Digital technology is reshaping participatory planning, including conflict and antagonism in the planning process. Yet planning theory has largely failed to engage with emerging digital mechanisms that could stimulate antagonism in online environments. This paper seeks to explore different ways of framing conflict and antagonism in planning and the degree to which they reflect an increasingly digital approach to public participation. We introduce an Online Conversion Framework to delineate the process of conversion for antagonistic to agonistic action on social media, using X (formerly Twitter) as an example.
AfzalanN.Evans-CowleyJ. (2015). Planning and social media: Facebook for planning at the neighbourhood scale. Planning Practice & Research, 30(3), 270-285.
2.
AfzalanN.MullerB. (2018). Online participatory technologies: Opportunities and challenges for enriching participatory planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 84(2), 162-177.
3.
AgostinoD.ArnaboldiM.LemaM. D. (2021). New development: COVID-19 as an accelerator of digital transformation in public service delivery. Public Money & Management, 41(1), 69-72.
4.
AllmendingerP. (2017). Planning theory. Cambridge: Macmillan International Higher Education.
5.
ArnsteinS. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216-224.
6.
BandyJ.DiakopoulosN. (2021). Curating quality? How Twitter’s timeline algorithm treats different types of news. Social Media+ Society, 7(3), 20563051211041648.
7.
BarryJ.LegacyC. (2022). Between virtue and profession: Theorising the rise of professionalised public participation practitioners. Planning Theory, 14730952221107148.
8.
BessiA.FerraraE. (2016). Social bots distort the 2016 US Presidential election online discussion. First Monday, 21(11-7), 14.
9.
BlauA. (2022). Habermas on rationality: Means, ends and communication. European Journal of Political Theory, 21(2), 321-344.
10.
BrachtenF.StieglitzS.HofeditzL.KloppenborgK.ReimannA. (2017). Strategies and Influence of Social Bots in a 2017 German state election-A case study on Twitter. arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.07562.
11.
CalderonC.WestinM. (2021). Understanding context and its influence on collaborative planning processes: a contribution to communicative planning theory. International Planning Studies, 26(1), 14-27.
12.
CertomàC. (2015). Expanding the ‘dark side of planning’: Governmentality and biopolitics in urban garden planning. Planning Theory, 14(1), 23-43.
DahlbergL. (2004). The Habermasian public sphere: A specification of the idealized conditions of democratic communication. Studies in social and political thought, 10(10), 2-18.
17.
EdwardsC.EdwardsA.SpenceP. R.SheltonA. K. (2014). Is that a bot running the social media feed? Testing the differences in perceptions of communication quality for a human agent and a bot agent on Twitter. Computers in Human Behavior, 33, 372-376.
18.
EinsteinK. L.GlickD.Godinez PuigL.PalmerM. (2022). Still Muted: The Limited Participatory Democracy of Zoom Public Meetings. Urban Affairs Review, 3, 10780874211070494.
19.
Evans-CowleyJ. S. (2010). Planning in the age of Facebook: the role of social networking in planning processes. GeoJournal, 75(5), 407-420.
20.
Evans-CowleyJ. S.HollanderJ. (2010). The new generation of public participation: Internet-based participation tools. Planning Practice & Research, 25(3), 397-408.
21.
EvolviG. (2019). # Islamexit: inter-group antagonism on Twitter. Information, Communication & Society, 22(3), 386-401.
22.
FarinosiM.FortunatiL.O'SullivanJ.PaganiL. (2019). Enhancing classical methodological tools to foster participatory dimensions in local urban planning. Cities, 88, 235-242.
23.
FentonN. (2018). Digital, political, radical: John Wiley & Sons.
24.
FlyvbjergB. (1996). The dark side of planning: rationality and'realrationalitaet'.
25.
FlyvbjergB. (2004). Phronetic planning research: Theoretical and methodological reflections. Planning Theory & Practice, 5(3), 283-306.
26.
ForesterJ. (2006). Making participation work when interests conflict: Moving from facilitating dialogue and moderating debate to mediating negotiations. Journal of the American Planning Association, 72(4), 447-456.
27.
ForesterJ. (2012). Learning to Improve Practice: Lessons from Practice Stories and Practitioners' Own Discourse Analyses (or Why Only the Loons Show Up). Planning Theory and Practice, 13(1), 11-26.
28.
FoucaultM. (1982). The subject and power. Critical inquiry, 8(4), 777-795.
29.
FoucaultM. (1988). The ethic of care for the self as a practice of freedom, in BernauerJRasmussenD (Eds.) The final Foucault, Cambridge: Mass: MIT Press.
30.
