13 Future Directions

Henri Lefebvre and Spatial Organization

Sytze F. Kingma, Karen Dale, and Varda Wasserman

Beyond “Turn-Thinking”

This final chapter does not attempt to draw conclusions from the previous chapters but rather seeks to transcend the volume by offering some reflections on the appropriation of Lefebvre’s work in organization studies and offering some suggestions for future research. Lefebvre writes “Man does not live by words alone; all ‘subjects’ are situated in a space in which they must either recognize themselves or lose themselves, a space which they may both enjoy and modify” (Lefebvre, 1991 [1974]: 35). In this sentence, Lefebvre makes poignantly clear both why it is important to study space and how he understands the ambiguous relationship humans, social actors and scholars alike have with space. This understanding is particularly relevant for the field of organization studies, where over the past decade spatial relations, and to some extent also the work of Lefebvre, assumed a new relevance. First, humans do indeed not ‘live by words alone’, but looking at the state of organization studies in the beginning of the 21st century it almost seemed as if words were all that mattered (Carlile et al., 2013). Partly related to the popularity of social constructivist approaches, organization studies were dominated by theories and methods which prioritized the role of language, cognitions, narratives, motives, discourses and legitimations. Maybe the neglect of space had to do with the false and exclusive association of space with positivist and deterministic approaches. However, space can very well be understood and studied in a constructivist way, as Lefebvre makes clear in the second part of the abovementioned quote. People cannot do without space—in Lefebvre’s view, ‘subjects’ are part and parcel of spatial relations—but they have the capacity to change space, which is at the same time constraining and enabling their behaviour. As this volume illustrates in many ways, Lefebvre’s work is concerned with how people produce a ‘social space’ in and through their actions, and how space can be both a product of social relations and effective in producing social relations, including organizations. As such, we believe that Lefebvre’s work on space connects very well with mainstream developments in organization studies.

However, we would argue against a limited appropriation of Lefebvre by organization studies in view of his treatment of space. Some scholars talk about a ‘materiality-turn’ or ‘spatial-turn’ in organization studies, and associate Lefebvre with this. The risk here is that we both reproduce false distinctions between the spatial and the social, or, for that matter, the organizational—and thus misunderstand the significance of space itself—and miss the significance and the potential of Lefebvre’s approach, which, as major interpreters of Lefebvre’s work are quick to acknowledge (Shields, 1999; Elden, 2004; Merrifield, 2006), extends beyond space. As Shields puts it: ‘Against the tendency of theorizing space in terms of its own codes and logic, what is necessary, argues Lefebvre, is an approach that seeks to understand the dialectical interaction between spatial arrangements and social organization itself’ (Shields, 1999: 157). With this volume, we would like to advocate Lefebvre’s work as a source of inspiration of much greater relevance for organization studies. Against the ‘turn-thinking’ we would argue for space as an integrated and integrating component in the full complexity of organizational dynamics and developments. This objective is not restricted to, but includes a critique of contemporary organization studies from the perspective of space, always in view of elaborating our understanding of organizations in and through space. We, the editors, believe that such an understanding of organizations is still lacking, and that Lefebvre’s work can offer tools for working towards this objective, and, above all, serve as a source of inspiration which goes beyond a narrow interest in space. In analogy with Lefebvre’s idea that ‘every society’ and indeed ‘every mode of production’ ‘produces a space, its own space’ (Lefebvre, 1991 [1974]: 31, 46), we suggest that each organization and mode of organizing produces its own space. Developing Lefebvrian organization studies, therefore, would have ‘spatial organization’ as the object and outcome of analyses. Spatial organization should not be confused with the spatial part of organizations (i.e. the organization of space) but addresses the full realization of organization processes as conceived from spatial perspectives. In spatial organization studies, space not only serves as an object of research but also constitutes a method for analysing organization processes.

To prevent misunderstanding, we do not suggest that this volume already offers an overview of such an innovative Lefebvrian approach to organization. We see this volume as a first attempt to bring together a number of scholars and studies who engage with Lefebvre in a comparable spirit and offer some aspects, thoughts, insights and possible directions for advancing truly spatially informed organization studies. In this sense, this volume might be considered part of the emergence of spatial organization studies rather than a result or an end product of it. In short, with this volume, one can start to envision the first outlines of a project and an image of what spatial organization studies might look like. For Lefebvre, space is a social and political product, and the production of space simultaneously (re)produces analytically distinct social structures concerning power, class, knowledge, symbols, identities, values, and legitimations. Historically, the production of space generates concrete social formations such as countrysides, households, villages, churches, cities, states and technologically advanced organizations. In this respect, urbanism was for Lefebvre—in his high days (the 1960–70s)—the culmination of history. For him, this urbanism represented an ideological structure, a ‘capitalism of organization’: ‘Urbanism organizes a sector that appears to be free and accessible, open to rational activity: inhabited space’ (Lefebvre, 2003 [1970]: 164). Although Lefebvre clearly cannot be regarded as an organization scholar, there is much of relevance about organizations and organization processes in Lefebvre’s work. But then again, spatial organization studies use Lefebvre’s work as a source of inspiration, rather than trying to carve specific organizational insights out of his work. For this purpose, analogies are more important than examples.

This final chapter proceeds as follows. We will not go back in detail to the chapters and assess the many significant contributions of each to the study of spatial organization. Instead, we start with an abstract ideal type, based on Lefebvre’s work and the discussions about it, of what spatial organization studies are (or should) roughly (be) about. In this regard, this chapter can be regarded as a manifesto for rather than an account of Lefebvrian organization studies. We see the current volume merely as an extension and moderate next step in the appropriation of Lefebvre’s work. Subsequently, we give some considerations and suggestions for future directions in the uses of Lefebvre’s work and the development of spatial organization studies.

Approaching Spatial Organization (in ten clues)

How can we recognize and analyse spatial organization? In this section we offer an ideal typical (abstract) sketch of ten basic characteristics of spatial organization and how they can be analysed.

One. Spatial organization is not about space; at least, not space as commonsensically distinguished from place, time, technology, artifacts and the body. For Lefebvre, space is all this together. Lefebvre is concerned with the substance, the materiality of human existence, including our relationship with nature. Questions of space and time and of the social/organizational always go together. Spatial organization therefore should be addressed in the broadest possible terms as referring to spatio-temporal organizational relations.

Two. Spatial organization is produced in and through time. Lefebvrian analyses are therefore dynamic, focus on processes of becoming and change, and are open ended (never teleological). Spatial organization is always a historical achievement. Time and space are conceptually connected in rhythm-analysis. These rhythms are multiple and natural (environmental and biological) as well as social. The temporal dimension includes the future. Lefebvre’s method is ‘regressive-progressive’, meaning that analyses not only address the historical backgrounds of certain situations, moments, events, crises and revolutions, but also the future expectations, possibilities, risks, ambitions, hopes, fears and dreams of those involved. In this sense, spatial organization contains a utopian element.

Three. Spatial organization results from the interaction between three different spatial perspectives: the conceived space (representations), the perceived space (concrete practice) and the lived space (representational). These perspectives are historically produced ways of knowing space, and always exist together and constitute each other in a dialectical way. The spatial perspectives can be distinguished analytically but spatial organization can never be reduced to one of the perspectives.

Four. The three perspectives of spatial organization always operate together, but the relative importance is context-dependent and may vary over time. Ideally, the perspectives match, but in practice there often is imbalance between the three. Coherence is possible only under ‘favourable circumstances, when a common language, a consensus and a code can be established’ (Lefebvre, 1991 [1974]: 40). One perspective may dominate the others, dependent on the situation. This also implies that actual coherence is an empirical rather than a theoretical issue.

Five. Societies and spatial organization evolve in processes and cycles of abstraction. Capitalist relations of production and urban society are important examples, as are the clock regarding time and geographical coordinates regarding space. Abstract representations of organizations have a dominating and homogenizing effect and are often controversial and in conflict with the organization of concrete everyday life. In this respect Lefebvrian analyses are particularly sensitive to power relations, alienation, difference and resistance. Lefebvre even developed the idea of a ‘right to difference’ and a ‘right to the city’; the latter might translate into a ‘right to the organization’, meaning that the production of the organization should not be restricted to the dominant views and to those in leading positions. The rights of workers are an obvious example (but there are more ‘stakeholders’).

Six. The economic mode of production is a crucial condition and logic of spatial organization, but not the only one. Politics and the state, and culture and everyday life are equally important. In particular, spontaneity and imagination should not be ruled out. Spatial organization is not merely produced by economic, political and cultural relations but is, in a dialectical way, also constitutive for these relations. In fact, space combines and generates these relations.

Seven. Spatial organization and its analysis is complex and plural. There are multiple times, spaces, rhythms and differentiated social formations. A Lefebvrian approach is also multi- or transdisciplinary. Of particular relevance is the combination of phenomenological (experience) and semiological (structure) analyses. These extremes are combined in Lefebvre’s concept of the lived space.

Eight. The experience, and therefore also the analysis, of spatial organization starts with the body. For Lefebvre the body is a ‘spatial body’, which emerges from space and is constitutive of spatial relations. Social relations are always spatialized and embodied. The body is a ‘bundle of rhythms’ and confronts the biological in the course of everyday life with the social/organizational. The body is therefore also an important instrument for sensing spatial organization.

Nine. The proper object of analysis of spatial organization is the complete or total organization. This does not mean that every aspect and detail of organizations should be studied or discussed. It means that the analysis should address the full spectrum of the various constitutive layers; the concrete (private) level of everyday life, the (intermediary) level of social formations—‘realized abstractions’—and the abstract level of (global) political, economical and cultural structures. In this sense spatial organization studies are holistic.

Ten. The analysis of spatial organization evolves in three stages, starting with detailed descriptions, followed by a regressive phase searching for historic conditions and explanations for current situations, and a progressive, future oriented, phase focusing on (unintended) consequences, contingencies, motives and decision-making. Lefebvre insists on the need for detailed empirical analyses and the recognition of the contingent and constitutive role (scientific) knowledge plays in social formations. Lefebvrian analyses are therefore also critical, in the sense that they expose contradictions and hidden interests, raise awareness, and are suspicious of rationalized knowledge (technocracy). Lefebvrian analyses do not merely want to explain and interpret but also have an emancipatory intent.

Together these clues set a standard of expectation for Lefebvrian organization studies. They can also be perceived as an ultimate goal for such studies. As all ideal-types they are of course never realized in practice, they can serve only as guidelines and may be approximated. They can also be used for the critical assessment of organization studies, in order to get an idea of the extent to which particular studies comply with the basics of spatial organization studies. In the following section, we offer some reflections on the appropriation of Lefebvre’s work and suggest some future directions for research.

Future Directions: A Critique of the Present?

Which topics and suggestions do we have for future research on spatial organization, in further developing a Lefebvrian approach? This question is difficult to answer because the options are almost infinite. On the one hand, the scope of Lefebvre’s work is very extensive and only little of it has been put to use. In this respect, this volume reveals rather than fills the gaps in the appropriation of Lefebvre’s work in organization studies. Lefebvre’s spatial triad obviously is the major contribution which has so far been taken up in organization studies, and even in this respect we should immediately wonder whether this triad, and the dialectics behind it, are always properly understood and applied (Beyes and Steyaert, 2012; Zhang and Spicer, 2014). A first suggestion for organization studies would thus be to practice some self-critique on the current uses of Lefebvre and start further building spatial organization studies from a close(er) (re-)reading of Lefebvre’s original works. This reading, in our view, can very well be combined with a systematic comparison between Lefebvre’s work and current mainstream literatures, such as illustrated in the chapter by Gili Drori and Briana Preminger.

This volume clearly confirms the dominance of the spatial triad in the appropriation of Lefebvre, but at the same time, and often in combination with the triad, some interesting windows on other aspects of Lefebvre’s work are opened. This is especially the case with the focus on micro aspects of Lefebvre’s work concerning everyday life, the spatial body and rhythm-analysis, as illustrated in the chapters by Sarah Warnes, Tuomo Peltonen and Perttu Salovaara, Harriet Shortt, Louise Nash and Zhongyuan Zhang. Similarly, the time dimension (in combination with space) is also extremely important—as questions of space should always go together with questions of time—as particularly illustrated in the chapters by Timon Beyes, Daniel Lacerda and Inbal Ofer. The chapters by Lacerda, Ofer, Nash and Zhang further open windows for connecting Lefebvre’s work with societal scale levels beyond the confines of organizational buildings, such as the city and the state. Finally, Lefebvre’s work also has potential for having a fresh look at more specific organizational processes concerning for instance leadership, power, and organizational design, as illustrated in the chapters by Perttu Salovaara and Arja Ropo and by Fabio Petani and Jeanne Mengis.

On the other hand, the relevance of Lefebvre’s work goes beyond particular organization processes, such as those regarding space. In this respect, we have advocated Lefebvre’s work for developing a novel and systematic approach to organization studies, particularly in view of the recent interest in (socio)materiality in organization studies. In this approach—briefly addressed with the concept of ‘spatial organization’—space not merely figures as an object of research, but rather figures as an analytical perspective on organization processes. For this approach we started this final chapter with an ideal-type with ten basic guidelines. It is probably because of the strength, depth and coherence of Lefebvre’s overall approach that his work remains relevant today. In relation to its specific content much of Lefebvre’s work may at face value perhaps be considered as outdated, but in drawing upon its approach and its application in concrete historical settings and processes, contemporary organization studies may benefit greatly. As Elden (2003: xix) remarks in his introduction to Lefebvre’s Key Writings: ‘despite the age of some of his works, he acts almost as a prehistorian of contemporary developments, with his insights into technology, globalization, popular protest and post-ideological politics open to all manner of possible uses.’ In this respect, we hold Lefebvre’s work extremely relevant for developing spatial organization studies.

This is also because of Lefebvre’s engagement with the present—his present. Although Lefebvre’s work goes in many spatial, historical and philosophical directions, this is always in view of furthering the understanding of contemporary knowledge and developments. Much of his work should be understood as contributing to a critical understanding of the present, and is often explicitly addressed as such, most prominently in Critique of Everyday Life (Lefebvre, 2014 [1947, 1961, 1981]); this work was designed to be ‘a radical questioning of the everyday in contemporary society: industrial and technological society, and so-called “consumer” society’ (Lefebvre, 2003[1981]: 106) (cf. Elden, 2004: 115–117). Therefore, we suggest that in order to derive topics and directions from Lefebvre’s work we should, paradoxically, move away from his work and start with the contemporary era, and problematize the present—our present—following Lefebvre’s approach.

From a consideration of the present we see many topics and issues emerging in line with Lefebvre’s interests. Many of the rapid recent changes (including the rapidity of change in Zygmunt Bauman’s (2000) ‘liquid modernity’) would probably be beyond Lefebvre’s wildest dreams (including issues of social emancipation and differentiation, virtual reality, neo-liberalism, managerialism, globalization, and climate change), but also would have fascinated him. As editors we find a range of organizational issues Lefebvre’s approach might be helpful in furthering the knowledge about. We recall the significance of information technology, the network enterprise and the network society, as explored by Castells (1996; 2001). Lefebvre regarded technology as the ‘lord and master’ of modernity. In his view the driving force of technology, and the ‘related problem of controlling technology’, would only continue to be of key importance in postmodernity (Lefebvre, 2014[1947, 1961, 1981]: 724). One key issue of concern would of course be the way digital technologies are involved in reorganizing spatial relations (Thrift, 2005), including for instance the emergence of new kinds of flexible workspaces (Kingma, 2016). In an insightful discussion, Lefebvre already foresees a computerized society dominated by information networks at the global level, with ‘the risk of a global monopoly of information in a transnational system’(Lefebvre, 2014 [1947, 1961, 1981]: 814). At the same time, however, he is careful to analyse and criticize the ideology of this system promoted by technocrats who sketch a technological utopia which is transparent and inevitable. Today it is not difficult to confirm this analysis: to see how many politicians, officials, managers and consultants reproduce this ideology in their technologically deterministic legitimations of ICT-projects, and to reveal the ideological nature of these accounts, given the huge problems with many of these projects, which in the end often do not produce what is promised.

