On the way to a more global urban study of China

As a collaborative outcome of three scholars working on urban China, Teo et al.'s (2024) articulates the ways theorizing with Chinese cities may merit global urban studies. It largely follows the call of both ‘thinking cities through elsewhere’ and ‘conjunctural analysis’, the methodologies proposed by contemporary critical urban scholars such as Jennifer Robinson, Jamie Peck, and others (Peck, 2017; Robinson, 2016). It suggests three tactics to achieve the aim of revising existing theoretical frameworks and/or creating new starting points for analysis and conceptualization between urban China and other contexts. That is, generating concepts through the comparisons between cases in urban China and elsewhere; conceptualizing from a single case by placing two theoretical frameworks into conversation; and launching mid-level concepts developed from inductive research in urban China to develop novel analytical frameworks.

These claims, therefore, articulate the significance of producing new narratives or imaginations to represent the urban world, to further deepen our understanding of both Chinese cities and those of other contexts. Moreover, the production of new narratives or imaginations is key for us to move beyond the biased imagination of Chinese cities within extant literature (Turner, 2004). These new narratives may bring about new changes or even revolutionary ones into existing urban theories, pushing forward the generation of new paradigms. The underlying logic is that the imagination or narrative of cities should be inclusive or even democratic. This is in the same vein as the call of ‘provincializing urbanism’ (Sheppard et al., 2013): on the one hand, we should develop a more inclusive approach that considers the diverse experiences of urbanization of different contexts; on the other hand, urbanization should be explored in relation to various social, political, and economic contexts. It articulates the importance of local knowledge and perspectives. In this way, we could identify and empower new loci of enunciation from which to speak back against, thereby contesting, mainstream global urbanism (Roy and Ong, 2011). This paves the way for us to examine cities through the lens of non-Western contexts and experiences.

Both ‘thinking cities through elsewhere’ and ‘conjunctural analysis’ provide space to achieve this aim. Nevertheless, these points may also be biased, as the authors may be circled by their own ‘information cocoons’ (Sunstein, 2008), where individuals limit their exposure to information that contradicts their existing beliefs and perspectives. It is important to actively seek out and consider different perspectives to avoid falling into such cocoons. It may involve intentionally exposing oneself to conflicting viewpoints, engaging in dialogues with those who hold different beliefs, and being open to changing perspectives based on new information. In this vein, I would like to put several points as complementary to the standpoints of the current writing. There are some major shortages in terms of the narratives of Chinese cities that have not been mentioned.

Three ‘information cocoons’ of urban China study

First, the paper has highlighted the issue of state territories as the problem of statism, particularly has been taken as a major shortage to overcome. However, there could also be a division of knowledge production as to those in China and outside China. The narratives produced in China, especially those by the state or the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), have often been ignored by scholars outside China. For instance, at the 20th National Congress of the CCP held in 2022, the so-called ‘Chinese-style modernization’ was proposed by CCP, which emphasized ‘building cities for people and by people’, ‘creating livable, resilient, and smart cities’. Such official claims fall into the issue of statism particularity, as criticized by this article. But it is also true that this indicates some specialties of China, such as its huge population, high-speed urban transformation, and people-centred concerns. In fact, the CCP is increasingly becoming a key player as to the making of cities in China, sometimes differing from the role of the state, yet which has been barely touched in the literature. Thus, there is a need to be more concerned with the CCP and its narratives of cities. Relatively, local scholars may be more concerned about these topics, yet overseas scholars may just ignore them. In fact, some narratives made by domestic scholars of China may also be ignored by overseas scholars. Domestic researchers may be more practice focused and involved in consultancy projects and know of the ‘reality’ and challenges involved in urban development than overseas scholars. Accordingly, a segregated landscape may appear in terms of the knowledge production of Chinese cities between those in China and outside China. The study of Chinese cities by domestic scholars may be more quantitative or descriptive, whilst short of theoretical summarization; in contrast, overseas studies are often more qualitative, yet short of the accessibility to more local information or details.

