Strategic Navigation Across Multiple Planes Towards a Deleuzian Inspired Methodology for Strategic Spatial Planning - Hillier

TPR, 82 (5) 2011 doi:10.3828/tpr.2011.30

Jean Hillier

Strategic navigation across multiple planesTowards a Deleuzean-inspired methodology for strategic spatial planning

I regard strategic spatial planning as an adaptive practice concerned with what can be done in the face of uncertainty. Inspired by Deleuze and Guattari, I present a multiplanar theorisation of strategic spatial planning as strategic navigation, involving both the broad charting out of a trajectory of the longer-term future and also for shorter-term, detailed plans and projects with collaboratively determined goals. I develop a methodology for translating the theory into strategic practice, which incorporates a critical engagement with actual conditions and how they came to be (tracing), together with an attempt to unpack what are the conditions for change (mapping and diagramming). Opportunities and risks could be explored allowing the potentials of new trajectories to emerge. I conclude that since the future is inherently unpredictable, the role of strategic spatial planning is to recognise relationalities to facilitate strategic navigation of future trajectories.

[T]he metaphor of navigation […] comprises several components. Firstly, the obvious idea of a journey (trajet), of effective movement from one point to another. Secondly, the idea of navigation implies that this movement is directed towards a certain goal, that it has an objective. […] During the journey one encounters risks, unforeseen risks that may challenge your course or even get you lost. Consequently, the journey will be one which leads you to the place of safety through a number of known and little known, known and unknown, dangers. Finally, in this idea of navigation, I think that we should retain the idea that this journey to the port, across the dangers, implies – in order to be undertaken well and to reach its objective – knowledge, technique and art. Such knowledge is complex, both theoretical and practical. It is also conjectural, which is, of course, very close to the knowledge of piloting. The idea of piloting as an art, as a theoretical and practical technique necessary to existence, is an idea that I think is important and which would merit analysis in more depth. (Foucault, 1982, 2, my translation)

Michel Foucault engaged the metaphor of ships and navigation (pilotage) on several occasions in his exploration of ideas of spatial planning/town planning and gover-nance (1982; 1983a; 1983b; 1983c; [2001] 2005; [2004] 2007). I argue that such metaphors resonate strongly with conceptualisations of strategic spatial planning in complex and increasingly uncertain circumstances. Equally relevant and echoing Foucault’s (1967) suggestion that a boat is ‘a floating piece of space’, Deleuze and Guattari also refer to a ‘maritime model’ in which ‘to think is to voyage’ ([1980] 1987,

Jean Hillier is an Associate Dean of the School of Global Studies, Social Science and Planning at RMIT University in Melbourne, Victoria 3000, Australia; email: [email protected]

Jean Hillier504

482). Voyaging, for Deleuze and Guattari, is ‘the manner of being in space, of being for space’ ([1980] 1987, 482). This is a conceptualisation of space as a passage: of change; of in-between; as a relation between actual and potential worlds (Deleuze and Guattari, [1991] 1994, 17).

As the Introduction to this Special Issue has indicated, traditional forms of strategic spatial planning are increasingly out of synch with the rapid pace of change, complexities and uncertainties of the world that they attempt to plan. There is a need for development of a new, more flexible, form of strategic planning, which, ‘if there is to be one, must advance towards a future which is not known, which cannot be antici-pated’ (Derrida, 1994, 37). Such planning work involves ‘taking risks, the consequences of which can be thought about, but cannot be known’ (Healey, 2008, 28).

The Introduction also argued the case for a post-structuralist approach to strategic planning: one that overcomes the limitations of and goes beyond approaches based on the resurgence of pragmatism. Mainstream American-inspired pragmatism may be criticised for being unable to address power relations adequately, for assuming that shared social and political values will find a balance between conflictual alterna-tives and for underestimating the complexity of the world, with consequent dangers of falling into short-sighted practicalism and expediency (Russell, 1908; Beauregard, 2000). In contrast, Gilles Deleuze, like his friend Michel Foucault (Foucault, [1974] 1994; Foucault and Deleuze, 1972), wants to create a ‘tool box’ of ideas, which people can use practically. Deleuze regards his philosophy as a kind of ‘pragmatics’ because its goal is ‘the invention of concepts that do not add up to a system of belief or an architecture of propositions that you either enter or you don’t’ (Massumi, 1992, 8), but which offer actors the potential energy to experiment with what might become.

Gilles Deleuze’s reading of pragmatism is one that has at its core issues of discourse, power relations, politics, creative transformation and practical experimentation. For Deleuze, the form of the relations between actual and virtual gives shape to a genera-tive pragmatics where practice is radical experimentation; a power-full, collaborative ‘politics of language’ – a sort-of ‘pragmatism plus’!

Concerned primarily with issues of change and transformation, Deleuze and Guattari’s theorising promotes pragmatic, speculative experimentation. What Deleuze terms ‘becoming’ is a movement between things, disrupting meanings, understand-ings and ways of being. Meanings and so on fold across and into each other, not always harmoniously where differences come into contact.

To me, strategic spatial planning represents an issue of a strategically navigated becoming. It evolves, functions and adapts pragmatically, concerned with what can be done, how new things, new foldings and connections can be made experimentally, yet still in contact with reality (Hillier, 2007). Spatial planning attempts to embrace a future that is not determined by the continuity of the present, nor by the path-dependent repetition of the past.

Strategic navigation across multiple planes 505

I regard strategic spatial planning as concerned with the future transformation of place, incorporating a combination of social, environmental, economic and political values about society. I propose that its practice be concerned with trajectories rather than specified end-points. Like Balducci (2008, 79–80), I see spatial planning as a field of experimentation, where processes are based on communication and involvement of actors rather than the top-down imposition of goals and policies. In regarding spatial planning in this way as an experimental practice working with doubt and uncer-tainty, engaged with adaptation and creation rather than scientistic proof-discovery – a speculative exercise; a sort of creative agonistic – I suggest a definition of spatial planning as strategic navigation along the lines of the investigation of ‘virtualities’ unseen in the present; the speculation about what may yet happen; the inquiry into what at a given time and place we might think or do and how this might influence socially and environmentally just spatial form (Hillier, 2007).

The UN-Habitat Global Report on Human Settlements (2009) calls for development of systems of strategic spatial planning that include provision of a flexible, ‘forward’ long-range spatial plan consisting of broad frameworks and principles, with which detailed local plans and mega-projects should mesh. Such a ‘two-pronged’ or, as I suggest below, a multiplanar approach facilitates adaptiveness or strategic navigation in environments where futures are complex and uncertain. As demonstrated by the papers in this Special Issue, several strategic planning practitioners are beginning to work along such lines. Despite such innovations in strategic spatial planning practice, as yet however, there has been relatively little theorisation to underpin the transfor-mational dynamics of such practices.1

My aims, in this paper, are two-fold: to theorise strategic spatial planning across multiple planes and to develop an experimental methodology of strategic naviga-tion2 (comprising questions that strategic planners might address), which could translate the theory into practice. In what follows, I briefly outline a multiplanar theory (Hillier, 2007; 2008), which explores the potential of Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari’s concept of emergence or becoming as creative experimentation in the spatial. I argue that there is scope for contextual structures and broad, institutional visions of the future within which differences, fluidities and becomings interconnect. I then offer a Deleuzean- and Foucauldian-inspired speculation about what strategic spatial planning might become by proposing a methodology of strategic navigation for creative practice.

1 With the exception of Patsy Healey’s (2006, 2007) relational institutionalist empirical analyses and Louis Albrechts’ (2006b, 2008; Albrechts and van den Broeck, 2004) view of strategic spatial planning as a multiplicity of future-oriented concepts, procedures and tools. Both of these are inspirational but, as argued above and in the Introduction, are too much embedded in structural thinking to be able to deal with the complexities faced by strategic spatial planners.

2 My thanks to Cathy Wilkinson for steering me towards Richard Hames’ concept of Strategic Navigation.

Jean Hillier506

Referring to Deleuze’s concept of assemblage and to his cartography of tracing, mapping and diagramming, I argue that through tracing the relational forces between the elements in an assemblage, one can map and diagram their potentialities to become. I conclude that, rather than adopting pre-determined solutions, strategic spatial planning might offer a ‘genuine possibility’ of experimentation (Houle, 2005, 93) in direct relevance to actants’3 specific understandings and problematics. As Guattari ([1989] 2000, 34) suggests, this might entail ‘a reinvention of the ways in which we live’ and plan: ways in which politics, economics, society and space are not imagined as something ‘out there’ – contexts for different types of activities – but as processes through which relations are constructed, connected or entangled and disconnected/disentangled.

A multiplanar theory of strategic spatial planning voyage[s] in and amongst ideas. (Letiche, 2004, 149)

I argue that strategic spatial planning should consider the distribution of longer-term alternative potential futures that may, or may not, be actualised (White et al., 2007, 184) in addition to outlining and working towards beneficial short-term goals. I offer a theorisation of strategic spatial planning inspired by the conceptualisation of planes (plans) used by Deleuze and Guattari. In French the word plan refers to a plane (or plateau), a cinematic ‘shot’ (long-shot or close-up) and a plan, scheme or project. Deleuze typically uses the plane for a type of thinking that mediates between ‘the chaos of chance happenings … on the one hand, and structured, orderly thinking on the other’ (Stagoll, 2005, 204). As such, I find his ideas to be extremely relevant to the praxis of spatial planning.

As Deleuze and Guattari ([1980] 1987, 265) write, ‘perhaps there are two planes, or two ways of conceptualising the plane’, which offer the potential for multiple plans:

• Several (or perhaps one collectively preferred) trajectories or ‘visions’ of the longer-term future, including concepts towards which actants desire to navigate, such as sustainability;

• Shorter-term, location-specific detailed plans and projects with collaboratively determined tangible goals, for example, for main-street regeneration, provision of cultural facilities and so on (Hillier, 2007).

Longer-term trajectories resonate with what Deleuze and Guattari ([1991] 1994) call the plane of immanence. This is a plane (or plan) defined not by what it contains, but ‘rather by the forces that intersect it and the things it can do’ (Kaufman, 1998,

3 The term actant, after Greimas (1966) and Latour (1996; 2005) implies either a human or non-human entity as an agent.


6). It is the temporary product of mapping power or forces (see below). As Kaufman continues, such mapping ‘is at once the act of charting out a pathway and the opening of that pathway to the event of the chance encounter’ (1998, 6). The plane is a realm of potentialities. The ‘key move’ for me is to construct a plane/plan inclusively and collaboratively.

The plan is not something closed or the end of a process with specific targets to be achieved. It is a plane (long-term strategic plan or trajectory) of foresight, of creative transformation, of what might be. However, we should not forget the potential for unforeseen challenges and opportunities to emerge (for example, credit crises, increases in fuel prices and so on). The plane ‘functions like a sieve over chaos’ (Boundas, 2005, 273), implying a sort of ‘groping experimentation’ (Deleuze and Guattari, [1991] 1994, 41) of multiplicities of ideas, many of which never come to be as originally intended.

Shorter-term plans or project briefs resonate with Deleuze and Guattari’s ([1980] 1987) planes of organisation, which support day-to-day elements of personal and social life. These planes contain hierarchical power relations that regulate or stratify our worlds (into zones of land uses, for example) and fix identities (such as female, male; developer or resident of suburb x). This is a plane concerned with the development of forms and the formation of subjects supported by stability of judgement and identity.

The plane of organisation is a master plan with certain goals for development. These goals are predetermined standards (such as land use regulations or a design guide) to which things are submitted in judgement and ordered by forms of represen-tation (whether applications meet the standard criteria etc). Local area action plans, design briefs, detailed projects are typical planes of organisation. They tend to be relatively local or micro-scale, short term and content specific. They facilitate small movements or changes along the dynamic, open trajectories of planes of immanence.

The planes of immanence and organisation exist simultaneously and are inter-leaved; sometimes fairly closely knit together and sometimes more separate. We inhabit both planes at the same time. Multiplanar theory thus comprises broad trajec-tories or ‘visions’ – such as sustainability, a good place to live, accessibility and so on – as frames of reference that provide justification and navigational context for short- and medium-term substantive actions – such as major projects – which mark small movements and changes.

Uncertainty may, therefore, actually be empowering, as it offers scope for manoeu-vrability and a sense of potential. ‘If you look at [something] that way, you don’t have to feel boxed in’ (Massumi, in Zournazi, 2003, 2). I suggest that a multiplanar conceptualisation of strategic planning addresses concerns, identified in the Introduc-tion, of ‘balance’ between flexibility and coordination for investor ‘certainty’ and also facilitates practitioners coping with emerging socio-economic issues and objectives.

As the following papers by Balducci and Wilkinson illustrate, navigating strategi-cally across multiple planes requires practitioners to sense and discern connections

Jean Hillier508

and patterns in what is taking place, to try to understand the underlying dynamics and interdependencies between elements, to appreciate the diverse possibilities of what is happening and what might happen and to respond by designing actions that align with the intentions and values of the agreed longer-term strategic trajectory (Hames, 2007a, 114), but which are contextually appropriate, not copy/pastes of other, previous or ‘best’ practices. Short-term and long-term actions are not mutually exclusive. Decisions, therefore, are inherently political, concerned with choices about regulation, or, as Rabinow writes, ‘how, given a series of elements in a multivalent and transferable cadre, to bring them together such that, in all likelihood, they will prosper in an orderly, efficient, and coherent way’ (2003, 361). My next task, then, is to find ways of thinking about the particularities of strategic planning practices in order to translate my theorisation into a toolbox of questions for practitioners to consider.

Towards a cartography for multiplanar practice: tracingWhen we navigate our way through the world, there are different pulls, constraints and freedoms that move us forward. (Massumi, in Zournazi, 2003, 1)

As explained above, I turn to the ‘pragmatism plus’ of Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari for a possible methodology for translating multiplanar theory into strategic planning practice. The authors regard their ‘pragmatics’ metaphorically as a form of cartography with associated processes of tracing, mapping and so on.

Deleuze and Guattari ([1980] 1987, 146) describe their cartography as comprising four components:

• The generative component – the tracing of concrete mixed semiotics and pointing towards the potentiality of what might emerge;

• The transformational component – making a transformational map of the regimes and their possibilities for translation and creation;

• The diagrammatic component of the relational forces that are in play ‘either as potentialities or as effective emergences’;

• The machinic component – the outline of programmes of what new assem-blages/agencements might emerge.

The term ‘assemblage’ indicates a network of generally non-directional, disparate groups of actors. Agencement implies that a network of actants generates agency and strategy. An agencement is thus a process of ‘agencing’ (Bogue, 2007, 145–6) in which the constituent elements interact and transform themselves and each other, thereby opening up and/or closing off potentialities.

A cartographic method would first make a tracing. It would then put the tracing on a transformational map of potentialities, making diagrams of the relational forces that play in each case. It would finally outline a programme of what might take place.


This programme then functions as a point of support for the task of strategic plan- and policy-making.

To trace entails looking back retrospectively, often from above, in a systematic manner. For Deleuze, to trace or analyse a social formation involves disentangling or unfolding ‘the variable lines and singular processes that constitute it as a multiplicity: their connections and disjunctions, […] and, above all, their possible transformations’ (Smith, 2003, 307). Tracing ‘how did something come to be’ involves asking questions such as ‘what knowledges, emotions or desires drove this situation?’, ‘what relations existed between which actants?’, ‘what games of power played between actants’ and so on. This is an investigation concerned with path-dependencies, transformations and ruptures, exploring how elements and processes (such as actants involved in policy-making for social housing or energy infrastructure provision) respond to both their own logics and to external pressures and stimuli. Central to Deleuzean thinking is the need to investigate the ‘conditions of the relationships of macro-level structures and micro-level movements and flows’ (Eriksson, 2005, 603). It is an exploration of the relations, associations and encounters between, for example, private infrastructure capital, national and international agencies of governance and interest groups, scien-tists, environmentalists and so on, and flows of information, actualised in materialities and discursivities such as texts, meetings, demonstrations, etc. It is an ‘analysis of how forces of different types come to inhabit the same field’ (Due, 2007, 145); the lines of power rather than the points. Tracing can never be complete, however. It is inevitably constrained by a number of factors, including ideological frames. Tracing imposes boundaries on the complex webs of relations and entanglements, selecting some lines to follow, rather than others.

Tracing overlays the product of something (what happened) onto the process of its production (how it happened). Tracing can be performed at the micro-political site level, analysing the unfolding state of affairs within which situations are consti-tuted.4 Assemblages/networks continuously change as relationships fold and unfold, compose and decompose in the play of internal agonisms and antagonisms. Conflicts tend to arise over the relations and connections that control framing and also about which elements and issues are included in connections and conjunctions5 and excluded through disjunctions.

Deleuzean tracing resonates with that of Michel Foucault’s concept of genealogy in that it asks ‘what is the nature of our present?’ (Foucault, 1984, 34–37).6 Researchers look not only at what actants may have said, written or performed, but also at condi-tions of possibility of why they said, wrote or performed it in such a manner. Looking

4 For an example of tracing the planning journey of Antony Gormley’s installation Another Place, see Hillier (2011). 5 Conjunction refers to the joining of elements or processes such that one or some become dominant to the detri-

ment of others. 6 See also Foucault’s chapter ‘Method’ in The Will to Knowledge (1978).

Jean Hillier510

at wider practice, questions of who possessed an ability to say and why: why in this particular manner; why these particular words and at this particular time? What refer-ents or discursivities were used; what materialities; why? What were the impacts on other actants? The aim is to cut through established layers of coding of relationships between subjects, objects and words to work through why and how events came to actualise as they did.

Appropriate to the presentation of a new methodology, I now offer a detailed explanation of how tracing might be undertaken. Accepting the resonances between Deleuzean and Foucauldian concepts, in the following subsections I introduce Michel Foucault’s conceptualisation of the dispositif and its elements of power, knowledge and subjectivity, together with Deleuze and Guattari’s two axes of materiality/expressivity and territorialisation as the assemblage of tracing methodology.

Dispositifs

The dispositif is a complex mixture of institutions, mechanisms and logics. A dispositif refers to the ways in which elements (such as practices) are deployed or arranged (disposed) and to the attitudes, knowledges and discourses that both realise the practices and are themselves supported and realised by the practices (disposition). Dispositifs thus have a strategic function. They are often associated with control and the maintenance and enhancement of power relations.

Foucault described a dispositif as

a thoroughly heterogeneous ensemble consisting of discourses, institutions, architec-tural forms, regulatory decisions, laws, administrative measures, scientific statements, philosophical, moral and philanthropic propositions – in short, the said as much as the unsaid. Such are the elements of a dispositif. The dispositif itself is a network of relations that can be established between these elements. Secondly, what I’m trying to identify in this dispositif is precisely the nature of the connection that can exist between these heterogeneous elements. (1980, 194–95)

The key points here are that Foucault is specifically interested in the connections and relations between elements; in both discursivities and materialities; and both the included and the excluded.

There can be many different sorts of dispositifs: of safety/security, of environmental sustainability and so on. Several different dispositifs are present simultaneously, often in tension, in spatial planning decision-making. Dispositifs are not fixed, but are respon-sive to an interplay of shifts of position and modification (Foucault, 1980, 195). One dispositif does not completely replace another, however. Rather it displaces its function of dominance. For instance, owner occupation displaced social renting as the major UK housing tenure, smart growth displaced low-density suburbs in urban subdivision.


Foucault (1984) suggested that the dispositif implicates three fundamental elements of experience: relations of power, a game of truth or knowledge and forms of relation to oneself and to others (subjectivisation and subjectification).7 As Pløger (2008) indicates, a dispositif comprises both discursive and material forces, which, in certain relational configurations develop the power to regulate, govern and/or empower specific entities. In a spatial planning dispositif, for instance, development management case officers produce reports recommending acceptance or refusal of a development application for local elected representatives to make a decision on whether the proposed project may or may not proceed.

Such power is intrinsically and extrinsically linked to knowledge. Foucault describes a dispositif as consisting of ‘strategies of relations of forces supporting and supported by types of knowledge’ (Foucault, 1980, 196, cited in Pløger, 2008, 56). Foucault and Deleuze agree that knowledge is discursive. It is justified, not by truth per se, but by claims that are accepted as being valuable or true. In turn, these claims are justified by other claims. Knowledge rests on justification. Knowledge is a series of contin-gent networks of mutually reinforcing justifying claims. For example, evidence-based strategic policy-making may lead to requirements for x km of new road infrastructure on the basis of mutually justifying claims about future levels of vehicle usage, fuel availability, price and so on. Tracing involves unfolding the sets of claims that have had important inferential roles in particular discourses and the generation of knowl-edge, such as with regard to road infrastructure.

In addition to comprising ‘lines of force’, as above, dispositifs are also ‘lines of subjec-tivation’ or the actualisation of the subject. They perform a mediating role between actants and their ‘environments’ of forces and relations (Berten, 1999). Planning practitioners’ subjectivisations of themselves (for example, as experts, facilitators, mediators) and their subjectifications of other actants (as ‘greedy’ developers, NIMBY residents) often contrast markedly with other actants’ subjectivisations (as rate-paying citizens) and subjectifications (of planners as political ‘puppets’ or remote bureaucrats out of touch with reality).

We can devise several questions for tracing dispositifs (after Foucault, [1976] 1978; Mormont, 2003): what was the strategic imperative on which the dispositif was/is constructed? What were the main internal and external power relations at work? How did these power relations make discourses possible? How were discourses used to support or undermine power relations? What forms of subjectivisation and subjectifi-cation performed? How were power relations strategically linked? Were they linked in terms of connection or conjunction? How was the action of power relations modified? What were the connections, conjunctions and disjunctions?

7 I distinguish between subjectivisation as self-actualisation, or taking on a subject-position, and subjectification as the subjective identification of others, or accordance of a subject-position (Hook, 2007, 31). Both terms are referred to collectively as subjectivation.

Jean Hillier512

While tracing Foucauldian dispositifs is clearly valuable, Deleuze and Guattari complement the dispositif by defining the concepts of assemblage/agencement along two axes.

Axes

One axis defines the roles that components or elements may play, from the purely material to the purely expressive (Deleuze and Guattari, [1980] 1987, 503–4). The material parts of a social assemblage, such as an interest group or a strategic planning advisory panel, consist of the energy and labour involved in ‘maintaining its relations, patching together provisional coalitions, negotiating which of the numerous agendas brought forward by the participants will be mounted as action and hiding internal struggles from public view’ (Hillier and Van Wezemael, 2008, 167). Material compo-nents include elements such as bodies, time, energy, buildings, technology, laws, each of which can be enforced/stabilised or challenged/destabilised. Expressive compo-nents include texts, such as petitions and decision notices and non-linguistic visibilities such as gestures, desires and charisma.

The second axis concerns the territorialisation/de-territorialisation or stabilisation/destabilisation of assemblages. Territorialisation,8 or stabilisation, acts to sharpen borders and homogenise components. De-territorialisation, or destabilisation, acts to free up relations. Territorialisation – as land use regulations, development plans and so on – is a form of action on, or capture of, individual or social forces, which seeks to limit or constrain their possibilities for action. An assemblage can have components working to stabilise or territorialise it at the same time as other components work in the opposite direction. The axis of territorialisation is concerned with process; the provisional ordering of chaos through laying down a frame (Grosz, 2008).

