Agon'izing Over Consensus

Why Habermasian Ideals cannot be `Real

Datos Bibliográficos

ID8091136
AutoresJack Hillier (0000-0002-7340-2073, Curtin University, autor de correspondencia)
Año2003
Volumen2
Número1
Páginas37-59
Fecha de publicación2003-03-01
Peer ReviewedSí
Open AccessSí
TipoARTICLE
RevistaPlanning Theory (JOURNAL)
Identificadores de la revistaISSN: 1473-0952 • E-ISSN: 1741-3052
EditorialSAGE Publishing (PUBLISHER • US)
DOI10.1177/1473095203002001005
OpenAlexW2078793116
IdiomaEN
Citas recibidas188
Referencias citadas29

I explore the core Habermasian concept of rational consensus-formation and its counterfactuality before introducing the possibility of permanence of conflict, non-reciprocity and domination (i.e. of agonism) which may productively explain some of the powergames enacted in planning decision-making. In so doing I draw on the concept of agonism and introduce the political into Habermas' moral theorization. Where the personal and the political intersect there is a role for psychology. I illustrate how Habermas' communicative theorizing was itself partly developed from a psychoanalytical tradition before introducing some of the concepts popularized by Jacques Lacan. I conclude that development of communicative planning theory could usefully retain some of Habermas' psychological foundations while turning to the work of Lacan as a basis for an enhanced understanding of the realities of planning practice

Agonism · Communicative action · Epistemology · Political science · Politics · Reciprocity (cultural anthropology · Social science · Sociology · Critical Realism in Sociology · Foucault, Power, and Ethics · Law · Philosophy · Urban Planning and Governance