4.3 Article

Re-reading marine spatial planning through Foucault, Haugaard and others: an analysis of domination, empowerment and freedom

期刊

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY & PLANNING
卷 21, 期 6, 页码 754-768

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/1523908X.2019.1673155

关键词

Marine spatial planning; agency; empowerment; domination; Foucault and Haugaard

资金

  1. BONUS: European Union's Seventh Programme for research, technological development and demonstration
  2. Swedish Research Council FORMAS [185]
  3. Ostersjostiftelsen [2186/3.1.1/2014]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Marine spatial planning (MSP) has emerged as a radical approach to achieving sustainable development objectives at sea. While critics challenge its avowed radicalness, often through highlighting dominative processes, more insidious mechanisms of restricted agency remain under-elaborated, as are the productive power and potential of planning. This paper offers a more robust and balanced reading of MSP/power. First, drawing on Haugaard, we read MSP as providing actors with dispositional power to act in concert, thus entailing a move from the risks of ?resource rush? to structuring, which facilitates predictability and promotes agency. However, MSP?ing may also restrict agency when (1) powerful actors misuse opportunities for concerted action to pursue sectoral goals; (2) planning fantasies and the planner?s cognitive limitation sustain dominative power-relations; and (3) in setting the boundaries of MSP, bias is mobilized in favor of vested interests. We thus deploy Foucault?s notion of freedom, to analyze the relationship between ?steering? and resistance subjectivities, and his concept of parrhesias to consider to what extent, an ethico-political planner may contribute towards more equitable processes and outcomes. We conclude that besides the planner, the state as the ultimate authority in MSP must intervene substantively to minimize differentials in the distribution of actors? social resources.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据