SOJA-1980-Annals of the Association of American Geographers

7/23/2019 SOJA-1980-Annals of the Association of American Geographers

1/19

TH E SOCIO-SPATIAL DIALECTIC

EDWARD W. SOJA

ABSTRACT. An increasingly rigidifying orthodoxy has begun to emerge within

Marxist spatial analysis that threatens to choke off the development of a critical

theory of space in its infancy. The concept of a socio-spatial dialectic is intro-

duced as a means of reopening the debate and calling for the explicit incorporation

of the social production of space in Marxist analysis as something more than an

epiphenomenon. Building upon the works of Henri Lefebvre, Ernest Mandel, and

others, a general spatial problematic is identified and discussed within the context

of both urban and regional political economy. The spatial problematic is not a

substitute for class analysis but it can be an integral and increasingly salient

element in class consciousness and class struggle within contemporary capitalism.

Spa ce and the po l it ica l organiza tion

of

space express social relat ionships but

a l so reac t back upon th em

.

.

.

.

Industrial ization, once the produ cer

of

urbanism,

is now being produced by i t . . . . W he n we use the words urban revo lu tion

we designate the to ta l ensemble

of

transformations which run throughout con-

temporary soc ie ty and which serve to bring about the ch ange f r o m a per iod in

which questions of economic growth and industria li zat ion predominate to the

period in which the urban problemat ic b eco me s decis ive.

HESE observations are drawn from a

T

postscript to Socia l Just ice and t he Ci ty

in which David Harvey presents a brief ap-

preciation and critique of the ideas of the

French social philosopher, Henri Lefebvre,

on urbanism, the organization of space, and

contemporary Marxist ana1ysis.l But Har-

veys interpretation also accomplished some-

thing more. It recreated a pattern of response

to Lefebvres critical theory of space that

matched what had already been established in

the French literature through the writings of

Dr. Soja is Professor

of

Urban and Regional Planning

at the University

of

Cal i fornia , Los Angeles in Los An-

geles , CA

90024.

David Harvey,

Social Justice and the City

Baltimore:

The Johns Hopkins Un iversity Press, 1973), p. 306; trans-

lation from Henri Lefebvre,

La Revo lu t ion U rba ine

Paris: Gallimard, 1970). Other related works by Lefebvre

include

Le droi t a la Ville

Paris: Editions Anthropos,

1968), La P ens te M arxis te e t la Vi lle Paris: Casterman,

1972),

La Survie du Capitalism

Paris: Editions Anthro-

pos, 1973), and La Production de IEspace Paris: Edi-

tions Anthropos, 1974). Of the se, only

La Survie du Cap-

italism

has b een translated into English as

The Survival

of Capitalism N ew Y ork: St. M artins Press , 1976).

Manuel Castells.2 Harvey praised Lefebvre

but ultimately denied the acceptability of his

major conclusions, which clearly stressed the

decisive and preeminent role of spatial

structural forces in modern capitalist society

more than could be comfortably embraced

within Harveys own Marxist perspective.

Lefebvre was recognized as having dealt

brilliantly and insightfully with the organiza-

tion of space as a material product, with the

relationship between social and spatial struc-

tures of urbanism, and with the ideological

content of socially created space. But surely

Lefebvre had gone too far? He had raised the

urban spatial problematic

to

an intolerably

central and autonomous position. The struc-

ture of spatial relations was being given an

excessive emphasis while the more fundamen-

tal roles of production vs. circulation and

consumption), social vs. spatial) relations of

production, and industrial vs. finance) capital

were being submerged under

a

rather overin-

See, in particular, Manuel Castells,

The Urban Ques-

tion

London : Edward A rnold, 1977), a translation of

La

Question Urbaine

Paris: Maspero, 1972).

ANNALS

OF

THE ASSOCIATION

OF

AMERICAN GEOGRAPHERS

Vol.

70

No.

2

June

1980

980 by

the Association

of

American Geog raphe rs. Printed in U . S . A .

207


2/19

208 EDWARDW .

SOJA June

terpreted alternative, what Lafebvre called

the urban revolution. In his conceptuali-

zation of this urban revolution, Lefebvre ap-

peared to be substituting spatial/territorial

conflict for class conflict as the motivating

force behind radical social transformation.

For one hundred years, it has been customary

among orthodox Marxist scholars to resist

such apparent attempts to divert attention

away from class conflict as devious revision-

ism and Lefebvre was

to

be no exception.

The key question to Harvey was whether

the organization of space in the context of

urbanism) was a separate structure with its

own laws of inner transformation and con-

struction, or the

expression

of a set of re-

lations embedded in some broader structure

such as the social relations

of

production).

To Harvey, Castells, and others to follow,

Lefebvre seemed to be arguing the former and

was thus succumbing to what Marxists have

traditionally called a fetishism of space-

the creation in the structure of spatial rela-

tionships of an autonomous determinant to

history and human action separated from the

structure of social relations and the produc-

tion process that generates it. Struggling to be

serious and rigorous in their application of

Marxist methods, many of those most respon-

sible for introducing an explicit and powerful

spatial interpretation to Marxism thus began

to establish certain boundaries beyond which

radical spatial analysis must not reach.

This episode is part of a much more per-

vasive syndrome within the new Marxian

analysis of space that I believe is significantly

blunting its impact and weakening its accom-

plishments. The reaction to Lefebvre, one of

the leading spatial theorists in the twentieth

century, is but one manifestation of this rigidi-

fying pattern and cause enough for the pre-

sentation of a forceful counterargument. I pro-

pose to discuss here a broader proposition:

that the recent emergence of a more spatially

explicit form of Marxist analysis-exemplified

best in the works of Harvey and Castells but

extendable also to the rapidly expanding lit-

erature in radical urban and regional political

economy in general-has incorporated an un-

necessarily limited and inappropriate concep-

tualization of space and spatial relations. Thus

what could prove to be the most significant

implications of Marxist spatial analysis for

both theory and practice are, I contend, being

obfuscated through the well-intended but

short-sighted efforts of radical scholars to

avoid spatial fetishism.

Rather ironically, the primary source of

misunderstanding over the relationship be-

tween social and spatial structures may lie in

the failure of Marxist analysts to appreciate

the essentially

dialectical

character of this re-

lationship and that of other relationships

which are structurally linked to

i t ,

such as that

between production and consumption. A s a

result, instead of sensitively probing the mix

of opposition, unity, and contradiction which

defines the social-spatial dialectic, attention

has too often been drawn to the empty ques-

tion of which causes which or to endless ar-

guments about pree mi nen~ e.~he socio-spa-

tial dialectic fits neither of the two alternatives

pressed upon Lefebvre by David Harvey. The

structure of organized space is not a separate

structure with its own autonomous laws of

construction and transformation, nor is it sim-

ply an expression of the class structure emerg-

ing from the social i.e. aspatial) relations of

production. It represents, instead, a dialecti-

cally defined component of the general rela-

tions of production, relations which are si-

multaneously social and ~ p a t i a l . ~

A recent comment by Richard Walker, referring

to

an

earlier version

of

this paper presented at the Annual

Meetings

of

the Association of American Geographers,

New Orleans, 1978, indicates that the impulse to establish

eternal primacy of the nonspatial) social is still alive,

even among the most spatially sensitive Marxists. Walker

argues that dialectical analysis already incorporates the

spatial relations of the mode of production, but that social

relations as value relations) remain primary. Value re-

lations, however, are defined as abstract and aspatial-

but nonetheless social. This depiction Walker himself de-

scribes as undialectical and convenient and I agree. It

is precisely this convenient suspension

of

dialectical rea-

soning that permits spatial relations to be incorporated

yet immediately and undialectically) subordinated to a

despatialized social, apparently as a rigid structural

universal evident in every historical moment in the de-

velopment of capitalism. See Richard Walker, Two

Sources of Uneven Development Under Advanced Cap-

italism: Spatial Differentiation and Capital Mobility,

The

Rev iew of Radica l Po l i t icd E cono my , Vol. 10 1978), pp.

28-37.

