• About
  • Publication
  • Events
  • Urban Poetry Society

Read Cities

~ rethinking the urban world

Read Cities

Category Archives: Events

CfP RGS-IBG 2023: Comparative moments in urban research: Building methodology from now and here

08 Wednesday Feb 2023

Posted by Yimin in Academic, Events

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

conference, Geography, methodology, RGS-IBG, urban

Below is a call for papers for the RGS-IBG Annual Conference in London, August 29th – September 1st, 2023. We look forward to hearing from you if you’d be interested in engaging with discussions on this topic!

Comparative moments in urban research: Building methodology from now and here

Organisers: Julie Ren (University of Zurich) and Yimin Zhao (Renmin University of China / University of Zurich)

Ongoing debates on comparative urbanism have continued to grapple with the multiplicity of both experiences and conceptualisations (Robinson, 2022; Roy, 2016; cf. Rudolph and Storper, 2023). For the sake of theoretical development, there is a necessity to move beyond “case-study singularity” (Peck, 2015) or reductive exceptionalism (Ren, 2021). Recognising the individual character of the urban while also embracing a dialogical theory-culture, requires better specifying the now and here when we are engaging with the project of “thinking cities through elsewhere.” Instead of seeing our field sites as spatial containers for social research, we explore the possibility of taking these sites as “moments” that are shaped by flows, processes, things and encounters at global, local and bodily levels (Appadurai, 1988; Gupta and Ferguson, 1997; Haraway, 1991; Massey, 2005; Smith and Katz, 1993; Zhao, 2017). To what extent can such moments reshape the way scholars approach comparative urban research?

For instance, research conducted in languages different than the language of knowledge production evoke questions about the nature of flows and encounters as it pertains to translation. The stability of language connected to place offers a vantage point from which to ask whether research is translatable to each other (Apter 2013; Jazeel 2019; Zhao 2020). Whether or not this is immediately the case, is it possible to pave the way for such translations, to encourage linguistic hospitalities or to learn from translation “failures” to better frame a now and here that would be open to dialogue? Indeed, more explicitly considering the significance of positionality, partial perspectives and situated knowledges may prove indispensable for analyses of both now and here and elsewhere, at the heart of a more global urban studies.

Following Jenny Robinson’s (2022: 6) call for “building methodology from the spatiality of the urban,” we invite theoretical, methodological and empirical reflections on comparative moments in urban research. We seek papers that offer approaches researching different places, especially approaches that work with the translation of “theory built elsewhere” (Bhan, 2019: 641) and that participate in generative naming processes of “other” urban spatialities (Zhao 2020). How do researchers grapple with perennial issues of context, history and language anew? How shall we further interrogate the grounds for site selection as it pertains to both places and the revisability of concepts? How might these justifications in turn shed new light on the issue of translatability and commensurability?

If you are interested to engage with these questions, please send abstracts (max. 250 words) with name, email, affiliation by 1 March 2023 to both Julie Ren (julie.ren@uzh.ch) and Yimin Zhao (yimin.zhao@geo.uzh.ch).

References

Appadurai, A. (1988). “Introduction: Place and Voice in Anthropological Theory.” Cultural Anthropology 3(1): 16–20.

Apter, E. (2013). Against World Literature: On the Politics of Untranslatability. London and New York: Verso.

Bhan, G. (2019). Notes on a Southern urban practice. Environment and Urbanization, 31(2), 639-654.

Gupta, A., & Ferguson, J. (Eds.). (1997). Anthropological locations: Boundaries and grounds of a field science. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Haraway, D. (1991). Situated Knowledges: the science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. In Simians, cyborgs, and women: The reinvention of nature (pp. 183-201). New York: Routledge.

Jazeel, T. (2019). Singularity. A manifesto for incomparable geographies. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, 40(1), 5-21.

Massey, D. (2005). For space. London: Sage.

Peck, J. (2015). Cities beyond compare? Regional Studies, 49(1), 160-182.

Randolph, G. F., & Storper, M. (2023). Is urbanisation in the Global South fundamentally different? Comparative global urban analysis for the 21st century. Urban Studies, 60(1), 3–25.

Ren, J. (2021). Exceptionalism and theorizing spatial inequality: Segregation research on cities in China. Journal of Urban Affairs, 1-13.

Robinson, J. (2022). Comparative urbanism: Tactics for global urban studies. Oxford: Wiley.

Roy, A. (2016). Who’s afraid of postcolonial theory? International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 40(1), 200-209.

Smith, N., & Katz, C. (1993). Grounding metaphor: Towards a spatialized politics. In M. Keith & S. Pile (Eds.), Place and the politics of identity (pp. 66-81). London and New York: Routledge.

Zhao, Y. (2017). Space as method: Field sites and encounters in Beijing’s green belts. City, 21(2), 190-206.

Zhao, Y. (2020). Jiehebu or suburb? Towards a translational turn in urban studies. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 13(3), 527-542.

Advertisement

与公园相遇?我们如何在公共空间中体认差异

23 Saturday Jul 2022

Posted by Yimin in Academic, Beijing, Events, Field

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Beijing, politics, space, urban

按:2022年4至5月,泰康空间举办了以“空间:具身性与公共性”为主题的三场论坛,围绕具身性的存在与公共性的渴望两条线索,邀请参与者从建筑、社会、艺术等角度来分享各自对房间、疾病和广场等空间形态的多维度思考。本文根据作者于第三场论坛上的发言记录整理而成。


空间性:重思“公共空间”

社会科学研究经常会把公共空间和公共领域做等价替换,以下几个词常常交替出现:比如 “public realm”、“public sphere”,以及 “public space”。阿伦特在《人的境况》里提醒道:当我们讨论广场(agora),以一种公共性的切入点去思考广场问题的时候,我们真正关切的并不是广场自身这种物质空间的表征,而是在它之上承载着的那些人类的集体行动、人与人之间的互动的过程。换句话说,让广场得以成为广场的,是寄居于其间的那种政治的呈现。所以在这个意义上去把广场的印象本身视作是公共空间,可能在逻辑上就会有一种断裂。

哈贝马斯讨论公共领域常用的是“public sphere”。他关心的重点是我们如何能够让一群持有不同意见的人,通过理性的辩论达成共识。所以在这样的公共领域的论述之中,居于中心地位的,不是某个特定的场所或者空间的物质形态,而是这个交流和达成共识的过程。居于公共领域中心性的是交流,这是他最重要的一个提醒。所以在他关于这些交流的中心性、关于理性辩论的写作里边,咖啡馆就成了一个很重要的意象,因为咖啡馆表征着的就是持有不同观点的人们,在里边闲聊的地方——这就是能够观察到理性辩论的最直观的场所。

Café in Paris. Source: http://www.gafei.com

在地理学家Kurt Iveson看来,在这些常见的关于公共空间的讨论中,我们的进入路径是一种地形化的、地形学的(topographical)视角:当我们讨论到公共空间的时候,脑海中立刻冒出来的那些像街道、广场、公园这样的意象,它们像一个个静态的容器,我们通过去观察、剖析这样的容器,来考察在这个容器里面所发生的行动,以及通过这样的行动所生成、所塑造的各种行动者。

但Iveson提醒我们,地形学的视角容易把公共空间之公共性的三个维度混淆在一起:即我们讨论的是行动得以可能空间的语境,还是行动本身,还是行动者自身的主体性?这是地形学的视角可能会有的一个短板,因此他建议我们尝试使用一个更加过程性的视角来把握公共空间的可能性。

如果我们接续阿伦特的对公共领域的界定,把政治呈现视作是公共领域的公共性的本质,那我们就需要在一个过程性的分析框架里边去关注政治呈现空间的过程,关注在这样的政治呈现的过程背后,所凝结着的各种各样物质的结构,所纠缠着的各种各样的多重位置本身。比如说阿伦特自己在讨论希腊人出征海外的时候,她提了一句话叫:“Wherever you go, you will be a polis”(不管你去哪里,你们这群人就成了一个城邦)。这就是这种政治呈现的一个空间过程。他们的城邦不需要非得跟雅典的广场建立起物质、物理意义上的关系,它是一个过程性的存在。

在更深入地探讨这样政治呈现的空间过程的时候,还有必要再增加一个差异化的维度。当我们去关注政治呈现背后的各种物质结构和多重的位置,当我们不断探索这种多重性和它们的交缠交织,归根结底是因为它们引申着、关联着各种各样的差异。当我们在公共空间进行观察、讨论,我们其实首先能够感知到的是人与人之间的差异,不同的行动主体之间的差异。而公共空间的动态变迁,之所以让人觉得它很有活力,正在于它很多时候能够让不同主体之间的差异得到磋商和共存,能够让不同主体之间的差异在这里边形成对话的可能。

为了更好地理解这一点,我们就需要在公共领域的空间性的讨论中,摆脱地形学的限制,更加关注过程、关注差异。法国哲学家让-吕克·南希曾经说过:“我们”这个概念,其实就是在不同的主体跟陌生人在公共空间里边相遇、与他们共存的时候才可能出现的一个概念。“我们”这个概念得以出现有两个前提,一个前提是发现了差异——别人跟我不一样,另外一个前提是体认这种差异是可以共存的,这样才会从“我”变成“我们”。

所以在他的这种分析进路里边,“我们”这个词应该被视为一种发生学的概念(happening),这种发生学的本质是对他者的包容,是让各种各样的异质主体、异质元素聚拢在一起。所以换句话说,如果我们接受他的这个观点的话,可以说公共空间是让“我们”这个概念得以成立、让社会得以成立的前提。只有在公共空间里边,这些差异才能进行磋商,“我们”才能形成。

与南希的这种对“我们”、对主体性的界定形成呼应的,是列斐伏尔对城市的界定。列斐伏尔在《城市革命》里面做了一个很著名的区分:“the city” 和 “the urban” 这两个词是不同的。“city” 是我们惯常理解的那种像空间容器一般存在的那种东西,它是有界的实体,是城市规划师、建筑师、城市设计者们每天工作的对象。但 “the urban” 不一样,它是一个不断变化着的过程。因为它的这种变动不居的特点,在列斐伏尔非常理论化和浪漫的笔触里边,他最终把城市 “the urban” 视作了一个纯的形式。

这样的纯的形式里边,并不包含任何特定的内容,但却同时包含了所有内容。因为它促成了相遇,促成了集合,促成了共时性。在这样的相遇、集合和共时性的可能性不断得到放大时,它便构成了我们所有人日常生活中的新领域的中心,所以 “the urban” 是一个抽象(abstraction),但它又是一个具体的抽象(concrete abstraction),因为它的形式具体在每一个历史的瞬间以什么样的方式展现出来,取决于在那个历史瞬间生活着的人们彼此是如何互动的。他们的行为、他们的互动,造就了每一个历史瞬间城市的外在表现。

日常性:北京的城乡结合部

我们可以在北京找到很好的例子。最近这几年,北京给人一种特别不欢迎人的感觉,但在上一次奥运会前的那些年则与之相反。当北京的大街小巷都在唱遍那首《北京欢迎你》的时候,它所体现的就是一种会在促成相遇、集合和共时性方面发挥很重要效力的这种纯形式的形态。《北京欢迎你》这样的语调,当它变成一种共识的时候,它就真的会让北京变成一个具有包容性的、社会性的地方,能够吸引来自外国、来自外地的各种各样的人,各种各样的异质性的主体在这里相遇,遵循着他们各自不同的日常生活的节律,同时又按照自己在新的空间、新的时间里面相遇的需求,去改变和调和他们彼此的差异。

如果我们再进一步的去细化,对这种持有开放和包容心态的北京做分析的话,城乡结合部是一个比老城区更合适的切入点。因为那些聚拢在北京的异质的主体,他们大部分人落脚的地方往往在结合部,而不是在中心地带。

北京的城乡结合部,其实是一个历史的产物。上世纪50年代,北京的规划师开始去构想自己现代意义上的第一版总体规划,这版规划当时深受苏联规划理念的影响。苏联的规划师带来了例如组团式的城市布局形态:我们的城市一方面要足够得大,但是又不能太大,在这种有限的空间格局里面,又需要去安排特定的用来承载工业企业生产的场所和位置。所以北京当时就划定了北到清河,南到大红门,东到定福庄,西到石景山这样一个城市空间的范畴。

在城市中心地区之外,比如清河、酒仙桥、定福庄、南苑、丰台、石景山等地,是当时规划的工业组团。工业组团自然会产生污染,所以就会在市中心地区和工业组团之间规划一个绿化隔离带,也就是图上看到的绿色板块。在1950到1970年代这一时期,绿化隔离带基本上并没有变成真正的绿化隔离带应有的样子(比如伦敦,或者莫斯科郊外的那种场景)。我们的绿化隔离带只是画在了图纸上,现实之中依然是农民在种他们的庄稼,只是我们可能要求在这些绿化隔离带里面的农民尽可能多地去种蔬菜,从而供给城市的需求。这是绿化隔离带在计划经济时代真实的样子——图纸上是绿的,但现实之中是菜地。

但是1980年代之后,随着各种各样的人口管控政策的放宽,大量的外来人口涌向了包括北京在内的各大城市。当这些人涌到北京的时候,他们很快就会发现,自己真正能够便利地、以很低的成本落脚的地方,往往就是在城市乡村之间的这个结合部地带,也就是那张地图中的绿化隔离带地区。因为那里原来的传统农村区域都没有被改变,农民们自己的房子和宅基地都还在,所以他们很容易地就能够从农民手里租到房子。并且绿化隔离带很多涉及到的村庄里其实曾经也安排了大大小小的国有企业,其中一些经营不善,逐渐也开始把厂房转租出去。

所以在上世纪80到90年代,这些村子就出现了所谓的人口倒挂的现象——本地人与外来人口的比例达到了1:10,这是在北京的城乡结合部的村子里边经常看到的现象。在这个转化的空间形态里边,城乡结合部因为非常容易进入以及相对比较松散的管控的特征,变成了一个让各种各样的多元的异质的主体能够聚拢在一起的一个空间。可以说正是在这个意义上,城乡结合部在80年代之后慢慢变成了一种特定性质的公共空间。

因为大量的人口涌入以及基础设施和公共服务的供给不足,很多城乡结合部的建成环境确实开始变得污浊不堪,于是我们耳熟能详的那种污名化的标签——“脏乱差”——就贴到了这么一个个村子上。它立刻给政府的介入提供了一种话语的前提和基础,于是各种各样的现代主义的城市规划的话语就会被调用,这些村子就会被拆迁,然后代之以各种各样的新的建成环境。不管是高密度的公寓楼房,还是低密度的别墅小区,曾经作为公共空间,屹立在这片土地上的那些聚落,那些城乡结合部的村落,消失了。

正是在这样的空间的污名化的过程里面,在这样的政策的大规模的推进的过程之中,公共空间在城乡结合部变成了一种不可能的存在。项飙和张鹂都关注过的浙江村的拆迁,是一个非常著名的瞬间。张鹂在她的《城市里的陌生人》一开篇就跟大家勾勒了一个曾经承载了无限的繁荣的私有经济和生机勃勃的外地人社区,是如何一夜之间被推平、变成遍地狼藉的。再比如在2017、2018年的时候,在北京的疏解整治促提升的政策框架里面,我们同样看到了特定的人群,因为特定的机缘,一夜之间流离失所。

城中村拆迁,来源:赵益民摄,2015年7月

政治性:在公园中相遇?

