Organisational Space and Beyond

The Significance of Henri Lefebvre for Organisation Studies

Karen Dale, Sytze F. Kingma, Varda Wasserman, Karen Dale, Sytze F. Kingma, Varda Wasserman

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• ISBN:
  9781315302416
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Commerce
• Subtopic: Développement organisationnel

Through the focus on organizational space, using the reception and significance of the seminal work on the subject by sociologist Henri Lefebvre, this book demonstrates why and how Lefebvre's work can be used to inform and elaborate organisational studies, especially in view of the current interest in the "socio-material" dimension of organisations.

As the "spatial turn" in organisational research exposed the importance of spatial design in inducing power and cultural relations, Lefebvre's perspective has become an inspiring, theoretical framework. However, Organisational Space and Beyond explores how Lefebvre's work could be of a much wider relevance, especially given his profound theoretical engagement with diverse schools of philosophical and sociological thought, including Nietzsche, Marx, Sartre and Foucault.

This book brings together a range of authors that collectively develop a broader understanding of Lefebvre's relevance to organizational studies, including areas of management concern such as strategy and diversity studies, and ultimately draw on Lefebvre's work to rethink, reimagine and reshape scholarship in organisational studies. It will be of relevance to researchers, academics, students and organizational professionals in the fields of organisation studies, management studies, cultural studies, architecture and sociology.

1 Introduction

Henri Lefebvre and Organization Studies

Sytze F. Kingma, Karen Dale, and Varda Wasserman

Introducing Lefebvre

One of the most important points to make right at the start of this book is the need to not stereotype Henri Lefebvre solely as a theorist of space, as Shields (2001) puts it. Thus we begin with a very brief overview of Lefebvre’s life and work, in an attempt to avoid the “mis-recognition” that has tended to characterize Lefebvre’s categorization by Anglo-American readers, as Aronowitz (2015: 73) argues, where he is ‘placed’ only in relation to a very partial view of his work and life.

Henri Lefebvre was born in 1901 and died in 1991, his life thus covering most of the twentieth century with its profound changes and disruptions. He was born and died in the south-west of France, near the Pyrenees, in the intervening decades seeing the transformation of the rural peasantry and the growth of urbanization processes, becoming a key observer and theorist of both. Lefebvre’s life and work span not just time, but also academic space. He originally graduated in philosophy from the Sorbonne, but later took up a post in sociology at the University of Strasbourg. In other words, his work defies easy definition and categorization; he speaks and has had influence across multiple academic disciplinary boundaries. As Shields notes, in the 1950s and 1960s, Lefebvre was one of the most translated of French theorists, known predominantly at the time for his work on dialectical materialism. His later work on the production of social space has had a different reception (not originally well received in France and in the context of Marxism, but taken up from the 1980s as a central theory in relation to studies of urbanism) and ‘translation’ (not being translated into English until 1991, and taken up in relation to critical geography and through this route tending to wend its way into other disciplines in the English speaking world). And his work is much broader than these two examples. He wrote over 60 books and 300 articles. Stanley Aronowitz (2015) comments that the relevance of his work to ecology and to art and aesthetics has still not been recognized. Many of his works were dictated and he did not tend to return to edit them. This makes them challenging to read and interpret. But Lefebvre’s life was not confined to academic debates. His whole life was one of activism and is criss-crossed with the influences of this. He joined the French Communist Party in 1928, and provoked his expulsion from it in 1958 after finally acknowledging the influence of the work of Sartre. He then became one of the critics of the continued Stalinism and structuralism of the Communist Party, and was associated with other activist groups including the Situationists and Maoist groups. He was an active opponent of the Vichy regime during the Second World War, and he was centrally involved with the student occupations of 1968, and the political events during the 1960s which led up to this. Among his students can be counted Jean Baudrillard and Manuel Castells. Both his activism and his diverse working life—at various times he was a factory worker, a taxi driver, the artistic director of a radio station, and did military service—feed in to his approach to his writings. His development of acutely perceptive theory is underpinned throughout with political consciousness and a deep concern for everyday life.

Many details about his life and work can be found in already available excellent introductions to Lefebvre. We will focus on how the significance of Lefebvre and his approach have been portrayed and could be made relevant for organization studies. The most systematic and comprehensive of the introductory texts include Rob Shields his Lefebvre, Love & Struggle (1999), Stuart Elden his Understanding Henri Lefebvre: Theory and the Possible (2004), and Andy Merrifield his Henri Lefebvre: A Critical Introduction (2006). In addition, we refer to an edited volume by Kanishka Goonewardena et al., Space, Difference, Everyday Life: Reading Henri Lefebvre (2008), which offers 15 chapters by a range of authors discussing various aspects of Lefebvre’s work. These publications (re)present different versions of Lefebvre’s ideas, and together, we believe, offer a thorough introduction to Lefebvre’s work. In some respects, the works are complementary, although there is, of course, great overlap in the themes covered. As a crude indication, one could perhaps say that Merrifield offers a more emphatic entry to Lefebvre, Shields focusses on the internal coherence of his work, Elden is very comprehensive in interpretations and contexts, and, if you specifically are after particular aspects and backgrounds, Goonewardena et al. would be a good start. The introductions all offer overviews and insights into Lefebvre’s ideas and intellectual life, his broad philosophical interests, his dialectical materialist methodology, his lifelong engagement with a broad range of topics, including everyday life, time, space, the urban, politics, the state and globalization. Introductions necessarily offer fragmented impressions of the original works, summarize, prioritize, reorganize and schematize arguments, and frame the work in a different context of scientific debates. This in itself is a valuable and necessary contribution, and a precondition to make original works accessible and understandable, especially in the case of Lefebvre.

The works mentioned are all meant to be introductory texts and, for that reason alone, organization scholars who seek to contribute to Lefebvrian organization studies are well advised to consult the original Lefebvre texts they refer to. This is not only because ‘second hand’ accounts may raise crude, partial or even false impressions of the original, but also because of the nature of Lefebvre’s work: his methodology, use of concepts and particularly his style of writing. His complex philosophical style makes his works difficult to read. The major arguments and concepts are also often difficult to grasp because Lefebvre almost never presents these in a straightforward way. Concepts and insights are gradually developed throughout the texts in which they are empirically and philosophically grounded and contextualized, and repeatedly nuanced, redefined and elaborated upon. In this respect, Lefebvre’s writing style is demanding to readers who want to grasp and deduce the basics of his ideas from the text as a whole. This means that the introductory volumes not only come in handy but, paradoxically, may even be considered necessary for readers to grasp the meaning and significance of the original texts. Indeed, for readers who are not yet familiar with Lefebvre’s work, it is recommended to start with a good introduction, especially Elden’s (2004), not only because this introduction is the most comprehensive but also because it offers a good entry to Lefebvre’s work because of its enriching and insightful endnotes. Zhang (2006), one of the contributors to the current volume, explicitly advocated Elden’s introduction as an ‘indispensable commentary as well as general guide’ for organization scholars.

This introductory chapter proceeds as follows. We start with a brief sketch of the influence of Lefebvre’s work and how this can be made relevant for organization studies. Secondly, we discuss how Lefebvre was adopted and gained a new relevance in organization studies. Finally, we offer an overview of the studies presented in this volume, and indicate how they might be pertinent for spatial organization studies as an emerging field of interest. In this introduction we do not offer suggestions for future research. Instead, we decided to end the volume with a separate chapter on possible future directions for research into spatial organization.

Lefebvre’s Influence

The Production of Space (Lefebvre, 1991 [1974]) is by far Lefebvre’s most influential work and will also be frequently referred to in this volume. Lefebvre almost never writes in a programmatic way, that is, a way in which the major contributions, ideas, concepts, arguments and methods are outlined in advance, and subsequently explained and substantiated in a linear fashion. In this respect, his style is essayistic and very French. A notable and important exception concerns the first chapter of The Production of Space—explicitly titled ‘plan of the present work’—in which Lefebvre provides the reader with a formal account and definitions of the three epistemologically different but always complementary spatial perspectives his work is renowned for—often briefly addressed as Lefebvre’s ‘spatial triad’.

For Lefebvre, there are always two opposed understandings of space, the mental space referring to the images of space as conceived by experts, such as a map, and the concrete space referring to the real material properties of space we may all perceive. However, and this is the key of his approach, Lefebvre argues that, in addition, there always is a third understanding of space, which combines the two and mediates between the two. This is our understanding of the simultaneously real-and-imagined space we deal with in everyday situations. The logic behind this third perspective, the ‘lived space’, is that Lefebvre recognizes that all social actors combine the two poles and entertain ideas about the concrete spaces which constitute their life—this logic is akin to that of the living brain, a thinking substance. Lefebvre’s triad thus consists of three distinct but related spatial perspectives, the ‘conceived’, the ‘perceived’ and the ‘lived space’. Zhang (2006) usefully highlights Elden’s reading of this, that the lived space addresses our purely subjective informal knowledge of space—which always relates to the conceived and perceived—and that the three perspectives should be understood as particular points of view on the whole space and in this respect overlap, not juxtapose, one another.

However, and the authors of the introductory texts agree, this does not mean that the background and meaning of this deceptively clear classification of perspectives, and the way the perspectives relate or can be put to use, is immediately evident from the first account. This one can find out only by following Lefebvre’s uses of the concepts, discussions of the philosophical backgrounds, his comments and applications in the subsequent chapters of the book. For instance, Schmid (2008) argues that Lefebvre’s triad can best be understood with reference to ‘the trinity of Hegel, Marx, and Nietzsche’. What is more, The Production of Space can be understood as a culmination of a large part of Lefebvre’s previous work, which constitutes a voluminous but in many respects closely connected oeuvre. In his previous works, especially his works on ‘everyday life’ (Lefebvre, 1991 [1947]), ‘the rural’ and ‘the urban’ (Lefebvre, 2003 [1970]), he gradually developed and grounded various aspects of his arguments and already offered basic rationales and provisional formulations of his spatial perspectives. This implies that one should ideally read a significant part of Lefebvre’s work in order to reach a proper understanding of his spatial theory. Furthermore, this argument applies not only to the works previous to The Production of Space, but also to the subsequent works; his masterpiece on ‘the state’ (not translated into English and out of print in French), and especially Rhythmanalysis (Lefebvre, 2004 [1992]), which he himself addressed as ‘an idea that may be expected to put the finishing touches to the exposition of the production of space’ (Lefebvre, 1991 [1974]: 405). For this reason, one can hardly do without good guides such as the introductions mentioned. Although in these ways necessary, the introductions are, of course, not sufficient for developing Lefebvrian organization studies; they need to be supplemented with a close reading of relevant parts of the original work and with contemporary applications in organization studies, such as the ones discussed further on and the ones written for this volume. Finally, in order to actually bring Lefebvre’s approach to life, this will have to be tested, applied and specified in actual organizational research practices. The proof of the pudding ultimately lies in the eating.

Another important observation about Lefebvre’s work is that his work was taken up on a significant scale by international social science only after his death in 1991, also the year the English translation of La Production de l’espace—already published in French in 1974—was released. In the 1990s, this work had a significant impact in the field of social geography and was assigned a prominent role by, in particular, Mark Gottdiener (1985), who discussed The Production of Space seriously; David Harvey, who wrote an afterword to The Production of Space; and Edward Soja, whose book Third Space (1996) in title and content was directly inspired by Lefebvre’s approach. Soja was also instrumental in connecting Lefebvre’s work with the broader expansion of the interest in space in the wider social sciences, particularly in the cultural studies field. This ‘reassertion of space in social theory’ (Soja, 1989) was part of a general post-modernist critique of modern social science because of its prioritizing of time and history over space and geography (cf. Jameson, 1991). Kipfer et al. (2008: 3) regard the political-economic geography reading as a ‘first’ and the post-modern cultural reading as a ‘second’ reading of Lefebvre. They argue for a ‘third’ more comprehensive reading which overcomes and combines the two and fuses and balances Lefebvre’s political-economic considerations with those of subjectivity and identity. We suggest that the appropriation of Lefebvre in organization studies can by and large be inserted in this third stream of readings of Lefebvre. The first tranch of organization studies papers to make reference to Lefebvre’s triad, which we will further discuss below, appeared only in 2004 and 2005 (Ford and Harding, 2004; Dobers and Strannegård, 2004; Dale, 2005; Watkins, 2005).

The late, post-mortem, recognition complicates the application of Lefebvre’s work in organization studies. First, by the time that the significance of Lefebvre’s work had been recognised in organisation studies, the field had developed sophisticated contemporary approaches in a different direction, of which, for example, neo-institutional theory is a strong example (see Drori and Preminger’s discussion in the current volume). Consequently, the more organization studies evolved into alternative directions and developed a framework of reference of its own, the bigger the gap—in time and empirical topics—between organization studies and Lefebvre’s approach became, and subsequently the more difficult to overcome. Second, this effect was aggravated because also outside the field of organization studies, and even in the French context, the work of Lefebvre was not systematically built upon, applied and developed further conceptually and empirically. His work seems somewhat frozen in time.

This does not mean that Lefebvre’s work was not influential. On the contrary, Lefebvre’s work should be regarded as highly influential both upon contemporaries and successors, but this influence was largely indirect and hardly recognizable. On the one hand, Lefebvre did not follow a standard academic career. Although he wrote for a large part of his adult life, his interests and work often were not directly connected to academic positions. Lefebvre was a controversial figure, as Merrifield (2006) points out in some detail, and as much a neo-Marxist thinker and intellectual outside of academia as inside. He can also be considered a left-wing activist, although with his writing and commentaries he was an activist in words rather than deeds. He was an active member of the French communist party (PCF) for 30 years (from 1928 to 1958). He is also known for his support and analysis of the May 1968 student movement (Lefebvre, 1969 [1968]). In French sociology courses, so we have been told, Lefebvre is mainly mentioned with reference to The Sociology of Marx (1982 [1966]), a rather straightforward introduction to Marxism but not a significant part of his own contributions. The enormous range of Lefebvre’s writings also makes his work difficult to classify. Lefebvre’s work went in many directions. He advocated and practiced multidisciplinary approaches, and incorporated economics, politics, philosophy, psychology and the arts. His work was as much grounded in phenomenology as in semiology. His major contributions concerned not only spatial analyses but, equally important, the history of ideas, particularly the ideas about space (remember, there are always two spaces, the ‘mental’ and the ‘concrete’). In his thinking and writing, he extensively engaged with Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Sartre and many more. All these factors make his work difficult to classify and to access.

On the other hand, there are also reasons external to Lefebvre’s person and work which may account for the poor integration of Lefebvre’s work in mainstream social science. This has to do with a particular feature of French sociology, or for post-World War II continental European sociology as contrasted with Anglo-Saxon sociology—this feature may even be typical for a specific phase of development of social science. Leading sociologists developed almost egocentric conceptual frameworks with attached series of studies, which resulted in largely self-referential and closed theoretical systems. This scientific practice characterized Lefebvre’s oeuvre but equally that of, for instance, Baudrillard, Foucault or Bourdieu. This practice may lead to a strong internal coherence, diachronic grounding and depth in concepts and studies. However, at the same time, this leads to weak external coherence, synchronic grounding and superficial connections between the various schools of thought. The various sociological schools developed their insights in relative isolation and virtually ignored each other, with some exceptions. A notable exception would be Lefebvre’s comments on Foucault’s work, which he regarded as particularly ‘powerful’ but criticized for its neglect of the wider spatial context of the state (Elden, 2004: 240). At the same time there are all kinds of hidden connections in contacts and themes.

As opposed to Baudrillard, Foucault or Bourdieu, Lefebvre’s approach remained academically isolated and was hardly translated, applied, elaborated or debated by others. Although not in an explicit manner, large parts of the work of Manuel Castells—in the late 1960s an assistant of Lefebvre—and David Harvey can easily be portrayed as a continuation of Lefebvre’s interests and work on the urban. Ironically, both Castells and Harvey initially thought that Lefebvre had developed a flawed Marxist approach to the city, and sought to correct this with a more structuralist focus on the economic forces of production (Elden, 2004: 142). However, in their later work they revised their Marxist position and their work evolved in a direction which was arguably more in line with Lefebvre’s approach. In the 1990s, as mentioned above, Harvey was also instrumental for integrating Lefebvre’s sociology of space in Anglo-Saxon social geography. By that time, Castells had shifted his interests from the city to a new material phenomenon, that of information technology and the network society, and wrote an ambitious and voluminous sociology of The Information Age (Castells, 1996); this development and topic definitely would have fascinated Lefebvre—and he undoubtedly would have commented upon the book. And although without reference to Lefebvre, Ca...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of Contributors
• 1 Introduction: Henri Lefebvre and Organization Studies
• Part I Theoretical Considerations—Process, Absence, Power, Institutions
• Part II Spaces of Organization—Everyday Work Life, Embodiment, Rhythms, Boundaries
• Part III Organization of Spaces—Capitalism, Urban and State Relations
• Index