PLANNING FOR A SUSTAINABLE EUROPE? - TU Berlin

89
everything but one-sided interpretations of the world. In this larger context, present
(planning theory) debates over whether the thusly labeled “postmodern” Foucauldian
discourse analysis is preferable to “modern” Habermasian communicative rationality
approaches appear of secondary interest, especially since the two seemingly adversarial
theoretical camps are ultimately joined in their aim to empower disadvantaged interests.
Speaking on a more pragmatic level, recognizing sustainability as a contingent,
discursive, rather than normative concept, and understanding material realities as being
socially constructed, does not resolve existential, philosophical debates over power and
rationality. Neither can we afford to shortcut related political discussions over how to
conceive of a just – and justly-governed – society by simply reverting to a celebration of
multiple viewpoints. Given that my own visions of sustainable planning and policymaking
remain guided by the central challenge of achieving a just, responsible, equitable
(re-) distribution of power and material resources, I still see myself as mostly working in
the political economy tradition.
3.3.4 The Environment As Discourse
In the social sciences, “the environment,” “ecology” and “nature” have recently
been identified as new “global narratives” that fundamentally transform contemporary
policy-making. Many scholars go even further in postulating that a new “master
narrative of the environment” has replaced the former “master narrative of
enlightenment” (Lyotard 1984). And significantly, this new “ecology masterframe” has
transformed the nature of political debate, not only in the more narrow field of
environmental policy-making, but of all political discourse (Eder 1996). Resource