Making planning theory-research-practice co-constitutive
Downloads
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24306/plnxt.2016.03.002Keywords:
Lacanian discourse, planning decision-making, storytelling, master plan, planning ‘critical-hysterical’ researchAbstract
This paper addresses the question of how planning research could be reasserted to balance the relationship between theory and practice. To that end, a twofold approach is taken: on the one hand, different interrelations among planning theory, research and practice are set out building on Jacques Lacan’s ‘four discourses’—the master’s, the university’s, the hysteric’s and the analyst’s. On the other hand, a process to formulate the plan regulador (local normative master plan) of a canton in southern Costa Rica is drawn upon, through storytelling, to shed light on the aforementioned relations. The article’s in-conclusion is that among planning theory, research and practice, rather than a synergic co-constitution, linkages that challenge, occlude, bypass or control one another are generated. Moreover, due to the apophenic ability of universal(izing)-technocratic(ized) theories to obviate the ‘right measure’ between action and reaction, discourses of research and practice are manipulated and the role of theory as ‘master signifier’ upheld. However, the ‘counter-discourses’ of both the hysteric and the analyst could be articulated by a planning ‘critical-hysterical’ research, which, in turn, would allow epiphanies to come to the fore, separate action from reaction and, pragmatically and dynamically, co-constitute planning theory, research and practice.
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2021 Ignacio Castillo Ulloa
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
References
Beck, U. (2006). Living in the world risk society. Economy and Society. 35(3): 329-345.
Bracher, M. (1993). Lacan, discourse, and social change. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Bracher, M. (1994). On the psychological and social functions of language. In M. Bracher, M. Alcorn, R. Corthell & F. Massardier-Kenney (Eds.), Lacanian theory of discourse (pp. 107-137). New York, NY: New York University Press.
Brugger, P. (2001). From haunted brain to haunted science. In J. Houran, & R. Lange (Eds.),
Hauntings and poltergeists: Multidisciplinary perspectives (pp. 195-213). Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company.
Chaitin, G.D. (1996). Rhetoric and culture in Lacan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cohen, J. (1960). Chance, skill, and luck. London: Penguin Books.
Dean, J. (2001). Publicity’s secret. Political Theory. 29(5): 624-650.
Deleuze, G. (1977 [1972]). Intellectuals and power. In D.F. Bouchard (Ed.), Language, counter-memory, practice (pp. 205-217). New York, NY: Cornell University Press.
Evans, D. (2006 [1996]). An introductory dictionary of Lacanian psychoanalysis. London: Routledge. Fink, B. (1997 [1995]). The Lacanian subject. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2003). Rationality and power. In S. Campbell, & S. Fainstein (Eds.), Readings in planning theory (pp. 318-329). Oxford: Blackwell.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2004). Phronetic planning research. Planning Theory and Practice. 5(3): 283-306.
Foucault, M. (1977). Language, counter-memory, practice. New York, NY: Cornell University Press. Friedmann, J. (1998). Planning theory revisited. European Planning Studies. 6(3): 245-253.
Fuery, P. (1995). Theories of desire. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.
Giroux, H. (2009). Youth in a suspect society. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Gunder, M. (2003a). Planning policy formulation from a Lacanian perspective. International Planning Studies. 8(4): 279-294.
Gunder, M. (2003b). Passionate planning for the other’s desire. Progress in Planning. 60(3): 235-319. Gunder, M. (2004). Shaping the planner’s ego-ideal. Journal of Planning Education and Research. 23(3): 299-311.
Gunder, M. (2005). Lacan, planning and urban policy formulation. Urban Policy and Research. 23(1): 87-108.
Gunder, M. (2006). Sustainability: Planning’s saving grace or road to perdition? Journal of Planning Education and Research. 26(2): 208-221.
Gunder, M. (2008). Ideologies of certainty in a risky reality. Planning Theory. 7(2): 186-206.
Gunder, M. (2011). Fake it until you make it and then. Planning Theory. 10(3): 201-12.
Gunder, M., & Hillier, J. (2004). Conforming to the expectations of the profession. Planning Theory and Practice. 5(2): 217-235.
Healey, P. (2007). Urban complexity and spatial strategies. Oxon: Routledge.
Hillier, J. (2002). Shadows of power. London: Routledge.
Hillier, J. (2003). Agon’izing over consensus. Planning Theory. 2(3): 37-59.
Hillier, J., & Gunder, M. (2005). Not over your dead bodies! Environment and Planning A. 37(7): 1049-1066.
Hollis, M. (2003 [1994]). The philosopy of social science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo (INVU) (2006). Manual de procedimientos para la redacción y elaboración de planes reguladores. San José: Dirección de Urbanismo.
Lacan, J. (1999 [1975]). The Seminar of Jacques Lacan, book XX. New York, NY: WW Norton & Company.
Lacan, J. (2007 [1991]). The seminar of Jacques Lacan, book XVII. New York, NY: WW Norton & Company.
Laclau, E., & Mouffe, C. (2002). Hope, passion, politics. In M. Zournazi (Ed.), Hope (pp. 122-149). Sydney: Pluto.
Mäntysalo, R. (2005). Approaches to participation in urban planning theories. In I. Zetti, & S. Brand (Eds.), Rehabilitation of urban areas (pp. 23–38). Florence: University of Florence.
Mitchell, R.K., Agle, B.R., & Wood, D.J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience. Academy of Management Review. 22(4): 853-888.
Mouffe, C. (1993). The return of the political. London: Verso.
Newman, S. (2011). Postanarchism and space. Planning Theory. 10(4): 344-365.
Nietzsche, F. (1989 [1873]). On truth and lying in an extra-moral sense. In S. Gilman, C. Blair, & D. Parent (Eds.), Friedrich Nietzsche on rhetoric and language (pp. 246-257). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Pile, S. (1996). The body and the city. London: Routledge.
Pellizzoni, L. (2004). Responsibility and environmental governance. Environmental Politics. 13(3): 541-565.
Poulsen, B. (2012). Being amused by apophenia. Psychology Today. Retrieved December 12, 2015, from www.psychologytoday.com/blog/reality-play/201207/being-amused-apophenia.
Ragland, E. (1996). The discourse of the master. In W. Apollon, & R. Feldstein (Eds.), Lacan, politics, aesthetics (pp. 127-150). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Sandercock, L. (1998). Towards Cosmopolis. Chichester: Wiley.
Sandercock, L. (2003). Out of the closet. Planning Theory and Practice. 4(1): 11-28.
Scott, A.J., & Roweis, S.T. (1977). Urban planning in theory and practice. Environment and Planning A. 9(10): 1097-1119.
Throgmorton, J. (2003). Planning as persuasive storytelling in a global-scale web of relationships. Planning Theory. 2(2): 125-151.
van Hulst, M. (2012). Storytelling, a model of and a model for planning. Planning Theory. 11(3): 299-318.
Verhaeghe, P. (2001). Beyond gender. New York, NY: Other Press.
Vickers, G. (1995). The art of judgement. London: Sage.
Waldman, K. (2014). It’s all connected. Slate. Retrieved November 13, 2015, from: www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/09/apophenia_makes_unrelated_things_seem_connected_metaphors_paranormal_beliefs.html.
Wildavsky, A. (1973). If planning is everything, maybe it’s nothing. Policy Sciences. 4(2): 127-153. Žižek, S. (1998 [1993]). Tarrying with the negative. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Žižek, S. (2003). Homo Sacer as the object of the discourse of the University. Lacan.com. Retrieved June 18, 2014, from www.lacan.com/toomuch.html.
Žižek, S. (2006a). Philosophy, the “unknown knowns”, and the public use of reason. Topoi. 25: 137-142.
Žižek S. (2006b). Jacques Lacan’s four discourses. Lacan.com. Retrieved October 1, 2015, from: www.lacan.com/zizfour.html.
