Many Urbanisms: Divergent Trajectories of Global City Building

IF 0.3 4区 社会学 Q4 SOCIOLOGY Contemporary Sociology-A Journal of Reviews Pub Date : 2023-07-01 DOI:10.1177/00943061231181317x
Kevin Funk
{"title":"Many Urbanisms: Divergent Trajectories of Global City Building","authors":"Kevin Funk","doi":"10.1177/00943061231181317x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this highly readable and sharply argued volume, Martin J. Murray—a professor of urban planning and sociology at the University of Michigan—both criticizes the interdisciplinary field of urban studies for its tendency to develop would-be universal theories and conceptual frameworks that rely exclusively on global North cases, and offers an alternative categorization scheme. The latter, designed with inclusivity in mind, aims to make sense of the complex and contradictory, but also interrelated, trajectories of cities around the world. Contrary to the seemingly hegemonic ‘‘global cities’’ paradigm, which—in his rendering— presupposes a linear path to globality (p. 26), Murray seeks to capture a messier reality in which cities of vastly different sizes, aspirations, and prospects are all mutually imbricated with global processes, though in diverse ways. Seeking to strike a balance between the general and the particular, the author thus calls for a ‘‘rethinking’’ of urban theory that entails eschewing ‘‘unwarranted generalizations, sweeping universals, and unhelpful abstractions’’ (p. 63) in favor of more nuanced and context-sensitive theorization and concepts. While certain facets would benefit from further elaboration, his critiques and substantive proposals are cogently presented and argued. Accordingly, overall, this book provides an insightful and helpful overview of (and response to) the transdisciplinary literatures on global cities. Murray’s principal target is what he refers to as ‘‘conventional [or, alternatively, ‘mainstream’] urban studies,’’ a phrase that features in the title of the first chapter and appears dozens more times throughout the text (though he does not offer a sufficiently precise definition for this label, nor a clear delineation of whose work fits therein). In Murray’s estimation, this ‘‘conventional’’ scholarship has focused on discovering (and measuring) the universal traits that embody, and make possible the development of, successful ‘‘global cities.’’ In this way, ‘‘scholars in these paradigmatic frameworks have—perhaps inadvertently—triggered a competitive urge among local growth coalitions that, in the rhetoric of city boosterism, seeks to find ways to advance in the ranked hierarchy of aspiring world-class cities’’ (p. 26). One such figure who is singled out here is Richard Florida, whose arguments concerning eliteand culture-led urbanization have been both extraordinarily influential and ‘‘deeply contentious,’’ as the author acknowledges (pp. 49–50). However, the fact that Florida’s work has been heavily criticized within urban studies and beyond raises the possibility that such understandings are perhaps not quite so hegemonic among scholars, even if they are heavily influential among urban elites the world over (p. 50). Nevertheless, it is clear that there are indeed recurring scholarly tendencies ‘‘to pigeonhole cities into preestablished [and normatively charged] categories and classification schemes’’ (p. 26) and, in turn, to judge them vis-à-vis the usual reference points for ‘‘successful’’ global city-making (e.g, New York, London, and Barcelona). Much of Murray’s discontent relates to the Eurocentric (and thus falsely universal) notions embedded within these understandings, which are made particularly problematic by the fact that most contemporary urban growth is occurring in the global South, especially in Africa and Asia. Though such critiques are certainly not new, Murray compellingly goes a step further by simultaneously problematizing the notion of ‘‘Southern theory’’ itself (p. 60). As he thoughtfully observes, ‘‘calls to de-colonize and de-Westernize urban theory have not moved very far beyond a broad-based critique of existing analytic frameworks and dominant ideas,’’ and as increased attention is shifted to the Global South, ‘‘a great deal of care must be taken to avoid positioning cities of the Global South as the new paradigmatic exemplars for understanding twenty-first-century urbanism’’ (p. 61). One danger, as he correctly identifies, is that Reviews 361","PeriodicalId":46889,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Sociology-A Journal of Reviews","volume":"52 1","pages":"361 - 362"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contemporary Sociology-A Journal of Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00943061231181317x","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In this highly readable and sharply argued volume, Martin J. Murray—a professor of urban planning and sociology at the University of Michigan—both criticizes the interdisciplinary field of urban studies for its tendency to develop would-be universal theories and conceptual frameworks that rely exclusively on global North cases, and offers an alternative categorization scheme. The latter, designed with inclusivity in mind, aims to make sense of the complex and contradictory, but also interrelated, trajectories of cities around the world. Contrary to the seemingly hegemonic ‘‘global cities’’ paradigm, which—in his rendering— presupposes a linear path to globality (p. 26), Murray seeks to capture a messier reality in which cities of vastly different sizes, aspirations, and prospects are all mutually imbricated with global processes, though in diverse ways. Seeking to strike a balance between the general and the particular, the author thus calls for a ‘‘rethinking’’ of urban theory that entails eschewing ‘‘unwarranted generalizations, sweeping universals, and unhelpful abstractions’’ (p. 63) in favor of more nuanced and context-sensitive theorization and concepts. While certain facets would benefit from further elaboration, his critiques and substantive proposals are cogently presented and argued. Accordingly, overall, this book provides an insightful and helpful overview of (and response to) the transdisciplinary literatures on global cities. Murray’s principal target is what he refers to as ‘‘conventional [or, alternatively, ‘mainstream’] urban studies,’’ a phrase that features in the title of the first chapter and appears dozens more times throughout the text (though he does not offer a sufficiently precise definition for this label, nor a clear delineation of whose work fits therein). In Murray’s estimation, this ‘‘conventional’’ scholarship has focused on discovering (and measuring) the universal traits that embody, and make possible the development of, successful ‘‘global cities.’’ In this way, ‘‘scholars in these paradigmatic frameworks have—perhaps inadvertently—triggered a competitive urge among local growth coalitions that, in the rhetoric of city boosterism, seeks to find ways to advance in the ranked hierarchy of aspiring world-class cities’’ (p. 26). One such figure who is singled out here is Richard Florida, whose arguments concerning eliteand culture-led urbanization have been both extraordinarily influential and ‘‘deeply contentious,’’ as the author acknowledges (pp. 49–50). However, the fact that Florida’s work has been heavily criticized within urban studies and beyond raises the possibility that such understandings are perhaps not quite so hegemonic among scholars, even if they are heavily influential among urban elites the world over (p. 50). Nevertheless, it is clear that there are indeed recurring scholarly tendencies ‘‘to pigeonhole cities into preestablished [and normatively charged] categories and classification schemes’’ (p. 26) and, in turn, to judge them vis-à-vis the usual reference points for ‘‘successful’’ global city-making (e.g, New York, London, and Barcelona). Much of Murray’s discontent relates to the Eurocentric (and thus falsely universal) notions embedded within these understandings, which are made particularly problematic by the fact that most contemporary urban growth is occurring in the global South, especially in Africa and Asia. Though such critiques are certainly not new, Murray compellingly goes a step further by simultaneously problematizing the notion of ‘‘Southern theory’’ itself (p. 60). As he thoughtfully observes, ‘‘calls to de-colonize and de-Westernize urban theory have not moved very far beyond a broad-based critique of existing analytic frameworks and dominant ideas,’’ and as increased attention is shifted to the Global South, ‘‘a great deal of care must be taken to avoid positioning cities of the Global South as the new paradigmatic exemplars for understanding twenty-first-century urbanism’’ (p. 61). One danger, as he correctly identifies, is that Reviews 361
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
多种城市化:全球城市建设的不同轨迹
在这本可读性强、争论激烈的书中,密歇根大学的城市规划和社会学教授马丁·j·默里(Martin J. murray)批评了城市研究的跨学科领域,因为它倾向于发展完全依赖全球北方案例的准通用理论和概念框架,并提供了另一种分类方案。后者在设计时考虑到包容性,旨在理解世界各地城市的复杂和矛盾,但也相互关联的轨迹。与看似霸权的“全球城市”范式相反,Murray试图捕捉一个更混乱的现实,在这个现实中,规模、抱负和前景截然不同的城市都与全球进程相互交织,尽管方式不同。为了在一般和特殊之间寻求平衡,作者呼吁对城市理论进行“重新思考”,避免“毫无根据的概括、笼统的普遍和无益的抽象”(第63页),而倾向于更细致入微、对语境敏感的理论和概念。虽然某些方面还有待进一步阐述,但他的批评和实质性建议已被令人信服地提出和论证。因此,总的来说,这本书对全球城市的跨学科文献提供了一个有见地和有益的概述(和回应)。穆雷的主要目标是他所说的“传统的(或者说是‘主流的’)城市研究”,这个短语在第一章的标题中出现,在全文中出现了几十次(尽管他没有为这个标签提供一个足够精确的定义,也没有清楚地描述谁的作品适合这个标签)。在默里看来,这种“传统”的学术研究侧重于发现(和衡量)体现成功的“全球城市”的普遍特征,并使其发展成为可能。通过这种方式,“研究这些范式框架的学者们——也许是无意中——在地方增长联盟中引发了一种竞争的冲动,在城市支持者的修辞中,寻求在有抱负的世界级城市的排名等级中取得进步的方法”(第26页)。理查德·弗罗里达(Richard Florida)就是这样一位人物,正如作者所承认的那样,他关于精英和文化主导的城市化的观点既具有非凡的影响力,又“极具争议性”(第49-50页)。然而,佛罗里达的研究在城市研究内外受到了严厉批评,这一事实提出了这样一种可能性,即这种理解在学者中可能并不那么霸道,即使它们在世界各地的城市精英中有很大的影响力(第50页)。然而,很明显,确实有反复出现的学术倾向“将城市划分为预先建立的[和规范的]类别和分类方案”(第26页),反过来,通过-à-vis“成功的”全球城市建设(例如,纽约,伦敦和巴塞罗那)的通常参考点来判断它们。穆雷的大部分不满与这些理解中嵌入的以欧洲为中心(因此是错误的普遍)的观念有关,由于大多数当代城市增长发生在全球南方,特别是在非洲和亚洲,这一事实尤其成问题。虽然这样的批评肯定不是新的,但穆雷令人信服地更进一步,同时对“南方理论”本身的概念提出了问题(第60页)。正如他若有所思地观察到的那样,“对去殖民化和去西方化城市理论的呼吁并没有超出对现有分析框架和主导思想的广泛批评”,随着越来越多的注意力转移到全球南方,“必须非常小心地避免将全球南方的城市定位为理解21世纪城市主义的新范例”(第61页)。一个危险,正如他正确地指出的,是评论361
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
202
期刊最新文献
How the Clinic Made Gender: The Medical History of a Transformative Idea Prisons of Debt: The Afterlives of Incarcerated Fathers Working-Class Kids Photographing Childhood: Valuing Care, Reciprocity, Sociality, and Dignity Literature in the Dawn of Sociological Theory: Stories That Are Telling On Expertise: Cultivating Character, Goodwill, and Practical Wisdom
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1