Turbulent debates between divergent actors are part of the fiber of planning. One manifestation of tensions is the emergence of tactical coalitions with citizens finding common ground across the political divide. This article seeks to theorize such coalition formation for which planning scholarship is sparse. Drawing from agonism, other scholarship, and three U.S. cases of sustainable infrastructure, I develop a typology of tactical coalitions based on their level of strategic interaction, duration, and transformation. This research and theorization provides compelling evidence that polarized citizens connect in agonistic and deliberative ways outside of formal planning processes and have influence in decision making.
AbdelrahmanM.2009. “With the Islamists?—Sometimes. With the State?—Never!” Cooperation between the Left and Islamists in Egypt. British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies36 (1): 37–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/13530190902749556.
2.
AbdelrahmanM.2013. In Praise of Organization: Egypt between Activism and Revolution. Development and Change44 (3): 569–85. https://doi.org/10.1111/dech.12028
3.
AbramowitzA.2012. Grand Old Tea Party: Partisan Polarization and the Rise of the Tea Party Movement. In Steep: The precipitous rise of the Tea Party, ed. RosenthalL.TrostC., 195–211. Berkeley: University of California Press.
4.
AbramsJ. B.GosnellH.2012. The Politics of Marginality in Wallowa County, Oregon: Contesting the Production of Landscapes of Consumption. Journal of Rural Studies28 (1): 30–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2011.09.004.
5.
BäcklundP.MäntysaloR.2010. Agonism and Institutional Ambiguity: Ideas on Democracy and the Role of Participation in the Development of Planning Theory and Practice—The Case of Finland. Planning Theory9 (4): 333–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095210373684.
6.
BenfordR. D.SnowD. A.2000. Framing Processes and Social Movements: An Overview and Assessment. Annual Review of Sociology26: 611–39. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.26.1.611.
7.
BennerC.PastorM.2015. Collaboration, Conflict, and Community Building at the Regional Scale Implications for Advocacy Planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research35 (3): 307–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X15580024.
8.
BennerC.PastorM.2016. Whither Resilient Regions? Equity, Growth and Community. Journal of Urban Affairs38 (1): 5–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/juaf.12194.
9.
BerletC.2012. Reframing Populist Resentments in the Tea Party Movement. In Steep: The precipitous rise of the Tea Party, ed. RosenthalL.TrostC., 47–66. Berkeley: University of California Press.
10.
BleyerP.1992. Coalitions of Social Movements as Agencies for Social Change: The Action Canada Network. In Organizing dissent: Contemporary Social Movements in Theory and Practice, ed. CarrollW. K., 102–17. Aurora, Canada: Garamond Press.
11.
BondS.2011. Negotiating a “Democratic Ethos”: Moving Beyond the Agonistic–Communicative Divide. Planning Theory10 (2): 161–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095210383081.
BystydzienskiJ. M.SchachtS. P., eds. 2001. Forging Radical Alliances Across Difference: Coalition Politics for the New Millennium. Latham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
14.
CampbellH.2016. Lessons from the UK’s Brexit Vote: Will it Prove to be a Fork in the Road or Just the Same Old Cul-de-sac?Planning Theory & Practice17 (4): 489–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2016.1239731.
15.
ConnollyW. E.1995. The Ethos of Pluralization. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
16.
CortrightJ.2014. Letter to Oregon State Treasurer Ted Wheeler, February11.
ClayW. L.1993. Just Permanent Interests: Black Americans in Congress, 1870–1992. New York: Amistad Press Inc.
19.
DaganD.TelesS.2016. Prison Break: Why Conservatives Turned Against Mass Incarceration. New York: Oxford University Press.
20.
DianiM.2000. Simmel to Rokkan and Beyond: Elements for a Network Theory of (New) Social Movements. European Journal of Social Theory3 (4): 387–406. https://doi.org/10.1177/13684310022224868.
21.
EarlJ.ImportK.2011. Digitally Enabled Social Change: Activism in the Internet Age. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
22.
Evans CowleyJ.2010. Planning in the Age of Facebook: The Role of Social Networking in Planning Processes. GeoJournal75: 407–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-010-9388-0.
23.
Evans CowleyJ.GriffinG.2012. Microparticipation with Social Media for Community Engagement in Transportation Planning. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board2307:90–98.
FoleyE. P.2012. The Tea Party: Three Principles. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
26.
ForesterJ.2009. Dealing with Differences. Dramas of Mediating Public Disputes. New York: Oxford University Press.
27.
ForesterJ.2013. Planning in the Face of Conflict: The Surprising Possibilities of Facilitative Leadership. Chicago: APA Planners Press.
28.
FougèreL.BondS.2016. Legitimising Activism in Democracy: A Place for Antagonism in Environmental Governance. Planning Theory. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095216682795.
29.
FrickK. T.HemingerSteveDittmar.Hank1996. Bay Bridge Congestion Pricing Project: Lessons Learned to Date. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board1558:29–38. https://doi.org/10.3141/1558-05.
30.
GaffikinF.MorrisseyM.2011. Planning in Divided Cities. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
GunderM.2003. Passionate Planning for the Others’ Desire: An Agonistic Response to the Dark Side of Planning. Progress in Planning60 (3): 235–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-9006(02)00115-0.
34.
GunderM.2006. Sustainability: Planning’s Saving Grace or Road to Perdition?Journal of Planning Education and Research26 (2): 208–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X06289359.
35.
HajerM.1993. Discourse Coalitions and the Institutionalization of Practice: The Case of Acid Rain in Britain. In The argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning, ed. FischerF.ForesterJ., 43–76. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
36.
HajerM. A.1995. The Politics of Environmental Discourse. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
37.
HamiltonT.CurranW.2012. From “Five Angry Women” to “Kick-Ass Community”: Gentrification and Environmental Activism in Brooklyn and Beyond. Urban Studies50 (8): 1557–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098012465128.
38.
HendersonJ.2006. Secessionist Automobility: Racism, Anti-Urbanism, and the Politics of Automobility in Atlanta, Georgia. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research30 (2): 293–307. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2006.00662.x.
39.
HessJ. Z.RynczakD.MinarikJ. D.Landrum-Brown.J2010. Alternative Settings for Liberal-Conservative Exchange: Examining an Undergraduate Dialogue Course. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology20 (2): 156–66. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.1032.
40.
HillierJ.2002. Direct action and Agonism in Democratic Planning Practice. In Planning Futures: New Directions for Planning Theory, ed. AllmendingerP.Tewdwr-JonesM., 110–35. New York: Routledge.
HoopK. C.2006. Unlikely Coalition Building in Social Movements: A Comparative Case Study of Organizational Framing. Unpublished Dissertation, Loyola University, Chicago, IL.
43.
HorwitzR. B.2013. America’s Right: Anti-establishment Conservatism from Goldwater to the Tea Party. Cambridge, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
44.
InchA.2014. Ordinary Citizens and the Political Cultures of Planning: In Search of the Subject of a New Democratic Ethos. Planning Theory14 (4): 404–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095214536172.
45.
InnesJ. E.BooherD. E.2010. Planning with Complexity: An Introduction to Collaborative Rationality for Public Policy. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
46.
JacobsH. M.2010. Social Conflict Over Property Rights: The End, a New Beginning or a Continuing Conversation?Housing Policy Debate20 (3): 329–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511481003788760.
47.
JacobsH. M.2012. Talking About Property Rights Over Tea: Discourse and Policy in the U.S. and Europe. In Planning by Law and Property Rights Reconsidered, ed. HartmannT.NeedhamB., 71–98. Surrey, UK: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.
48.
JacobsH. M.PaulsenK.2009. Property Rights: The Neglected Theme of 20th-Century American Planning. Journal of the American Planning Association75 (2): 134–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360802619721.
LeinoH.LaineM.2012. Do Matters of Concern Matter? Bringing Issues Back to Participation. Planning Theory11 (1): 89–103. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095211417595.
MäntysaloR.BalducciA.KagasojaJ.2011. Planning as Agonistic Communication in a Trading Zone: Re-examining Lindblom’s Partisan Mutual Adjustment. Planning Theory10 (3): 257–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095210397147.
McClymontK.2011. Revitalising the Political: Development Control and Agonism in Planning Practice. Planning Theory10 (3): 239–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095211399398.
62.
MouatC.LegacyC.MarchA.2013. The Problem is the Solution: Testing Agonistic Theory’s Potential to Recast Intractable Planning Disputes. Urban Policy and Research31 (2): 150–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/08111146.2013.776496.
MouffeC.2005. On the Political (Thinking in Action). Abdingon, UK: Routledge.
65.
MouffeC.2013. Agonistics: Thinking the World Politically. London: Verso.
66.
MurdochJ.AbramS.2002. Rationalities of Planning: Development Versus Environment in Planning for Housing. Hampshire, UK: Ashgate.
67.
MyersD.2015. Mutual Benefits and Equity Amid Racial Diversity: A Generational Strategy for Growing a Broader Base of Support for Social Equity. Journal of Planning Education and Research35 (3): 369–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X15596579.
68.
NagleJ.2013. “Unity in Diversity”: Non-sectarian Social Movement Challenges to the Politics of Ethnic Antagonism in Violently Divided Cities. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research37 (1): 78–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2012.01156.x.
69.
OrfieldM.1997. Metropolitics: A Regional Agenda for Community and Stability. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
70.
OwensS.CowellR.2002. Land and Limits: Interpreting Sustainability in the Planning Process. London: Routledge.
PostelC.2012. The Tea Party in Historical Perspective: A Conservative Response to a Crisis of Political Economy. In Steep: The Precipitous Rise of the Tea Party, ed. RosenthalL.TrostC., 25–46. Berkeley: University of California Press.
76.
PurcellM.2009. Hegemony and Difference in Political Movements: Articulating Networks of Equivalence. New Political Science31 (3): 291–317. https://doi.org/10.1080/07393140903105959.
77.
RamseyK.2008. A Call for Agonism: GIS and the Politics of Collaboration. Environment and Planning40 (10): 2346–63. https://doi.org/10.1068/a4028.
78.
RiveroJ. J.2017. Making Post-truth Planning Great Again: Confronting Alternative Facts in a Fractured Democracy. Planning Theory & Practice18 (3): 490–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2017.1333710.
79.
RosenthalL.TrostC.2012. Steep: The Precipitous Rise of the Tea Party. Berkeley: University of California Press.
80.
Schaffer BoudetH.OrtolanoL.2010. A Tale of Two Sitings: Contentions Politics in Liquefied Natural Gas Facility Siting in California. Journal of the Planning Education and Research30 (1): 5–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X10373079.
SchweitzerL.2014. Planning and Social Media: A Case Study of Public Transit and Stigma on Twitter. Journal of the American Planning Association80: 218–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2014.98043.
83.
ShipleyR.UtzS.2012. Making it Count: A Review of the Value and Techniques for Public Consultation. Journal of Planning Literature27 (1): 22–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885412211413133.
SkocpolT.WilliamsonV.2011. The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
87.
StoneC. N.1989. Regime Politics: Governing Atlanta 1946-1988. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
88.
SunsteinC. R.2007. Republic.com 2.0. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
89.
SusskindL.FieldP.1996. Dealing with an Angry Public: The Mutual Gains Approach to Resolving Disputes. New York: Simon & Schuster.
90.
TarrowS.1993. Cycles of Collective Action: Between Moments of Madness and the Repertoire of Contention. Social Science History17 (2): 281–307. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0145553200016850.
91.
ThrogmortonJ.2013. What can Planning Theory be Now? Storytelling and Community Identity in a Tea Party Moment. In The Ashgate Research Companion to Planning and Culture, ed. YoungG., 105–20. Farnham, UK: Ashgate Publishing.
92.
TillyC.2006. Regimes and Repertoires. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
93.
Trapenberg FrickK. 2013. Actions of Discontent: Tea Party and Property Rights Activists Pushing Back Against Regional Planning. Journal of the American Planning Association79 (3): 190–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2013.885312.
94.
Trapenberg FrickK. 2016. Citizen Activism, Conservative Views & Megaplanning in a Digital Era. Planning Theory and Practice17 (1): 93–118. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2015.1125520.
95.
Trapenberg FrickK.WeinzimmerD.WaddellP.2015. The Politics of Sustainable Development Opposition: State Legislative Efforts to Stop the United Nation’s Agenda 21 in the United States. Urban Studies52 (2): 209–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098014528397.
96.
Van DykeN. 2003. Crossing Movement Boundaries: Factors that Facilitate Coalition Protest by American College Students, 1930–1990. Social Problems50 (2): 226–50. https://doi.org/10.1525/sp.2003.50.2.226.
WeirM.WolmanH.SwanstromT.2005. The Calculus of Coalitions Cities, Suburbs, and the Metropolitan Agenda. Urban Affairs Review40 (6): 730–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087405276200.
99.
WestermeyerW. H.2016. Local Tea Party Groups and the Vibrancy of the Movement. PoLAR: Political and Legal Anthropology Review39 (S1): 121–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/plar.12175.
WhittemoreA.2013. Finding Sustainability in Conservative Contexts: Topics for Conversation between American Conservative Elites, Planners and the Conservative Base. Urban Studies50 (12): 2460–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098012474698.
102.
WhittierN.2014. Rethinking Coalitions: Anti-pornography Feminists, Conservatives, and Relationships between Collaborative Adversarial Movements. Social Problems61 (2): 175–93. https://doi.org/10.1525/sp.2014.12151.
103.
WingenbachE.2013. Institutionalizing Agonistic Democracy: Post-foundationalism and Political Liberalism. Surrey, UK: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.
104.
YamamotoA.2016. Why Agonistic Planning? Questioning Chantal Mouffe’s thesis of the Ontological Primacy of the Political. Planning Theory16 (4): 384–403. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095216654941.
105.
YoungR. F.2015. The Oregon way: Planning a Sustainable Economy in the American West. Journal of Planning Education and Research36 (1): 76–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X15595866.
106.
ZakhourS.MetzgerJ.2016. Placing the Action in Context: Problematizing Public-centered Understandings of Democratic Planning Politics. Division of Urban and Regional Studies, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden. Presented at Moving beyond Conflict in Planning; Towards a Critical Consensus Politics? Conference, RMIT University, Barcelona.
