Analysis of impossibility of achieving to consensus in decision making process of planning through Lacanian's “the real” and Mouffe's “the political” concepts

Document Type : Original Research

Author
B. Malekpourasl
Shahid Beheshti University
Abstract
Abstract:



The twentieth century obsession with communication, as Habermass described it, has been affected planning theory and practice. Communicative action as a new approach in planning theories in pursuit of critique of positivism dominance and quantitative approaches in planning in the last of 1970s and through this view that procedural planning theory should be oriented to social welfare goals, considered as a progress in procedural planning theory. Nonetheless, procedural planning theory also for sake of ignoring power relations and its mechanism in society from planning researchers has been criticized as a tool for facilitating the neoliberal ideology. Critics believe that the public in this kind of planning has been become to private sector partners for reproduction of capital and the real people- no part morass in society- excluded from this kind planning. The goal of this paper is to discover the unknown areas of collaborative planning with application of the beginning of politics concept as new formulation of real politics and approach for rediscovery of people.

Exploring of casual relationship of research subject-collaborative planning and the application of the beginning concept for critiquing it- constitute the basic framework of paper and this matter shows explanatory nature of this paper. Also exploring unknown areas of collaborative planning represent the explorative essence. Independence of politics from government construct contingency characteristic of politics and social field. This fact results in reference to people politics energy which has not been revealed and this energy has solved in intra power groups and capital owners and prevents immanent movement.

This article calls for a return to Lacanian perspective in contemporary communicative planning theory and analysis, but rather than traditional critique, it argues for a critique predicated on the psychoanalysis of Lacan and “The real concept. It signals right from that an intention to tamper with the familiar interpretation of planning theories to shake up current flow of theorization to allow other, more radical thoughts to be emerge. According to this approach, planners and policy-makers should be involved with conflicts and agonism more than consensus building.

At that point in history, planning theory was dominated by systems that upheld rational approaches which gave planning processes priority over the possible results. Some like Mouffe and Laclau were among the chief detractors and critics of this approach who saw it as rooted in an apolitical basis. Lacan provides an explanation for this challenge based on his theorizing about human subjectivity— how we acquire the identifications that constitute ourselves as planners. The article will deploy Lacan’s explanatory power for understanding how the professional identities of planners and the central ideas constituting the planning discipline are interrelated. Particularly, Lacan’s theoretical model of the four discourses will be used to explore planning education and how aspiring planners acquire and internalize the discipline’s often-diffuse sets of traditions, beliefs, knowledges, and values.

In this article, I will trace a reconfigurative path through the Lacan’s psychoanalytic theory, picking out the hidden narrative that has instigated the contemporary reassertion of antagonism and conflict in planning. My intent is not to erase the historical discussion about consensus in planning decision making process but to open up and recompose the territory of the communicative planning through a critical reference to antagonism in planning. As will be evident in this article, this reference and reassertion of conflict in planning theory and practice is an exercise in both deconstruction and reconstitution through Lacan and Mouffe viewpoints. It cannot be accomplished simply by appending spatial highlights to inherited planning theories perspectives and sitting back to watch them with logical convictions.

The article argues that a Lacanian inspired phronetic model is particularly useful for understanding spatial planning and related urban policy discourses, for it provides insight as to how desire and resultant ideological fantasies shape our shared social reality and spaces of habitation in our globalized world. Why is it so difficult to define concisely the meaning of ‘planning’ and many of its dominant concepts—public interest, new urbanism, sustainability or smart growth—when deployed in formulating urban policy? Lacan’s discourse theory suggests an answer based on an understanding of our human subjectivity, a subjectivity that implicitly seeks to overlook contradiction and ambiguity in our desire to fulfill human aspirations for a harmonious and secure world. This article will use Lacanian theory to examine the beliefs of the planning profession, how they are shaped and then implemented in our urban environments.

This article, maps out a new political approach in planning theory and practice that is deeply rooted in the real concept of Lacan and the political concept of Mouffe that applies equally well to critical planning theory and to decision making process. The fist fruit of this approach – and the first lessons of planning theory that embodies it – is the idea that planners can understand planning environment uncertainty, complexity and conflicts only by locating himself within antagonistic environment. This approach enables us to grasp real practice and theory and the relations of stakeholders in planning and decision-making process. I draw upon Lacan’s depiction of what is essentially a real imagination in planning to illustrate the logic of antagonism that help realization of planning decision making process.

Keywords

Subjects

Abazari, Y (1998)., The reason of sociology, Tehran, Tarhe- No Publisher [In Persian]
Allmendinger, P., & Tewdwr-Jones, M. (2000). ‘New labour, new planning? The trajectory of planning in Blair’s Britain’. Urban Studies, 37 (8), 1379–1402 (doi.org/10.1080/00420980020080171).
Ashoori, D (2010)., Humanities dictionary, Tehran, Markaz Publisher [In Persian]
Barry, B (2001). Culture and Equality: An Egalitarian Critique of Multiculturalism, Cambridge: Polity Press (DOI: 10.1177/009059102237038).
Beck U (1997), The Reinvention of Politics: Rethinking Modernity in the Global Social Order, Cambridge, Polity Press (doi/10.1086/231416).
Benhabib, S. (1992) ‘Models of Public Space: Hannah Arendt, the Liberal Tradition and Jurgen Habermas’, in C. Calhoun (ed.) Habermas and the Public Sphere, pp. 73–98. Cambridge: MIT Press (doi/10.1177/136843101004002005).
Briand, M. (1999) Practical Politics. Urbana: University of Illinois Press (doi=10.1.1.1027.7664&rep=rep1).
Butler, J. (1997) The Psychic Life of Power. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press (doi/abs/10.1177/0261018316655934).
Caudill, D (2000), Lacan’s social psychoanalysis, In The subject of Lacan, edited by K. Malone and S. Friedlander, Albany, State University of New York Press. 297-315 (/doi/full/10.1080/14649350410001691763).
Elster, J. (1993) Political Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (doi/abs/10.1111/pops.12466).
Evans, D (1996), An introductory dictionary of Lacanian psychoanalysis, Routledge press (doi/abs/10.1177/00030651980460021007).
Flynn, W T. (2011), Debating Deliberative Democracy: How Deliberation changes the way people Reason’, a thesis submitted in the fulfillment of the degree Doctor of philosophy (PhD), University of York: Department of politics (doi:10.1111/j.1467).
Ghaderi, H (2002)., Political thought in 20th century, Samt Publisher [In Persian].
Giddens A (1994), Beyond Left and Right, Stanford University Press. (doi/abs/10.1177/000169939503800110)
Gunder M (2010) ‘Planning as the ideology of (neoliberal) space’. Planning Theory 9 (4) 298–314 (doi/10.1177/1473095210368878).
Gunder, M (2002), Bridging theory and practice in planning education: A story from New Zealand, Australian Planner, 39 (4), 200-204 (doi/pdf/10.1080/07293682.2002.9982320).
Gunder, M (2003), Passionate planning for the others’ desire: An agonistic response to the dark side of planning, Progress in Planning, 60 (3), 235-322 (doi/10.1177/147309520323005).
Gunder, M (2004), Shaping the Planner’s Ego-Ideal: A Lacanian Interpretation of Planning Education, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 23 (1), 299-314 (doi/10.1177/0739456X03261284).
Habermas, J. (1971a) Knowledge and Human Interests. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Habermas, J. (1979) Communication and the Evolution of Society. London: Heinemann (doi.org/10.1177/0038038501035001011).
Habermas, J. (1984) The Theory of Communicative Action, Vol. 1. Boston, MA: Beacon Press (doi/abs/10.1177/0270467688008004109).
Habermas, J. (1987) The Theory of Communicative Action, Vol. 2. Boston, MA: Beacon Press (doi/abs/10.1177/0270467688008004109).
Habermas, J. (1990) Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press (doi/abs/10.1177/095269519801100305).
Habermas, J. (1993) Justification and Application. Cambridge: Polity (doi/full/10.1111/1478-9302.12101_10).
Habermas, J. (1996) Between Facts and Norms. Cambridge: Polity (doi/10.1086/231139).
Habermas, J. (1998) The Inclusion of the Other. Cambridge: Polity (doi.org/10.2307/2586029).
Habermas, J. (2001a) The Liberating Power of Symbols. Cambridge: Polity (doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511488979).
Habermas, J. (2001b) The Postnational Constellation. Cambridge: Polity (doi/full/10.1111/1467-8675.00258).
Hersij, H and Hajizadeh, J (2010)., deliberative democaracy in Habermass philosophical Thoughts, Journal of Wisdom and Philosophy, Vol.20. No.3[In Persian]
Hillier, J (2003), ‘Agonizing ’over consensus:why Habermasian ideals cannot be real ,Planning heory, Vol 2 (1):37–59 (DOI - identifier, 10.1177/1473095203002001005).
Hillier, J and M. Gunder (2003), Planning fantasies? An exploration of a potential Lacanian framework for understanding development assessment planning, Planning Theory, 2 (3), 225-48 (doi/10.1177/147309520323005).
Kaplan, P (2000)., psychology of development, Transalted by Mehrdad Firoozbakht, Rasa Publisher [In Persian]
Lacan, J (1977), Ecrits, Norton, London (doi.org/10.1002/ (SICI)1097-4679 (200005)).
Lacan, J (1988a), The seminar, book I, 1953-1954, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK (https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01593).
Lacan, J (1988b), The seminar, book II, 1954-1955, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK (https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01593).
