ABSTRACT
Theorization that generalizes and explains widely across empirical differences is both possible and useful; even when developed from place, theory can be unlocated. Moves to develop a revitalized comparative urbanism offer a productive lens through which to examine ideas about future modes of urban studies. Urban scholars are thus actively seeking to more rigorously understand what it might mean to, for example, generalize without universalizing, develop “mid-level” theory, or study multiplicities across differing scales. Scholars articulating this position simultaneously seek to displace the universal/exception dichotomy that has plagued urban studies while clearly arguing that theories developed in places have relevance elsewhere. The southern urban critique is necessary because southern cities are understudied, and northern theory needs to be provincialized.
