We offer a novel conceptualisation of power relations in planning by bringing together Steven Lukes’ and Gregory Bateson’s frames. By studying ‘double-binds’, we can explain both the mechanisms of implicit ‘power over’ and the sources of reflective learning to transcend them and regain ‘power to’. We use the conflict over the Stuttgart railway station to illustrate how the interplay of power and learning suits the analysis of power dynamics in planning processes. In this contentious case, the opposition against the ‘Stuttgart 21’ learnt to frame and resist the large-scale traffic infrastructure and urban renewal project, initiated by the German railway company Deutsche Bahn. The power of the opposition seems to have coincided with the shifts between the three dimensions of power (Lukes), and these shifts become well understood as three cross-cutting levels of learning (Bateson).
AitkenM (2010) A three-dimensional view of public participation in Scottish land-use planning: Empowerment or social control?Planning Theory9(3): 248–264.
2.
ArgyrisCSchönD (1978) Organisational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
3.
BatesonG (1972/1987) Steps to an Ecology of Mind: Collected Essays in Anthropology, Psychiatry, Evolution, and Epistemology. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson Inc.
4.
BeardV (2003) Learning radical planning: The power of collective action. Planning Theory2(1): 13–35.
5.
BélandD (2006) Review: Steven Lukes. Power: A Radical View, Second Edition. Canadian Journal of Sociology Online, August2006.
6.
BruzeliusNFlyvbjergBRothengatterW (2002) Big decisions, big risks. Improving accountability in mega projects. Transport Policy9(2): 143–154.
7.
ChadwickG (1978) A Systems View of Planning. 2nd edn.Oxford: Pergamon Press.
8.
DowdingK (2006) Three-dimensional power: A discussion of Steven Lukes? Power: A radical view. Political Studies Review4(2): 136–145.
9.
DürrH (1996) Bahn frei für eine neue Stadt. In: KählerG (ed.) Renaissance Der Bahnhöfe. Die Stadt Im 21. Jahrhundert. Bonn: Vieweg Verlag & Bund Deutscher Architekten, 13–15.
10.
EdwardsP (2006) Power and ideology in the workplace: Going beyond even the second version of the three-dimensional view. Work, Employment and Society20(3): 571–581.
11.
EtzioniA (1967) Mixed-scanning: A ‘Third’ approach to decision-making. Public Administration Review27(December): 385–392.
FischerF (2003) Reframing Public Policy: Discursive Politics and Deliberative Practices. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
14.
FlyvbjergB (1998) Rationality and Power: Democracy in Practice. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
15.
FlyvbjergB (2002) Bringing power to planning research. Journal of Planning Education and Research21(4): 353–366.
16.
FlyvbjergBHolmMSBuhlS (2002) Underestimating costs in public works projects: Error or lie?Journal of the American Planning Association68(3): 279–295.
17.
ForesterJ (1982) Planning in the face of power. Journal of the American Planning Association48(1): 67–80.
18.
ForesterJ (1989) Planning in the Face of Power. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
19.
ForesterJ (1992) Critical ethnography: On fieldwork in a Habermasian way. In: AlvessonMWillmottH (eds) Critical Management Studies. London: SAGE, 46–65.
20.
ForesterJ (1999) Reflections on the future understanding of planning practice. International Planning Studies4(2): 175–193.
21.
FriedmannJ (1987) Planning in the Public Domain. From Knowledge to Action. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
22.
FriedmannJ (1998) Planning theory revisited. European Planning Studies6(3): 245–253.
23.
GaventaJ (1980) Power and Powerlessness: Quiescence and Rebellion in an Appalachian Valley. Urbana, IL and Chicago, IL: University of Illinois Press.
24.
GeisslerH (2010) Schlichtung Stuttgart 21 PLUS. Schlichterspruch, 30November. Available at: http://www.schlichtung-s21.de/39.html (accessed 2 January 2013).
25.
GualiniE (2011) Reflecting on Stuttgart 21: Deliberative promises and the paradoxes of democratization as event. In: Presentation at the international research conference planning/conflict, Berlin, Germany, 27–28 October.
26.
HajerMAWagenaarH (2003) Deliberative Policy Analysis: Understanding Governance in the Network Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
27.
HaugaardM (2012) Rethinking the four dimensions of power: Domination and empowerment. Journal of Political Power5(1): 33–54.
28.
HaywardC (2000) Defacing Power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
29.
HaywardCLukesS (2008) Nobody to shoot? Power, structure, and agency: A dialogue. Journal of Political Power1(1): 5–20.
30.
HaywardCR (2006) On power and responsibility. Political Studies Review4(2): 156–163.
31.
HealeyP (1998) Building institutional capacity through collaborative approaches to urban planning. Environment and Planning A30: 1531–1546.