Second, the need to move beyond the lens of political economic analysis. Following the perspectives of Action Network Theory (ANT) (Latour, 1987), for urban studies, there is a need to move beyond political, economic, and social dimensions, to shed more lights on physical issues or matters. ANT emphasizes the importance of both human and non-human actors in shaping urban landscapes (Beauregard, 2012a, 2012b). In addition to studying the actions of the state, market, and society, we should also concern with the role of technologies, infrastructure, and other non-human entities in shaping cities, especially in the context of explosive technological progress – we should examine Chinese cities on more-than-human entities. The physical world matters to urban narratives in developing countries such as China. On the one hand, China faces an unprecedented scale of urban expansion and upgrading. On the other hand, new issues such as COVID-19 indicate that the physical world is decisive-at least sometimes-in shaping cities. The narratives of urban China should articulate its concomitant upgrading of landscape, infrastructure, information technologies, artificial intelligence, etc. In fact, ecology, energy, and the safety of food have often been claimed by the Chinese government as major concerns. For developing countries such as China, physical matters or resources are also key to understanding the state behaviours or policies, to disclose the underlying dynamics of urban changes. For instance, Xiong'an New District, a new city built recently to the south of Beijing, is a typical case, showing the efforts to seek new ways of urban development. It is marked by a series of urban experiments: green and smart infrastructure, mixed-use development, public transportation, pedestrian-friendly design, etc., to promote healthy lifestyles, reduce traffic congestion and improve the quality of life (Zou and Zhao, 2018). Such exploration is not just for China, it is also for the world.

Most urban studies or geographical research in China is about people and social justice, but the actual urban planning practice is about physical space. In this sense, the logic and benchmark for the success of Chinese urban planning practitioners and policy makers are different from that of Western scholars. Most Global North urban studies are focused on social justice-but this comes from a background of neoliberalism which has created injustice; but in China, the policy aim especially in smaller cities is modernization or poverty alleviation. Thus, there are different logics for urban narratives as to the Global North and China.

Third, there is a need to move beyond the boundaries of different disciplines to make new progress in producing narratives of urban China. Urban scholars need to integrate different subjects, such as urban planning, geography, politics, economies, and ecology, to create practical ways to (re)produce cities. Why there is a need to produce imagination or narrative for cities? The answer is to provide new possibilities or new ways to serve the needs of urban management, planning, and construction, especially in developing countries. That is, theory building should serve to solve real-life problems and bring about real-life improvements. The bigger question here is how theorizing from China can be useful in practice, which is also the aim of critical urban theories (Brenner, 2019). There are two ways to do this. First, there is a need for a more nuanced description of cities, as new space is opened by the emergence of big data, social surveys, and new technologies. Second, there is a need to produce a new utopia for cities, proposing new ways or possibilities for future cities. For theorists working on cities in developing countries such as China, the need for theories lies in their power to link with urban practices and their potential to achieve economic growth, prosperity, and wellbeing, directly or indirectly. In China, the market for the new narratives of cities is more pro-application, thus the demands on theorization are more practice oriented. Some new questions thus should be concerned. For instance, how can theories be practice oriented? What would theories need to focus on in this case? Is it about developing theories of ‘what works well’ rather than what does not work?

Conclusion

There are diverse possibilities for theorization beyond grand theory, which include critical theory, heuristic theory, and inter-textual theory (Beauregard, 2012a, 2012b). These possibilities have also been exemplified in this paper by the three cases. Heuristic theory often involves exploring ideas through experimentation, encouraging creative thinking about possible solutions to problems without being bounded by extant methods. This is in the same vein as the tactics proposed by Teo et al.'s (2024) paper, that is, placing two theoretical frameworks for a single case into the conversation to achieve further conceptualization. Inter-textuality looks at how texts interact with each other within an overall context, gaining insight into the meaning behind words, phrases, images etc., helping us better understand their implications in various contexts. This also fits well with the tactics of launching new concepts, especially mid-level ones, in urban China, comparing them to those of other countries, to develop novel understandings of cities in general.

I agree with Teo et al. (2024) that there is a high need for theorizing with urban China to conduct collaborative research across different borders, including domestic scholars such as urban planners, designers, and governance consultants who are deeply embedded in the field. However, more than that, there is a need to move beyond the extant boundaries within urban studies, not just those on urban China, but also urban studies in general, as exemplified by the three ‘information cocoons’: the relative ignorance of narratives produced within the state territory of China, the focus of political economic analysis, and the issue of disciplinary boundaries. Moreover, urban theorists working on developing contexts should be more pragmatic, serving the needs of economic growth, social sustainability, wellbeing. Otto von Bismarck once famously claimed that politics is ‘the art of the possible’. Urban China study should also be ‘the art of the possible’, finding ways to make new narratives that may serve the practical needs on the ground.