I advocate actor-network theory (ANT) as an analytical method of potential value for tracing. Bruno Latour (1996) regards ANT as a network-tracing activity, which can identify relations between entities and also the intermediaries that facilitate processes of translation:9 ‘to transform a claim into a matter of fact’ (Latour, 1987, 108).10

The key benefits of tracing are an increased understanding of how a city, a neighbourhood, a policy, etc. got into its present situation. Tracing uncovers the main drivers of what took place and especially the power relations between actants. I

8 Territorialisation describes ‘the creation of meaning in social space through the forging of coded connections and distinctions’ (Brown and Lunt, 2002, 17) such as laws, symbols, slogans or concepts. De-territorialisation involves the destabilisation and ultimate removal of codings that confer fixed meaning. However, de-territorialisation does not take place without some form of re-territorialisation, the establishment of new rules and ideologies (Deleuze and Guattari, [1991] 1994).

9 For more detail on ANT see the resource at www.lancs.ac.uk/fass/css/ant/ant.htm. 10 See Luuk Boelens’ paper, this issue, and also resonances with Healey’s (2009) ‘travelling’ of framing ideas and

strategic orientations.


suggest that many strategic planning practices may look historically at what happened – in terms of trend series of unemployment figures, housing starts and so on – but few look genealogically at the conditions of possibility of how and why things happened. If planners are to think about what might take place in the future, I argue that they need to ask different questions about the past. Deleuze and Guattari ([1980] 1987, 13) suggest that tracing unpacks not only the relations between actants and their trajecto-ries, but the impasses and blockages of relations. Constraint and conflict can become creatively productive, however. Deleuze and Guattari ([1980] 1987, 12) urge us, there-fore, to ‘make a map, not a tracing’.

Towards a cartography for multiplanar practice: mapping and diagramming

to map is to experiment. (Coonfield, 2008, 83)

To map involves discovery and perception of landmarks, useful for orientation purposes as something to head towards. Rather than its popular usage as depicting what exists, a map in its Deleuzean sense is oriented towards experimentation. Cartography thus involves both the deductive interpretation of trajectories, ruptures and transformations that led to an actual situation and the invention of new heterogeneous, experimental assemblages and pragmatic diagrams – ‘a way of marking out the territory on the road’ and ‘a furtive glance sideways into an undecidable future’ (both quotations Bosteels, 2001, 895).

Deleuzoguattarian maps are concerned with creative potential. The issue is not to attempt to define long-term detailed programmes of action, but to raise questions of potential agency and of socio-economic-political and institutional conditions of change.

There are distinct resonances between Deleuzoguattarian ideas of mapping and the generative aspects of Foucauldian dispositifs as assemblages of becoming (Pløger, 2008). Methodologically, then, as in tracing, the Foucauldian dispositif is a useful starting point. With the addition of the two Deleuzoguattarian axes of materiality/expressivity and territorialisation as component roles and processes respectively, we have a potentially strong set of relational variables to map and to identify the main driving forces of what might take place.

Success is not guaranteed, however. Projected trajectories do not guarantee actual progression. Massumi suggests that ‘[t]he most that can or should be done is to enumerate ways in which becoming might be mapped’ (1992, 103). These ‘ways’ might be democratically and inclusively negotiated and agreed strategies, or ‘pragmatic guidelines serving as landmarks to future movement’ (Massumi, 1992, 103). This means that planners might trace networks, actants, power plays, subjectifications/

Jean Hillier514

subjectivisations, discourses and so on, and notice where any oppositions or resis-tances affect policy decisions and implementation. These tracings then become part of the map, together with ‘the complexities of the social’ (Wise, 2006, 187) – the ideological mentalities, assumptions and so forth – underlying actants’ knowl-edges and actions. Mapping complexities involves locating diagonals or transversals (Deleuze, [1986] 1988b) across elements and the possibilities they open up (see Bogue, 2007). For instance, could a fringe political party acquire substantial popular support and electoral votes through association with a particular celebrity? What might be the implications of a Middle Eastern oil magnate taking ownership of a local football club? It is a question of mapping the trajectories to see whether they might be capable of acquiring enough agency ‘to turn around a situation’ (Guattari, 1986, 102, cited in Bosteels, 2001, 895) or, as Healey (2009) suggests, what kind of ‘opportunity structure’ they offer for spatial strategy-making.

Mapping generates ‘a set of various intersecting lines’ (Deleuze, [1990] 1995, 33) or a diagram. Deleuze offers at least two different understandings of the diagram during the evolution of his thinking. The first understanding is developed from Michel Foucault’s ([1975] 1977) work. In such a reading, the diagram comprises the two planes of immanence and organisation. It is a diagram of the discursive and material forces expressing the immanent relations of power. It also allows evaluation of the organ-isational potentiality of various strategic agencements to actualise, such as the fringe political party above.

In his work on the artist Francis Bacon, however, Deleuze describes the diagram as being ‘suggestive’ of ‘possibilities of facts’ (Deleuze, [1981] 2003, 101), containing ‘a germ of order’ of what might be (Deleuze, [1981] 2003, 102). Deleuze ([1981] 2003, 137–8) also suggests that in art, as in other activities that oscillate between the ‘beforehand’ and an ‘afterward’ (such as strategic spatial planning), there is a need for stopping or resting points. Diagrams are such resting points in a sea of turbulence. Deleuze adds that the diagram ‘must remain localised’ ([1981] 2003, 138) rather than attempt to cover the entire work and that ‘something must emerge from the diagram’.

Whatever one’s preferred definition of diagram, it is concerned with the dynamic interrelation of relations (Massumi, 1992) at the interface between the virtual and the actual: ‘a topological hyperspace of transformation’ (Massumi, 2002, 184). Diagrams (or strategic plans) lie in a zone of indiscernability between two forms, a form-that-is-no-longer and another form that does not yet exist (Bogue, 2003, 156). They act as intercessors between ideas and what may become. Diagrams create possibilities; imaginary alternative worlds which promise something new; a hope of living otherwise (Bogue, 2003, 177). Through the creative use of diagrams, strategic planners may be able to cast aside the habits or clichés of practice, to ‘destroy the figurative coordinates of conventional representations and to release the possibilities of invention’ (Ambrose,


2006, 207): to think contingency, difference and relationality creatively. By mapping connections between different relations of force onto a diagram, one may be able to anticipate the potential power of force relations between the various actants and what they might become capable of achieving.

Cartography as a process would request strategic planners to diagram and engage the interconnections between elements, to experiment with them and anticipate potential tensions and conflicts. What new assemblages might eventuate? What strategic agencements? As Bogue describes, this is ‘both a process of exploring and hence constructing connections among differences, and a process of undoing connections in an effort to form new ones’ (2007, 10). A practical ‘thinking otherwise’ in an experi-mental activation of potentiality. A ‘what might happen if …?’ approach, not so much to predict, but to be alert to as-yet unknown potentialities (Deleuze, 1988c, 1–2). As such, Deleuze ([1986] 1988b, 44) also emphasises that, in addition to relational connections, diagrams should also include non-connected points of ‘creativity, change and resistance’; points that may come from the outside to surprise us.

As Healey (2008, 30–31) suggests, attention to such aspects feeds (inevitably subjec-tive) judgements about what is and what might be ‘at stake’ behind spatial strategy-making. She offers questions to consider including, ‘what is at issue? For whom is it an issue? Who are the critical ‘stakeholders’ active now? Who else could be persuaded to become an active stakeholder?’ At this point I stress the added value of Deleuzean-inspired cartography in that it is also important to consider the relations between elements – and especially the potentiality for transversal or diagonal connections – and to identify potential driving forces, their conditions of possibility and potential affects, which most pragmatic methods do not do.

