Rationality revisited: Politicisation through planning rationality against the rationality of power

Abstract

In this article, I readdress the issue of rationality, which has been so far considered in western liberal democracies and in planning theory as procedural, and more recently as post-political in the post-foundational approach, aiming to show how it can gain a substantive and politicising character. I first discuss the problems and limits of the treatment of rational thinking as well as rational consensus-seeking as merely procedural and post-political. Secondly, utilising the notion of Realrationalität of Flyvbjerg, I discuss how rationality attains a politicising role due to its strong relationship with power. Using the concept of planning rationality aiming at public interest, I present the general position and actions of professional organisations in Turkey, focusing on the Chamber of City Planners, as an example illustrative of my argument. I finally argue that rationality becomes a substantive issue that politicizes planning, when it is put forward as an alternative to authoritarian market logic. In doing so, I adopt the Rancièrian definition of the political, defined as disclosure of a wrong and staging of equality. In conclusion, I first emphasize the importance of avoiding quick rejections of the concepts of rationality and consensus in the framework of planning activity and planning theory and secondly, call for a broader definition of the political; the political that is not confined to conflict but is open to rational thinking and rational consensus.

Rethinking collaborative planning in China: Does the communicative or agonistic planning theory matter?

“…Although there has been much debate over the dichotomy of planning theories, few studies have been conducted to understand the differences between these two approaches, for example, the distinct roles of citizens (Bäcklund and Mäntysalo, 2010), and the divergent ways of dealing with conflict (Kühn, 2021). Besides, too strict dichotomies are counterproductive and sometimes could not reflect reality, especially in the authoritarian context (Özdemir, 2021).…”

“…Until now, the debates over the dichotomy of these planning theories have mainly attuned to democratic contexts. Nevertheless, a dichotomous perspective may not reflect planning realities in an authoritarian context, because rationality may mix with passions (Özdemir, 2021). Furthermore, it contributes to the theoretical understanding of collaborative planning in the Chinese context.…”