Comp. by: LElumalai Stage : Revises1 ChapterID: 9781405132879_4_U Date:31/3/09
Time:21:34:51 Filepath://ppdys1108/BlackwellCup/00_Blackwell/00_3B2/Gregory-
9781405132879/appln/3B2/revises/9781405132879_4_U.3d
communitiesin natural settings and squatter
settlements (seesquatting).
A second notion of urbanization iseconomic.
Friedmann makes reference here to ‘economic
activities that we normally associate with
cities’ (2002, p. 4). While this traditionally
would exclude ‘rural’ activities such as
agriculture, forestry, fishing or mining,
Friedmann reminds us that many of these
activities are directly related to urban forms
of capitalization and organization. This obser-
vation is shared by Lefebvre, who notes: ‘The
urban fabricgrows, extends its borders, cor-
rodes the residue of agrarian life. This expres-
sion, ‘‘urban fabric,’’ does not narrowly define
the built world of cities but all manifestations
of the dominance of the city over the country.
In this sense, a vacation home, a highway, a
supermarket in the countryside are all part of
the urban fabric’ (Lefebvre, 2003, pp. 3–4).
Economic urbanization leads tendentially to
the disappearance of ‘residual’ rural activities
and ultimately to ‘the erasure of the traditional
category of rural’ (Friedmann, 2002, p. 4: cf.
rural geography).
The third meaning of urbanization issocio-
culturaland ‘refers to participation in urban
ways of life’. This implies the embrace by
populations ofurbanismas a way of life.
While it is possible to identify certain develop-
ments, such as literacy, universally with socio-
cultural urbanization, Friedmann cautions
against equatingcivilizationwith urbaniza-
tion in the tradition of thechicago school
(see also Robinson, 2004). Friedmann is also
quick to point out that ‘sociocultural urban-
ization is a dimension that, like the economic,
is no longer exclusively associated with the
cityas a built environment’ (p. 5). While
cybercafe ́s clearly are nodes in virtual deterri-
torializednetworks, erstwhile urban practices
such as certain modes of communication are
now found in the most remote parts of the
world.
Friedmann employs the term ‘the skein of
the urban’ to describe ‘a new globaltopog-
raphyof the urban, which ‘steadily advances
across the surface of the earth’. Its ‘vertical
dimensions are layered [such that] demo-
graphic, economic, and sociocultural urbani-
zations do not necessarily coincide in space’
(2002, p. 6). The nineteenth- and twentieth-
century narrative of urbanization asmodern-
izationhas been called into question since the
1980s, whenglobal cityresearchers detected
new societal cleavages even in Western cities
such as Los Angeles and New York City. Mike
Davis’ influential textCity of quartz(1990)presented a dystopian view of the globalizing
Pacific Rim boomtown Los Angeles. In the
globalsouth, urbanization now commonly
comes with underdevelopment. The emer-
gence of huge agglomerations – for instance,
in some African contexts – has led to two
counterposed narratives of urbanization: ‘The
first is an eschatological evocation of urban
apocalypse:poverty, violence, disease, polit-
ical corruption, uncontrollable growth and
manic religiosity ... In this nightmare vision,
the city is on the brink of a cataclysm brought
about by civil strife andinfrastructuralcol-
lapse’ (Gandy, 2005, p. 38). A second view is
more upbeat and focuses ‘on the novelties of
the city’s morphology. .. as the precursor to a
new kind of urbanism, hitherto ignored within
the teleological discourses of Western modern-
ity; one which may be perfectly adapted to
the challenges of the twenty-first century’
(ibid., p. 39).
Considerable controversy has now ensued
as to the way in which urbanization has to be
understood in a global context. Some have
visualized global urbanization processes in
terms of new hierarchies and networks,
detected as a new class ofglobal citiesor
world cities. Others have resisted this narra-
tive as Western and potentially imperialist, and
have suggested models of global urbanization
less tied into notions of supremacy of certain
urban centres (Marcuse and van Kempen,
2000). Differences between urbanization in
the global North and the global South seem
to be getting more pronounced, with rates of
urbanizationhigherinafrica,asiaandlatin
americathanineuropeand North America.
And even inside largerregionsand among
urban areas that appear similar on the surface,
differentiation occurs. Terry McGee, for
example, who has identified several distinct-
ivelyAsianfeatures of urbanization – domin-
ance of the population giants; immense urban
increments; the prominence of megacities;
and uneven globalization – has also pointed
to an internal ‘two-tier structure of Asian
urbanization’. Using Seoul, Korea and Dhaka,
Bangladesh, as examples, he presents ‘two
extremes’ of challenges of current urbaniza-
tion in Asia: one economically successful,
and the other not (McGee, 2001). Similarly
different models of urbanization can be iden-
tified comparing seemingly similar types of
cities on differentcontinentsin the South.
Drawing on her research on African cities,
Jennifer Robinson (2006) argues against
‘propagating certain limited views of cities
and thereby undermining the potential toGregory / The Dictionary of Human Geography 9781405132879_4_U Final Proof page 793 31.3.2009 9:34pmURBANIZATION