Manuel Castells The Urban Question

A Review Essay*
Marshall M.A. Feldman

ABSTRACT: The Urban Question, by Manuel Castells, is an important contri-

bution to the growing Marxist critique of urban studies. The books central criti-
cism is that the histoncal relativity of the term "urban" makes the urban field one
without a rigorously defined object. As such, urban studies becomes an ideology
which masks social relations with environmental determinism. Castells puts for-
ward the hypothesis that the term "urban" refers to the ideological apprehension
of the collective reproduction of labor power in capitalist societies. He under-
takes several empirical and theoretical studies that are not very useful because
they rely on an eclectic, formalistic empiricism. The hypothesis that the
"urban" is an ideology reflecting reproduction requires a rigorous formulation
of the specificity of "reproduction," "ideology," and the "urban" in relation to
the mode of production. The so-called "ideological instance" actually refers to
particular relations produced in the capitalist mode of production. I suggest that
the "urban" simultaneously refers to the processes of socialization of production,
realization of surplus value, and collective reproduction of labor power.

&dquo;The City&dquo; is somewhat of a paradox for the
Marxist tradition. On the one hand, cities give the
impression of being ideal sites for Marxist analysis to
J
take root and flower. Cities, after all, are not simply
economic or sociological phenomena, but combine
virtually all aspects of social life in a complex whole.
The holistic character of Marxist analysis would seem
to be particularly well suited to unraveling this com-
plexity. Furthermore, at an empirical level, few things
correspond to the development of capitalism as closely
as urbanization. On the other hand, until very recent-
ly, cities have been all but ignored by the Marxist tradi-
tion. This was probably due to a combination of econo-
mistic dogmatism, which refused to look at anything
not directly related to production, and the fact that the
&dquo;urban&dquo; was not where the action was; class struggle
seemed to occur mainly at the point of production2
This silence has been broken in the aftermath of
the Sixties when &dquo;urban&dquo; struggles erupted through-
out the industrial capitalist world. I find it useful to
*Thanks to those persons who commented on an earlier draft of
this essay. This includes RRPE reviewers: Jim Devine, Kim Edel,
Matt Edel, and Ken Fox. It also includes members of the Bay Area
Seminar on Urban Political Economy: Dan Feshbach, Chester Hart-
mann, Madel~ne Landau, Terry MacDonald, John Mollenkopf,
David Montejano, Patnck ODonnell, Pat Wilson Salina, Jim Shoch,
David Wdmoth, and Richard Walker. Special thanks to Ann Marku-
sen who, acting in both capacities, contnbuted to the present version.
periodize the rapidly growing Marxist urban literature
into four categories: classical, radical, critical, and
theoretical.33 First, there are the Marxist classics.
Engelss The Housing Question and The Condition of
the Working Class in England come readily to mind.
Marx also wrote a great deal about cities, but his writ-
ings on the subject are scattered throughout his work,
especially Grundrisse, Capital, Theories of Surplus
Value, The German Ideology (with Engels), and his
political writings on France. Finally, Lenins important
The Development of Capitalism in Russia closes out
the classical period. Next, we find what I call &dquo;radical&dquo;
urban analysis. This literature is critical of the capital-
ist status quo and may even borrow Marxist ideas, but
it is not written wholly from the perspective of dialec-
tical materialism. Very often these writings counter-
poise &dquo;radical&dquo; hypotheses to &dquo;orthodox&dquo; ones, the
outcome of the conflict being decided by empirical
testing. The first edition of Gordons[19] book of read-
ings is probably the best example of this category.
More than this formal opposition, what distinguishes
this second genre from the third is that the former does
not challenge the basic terrain (&dquo;problematic&dquo;) of
orthodox analysis. In other words, orthodox theoret-
ical questions with the epistemological/onto-
along
logical presuppositions which give rise to them are left
intact; only different answers to the same questions are
proposed. The third category of literature attacks

136
Downloaded from rrp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 16, 2016
orthodox urban theory at its roots and provides a crit-
ique of its theoretical questions and presuppositions as
ideologies, which tend to predetermine the answers
given. North American readers are probably most
familiar with Harveys Social Justice and the City[20]
as the prime example of this type. These studies base
their critique on a Marxist foundation and often pro-
pose Marxist theoretical formulations. They generally
do not, however, engage in original research based on
scientific problems emanating from the development
of historical materialism itself. Studies which extend
Marxist theory into the urban field represent the fourth
kind of Marxist urban research. Although studies of
this sort have only recently been published, one can al-
ready cite several examples. See, for example, the
collection edited by Tabb and Sawers[36].
In this context, the publication of an English
translation of Castells The Urban Question, A Marx-
ist Approach (Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1977), is
something of a major event. Originally published in
1972 as La Question Urbaine, the book was a landmark
for both French urban sociology and Marxist analysis.
Readers of the English language version further bene-
fit from a four-page preface and thirty-five page after-
word (the latter is also present in the second French
edition). Indeed, these may be its major contributions.
As Castells says in the afterword:
Instead of setting out from particular theoretical
bases (those of Marxism) and defining its own
criteria ... it [the book] skims over the urban
problematic, separating itself gradually from the
implicit ideology, through a movement that com-
bines criticism, concrete research and the hesitant
promulgation of new concepts. One could not
have proceeded differently, for every new theor-
etical field emerges from the contradictions that
develop out of pre-existing limitations.(p. 454)
The Urban Question borders on the boundary be-
tween the third and fourth category of literature. It at-
tempts to make the transition from critical to theoret-
ical work. The book itself is divided into five parts: the
historical process of urbanization; the urban ideology;
the urban structure; urban politics; and the urban
process. The first two constitute the core of Castells
critique of orthodox urban theory, the first part pro-
viding a descriptive backdrop to the critique developed
in the second. This is extended and elaborated in the re-
maining three sections, along with the development of
Castells own theoretical (re)formulations. Since this
involves a combination of ideological critique, theor-
etical elaboration, and empirical research, a discussion
of the book is greatly facilitated by separating out three
themes: Castells critique of the &dquo;urban ideology&dquo;; his
own analysis; and the self-criticism, clarifications, and
revisions presented in the afterword.
