Negotiating a ‘democratic ethos’

Abstract

Theories of urban democracy that are relevant, critical and take sufficient account of the pervasiveness of power continue to pose challenges. Two theoretical frameworks dominate in relation to planning and democracy -Habermasian-inspired communicative planning theory and Mouffe's agonistic pluralism. Both theoretical frames are typically held to be incommensurable because of fundamental ontological and epistemological differences and the debate between proponents of each tends to be polemic. Both theories have complementary strengths and weaknesses in terms of the insights they are capable of providing. Moreover, the realities of urban governance situations often display characteristics that can be explained in terms of both theoretical framings. This article negotiates a path beyond the polemic debate. It problematizes both theoretical frameworks and negotiates a way forward for planning theory that co-opts the principles of one into a theoretical framework that assumes the ontological position of the other. In so doing the article proposes a two-pronged approach that provides a critical, adaptive and reflexive approach to inquiring into spaces of urban democracy.

Environmental disobedience and the dialogic dimensions of dissent

“…101 Bond argues we need to embrace as dialogic forms of "direct action, protest, everyday group associations and the formation of collectivities, as well as more formal institutional and ordinary practices of democracy and decision-making". 102 The turn reflects a trend to politicize environmental activities in the private sphere. 103 Not only are they democratic acts, but must be taken as important "particularly when actors have no voice through institutional channels".…”

Scotland's Approach to Participatory Planning: Characterising the Charrette

“…Jurgen Habermas, who many communicative theorists are indebted to, also advocated collaborative discursive approaches to challenge the shortcomings observed in representative democracy (Bond, 2011). These approaches challenged modernist thinking that valued expert epistemologies, and instead believed knowledge to be something coconstructed; not a collation of ideas but rather that communication has the power to build shared meanings through reasoning and deliberative exchange (Brand et al, 2007;Innes et al, 1999).…”

“…Proponents argue these feedback loops condense the time between input and design to just hours, so not only do participants exercise more influence they can watch a transparent process unfold, thus fostering greater trust (Lennertz, 2003;Walters, 2007). Benefits of this approach therefore do not centre only on the physical; there is a commitment to social goals embedded in New Urbanism (Talen, 2002), and communicative processes more generally.Jurgen Habermas, who many communicative theorists are indebted to, also advocated collaborative discursive approaches to challenge the shortcomings observed in representative democracy (Bond, 2011). These approaches challenged modernist thinking that valued expert epistemologies, and instead believed knowledge to be something coconstructed; not a collation of ideas but rather that communication has the power to build shared meanings through reasoning and deliberative exchange (Brand et al, 2007;Innes et al, 1999).…”

The longue durée of community engagement: New applications of critical theory in planning research

“…This community engagement through "partnership" was particularly problematic. It is well documented by the communities themselves (Hastings, McArthur et al, 1994, Collins, 1999, the policy evaluation (CPC, 1999), and academic research (Kintrea, 1996) that this attempt at community engagement was very much like the agonist processes described in much of the literature (Bond, 2011;Brand & Gaffikin, 2007;McGuirk, 2001). It was widely recognised that community activists were not equal partners and the language of partnership was tokenistic (Hastings, McArthur et al, 1996;Kintrea, 1996;Nienhuis, Van Dijk et al, 2011).…”

“…Communicative planning has been critiqued from both a theoretical and empirical perspective. The gap between the rhetoric of communicative planning and the reality of difficult community engagement has brought agonist perspectives to the fore, explaining why the discourse between planners and communities is often political and tense rather than rational, or at worse somewhat tokenistic (Bond, 2011;Brand & Gaffikin, 2007). The insights of agonism have also questioned whether the level of reflexive and empathetic understanding required of communicative planning can ever be achieved (Huxley, 2000).…”