Debates on the city and the urban
dialogues between critical urbanism and urbanism of assemblages
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.59047/2469.0724.v10.n13.44909Keywords:
Critical Urban Theory, City, Urban Assemblage Theory, Urban, epistemological discussionsAbstract
Within the field of urban social theory, debates still persist around the definition of two key concepts for the discipline: the city and the urban. Although this has not been a problem for the development of empirical research on cities, it is interesting to recover these divergences in order to problematize the way in which urban phenomena are defined and, consequently, interpreted. Thus, in this article I propose to deepen the epistemological debates on the city and the urban, based on the dialogue between critical urbanism and urbanism of assemblages. For this purpose, the exchanges carried out between Neil Brenner, Colin McFarlane and Ignacio Farías during 2009 and 2011 in different academic journals are recovered. The contribution of this article is to continue introducing to the debate on the city and the urban the proposal of urbanism of assemblages, which poses a challenge to the foundations of conventional urban criticism, introducing a conceptual framework that brings with it a significant epistemological shift for urban studies. The urbanism of urban assemblages proposed by Farias (2011b) is distinguished by its attention to the city as a continuous process of composition and recomposition, where multiple human and non-human actors interact and intertwine to shape complex and dynamic urban environments. While critical urban theory also refers to the city as product and production, and not as a finished object, assemblage urbanism radicalizes this reading by including the notion of composition, which opens up the range of actors and agencies involved in urban formations.
References
Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning. Duke University Press.
Boltanski, L. & Thévenot, L. (2006). On Justification. Economies of Worth. Princeton University Press.
Boltanski, L. (2014). De la crítica. Compendio de sociología de la emancipación. Akal.
Brenner, N. (2009). What is critical urban theory? City, 13(2-3), 198-207.
Brenner, N. (2013). Tesis sobre la urbanización planetaria. Nueva sociedad, (243), 38-66.
Brenner, N., & Keil, R. (2005). The global cities reader.
Brenner, N., Madden, D. J., & Wachsmuth, D. (2011). Assemblage urbanism and the challenges of critical urban theory. City, 15(2), 225-240.
Brenner, N., Marcuse, P., & Mayer, M. (2009). Cities for people, not for profit. City, 13(2-3), 176-184.
Cabrera, J. (2011). Pensar e intervenir el territorio a traves de la Teoria del Actor-Red. Athenea Digital, 11(1), 217-223.
Callon, M. (1986). Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St-Brieuc Bay. En Law, J. (ed.) Power, Action, and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge? Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Callon, M. y Latour, B. (1981). Unscrewing the big leviathan: How actors macro-structure reality and how sociologists help them to do so. En: Knorr-Cetina, K. y Cicourel, A. (eds) Advances in Social Theory and Methodology: Towards an Integration of Micro-and MacroSociologies. Routledge, 277–303.
DeLanda, M. (2006). Deleuzian social ontology Experience and Nature and assemblage theory. Deleuze and the Social, 250-266.
Dewey, J. (1988 [1925]). The Later Works. . Southern Illinois University Press. (1).
Douglass, C. M., & Friedmann, J. (Eds.). (1998). Cities for citizens: Planning and the rise of civil society in a global age. John Wiley & Son Limited.
Estévez Villarino, B. (2016). Controversias, hibridez y diseño urbano: Abrir el candado de la representación y multiplicar los posibles del espacio público. Revista de geografía Norte Grande, (65), 7-37.
Farías, I. (2011a). Ensamblajes urbanos: la TAR y el examen de la ciudad. Athenea Digital, (11), 15-40.
Farías, I. (2011b). The politics of urban assemblages. City, 15(3-4), 365-374.
Farías, I. & Bender, T. (Eds.) (2009). Urban Assemblages: How ActorNetwork Theory Changes Urban Studies. Routledge
Fraser, N. (1989). Unruly practices: Power, discourse, and gender in contemporary social theory. U of.Minnesota Press.
Goonewardena, K. (2011). Henri Lefebvre y la revolución de la vida cotidiana, la ciudad y el Estado. Urban, 1-15.
Gottdiener, M. (1985). Symposium: Whatever happened to the urban crisis? Urban Affairs Quarterly, 20(4), 421-427.
Grau-Solés, M., Íñiguez-Rueda, L., & Subirats, J. (2012). Una perspectiva híbrida y no-moderna para los estudios urbanos. Athenea Digital, 89-108.
Harvey, D. (1976). Teoría revolucionaria y contrarrevolucionaria en geografía y el problema de la formación del ghetto. Geocrítica. Cuadernos de Geografía Humana, 1(4), 366-390.
Latour, B. (1988). The pasteurization of France. Harvard University Press.
Latour, B. (2004). ¿Por qué se ha quedado la crítica sin energía? De los asuntos de hecho a las cuestiones de preocupación. Convergencia Revista de Ciencias Sociales, 11(35), 11-49.
Latour, B. (2008). Reensamblar lo social. Una introducción a la teoría del actor-red. Buenos Aires: Manantial.
Latour, B. (2014). Ensayo de un «Manifiesto composicionista». Disponible en https://www.mxfractal.org/articulos/RevistaFractal76BrunoLatour.php
Law, J. (1986). On the methods of long-distance control: vessels, navigation and the Portuguese routeto India. En Law, J. (Ed.), Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge. Routledge, Kegan Paul Books. 234-263.
Lefebvre, H. (1996 [1968]) "El derecho a la ciudad", en H. Lefebvre, Escritos sobre las ciudades. Kofman, E. y Lebas, E. (eds.) Blackwell. 63-184.
Lefebvre, H. (2003 [1970]) La revolución urbana. Alianza Editorial.
Mayer, M. (2003) The onward sweep of social capital: causes and consequences for understanding cities, communities and urban movements. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 27(1), 110–132.
McFarlane, C. (2011). Assemblage and critical urbanism. City, 15(2), 204-224.
McFarlane, C., & Anderson, B. (2011). Thinking with assemblage. Area, 43(2), 162-164.
Mol, A. (2002) The Body Multiple: Ontology in Medical Practice. Duke University Press.
Nardacchione, G., & Acevedo, M. H. (2013). Las sociologías pragmático-pragmatistas puestas a prueba en América Latina. Revista Argentina de Sociología, 17 (9), 87-118.
Pineda, J. (2012). Produciendo un barrio de zona típica. Ensamblando actores híbridos para pensar un barrio patrimonial. Contenido. Arte, Cultura y Ciencias Sociales, 2, 41-65.
Saunders, Peter (1986). Social Theory and the Urban Question, Holmes and Meier
Schmid, C. (2005) ‘Theory’, en Diener, R., Herzog, J., eili, M.,Meuron, P. and Schmid, C. Switzerland: An Urban Portrait,. Birkhäuser Verlag. 163–224.
Soja, E. (2000) Postmetrópolis. Blackwell.
Soja, E., & Kanai, M. (2007). The urbanization of the world. The endless city, 54-69.
Vasudevan, A., McFarlane, C., & Jeffrey, A. (2008). Spaces of enclosure. Geoforum, 39(5), 1641-1646.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Micaela Comesaña
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish in this journal agree to the following terms:
a. Authors retain copyright and guarantee to the journal the right to be the first publication of the work as well as licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4 license.
b. Authors may separately establish additional agreements for non-exclusive distribution of the version of the work published in the journal (e.g., placing it in an institutional repository or publishing it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
c. Authors are permitted and encouraged to disseminate their work electronically (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their own website) before and during the submission process, as this may result in productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
d. 4.0 International Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License.
