基于后人类思想的国际城市研究:理论溯源与概念辨析

GLOBAL URBAN STUDIES BASED ON POST-HUMANIST THOUGHTS:THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS AND RELEVANT CONCEPTS

进入二十一世纪以来,以赛博格城市、混合城市、城市政治生态学、集合城市主义为代表的后人类城市研究思想成为揭示当代城市中人类与非人类复杂交织关系的前沿性理论视角。本文在深入探讨上述概念的理论渊源、主要思想观点及其应用进展的基础上,指出后人类城市思想在我国城市研究中的可能方法论意义,即城市分析不能将人类与非人类绝对割裂地看待,而需要将城市中的主体或客体重新定义为人类与非人类的"混杂体",整合以往分散在自然、工程、社科与人文等不同领域中的观察与分析,拓展人们对城市过程的认知,开创更多的城市研究可能性。

Since the beginning of the 21st century,post-humanist conceptual frameworks such as cyborg urbanization,the hybrid city,urban political ecology,and assemblage urbanism have become key perspectives to reveal and theorize the complex intertwining of human and non-human actants and processes in contemporary cities.What are the philosophical foundations of these conceptual frameworks?How did they evolve over time and interact with each other?What are the established or emergent urban questions that they attempt to address?What are the empirical studies that employ these frameworks to examine urban questions in specific contexts?Based on an extensive review of international literature,this article aims to provide an overview of the four post-humanist frameworks.Specifically,the article traces their theoretical origins to three main post-humanist theories-Haraway’s cyborg theory,Deleuze and Guattari’s rhizome theory,and actor-network theory-and a relational view of geography and space.Then,the article illustrates the main theoretical claims and epistemological principles of the four conceptual frameworks and reviews how they were applied in empirical studies:Firmly grounded on an ontology characterized by relationality and hybridity,these urban theories refuse to view the human and non-human separately;Rather,they claim that urban subjects and objects are hybrids of both human and hon-human actors or processes.This article also highlights the differences between the four frameworks.At last,the article explores how such post-humanist perspectives may generate new insights in the study of Chinese cities.Recognizing the latent dangers of flat ontology and anarchistic epistemology of the four frameworks,the article suggests that they however may help us better understand China’s urban questions,especially in a context of widespread and profound technological development and socio-natural transformation.