6. Comparing at What Scale? The Challenge for Comparative Urbanism in Central Asia

Can research on cities in a specific region contribute to comparative urban literature? This chapter focuses on the intersections between comparative urbanism and the academic investigation of Central Asian cities. I argue that the inherited structures of scholarly activities and a lack of financing have created an epistemological predicament within the region; as a result, Central Asian cities have been addressed, if at all, primarily by scholars based in the West. Their limited and isolated findings have not yet found their way into a larger debate on comparative urbanism. This article is, therefore, an attempt to reflect on the ‘state of art’ when it comes to Central Asian urbanism. In the past 20 years, comparative work in urban studies has produced interesting and valuable insights into the potential synergies between postcolonial, political–economic and cultural/post-structural analyses. Comparative urbanism, while emphasising the multiple trajectories out of which different cities are forged, prompts us to look beyond enduring bounded entities and outdated epistemologies by focusing on different cities. Jennifer Robinson, for example lists ‘post-socialist cities’ among ‘divisive categories’ and suggests that we ‘move beyond’ such categories and the hierarchies which they imply. These inspiring thoughts, however, clash with the conventions of the publishing industry and the priorities of academic existence. In scholarly literature and in teaching, various geographical boundaries persist, leading to the ‘lumping’ of cities into regions. The challenge remains for comparative work in urban studies to become more grounded in the disarray of geographic scales and historical periods. Accordingly, from a Central Asian perspective, this chapter explores the potential for a regionally oriented analysis to offer new insights into the methodology and conceptualisation of comparison.