137
Downloaded from rrp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 16, 2016
The &dquo;Urban Ideology&dquo;
One of the major strengths of the book is Castells
trenchant critique of orthodox urban analysis. This
critique is based on several points, but the one unify-
ing theme seems to be the lack of specificity in the ob-
ject of urban theory. Castells is greatly influenced by
Althussers work and readers familiar with the latter
will recognize the roots of Castells critique. For ex-
ample, take Althussers statement that
the number one task of every new discipline is
that of thinking the specific difference of the new
object which it discovers, distinguishing it rigor-
ously from the old object and constructing the
peculiar concepts required to think it.4
Compare this with Castells:
The delimitation of the urban remains ambig-
uous ... one might judge such a problem to be
purely academic and keep to an analysis ... of
space...[given] the historical relativity of the
criteria concerning the urban. [But,] what is
space? ... all space is constructed ... conse-
quently, the theoretical non-delimitation of the
space being dealt with ... amounts to accepting a
culturally prescribed (and therefore ideological)
segmentation. Since physical space is the devel-
opment of matter as a whole, a study &dquo;without a
priori&dquo; of any &dquo;spatial&dquo; form and manifestation
will amount to establishing a history of mat-
ter ... I am trying to ...
[emphasize] the neces-
sary construction, whether theoretical or ideo-
logical (when it is &dquo;given&dquo;) of any object of anal-
ysis.(p. 234r
This basis allows him to extend his critique in a number
of directions. Consider the term &dquo;urban,&dquo; itself. The
lack of specificity in the delimitation of the &dquo;urban&dquo;
leads either to including very different ecological
forms under the label &dquo;urban,&dquo; or confining ones at-
tention to urbanization as a purely capitalist process.
Neither solution is satisfactory. The former solution
destroys the usefulness of the term, particularly in ref-
erence to what has been called &dquo;urban culture,&dquo; since
there is no meaningful ahistorical definition of
&dquo;urban.&dquo; The latter solution denotes a particular con-
tent by reference to an ecological form. Not only does
this imply an absurd environmental determinism, it
also masks the real process at work by attributing the
content (everyday life under capitalism) to the
&dquo;urban.&dquo; In turn, such an ideological solution sees &dquo;the
urban&dquo; as the mark of &dquo;modern society,&dquo; itself the
inevitable result of technological &dquo;progress&dquo; and
demographic growth.
In both forms, this has certain practical
ideology
implications. By presenting society as an undifferenti-
ated, organic whole facing &dquo;natural and technological
constraints&dquo; (pp. 75-85), all social relations and contra-
dictions underlying capitalist urbanization remain
hidden. When applied to the &dquo;natural environment,&dquo;
for example, this ideology abstracts from the particular
social analysis of concrete &dquo;environmental problems&dquo;
which is necessary in order to give these problems their
meaning. Instead, the ideology &dquo;merges social classes
into a single army of boy scouts&dquo; standing shoulder-to-
shoulder against some fantastic &dquo;Nature.&dquo;(p. 186)
A second direction of Castells critique is into the
realm of urban politics. Starting with the classic
&dquo;pluralist-elitist&dquo; debate associated with Robert Dahl
and Floyd Hunger,6Castells traces the evolution of lib-
eral urban political analysis. He concludes that this
field deals primarily with three areas that parallel his
own analysis (see below): governmental administra-
tion (&dquo;urban planning&dquo;), urban political struggles (&dquo;ur-
ban social movements&dquo;), and their combination. Lib-
eral analysis of urban planning focuses on &dquo;decision-
making,&dquo; itself a metaphysical, ideological postulate
because of the lack of a rigorous formulation of its ob-
ject. Decisionistic analysis interprets observed &dquo;pol-
icy&dquo; as attempts by individual or collective actors at
obtaining certain &dquo;goals and objectives.&dquo; But, who are
these actors?
If these actors are simply empirical objects, the
analysis becomes a mere description of particular
situations; if they are first realities, therefore es-
sences, the analysis is dependent on a meta-
physics of freedom; if they are &dquo;something
other,&dquo; therefore combinations of particular
situations, it is unthinkable to define them inde-
pendently of the content of the social positions
they occupy and, consequently, to analyse the
processes that unfold between them as pure ex-
change.(p. 251)
Once these actors are situated within social positions,
has not yet specified a theory of
we might add, one
social structure and all of the earlier comments on the
&dquo;urban ideology&dquo; apply. In other words, one is either
forced to view decisions as the activities of completely
autonomous and therefore metaphysical &dquo;indi-
viduals,&dquo; or one must focus on social structures. In the
latter case, decisions take on a decidedly secondary
importance.8
A third application of Castells critique is to &dquo;left-
variants of this
wing&dquo; ideology. Castells uses Henri Le-
febvres work as his main example, but other authors
come readily to mind.9 In this view, the &dquo;urban&dquo; is ele-
vated to the romantic notion of &dquo;urbanity,&dquo; itself the
supersession of alienation. In short, a truly &dquo;urban&dquo;
society is post-history or communism. By abstracting
from underlying social relations, such a view presents
the city as something other than a social product. In-
stead, it is fetishized as a producer of its social content.
138
Downloaded from rrp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 16, 2016
The political implication of such an ideology is that
revolutionary movements are channeled into trans-
forming spatial forms rather than social relations. (pp.
