《The Production of Space》是一本由Henri Lefebvre著作，Wiley-Blackwell出版的Paperback图书，本书定价：USD 59.95，页数：464，特精心从网络上整理的一些读者的读后感，希望对大家能有帮助。
《The Production of Space》精选点评：
●非常棒的书。可结合哈维的巴黎城记。
●我真的不懂自己为什么要选这个题……要选这个理论……真的很痛苦……纠缠不清云里雾里，我果然和哲学一点缘分都没有
●I can't say I have read it. It is not so much a process as a dialectic. H.Lefebvre used it to decipher the truth of each period of history and of our experiences. And any space is a mixture of the perceived, the conceived and the lived, which also involves the representation of body.
●從文學，美學，藝術，到交響樂，印象派立體派。好愛這老頭。
●不要把所谓新马克思主义这种烂标签，贴在这个耿直的老头身上
●终于有底气可以说自己读完了。
●空间理论的奠基，基于并颠覆传统的二元辨证论，空间“三重论”带我冲击此生智商巅峰。
●力作，但是独到结论部分还是有些不太认同
●反正，啃了两遍这本书之后，深感没有读不下来的书了。
●痛苦的阅读...
《The Production of Space》读后感(一)：复旦邹诗鹏讲马克思与空间的生产
邹诗鹏讲空间的生产：
做学问要有格局 对激进思想要有实践感 保守主义 自由主义 激进主义 空间本身就是社会关系的总和。
ituation & Site
时间历史转向空间性的当下性的结构的转向 从抽象的想象的空间经相对空间观及先验空间转向政治或审美的感性空间。
空间不是均值的。
从器具、工具与被动的空间走向扩张性和生产性的空间。
从环境的和地理性的空间观转向政治的和政治经济学的空间。
大片：用空间讲故事
空间太多了，每个人都要有自己的存在感。
自由就是唤起身体和空间的获得感
在空间的时代，刷“存在感”，新的生存方式
“在场”与“表演性政治”
民粹主义：大众最重要的情绪是愤怒
（除了身体要旅游，思想也要进入另一个崭新领域。暑假里，思想也出来旅旅游，最省钱的旅游）
当代境遇：后68运动的理论主题：话语转向、空间转向、身体转向、生命政治的兴起
辩证唯物主义：空间&结构 哈贝马斯 阿尔都塞
历史唯物主义：时间&历史 马克思
社会空间的激进化：西美尔→激进空间的社会理论观：空间是一切社会关系的总和。
现在人喜欢他在的身体，人的另一个符号、身份。
从年鉴学派史学到微观史学转向：
年鉴学派史学：地理历史----社会---事件
激进社会理论：问题式、跨学科、综合性的社会理论
金融及其衍生体系已经成为现代性的高度激进的符号空间与支配空间。
房地产的本质就是政治→作为一种激进空间
激进的网络
事件时代与网络民粹化
咖啡馆的陌生人 地铁的社交 人人都有麦克风 自媒体时代
事件的时代
开放马克思的空间思想
几点反思：
①空间-结构替代时间-历史的结果：历史的终结
②重思生产逻辑与公正问题
③空间转向与虚无主义的极致
鲍德里亚《象征交换与死亡》
《The Production of Space》读后感(二)：草译 《空间的生产》
目前工作计划
一
在不久之前，“空间”一词有着一个严格的几何意义：它所引起的仅仅是一个空白区域的想法。学术界使用它通常伴随着一些绰号，例如“欧几里得”“等向性的”或者“无限的”。一般意见是空间的概念最终是数学的。因此，提到“社会空间”会听起来有些陌生。
空间概念的长期发展并没有被遗忘，但是它必须被记住：在他们所共享的传统形而上学的根源里，哲学的历史也证明了科学的逐步解放，尤其是对于数学的解放。笛卡尔的思想被看作是制定空间概念的决定性因素，并且关键是它成熟的形式。根据西方大多数历史学家的思考，笛卡尔使亚里士多德传统走向终结。亚里士多德认为空间和时间的存在，在于促进感官迹象的分类和命名。这样分类的立场从古至今一直是不清晰的。因为他们要么被看作是简单的经验主义工具为了整理感官数据。或者，被作为一种在某些方面高于身体感觉器官所提供证据的普遍性上。然而，随着笛卡尔逻辑的出现，空间已经进入了绝对的领域。随着客体与主体的对立，广延物（res extensa）与思维物（res cogitans）的出现和对立，空间形成了可以支配所有感官和身体的地位。因此，空间是一种神圣的属性吗？或者，空间是一个对于所有存在的内在秩序吗？这样对于术语的讨论，都被说成是为了唤醒笛卡尔，斯宾诺莎，布赖尼茨和信仰牛顿学说的哲学家们。康德复兴并修订了分类的古老概念。康德的空间，尽管是相关的，尽管是知识的工具，但是它作为一种归类现象的方法，是非常清晰的从经验世界里分离出来：它优先属于意识的领域，以及分享那种领域内在的理想化结构，因此是先验的，是本质上无法捕获的。
这些延申的讨论标志着空间从哲学到科学的转变。然而，声称它们过时是错误的，因为他们在西方标识的演变中具有超越时刻或阶段的重要性。到目前为止，标识从被限制的抽象性里褪去被赋予所谓的纯哲学，他们提出了准确和具体的问题，例如对称与非对称的问题，对称体的问题，以及镜子和反射的客观作用的问题。由于这些问题对于社会空间分析的暗示，我将会回到这些问题。
二
数学家这个词语，在现代意义上是作为科学的所有者出现的。它非常清晰的从哲学里分离出来，被作为一种必要的自给自足的科学。因此，数学家占用空间，时间，并且使得它们成为数学领域的一部分，然而这种占用是以非常矛盾的形式存在的。可以说，他们发明空间的不确定性：非欧几里得的空间，曲面的空间，多维空间，甚至是无限维度的空间，构形的空间，抽象的空间，被转译或者由变形所定义的空间，被类型所定义的空间，等等。一旦高度普遍化和专业化，数学语言可以尽可能准确的区分和归类这些层出不穷的空间。（很明显，空间的集合，或者空间的空间，并没有很容易的引领自身走向概念化。）但是数学运算和现实的关系，物理现实和社会现实的关系并不明显，甚至在这两个领域中间出现了一条深深的裂缝。那些打开这个问题的数学家随后把它抛给了哲学家，哲学家只是太开心把它作为一种手段弥补在此所失去的。
在这方面，空间变成了，或者说更加变成了类似柏拉图主义的早期哲学传统所提出的，相反于分类原则的那个东西：它变成了达芬奇所谓的精神性。数学理论的扩散恶化了古老的知识问题。如何形成从数学空间到自然的过渡，这是其一。其二，如何过渡到实践。再然后过渡到社会理论。以上的哪些又假定必须在空间中展开呢？
《The Production of Space》读后感(三)：《The Production of Space》Reading notes
The Production of Space
Translator's Acknowledgements ------------------------------------- ix
1 Plan of the Present Work -------------------------------------------- 1
2 Social Space------------------------------------------------------------68
3 Spatial Architectonics ----------------------------------------------- 169
4 From Absolute Space to Abstract Space-------------------------229
5 Contradictory Space -------------------------------------------------292
6 From the Contradictions of Space to Differential Space ----352
7 Openings and Conclusions----------------------------------------- 401
8 Afterword by David Harvey ----------------------- ------------------425
9 Index ---------------------------------------------------------------------435
1
ot so many years ago, the word 'space' had a strictly geometrical meaning:the idea it evoked was simply that of an empty area. In scholarly use it was generally accompanied by some such epithet as 'Euclidean', 'isotropic', or 'infinite', and the general feeling was that the concept of space was ultimately a mathematical one. To speak of 'social space', therefore, would have sounded strange.
According to most historians of Western thought, Descartes had brought to an end the Aristotelian tradition which held that space and time were among those categories which facilitated the naming and classing of the evidence of the senses.
4
福柯认为:“Knowledge is also the space in which the subject may take up a position and speak of the objects with which he deals in his discourse.”
6
The quasi-logical presupposition of an identity between mental space (the space of the philosophers and epistemologists) and real space creates an abyss between the mental sphere on one side and the physical and social spheres on the other. From time to time some intrepid funambulist will set off to cross the void, giving a great show and sending a delightful shudder through the onlookers.
精神空间和现实空间的同一性的准逻辑假定创造了一个深渊，这个深渊介于精神领域和物理社会领域。一些无谓的走钢丝者一次次试图穿越这个罅隙，为旁观者展示和传达出一种令人高兴的颤栗。
7
y contrast, we all know, or think we know, where discussions of truth, illusion, lies, and appenranceversus-reality are liable to lead.
Indeed, talk of cross-sectioning, suggesting as it does a scientific technique (or 'theoretical practice') designed to help clarify and distinguish 'elements' within the chaotic flux of phenomena, merely adds to the muddle.
--------------------------------（以上唧唧歪歪不切主题，直接进入P229之后）-------------------------------------
lt;From absolute space to asbtract space>
《The Production of Space》读后感(四)：Spectacle,Space,Globalization
The spectacle is not a collection of images;rather,it is a social relationship between people that is mediated by images.
(Guy Debord,The society of the spectacle)
The quasi-logical presupposition of an identity between mental space (the space of the philosophers and epistemologists) and real space creates an abyss between the mental sphere on one side and the physical and social spheres on the other. From time to time some intrepid funambulist will set off to cross the void, giving a great show and sending a delightful shudder through the onlookers. (Henri Lefebvre,P6)
_____________________________________________________
“Social space is a social product,” argues Henri Lefebvre in The Production of Space.In this kind of materialist reading of space,he differentiates between spatial practices,representational spaces,and the space of representation.This tripartite division can be understood in terms of the lived,the perceived,and the conceived.
Lefebvre’s intervention in the intellectual discourse on space and postmodernity was at least twofold: first,he distinguishes between different forms of spatial practice in order to prevent the sort of conceptual conflation that results in contemporary critical discourse;second, he highlights the role of capitalism in the current fraturing of the spatial coordinates of lived reality.This later point is argued by first volatilizing and historicizing capitalism as a complex ensemble of multiple forms of capitalist relations,some industrial and commercial,others financial and speculative, that do not share either the same structure of temporality nor the same spatial dimensions.This point must also be understood in the context of Raymond Williams's important reminder that the "base" in the architectual metaphor or base-superstructure in Maxism implied both historical change and contradiction,as well as a processual understanding of social relations and not an objet or thing.
The spatial turn in relation to globalization can be adduced from Deleuze and Guattari’s argument that the abstract form of contemporary capitalism continually deterritorializes and reterritorializes the complex of power relations within which politics becomes possible.In addition, as Foucault had pointed out :“Knowledge is also the space in which the subject may take up a position and speak of the objects with which he deals in his discourse.” (p4).
Further,if the complex,temporally differential and spatially dynamic dimensions of the multiple forms of capitalism mark globalization,then surely it must be taken seriously given that it is in the context of globalization that media are seen as prime signifiers of postmodernity. The commodity form of value finds itself concretized in the representational asthetic of contemporary "mass-media global visual culture".This too, has important spatial implications for how the political space of nation,the ecnomic spaces of globalization,and the affective spaces of nationalism are harnessed in different ways.Indeed, we do find a proliferation of different forms of represetation from the old black-and-white films,contemporary MTV montage,transnationally located cinema-and each have their own peculiar temporality and space within both the media scene and within history.To view this plurality as pure difference and postmodern pastiche is to fail to recognize that each are concretely linked to different logics of cultual, economic,and political space.The proliferation of styles is not thus a dizzying descent into the postmodern abyss of nonmeaning--on the contrary,it can be understood as the channeled access to representational forms and spaces and linked to spatial practices themselves.
The descent into space in contemporary theories of postmodernity can be critiqued by attending to the historically differential dimentions of social space as the contigent product of particular practices.These need not mean that space as absolute contigency and nonbelonging must be replaced by traditionalist notions of pure place with vlealy marked boundaries.The dialectic between spae and place under contemporary forms of mordernity can be collapsed into the discourse of sheer difference only at the cost of an ignorance that social space and cultual politics are mediated by practice.