Agonism, decision, power – The art of working unfinished

John Pløger

doi:10.14512/rur.1668

Authors

John Pløger University of Agder, Kristiansand

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.14512/rur.1668

Keywords:

Agonism, decision, participation, Chantal Mouffe, Michel Foucault

Abstract

The current debate on agonism has become fixed in an institutional approach: How can an agonistic design institutionally become a tool against forms of domination? An agonistic space needs decisions that do not silence dissensual voices with a finite decision. This paper suggests that this agonistic approach needs de-cisions or simply put, temporary decisions drawn from seeing a decision as a solution for now. A de-cision is not a no-decision, but a decision recognised as temporary. The paper proposes ‘the sketch’ as an appropriate mode for working de-cisionally and unfinished. By having a sketch and working de-cisionally, planners are able to invite agonistic positions to ongoing talks and to act progressively, adaptably, or rationally in the face of emerging circumstances and uncertainty. To work unfinished from a sketch transforms the planning process from being a matter of reaching a finite decision to a strife about how to understand the present and which temporary contours and directions to move on from. The paper as such thus deals with difficult praxis questions, for instance: How is it possible to allow dissent to inform planning praxis in praxis? How can quarrelling and working unfinished empower planning democracy?

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Albrechts, L. (2005): Creativity as a drive for change. In: Planning Theory 4, 3, 247–269. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095205058496

BYB – Byråden for byutvikling (2018): Notater til bystyrets vedtak, Byråden for byutvikling, 29.01.2018, Saksnr. 201604835-420. Oslo.

BYM – Byråd for Miljø (2019) Varsel om oppstart av planarbeid på Lambertseter og Karlsrud – Bymiljøetatens innspill, Oslo kommune, Bymiljøetaten (saksnr: 201801721-24) (BYM ref: 18/22055-3). Oslo.

Dovey, K. (2005): Fluid City. Transforming Melborne’s Urban Waterfront. London.

Eriksson, E.; Fredriksson, A.; Syssner, J. (2022): Opening the black box of participatory planning: a study of how planners handle citizens’ input. In: European Planning Studies 30, 6, 994–1012. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2021.1895974

Falleth, E.; Hanssen, G.S. (2012) Medvirkning i planlegging. In: Aarsæther, N.; Falleth, E.; Nyseth, T.; Kristiansen, R. (eds.): Utfordringer i norsk planlegging. Kunnskap, bærekraft, demokrati. Oslo, 187–202.

Flyvbjerg, B. (1998): Rationality and Power: Democracy in Practice. Chicago.

Foucault, M. (1984): Politics and Ethics: An Interview. In: Rabinow, P. (ed.): The Foucault Reader. New York, 373–390.

Foucault, M. (1986): The Subject and Power. In: Dreyfuss, H.L.; Rabinow, P. (eds.): Michel Foucault. Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics. Brighton, 208–226.

Foucault, M. (1988): Politics, Philosophy, Culture. Interviews and Other Writings 1977-1984. London.

Foucault, M. (2001): Talens forfatning. Copenhagen.

Foucault, M. (2007): Security, Territory, Population. Lectures at the Collège de France 1977-1978. London.

Foucault, M. (2008): The Birth of Biopolitics. Lectures at the Collège de France 1978-1979. London.

Foucault, M. (2013): Lectures on the will to know. Lectures at the Collège de France 1970–1971. London.

Grange, K. (2017): Planners – A silenced profession? The politicization of planning and the need for fearless speech. In: Planning Theory 16, 3, 275–295. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095215626465

Gunder, M.; Hillier, J. (2007): Planning in Ten Words or Less. A Lacanian Entanglement with Spatial Planning. Farnham.

Haggärde, M.; Løkken, G.; Dahl, K.E.; Holm, T.; Uhre, K. (2008): Öppenhet och experiment – att utvckla och praktisera tankeverktyg för en ny planlägging. In: Conference Architectural Inquiries. Göteborg, 1–10.

Healey, P. (2009): The Pragmatic Tradition in Planning Thought. In: Journal of Planning Education and Research 28, 3, 277–292. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X08325175

Heidegger, M. (2007): Væren og tid. Oslo.

Hillier, J. (2002): Shadows of Power. An Allegory of Prudence in Land-Use Planning. London.

Hillier, J. (2011): Strategic navigation across multiple planes. Towards a Deleuzean-inspired methodology for strategic spatial planning. In: Town Planning Review 82, 5, 503–527. https://doi.org/10.3828/tpr.2011.30

Honig, B.; Stears, M. (2014) James Tully’s Agonistic Realism. In: Tully, J. (ed.): On Global Citizenship: James Tully in Dialogue. London, 131–152. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781472544827.ch-003

KMD – Kommunal- og arbeidsdepartementet (2014): Medvirkning i planlegging. Veileder. Oslo.

Kühn, M. (2021): Agonistic planning theory revisited: The Planner’s role in dealing with conflict. In: Planning Theory 20, 2, 143–156. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095220953201

Lampert, J. (2018): The Many Futures of a Decision. London.

Landau, F. (2021): Agonistic failures: Following policy conflicts in Berlin’s urban cultural politics. In: Urban Studies 58, 12, 2531–2548. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098020949080

Legacy, C.; Metzger, J.; Steele, W.; Gualini, E. (2019): Beyond the post-political: exploring the relational and situated dynamics of consensus and conflict in planning: In: Planning Theory 18, 3, 273–281. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095219845628

Lowndes, V.; Paxton, M. (2018): Can agonism be institutionalised? Can institutions be agonised? Prospects for democratic design. In: The British Journal of Politics and International Relations 20, 3, 693–710. https://doi.org/10.1177/1369148118784756

Lyotard, J.F. (1988): The Differend. Phrases in Dispute. Minneapolis.

Mäntysalo, R.; Balducci, A.; Kangasoja, J. (2011): Planning as agonistic communication in a trading zone: Re-examining Lindblom’s partisan mutual adjustment. In: Planning Theory 10, 3, 257–272. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095210397147

Mathiesen, T. (1971): Det ufærdige. København.

Mattila, H.; Purkarthofer, E.; Humer, A. (2020): Governing ‘places that don’t matter’: agonistic spatial planning practices in Finnish peripheral regions. In: Territory, Politics, Governance. https://doi.org/10.1080/21622671.2020.1857824

Metzger, J.; Allmendinger, P.; Kornberger, M. (2021): Ideology in practice: the career of sustainability as an ideological concept in strategic urban planning. In: International Planning Studies 26, 3, 302–320. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563475.2020.1839390

Metzger, J.; Soneryd, L.; Tamm Hallström, K. (2017): ‘Power’ is that which remains to explained: Dispelling the ominous dark matter of critical planning studies. In: Planning Theory 16, 2, 203–223. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095215622502

Mouffe, C. (1997): Deconstruction and Pragmatism. London.

Mouffe, C. (2000): The Democratic Paradox. London.

Mouffe, C. (2005): On the Political. London. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203870112

Mouffe, C. (2013): Agonistics. Thinking the World Politically. London.

Mouffe, C. (2018): For a Left Populism. London.

PBE – Plan & bygningsetaten (2019a): Medvirkning i innsendte regularingsplaner. Oslo.

PBE – Plan & bygningsetaten (2019b): Veileder for bymessig utformning. Oslo.

PBE – Plan & bygningsetaten (2019c): Handlingsplan for medvirkning 2019-2020. Oslo.

PBE2 – Plan & bygningsetaten (2019): Områderegulering Lambertseter-Karlsrud: Varsel om oppstart av planarbeid og offentlig ettersyn av planprogram. Høringsfrist 09.12.2019. Oslo.

PBEMV – Plan & bygningsetaten (2012): Forslag til helhetlig strategi for medvirkning i større planprosesser og byplanlegging. Oslo.

PBEOP – Plan & bygningsetaten (2018): Oppstartnotat for områderegulering for Lambertseter og Karlsrud (godkjent av byråd for byutvikling 18.10.2018), Oslo kommune, Plan og bygningsetaten (saks nr: 201801721-19). Oslo.

PBEV2 – Plan & bygningsetaten (2019): Medvirking i innsendte reguleringsplaner. Oslo.

PBEV3 – Plan & bygningsetaten (2019): PBEs sammendrag av forhandsbemerkningene med kommentarer. Saks nr. 201801721-165. Oslo.

PBEV5 – Plan & bygningsetaten (2020): PBEs sammendrag av høringsuttalelsene med kommentarer. Vedlegg 5 til planprogram for områderegulering Lambertseter-Karlsrud. Oslo.

POLK – Plan-program for områderegulering Lambertseter-Karlsrud (2021): Fastsat planprogram 29.03.2021. Oslo.

Raco, M.; Imrie, R. (2000): Governmentality and rights and responsibilities in urban policy. In: Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 32, 12, 2187–2204. https://doi.org/10.1068/a3365

Rancière, J. (2010): Dissensus. On Politics and Aesthetics. London.

Røed, L.-L. (2018): Bedre medvirkning? Ja takk! In: ByplanOslo 7 November 2018. https://magasin.oslo.kommune.no/byplan/bedre-medvirkning-ja-takk#gref (06.05.2023).

Rorty, R. (1982): Consequences of pragmatism. Minneapolis.

Rydin, Y. (2020): Silences, categories and black-boxes: Towards an analytics of the relations of power in planning regulation. In: Planning Theory 19, 2, 214–233. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095219870559

Schmidt, L.; Guttu, J.; Knudtzon, L. (2011): Medvirkning i planprocesser i Oslo commune. Oslo. = NIBR Rapport 2111:1.

Süß, R. (2022): Horizontal experimentalism: Rethinking democratic resistance In: Philosophy and Social Criticism 48, 8, 1123–1139. https://doi.org/10.1177/01914537211033016

Trapenberg Frick, K. (2021): No Permanent Friends, No Permanent Enemies: Agonistic Ethos, Tactical Coalitions, and Sustainable Infrastructure. In: Journal of Planning Education and Research 41, 1, 62–78. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X18773491

Tully, J. (ed.) (2014): On Global Citizenship: James Tully in Dialogue. London.

Watson, C. (2021): Active Citizenship and Local Governance in the Case of Cressingham Gardens: Agonism or Antagonism? In: Housing, Theory and Society 38, 4, 476–495. https://doi.org/10.1080/14036096.2020.1813804

Wolff, A. (2020): Planning culture – dynamics of power relations between actors. In: European Planning Studies 28, 11, 2213–2236. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2020.1714553