Deconstruction is a useful method for studying how planners construct plans that are plausible to the profession and the community. This paper is an attempt to illustrate the theoretical ground of deconstruction, its relationship to other critical methods, and how it works. Reading in deconstructive fashion is compared with reading literally, and a deconstructionist analysis of part of a planning practitioners' report is offered. In it the notion of exchange, or quid pro quo, as an aspect of planning practice is handled with technical skill by the authors of the report, yet ultimately it subverts the logic of the report and the logic of planning.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BarthesR, 1974S/Z translated by MillerR, (Hill and Wang, New York)
2.
BenhabibS, 1986Critique, Norm, and Utopia (Columbia University Press, New York
3.
CohnC, 1987, “Sex and death in the rational world of defense intellectuals”Signs12687–718
4.
CTPB, 1963Don Planning District AppraisalCity of Toronto Planning Board, 100 Queen Street West, Toronto
5.
CullerJ, 1982On Deconstruction: Theory and Criticism after Structuralism (Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY)
6.
DearM, 1986, “Postmodernism and planning”Environment and Planning D: Society and Space4367–384
7.
DerridaJ, 1977Of Grammatology translated by SpivakG Chakravorty (The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD)
8.
DerridaJ, 1981Positions translated by BassA, (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL)
9.
FishS E, 1972Self-consuming Artifacts (University of California Press, Berkeley, CA)
10.
ForesterJ, 1980, “Critical theory and planning practice”Journal of the American Planning Association46275–286
11.
ForesterJ, 1982a, “Understanding planning practice: An empirical, practical and normative account”Journal of Planning Education and Research159–71
12.
ForesterJ, 1982b, “Planning in the face of power”Journal of the American Planning Association4867–80
13.
ForesterJ, (Ed.), 1985Critical Theory and Public Life (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA)
14.
ForesterJ, 1986, “Critical theory and public life: Only connect”International Journal of Urban and Regional Research10185–206
15.
ForesterJRoweisS, 1983, “On planning practice: Materialism and politics”Environment and Planning D: Society and Space1481–491
16.
FosterH, (Ed.), 1983The Anti-aesthetic: Essays on Postmodern Culture (Bay Press, Port Townsend, WA)
17.
HabermasJ, 1979Communication and the Evolution of Society translated by McCarthyT, (Beacon Press, Boston, MA)
18.
HassanI, 1987The Postmodern Turn: Essays in Postmodern Theory and Culture (Ohio State University Press, Columbus, OH)
19.
HonnethA, 1987, “Critical theory”, in Social Theory Today Eds GiddensATurnerJ H, (Polity Press, Cambridge) pp 347–382
20.
HuyssenA, 1986After the Great Divide: Modernism, Mass Culture, Postmodernism (Indiana University Press, Bloomington, IN)
21.
KriegerM, 1981Advice and Planning (Temple University Press, Philadelphia, PA)
22.
McCarthyT, 1978The Critical Theory of Jurgen Habermas (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA)
23.
MackenzieS, 1988, “Building women, building cities: Toward gender sensitive theory in the environmental disciplines”, in Life Spaces: Gender, Household, Employment Eds AndrewCMilroyB Moore (University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver) pp 13–30
24.
MarrisP, 1982Community Planning and Conceptions of Change (Routledge and Kegan Paul, Andover, Hants)
25.
MoiT, 1985Sexual/Textual Politics: Feminist Literary Theory (Methuen, Andover, Hants)
26.
NorrisC, 1982Deconstruction: Theory and Practice (Methuen, Andover, Hants)
27.
SchonD A, 1983The Reflective Practitioner (Basic Books, New York)
28.
SchriftA D, 1988, “Genealogy and/as deconstruction: Nietzsche, Derrida and Foucault on philosophy as Critique”, in Postmodernism and Continental Philosophy Eds SilvermanH JWeltonD, (State University of New York Press, Albany, NY) pp 193–213
29.
SilvermanH J, 1988, “Introduction”, in Postmodernism and Continental Philosophy Eds SilvermanH JWeltonD, (State University of New York Press, Albany, NY) pp 1–10
