Beyond agonistic planning theories: The “normality“ of protests and their influence on conflict resolution in spatial planning

Authors

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.

August, V. (2022): Understanding democratic conflicts: The failures of agonistic theory. In: European Journal of Political Theory. 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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

Herkenrath, M. (2011): Die Globalisierung der sozialen Bewegungen. Wiesbaden. 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

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

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

Klandermans, B. (1984): Mobilization and participation. Social-psychological expansions of resource mobilization theory. In: American Sociological Review 49, 5, 583–600.

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

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

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

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

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

Lindblom, C. E. (1959): The science of “muddling through“. In: Public Administration Review 19, 2, 79–88.

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.

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.

McAuliffe, C.; Rogers, D. (2020): Value pluralism in urban planning. In: Planning Theory 19, 2, 242–248. 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

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.

Pløger, J. (2004): Strife: Urban planning and agonism. In: Planning Theory 3, 1, 71–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095204042318

Pollack, D. (2000): Politischer Protest. Politisch alternative Gruppen in der DDR. Opladen.

Polletta, F.; Jasper, J. M. (2001): Collective identity and social movements. In: Annual Review of Sociology 27, 1, 283–305.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

Strachwitz, R.; Priller, E.; Triebe, B. (2020): Handbuch Zivilgesellschaft. Berlin. = Maecenata-Schriften 18.

Stuart, D. G. (1969): Rational urban planning: Problems and prospects. In: Urban Affairs Review 5, 2, 151–182.

Susskind, L.E.; McKearnan, S.; Thomas-Larmer, J. (Hrsg.) (1999): The Consensus Building Handbook: A Comprehensive Guide to Reaching Agreement. Thousand Oaks.

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

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

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

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

Wiechmann, T. (Hrsg.) (2019b): ARL Reader Planungstheorie. Band 2: Strategische Planung – Planungskultur. Berlin. 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

Zald, M. N.; Ash, R. (1966): Social Movement Organizations: Growth, Decay and Change. In: Social Forces 44, 3, 327–341.

Published

Issue publication date 2023-10-30 (version 2)
Published online first 2023-07-26 (version 1)

Versions

Issue

Section

Research Article

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 2024 Jun. 22];81(5):493-508. Available from: https://rur.oekom.de/index.php/rur/article/view/1674

Share