A note on provincialising the academy
September 2, 2016 § Leave a comment
Several years ago I wrote a blogpost that briefly discussed ‘Asia as Method’; today I read something that reminded me of this but put it in slightly different terms:
research on mobilities beyond the Global North is for the most part conducted by scholars born in or at least trained in the center—academic institutions in the Western world or heavily influenced by Western thought. Conversations on the geographies of mobility would be greatly enriched if they became more ” worlded ” in the way urban theory is now starting to be (McCann, Roy, and Ward 2013; Sheppard, Leitner, and Maringanti 2013; Sheppard et al. 2015). The result will be the coming into being of geographies of mobility that durably reconfigure familiar distributions of core and periphery, theory and empirics.
I read this on this webpage – where it was quoted more-or-less exactly as I have rendered it here – but in fact it comes from the following article:
On the webpage where I initially read this quote, there were links to other articles referring to the idea of provincialising particular fields of study. This seemed like a good alternative way of summarising the idea of Asia as Method.