Advertisement

Conclusion: Enabling Alternative Urban Futures

  • Jens Kaae Fisker
  • Letizia Chiappini
Chapter

Abstract

In order to draw conclusions emerging from the book as a whole, this chapter draws on findings from each of the preceding chapters to conduct a synthesising discussion. Organised around the same themes that comprise each part of the book, this discussion proceeds loosely according to the principles of relational comparison. It demonstrates the intricate ways in which thinking, governing, and performing the urban differently are mutually entwined in the differential production of urban space. It also shows how the different theoretical perspectives employed in the book can be made to complement each other in constructive ways that further better understandings of the ways in which alternative urban futures can be enabled.

Keywords

Enabling Thinking Governing Performing Producing Alternative urbanism 

References

  1. Amin, A., & Thrift, N. (2002). Cities: Reimagining the Urban. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  2. Borden, I. (2004). A Performative Critique of the City: The Urban Practice of Skateboarding, 1957–98. In M. Miles, T. Hall, & I. Borden (Eds.), The City Cultures Reader (2nd ed., pp. 291–298). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Colomb, C. (2012). Pushing the Urban Frontier: Temporary Uses of Space, City Marketing, and the Creative City Discourse in 2000s Berlin. Journal of Urban Affairs, 34(2), 131–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Daskalaki, M., & Mould, O. (2013). Beyond Urban Subcultures: Urban Subversions as Rhizomatic Social Formations. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 37(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dean, M. (2010). Governmentality: Power and Rule in Modern Society (2nd ed.). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  6. Ferguson, J. (2010). The Uses of Neoliberalism. Antipode, 41(S1), 166–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Foucault, M. (2002). The Archaeology of Knowledge (A. M. Sheridan Smith, Trans.). Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Fung, A. (2004). Empowered Participation: Reinventing Urban Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Fung, A. (2012). Continuous Institutional Innovation and the Pragmatic Conception of Democracy. Polity, 44(4), 609–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gilbert, J. (2013) What Kind of Thing is ‘Neoliberalism’? New Formations 80/81. 7–22.Google Scholar
  11. Gregson, N., & Rose, G. (2000). Taking Butler Elsewhere: Performativities, Spatialities and Subjectivities. Environment & Planning D, 18, 433–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Grosz, E. (2001). Architecture from the Outside. Essays on Virtual and Real Space. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  13. Guthman, J. (2009). Teaching the Politics of Obesity: Insights into Neoliberal Embodiment and Contemporary Biopolitics. Antipode, 41(5), 1110–1133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hart, G. (2016). Relational Comparison Revisited: Marxist Postcolonial Geographies in Practice. Progress in Human Geography. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132516681388
  15. Harvey, D. (2006). The Limits to Capital (3rd ed.). London: Verso.Google Scholar
  16. Harvie, J. (2009). Theatre and the City. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Laclau, E., & Mouffe, C. (2001). Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics (2nd ed.). London: Verso.Google Scholar
  18. Lefebvre, H. (1991). The Production of Space (D. Nicholson-Smith, Trans.). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  19. Lefebvre, H. (2004). Rhythmanalysis. Space, Time and Everyday Life. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  20. Lemke, T. (2012). Foucault, Governmentality, and Critique. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Mouffe, C. (2005). On the Political. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Mouffe, C. (2013). Agonistics. Thinking the World Politically. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  23. Mould, O. (2015). Urban Subversion and the Creative City. Abingdon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Peck, J. (2005). Struggling with the Creative Class. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 29(4), 740–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Purcell, M. (2014). Rancière and Revolution. Space and Polity, 18(2), 168–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rancière, J. (2010). Dissensus. On Politics and Aesthetics (S. Corcoran, Ed. and Trans.). London: Continuum.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Danish Centre for Rural Research, University of Southern DenmarkEsbjergDenmark
  2. 2.Urban Studies URBEURUniversity of Milano BicoccaMilanItaly
  3. 3.Geography, Planning and International DevelopmentUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamNetherlands

Personalised recommendations