Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
How participation can modify urban regeneration? Some reflections about Discourse and Politics in Urban Regeneration Programmes
Research on urban studies has tended to split the fields of research on:
Urban Participation linked to urban governance & community developement theories Urban Social Movements linked to social identity and new social movements theory Urban Change linked to structuralist approach & urban planning theories with little space to movements agency.
My proposal is to analyse the relationship among them in order to recognise the agency of the urban social movements through participation in the production of the urban space.
How Participation can lead us to urban change in terms of more social justice and empowered communities?
Mainstream definition: different mechanisms for the public/demos to express their opinions - and ideally exert influence - regarding political, economic, management or other social decisions. We could distinguish between:
Top Down Participation / Bottom Up Participation Institutionalised/non-institutionalised participation. Ladder of participation: from manipulation/transformation
Theoretical assumptions:
Consensual approach (habermasian and strong democracy) Focused on the process (how) not on the results (why).
Methodology
Comparative Case Study analysing 4 moments/kinds of urban participation in the regeneration of the Old Town of Barcelona. Collecting data:
Official Documentation (plans in the different stages) Meeting acts,... Leaflets, journals,...
Discursive approach:
Who are the actors involved? (actors network) Which discourses are expressed? (discourse network) How are the power relationships expressed? Which are the effects of the participation in the final output?
By irruption/ By invitation: Monologic-single issue / Dialogic-Heterogeneous (Kristeva, Bakhtin) Could one higher degree of multivocality/interdiscoursivity provide higher degree of incidence of the participation in the outputs? Theoretical assumptions that connects interdiscoursivity and social change: Fairclough/Wodak
Production of Multivocality/Interdiscoursivity:
My question is:
4 cases
By irruption
Forat de la Vergonya
Monologic/Hom
Multivocal/Het
Pla de la Gardunya
By invitation
+
Monologic/Hom
++
Multivocal/Het
-By invitation
4 tipologies of Participation
By irruption
NIMBY
Monologic/Hom
Radical Democratic
Multivocal/Het
Burocratic engagament
Liberal-democratic
By invitation
RADICAL DEMOCRACY
Assume the conflict as a creative force Challenge the power relationships to balance Recognise the differences points of views. The main aim is transform the conditions of life in the area.
BUREOUCRATIC ENGAGEMENT
The conflict is chanelled through bureoucratic structures Only recognise the differents points of view as a representation. The main aim is gain more power position through the process of negotiation/concertation.
LIBERAL-CONSENSUAL
Negation of the conflict Don't recognise the differences of power among actors. Dissolve the different points of views The main aim is to improve and legitimise the policy intervention.
Is urban participation one path to the negation of conflict (post-politics) or could be also a path to radical democracy? How could we link urban democracy to social justice and community empowerment? It's possible to transform urban participation from one model to another? And how?