2025/11/10 by Chu Xu, Ilse van Liempt, Ajay Bailey · 1 citation
Social Sciences · #China's Socioeconomic Reforms and Governance #Urban Planning and Governance #Cultural Industries and Urban Development
paper · doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2025.104465
• Conceptualises Positive Energy as an affective governance model in China. • Unpacks the production of atmospheres through affective-political conditioning. • Explores the infrastructuralisation of affect in space-making processes. • Examines how affective space fosters the internalisation of values and ideology. • Introduces creative and visual methods for studying affective infrastructures. This study examines affective urbanism at the intersection of urban heritage regeneration and socio-cultural governance in contemporary China. Urban governance in China increasingly seeks legitimacy through public participation in the developmental model of ‘People’s City’, wherein atmosphere has become a central means of governing and mobilising the public. Against this backdrop, we introduce a mode of affective urbanism centred on the accumulation of Positive Energy – a socio-cultural governance initiative in China that promotes happiness and hope, and ultimately aims to mobilise public engagement. Drawing on the heritage renewal of Wenshu Square in Chengdu, we analyse how positive energy affect is embedded through spatial design and branding events, transforming the space into a dynamic site of affective circulations where emotions, practices, cultures, identities, and economies interact and amplify one another. Beyond momentary joy, such affective space fosters a relational self that consolidates identification with developmental agendas, resulting in a ‘self-generating’ atmosphere that enhances the resilience of urban governance. Our findings reveal the infrastructuralisation of affect, which involves not only its distribution but also its generativity and circulation within affective economies, offering insights into the affective-political conditioning of public space. Furthermore, the risks and vulnerabilities embedded in this governance mode – such as responsibilising individuals and (de)politicising public participation – raise questions about the contested affective politics of space as shaped within a broader socio-political context.