86-95)
As a whole, Castells critique is both penetrating
and convincing. If anything, it suffers from a lack of
comprehensiveness. &dquo;Urban&dquo; disciplines are notori-
ously eclectic and the critique is only applied to a part
of the field. Castells is trained as a sociologist, so it is
not surprising that he concentrates on sociological
themes such as the Chicago Schools &dquo;urban culture&dquo;
and local elites. Unfortunately, this leaves large chunks
of the urban literature untouched. Especially impor-
tant omissions are urban economics and much of the
urban planning literature. Castells critique could be
extended to these areas. Because they are not examined,
the whole question of an appropriate approach to the
analysis of the city remains up in the air.
Critiques of these other currents do exist. Harvey
(20) criticizes urban geography and much of the urban
economics literature. Barnbrocks excellent discussion
of von Thtinen (5) is closely parallel to Castells ap-
proach. A good example of metaphysics in urban
economics is the discussion of interpersonal utilities in
the demand for public provision of &dquo;merit goods&dquo; [33].
The urban planning literature does not hold to &dquo;deci-
sion-making&dquo; as closely as Castells implies. Had he in-
vestigated other forms of &dquo;planniug theory,&dquo; Castells
would have first discovered metaphysics! Friedmann
and Hudson[17] provide the best survey of this litera-
ture to my knowledge. Both Godelier[18] and Bettel-
heim[6] provide exceptional critiques of the &dquo;rational-
ity&dquo; of decision-making. A brilliant critique of
planning &dquo;theory&dquo; is given by Scott and Roweis[35].
Also missing is an explicit discussion by Castells
of the nature of his critique. The lack of a rigorous con-
ception of a theoretical object is only one part; one
must also invoke other criteria. When we can pin down
orthodox theory to clear-cut delimitations of its object,
we can usually show such conceptions to be static, par-
tial, reductionistic, ahistorical, and/or metaphysical
(i.e., assuming what could not possibly be known). Not
surprisingly, we are led to oppose these idealist statics
with materialist dialectics. Castells discussion just
does not make this clear. Criticism of the &dquo;urban ideol-
ogy&dquo; leads necessarily to Marx, just as Marx leads to
the conclusion that the urban field is an ideological
one.
Of course, ideologies are not displaced merely by
virtue of the power of persuasion. Such displacement
requires changes in the material relations which give
rise to the ideology. At the very least, a theoretical cri-
tique is more forceful if it can propose an alternate
theoretical practice. It is this aspect of The Urban
Question to which we now turn.
Castells Urban Theory
The central point of The Urban Questions posi-
tive theoretical analysis revolves around the collective
reproduction of labor power. Although he reiterates
this in his afterword, Castells gives a fairly clear state-
ment of his central hypothesis in the body of the book:
&dquo;In advanced capitalist societies, the process that struc-
tures space is that which concerns the simple and ex-
tended reproduction of labour power.&dquo;(p. 237) In the
Afterword he modifies this into the &dquo;working hypo-
thesis&dquo; that &dquo;urban&dquo; problems are, in fact, an ideolog-
ical problematic referring to what is really the process
of &dquo;collective consumption.&dquo;(p. 440) His goal, there-
fore, is to &dquo;establish links between the theoretical con-
ceptualization and the ideological apprehension of
these practices.&dquo;(p. 441)
He tries to do this by discussing four themes:
urban structure, urban planning, urban social move-
ments, and the urban process. The last of these, a case
study of the United States, is practically identical to his
&dquo;Wild City&dquo; article[10]. Since readers are probably
familiar with this, I will deal only with the first three
themes.
By far the weakest section of the book is the prac-
tically incomprehensible presentation of &dquo;the urban
structure.&dquo; Although he is aware of the fact that &dquo;there
is no congruence between a theoretical element and an
empirical reality, which always contains everything at
once&dquo;(p. 126), Castells deals with &dquo;the urban struc-
ture&dquo; in theoretical terms which correspond to empiri-
cal objects on a one-to-one basis. He deals with the ur-
ban structure on levels which fit neatly into the familiar
triple: &dquo;economic, political, ideological&dquo;(EPI). I shall
have more to say about this EPI triple below. For Cas-
tells, these levels are the economic, institutional, and
symbolic. The economic level is further divided into
production (industrial location), consumption
(housing, urban segregation, environment), and ex-
change (transportation).
In developing his own analysis of &dquo;the urban,&dquo;
Castells attempts to combine theoretical propositions
with empirical research. This goal is as admirable as it
is ambitious. Unfortunately, Castells does not carry it
off. Instead, we are presented with a very clumsy and
eclectic presentation which jumps between various
levels of theoretical abstraction and empirical data by
means of arbitrary formalism.10 For example, to test
the hypothesis that corporate location policy is deter-
mined by a firms position in the production system,
Castells performs an empirical analysis of industrial
location in Paris (pp. 137-145). Without theoretical dis-
cussion, we are told that a firms position is determined
along (only?) three dimensions: technological,
economic, and relative position vis-a-vis other firms.
Along each dimension there just happen to be three
(ordered?) categories:
139
Downloaded from rrp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 16, 2016
Technological: single product, series of products,
and innovative firms;
Economic: market spatially fixed, means of pro-
duction spatially fixed, and neither spatially
fixed;
Relative position: large, medium, and small
companies.
These nine categories are then operationalized with
measures such as floor space (relative position). From
here on the analysis grows even more complex with
little or no theoretical justification. In his rush to be
empirical, Castells avoids the tortuous path of rigor-
ous theoretical development. This leads him to the
shortcut of using the vulgar empiricism of which he is
justifiably critical.&dquo;
Indeed, in his own theoretical analysis, Castells
commits many of the same errors he criticizes as being
ideological. For example, discussing the concentration
of minorities in United States central cities, he states:
The main point is the social milieu that such a
concentration gives rise to, the subculture it
develops, the reactions of hostility that are set up
between this community and the state appar-
atuses.(p. 176)
Castells ppint is that social situation and physical loca-
tion combine to yield unique effects. But, how does this
differ from the theories he criticizes as physical deter-
minist ? My point is that the fetishism of space is not
really overcome in this analysis (see the discussion of
the social ecology literature on pp. 169-176). What are
the specific characteristics of such milieu, where do
they come from, and by what mechanisms are they re-
lated to the existence of such concentrations? On these
questions Castells is silent.
Without going into the rest of this section at great
detail, I shall indicate some of the problems with the
analyses presented. The production element is empty
of class struggle. Instead, industrial location is socially
determined for less advanced firms (defined along the
three dimensions of technology, market location, and
firm size). His analysis of housing shortages is con-
tradictory and unconvincing. Hence, housing short-
ages correspond to &dquo;a relation between supply and de-
mand ... a market situation, not a relation of produc-
tion&dquo; (p. 146). Yet two pages later we are told that an
analysis of housing must &dquo;centre itself on the analysis
of the process of production.&dquo; The analysis of trans-
portation is a bit better; but by insisting that it is a form
of exchange, Castells avoids any discussion of
transportations contradictory nature in terms of social
relations of production. Instead, we are given a formal
typology of exchanges within and between produc-
tion, consumption, exchange, and administration ele-
ments (p. 192 ff). For example, exchanges between con-
sumption and production are part of the journey to
work, while exchanges between production and pro-
duction are journeys on business. A series of con-
tradictions are then superimposed exogenously on top
of this.12 These include oversaturation of the Paris rail-
ways ; the lack of suburb to suburb transport; inequal-
ity in the provision of transport services; poor trans-
port for non-work journeys; congestion in the city cen-
ter ; and unequal distribution of the automobile (pp.
202-204). While Castells may be correct that these do
not derive &dquo;solely from the logic of the traffic system&dquo;
(p. 202), it is difficult to see from his analysis why
these are &dquo;contradictions&dquo; rather than mere &dquo;prob-
lems.&dquo; It is also difficult to see from what logic, other
than historical accident, these do arise.
The remaining two levels of the urban structure
are presented in entirely incommensurable terms. The
analysis of urban institutions is almost purely descrip-
tive of metropolitan fragmentation and urban politics.
On the other hand, the section on the &dquo;urban
symbolic&dquo; is an extremely provocative consideration
of ideology in terms of communication theory. For
example, the ways in which spatial forms communicate
certain meanings are due to dominant ideological prac-
tices. Unfortunately, the discussion stays at a very
high level of abstraction. The final section on urban
centrality basically reiterates the critique of the &dquo;urban
ideology&dquo; and outlines in very vague terms an approp-
riate theoretical direction.
Inspite of these shortcomings, there are several
important points made in this chapter. Perhaps most
important is the emphasis on the conjunctural
(depending on the given moment) nature of urban con-
tradictions. Yet, because different levels of analysis are
muddled together, it is difficult to separate the effects
of conjuncture from other, more systematic effects. In-
deed, given the eclectic empiricism of this part of the
book, we could hardly expect otherwise. I have already
mentioned the suggestive treatment of urban symbol-
ism. I would add to this list Castells intriguing discus-
sion of rent in the housing market. Because both
houses and land are sold together as a single commo-
dity, rent and profit are mixed together and counted to-
ward the overall profit rate of the housing sector. Al-
though he does not develop this point rigorously, Cas-
tells seems to imply that this process keeps housing
supply below the level implied by demand and the
equalization of an average rate of profit (p. 152-155).
Such a theoretical point should address the issue of the
double transformation of surplus value into profit and
ground rent in its different forms. In the absence of an
analysis of this and the corresponding movement of
capital, it is difficult to assess the validity of the
theoretical proposition. Nonetheless, this constitutes
one important avenue for future research.
140
Downloaded from rrp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 16, 2016
The sections of the book dealing with urban
planning and urban social movements suffer from
many of the same problems as the section on urban
structure. In particular, the insistence on rigid theore-
tical categories obfuscates contradictions internal to
the objects signified by the categories themselves.
Thus, urban planning is defined as &dquo;the intervention
of the political in the different instances ... within
...
a collective unit of reproduction ... with the aim of as-
suring its extended reproduction ... [and] assure the
structural reproduction of the dominant mode of pro-
duction.&dquo; Urban social movements, on the other hand,
are defined as &dquo;social practices ... [that tend] toward
the structural transformation of the urban system or
... the power of the state&dquo; (p. 263).
Such definitions must either mean a non-corres-
pondence between these theoretical concepts and what
we commonly mean when we say &dquo;urban planning&dquo; or
&dquo;social movements,&dquo; or we have abstracted all internal
contradiction from these objects by definition. Take
urban planning. If, as OConnor maintains, urban
planning has a dual role of legitimation and accumula-
tion, then planning necessarily tends to be contradic-
tory. This does not mean that planning does not main-
tain the hegemony of capital. It only means that there is
a contradiction between the ways this is done. Simi-
larly, urban struggles can be co-opted by and legitimate
as well as transform the structure of power.
Two simple examples will illustrate this point. In
planning the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit
(BART) system, a major accumulative goal was
&dquo;rationalizing&dquo; Bay Area transportation and
strengthening the Central Business District (CBD). Yet
to ensure passage of the referendum authorizing
BART, planners extended the system beyond its &dquo;eco-
nomic&dquo; limits and inserted extra stations. These not
only made the system more expensive, but increased
travel times and reduced ridership[25]. In a similar
vein, successful struggle forced Bank of America to re-
house low-income persons displaced by one of its pro-
jects ; eventually the bank used the occasion to propa-
gandize its &dquo;concern&dquo; for people and legitimate its ac-
tions. 13 Many of these same points are suggested by
Castells own case studies. But, his theoretical inter-
pretation does not help us understand these contradic-
tions except as a sort of subjective &dquo;overdetermina-
tion. &dquo;14 In all fairness, Castells maintains that these
concepts are intended to be &dquo;theoretical tools.&dquo; The
point here is that they dont appear to be very useful.