A similar conceptualization can be derived from the

structuralist analysis presented by Louis Althusser and

Etienne Balibar in

Reading Capital

London: New Left

Books, 1970), p. 180. Althusser writes that the structure

of the relations

of

production determines the

places

and

funct ions occupied and adopted by the agents of produc-

tion, i.e., individuals. Agents and the objects

of

pro-

duction are thus combined in a specific structure of the


3/19

1980 SOCIO-SPATIAL

IALECTIC

209

What must be clearly demonstrated then is

that there exists a full and equally salient spa-

tial homology to traditionally defined class

structure and hence to class conflict and struc-

tural transformation. It will be suggested that

such an homologous structure within the spa-

tial relations of production may exist in the

division of organized space into dominant cen-

ters and subordinate peripheries, a structure

which is captured with greater precision in the

concept of geographically uneven develop-

ment. It should be emphasized, however, that

this does not mean that the spatial relations of

production or the center-periphery structure

are separate and independent from the social

relations of production. On the contrary, the

two sets of relations are not only homologous,

in that they arise from the same origins in the

mode of production, but also dialectically in-

tertwined and inseparable.

That there exists such a dialectical homol-

ogy between what might be called the vertical

and horizontal structures of the mode of pro-

duction is suggested in the writing of Marx

and Engels-in discussions of the antithesis

between town and countryside, the territorial

division of labor, the segmentation of urban

residential space under industrial capitalism,

the geographical unevenness of capitalist pro-

duction, the role of rent and private ownership

of land, the geographical transfer of surplus

value, and the dialectics of nature. But one

hundred years of Marxism has failed to de-

velop the logic and scope of this a r g ~ m e n t . ~

Indeed, in a process not dissimilar to what

occurred in the rise of the bourgeois social

sciences, in which there was a submergence

of a significant spatial analytical framework

and an uncoupling of spatial organization from

its social basis, Marxism has evolved without

a pertinent spatial perspective, dwelling pri-

marily in a predominantly sociological-histor-

ical-as opposed to what Harvey perceptively

called a geographical- imagination in both

theory and practice.6 That this tendency re-

mains difficult to combat even within the re-

cent emergence of more explicitly spatial

distribution

of

relations, places and functions. Empha-

sis in original.)

One of the few attempts to explain why spatial anal-

ysis has historically been so little developed in Marxism

can be found in Lefebvre,

La

Pen s ie Marxis te

et la

Vil le

op.cit., footnote

1.

See

chapter

of

Harvey, op.cit., footnote

1

Marxist analysis is reflected in many ways: in

the rising cry of spatial fetishism and a flurry

of unproductive debate and controversy over

terminology, emphasis, and credentials; in the

continuing division between urban, regional,

and international political economy where

there might be

a

more unified spatial political

economy; and in the multiplying claims that

the resurgence of spatially explicit, radical po-

litical economy represents a new urban so-

ciology,

a

new geography,

a

new urban

politics, or

a

new planning theory when

what it actually signifies is something broader

than these disciplinary compartments per-

haps even

a

dialectical materialism that is si-

multaneously historical and spatial.

THE ORGANIZATION

O F

SPACE AS A

SOCIAL PRODUCT

Contextual vs Cre a te d S pac e

It is necessary to begin by making as clear

as possible the distinction between space per

se, or contextual space and socially based

spatiality, the created spa ce of social organi-

zation and production. From a materialist per-

spective, whether mechanistic or dialectical,

time and space in the general sense represent

the objective form of the existence of matter.

Time, space, and matter are inextricably con-

nected, with the nature of this relationship

being an important traditional theme in the

history of philosophy and epistemological in-

quiry. This contextual, physicalist view of

space has deeply influenced all forms of spa-

tial analysis, whether philosophical and theo-

retical or practical and empirical, whether ap-

plied to the movement of heavenly bodies or

to the history and landscape of human society.

It

has imbued

all

things spatial with

a

lingering

sense of primordiality and physical composi-

tion, objectivity, and inevitability.

Space in this generalized and existential

form has been conceptually incorporated into

the materialist analysis of history and society

in such a way as to interfere with the inter-

pretation of human spatial organization as a

social product. Contextual space is of broad

philosophical interest in generating discussion

about its absolute and relative properties, its

character as container of human life, its

objectifiable geometry, and its phenomenolog-

ical essence. But it is an inappropriate and

misleading foundation upon which to analyze


4/19

210 E D W A R D

.

SOJA June

the co ncret e and su bjective meaning of hum an

spatiality. Space itself may be primordially

given, but the organ ization, use, and meaning

of space is a product of social translation,

transformation and experience. Socially pro-

duced space is a created struc ture com parable

to other social constructions resulting from

the transfo rmation of given co nditions inher-

en t in life-on-earth, in much th e sam e way tha t

human history represents a social transfor-

mation of time and temporality. Along similar

lines, Lefebvre distinguishes between Nature

as given context and what he te rms second

natu re , the transformed and socially concre-

tized spa ce arising from the application of hu-

man labor.7 I t

is

th is second na ture tha t be-

comes the subjec t and objec t of h is tor ica l

materialist analysis.

Th e spatia l organization of human society

is an evolving product of hum an actio n, a form

of social construc tion aris ing within th e phy s-

ical frame of ubiquitou s, contextual spa ce but

clearly distinguishable from it. Unfortunately,

it is difficult to convey and focus upon this

social meaning and origin of organized space.

The dom inance of the con textua l v iew has

so

perm eated spatia l analysis tha t

it

dis tor ts even

our vocabulary . Thu s , whi le such adjec t ives

as soc ia l, pol i t ica l , econom ic , and

even historical generally suggest, unless

otherwise specified, a link to human action

and motiva t ion, the te rm spa t ia l typica l ly

evokes the image of something physical and

external to th e social contex t and t o social ac-

t ion, a par t of the environment , a context

f o r soc ie ty-i ts conta iner- ra ther tha n a

structure created

b y

society.

We really d o not have a widely used and

accepted express ion to convey th e inherent ly

social quality of organized space, especially

s ince the te rm soc ia l spac e has become so

murky with multiple and often incompatible

meanings. But instead of entering into a ter-

minological deb ate , le t us assum e that the u se

of such wo rds as sp ace , spa t ia l re la-

tions, and spatia l s tructures in this paper

will refer unequivocally to the socially pro-

duced organization of space and not to the ir

abstra ct, externalized in terpretation. W hether

it be th e form , con tent, an d distributional p at-

tern

of

the built environm ent, the relative lo-

See chapter 1 of Lefebvre, The S urv ival of Capiial-

i s m

op.cit., footnote

1

cation of centers of production and consum p-

tion, the political organization of space into

terri torial jurisdiction s, th e uneven geograph-

ical distribution of income and employment ,

or the ideological a ttachments to locational

symbols and spa t ia l images , a l l organized

space will be seen as rooted in a social origin

and filled with social meaning. As Lefebvre

s ta tes?

Space is not a scientific object removed from ideology

and politics; it has always been political and strategic.

If space has an air

of

neutrality and indifference with

regard to its contents and thus seems to be purely

formal, the epitome of rational abstraction, it is pre-

cisely because i t has been occupied and used, and has

already been the focus of past processes whose traces

are not always evident on the landscape. Space has

been shaped and molded from historical and natural

elements, but this has been a political process. Space

is political and ideological. It is a product literally filled

with ideologies.

Organized Space and

the

Mode

of

Production

Once it becomes accepted that the organi-

zat ion of sp ac e is a social product-that it aris-

e s from purposeful social practice-then there

is

no

longer a question of i ts being a se parate

s t ruc ture with rules of construction and trans-

format ion which a re independent f rom the

wider social framework. From a materia lis t

perspec t ive , what becomes impor tant is the

relationship betw een create d, organized space

and other s tructures within a given mode

of

production. I t is this basic issue that has di-

vided Marxist spatia l analysis into at least

three distinctive orientations.

At one ex t reme are those whose in te rpre-

tations of the role of organized space lead

t h e m

to

cha l lenge es tabl ished Marxis t ap-

proaches and interpretations, especially with

regard to conventional definitions of the eco-

nomic base and the supers t ruc ture . Thu s Le-

febvre

write^:^

Can the realities of urbanism be defined as something

superstructural, on the surface of the economic basis,

whether capitalist or socialist? No. The reality of ur-

banism modifies the relations of production without

being sufficient to transform them. Urbanism becomes

a force in production, rather like science. Space and

the political organization of space express social rela-

tionships but also react back upon them.

Reflections on the Politics of Space, translated by

La Revolution Urbaine p. 2 5 translated in Harvey,

M.

