2018
DOI: 10.1177/0309132518768405
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Re-orienting geographies of urban diversity and coexistence: Analyzing inclusion and difference in public space

Abstract: Much has been said about diversity and coexistence in public spaces, but there remains a silence on the very nature of incorporation within the spatial negotiations and transformations these involve. This paper examines the spatial and political implications of inclusion by identifying two key strands of geographical imaginations on urban diversity: co-presence and togetherness and the incorporation of difference and diversity in everyday shared spaces. I aim to retain critical analytical purchase on what livi… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
41
0
2

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 55 publications
(44 citation statements)
references
References 86 publications
(91 reference statements)
0
41
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…After the work of Jurgen Habermas and Hannah Arendt, discussions and evaluations about the concept of public space have been enriched with the contributions of Richard Sennett. The changing meaning and content of public spaces (Madanipour 2019 ; Pratt 2017 ; Gak 2016 ), the blurring boundaries between public and private spaces (Crawford 1999 ; Ye 2019 ), the privatization of public spaces (pseudo-public spaces) (Wang and Chen 2018 ; Bodnar 2015 ), the increasing importance of virtual public spaces (Fuchs 2017 ; Dahlgren 2018 ; Kruse et al 2018 ; Miller 2020 ) are hot topics in the relevant agenda.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…After the work of Jurgen Habermas and Hannah Arendt, discussions and evaluations about the concept of public space have been enriched with the contributions of Richard Sennett. The changing meaning and content of public spaces (Madanipour 2019 ; Pratt 2017 ; Gak 2016 ), the blurring boundaries between public and private spaces (Crawford 1999 ; Ye 2019 ), the privatization of public spaces (pseudo-public spaces) (Wang and Chen 2018 ; Bodnar 2015 ), the increasing importance of virtual public spaces (Fuchs 2017 ; Dahlgren 2018 ; Kruse et al 2018 ; Miller 2020 ) are hot topics in the relevant agenda.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is these pre‐pandemic forms of spatial cleansing and ordering that normalise the low‐waged migrant as a risky body in need of disciplining. Rather than sharing of space as necessarily indicative of urban conviviality and shared bonds, there are boundaries, selections and enclosures embedded within public spaces (Ye 2019). The limits of coexistence are both implicit and explicit.…”
Section: Producing the Migrant Moral Riskmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The limits of coexistence are both implicit and explicit. Aside from explicit rules and regulations enforcing what should and should not be done in public, there are also everyday, tacit rules of conduct which new arrivals must adopt to be considered a good migrant (Ye 2019).…”
Section: Producing the Migrant Moral Riskmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…J.-L. Amselle ( 2009) has critically examined the idealization of such hybridized places whose clienteles have no interest in the actual "elsewhere" they evoke, concluding that the fashion for cultural mixing in Euro-American cities is empty artifice. Regardless, this trend is becoming apparent in every city of the world, including cities that are considered dominated in international representations (Ye 2019) that no one wants to protect from marketed exoticism. In Antananarivo as in Paris and Shanghai, some residents love nothing more than going to places of sociability that they see as cosmopolitan for a dose of the Other and cultural mixing.…”
Section: The Quest For a New And Not Exclusively Euro-american Exoticismmentioning
confidence: 99%