You are here

Home » Content

BAĞLAMI VE BAĞLAMSALLIĞI PLANLAMAK: ETKİLEŞİMCİ PLANLAMADA YENİ BİR ÇÖZÜMLEMEYE DOĞRU

PLANNING AS/AND/IN CONTEXT: TOWARDS A NEW ANALYSIS OF CONTEXT IN INTERACTIVE PLANNING

Journal Name:

  • Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi

Publication Year:

  • 2007

Key Words:

Keywords (Original Language):

Author Name
Abstract (2. Language): 
In this paper (1), we propose a revisiting of the concept of context in spatial planning, especially in the analysis of the rapidly growing sector of interactive, collaborative, communicative planning. In interactive planning projects, different stakeholders with different backgrounds, interests, negotiate a plan for an area. Communication, interpretation, and therefore the concept of context, as everything outside the actual communication that influences its meaning, become correspondingly more central to planning theory and practice. We briefly analyze the refinement of context- analysis in post- structuralist interpretation theory, and next introduce key concepts from Niklas Luhmann’s social systems theory. After a brief expose on the emergence of interactive planning approaches, and a critique of modernist versions of interactive planning, we use the concepts derived from Luhmann and the post-structuralists to analyze the construction of context in interactive planning, and to analyze the planning process as a context in itself. Luhmann’s complex typology of social systems and their specific modes of self-reproduction, adds greatly to the insight in the complexities of context- construction, in the separations and dependencies of the various little worlds that participate in an interactive planning process. It is argued that modernist conceptions of space and planning led to a lacking insight in real-life planning processes, and to context- insensitive plans. A reinvigorated analysis of context is proposed, as a way to increase the awareness of the realities of context-construction, and consequently to open up the possibilities for a more equitable and a more context- sensitive planning.
Abstract (Original Language): 
Bu yazıda, mekan planlamasında bağlam kavramını yeniden gündeme getirerek, hızla büyümekte olan etkileşimci (interactive), işbirlikçi (collaborative), iletişimci (communicative) planlama yönelişlerindeki çözümleyici yaklaşımlar tartışılmaktadır. Etkileşimci planlama projelerinde farklı birikimi ve ilgisi olan paydaşlar, bir alanı planlamak için fakir alışverişinde bulunurlar. İletişim, yorumlama ve dolayısıyla hem bağlamın kavramsallaştırılması hem de onun anlamını etkileyen gerçekil iletişim, planlama kuramı ve pratiği açısından merkeze oturmaktadır. Bu yazıda bağlam çözümlemesi (bağlamsal-çözümleme) tartışması. art-yapısalcı yorumlama kuramı açısından inceltilmekte ve ardından Niklas Luhman’ın toplumsal dizge kuramına uygun anahtar kavramlar geliştirilmektedir. Etkileşimci planlama yaklaşımlarına kısa bir açılım yapılarak etkileşimci planlamanın modernci çeşitleri eleştirilmekte, Luhman’dan ve artyapısalcılardan çıkarsanan kavramlarla etkileşimci planlamada bağlamın kurulumu ve bir bağlam olarak planlama sürecinin kendisi çözümlenerek incelenmektedir. Luhman’ın toplumsal dizgeler üzerine karmaşık tipolojisi ve kendilerini yeniden üretme süreçlerine ilişkin modellemeleri, bağlam kurmanın karmaşıklığının anlaşılmasına, etkileşimci planlama sürecine katkı ve katılımda bulunan küçük dünyaların ayrımlaşmasının ve karşılıklı bağımlılıklarının anlaşılmasında yararlı olmaktadır. Modernci mekan ve planlama kavrayışlarının gerçekil planlama süreçlerine yakından bakmayı zorlaştırdığı ve bağlama duyarsız planlara yol açtığı savlanmaktadır. Bağlam kurulumunun gerçekliği konusunda uyanıklık sağlamak açısından yeniden canlandırılmış bir bağlam tartışması önerilmekte, sonuçta daha eşitlikçi ve daha bağlam-duyarlı planlama olasılıklarının bu yolla elde edilebileceği savunulmaktadır..
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
PDF icon arastrmx_290_24_pp_105-117.pdf

REFERENCES

References: 

ALLMENDINGER, P. (2002) Planning Theory, Palgrave, Basingstoke.
BAKKEN, T., HERNES, T., eds. (2002) Autopoietic Organization Theory:
Drawing on Niklas Luhmann’s Social Systems Perspective, Abstrakt,
Copenhagen.
BAL, M. (1997) Narratology: Introduction to the Theory of Narrative, Toronto
University Press, Toronto.
BAL, M. (2002) Travelling Concepts in the Humanities, Yale University Press,
New Haven.
BRANS, M., ROSSBACH, S. (1997) The autopoiesis of administrative
systems: Niklas Luhmann on Public Administration and Public
Policy, Public Administration, 74 (3) 417-33.
CARDOSO, R. (2005) Context and Power in Contemporary Planning: Towards
Reflexive Planning Analytics, University College London, Planning
Department, working paper 128.
CULLER, J. (1988) Framing the Sign: Criticism and its Institutions, Norman.
DRYZEK, J. (2000) Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics,
Contestations, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
DUNSIRE, A. (1996) Tipping the balance: Autopoiesis and governance,
Administration and society 28 (3), 299-334.
ECO, U. (1976) A Theory of Semiotics, Indiana University Press,
Bloomington.
ECO, U. (1991) The Limits of Interpretation, Indiana University Press,
Bloomington.
EVANS, B. (1995) Experts and Environmental Planning, Aldershot, Avebury.
FLYVBJERG, B. (1998) Rationality and Power: Democracy in Practice,
University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
FORESTER, J. (1999) The Deliberative Practitioner: Encouraging Participatory
Planning Processes. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
FOUCAULT, M. (1970) L’ Ordre du Discourse, Gallimard, Paris.
FOUCAULT, M. (2003) Society Must be Defended: Lectures at the College de
France 1975-76, SUNY Press, New York.
HABERMAS, J. (1981) The Theory of Communicative Action, Beacon Press,
Boston.
HEALEY, P. (1997) Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented
Societies, Macmillan, London.
HILLIER, J. (2002) Shadows of Power: An Allegory of Prudence in Land-use
Planning, Routledge, London.
HUXLY, M, O.YFTACHEL (2000) New Paradigm or Old Myopia?
Unsettling the communicative turn in planning theory, Journal of
Planning Education and Research, 19 (4) 332-42.
INNES, J., BOOHER D. (1999) Consensus building as role playing and
bricolage: Toward a theory of collaborative planning, Journal of the
American Planning Association (65) 9-26.KAZA, N. (2006) Tyranny of the median and costly consent: A reflection on
the justification for participatory urban planning processes, Planning
Theory, 5 (3) 255-70.
KING, M. and THORNHILL, C. (2003) Niklas Luhmann’s Theory of Politics
and Law, Palgrave, New York.
LUHMANN, N. (1984) Soziale Systeme, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt.
LUHMANN, N. (1990a) Die Wissenschaft der Gesellschaft, Suhrkamp,
Frankfurt.
LUHMANN, N. (1990b) The Autopoiesis of Social Systems, in N.
Luhmann, Essays on Self-Reference, Columbia University Press, New
York; 1-20.
LUHMANN, N (1992) The Concept of Society, Thesis Eleven, 31; 67-80.
MILLER, H. (2002) Postmodern Public Policy, SUNY Press, New York.
SAGER, T. (1994) Communicative Planning Theory, Avebury, Aldershot.
SAGER, T. (2005) Communicative planners as naïve mandarins of the neoliberal
state?, European Journal of Spatial Development, December 2005;
1-9.
SANOFF, H. (2006) Multiple Views on Participatory Design, METU Journal
of the Faculty of Architecture, 23 (2) 131-43.
SCOTT, C. (1998) Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the
Human Condition have failed, Yale University Press, New Haven.
SEIDL, D. (2005) Organizational Identity and Self-Transformation, Ashgate,
Aldershot.
SHORE, C., S. WRIGHT, eds.(2005) Anthropology of Policy, Critical
Perspectives on Governance and Power, Routledge, London.
SOJA, E. (1997) Planning in/for postmodernity, in Space and Social Theory
in Interpreting Modernity and Postmodernity, eds. G. Benko, U.
Strohmayer , Blackwell, Oxford.
TEWDR- JONES, M., P. ALLMENDINGER (1998) Deconstructing
communicative rationality: A critique of Habermassian
communicative planning, Environment and Planning A, 30 (11)1975-
89.
VAN ASSCHE, K. (2004) Signs in time: An interpretive account of urban
planning and design, the people and their histories, Wageningen
University, Wageningen.
VAN ASSCHE, K. (2007) Framing and Being Framed: A Brief Analysis of
Context Construction, in Proceedings of the Livenarch IV Conference, ed.
Şengül Gür, Trabzon University, Trabzon.
VANBERGEN, J. (1986) Voorstelling en betekenis: Een theorie van de
kunsthistorische interpretatie. Acco, Leuven.

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com