Further, already mentioned as a promising direction is the significance of everyday life to organizational analysis. This direction—and the great value of Lefebvre’s take on this—has recently been stressed by Courpasson (2017), who points at the importance of often neglected and apparently obvious and banal aspects of work. As examples Courpasson (2017) mentions, the ‘appropriation of time and space’ by employees, for instance at lunch breaks; the so-called ‘useless activities’ at work such as smoking and nail polishing; the ‘re-humanizing’ friendship relations at work; and ‘inhabiting’ the company with subversive activities and meaningful ‘dwelling places’ such as analysed by Shortt (2015). As this volume illustrates, much of organization studies’ interest in Lefebvre’s spatial triad is actually triggered by his cultural concept of ‘lived space’, which immediately connects with this concern for everyday life.

Another fruitful direction may be found in juxtaposing Lefebvre’s work with the abundant literature on gender in organizations. Although Lefebvre did not refer directly to the study of gender in his writings (although he does talk about ‘phallic space’ and analyses the role of women and men), many geographers working from a feminist perspective have adopted his spatial theory as a multilayered framework, which enables the exploring of power relations between different social groups as they are experienced, materialized and conceptualized (e.g., Simonsen, 2005). Each of the three spaces raises new and intriguing questions as to the role of the space in constructing gender within organizations. For instance, do men and women experience various organizational spaces in the same manner? How are gendered experiences constructed? How is space enacted by men and women? How are gender norms reinforced and perpetuated through spatial arrangements and everyday practices? How is the imagined space constructed and reconstructed in architectural and managerial discourses? What are the rationales as to how space should be divided, who should get more space in the organization, and how offices should be designed and with which colours and materials? Future research in (one of) these directions could expose various ways in which managerial/architectural discourses that are phallocentric (i.e., space allotment is based on hierarchy and/or achievements, disregarding gender differences and division of labour) lead to a unified conceptualization of space and male-centred planning processes that will inevitably perpetuate women’s invisibility and inequality. Both Shortt and Nash mention in their chapters in this volume a few such insights that could emerge from using Lefebvre’s ideas in organizational studies. Shortt, for instance, argues that eating behaviours can differ according to sexuality and gender, since these are always embodied practices that are not gender-neutral. Since the popularity of open-plan offices is still growing, eating behaviours during the working day become a public practice that is subjected to the surveilling gaze and to social gender norms. Thus, space and eating are inherently part of the construction of a gendered body at work. Expanding beyond Lefebvre’s triad, Nash too mentions gendered practices, not only within the organization but also outside, in the business area of the City. Following previous studies by McDowell (1997), who examined the multiple ways in which masculinities and femininities are constructed and performed in the City, Nash too refers to business spaces in the City, but she focuses on gendered rhythmanalysis offering an innovative theoretical perspective for future studies to analyse the gendered experience of work, not only in between the organizational walls, but also outside of them.

Given Lefebvre’s interest in ‘organized capitalism’, ‘technocracy’, ‘autogestion’ (self-management and civil society), and ‘nature’, Lefebvre’s approach and work surely connects with prominent organizational themes regarding New Public Management, managerialism, empowerment, and corporate social responsibility. The significance of, for instance, social movements such as Greenpeace and Anti-globalists resonate with Lefebvre’s studies on the Paris Commune (1878) and the Paris student movement (1968) (Lefebvre, 1969 [1968]). Especially Lefebvre’s views on the ‘abstract space of capitalism’, the ‘conceived space’, and on ‘positive knowledge’ and ‘technocrats’ may be very inspiring for analysing the management role in organizational processes. Lefebvre was particularly concerned with technocrats, especially in relation to town planning and architecture, who monopolize decision making and reduce the rest of society to passive performers (Elden, 2004: 144–145). Interestingly, the main critique Lefebvre formulates against this managerial class is not that they reduce planning to a set of technocratic considerations, but that they merely use technocratic considerations to persuade people to accept decisions and situations which in fact are hardly technocratically informed at all!

