Comment: Is There Such a Thing as Montréalology?

Abstract

The purpose of this comment is to explore further some of the questions raised in the contributions to this
thematic section, particularly questions that relate to the
specificity of Montréal as an object of study, and to iden
tify areas of agreement and dissension between these
contributions. The comment unfolds in three phases. It
first explores possible meanings of Montréalology, that
is, knowledge on Montréal: (1) the different approaches
taken by studies focusing on Montréal (Montréalology
as the investigation of the different aspects of Montréal
as an urban, social, economic, political phenomenon);
(2) the specificity of Montréal relative to other metropol
itan regions— the group of reference will be its Canadian
and U.S. counterparts (Montréal as a unique metropolitan
region); (3) Montréal as the prototype of an existing or
emerging category of cities (Montréal as an ideal type).
The comment then considers the perspectives advanced
by the different contributions in light of what they say
about the present state of Montréalology. Following the
lead of these contributions, the comment concentrates on
the interface between globalization trends and the speci
ficity of Montréal among its North American peers. It
concludes that far from obliterating the particularities of
Montréal, globalization is, rather, engaged in a dialect
ical relationship with these characteristics resulting in
a Montréal-specific manifestation of global trends. The
outcome is a new form of distinctiveness singularizing
Montréal among North American metropolises.