Enders,

A n t i p o d e Vol.

8

1976),

p. 31.

op.cit., footnote

1 .


5/19

1980

SOCIO-SPATIALIALECTIC

211

H ere w e hav e opened t he possibil ity of

a

t rue

socio-spatia l dialectic operating within the

s truc ture of the economic base , in contras t

with the preva i l ing mater ia l is t formula t ion

which regards organized spac e and spa tia l re-

la tions only as a cultural expression compris-

ing part of the su perstr uctu re . Th e key notion

introduced by Lefebvre in the las t sentence

suggests the fundam ental premise

of

the socio-

spatial dialectic: that social and spatial rela-

tionships are dialectically inter-reactive, inter-

depend ent; that social re lations of produ ction

are both space-forming and space-contingent

insofar as we maintain a view of organized

space a s socially constructed).

Within the regional as opposed to the urban

frame, s imila r ideas have been presented by

Ern est M andel. In his examination of regional

inequa l i t i e s unde r cap i ta l i sm, Mande l as-

serts :

The unequal development between regions

and

nations

is

the very essence of capitalism,

on the same [eve/

as

the exploitation of labour by capital.

By n ot su bordinatin g the spatia l s tructure of

uneven develop men t to social c lass but view-

ing it as o n th e same level, M andel suggests

for the regional and in ternational scale a spa-

tia l problem atic which com pare s c losely with

Lefebvres interpretation of the urban spatia l

s tructure , even to the point of suggesting a

powerful revolution ary force aris ing from th e

spatial inequality tha t is necessa ry for capital-

is t accumulation. In his major recent work,

Mandel foc uses upo n the crucial historical im-

portance of geographically uneven develop-

ment in th e capi ta l accumula t ion process and

thus in the survival and reprodu ction of capi-

talism itself. In doing

so,

he presents perhaps

the mos t r igorous and sys tema t ic Marx is t

ana lys is of regiona l deve lopment current ly

avai1able.l

Nei ther Lefebvre nor M andel , how ever , a t -

tem pt a cross-scalar synthesis to define a m ore

general socio-spatial dialectic and their for-

mulations thus remain incomplete . Neverthe-

less, in their a ttr ibution to the str uctu re of spa-

tial relations of a significant transformational

potentia l in capita lis t society comparable to

lo

Ernest Mandel, Capitalism and Regional Dispari-

ties, Southwest Economy and Society Vol. 1 1976), p.

43. Emphasis added.)

Ernest Mandel, Late

Capitalism

London: Verso,

1978).

tha t w hich has convent iona l ly been assoc iated

with the vertical c lass s truggle , the direct

social conflict between labo r and cap ita l , both

Lefebvre and M andel have presented

a

point

of view which engenders s t rong res is tance

from other Marxist scholars , a point of view

which has been labelled fetishist and deter-

minist.

This resistance to th e suggestion th at orga-

nized sp ace represents anything mo re than a

reflection of the social relations of prod uctio n,

that i t can contain i ts own major contradic-

tions and transformational potentia l with re-

gard to the mode of production, that i t is in

som e way homologous t o c lass s t ruc ture and

relations, defines another, much larger group

of radical scholars . Here I would include the

growing cadre

of

crit ics seeking to maintain

som e form of Marxian o rthodox y by persis-

tent sc reening of the new urban and re-

gional political ec on om y. Typifying this group

is the belief that contemporary neo-Marxist

analysis adds l i t t le that is inherently new to

more convent iona l Marxis t approaches , tha t

the centrali ty

of

traditional class analysis is

inv io lab le , and thus tha t the con t r ibu t ions

being mad e toward a n understanding of Marx-

ist urban a nd regional ana lysis, while interest-

ing, are to o often unacc eptably revisionist and

analytically muddled. Needless to say, the

conceptu alization of space adh ered to by this

group differs l i t t le from that which has char-

acterized Marxism in general over the past

century.

A third approach can be identif ied, how-

ever, which seems to fa ll somewhere in be-

tween. I ts practi t ioners appear, implicit ly a t

least , to be adopting much the same formula-

t ion as descr ibed for Lefebvre and Mandel .

Yet w hen pushed to an expl ic it ch oice , they

maintain the preeminence of aspatia l social

class definit ions, sometimes to the point of

tortuously trying t o resist th e implications of

the ir own observa t ions , em phas is , and ana ly-

s is . I contend , and will a t tempt to demo nstra te

mo re clearly in the sections which follow, that

this group in which I include M anuel Castells ,

David Harv ey, an d Imm anuel Wallerste in) has

develop ed som e of the m ost insightful presen-

tations of th e socio-spatial d ialectic as I define

it ; but has a lso backed off from its interpre-

tations into analytically weak and vulnerable

positions on the role of spatial s tructure a s it

re la tes to contem porary capi ta lism. Whereas


6/19

212 EDWARD

w

O J A June

the first group mentioned occasionally over-

states its case, this group retreats from it with-

out effectively capturing its meaning and im-

plications, creating confusion and

contradiction which are reacted to in turn by

the more orthodox critics.

A s

a

first illustration, consider the concep-

tualization

of

space presented by Castells in

his most influential book, The Urban Ques-

tion

a book purposefully titled to contrast

with

The Urban Revolution

written by Cas-

tells former teacher, Henri Lefebvre:

l

To consider the city

as

the projection

of

society on

space is both an indispensable starting point and too

elementary an approach. For, although one must go

beyond the empiricism of geographical description,

one runs the very great risk of imagining space

as a

white page on which the actions of groups and insti-

tutions are inscribed, without encountering any other

obstacle than the trace of past generations. This is tan-

tamount to conceiving of nature as entirely fashioned

by culture, whereas the whole social problematic is

born

by

the

indissoluble union

of these two terms,

through the dialect ical proces s by which a particular

biological species particularly because divided into

classes), man, transforms himself and transforms

his environment in his struggle for life and for the dif-

ferential appropriation of the product of his labour.

S p a c e s a mater ial produc t , in relation with other

material elements-among others, men, who them-

selves enter into particular social relations, which give

to space and to the other elements of the combination)

a form, a function, a social signification. It is not, there-

fore,

a

mere occasion for the deployment of social

structure, but

a

concrete expression of each historical

ensemble in which

a

society is specified. It is

a

ques-

tion, then, of establishing, in the same way as for any

other real object, the structural and conjunctural laws

that govern

i t s

existence

and

t rans format ion, and the

specificity of its articulation with the other elements of

a historical reality. This means that there is no theory

of space that is not an integral part of a general social

theory, even an implicit one.

This brief encapsulization of the socio-spatial

dialectic is presented

as

an alternative to the

rejected Lefebvrian view which is fundamen-

tally similar.

To

complete the categorization

discussed above, Castells own extension of

these ideas has itself been criticized as revi-

sionist by others who claim he commits the

same error that he criticizes Lefebvre for com-

mitting: separating the spatial structure from

its roots in production and class re1ati0ns.l~

l2

Castells, op.cit., footnote 2 , p. 1 I S . Emphasis

added.)

l See, for example, the introductory chapter to Mi-

chael Harloe, ed., Captive Cit ies New York: John Wiley

and Sons, 1976). Harloe praises Castells analysis

of

the

fetishization of space, but then argues that Castells seems

This presumed error is expressed

in

an over-

emphasis on collective consumption and other

social and spatial aspects of the consumption

process in the bulk of Castells writings, an em-

phasis which has been interpreted as burying

the more fundamental role of production. I

will address myself to the production-con-

sumption issue in the next section. For the

moment let us return to Castells attempted

resolution of the debate on the theory of

space.

Castells presents space

as

a material prod-

uct emerging from a dialectical process relat-

ing and transforming the relationship between

culture and nature, man and environment.

Space is not simply a reflection, or mere oc-

casion for the deployment, of social struc-

ture, but

a

concrete expression of

a

combi-

nation, an historical ensemble, of interacting

material elements and structures. How then

can one understand and interpret this created

space? Through the identification of the

structural and conjunctural laws that govern

its existence and transformation.

What appears to separate Castells and Le-

febvre grows out of the formers assumption

that particular social relations give form,

function, and significance to the spatial struc-

ture and all other elements of the combina-

tion. One structure-the aspatial social

relations of production which somehow in-

cludes property rights while ignoring their spa-

tial/territorial dimension)-is thus given deter-

minant and inviolable significance, for to

suggest otherwise would appear to be contrary

to conventional Marxist interpretations. But

what if class were seen to be associated

with both the social vertical) and spatial hor-

izontal) relations

of

production in

a

dialectical

interaction, with the social problematic in-

volving the social

and

territorial division of

labor? It is true that there as yet does not exist

a formulation of the spatial relations of pro-

duction which matches the depth and persua-

siveness of social class analysis or, more spe-

cifically, which explicitly and systematically

incorporates the powerful and fundamental

to

undermine the prime relevance of production and the

study of its effects to any Marxist analysis of space

to

the point that his emphasis on consumption [along with

David Harveys] bears comparison, in some respects,

with previous urban sociology and with Weberian urban

sociology . . . both of which he has severely criticized.

P. 21)


7/19

1980

SOCIO-SPATIALIALECTIC

213

contradiction between capital and labor. Is

this an immutable fact, an inviolate law, or the

product of historical processes which have

deemphasized the social interpretation of

space in Marxian analysis?

These questions merely reconstruct the

challenge raised earlier: to demonstrate the

homologous and dialectical relationship be-

tween the social and spatial structures arising

from the mode of production and concretely

expressed in particular social formations. It

would be premature to attempt a rigorous and

comprehensive formulation of the socio-spa-

tial dialectic at this time, but it is nevertheless

necessary to add some substance to what ad-

mittedly remains largely in the realm of asser-

tion and conjecture. Toward this end,

I

will

turn next to a more specific discussion of sev-

eral important conceptual issues that have

shaped the current debate on the theory of

space, first at the urban scale and then at re-

gional-international scale.

THE URBAN SPATIAL PROBLEMATIC

Marxist spatial analysis at the urban scale

has evolved as part of a larger development

which has drawn together particular emphases

economic, sociological, geographical) into a

common focus on the political economy of

urbanization. Underlying this development

was an important set of assumptions about the

nature of the urbanization process in ad-

vanced capitalism. The rise of monopoly cap-

italism, its expansion on a global scale, and its

increasing dependence on the role of the state

were interpreted as having introduced new

historical and spatial) conditions into contem-

porary capitalist social formations and into the

revolutionary class struggle. Among other ef-

fects, these new conditions demanded

a

dif-

ferent approach to the city and to the urban-

ization process than that which characterized

the treatment of urban problems under the

competitive capitalism of Marxs time. The

city came to be seen not only in terms of its

role as a center of production and accumula-

tion, but also as the control point for the re-

production of capitalist society in terms of la-

bor power, exchange, and consumption.

Urban planning was critically examined as a

tool of state, serving the dominant classes by

organizing and reorganizing urban space for

the benefit of capital accumulation and crisis

management. Major attention was given to

contradictions at the place of work the point

of production), to class conflict over housing

and the built environment, the state provision-

ing and siting of public services, community

and neighborhood economic development, the

activities of financial organizations, and other

issues which revolved around how urban

space was socially organized for consumption

and reproduction.

A

specifically spatial prob-

lematic was thus put on the agenda for both

theoretical consideration and radical social ac-

tion.

Many orthodox Marxists saw in these de-

velopments a potentially destructive revision-

ism, especially with regard to the traditional

primacy of production in Marxist theory and

practice. At one level, this was an understand-

able reaction. Efforts to separate consumption

from production and to assign to it a signifi-

cant autonomous strength in society and his-

tory-to define class, for example, primarily

upon consumption characteristics-typified

bourgeois social science and its efforts to

counter the arguments of historical material-

ism. Furthermore, the emphasis given to spa-

tial analysis triggered fears of a new variety of

spatial determinism to match those of the past.

Insofar as the new urban political economy

did fall into a consumptionist tangent and dis-

connected spatial relations from their origin in

the relations of production, it deserved a

forceful critical response.

For the most part, however, the growing

emphasis on distribution, exchange, and col-

lective consumption did not represent a denial

of the central role of production as much as

it was

a

call for greater attention to certain

processes which historically have been rela-

tively neglected in Marxist analysis but which

have become more pertinent to class analysis

and class conflict in advanced capitalism. In

this sense, Marxist urban analysis was solidly

within the critical tradition of Western Marx-

ism.I4 Moreover, it could be argued that Marx

himself viewed production and consumption

as dialectically related moments of the same

process. Surplus value, as the focus for capi-

talist exploitation, arises only through the ap-

i 4 I refer here both to the consum ptionist revision of

Marx contained in the works

of

Baran, Swe ezy , and Mar-

cu se , as well a s to the broader tradition of sup erstructural

analysis

v s .

narrow economism. See Perry Anderson,

Considerations on Western Marxism London: New Left

Books , 1976).


8/19

214 E D W A R D . SOJA June

plication of hum an labor for the produ ction of

comm odit ies . But such surplus va lue rem ains

abstract and potentia l unless and until i t can

be realized through th e nex us of exchange and

thus through the consumption process . To

break th is l inked cha in and to e rec t one mo-

men t timeless ly above the others would be t o

oversimplify M arxs ow n conceptu alization of

the process.15

But whereas the emphas is on consumption

and reproduction became effectively legitim-

ized, much less effort w as given to d efend the

reviva l of Marxis t spa t ia l ana lys is . I t was

widely accepted that the re existed in the clas-

s ica l works of Marx, Enge ls , and Lenin a

s t rong geographica l and spa t ia l or ienta t ion

and tha t i t was impor tant to draw ou t and e lab-

orate u pon these classical ob servations in the

con text of contem porary capita lism.lf i Bu t the

fear of spatia l fe tishism weak ened the attem pt

to focus directly o n the role of spac e within

the larger context of dialectical and historical

materialism-to explain why spatial analysis

had been virtually ignored for a cen tury and

to exp lore whe the r unde r the t r ans formed

conditions of advanced monopoly capita lism

the social produ ction of spa ce has indeed be-

come more central to the survival of capita l-

ism itself.

A s

a result , M arxist spatia l analysis

expanded, but increasingly as an adjunct, a

methodological emp hasis

,

o w ha t ha s become

the dominant focus of urban polit ical econo-

my, the search for a Marxist theory of the

s ta te .

The three distinctive approaches to spatia l

a n a ly s i s i d e n t i f i e d e a r l i e r t h u s e x p r e s s e d

themselves c learly. Guardians of Marxist or-

thodoxy continue to referee Marxist spatia l

analysis to weed o ut any hin ts of fe tishism.

A

second group pers is ts in making impor tant

contributions but t end s to s idestep the spatial

problematic , thus constraining further devel-

opment of a critical theory of space . F ina l ly ,

a th ird group a t tem pts more boldly t o deve lop

Marxist spatial analy sis desp ite increasing dis-

missal, vituperative crit ic ism, and misinter-

pretation of their work . In a n effort to reopen

the deba te on the theory of space , I wi ll focus

on the contr ibut ions of the one f igure who

l5

This is most explicitly stated in

Grundrisse

N e w

Yo rk: Vintage B ooks , 1973), pp. 90-94.

l 6 An excel lent example is David Harvey, The Ge-

ography of Capitalis t Accumu lation: A Reconstruction of

Marxian Theory ,

Antipode

Vo l. 7 1975), pp. 9-21.

more than any other exemplif ies this third

group, Henr i L efebvre .

Urban Revolution

and

Spatial Praxis

Lefebvres work as a whole represents a

lifelong effort t o resist dogm atic constr ic tions

of M arxist thinking, f irst a s perhap s the lead-

ing French Marxist critic of Stalinism and the

productivist orthodoxy of the Second Inter-

national during the 1930s later as a forceful

critic of both existentialist an d struct uralis t

r e d u c t i o n i ~ m . ~ o n s t a n t l y t r y in g t o k e e p

Marxism open to new philosophical develop-

men ts and adap tive to changing materia l co n-

d i t i o n s , L e f e b v r e n e v e r th e l e s s r o o t e d h i s

work in the founda t ions la id dow n by M arx,

Len in , and Hege l . A l though h i s idea s ap-

peared overly eclectic t o som e, they had a s in-

gle dom inant focus: the se arch to explain how

and why capita lism survived from the com-

petitive indu strial capitalism of M arxs time to

the advanced monopoly capita lism of today.

