Who Makes out The Elephant? Disagreement among Urban Planning Theorists’ Claim on Rationality

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 Associate Professor, Department of Urban and Regional Planning, University of Tehran, Iran.

2 Assistant Professor, Department of Urban and Regional Planning, University of Tehran, Iran.

عنوان مقاله [English]

Who Makes out The Elephant? Disagreement among Urban Planning Theorists’ Claim on Rationality

نویسندگان [English]

  • Farshad Nourian 1
  • Morteza Hadi Jaberi Moghaddam 2
1
2
چکیده [English]

Rational knowledge-claims, consisting of theoretical propositions expressing a judgment about complex urban problems, are not new. The audiences, i.e. the public whose lives are affected by such claims, have begun to question the claims of rationality in urban planning. In response, each urban planner, believing in a particular theory or point of reference, endeavors to challenge competing theories in order to make his or her own view legitimate. Each refers to a point of reference as being self-evident. Through this skillful manipulation, planners tacitly justify their own claims as reasonable, plausible, inevitable, etc. These efforts actively suppress all opposing views and consequently portray one particular rational narrative as the complete emergent one. In this context, the competition among urban planners reminds us of the allegory of the blind people and the elephant. Although, in this article, we do not attempt to provide yet another visionary theory, we claim that there exists no visionary position among planning theorists. The planning literature during the past two decades points to such competition between urban planners on the subject of rationality of plans. Could planners build consensus among themselves before they ask the public to do so? Here, a discourse between urban planning theorists is compared with the tale of the elephant. This article, using the above-mentioned allegory as a method of analysis, looks for the possibility of consensus building between two famous contemporary American schools of planning thought. Points of reference of these two schools of thought are categorized and discussed. It is also found that no visionary position exists among planners which explain why people have doubts over planners’ claims to rationality. 

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Knowledge-Claim
  • Point of Reference
  • rationality
  • Consensus Building
  • Planning Theory

مراجع

Althusser, L. (2006). Philosophy of the Encounter: Later Writings, 1978-1987. (G.M. Goshgarian, Verso Trans. and ed.).
Castells, M. (1977). Urban Question: A Marxist Approach. (A. Sheridan Trans.). Cambridge. Ma: MIT Press.
 Chalmers, A. (1994).What is This Thing Called Science: An Assessment of the Nature and Status of Science and Its Methods. Indianapolis:  Hackett Pub. Co. (Indianapolis)
 Collins, H. & Pinch, T. (1998). The Golem; What You Should Know About Science. New York: Cambridge University Press.
 Faludi, A. (1973). Planning Theory. Pergamon Press.
 Feldman, M. (1997).Can we Talk? Interpretive Planning Theory as Comedy. In: Planning Theory, Political Economy and the Interpretive Turn, ed., Patsy Healey, pp. 43-65.
 Feyerabend, P. (1975). Against Method; Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge. London: NLB.
Forester, J. (1996). Beyond Dialogue to Transformative Learning: How Deliberative Rituals Encourage Political Judgment in Community Planning Processes. Poznan Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities, No.46, 295-333.
 Friedmann, J. (1987). Planning in the Public Domain: From Knowledge to Action. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
 Friedmann, J. (2011). Insurgencies: Essays in Planning Theory. London & New York: Taylor &Francis Group.
Hanson, N. R. (1958). Patterns of Discovery; an Inquiry into the Conceptual Foundations of Science. Cambridge University Press.
Healey, P. (1992). Planning through Debate: the Communicative Turn in Planning Theory. Town Planning Review, Vol. 63, No 2, 143.
Healey, P. (1997a). Situating Communicative Practices: Moving Beyond Urban Political Economy. In: Planning Theory, Political Economy and the Interpretive Turn, 6583.
Healey, P. (1997b).Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies. University of British Columbia Press.
Hillier, J & Healey, P. (2008). Critical Essays in Planning Theory, Vol. 2. Ashgate Publishing Limited, England.
 Hoch, C. J.(1997). Planning Theorists taking an Interpretive Turn Need not Travel on the Political Economy Highway. In:Planning Theory, Political Economy and the Interpretive Turn.(P. Healey, ed.), 1340 & 83.
 Hoch, C. J. (2002). Evaluating Plans Pragmatically. Planning Theory. No. 1, 53.
Hoch, C. J. (2006). What Can Rorty Teach an Old Pragmatist Doing Public Administration or Planning?Administration & Society, No. 38, 389.
Hopkins, L. D. (2006). In What Circumstances Should Plans Be Public? Paper Presented At The 2nd World Planning Conference, Mexico City, July.
Innes, J. E. (1995). Planning Theory’s Emerging Paradigm: Communicative Action and Interactive Practice. Journal of Planning Education and Research, Vol. 14, 183-189.
Innes, J. E. (1996). Planning Through Consensus Building: a New View of the Comprehensive Planning Ideal.Journalof the American Planning Association, 62( 4), 72-460.
 Innes, J. E. & Booher, D. E. (1999). Consensus Building as Role Playing and Bricolage; Toward a Theory of Collaborative Planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 6S, No.1. American Planning Association, Chicago, IL.
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press. Lauria, M. (1997). Communicating in a vacuum: Will Anyone Hear? In: Planning Theory, Political Economy and the Interpretive Turn, (Patsy Healey ed.), 40-43.
 Lefebvre, H. (1970). Reflections on the Politics of Space. (Michael J. Enders, Antipode Trans.). Vol. 7, No. 2.
Peet, R. & Thrift, N. (1989). Political Economy and Human Geography. In: New Models in Geography, Vol. 2, (R. Peet and N. Thrift eds.). London: Unwin Hyman.
 Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal Knowledge; Towards A Post-Critical Philosophy. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press.
 Pombo, O. et al. (2011). Otto Neurath and theUnity of Science. University of Texas.
 Quine, W. V. & Kemeny, J. G. (1952). Review of Two Dogmas of Empiricism. Journal of Symbolic Logic, vol. 17, no. 4, 281-283.
Ragland, C. P. & Heidt, S. (1998). What is Philosophy? New Haven & London: Yale University Press. Robinson, G. (1998). Philosophy and Mystification; A Reflection on Nonsense and clarity. London &New York: Routledge.
Rorty, R. (1979). Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Rorty, R. (1982).Consequences of Pragmatism: Essays 1972-80. University of Minnesota Press.
Rorty, R. (1987). Science as Solidarity. In: The Rhetoric of the Human Science, ed. John S. Nelson et al., 38-52. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Rorty, R. (1999).Philosophy and Social Hope. London: Penguin.
Rorty, R. (2010). Philosophy as science, as metaphor, and as politics. In: The Rorty Reader, ed. Christopher J. Voparil et al., 211-226. Willey Blackwell Press.
Sager, T. (1999). The Rationality Issue in Land-Use Planning. Journal of Management History, Vol. 5 Iss: 2, 87–107.
 Sandercock, L. & Berry, M. (1983).Introduction. In: Urban Political Economy: The Australian Case, Sydney, eds. Sandercock, L. and Berry, M. George Allen and Unwin Australia Pty Ltd.
Stroll, A. (2002). Wittgenstein. Oneworld Oxford, England. Taylor, N. (1980). Planning Theory and the Philosophy of Planning. Urban Studies, No. 17, 159-172.
Torres, R. D. and Martin, E. J. (2004).Savage State: Welfare Capitalism and Inequality. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
 Toulmin, S. (1961). Foresight and Understanding; an Enquiry into the Aims of Science. Indiana University Press.
معماری و شهرسازی آرمان شهر
دوره 7، شماره 12
شهریور 1393
صفحه 191-201

فایل ها

سابقه مقاله

  • تاریخ دریافت: 15 اردیبهشت 1393
  • تاریخ بازنگری: 31 تیر 1393
  • تاریخ پذیرش: 31 تیر 1393

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار