Journal of Planning Education and Research

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for more information

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Stein, S. M.
Right arrow Articles by Harper, T. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Journal of Planning Education and Research, Vol. 23, No. 2, 125-139 (2003)
DOI: 10.1177/0739456X03258636
© 2003 Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning

Power, Trust, and Planning

Stanley M. Stein

Thomas L. Harper

This article critically evaluates the Foucauldian perspective on power. Foucault’s arguments seem to take three steps: (1) the vocabulary of power is elevated to a privileged status, (2) the meaning of power is extended to cover all human social behavior, and (3) the argument equivocates between two different meanings of power. The result is that the external theory of power overwhelms internal understanding. All planning processes are seen as a sham, understandable only in terms of who wields power. In practice, an obsession with power is dangerous. A theoretical focus on power could blind us to other realities. Everything could be reinterpreted within a reductionistic framework (a metanarrative) of power. A practical focus on power could breed despair and suspicion, undermining trust. The authors argue that the vocabulary of power is more useful for legitimate conflict resolution, consensus building, and planning.

Key Words: Foucault • power • trust • planning theory


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Journal of Planning Education and ResearchHome page
D. R. Mason and V. A. Beard
Community-based Planning and Poverty Alleviation in Oaxaca, Mexico
Journal of Planning Education and Research, March 1, 2008; 27(3): 245 - 260.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Journal of Planning Education and ResearchHome page
M. H. Baxamusa
Empowering Communities through Deliberation The Model of Community Benefits Agreements
Journal of Planning Education and Research, March 1, 2008; 27(3): 261 - 276.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Journal of Planning Education and ResearchHome page
C. J. Hoch
Pragmatic Communicative Action Theory
Journal of Planning Education and Research, March 1, 2007; 26(3): 272 - 283.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Planning TheoryHome page
M. Neuman
Notes on the Uses and Scope of City Planning Theory
Planning Theory, July 1, 2005; 4(2): 123 - 145.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Planning TheoryHome page
S. M. Stein and T. L. Harper
Rawls's 'Justice as Fairness': A Moral Basis for Contemporary Planning Theory
Planning Theory, July 1, 2005; 4(2): 147 - 172.
[Abstract] [PDF]