Speaker
Description
Although scientific and technological innovation has been playing a crucial role in the evolution of urban planning as a professional practice and academic discipline, an overall critical assessment of the domination of technoscientific-centrism in the field of planning theories seems missing. Whilst the literature acknowledges that both scientific inquiry and technological innovation are crucially entangled with urbanization (Palmini, Cugurullo, 2023) – and have been so for centuries –, less attention has been paid to the correlation amongst technology (here understood as the force driving mankind interpretation of reality: Severino, 2021), scientific specialization (Pitari, 2019), and the consolidation of urban planning as a technical domain.
The hypothesis underlaying this study is that the mere disciplinary, 'academic' culture of planning is per se not sufficient in unpacking the ontological and epistemological implications underpinning technoscientific-centrism. To engage in such an enquiry, then, an incursion into the language of myth is much more promising in that it broadens the understanding of technology’s domination. In particular, the myth of Prometheus (Chiodo, 2020) provides a lens to reframe planning’s history as the attempt to pursue a true ‘science of prediction’ that, via specific techniques of computation, strives to establish control over future spatial arrangements of a given territory (Friedmann, 1987). Accordingly, the Promethean notion of urban planning draws upon Euclidian geometry (Davoudi, 2012) to foster a peculiar conception of space that ensures a virtual omniscience and, as the myth of Prometheus and Atlas suggest, is preparatory to the domination of human beings over the Earth. Such dominion could have only been achieved through a ‘technological’ view of space in relation to its possible manipulability (Sini, 1981). Forwarded into modernity thanks to Newtonian physics, such 'absolute' conception of space informed the rise of modern science and its utilization as a tool, in the hands of Western civilization, to establish full dominion over creation. An authentic design for conquest underlying the rise of Positivist spatiality and that, accordingly, played a crucial role in shaping the role of planners as ‘scientists’ and technical experts.
By unpacking the prominent features of Promethean planning, a post-Promethean perspective of planning theories and practices is here investigated. Hence, the study dives into the exploration of three key facets that, despite constituting Promethean planning pillars, if properly 'overturned' can set the foundation for a novel view of science and technology in contemporary planning practices. The first one of the above-mentioned key aspects is hyper-specialization: so long as compartmentalized knowledge production underlays planning academia, plan-making and urban policies will continue to be imbued with Promethean fashion (that is, with technoscientific-centrism). The second one, the unshakeable faith in technology, is matched with the return of scientism in planning decision-making – nowadays championed by technologists and ICT specialists. A step forward beyond technoscientific-centrism requires planners to recognize that technology is not neutral at all, rather it embodies an ideology (Habermas, 1972) – and, as such, it always pursues a paradigm of domination. Lastly, depoliticization is inherent to Promethean planning, which boosts a kind of technocratic, elite-driven approach to decision-making. To re-politicize planning practices, and overcome technoscientific-centrism, planners should rethink their role as ‘non-neutral’ experts and struggle for alternative theory-building scenarios.
Drawing upon literature review and a cross-disciplinary approach to the research topic, the paper unpacks the notion of technoscientific-centrism and calls for critically reconsidering planners' overconfidence in technology.
References
Chiodo, Simona (2020) Prometheus and the evolution of the relationship between humans and technology. Studi di Estetica, Anno XLVIII, IV serie, 1/2020, pp. 209-228.
Davoudi, Simin (2012) The Legacy of Positivism and the Emergence of Interpretative Tradition in Spatial Planning. Regional Studies, 46 (4), pp. 429-441.
Friedmann, John (1987) Planning in the public domain. From knowledge to action. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Habermas, Jürgen (1971) Technology and Science as Ideology. In Shapiro J. J. (transl.) Toward a Rational Society. Boston: Beacon Press, pp. 81-122.
Palmini, Otello and Cugurullo, Federico (2023) Charting AI urbanism: conceptual sources and spatial implications of urban artificial intelligence. Discover Artificial Intelligence, 3 (15). [Online] available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s44163-023-00060-w
Pitari, Paolo (2019) Emanuele Severino on the meaning of scientific specialization. An introduction. Cosmos and History: The Journal of Natural and Social Philosophy, 15 (1), pp. 366-386.
Severino, E. (2021) On the Meaning of Technology’s Domination. In Chiodo, S., Schiaffonati, V. (eds.) Italian Philosophy of Technology. Socio-cultural, Legal, Scientific and Aesthetic Perspectives on Technology. Cham: Springer, pp. 69-83.
Sini, Carlo (1981) Passare il segno. Semiotica, Cosmologia, Tecnica. Milano: Il Saggiatore.
| Keywords | Promethean planning; positivist spatiality; scientism; technoscientific-centrism; technology |
|---|---|
| Best Congress Paper Award | No |
