Stimulating embodied intersubjectivities: two participatory experiments in Antwerp North, Belgium

References

• Akkerman, S. F., and A. Bakker. 2011. “Boundary Crossing and Boundary Objects.” Review of Educational Research 81 (2): 132–169. doi:10.3102/0034654311404435.
   Google Scholar
• Beaumont, J., and M. Loopmans. 2008. “Towards Radicalized Communicative Rationality: Resident Involvement and Urban Democracy in Rotterdam and Antwerp.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 32 (1): 95–113. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2427.2008.00780.x.
   Google Scholar
• Beyes, T. 2010. “Uncontained: The Art and Politics of Reconfiguring Urban Space.” Culture and Organization 16 (3): 229–246. doi:10.1080/14759551.2010.503499.
   Google Scholar
• Biesta, G. 2004. “Against Learning.” Nordisk Pedagogik 24 (1): 70–82.
   Google Scholar
• Biesta, G. 2011. “The Ignorant Citizen: Mouffe, Rancière, and the Subject of Democratic Education.” Studies in Philosophy and Education 30 (2): 141–153. doi:10.1007/s11217-011-9220-4.
   Google Scholar
• Biesta, G. 2012. “Becoming Public: Public Pedagogy, Citizenship and the Public Sphere.” Social & Cultural Geography 13 (7): 683–697. doi:10.1080/14649365.2012.723736.
   Google Scholar
• Biesta, G., and G. Cowell. 2012. “How Is Community Done? Understanding Civic Learning through Psychogeographic Mapping.” International Journal of Lifelong Education 31 (1): 47–61. doi:10.1080/02601370.2012.636587.
   Google Scholar
• Bond, S. 2011. “Negotiating a ‘Democratic Ethos’ Moving beyond the Agonistic–communicative Divide.” Planning Theory 10 (2): 161–186. doi:10.1177/1473095210383081.
   Google Scholar
• Bond, S., and M. Thompson-Fawcett. 2007. “Public Participation and New Urbanism: A Conflicting Agenda?” Planning Theory & Practice 8 (4): 449–472. doi:10.1080/14649350701664689.
   Google Scholar
• Chambers, R. 1997. Whose Reality Counts? Putting the First Last. London: Intermediate Technology Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Collins, M. 2010. “Conflict and Contact: The ‘Humane’ City, Agonistic Politics, and the Phenomenological Body.” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 28 (5): 913–930. doi:10.1068/d13209.
   Google Scholar
• Cooper, J., and J. A. Sandlin. 2020. “Intra-active Pedagogies of Publicness: Exploring Street Art in Melbourne, Australia.” Pedagogy, Culture & Society 28 (3): 1–23.
   Google Scholar
• Crossley, N. 1996. Intersubjectivity: The Fabric of Social Becoming (Vol. 4). London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Del Gaudio, C., C. Franzato, and A. J. Oliveira. 2020. “Co-design for Democratising and Its Risks for Democracy.” CoDesign 16 (3): 202–219. doi:10.1080/15710882.2018.1557693.
   Google Scholar
• Dovey, K. 2010. Becoming Places: Urbanism/Architecture/Identity/Power. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Duhn, I. 2012. “Places for Pedagogies, Pedagogies for Places.” Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood 13 (2): 99–107. doi:10.2304/ciec.2012.13.2.99.
   Google Scholar
• Ellsworth, E. 2005. Places of Learning: Media, Architecture, Pedagogy. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Elwood, S. 2006. “Beyond Cooptation or Resistance: Urban Spatial Politics, Community Organizations, and GIS-based Spatial Narratives.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 96 (2): 323–341. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8306.2006.00480.x.
   Google Scholar
• Freire, P. 1970. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum.
   Google Scholar
• Freire, P. 1998. Pedagogy of Freedom: Ethics, Democracy, and Civic Courage. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
   Google Scholar
• Giroux, H. A. 1983. Theory and Resistance in Education: A Pedagogy for the Opposition. South Hadley: Bergin & Garvey.
   Google Scholar
• Giroux, H. A. 2003. Public Spaces, Private Lives: Democracy beyond 9/11. Plymouth: Rowman & Littlefield.
   Google Scholar
• Gunder, M. 2010. “Planning as the Ideology of (Neoliberal) Space.” Planning Theory 9 (4): 298–314. doi:10.1177/1473095210368878.
   Google Scholar
• Gunder, M., and J. Hillier. 2009. Planning in Ten Words or Less. Burlington: Ashgate.