32.
HealeyP (1999) Institutionalist analysis, communicative planning, and shaping places. Journal of Planning Education and Research19(2): 111–121.
33.
HealeyP (2004) Creativity and urban governance. Policy Studies25(2): 87–102.
34.
HealeyPde MagalhaesCMadanipourA. (2003) Place, identity and local politics: Analysing initiatives in deliberative governance. In: HajerMAWagenaarH (eds) Deliberative Policy Analysis: Understanding Governance in the Network Society. West Nyack, NY: Cambridge University Press, 60–87.
35.
HillierJ (2002a) Direct action and agonism in democratic planning practice. In: AllmendingerPTewdwr-JonesM (eds) Planning Futures: New Directions for Planning Theory. London: Routledge, 110–135.
36.
HillierJ (2002b) Shadows of Power. An Allegory of Prudence in Land-Use Planning. London: Routledge.
37.
HoldenM (2008) Social learning in planning: Seattle’s sustainable development codebooks. Progress in Planning69: 1–40.
38.
LaineMPeltonenL (2005) Regime stability and restructuration: The political culture of the brothers-in-arms coalition in Tampere. In: AnttiroikoAKasvioA (eds) E-City: Analysing Efforts to Generate Local Dynamism in the City of Tampere. Tampere: Tampere University Press, 345–388.
39.
LindblomCE (1959) The science of muddling through. Public Administration Review19(2): 79–88.
40.
LindblomCE (1965) The Intelligence of Democracy. New York: The Free Press.
41.
LorenziM (2006) Power: A radical view by Steven Lukes. Crossroads6(2): 87–95.
42.
LukesS (2005) Power: A Radical View. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
43.
McAreaveyR (2009) Community regeneration: An elite or a ‘Real’ community space?International Planning Studies14(3): 311–327.
44.
MadanipourA (2005) Collective action and social milieux. In: CarsGHealeyPMadanipourA. (eds) Urban Governance, Institutional Capacity and Social Milieux. Aldershot: Ashgate, 3–5.
45.
MäntysaloR (2000) Land-use planning as inter-organizational learning. Acta Universitatis Ouluensis: Series C: Technica155.
46.
MäntysaloRSaglieI-L (2010) Private influence preceding public involvement: Strategies for legitimizing preliminary partnership arrangements in urban housing planning in Norway and Finland. Planning Theory & Practice11(3): 317–338.
47.
MäntysaloRSaglieI-LCarsG (2011) Between input legitimacy and output efficiency: Defensive routines and agonistic reflectivity in Nordic land-use planning. European Planning Studies19(12): 2109–2126.
48.
MattilaHMynttinenEMäntysaloR (2012) Managing planning pathologies: An educational challenge of the new Apprenticeship Programme in Finland. Planning Theory & Practice13(3): 484–488.
49.
MorrissP (2006) Steven Lukes on the concept of power. Political Studies Review4(2): 124–135.
50.
NovyJPetersD (2012) Railway station mega-projects as public controversies: The case of Stuttgart 21. Built Environment37(3): 128–145.
51.
PansardiP (2012) Power to and power over: Two distinct concepts of power?Journal of Political Power5(1): 73–89.
52.
QuadejacobL (2009) Renaissance der Bahnhöfe? – 15 Jahre Deutsche Bahn AG. Deutsche Bauzeitung143(3): 14–17.
RittelHWJWebberMM (1973) Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences4(2): 155–169.
55.
SagerT (2009) Responsibilities of theorists: The case of communicative planning theory. Progress in Planning72(1): 1–51.
56.
SelleK (2010) Stuttgart 21-nur »schlecht vermittelt«? Warum Großprojekte eine Herausforderung für die lokale politische Kultur bedeuten. PNDonline, III/2010, 1–7.
57.
SpeckG (2012) History and failure of the mega-project ‘Frankfurt 21’. Built Environment38(1): 103–112.
58.
StokerG (1998) Governance as theory: Five propositions. International Social Science Journal50(155): 17–28.
59.
StoneCN (1980) Systemic power in community decision making: A restatement of stratification theory. American Political Science Review74(4): 978–990.
60.
StoneCN (2006) Power, reform, and urban regime analysis. City & Community5(1): 23–39.
61.
SturzakerJShucksmithM (2011) Planning for housing in rural England: Discursive power and spatial exclusion. Town Planning Review82(2): 169–193.
62.
SwartzDL (2007) Recasting power in its third dimension (Review of Steven Lukes, Power: A Radical View). Theory and Society36(1): 103–109.
63.
TaitMCampbellH (2000) The politics of communication between planning officers and politicians: The exercise of power through discourse. Environment and Planning A32: 489–506.
64.
TarrowSG (1998) Power in Movement: Social Movements and Contentious Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
