryNelson,LawrenceGrossberge,MarxismandtheInterpretationofCulture,UniversityofIllinoisPress,1987,p.80.中译文参见鲁宝译稿｡
45.HenriLefebvre,“TowardaLeftistCulturalPolitics:RemarksOccasionedbytheCentenaryofMarx’sDeath,”Eds.inCaryNelson,LawrenceGrossberge,MarxismandtheInterpretationofCulture,UniversityofIllinoisPress,1987,p.80.中译文参见鲁宝译稿｡
46.HenriLefebvre,“TowardaLeftistCulturalPolitics:RemarksOccasionedbytheCentenaryofMarx’sDeath,”Eds.inCaryNelson,LawrenceGrossberge,MarxismandtheInterpretationofCulture,UniversityofIllinoisPress,1987,p.80.中译文参见鲁宝译稿｡
47.HenriLefebvre,“TowardaLeftistCulturalPolitics:RemarksOccasionedbytheCentenaryofMarx’sDeath,”Eds.inCaryNelson,LawrenceGrossberge,MarxismandtheInterpretationofCulture,UniversityofIllinoisPress,1987,pp.86-87.中译文参见鲁宝译稿｡
48.HenriLefebvre,“TowardaLeftistCulturalPolitics:RemarksOccasionedbytheCentenaryofMarx’sDeath,”Eds.inCaryNelson,LawrenceGrossberge,MarxismandtheInterpretationofCulture,UniversityofIllinoisPress,1987,p.87.中译文参见鲁宝译稿｡
49.HenriLefebvre,“TowardaLeftistCulturalPolitics:RemarksOccasionedbytheCentenaryofMarx’sDeath,”Eds.inCaryNelson,LawrenceGrossberge,MarxismandtheInterpretationofCulture,UniversityofIllinoisPress,1987,p.87.中译文参见鲁宝译稿｡