This article discusses the relationship between the expert knowledge and the prospects of politicizing and democratizing urban planning. The term ‘experts’ refers mainly to urban planners, yet also includes architects, engineers and lawyers, who are specialized in planning. The article begins with a review of the critical literature on communicative planning, agonistic pluralism, agonistic planning and discussions on what needs to be done in planning focusing on the role of the expert knowledge. It argues that expert knowledge can gain different and multi-dimensional roles in urban planning processes, leading not necessarily to techno-management, yet contributing in their inclusiveness and conflict sensitivity. Encompassing both technical support and objective intermediation for local communities, it can both be utilized to build an agonistic space and help the communities better utilize the existing communicative/collaborative channels to voice their disagreements. By this way, it contributes in the politicization and democratization of planning processes. With this argument, the article also aims to challenge the strict distinction between ‘the politics’ and ‘the political’ as well as the related communicative–agonistic divide. The argument is supported by evidence from a case study on two informally built residential neighbourhoods in Istanbul, where there has been an active citizen opposition and involvement in a planning process.
AlbrechtsL (2010) More of the same is not enough! How could strategic spatial planning be instrumental in dealing with the challenges ahead?Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design37(6): 1115–1127.
2.
AllmendingerPGunderM (2005) Applying Lacanian insight and a dash of Derridean deconstruction to planning’s ‘dark side’. Planning Theory4(1): 87–112.
3.
AllmendingerPHaughtonG (2012) Post-political spatial planning in England: A crisis of consensus?Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers37(1): 89–103.
4.
BäcklundPMäntysaloR (2010) Agonism and institutional ambiguity: Ideas on democracy and the role of participation in the development of planning theory and practice – The case of Finland. Planning Theory9(4): 333–350.
5.
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.
6.
BeaumontJNichollsW (2008) Plural governance, participation and democracy in cities. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research32(1): 87–94.
BenhabipS (1992) Models of public space: Hannah Arendt, the liberal tradition and Jürgen Habermas. In: CalhounC (ed.) Habermas and the Public Sphere. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 73–98.
9.
BondS (2011) Negotiating a ‘democratic ethos’: Moving beyond the agonistic-communicative divide. Planning Theory10(2): 161–186.
10.
BrandRGaffikinF (2007) Collaborative planning in an uncollaborative world. Planning Theory6(3): 282–313.
11.
CalogeroP (2011) Kabul cosmopolitan: Geopolitical empire from the planner’s viewpoint. Planning Theory10(1): 66–78.
12.
ChiodelliF (2011) (Re)politicizing space through technical rules. Planning Theory11(2): 115–127.
13.
DavidoffP (1965) Advocacy and pluralism in planning. Journal of the American Institute of Planners31(4): 331–338.
14.
FainsteinS (1996) Justice, politics and the creation of urban space. In: MerrifieldASwyngedouwE (eds) The Urbanization of Injustice. London: Lawrence and Wishart, 18–44.
15.
FainsteinS (2010) The Just City. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
16.
FlyvbjergB (1998) Empowering civil society: Habermas, Foucault and the question of conflict. In: DouglassMFriedmannJ (eds) Cities for Citizens: Planning and the Rise of Civil Society in a Global Age. New York: Wiley, 185–211.
17.
ForesterJ (1989) Planning in the Face of Power. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
18.
ForesterJ (1993) The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
19.
ForesterJ (1999) The Deliberative Practitioner: Encouraging Participatory Planning Processes. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
20.
FougèreLBondS (2016) Legitimising activism in democracy: A place for antagonism in environmental governance. Planning Theory17(2): 143–169.
21.
GloverRW (2012) Games without frontiers? Democratic engagement, agonistic pluralism and the question of exclusion. Philosophy & Social Criticism38(1): 81–104.
22.
GrangeK (2017) Planners – A silenced profession? The politicisation of planning and the need for fearless speech. Planning Theory16(3): 275–295.
23.
GualiniE (2015) Conflict in the city: Democratic, Emancipatory – and transformative? In search of the political in planning conflicts. In: GualiniE (ed.) Planning and Conflict: Critical Perspectives on Contentious Urban Developments. New York: Routledge, 3–36.
24.
GuntonTIPeterTDayJC (2006) Evaluating collaborative planning: A case study of a land and resource management process. Environments Journal34(3): 19–37.
25.
HabermasJ (1984) The Theory of Communicative Action, vol. 1. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
26.
HabermasJ (1987) The Theory of Communicative Action, vol. 2. Cambridge: Polity Press.
27.
HarrisN (2002) Collaborative planning. In: AllmendingerPTewdwr-JonesM (eds) Planning Futures: New Directions for Planning Theory. London: Routledge, 21–43.
28.
HealeyP (1992) A planners day: Knowledge & action in communicative practices. Journal of the American Planning Association58: 9–20.
29.
HealeyP (1996) The communicative turn in planning theory and its implications for spatial strategy formation. Environment and Planning B23(2): 217–234.
HealeyP (2003) Collaborative planning in perspective. Planning Theory2(2): 101–123.
32.
HillierJ (2003) ‘Agon’izing over consensus: Why Habermasian ideals cannot be ‘real’. Planning Theory2(1): 37–59.
33.
HoekveldGNeedhamB (2013) Planning practice between ethics and the power game: Making and applying an ethical code for planning agencies. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research37(5): 1638–1653.
34.
HorowitzLS (2011) Toward empathic agonism: Conflicting vulnerabilities in urban wetland governance. Environment and Planning A45(10): 2344–2361.
35.
HsiehHHShannonSE (2005) Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research15(9): 1277–1288.
36.
Inch (2014) Ordinary citizens and the political cultures of planning: In search of the subject of a new democratic ethos. Planning Theory14(4): 404–424.
37.
InnesEI (1995) Planning theory’s emerging paradigm. Journal of Planning Education and Research14(3): 128–135.
38.
InnesEIBooherDE (1999) Consensus building and complex adaptive system: A framework for evaluating collaborative planning. Journal of American Planning Association65: 412–430.
39.
InnesEIBooherDE (2015) A turning point for planning theory? Overcoming dividing discourses. Planning Theory14(2): 195–213.
40.
KapoorI (2002) Deliberative democracy or agonistic pluralism? The relevance of the Habermas-Mouffe debate for third world politics. Alternatives27: 459–460.
41.
KarkiTK (2017) Should planners join politics? Would that help them make better cities?Planning Theory16(2): 186–202.
42.
KazaN (2006) Tyranny of the median and costly consent: A reflection on the justifications for participatory urban planning processes. Planning Theory5(3): 255–270.
43.
KhanG (2013) Critical republicanism: Jürgen Habermas and Chantal Mouffe. Contemporary Political Theory12(4): 318–337.
44.
LaclauEMouffeC (1985) Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics. London: Verso Books.
45.
LegacyC (2017) Is there a crisis of participatory planning?Planning Theory16(4): 425–442.
46.
LennonM (2017) On ‘the subject’ of planning’s public interest. Planning Theory16(2): 150–168.
47.
McClymontK (2011) Revitalising the political: Development control and agonism in planning practice. Planning Theory10(3): 239–256.
48.
McClymontK (2018) Articulating virtue: Planning ethics within and beyond post politics. Planning Theory.
49.
McGuirkPM (2001) Situating communicative planning theory: Context, power and knowledge. Environment and Planning A33(2): 195–217.
50.
MäntysaloRBalducciAKangasojaJ (2011) Planning as agonistic communication in a trading zone: Re-examining Lindblom’s partisan mutual adjustment. Planning Theory13(2): 257–272.
51.
MetzgerJ (2011) Neither revolution, nor resignation: (Re)democratizing contemporary planning praxis: A commentary on Allmendinger and Haughton’s spatial planning, devolution, and new planning spaces. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy29: 191–196.
52.
MetzgerJAllmendingerPOosterlynckS (2015) The contested terrain of European territorial governance: New perspectives on democratic deficits and political displacements. In: MetzgerJAllmendingerPOosterlynckS (eds) Planning against the Political: Democratic Deficits in European Territorial Governance. New York: Routledge, 1–28.
53.
MouatCLegacyCMarchA (2013) The problem is the solution: Testing agonistic theory’s potential to recast intractable planning disputes. Urban Policy and Research32(2): 150–166.
54.
MouffeC (1993) The Return of the Political. London: Verso Books.
55.
MouffeC (1999) Deliberative democracy or agonistic pluralism. Social Research66(3): 745–757.
56.
MouffeC (2005) On the Political (Thinking in Action). London: Routledge.
NichollsWJVermeulenF (2012) Rights through the city: The urban basis of immigrant rights struggles in Paris and Amsterdam. In: SmithMPMcQuarrieM (eds) Remaking Urban Citizenship: Organizations, Institutions, and the Right to the City. New Brunswick, NJ: Transactions Publishers, 79–96.
61.
OlesenK (2014) The neoliberalisation of strategic spatial planning. Planning Theory13(3): 288–303.
62.
Özdemir-UlutaşEEraydinA (2017) Fragmentation in urban movements: The role of urban planning processes. International Journal of Urban and Regional Planning41: 727–748.
63.
Özdemir-UlutaşETaşan-KokT (2017) Planners’ role in accommodating citizen disagreement: The case of Dutch urban planning. Urban Studies. Epub ahead of print 25 October. DOI: 10.1177/0042098017726738.
64.
PløgerJ (2004) Strife: Urban planning and agonism. Planning Theory3(1): 71–92.
65.
PløgerJ (2015) Impossible common ground: Planning and reconciliation. In: MetzgerJAllmendingerPOosterlynckS (eds) Planning against the Political: Democratic Deficits in European Territorial Governance. New York: Routledge, 107–128.
66.
PorterL (2011) The point is to change it. Planning Theory & Practice12(4): 477–480.
RancièreJ (2010) Dissensus: On Politics and Aesthetics. London: Continuum.
72.
RannilaPLoivarantaT (2015) Planning as dramaturgy: Agonistic approaches to spatial enactment. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research39(4): 788–806.
73.
RatcliffD (2008) Qualitative data analysis and the transforming moment. Transformation25(2–3): 116–133.
SagerT (2006) The logic of critical communicative planning: Transaction cost alteration. Planning Theory5(3): 223–254.
76.
SagerT (2018) Planning by intentional communities: An understudied form of activist planning. Planning Theory17: 449–471.
77.
SandercockL (2004) Towards a planning imagination for the 21st century. Journal of American Planning Association70(2): 133–141.
78.
SilverHScottAKazepovY (2010) Participation in urban contention and deliberation. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research34(3): 453–477.
79.
SwyngedouwE (2005) Governance innovation and the citizen: The Janus face of governance-beyond-the-state. Urban Studies42(11): 1991–2006.
80.
SwyngedouwE (2009) The antinomies of the postpolitical city: In search of a democratic politics of environmental production. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research33(3): 601–620.
81.
SwyngedouwE (2011) Interrogating post-democratization: Reclaiming egalitarian political spaces. Political Geography30(7): 370–380.
82.
Tewdwr-JonesMAllmendingerP (1998) Deconstructing communicative rationality: A critique of Habermasian collaborative planning. Environment and Planning A30(11): 1975–1989.
83.
UitermarkJNichollsW (2017) Planning for social justice: Strategies, dilemmas, tradeoffs. Planning Theory16(1): 32–50.
84.
Van LeeuwenB (2015) Absorbing the agony of agonism? The limits of cultural questioning and alternative variations of intercultural civility. Urban Studies52(4): 793–808.
85.
VerlooN (2018) Governing the global locally: Agonistic democracy practices in The Hague’s Schilderswijk. Urban Studies55: 2354–2371.
86.
VigarGGunnSBrooksE (2017) Governing our neighbours: Participation and conflict in neighbourhood planning. Town Planning Review88(4): 423–442.
87.
WilsonJSwyngedouwE (2014) Seeds of dystopia: Post-politics and the return of the political. In: WilsonJSwyngedouwE (eds) The Post-Political and Its Discontents: Spaces of Depoliticization, Spectres of Radical Politics. Edinburg: Edinburg University Press, 1–22.
88.
YamamatoAD (2018) The enemy within: The dangers of Chantal Mouffe’s figure of the adversary to the democratic task of agonistic planning. Planning Theory17: 551–567.
89.
ŽižekS (1999) The Ticklish Subject: The Absent Centre of Political Ontology. London: Verso Books.
