Sociology 180: CITIES OF THE GLOBAL SOUTH Professor Ryan Centner ryan.centner@tufts.edu 617.627.2629 Fall 2010 Tufts University meeting time & location: Tuesdays, 6:30pm‐9:00pm 97 Talbot Avenue, Conference Room office hours: Mondays, 4:30‐5:45pm Wednesdays, 10:45am‐12:00pm (or schedule an appointment) 112 Eaton Hall Seminar description As the world becomes majority urban for the first time, metropolises outside the wealthiest countries represent the future of social life. Yet urban sociology has traditionally shied away from these cities of the global South, focusing for over a century on icons of European and North American modernity, from Paris to Chicago to Los Angeles, instead. Now we must turn to new icons, of different modernities, if we hope to have a relevant urban sociology in the twentieth‐first century. In this reading‐intensive research seminar, we begin by reviewing some influential, but problematic, longstanding approaches to cities of the global South, as well as a few important recent critiques of those models. We then turn to an interdisciplinary set of readings about cities in Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, South Africa, Congo, Egypt, Turkey, India, Cambodia, Indonesia, China and elsewhere; their innovative and diverse research approaches are our basis for assembling a new brand of urban sociology. Our goal is to understand the varied nature of urbanization and urbanism in this array of sites, and the many issues mediating them (including politics, international finance, migration, gender, and the environment), to collectively craft novel sociological frameworks that can better address the global urban condition through attention specifically to those places left off the map of theory and research on cities. From the above description, clearly the class has a broad topical scope. The ultimate emphases will be borne out in our weekly meetings based on students’ interests, as is the case with the best research seminars. The role of the professor in these situations is to manage discussion and suggest further avenues for reading and research. Students, therefore, must rise to the occasion, playing a very active role in shaping this seminar and proactively crafting their research ideas with the help of the professor’s advising. 1 This course is ideal for students with an interest in cross‐cutting lessons about poor and middle‐income countries. It presumes some background in urban sociology and sociological theory, as well as development studies. However, the extremely committed novice is also welcome – space permitting. Seminar objectives 1) To gain a broad understanding of urban sociology (and related interdisciplinary work) in poorer and middle‐income countries of the world; especially, to understand how different issues and theories dominate in certain regions, and how these compare to the development of the subfield in wealthier societies. 2) To grasp relevant theoretical debates and developments in urban sociology, including how they pertain to each other, and how they relate to larger currents in social theory. 3) To understand critically how various social structures – including race, class, gender, and sexuality, among others – affect the prospects for people living in cities of the global South. It will also be important to comprehend how these vary across cultural and social contexts, taking on quite different valences in some sites. In some cases, we will not have sufficient information to gauge how all of these operate, but we will always be able to conjecture what would be an appropriate way to research these features in a hypothetical project. 4) To learn how to evaluate existing scholarship (either academic articles or books) in terms of the design and quality of its research, its argumentation, and its engagement with appropriate theoretical frameworks. 5) To be able to craft interesting and feasible sociological research questions, pertaining to cities of the global South (or elsewhere, but using insights from these places) that could lead to valuable new field knowledge. 6) To gain the skills to assemble a major research proposal, fitting for early graduate‐
level fieldwork and therefore suitable for applications to MA and PhD programs in sociology, urban studies, and related disciplines. Books to purchase Auyero, Javier and Débora Alejandra Swistun. 2009. Flammable: Environmental Suffering in an Argentine Shantytown. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Lida, David. 2009. First Stop in the New World: Mexico City, Capital of the 21st Century. New York, NY: Riverhead Books. Roy, Ananya. 2010. Poverty Capital: Microfinance and the Making of Development. New York, NY: Routledge. Simone, Abdoumaliq. 2010. City Life from Jakarta to Dakar: Movements at the Crossroads. New York, NY: Routledge. ***All other readings will be available digitally, either through the Tufts library network (see links after each article on this syllabus), or directly from the professor. 2 Course requirements A note on format: This seminar involves a high level of reading and discussion, but it also promises to be an engaging group endeavor. To keep up spirits and energy during our afternoon meeting time, we will share refreshments every week, adding to a collegial atmosphere that will nonetheless require significant reflection and attentiveness on your part. Critical and experimental yet grounded thinking are especially welcome in this environment. ***Please submit all work by email. Do not give me any paper unless it is absolutely necessary. 1) Regular attendance, including at least one meeting in office hours during Weeks 2‐
3 to discuss your overall research interests and possible final paper, as well as at least one more meeting during Weeks 5‐7 to receive feedback on your initial paper proposal. More than one absence for any reason will endanger your grade.  10% of total grade 2) Regular participation in seminar discussions. Your active engagement in every session is essential as this a seminar, not a lecture course. However, quality of engagement is also important. The best grades for participation will reflect student contributions that are both astute and thought‐provoking.  10% of total grade 3) Two quizzes on geography relevant to readings and course concepts.  10% of total grade (5% per quiz) 4) Critical reflection (500‐700 words) about one week’s readings (from Week 3 to Week 11). a. This must be circulated to all class participants (including the professor) by 2:00pm on the Sunday before class. b. The content of this should be akin to a professional academic book review, but instead, about a book section or a collection of articles. See the journal Contemporary Sociology if you are unsure of the format and pitch of a book review. Do not merely summarize the book. c. Also, it is important not to write an excursus just about the book/articles that you would have written. This is a fine place for airing a few of your thoughts on potential research projects of your own, however, they should be very related to the work at hand. Moreover, a major part of your critique should evaluate the work on its own terms. That is, did the author accomplish what she/he set out to do in his/her research? This requires that you understand the main claims of the book/articles, how the author is substantiating those, and whether he/she does so satisfactorily.  10% of total grade 5) Leading class discussion for the same week of readings as your critical reflection. This should not summarize the structure of the readings, but engage with them 3 6)
7)
8)
9)
inquisitively, in a way that will further discussion and debate among your peers in the seminar. It will be important that you are very familiar with every aspect of the readings, as well as how they relate to the major theories and frameworks mentioned in those readings.  10% of total grade Weekly reading responses (minimum 200 words) that dialogue with your peers’ critical reflections. a. Those reflections (see #4 above) will be posted for viewing by 2:00pm on Sunday; everyone else’s responses to those reflections are due to be circulated to other course participants by 8:00pm on Monday. Each student must then have read everyone’s contributions by our seminar meeting at 6:30pm on Tuesday. b. These responses should grapple with how the weekly critical reflections have evaluated the texts: Do you agree – why? What other assessments of the readings would you make? What other questions would you pose? What other angles of analysis, theoretical cultivation, or empirical investigation were opened up for you? These should convey curiosities, concerns, or uncertainties that arose for you while completing the reading. c. It is perfectly fine to disagree with your classmates, even vehemently, but this is not an opportunity to excoriate peers, or to dismiss anyone’s efforts. All contributions should be serious (although they can also be fun, as long as they are both), and all will be taken seriously.  10% of total grade Brief statement (½ page) of final paper topic or question, including both a site or sites, and specifications of empirical issues and theoretical tools.  