What is it about?
Agonistic planning theory is influenced by Chantal Mouffe's radically democratic theory of agonistic pluralism and based upon the ontological assumption that conflict or antagonism is ontological. This paper critically examines this assumption based on the poststructuralist works of Jacques Derrida and Ernesto Laclau.
Featured Image
Why is it important?
According to Laclau's ontology of radical negativity, conflicts are contingent, not ontological. Planning theory based on Laclau's ontology can therefore open up new avenues for planners to analyse and think about how best to tame conflicts in their own professional practice.
Perspectives
This paper represents my first publication in social science (though not the first - that's in natural science) and, to be honest, the most easiest paper I've ever written. A single thesis - namely, antagonism is not ontological - dressed up as a paper with some theoretical meat thrown on top. Writing this paper was therefore a great pleasure for me because it taught me not to over-complicate things which I discovered has been my biggest problem when writing an academic essay. Beyond this pedagogic point, I hope people find the main argument of this paper that the possibility of conflicts is not necessarily inherent in planning/social processes helpful. I think this recognition can steer people away from the trap of nihilistic thoughts on conflicts and really open up exciting new ways of thinking about how best to deal with admittedly conflict-ridden planning processes. At the very least, I hope that people find that Laclau's social theory has a great deal to offer for planning theory.
Arata Yamamoto
Read the Original
This page is a summary of: Why agonistic planning? Questioning Chantal Mouffe’s thesis of the ontological primacy of the political, Planning Theory, June 2016, SAGE Publications,
DOI: 10.1177/1473095216654941.
You can read the full text:
Contributors
The following have contributed to this page