Planning analysts might think about which actants may have potentially what kinds of relations with which others and which may be excluded. Who and what might be power-full agents of de- and re-territorialisation? Who and what might form likely alliances? Why? What knowledges might be important? How might actants self-subjectificate? Could strategic agency/agencement generate? What tensions and antagonisms might occur? Over what issues?

The idea is to try to anticipate the ways in which relations and alliances might be redistributed in different circumstances and situations. Questions that might be asked about probable actants include: who would be more likely to tell the truth and who to lie? Who could be organisational ‘puppets’? Who could be chameleons (Hillier, 2002), likely to change their colour with the direction of the wind? Who could be oppor-tunistic leaders, too powerful to be ignored? Who might make a lot of noise, but do little? (after Akrich et al., 2002). What resources might be available and to what actants? What changes in relations between non-human, or between human and non-human, actants could be vitally important? When? Why? On what conditions?11

11 It may be impossible for practitioners to commit the answers to some of these questions to paper for obvious

Jean Hillier516

Deleuze and Guattari’s ([1980] 1987) fourth cartographic, or machinic, compo-nent concerns the evaluative study of assemblages/agencements and their potentialities, with a view to intervening strategically. This component would entail attempting to select and to facilitate, or strategically navigate towards, potentially ‘good’ encoun-ters and to avoid ‘bad’ ones. This is an exercise in which strategic planners would attempt to intervene and manipulate relational forces and their potential connections, conjunctions and disjunctions, their possible trajectories. In other words, to diagnose becomings (Bergen, 2006, 109).

The above raises several ethical issues. Who gives planning practitioners the authority to ‘judge’ which are ‘good’ and which are ‘bad’ actants, encounters and potentialities? Whose definition of ‘good’ or ‘bad’ is employed? Deleuze and Guattari stress the need for openness and the exploration of potential without limit. But limits will (and must) be imposed for strategic planning to operate. How might practitioners perform ethically, inclusively and democratically?

Deleuzean ethics ([1970] 1988a) would refrain from attaching positive or negative values to actions based on characterisation or classification, but rather would assess what kinds of potential the actions may express or tap into (Massumi, in Zournazi, 2003). One way of introducing potentiality to strategic spatial planning could be through the use of prospective or strategic foresighting techniques (see Albrechts, 2005; 2006a; 2008; Hames, 2007a; 2007b). Foresighting might be described as thinking in action; mapping a ‘geography of the unknown’ (Albrechts, 2006a, 1491). Strategic foresighting invites consideration of the future as immanent, something created dynamically. Forecasting, in contrast, tends to involve a future already decided by trend extrapolation, ‘like a mystery that simply needs to be unravelled’ (Hillier, 2007). Strategic foresighting involves an open exploration of the potential (and the impotential) of many futures through development of radically alternative exploratory scenarios,12 as practised by the French organisation, Futuribles (www.futuribles.com). It involves a ‘conscious, purpo-sive, contextual, creative and continuous action to represent values and meanings for the future’ (Albrechts, 2005, 254).

Albrechts (2004; 2005) describes prospective-building as deriving from the obser-vation that, given the impossibility of knowing how the future will play out, a useful strategic trajectory would ‘play out well across several possible futures’ (2005, 255). They offer a way of attempting to make visible the potential forces that could lead the future in a range of desirable or undesirable directions: Manson and O’Sullivan’s ‘imaginable surprise’ (2006, 686). Prospectives are narratives about the future inclu-sively constructed by broad-ranging groups of actants. Working with what may at first appear to be wild conjectures, prospectives – or paradigmatic narratives (Hames,

reasons. Nevertheless, the answers will be likely to contain important power-related information, which should be borne in mind when considering questions of ‘what might happen if …?’

12 Scenarios are an instrument used in far broader foresight processes.


2007a) – envision plausible places, cities or regions, in which actants might someday live and work. Yet they break with existing paradigms by forcing actants to think outside the usual assumptions and extrapolations. They shift the ‘unthinkable’ into the realm of the possible (Hames, 2007a, 215) and develop openness to new ideas and explore potential areas or lines of resistance in a linking of critique and constructive vision (Albrechts, 2006b). ‘By exploring what places/institutions might do if certain circumstances were to arise; they enable us to reflect on a series of “what if ” stories’ (Albrechts, 2005, 256).

Deleuze and Guattari ([1980] 1987, 251) suggest that tentative criteria may be devel-oped from practical experience and judgement in order to foresight potential becom-ings. However, the range of potentialities that can become actualised is constrained by ‘an ordering and filtering system’ (Due, 2007, 9), which imposes determinate struc-tures on the socio-economic-political processes with which thinking and foresighting are entangled and which may block creative transformation. Powerful entities with a desire for constancy and stability can block change. Deleuzean post-structuralism does not mean without structures, but it denies a primordial role for structures in determining events.

Some constraints are necessary, however, to avoid ethical injustice and oppression and also to avoid the potential chaos of virtual futures. Massumi and Manning (2007) argue that constraints on mapping are inevitable, but that we should seek out those which are enabling rather than disabling. Enabling constraints could facilitate positive connections between actants and help them to think and act creatively in spaces of possibility. One therefore makes progress not by avoiding conflicts, but by ‘playing with’ them (Massumi, in Zournazi, 2003). The aim is to challenge institutional and other structures that trap actants into persistent behaviours and to turn potentially disabling constraints into enabling ones.

Strategic navigationConventional strategic planning is dead! In a world where strategy is a commodity,

navigation and imagination become the critical factors. (Hames, 2007a, 229)

Strategic planning is dead! Long live strategic planning! I now add more planning-relevant issues and questions to the relatively abstract nature of what went before. Returning to Michel Foucault’s (1982, 2) theorising about ‘pilotage’ and his use of the metaphor of navigation, I develop the concept of strategic spatial planning as strategic navigation, adapting the term from Richard Hames’ work on organisational management.

Hames (2007a, 228–29) defines strategic navigation as ‘the art of confidently and ethically finding viable paths into the future, negotiating unknown terrain and unprec-edented complexity while retaining integrity and relevance’; a definition that meshes

Jean Hillier518

Figure 1 Strategic NavigationSource: adapted from Hames (2007b: 6)

well with the practice of strategic spatial planning. Hames advocates a methodology of ‘strategy-as-process’ – ‘a continuous braiding of intelligence creation with insightful action’ (Hames, 2007a, 81) – based on appreciation of a system’s (e.g. a city or region) past, present and potential futures. This resonates strongly with Deleuzean-inspired tracing and mapping cartography.

Strategic navigation is a conversation that weaves between specific episodes or events and local or micro stories, the networks and coalitions, assemblages and agence-ments of governance processes and the macro of governance cultures. While Hames (2007a, 253; 2007b, 6) depicts a conversation of sensing (similar to Deleuze’s tracing), making sense and designing (Deleuze’s mapping and diagramming) and enacting as a strategic-learning spiral, comprised of eight elements, I prefer a rhizomic metaphor, which emphasises the non-linearity and connectedness of the constituent elements (see Figure 1).

Hames suggests that practitioners ask strategic questions aimed at uncovering not only the driving forces in play behind different behaviours, but also why actants see and explain the world as they do (elements of contextualising and focusing). The


Contextualising creates understanding of the context in which strategic planning is to take place; a sensing of what is going on and how things came to be. Questions include:What are the key characteristics of the socio-economic-political environment? In what materialities and discur-sivities are they actualised?

• What are the critical relationships between these characteristics?• What were their conditions of possibility? How did they come to be? What did actants say, write,

perform? Why? What were the impacts on other actants?• What were the dynamics of force relations between actants? Power, emotions, desires, etc. revealed by

discursivities and materialities. What dispositifs prevailed?• What changed? Why?