By extension, given Lefebvre’s work on politics and the state, his work could be very inspiring for the study of organizational politics and the political role of organizations. The political aspects of organizations are often masked and mystified by managerial, technocratic considerations. But the political role of organizations becomes ever more prominent and apparent with the growing significance of organizations (Meyer and Bromley, 2013), with the waning power of the state—or perhaps more accurately: the mingling of state and corporate power—the complex connections between large (transnational) corporations and the state, and with the civil society in view of the current significance, and the social as well as political calls for corporate social responsibility. Lefebvre consistently argued against the tendency to neglect the spatial aspects of political processes. Brenner and Elden (2009: 360) quote Lefebvre on this: (organizational) political processes involve ‘localities and regions, differences and multiple (conflictual) associations, attached to the soil, to dwelling, the circulation of people and things, in the practical functioning of space’.

Lefebvre’s questioning of scale, scaling and territorialization we regard as equally significant for entering new avenues for organization studies. It should be noted that organization studies often limit themselves to what goes on within and between rather narrowly defined confines of organizations, such as the organization’s buildings. This restriction may also be observed in most of the contributions to this volume. In this respect Lefebvre’s approach connects well with the current interest in developing a process view on organization. This makes it possible to breach the confines and analyse processes which are equally relevant on the level of cities, nations, federations and global communities. Lefebvre was not only interested in the relevance of particular scale levels but also, and even more so, in the question of scaling, i.e. the social production of various scale levels and the territories of social formations. In this respect Lefebvre was interested in the emergence of a world scale of interaction and orientation, which he called ‘mondialization’. It goes without saying that this level is now of the utmost importance for contemporary organizations, given the role of the global internet, transnational corporations, transnational institutions, the crisis of the European Union, geopolitical reconfigurations with the rise of ‘Asian Tigers’ and BRIC-countries, and the undermining of state power by these developments. More than ever ‘the worldwide now acts as a third term in relation to the country and the city’, as Elden (2004: 232) quotes Lefebvre on this. To the extent that a neglect of global processes of organizing is associated with disciplinary boundaries, we may also be inspired by Lefebvre’s multi-disciplinarity, and borrow from and contribute to other disciplines such as social geography (Yeung, 1998) or international political economy (Brenner and Elden, 2009). Here we recall, as mentioned in the introduction to this volume, that the first article to introduce Lefebvre’s triad in the field of organization studies was Yeung’s (1998) article on ‘the Social-spatial Constitution of Business Organizations’. While Yeung’s problematization of the strategic, territorial and network dimension—with special reference to the global region of Hong Kong—so far has hardly been taken up in organization studies, this neglect may be re-considered and corrected especially in view of extending organization studies with a Lefebvrian approach on processes of regionalization and transnationalization. We hope that these suggestions and this volume will trigger the reader to wonder about the endless possibilities of Lefebvre’s work and approach.

We would like to end with a call to organization scholars in the spirit of Lefebvre’s life and work. With this, we submit to Kipfer et al.’s (2008: 300) conclusion, which refers to Merrifield’s (2006) passionate remarks about this. For Lefebvre his intellectual work was inseparable from his everyday life and his critical engagement with society. However, today, scientific practice—and this certainly goes for organization studies—is more than ever commodified, ‘ever more alienated, increasingly judged by performance principles, by publisher sales projections—or by their ability to justify the status quo’ (Merrifield, 2006: 119). Possibly absorbed by our hectic everyday rat races of teaching and researching, we should perhaps pause and take a look in the mirror, held up by Merrifield (2006: 120): ‘When scholars write about emancipation, about reclaiming space for others, we might start by emancipating ourselves and reclaiming our own work space, giving a nod to disruption rather than cooptation, to real difference rather than cowering conformity.’ More than with any reference to space or to Lefebvre, we would be happy if his approach and this volume would in any way contribute to a liberation of the spirit of organization studies.