The Lacanian perspective argues that planning, in its discourses and practices, is inherently ideological and the visions and ideals shaping the fantasies of the future city are often reflective of the homogenic desires of conflicting, but dominant, privileged minorities. Here the democratic process fails because the issues of contention are pre-shaped and ‘technically’ determined and the rationality deployed only allows a limited range of ‘sensible’, i.e. pre-framed, dreams of what constitutes the ‘good’ city. This article draws on both Lacan and Lefebvre to explore the dichotomy between seeking a common harmony of social vision while at the same time avoiding any exclusion of cultural and related difference in lived space.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Michael Gunder (2005) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: