This article conceptualizes two interrelated constellations of effects produced by practices of power in New Zealand planning. These are symbolic violence and institutional victimization. This article contends that acts of submission and obedience become symbols of violence when the state’s planning regimes allow no elements of choice, or freedom to resist, for those acted upon. This is compounded further into institutional victimization when the oppressors are also the final practicable, or actual, arbiters of appeal. We provide evidence that suggests this is a regular occurrence in New Zealand and, further, is indicative of a wider ranging consequence of modern governance that Foucault called governmentality. In New Zealand, the provision of a theoretically consultative statutory planning process obscures the actual rationality of exclusion underlining many of its planning practices.
Allmendinger, P.
(2001) Planning in Postmodern Times. London: Routledge.
2.
Auckland Regional Growth Forum
(1998) Residential Intensification Developers Survey.
3.
Auckland Regional Growth Forum
(1999) Auckland Regional Growth Strategy: 2050. A Vision for Managing Growth in the Auckland Region.
4.
Bevan, J.
and Jay, M. (1998) ‘Compensation for Adverse Effects, or Buying Consent?’, Resource Management NewsVI(1): 4-7.
5.
Bourdieu, P.
(1998) Practical Reason: On the Theory of Action. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
6.
Bourdieu, P.
(2000) Pascalian Meditations. Cambridge: Polity Press.
7.
Bryson, J.M.
and Crosby, B.C. (1995) ‘Planning and the Design and Use of Forums, Arenas, and Courts’, in S.J. Mandelbaumet al. (eds) Explorations in Planning Theory, pp. 462-482. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
8.
Bush, G.
(1995) Local Government and Politics in New Zealand. Auckland: Auckland University Press.
9.
Clifford, M.
(2001) Political Genealogy after Foucault. London: Routledge.
10.
Compton, R.
(2000) ‘Aggregates: Between a Rock and a Hard Place’, New Zealand Minerals and Mining Conference Proceedings, 29-31 October 2000.
11.
Dean, M.
(1999) Governmentality: Power and Rule in Modern Society. London: Sage.
12.
Fischler, R.
(2000) ‘Communicative Planning Theory: A Foucauldian Assessment’, Journal of Planning Education and Research19(4): 358-368.
13.
Flyvbjerg, B.
(1995) ‘The Dark Side of Planning: Rationality and Realrationalität’, in S.J. Mandelbaumet al. (eds) Explorations in Planning Theory, pp. 383-394. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
14.
Flyvbjerg, B.
(1998) Rationality and Power: Democracy in Practice. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
15.
Flyvbjerg, B.
(2001) Making Social Science Matter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
16.
Forester, J.
(1999) The Deliberative Practitioner. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
17.
Foucault, M.
(1977) Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Pantheon Books.
18.
Foucault, M.
(1980) Power/Knowledge. Brighton: Harvester Press.
19.
Foucault, M.
(1982) ‘Afterword: The Subject and Power’, in H. Dreyfus and P. Rabinow (eds) Michael Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics, pp. 208-226. Brighton: Harvester Books.
20.
Foucault, M.
(1988a) ‘The Ethic of Care for the Self as a Practice of Freedom’, in J. Bernauer and D. Rasmussen (eds) The Final Foucault, pp. 1-20. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
21.
Foucault, M.
(1988b) ‘Politics and Reason’, in L. Kritzman (ed.) Michel Foucault: Politics, Philosophy, Culture, pp. 57-85. New York: Routledge.
22.
Foucault, M.
(1991a) ‘Governmentality’, in G. Burchell, C. Gordon and P. Miller (eds) The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality, pp. 87-104. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
23.
Foucault, M.
(1991b) ‘Questions of Method’, in G. Burchell, C. Gordon and P. Miller (eds) The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality, pp. 73-86. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
24.
Foucault, M.
(1994) ‘What is Enlightenment?’, in P. Rabinow (ed.) Michel Foucault Ethics: Subjectivity and Truth, pp. 303-320. London: Penguin Press.
25.
Foucault, M.
(1998) ‘Nietzsche, Genealogy, History’, in J.D. Faubion (ed.) Michael Foucault: Aesthetics, pp. 369-392. London: Allen Lane/Penguin Press.
26.
Gleeson, B.
(2000) ‘The Politics of Consent Notification’, in P.A. Memon and H. Perkins (eds) Environmental Planning and Management in New Zealand, pp. 115-122. Palmerston North: Dunmore Press.
27.
Gleeson, B.J.
and Grundy, K.J. (1997) ‘New Zealand’s Planning Revolution Five Years On: A Preliminary Assessment’, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management40(3): 293-313.
28.
Grundy, K.J.
(1997) ‘Empty Promises? Public Participation under the RMA’, Resource Management NewsVI(2): 3-7.
29.
Gunder, M.
(1998) ‘Planning Beyond the Fetish of Modern Ideology’, Australian Planner35(2): 68-76.
30.
Gunder, M.
(2000) ‘Urban Policy Formation under Efficiency: The Case of Auckland City Councils’ Britomart Project’, in P.A. Memon and H. Perkins (eds) Environmental Planning and Management in New Zealand, pp. 294-308. Palmerston North: Dunmore Press.
31.
Healey, P.
(1997) Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies. London: Macmillan Press.
32.
Hillier, J.
(2002) Shadows of Power: An Allegory of Prudence. London: Routledge.
33.
Huxley, M.
(1997) ‘The “Hidden Injuries’’ of Regulation: Land-Use Control, Social Control and Environmental Justice’, paper presented at the Environmental Justice: Global Ethics for the 21st Century: International Academic Conference of the University of Melbourne, Australia, 1-3 October.
34.
Huxley, M.
and Yiftachel, O. (2000) ‘New Paradigm or Old Myopia? Unsettling the Communicative Turn in Planning Theory’, Journal of Planning Education and Research19: 333-342.
35.
Innes, J.E.
(1995) ‘Planning Theory’s Emerging Paradigm: Communicative Action and Interactive Practice’, Journal of Planning Education and Research14(3): 183-190.
36.
Jameson, F.
(1984) ‘Postmodernism, or the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism’, New Left Review146: 53-92.
37.
Lewi, H.
and Wickham, G. (1996) ‘Modern Urban Government: A Foucaultian Perspective’, Urban Policy and Research14(1): 51-64.
38.
Lovell, A.
(2000) ‘Power, Politics and Planning: The Eden Park Case Study’, unpublished MPlan Research Project, University of Auckland, New Zealand.
39.
Lyotard, J.-F.
(1988) The Differend. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
40.
McDermott, P.
(1998) ‘Positioning Planning in a Market Economy’, Environment and Planning: A30: 631-646.
41.
McSweeney, J.
and Yarrow, R. (2000) ‘Making the Process Transparent’, Planning Quarterly138: 4-5.
42.
Memon, P.A.
and Gleeson, B.J. (1995) ‘Towards a New Planning Paradigm? Reflections on New Zealand’s Resource Management Act’, Environment and Planning B22: 109-124.
43.
Memon, P.A.
and Perkins H. (eds) (2000) Environmental Planning and Management in New Zealand. Palmerston North: Dunmore Press.
44.
Miller, C.
(2000) ‘Alternative Methods in Resource Management: a New Zealand Example’, Planning Practice and Research15(1/2): 129-134.
45.
Ministry for the Environment
(1994) A Guideline for Charging under Section 36 of the Resource Management Act. Wellington: Ministry for the Environment.
46.
Ministry for the Environment
(1996a) Notification under the Resource Management Act 1991, Working Paper 6. Wellington: Ministry for the Environment.
47.
Ministry for the Environment
(1996b) Public Participation under The Resource Management Act 1991: The Management of Conflict. Wellington: Ministry for the Environment.
48.
Ministry for the Environment
(2000) Proposed Plan Submission Analysis: A Report and Good Practice Guide on the Assessment and Management of those Submissions made under the Resource Management Act Having Significant Environmental Effects. Wellington: Ministry for the Environment.
49.
Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment
(1998) Side Agreements in the Resource Consent Process: Implications for the Environmental Management. Report Summary. Wellington: PCE.
50.
Perkins, H.
and Thorns, D. (2001) ‘A Decade On: Reflections on the Resource Management Act 1991 and the Practice of Urban Planning in New Zealand’, Environment and Planning B28: 639-654.
51.
Pløger, J.
(2001) ‘Public Participation and the Art of Governance’, Environment and Planning B28: 219-241.
52.
Ransom, J.S.
(1997) Foucault’s Discipline: The Politics of Subjectivity. London: Duke University Press.
53.
Reser, J.
and Bentrupperbaumer, J. (2001) ‘Reframing the Nature and Scope of Social Impact Assessment: Psychological and Social (Psychosocial) Impacts’, in A. Daleet al. (eds) Social Assessment in Natural Resource Management Institutions, pp. 105-124. Collingwood, Victoria: CSIRO Publishing.
54.
Sager, T.
(1998) ‘Meaningful Collective Choice? Public Planning and Arrow’s Theorem’, Progress in Planning50(2): 75-140.
55.
Tajbakhsh, K.
(2001) The Promise of the City: Space, Identity and Politics in Contemporary Social Thought. Berkeley: University of California Press.
56.
Upton, S.
(1994) Address to the Resource Management Law Association, by Hon. Simon Upton, Minister for the Environment, Park Royal Hotel, Wellington, October.
57.
Yiftachel, O.
(1995) ‘Planning as Control: Policy and Resistance in a Deeply Divided Society’, Progress in Planning44: 115-184.
58.
Yiftachel, O.
(1998) ‘Planning and Social Control: Exploring the Dark Side’, Journal of Planning Literature12(4): 395-406.
