On the other hand, given that rationality was the last paradigm to enjoy genuine dominance in the profession and that planning theorists have long been searching for a few body of theory to take its place, it is no small matter to claim such dominance for communicative action theory. How well does this claim hold up, both in the realm of theory and in its implications for practice?
In April 1998, a major international conference on planning theory was held in Oxford, England. Reporting on the conference, Oren Yiftachel notes that a number of those in attendance challenged the purported dominance of communicative action theory. According to Yiftachel, the papers presented were quite diverse in content, and the issues they addressed ranged from ”rationality (yes, still alive) to communication, consensus, participation, post-modernity, environmental sustainability, values, control, oppression, and more.” Another participant in the conference, James Throgmorton, writes that a clear majority of the conferees rejected the claim of dominance for communicative action theory. Most of the participants, he says, wanted to replace it with their own preferred theoretical approaches. Some argued, for example, that planning should be based on the principles of ecological sustainability. Others argued that it should be based on spatial processes and the regulation of space. Still others promoted a return to Rationality. And so on.
- 1 0 年前最佳解答
1998年4月，一個主要的國際會議的規劃理論是在英國牛津。報告會上，奧倫Yiftachel注意到，一些與會者質疑所謂主導地位的交往行動理論。據Yiftachel ，提交的論文中有相當不同的內容和處理的問題，他們從“理性的（是的，還活著） ，以溝通，達成共識，參與，後現代性，環境的可持續性，價值觀，控制，壓迫，更“ 。另一位與會者在會議中，詹姆斯Throgmorton ，寫有一個明確的大多數與會者反駁支配地位的溝通行動理論。大多數與會者，他說，要取代它自己的偏好理論方法。有人說，例如，規劃應的原則基礎上的生態可持續性。其他人則認為，它應該基於空間進程和調節的空間。還有一些促進恢復理性。等等。