Discourse field of planning and antagonism in urban development of Hamadan

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Ph.D. in Urban Planning, Department of Urban Planning, Faculty of Architecture and Art, University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran

2 Associate Professor, Department of Urban Planning, University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran

3 Associate Professor, Department of Urban Planning, Faculty of Art and Urban Planning, Imam Khomeini International University (IKIU), Qazvin, Iran

Abstract

This research examines conflict in the discourse of spatial planning in Hamadan City through an agonistic lens, moving away from consensus-based approaches like those of Habermas. By utilizing Mofe's theory of agonistic and antagonistic fields, the study seeks to understand how discourse conflict can impede urban development, distinguishing between conflicts that result in conflictual consensus (agonistic) and unproductive conflicts (antagonistic). The analysis underscores the detrimental effects of antagonistic discourse fields on urban development processes in Hamadan, highlighting how discourse competition shapes perceptions of urban development as non-productive and anti-developmental. By differentiating between agonistic and antagonistic fields, the study seeks to understand how discourse competition contributes to an anti-development process, emphasizing the impact of antagonistic discourse fields on urban development in Hamadan. This analysis utilizes two databases from Hamadan Payam and Hegmataneh newspapers to examine the discourse field and contradictions surrounding urban development in Hamadan. Many studies, particularly those by Fairclough, highlight that media and newspapers are the most effective sources for uncovering hegemonic and meaning relations. Accordingly, this research collected and analyzed textual data from 2017 to 2024 regarding urban development in Hamadan. This analysis employs multi-perspective discourse analysis, integrating discourse theory and topic modeling to examine the spatial planning discourse field of Hamadan City. This analysis operates on two levels: macro and micro. At the macro level, we analyze the mechanisms of meaning generation, discourse relations, and the prevailing ideological foundations. At the micro level, we utilize text mining tools like RapidMiner for topic modeling and discourse themes, which are crucial for uncovering the text's hidden structures and language use. The research findings indicate that each period of the discourse field features three distinct discourse structures, each interpreting urban development through different genres. Despite these genre differences, all discourses operate within a shared territory and limits shaped by the prevailing discourse order of each period. The reformist political discourse in the fifth period and the fundamentalist discourse in the sixth period establish the territory and ideological foundation that compel the discourses to align or risk exclusion. The findings suggest that two competing political discourse orders in each period influence how urban development is interpreted. This competition creates a structural duality, meaning that the interpretations from each period are fundamentally different and stand in opposition to one another, rather than working together or complementing each other. The significance of this opposition is explored through an analysis of the practices associated with urban development and how these practices are represented in physical spaces. Essentially, the study looks at how the differing political ideologies shape the understanding of urban development and the actual practices and representations in the urban environment, highlighting the impact of political discourse on the built environment. Finally, this research showed that the confrontation of two discursive orders has turned the field of urban planning into an antagonistic and non-productive field, where planning policy has become political planning that reverses the development process.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

سلطانی، سید علی‌اصغر (1400). قدرت، زبان و گفتمان؛ سازوکارهای جریان قدرت در جمهوری اسلامی ایران. تهران: نشر نی.
Aqababaee, E., & Razaghi, M. (2022). Islamic Fundamentalism and Gender: The Portrayal of Women in Iranian Movies. Critical Research on Religion, 10(3), 249-266.
Aranda, A. M., Sele, K., Etchanchu, H., Guyt, J. Y., & Vaara, E. (2021). From big data to rich theory: Integrating critical discourse analysis with structural topic modeling. European Management Review, 18(3), 197-214.
Bakumov, P. (2022). An Alternative Model for the Operationalization of Discourse Theory of Laclau and Mouffe. Laboratorium. Журнал социальных исследований, 14(3), 119-134. https://doi.org/10.25285/2078-1938-2022-14-3-119-134.
Bacchi, C., & Bonham, J. (2014). Reclaiming discursive practices as an analytic focus: Political implications. Foucault Studies, 17, 179-192.
Bassett, K. (2014). Rancière, politics, and the Occupy movement. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 32(5), 886-901.
Bond, S. (2011). Negotiating a ‘democratic ethos’: Moving beyond the agonistic-communicative divide. Planning Theory, 10(2), 161–186.
Brinkmann, F. (2019). Topical discourse structures: using topic modeling in discourse analysis approaches. Human IT: Journal for Information Technology Studies as a Human Science, 14(3), 83-114.
Damiens, F. L., Porter, L., & Gordon, A. (2021). The politics of biodiversity offsetting across time and institutional scales. Nature Sustainability, 4(2), 170-179.
Fainstein, S. S. (2010). The Just City. Cornell University Press. https://books.google.com/books?id=WzoBfAEACAAJ.
Fischler, R. (1995). Planning Theory as Culture and Experience. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 14(3), 173-178. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456x9501400305.
Gunder, M. (2010). Planning as the ideology of (neoliberal) space. Planning Theory, 9(4), 298-314. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095210368878.
Gunder, M. (2005). Lacan, planning and urban policy formation. Urban Policy and Research, 23(1), 87-107.
Gunder, M., & Hillier, J. (2016). Planning in ten words or less: A Lacanian entanglement with spatial planning. Routledge.
Hillier, J., & Gunder, M. (2005). Not over your dead bodies! A Lacanian interpretation of urban planning discourse and practice. Environment and Planning A, 37(6), 1049-1066.
Griggs, S., Hall, S., Howarth, D., & Seigneuret, N. (2017). Characterizing and evaluating rival discourses of the ‘sustainable city’: Towards a politics of pragmatic adversarialism. Political Geography, 59, 36-46.
Healey, P. (2003). Collaborative planning in perspective. Planning Theory, 2(2), 101-123.
Healey, P., & Healey, P. (1997). Traditions of planning thought. Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies, 7-30.
Hillier, J. (2003). Agonizing over consensus: Why habermasian ideals cannot beReal. Planning Theory, 2(1), 37-59.
Hillier, J. (2007). Stretching beyond the horizon. Ashgate.
Hofstad, H., Tveit, M. S., & Stokke, K. B. (2015). Between development and protection: Different discourses in urban planning. Landscape Research, 40(3), 279-293.
Howarth, D. R., Norval, A. J., & Stavrakakis, Y. (2000). Discourse theory and political analysis: Identities, hegemonies and social change. Manchester University Press.
Huxley, M., & Yiftachel, O. (2000). New paradigm or old myopia? Unsettling the communicative turn in planning theory. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 19(4), 333-342.
Inch, A., & Shepherd, E. (2020). Thinking conjuncturally about ideology, housing and English planning. Planning Theory, 19(1), 59-79. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095219887771.
Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (2015). A turning point for planning theory? Overcoming dividing discourses. Planning Theory, 14(2), 195-213. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095213519356.
Jabareen, Y., & Eizenberg, E. (2021). Theorizing urban social spaces and their interrelations: New perspectives on urban sociology, politics, and planning. Planning Theory, 20(3), 211-230.
Jacobs, T. (2018). The dislocated universe of Laclau and Mouffe: an introduction to post-structuralist discourse theory. Critical Review, 30(3-4), 294-315.
Jacobs, T., & Tschötschel, R. (2019). Topic models meet discourse analysis: a quantitative tool for a qualitative approach. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 22(5), 469-485. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2019.1576317.
Jørgensen, M., & Phillips, L. (2002). Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method. SAGE Publications Ltd.    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849208871.
Kühn, M. (2021). Agonistic planning theory revisited: The planner’s role in dealing with conflict. Planning Theory, 20(2), 143-156. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095220953201.
Laclau, E. (2005). On Populist Reason. London: Verso.
Laclau, E., & Mouffe, C. (2014). Hegemony and socialist strategy: Towards a radical democratic politics (Vol. 8). Verso Books.
Lester, J. N., Lochmiller, C. R., & Gabriel, R. (2017). Exploring the intersection of education policy and discourse analysis: An introduction. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 25, 25. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.25.2971.
Legacy, C., March, A., & Mouat, C. M. (2014). Limits and potentials to deliberative engagement in highly regulated planning systems: Norm development within fixed rules. Planning Theory & Practice, 15(1), 26-40.
Lundqvist, L. J. (2004). ‹Greening the people›s home›: The formative power of sustainable development discourse in Swedish housing. Urban Studies, 41(7), 1283-1301.
MacCallum, D. (2008). Participatory planning and means-ends rationality: A translation problem. Planning Theory & Practice, 9(3), 325-343.
McAuliffe, C., & Rogers, D. (2019). The politics of value in urban development: Valuing conflict in agonistic pluralism. Planning Theory, 18(3), 300-318. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095219831381.
Molina-Azorin, J. F., Bergh, D. D., Corley, K. G., & Ketchen Jr, D. J. (2017). Mixed methods in the organizational sciences: Taking stock and moving forward. In (Vol. 20, 179-192). Sage Publications.
Mouffe, C. (1999). Deliberative democracy or agonistic pluralism? Social Research: An International Quarterly, 66 (3), 745-758.
Mouffe, C. (2013). Agonistics: Thinking the world politically. Verso Books.
Mouffe, C. (2014). By way of a postscript. Parallax, 20(2), 149-157.
Olssen, M. (2021). Discourse, complexity, normativity: Tracing the elaboration of Foucault’s materialist concept of discourse. In A Normative Foucauldian (29-63). Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004464452_002
Onursal, R., & Kirkpatrick, D. (2021). Is extremism the ‘new’terrorism? The convergence of ‘extremism’and ‘terrorism’in British parliamentary discourse. Terrorism and Political Violence, 33(5), 1094-1116.
Pløger, J. (2004). Strife: Urban planning and agonism. Planning Theory, 3(1), 71-92. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095204042318.
Pløger, J. (2018). Conflict and agonism. In M. Gunder, Madanipour, A., & Watson, (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of planning theory (264-275). Routledge.
Pløger, J. (2021). Conflict, consent, dissensus: The unfinished as challenge to politics and planning. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, 39(6), 1294-1309.
Pløger, J. (2023). Contingency, decision, unfinished planning: let’s quarrel more! European Planning Studies, 31(8), 1634-1650.
Rear, D., & Jones, A. (2013). Discursive struggle and contested signifiers in the arenas of education policy and work skills in Japan. Critical Policy Studies, 7(4), 375-394. https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2013.843469.
Richardson, T., & Jensen, O. B. (2003). Linking discourse and space: Towards a cultural sociology of space in analysing spatial policy discourses. Urban Studies, 40(1), 7-22.
Sager, T. (2018). Communicative planning. The Routledge handbook of planning theory, 93-104.
Shepherd, E., Inch, A., & Marshall, T. (2020). Narratives of power: Bringing ideology to the fore of planning analysis. Planning Theory, 19(1), 3-16. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095219898865.
Spicer, A., & Fleming, P. (2007). Intervening in the inevitable: Contesting globalization in a public sector organization. Organization, 14(4), 517-541.
Stengel, F. A., & Nabers, D. (2019). Symposium: The contribution of Laclau’s discourse theory to international relations and international political economy introduction. In (Vol. 41, 248-262). Taylor & Francis.
Törnberg, A., & Törnberg, P. (2016). Combining CDA and topic modeling: Analyzing discursive connections between Islamophobia and anti-feminism on an online forum. Discourse & Society, 27(4), 401-422.
Van Bommel, K., & Spicer, A. (2011). Hail the snail: Hegemonic struggles in the slow food movement. Organization studies, 32(12), 1717-1744.
Van Dijk, T. A. (1985). Structures of news in the press. Discourse and communication: New approaches to the analysis of mass media discourse and communication, 10, 69.
Van Dijk, T. A. (2009). Critical discourse studies: A sociocognitive approach. Methods of critical discourse analysis, 2(1), 62-86.
Van Leeuwen, B. (2015). Absorbing the agony of agonism? The limits of cultural questioning and alternative variations of intercultural civility. Urban Studies, 52(4), 793-808. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098014528548.
Walton, S., & Boon, B. (2014). Engaging with a Laclau & Mouffe informed discourse analysis: A proposed framework. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal, 9(4), 351–370. https://doi.org/10.1108/QROM-10-2012-1106
Zanotto, J. M. (2020). The role of discourses in enacting neoliberal urbanism: Understanding the relationship between ideology and discourse in planning. Planning Theory, 19(1), 104-126. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095219898876.
Zukin, S., Baskerville, R., Greenberg, M., Guthreau, C., Halley, J., Halling, M., Lawler, K., Nerio, R., Stack, R., Vitale, A., & Wissinger, B. (1998). From Coney Island to Las Vegas in the Urban Imaginary:Discursive Practices of Growth and Decline. Urban Affairs Review, 33(5), 627-654. https://doi.org/10.1177/107808749803300502.
Journal of Architecture and Urban Planning
Volume 17, Issue 45
December 2024
Pages 5-30

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics