دلوز و نظریه برنامه‌‌ریزی معاصر: نه دولت و نه آنارشیسم سنتی

رحیمی, حجت اله; رحیمی, حسن

doi:10.22034/aaud.2022.220148.2133

دلوز و نظریه برنامه‌‌ریزی معاصر: نه دولت و نه آنارشیسم سنتی

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

¹ استادیار گروه جغرافیا، دانشگاه یزد، گروه جغرافیا، یزد، ایران (نویسنده مسئول).

² کارشناسی ارشد جغرافیا و برنامه ریزی شهری، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، دانشکده علوم زمین، تهران، ایران.

10.22034/aaud.2022.220148.2133

چکیده

یکی از فلسفه‌‌هایی که در سال‌‌های اخیر در قالب نظریه برنامه‌‌ریزی پساساختارگرایی با اقبال برنامه‌‌ریزان شهری مواجه شده است، نظریه برنامه‌‌ریزی دلوزی است. نحوه مواجهه نظریه برنامه‌‌ریزی شهری با فلسفه دلوز را می‌‌توان در قالب دو الگوی زیر طبقه‌‌بندی کرد. در یک ‌‌سوی، برنامه‌‌ریزانی مانند ژان هیلیر قرار دارند که این فلسفه را بر اساس دیدگاه گام به گام، اصلاح‌‌طلبانه و برنامه‌‌ریزی دولتی پیگیری می‌‌کنند. در سوی دیگر، برنامه‌‌ریزانی مانند پورسل قرار دارند که با تأکید بر جنبه‌‌‌‌های آنارشیستی در فلسفه دلوز استدلال می‌‌کنند که رویکرد دلوزی قابل کاربرد در چارچوب برنامه‌‌ریزی دولت‌‌محور نیست. نوشتار حاضر استدلال کرد که آنچه دیدگاه‌‌های هیلیر و پورسل را درباره به کارگیری فلسفه دلوز در نظریه برنامه‌‌ریزی شهری ناکافی نشان می‌‌دهد، عدم توجه آن‌‌ها به نظریه شناخت دلوز و مفاهیم کنش و میل در فلسفه او است. اگر چه دلوز شبکه گسترده‌‌ای از مفاهیم را برای تحلیل مناسبات اجتماعی سرمایه‌‌داری ارائه می‌‌کند که می‌‌توانند برای تحلیل این مناسبات مفید باشد، اما اگر نظریه‌‌ برنامه‌‌ریزی را نظریه‌‌ای بدانیم که الزاماً با کنش مرتبط است و صرفاً به تحلیل محدود نمی‌‌شود، در آن صورت نقطه اتکاء یک نظریه برنامه‌‌ریزی دلوزی باید مفهوم میل و سیاست میل باشد. سیاست میل، بر خلاف دیدگاه هیلیر، هرگز اصلاح‌‌طلبانه، دولتی و تدریجی نیست، بلکه میل نیرویی انقلابی و انفجاری است. هم‌‌چنین سیاست میل، بر خلاف نظر پورسل، هرگز به ‌‌سوی تولید سوژه‌‌های باثبات و عقلانی جهت‌‌گیری نمی‌‌شود تا سپس یک نظم اجتماعی و خانوادگی مبتنی بر تعاون را با اتکاء به این سوژه‌‌ها مستقر کند، بلکه میل به ‌‌سبب ماهیّت آفرینش‌‌گری خود همواره فرم‌‌های اجتماعی را تخریب می‌‌کند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Deleuze and Contemporary Planning Theory: Neither State nor Traditional Anarchism

نویسندگان [English]

Hojatollah Rahimi ¹
Hassan Rahimi ²

¹ Assistant Professor of Geography, Department of Geography, Yazd University, Yazd, Iran (Corresponding Author).

² M.A. of Geography and Urban Planning, Faculty of Earth Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran.

