@book{2367ba60003811dab4d5000ea68e967b,
title = "Planning and Foucault: In Search of the Dark Side of Planning Theory",
abstract = "In this paper we argue that the use of the communicative theory of J{\"u}rgen Habermas in planning theory is problematic because it hampers an understanding of how power shapes planning. We posit an alternative approach based on the power analytics of Michel Foucault which focuses on {"}what is actually done{"}, as opposed to Habermas` focus on {"}what should be done{"}. We discuss how the Foucauldian stance problematises planning, asking difficult questions about the treatment of legitimacy, rationality, knowledge and spatiality. We conclude that Foucault offers a type of analytic planning theory which offers better prospects than does Habermas for those interested in understanding and bringing about democratic social change through planning.",
keywords = "J{\"u}rgen Habermas, Democratic social change, Planning theory, Rationality, Power, Michel Foucault, Spatiality",
author = "Bent Flyvbjerg and Tim Richardson",
note = "Reprinted from Philip Allmendinger and Mark Tewdwr-Jones (eds.), Planning Futures : New Directions for Planning Theory. London and New York : Routledge, 2002, pp 44-62",
year = "2004",
language = "English",
isbn = "8790893697",
publisher = "Aalborg Universitetsforlag",
}