Exceptionalism and theorizing spatial inequality: Segregation research on cities in China

Abstract

The transformation of Chinese cities has engendered new forms of spatialized urban inequality. Research on these processes of segregation has captured the attention of urban researchers, generating a large and varied body of work. Yet its influence on urban theory remains constrained, reflecting the concern with the parochialism of urban theory. A review of segregation research on Chinese cities presents several intertwined findings: Chinese cities are framed in terms of their difference, mostly in contrast to Euro-American cities. This framing renders findings intelligible for an audience familiar with Chicago, but perhaps not Shenzhen. In translating the findings, the research often resorts to a methodological nationalism, which contextualizes Chinese cities in terms of their "Chinese-ness," a reductionist heuristic that elides the diversity of these cities and construes residential segregation as incommensurate with the experience of cities elsewhere. The effect of this is to limit the potential of this research to contribute to a "more global urban studies," by inscribing a kind of exceptionalism into Chinese cities.

Theorising with urban China: Methodological and tactical experiments for a more global urban studies

“…Most urban China researchers agree that inherited urban paradigms are inadequate for fully making sense of China's urbanism (see Zhou et al, 2019). One response has been to frame China as a unique variant of Northern urbanism (Ren, 2021;see Zhou et al, 2019). This can be conceived as a variation-finding approach to theorisation (Tilly, 1984), where the relationship of different cases to an overarching theoretical framework is used to provide more insight into the cases themselves, as well as into the possible hybridised and variegated nature of the framework itself (see also Robinson, 2011).…”

Refracting Eurocentrism, operationalizing complicity: The Swiss Sonderfall as a vantage point

“…The reception of “Other” geographies reflects Spivak’s critique of a “mute audience,” a vessel for learning for which the subaltern speaker is responsible (Spivak, 1999). This burdening shows how “translation work is laden with uneven relationships, often distributing the labor of understanding unevenly” (Ren, 2021: 6).…”

Dislocating Urban Theory: Learning with Food‐Vending Practices in Colombo and Delhi

“…The terms South and North are mobilised in the literature, both as geographical locations as well as political positions, although not always mutually exclusive. South as a location (at various scales) has been fruitful in countering metropolitan framings of the periphery and as urban exceptionalism (Parnell and Pieterse 2016; Ren 2021). Furthermore, South as a political position has been usefully mobilised to counter knowledge hegemonies across boundaries or within cities (Jazeel 2019; Palat Narayanan 2021).…”

“…The work on metropolitan hegemony of knowledge has also been under investigation in various domains for some time now and by many scholars who may not use the term Southern Theory. To glimpse the diversity of the Southern position, we should keep in mind that the themes outlined above have been under investigation in science and technology studies (Nanda 2015;Nandy 1988), philosophy (Alatas 2000;Mbembe 2021), literature (Ramanujan 1994), language (Babu 2017), food studies (Ray 2016), and disciplinary critiques (Scola et al 2020), to name a few. Therefore the term Southern Theory in general as well as in urban studies should be read in the context of its diverse origins, developments, and positions.…”