Castells Sel f-Criticism
As mentioned previously, the Afterword and Pre-
face are the English language ver-
major additions to
sion of The Urban Question. In his self-criticism, Cas-
tells makes many of the points I have made above. In
particular,he points out that his formalism is not very
useful, and that his discussion of the urban structure is
static and ahistorical. I still do not think he fully ap-
preciates the damage formalism does to his analysis. In
particular, the static, ahistorical discussion of urban
structure stems from the lack of a sense of contradic-
tion internal to the elements of urban structure. It is
only through such contradiction that a dynamic, his-
torical analysis becomes comprehensible without in-
voking an external deus ex machina such as &dquo;tech-
nology&dquo; or &dquo;human spirit.&dquo; A formalistic approach
only conceals such a contradictory movement as Engels
so clearly stated. 15
More importantly, we should address Castells
central theoretical point: the urban question refers to
an ideological reflection of the process of the collective
reproduction of labor power. Do &dquo;urban&dquo; phenomena
have the autonomy which this formulation suggests?
Castells presents this proposition as a &dquo;working hypo-
thesis&dquo; and sets out to identify the specificity of con-
sumption. He is well aware that consumption cannot
be analyzed independently of production. 16 But, he
argues, the phenomena ideologically covered by the
term &dquo;urban&dquo; are distinctly related to the process of
reproduction. This is because the spatial scale of pro-
duction refers to a scale commonly described (ideologi-
cally) as regional. This is further evidenced by the fact
that the scale at which the Marxist tradition treats the
spatial organization of production (in the literature on
uneven development) most closely corresponds to
what is usually considered regional development. The
urban, on the other hand, most closely corresponds in
social practice to the scale of the collective and indivi-
dual reproduction of labor power: a process in which
collective reproduction dominates. From this a number
of points follow. First, the &dquo;urban&dquo; as collective con-
sumption is a distinct feature of advanced capitalist so-
cieties (&dquo;in the articulated chain of social formations
that constitutes the world imperialist- system,&dquo; p.
448.) Second, although the result of a process of pro-
duction, the specificity of urban centers stems from
their reproductive character. Third, only this latter
characteristic can distinguish an analysis of the
&dquo;urban&dquo; from spatial analysis in general. Finally, and
most importantly, the &dquo;urban&dquo; process of reproducing
labor power is &dquo;relatively autonomous&dquo; and itself
structured by the specific articulation of economic,
political, and ideological levels of the mode of produc-
tion. All this abstract analysis is justified if it en-
genders fruitful research (p. 439-450).
It is this point with which I would like to take
issue. My criticism can be summarized as follows: it is
one thing to identify an ideology as covering one
moment in the production/repr6duction process; it is
quite another thing to situate ourselves theoretically
Downloaded from rrp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 16, 2016
141
within the confines of this ideology. Indeed, I would
argue that the &dquo;relative autonomy&dquo; of consumption is
incomprehensible and meaningless without a specific
analysis of the place of reproduction within a mode of
production.
Lets backtrack a moment in order to see this
point. Castells hypothesis would seem to rest on at
least two points. First, there is a realm of &dquo;reproduc-
tion&dquo; which can be treated separately in theory from
&dquo;production.&dquo; Second, the &dquo;urban ideology&dquo; covers
this realm such that all of the ideology refers to repro-
duction and all of reproduction is covered by the ideol-
ogy.
One of the conceptual tools repeatedly invoked by
Castells is what I have labelled the EPI triple. This dis-
tinction between economic, political, and ideological is
commonly used by many Marxists: Althusser, Balibar,
Poulantzas, Bettelheim, Hindess and Hirst, etc. Yet, the
fact that all three levels are so often referred to together
should alert us to the possibility that the concepts are
not very useful theoretically and mostly serve the func-
tion of a sort of mea culpa against the mortal sin of
economism. Increasingly, the EPI triple is being ques-
tioned as being a particular feature of capitalism ab-
stracted to the level of a general property of any and all
modes of production; it is also open to criticism as a
pure formalism.&dquo;
Since .the ideological underlies Castells delimita-
tion of the urban, lets examine this instance in greater
detail. To my knowledge, the most rigorous develop-
ment of the specificity of the ideological is given by
Bettelheim.18 Yet, even here it is one thing to say that
the commodity form necessarily implies a dissimulat-
ing effect, and quite another to invoke arbitrary be-
havioral assumptions such as the necessity of &dquo;social-
izing&dquo; agents. It is also quite illegitimate to generalize
such effects as a separate instance of all modes of pro-
duction which just happens to correspond to the cen-
ters of cultural or symbolic activity in capitalist so-
cieties.9 In dealing with the question of the specificity
of the ideological, the best exemplar we have is Marxs
treatment of commodity fetishism as inseparable from
the commodity form itself. Granted, all human so-
cieties may contain symbolic elements and coercive
formal organizations in addition to mechanisms for
the appropriation of nature. Only the latter, however,
must be present in human societies and that is why
production relations are determinant. We cannot iden-
tify distinct centers of symbolic or coercive activity as
common to all societies, independent of particular pro-
ductive processes.
What then becomes of the specificity of the
ideological? I believe that the answer to this, interest-
ingly enough, is given by Castells himself in his discus-
sion of space. Space, says Castells, is purely an abstrac-
 tion devoid of any meaning unless situated within an
historical practice. In other words, space is an histori-
cal product marked by the complex combination of
modes of production in social formation (pp. 442-443).