In th is search, Lefebvre presented a se r ies

of increasingly elaborated approx imations as

he called them ) ultimately leading to his major

thesis: 8

Capitalism has found itself able to atte nua te if not re-

solve) its internal contradictions for a century, and

consequently, in the hundred years since the writing

of

Capital

i t has succeeded in achieving growth.

We canno t calculate at what pr ice, but we d o know the

means :

by occupying space b y producing a space.

The produc t ion of th is advanced capi ta l is t

space was l inked directly to the reproduction

of the social re la tions of production, that

is,

the m eans whereby the capital is t sys tem as a

whole is able to ex tend its existence by m ain-

taining its defining structure^.^^ Fro m this cen-

Henr i Lefebvre, L e

Marerialisme Didectique

Paris:

Presse s Universitaires de Fran ce, 1939);

LExistentialisme

Paris: Editions du Sagittaire, 1946);

Au-deld du Srruc-

turulisme

Paris: Editions An thro pos, 1971). Although a

severe cr i t ic of the ear ly Sar t re , Lefe bvre la ter embraces

Sartres existential Marxism. See Mark Poster ,

Existen-

tial Marxism in Postwar Frunce: From Surtre

to

Althusser

Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975).

ln Lefebvre ,

The Survival of Capitalism

op.cit., foot-

note 1, p. 21. Em pha sis in original.)

l9

Lefebvre distinguishes three levels in the reproduc-

tion p roce ss: 1) bio-physiological reproduction, essential-

ly

within the context of family and kinship relations; 2)

reproduction of labor power the working class) and the

means of production; and 3) reproduction of the social

relations of production. The ability of capital to intervene

directly and affect

all

three levels has developed over

time, with the development of the productive forces.


9/19

1980 SOCIO-SPATIALI AL E CT I C

215

tral discovery, which Lefebvre argues be-

came explicit only in the later works of Marx

particularly those which were not readily

available until after the second World War),

one can construct a framework of propositions

which help define Lefebvres effort to build a

critical theory of space and to create the basis

for radical spatial praxis.20

Lefebvre grounded his arguments in the be-

lief that social space essentially urbanized

space in advance capitalism) is where the

dominant relations of production are repro-

duced. They are not reproduced in society as

a whole but in space as a whole, a concretized

and produced space which has been progres-

sively occupied by advanced capitalism, frag-

mented into parcels, homogenized into dis-

crete commodities, organized into the locations

of control, and extended to the global scale.

The survival of capitalism has depended upon

this distinctive occupation and production of

space, achieved through bureaucratically con-

trolled consumption, the differentiation of

centers and peripheries, and the penetration

of the state into everyday life. The final crisis

of capitalism then becomes the moment when

the relations of production can no longer be

reproduced, not simply when production itself

is stopped.21Thus the class struggle must en-

compass and focus upon the vulnerable point:

the production of space, the territorial struc-

ture of exploitation, and controlled reproduc-

tion of the system as a whole. The struggle

must be one of a global proletariat, including

all those who are exploited by the imposed

spatial organization of advanced capitalism:

landless peasants, proletarianized petty

bourgeoisies, women, students, and the work-

ing class itself. In advanced capitalist coun-

tries, the struggle will take the form of

une

revolution urbaine

fighting for

la droit la vil-

le

and control over

la vie quotidienne

in the

territorial framework of the capitalist state. In

less advanced countries, it will also focus

upon territorial liberation and reconstruction-

with regard to the imposed structures of dom-

2o

Two volumes of

Grundrisse

were first published in

Russian in 1939 and 1941. The first German edition ap-

peared in

1953,

the first English edition in

1973.

21 Lefebvre has been a strong critic of what he calls the

ouvrigrisrne

of the modern left, the narrow economic fo-

cus on exploitation at the workplace and on revolutionary

transformation either through the interruption of produc-

tion the general strike)

or

by the halting

of

production

total economic crisis).

inant core and dependent periphery within the

global structure of capitalism.

Lefebvre thus raises the spatial problematic

to a central position within class struggle by

embedding class relations in the structures

and contr adict ions of socially organized

space. He does not argue that the spatial prob-

lematic has always been so central, for its sig-

nificance reflects the progressive development

of the forces of production over time, partic-

ularly with regard to the growing need to con-

trol the reproduction

of

capitalist social rela-

tions which, under competitive capitalism,

was left primarily to the market). Nor does he

present the spatial struggle as a substitute for

class struggle. Instead, he argues that no so-

cial revolution can succeed without being at

the same time a conscious, spatial revolution.

Spatial praxis is necessary therefore, but al-

ways as part of an encompassing socio-spatial

praxis.

With this background, it becomes possible

to clarify the meaning and intent of several

controversial concepts and arguments pre-

sented by Lefebvre in his more specifically

urban-oriented writings.22Take, for example,

his comments on the historical relation be-

tween the primary industrial) and secondary

financial) circuits in the circulation of surplus

value, translated by David Harvey as fol-

Whereas the proportion of global surplus value formed

and realized in industry declines, the proportion real-

ized in speculation and in construction and real estate

development grows. The secondary circuit comes to

supplant the principal circuit.

It

is

in this sense that Lefebvre claims that

Industrialization, once the producer of ur-

banism, is now being produced by it, for this

secondary circuit is deeply involved in the

manipulation of the built environment, the ex-

traction of urban rent, and the organization of

urban space for collective consumption, in all

cases facilitated by the increasing role of the

state. It would appear from the Harvey trans-

lation that Lefebvre does not state that surplus

value is created in this secondary circuit, only

I O W S : ~ ~

22 By

1974,

with

La Production de I Espac e

Lefebvre

more explicitly presented the urban problematic within

the broader problematic of space and the reproduction

of

the social relations of production. L a Production . .

is

his major work on space, but it tends to be neglected in

most of the recent literature.

3 Harvey, op . cit., footnote

1

p . 312.


10/19

216 EDWARD . SOJA June

that the proportion realized therein has mas-

sively expanded. This, I believe, is the nec-

essary interpretati~n.~~efebvres argument

thus builds upon the idea that the realization

of surplus value has shifted over time from a

dominant involvement in direct industrial pro-

duction to an increasingly greater involvement

in the circulationkonsumption process-or,

more appropriately, from the reproduction of

the means of production to the reproduction

of labor power and the general social order.

This has been associated with a change from

a period in which questions of economic

growth and industrialization predominate to

the period when the urban problematic be-

comes decisive.

These arguments suggest that the propor-

tion of surplus value that is necessary for the

reproduction of labor power and the social re-

lations of production in an increasingly urban-

ized, increasingly monopolistic, increasingly

global, capitalist society has become larger

than ever before, perhaps larger even than the

proportion absorbed more directly in industri-

al production. Nowhere is it said that this nec-

essarily leads to

a

reduction of surplus value

produced in industry, although the diversion

of capital into unproductive activities

is

a sig-

nificant structural problem in monopoly capi-

talist economies. What is suggested, instead,

is that the increasing surplus product yielded

through the centralization and concentration

of capital under monopoly industrialization

and the accumulation of capital on a world

scale has disproportionately increased the

costs of reproducing labor and maintaining the

social relations of production to the point that

collective consumption has become a major,

if not dominant, arena for the realization of

value and for the class struggle itself.

A

more detailed and less ambiguous inter-

pretation of this historical shift associated

24

What complicates matters here

is

the fact that Le-

febvre actually uses the word f ormPe with regard to the

secondary circuit as well, but the word

is

omitted in Har-

veys translation. If Lefebvre intended to suggest that sur-

plus

value can originate in the secondary circuit, then this

would contradict the labor theory of value and be unac-

ceptable in Marxist analysis. It seems, however, that his

emphasis is on realization, not production. Immediately

preceding the translated quote he writes:

I1

peut meme

arriver que la speculation fonciere devienne la source

principale, le lieu presque exclusif de formation du cap-

ital,

cest a

dire de real isat ion de la plus -valu e; see L a

Revolut ion Urhuine , p.

212.

with the rise of monopoly capitalism is pre-

sented by Shoukry Ro we kZ 5

We find a pronounced shift in the locus of class con-

flicts accompanying the shift from early to late capi-

talism. The main problems in early capitalism were

problems

of

production i.e. problems of insufficient

aggregate supply, hence relative scarcity). Under such

conditions, class conflicts were over the division of

surplus production. Concretely, the conflicts were

strictly labour/capital conflicts centered in the work-

place and focussing on wageiprofit disputes.

