Shaping planner’s ideal: Lacanian interpretation of planning education process and planner’s identity

Document Type : Research Paper

Abstract

Traditional social science often fails when deployed to explain complex human action. In each specific social field of human endeavour, including planning, experienced actors draw on a range of conscious and unconscious performative knowledges to act with effect: the experts simply ‘know’ what to do. Some thinkers, suggests that to understand these complex human dispositions framing practice requires a detailed understanding of the particular, not the universal. Drawing on Aristotle's intellectual virtue of phronesis, Also, planners and social scientists refers to this as a phronetic social science model. This article suggests that Lacan's theoretical insights and conceptualizations pertaining to the split human subject, divided between symbolic consciousness and unconscious affect, can help to empower this phronetic model. The article argues that a Lacanian inspired phronetic model is particularly useful for understanding spatial planning and related urban policy discourses, for it provides insight as to how desire and resultant ideological fantasies shape our shared social reality and spaces of habitation in our globalized world.
Why is it so difficult to define concisely the meaning of ‘planning’ and many of its dominant concepts—public interest, new urbanism, sustainability or smart growth—when deployed in formulating urban policy? Lacan's discourse theory suggests an answer based on an understanding of our human subjectivity, a subjectivity that implicitly seeks to overlook contradiction and ambiguity in our desire to fulfill human aspirations for a harmonious and secure world. This article will use Lacanian theory to examine the beliefs of the planning profession, how they are shaped and then implemented in our urban environments. In particular, Lacan's central theoretical premise of the Four Discourses will be explained and related to planning policy formulation. That is, how planners' acquire and internalise the discipline's diffuse sets of values, beliefs, knowledges and traditions, prior to then imposing them as urban policies on society.
Can you succinctly and clearly define what planning and many of its guiding principles —such as the public good, sustainability, or even market forces— actually mean? For many of us, this is difficult to accomplish. Lacan provides an explanation for this challenge based on his theorizing about human subjectivity— how we acquire the identifications that constitute ourselves as planners. The article will deploy Lacan’s explanatory power for understanding how the professional identities of planners and the central ideas constituting the planning discipline are interrelated. Particularly, Lacan’s theoretical model of the four discourses will be used to explore planning education and how aspiring planners acquire and internalize the discipline’s often-diffuse sets of traditions, beliefs, knowledges, and values.
in fact, This article examines Lacan’s psychoanalytically derived social theory as to its appropriateness for understanding aspects of planning practice. Lacan theorized not only about language and culture, but also about that which resides outside of symbolization and underlies human desire, to provide an understanding of human subjectivity, identity and motivation. We discuss how a Lacanian critical social theoretical approach could be pertinent to analysis of the complex mixture of hybrid processes – technical, collaborative and political – that comprise planning development assessment.

