Ongoing splintering and siloification in urban studies require alternative approaches to bring the major theoretical and epistemological perspectives into constructive dialogue. We conclude by advocating practices of 'engaged pluralism' rather than 'polemical pluralism' when 'doing global urban research', and propose that critical realism can provide an important epistemological bridge to make different positions communicate. The consequence is that global cities research tends to be casually invoked to distinguish one's own position. We interpret this discrepancy to be part of a gradually routinized straw man rhetoric that emerged as an unfortunate rallying point for postcolonial urban scholars. These misrepresentations are then contrasted with the purposes, diversity and critical character of global cities research as actually practiced. We present a genealogy of postcolonial critiques starting from Robinson's (2002) agenda-setting discussion of global cities research, followed by an analysis of how her legitimate concerns have subsequently morphed into a set of apparent truisms. We argue that such criticisms are generally hampered by their tendency to be polemical rather than engaging, as evidenced by both the quasi-systematic misrepresentation of the core objectives of global cities research and the skating-over of its internal diversity. This paper engages with postcolonial critiques of global cities research.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |