Journal of the Economic Geographical Society of Korea (한국경제지리학회지)

The Economic Geographical Society of Korea (한국경제지리학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Urban Planning in Post-COVID-19 Era: Humanist Perspective Revisited

포스트코로나 시대의 도시계획: 휴머니즘 시각의 재고

  • 박혜정 (서울시립대 도시사회학과)
  • Received : 2020.09.22
  • Published : 2020.09.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

COVID-19 is wreaking havoc on a grand scale while causing us great confusion. Due to this unpredictable situation, we are concerned with public health, political, and economic issues as well as the great transformation of human civilization. Among the various discussions, this study asks questions about the future direction of urban planning in the context of the era of uncertainty and the posthuman era in which modern artificial intelligence and technological systems are combined with human life. How can we plan our cities and regions in the future, that is to say, what is the normative basis of our planning? And what can we consider as the first step in concrete practice? To find answers to these questions, this study sheds light on the philosophical review of Martha Nussbaum's compassion and capabilities approach. In line with her perspective, by introducing the humanist planning that has been discussed recently in the academic field, we could depict our cities of tomorrow that we should pursue in post-COVID-19 era.

코로나19로 인해 우리는 큰 혼란에 빠져있다. 누구도 예측하지 못한 상황으로 인해, 전 세계는 보건, 정치, 경제의 쟁점은 물론 인류 문명 대전환의 문제까지도 고민하고 있다. 그 다양한 논의들 가운데, 본 연구는 불확실성의 시대, 인간-생명-기술이 결합하여 만들어 가는 포스트휴먼 시대에서 향후 도시계획이 나아갈 방향에 대해 질문한다. 앞으로 우리는 어떤 규범에 기초하여 도시와 지역을 계획할 것이며, 구체적인 실천의 첫 단계로 무엇을 고려해볼 수 있을까? 이에 마사 누스바움(Martha Nussbaum)의 공감과 역량에 대한 철학적 고찰을 통하여 이러한 질문에 대한 답을 찾고자 한다. 그리고 누스바움의 시각의 연속선 상에서, 최근 논의되고 있는 휴머니즘 계획을 소개함으로써 포스트코로나 시대에 우리가 지향해야 할 내일의 도시의 모습을 그려본다.

Keywords

References

  1. 김세서리아, 2020, "코로나19 시대, 죽음에 대한 철학적 성찰," 박병준 외 지음, 코로나 블루, 철학의 위안, 서울: 지식공작소, pp.125-143.
  2. 김연미, 2019, "누스바움의 역량접근과 정의," 법학연구 61, pp.73-107.
  3. 남청수 외 공역, 2005, 매혹의 도시 맑스주의를 만나다, 서울: 이후 (= Merrifield, A., 2002, Metromarxism: A Marxist Tale of the City, Routledge).
  4. 박용준 역, 2013, 시적 정의, 서울: 궁리 (= Nussbaum, M., 1995, Poetic Justice: the Literary Imagination and Public Life, Boston, Mass.: Beacon Press).
  5. 박혜정, 2019, "계획 영역에 감정의 도입," 국토계획(Journal of Korea Planning Association) 54(2), pp.46-53. https://doi.org/10.17208/jkpa.2019.04.54.2.46
  6. 박혜정.장원호, 2020, "계획이론과 공감 교육에 관한 소고," 문화와 융합 42, pp.287-308.
  7. 베버, 막스, 2002, 막스 베버 사상 선집 I, '탈주술화' 과정과 근대: 학문, 종교, 정치, 전성우 역, 서울: 나남출판.
  8. 신상규, 2020, "왜 지금 포스트휴먼인가?," 신상규 외 지음, 포스트휴먼이 몰려온다, 경기: 아카넷, pp.14-25.
  9. 신은화, 2017 "혐오와 지배," 철학연구 143, pp.189-214. https://doi.org/10.20293/jokps.2017.143.189
  10. 우윤석, 2005, "정부생산성 향상을 위한 대통령 자문위원회의 위상과 문제점에 관한 연구-국가균형발전위원회를 중심으로," 생산성논집(구 생산성연구) 19(4), pp.103-129.
  11. 원제무 역, 1998, 계획이론, 서울: 보성각 (= Friedmann, J., 1987, Planning in the Public Domain, NJ: Princeton University Press).
  12. 유강은 역, 2010, 미국 대도시의 죽음과 삶, 서울: 그린비출판사 (= Jacobs, J., 1992, The Death and Life of Great American Cities, Vintage Books).
  13. 이상욱, 2020, "3만 년 만에 만나는 낯선 지능," 신상규 외 지음, 포스트휴먼이 몰려온다, 경기: 아카넷, pp.29-56.
  14. 이선, 2018, "연민의 사회적 역할: 누스바움의 연민 분석을 중심으로," 교육문화연구 24(6), pp.25-44.
  15. 이선주 역, 2017, 포스트휴먼의 조건-뇌를 넘어선 의식, 서울: 아카넷 (= Pepperell, J., 2003, Posthuman Condition : Consciousness Beyond the Brain, Bristol;Portland, OR: Intellect).
  16. 임지원 역, 2007, 스피노자의 뇌, 서울: 사이언스북스 (=Damasio, A., 2003. Looking for Spinoza: Joy, Sorrow, and the Feeling Brain, Orlando: Harcourt).
  17. 임창호.안건혁 역, 2000, 내일의 도시, 서울: 한울 아카데미 (= Hall P., 1988, Cities of Tomorrow, Oxford, UK;NY, USA: Blackwell).
  18. 전상인, 2007, "계획이론의 탈근대적 전환에 대한 비판적 성찰," 국토계획 42(6), pp.7-24.
  19. 전상인, 2017, 공간으로 세상 읽기 - 집.터.길의 인문사회학, 서울: 세창출판사.
  20. 조계원 역, 2015, 혐오와 수치심, 서울: 민음사 (= Nussbaum, M., 2004, Hiding from Humanity: Disgust, Shame, and the Law, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).
  21. 조형준 역, 2015, 감정의 격동, 서울: 새물결 (= Nussbaum, M., 2001, Upheavals of Thought: the Intelligence of Emotions, Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press).
  22. 한상연 역, 2013, 역량의 창조, 파주: 돌베개. (= Nussbaum, M., 2011, Creating Capabilities: the Human Development Approach, Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press).
  23. Allmendinger, P., 2001, Planning in Postmodern Times, London: Routledge.
  24. Balducci, A., Boelens, L., Hillier, J., Nyseth, T. and Wilkinson, C., 2011, "Introduction: Strategic spatial planning in uncertainty: theory and exploratory practice," The Town Planning Review 82(5), pp.481-501. https://doi.org/10.3828/tpr.2011.29
  25. Banfield, E., 1961, Political Influence, IL: Free Press.
  26. Baum, H., 2015, "Planning with Half a Mind: Why Planners Resist Emotion," Planning Theory & Practice 16(4), pp.498-516. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2015.1071870
  27. Baum, H., 2017, "To learn to plan, write stories," Planning Theory & Practice 18(2), pp.305-309.
  28. Burgess, R., Carmona, M. and Kolstee, T., 1997, The Challenge of Sustainable Cities: Neoliberalism and Urban Strategies in Developing Countries, London: Zed Books.
  29. Bush, R. and Folger, J., 2005, The Promise of Mediation: The Transformative Approach to Conflict, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  30. Forester, J., 1999, The Deliberative Practitioner: Encouraging Participatory Planning Processes, Boston, MA: MIT Press.
  31. Forester, J., 2006, "Making Participation Work When Interests Conflict," Journal of the American Planning Association 72(4), pp.447-456. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360608976765
  32. Good, R. M., Rivero, J. J. and Zitcer, A., 2017, "Confronting the challenge of humanist planning," Planning Theory & Practice 18(2), pp.291-297. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2017.1297554
  33. Healey, P., 1996, "The Communicative Turn in Planning Theory and Its Implications for Spatial Strategy Formation," in Campbell, S. and Fainstein, S.(eds), 2003, Readings in Planning Theory, Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp.237-255.
  34. Hillier, J., 2008, "Plan(e) speaking: A multiplanar theory of spatial planning," Planning Theory 7(1), pp.24-50. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095207085664
  35. Hillier, J., 2011, "Strategic navigation across multiple planes: Towards a Deleuzean-inspired methodology for strategic spatial planning," The Town Planning Review 82(5), pp.503-527. https://doi.org/10.3828/tpr.2011.30
  36. Jon, I., 2020, "Reframing postmodern planning with feminist social theory: Toward "anti-essentialist norms"," Planning Theory 19(2), pp.147-171. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095219851214
  37. Lindblom, C., 1959, "The science of "muddling through"," Public Administration Review, pp. 79-88. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6210.00266
  38. Lyles, W., White, S. and Lavelle, B., 2017, "The Prospect of Compassionate Planning," Journal of Planning Literature 33(3), pp.247-266. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885412217735525
  39. Mumford, L., 2011, What is a City?: Architectural Record (1937), in LeGates, R. T. and Stout F.(eds.), The City Reader, Routledge, pp.123-127.
  40. Nyseth, T., 2012, "Fluid planning: A meaningless concept or a rational response to uncertainty in urban planning," Advances in Spatial Planning, pp.27-46.
  41. Reade, E., 1983, "If planning is anything, maybe it can be identified," Urban Studies 20(2), pp.159-171. https://doi.org/10.1080/00420988320080301
  42. Rittel, H. and Webber, M., 1973, "Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning," Policy Sciences 4, pp.155-169. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730
  43. Rueschemeyer, D. and Evans, P., 1985, The State and Economic Transformation: Toward an Analysis of the Conditions Underlying Effective Intervention, in Evans, P., Rueschemeyer, D. and Skocpol, T.(eds.), Bringing the State Back In, Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.
  44. Sandercock, L. 1998a, The death of modernist planning: Radical praxis for a postmodern age, in Douglass, M. and Friedmann, J.(eds), Cities for Citizens: Planning and the Rise of Civil Society in a Global Age, New York: Wiley, pp.163-184.
  45. Sandercock, L., 1998b, Towards Cosmopolis, Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
  46. Sandercock, L., 2003, "Out of the Closet: The Importance of Stories and Storytelling in Planning Practice," Planning Theory & Practice 4(1), pp.11-28. https://doi.org/10.1080/1464935032000057209
  47. Sen, A., 1990, Development as capability expansion, in Griffin, K. B. and Knight, J. B.(eds.), Human Development and the International Development Strategy for the 1990s, Basingstoke: Palgrave Mac Millan, pp.41-58.
  48. Shatkin, G., 2002, "Working with the Community: Dilemmas in Radical Planning in Metro Manila, The Philippines," Planning Theory & Practice 3(3), pp.301-317. https://doi.org/10.1080/1464935022000019545
  49. Shilling, C., 2002, The two traditions in the sociology of emotions, in Barbalet, J.(ed), Emotions and Sociology, MA: Blackwell Pub.
  50. Soja, E., 1997, "Planning in/for Postmodernity," in Benko, G. and Strohmayer, U.(eds) Space and Social Theory: Interpreting Modernity and Postmodernity, Oxford: Blackwell, pp.236-249.
  51. Throgmorton, J., 1996, Planning as Persuasive Storytelling, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  52. Throgmorton, J., 2003, "Planning as Persuasive Storytelling in a Global-Scale Web of Relationships," Planning Theory 2(2), pp.125-151. https://doi.org/10.1177/14730952030022003
  53. Throgmorton, J., 2007, "Inventing the greatest: Crafting Louisville's future out of story and clay," Planning Theory 6(3), pp. 237-262. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095207082033
  54. Umemoto, K., 2017, "Towards a humanist planning," Planning Theory & Practice 18(2), pp.297-302.
  55. Wildavsky, A., 1973, "If planning is everything, maybe it's nothing," Policy sciences 4(2), pp.127-153. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01405729