Safety and agonistic conceptions of public life





safety, pulic life, agonistic pluralism


This paper seeks to enable for conceptual resistance towards a desirable urban order of ‘safe public realms’, to which the ‘planning for safety’ directly contributes. One way of engaging in that kind of resistance is by contributing to politicising the system of beliefs informing planning for safety. Planning for safety is primarily legitimised morally as the ethically right thing to do given the identified violation of a human right in the public realm, the right to freely move about in the public environment. By drawing from Mouffean agonistic political theory (2005), there is no given interpretation nor implementation of ethical principles such as human rights, but rather different interpretations given what point
of reference one is departing from, and should hence be subjected to political struggle. To conceptually set the arena for choice contributes to politicising phenomena which previously have been legitimised as the right or the (only) natural thing to do. ‘Planning for safety’ should therefore be interpreted resting on specific ideological assumptions of public life which frames both how ‘the human right’ is conceptualised as well as what planning solutions are considered possible. This article seeks to establish alternative conceptualisations of public life, with an aim to make visible how there is not one notion of public life and thereby re-politicise the ideolo-gical premises underpinning ‘safety planning’ and thereby allow for conceptual resistance. This is carried out by establishing a discursive field of public life, a kind of conceptual arena for choice making. The discursive field is represented by four different discourses of public life centred around different ideals such as rational, dramaturgical, conflictual and consensual public life. In this conceptual context, lines of conflict have been discerned based on a thematic of purpose, character, criteria for participation and conception of identities, which have taken the form of agonistic dimensions, from which planning discursively can position itself. This paper argues that we first must agonistically agree
on what notion of public life should govern the development of our cities, and thereafter discuss what the consequences would be for planning.





Research article


Alexander, E. R (2002) The Public Interest in Planning: From Legitimation to Substantive Plan Evaluation. Planning Theory 2002:1 pp: 226-249

Arendt, H. (1998) The Human Condition. The University of Chicago Press

Benhabib, S. (1992) Models of Public Space. In: Calhoun, C. (ed), Habermas and the Public sphere (pp: 73-98). Cambridge, Massachusetts, and London, England: The MIT Press

Bickford, S. (1995) In the presence of Others: Arendt and Anzald a on the paradox of public appearance.. In: Honig, B. (ed). Feminist Interpretations of Hannah Arendt (pp: 313-335). The Pennsylvania State University Press.

Bridge, G. (2005) Reason in the city of difference. London& New York: Routledge

Campbell, H. and Marshall, R. (2002) Utilitarianism’s Bad Breath? A Re-evaluation of the Public Interest Justification for Planning. Planning Theory 2002:1 pp: 163-187

Canovan, M. (1988) Introduction. In: Arendt, H. The Human Condition (pp: vii-xx). The University of Chicago Press.

Dahlkvist, M. (1988) Jürgen Habermas’ Teori om “Privat” Och “Offentligt””. In: Habermas, J. Den Borgerliga Offentligheten (pp: i-xxxvii). Lund: Studentlitteratur

Frisby, D. (1986) Georg Simmel. Modernity as an Eternal Present In: Fragments Of Modernity (pp: 38-108). MIT Press Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Goffman, E. (1959) The presentation of self in the everyday life. New York: Anchor Books

Habermas, J. (1992) The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. Polity Press.

Hirsch, N. & Miessen, M. (eds) (2012) The Space of Agonism. Markus Miessen in Conversation with Chantal Mouffe. Berlin: Sternberg Press.

Howell, P. (1993) Public Space And the Public Sphere: Political Theory And the Historical Geography. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 1993, volume 11, pp: 303-322

Mouffe, C. (2005) On the Political. London & New York: Routledge

Sennett, R. (2000) Reflections on the Public realm. In Bridge, G. & Watson, S.(eds) A Companion to the City (pp 380-387). Malden, USA, Oxford UK and Berlin Germany: Blackwell Publishing

Sennett, R. (2002) The Fall of Public Man. London: Penguin Books

Simmel, G. (1964) The Metropolis And the Mental Life. In: Wolff, K. H. (ed) The Sociology of Simmel (pp: 409-424). New York USA: Free Press Paperback

Simmel, G (1964) The Stranger. In: In: Wolff, K. H. (ed) The Sociology of Simmel (pp: 402-408). New York USA: Free Press Paperback

Taylor, C. (1995) Politics and the Public Sphere.. In: Etzioni, A.(ed) New Communitarian Thinking.

Virtues, Institutions and Communities (pp:183-217). The University press of Virginia. USA

Torfing, J. (1999) New Theories of Discourse.Oxford UK: Blackwell Publishers Ltd

The National Board of Housing, Building and Planning (Boverket) (2011) Places to feel secure in – Inspiration for urban development.