Communicative action (CA) theory need not displace the critical insights of social scientists, geographers, and other urban scholars about the processes of social, economic, and political change that shape urban settlements. CA analysts believe we settle differences in research findings and interpretations by studying the consequences these differences produce instead of claiming philosophical trump. In the first part of this article, I summarize and critique the argument that CA theory is unrealistic explaining of how CA analysts care more about relevant consequences than causal certainty. In the second part of the article, taking some conceptual advice from social theorist Jurgen Habermas, I show how CA analysis can combine structural and intentional concepts to revise and integrate the apparent antagonism between comprehensiveness and compromise for planning practice. I conclude that a pragmatic CA provides a useful and critical theory for planning practice that remains open to future challenge and debate.
Alexander, Ernest.2003. Response to “Why do planning theory?” Planning Theory2 (3): 179-82.
2.
Ali, Saleem H.2003. Environmental planning and cooperative behavior: Catalyzing sustainable consensus. Journal of Planning Education and Research23 (2):l65-76.
3.
Allmendinger, Phillipo.2002. Planning Theory. New York: Palgrave.
4.
Beauregard, Robert.1996. Advocating preeminence: Anthologies as politics. In Explorations in Planning Theory, edited by S. J. Mandelbaum, L. Mazza, and R. W. Burchell, 105-12. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers State University.
5.
__________. 2001. The multiplicities of planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research20:437-39.
6.
Blanco, Hilda.1994. How to think about social problems: American pragmatism and the idea of planning. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
7.
Blumenberg, Evelyn.2002. Planning for the transportation needs of welfare participants: Institutional challenges to collaborative planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research22 (2): 152-63.
8.
Bohman, James.1996. Public deliberation: Pluralism, complexity and democracy . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
9.
Davidson, Donald.1989. The myth of the subjective. In Relativism: Interpretation and confrontation, edited by Michael Krausz, 165-9, Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
10.
__________. 2000. Objectivity and practical reason. In Reasoning Practically, edited by Edna Ullman-Margalit ,17-26, New York: Oxford University Press.
11.
Fainstein, Susan S.1997. Justice, politics, and the creation of urban space. In The urbanization of injustice, edited by Andy Merrifield and Erik Swyngedouw, 18-44. New York: New York University Press.
12.
__________. 2001. The city builders: Property development in New York and London, 1980-2000. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press.
13.
__________. 2005. Planning theory and the city. Journal of Planning Education and Research25:121-30.
14.
Fischer, Frank.2003. Reframing public policy: Discursive politics and deliberative practices. New York: Oxford University Press.
15.
Flyvberg, Bent.1998. Rationality and power: Democracy in action. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
16.
———. 2002. Bringing power to planning research: One researcher's praxis story. Journal of Planning Education and Research21 (4): 353-66.
17.
Forester, John.1989. Planning in the face of power. Berkeley : University of California Press.
18.
___________. 1999. The deliberative practitioner. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
19.
___________. 2004. Responding to critical moments with humor, recognition and hope. Negotiation Journal. 20 (2): 221-37.
20.
___________. 2000. Conservative epistemology, reductive ethics, far too narrow politics: Some clarifications in response to Yiftachel and Huxley. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research24 (4): 914-16.
21.
Friedmann, John.1987. Planning in the public domain: From knowledge to action . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
22.
_________. 2003. Why do planning theory. Planning Theory2 (1): 7-11.
23.
Habermas, Jurgen.1971. Knowledge and human interests. Boston : Beacon.
24.
__________. 1993. Justification and application: Remarks on discourse ethics . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
25.
Hajer, Maarten. A., and Hendrik Wagenaar, eds. 2003. Deliberative policy analysis: Understanding governance in the network society. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
26.
Halton, Eugene.1995. Bereft of reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
27.
Harper, Thomas, and Stanley Stein.2003. Dialogical planning in a fragmented society. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research.
Healey, Patsy, Claudio De Magalhaes, Ali Madanipour, and John Pendlebury .2003. Place, identity and local politics: Analyzing initiatives in deliberative governance. In Deliberative policy analysis: Understanding governance in the network society , edited by Maarten A. Hajer and Hendrik Wagenaar, 60-88. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
30.
Hoch, Charles.1984a. Doing good and being right: The pragmatic connection in planning theory. Journal of the American Planning Association50 (3): 335-45.
31.
__________. 1984b. Pragmatism, planning and power. Journal of Planning Education and Research4 (2): 86-5.
32.
