Abstract
In African Cities, Myers’ general methodology is to engage in comparative urban studies by comparing African cities with one another (p. 7), instead of comparing them to Western cities. This provides an alternative vision of African cities which, on the one hand, differ from one another and, on the other hand, have a common thread concerning their patterns, processes, forms and functions (pp. 7–8). The idea is therefore, first, to eliminate (theoretical) prejudice of considering Western cities as the standard by which any other city in the world has to live up to – focusing instead on what takes place in several African cities (chapters 1–4) – so that, second, though aware of their differences, a common thread emerges, unveiling an ‘African way’ of experiencing space (and consequently of constructing urbanity; chapters 5 and 6). This means that a ‘theory on African studies’ will/should emerge from what is directly observed which subsequently would eliminate the gap between theory (what people desire a city should be) and practice (what is perceived), because what one sees already incorporates what one desires, somehow, because in order to sustain (daily) life, people adapt. And in the ways people choose to adapt, we become aware of what they desire.
In order to eliminate the prejudice, Myers takes as his main inspiration Soja’s trilogy Postmetropolis (2000). In it, the city of Los Angeles is chosen as an empirical referent through which the concept of ‘city’ is reviewed according to Henri Lefebvre’s (The Production of Space, 1974) three simultaneous dimensions of the spatiality of human life: perceived, conceived and lived (p. 25), concluding on the decisive role of philosophy, urban studies, film and computer games to promote the restructuring of the urban imaginary (to this, French philosopher Michel Foucault’s concept of heterotopia – spaces of otherness, which are neither here nor there, that are simultaneously physical and mental – much contributes). In Myers’s book (a self-confessed experiment (p. 195) he chooses as its empirical referent the African city of Lusaka (Zambia’s capital). Lusaka is Myers’ postmetropolis.
Urban studies, particularly those concerning non-Western cities, do lack in-the-field engagement; therefore, the first four chapters are highly relevant. These have as underlying concepts: postmetropolis, postcolonial cities, (i)n(f)ormal cities, and good governance (urban services and justice). In chapter 5 the author engages in a methodological turn stating that he will approach the work of acclaimed Somali novelist Nuruddin Farah (born 1945), and other African artists’ work (chapter 6), in order to unveil common narratives of the African continent. Those can be a valuable resource to build a concept of what an ‘African’ way to perceive, conceive and experience lived space is. This approach is unusual but I do not criticize it negatively in itself. Still, I have doubts as to whether it helps the author attain his main goal: to facilitate the intersection of theory and practice (p. 15) and to stimulate political practice (p. 17). The author finds it strange that political science seldom engages in African urban studies (p. 198). In my view, it is not strange at all. When it comes to urban-planning, there is no lack of well-intended, thoroughly researched, scientifically credible solutions. There is a lack of informed and well-advised politicians, political will, engaged citizens and organizations that can bridge academia and political institutions in order to promote and facilitate policy-making. Money, particularly in the African continent, does not always solve problems, but creates them instead.
Going back, why is his omission of Deleuze not comprehensible? First, the author uses two Deleuzian concepts (‘deterritorialization’ [p. 145] and ‘rhizomatic’ [p. 190]); second, Foucault and Deleuze shared philosophical and political views; third, and most importantly, while it is academically appealing to engage in a Deleuzian methodological framework, which stands for a quasi-anarchical organizational system (based on the belief that every system does not succumb to chaos and has a self-organizing mode, given the chance for it to emerge), due to its strong anti-institutional character, it is contra-sensical to use it as main reference if Myers’ goal is to motivate a stronger engagement of political science in urban studies as well as incentivizing policy-making. Select an anti-institution philosopher to promote better actions from political institutions?
Apart from Myers’ contrasensical background methodological strategy, which ultimately fails the author’s own main goal, from an academic urban geography standpoint the book is a winner. But it does not stand up to its own standard (to overcome the gap between theory and practice), not proving itself as a resource on how to be consequent in its affirmations, policy-wise.