首页> 外文期刊>Urban Studies >Whose city? What politics? Contentious and non-contentious spaces on Colorado's Front Range
【24h】

Whose city? What politics? Contentious and non-contentious spaces on Colorado's Front Range

机译:谁的城市?什么政治?科罗拉多州前沿山脉上有争议和无争议的空间

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Drawing on research from Colorado's Front Range (the Denver/Boulder metropolitan area), this paper examines the validity of the post-political' hypothesis for explaining contentiousness and non-contentiousness in urban space. Examining major urban redevelopment efforts in Denver and a controversy over homeless people sleeping in public space in Boulder, we suggest that the literature on post-politics too narrowly circumscribes the realm of political action and in so doing loses analytical force and risks misunderstanding the nature of political engagement in the city. By contrast, a less circumscribed, more supple definition of politics allows for a better understanding of how the question of Whose City?'- who the city is for - is always up for grabs. The appearance of post-political consensus, when it occurs, is itself a political achievement, the making of a hegemony, not an explanation.
机译:本文基于科罗拉多州前沿地区(丹佛/博尔德大都会地区)的研究,检验了后政治假说对解释城市空间中的有争议性和无争议性的有效性。考察丹佛市的主要城市重建工作以及博尔德市有关睡在公共场所的无家可归者的争论,我们建议,关于后政治的文献过于狭义地限制了政治行动的领域,这样做会失去分析力,并有可能误解政治活动的本质。在这座城市的政治参与。相比之下,对政治的较少限制,更柔和的定义可以使人们更好地理解谁是谁的城市?后政治共识的出现本身就是一种政治成就,是霸权的形成,而不是解释。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号