RE: false consciousness: real and virtual worlds: third space

From: IRAJ IMAM (iimam@cal-research.org)
Date: Tue Dec 30 2003 - 16:11:46 PST


Thanks Eugene for your interest in this space stuff.

1. "we use the term "space" differently which is good ... My use of "first
space", "second space" and "third space" comes from architecture...
 but the "first space" is referred to "home" (warm, cozy personal dwelling),
the "second space" is referred to official (cold), formal public places like
office or other institutionalized places, and the "third space" is referred
to personalized and "friendalized" public places (Starbucks cafes want to be
such "third space" see
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/09/05/1031115910533.html).

thanks for the reference Eugene (I am learning from you about architecture
and urban planning (which is my original background!). the architect in the
article is using the term 'first Place' not 'first Space' and so on to
suggest a typology of architectural spaces, as we feel them. We all use
different urban spaces and experience them with different feelings. For
example, to many, including myself, Paris and Rome come across as happy
spaces and London does not. Some architect like Mies van der Rohe design
space as minimalist, industrial, and 'cold.' Frank Lloyd Wright, in
contrast, designed 'warm' spaces. I agree we used the term space quite
differently.

2. "Iraj, can you elaborate how Lefebvre, Soja, Bha Bha, Spivak, bel hooks,
and Gutierrez use their space terminology and what they mean by that (please
give examples if possible)?"

Perhaps we can start by the assumption that there is no escape for us from
space. like air, which tends to remain invisible to us most of the times
(unless there is something wrong with it or with our health), space is ever
present. One can declare: there in nothing outside space--real or imagined.
our bodies are space and we can imagine space in our bodies/mind. Lefebvre
and Soja (his follower at UCLA), developed a macro level approach to the
question of space--real and imagined. Lefebvre suggested the term 'perceived
space' for what is 'real' that is what we can see, and can take a picture
of, touch, taste, and smell. Soja called this 'first space.' so you and I
and the rest of the world population with all the cities and objects in them
are 'first space.'

what ever are imaginable, dreams, virtual reality, knowledges, identities,
abstract models, are 'second space.' or what Lefebvre called 'conceived
space.' neither Lefebvre nor Soja were not interested in developing a
typology. The most important concept to them is 'lived space' (Lefebvre) or
third space (Soja). That is human activities that they argued produces both
real and imagined spaces. This is a parallel attempt to Marx's looking at
the production of commodities, they looked at the production of space --real
and imagined--at the local and global levels. For example, in a football
game, the stadium, the people, the teams, etc are 'first space.' both teams
have their game plans and that is their 'second space.' but it is only in
the actual game that they create their 'lived space' or 'third space.' in
that they must change and revise their game plan in action and in real time,
the players play out spontaneously and creatively to produce their own space
of wining the game.

3. 'lived space' or 'third space' is about transformation and changing what
exists--real and imagined. If what exists feels like a trap to many, then
any attempt to imagine a different situation and try to project it in the
outside world and changing it, self included, is about production of
space--real and imagined. Lefebvre said " if you want to create something
new, create a space for it [produce new space]."

my apologies if I was not helpful enough!

Cheers,

iraj



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jan 01 2004 - 01:00:10 PST