Focusing arrives at an initial, shared understanding of critical issues. Questions include:• What are the most strategically significant issues requiring attention? Why? What dispositifs prevail?• What are the relationships between these and other dispositifs/issues?• What relationships matter most? Why?• What most concerns key decision-makers? Why? • What control or influence can planners exercise over these issues and their relationships?• What assumptions lead us to these conclusions? How do planners subjectivate themselves and other

actants?• Do other actants share these conclusions? What are their subjectivations?

Patterning integrates different perspectives and new knowledges into planners’ understandings of what is happening and might happen in the future. Questions include:

• What patterns of change can we identify? Are force relations changing between actants? Are disposi-tifschanging?

• How and why are these patterns changing? What connections, conjunctions and disjunctions are occur-ring? How are changes manifest by discourses and materialities?

• What are the gaps in our current thinking and knowing?• Where can we get the information from?• Are there other ways of perceiving the issues, which raise different questions, problems, opportunities?

Reperceiving involves deepening awareness and understanding through finding new ways to view issues. Foresighting or prospective exercises can offer multiple perspectives on alternative futures. Outcomes can significantly change beliefs about what is important to actants. Questions include:

• What new insights can be gleaned from the various prospectives? What might happen if…?• What are the conditions of possibility of the various prospectives? What ideo logical commitments, assump-

tions, blockages, oppositions might actualise?• What are the key relations between actants? • How may force relations play out in the future?• What changes might there be and why?• What implications do these insights have for strategic planning?

Refocusing examines what, from the prospectives investigated, could be more or less likely to take place and could be more or less strategically important and why. Refocusing filters attention. Questions include:

• What are the most significant issues requiring attention?• What specific factors make these issues critical and why? What force relations are important?

Table 1 Thinking strategic navigation in practice: some questions for consideration

Jean Hillier520

• How might these issues be addressed?• Does the planning system have the capacities to address these issues?• What other actants should be involved?• What should plans address in the short term (plane of organisation) and long term (plane of immanence)

and why?

Charting involves preparing appropriate plans. Questions include:• What strategies are possible?• What strategies might become possible in the short- or longer-term future, how and why?• What are the possible consequences, risks and opportunities of these strategies?• How can strategic plans be prepared so that the local planning authority remains responsive and adaptive?• How can the linkages between the components of the strategic plans be described?• Do the strategies address key leverage points?

Effecting implements the plans. Questions to consider before implementation include:• How will we know if the plans are effective in navigating towards our strategic intentions?• What would be an appropriate monitoring system?• How would we accommodate requirements for systemic change in the plans?• What are we unaware of that may cause problems in the future?

Co-evolving enables adaptation of practice and plans in the light of changes caused by those practices and plans. Questions include:

• What signals will indicate that a fundamental change is occurring in the context from which we defined the strategic plans?

• What may be the critical, unintended consequences of our plans?• Do we need to think differently about our strategic intentions?• Are we ignoring any force relations, connections or actants that might be critical?• Do our plans need to change?

element of patterning integrates the different perspectives and knowledges derived from contextualising and focusing into understandings of what is happening and what might happen if… . Reperceiving and refocusing would entail scenario or futuribles-based diagramming of issues and implications, from which ‘leverage points’ are identified and pertinent responses are designed in a strategic ‘plan’ component (charting). The rhizome incorporates continuous reflexion, reperception and revision of information, ideas and intentions as new knowledges emerge, circumstances alter and decisions change the context and issue focus (effecting and co-evolving).

In relation to these elements, I offer some possible questions for consideration in Table 1, drawn from Richard Hames’ work (2007a; 2007b) and those suggested earlier in this paper as the methodology was developed. Note that while publica-tion constraints require almost sequential representation of the tabulated elements, they should be considered as rhizomically interlinked. I argue that strategic planners typically do not ask such relational ‘how’ and ‘why’ questions at present, working instead with forecasts and fairly limited scenarios.


Hames’ (2007a, 256) conversation is a metaphorical ‘sensory web’, which monitors and analyses the structures, links, relationships and information flows that ‘really matter to different people, in different geographies, over time’, in which actants agree what is and may become significant, or less so, in collaborative creation of ‘pathways into sustainable “preferred” futures’ (both quotations, Hames, 2007a, 121). Continuous monitoring is also required to ensure that shorter-term plans and projects (the plane of organisation) do not ‘veer off’ the broader trajectory of the longer-term vision (the plane of immanence), ‘seduced’ either by conventional thinking and inertia or ‘the latest flavour of the month’ (Hames, 2007a, 250), perhaps for yet another iconic building or retail centre. Monitoring should also ensure that the longer-term vision remains relevant. Practice thus proceeds more or less by ‘gropings in the dark, experimentation’ (Deleuze and Guattari, [1980] 1987, 461) than by adhering rigidly to some predetermined, but rapidly irrelevant, master plan or over-defined targets.

Conclusions: strategic spatial planning as strategic navigation

Offerings of ways to think, and ultimately to act […] move us in the direction of possibilities that had before been beyond our ken. (May, 2003, 151)

Strategic spatial planning is concerned with learning something new and providing the opportunities for the emergence of ‘people-to-come’ and the ‘not-yet’, not pre-deter-mined or pre-identified by a ‘rational space or an adequate place’ (Rajchman, 1998, 31). I regard planning as speculative and creative, yet structured, experimentation in the spatial. As such, long-term strategic planning – planning on the plane of immanence – could be a more inclusive, democratic, open and creative imagination of the past-present-future where there is foresighting of potential future scenarios and collaborative, critical discussion in ongoing conversations about their potential consequences for different actants. Planes of organisation contain hierarchical power relations, which temporarily both regulate our worlds and fix identities as they support the everyday segmentarities of life. These are planes that tend to be relatively local or micro, short-term and relatively content-specific. They facilitate small movements (action plans, major projects) along the dynamic trajectories of planes of immanence.

Improvisation is important in forms of strategic planning practices, which would be performative rather than strictly normative/prescriptive, concerned with strategi-cally navigating ‘journeys rather than destinations’ and with establishing the condi-tions for the development of alternatives. This would be a pragmatic approach in which ‘policy plugs into production, and production into policy’ (Wise, 2006, 191). It would be bureaucratically and politically unsettling and ‘risky’, for, as Wise explains,

Jean Hillier522

it will not only apprehend the probability of ‘opportunities that are unforeseen’, but simultaneously accept that policy outcomes are experimental and unpredictable.

Is it possible to derive a practical method of strategic navigation from Deleuzean-inspired thinking without making that very thinking inoperative? Through represen-tation of Deleuzean concepts, there is a danger that they may lose their disruptive, emergent potential, especially if used as a ‘template’ for sequenced steps and guides. Nevertheless, for those ‘who want to do something with respect to new uncommon forces, which we don’t quite yet grasp’ (Rajchman, 2000, 6), I offer Deleuzean cartog-raphy as an ‘anexact’ practice of strategic navigation, ‘open and connectable in all its dimensions’ (Deleuze and Guattari, [1980] 1987, 12); an approach concerned less with exact measurement than with spatial relations, with inclusion and exclusion, connec-tions and disjunction, with communication and with pragmatism.

By investigating specific stories about specific situations (the micro-political) and tracing relationalities (the connections, conjunctions and disjunctions between elements), by making visible the various dispositifs, de- and re-territorialisations, the discursivities and materialities, the power-plays and subjectivisations/subjectifica-tions, we can develop an understanding of the roles of actants (both human and non-human) in what took place and the processes that performed. Looking at the relations between elements (the Deleuzean lines) rather than at the elements themselves (the points) would be relatively new practice for most spatial planning practitioners, but by tracing the multiplicity of ways in which actants attempt to generate and express power through subjectificating others (e.g. through constraining their choices, their self-subjectivisations, etc.), through organisation (actions, laws, decisions) and through signification (discourses) we can begin to unfold the contingent systems that were actualised.