FredericksJ.FothM. (2013). Augmenting public participation: enhancing planning outcomes through the use of social media and web 2.0. Australian planner, 50(3), 244-256.
31.
FriedbergB.LimG.DonovanJ. (2020). Space invaders: The networked terrain of zoom bombing. Technology and Social Change Research Project.
32.
GrahamT.AcklandR. (2016). Do socialbots dream of popping the filter bubble? The role of socialbots in promoting deliberative democracy in social media, in GehlR.W.BakardjievaM. (Eds.) Socialbots and their Friends: Digital Media and the Automation of Sociality, 187-206. New York: Routledge.
33.
GrangeK. (2017). Planners–A silenced profession? The politicisation of planning and the need for fearless speech. Planning Theory, 16(3), 275-295.
34.
HabermasJ. (1984). The Theory of Communicative Action: Vol. 1, Reason and the Rationalization of Society. (McCarthyT. B. T. Ed. Vol. 1). Boston: Beacon Press.
35.
HabermasJ. (2006). Political communication in media society: Does democracy still enjoy an epistemic dimension? The impact of normative theory on empirical research. Communication theory, 16(4), 411-426.
36.
HabermasJ.MccarthyT. (1991). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. Cambridge: MIT press.
37.
HealeyP. (1996). The communicative turn in planning theory and its implications for spatial strategy formation. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 23(2), 217-234.
HegelichS.JanetzkoD. (2016). Are social bots on Twitter political actors? Empirical evidence from a Ukrainian social botnet. In Paper presented at the Tenth International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media. 2016.
HillierJ. (2011). Strategic navigation across multiple planes: Towards a Deleuzean-inspired methodology for strategic spatial planning. The Town Planning Review, 503-527.
42.
HollanderJ. B. (2011). Approaching an ideal: using technology to apply collaborative rationality to urban planning processes. Planning Practice and Research, 26(5), 587-596.
43.
HollanderJ. B.PottsR.HarttM.SituM. (2020). The role of artificial intelligence in community planning. International Journal of Community Well-Being, 3(4), 507-521.
44.
HollanderJ. B.PottsR.HarttM.SituM.SetoA. (2023). The role of bots in US real estate development online communication. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 99, 101918.
45.
HousleyW.WebbH.WilliamsM.ProcterR.EdwardsA.JirotkaM.WilliamsM. (2018). Interaction and transformation on social media: The case of Twitter campaigns. Social Media+ Society, 4(1), 2056305117750721.
46.
HuxleyM.YiftachelO. (2000). New paradigm or old myopia? Unsettling the communicative turn in planning theory. Journal of Planning education and research, 19(4), 333-342.
47.
InnesJ.BooherD. (2004). Reframing Public Participation: Strategies for the 21st Century. Planning Theory and Practice, 5(4), 419-436.
48.
JaneE. A. (2017). ‘Dude… stop the spread’: antagonism, agonism, and# manspreading on social media. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 20(5), 459-475.
49.
Kahila-TaniM.KyttaM.GeertmanS. (2019). Does mapping improve public participation? Exploring the pros and cons of using public participation GIS in urban planning practices. Landscape and urban planning, 186, 45-55.
50.
KühnM. (2021). Agonistic planning theory revisited: The planner’s role in dealing with conflict. Planning Theory, 20(2), 143-156.
51.
LaclauE. (1995). Subject of politics, politics of the subject. differences, 7(1), 146-164.
52.
LaclauE.MouffeC. (2014). Hegemony and socialist strategy: Towards a radical democratic politics (Vol. 8). London: Verso Books.
53.
LinY.GeertmanS. (2019). Can Social Media Play a Role in Urban Planning? A Literature Review. Computational Urban Planning and Management for Smart Cities16(1), 69-84.
54.
LinY.KantS. (2021). Using social media for citizen participation: Contexts, empowerment, and inclusion. Sustainability, 13(12), 6635.
55.
LovanW. R.MurrayM.ShafferR. (2017). Participatory governance: planning, conflict mediation and public decision-making in civil society: Routledge.
56.
LowndesV.PaxtonM. (2018). Can agonism be institutionalised? Can institutions be agonised? Prospects for democratic design. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 20(3), 693-710.
57.
MäntysaloR. (2002). Dilemmas in critical planning theory. The Town Planning Review, 417-436.
58.
MattilaH. (2020). Habermas revisited: Resurrecting the contested roots of communicative planning theory. Progress in planning, 141, 1-29.
59.
McAuliffeC.RogersD. (2018). Tracing resident antagonisms in urban development: agonistic pluralism and participatory planning. Geographical Research, 56(2), 219-229.
60.
McClymontK. (2011). Revitalising the political: Development control and agonism in planning practice. Planning Theory, 10(3), 239-256.
