This week, I’ve been working on trying to emphasize (rather than minimize) the tensions and potential contradictions in my historical framework. This comes out most prominently is in my section covering critiques of modernist urbanism, and the impacts these critiques have had on urban forms since the mid-1970s. On the one hand, the postmodern rejection of meta-narratives and all encompassing blueprints has facilitated the “communicative” turn in urban planning, which focuses on community participation and engagement in the planning process. This is certainly a welcome development, and one arising from the disastrous impacts and clear injustices of mid-20th century Urban Renewal efforts. On the other hand, declining faith in centralized, public planning efforts has also limited the scope and social aspirations of urban planning, allowing a “degenerate utopianism” of spectacle and consumption to take root in many cities. This hollowing out of professional planning (along with broader processes of economic restructuring from the 1970s onwards) has also helped to carved out a space for private interests to claim greater influence in the development of the built environment. What is proving difficult is to persuasively argue this former premise (that less hierarchical, participatory planning is a good thing), while rejecting the latter (“post-utopian” or “anti-utopian” planning has proven very problematic). Clearly, the postmodern critique of utopian urbanism is a case of both(good)/and(bad), rather than either/or. Constantly being forthright about this ambivalence (rather than glossing over it) will strengthen my thesis a great deal, I think.
In other news, I’ve been reading a lot in between writing. The list this week has included:
- Edward Soja, Seeking Spatial Justice
- Russell Jacoby, The End of Utopia
- Slavjov Zizek, Living in the End Times
One (relatively minor) concern I’ve had is that my argument may be a bit one-sided, and more ideologically driven than I am perhaps comfortable with. This concern is sparked by the fact that all of the author’s I’ve been reading constantly cite a familiar cadre of authors (Harvey, Zizek, Jacoby, Swyngedouw, Brenner), who, in turn, all cite one another to construct their arguments. The apparent insularity of this intellectual community is a bit troubling, but maybe its also a sign that I’ve hit the heart of the relevant body of literature? I’m not sure, but for now, there’s only time for moving forward…