Tracing – Hames’ sensing (contextualising and focusing) – offers us a temporarily stabilised grid of reference for understanding what took place, which practitioners can then make sense of through patterning and reperceiving issues, deepening their awareness and understanding. We may be able to understand, for instance hypotheti-cally, why one particular interest group (which we had anticipated would have a major impact on governance) faded into the background and remained an assemblage or ensemble of elements, while a different group mobilised support from temporary alliances of highly diverse actants, generated strategic agency (agencement), de-territo-rialised the prevailing system and toppled the ruling regime.

Tracing is only a starting point. Emphasis then shifts to designing – mapping the diagonals or transversals across lines, to diagram potentialities. Plan contents would no longer be questions of land use per se, but of interrelationships between different actants (including land uses). Planners would ‘map out a range of circum-stances’ (Deleuze, [1990] 1995, 26), situations and relations or lines. Mapping lines and diagrams of relations of power or forces enables construction of trajectories


(strategic plans) representing desired virtualities of future development of the place. Then comes experimentation, in respect of which I noted the potential of prospective or foresighting. Creativity is experimental, testing out relations, recognising the limita-tions of particular constraints and attempting to work with enabling constraints where possible. Planners have to operate through some reductive, perspectival stabilisation of difference simply in order to cope. Some territorialisation is inevitable: ‘[J]ust a little order to protect us from chaos’ (Deleuze and Guattari, [1991] 1994, 201). Even so, no matter how much we map and diagram spaces of possibilities, there will always be the unknown. Enacting (effecting and co-evolving) becomes reflexive and adaptive as changes in context, agents and structures occur.

A Deleuzean-inspired practice of strategic navigation would perform ‘an art of inhabiting the intervals, where new foldings arise to take our forms of inhabitation in new and uncharted directions’ (Rajchman, 1998, 32). Strategic navigation is poten-tially an inclusive, democratic ‘what might happen if …?’ approach, which allows disparate points of view to co-exist; which has a concern for indeterminate essences rather than ordered ones; for emergent properties rather than fixed ones; and for intuition and uncertainty, multiplicity and complexity rather than systematic predict-abilities. Strategic spatial planning by strategic navigation is a performance of risk-taking, of not being in total control, of transcending the technicalities of planning practice, which demands that strategic spatial planners ‘step outside what’s been thought before, … venture outside what’s familiar and reassuring, … to invent new concepts for unknown lands’ (Deleuze, [1990] 1995, 103) and to allow possibilities for something new to emerge. As Rajchman suggests, ‘the aim of the game is not to redis-cover the eternal or the universal but to find the conditions under which something new may be created’ (1998, 33).

In civilizations without boats, dreams dry up, espionage takes the place of adventure, and the police take the place of pirates. (Foucault, 1967)

AcknowledgementsThe elements for this methodology have benefited considerably from the discussions, comments and feedback that I have received from many people during its actualisation. My thanks to everyone for their comments, especially the journal referees and also Ian Buchanan, John Forester, Patsy Healey, Maria Hellström Reimer, Tom Keenoy and John Pløger. The research and writing of this paper were undertaken while I was Chair of Town and Country Planning at Newcastle University.

Jean Hillier524

References

akrich, m., callon, m. and latour, b. (2002), ‘The key to success in innovation, Part II: the art of choosing good spokespersons, International Journal of Innovation Management, 6, 207–25.

albrechts, l. (2004), ‘Strategic (spatial) planning re-examined’, Environment and Planning B, Planning and Design, 31, 743–58.

albrechts, l. (2005), ‘Creativity as a drive for change’, Planning Theory, 4, 247–69.albrechts, l. (2006a), ‘Bridge the gap: from spatial planning to strategic projects’, European

Planning Studies, 14, 1487–500.albrechts, l. (2006b), ‘Dynamic visioning: a catalyst for change?’, paper presented at the

World Planning Schools Congress, Mexico City, 12–16 July.albrechts, l. (2008), ‘Strategic (spatial) planning re-examined’, in J. van den Broeck, F.

Moulaert and S. Oosterlynck (eds), Empowering the Planning Fields: Ethics, Creativity and Action, Leuven, Acco, 227–48.

albrechts, l. and van den broeck, j. (2004), ‘From discourse to facts: the case of the ROM project in Ghent, Belgium’, Town Planning Review, 75, 127–50.

ambrose, d. (2006), ‘Deleuze, philosophy, and the materiality of painting’, Symposium, 10, 191–211.

balducci, a. (2008), ‘Constructing (spatial) strategies in complex environments’, in J. van den Broeck, F. Moulaert and S. Oosterlynck (eds), Empowering the Planning Fields: Ethics, Creativity and Action, Leuven, Acco, 79–99.

beauregard, r. (2000), ‘Neither embedded nor embodied: critical pragmatism and identity politics’, in Burayidi, M. (ed.), Urban Planning in a Multicultural Society, Westport, CT, Praeger, 53–66.

bergen, v. (2006), ‘La Politique comme posture de tout agencement’, in M. Antonioli, P.-A. Chardel and H. Regnauld (eds), Gilles Deleuze, Félix Guattari et le Politique, Paris, Éditions du Sandre, 103–14.

berten, a. (1999), ‘Dispositif, médiation, créativité: petite généalogie’, Hermès, special issue, Le Dispositif: Entre Usage et Concept, 25, 33–47.

bogue, r. (2003), Deleuze on Music, Painting and the Arts, New York, Routledge.bogue, r. (2007), Deleuze’s Way: Essays in Transverse Ethics and Aesthetics, Aldershot, Ashgate.bosteels, b. (2001), ‘From text to territory: Félix Guattari’s cartographies of the unconscious’,

in G. Genosko (ed.), Deleuze and Guattari: Critical Assessments of Leading Philosophers, Vol. II, New York, Routledge, 881–910.

boundas, c. (2005), ‘The art of begetting monsters: the unnatural nuptials of Deleuze and Kant’, in S. Daniel (ed.), Current Continental Theory and Modern Philosophy, Evanston, IL, Northwestern University Press, 254–79.

brown, s. and lunt, p. (2002), ‘A genealogy of the social identity tradition: Deleuze and Guattari and social psychology’, British Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 1–23.

coonfield, g. (2008), ‘Mapping addicted subjection: toward a cartography of the addiction epidemic’, Cultural Studies, 22, 80–113.

deleuze, g. [1970] (1988a), Spinoza: Practical Philosophy (trans. R. Hurley), San Francisco, City Lights Books.


deleuze, g. [1981] (2003), Francis Bacon: The Logic of Sensation (trans. D. W. Smith), London, Continuum.

deleuze, g. [1986] (1988b), Foucault (trans. S. Hand), Minneapolis, MN, University of Minne-sota Press.

deleuze, g. (1988c), ‘Nouveau Millénaire’, Défis littéraire, 257, www.france-mail-forum.de/index2b.html#Deleuze (accessed 29 November 2006).

deleuze, g. [1990] (1995), Negotiations 1972-1990 (trans. M. Joughin), New York, Columbia University Press.

deleuze, g. and guattari, f. [1980] (1987), A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia (trans. B. Massumi), London, Athlone Press.

deleuze, g. and guattari, f. [1991] (1994), What Is Philosophy? (trans. H. Tomlinson and G. Burchill), London, Verso.

derrida, j. (1994), ‘Nietzsche and the machine: interview with Jacques Derrida’, Journal of Nietzsche Studies, 7.

due, r. (2007), Deleuze, Cambridge, Polity Press.eriksson, k. (2005), ‘Foucault, Deleuze, and the ontology of networks’, The European Legacy,

10, 595–610.foucault, m. (1967), ‘Of Other Spaces’, http://foucault.info/documents/heterotopia/

foucault.heterotopia.en.html (accessed 29 May 2008).foucault, m. [1974] (1994), ‘Prisons et asiles dans le mécanisme du pouvoir’ in Dits et Ecrits, II,

Paris: Gallimard, 523–4.foucault, m. [1975] (1977), Discipline and Punish (trans. A. Sheridan), Harmondsworth, Penguin.foucault, m. [1976] (1978), The Will to Knowledge: The History of Sexuality, Vol. 1, (trans. R. Hurley),

Harmondsworth, Penguin.foucault, m. (1980), Power/Knowledge – Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972–1977 (ed. C.