This formulation has the singular merit of pointing to
the need for a formal consideration of the role of space
in dialectical materialism.20 It also serves to solve the
riddle of the specificity of the ideological. The &dquo;ideol-
ogical instance&dquo; is also an abstraction which has no
meaning outside of specific historical practices. It, too,
is an historical product. Now, if both the &dquo;urban&dquo; and
&dquo;ideological&dquo; are historical products, how can we
scientifically inscribe the former within the latter? In
other words, how can we label the &dquo;urban&dquo; an &dquo;ideol-
ogy&dquo; when both terms refer to particular historical pro-
ducts ?
The point here is not that Marx is right because
hes Marx. Elsewhere, for example, where he discusses
&dquo;superstructure,&dquo; Marx does exactly what I am criti-
cizing. The point is that the conception of ideology
underlying Marxs treatment of commodity fetishism
is precisely the conception of ideology which I am ad-
vocating. In particular, Marx shows that an ideology
(commodity fetishism) is necessarily the effect of an
economic practice (commodity production). In other
words, ideology is seen as a distorted appearance
necessarily tied to a social practice as it is experienced
in &dquo;everyday life.&dquo; This conception has the advantage
that it allows us to specify the connections between
ideology and other areas. This is gained at the cost of no
longer being able to cover everything outside of eco-
nomics and politics as &dquo;ideology.&dquo; It may also mean
that, in a concrete analysis, we may have to use con-
cepts such as &dquo;culture&dquo; and &dquo;history&dquo; to explain a
given situation. As a result, we should redouble our ef-
forts to look for those connections that make a sym-
bolic practice an ideology.
This necessarily abstract discussion was required
to stand Castells fully on his feet. The specificity of the
,
urban, like that of the ideological, is delimited by the
mode of production. It is by showing that the capitalist
mode of production necessarily calls into being both a
set of &dquo;everyday&dquo; experiences bound up with the re-
production of labor power and their ideological appre-
hension as &dquo;urban&dquo; problems, that Castells can vali-
date his &dquo;working hypothesis.&dquo; Having done this, it
would then become incumbent upon him to analyze the
laws of motion of this ideological sphere not in
terms of its own autonomous development, but rather
in its dialectical relation to production and reproduc-
tion. Here I would like to indicate what this might mean
at the level of the capitalist mode of production.
First, capitalist production presupposes the &dquo;free&dquo;
wage laborer. As such, it necessarily implies a certain
autonomy in consumption when compared to, say, the
142
Downloaded from rrp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 16, 2016
feudal mode of production. Second, the commodity
f orm as self-expanding value continuously revolu-
tionizes and penetrates all aspects of consumption.
Third, just as Braverman shows a relation between pro-
duction technology and class struggle, so is there also a
relation between these elements and the technical form
of the product. Fourth, production determines the
mass of values to be consumed. Fifth, distribution of
the product among classes, itself determined within
productions, determines the corresponding share in
the social division of consumption. 21 Sixth, objectively
determined requirements as to the nature of labor
power (skills, etc.) constrain the modes of its reproduc-
tion. Seventh, the varying movement of classes and
fractions within production (unemployment, job
transfers, etc.) sets up a corresponding, complex
movement within consumption. Eighth, these factors
combine to generate over struggle the form of con-
sumption itself.
Notice that none of this necessarily refers to the
&dquo;urban.&dquo; For Castells hypothesis to be accepted, it
would have to be demonstrated that the &dquo;urban ideol-
ogy&dquo; is the necessary appearance of reproduction.
This is the task Castells has ahead of him, but I dont
think he will be successful. I would pose my own
working hypothesis, namely, that the &dquo;urban&dquo; is con-
stituted by the contradictory movement of the mo-
ments of socialization of the labor process and reali-
zation of surplus value in the form of the built environ-
ment - themselves inexorably tied up with cycles and
stages of accumulation. The spatial scale of &dquo;urban&dquo;
problems as distinct from &dquo;regional&dquo; is no more neces-
sarily a question of consumption versus production,
than the distinction between regional and local mar-
kets is.
Conclusion
The Urban Question is an important contribution
to the rapidly growing Marxist literature on cities. Its
principal contribution is a critique of orthodox urban
sociologys ideological conception of its object (&dquo;the
urban&dquo;). Unfortunately, this critique is not extended to
associated &dquo;urban&dquo; fields. Furthermore, the absence of
an explicit epistemological discussion raises the
danger of misleading the reader into other, equally
ideological, conceptions of the &dquo;urban.&dquo;
The books attempts at original theoretical and
empirical research are, unfortunately, much less use-
ful. Theoretical formulations are confused and incom-
plete. Jumps are made from abstract theoretical propo-
sitions to empirical research by means of arbitrary
formalisms. In the process, the analysis becomes eclec-
tic, and the connection between theory and empirical
data gets lost.
 Perhaps, as Castells says, it could not have been
any other way. At the very least, the flaws in the book
are understandable given the context in which it was
written. A major part of the problem stems from the
attempt to introduce Marxist ideas into urban sociol-
ogy, instead of extending Marxist analysis into the ur-
ban field. Such efforts inevitably fail because they pre-
suppose the scientific validity of the given academic
discipline. Unless one can scientifically justify divid-
ing social reality into separate boxes labeled: &dquo;sociol-
ogy,&dquo; &dquo;economics,&dquo; &dquo;history,&dquo; &dquo;planning,&dquo; etc., so-
ciety must be studied as a complex totality. If we are to
avoid ahistorical formalisms such as &dquo;general systems
theory,&dquo; there is only one legitimate, unified approach
to the scientific study of society: dialectical material-
ism. This approach has its most rigorous application in
Marxs Capital.
