Speaker
Description
The post-foundational line of thought and the post-political critique that has come out of it provides the field of planning theory with a critical energy that it has long been in need of. In the framework of this critique, first the Habermasian communicative rationality is denounced for denigrating and rejecting of any manifestation of disagreement in the society in the name of democracy. The inherent consensus logic is harshly criticized for neutralizing conflict and antagonisms, which are seen as constitutive of social relations and as sources of innovation, a necessary dimension of democracy. Instead, agonistic pluralism is suggested by Mouffe (1999, 2005), through which antagonisms are transformed into agonism, and conflicts are regarded as productive and innovative, having a transformative and emancipatory potential. As a result of the influence of these debates on planning theory; the so-called communicative turn of the 1980s was superseded by an agonistic turn, while the classical process-outcome dichotomy turned into one between consensus and conflict. This time the scope of the discussions oriented more towards radical-agonistic democracy, than consensus orientation. This abstraction unfolded in reality as a challenge both in theory and in practice; how can we democratize and politicize urban planning? The new call from many planning theorists has been to embrace conflict rather than pursue consensus in planning processes (Tewdwrjones and Allmendinger, 1998; Hillier, 2003; Gunder and Hillier, 2004; Allmendinger and Haughton, 2012). The article is based on theoretical argumentation building on existing theory on communicative action, its critique, namely the consensus critique and on the repercussions of these discussions for planning theory. It argues that the ongoing conflict orientation in planning theory can be effective in enhancing and vitalizing the democratic potential of planning, only if it can better guide the planning action by eliminating its procedural and institutional ambiguities as well as its loose links with the reality of urban planning and policy making. This is necessary because contemporary planning requires, at the final resort, collective decision making and action that further necessitate rules, regulations, and division of responsibilities. Planning should embrace conflicts, explore disagreements, and for this purpose, be able to work with grassroots movements and activist groups. However, it has to be kept in mind that this endeavor is not freed from the need for communication and speech acts. In transforming antagonisms into agonism, in becoming adversaries but not enemies, people will need to communicate and interact. Furthermore, conflict orientation requires a sensitivity to avoid never ending conflict that might lead to chaotic situations exacerbating the multifaceted crises of today’s urban societies. In this respect, the article calls for a re-reading and re-evaluation of Habermasian communicative action theory and offers a framework for it. This framework goes beyond the incorporation of Habermasian ideals such as the force of better argument, ideal speech situation and the consensus-bringing force of argumentative speech, as most of the communicative planning theory as well as its critiques focus on. It rather offers a re-utilization of the Habermasian concept of lifeworld, both as a context-forming background of processes of reaching understanding and as an arena of conflicts triggered by its colonization by the system. Put differently, the article re-introduces and explores lifeworld as a conceptual tool to transcend the consensus-conflict dichotomy and to guide planning practice to create interfaces that bring together deliberative and agonistic practices, the radical action and consensus-seeking and showing that they are not mutually exclusive.
References
Allmendinger, Phil and Haughton, Graham (2012) Post-political spatial planning in England: a crisis of consensus? Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 37(1): 89-103.
Gunder, Michael and Hillier, Jean (2009) Planning in Ten Words or Less: A Lacanian Entanglement with Spatial Planning. Farnham: Ashgate.
Hillier, Jean (2003) ‘Agon’izing over consensus: Why Habermasian ideals cannot be ‘real’. Planning Theory, 2(1): 37–59.
Mouffe, Chantal (1999) Deliberative democracy or agonistic pluralism. Social Research, 66(3): 745−758.
Mouffe, Chantal (2005) On The Political Thinking in Action. London: Routledge.
Tewdwr-Jones, Mark and Allmendinger, Phil (1998) Deconstructing communicative rationality: A critique of Habermasian collaborative planning. Environment and Planning A 30(11): 1975–1989.
| Keywords | consensus; conflict; Habermas; communicative action; lifeworld |
|---|---|
| Best Congress Paper Award | No |
