Power and Public Interest: A Critical Analysis of Formulating Public Interest in Urban Development Plans Case Study: Qiam Street, Yazd

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Associate Professor, Department of Urban Design, Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning, University of Art, Tehran, Iran

2 Ph.D. in Urban Planning, Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning, University of Art, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

How is power exercised in planning practice? This “inevitable question” has been around in planning theory for many years, and many researchers have addressed this issue in different ways. Still, the impact of power relations on various aspects of the planning process and city development plans is remained controversial and ambiguous. Also, the inseparable links between public interest and planning have to affect public interest by power relations. Although many efforts have been made to explain the public interest in planning, the impacts of power relations on formulating the public interest are blurred. In this regard, this paper seeks to explain the influence of power relations on public interest's conformation by providing a discourse approach to the radical conception of power. According to this approach, the discourse as an “invisible power” ideologically shapes individuals' and groups' wants and desires. Based on Gaventa’s “cube of power,” the authors applied the mentioned approach to modify Lukes’ “radical view” deficiencies. To investigate this issue, Fairclough's framework is used for critical discourse analysis (CDA), which states the nature of the dialectic of power and discourse in a critical framework and interprets it in the context of its social practice. A controversial live local TV talk show was selected as the text of critical discourse analysis. The participants of this TV program were from significant principal players in the Qiam street improvement plan. This case study's results, based on the improvement plan of Qiam street of Yazd, show that the invisible power plays a notable role in the conformation of public interest’s substance. This role is manifested in how various orders of discourse combine and bring about discursive and social change. Two discursive mixes were identified: one dominant and one competing discursive mix. Findings show that the competing discursive mix has challenged the limited and utilitarian perception of public interest represented by the dominant discursive mix. This conception of public interest which represented by proponents of the plan, defines interests mostly in economic and monetary terms and insists on the value that the plan will bring about. Similarly, the opponents of the improvement plan adopted such a bounded conception of public interest too. They opposed the plan because its implementation was interfering with their business. While the dominant discursive mix included rational planning discourse, project management discourse, expert-official and economic interest discourses, the competing discursive mix is shaped by activism and participation discourses. As Fairclough indicates, these re-articulations of the orders of discourse are both a means and a sign of discursive and social transformation in a relatively creative way. In the case of Qiam street, these transformations led to a broader concept of ‘the public’ but they could not transform the conception of ‘the interests’ very much. In conclusion, even though this transformation has not changed utilitarianism’s hegemonic position, it has extended the concept of 'the public' and relatively democratized the planning process. Therefore, it can be expected that future urban design practices, at least in Yazd’s old city, would consider some forms of participation in the implementation phase.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

آقاگل‌زاده، فردوس، و غیاثیان، مریم‌سادات (۱۳۸۶). رویکردهای غالب در تحلیل گفتمان انتقادی. زبان و زبان‌شناسی، 3(5)، 39-5۴.
رضایی‌پناه، امیر و شوکتی‌مقرب، سمیه (ویراستاران) (۱۳۹۵). تحلیل گفتمان سیاسی؛ امر سیاسی به مثابه یک برساخت گفتمانی. تهران: انتشارات تیسا.
زرگری مرندی، ابراهیم، و سلطانی، علی (۱۳۹۶). واکاوی دوگانگی‌های بنیادین در مفهوم خواست/مصلحت عمومی در برنامه‌ریزی و سیاست‌گذاری شهری. دانش شهرسازی، 1(۱)، ۲۱-۳۶.
غلام‌زاده، محسن (نویسنده)، و فتوحی، محمد (کارگردان) (۴ دی ۱۳۹۵). رصد [برنامه‌ تلویزیونی]. ایران: شبکه تابان، سیمای مرکز یزد.
فرکلاف، نورمن (۱۳۷۹). تحلیل انتقادی گفتمان (مترجم: فاطمه شایسته ‌پیران) (ویراستاران: محمد نبوی و مهران مهاجر). تهران: وزارت فرهنگ و ارشاد اسلامی، مرکز مطالعات و تحقیقات رسانه‌ها.
فوکو، میشل (۱۳۹۷). مراقبت و تنبیه: تولد زندان (مترجمان: نیکو سرخوش و افشین جهاندیده). تهران: نشر نی.
قجری، حسینعلی و نظری، جواد (۱۳۹۲). کاربرد تحلیل گفتمان در تحقیقات اجتماعی. تهران: جامعه‌شناسان.
کلگ، استوارت (۱۳۸۳). چهارچوب‌‌های قدرت (مترجم: مصطفی یونسی). تهران: انتشارات پژوهشکده مطالعات راهبردی.
لاک، جان (۱۳۸۷). رساله‌ای درباره حکومت (مترجم: حمید عضدانلو). تهران: نشر نی.
لوکس، استیون (۱۳۹۳). قدرت: نگرشی رادیکال (مترجم: عماد افروغ). تهران: نشر علم.
موحد، ضیاء، و نباتی، فرشته (1380). درآمدی به منطق تکلیف. مدرس علوم انسانی، 23(5)، 151-16۸.
نظری، علی‌اشرف (۱۳۸۴). تحلیل قدرت سیاسی از دیدگاه استیون لوکس: قدرت از نگاه کثرت‌گرا، اصلاح‌طلب و رادیکال. راهبرد، ۳۶، ۳۸۳-۳۹۲.
هابز، توماس (۱۳۸۰). لویاتان (مترجم: حسین بشیریه). تهران: نشر نی.
هیلییر، جین (۱۳۸۸). سایه‌های قدرت؛ حکایت دوراندیشی برنامه‌ریزی کاربری اراضی (مترجم: کمال پولادی). تهران: جامعه مهندسان مشاور ایران.
هیندس، باری (۱۳۹۰). گفتارهای قدرت از هابز تا فوکو (مترجم: مراد ثقفی). تهران: پردیس دانش.
هیوم، دیوید (۱۳۹۶). کاوشی در خصوص فهم بشری (مترجم: کاوه لاجوردی). تهران: نشر مرکز.
 
Aitken, M. (2010). A three-dimensional view of public participation in Scottish land-use planning: Empowerment or social control? Planning theory, 9(3), 248-264.
Albrechts, L. (2003). Planning and power: towards an emancipatory planning approach. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 21(6), 905-924.
Alexander, E. R. (2002a). Planning rights: Toward normative criteria for evaluating plans. International Planning Studies, 7(3), 191-212.
Alexander, E. R. (2002b). The public interest in planning: From legitimation to substantive plan evaluation. Planning theory, 1(3), 226-249.
Atkinson, R. (1999). Discourses of partnership and empowerment in contemporary British urban regeneration. Urban Studies, 36(1), 59-72.
Bachrach, P., & Baratz, M. S. (1962). Two Faces of Power. In J. Scott (Ed.), Power: Critical Concepts (Vol. 2,  947-952). New York: Taylor & Francis.
Bachrach, P., & Baratz, M. S. (1970). Power and poverty: Theory and practice. New York: Oxford University Press.
Bloomaert, J., & Bulcaen, C. (2000). Critical Discourse Analaysis. Annual Review of Anthropology, 29(1), 447-466. doi:10.1146/annurev.anthro.29.1.447
Booth, P. (2002). From property rights to public control: The quest for public interest in the control of urban development. Town Planning Review, 73(2), 153-170.
Bryman, A. (2012). Social Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
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(2), 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.
Clegg, S., Flyvbjerg, B., & Haugaard, M. (2014). Reflections on phronetic social science: a dialogue between Stewart Clegg, Bent Flyvbjerg and Mark Haugaard. Journal of Political Power, 7(2), 275-306.
Clegg, S., & Pitsis, T. S. (2012). Phronesis, projects and power research. In B. Flyvbjerg, T. Landman, & S. Schram (Eds.), Real social science: Applied phronesis (66-94). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dahl, R. (1957). The concept of power. Behavioral science, 2(3), 201-215.
Dahl, R. (1968). Power. In D. L. Sills (Ed.), International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences (Vol. 12,  405-415). New York: Free Press.
Emuze, F. A. (2016). Using case-based methods in construction research with complementarities. In V. Ahmed, A. Opoku, & Z. Aziz (Eds.), Research Methodology in the Built Environment: A Selection of Case Studies (107-126). New York: Routledge.
Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change (Vol. 10). Cambridge: Polity press.
Fairclough, N. (2013). Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. New York: Taylor & Francis.
Fairclough, N., & Wodak, R. (1997). Critical Discourse Analysis. In T. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as Social Interaction (Vol. 2, 258-284). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Flyvbjerg, B. (1998). Rationality and power: Democracy in practice. Chicago: University of Chicago press.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2003). Rationality and Power. In S. Campbell & S. S. Fainstein (Eds.), Readings in Planning Theory (3rd ed., 318-329). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2004). Phronetic planning research: Theoretical and methodological reflections. Planning theory & practice, 5(3), 283-306.
Flyvbjerg, B., Landman, T., & Schram, S. (2012). Real social science: Applied phronesis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Forester, J. (1982). Planning in the Face of Power. Journal of the American Planning Association, 48(1), 67-80.
Foucault, M., & Gordon, C. (1980). Power/Knowledge Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972-1977. New York: Pantheon Books.
Gaventa, J. (1982). Power and Powerlessness: Quiescence and Rebellion in an Appalachian Valley. Illinois: University of Illinois Press.
Gaventa, J. (2006). Finding the Spaces for Change: A Power Analysis. IDS Bulletin, 37(6), 23-33. doi:10.1111/j.1759-5436.2006.tb00320.x
Gramsci, A. (1991). Selections from the Prison Notebooks. London: Lawrence and Wishart.
Hastings, A. (1999a). Analysing power relations in partnerships: is there a role for discourse analysis? Urban Studies, 36(1), 91-106.
Hastings, A. (1999b). Discourse and Urban Change: Introduction to the Special Issue. Urban Studies, 36(1), 7-12. doi:10.1080/0042098993691
Hathaway, T. (2016). Lukes Reloaded: An Actor-Centred Three-Dimensional Power Framework. Politics, 36(2), 118-130. doi:10.1111/1467-9256.12099
Haugaard, M. (2003). Reflections on seven ways of creating power. European journal of social theory, 6(1), 87-113.
Hayward, C. R. (2006). On power and responsibility. Political studies review, 4(2), 156-163.
Hopkins, D. (2010). The Emancipatory Limits of Participation in Planning: Equity and Power in Deliberative Plan-Making in Perth, Western Australia. The Town Planning Review, 81(1), 55-81.
Howe, E. (1992). Professional roles and the public interest in planning. Journal of planning literature, 6(3), 230-248.
Hunter, F. (1953). Community power structure: A study of decision makers. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Huxley, M. (2000). The limits to communicative planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 19(4), 369-377.
Jacobs, K. (2004). Waterfront redevelopment: a critical discourse analysis of the policy-making process within the Chatham maritime project. Urban Studies, 41(4), 817-832.
Jacobs, K. (2006). Discourse Analysis and its Utility for Urban Policy Research. Urban Policy and Research, 24(1), 39-52. doi:10.1080/08111140600590817
Jørgensen, M. W., & Phillips, L. J. (2002). Discourse analysis as theory and method. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Klosterman, R. E. (1980). A public interest criterion. Journal of the American Planning Association, 46(3), 323-333.
Lennon, M. (2017). On ‘the subject’of planning’s public interest. Planning theory, 16(2), 150-168.
Lukes, S. (2005). Power: A Radical View (2 ed.). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Matthews, P., & Satsangi, M. (2007). Planners, developers and power: A critical discourse analysis of the redevelopment of Leith Docks, Scotland. Planning, Practice & Research, 22(4), 495-511.
Moroni, S. (2004). Towards a reconstruction of the public interest criterion. Planning theory, 3(2), 151-171.
Moroni, S. (2006). The Ethics behind Evaluation: Lichfield’s Approach and Utilitarianism. In E. R. Alexander (Ed.), Evaluation in Planning: Evolution and Prospects (21-38). Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing Limited.
Phillips, N., & Hardy, C. (2002). Discourse analysis: Investigating processes of social construction (Vol. 50). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Schram, S. (2012). Phronetic social science: an idea whose time has come. In B. Flyvbjerg, T. Landman, & S. Schram (Eds.), Real Social Science. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Seawright, J., & Gerring, J. (2008). Case selection techniques in case study research: A menu of qualitative and quantitative options. Political Research Quarterly, 61(2), 294-308.
Shapiro, I. (2006). On the second edition of Lukes' third face. Political studies review, 4(2), 146-155.
Wrong, D. (1979). Power: Its forms, bases and uses. New York: Routledge.
Yiftachel, O. (1998). Planning and social control: Exploring the dark side. Journal of planning literature, 12(4), 395-406.
Young, I. M., & Allen, D. S. (2011). Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Journal of Architecture and Urban Planning
Volume 14, Issue 34
March 2022
Pages 71-92

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics