Politička moć i urbanističko planiranje: geneza i kritička analiza teorijskih pristupa

Ljubica Slavkovic

doi:10.5937/a-u0-61229

Ljubica Slavkovic - https://orcid.org/0009-0001-6309-2497

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5937/a-u0-61229

Ključne reči: politička moć, teorije planiranja, urbanističko planiranje, racionalizam, komunikativno planiranje

Sažetak

Urbanističko planiranje je tradicionalno obeleženo dominacijom racionalističkih i tehnokratskih pristupa, unutar kojih je pitanje političke moći tretirano kao periferno. Sa prodorom kritičkih društvenih teorija u teorije planiranja, u drugoj polovini HH veka, jača sagledavanje planiranja kao politički uslovlјenog procesa, u kome odnosi moći igraju centralnu ulogu u oblikovanju prostora i javnih politika, da bi sa savremenom neoliberalnom paradigmom planska arena ponovo bivala „depolitizovana”. Cilј rada je da se kroz kritičku analizu literature prikaže kako se pojam moći transformisao unutar tri klјučna teorijska okvira: racionalističko-tehnokratskog, komunikativnog (utemelјenog na Habermasovoj (Habermas) koncepciji javne sfere) i kroz perspektivu fukoovske koncepcije diskursa. Analiza obuhvata koncepte i autore koji imaju značajan uticaj na teorije planiranja, kao što su Harvi (Harvey), Lefevr (Lefebvre), Hili (Healey), Forester (Forester) i Flivbjerg (Flyvbjerg), i nastoji da identifikuje paradigmatske prelome i implikacije koje različita poimanja moći proizvode u razumevanju i praksi planiranja. Rad ukazuje na potrebu za analitičkim okvirom koji premošćuje jaz između normativne teorije i empirijskih konfiguracija moći u savremenom urbanističkom planiranju.

Reference

Allmendinger, P. and Haughton, G., 2012. Post-political spatial planning in England: A crisis of consensus? Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 37(1), 89–103.

Castells, M., 1977. The urban question: A Marxist approach. London: Edward Arnold.

Faludi, A., 1973. Planning theory. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Forester, J., 1989. Planning in the face of power. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Forester, J., 1996. Argument, power, and passion in planning practice. In: S. Mandelbaum, L. Mazza and R. Burchell, eds. Explorations in planning theory. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers University, 241–262.

Friedmann, J., 1987. Planning in the public domain: From knowledge to action. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Friedmann, J., 1998. Planning theory revisited. European Planning Studies, 6(3), 245–253.

Flyvbjerg, B., 1998. Rationality and power: Democracy in practice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Flyvbjerg, B. and Richardson, T., 2002. Planning and Foucault: In search of the dark side of planning theory. In: P. Allmendinger and M. Tewdwr-Jones, eds. Planning futures: New directions for planning theory. London and New York: Routledge, 44–62.

Gerber, J.D. and Debrunner, G., 2022. The limits of planning: Insights from planning theory and practice. Planning Theory, 21(2), 189–207.

Habermas, J., 1977. Hannah Arendt’s communications concept of power. Social Research, 44(1), 3–24.

Habermas, J., 1984. The theory of communicative action, Vol. 1: Reason and the rationalization of society. Translated by T. McCarthy. Boston: Beacon Press.

Habermas, J., 1986. Hannah Arendt’s communicative concept of power. In: S. Lukes, ed. Power. Oxford: Blackwell, 75–93.

Hamilton, A., 2012. The Federalist papers. New York: Dutton/Signet.

Harvey, D., 1978. The urban process under capitalism: A framework for analysis. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 2(1–4), 101–131.

Harvey, D., 1992. The condition of postmodernity: An enquiry into the origin of cultural change. Oxford and Malden: Blackwell Publishers.

Healey, P., 1996. The communicative turn in planning theory and its implications for spatial strategy formation. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 23(2), 217–234.

Healey, P., 1997. Collaborative planning: Shaping places in fragmented societies. London: Macmillan.

Healey, P., McDougall, G. and Thomas, M., 1982. Theoretical debates in planning: Towards a coherent dialogue. In: P. Healey, ed. Planning theory: Prospects for the 1980s. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 5–22.

Hoch, C., 2007. Pragmatic communicative action theory. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 26(3), 272–283.

Innes, J.E., 1995. Planning theory’s emerging paradigm: Communicative action and interactive practice. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 14(3), 183–190.

Lefebvre, H., 1968. Le droit à la ville. Paris: Anthropos.

Lefebvre, H., 1992. The production of space. Oxford and Cambridge: Blackwell.

Lefebvre, H., 2009. State, space, world: Selected essays. Edited by N. Brenner and S. Elden. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

McNay, L., 1992. Foucault: A critical introduction. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Oosterlynck, S. and Swyngedouw, E., 2010. Noise reduction: The postpolitical quandary of planning. Environment and Planning A, 42(7), 1577–1594.

Petovar, K. and Vujošević, M., 2008. Koncept javnog interesa i javnog dobra u urbanističkom i prostornom planiranju. Sociologija i prostor, 46(1), 23–51.

Sager, T., 2005. Communicative planners as naïve mandarins of the neo-liberal state? European Journal of Spatial Development, 3(8), 1–9.

Sillince, J.A.A., 1986. A theory of planning. Aldershot: Gower.

Swyngedouw, E., 2009. The antinomies of the postpolitical city: In search of a democratic politics of environmental production. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 33(3), 601–620.

Taylor, N., 1998. Urban planning theory since 1945. London: SAGE.

Versteeg, W. and Hajer, M., 2010. Is this how it is, or is this how it is here? Making sense of politics in planning. In: J. Hillier and P. Healey, eds. The Ashgate research companion to planning theory: Conceptual challenges for spatial planning. Farnham: Ashgate, 106–120.