61.
MetzgerJ.AllmendingerP.OosterlynckS. (2014). Planning against the political: Democratic deficits in European territorial governance: Routledge.
62.
MilanS. (2015). From social movements to cloud protesting: the evolution of collective identity. Information, Communication & Society, 18(8), 887-900.
63.
MouffeC. (1999). Deliberative democracy or agonistic pluralism?Social research, 745-758.
64.
MouffeC. (2000). The democratic paradox. London: Verso.
65.
MouffeC. (2002a). For an agonistic public sphere. Documenta 11_Platform, 4, 87-96.
66.
MouffeC. (2002b). Which public sphere for a democratic society?Theoria, 49(99), 55-65.
67.
Munthe-KaasP. (2015). Agonism and co-design of urban spaces. Urban Research & Practice, 8(2), 218-237.
68.
MylonasY.KompatsiarisP. (2021). Trolling as transgression: Subversive affirmations against neoliberal austerity. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 24(1), 34-55.
69.
NeumayerC.SvenssonJ. (2016). Activism and radical politics in the digital age: Towards a typology. Convergence, 22(2), 131-146.
70.
NichollsW. J.UitermarkJ. (2017). Introduction: planning/resistance. In (Vol. 38, pp. 512-520): Taylor & Francis.
71.
O’NeilC. (2016). Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens Democracy. New York: Crown.
72.
ÖzdemirE. (2021). Rationality revisited: Politicisation through planning rationality against the rationality of power. Planning Theory, 20(4), 350-371.
73.
PantićM.CilliersJ.CimadomoG.MontañoF.OlufemiO.Torres MallmaS.Van den BergJ. (2021). Challenges and opportunities for public participation in urban and regional planning during the COVID-19 pandemic—lessons learned for the future. Land, 10(12), 1379.
RoskammN. (2015). On the other side of “agonism”:“The enemy,” the “outside,” and the role of antagonism. Planning Theory, 14(4), 384-403.
78.
RosolM. (2014). On resistance in the post-political city: Conduct and counter-conduct in Vancouver. Space and polity, 18(1), 70-84.
79.
RosolM. (2015). Governing cities through participation—a Foucauldian analysis of CityPlan Vancouver. Urban Geography, 36(2), 256-276.
80.
SchweitzerL. (2014). Planning and social media: a case study of public transit and stigma on Twitter. Journal of the American Planning Association, 80(3), 218-238.
81.
StanleyN. (2016). Public perceptions of unfairness in urban planning. Justice and Fairness in the City: A Multi-Disciplinary Approach to'Ordinary'Cities, 171.
82.
TambakakiP. (2014). The Tasks of Agonism and Agonism to the Task: Introducing ‘Chantal Mouffe: Agonism and the Politics of Passion’. Parallax, 20(2), 1-13. doi:10.1080/13534645.2014.896543.
83.
TutersM.HagenS. (2020). (((They))) rule: Memetic antagonism and nebulous othering on 4chan. New media & society, 22(12), 2218-2237.
84.
Van AsscheK.DuineveldM.BeunenR. (2014). Power and contingency in planning. Environment and planning A, 46(10), 2385-2400.
85.
WestinM. (2022). The framing of power in communicative planning theory: Analysing the work of John Forester, Patsy Healey and Judith Innes. Planning Theory, 21(2), 132-154.
86.
WilliamsonW.ParolinB. (2012). Review of Web-Based Communications for Town Planning in Local Government. Journal of Urban Technology, 19(1), 43-63. doi:10.1080/10630732.2012.626702.
87.
WilliamsonW.ParolinB. (2013). Web 2.0 and social media growth in planning practice: A longitudinal study. Planning Practice and Research, 28(5), 544-562.
88.
WilliamsonW.RumingK. (2020). Can social media support large scale public participation in urban planning? The case of the# MySydney digital engagement campaign. International Planning Studies, 25(4), 355-371.
89.
WoolleyS. C. (2016). Automating power: Social bot interference in global politics. First Monday.
90.
YamamotoA. D. (2017). Why agonistic planning? Questioning Chantal Mouffe’s thesis of the ontological primacy of the political. Planning Theory, 16(4), 384-403.
91.
YiftachelO. (1998). Planning and social control: Exploring the dark side. Journal of Planning Literature, 12(4), 395-406.
92.
ZamithR.LewisS. C. (2014). From public spaces to public sphere: Rethinking systems for reader comments on online news sites. Digital journalism, 2(4), 558-574.
93.
ZeitzoffT. (2018). Does social media influence conflict? Evidence from the 2012 Gaza conflict. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 62(1), 29-63.
