The short piece “Dissolving city, planetary metamorphosis” is in many ways a classic Lefebvrian text: It is a mixture of analysis and critique, of doubts and hope – that leads Lefebvre to question the validity of his own perspective on society and space. Even though the essay might be read as resigned – because Lefebvre begins with the statement that “the urban […] was seen as the vehicle for new values and an alternative civilization,” although “[s]uch hopes are fading” (Lefebvre, 2014, page 203) – I want to suggest a different kind of reading which focuses on two fruitful impulses that I think Lefebvre offers here: first a theoretical one, the concept of paradoxes; and second a practical (and meanwhile well known) one, the claim for a right to the city.

Lefebvre, a thinker who always linked his critique of contemporary social relations to possible alternatives, frequently revised some of his former hopes and envisioned possibilities. Examples are the new, lengthy forward to the first volume of Critique of Everyday Life (Lefebvre, 2008) which was published eleven years after the book’s first publication in 1947 and in which Lefebvre reconsidered his former simplistic concept of alienation and consequently his simplistic imaginations to overcome it; or the critical examination of his own claims for difference and against regular daily rhythms after having visited Brazil (cf. Meyer, 2007: 227). In many cases, however, Lefebvre’s work was rooted in his disappointment with and apprehension over current socio-spatial conditions. Thus a new wave of hopelessness can rather be seen as a starting point for new theoretical reflections instead of as an impasse. And I think that the concept of “paradoxes” could be one of those starting points.

The term “paradox” appears sporadically in Lefebvre’s writings. He describes the blind fields in which the urban society evolves as paradoxes because they point toward upcoming events but can only be explained in hindsight (Lefebvre, 2003: 29). The spatial practice under neocapitalism is also conceived as paradoxical in that it includes extreme separations (Lefebvre, 1991: 38). Lefebvre further understands the city itself as paradox if it is, on the one hand, simultaneously the place of alternative possibilities and, on the other hand, in a state of crisis everywhere (Lefebvre, 1996: 124). In the essay focused on here, Lefebvre sees four different paradoxes, i.e. the withering of urban social relations while cities are growing or that center and periphery presuppose and oppose each other at once. What comes into view with a perspective of paradoxes is the simultaneity of seemingly contradictory, but in fact closely related social processes.

On a concrete level, this enables us to explain why compliance with sociocritical claims does not inevitably, nor even frequently, lead to a deep societal transformation: every form of participation in urban development can potentially cause new forms of segregation and focusing on urban differences can deepen socioeconomic processes of homogenization (cf. Kemper and Vogelpohl, 2014). Such an encompassing perspective differs from those that analyze seemingly contradictory processes either as moment that has not been formed by a dominant development yet or as ruptures within a dominant development and therefore as entry points for resisting counter-movements. On a more abstract level, recognizing paradoxes helps to connects the Lefebvrian notion of space as historically specific (and as such barely intentionally changeable) to his hope for a social / urban revolution. It thus mediates between questions of continuity and dis-continuity. The staying power of the capitalist production of space depends on its ability to constantly integrate multiple social trends. They are therefore often paradoxical in character. Recognizing these paradoxes enables an analysis that goes beyond simple explanations of “profitability and social control” (Lefebvre, 2014: 204), to grasp complex, very diverse conditions and to read them as different aspects of a certain type of historical moment. At the same time, this helps to discern deeper ruptures or maybe even more clandestine residua which bear revolutionary power – and this leads to the question of the right to the city.

Within last decade, Right to the City networks have grown in strength and influence. Do they refer to Henri Lefebvre or not? I think their strength lies in their ability to act collectively, across diverse topics, gender, ages, neighborhoods etc. They are often able to reflect several “problems that, even if they are concrete, concern all dimensions of everyday life” (Lefebvre, 2014: 205). And I think that the recognition of paradoxes is a crucial source of their strength: In Hamburg, where I work and live, the network set off in the very moment when the conservative-green coalition planned to rebuy old buildings that an international investor had bought in order to demolish the old buildings and to construct luxury office buildings there. Leftist activists and artists, however, squatted the location – a situation in which the local government saw a chance to prove their will for a “creative city Hamburg” by saving the buildings for the artists. But the activists claimed that they did not want to be part of the city’s cultural-capitalist remodeling. The paradox was recognized – and rejected. From there the initially small group went on to address further paradoxical political decisions or socioeconomic situations and to invoke a citywide Right to the City network.

Returning to Lefebvre’s essay and its title “Dissolving city, planetary metamorphosis”: The power of Lefebvre’s urbanization thesis is its virtuality. As something that is in the becoming, the urban will (always?) remain incomplete and precisely therefore a means to reflect on alternative possibilities for the here and now. The question endures: What is not, but could be? Lefebvre regrets that “the framework of everydayness was slightly modified, but its contents were not transformed” (Lefebvre, 2014: 203). Combining this statement with the question of what could be we could ask: What are the reasons why the urban revolution did not take place yet and how could we get there? Instead of searching for the scalar (supposedly planetary) dimension of current developments, which is currently very trendy, it might be more fruitful to stick to the powerful notion of the urban as virtual and to examine the multiple paradoxes rooted in the paradox of a dissolving city and a virtual urbanization. 

References

Kemper J and A Vogelpohl (2014) Paradoxien der neoliberalen Stadt/ Paradoxes of the neoliberal city.Geographische Zeitschrift 101(3-4) forthcoming.

Lefebvre H (1991) The Production of Space. Malden, Oxford, Victoria: Blackwell.

Lefebvre H (1996) Writings on Cities. E Kofman and E Lebas (eds). Malden, Oxford, Victoria: Blackwell.

Lefebvre H (2003) The Urban Revolution. Minneapolis and London: University of Minnesota Press.

Lefebvre H (2008) Critique of Everyday Life, Vol. 1 – Introduction. London and New York: Verso.

Lefebvre H (2014) Dissolving City, Planetary Metamorphosis. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 32(2): 203–205.

Meyer K (2007) Von der Stadt zur urbanen Gesellschaft – Jacob Burckhardt und Henri Lefebvre. München: Wilhelm Fink.