바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

Space and Environment

ISSN : 1225-6706

Article Contents

Prev Next
e-Submission

Vol.30 No.2

Citation Share

Re-reading Smart City Discourses through the Lefebvrian Concept of ‘Urban Revolution’

Space and Environment / Space and Environment, (P)1225-6706; (E)2733-4295
2020, v.30 no.2, pp.141-171
https://doi.org/10.19097/kaser.2020.30.2.141

(2020). Re-reading Smart City Discourses through the Lefebvrian Concept of ‘Urban Revolution’. Space and Environment, 30(2), 141-171, https://doi.org/10.19097/kaser.2020.30.2.141

Abstract

This paper aims at providing a critical re-reading of smart city discourses on the basis of the Lefebvrian concepts of urban revolution and urban society. First, it criticizes the Korean smart city discourses for their state-centered developmentalism, industrialism, and techno-determinism. Second, it provides a critical analysis on the smart city phenomena on the basis of the Lefebvrian concepts of urban revolution and urban society. In particular, it criticizes the ‘methodological nationalism’ and ‘methodological cityism’ inherent in the Korean smart city discourses, and suggests to see the smart city pheonomena through the urban lens, not through the ‘city’ perspective. Also, it discusses the ways in which the urban processes of assembling and encountering can be positively and negatively associated with smart technologies. Finally, it emphasizes that the construction of emancipatory urban society requires radical politics of encounter that resists against all kinds of forces separating between people, things and spaces in urban society.

keywords
smart city, urban revolution, urban society, politics of encounter, 4th industrial revolutions, 스마트도시, 도시혁명, 도시사회, 마주침의 정치, 4차 산업혁명

Reference

1.

국토교통부. 2019. ≪제3차 스마트시티 종합계획, 2019-2023≫. 세종: 국토교통부.

2.

김선배. 2017. ≪4차 산업혁명과 스마트 지역혁신: 정책모형과 과제≫. 산업연구원 이슈페이퍼.

3.

김용창. 2017. ｢신자유주의 도시 인클로저와 실존의 위기: 거주자원의 공유화｣. 최병두 외 편. ≪희망의 도시≫. 한울, 176-215.

4.

김태경. 2019. ｢경기도형 스마트시티 조성 전략: 민관협력의 개방형 혁신 플랫폼｣. ≪이슈&진단≫, 354, 1-25.

5.

도승연. 2017. ｢푸코(Foucault)의 ‘문제화’ 방식으로 스마트시티를 사유하기｣, ≪공간과 사회≫27권 1호, 15-38.

6.

박준·유승호. 2017. ｢스마트시티의 함의에 대한 비판적 이해: 정보통신기술, 거버넌스, 지속가능성, 도시개발 측면을 중심으로｣. ≪공간과 사회≫, 27권 1호, 128-155.

7.

이광석. 2020. ｢커먼즈, 다른 삶의 직조를 위하여: ‘피지털’로부터 읽기｣. ≪문화과학≫ 101권, 50-78.

8.

이정훈·김태경·배영임. 2018. ｢4차산업혁명 혁신에 성공하려면: 한국형 도시 공유 플랫폼을구축해야｣. ≪이슈&진단≫, 326호, 1-25.

9.

임서환. 2017. ｢사회ㆍ정치적 과제로서의 스마트시티｣, ≪공간과 사회≫, 27권 1호, 5-14.

10.

조주현. 2018. ｢4차 산업혁명시대의 도시변화와 디지털트윈 기반 스마트도시계획모델｣. ≪도시정책연구≫, 9권 3호, 89-108.

11.

Amin, A., and N. Thrift. 1982. “Neo-Marshallian Nodes in Global Networks.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 16(4), pp.571-587.

12.

Angelo, H., and D. Wachsmuth. 2015. “Urbanizing Urban Political Ecology: A Critique of Methodological Cityism.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 39(1), pp.16-27.

13.

Brenner, N. 2019. New Urban Spaces: Urban Theory and the Scale Question. New York:Oxford University Press.

14.

Florida, R. 2002. The rise of the creative class: and how it’s transforming work, leisure, community and everyday life. New York: Basic Book.

15.

Fuchs, C. 2018. “Industry 4.0: The Digital German Ideology.”tripleC, 16(1), pp.280-289.

16.

Graham, S. 2002. “Bridging urban digital divides: urban polarisation and information and communication technologies(s).” Urban Studies, 39(1), pp.33-56.

17.

Harvey, D. 2003. The New Imperialism. Oxford University Press.

18.

Harvey, D. 2013. Rebel Cities: From the Right to the City and the Urban Revolution. Verso.

19.

Lefebvre, H. 2003. The Urban Revolution, trans. Bononno, R., Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

20.

Mora, L., R. Bolici and M. Deakin. 2017. “The First Two Decades of Smart-City Research:A Bibliometric Analysis.” Journal of Urban Technology, 24(1), pp.3-27,

21.

Markusen, A. 1996. “Sticky places in slippery spaces: a typology of industrial districts.”Economic Geography, 72, pp.293-313.

22.

Merrifield, A. 2013, “The urban question under planetary urbanization.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 37(3), pp.909-922.

23.

Hollands, R. G. 2008. “Will the real smart city please stand up?” City, 12(3), pp.303-320.

24.

Schmid, C. 2012, “Henri Lefebvre, the Right to the City, and the New Metropolitan Mainstream,”in Brenner, N., Marcuse, P., and Mayer, M. (eds.), Cities for People, Not for Profit: Critical Urban Theory and the Right to the City, Routledge, New York, pp.42-62.

25.

Schou, J., and M. Hielholt. 2019. “Digital state spaces: state rescaling and advanced digitalization.”Territory, Politics, Governance, 7(4), pp.438-454.

26.

Joss, S., F. Sengers, D. Schraven, F. Caprotti and Y. Dayot. 2019. “The Smart City as Global Discourse: Storylines and Critical Junctures across 27 Cities.” Journal of Urban Technology, 26(1), pp.3-34,

27.

Smith, N. 2003. “Forward.” In Lefebvre, H. trans. Bononno, R., The Urban Revolution, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

28.

Scott, A. J. 1988. Metropolis: from the division of labor to urban form. Berkeley: University of California Press.

29.

Storper, M. 1997. The regional world: territorial development in a global economy. New York: Guilford Press.

Space and Environment

e-Submission OA Policy