In todays capitalism, this is no longer strictly true.

Probl e ms of product ion gave way to prob l e ms of over-

produc t i on .

.

. . What labour takes away wi th one

hand in the workplace strugg le) i t gives away with the

other in the urban l iv ing place) .

. .

. With the inten-

sified and expanded state intervention, the struggles

over wages lose their meaning, and the struggle over

political/administrative power begins to impose itself

as

crucial, but yet unpursued struggle. At the same

time, with the ever increasing urbanization of the pop-

ulation, most of these struggles acquire a definite urban

character. The s t ruggle , in br ie f , has shi j ted f ro m the

sphere of produc t i on

of

comm odi t ies and services)

to

the sphere of reproduct ion i . e . the maintena nce of yta-

bl e ,

i

not i mprov i ng , s tandards

oj

urhan l iving).

Competitive industrial capitalism has been

able to extend and transform itself through a

series of structural changes associated with

the increasing centralization and concentra-

tion of capital in the rise of monopoly capi-

talism), the dramatic increase in the role of the

state as a vehicle for social control, and the

development of accumulation on a global

scale. But it has done so without eliminating

its fundamental contradictions. They have in-

stead become expressed not only in the direct

confrontation of capital and labor at the point

of production but also, and as intensively,

in the realm

of

collective consumption and

reproduction. Whereas under competitive

capitalism, Engels could argue that consump-

tion-based working class militancy, as

in

the

conflict over the housing question, could

be resolved by the bourgeoisie to its own ben-

efit either by playing off improved housing

conditions and reduced rents against de-

creased wages or by simply shifting bad hous-

ing conditions to another location rather than

eliminating them), such consumption-based

conflict can no longer be coopted as easily.

Unlike the situation under industrial capital-

j

Shoukry Roweis, Urban Planning in Early and Late

Capitalist Societies, Papers on Planning and Design

Toronto: University of Toronto, Department of Urban

and Regional Planning,

1979

pp.

31-32.

Emphasis

in

original.)


11/19

1980 SOCIO-SPATIALIALECTIC 2 17

ism, the realization of surplus value and hence

the accumulation of capital itself has become

as dependent upon control over the means of

consumption/reproduction as upon control

over the means of production, even while this

control rests ultimately in the same hands.

It can thus be argued that the transforma-

tion of capitalism has come increasingly to re-

volve around both a social and a spatial strug-

gle, a combined wage and consumption-based

conflict, an organization and consciousness of

labor as both workers and consumers, in other

words a struggle arising from the exploitative

structures inherent in both the vertical and

horizontal class divisions of society. Class

struggle thus involves the articulation of social

and spatial praxis.

Finance C api ta l and the Class S t ruggle

To

illustrate more specifically the preceding

arguments and to exemplify again the tripar-

tite typology of contemporary approaches to

spatial analysis, let us examine the controver-

sy which has risen around the role of finance

capital within the monopoly capitalist city.

Take, for example, the following statement of

Michael Harloe, a leading Marxist urban an-

alyst:26

In general Harveys emphasis on the role of finance

rather than productive capital in cities has been criti-

cized. He does not go quite so far as Lefebvre who

sees finance capital, i.e. that concerned with circula-

tion rather than production, becoming the dominant

force in society, and urban conflicts, based on the role

of such capital in property speculation and land, sup-

planting workplace conflict-a theory heavily criti-

cized by Castells. However, Harvey distinctly sees this

as a possibility, but his critics suggest that finance cap-

ital must remain secondary to productive capital be-

cause it ultimately has to abstract its wealth from sur-

plus value and

so

is subordinate to the latter in the last

analysis.

This compulsion to assert the ultimate domi-

nant becomes epitomized in the conclusion

that, while finance capital can apparently be

in control, the dominant role still falls to pro-

ductive capital. Lefebvre is thus an irrec-

oncilable deviant, Harvey is dangerously am-

bivalent and confused, while production

reigns supreme and inviolable.

The major question, however, is not wheth-

er finance capital dominates industrial capital

in the last analysis, but how it relates, as

one fraction of capital, to other capital frac-

Harloe, op. cit., footnote

13, p . 2 5 .

tions within specific social formations, and

how this affects class action. The issue is thus

a conjunctural one, referring to the ensemble

of class relations arising at particular places

during particular periods of time. To reduce

Marxist analysis to the assertion of ultimate

structural determinations is to eliminate all

historical and geographical specificity-and

hence to eliminate the city itself as a subject

of analysis. How then may we assess the role

of finance capital in the contemporary urban-

ization process?

Although Lefebvre clearly stresses the

growing importance of finance capital in the

realization of surplus value, he does not un-

ambiguously specify the relationship between

finance capital and other capital fractions.

Thus he does not directly assert either that

finance and industrial capital are in permanent

conflict or that they have totally coalesced in

a cooperative union, as Lenin described

in

his

theory of imperialism. Indeed, the nature of

the relationship between finance, industrial,

and property capital is, appropriately I be-

lieve, left open for analysis.

In

an excellent paper on rent theory, Mat-

thew Edel argues that David Harvey and oth-

ers, in contrast to Lefebvre, appear to have

taken specific but incompatible positions on

the same issue. At times, finance capital is

viewed as a separate fraction of capital, a

parasitic monopoly sector sucking up funds

which would otherwise be available for hous-

ing and in direct conflict with industrial capital

from which it is able to extract part of the

surplus in the form of rent). At other times,

however, it is seen in almost the Leninist

sense, as coalesced with industrial capital in

a monopoly imperialist stage, controlling the

totality of the production process. Edel ob-

serves that the two concepts clearly describe

different situations, one in which there is con-

flict among major capitalists, another where

they are unified. He then adds:27

The two views

of

finance capital are not really com-

patible, and they lead to different strategic implications

for the working class. If the first definition holds, and

if financial monopolies or financial discrimination are

making housing finance scarce, either for workers gen-

erally

or

for specific ghetto subgroups, then an anti-

monopoly strategy-involving antiredlining laws, state

27

Matthew Edel, Rent Theory and Working Class

Strategy: Marx, George and the Urban Crisis,

Review

of

Radical Political

Economy

Vol. 9 1977),

p.

12.


12/19

218 EDWARD . S O J A June

housing banks, or even moratoria on mortgage pay-

ments-would make sense. If , however, definition two

applies and one integrated financial group controls both

housing and employment, then a reduction of housing

costs might be met by reduced wages. Finance capi-

tals certain indifference as

to

whether accumulation

takes place by keeping wages down in the immediate

production process or by manipulation

in

the con-

sumption sector, if i t emerges as Harvey suggests

it

might, would create a need for the working class to

organize simultaneously as wage earners and as con-

sumers, in order to make any economic gains under

capitalism. But such victories would be difficult, since

tactical errors on the consumption struggle side would

adversely affect the wage struggle, and vice versa.

The var ious a l te rna t ives out l ined by Edel

summ arize the issues a r is ing ov er th e role of

finance capita l very well . H e consid ers e ither

view theoretically possible, but claims that

Harvey swings back and for th be tween the

two definit ions, leaving his arguments un-

convincing, a reflection, I would co nten d, of

the intrinsically m ultis ided stanc e Harvey has

tended to take on the urban ques t ion.

As Edel conc lu des , the na ture of the rela-

tionship betw een finance and industrial capital

must be seen as historically determined and

thus clearly subject to change.2s During the

early ph ases of s tagnation in the

1970s,

finan-

cial barriers had a major effect; they were

largely responsible for the transformation of

metropolitan cores, through urban renewal

and reduced low income hous ing suppl ies ,

into spectacular new centers for f inance cap-

ital institutions. But deepening economic cri-

s is shif ted the burd en back to the reduction of

real wages, thereby establishing the need for

a two-front s truggle over consumption and

production relations. Thus, Edel argues, an

attack on only one sector of capita l , be i t

banking

or

landlords,

is

no longer sufficient.

