Abstract

Desire and master signifiers are key dimensions of spatial planning in Lacan planning and urban policy formation. Positivist or scientific planning theory tried to concentrate on built environment and neglect from the role of emotion and desire. Why is it so difficult to define concisely the meaning of ‘desire in planning’ and many of its dominant concepts— jouissance, unconsciousness, signifiers or master signifier—when deployed in formulating urban planning theory? Lacan's theoretical insights and conceptualizations of split human subject, divided between symbolic consciousness (ego) and unconscious affect can help to empower new dimension of planning thought. The article argues that a Lacanian inspired framework is particularly useful for understanding spatial planning and related discourse, for it provides insight as to how desire and resultant ideological believes shape planning policies. Lacan's psychoanalysis discourse theory suggests an answer based on an understanding of our human subjectivity, a subjectivity that implicitly seeks to overlook contradiction and ambiguity in our desire to fulfill human aspirations for a harmonious and secure world. This article will use Lacanian theory to examine the beliefs of the dominant planning discourse and examines Lacan’s psychoanalytically derived planning theory as to its appropriateness for understanding aspects of planning practice and theory. Lacan theorized not only about language and discourse, but also about that which resides outside of master signifiers and underlies human desire, to provide an understanding of human subjectivity, planning contradictions and motivation.