Beyond agonistic planning theories: The “normality“ of protests and their influence on conflict resolution in spatial planning Authors Grischa Frederik Bertram University of Kassel https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7990-013X Uwe Altrock University of Kassel https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5901-6272 DOI: https://doi.org/10.14512/rur.1674 Keywords: Protest , Conflict , Participation , Communication , Agonism Abstract Since the “communicative turn“ planning research has been intensively concerned with how conflicts should and are dealt with. Approaches of “agonistic“ planning theory contradict the normative premise of building consensus among planning participants. Rather, they want to make conflicting positions normatively fruitful for spatial development. At the same time, they emphasise a supposed duality of planning and protest, which is questioned in recent protest and movement theory. Building on a discussion of different approaches in planning and protest theory as well as an empirical analysis of planning-related protests in Germany, this paper shows that these protests are increasingly perceived as “normality“ by planning actors and that antagonistic participation remains culturally bounded despite increasing conflictuality and the supposed questioning of representative democracy. Protest action is part of differentiated “participation bundles“ that, depending on the situation, also include public participation, direct democratic referenda and lawsuits. Protesters usually pursue a reform-oriented agenda that does not require “taming“. However, the underlying conflicts often cannot be “resolved“ at all. Planners, on the other hand, may have rationalist and deliberative approaches at their disposal even within an agonistic planning environment, which they use situationally and strategically. Downloads Download data is not yet available. References Allmendinger, P.; Tewdwr-Jones, M. (2005): Planning futures: New directions for planning theory. London. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203996195 August, V. (2022): Understanding democratic conflicts: The failures of agonistic theory. In: European Journal of Political Theory. https://doi.org/10.1177/14748851221120120 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/14748851221120120 Bäcklund, P.; Mäntysalo, R. (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. In: Planning Theory 9, 4, 333–350. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095210373684 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095210373684 Barker, C. (2003): Cultural Studies: Theory and Practice. London. Bechmann, A. (1981): Grundlagen der Planungstheorie und Planungsmethodik. Bern. Becker, E.; Gualini, E.; Runkel, C.; Strachwitz, R. (2010): Stadtentwicklung, Zivilgesellschaft und bürgerschaftliches Engagement. Stuttgart. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110507867 Benz, A.; Zimmer, C. (2011): Germany: Varieties of Democracy in a Federal System. In: Hendriks, F.; Lindström, A.; Loughlin, J. (Hrsg.): The Oxford Handbook of Local and Regional Democracy in Europe. Oxford, 146–172. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199562978.003.0007 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199562978.003.0007 Bertram, G. (2019): „Aber nicht so!“: Theorie und Praxis, Ansprüche und Wirklichkeiten bürgerschaftlichen Planungsprotests in Berlin 2005 bis 2015. Dissertation an der Universität Kassel. Bertram, G. (2021): „Bäume oder Beton?“ − Zur Bedeutung des Bildhaften im strategischen Framing lokalen Protests am Beispiel einer Kleingartenkolonie. In: Kanter, H.; Brandmayr, M.; Köffler, N. (Hrsg.): Bilder, soziale Medien und das Politische. Bielefeld, 125–148. https://doi.org/10.14361/9783839450406-006 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783839450406-006 Bertram, G.F.; Altrock, U. (2020): Auf dem Weg zur Normalität: Planungsbezogener Protest und planerische Reaktionen. In: Raumforschung und Raumordnung | Spatial Research and Planning 78, 2, 185–201. https://doi.org/10.2478/rara-2019-0059 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/rara-2019-0059 Bertram, G.; Altrock, U. (2021): Wachstumsschmerzen. Kommunale Strategien und ihre Wirkungen. Berlin. = vhw-Schriftenreihe 30. Bonacker, T. (2009): Konflikttheorien. In: Kneer, G.; Schroer, M. (Hrsg.): Handbuch soziologische Theorien. Wiesbaden, 179–197. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-91600-2_9 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-91600-2_9 Bonacker, T.; Schmitt, L. (2004): Politischer Protest zwischen latenten Strukturen und manifesten Konflikten. In: Mitteilungsblatt des Instituts für Soziale Bewegungen 32, 193–214. Bond, S. (2011): Negotiating a ‘democratic ethos’ moving beyond the agonistic-communicative divide. In: Planning Theory 10, 2, 161–186. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095210383081 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095210383081 Bude, H. (2011): Stuttgart 21 – reflexiv. In: Mittelweg 36, 3, 3–4. Castells, M. (1983): The city and the grassroots. A cross-cultural theory of urban social movements. London. Cohen, J. L. (1985): Strategy or identity. New theoretical paradigms and contemporary social movements. In: Social Research 52, 4, 663–716. Dahrendorf, R. (1994): Der moderne soziale Konflikt. Essay zur Politik der Freiheit. München. de Souza, M. L. (2006): Social movements as ‘critical urban planning’ agents. In: City 10, 3, 327–342. https://doi.org/10.1080/13604810600982347 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13604810600982347 Durkheim, E. (1951 [1867]): Suicide. A study in sociology. New York. Eisinger, P. K. (1973): The conditions of protest behavior in American cities. In: American Political Science Review 67, 1, 11–28. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1958525 Erman, E. (2009): What is wrong with agonistic pluralism? Reflections on conflict in democratic theory. In: Philosophy and Social Criticism 35, 9, 1039–1062. https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453709343385 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453709343385 Flyvbjerg, B. (1998): Rationality and power. Democracy in practice. Chicago. Forester, J. (1982): Planning in the Face of Power. In: Journal of the American Planning Association 48, 1, 67–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944368208976167 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01944368208976167 Forester, J. (1999): The deliberative practitioner. London. Fromm, E. (1945): Die Furcht vor der Freiheit. Zürich. Gamson, W. A. (1990): The strategy of social protest. Belmont. Geißel, B.; Thillman, K. (2006): Partizipation in Neuen Sozialen Bewegungen. In: Hoecker, B. (Hrsg.): Politische Partizipation zwischen Konvention und Protest. Leverkusen, 159–183. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvhhhhdt.10 Goodwin, J.; Jasper, J. M.; Polletta, F. (2005): Emotional Dimension of Social Movements. In: Snow, D. A.; Soule, S. A.; Kriesi, H. (Hrsg.): The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements. Oxford, 413–432. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470999103.ch18 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470999103.ch18 Gualini, E. (Hrsg.) (2015): Planning and Conflict: Critical Perspectives on Contentious Urban Developments. London. Healey, P. (1992): Planning through debate. The communicative turn in planning theory. In: Town Planning Review 63, 2, 143–162. https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822381815-011 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3828/tpr.63.2.422x602303814821 Herkenrath, M. (2011): Die Globalisierung der sozialen Bewegungen. Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-93118-0 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-93118-0 Hillier, J. (2003): ‘Agon’izing over consensus: Why habermasian ideals cannot be ‘Real’. In: Planning Theory 2, 1, 37–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095203002001005 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095203002001005 Hochschild, A. R. (1983): The managed heart. Commercialization of human feeling. Berkeley. Innes, J. E.; Booher, D. E. (2015): A turning point for planning theory? Overcoming dividing discourses. In: Planning Theory 14, 2, 195–213. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095213519356 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095213519356 Jasper, J. M. (2004): A Strategic Approach to Collective Action: Looking for Agency in Social-Movement Choices. In: Mobilization: An International Quarterly 9, 1, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.17813/maiq.9.1.m112677546p63361 DOI: https://doi.org/10.17813/maiq.9.1.m112677546p63361 Klandermans, B. (1984): Mobilization and participation. Social-psychological expansions of resource mobilization theory. In: American Sociological Review 49, 5, 583–600. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2095417 Kornhauser, W. (1959): The Politics of Mass Society. Glencoe. Kost, A. (2008): Direkte Demokratie. Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-19247-5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-19247-5 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 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095220953201 Lake, R. W. (1993): Planners’ Alchemy Transforming NIMBY to YIMBY: Rethinking NIMBY. In: Journal of the American Planning Association 59, 1, 87–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944369308975847 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01944369308975847 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 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098020949080 Larsen, J. L.; Frandsen, M. S. (2022): Urban Drama: Power Mediation in Antagonistic Copenhagen. In: Urban Planning 7, 3. https://doi.org/10.17645/up.v7i3.5473 DOI: https://doi.org/10.17645/up.v7i3.5473 Lindblom, C. E. (1959): The science of “muddling through“. In: Public Administration Review 19, 2, 79–88. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/973677 Maney, G. M.; Andrews, K. T.; Kutz-Flamenbaum, R. V.; Rohlinger, D. A.; Goodwin, J. (2012): An Introduction to Strategies for Social Change. In: Maney, G.M.; Kutz-Flamenbaum, R.V.; Rohlinger, D.A.; Goodwin, J. (Hrsg.): Strategies for social change. Minneapolis, xi–xxxviii. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5749/minnesota/9780816672899.001.0001 McAdam, D.; McCarthy, J. D.; Zald, M. N. (1988): Social Movements. In: Smelser, N. J. (Hrsg.): Handbook of Sociology. London, 695–737. McAdam, D.; Tarrow, S. G.; Tilly, C. (2001): Dynamics of contention. Cambridge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511805431 McAuliffe, C.; Rogers, D. (2020): Value pluralism in urban planning. In: Planning Theory 19, 2, 242–248. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095219900350 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095219900350 Menzl, M. (2014): Nimby-Proteste. Ausdruck neu erwachten Partizipationsinteresses oder eines zerfallenden Gemeinwesens? In: Gestring, N.; Ruhne, R.; Wehrheim, J. (Hrsg.): Stadt und soziale Bewegungen. Wiesbaden, 65–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-01398-1_4 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-01398-1_4 Messinger, S. (2015): Protest als Normalbetrieb der Demokratie. Über die Verflechtung von Protest und Kommunalpolitik in Oberfranken. In: Hensel, A.; Hiemann, R.; Kallinich, D.; Lorenz, R.; Müller-Stahl, R.; Rahlf, K. (Hrsg.): Parteien, Protest und Populismus. Stuttgart, 113–115. Mouffe, C. (2000): Deliberative democracy or agonistic pluralism. Wien. = Reihe Politikwissenschaft 72. Mouffe, C. (2013): Agonistics: Thinking the world politically. London. Nanz, P.; Fritsche, M. (2012): Handbuch Bürgerbeteiligung. Verfahren und Akteure, Chancen und Grenzen. Bonn. = Schriftenreihe der Bundeszentrale für Politische Bildung 1200. Oberschall, A. (1973): Social Conflict and Social Movements. Englewood Cliffs. Othengrafen, F.; Sondermann, M. (2015): Konflikte, Proteste, Initiativen und die Kultur der Planung − Stadtentwicklung unter demokratischen Vorzeichen? In: Othengrafen, F.; Sondermann, M. (Hrsg.): Städtische Planungskulturen im Spiegel von Konflikten, Protesten und Initiativen. Berlin, 7–30. = Planungsrundschau 23. Paxton, M. (2019): Agonistic democracy: Rethinking political institutions in pluralist times. New York. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429425066 Pløger, J. (2004): Strife: Urban planning and agonism. In: Planning Theory 3, 1, 71–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095204042318 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095204042318 Pollack, D. (2000): Politischer Protest. Politisch alternative Gruppen in der DDR. Opladen. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-663-11106-1 Polletta, F.; Jasper, J. M. (2001): Collective identity and social movements. In: Annual Review of Sociology 27, 1, 283–305. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.283 Rittel, H. W.; Webber, M. M. (1973): Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. In: Policy Sciences 4, 2, 155–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730 Rössel, J. (2002): Die klassische Konflikttheorie auf dem Prüfstand: Determinanten der Intensität und Gewaltsamkeit von sozialen Konflikten. In: Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Soziologie 28, 1, 47–67. https://doi.org/10.5169/seals-814396 Rucht, D. (2001): Protest und Protestereignisanalyse. Einleitende Bemerkungen. In: Rucht, D. (Hrsg.): Protest in der Bundesrepublik. Strukturen und Entwicklungen. Frankfurt am Main, 7–25. Rucht, D.; Neidhardt, F. (2002): Towards a ‚Movement Society‘? On the possibilities of institutionalizing social movements. In: Social Movement Studies 1, 1, 7–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/14742830120118873 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14742830120118873 Rucht, D.; Ohlemacher, T. (1992): Protest Event Data. Collection, Uses and Perspectives. In: Diani, M.; Eyerman, R. (Hrsg.): Studying collective action. London, 76–106. Sager, T. Ø. (2012): Reviving critical planning theory: Dealing with pressure, neo-liberalism, and responsibility in communicative planning. London. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203104187 Schaal, G. S.; Lemke, M.; Ritzi, C. (2014): Die Ökonomisierung der Politik in Deutschland: Eine vergleichende Politikfeldanalyse. Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-02620-2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-02620-2 Selle, K. (1995): Phasen oder Stufen? Fortgesetzte Anmerkungen zum Wandel des Planungsverständnisses. In: RaumPlanung 71, 237–242. Selle, K. (2013): Über Bürgerbeteiligung hinaus. Stadtentwicklung als Gemeinschaftsaufgabe? Detmold. Snow, D. A. (2001): Collective Identity and Expressive Forms. Working Paper. Irvine. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-043076-7/04094-8 Snow, D. A.; Rochford, E. B.; Worden, S. K.; Benford, R. D. (1986): Frame Alignment Processes, Micromobilization, and Movement Participation. In: American Sociological Review 51, 4, 464–481. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2095581 Strachwitz, R.; Priller, E.; Triebe, B. (2020): Handbuch Zivilgesellschaft. Berlin. = Maecenata-Schriften 18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110553475 Stuart, D. G. (1969): Rational urban planning: Problems and prospects. In: Urban Affairs Review 5, 2, 151–182. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/107808746900500203 Susskind, L.E.; McKearnan, S.; Thomas-Larmer, J. (Hrsg.) (1999): The Consensus Building Handbook: A Comprehensive Guide to Reaching Agreement. Thousand Oaks. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452231389 Tarrow, S. G. (1993): Modular Collective Action and the Rise of the Social Movement. In: Politics and Society 21, 1, 69–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032329293021001004 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0032329293021001004 Tewdwr-Jones, M.; Allmendinger, P. (1998): Deconstructing Communicative Rationality: A Critique of Habermasian Collaborative Planning. In: Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 30, 11, 1975–1989. https://doi.org/10.1068/a301975 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1068/a301975 Tilly, C. (1978): From mobilization to revolution. Reading. Tilly, C. (2004): Social movements, 1768-2004. Boulder. 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 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X18773491 Wiechmann, T. (Hrsg.) (2019a): ARL Reader Planungstheorie. Band 1: Kommunikative Planung – Neoinstitutionalismus und Governance. Berlin. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-57630-4 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-57630-4 Wiechmann, T. (Hrsg.) (2019b): ARL Reader Planungstheorie. Band 2: Strategische Planung – Planungskultur. Berlin. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-57624-3 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-57624-3 Willis, M. (2019): On agonism and design: Dialogues between theory and practice. Dissertation, University of Trento. Yamamoto, A. D. (2018): The enemy within: The dangers of Chantal Mouffe’s figure of the adversary to the democratic task of agonistic planning. In: Planning Theory 17, 4, 551–567. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095217736087 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095217736087 Zald, M. N.; Ash, R. (1966): Social Movement Organizations: Growth, Decay and Change. In: Social Forces 44, 3, 327–341. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2575833 Downloads PDF (German) HTML (German) XML (German) Published Issue publication date 2023-10-30 (version 2)Published online first 2023-07-26 (version 1) Versions 2023-10-30 (2) 2023-07-26 (1) Issue Vol. 81 No. 5 (2023) Section Research Article License Copyright (c) 2023 Grischa Frederik Bertram, Uwe Altrock This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Articles in Raumforschung und Raumordnung – Spatial Research and Planning are published under a Creative Commons license. From Vol. 79 No. 2 (2021), the license applied is CC BY 4.0. From Vol. 77 No. 1 to Vol. 79 No.1, articles were published under a CC BY-SA license. Earlier volumes have been re-published by oekom 2022 under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License CC BY 4.0. How to Cite 1.Bertram GF, Altrock U. Beyond agonistic planning theories: The “normality“ of protests and their influence on conflict resolution in spatial planning. RuR [Internet]. 2023 Oct. 30 [cited 2025 Apr. 17];81(5):493-508. Available from: https://rur.oekom.de/index.php/rur/article/view/1674 More Citation Formats ACM ACS APA ABNT Chicago Harvard IEEE MLA Turabian Vancouver Download Citation Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS) BibTeX Share
Acknowledgement to our reviewers 2024 March 6, 2025 The editors would like to thank all reviewers who have been reviewing articles in 2024.
A new Issue has been published February 28, 2025 A new issue of the Open-Access-Journal "Raumforschung und Raumordnung | Spatial Research and Planning" has been published. Volume 83 No. 1 (2025) is now available on our website.
A new Issue has been published December 30, 2024 A new issue of the Open-Access-Journal "Raumforschung und Raumordnung | Spatial Research and Planning" has been published. Volume 82 No. 6 (2024) is now available on our website.