   Google Scholar
• Harris, N. 2002. “Collaborative Planning.” In Planning Futures: New Directions for Planning Theory, edited by P. Allmendinger and M. Tewdwr-Jones, 21–42. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Healey, P. 2007. Urban Complexity and Spatial Strategies: Towards a Relational Planning for Our Times. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Hillier, J. 2003. “Agon’izing over Consensus: Why Habermasian Ideals Cannot Be ‘Real’.” Planning Theory 2 (1): 37–59. doi:10.1177/1473095203002001005.
   Google Scholar
• Huxley, M., and O. Yiftachel. 2000. “New Paradigm or Old Myopia? Unsettling the Communicative Turn in Planning Theory.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 19 (4): 333–342. doi:10.1177/0739456X0001900402.
   Google Scholar
• Huybrechts, L., H. Benesch, and J. Geib. 2017. “Institutioning: Participatory Design, Co-design and the Public Realm.” CoDesign 13 (3): 148–159. doi:10.1080/15710882.2017.1355006.
   Google Scholar
• Ingold, T. 2000. The Perception of the Environment: Essays on Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Kusenbach, M. 2003. “Street Phenomenology. The Go- along as Ethnographic Research Tool.” Ethnography 4 (3): 455–485. doi:10.1177/146613810343007.
   Google Scholar
• Legacy, C. 2017. “Is There a Crisis of Participatory Planning?” Planning Theory 16 (4): 425–442. doi:10.1177/1473095216667433.
   Google Scholar
• Lennon, M., and D. Moore. 2019. “Planning,‘politics’ and the Production of Space: The Formulation and Application of a Framework for Examining the Micropolitics of Community Place-making.” Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning 21 (2): 117–133. doi:10.1080/1523908X.2018.1508336.
   Google Scholar
• Loopmans, M. 2008. “Relevance, Gentrification and the Development of a New Hegemony on Urban Policies in Antwerp, Belgium.” Urban Studies 45 (12): 2499–2519. doi:10.1177/0042098008097107.
   Google Scholar
• Loopmans, M., G. Cowell, and S. Oosterlynck. 2012. “Photography, Public Pedagogy and the Politics of Place-making in Post-industrial Areas.” Social & Cultural Geography 13 (7): 699–718. doi:10.1080/14649365.2012.723734.
   Google Scholar
• Loopmans, M., and T. Dirckx. 2012. “Neoliberal Urban Movements?: A Geography of Conflict and Mobilisation over Urban Renaissance in Antwerp, Belgium.” In Contradictions of Neoliberal Planning, edited by T. Tasan-Kok and G. Baeten, 99–116. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Martin, D. G. 2003. “Enacting Neighbourhood.” Urban Geography 24: 361–385. doi:10.2747/0272-3638.24.5.361.
   Google Scholar
• Masschelein, J. 2010. “E-ducating the Gaze: The Idea of a Poor Pedagogy.” Ethics and Education 5 (1): 43–53. doi:10.1080/17449641003590621.
   Google Scholar
• McFarlane, C. 2011. “The City as a Machine for Learning.” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 36 (3): 360–376. doi:10.1111/j.1475-5661.2011.00430.x.
   Google Scholar
• McGuirk, P. M. 2001. “Situating Communicative Planning Theory: Context, Power, and Knowledge.” Environment and Planning A 33(2): 195–217. doi:10.1068/a3355
   Google Scholar
• McKenzie, M. 2008. “The Places of Pedagogy: Or, What We Can Do with Culture through Intersubjective Experiences.” Environmental Education Research 14 (3): 361–373. doi:10.1080/13504620802194208.
   Google Scholar
• Mihai, M. 2014. “Theorizing Agonistic Emotions.” Parallax 20 (2): 31–48. doi:10.1080/13534645.2014.896547.
   Google Scholar
• Mouat, C., C. Legacy, and A. March. 2013. “The Problem Is the Solution: Testing Agonistic Theory’s Potential to Recast Intractable Planning Disputes.” Urban Policy and Research 31 (2): 150–166. doi:10.1080/08111146.2013.776496.
   Google Scholar
• Mouffe, C. 1993. The Return of the Political. London: Verso.
   Google Scholar
• Mouffe, C. 2000. “Deliberative Democracy or Agonistic Pluralism?” Social Research 66 (3): 745–758.
