Jouissance and planning master signifier: New framework for analysis of planning symbolic realm

Document Type : Review article

Author

Assistant Professor, Urban & Regional Planning Department, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran

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.

Keywords

Main Subjects


Allmendinger, P., 2001. Planning in postmodern times. Psychology Press, 280 p.
-Allmendinger, P., 2002. Towards a post-positivist typology of planning theory, Planning theory: 1(1), p. 77-99.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/147309520200100105
-Allmendinger, P. and Gunder, M., 2005. Applying Lacanian insight and a dash of Derridean deconstruction to planning’s ‘dark side’. Planning theory: 4(1), p. 87-112.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1473095205051444
-Bracher, M., Alcorn, M.W., Corthell, R. and Massardier-Kenney, F., 1994. Lacanian theory of discourse: Subject, structure, and society. NYU Press,176 p.
-Bunce, S., 2004. The emergence of ‘smart growth’intensification in Toronto: environment and economy in the new official plan, Local Environment: 9(2), p. 177-191.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1354983042000199525
-Butler, J., 1997. The psychic life of power: Theories in subjection. Stanford University Press, 228 p.
-Butler, J., Laclau, E., Žižek, S. and Zizek, S., 2000. Contingency, hegemony, universality: Contemporary dialogues on the left, Verso., 330 p.
-Dean, T., 1997. Two kinds of other and their consequences, Critical Inquiry: 23(4), p. 910-920.
https://experts.illinois.edu/en/publications/two-kinds-of-other-and-their-consequences
-Eeten, M.V. and Roe, E., 2000 .When fiction conveys truth and authority: The Netherlands Green Heart planning controversy, Journal of the American Planning Association: 66(1), p. 58-67.
-Ewing, R., 1997. Is Los Angeles-style sprawl desirable? Journal of the American Planning Association: 63(1), p. 107-126. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01944369708975728
-Fink, B., 2002. Knowledge and jouissance. Reading Seminar XX: Lacan’s major work on love, knowledge, and feminine sexuality, 258 p.
-Flyvbjerg, B., 1998. Rationality and power: Democracy in practice. University of Chicago press, 308 p.
-Gow, L., 2000. Curbing the Sprawl: Urban Growth Management in the United States--lessons for New Zealand, Ministry for the Environment, 120 p.
-Gunder, M., 2003. Planning policy formulation from a Lacanian perspective, International planning studies: 8(4), p. 279-294.
-Gunder, M. and Hillier, J., 2007. Planning as urban therapeutic. Environment and Planning A, 39(2), 467-486.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1068/a38236
-Gunder, M. and Hillier, J., 2009. Planning in ten words or less: A Lacanian entanglement with spatial planning, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd,
256 p.
-Hillier, J., 2003. Agon'izing over consensus: Why habermasian ideals cannot beReal'. Planning theory, 2(1), p. 37-59.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1473095203002001005
-Hillier, J., 2005. Straddling the post-structuralist abyss: between transcendence and immanence? Planning theory: 4(3), p. 271-299.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249742413_Straddling_the_Post-Structuralist_Abyss_Between_Transcendence_and_Immanence
-Hook, D., 2008. Absolute Other: Lacan's ‘Big Other’as Adjunct to Critical Social Psychological Analysis? Social and Personality Psychology Compass: 2(1), p. 51-73.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00067.x
-Hutcheon, L., 2012. A theory of adaptation. Routledge, 304 p.
-Keil, R. and Boudreau, J.A., 2005. Is there regionalism after municipal amalgamation in Toronto? City: 9(1), p. 9-22.
https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/cityxx/v9y2005i1p9-22.html
-Kipfer, S. and Keil, R., 2002. Toronto Inc? Planning the competitive city in the new Toronto, Antipode: 34(2), p. 227-264.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1467-8330.00237
-Lacan, J., 2013. The ethics of psychoanalysis 1959-1960: The seminar of Jacques Lacan. Routledge, 352 p.
-Laclau, E., 1989. Preference. In The sublime object of ideology, by S. Zizek, ix-xv. London: Verso, 320 p.
 theory: 8(2), p.140-165.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1473095209102232
-Ragland, E., 1996. The discourse of the master. Lacan, politics, aesthetics,Sunny press, 341 p.
-Sandercock, L., 2004. Towards a planning imagination for the 21st century. Journal of the American Planning Association: 70(2), p.133-141.
-Stavrakakis, Y., 2007. Lacanian Left. Edinburgh University Press.
-Tregoning, H., Agyeman, J. and Shenot, C., 2002. Sprawl, smart growth and sustainability. Local Environment: 7(4), p. 341-347.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1354983022000027464
-Verhaeghe, P., 2001. Beyond gender. New York: Other Press, 168 p.
-Wesley Scott, J., 2007. Smart growth as urban reform: A pragmatic'recoding'of the new regionalism. Urban studies: 44(1), p.15-35.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/248974176_Smart_Growth_as_Urban_Reform_A_Pragmatic_'Recoding'_of_the_New_Regionalism
-Žižek, S., 1998. Four discourses, four subjects. Cogito and the Unconscious, Duke University Press, 288 p.
-Žižek, S., 1999. Fantasy as a Political Category: A Lacanian Approach’, in Wright, E., Wright, E. (eds) The Žižek Reader, 89-101 (Oxford, Blackwell). Wright, E., Wright, E. (eds) The Žižek Reader, 89-101 (Oxford, Blackwell), 346 p.
-Žižek, S., 2002. For they know not what they do: Enjoyment as a political factor. Verso,
288 p.
-Žižek, S., 2005. Interrogating the real.(Eds ,).R. Butler & S. Stephens. New York & London: Continuum, 392 p.-Purcell, M., 2009. Resisting neoliberalization: communicative planning or counter-hegemonic movements? Planning