5% of total grade (due October 21) Final presentation of 5‐10 minutes about your research topic. This will be your chance to showcase what you have learned, but also to receive feedback from your peers (i.e., other new experts on cities of the global South, relevant theoretical frameworks, and research approaches). You will be evaluated on how effectively you have stated your research problem and connected it to appropriate literature, conceptual debates, and empirical issues in the city or cities about which you have chosen to write.  10% of total grade Final paper of 12‐15 pages that exhibits both a mastery of the course material by using it in a detailed research proposal about another city or cities (maximum 3 cities). Be sure to specify hypotheses, methodology, and potential findings in this proposal. You must also collect initial qualitative or quantitative data to frame your proposal, giving us a sense that (1) there is an important issue at stake, and 4 (2) you have an idea about how to gain further knowledge about the topic if you had the time and the resources required.  25% of total grade Possible proposal configurations include (but are not limited to): a. Build from an idea in one of our readings to look at that issue in another city located in another region (which may be one covered in class, but need not be, as long as it is outside the wealthiest countries). For example, using the reading on economic change and workshops in India to frame an examination of expanding microentrepreneurial activity in Bolivia. This would be a case study that makes conceptual toolkits “travel” from one place to another. b. Obtain quantitative data for specific cities on a particular phenomenon or set of related issues, analyzing them in light of some of the concepts from the course. For example, comparing the size, growth, and focus of property development sectors across cities. This could span cities in wealthier and poorer countries. c. Use lessons from 1‐2 course books to conduct a detailed analysis of a similar issue in either Boston or your hometown. For example, compare modes of itinerant economic activity in Johannesburg and Dakar with the situation of and possibilities for Bostonians involved in informal work such as day laboring. This is a way of “asking Third World questions of the First World” (that is, if your hometown is in the “First World”). d. Write a theoretically focused paper that makes links across 3 different readings in class, leading to a new conceptual synthesis that could be used in further research and analysis. e. Use field data from a semester abroad or other structured time spent in a “city of the global South” to write something akin to a chapter of a thesis, using lessons from the course. ***In order for this course to count for credit in the Latin American Studies minor or major, students must focus on Latin American cases for all course requirements. Half of course materials are about Latin America; all course materials can be related to Latin America analytically. For considerations regarding meeting other specific requirements for majors, minors, etc., please speak with me about these directly very early in the semester. Course outline 1) September 7 – Mainstream sociological views on global cities & Third World cities • Sassen, Saskia. 2005. “The Global City: Introducing a Concept.” Brown Journal of World Affairs XI(2): 27‐43. 5 • Flanagan, William G. 2010. “Patterns and Consequences of Urbanization in Poor Countries,” in Urban Sociology: Images & Structure. Fifth edition. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Recommended • Abu‐Lughod, Janet and Richard Hay (eds.). 1977. Third World Urbanization. Chicago, IL: Keegan & Paul. • Kasarda, John and Edward Crenshaw. 1991. “Third World Urbanization: Dimensions, Theories, and Determinants.” Annual Review of Sociology 17: 467‐501. • Kasarda, John and Allan M. Parnell. 1993. “The Third World City: Development Policy and Issues,” in Third World Cities: Problems, Policies, and Prospects. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. • Sassen, Saskia. 2000. “New frontiers facing urban sociology at the Millennium.” British Journal of Sociology 51: 143‐159. • Castells, Manuel. 2002. “Urban Sociology in the Twenty‐first Century,” in The Castells Reader on Cities and Social Theory, edited by Ida Susser. Malden, MA: Blackwell. • Neuwirth, Robert. 