The trialectics of spatiality

Abstract

The theorisation of space and spatiality is one of the recurring motifs in geographical enquiry. In the Hungarian context, however, relatively little attention has been paid to concepts that emerged after human geography’s behavioural turn and the subsequent studies of people’s mental maps. Constituting a significant theoretical gap, the contributions of neomarxist and poststructuralist scholars to contemporary discourses on space and spatiality left Hungarian human geography – apart from some notable exceptions – almost untouched. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to introduce the trialectics of spatiality, a concept less comprehensively discussed in the Hungarian literature to date, albeit being highly influential in Western human geography. This theoretical frame originates from two main sources: on the one hand, from social constructivist approaches rapidly evolving within the social sciences from the 1970s, and on the other hand, from trialectical thinking rooted in postmodern intellectual currents. After the concise overview of these sources, the concept of the trialectics of spatiality is presented primarily based on the related works of two authors, French neomarxist philosopher, sociologist and urban theorist Henri Lefebvre and American geographer Edward Soja.

One of the most influential theories of social space (‘the social production of space’) stems from Henri Lefebvre whose spatial triad has been adapted and further elaborated by Edward Soja. One of Soja’s most important contributions to the Lefebvrian concept is the notion of trialectics that goes beyond the conventional way of dualistic thinking and challenges the binary divisions modernism has created (and thus, the reduction and totalisation of social realities). Soja proposes two kinds of trialectics; one of these is concerned with ontology (‘the trialectics of being’), whereas the other deals with epistemology (‘the trialectics of spatiality’).

Firstly, all human beings exist in space, in a specific period of time and as part of a certain society. On the other hand, focusing on space and spatiality, Soja distinguishes between perceived, conceived and lived space, referring to these as ‘Firstspace’, ‘Secondspace’ and ‘Thirdspace’ in his work. These three different aspects of spatiality are space as perceived, space as conceived, and space as directly lived and experienced.

Additionally, in Soja’s reading, Thirdspace is also considered as the space of resistance, by providing opportunities to react against hegemonic power structures that are both associated with Firstspace (by certain architectural features of the built environment), and with the political and ideological use of Secondspace.

Finally, concerning the nexus of the three aspects of spatiality, it is important to underscore that these should not be understood as static categories; on the contrary, even Lefebvre described them as dynamic, action-oriented modes of ‘perceiving’, ‘conceiving’, and ‘living’ space. Furthermore, these are intricately interrelated as well, with each one of the three elements constantly shaping the other two. Hence, certain spaces are always perceived, conceived and lived at the same time, and as such, they might constitute Firstspace, Secondspace or Thirdspace only for different social groups. Yet, as pointed out by Lefebvre, analyses focusing on only one aspect of spatiality are inherently reductive and homogenising. Consequently, in order to gain a deeper understanding of the spatiality of society, all three elements of Lefebvre’s and Soja’s shared concept ought to be taken into account.