Gordon), Brighton, Harvester.foucault, m. (1982), ‘(Se)conduire, (se)gouverner: éthique et politique’, www.ac-versailles.fr/

PEDAGOGI/ses/vie-ses/hodebas/foucault.htm (accessed 29 May 2008).foucault, m. (1983a), ‘Discourse and truth (4): the practice of Parrhesia – Socratic Parrhesia’,

http://foucault.info/documents/parrhesia/foucault.DT4.practiceParrhesia.en.html (accessed 29 May 2008).

foucault, m. (1983b), ‘Parrhesiasts – Diogenes: the Cynic philosophers and their techniques’ (excerpt from seminar), http://foucault.info/documents/parrhesiasts/foucault.diogenes.en.html (accessed 29 May 2008).

foucault, m. (1983c), ‘Discourse and truth (6): the Parrhesiastic games’, www.theamericandis-sident.org/EssaysFoucault.htm (accessed 29 May 2008).

foucault, m. (1984), ‘Polemics, politics and problematizations’, interview with Paul Rabinow (trans. L. Davis), http://foucault.info/foucault/interview.html (accessed 2 February 2007).

foucault, m. [2001] (2005), ‘17th February 1982: 1st Hour’, The Hermeneutics of the Subject: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1981–1982 (ed. F. Gros, trans. G. Burchell), New York, Picador, 247–69.

foucault, m. [2004] (2007), Security, Territory, Population: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1977–1978, (ed. M. Senellart, trans. G. Burchell), Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan.

foucault, m.. and deleuze, g. (1972), ‘Intellectuals and power’, L’Arc, 49, 3–10, reprinted in

Jean Hillier526

Language, Counter-Memory, Practice (trans. F. Bouchard), Ithaca, NY, Cornell University Press, 205–17.

greimas, a. j. (1966), Sémantique structurale, Paris, PUF.grosz, e. (2008), Chaos, Territory, Art: Deleuze and the Framing of the Earth, New York, Columbia

University Press.guattari, f. (1986), Les Années d’hiver 1980–1985, Paris, Bernard Barrault.guattari, f. [1989] (2000), The Three Ecologies (trans. I. Pindar and P. Sutton), London, Athlone

Press.hames, r. (2007a), The Five Literacies of Global Leadership, San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.hames, r. (2007b), The Five Literacies of Global Leadership. The Code Book. 3. Strategic Inquiry

Memory Jogger, www.thefiveliteracies.org (accessed 12 February 2008).healey, p. (2006), ‘Relational complexity and the imaginative power of strategic spatial

planning’, European Planning Studies, 14, 525–46.healey, p. (2007), Urban Complexity and Spatial Strategies: Towards a Relational Planning for Our Times,

London, Routledge.healey, p. (2008), ‘Making choices that matter: the practical art of situated strategic judgement

in spatial strategy-making’, in J. van den Broeck, F. Moulaert and S. Oosterlynck (eds), Empowering the Planning Fields: Ethics, Creativity and Action, Leuven, Acco, 23–41.

healey, p. (2009), ‘In search of the “strategic” in spatial strategy making’, Planning Theory and Practice, 10, 439–57.

hillier, j. (2002), Shadows of Power: An Allegory of Prudence in Land Use Planning, London, Routledge.

hillier, j (2007), Stretching Beyond the Horizon: A Multiplanar Theory of Spatial Planning and Gover-nance, Aldershot, Ashgate.

hillier, j (2008), ‘Plane(e) speaking: a multiplanar theory of spatial planning’, Planning Theory, 7, 24–50.

hillier, j (2011), ‘Encountering Gilles Deleuze in another place’, accepted for publication in European Planning Studies, 19.

hillier, j and van wezemael, j. (2008), ‘“Empty, swept and garnished”: the Public Finance Initiative case of Throckley Middle School’, Space and Polity, 12, 157–81.

hook, d. (2007), Foucault, Psychology and the Analytics of Power, Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan.houle, k. (2005), ‘Micropolitics’, in C. Stivale (ed.), Gilles Deleuze: Key Concepts, Chesham,

Acumen, 88–97.kaufman, e. (1998), ‘Introduction’, in E. Kaufman and K. J. Heller (eds), Deleuze and Guattari:

New Mappings in Politics, Philosophy and Culture, Minneapolis, MN, University of Minnesota Press, 3–19.

latour, b. (1987), Science in Action, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.latour, b. (1996), ‘On actor-network theory: a few clarifications’, Soziale Welt, 47, 369–82.latour, b.. (2005), ‘Glossaire’, Cirque, 04, www.mansilla-tunon.com/circo/cirque/pdf/

L2005_04.pdf (accessed 9 October 2009).letiche, h. (2004), ‘“Talk” and Hermès’, Culture and Organisation, 19, 143–61.manson, s. and o’sullivan, d. (2006), ‘Complexity theory in the study of space and place’,

Environment and Planning A, 38, 677–92.


massumi, b. (1992), A User’s Guide to ‘Capitalism and Schizophrenia’: Deviations from Deleuze and Guattari, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.

massumi, b. (2002), Parables for the Virtual, Durham, NC, Duke University Press.massumi, b. and manning, e. (2007), Plenary paper presented at Architecture in the Space of

Flows Conference, Newcastle University, Newcastle-upon-Tyne.may, t. (2003), ‘When is a Deleuzian becoming?’, Continental Philosophy Review, 36, 139–53.mormont. m. (2003), Dispositif: concept et méthodes de recherches, Séminaire INRA, Paris,

INA-PG, 29/01/2003, http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:vKNdCTlogQwJ.www.ful.ac.be (accessed 15 March 2007).

pløger, j. (2008), ‘Foucault’s dispositif and the city’, Planning Theory, 7, 51–70.rabinow, p. (2003), ‘Ordonnance, discipline, regulation: some reflections on urbanism’, in S.

Low and D. Lawrence-Zúniga (eds), The Anthropology of Space and Place: Locating Culture, Oxford, Blackwell, 353–62.

rajchman, j. (1998), Constructions, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press. rajchman, j. (2000), The Deleuze Connections, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.russell, b. (1908), ‘Transatlantic truth’, Albany Review, 2, 393–410.smith, d. w. (2003), ‘Deleuze and the liberal tradition: normativity, freedom and judgment’,

Economy and Society, 32, 299–324.stagoll, c. (2005), ‘Event’, in A. Parr (ed.), The Deleuze Dictionary, Edinburgh, Edinburgh

University Press, 87–89.un-habitat (2009), Global Report on Human Settlements, London, Earthscan.white, h., godart, f. and corona, v. (2007), ‘Mobilizing identities: uncertainty and control in

strategy’, Theory, Culture and Society, 24, 181–202.wise, p. (2002), ‘Cultural policy and multiplicities’, International Journal of Cultural Policy, 8,

221–31.wise, p. (2006), ‘Australia’s Gold Coast: a city producing itself ’, in C. Lindner (ed.), Urban Space

and Cityscapes, London, Routledge, 177–91. zournazi, m. (2003), ‘Navigating movements: an interview with Brian Massumi’, 21C Magazine,

2, www.21cmagazine.com/issue2/massumi.html (accessed 15 March 2008).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Strategic Navigation Across Multiple Planes Towards a Deleuzian Inspired Methodology for Strategic Spatial Planning - Hillier

Documents

form of strategic planning

strategic practice

idea of navigation

spatial planningtown

planning work

metaphor of navigation

navigation pilotage

idea of piloting