Urban studies have been roiled by a lively debate over the roles of generalization and particularity in advancing theory about cities and urbanization. Also at stake are questions of epistemology, method, inclusion, representation, and power in knowledge production. Teo, Chung, and Wang have proposed a set of methodological propositions aimed at ‘building theory in and through urban China’ as a contribution to the larger ongoing discussion about urban theory and global urban studies. In this commentary, I present a critique of their methodological proposals by highlighting issues originating from within and outside the field of urban Chinese studies.
BrennerN (2009) What is critical urban theory?City13: 198–207.
2.
BrennerNSchmidC (2015b) Combat, Caricature and Critique in the Study of Planetary Urbanization. Cambridge, MA: Urban Theory Lab, Graduate School of Design, Harvard University.
3.
BrennerNSchmidC (2015a) Towards a new epistemology of the urban?City19(2–3): 151–182.
4.
ChenKH (2010) Asia as Method: Toward Deimperialization. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
5.
EdensorT and JayneM (2012) Urban Theory beyond the West: A World of Cities. London: Routledge.
6.
FranceschiniILoubereN (2022) Global China as Method. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
MizoguchiY (2016) China as method. Inter-Asia Cultural Studies17(4): 513–518.
11.
MyersG (2014) From expected to unexpected comparisons: Changing the flows of ideas about cities in a postcolonial urban world. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography35(1): 104–118.
12.
PeckJ (2017) Transatlantic city, part 1: Conjunctural urbanism. Urban Studies54(1): 4–30.
13.
RenJ (2021) Exceptionalism and theorizing spatial inequality: Segregation research on cities in China. Journal of Urban Affairs 45(7): 1225–1237.
14.
RobinsonJ (2016a) Comparative urbanism: New geographies and cultures of theorizing the urban. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research40(1): 187–199.
15.
RobinsonJ (2016b) Thinking cities through elsewhere: Comparative tactics for a more global urban studies. Progress in Human Geography40(1): 3–29.
16.
RobinsonJRoyA (2016) Debate on global urbanisms and the nature of urban theory. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research40(1): 181–186.
17.
RoyA (2011) Urbanisms, worlding practices and the theory of planning. Planning Theory10(1): 6–15.
18.
ScottAJStorperM (2015) The nature of cities: The scope and limits of urban theory. International Journal of Urban And Regional Research39(1): 1–15.
19.
StorperMScottAJ (2016) Current debates in urban theory: A critical assessment. Urban Studies 53(6), 1114–1136.
20.
TeoSChungCWangZ (2024) Theorising with urban China: Methodological and tactical experiments for a more global urban studies. Dialogues in Human Geography14(3): 419–438.
21.
WalkerR (2015) Building a better theory of the urban: A response to ‘Towards a new epistemology of the urban?’City19(2–3): 183–191.
22.
WuF (2016) Emerging Chinese cities: Implications for global urban studies. The Professional Geographer68(2): 338–348.
23.
WuFZhangFLiuY (2022) Beyond growth machine politics: Understanding state politics and national political mandates in China’s urban redevelopment. Antipode54(2): 608–628.