چکیده [English]

Recently, urban planners have been interested to develop a new post-structural Deleuzian framework for planning theory. Generally, planning theory engages with Deleuze's philosophy from two different point of view. In one hand, planners such as Hillier, argue the Deleuzian planning theory with a step-by-step and State-led reformist view while planners such as Purcell, highlight the anarchistic dimension of Deleuze’s philosophy and argue that the Deleuzian planning theory entirely rejects any State-led reformist planning and capitalism axioms. This article aims to argue that Hillier and Purcell, in general, have paid insufficient attention to the three key components (i.e. Knowledge, action, and desire) of Deleuze’s philosophy. It has been argued that although Deleuze’s philosophy provides multiple concepts and metaphors that enable planners to ‘analyze’ capitalism-based social relations, if planning theory is considered as a field that is necessarily related to action and is not confined to knowledge alone, then the concept of desire and the politics of desire must be considered the mainstay of a Deleuzian planning theory. Unlike Hillier’s point of view, the Deleuzian concept of the "politics of desire" is never reformist and reactive, but revolutionary and active. In addition, unlike Purcell’s anarchist point of view, the politics of desire does not aim to produce rationally stable subjects who seek to construct a rational order of community according to mutual aid and agreement. Rather, this kind of politics, by its creative nature, is directed at the deconstruction of social forms and order.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

Deleuze
Illusion
Knowledge
Action
The Politics of Desire

مراجع

Albrecht, J., & Lim, G. C. (1986). A search for alternative planning theory: Use of critical theory. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 117-131. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43028795?refreqid=excelsior%3A3e8fb8a36e54f652c40af1660108afdc
Allmendinger, P. (2002). Towards a post-positivist typology of planning theory. Planning theory, 1(1), 77-99. https://doi.org/10.1177/147309520200100105
Balducci, A., Boelens, L., Hillier, J., Nyseth, T., & Wilkinson, C. (2011). Introduction: Strategic spatial planning in uncertainty: theory and exploratory practice. Town Planning Review, 82(5), 481-501. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41300330
Banville, M. S., & Torres, J. (2017). On embracing an immanent ethics in urban planning: Pursuing our Body-without-Organs. Planning Theory, 16(3), 255-274. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095215625707
Buser, M. (2014). Thinking through non-representational and affective atmospheres in planning theory and practice. Planning Theory, 13(3), 227-243. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.865.7169&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Call, L. (2002). Postmodern anarchism: Lexington Books.
De Roo, G., & Hillier, J. (2016). Complexity and spatial planning: introducing systems, assemblages and simulations Complexity and Planning (pp. 19-52): Routledge.
Deleuze, G. (1988). Bergsonism: MIT Press.
Deleuze, G. (1988). Spinoza: practical philosophy: City Lights Books.
Deleuze, G. (1994). Difference and repetition: Columbia University Press.
Deleuze, G. (1995). Negotiations, 1972-1990: Columbia University Press.
Deleuze, G. (2006). Nietzsche and philosophy: Columbia University Press.
Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1988). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. Ì. (2004). Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia (R. Hurley, Trans.): Bloomsbury Academic.
Deleuze, G. (2004). Desert islands and other texts 1953–1974. (M. Taormina, Trans.): Los Angeles, CA: Semitext(e).
Deleuze, G., & Parnet, C. (1996). Dialogues.
Doel, M. A. (1996). A hundred thousand lines of flight: a machinic introduction to the nomad thought and scrumpled geography of Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari. Environment and planning D: society and space, 14(4), 421-439. https://doi.org/10.1068/d140421
Doel, M. A. (1999). Poststructuralist geographies: the diabolical art of spatial science: Rowman & Littlefield.
Drummond, J. S., & Themessl-Huber, M. (2007). The cyclical process of action research: The contribution of Gilles Deleuze. Action Research, 5(4), 430-448. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.834.7840&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Elden, S., & Crampton, J. W. (2016). Introduction Space, knowledge and power: Foucault and geography Space, Knowledge and Power (pp. 13-28): Routledge. https://www.academia.edu/download/31144419/Foucault_and_geography.pdf#page=14
Friedmann, J. (1987). Planning in the public domain: From knowledge to action: Princeton University Press.
Goodchild, P. (1996). Deleuze and Guattari: An introduction to the politics of desire (Vol. 44): Sage.
Grosz, E. (2004). The nick of time: Politics, evolution, and the untimely: Duke University Press.
Gunder, M., & Hillier, J. (2016). Planning in ten words or less: A Lacanian entanglement with spatial planning: Routledge.
Hillier, J. (2005). Straddling the post-structuralist abyss: between transcendence and immanence? Planning Theory, 4(3), 271-299. https://www-personal.umich.edu/~sdcamp/temp/readers08web/Hillier%20(2005),%20Post-Structuralist%20Abyss%20(Planning%20Theory).pdf
Hillier, J. (2007). Stretching beyond the horizon: a multiplanar theory of spatial planning and governance: Routledge.
Hillier, J. (2008). Plan (e) speaking: A multiplanar theory of spatial planning. Planning Theory, 7(1), 24-50. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1004.6105&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Hillier, J. (2011). Encountering Gilles Deleuze in another place. European Planning Studies, 19(5), 861-885. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2011.561041
Hillier, J. (2013). On relationality and uncertainty. disP-The Planning Review, 49(3), 32-39. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jean-Hillier/publication/275180770_On_Relationality_and_Uncertainty/links/6004db6792851c13fe1bd91b/On-Relationality-and-Uncertainty.pdf
Hillier, J. (2017). On Planning for Not Having a Plan? Planning Theory & Practice, 18(4), 668-675. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jean-Hillier/publication/320392369_On_Planning_for_Not_Having_a_Plan/links/5f5f3d254585154dbbd02e45/On-Planning-for-Not-Having-a-Plan.pdf
Hillier, J., & Cao, K. (2013). Deleuzian dragons: Thinking Chinese strategic spatial planning with Gilles Deleuze. Deleuze Studies, 7(3), 390-405. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jean-Hillier/publication/272765032_Deleuzian_Dragons_Thinking_Chinese_Strategic_Spatial_Planning_with_Gilles_Deleuze/links/5dfc62654585159aa48a52fd/Deleuzian-Dragons-Thinking-Chinese-Strategic-Spatial-Planning-with-Gilles-Deleuze.pdf
Hobbes, T. (1997). Leviathan: Dover Publications.
Lyotard, J. F. (2013). Why philosophize? : Polity.
May, T. (1994). The political philosophy of poststructuralist anarchism: Penn State Press.
May, T. (2005). Gilles Deleuze: an introduction: Cambridge University Press.
McCormack, D. P. (2007). Molecular affects in human geographies. Environment and Planning A, 39(2), 359-377. https://doi.org/10.1068/a3889
McGreevy, M. P. (2018). Complexity as the telos of postmodern planning and design: Designing better cities from the bottom-up. Planning Theory, 17(3), 355-374. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Michael-Mcgreevy/publication/317788345_Complexity_as_the_telos_of_postmodern_planning_and_design_Designing_better_cities_from_the_bottom-up/links/5f03c7eba6fdcc4ca452d4c1/Complexity-as-the-telos-of-postmodern-planning-and-design-Designing-better-cities-from-the-bottom-up.pdf
Newman, S. (2001). War on the state: Stirner and Deleuze’s anarchism. Anarchist Studies, 9(2), 147-164. https://funambule.org/lectures/anarchisme/Saul_Newman__War_on_the_State__Stirner_and_Deleuze_s_Anarchism_a4.pdf
Nietzsche, F. (1989). On the Genealogy of Morals. On the Genealogy of Morals and Ecce Homo. Trans. Walter Kaufmann and RJ Hollingdale. New York: Vintage, 13-163.
Olkowski, D. (2017). Nietzsche’s dice throw: Tragedy, nihilism, and the body without organs Gilles Deleuze and the theater of philosophy (pp. 119-140): Routledge.
Patton, P. (2002). Deleuze and the Political: Routledge.
Purcell, M. (2013). A new land: Deleuze and Guattari and planning. Planning Theory & Practice, 14(1), 20-38. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2012.761279
Purcell, M. (2016). For democracy: Planning and publics without the state. Planning Theory, 15(4), 386-401. http://faculty.washington.edu/mpurcell/non_state_publics.pdf
Roffe, J. (2014). Error, Illusion, Deception: Deleuze against James Deleuze and Pragmatism (pp. 89-104): Routledge.
Taylor, N. (1998). Urban planning theory since 1945: Sage.
Van Wezemael, J. (2008). The contribution of assemblage theory and minor politics for democratic network governance. Planning Theory, 7(2), 165-185. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Joris-Van-Wezemael/publication/249743072_The_Contribution_of_Assemblage_Theory_and_Minor_Politics_for_Democratic_Network_Governance/links/58bddf74aca27261e52e9766/The-Contribution-of-Assemblage-Theory-and-Minor-Politics-for-Democratic-Network-Governance.pdf
Wood, S. (2009). Desiring docklands: Deleuze and urban planning discourse. Planning Theory, 8(2), 191-216. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1027.9836&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Wylie, J. (2006). Depths and folds: on landscape and the gazing subject. Environment and planning d: society and space, 24(4), 519-535. https://doi.org/10.1068/d380t