What Is Lefebvre's Levels?

In the foreword of the book, Neil Smith is not satisfied with Lefebvre’s discussion of “levels” and calls it one of the “less successful’’ aspects of the book: a ‘‘halting effort at what might be now called a politics of scale”. He continues “an oblique attempt to distinguish the scales of sociopolitical reality”. Kanishka explains to comprehend Lefebvre’s definition on levels as an underdeveloped theory of scales and the urban question itself as a scale question, one must understand that his conception of the three levels occurs precisely at the dialectical intersection of the social and the spatial — including “forms–functions–structures” — pressing a heavy emphasis on either the social or the spatial dimension in their clarification equally suspect. The levels blend into each other making clear scalar demarcations of them doubly problematic. As Lefebvre explicates: These levels have relative importance and are governed by some general coherence. During the critical phase of the urban …show more content…
In it, through it, segregation becomes commonplace: by class, by neighbourhood, by profession, by age, by ethnicity, by sex, crowds and loneliness. Space becomes increasingly rare—it is expensive, a luxury and privilege maintained and kept up through a practice (the “center”) and various strategies. The city does indeed grow richer. It attracts wealth and monopolizes culture just as it concentrates power. But it collapses under the weight of its wealth. The more it concentrates the necessities of life, the more unlivable it becomes. The notion that happiness is possible in the [actually existing] city, that life there is more intense, pleasure is enhanced, and leisure time more abundant is mystification and myth. If there is a connection between social relationships and space, between places and human groups, we must, if we are to establish cohesion, radically modify the structure of