2005. Shadow Cities: A Billion Squatters, A New Urban World. New York, NY: Routledge. • Davis, Mike. 2006. Planet of Slums. London: Verso. • Gottdiener, Mark and Ray Hutchison. 2006. “Globalization and Third World Urbanization,” in The New Urban Sociology. Third edition. Boulder, CO: Westview. • Davis, Mike and Daniel Monk, eds. 2007. Evil Paradises: Dreamworlds of Neo‐Liberalism. New York, NY: New Press. • Segbers, Klaus (ed.). 2007. The Making of Global City Regions: Johannesburg, Mumbai/Bombay, São Paulo, and Shanghai. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. • Palen, J. John. 2008. “Developing Countries,” in The Urban World. Eighth edition. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers. 2) September 14 – Critical approaches to comparative urban studies in the Global South • Robinson, Jennifer. 2002. “Global and World Cities: A View from off the Map.” International Journal of Urban & Regional Research 26: 531‐554. o http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1468‐2427.00397/abstract • Roy, Ananya. 2009. “The 21st‐Century Metropolis: New Geographies of Theory.” Regional Studies 43(6): 819‐830. o http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a792242
647 • Simone, Abdoumaliq. 2010. City Life from Jakarta to Dakar: Movements at the Crossroads. New York, NY: Routledge. o p. 1‐59 Recommended • Pile, Steven. 2006. “The Strange Case of Western Cities: Occult Globalisations and the Making of Urban Modernity.” Urban Studies 43(2): 305‐318. 6 • Shatkin, Gavin. 2007. “Global cities of the South: Emerging perspectives on growth and inequality.” Cities 24: 1‐15. • Huyssen, Andreas, ed. 2008. Other Cities, Other Worlds: Urban Imaginaries in a Globalizing Age. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. • McFarlane, Colin. 2008. “Urban Shadows: Materiality, the ‘Southern City’ and Urban Theory.” Geography Compass 2(2): 340‐358. 3) September 21 – Mexico City / Complexity & Methodologies • Lida, David. 2008. First Stop in the New World: Mexico City, Capital of the 21st Century. New York, NY: Riverhead Books. o p. 1‐61, 82‐106, 199‐228, 241‐275, 279‐321 ***First geography quiz Recommended • García Canclini, Néstor. 1995. “Mexico: Cultural Globalization in a Disintegrating City.” American Ethnologist 22(4): 743‐755. • Cross, John C. 1998. Informal Politics: Street Vendors and the State in Mexico City. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
• García Canclini, Néstor. 2000. “From National Capital to Global Capital: Urban Change in Mexico City.” Public Culture 12: 207‐213. • Gallo, Rubén (ed.). 2004. The Mexico City Reader. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. • Sá, Lúcia. 2007. Life in the Megalopolis: Mexico City and São Paulo. London: Routledge. 4) September 28 – Millennial Development / Geopolitical Context & Practice • Roy, Ananya. 2010. Poverty Capital: Microfinance and the Making of Development. New York, NY: Routledge. o p. Chapters 1‐3 ***In addition to our discussion of the first half of Roy’s recent book, we will have a 15‐minute introduction to relevant online resources as assembled in a web‐based guide, specific to our seminar, produced by Connie Reik (Reference Librarian for Social Sciences and Government Publications, at Tisch Library). Recommended • Black, Shameem. 2009. “Microloans and Micronarratives: Sentiment for a Small World.” Public Culture 21(2): 269‐292. • Sanyal, Paromita. 2009. “From Credit to Collective Action: The Role of Microfinance in Promoting Women’s Social Capital and Normative Influence.” American Sociological Review 74(4): 529‐550. 7 5) October 5 – Cutting‐Edge Development & Cities / Frameworks & Prospects • Roy, Ananya. 2010. Poverty Capital: Microfinance and the Making of Development. New York, NY: Routledge. o p. Chapters 4‐5 ***Second geography quiz ***As an extension of our discussion of the second half of Poverty Capital, we will emphasize the urban implications of these topics, and highlight how it connects with different theoretical frameworks that will be important throughout the semester. Some of this will already have been broached in earlier sessions, but mostly this will serve as an integrative preview of frameworks that will come up in the articles and books to come. Recommended • Maringanti, Anant. 2009. “Urban Pulse – Urbanizing Microfinance: Examples from India.” Urban Geography 30(7): 685‐693. 6) October 12 – Beijing, Harbin, Shanghai & Shenzhen / Revolutions & Dreams • Zhang, Li. 2002. “Spatiality and Urban Citizenship in Late Socialist China.” Public Culture 14(2): 311‐334. o http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/public_culture/v014/14.2zhang.html • Hanser, Amy. 2005. “The Gendered Rice Bowl: The Sexual Politics of Service Work in Urban China.” Gender & Society 9(15): 581‐600. o http://gas.sagepub.com/content/19/5/581.abstract • Chen, Xiangming and Tomas de Medici. 2011. “The ‘Instant City’ Coming of Age: China’s Shenzhen Special Economic Zone in Thirty Years.” Urban Geography (forthcoming; available from Professor Centner) Recommended • Olds, Kris. 2001. Globalization and Urban Change: Capital, Culture, and Pacific Rim Mega‐
Projects. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. • Zhang, Li. 2001. Strangers in the City: Reconfigurations of Space, Power, and Social Networks Within China’s Floating Population. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. • Gandelsonas, Mario (ed.). 2002. Shanghai Reflections: Architecture, Urbanism, and the Search for an Alternative Modernity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Architectural Press. • Logan, John (ed.). 2002. The New Chinese City: Globalization and Market Reform. Malden, MA: Blackwell. • Broudehoux, Anne‐Marie. 2004. The Making and Selling of Post‐Mao Beijing. New York, NY: Routledge. • Ma, Laurence, and Fulong Wu (eds.). 2005. Restructuring the Chinese City: Changing Society, Economy and Space. New York, NY: Routledge. • Wu, Fulong (ed.). 2006. Globalization and the Chinese City. London: Routledge. • Rofel, Lisa. 2007. Desiring China: Experiments in Neoliberalism, Sexuality, and Public Culture. 8 Durham, NC: Duke University Press. • Siu, Helen. F. 2007. “Grounding displacement: Uncivil urban spaces in postreform South China.” American Ethnologist 34(2): 329‐350. • Campanella, Thomas. 2008. The Concrete Dragon: China’s Urban Revolution and What It Means for the World. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Architectural Press. • Logan, John (ed.). 2008. Urban China in Transition. Malden, MA: Blackwell. • Ren, Xuefei. 2008. “Forward to the Past: Historical Preservation in Globalizing Shanghai.” City & Community 7: 23‐43. • Zhang, Li and Aihwa Ong (eds.). 2008. Privatizing China: Socialism from Afar. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. • Chen, Xiangming (ed.). 2009. Shanghai Rising: State Power and Local Transformations in a Global Megacity. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. • Weinstein, Liza and Xuefei Ren. 2009. “The Changing Right to the City: Urban Renewal and Housing Rights in Globalizing Shanghai and Mumbai.” City & Community 8(4): 407‐432. • Bach, Jonathan. 2010. “‘They Come in as Peasants and Leave Citizens’: Urban Villages and the Making of Shenzhen, China.” Cultural Anthropology 25(3): 421‐458. 7) October 19 – São Paulo & Rio de Janeiro / Space and Citizenship • Caldeira, Teresa P.R. 1996. “Fortified Enclaves: The New Urban Segregation.” Public Culture 8(2): 303‐328. o http://publicculture.dukejournals.org/cgi/reprint/8/2/303 • Perlman, Janice E. 2006. “The Metamorphosis of Marginality: Four Generations in the Favelas of Rio de Janeiro.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 606: 154‐177. o http://ann.sagepub.com/content/606/1/154.abstract • Holston, James. 2009. “Insurgent Citizenship in an Era of Global Urban Peripheries.” City & Society 21(2): 245‐267. o http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1548‐
744X.2009.01024.x/abstract Recommended • Telles, Edward. 1995. “Race, Class and Space in Brazilian Cities.” International Journal of Urban & Regional Research 19(3): 395‐406. • Telles, Edward. 1996. “Structural Sources of Socioeconomic Segregation in Brazilian Metropolitan Areas.” American Journal of Sociology 100(5): 1199‐1223. • Caldeira, Teresa. 2000. City of Walls: Crime, Segregation, and Citizenship in São Paulo. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. • O’Dougherty, Maureen. 2002. Consumption Intensified: The Politics of Middle‐Class Daily Life in Brazil. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. • Baiocchi, Gianpaolo. 2005. Militants and Citizens: The Politics of Participatory Democracy in Porto Alegre. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. • Caldeira, Teresa and James Holston. 2005. “State and Urban Space in Brazil: From Modernist Planning to Democratic Interventions,” in Global Assemblages: Technology, Politics, and Ethics as Anthropological Problems, edited by Aihwa Ong and Stephen Collier. Malden, MA: Blackwell. 9 • Jacobi, Pedro. 2006. “Public and Private Responses to Social Exclusion among Youth in São Paulo.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 606: 216‐230. • Sá, Lúcia. 