Dear Iraj-
THANKS a LOT for very helpful clarifications!!!!
I try to follow your very useful explanations and I have some questions.
Would it be fair to characterize Lefebvre's "first space" as psychical space
("meat space" :-) while "second space" as symbolic space ("virtual space")?
I still struggle to understand Lefebvre's "third space" or "lived space". It
sounds in opposition to the "first space" but I do not understand how. Is
the "first space" abstract (alienated? mediated?) physical space out there
while the "third space" is (directly experienced) habitat? Even more, I do
not understand what problem Lefebvre tried to solve when he develop this
space terminology. Can you elaborate on that, please?
Thanks,
Eugene
PS Here is what my Google search on "Third Space" found for me :-):
Inside the Purple Starfish store.What is Third Space?
Third space is like the coffee shop on 'Friends', with Couches, Tables,
Chairs, Coffee...
The Purple Starfish is a "third space" environment, where people can come to
relax and chat.
First space - Home
Second space - Work/ School
Third space - The place between the Home & Work
< Somewhere to go...Created by Sally, aged 15
http://www.purplestarfish.com.au/third_space.htm
> -----Original Message-----
> From: IRAJ IMAM [mailto:iimam@cal-research.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2003 7:12 PM
> To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> Subject: RE: false consciousness: real and virtual worlds: third space
>
> 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
