Deleuze and Contemporary Planning Theory: Neither State nor Traditional Anarchism

Tendencies towards poststructuralist (or postmodernist) planning theory have increased since the 1970s. Generally, planning theory has till now, engaged with Deleuze from two different perspectives. In one hand, there are planners such as Hillier who argue in favour of a reformist, step-by-step Deleuzian planning theory. These planners seek to apply Deleuzian concepts to hierarchical state-led, capitalist societies. On the other hand, there are planners such as Purcell who by highlighting the anarchistic dimension of Deleuze’s philosophy, argue that Deleuzian planning theory entirely rejects any state-led reformist planning and is essentially anticapitalist philosophy. This article argued that the two above-mentioned frameworks, i.e. Hillier’s reformism framework and Purcell’s anarchism framework, are, in fact, based on rational models of action and thought, which are in contradiction with Deleuzian philosophy. Although there are multiple concepts and metaphors in Deleuze’s philosophy that enables geographers and planners to ‘analyze’ capitalism-based social relations, two concepts of ‘desire’ and ‘the politics of desire’ should be considered as fundamental points of departure if we aim to develop a Deleuzian planning theory. Unlike Hillier’s point of view, Deleuzian concept of desire, as an unconscious force, is never reformist and reactive, but revolutionary and active. In addition, unlike Purcell’s anarchist point of view, the politics of desire does not aim to produce ethically stable subjects who seek to construct a rational order of community according to mutual aid and agreement. Rather, this kind of politics by its creative nature directed at deconstruction of social forms and orders like captialism and state.