当我们面对拆迁的故事唏嘘不已的时候,最近这几年同步还会观察到别的一些故事在北京的城乡结合部里发生——各种各样的公园,像雨后春笋一般的崛起了。北京但凡被冠以郊野公园、森林公园或湿地公园的这些地方,基本上都是过去十年间建立起来,或者完善成为公园的形态,比如东小口森林公园、孙河郊野公园、黑桥公园、温榆河公园等。当大家在这样的公园里去跑步或野餐时,我想肯定会油然而生一种感情——一种对新兴的公园和绿色公共空间的欣喜之情,觉得北京这座城市的治理似乎越来越向好,能够给自己的日常生活增添更多亮丽的色彩。

温榆河公园,来源:赵益民摄,2022年4月

某种意义上,你可以说这是一个非常好的公共空间的形态,它让人们的相聚变得可能。但是我想追问的一点是,是什么样的人在这里的相聚变得可能?大概是像在座的、能够参与今天讲座的各位,或者是收入很稳定、每周有固定的双休、不用担心被裁员、不用担心朝不保夕——这样的人,这样的主体,才可能会有闲情逸致去这样的公园里享受生活。刚才在2017年的那些流离失所的主体,他们大概率不会出现在这里。

而且更重要的是,在这些公园的背后,其实是一种叫“留白增绿”的政策指引。“增绿”我们都知道是什么意思,那什么是“留白”呢,就是刚刚拆迁的那个过程。“留白增绿”是同一个硬币的两面,当我们欣喜地发现越来越多的绿色空间出现的时候,其实意味着曾经作为公共空间,让不同的主体能够共存、能够相遇的那些城乡结合部的村落的消失。这种新的公共空间的可能性,是以那样的公共空间的不可能性为前提的。这就是公共空间的政治性。

如果说公共空间作为一个概念,它的起点是要去不断地审视差异与相遇的可能性,那我的分享是想提醒大家去再多走一步,更好的去把握住公共空间背后,让它同时变得可能以及不可能的东西。公共空间的空间性到底是什么,它的日常性是如何体现在人们日常的交错、相遇和共时性之中,以及最终它的政治性如何在不断被塑造和重塑。这些问题都很重要,我们如果要更好、更全面地审视公共空间的话,就需要抓住类似这样的反思维度。

CfP RC21: The Urban Spectre of ‘Global China’ and Critical Reflections on its Spatiality

18 Tuesday Dec 2018

Posted by Yimin in Academic, Events

≈ Leave a comment

CfP RC21: S6 – The Urban Spectre of ‘Global China’ and Critical Reflections on its Spatiality

18-21 September 2019, Delhi, India (https://rc21delhi2019.com)

Convenors

Professor Hyun Bang Shin, London School of Economics and Political Science (UK)
Dr Yimin Zhao, Renmin University of China (China)
Dr Sin Yee Koh, Monash University Malaysia (Malaysia)

Stream synopsis

The overseas expansion of China’s economic influence has recently been foregrounded in media reports and policy debates. The term ‘Global China’ has been widely adopted to depict the geopolitical dimension of this immense flow of capital. However, there is still a lack of attention to the urban dimension of ‘Global China’, especially regarding its impacts on the (re)imaginings and manifestations of urban futures – both within and beyond China.

In extant literature on Global China, two main features stand out. The first is the tendency to bound discussions of China’s role in global capital flows within Africa, and to theorise this role in terms of neo-colonialism. The second feature is the overt focus on the role of Chinese capital in industrial sectors – for example through investigations of labour conflicts (Giese 2013), labour regimes (Lee 2009, 2018), and workplace regimes (Fei et al. 2018). While there are increasing discussions on the spatiality of ‘Global China’, especially in relation to the ’Belt and Road’ (BRI) discourse, they are still closely linked to industrial sectors.

In this stream, we seek to address the existing gaps identified above through a focus on the urban spectre of ‘Global China’. We welcome theoretical, methodological, and empirical contributions that address the interconnections and intersections between the rise of ‘Global China’ and ‘the urban’ (broadly defined). We aim to bring together papers that (1) critically examine the differentiated modes of speculative and spectacular urban production; (2) discuss the ways in which ‘the urban’ has been reconfigured by ‘Global China’; and (3) identify the theoretical and empirical implications for urban futures.

Submit your abstract

Please send your abstract of not more than 300 words to Hyun (h.b.shin@lse.ac.uk), Yimin (zhao.y@ruc.edu.cn) and Sin Yee (koh.sinyee@monash.edu) and CC’d to rc21delhi@gmail.com before January 20th, 2019. Please indicate the stream number (S6), the session title, and your last name in the subject line. For more details, please see the official instruction at: https://rc21delhi2019.com/index.php/call-for-abstracts/

Inquiries: If you have any questions regarding this stream, please email Hyun (h.b.shin@lse.ac.uk), Yimin (zhao.y@ruc.edu.cn) and Sin Yee (koh.sinyee@monash.edu).

RGS-IBG 2018: Is the present a “foreign country”?

29 Thursday Mar 2018

Posted by Yimin in Academic, Events

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

modernity, politics, space, urban

RGS-IBG 2018 Annual Conference: Cardiff, UK, 28 to 31 August 2018

 

Session title: Is the present a “foreign country”? Modernity and urban space in comparative perspective

Organisers: Yimin Zhao (Department of Geography and Environment, London School of Economics and Political Science); Boya Guo (Graduate School of Design, Harvard University)

 

Session introduction

The hegemony of modernity has been rooted in a teleological temporality for centuries, where a linear time is upheld, exhausting the possibilities of our living experience as well as our envisioning of the future (Sewell 1996). Postcolonial critiques of historicism have been inviting us to “provincialise Europe” and its universal history (Chakrabarty 2000), aiming to unlearn the taken-for-granted privileges of Eurocentric traditions and at the same time learn from the “historical others” (Scott 2012). This dialectical process of learning and unlearning questions the nature of modernity and requires us to conceive different ways to acknowledge co-existing multiplicities.

Space matters here because our re-imagination of it might put forward a new perspective, through which we could “dislocate” modernity, recognise multiplicities, and drop such dichotomies as West/Non-West, modern/ traditional, and innovation/imitation (Massey 1999, Robinson 2006). But there are still challenges, empirically, to follow this call for spatialising the history of modernity with “ordinary cities.” For, the living experience and space (of the “historical others” in particular) are yet deeply inflected by the teleological temporality, which could be evidenced by Thames Town in Shanghai (Wu 2010), Norman Foster-facilitated utopian landscapes in Astana (Koch 2012), and the archaising reconstruction of the whole city in Datong, China (Zhou 2015), to name just a few.

Instead of labelling these stories as false/deviated/incomplete modernity, here we want to gather together critical interrogations of stories as such to advance our reflections on the present. After recognising these stories as symptoms of the hegemony of modernity, it is more critical to explore how the experiences of modernity are being shaped by local-historical conditions and politico-economic relations. Lowenthal (1985) once illustrates that “the past is a foreign country” since “they do things differently there.” We want to move a step further and interrogate if the present is a “foreign country” as well, where different conducts of “historical others” could be conceptualised as co-existing spatial differences rather than temporal sequences, and where the questioning of historical time could be contextualised in multiple and dynamic spatial practices.

The key question we want to put forward in this session is: how and how far has modernity been performed and enacted through diverse spatial practices in daily life, and how can we learn to be “modern” from the perspectives of “historical others”? All contributions related to the two keywords (modernity and urban space) are welcome; and we are especially looking forward to empirical illustrations on how to inhabit the hegemony of modernity spatially – and hence differently.

 

Session 1: Debating authenticity

Session chair: Yimin Zhao (The London School of Economics and Political Science, UK)

Session authors, presenters and titles:

1. Learning from Chinese copying culture: Borrowed or reinvented modernity?, Boya Guo (Harvard University, USA) (presenter)
2. ‘Urban utopia’ in modern China: from Haussmann’s Paris to Southern Song imperial town — A case study of Hangzhou, Yang Song (King’s College London, UK) (presenter)
3. 1933 Millfun Shanghai: from slaughterhouse to creative park, Shu-Yi Chiu (Goldsmiths, University of London, UK) (presenter), Wen-I Lin (National Taipei University, Taiwan), Justin Spinney (Cardiff University, UK)
4. Entanglements of ‘heritageisation’ and ‘modernisation’ in urban space, Chiara Valli (Gothenburg University, Sweden) (presenter)

 

Session 2: Interrogating modernity

Session chair: Boya Guo (Harvard University, USA)

Session authors, presenters and titles:

1. The Myth of the Communist Mansion, Wanli Mo (Tongji University, PR China) (presenter)
2. Peddling modernity: Territorial stigmatisation and land business in Beijing’s green belts, Yimin Zhao (The London School of Economics and Political Science, UK) (presenter)
3. Shuttling Between Heterogeneous Spaces: Two (Art) Projects in China, Xiaoyi Nie (Royal College of Art, UK) (presenter)
4. Conservation and Democracy: The aspirations and politics of the built environment, Javier Ors Ausin (World Monuments Fund) (presenter)
5. Discussion

 

References

  • Chakrabarty, Dipesh. 2000. Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial thought and historical difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  • Koch, Natalie. 2012. “Urban ‘utopias’: the Disney stigma and discourses of ‘false modernity’.” Environment and Planning A 44 (10):2445-2462.
  • Lowenthal, David. 1985. The past is a foreign country. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Massey, Doreen. 1999. “Spaces of politics.” In Human Geography today, edited by Doreen Massey, John Allen and Philip Sarre, 279-294. Cambridge: Polity Press.
  • Robinson, Jennifer. 2006. Ordinary cities: Between modernity and development. London and New York: Routledge.
  • Scott, David. 2012. “The Traditions of Historical Others.” Symposia on Gender, Race, and Philosophy 8 (1):1-8.
  • Sewell Jr, William H. 1996. “Three temporalities: Toward an eventful sociology” in The historic turn in the human sciences, edited by Terrence McDonald, 245-80. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
  • Wu, Fulong. 2010. “Gated and packaged suburbia: Packaging and branding Chinese suburban residential development.” Cities no. 27 (5):385-396.
  • Zhou, Hao. (Director). 2015. The Chinese mayor [Documentary Film]. London: BBC.

 

CFP RGS-IBG 2018: Is the present a “foreign country”?

26 Friday Jan 2018

Posted by Yimin in Academic, Events

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Geography, modernity, space, urban

Is the present a “foreign country”? Modernity and urban space in comparative perspective

RGS-IBG 2018 Annual Conference: Cardiff, UK, 28 to 31 August 2018

Organisers: Yimin Zhao (Department of Geography and Environment, London School of Economics and Political Science); Boya Guo (Graduate School of Design, Harvard University)

Discussants: TBC

 

The hegemony of modernity has been rooted in a teleological temporality for centuries, where a linear time is upheld, exhausting the possibilities of our living experience as well as our envisioning of the future (Sewell 1996). Postcolonial critiques of historicism have been inviting us to “provincialise Europe” and its universal history (Chakrabarty 2000), aiming to unlearn the taken-for-granted privileges of Eurocentric traditions and at the same time learn from the “historical others” (Scott 2012). This dialectical process of learning and unlearning questions the nature of modernity and requires us to conceive different ways to acknowledge co-existing multiplicities.

Space matters here because our re-imaginations of it might put forward a new perspective, through which we could “dislocate” modernity, recognise multiplicities, and drop such dichotomies as West/Non-West, modern/ traditional, and innovation/imitation (Massey 1999, Robinson 2006). But there are still challenges, empirically, to follow this call for spatialising the history of modernity with “ordinary cities.” For, the living experience and space (of the “historical others” in particular) are yet deeply inflected by the teleological temporality, which could be evidenced by Thames Town in Shanghai (Wu 2010), Norman Foster-facilitated utopian landscapes in Astana (Koch 2012), and the archaising reconstruction of the whole city in Datong, China (Zhou 2015), to name just a few.

Instead of labelling these stories as false/deviated/incomplete modernity, here we want to gather together critical interrogations of stories as such to advance our reflections on the present. After recognising these stories as symptoms of the hegemony of modernity, it is more critical to explore how the experiences of modernity are being shaped by local-historical conditions and politico-economic relations. Lowenthal (1985) once illustrates that “the past is a foreign country” since “they do things differently there.” We want to move a step further and interrogate if the present is a “foreign country” as well, where different conducts of “historical others” could be conceptualised as co-existing spatial differences rather than temporal sequences, and where the questioning of historical time could be contextualised in multiple and dynamic spatial practices.

The key question we want to put forward in this session is: how and how far has modernity been performed and enacted through diverse spatial practices in daily life, and how can we learn to be “modern” from the perspectives of “historical others”? All contributions related to the two keywords (modernity and urban space) are welcome; and we are especially looking forward to empirical illustrations on how to inhabit the hegemony of modernity spatially – and hence differently.

If you are interested in participating in this session, please send an abstract of 200-250 words to Yimin Zhao (y.zhao25@lse.ac.uk) and Boya Guo (bguo@gsd.harvard.edu) by 9 February 2018.

 

References

Chakrabarty, Dipesh. 2000. Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial thought and historical difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Koch, Natalie. 2012. “Urban ‘utopias’: the Disney stigma and discourses of ‘false modernity’.” Environment and Planning A no. 44 (10):2445-2462.

Lowenthal, David. 1985. The past is a foreign country. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Massey, Doreen. 1999. “Spaces of politics.” In Human geography today, edited by Doreen Massey, John Allen and Philip Sarre, 279-294. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Robinson, Jennifer. 2006. Ordinary cities: Between modernity and development. London and New York: Routledge.

Scott, David. 2012. “The Traditions of Historical Others.” Symposia on Gender, Race, and Philosophy no. 8 (1):1-8.

Sewell Jr, William H. 1996. “Three temporalities: Toward an eventful sociology” in The historic turn in the human sciences, edited by Terrence McDonald, 245-80. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Wu, Fulong. 2010. “Gated and packaged suburbia: Packaging and branding Chinese suburban residential development.” Cities no. 27 (5):385-396.

Zhou, Hao. (Director). 2015. The Chinese mayor [Documentary Film]. London: BBC.

 

← Older posts

Time

May 2023
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031  
« Apr    

Space

  • April 2023 (1)
  • February 2023 (1)
  • July 2022 (1)
  • March 2022 (1)
  • December 2021 (1)
  • February 2021 (1)
  • December 2020 (1)
  • May 2020 (1)
  • April 2020 (1)
  • March 2020 (2)
  • December 2019 (1)
  • April 2019 (1)
  • December 2018 (1)
  • March 2018 (1)
  • January 2018 (1)
  • December 2017 (1)
  • September 2017 (1)
  • April 2017 (1)
  • March 2017 (1)
  • November 2016 (1)
  • October 2016 (1)
  • August 2016 (1)
  • July 2016 (1)
  • June 2016 (1)
  • March 2016 (2)
  • February 2016 (1)
  • July 2015 (1)
  • May 2015 (1)
  • April 2015 (1)
  • February 2015 (2)
  • March 2014 (1)
  • October 2013 (3)

Spacetime

  • Academic (26)
  • Beijing (1)
  • Events (16)
  • Field (7)
  • London (4)
  • Publication (2)
  • Reading (13)
  • Teaching (3)
  • Travel (1)

Moments

  • About
  • Events
  • Publication
  • Urban Poetry Society

Articulation

  • Register
  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.com

The right to the city

  • 24,334 rights

Keywords

Beijing central-park conference critical displacement encounter ethnography event Geography Greenbelt identity infrastructure jiehebu land lecture Lefebvre London LSE materiality method methodology metropolitan migration modernism modernity neoliberalism notes nyc PKU political economy politics property Quito-papers research RGS-IBG rights Sociology space state summer syllabus Teaching theory urban urbanisation waste

Seminars

Reeva Mills on Selected Panels in 2015 AAG An…
Professor Hyun Bang… on About
Enid on 大卫·哈维的黄金时代
Follow Read Cities on WordPress.com

Join!

RSS Feed RSS - Posts

Encounters

No upcoming events

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
  • Follow Following
    • Read Cities
    • Join 27 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • Read Cities
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...