Planning, ‘politics’ and the production of space: the formulation and application of a framework for examining the micropolitics of community place-making

ABSTRACT

The theories of Henri Lefebvre on the Production of Space have been influential to our understanding of the ontology of space. This paper complements work which draws on Lefebvre but extends its benefit for planning research through a dialogue with the philosophy of Jacques Rancière. Specifically, the paper formulates a novel investigative framework for examining the micropolitics of the production of space by integrating the work of these philosophers. The analytical benefits of this approach for planning research are illustrated through its application to a case study of community gardening in Dublin, Ireland.

KEYWORDS:

• Henri Lefebvre
• Jacques Rancière
• the production of space
• subjectification
• community gardens

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors

Mick Lennon is a lecturer in planning and environmental policy at University College Dublin, with research focused on interpretive policy analysis at the intersection of people, place and planet.

Dave Moore is active in the NGO sector and has worked with University College Dublin in researching a range of environmental policy related topics.

ORCID

Mick Lennon http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8613-092X

Notes

1 This paper does not suggest that Lefebvre is incoherent. Rather, it only seeks to advance a novel dialogue between Lefebvre and Rancière in planning research as a means to enhance the subtlety with which researchers approach the social production of space.

2 The word ‘recognition’ here is employed in the context in which it appears in Rancière and is not an implicit reference to potential similarities or differences to the approach advanced by Axel Honneth. For a detailed discussion on such similarities and differences refer to Honneth and Rancière (2016).

3 Although Rancière contends that his concept of the police is ‘non-pejorative’ (Rancière, 1999, p. 29), and that some form of police is inevitable, he does accede that ‘there is a worse and a better police’ (Rancière, 1999, p. 30).

4 Davis (2013, p. 84) introduces the term ‘heterologic disidentification’ to describe this phenomenon. However, in keeping closer to Rancière’s own language, the term ‘being-between’ has been adopted here to reflect his assertion that subjectification involves ‘intervals constructed between identities, between spaces and places. Political being-together is a being-between: between identities, between worlds’ (Rancière, 1999, p. 137).

5 The concept of ‘community open space’ is rooted in the work of the Neighbourhood Open Space Project (Francis, Cashdan, & Paxson, 1984) which characterised vacant lot gardens and community parks as part of contemporary claims for user-managed urban space and as sites embodying distinctive social and psychological meanings from established open space provision in the form of landscaped public parks and playgrounds.

6 See Government of Ireland Planning and Development (Amendment) Act 2010 and, previously, the Acquisition of Lands (Allotments) Act 1926. See Forrest (2011) for a historical account of allotment provision in Dublin.

7 The case study material presented in this section represents analysis of an exploratory study conducted June-August 2017. Three primary methods were used in this study:

(1) In commencing the study, documents published by Dublin City Council were examined including successive versions of city and local development plans and minutes of council and local area meetings. These were primarily identified through use of the Google search engine and by following the trail of further references within documents to related and precursor publications. The search for relevant national legislation and policy documents was approached similarly. Print and online media coverage pertinent to community gardening in the city was also identified, including periodic local coverage and a small number of national articles that related specifically to the Liberties Local Area Plan area. Narratives related to each community garden were also found to exist in the form of Facebook pages. These were consequently examined as a source of data. The research process also benefitted from access to early correspondence, dating to 2011, circulated by way of updates to interested parties in the Weaver Square community garden campaign (RECLAIM), through a contact who had retained these general emails. These were seen to supply a useful contemporaneous narrative.

(2) A purposive approach to initial sampling was adopted that sought to identify specific individuals of greatest relevance to the research. A list of potential community garden contacts was drafted from a review of spokespeople in local media features and, thereafter, ongoing site visits were utilised until appropriate interviewees could be determined for the purpose of the study, based on those considered to have operated in de facto roles as organisers at each garden. In addition to identifying respondents, repeat fieldtrips also provided chance to build rapport, observe and photograph the garden spaces and compile extended field notes.

(3) A series of interviews with current and former community garden organisers was arranged as the focus of the first phase of interview-based research. All but one garden interviewee were first encountered personally through site visits, where an outline of the research purpose was provided, including standard information on anonymity and the ethical management of data obtained. One additional prospective garden participant was approached by telephone on a similar basis to that outlined above and with comparable provision of information prior to commencement of the arranged on-site interview. Seven semi-structured and garden-based interviews were conducted in-person. These were followed by six interviews with individuals who were determined as the most appropriate contacts in relation to planning and policy processes, based on their current or former roles. Interviewees for this second phase encompassed the local authority’s South Central Area Office and Parks and Landscapes department, a local councillor and an external consultant for the city council with significant involvement in the area’s planning processes. No interview requests were declined. Four of these interviews were conducted by telephone to facilitate the participation of the interviewee.

8 While attention to subjectification provides insight into how differential spaces emerge contemporaneously with their identity, it does not preclude the ultimate appropriation of the identity that has emerged by a conceived and abstracting ‘representation of space’. For example, many place-branding exercises draw upon once bohemian movements that were incorporated into streams of capital accumulation and circulation that detach the spaces from the community-linked and emotionally invested activities that gave them their identity (e.g. the case of the Temple Bar ‘Cultural Quarter’ area in Dublin City not far from the location of the community gardens discussed in this paper).