Negotiating a ‘democratic ethos’
Negotiating a ‘democratic ethos’
复制标题
谈判“民主精神”
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2011
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Sophie Bond
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Sophie Bond
相关的、批判性的并充分考虑权力普遍性的城市民主理论继续构成挑战。在计划和民主方面，有两种理论框架占主导地位——哈贝马斯启发的交往计划理论和莫夫的竞争多元论。由于本体论和认识论的根本差异，这两种理论框架通常被认为是不可通约的，并且每种理论框架的支持者之间的争论往往是争论性的。两种理论在能够提供的见解方面都有互补的优点和缺点。此外，城市治理的现实情况往往表现出可以用这两种理论框架来解释的特征。本文探讨了一条超越争论的道路。它对两个理论框架提出了问题，并为规划理论协商了一条前进的道路，将一个理论框架的原则纳入一个假设另一个理论框架的本体论位置的理论框架中。为此，本文提出了一种双管齐下的方法，为探究城市民主空间提供了一种批判性的、适应性的和反思性的方法。
Theories of urban democracy that are relevant, critical and take sufficient account of the pervasiveness of power continue to pose challenges. Two theoretical frameworks dominate in relation to planning and democracy – Habermasian-inspired communicative planning theory and Mouffe’s agonistic pluralism. Both theoretical frames are typically held to be incommensurable because of fundamental ontological and epistemological differences and the debate between proponents of each tends to be polemic. Both theories have complementary strengths and weaknesses in terms of the insights they are capable of providing. Moreover, the realities of urban governance situations often display characteristics that can be explained in terms of both theoretical framings. This article negotiates a path beyond the polemic debate. It problematizes both theoretical frameworks and negotiates a way forward for planning theory that co-opts the principles of one into a theoretical framework that assumes the ontological position of the other. In so doing the article proposes a two-pronged approach that provides a critical, adaptive and reflexive approach to inquiring into spaces of urban democracy.