Planning Theory

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

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 arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Gunder, M.
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?
Planning Theory, Vol. 7, No. 2, 186-206 (2008)
DOI: 10.1177/1473095208090434

Ideologies of Certainty in a Risky Reality: Beyond the Hauntology of Planning

Michael Gunder

University of Auckland, New Zealand, m.gunder{at}auckland.ac.nz

Two perceptions of `risk' tend to dominate leading conceptualizations of this term. The first perspective is largely held by government and the scientific community. Risk, in this view, is something that can be measured, observed, mapped and generally controlled. Under this perspective, planning is often perceived as playing a central scientific role in the achievement of this `management' task. The second perspective is a poststructuralist one where risk is a constructed concept. This article explores this perspective from the position that risk is a fear of the repressed, undecidable and unknown that haunts social reality, for it may spring up at any time to create adversity and misfortune. In this view, risk is inherently an ideological spectre responding to a lack of knowledge, uncertainty and/or inherent unknowability, which in turn induces society to crave and then seek to generate further constructs of certainty, even if these are mere fantasies and illusions that purport to control and overcome the unknown. In contrast to the scientific realist perspective of `manageable' risk, this article argues that planning often produces just such an ideological response. Further, it argues that a desire for certainty to offset the haunting of this risky future, no matter how illusionary, underlies and empowers planning's very ontological purpose. It concludes by proposing an alternative ontology for planning, which actively engages with change and the unexpected.

Key Words: constructionism • fantasy • ideology • planning • risk


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?