Habermas’ critical theory, and particularly his theory of communicative action, has been applied in the theory and practice of communicative planning. The concept of creating a public sphere in planning processes has been used as an ‘ought’ that planners should seek to achieve to create a communicative rationality. Accepting some of the critique of communicative planning from an agonist and Foucauldian perspective, this paper presents a new application of Habermas’ critical theory. Evidence is presented from community activists in two neighbourhoods of their ongoing reflection on the changes to their built environment over 20 years of regeneration. In this context, Habermas’ theoretical work does explain the long-term discourse as the community moved towards a shared consensus on their neighbourhood. This is used to suggest that instead of looking for consensus in the tense conflicting of moments of initial engagement, planners should focus on the longue durée, and the Lifeworld of lived experience, where shared subjectivities over the built environment can develop.
AshendenSOwenD (1999) Introduction: Foucault, Habermas and the politics of critique. In: AshendenSOwenD (eds) Foucault Contra Habermas. London: SAGE, 1–20.
2.
AtkinsonR (1999) Discourses of partnership and empowerment in contemporary British urban regeneration. Urban Studies36(1): 59–72.
3.
AtkinsonR (2000) Narratives of policy: The construction of urban problems and urban policy in the official discourse of British government 1968–1998. Critical Social Policy20(2): 211–232.
4.
AtkinsonRKintreaK (2004) ‘Opportunities and despair, it’s all in there’: Practitioner experiences and explanations of area effects and life chances. Sociology38(3): 437–455.
5.
AtkinsonRMoonG (1994) Urban Policy in Britain: The City, the State and the Market. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
6.
BarnesM (2008) Passionate participation: Emotional experiences and expressions in deliberative forums. Critical Social Policy28(4): 461–481.
7.
BarnesMNewmanJSullivanH (2007) Power, Participation and Political Renewal: Case Studies in Public Participation. Bristol: Policy Press.
8.
BarnettC (2005) The consolations of ‘neoliberalism’. Geoforum36: 7–12.
9.
BarnettCClarkeNClokeP. (2008) The elusive subjects of neo-liberalism. Cultural Studies22(5): 624–653.
10.
BarryJ (2012) Indigenous state planning as inter-institutional capacity development: The evolution of government-to-government relations in coastal British Columbia, Canada. Planning Theory & Practice13(2): 213–231.
11.
BeaumontJLoopmansM (2008) Towards radicalized communicative rationality: Resident involvement and urban democracy in Rotterdam and Antwerp. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research32(1): 95–113.
12.
BernsteinRJ (1983) Beyond Objectivism and Relativism: Science, Hermeneutics and Praxis. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
BondS (2011) Negotiating a ‘democratic ethos’. Planning Theory10(2): 161–186.
15.
BrandRGaffikinF (2007) Collaborative planning in an uncollaborative world. Planning Theory6(3): 282–313.
16.
CochraneA (2003) The new urban policy: Towards empowerment or incorporation? The practice of urban policy. In: ImrieRRacoM (eds) Urban Renaissance? New Labour, Community and Urban Policy. Bristol: Polity Press, 223–234.
17.
CockburnC (1977) The Local State: Management of Cities and People. London: Pluto Press.
18.
CollinsC (1999) Applying Bakhtin in urban studies: The failure of community participation in the Ferguslie Park partnership. Urban Studies36(1): 73–90.
19.
CollinsCGunsonD (1997) From the I to the We: Discourse, ethics, identity, and the pragmatics of partnership in the west of Scotland. Communication Theory7(4): 278–300.
20.
CookD (2005) The sundered totality of system and lifeworld. Historical Materialism13(4): 55–78.
21.
CowellR (2004) Community planning: Fostering participation in the congested state?Local Government Studies30(4): 497–518.
22.
CPC (1999) An Evaluation of the New Life for Urban Scotland Initiative in Castlemilk, Ferguslie Park, Wester Hailes and Whitfield. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive.
23.
CruikshankB (1999) The Will to Empower: Democratic Citizens and Other Subjects. London: Cornell University Press.
24.
DarganL (2007) Conceptualising regeneration in the new deal for communities. Planning Theory & Practice8(3): 345–362.
25.
DekkerKVan KempenR (2004) Large housing estates in Europe: Current situation and developments. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie95(5): 570–577.
26.
DiamondJ (2005) Reflecting on the processes of a local evaluation: Networks, narratives and partnerships. International Journal of Public Sector Management18(2): 178–189.
27.
DryzekJ (1995) Critical theory as a research program. In: WhiteS (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to Habermas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 97–119.
28.
FeldmanMS (1995) Strategies for Interpreting Qualitative Data. London: SAGE.
29.
Ferguslie Park Partnership (FPP) (1989) A Pattern for New Life: Strategy for the Regeneration of Ferguslie Park. Edinburgh: Scottish Office.
30.
FinlaysonJG (2005) Habermas: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
31.
FischerF (2003) Reframing Public Policy: Discursive Politics and Deliberative Practices. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
32.
FischerFForesterJ (1993) Editor’s introduction. In: FischerFForesterJ (eds) The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning. London: UCL Press, 1–20.
33.
FischlerR (2000) Communicative planning theory: A Foucauldian assessment. Journal of Planning Education and Research19(4): 358–368.
34.
FlyvbjergB (1998a) Habermas and Foucault: Thinkers for civil society. British Journal of Sociology49(2): 210–233.
35.
FlyvbjergB (1998b) Rationality and Power: Democracy in Practice. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
36.
FlyvbjergB (2001) Making Social Science Matter: Why Social Inquiry Fails and How It Can Succeed Again. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
37.
FontanaAFreyJ (2000) The interview: From structured questions to negotiated text. In: DenzinNLincolnY (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research. London: SAGE, 645–672.
38.
ForesterJ (1993) Critical Theory, Public Policy, and Planning Practice: Towards a Critical Pragmatism. New York: State University of New York Press.
39.
FoucaultM (2003) What is enlightenment. In: RabinowPRoseN (eds) The Essential Foucault. London: The New Press, 43–57.
40.
FoucaultM ([1978] 2003) Governmentality. In: RabinowPRoseN (eds) The Essential Foucault. London: The New Press, 229–245.
41.
FoucaultM ([1980] 2003) Questions of method. In: RabinowPRoseN (eds) The Essential Foucault. London: The New Press, 246–258.
42.
FurbeyRA (1999) Urban ‘regeneration’: Reflections on a metaphor. Critical Social Policy19(4): 419–445.
43.
GansH (1976) On the methods used in this study. In: GoldenMP (ed.) The Research Experience. Itasca, IL: F.E. Peacock, 49–59.
44.
GeertzC (1974) ‘From the native’s point of view’: On the nature of anthropological understanding. Bulletin of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences28(1): 26–45.
45.
GilloranA (1983) Wester Hailes Ten Years On. Edinburgh: Wester Hailes Representative Council.
46.
GrimshawL (2011) Community work as women’s work? The gendering of English neighbourhood partnerships. Community Development Journal46(3): 327–340.
47.
HabermasJ (1985) Questions and counter-questions. In: BernsteinR (ed.) Habermas and Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press, 192–216.
48.
HabermasJ (1989) The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Oxford: Polity Press.
49.
HabermasJ (1996a) Technology and science as ‘ideology’. In: OuthwaiteW (ed.) The Habermas Reader. Cambridge: Polity Press, 53–65.
50.
HabermasJ (1996b) What is universal pragmatics? In: OuthwaiteW (ed.) The Habermas Reader. Cambridge: Polity Press, 118–131.
51.
HastingsA (2000) Connecting linguistic structures and social practices: A discursive approach to social policy analysis. Journal of Social Policy27(2): 191–211.
52.
HastingsA (2004) Stigma and social housing estates: Beyond pathological explanations. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment19(3): 233–254.
53.
HastingsA (2007) Territorial justice and neighbourhood environmental services: A comparison of provision to deprived and better-off neighbourhoods in the UK. Environment and Planning C:Government and Policy35(6): 896–917.
54.
HastingsAMcArthurAMcGregorA (1996) Less than Equal? Community Organisations and Estate Regeneration Partnerships. Bristol: The Policy Press.
55.
HastingsAMcArthurAMcGregorA (1994) Community participation and partnership in estate regeneration projects: Case study report no. 2: The Wester Hailes partnership. Glasgow: University of Glasgow, Training and Employment Research Unit.
HealeyP (2003) Collaborative planning in perspective. Planning Theory2(2): 101–123.
58.
HealeyP (2009) The pragmatic tradition in planning thought. Journal of Planning Education and Research28: 277–292.
59.
HealeyPCameronSDavoudiS. (1995) Introduction: The city crisis change and invention. In: HealeyPCameronSDavoudiS. (eds) Managing Cities: The New Urban Context. Chichester: John Wiley, 1–20.
60.
HillierJ (2003) ‘Agon’izing over consensus: Why Habermasian ideals cannot be ‘Real’. Planning Theory2(1): 37–59.
61.
HollwayWJeffersonT (2000) Doing Qualitative Research Differently: Free Association, Narrative and the Interview Method. London: SAGE.
62.
HuxleyM (2000) The limits to communicative planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research19(4): 369–377.
63.
HuxleyMYiftachelO (2000) New paradigm or old myopia? Unsettling the communicative turn in planning theory. Journal of Planning Education and Research19(4): 333–342.
64.
InnesJEBooherDE (2003) Collaborative policymaking: Governance through dialogue. In: HajerMAWagenaarH (eds) Deliberative Policy Analysis: Understanding Governance in the Network Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 33–59.
65.
JohnstoneCMcWilliamsC (2005) Urban policy and the city in the ‘new’ Scotland. In: MooneyGScottG (eds) Exploring Social Policy in the ‘New’ Scotland. Bristol: Polity Press, 157–176.
66.
JuppE (2008) The feeling of participation: Everyday spaces and urban change. Geoforum39: 331–343.
67.
KintreaK (1996) Whose partnership? Community interests in the regeneration of a Scottish housing scheme. Housing Studies11(2): 287–306.
68.
LawlessP (2004) Locating and explaining area-based urban initiatives: New deal for communities in England. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy22(3): 383–399.
69.
LawlessP (2006) Area-based urban interventions: Rationale and outcomes: The new deal for communities programme in England. Urban Studies43(11): 1991–2011.
70.
McCarthyT (1985) Reflections on rationalization in the theory of communicative action. In: BernsteinR (ed.) Habermas and Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press, 177–191.
71.
McCroneG (1991) Urban renewal: The Scottish experience. Urban Studies28(6): 919–938.
72.
McGuirkPM (2001) Situating communicative planning theory: Context, power, and knowledge. Environment and Planning A33(2): 195–217.
73.
McKeeK (2009) Post-Foucauldian governmentality: What does it offer critical social policy analysis?Critical Social Policy29(3): 465–486.
74.
ManziTJacobsK (2009) From a ‘society of fear’ to a ‘society of respect’: The transformation of Hackney’s Holly Street estate. In: ImrieRLeesLRacoM (eds) Regenerating London: Governance, Sustainability and Community in a Global City. London: Routledge, 273–288.
75.
MatthewsP (2010) Mind the gap? The persistence of pathological discourses in urban regeneration policy. Housing Theory and Society27(3): 221–240.
76.
MatthewsP (2012) From area-based initiatives to strategic partnerships: Have we lost the meaning of regeneration?Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy30(1): 147–161.
77.
MatthewsP (in press). Problem definition and re-evaluating a policy: The real successes of a regeneration scheme. Critical Policy Studies.
78.
MayTPerryB (2011) Social Research and Reflexivity: Content, Consequence and Context. London: SAGE.
79.
NienhuisIVan DijkTDe RooG (2011) Let’s collaborate! But who’s really collaborating? Individual interests as a leitmotiv for urban renewal and regeneration strategies. Planning Theory & Practice12(1): 95–109.
80.
OuthwaiteW (1996) General introduction. In: OuthwaiteW (ed.) The Habermas Reader. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1–22.
81.
PaisleyCDP (1978a) Housing Allocation and Social Segregation. Paisley: Paisley CDP.
82.
PaisleyCDP (1978b) A Profile of Ferguslie Park. Paisley: Paisley CDP.
83.
PaisleyCDP (1978c) Westmarch Action Group: A Fight for Improvements. Paisley: Paisley CDP.
84.
PollittC (2008) Time, Policy, Management: Governing with the Past. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
85.
QuickKSFeldmanMS (2011) Distinguishing participation and inclusion. Journal of Planning Education and Research31(3): 272–290.
86.
RhodesRAW (1997) Understanding Governance: Policy Networks, Governance, Reflexivity and Accountability. Buckingham: Open University Press.
87.
SandercockL (2000) When strangers become neighbours: Managing cities of difference. Planning Theory & Practice1(1): 13–30.
88.
Schwartz-SheaPYanowD (2009) Reading and writing as method: In search of trustworthy texts. In: YbemaSYanowDWelsH. (eds) Organizational Ethnography: Studying the Complexities of Everyday Life. London: SAGE, 56–82.
89.
Scottish Office (1988) New Life for Urban Scotland. Edinburgh: Scottish Office.
90.
Scottish Office (1990) Urban Scotland into the 90s: Report of the conference held in the Forum Hotel, Glasgow. 14th–16th May 1990, Edinburgh: Scottish Office.
91.
ShawKPorterL (2009) Introduction. In: ShawKPorterL (eds) Whose Urban Renaissance? An International Comparison of Urban Regeneration Strategies. London: Routledge, 1–7.
92.
ShoreCWrightS (1997) Policy: A new field of anthropology. In: ShoreCWrightS (eds) Anthropology of Policy: Critical Perspectives on Governance and Power. London: Routledge, 3–39.
93.
SpicerAFlemmingP (2001) Making constructivism critical: Structure, text and contestation. In: Critical Management Studies Conference, UMIST. 11th–13th July 2001, Manchester, UK.
94.
TaylorP (1988) The urban programme in Scotland. Local Economy3(3): 205–218.
95.
TunstallRCoulterA (2006) Twenty-five years on twenty estates: Turning the tide?York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
96.
TurokI (2004) Scottish urban policy: Continuity, change and uncertainty post-devolution. In: JohnstoneCWhiteheadM (eds) New Horizons in British Urban Policy: Perspectives on New Labour’s Urban Renaissance. Aldershot: Ashgate, 111–128.
97.
WagenaarH (2007) Governance, complexity, and democratic participation: How citizens and public officials harness the complexities of neighbourhood decline. American Review of Public Administration37(1): 17–50.
98.
WattPJacobsK (2000) Discourses of social exclusion: An analysis of bringing Britain together: A national strategy for neighbourhood renewal. Housing Theory and Society14(1): 17–26.
99.
Wester Hailes Partnership (WHP) (1989) Realising the Potential: The Partnership Strategy for Wester Hailes. Edinburgh: Scottish Office.
100.
WhiteS (1995) Reason, modernity and democracy. In: WhiteS (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to Habermas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 3–16.
101.
YanowD (1995) Built space as story: The policy stories that buildings tell. Policy Studies Journal23(3): 407–422.
102.
YanowD (1996) How Does a Policy Mean? Interpreting Policy and Organizational Actions. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