In its relation to Marxist theory, The Urban Ques-
tion does raise some important issues. In particular, the
NOTES
1. Compare, for example, the correlation of historical data on
labor force proletarianization(34) with that on urbanization(28).
2. Class struggle under capitalism has never been solely confined
to production. In the nineteenth century, for example, the working
class fought for "workingmans fares" on transit lines(24).
3. An exceptional bibliography on this literature is given by Cor-
raggio, Noyelle, and Schteingart(11).
4. (2, p. 157).
5. Castells reference to the "givenness" of ideology seems to be an
allusion to Althussers conception of ideology as a "representation"
of "imaginary relations of individuals to their real conditions of exis-
tence." (1, p. 164ff). Castells is not entirely consistent in this regard,
since much of his critique depends on the incoherence of urban theory,
while Althussers usage is independent of the logical properties of an
ideology. See Hindess(23, pp. 196-211) for a discussion of Althussers
notion of ideology.
6. (13); (26). See Hawley and Svarr(21) for a good bibhographic
review of this literature. Domhoff( 14) provides a more up-to-date dis-
cussion of this literature and relates it to Marxist studies.
7. "Decisions" arise in liberal analysis in two ways. First, liberal
"policy scientists" seek to prescribe ways in which public officials may
make "better" decisions. Second, by analyzing who makes what decis-
ions and how, liberal political scientists hope to describe "who gov-
erns" and, by extension, why state policy is what it is. Thus, liberal
analysis is decisionistic in both a normative (prescriptive) and positive
(descriptive) sense. Castells is referring to the latter usage, but the
same critique applies to both. The critique is neatly summed up by
Linder, "these various decisions are being made within a mode of
production that creates the very constraints necessitating these
choices "(31, p. 9). See(4) for typical examples.
8. In a certain sense, Castells critique is merely an extension of the
general Marxist critique of subjectivism. See(22) and (29) for classical
examples of this mode of critique. A more recent example is given by
MacPherson(32). A very extensive discussion of subjectivism in the
form of "the rationalist conception of action" and its effects on social
science methodology is given by Hindess(23).
9. E.G., Bookchins(7) romantic notions of "urbanity," p. 137.
143
Downloaded from rrp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 16, 2016
questions of class and consumption, space, ideology,
and the &dquo;builtness&dquo; of human environments deserve
attention. Castells has the singular merit of having
raised these issues. He concludes, his &dquo;aim is to make
this book obsolete through its supersession in prac-
tice.&dquo; Such a supersession requires more than just a
scientific understanding of the &dquo;urban.&dquo; Whatever the
merits of such an understanding, a confrontation
between scientific paradigms cannot, by itself, lead to
such a supersession. That requires another kind of con-
frontation : one between classes.
Marshall M.A.Feldman
Urban Studies Program
Division of Cross-Disciplinary Programs in the
Behavioral and Social Sciences
San Francisco State University
1600 Holloway Avenue
San Francisco, Calif. 94132
10. By "Formalism" I refer to the use of arbitrary descriptive tax-
onomies which have no coherent or logical relation to other theoret-
ical elements. Therefore such theoretical categories express form rath-
er than See Laclau(27), pp. 101-3, for a discussion of formal-
ism in content.
theory
11.Technically, this section is virtually useless. For example, each
dimension and "type of space" is broken into a trichotomy; the result-
ing 9 X9 table is then analyzed with a chi-square test. Leaving aside
the fact that reported high levels of significance are most likely the re-
sult of a large sample size (N= 940), one is struck by the unnecessary
complexity that results from reducing interval scales into ordinal ones.
The major substantive conclusion that Castells draws from this sec-
tion is that the location element is "complex"(p. 144)
12. I have discussed the internal contradictions of capitalist transit
elsewhere( 16).
13 Personal communication from Janice Perlman.
14. Incredibly, we are told that the appropriate means of verifying
our theories of urban social movements as forces that transform state
power is by means of "a simulation model as complex or simple as
...
one wishes"(p. 274)
15 "It is self-evident that where things and their interrelations are
concemed, not as fixed, but as changing, their mental images, the
ideal, are likewise subject to change and transformation; they are not
encapsulated in rigid definitions, but are developed in their historical
or logical process of formation"(15, pp. 13-14). Also, see note 10,
above.
16 In this sense, his logic follows Lenins(30, p. 62 ff). "One cannot
even discuss consumption unless one understands the process of the
reproduction of the total social capital and of the replacement of the
vanous component parts of the social product."
17. Interestingly, the EPI triple closely follows the Webenan triple
of economics, politics, and culture. None other than Burgess saw the
central business district as the center of "economic, cultural, and
political life"(8, p. 52). See Laclau(27) for a brilliant discussion of the
problems with these terms; also see Aya(3, p. 41), and Cutler, et
al.(12).
18. (6, p. 55 ff.).
 19. Althussers discussion of ideology would seem to avoid these
pitfalls (see note 5, above). The problem with this conception is estab-
lishing the autonomy of ideology along with its connection to other
aspects of social structures. While ideology is a possibility in all forms
of society, only the latter connection establishes its necessity.
