Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Planning Theory
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Gunder, M.
Right arrow Articles by Mouat, C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Symbolic Violence and Victimization in Planning Processes: A Reconnoitre of the New Zealand Resource Management Act

Michael Gunder

University of Auckland, New Zealand, m.gunder{at}auckland.ac.nz

Clare Mouat

University of Auckland, New Zealand, c.mouat{at}auckland.ac.nz

This article conceptualizes two interrelated constellations of effects produced by practices of power in New Zealand planning. These are symbolic violence and institutional victimization. This article contends that acts of submission and obedience become symbols of violence when the state’s planning regimes allow no elements of choice, or freedom to resist, for those acted upon. This is compounded further into institutional victimization when the oppressors are also the final practicable, or actual, arbiters of appeal. We provide evidence that suggests this is a regular occurrence in New Zealand and, further, is indicative of a wider ranging consequence of modern governance that Foucault called governmentality. In New Zealand, the provision of a theoretically consultative statutory planning process obscures the actual rationality of exclusion underlining many of its planning practices.

Key Words: governmentality • New Zealand • planning practice • power • public participation • Resource Management Act

Planning Theory, Vol. 1, No. 2, 124-145 (2002)
DOI: 10.1177/147309520200100203
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Planning TheoryHome page
T. Sager
The Logic of Critical Communicative Planning: Transaction Cost Alteration
Planning Theory, November 1, 2006; 5(3): 223 - 254.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Journal of Planning Education and ResearchHome page
M. Lauria and J. A. Wagner
What Can We Learn from Empirical Studies of Planning Theory? A Comparative Case Analysis of Extant Literature
Journal of Planning Education and Research, June 1, 2006; 25(4): 364 - 381.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Planning TheoryHome page
J. Ploger
Strife: Urban Planning and Agonism
Planning Theory, March 1, 2004; 3(1): 71 - 92.
[Abstract] [PDF]