Contingency, decision, unfinished planning: let’s quarrel more!

References

• Althusser, Louis. 1983. Ideologi og ideologiske statsapparater (‘Ideologie und ideologische Statsapparatet’), Aarhus, Grus Arbejdstekster.
   Google Scholar
• Aspen, Jonny, and John Pløger. 2015. Den vitale byen (The Vital City). Oslo: Spartacus forlag.
   Google Scholar
• Barnett, Clive, and Gary Bridge. 2013. “Geographies of Radical Democracy: Agonistic Pragmatism and the Formation of Affected Interests.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 103 (4): 1022–1040. doi:10.1080/00045608.2012.660395.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bäcklund, Pia, and Raine Mäntysalo. 2010. “Agonism and Institutional Ambiguity: Ideas on Democracy and the Role of Participation in the Development of Planning Theory and Practice – The Case of Finland.” Planning Theory 9 (4): 333–350. doi:10.1177/1473095210373684.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Böhme, Gernot. 2014. “Urban Atmospheres: Charting New Directions for Architecture and Urban Planning.” In Architectural Atmospheres. On the Experience and Politics of Architecture, edited by Christian Borch, 42–59. Basel: Birkhaüser.
   Google Scholar
• Böhme, Gernot. 2017. Critique of Aesthetic Capitalism. Szczecin: Mimesis International.
   Google Scholar
• Deleuze, Gilles. 2004. The Logic of Sense. London: Continuum.
   Google Scholar
• Deleuze, Gilles. 2013. Francis Bacon. Sansningens Logic. København: Billedkunstskolens forlag.
   Google Scholar
• Dovey, Kim. 2005. Fluid City: Transforming Melbourne’s Urban Waterfront. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Durose, Catherine, and Vivien Lowndes. 2021. “Why are Designs for Urban Governance so Often Incomplete? A Conceptual Framework for Explaining and Harnessing Institutional Incompleteness.” Environment & Planning C: Politics & Space, 1–18. doi:10.1177/2399654421990673.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Errejòn, Ìnigo, and Chantal Mouffe. 2016. “Constructing a New Politics.” Soundings, 43–55. doi:10.3898/136266216818497794.
   Google Scholar
• Flyvbjerg, Bent. 1991. Magt og rationalitet [Power and Rationality]. København: Akademisk Forlag.
   Google Scholar
• Foucault, Michel. 1980. Power/ Knowledge. Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972-1977 (ed Colin Gordon). New York: The Harvester Press.
   Google Scholar
• Foucault, Michel. 1982. “The Subject and Power.” In Michel Foucault. Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics, edited by Hubert L. Dreyfuss, and Paul Rabinow, 208–226. New York: The Harvester Press.
   Google Scholar
• Foucault, Michel. 1991. The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality. edited by Graham Burchell, Colin Gordon, and Peter Miller. London: Harwester Wheatsheaf.
   Google Scholar
• Foucault, Michel. 2007a. Security, Territory, Population. Lactures at the Collège de France 1977–1978. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Foucault, Michel. 2007b. The Politics of Truth.. New York: Semiotext(e).
   Google Scholar
• Furset, Hanne Marte, and Coordinator Public Participation, Oslo. 2018. Bedre medvirkning? Ja takk! (Better Participation? Yes, Please!), ByplanOslo 07.11.2018 (htttps://magasin.oslo.kommune.no/byplan/), 1–6.
   Google Scholar
• Grange, Kristina. 2016. “Planners – A Silenced Profession? The Politicization of Planning and the Need for Fearless Speech.” Planning Theory, 1–21. doi:10.1177/1473095215626465.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gumbrecht, Hans Ulrich. 2014. Our Broad Present: Time and Contemporary Culture. New York: University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Healey, Patsy. 2006. Urban Complexity and Spatial Strategies. Towards a Relational Planning for our Times. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Healey, Patsy. 2009. “The Pragmatic Tradition in Planning Thought.” Journal of Planning Education & Research 28 (3): 277–292. doi:10.1177/0739456X08325175.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Healey, Patsy. 2010. Making Better Plans. The Planning Project in the Twenty-First Century. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Healey, Patsy. 2012. “Re-enchanting Democracy as a Mode of Governance.” Critical Policy Studies 6 (1): 19–39. doi:10.1080/19460171.2012.659880.
   Google Scholar
• Hillier, Jean. 2002. Shadows of Power. An Allegory of Prudence in Land-Use Planning. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Hillier, Jean. 2007. Stretching Beyond the Horizon. A Multiplanar Theory of Spatial Planning and Governance. Aldershot: Ashgate.
   Google Scholar
• Hillier, Jean. 2011. “Strategic Navigation Across Multiple Planes. Towards a Deleuzian-Inspired Methodology for Strategic Spatial Planning.” Town Planning Review 82 (5): 503–527. doi:10.3828/tpr.2011.30.
   Google Scholar
• Hillier, Jean. 2017. “On Planning for not Having a Plan.” Planning Theory & Practice 18 (4): 668–675. doi:10.1080/14649357.2017.1369231.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hughes, Jonathan, and Simon Sadler, eds. 2007. Non-Plan. Essays on Freedom Participation and Change in Modern Architecture and Urbanism. Oxford: Architectural Press.
   Google Scholar
• Innes, Judith E., and David E Booher. 2010. Planning with Complexity. An Introduction to Collaborative Rationality for Public Policy. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Innes, Judith, and David Booher. 2014. “A Turning Point for Planning Theory? Overcoming Dividing Discourses.” Planning Theory 14 (2): 195213.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kirkeby, Ole Fogh. 2013. Eventologien. Begivenhedsfilosofiens indhold og konsekvenser (Eventology). København: Samfundslitteratur.
   Google Scholar
• Lampert, Jay. 2018. The Many Futures of a Decision. London: Bloomsbury.
   Google Scholar
• Legacy, Crystal. 2017. “Is there A Crisis of Participatory Planning?” Planning Theory 16 (4): 425–442.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Legacy, Crystal, Jonathan Metzger, Wendy Steele, and Enrico Gualini. 2019. “Beyond the Post-Political: Exploring the Relational and Situated Dynamics of Consensus and Conflict in Planning.” Planning Theory 18 (3): 273–281. doi:10.1177/1473095219845628.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lievens, Mattias. 2014. “Contesting Representation: Rancière on Democracy and Representative Government.” Thesis Eleven 122 (1): 3–17. doi:10.1177/0725513614535693.
   Google Scholar
• Lowndess, Vivien, and Marie Paxton. 2018. “Can Agonism be Institutionalized? Can Institutions be Agonized? Prospects for Democratic Design.” BJPIR (The British Journal of Politics and International Relations) 20 (3): 693–710. doi:10.1177/1369148118784756.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lyotard, Jean Francois. 1988. The Differend. Phrases and Dispute. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mansbridge, Jane. 2017. “Beyond Adversary Democracy.” In Higher Education Exchange, edited by David Barker, and David W. Brown, 6–12. Dayton, Ohio: Kettering Foundation.
   Google Scholar
• Mäntysalo, Raine, Alessandro Balducci, and Jonna Kangasoja. 2011. “Planning as Agonistic Communication in a Trading Zone: Re-Examining Lindblom’s Partisan Mutual Adjustment.” Planning Theory 10 (3): 257–272. doi:10.1177/1473095210397147.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mathiesen, Thomas. 1971. Det ufærdige. Bidrag til politisk aktionsteori [The Unfinished]. A Contribution to Political Action Theory). København: Hans Reitzel.
   Google Scholar
• McAuiliffe, Cameron, and Dallas Rogers. 2019. “The Politics of Value in Urban Development: Valuing Conflict in Agonistic Pluralism.” Planning Theory, 1–19. doi:10.1177/1473095219831381.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Metzger, Jonathan. 2016. “Cultivating Torment.” City 20 (4): 581–601. doi:10.1080/13604813.2016.1193997.
   Google Scholar
• Mitchell, W. J. T., Bernard Harcourt, and Michael Taussig. 2013. Occupy. Three Inquries in Disobedience. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mouat, Clare, Crystal Legacy, and Alan March. 2013. “The Problem is the Solution: Testing Agonistic Theory’s Potential to Recast Intractable Planning Disputes. .” Urban Policy and Research 31 (2): 150–163. doi:10.1080/08111146.2013.776496.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mouffe, Chantal. 2000. The Democratic Paradox. London: Verso.
   Google Scholar
• Mouffe, Chantal. 2013. Agonistics. Thinking the World Politically. London: Verso.
   Google Scholar
• Nyseth, Torill. 2011. “The Tromsø Experiment: Opening Up To the Unknown.” Town Planning Review 82 (5): 573–595.
   Google Scholar
• Oesch, Lucas. 2020. “An Improvised Dispositif: Invisible Urban Planning in the Refugee Camp.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 349–365. doi:10.1111/1468-2427.12867.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osborne, Peter. 1995. The Politics of Time. Modernity and the Avant Garde. London: Verso.
   Google Scholar
• PBE. 2019. Medvirkning i innsendte reguleringsplaner (Participation on Land-Use Plans). Oslo: Plan & bygningsetaten.
   Google Scholar
• Pløger, John. 2004. “Strife – Urban Planning and Agonism.” Planning Theory 3 (1): March, 71–92. doi:10.1177/1473095204042318.
   Google Scholar
• Pløger, John. 2014. “Impossible Common Ground: Planning and Reconciliation.” In Planning Against the Political. Democratic Deficits in European Territorial Governance, edited by Jonathan Metzger, Phil Allmendinger, and Stijn Oosterlynck, pp. 107128. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Rancière, Jacques. 2000. “Dissenting Words: A Conversation with Jacques Rancière (by David Panagia).” Diacritics 30 (2): 113126.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rancière, Jacques. 2006. Texter om politik och estetik [Texts About Politics and Aesthetic]. Stockholm: Site edition 2.
   Google Scholar
• Ranciére, Jacques. 2010. Dissensus. On Politics and Aesthetics. London: Continuum.
   Google Scholar
• Rauws, Ward. 2017. “Embracing Uncertainty Without Abandoning Planning.” disP - The Planning Review 53 (1): 32–45. doi:10.1080/02513625.2017.1316539.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rorty, Richard. 1999. Philosophy and Social Hope. New York: Penguin.
   Google Scholar
• Routledge, Paul. 2017. Space Invaders. Radical Geographies of Protest. London: Pluto Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rydin, Yvonne. 2019. “Silences, Categories and Black Boxes. Towards an Analytics of the Relations of Power in Planning Regulation.” Planning Theory, 1–20. doi:10.1177/1473095219870559.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sennett, Richard. 2018. Building and Dwelling: Ethics for the City. Milton Keynes: Allan Lane.
   Google Scholar
• Süss, Rahel. 2021. “Horizontal Experimentalism: Rethinking Democratic Resistance.” Philosophy and Social Criticism, 1–17. doi:10.1177/0194537211033016.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tambakaki, Paulina. 2014. “The Tasks of Agonism and Agonism to the Task: Introducing ‘Chantal Mouffe: Agonism and the Politics of Passion’.” Parallax 20 (2): 1–13. doi:10.1080/13534645.2014.896543.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tambakaki, Paulina. 2016. “Agonism Reloaded: Potentia, Renewal and Radical Democracy.” Political Studies Review 15 (4): 1–12.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Leeuwen, Bart. 2014. “Absorbing the Agony of Agonism? The Limits of Cultural Questioning and Alternative Variations of Intercultural Civility.” Urban Studies, 1–16. doi:10.1177/0042098014528548.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wymeersch, Elisabet van, Stein Oosterlynck, and Thomas Vanoutrive. 2018. “The Political Ambivalences of Participatory Planning Initiatives.” Planning Theory, 1–23. doi:10.1177/1473095218812514.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zizek, Slavoj. 2014. Event. Philosophy in Transit. London: Penguin Books.
   Google Scholar