   Google Scholar
• Mouffe, C. 2014. “By Way of a Postscript.” Parallax 20 (2): 149–157. doi:10.1080/13534645.2014.896562.
   Google Scholar
• Munthe-Kaas, P. 2015. “Agonism and Co-design of Urban Spaces.” Urban Research & Practice 8 (2): 218–237.
   Google Scholar
• Newman, P. 2008. “Strategic Spatial Planning: Collective Action and Moments of Opportunity.” European Planning Studies 16 (10): 1371–1383. doi:10.1080/09654310802420078.
   Google Scholar
• Özdemir, E., and T. Tasan-Kok. 2019. “Planners’ Role in Accommodating Citizen Disagreement: The Case of Dutch Urban Planning.” Urban Studies 56 (4): 741–759. doi:10.1177/0042098017726738.
   Google Scholar
• Pánek, I., and K. Benediktsson. 2017. “Emotional Mapping and Its Participatory Potential: Opinions about Cycling Conditions in Reykjavík, Iceland.” “Cities 61: 65–73.
   Google Scholar
• Pierce, J., D. G. Martin, and J. T. Murphy. 2011. “Relational Place‐making: The Networked Politics of Place.” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 36 (1): 54–70. doi:10.1111/j.1475-5661.2010.00411.x.
   Google Scholar
• PLØGER, J. 2015. “Impossible common ground.” In Planning against the Political, edited by J. Metzger, P. Allmendinger and S. Oosterlynck, 107–128. Abingdon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Pløger, P. 2001. “Public Participation and the Art of Governance.” Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 28 (2): 219–41. doi:10.1068/b2669
   Google Scholar
• Purcell, M. 2009. “Resisting Neoliberalization: Communicative Planning or Counter-hegemonic Movements?” Planning Theory 8 (2): 140–165. doi:10.1177/1473095209102232.
   Google Scholar
• Sager, T. 2013. Reviving Critical Planning Theory: Dealing with Pressure, Neo-liberalism, and Responsibility in Communicative Planning. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Sawhney, N., and A. T. Tran. 2020. “Ecologies of Contestation in Participatory Design.” In Proceedings of the 16th Participatory Design Conference 2020-Participation (s) Otherwise,Manizales, Volume 1: 172–181.
   Google Scholar
• Schillebeeckx, E., S. Oosterlynck, and P. De Decker. 2019. “Migration and the Resourceful Neighborhood: Exploring Localized Resources in Urban Zones of Transition.” In Arrival Infrastructures, edited by Bruno Meeus, Karel Arnout and Bas van Heur, 131–152. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Schuermans, N., M. Loopmans, and J. Vandenabeele. 2012. “Public Space, Public Art and Public Pedagogy.” Social & Cultural Geography 13 (7): 675–682. doi:10.1080/14649365.2012.728007.
   Google Scholar
• Soneryd, L., and E. Lindh. 2019. “Citizen Dialogue for Whom? Competing Rationalities in Urban Planning, the Case of Gothenburg, Sweden.” Urban Research & Practice 12 (3): 230–246. doi:10.1080/17535069.2018.1436721.
   Google Scholar
• Spradley, J. P. 1979. The Ethnographic Interview. New York: Holt: Rinehart and Winston.
   Google Scholar
• Star, S. L. 2010. “This Is Not a Boundary Object: Reflections on the Origin of a Concept.” Science, Technology, & Human Values 35 (5): 601–617. doi:10.1177/0162243910377624.
   Google Scholar
• Star, S. L., and J. R. Griesemer. 1989. “Institutional Ecology,translations’ and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39.” Social Studies of Science 19 (3): 387–420. doi:10.1177/030631289019003001.
   Google Scholar
• Wenger, E. 1998. “Communities of Practice: Learning as a Social System.” Systems Thinker 9 (5): 2–3.
   Google Scholar
• Whitebook, J. 1996. Perversion and Utopia: A Study in Psychoanalysis and Critical Theory. Chicago: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wolf, E., and W. Van Dooren. 2018. “Conflict Reconsidered: The Boomerang Effect of Depoliticization in the Policy Process.” Public Administration 96 (2): 286–301. doi:10.1111/padm.12391.
   Google Scholar
• Yamamoto, A. D. 2017. “Why Agonistic Planning? Questioning Chantal Mouffe’s Thesis of the Ontological Primacy of the Political.” Planning Theory 16 (4): 384–403. doi:10.1177/1473095216654941.
   Google Scholar