Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T14:26:25.790Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assembling the multitude: questions about agency in the urban environment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2016

DOROTHEE BRANTZ
DOROTHEE BRANTZ*
Affiliation:
Centre for Metropolitan Studies, Technical University Berlin, Germany
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In recent years, urban history has witnessed an expansion of actors. Historians have substantially and continuously extended their perspectives when it comes to examining the forces that drive urban developments. This expansion to an ever-broader range of human and increasingly also non-human actors (e.g. animals, technological systems and resources such as water) has opened up many new venues for investigations. It has also raised new questions about the role of cities in the history of social change. One of the most provocative ideas involves the claim that cities themselves should be considered agents and proprietors of change. Such notions of urban agency are premised on the assumption that, on the whole, cities are more than the sum of their parts. In this context, urbanization is not just viewed as the outcome of other determining societal forces, most notably capitalism. Instead, cities themselves are understood as determining entities and powerful enablers or preventers of material transformations. The investigative potential of such a perspective is tremendous, but the possible pitfalls should also not be underestimated. Exploring the explanatory prospects of urban agency requires, first of all, a critical engagement with both of the terms ‘agency’ and ‘the urban’. In my brief contribution to this roundtable, I would like to offer two points to the discussion: the first centres on the relationship between agency and intentionality/responsibilities, which is ultimately a political concern; the second aims to differentiate between the city as an entity and the urban as a process. Such a distinction, in turn, poses conceptual as well as methodological questions regarding the efficacy of agency as an urban concept.

Type
Special Section on urban agency
Information
Urban History , Volume 44 , Issue 1 , February 2017 , pp. 130 - 136
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 On the question of animal agency, see the special issue of Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy, 52 (2009); Hediger, R. and McFarland, S. (eds.), Animals and Agency: An Interdisciplinary Exploration (Amsterdam, 2009)Google Scholar; and Laue, A. and Wirth, S. (eds.), Das Handeln der Tiere: Tierliche Agency im Fokus der Human-Animal-Studies (Bielefeld, 2015)Google Scholar.

2 Sewell, W. H., ‘A theory of structure: duality, agency, and transformation’, in Logics of History (Chicago, 2005), 143 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Adams, E.P., The Criminal Prosecution and Capital Punishment of Animals (New York, 1906)Google Scholar.

4 Marcuse, P., ‘Depoliticizing urban discourse: how “we” write’, Cities, 44 (2014), 152–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 Lefebvre, H., The Urban Revolution (Minneapolis, 2003; orig. publ. 1970)Google Scholar.

6 Harvey, D., ‘Cities or urbanization’, City: Analysis of Urban Trends, Culture, Theory, Policy, Action, 1 (1996), 38–61 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 Brantz, D., Disko, S. and Wagner-Kyora, G. (eds.), Thick Space: Approaches to Metropolitanism (Bielefeld, 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 For two very different approaches on this perspective, see Frisby, D., Cityscapes of Modernity: Critical Explorations (New York, 2001)Google Scholar; and Matejovski, D. (ed.), Metropolen: Laboratorien der Moderne (Frankfurt, 2000)Google Scholar.

9 Cronon, W., Nature's Metropolis: Chicago and the Great West (New York, 1991)Google Scholar; Driver, F. and Gilbert, D., Imperial Cities: Landscape, Display and Identity (Manchester, 2003)Google Scholar; Schneer, J., London 1900: The Imperial Metropolis (New Haven, 1999)Google Scholar.

10 Ferrão, P. and Fernández, J., Sustainable Urban Metabolism (Cambridge, MA, 2013)Google Scholar.

11 Swyngedouw, E., ‘Metabolic urbanization: the making of cyborg cities’, in Heynen, N., Kaika, M. and Swyngedouw, E. (eds.), In the Nature of Cities: Urban Political Ecology and the Politics of Urban Metabolism (London, 2006)Google Scholar.

12 Ibid ., 22.

13 See, for example, Castonguay, S. and Evenden, M. (eds.), Urban Waters: Rivers, Cities and the Production of Space in Europe and North America (Pittsburgh, 2012)Google Scholar; Gandy, M., The Fabric of Space: Water, Modernity, and the Urban Imagination (Cambridge, MA, 2014)Google Scholar; Kaika, M., City of Flows: Modernity, Nature and the City (London, 2004)Google Scholar.

14 Farías, I. and Bender, T. (eds.), Urban Assemblages: How Actor-Network Theory Changes Urban Studies (London, 2010), 15 Google Scholar.

15 Latour, B., Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory (New York, 2007)Google Scholar.

16 Brenner, N., Marcuse, P. and Meyer, M. (eds.), Cities for People Not for Profit: Critical Urban Theory and the Right to the City (New York, 2012)Google Scholar; and Mitchell, D., The Right to the City: Social Justice and the Fight for Public Space (New York, 2003)Google Scholar.