Unp roductive f inance capita l has beco me an

important e lem ent in the struct ure of contem -

porary monopoly capita lism, but not because

it has supplanted industrial capital in the re-

alization of surplus value. It obtains its im-

portance from the increasing absorption of

surplus value in collective con sum ptio n, in the

reproduction of labor power and the social

ord er, re la tive to directly productive activities

and the reproduction of the means of produc-

Harvey now accepts this view and argues that he

adopted both definitions of the relation between finance

and industrial capital for both apply, albeit at different

historical moments. David Harvey, personal communi-

cation.)

tion. Under competitive industrial capitalism,

the organization of urban sp ace for both pro-

duction and consum ption could be left largely

to marke t forces , pr iva te proper ty capi ta l, and

competit ion among industr ia l producers for

access to labor , m ater ia ls , and infras t ruc ture .

T h e industrial capitalist city was primarily a

produc t ion machine and as such took o n a re-

mark ably uniform spatial structure-the struc-

ture depic ted so perceptively by Engels for

Manchester and la ter by the urban ecologists

for most of the industrial capitalist world.

Finance capi ta l under these condi t ions was

relatively unim portant in the urban c onte xt. I t

played a major role, ho w eve r, in capitalist ex-

pans ion through imper ia l ism, as the u rban

produ ction machines surpassed their capacity

to consume their product and faced fall ing

rate s of profit and class conflict. Exp and ed re-

produc t ion o n a global scale and the concur-

rent grow th of monopoly cap ita lism, how ever,

massively intensified the co ncen tration of cap-

ital in the centers of advanced capitalism and

create d intensified p ress ur es for infrastructur-

a1 investm ents, for ex pandin g collective con-

sumption, and for maintaining control over

class conflic t . More than ever before , there

was a need to intervene to reorganize urban

space and to make urban sys tems func t ion

mo re effectively no t only fo r the centralization

of capital bu t for th e realization of surplu s val-

ue throug h socialized co nsu mp tion , especially

when it became clear that imperialis t expan-

sion would not eliminate class conflict and

econo mic crises in the co re countries .

In the monopoly capita lis t c ity, therefore ,

f inance capi ta l , sometimes in competition but

more often in alliance with monopoly indus-

trial capital, becomes more significant than it

had b een in the industrial capitalist city . Along

with th e sta te , i t has become a primary means

for res t ruc tur ing the c i ty as a consumption

mach ine, transforming luxuries into need s, fa-

cil i ta ting suburbanization and its associated

privatized consump tion e .g. the autom obile ,

h o u s h o ld a p p l i a n c e s , a n d g a d g e t r y ) , a n d

work ing toward the segrega t ion / te r r i to r ia l

fragmentation of the working class. Also in

conjun ction with t he sta te , it has, I would ar-

gue , begun to supplant smal l -sca le pr iva te

property capita l in contro l over urban land, a

pro cess w ith interestin g but relatively unex-

p lo red repe rcuss ions . Wha t ha s come ou t

mo st clearly

in

the l i terature on Ma rxist urban


13/19

1980 SOCIO-SPATIAL

IALECTIC 219

analysis-and m ore im por tantly , it should be

add ed, in practice-is tha t these struct ural

changes have failed to resolv e the old contra-

dic t ions . Indeed, they have c rea ted new o nes ,

vividly described and interpreted by Castells

in his discu ssion of

la

ville sauvage, the Wild

City.2s I t has rooted the urban-based class

struggle not jus t in th e relations

of

produc t ion

or the unev en d eve lopment of consump-

tion, but in the unity and articulation of the

two.

TH E REGIONAL AND 1NTERNATIONAL

SPATIAL PROBLEMATIC

Paralleling criticisms of spatial fetishism in

urban political eco nom y are equally veh emen t

arguments aga ins t an emphas is on spa t ia l in-

equa l i ty and cen te r -pe r iphe ry re la t ions in

Marxist regional analysis . Such an emphasis

is seen as a diversion away from the class

struggle and class analysis , as the constructio n

of a separa te s t ruc ture unacceptably autono-

mous from the social re la tions of produ ction,

a bourgeois delusion.30 My response to th ese

attacks remains the same: that there exists in

the structure of organized space under capi-

talism a fun dam enta l relationship which is ho-

mologous to and inseparable f rom the s t ruc-

t u r e o f s o c i al c l a s s , w it h e a c h s t r u c t u r e

forming part of the general re la tions of pro-

duction. This co nnection betwee n th e vertical

and horizontal dim ensio ns of the class struggle

in both theory and practice requires a funda-

mental re thinking of many Marxist concepts

to in t roduce a more explicit spatial problem-

atic, a rethinking which is being unnecessarily

sacrificed by a reassertion of Marxian ortho-

doxy .

The construction of this argument for re-

gional political economy is made more diffi-

cul t , how ever , because the d eba te on the the-

ory of spac e has been mu ch less explic it than

in M arxis t urban ana lys is , and h as com e to the

29 Manuel Castells , The Wild City, Kapi tal i s tate ,

Vol. 4 1976), pp. 2-30.

3 See ,

for

exam ple, Ann M arkusen, Regionalism and

the Capitalis t State: The Ca se of the Uni ted States , K a p -

italistate,

Vol. 7 1978), pp . 39-62. Ma rkuse n criticizes

p .

40)

younger Marxist social scientists , who unwit-

t ingly mimic the tendency within bourgeois social science

to assign characteristics to places and things, rather than

sticking to the dynamics

of

a process

as

the analytical

focus .

surface only within the past few years.31 I t ha s

arisen primarily from the interpretations given

to the works of such schola rs as Immanuel

Wallerstein, Sam ir Am in, Arghiri Em man uel,

Andre Gunde r F rank , and Ernes t Mande l ,

wh o have made im portant contribu tions to re-

gional political economy rather serendipitous-

ly, as adjuncts to their insightful but largely

nonspatia l analyses of expanded reprodpction

under capita lism. Th e presentation which fol-

lows is therefor e mor e of a piecing togeth er of

a deb ate than a critique of a lready established

positions and stances.

Ge ograph ic a l ly Un e v e n De v e lopme n t

The spatia l problem atic and its social ram-

ifications at the regional and international

levels hinges upo n the im portance assigned to

uneven geographical development in the ori-

gin, growth, survival, and transformation of

capitalism. Sta ted som ew ha t differently, it de-

pends upon the degree to which Mandels as-

sertion-that the unequal dev elop me nt of re-

g i o n s a n d n a t i o n s i s a s f u n d a m e n t a l to

capitalism as the direct exploitation

of

labor

by capital-can be accep ted and built upo n.

It is necessary first to distinguish between

an analysis of the general laws of motion of

capi ta l under pure and homog enous i .e . , spa-

t ia l ly undif fe rent ia ted) condi t ions and the

analysis of the concretized conditions which

exist within an d b etween particular social for-

mat ions . In the former , abs trac ted f rom the

particularities of time and place, the funda-

mental logic of struct ure and process is indeed

spaceless. Following Marx in

Capi ta l ,

capi-

talism can be revealed as a sy stem of produ c-

tion built upon a set of internal contradictions

betw een the forces and relations of produ ction

which much inevitably lead, throu gh crisis and

class s truggle , to revolutionary transforma-

tion. In this essentially theoretical analysis

of

capitalism, which has appealed so strongly to

Wes te rn concep tua l iza t ions o f s c ience in

terms of the establishment of general laws

freed from the specificity of t ime and place,

geographica l ly uneven deve lopment is not

only irre levant, i t is defined away .

31 In particular , see Re v i e w of Rad ical Poli t ical

Econ

omy

Special Issue on Regional Uneven Development in

Advanced Capitalism, Vol . 10 1978); Doreen Massey,

Survey: Regional ism: Some Current I ssues , Capital

a n d Class,

Vol. 6 1978), pp . 102-25; Alain Lipie tz,

L e

Capital et son Espace Paris: Maspero, 1977).


14/19

220

E D W A R D

.

SOJA

June

Marxist analysis built upon these general

laws of motion, upon the contradiction be-

tween labo r and c apita l in the production pro-

cess , d emon stra tes the ephem era l ity of capi-

talism, its imminent self-destruction. But it

doe s not, by i tself, explain how and w hy cap-

i ta l ism has cont inued to exis t . To do

so

re-

quires more direc t a t tent ion to reproduc t ion

processes, especially t o the exp anded rep ro-

duction of capita lism for simple reprodu ction

a lone cannot assure capi ta l isms surviva l) .

