Provincializing Critical Urban Theory: Extending the Ecosystem of Possibilities

Abstract

Advocating a provincialization of critical urban theory, we seek to move beyond current polarizations and disputes over the basis of urban theory, creating space to take seriously the possibility that no single theory suffices to account for the variegated nature of urbanization and cities across the world. Such provincialization requires a serious engagement with both mainstream and critical Anglophone urban theory, challenging the seeming naturalness of knowledge claims through rigorous theoretical and empirical scrutiny from the standpoint of peripheral perspectives located outside the core. This entails recognizing the existence of a shifting ecosystem of critical urban theories, putting these into even-handed critical conversation with one another. The collective resilience of urban theory will be dependent upon ongoing engagement across such diversity. At the heart of such an ecosystem are shifts in practice, seeking a new comparative analytic that destabilizes the universalism of the dominant norm, against which all other exemplars are to be compared, with the imperative of taking the field seriously.

Cities on and off the map: A bibliometric assessment of urban globalisation research

“…For Robinson (2016b: 4) "[t]here is much work under way … which is establishing a more global urban studies." Similarly, Leitner and Sheppard (2016) argue that unprecedented rates of urbanization worldwide have facilitated this shift by fostering regionally-based research programs with diverse urban theorizations. However, not everyone agrees on the actual scholarly impact of this 'shifting ecosystem of critical urban theories'.…”

Transatlantic city, part 1: Conjunctural urbanism

“…The field of critical urban studies has been moved in recent years by a series of poststructural and postcolonial interventions that have raised searching questions about the explanatory status accorded to 'EuroAmerican' cases, about the reach and relevance of political-economic theory claims concerning entrepreneurial-cum-neoliberal modes of regulation and about the respective utility of planetary, provincial and particularised formulations of the urban (see Brenner and Schmid, 2015;Leitner and Sheppard, 2016;Parnell and Robinson, 2012;Peck, 2015a;Roy, 2009;Storper and Scott, 2016). A significant methodological response to these debates has been a renewed emphasis on comparative urbanism (see McFarlane, 2014;Robinson, 2011Robinson, , 2015Ward, 2008), with an accent on the cosmopolitan proliferation of 'more global' approaches to urban studies, on less hierarchical (or 'top down') modes of explanation, on theorising from 'elsewhere and anywhere' and on the exploration of horizontal or 'lateral' differences, divergences and discrepancies between city-cases in the service of novel interpretations and alternative theory claims.…”

Zwischenstadt as a travelling concept: towards a critical discussion of mobile ideas in transnational planning discourses on urban sprawl

“…Furthermore, we see connections between our approach and contemporary efforts to provincialize urban theory (e.g. Lawhon, Ernstson, & Silver, 2014;Leitner & Sheppard, 2016;Robinson & Roy, 2016; but see Storper & Scott, 2016). However, these links would need to be explored further in future research.…”