20. The two main elements of dialectical materialism (materialism
REFERENCES
1. Althusser, Louis (1971) Lenin and Philosophy, and Other
Essays (Translated by Ben Brewster) New York: Monthly Review
Press
2. Althusser, Louis and Balibar, Etienne (1970) Reading Capital
(Translated by Ben Brewster), London: NLB
3. Aya, Rod (1978) "Pre-Capitalist Modes of Production",
Monthly Review 29(8), January:37-45
4. Bauer, Raymond A. and Gerzen, Kenneth J. (eds.) ( 1968) The
Study of Policy Formation, New York: The Free Press
5. Barnbrock, Joern (1974) "Prelogemenon to a Methodological
Debate on Location Theory: The Case of von Thunen." Antipode
6(1), April:59-66
6. Bettelheim, Charles ( 1975) Economic Calculation and Forms of
Property: An Essay on the Transition Bet ween Capitalism and Social-
ism (Translated by John Taylor). New York: Monthly Review Press
7. Bookchin, Murray (1974) The Limits of the City, New York,
Harper and Row
8. Burgess, Ernest W. (1967) "The Growth of the City- An Intro-
duction to a Research Project." In Park, Robert E. ; Burgess, Ernest
W.; and McKenzie, Roderick D. The City, With an introduction by
Morris Janowitz, Chicago, University of Chicago Press
9. Castells, Manuel (1977) The Urban Question- A Marxist Ap-
proach (Translated by Alan Shendan), Cambridge, MIT Press
Originally published as La Question urbaine, Francois Maspero, 1972
and 1976
10. Castells, Manuel (1976) "The Wild City", Kapitalistate 4-5,
Summer
11. Corragio, Jose Luis; Noyelle, Theirry; and Schtemgart,
Martha (1977) "Spatial Organization, Social Processes and
Community Struggles in Capitalist Socioeconomic Formations", In
Resource Materials in Radical Political Economics 3, Winter
12. Cutler, Antony; Hindess, Barry; Hirst. Paul; and Hussam,
Athar (1977) Marxs Capital and Capitalism Today, Two volumes,
London, Routledge and Kegan Paul
13. Dahl, Robert A. (1961) Who Governs
? Democracy and Power
in an American City, New Haven, Yale University Press
14. Domhoff, G. William (1978) Who Really Rules
? New Haven
and Community Power Reexamined, New Brunswick, Transaction
Books
15. Engels, Fredenck (1967) "Preface", in Marx, Karl Capital, A
Critique of Political Economy, Volume III, New York, International
Publishers
16. Feldman, Marshall M.A. (1977) "A Contribution to the
Critique of Urban Political Economy: The Journey to Work,"
Antipode 9(1), September
17. Fnedmann, John and Hudson, Barclay (1974) "Knowledge and
Action: A Guide to Planning Theory", Journal of the American
Institute of Planners 40(1), January
18. Godelier, Maurice (1972) Rationality and Irrationality in Eco-
nomics, (translated by Bnan Pearce), New York, Monthly Review
Press
144
Downloaded from rrp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 16, 2016
and dialectics) can be found in embryonic form in Marxs early writ-
ings. Lacking is an adequate treatment of space and time. See Althus-
ser(2) for a discussion of the latter. We are still missing a complete
consideration of space within Marxist philosophy.
21. See Lenin, op. cit.
19. Gordon, David M. (ed.) (1971) Problems in Political Economy:
An Urban Perspective, Lexington, Mass, D. C. Heath and Company
20. Harvey, David (1973) Social Justice and the City, Baltimore,
Johns Hopkins
21. Hawley, Willis D. and Svara, James H. (1972) The Study of
Community Power, A Bibliographic Review, Santa Barbara, ABC-
Inc.
Clio Press,
22. Hilferding, Rudolph (1949) Bohm-Bawerks Criticism of Marx,
in Bohm von Bawerk, Eugene R. Karl Marx and the Close of his Sys-
tem. Paul M. Sweezy (ed.), New York, A.M. Kelly
23. Hindess, Barry (1977) Philosophy and Methodology in the
Social Sciences Atlantic Highlands, N.J., Humanities Press
24. Hobsbawm, E.J. (1964) "The Nineteenth Century London
Labour Market", in Centre for Urban Studies, London, Aspects of
Change, London, MacGibbon and Key
25. Homburger, Wolfgang S. (1970) "Fixed Facilities and Shifting
Values", High Speed Ground Transportation Journal 4(1), January
1970
26. Hunter, Floyd (1953) Community Power Structure, A Study of
Decision Makers, Chapel Hill, University of North Carolina Press
27. Laclau, Ernesto (1975) "The Specificity of the Political The
Poulantzas-Miliband Debate", translated by Elizabeth Nash and
Economy andsociety February: 87-110
William 4(1),
Rich,
28. Lampard, Eric E. (1968) "The Evolving System of Cities in the
United States. Urbanization and Economic Development", in Perloff,
Harvey S. and Wingo, Lowdon Jr. (eds) Issues in Urban Economics,
Baltimore, Johns Hopkins
29. Lenin, V.I. (1972) "What the Friends of the People Are and
How They Fight the Social-Democrats", in Collected Works, Volume
1, Moscow, Progress Publishers
30. Lenin, V.I. (1972) Collected Works, Volume 3, The Develop-
ment of Capitalism in Russia, Moscow, Progress Publishers
31. Linder, Marc (1977) Anti-Samuelson, Two volumes, New
York, Unzen Books
32. Macpherson, C.B. (1973) "Politics Post- Liberal- Democracy?"
in Blackburn, Robin (ed.), Ideology in Social Science, Readings in
Critical Social Theory, New York, Vantage Books
33. Margolis, Julius (1968) "The Demand for Urban Public Ser-
vices", in Perloff, Harvey S. and Wingo, Lowdon, Jr. (eds), Issues in
Urban Economics, Baltimore, Johns Hopkins
34. Reich, Michael (1978) "The Development of the Wage-Labor
Force", in Edwards, Richard C. ; Reich, Michael, and Weisskopf,
Thomas E. The Capitalist System: A Radical Analysis of American
Society, Second Edition, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall, Inc.
179-185
35. Scott, A.J. and Roweis, S.T. (1977) "Urban Planning in Theory
and Practice. A Reappraisal", Environment and Planning A, 4(9),
1097-1119
36. Tabb, W.K. and Sawyers, L. (1978) Marxism and the Metrop-
olis, New York, Oxford University Press