“Comparative urbanism” refers to research that acknowledges the diversity of urban experiences, avoids assumptions of theoretical best fits prior to any investigation, and develops knowledge through close engagement with the diverse empirical reality. Comparative urbanism is a topic long in the making, but also rapidly emerging since the early 2000s. Led by urban studies journals such as Urban Geography and the International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, with multiple special issues on the theme, the line of research has aimed to expand the horizons of thinking on cities. Writing against a Euro-American mainstream that focuses on a limited number of major American or European cities for conceptualization and theory-making, through work by authors such as Jennifer Robinson, Ananya Roy, Colin McFarlane, and others, comparative urbanism proposes to take every city as potentially useful for theorization. Embarking from foundational works by scholars such as Charles Tilly, Janet Abu-Lughod, or Charles Pickvance, comparative urbanism tackles the existing perspectives and expands the urban theorization and empirical learning base beyond the Global North. Hence, many of the proponents of comparative urbanism have their roots in existing area studies. On the one hand, comparative urbanism is a caution for area-based studies to avoid being boxed into narrow scholarly niches. On the other hand, comparative urbanism has enabled a louder voice for area studies scholars, providing them with a more cutting-edge position in the field. Nevertheless, the target of comparative urbanism is not simply to put cities “off the map” on the map (and “back” on the map), but to revise the direction of theory-making and the conceptual development. Namely, instead of seeing theories emerging in abstract, the theorization always involves thinking from concrete cases. Mostly, however, those concrete examples at the center of such conceptual advances have been London, Chicago, or Los Angeles, instead of Johannesburg, Moscow, Mumbai, Tallinn, or Bafatá. Comparative urbanism, then, argues to switch the perspective, which does not simply expand the scope of empirical material, but also enlarges the set of questions to be asked, insights provided, and conceptualizations raised. Thus, a revised urban studies offered by comparative urbanism scholarship entails shifts in ways of doing research, and particularly the ways of comparative analysis. Instead of simply building from preexisting theory toward cases, more innovative methods of research should be envisioned. That includes unexpected comparisons of cases considered previously incommensurable or comparisons that invent new ways of narrating understandings of cities and urban processes. Such a challenge toward the taken-for-granted practices of research has not taken place uncontested, but has rather invited critiques from those defending existing conceptual frameworks, theory-making, and verification practices. Nevertheless, the proposal for comparative urbanism has found its place in urban studies and is increasingly receiving novel theory-inspired empirical insights and conceptual revisions.
Neither Here Nor There