Lacan, J (1998), The seminar, book XX, 1972-1973, Norton, New York (https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01593).
Lacan, J (2002), Ecrits, Norton, London (doi/10.1177/1350508410364095).
Lacan, J. (1977) Ecrits, trans. A. Sheridan. New York: W.W. Norton (doi.org/10.1037/h0091160).
Laclau, E. (1996) Emancipation (s). London: Verso (doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-7660.1992.tb00459.x).
Laclau, E. and Mouffe, C. (1985) Hegemony and Socialist Strategy. London: Verso (doi/abs/10.1177/072551368701600118).
Laclau, E. and Mouffe, C. (2002) ‘Hope, Passion, Politics’, in M. Zournazi (ed.) Hope, pp. 122–49. Sydney: Pluto (doi/full/10.1080/17405904.2016.1182933?src=recsys).
McCarthy, T. (1978) The Critical Theory of Jürgen Habermas. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press (doi.org/10.2307/2130496).
McGuirk, P. (2001) ‘Situating Communicative Planning Theory: Context, Power, and Knowledge’, Environment and Planning A 33 (2): 195–218 (/doi/10.1068/a3355).
Mouffe, C. (1993) The Return of the Political. London: Verso (https://doi.org/10.1177/0952695118787697).
Mouffe, C. (1996) ‘Deconstruction, Pragmatism and the Politics of Democracy’, in C. Mouffe (ed.) Deconstruction and Pragmatism, pp. 1–12. London: Routledge (doi/10.1111/j.1468-0378.1994.tb00001.x).
Mouffe, C. (1997) ‘Democratic Identity and Pluralist Politics’, in R. Bontekoe and . Stepaniants (eds) Justice and Democracy, pp. 381–93. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press (https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095203002001005).
Mouffe, C. (1999) ‘Deliberative Democracy or Agonistic Pluralism?’, Social Research 66 (3): 745–58 (DOI: 10.1177/0191453709343385).
Mouffe, C. (2000) The Democratic Paradox. London: Verso (DOI: 10.1080/14616700600980728).
Mouffe, C. (2001–2) ‘Democracy – Radical and Plural’, CSD Bulletin 9 (1): 10–13 (doi.org/10.1080/13534645.2014.896555).
Mouffe, C. (2002) ‘Which Kind of Space for a Democratic Habitus?’, in J. Hillier and E. Rooksby (eds) Habitus: A Sense of Place, pp. 93–100. Aldershot: Ashgate (doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2007.00734_1. x.).
Mouffe, C. (2005) On the political, Routledge, London (doi: 10.24297/jps.).
Newman, S. (2001) From Bakunin to Lacan. Oxford: Lexington (doi:10.1353/pmc.2002.0028).
Outhwaite, W (2006)., Habermas A Critical Introduction, Second Edition, Transalted by Leila Joafshani and Hasan Chavoshian, Akhtaran Publisher [In Persian]
Outhwaite, W (2006)., Habermas A Critical Introduction, Second Edition, Transalted by Leila Joafshani and Hasan Chavoshian, Akhtaran Publisher [In Persian]
Rescher, N. (1993) Pluralism: Against the Demand for Consensus. Oxford: Clarendon Press (DOI, 10.1023/A:1005334729094).
Sanyal, B (2002), Globalization, ethical compromise and planning theory, Planning Theory, 1 (2), 116-23 (https://doi.org/10.1177/147309520200100202).
Sennett, Richard (1997). The Uses of Disorder: Personal Identity and City Life. New York: Norton (/doi.org/10.1080/02604027.1973.9971841).
Stavrakakis Y (2009) Psychoanalysis and ideology: Comments on R.D. Hinshelwood. Psychoanalysis, Culture & Society 14 (2): 149–163 (doi:10.1057/pcs.2008.40).
Stavrakakis, Y (1991)., Lacan and the Political, Transalted by Mohammad Ali Jafari, Goghnoos Publisher [In Persian]
Stavrakakis, Y. (1999) Lacan and the Political. London: Routledge (ISBN-13: 978-0415171878).
Tajbakhsh, K. (2001) The Promise of the City. Berkeley: University of California Press (https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2008.00828_2.x.).
Taylor N (2009) Tensions and contradictions left and right: The predictable disappointments of planning under New Labour in historical perspective. Planning Practice and Research 24 (1): 57–70 (https://doi.org/10.1080/02697450902742155).
Tewdwr-Jones, M. and Thomas, H. (1998) ‘Collaborative Action in Local Planmaking: Planners’ Perceptions of Planning through Debate’, Environment and Planning B 25 (1): 127–44 (https://doi.org/10.1068/b250127).
Torfing, J. (1999) New Theories of Discourse: Laclau, Mouffe and Zizek. Oxford: Blackwell (New Theories of Discourse: Laclau, Mouffe and Zizek) (doi: 978-0-631-19558-0).
Warren, M. (1995) ‘The Self in Discursive Democracy’, in S. White (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to Habermas, pp. 167–200. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (doi.org/10.1017/CCOL052144120X).
Wolin, S. (1996) ‘Fugitive Democracy’, in S. Benhabib (ed.) Democracy and Difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press (doi/10.2307/2998618).
Zizek, S (2006), How to read Lacan, London, Verso, 14-30 (doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2017.1299565).
Zizek, S. (1997) The Abyss of Freedom. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press (doi: 10.3998/mpub.11193).
The Journal of Spatial Planning and Geomatics
Volume 22, Issue 3
October 2018
Pages 26-55