Keywords

References

اسپینوزا، باروخ (1364)، اخلاق، ترجمه جهانگیری، م، نشر مرکز دانشگاهی، تهران.
هوسرل، ادموند (1372)، ایده پدیده‌شناسی، ترجمه عبدالکریم رشیدیان، انتشارات علمی و فرهنگی، تهران.
Alexander, E )1984(, After rationality, what?, Journal of the American Planning Association, 50 (1),62-69.
Allmendinger, P and Tewdwr-Jones, M (2002), Planning futures: New directions for planning theory, Routledge, London & New York.
Boyer, M (1983), Dreaming the rational city, MA: MIT Press, Cambridge.
Bracher, M (1993), Lacan, discourse, and social change, Ithaca, Cornell University Press, NY.
Bracher, M (1999), The Writing Cure., Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale, 40-88.
Bridge G, Watson S (2000), Introduction', in A Companion to the City, Eds G Bridge, S Watson (Blackwell, Oxford),1 - 8.
Butler, J (1997), Excitable speech: A politics of the performative, Routledge, London.
Campbell, H and R. Marshall (2002), Utilitarianism’s bad breath? A re-evaluation of the public interest justification for planning, Planning Theory, 1 (2), 163-87.
Castells, M (2000), The rise of the network society. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Caudill, D (2000), Lacan’s social psychoanalysis, In The subject of Lacan, edited by K. Malone and S. Friedlander, Albany, State University of New York Press. 297-315.
Dean, T (2000), Beyond sexuality, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Duany, A and E. Plater-Zyberk (1996), Neighborhoods and suburbs, Design Quarterly, 164,10-23.
Evans, Dylan (1996), An introductory dictionary of Lacanian psychoanalysis, Routledge press , ?????.
Friedmann, J (1973), Retracking America: A theory of transactive planning, Anchor, New York.
Friedmann, J (1987), Planning in the public domain, Princeton, Princeton University Press, NJ.
Friedmann, J (1996), The core curriculum in planning revisited, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 15, 89-104.
Friedmann, J (2002), The prospect of cities, University of Minnesota Press, London.
Gunder, M (2002), Bridging theory and practice in planning education: A story from New Zealand, Australian Planner, 39 (4), 200-204.
Gunder, M (2003), Passionate planning for the others’ desire: An agonistic response to the dark side of planning, Progress in Planning, 60 (3), 235-322.
Gunder, M (2004), Shaping the Planner’s Ego-Ideal: A Lacanian Interpretation of Planning Education, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 23(1), 299-314.
Hastings, A (1999), Discourse and urban change: introduction to the Special Issue, Urban Studies, 36 ,7 - 12.
Harvey, D (1973), Social justice and the city, Edward Arnold, London.
Harvey, D (1996), Justice, nature and the geography of difference, Blackwell, Oxford, UK.
Healey, P (1997), Collaborative planning, Macmillan, London.
Hillier, J (2002), Shadows of power, Routledge, London.
Hillier, J (2003), Agon’ising over consensus—Why Habermasian ideals cannot be “real.”, Planning Theory, 2(1), 37-59.
Hillier, J and M. Gunder (2003), Planning fantasies? An exploration of a potential Lacanian framework for understanding development assessment planning, Planning Theory, 2 (3), 225-48.
Innes, J (1997), The planner’s century, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 16(2),227-28.
Jacobs, J (1961), The death and life of great American cities, Vintage, New York.
Lacan, J (1977), Ecrits, Norton, London.
Lacan, J (1988a), The seminar, book I, 1953-1954, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Lacan, J (1988b), The seminar, book II, 1954-1955, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Lacan, J (1992), The ethics of psychoanalysis 1959-1960, Routledge, London.
Lacan, J (1998), The seminar, book XX, 1972-1973, Norton, New York.
Lacan, J (2002), Ecrits, Norton, London.
Low, N (1994), Planning and justice, In Values and planning, edited by H. Thomas,. Aldershot,Avebury., 39-117, UK.
Lucacs, G (1971), what is orthodox Marxism in: History and Consciousness, trans. R. Livingston, MIT press,1-27.
Moran, Dermot (2000), Introduction to Phenomenology, Routledge, London & New York.
Myers, D (2001), Putting the future in planning: Introduction, Journal of the American Planning Association, 67 (4), 365-67.
Ozawa, C and E. Seltzer (1999), Taking our bearings: Mapping a relationship among planning practice, theory, and education, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 18, 257-66.
Richardson, T (2002), Freedom and control in planning: using discourse in the pursuit of reflexive practice, Planning Theory and Practice, Interface 3, 353 - 361.
Roudinesco, E (1997), Jacques Lacan, trans. B. Bray, Columbia university press, New York.
Sandercock, L (1997), The planner tamed: Preparing planners for the twenty first century, Australian Planner, 34 (2), 90-95.
Sandercock, L (1998), Towards cosmopolis, Wiley, Chichester, UK.
Sanyal, B (2002), Globalization, ethical compromise and planning theory, Planning Theory, 1 (2), 116-23.
Stiftel, B (1999), Faculty labor and intellectual capital: Furthering disciplinary development and institutional positioning in the Urban Planning Academy, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 19(1), 207-10.
Thomas, M.J (1977), Two types of planning theory, Working paper No.33, Department of town planning, Oxford Polytechnic, Oxford.
Weitz, J (2001),Growing smart: Coming to a classroom near you? Journal of Planning Education and Research, 21, 84-91.
Wheeler, S (2000), Planning for metropolitan sustainability, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 20,133-45.
Zizek, S (1992), Looking awry, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Zizek, S (1993), Tarrying with the negative, Duke University Press, London.
Zizek, S (1997a), The Plague of Fantasies, Verso, 14-25, London.
Zizek, S (1997b), The Abyss of Freedom, Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press,51-88.
Zizek, S (1998), Four discourses, four subjects, In Cognito and the unconscious, edited by S. Zizek, 74-113. London, Duke University Press, 75-100.
Zizek, S (2002), For they know not what they do. 2nd ed,Verso, London.
Zizek, S (2004), Organs without Bodies, London, Routledge.55-85.
Zizek, S (2006), How to read Lacan, London, Verso, 14-30.
 
Journal of Fine Arts: Architecture & Urban Planning
Volume 21, Issue 2
June 2016
Pages 5-18

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics