PLANNING FOR A SUSTAINABLE EUROPE? - TU Berlin

125
The Australian planning theorist Brandon Gleeson (2000:117ff) has made a
pertinent argument that sociological theories of reflexive modernization, despite their
limited consideration in fields such as urban, regional or transport planning at present, 19
are in fact highly relevant to all spatial science, and to infrastructure decision-making.
This can be taken as an indirect argument that this perspective is relevant for EU
transport policy as well, and the concept indeed provides a useful framework within
which “to place and understand the recent transformation of western urban and
environmental planning systems.”
The overall crisis of state legitimacy (see e.g. O'Connor 1973; Habermas 1976;
Connolly 1984; Offe and Keane 1984) has haunted planners and policy-makers for
decades now, challenging them to reevaluate their inherent reliance on “modernist”,
hierarchical decision-making systems. Various green, feminist and otherwise progressive
social movements have attempted to reclaim democracy by refocusing attention on grassroots
activism and local politics. In this context, Gleeson (2000:118) claims that
reflexive modernization offers at least a partial solution to the legitimation crisis by
“suggesting a transformative politics that is at once historical and progressive … [and]
demands the re-modernization of modernity, involving, inter alia, the replacement of the
modernist state by a reflexive, cosmopolitan democracy.” How is it then, precisely, that
theories of reflexive modernization offer solutions with regard to the desired reenlightening
of planning and policy-making?
A quick review of Beck’s work yields some interesting answers. A first step is
the analytical separation of industrialism (and the related industrial society model) on the
19 Some noteworthy exemptions are Gleeson’s own work (Gleeson 2000; Low and Gleeson 2001), Blowers
(1997) and Beckmann (2001a).