Agonistic Planning perspectives Elias Marttunen, Atte Mäki, Petri Ruohio

Agonism briefly Culture of “open controversy” and “profitable strifes” Turning the confrontation (Antagonism) to good purpose No need for common value base since controlled strifes can benefit planning processes

PlØger Background: Planners and politicians lack of understanding of handling the conflicts Strife should be seen as key part of planning practices, not as a problem to be solved Disagreements as Agonism not Antagonism There is no need to solve conflicts with “permanent” solutions such as political decisions, but to keep them under dispute Conflicts between adversaries not antagonists Planning as endless learning process with respect for disagreements Demand for citizen empowerment with open-ended processes, plurality of discourses and dialogues with participants

Innes & Booher - Overcoming dividing discourses (2015) Everything is contextual, no handbooks can be made! Background: lack of communication between advocates of rational planning and representatives of communicative planning theory Beef = to have a grudge or start one with another person (Urban Dictionary) Manuel Castells: Theory of communicative power Power lies in specific relationships, in specific times and places That is overarching relativism!

M U T U A L L E A R N I N G + A G O N I S M Four contradictions Community knowledge Science Community knowledge Science Community knowledge Science Communication power State power Communication power State power Communication power State power Collaboration Conflict Collaboration Conflict Process Outcome Process Outcome M U T U A L L E A R N I N G + A G O N I S M

Recommendation Exposing oneself to the writings and thus arguments of different discourse communities Increasing face-to-face discussion Study the role of communication in planning discourse analysis historical analysis

Jean Hillier - Direct Action and Agonism in Democratic Planning Practice Background: Since the 60’s, people have contributed to planning in western countries by formal, advicatory and intimidatory processes Communicative planning has been focused especially on formal processes and seeking consensus “If there is no friction, walking is impossible” Focusing only on consensus-building is problematic in many ways Planning practice will always be full of conflicts Agonistic planning could enable both institutional practises and informal direct action It could contest the old principles of formal participation processes Institutional practises Consensus Agonism Ignorance Informal action

Jean Hillier - Direct Action and Agonism in Democratic Planning Practice Hillier suggests: Antagonism -> conflictual consensus / agonistic respect Planning officers to relax their need for control and certainty Freedom of dissent Refusing to close off the options that direct action might make available To form a terrain where: A contestation of views can occur Groups can form initiatives and walk forward across agonistic and negotiative parts of planning process

Please discuss (5 min / question) Can you think of an example (case) where strife in planning process has resulted in improved planning? The readings suggest that participants of the planning process should not be seen as antagonists rather than adversaries. What do you think of this claim? How to maintain effective communication amidst a conflict situation? What is the role of bargaining and trade-offs in the planning process? Koijärvi: It is a famous example of civil disobedience which prevented drying an important bird lake of Koijärvi and later resulted of turning it to a nature reservation area. The process also played a big part in forming Finnish environmental administration. It had also important political consequences when the ecologists had an opportunity to organise themselves.

Discussion Q.1. In almost every planning process ( But is it a strife?) People are heard better CIty boulevards Strife or communication? Q.3. Some ground rules have to be accepted at the beginning of the process People should communicate in somewhat of a same level, otherwise it gets difficult There should be rules Somebody has to moderate the conflict and collect the information Discussion should be open Neutral planner? How could agonism ever work? Could anything be decided? Good connections and relationships, also between the organisations

Thank you!