This article questions radical planning’s insistence on an ontological distinction between lay and expert knowledge. Drawing on an in-depth analysis of citizen collectives in Santiago, Chile, I explain how citizen organisations, in their quest for political recognition and emancipation, embrace rationalistic, bureaucratic, formal and instrumental knowledge and tactics. Utilising insights from Science and Technology Studies, I call modes of technification the specific and differentiated strategies by which these collectives become technical entities. Three of these modes are described: the organisational, epistemic and generative modes. The larger claim is that radical planning, by pursuing a politics of difference, may end up enacting a world in which identities are essentialised and roles forcefully allocated.
BoelensL (2010) Theorizing practice and practising theory: Outlines for an actor-relational-approach in planning. Planning Theory9(1): 28–62.
8.
CallonM (1986) Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. In: LawJ (ed.) Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge?London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 196–233.
9.
CallonMRabeharisoaV (2008) The growing engagement of emergent concerned groups in political and economic life. Science, Technology & Human Values33(2): 230–261.
10.
CallonMMéadelCRabeharisoaV (2002) The economy of qualities. Economy and Society31(2): 194–217.
11.
ChakrabartyD (2000) Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial Thought and Historical Difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
12.
De MattosC (1999) Santiago de Chile, globalización y expansión metropolitana: lo que existía sigue existiendo. EURE25: 29–56.
13.
EpsteinS (1995) The construction of lay expertise: AIDS activism and the forging of credibility in the reform of clinical trials. Science, Technology & Human Values20(4): 408–437.
14.
FaríasIBenderT (eds) (2009) Urban Assemblages: How Actor-Network Theory Changes Urban Studies. London: Routledge.
15.
FischerF (2000) Citizens, Experts and the Environment: The Politics of Local Knowledge. Durham, NC and London: Duke University Press.
16.
FriedmannJ (1973) Retracking America: A Theory of Transactive Planning. Garden City, NY: Anchor Press/Doubleday.
17.
FriedmannJ (1987) Planning in the Public Domain: From Knowledge to Action. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
18.
FuentesLSierraltaC (2004) Santiago de Chile, ‘ejemplo de una reestructuración capitalista global’. EURE30: 7–28.
19.
GarrettRK (2006) Protest in an information society: A review literature on social movements and new ICTs. Information, Communication & Society9(2): 202–224.
20.
GirardMStarkD (2007) Socio-technologies of assembly: Sense making and demonstration in rebuilding Lower Manhattan. In: LazerDMayer-SchoenbergerV (eds) Governance and Information: The Rewiring of Governing and Deliberation in the 21st Century. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 145–176.
21.
GrabowSHeskinA (1973) Foundations for a radical concept of planning. Journal of the American Institute of Planners39(2): 106–114.
22.
GreeneMMoraR (2005) Las autopistas urbanas concesionadas: Una nueva forma de segregación. ARQ60: 56–58.
23.
GuhaR (ed.) (1997) A Subaltern Studies Reader, 1986–1995. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
24.
HoffmanLSlaterM (2007) Evaluating public discourse in newspaper opinion articles: Values-framing and integrative complexity in substance and health policy issues. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly84: 58–74.
25.
HolstonJ (2008) Insurgent Citizenship: Disjunctions of Democracy and Modernity in Brazil. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
26.
Knorr CetinaK (2005) La fabricación del conocimiento. Un ensayo sobre el carácter constructivista y contextual de la ciencia. Quilmes, Argentina: Universidad Nacional de Quilmes.
27.
LatourB (1988) The Pasteurization of France. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
28.
LatourB (1996) Aramis, or the Love of Technology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
29.
LatourBWoolgarS (1986) Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
30.
LaurentB (2011) Technologies of democracy: Experiments and demonstrations. Science and Engineering Ethics17: 649–666.
31.
LawJ (1987) Technology and heterogeneous engineering: The case of Portuguese expansion. In: BijkerWHughesTPinchT (eds) The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 105–128.
32.
LawJ (2002) Aircraft Stories: Decentering the Object in Technoscience. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
33.
LynchM (1985) Art and Artifact in Laboratory Science: A Study of Shop Work and Shop Talk in a Research Laboratory. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
34.
MarresN (2007) The issues deserve more credit: Pragmatist contributions to the study of public involvement in controversy. Social Studies of Science37(5): 759–780.
35.
MethP (2010) Unsettling insurgency: Reflections on women’s insurgent practices in South Africa. Planning Theory and Practice11(2): 241–263.
36.
MertonR (1973) The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
37.
MiraftabF (2009) Insurgent planning: Situating radical planning in the Global South. Planning Theory8(32): 32–50.
38.
MiraftabFWillsS (2005) Insurgency and spaces of active citizenship: The story of Western Cape Anti-Eviction Campaign in South Africa. Journal of Planning Education and Research25(2): 200–217.
39.
PerrinAVaiseyS (2008) Parallel public spheres: Distance and discourse in letters to the editor. American Journal of Sociology114(3): 781–810.
40.
PodujeI (2008) Participación Ciudadana en Proyectos de Infraestructura y Planes Reguladores. Serie de Temas de la Agenda Pública (Vicerrectoría de Comunicaciones y Asuntos Públicos). Santiago, Chile: Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile.
41.
RancièreJ (2004) Disagreement: Politics and Philosophy. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
42.
RichardsonJFranklinB (2003) ‘Dear Editor’: Race, readers’ letters and the local press. Political Quarterly74(2): 184–192.
43.
Rodríguez-GiraltILópezDGarcíaN (2010) Conviction and commotion. On soundspheres, technopolitics and urban spaces. In: FaríasIBenderT (eds) Urban Assemblages: How Actor-Network Theory Changes Urban Studies. New York: Routledge, 179–196.
44.
RydinY (2013) Using Actor–Network Theory to understand planning practice: Exploring relationships between actants in regulating low-carbon commercial development. Planning Theory12(1): 23–45.
45.
SandercockL (ed.) (1998) Making the Invisible Visible: A Multicultural Planning History. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
46.
SandercockL (1999) Knowledge practices: Towards an epistemology of multiplicity of insurgent planning. Plurimondi1(2): 169–179.
47.
SandercockL (2004) The death of radical planning: Radical praxis for a postmodern age. In: MilesMHallTBordenI (eds) The City Cultures Reader. New York and London: Routledge, 423–439.
48.
ScottJ (1998) Seeing Like a State. New Haven, CT and London: Yale University Press.
49.
SmithRG (2003) World city actor-networks. Progress in Human Geography27(1): 25–44.
50.
SnowDRochfordEWordenS. (1986) Frame alignment processes, micromobilization, and movement participation. American Sociological Review51(4): 464–481.
51.
TaylorD (2000) The rise of the environmental justice paradigm: Injustice framing and the social construction of environmental discourses. American Behavioral Scientist43(4): 508–580.
52.
TironiMSommaNPodujeI (2010) Organizaciones ciudadanas en Santiago y su efecto en la planificación urbana: Estructura, estrategias y políticas públicas. Santiago, Chile: V Concurso Políticas Públicas PUC.
53.
YearleyS (2009) Cultures of Environmentalism: Empirical Studies in Environmental Sociology. London: Palgrave.
