This paper is a response to Jensen-Butler's critique of our papers on planning practice. The critique asserts that our papers are predicated on an idealist cpistemology and that they lead to largely politically conservative conclusions. In this paper, we argue that this supposed critique of idealism: (a) cannot be sustained; (b) assumes its own idealist proportions; (c) evades practical issues; and (d) results not in a critique of idealism and conservatism, but, wittingly or unwittingly, in a denunciation of the democratic, antitechnocratic, antiauthoritarian, and non-avant-gardist political principles which emanate from our papers.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ForesterJ, 1983, “The geography of planning practice”Environment and Planning D: Society and Space1163–180
2.
HabermasJ, 1972Knowledge and Human Interests (Heinemann Educational Books, London)
3.
HabermasJ, 1979Communication and the Evolution of Society (Beacon Press, Boston, MA)
4.
HamiltonP, 1974Knowledge and Social Structure (Routledge and Kegan Paul, Henley-on-Thames, Oxon)
5.
HeldDThompsonJ, 1982Habermas: Critical Debates (University of California Press, Berkeley, CA)
Jensen-ButlerC, 1983, “A materialistic basis for planning theory and practice: Comments on the papers by Roweis and Forester”Environment and Planning D: Society and Space1469–479
8.
Tse-TungMao, 1968Four Essays on Philosophy (Foreign Languages Press, Peking)
9.
RoweisS T, 1983, “Urban planning as professional mediation of territorial politics”Environment and Planning D: Society and Space1139–162
10.
TherbornG, 1971, “Jürgen Habermas: A new eclecticism”New Left Reviewissue 67, pp 69–83
11.
WittgensteinL, 1961Tractatus Logico-philosophicus (Routledge and Kegan Paul, Henley-on-Thames, Oxon)
12.
WittgensteinL, 1968Philosophical Investigations (Macmillan, New York)
