An Analysis of the Notion of Public Interest in planning through a Cartographic Methodology of Tracing A Land-Use Conversion Plan in Chamestan as a Case Study

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 PhD Candidate in Urban Planning, Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran

2 Professor, Department of Urban and Regional Design and Planning, Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

The notion of public interest has had a critical role in planning thought and practice. It has identified and legitimated planning as a discipline and a profession. However, it is an ambiguous and vague concept at the same time, and there have been countless debates on its nature and definition. Various experimental and concrete analyses of the planning practices have demonstrated a gap between what is theoretically defined as public interest and what comes to actualize in practice. This gap is a crucial reason for the de-legitimization of contemporary planning. Accordingly, the role of government and the planning system as the representative and advocates of the public has increasingly been questioned. Such criticisms aim to raise the awareness of planners about the claimed public interest and their role in the maintenance of power relations, pretending to support the public interest. And such self-awareness is a prerequisite for any ontological transformation in planning and its so-called public interest. In Iran, planning has emerged in an entirely different context from democratic countries. Consequently, it is even more complicated to reflect on the public interest as the final cause for planning. In this context, one possible way to increase the self-awareness of planners is to reflect on what has happened in reality. This article aims to uncover the planning reality in Iran and its relation to the notion of public interest. Thereby, it focuses on a land-use conversion plan in Chamestan through a cartographic methodology of tracing. It is a methodology based on Deleuzian pragmatics and Foucauldian genealogy, developed by Jean Hillier in planning. Using this analytical framework, this article addresses three questions: which assemblages have emerged, and how have they come into being? What relations (games of power, knowledge, and subjectivation) have existed between which actants? And which assemblage has served constituent power, and which one has increased the potential of constitutive power? The results of this research show there have emerged three assemblages with shared interest during the process of this plan. To advocate its position and justification, each assemblage uses its formal and informal authority and power (such as the power to issue permission for land use conversion, voting right, money, and so on), produces new knowledge and technical documents (such as feasibility plan, or environmental impact assessment plan and so on), and subjectivizes both themselves (as the advocate of the public, the experts, and so on) and the other actant (as the bothersome, the squatter, the populist). These relations in and between the assemblages imply that what determined the final decision in this process has not been the public interest but the games of power by the assemblages, who were advocating their individual or organizational interests. However, there is a trace of constitutive and destabilizing forces in this planning process, including the actants who escape the apparatuses of capture and do not obey the rules of the formal planning system.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

امکوایران (1387). طرح جامع ناحیه‌ای ساری. وزارت راه و شهرسازی ایران.
ایسنا (1394). آن زمان که تغییر کاربری دادند کجا بودید! به آدرس https://www.isna.ir/news/mazandaran-30922
پیمان، ساره، غلامی، پویا، غلامی، پیمان، و گنجی، ایمان (۱۳۹۹). دلوزگتاری. مشهد: کتابکده کسری
دریفوس، هیوبرت و رابینو، پل (۱۳۹۹). میشل فوکو: فراسوی ساختارگرایی و هرمنوتیک (مترجم: حسین بشیریه).  تهران: نشر نی.
دلوز، ژیل (1394). برگسونیسم (مترجمان: زهره اکسیری و پیمان غلامی). تهران: نشر روزبهان.   
سازمان همیاری شهرداری‌های استان مازندران (1395). پرونده‌ زمین‌های بهدشت چمستان. وزارت کشور.
فلوبیر، بنت (۱۳۹۹). برنامه‌ریزی، فرونسیس، قدرت (مترجم: نریمان جهانزاد). مشهد: کتابکده کسری.
کاورد، مارتین (1398). میان ما در شهر: مادیت، سوبژکتیویته و اجتماع در عصر شهری‌شدن جهانی (مترجم: نریمان جهانزاد). نشریه الکترونیکی فضا و دیالکتیک، ۱-۱۳.
کارگروه فراقوه‌ای مبارزه با زمین‌خواری (1395). هفتمین صورتجلسه کمیته تخصصی کارگروه فراقوه‌ای مبارزه با زمین‌خواری. وزارت جهاد کشاورزی.
کولبروک، کلر (1398). ژیل دولوز (مترجم: رضا سیروان). تهران: نشر مرکز.
مازندطرح (1388). گزارش تعیین توان اکولوژیک و برآورد ظرفیت محیطی- سند آمایش استان مازندران. استانداری مازندران.
مازند نظام (1393). انتقاد از تغییر کاربری 200 هکتار از اراضی استان، به آدرس https://www.mazandnezam.org/fa/news/2165
مجلس شورای اسلامی (1391الف). مشروح مذاکرات مجلس شورای اسلامی در 21 آذر 91، قوه‌ مقننه‌ جمهوری اسلامی.
مجلس شورای اسلامی (1391ب). مشروح مذاکرات مجلس شورای اسلامی در 17 بهمن 91، قوه‌ مقننه‌ جمهوری اسلامی.
نمانیوز (1393). مسئولان در برابر تغییر کاربری هزاران هکتار زمین کشاورزی در شمال کشور بی تفاوت هستند/ وزیر کشور پاسخ دهد، به آدرس: https://www.namanews.com/News/83588
وبسایت شرکت سرمایه‌گذاری شاهد (1401). به آدرس https://shahed.co.ir
وبسایت شرکت عمران بهدشت چمستان (1401). به آدرس https://behdashtchamestan.com
وبسایت شرکت عمران و توسعه شاهد (1401). به آدرس https://omranshahed.com
هیلیر، جین، و آبراهامز، گراهام ( ۱۳۹۹). نظریه‌ برنامه‌ریزی شهری در دلوز و گتاری، در ساره پیمان؛ پویا غلامی؛ پیمان غلامی؛ ایمان گنجی، دلوزگتاری (۱۴۹-۱۹۴). مشهد: کتابکده کسری.
 
Alexander, E. R. (2002a). the Public Interest in Planning: From Legitimation to Substantive Plan Evaluation. Planning Theory, 1(3), 226–249.
Alexander, E. R. (2002b). Planning Rights: Toward Normative Criteria for Evaluating plans. International Planning Theory, 7(3), 191-212.
Alexander, E. R. (2006). Evolution and Status: Where is Planning-Evaluation Today and How Did it Get Here?, In: Ernest Alexander (Eds), Evaluation in Planning (3-17). Ashgate Publishing Company.
Alexander, E. R. (2010). Planning, Policy and the Public Interest: Planning Regimes and Planners, Ethics and Practices. International Planning Studies, 15(2), 143–162.
Alexander, E. R. (2013). Values in Planning and Design: A Process Perspective on Ethics in Forming the Built Environment, Ethics, Design and Planning of the Built Environment, In: Claudia Basta & Stefano Moroni (Eds.), Ethics, Design and Planning of the Built Environment (3-22). Springer.
Anderson, B., Kearnes, M., McFarlane, C., Swanton, D. (2012). On Assemblages and Geography. Dialogues in Human Geography, 2(2), 171–189.
Banfield, E.C., Meyerson, M. (1966). Politics, Planning & the Public Interest: The Case of Public Housing in Chicago. the Free Press.
Bignall, S. (2008). Deleuze and Foucault on Desire and Power. Angelaki: Journal of the Theoretical Humanities, 13(1), 127-147.
Campbell, H. (2010). the Idea of Planning: Alive or Dead—Who Cares? Planning Theory & Practice, 11(4), 471–475.
Campbell, H. (2012). ‘Planning Ethics’ and Rediscovering the Idea of Planning. Planning Theory, 11(4). 379-399.
Campbell, H., Marshall, R. (1998). Acting on Principle: Dilemmas in Planning Practice. Planning Practice and Research, 13(2), 117-128.
Campbell, H., Marshall, R. (1999). Ethical Frameworks and Planning Theory. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 23(3), 464-478.
Campbell, H., Marshall, R. (2000). Moral obligations, planning, and the public interest: a commentary on current British practice. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 27, 297 – 312.
Campbell, H., Marshall, R. (2002). Utilitarianism’s Bad Breath? A Re-Evaluation of the Public Interest Justification for Planning. Planning Theory, 1(2), 163-187.
Dikec, M. (2005). Space, Politics, and the Political. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 23(2), 171-188.
Deleuze, G., Parnet, C. (1977). Dialogues. Columbia University Press.
Fainstein, N. I, Fainstein, S. (1982). New Debates in Urban Planning: The Impact of Marxist Theory within the United States. In: Chris Paris (Ed), Critical Readings in Planning Theory (147-173). Pergamon Press.
Foucault, M. (1980a). Power/ Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972-1977, Edited by Colin Gordon. New York: Pantheon Books.
Foucault, M. (1980b). Power, moral values, and the intellectual. Manuscript, Foucault Archives, Bibliotheque du Saulchoir, Paris.
Foucault, M. (1984). the Foucault Reader, edited by Paul Rabinow. Vintage.
Fryer, T. (2022). A Critical Realist Approach to Thematic Analysis; Producing Causal Explanation. Journal of Critical Realism, 21(2), 1-20.
Gunder, M. (2003). Passionate Planning for the Others’ Desire: An Agonistic Response to the Dark Side of Planning. Progress in Planning, 60, 235- 319.
Gunder, M. (2005). Lacan, Planning and Urban Policy Formation. Planning Theory, 23(1), 87-107.
Gunder, M. (2015). Critical Planning Theory, in: James D. Wright (Eds), International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Science,Vol. 5 (225-260). Oxford: Elsevier.
Gunder, M., Hillier, J. (2007). Planning as Urban Therapeutic. Environment and Planning, 39, 467-486.
Gunder, M., Hillier, J. (2016). Planning in Ten Words or Less: A Lavanian Entanglement with Spatial Planning. Routledge.
Harvey, D. (1978). on Planning the Ideology of Planning, In: Robert W. Burchell and George Sternlieb (Eds.), Planning Theory in the 1980’s: A Search for Future Directions (165-184). Center for Urban.
Hillier, J. (2003). `Agon’izing over Consensus: Why Habermasian Ideals cannot be `Real’. Planning Theory, 2(1), 37-59.
Hillier, J. (2007). Stretching Beyond the Horizon, a Multiplanar Theory of Spatial Planning and Governance. Routledge.
Hillier, J. (2008). Plan(e) Speaking: A Multiplanar Theory of Spatial Planning. Planning Theory, 7(1), 24-50.
Hillier, J. (2011a). Encountering Gilles Deleuze in another Place. European Planning Studies, 19(5), 861-885.
Hillier, J. (2011b). Strategic Navigation across Multiple Planes Towards A Deleuzean-Inspired Methodology for Strategic Spatial Planning. TPR, 82(5), 503-527.
Hillier, J., Gunder, M. (2003). Planning Fantasies? an Exploration of a Potential Lacanian Framework for Understanding Development Assessment Planning. Planning Theory, 2(3), 225-248.
Hillier, J., Gunder, M. (2005). Not Over Your Dead Bodies! A Lacanian Interpretation of Urban Planning Discourse and Practice. Environment and Planning, 37, 1049 – 1066.
Hook, D. (2007). Foucault, Psychology and the Analytics of Power. Palgrave Macmillan
Huxley, M. (2002). Governmentality, Gender, Planning: A Foucauldian Perspective, In Philip Allmendinger and Mark Tewdwr-Jones (Eds), Planning Futures: New Directtions for Planning Theory (136-154). Routledge.
Klosterman, R.  E. (2012). Arguments for and Against Planning, In S. Feinstein & J. Defilippis (Eds), Readings in Planning Theory (169-186). Wiley-Blackwell.
Klosterman, R.  E. (1980). A Public Interest Criterion. Journal of the American Planning Association, 46(3), 323-333.
Miraftab, F. (2016). Insurgency, Planning and the Prospect of a Humane Urbanism. Global Crisis, Planning and Challenges to Spatial Justice in the North and the South, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Moroni, S. (2004). Towards a Reconstruction of the Public Interest Criterion. Planning Theory, 3(2), 151–171.
Moroni, S. (2006), Planning, Evaluation and the Public Interest, In Ernest Alexander (Ed.), Evaluation in Planning (55-71). Ashgate Publishing Company.
Moroni, S. (2018). Constitutional and post-constitutional problems: Reconsidering the issues of public interest, agonistic pluralism and private property in planning. planning theory, 16, 1-19.
Ploger, J. (2004). Strife: Urban Planning and Agonism. Planning Theory, 3(1), 71-92.
Ploger, J. (2008). Foucault’s Dispositif and the City. Planning Theory, 7(1), 51-70.
Purcell, M. (2013a). A New Land: Deleuze and Guattari and Planning. Planning Theory & Practice, 14(1), 20-38.
Purcell, M. (2013b). The Right to the City: The Struggle for Democracy in the Urban Public Realm. Policy & Politics. 41(3), 311-327.
Purcell, M. (2016a). Planning in the spirit of Deleuze and Guattari? Considering Community-Based Food Projects in the United States and Mexico. Urban Geography, 38(4), 1-16.
Purcell, M. (2016b). Our New Arms, In Springer, Simon; Birch, Kean; MacLeavy, Julie, (Ed.), The Handbook of Neoliberalism (613-622). New York: Routledge.
Purcell, M. (2016c). For Democracy: Planning and Publics without the State. planning theory, 15(4), 386-401.
Purcell, M. (2016d). Urban Democracy beyond Deleuze and Guattari, In: Helene Frichot; Catharina Gabrielsson; Jonathan Metzger (Eds), Deleuze and the City (95-110). Edinburgh University Press.
Richardson, Tim (1996), Foucauldian Discourse: Power and Truth in Urban and Regional Policy Making. European Planning Studies, 4(3), 279-292.
Ruddick, S. (2012). Power and Problem of Composition. Dialouge in Human Geography, 2(2), 207-211.
Storper, M., Scott, A.J. (2016). Current Debates in Urban Theory: A Critical Assessment. Urban Theory, 35(6), 1-23.
Patton, P. (2000). Deleuze and the Political. Routledge.
Yiftachel, O. (2001). Can Theory be Liberated from Professional Constraints? On Rationality and Explanatory Power in Flyvbjerg’s Rationality and Power. International Planning Studies, 6(3), 251-255.
Yiftachel, Oren, (1998). Planning and Social Control: Exploring the Dark Side. Journal of Planning Literature, 12(4), 395-406.
Journal of Architecture and Urban Planning
Volume 15, Issue 39
June 2023
Pages 29-53

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics