OK. Now. Where to start. It has taken two reads and a few discussions and much surprisingly painful thought to get to grips with Lefebvre. Please permit me a mini vent [read rant] before I sink my teeth into what I think he is getting at. So are these Marxist kids serious? I feel that they are the worst possible advertisement for what is essentially a pretty simple and reasonable proposition for an alternative system. They love discussing some things in the most minute of detail [Lefebvre's TWO incomprehensible pages on the various understandings of the definition of the word 'production'..seriously????] and then leaving other areas woefully spartan- [like an idea i have discussed previously as why they conveniently ignore the fact humans are inherently greedy so wouldn't necessarily be receptive to their social vision, despite using the very same fact to argue against capitalism] This calamitous combination leaves even the most open minded onlooker perplexed and wondering if it's all really worth the hassle before deciding to just go for a pint as their heads hurt. That is not actually close to being true; you get my point though.
Like the texts we have already looked at, Lefebvre seems similar in that he is a bitter ageing man, looking at a system he is bitter has not yet worked and only half hopeful that they will ever succeed, this realisation leading to bitterness and a resignment that the only people still receptive are so specialised that they have developed their own means of acceptable discourse. Much like where Meades sneers about Zaha's AA pidgin, I feel these old-school Socialist have developed their own self reassuring elitist pidgin. All embracing? Nope. Ironic, right?
The text is called 'Social Space', despite this, the vast majority of the piece is about production and its social commentry immpact... narrative... Space is used as a vehicle to talk about wider ideas. The discussion of 'production' is interesting, when extended to its most extreme interpretations, it is clear Lefebvre is eagre to warn against mindless production, really he is arguing we should question production not mindlessly follow directions, he is basically saying we are all accountable. Ergo, we should question our surroundings and challenge them, revolutionary thought.
We are again thrust into a battle of reality and unreality. This juxtaposition is obviously a clear distillation of ideology, and is a tool which each of the Marxist writers we have encountered so far has used, the real [socialism] vs the unreal [capitalism]. Lefebvre warns against our belief in images, saying that they lie... or rather that they seek to conceal their truth and should be regarded as a trap. This language is intended to engender caution in the reader.
There are many contradictions in the idealised vision Socialism and again there are several which appear to me in this piece. While talking about production, he warns against senseless repetition, obviously a close relationship can be made with this repetitious process, capitalism, greed, high exchange value -vs- use value, deceiving the consumer. Then concedes that production is absolutely necessary. He battles with the conflict of product -vs- work and uses Venice as an example where both may coexist- or where neither is true. Where 'product' is conceived and made, and essentially a lie, or at least a tool to conceal. Whereas a 'work' is natural, and therefore honest.
I would say that Lefebvre has certainly got a few compelling arguments but his inability to convery those clearly and concisely to the reader makes the whole exercise unnecessarily tedious. I think he has lost the necessary distance from the subject to be able to really make sense of it and translate that to something a non-specialist would be comfortable reading. I get the strong impression that rather than throw on his coat, kick leaves in the street and have a few pints, Lefebvre would stay on his own reading the works of past 'masters' formulating ideas and definitions . Distancing himself from his very own reality and ultimately alienating himself the public he would wish to influence.
No comments:
Post a Comment