Abstract
It may be difficult, even disrespectful, to try to respond to two such dense and informed contributions as those of Saskia Sassen and Sharon Zukin in the brief space given to me;1 especially since I am not on a turf I know, coming from a different theoretical neighbourhood, where this built-up landscape is lived very differently. We have had so many questions put before us, questions thick with local implications, but also very large questions: In what sense does the New York City that has been constructed for us constitute a new formation and a paradigm for the rest of the urbanized world? Why can’t we say that we are pressed to engage the same processes, conflicts and contradictions in analyzing the nineteenth-century metropolis? By what measure are ‘global cities’ defined and by what measure would we be disallowed from saying that, for example, Rome, or Mecca or Soweto could be ‘global cities’? Are they not sites of a global stake, where the globe itself is staked?
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