__________. 1992. The paradox of power in planning practice. Journal of Planning Education and Research11 (3): 206-15.
33.
__________. 1994. What planners do. Chicago: Planners.
_________. Forthcoming. Making plans: Representation and intention. Planning Theory6.
36.
Hoffman, Lilly.1989. The politics of knowledge: Activist movements in medicine and planning. Albany: SUNY.
37.
Hopkins, Lew.2000. Urban development: The logic of making plans. Washington DC: Island.
38.
Huxley, Margo. 1997. Necessary but by no means sufficient: Spatial political economy, town planning and the possibility of better cities. European Planning Studies5 (6): 741-51.
39.
Huxley, Margo, and Oren Yiftachel.2000. New paradigm or old myopia? Unsettling the communicative turn in planning theory. Journal of Planning Education and Research. 19: 333-42.
40.
Innes, Judith.1995. Planning theory's emerging paradigm: Communicative action and interactive practice. Journal of Planning Education and Research14 (3): 183-90.
41.
Innes, Judith, and J. Gruber.2005. Planning styles in conflict: The Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Journal of the American Planning Association71 (2): 177-88.
42.
Jamal, Tazim B., Stanley M. Stein, and Thomas L. Harper .2002. Beyond labels: Pragmatic planning in multistakeholder tourism-environmental conflicts. Journal of Planning Education and Research22 (2): 164-77.
43.
Kohl, Benjamin.2003. Democratizing decentralization in Brazil: The law of popular participation. Journal of Planning Education and Research23 (2): 153-64.
44.
Laurian, Lucie.2004. Public participation in environmental decision making . Journal of the American Planning Association70 (1): 53-66.
45.
Lindblom, Charles.1979. Usable knowledge: Social science and social problem solving . New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
46.
Mandelbaum, Seymour.2000. Open moral communities. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
47.
Margerum, Richard D.2002. Collaborative planning: Building consensus and building a distinct model of practice. Journal of Planning Education and Research. 21 (2): 237-53.
48.
Marris, Peter1987. Meaning and action: Community planning and conceptions of change. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
49.
________. 1996. The politics of uncertainty: Attachment in private and public life. New York: Routledge .
50.
Menand, Louis.2001. The metaphysical club: A story of ideas in America. New York: Farra, Straus, & Giroux.
51.
Rorty, Richard.1991. Objectivity, relativism and truth. New York: Cambridge University Press.
52.
Sanyal, Bish.2002. Globalization, ethical compromise and planning theory . Planning Theory1 (2): 116-23.
53.
Schon, Donald1983. The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.
54.
Stein, Stanley, and Thomas Harper.2003. Power, trust and planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research23 (2): 125-39.
55.
Takahashi, Lois M., and Gayle Smutny.2001. Collaboration among small, community-based organizations: Strategies and challenges in turbulent environments. Journal of Planning Education and Research. 21 (2): 141-53.
56.
Taylor, Nigel.1998. Mistaken interests and the discourse model of planning . Journal of the American Planning Association64 (1): 64-75.
57.
Throgmorton, James A.1996. Planning as persuasive storytelling: The rhetorical construction of Chicago's electric future. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
58.
Umemeoto, Karen, and Krisnawati Suryanata .2005. Technology, culture, and environmental uncertainty: Considering social contracts and adaptive management . Journal of Planning Education and Research25 (3): 264-73.
59.
Van Eetern, Michel, and Emery Roe.2000. When fiction conveys truth and authority: The Netherlands Green Heart planning controversy. Journal of the American Planning Association66 (1): 58-67.
60.
Van Herzle, Ann.2004. Local knowledge in action: Valuing non-professional reasoning in the planning process. Journal of Planning Education and Research24 (2): 197-212.
61.
Verma, Niraj.1998. Similarities, connections and systems. New York: Lexington Books.
62.
Verma, Niraj, and HaeRan Shin.2004. Communicative action and the network society: A pragmatic marriage?Journal of Planning Education and Research24 (2): 131-40.
63.
Walzer, Michael, 1994. Thick and thin: Moral argument at home and abroad. South Bend, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
64.
Watson, Vanessa.2002. Do we learn from planning practice? The contribution of the practice movement to planning theory. Journal of Planning Education and Research22: 178-87.
65.
Wilson, R., M. Payne, and E. Smith.2003. Does discussion enhance rationality? A report from transportation planning practice. Journal of the American Planning Association69 (4): 354-67.
66.
Yiftachel, Orem.1995. Planning as control: Policy and resistance in a deeply divided society. Progress in Planning44: 116-87.