2007. Life in the Megalopolis: Mexico City and São Paulo. London: Routledge. • Holston, James. 2008. Insurgent Citizenship: Disjunctions of Democracy and Modernity in Brazil. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. • Perlman, Janice E. 2010. Favela: Four Decades of Living on the Edge in Rio de Janeiro. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. October 21 – statements about final papers due by email 8) October 26 – Delhi, Kolkata & Mumbai / Precariousness & Unmapping • Roy, Ananya. 2009. “Why India Cannot Plan its Cities: Informality, Insurgence and the Idiom of Urbanization.” Planning Theory 8(1): 76‐87. o http://plt.sagepub.com/content/8/1/76.abstract • Weinstein, Liza and Xuefei Ren. 2009. “The Changing Right to the City: Urban Renewal and Housing Rights in Globalizing Shanghai and Mumbai.” City & Community 8(4): 407‐432. o http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1540‐
6040.2009.01300.x/abstract • Anjaria, Jonathan Shapiro. 2009. “Guardians of the Bourgeois City: Citizenship, Public Space, and Middle‐Class Activism in Mumbai.” City & Community 8(4): 391‐406. o http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1540‐
6040.2009.01299.x/abstract#en1 • Bhan, Gautam. 2009. “‘This is no longer the city I once knew’: Evictions, the urban poor and the right to the city in millennial Delhi.” Environment & Urbanization 21(1): 127‐142. o http://eau.sagepub.com/content/21/1/127.abstract Recommended • Roy, Ananya. 2003. City Requiem, Calcutta: Gender and the Politics of Poverty. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. • Fernandes, Leela. 2006. India’s New Middle Class: Democratic Politics in an Era of Economic Reform. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. • Weinstein, Liza. 2008. “Mumbai’s Development Mafias: Globalization, Organized Crime and Land Development.” International Journal of Urban & Regional Research 32(1): 22‐39. • Roy, Ananya. 2009. “Civic Governmentality: The Politics of Inclusion in Beirut and Mumbai.” Antipode 41(1): 159‐179. 10 9) November 2 – Buenos Aires / Environment and Perspective • Auyero, Javier and Débora Alejandra Swistun. 2009. Flammable: Environmental Suffering in an Argentine Shantytown. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Recommended • Auyero, Javier. 2000. Poor People’s Politics: Peronist Survival Networks and the Legacy of Evita. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. • Grimson, Alejandro and Gabriel Kessler. 2005. On Argentina and the Southern Cone: Neoliberalism and National Imaginaries. New York, NY: Routledge. • Centner, Ryan. 2008. “Boom, Bust, and Blur in Buenos Aires: Structurally Adjusted Urbanisms as a Way of Life.” PhD Thesis, Department of Sociology, University of California, Berkeley. • Centner, Ryan. 2009. “Conflictive sustainability landscapes: The neoliberal quagmire of urban environmental planning in Buenos Aires.” Local Environment 14(2): 173‐192. 10) November 9 – Abidjan, Jakarta, Johannesburg & Kinshasa / Intersections and Reclamations ***Please note: technically we do not have class this week because the Veterans Day holiday on Thursday leads to Tuesday becoming a “Tufts Thursday.” However, I am planning to hold class anyway, and instead will cancel class the week of Thanksgiving, yielding the same total number of meetings for the semester. • Simone, Abdoumaliq. 2010. City Life from Jakarta to Dakar: Movements at the Crossroads. New York, NY: Routledge. o p. 61‐262 Recommended • Shatkin, Gavin. 1998. “‘Fourth World’ Cities in the Global Economy: The Case of Phnom Penh, Cambodia.” International Journal of Urban & Regional Research 22(3): 378‐393. • Ong, Aihwa. 2000. “Graduated Sovereignty in South‐East Asia.” Theory, Culture & Society 17(4): 55‐75. • Enwezor, Okwui, Carlos Basualdo, Ute Meta Bauer, Susanne Ghez, Sarat Maharaj, Mark Nash, and Octavio Zaya (eds.). 2002. Under Siege: Four African Cities – Freetown, Johannesburg, Kinshasa, Lagos. Ostfildern‐Ruit, Germany: Hatje Cantz. • de Boeck, Filip. 2004. Kinshasa: Tales of the Invisible City. Ghent, Belgium: Ludion. • Gandy, Matthew. 2005. “Learning from Lagos.” New Left Review 33: 36‐52. • Shatkin, Gavin. 2004. “Planning to Forget: Informal Settlements as ‘Forgotten Places’ in Globalising Metro Manila.” Urban Studies 41(12): 2469‐2484. • Lyons, Michal and Simon Snoxell. 2005. “Creating Urban Social Capital: Some Evidence from Informal Traders in Nairobi.” Urban Studies 42(7): 1077‐1097. • Robinson, Jennifer. 2006. Ordinary Cities: Between Modernity and Development. London: Routledge. • Huchzermeyer, Marie. 2007. “Tenement City: The Emergence of Multi‐Storey Districts through Large‐Scale Private Landlordism in Nairobi.” International Journal of Urban & Regional Research 31(4): 714‐732. • Murray, Martin. 2008. Taming the Disorderly City: The Spatial Landscape of Johannesburg after Apartheid. Second edition. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. • Nuttall, Sarah and Achille Mbembe (eds.). 2008. Johannesburg: The Elusive Metropolis. Durham, NC: Duke University. • Tillim, Guy. 2008. Avenue Patrice Lumumba. Munich, Germany: Prestel. 11 • Bickford‐Smith, Vivian. 2009. “Creating a City of the Tourist Imagination: The Case of Cape Town, ‘The Fairest Cape of Them All’.” Urban Studies 46(9): 1763‐1785. • Harms, Erik. 2009. “Vietnam’s Civilizing Process and the Retreat from the Street: A Turtle’s Eye from Ho Chi Minh City.” City & Society 21(2): 182‐206. • Shatkin, Gavin. 2009. “The Geography of Insecurity: Spatial Change and the Flexibilization of Labor in Metro Manila.” Journal of Urban Affairs 31(4): 381‐408. • Glassman, Jim. 2010. “‘The Provinces Elect Governments, Bangkok Overthrows Them’: Urbanity, Class and Post‐Democracy in Thailand.” Urban Studies 47(6): 1301‐1323. 11) November 16 – Beirut, Cairo, Dubai & Istanbul / Ideologies and Possibilities • Elsheshtawy, Yasser. 2008. “Transitory Sites: Mapping Dubai’s ‘Forgotten’ Urban Spaces.” International Journal of Urban & Regional Research 32(4): 968‐988. o http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468‐
2427.2008.00819.x/abstract • de Koning, Anouk. 2008. “Gender, Public Space and Social Segregation in Cairo: Of Taxi Drivers, Prostitutes and Professional Women.” Antipode 41(3): 533‐
556. o http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467‐
8330.2009.00686.x/abstract • Roy, Ananya. 2009. “Civic Governmentality: The Politics of Inclusion in Beirut and Mumbai.” Antipode 41(1): 159‐179. o http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467‐
8330.2008.00660.x/abstract • Tuğal, Cihan. 2009. “The Urban Dynamism of Islamic Hegemony: Absorbing Squatter Creativity in Istanbul.” Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East 29(3): 423‐437. o http://cssaame.dukejournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/29/3/423 Recommended • Keyder, Çağlar (ed.). 1999. Istanbul: Between the Global and the Local. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. • Bayat, Asef. 2000. “From ‘Dangerous Classes’ to ‘Quiet Rebels’: Politics of the Urban Subaltern in the Global South.” International Sociology 15(3): 533‐557. • Bayat, Asef. 2000. “Who’s afraid of ashwaiyyat? Urban change and politics in Egypt.” Environment & Urbanization 12(2): 185‐199. • Ghannam, Farha. 2002. Remaking the Modern: Space, Relocation, and the Politics of Identity in a Global Cairo. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. • Elyachar, Julia. 2005. Markets of Dispossession: NGOs, Economic Development, and the State in Cairo. Durham, NC: Duke University. • Keyder, Çağlar. 2005. “Globalization and Social Exclusion in Istanbul.” International Journal of Urban & Regional Research 29(1): 124‐134. • Singerman, Diane and Paul Amar (eds.). 2006. Cairo Cosmopolitan: Politics, Culture, and Urban Space in the New Globalized Middle East. Cairo: American University of Cairo Press. 12 • Bayat, Asef. 2007. “Radical Religion and the Habitus of the Dispossessed: Does Islamic Militancy Have an Urban Ecology.” International Journal of Urban & Regional Research 31(3): 579‐590. • Basar, Shumon, Antonia Carver, and Markus Miessen (eds.). 2008. With/Without: Spatial Products, Practices, and Politics in the Middle East. New York, NY: Bidoun. • Singerman, Diane (ed.). 2009. Cairo Contested: Governance, Urban Space, and Global Modernity. Cairo: American University of Cairo Press. • Tuğal, Cihan. 2009. Passive Revolution: Absorbing the Islamic Challenge to Capitalism. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. • Göktürk, Deniz, Levent Soysal, and Ipek Türeli (eds.). 2010. Orienting Istanbul: Cultural Capital of Europe? London: Routledge. • Sawalha, Aseel. 2010. Reconstructing Beirut: Memory and Space in a Postwar Arab City. Austin: University of Texas Press. 12) November 23 – Thanksgiving week (NO CLASS) 13) November 30 – Reflecting on Urban Lessons from around the World • Simone, Abdoumaliq. 2010. City Life from Jakarta to Dakar: Movements at the Crossroads. New York, NY: Routledge. o p. 263‐333 14) December 7 – Final presentations December 15 – final papers due by email 13