評介歐門汀葛爾的《規劃理論》：現代主義到後現代主義的跨界對話

A Criticism for Allmendinger's Planning Theory: Dialogues between Modernism and Postmodernism

戴伯芬(Po-Fen Tai)

《國立台灣大學建築與城鄉研究學報》 13期 (2006/03) Pp. 107-116

https://doi.org/10.6154/JBP.2006.13.006

摘要

本文主要目的在引介與評論歐門汀葛爾的《規劃理論》一書。在現代主義轉向後現代主義之際，歐氏從後實證主義的類型學觀點，重新討論現代主義的系統論與理性論、馬克思主義與批判理論、新右派理論、實用主義、倡導論等諸學派，同時轉向後現代主義規劃與合作論的論述。本文一方面引介歐氏對於諸理論的介紹與批評，一方面對於他所提出的理論與架構進行評論。除了歐氏自省的類型學問題之外，本文認為他忽略了西方資本主義社會以外不同時、空所出現的社會主義與第三世界規劃理論與實務，同時也有意忽略女性主義規劃者對於規劃思維與實踐的反省，使本書流為西方英、美中心論、男性規劃菁英主導的規劃理論。

關鍵字

規劃理論 ； 後實證主義 ； 現代性 ； 後現代主義

並列摘要

This paper aims to introduce and comment Allmendinger's Planning Theory. Based on post-positivism, Allmendinger evaluates essential planning theories, including systems and rational theories of planning, Marxism and critical theory, new right planning, pragmatism, as well as advocate planning theory, and provides a prospect for postmodern planning and collaborative planning. There are three comments: shortcoming of typology, ignorance of planning theory and practice in Third World other than in West Capitalist society, and a criticism from feminism.

並列關鍵字

planning theory ； post-positivism ； modernity ； postmodernism

參考文獻

Allmendinger, P.(2001).Planning in Postmodern Times.London:Routledge.

Allmendinger, P.(2002).Planning Theory.New York:Palgrave.

Bondi, L.(1990).Gender Tourism in the Space Age: A Feminism Response to Postmodern Geography.paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association of American Geographers in Toronto.(paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association of American Geographers in Toronto).

Camhis, M.(1979).Planning Theory and Philosophy.London and New York:Tavistock.

Castells, M.(1977).The Urban Question.Cambridge, Mass:MIT Press.