Space as the site for pleasure
Space embodies a vast variety of concepts. Spaces conduct the activities
and daily life and are transformed by the change in the lifestyle and
dominant daily activities in the society. Space in the public realm has
become an asset to the accumulation of the dominant ideology. Henri
Lefebvre in his book ‘production of space’, 1991, suggests spaces as
social productions, representing the dominant ideological group of the
society. Also, in the second volume of ‘the critique of everyday’ life
he describes space as a relatively compact fabric of networks and
channels, which is integrated into everyday life (Lefebvre, 2002).
Accordingly, production of space is not a new thing; but the newis the ‘global and total’ production of social space (Lefebvre, 2003).
As in Lefebvre’s opinion, the space produced works as a tool for both
thought and action. This space is a means of production and control, and
therefore a means of domination and power; but it still detaches itself
from those who make use of it (Lefebvre, 1991).
In a globalized community, then, space becomes defined within fixated
boundaries; while it is expected to serve the purposes that fit in every
local place in the world. Capital’s ultimate tool for spreading its
power is space- or to be more specific, the urban space- and its
powerful feature is the ideology of consumption. Contemporary social
space is the space that is being alienated by the ideology of
consumption; alienated in a sense that it becomes capable of
accommodating the flows of consumption and conducting them without
grasping a specific meaning or spatial identity.
Lefebvre (1992) continues by arguing that social actions develop and
decease and are buried in spaces; and this is how the production of
space integrates with individual or collective social actions. Thus,
repetition and regeneration of social acts are essential for keeping the
social space active and regenerated. In another point of view, a tool
for social analysis is the social space and its concept. Thus accepting
this aspect of social space necessitates the elimination of
simplistic models of punctual relationship between social actions and
social locations; and between spatial functions and spatial forms .
Conceptually, spaces in the public realm turn into sites for pleasure in
the sense of serving consumers and keeping them entertained; so there
will be a network of entertainment and pleasure in the urban scale. Such
network is a collective site, including individual spaces of pleasure.
Thus in the form of a network, the flow of consumption expands in the
city. This expansion will help sustaining the ideology of consumption.
According to Stanek (2017), aiming to re-think urbanization in terms of
transgression, expenditure and excess, Lefebvre introduced the idea of
collective luxury in the 1970s; and he believed that it was one thing
from which no one could be excluded. He showed that spaces of leisure
were created in order to functionalize capitalism in different scales
and also in urban scale. However, he added that spaces of leisure do not
only reflect on fetishism and spectacle. ‘Needs’ are being replaced by
‘desires’ while Lefebvre is rethinking urbanization considering what
such spaces offer. Lefebvre wrote in ‘The production of space’ that,
unlike specific needs that are met with specific objects, desire has no
precise object; and the only particular element that is related with it
is a space of full play. It is a place of festivity; the space of the
dream (1992: 362). Thus, luxury emerges as a possible concept in a space
where makes dreaming possible.