Modernist magic: Not guilty; post-postmodernist—Yes

Prof. V. Assche's and his associates' "reflection" on my essay is a welcome surprise to me. It is welcome because it shows that there are people who care enough about planning and planning theory to mourn their passing. It surprised me in blending agreement with blame for positio...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Planning theory (London, England) England), 2017-05, Vol.16 (2), p.227-229
Main Author: Alexander, Ernest R
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Academic disciplines
Planning
Postmodernism
Response
Theory
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Prof. V. Assche's and his associates' "reflection" on my essay is a welcome surprise to me. It is welcome because it shows that there are people who care enough about planning and planning theory to mourn their passing. It surprised me in blending agreement with blame for positions I did not take. My essay observed no "stockpile of problems in the planning discipline," but it does address one problem for planning: when the best that someone knowledgeable - Tim Chapin, review editor of the Journal of the American Planning Association (JAPA) - can say about it is "Planning is a fuzzy field" (Chapin, 2015). This hardly seems adequate for informed theory and research in a discipline, or useful education and effective action in a practice. Isn't it a problem if we have no idea what we are theorizing about, what we are teaching, and what we are practicing?
ISSN:1473-0952
1741-3052
DOI:10.1177/1473095216676769