There has been a noticeable silence among planning researchers concerning the notion of reflexivity. This is in sharp contrast to other areas of the social sciences, where the issues of reflexivity have recently assumed major prominence. This article argues that concepts and theories of Bourdieu’s notion of reflexivity generated primarily in the fields of sociological research provide a necessary and fruitful backcloth for the study of planning and land-use development. Following a brief consideration of the Habermasian and Foucauldian approaches that have come to dominate planning thought in recent times, we explore Bourdieuian notions of reflexivity, habitus, capital and field. We argue that a Bourdieuian stance, with its greater emphasis on digesting and acknowledging the researched habitus, field and capital, will offer planning researchers new tools for understanding the nature and outcomes of planning practices. Furthermore, we contend that a Bourdieuian conceptual framework will highlight the durable and embodied nature of the intuitive practices of many actors in planning and development processes.
Adams, D.
(1994) Urban Planning and the Development Process. London: UCL Press.
2.
Alexander, E.
(2000) ‘Rationality Revisited: Planning Paradigms in a Post-postmodernist Perspective’, Journal of Planning Education and Research19(3): 242-256.
3.
Allen, J.
(1996) ‘Our Town: Foucault and Knowledge-based Politics in London’, in S. Mandelbaum, L. Mazza and R. Burchell (eds) Explorations in Planning Theory, pp. 328-344. New Brunswick: The State University of New Jersey.
4.
Ambrose, P.
(1994) Urban Process and Power. London: Routledge.
5.
Bannister, C.
, Turner, J. and Richardson, T. (2000) Unravelling the Transport Web. London: Landor.
6.
Beck, U.
, Giddens, A. and Lash, S. (1994) Reflexive Modernaization: Politics, Tradition and Aesthetics in the Modern Social Order. Cambridge: Polity Press.
7.
Bennett, T.
, Emmison, M. and Frow, J. (1999) Accounting for Taste. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8.
Bourdieu, P. (1972) Esquisse d’une théorie de la pratique, précédée de trios etudes d’ethnologie Kabyle. Geneva: Droz.
9.
Bourdieu, P.
(1977) Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10.
Bourdieu, P.
(1984) In Other Words: Essays towards a Reflexive Sociology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
11.
Bourdieu, P.
(1988) Homo Academicus. Cambridge: Polity Press.
12.
Bourdieu, P.
(1990) The Logic of Practice. Cambridge: Polity Press.
13.
Bourdieu, P.
(1991) Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge: Polity Press.
14.
Bourdieu, P.
(1994) ‘Rethinking the State: Genesis and the Structure of the Bureaucratic Field’, Sociological Theory12(1): 1-18.
15.
Bourdieu, P.
(1998) Practical Reason: On the Theory of Action. Stanford, CA: Polity Press.
16.
Bourdieu, P.
and Wacquant, L.J.D. (1992) An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
17.
Callinicos, A.
(1999) Social Theory: An Introduction. Cambridge: Polity Press.
18.
Dovey, K.
(2002) ‘The Silent Complicity of Architecture’, in J. Hillier and E. Rooksby (eds) Habitus: A Sense of Place, pp. 267-280. Aldershot: Ashgate.
19.
Elliot, A.
(2002) ‘Beck’s Sociology of Risk: A Critical Assessment’, Sociology36(2): 293-316.
20.
Fainstein, S.
(2000) ‘New Directions in Planning Theory’, Urban Affairs Review35(4): 451-478.
21.
Fischer, F.
(1990) Technocracy and the Politics of Expertise. London: Sage.
22.
Fischer, F.
(1999) ‘Technical Deliberation in a Democratic Society: The Case for Participatory Inquiry’, Science and Public Policy26(5): 294-302.
23.
Flyvbjerg, B.
(1998) Rationality and Power: Democracy in Practice. London: University of Chicago Press.
24.
Flyvbjerg, B.
(2001) Making Social Science Matter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
25.
Forester, J.
(1989) Planning in the Face of Power. London: University of California Press.
26.
Forester, J.
(1993) Critical Theory, Public Policy and Planning Practice. Albany: University of New York Press.
27.
Forester, J.
(1999) The Deliberative Practitioner: Encouraging Participatory Planning Processes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
28.
Friedmann, J.
(2002) ‘Placemaking as Project? Habitus and Migration in Transnational Cities’, in J. Hillier and E. Rooksby (eds) Habitus: A Sense of Place, pp. 299-316. Aldershot: Ashgate.
29.
Gerber, J.
(1997) ‘Beyond Dualism: The Social Construction of Nature and Social Construction of Human Beings’, Progress in Human Geography21(1): 1-17.
30.
Healey, P.
(1992) ‘Planning through Debate: The Communicative Turn to Planning Theory’, Town Planning Review63(2): 143-162.
31.
Healey, P.
(1993) ‘The Communicative Work of Development Plans’, Environment and Planning B20(1): 80-104.
32.
Healey, P.
(1997) Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies. London: Macmillan.
33.
Healey, P.
(1998) ‘Building Institutional Capacity through Collaborative Approaches to Urban Planning’, Environment and Planning A30(10): 1531-1546.
34.
Healey, P.
(1999) ‘Deconstructing Planning Theory: A Reply to Tewdwr-Jones and Allmendinger’, Environment and Planning A31(7): 1129-1135.
35.
Healey, P.
and Hillier, J. (1996) ‘Communicative Micropolitics: A Story of Claims and Discourses’, International Planning Studies1(2): 165-184.
36.
Hillier, J.
(1998) ‘Paradise Proclaimed? Towards a Theoretical Understanding of Representatives of Nature in Land Use Planning Decision Making’, Ethics, Place and Environment1: 77-91.
37.
Hillier, J.
(2000) ‘Going Round the Back? Complex Networks and Informal Action in Local Planning Processes’, Environment and Planning A32(1): 33-54.
38.
Hillier, J.
(2002) ‘Mind the Gap’, in J. Hillier and E. Rooksby (eds) Habitus: A Sense of Place. Aldershot: Ashgate.
39.
Huxley, M.
and Yiftachel, O. (2000) ‘New Paradigm or Old Myopia? Unsettling the Communicative Turn in Planning Theory’, Journal of Planning Education and Research19(3): 333-342.
40.
Innes, J.
(1995) ‘Planning Theory’s Emerging Paradigm: Communicative Action and Interactive Practice’, Journal of Planning Education and Research14(3): 183-189.
41.
Jacobs, A.
(1978) Making City Planning Work. Washington, DC: Planners Press.
42.
Jenkins, R.
(1992) Pierre Bourdieu. London: Routledge.
43.
Kelly, M.
(1994) Critique and Power: Recasting the Foucault/Habermas Debate. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
44.
Kitchen, T.
(1997) People, Politics, Policies and Plans: The City Planning Process in Contemporary Britain. London: Paul Chapman.
45.
Lane, J.F.
(2000) Pierre Bourdieu: A Critical Introduction. London: Pluto Press.
46.
McGuirk, P.
(2001) ‘Situating Communicative Planning Theory: Context, Power, and Knowledge’, Environment and Planning A33(2): 195-217.
47.
Mahar, C.
, Harker, R. and Wilkes, C. (1990) An Introduction to the Work of Pierre Bourdieu: The Practice of Theory. London: Macmillan.
48.
Murdoch, J.
(1997) ‘Inhuman/Nonhuman/Human: Actor-Network Theory and the Prospects for a Nondualistic and Symmetrical Perspective on Nature and Society’, Environment and Planning D15(7): 731-756.
49.
Painter, J.
(1997) ‘Regulation, Regime and Practice in Urban Politics’, in M. Lauria (ed.) Reconstructing Urban Regime Theory: Regulating Urban Politics in a Global Economy, pp. 122-143. London: Sage.
50.
Putnam, R.
(1993) Making Democracy Work. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
51.
Rabinow, P.
(1984) The Foucault Reader. New York: Random House.
52.
Richardson, T.
(1996) ‘Foucauldian Discourse: Power and Truth in Urban and Regional Policy Making’, European Planning Studies4(3): 279-292.
53.
Sager, T.
(1994) Communicative Planning Theory. Aldershot: Avebury.
54.
Schon, D.
(1983) The Reflexive Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Practice. New York: Basic Books.
55.
Schon, D.
and Rein, M. (1994) Frame Reflection. New York: Basic Books.
56.
Selman, P.
(2000) ‘Networks of Knowledge and Influence: Connecting “the Planners” and “the Planned”’, Town Planning Review71(1): 109-121.
57.
Selman, P.
(2001) ‘Social Capital, Sustainability and Environmental Planning’, Planning Theory and Practice2(1): 13-30.
58.
Selman, P.
and Parker, J. (1997) ‘Citizenship, Civicness and Social Capital’, Local Environment2(2): 171-184.
59.
Shusterman, R.
(1999) Bourdieu: A Critical Reader. Oxford: Blackwell.
60.
Smith, P.
(2001) Cultural Theory: An Introduction. London: Blackwell.
61.
Tait, M.
(1999) ‘The Articulation of Structure and Power in Planning Theory Methodological Issues’, paper presented to Planning’s Future conference, University of Sheffield, 28 March.
62.
Taylor, C.
(1993) ‘To Follow a Rule...’, in C. Calhoun, L. Pulma and M. Postone (eds) Bourdieu: Critical Perspectives, pp. 45-60. Cambridge: Polity Press.
63.
Taylor, N.
(1998) Urban Planning Theory Since 1945. London: Sage.
64.
Tewdwr-Jones, M.
and Allmendinger, P. (1998) ‘Deconstructing Communicative Rationality: A Critique of Habermasian Collaborative Planning’, Environment and Planning A30(10): 1975-1989.
65.
Thrift, N.
(1996) Spatial Formations. London: Sage.
66.
Webb, J.
, Schirato, T. and Danaher, G. (2002) Understanding Bourdieu. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.
67.
Williams, C.
and Windebank, J. (2000) ‘Rebuilding Social Capital in Deprived Urban Neighbourhoods’, Town and Country Planning69: 351-353.
68.
Wilson, P.
(1997) ‘Building Social Capital: A Learning Agenda for the 21st Century’, Urban Studies34(4): 745-760.