When th e laws of motion of capital are related

to their concrete historical and geographical

context, to how they unfold over t ime and

space in the evolving framew ork of expanded

reproduc t ion, the key role of uneven geo-

graphica l deve lopm ent becomes a pparent .

He re we hav e a direc t link be tween the re -

gionalhnternational problem atic and th e urban

spat ial problematic discu ssed earlier. Defined

away by appea l to or thod ox M arxis t theory in

its abstracted form , the role of space become s

salient when con cretized in the co ntex t of re-

produc t ion and is crystallized most clearly in

response to Lefebvres centra l ques t ion: how

and why did capita lism su rvive from the com -

petitive industrial capitalism of Marxs time t o

the m onopoly capita lism of today ? I t is no co-

incidence, therefore , that the major contribu-

tions to regional political economy are asso-

ciated f irs t with th e develo pm ent of the theo ry

of imperialism and mo re recentl y with related

analysis of accum ulation at a global scale , the

develop men t of a capita lis t w orld syste m,

and various processes of unequal exchange

and underdeve lopment . Al l these contr ibu-

t ions have two things in common: they focus

upon the process of expanded reproduction

and they recognize the existence of noncapi-

talist, semicapitalist or , at lea st, not fully and

purely capitalist relations of produc t ion. Fur-

thermore, they place the class struggle in its

appropriate location, a t the global level, and

its goal in the appropriate direction, against

the ex panded reprodu ction of capita lism.

H ow th en can w e define the role

of

uneven

geographical development within this frame-

work of expanded reproduction? Most basi-

cally, i t can be arg ued tha t the historical su r-

vival of capita lism has depended upon the

differentia tion of occupied space into over-

deve loped and underdeve loped regions .

Mandel observes that regional underdevelop-

ment is a universal p henom enon of capita lism,

its principal direct role being to furnish huge

areas of labor reserves and complementary

marke ts able to respond to the spasmodic , un-

equ al, and con tradictory develop men t of cap-

italist p r o d u ~ t i o n . ~ ~If in order to survive,

Mandel arg ues , all of the working population

found job s in the region w here they l ived, then

there would no longer be reserves of wage la-

bour free for the sud den expa nsions of indus-

trial capitalism.33 When the se labor reserv es

a r e n o t c re a t e d b y n a t u r a l p o p u l at io n

movements , they a re produced a r t i f ic ia l ly

through direc t force and o ther m eans .

The creation of labor reserve space also

supplies important and complementary mar-

kets for capita l in the overdev eloped cen-

te rs of accumula t ion. This combina t ion of

economically depressed labor reserves serv-

ing a lso a s m arke ts for the surplus produc t of

t h e c e n t e r i s m a i n t a i n e d a n d i n t e n s i f i e d

through a syste m of unequal exchange, or ,

m ore broa dly, th e geographical transfer of val-

ue. Mandel

If the rate of profit were a lways the same in all regions

of

a

nation and in

all

the countries

of

the world, as well

as in

all

the branches

of

industry, then there would be

no more accumulation of capital other than that made

necessary by demographic movement. And this itself

would

be

modified in its own turn by the impact

of

the

severe economic stagnation that would ensue.

In Lu te Capi ta l ism, Mandel presents an ex-

cellent historical synthesis of the im portance

of geographically un even develo pm ent and the

relation b etween the geographical and sectoral

transfer of value. He builds this synthesis

upon a critical contrad iction in the process of

expanded reproduc t ion, tha t be tween

differ-

entiat ion and equalization in th e r ate of profit

and, more broadly , the deve lopment of the

forces

of

production. Whereas the develop-

m en t of comp etitive capitalist production re-

la tions tend s toward an equalization in the rate

of profit betw een secto rs and am ong regions,

expanded reproduc t ion under monopoly cap-

ita l depends upon the extraction of super-

profits i .e . , mo re than the average) which in

32

Ernest Mandel,

Marxisi Economic Theory

Vol.

I

New York: Monthly Review Press,

1968),

p. 373. Re-

gional uneven development is described here as usually

underestimated in Marxist economic writing and one

of the essential keys to the understanding of expanded

reproduction.

33

Mandel, op. cit., footnote 10, p. 43.

34

Mandel, op. cit., footnote

10,

p.

43 .


15/19

1980 SOCIO-SPATIALIALECTIC 22

1

turn requires sectoral and/or regional differ-

entiation. Thus, Mandel asserts, the actual

growth process of the capitalist mode of pro-

duction is not accompanied by any effective

equalization in the rates of profit or in the

organic composition of capital):35

Thus even in the ideal case of a homogeneous be-

ginning, capitalist economic growth, extended repro-

duction and accumulation of capital are still synony-

mous

with the juxtaposition and constant combination

of development and underdevelopment.

The accumu-

lation o capi ta l i t se l f produces development and

un-

derdevelopment as mutual ly determining moments

of

the uneven and combined movement

of

capi ta l .

The

lack of homogeneity in the capitalist economy is a nec-

essary outcome of the unfolding laws of motion of cap-

ital itself.

In the age of freely competitive industrial

capitalism, regional underdevelopment-of

the rural peripheries and between town and

countryside-was the major source of super-

profits until th e limited homogenization

which occurred in the consolidation of nation-

al markets and bourgeois nation-states). In the

age of classical imperialism, its source shifted

primarily although not exclusively) to the jux-

taposition of development in the imperialist

states and underdevelopment in colonial and

semicolonial countries. In Mandels concep-

tualization of late capitalism, the major focus

is sectoral, the combination of rapid growth in

some sectors with underdevelopment in oth-

e r ~ . ~ ~he entire capitalist system thus ap-

pears, from its origins, as a hierarchical struc-

ture of different levels of productivity arising

from the unequal development of states, re-

gions, branches of industry, and firms, un-

leashed by the quest for surplus profit.

What is being argued here

is

not simply that

capitalist development is geographically un-

even, for some geographical unevenness is the

result of every social process, but that the cap-

italist mode of production actively creates, in-

tensifies, and seeks to maintain regional or,

more broadly, spatial inequalities as a means

for its own survival. At the same time, the

continuing expansion of capitalism is accom-

panied by countervailing tendencies toward

increasing homogenization and the reduction

of geographical differences. This dialectical

tension between differentiation and equaliza-

tion is the underlying dynamic

of

the uneven

development

To

ignore the inherent

horizontality of unequal development-to see

only the vertical differentiation of sectors,

branches, and firms-is to remain in an incom-

plete, overly abstracted, and nondialectical

Marxism, incapable of fully comprehending

and changing) the history of the capitalist

mode of production.

C ent e r -p er i pher y R e l a t i o ns

Merely asserting that uneven development

is inherently spatial is insufficient. It is nec-

essary to identify the particular mechanisms

which sustain geographically uneven devel-

opment, to specify more clearly how it relates

to the expanded reproduction of capitalism,

and to explain how it linked with class rela-

tions and class struggle. Several important

contributions have been made in this direction

over the past two decades, but each advance

has met with strong resistance and frequent

backstepping. As a result, there still does not

exist a rigorous, cohesive, and comprehensive

analysis of geographically uneven develop-

ment.

Take, for example, the analysis of center-

or core-periphery relations. The opposition

between dominant centers of production, ex-

ploitation, and accumulation, and subordi-

nate, dependent, exploited peripheries repre-

sents the primary horizontal structure arising

from the process of geographically uneven de-

velopment and from the dynamic tension be-

tween equalization and differentiation. It is

fundamentally homologous to the vertical

structure of social class, in that both are root-

ed in the same contradiction between capital

35 Three Main Sources of Super-profit, chapter

3

in

Mandel, op.cit., footnote 11, p. 85. Emphasis in original.)

36

Also important in late capitalism are renewed efforts

at regional underdevelopment in advanced capitalist

countries, with the current decline of New England being

a good example. This role reversal

of

regions

is

a source

of new regional crises and deserves intensive study. For

an interesting political analysis , focusing on New England

see Jeremy Rifiin and Randy Barber,

The No rth Will Rise

Again

Boston: Beacon Press,

1978).

37 This dynamic contradiction is paralleled in Le-

febvres work in the contradiction between homogeniza-

tion and fragmentation in the production

of

space, which

he presents as the deeper conflictive relation underlying

the ce

SOJA-1980-Annals of the Association of American Geographers

Documents

Transcript of SOJA-1980-Annals of the Association of American Geographers