Power and Contingency in Planning

Abstract

In this paper we analyse the role and reception of poststructuralist perspectives on power in planning since the 1990s, and then ask whether a renewed encounter with the works of poststructuralist theorists Foucault, Deleuze, and Luhmann could add something to the points that were already made. We make a distinction between the power of planning (the impact in society), power in planning (relations between players active in planning), and power on planning (the influence of broader society on the p la n n i n g system), to refine the analysis of planning/power. It is argued that an interpretation of Deleuze, Luhmann, and Foucault, as thinkers of power in a theoretical framework that is based on the idea of contingency, can help to refine the analysis of power in planning. Planning then can be regarded as a system in other systems, with roles, values, procedures, and materialities in constant transformation, with the results of each operation serving as input for the next one. The different power relations constitute the possibilities, the forms, and the potential impact of planning.

Analysing institutional change in environmental governance: exploring the concept of ‘institutional work’

“…The plurality of often competing perspectives is what Chantal Mouffe has called the 'political', something which she distinguishes from 'politics' to show that 'political' is an inextricable part of the world, while 'politics' refers to way in which societies deal with the different understandings of the world (Mouffe 2005). This notion of the competing perspectives, understandings, and beliefs has attracted a fair share of attention in the literature about environmental governance (Bevir 2004;Gonz alez and Healey 2005;Van Assche, Duineveld, and Beunen 2014;Voß and Freeman 2016). This literature elaborates on the relationship between power and knowledge and explores the ways in which configurations of power/knowledge shape policies and practices concerning the environment (Flyvbjerg 1998;Hillier 2002b;Smith and Stirling 2010;Winkel 2012;Van Assche, Duineveld, and Beunen 2014).…”

“…This notion of the competing perspectives, understandings, and beliefs has attracted a fair share of attention in the literature about environmental governance (Bevir 2004;Gonz alez and Healey 2005;Van Assche, Duineveld, and Beunen 2014;Voß and Freeman 2016). This literature elaborates on the relationship between power and knowledge and explores the ways in which configurations of power/knowledge shape policies and practices concerning the environment (Flyvbjerg 1998;Hillier 2002b;Smith and Stirling 2010;Winkel 2012;Van Assche, Duineveld, and Beunen 2014). It is an aspect that has so far been largely overlooked in the literature on institutional change (Larsson 2015).…”

Queer contestation of neoliberal and heteronormative moral geographies during #occupygezi

“…The very act of planning a space requires a multitude of institutions that already occupy structural and cultural power positions (Van Assche et al., 2014a; Wood, 2009) and that decide upon, build, and therefore impose a certain way of living on those who do not have access to such power structures. In other words, planning “appears as inherently political, and ought not to present itself as a value-neutral and/or scientific endeavor” (Van Assche et al., 2014b). In Istanbul, this lack of access resulted in the public challenging existing power structures in the street.…”

Planners’ role in accommodating citizen disagreement: The case of Dutch urban planning

“…Communicative planning has been criticised for portraying power as oppressive and for promoting planning as a search for power-free deliberations (Van Assche et al, 2014). It tends to reinforce the status quo (Bengs, 2005;Purcell, 2009) and nurture the post-political condition (Roy, 2015) by suppressing the radical and transformative edge (Harris, 2002), favouring certain groups above others (Fainstein, 2000;Flyvbjerg, 1998;Gunton et al, 2007;Swyngedouw, 2005).…”