La dimensione etica dei compiti disciplinari nella contrapposizione tra valori non conciliabili

Journal title ARCHIVIO DI STUDI URBANI E REGIONALI
Author/s Francesco Lo Piccolo
Publishing Year 2013 Issue 2013/106
Language Italian Pages 7 P. 159-165 File size 89 KB
DOI 10.3280/ASUR2013-106015
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

Below, you can see the article first page

If you want to buy this article in PDF format, you can do it, following the instructions to buy download credits

Article preview

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

  1. Gunder M. (2003). Passionate planning for the others’ desire: An agonistic response to the dark side of planning. Progress in Planning, 60, 3: 235-319. DOI: 10.1016/S0305-9006(02)00115-0
  2. Hillier J. (2002). Shadows of Power. An Allegory of Prudence in Land-Use Planning. London and New York: Routledge
  3. Hillier J. (2003). “Agon”izing over consensus: Why Habermasian ideals cannot be “real”. Planning Theory, 2, 1: 37-59. DOI: 10.1177/1473095203002001005
  4. Innes J. E. (1996). Planning through consensus building: A new view of the comprehensive planning ideal. Journal of the American Planning Association, 62, 4: 460-472. DOI: 10.1080/01944369608975712
  5. Laclau E. e Mouffe C. (2001). Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics. 2nd ed. London: Verso.
  6. Lo Piccolo F. (2006). Colori. In: Indovina F., Fregolent L. e Savino M., a cura di, Nuovo Lessico Urbano. Milano: FrancoAngeli
  7. Lo Piccolo F. (2008). Il principio di cittadinanza attiva nella sua mutabilità interpretativa ed applicativa nell’ambito dei processi e degli strumenti di pianificazione. In: Lo Piccolo F. e Pinzello I., a cura di, Cittadini e cittadinanza. Palermo: Palumbo
  8. Lo Piccolo F. (2010). The planning research agenda: Plural cities, equity and rights of citizenship. Town Planning Review, 81, 6: I-VI. DOI: 10.3828/tpr.2010.31
  9. Lo Piccolo F. e Thomas H. (2001). Legal discourse, the individual and the claim for equality in British planning. Planning Theory & Practice, 2, 2: 187-201. DOI: 10.1080/14649350120068795
  10. Mouffe C. (1993). The Return of the Political. London: Verso
  11. Mouffe C. (1999). Deliberative democracy or agonistic pluralism. Social Research, 66, 4: 745- 758.
  12. Mouffe C. (2000). The Democratic Paradox. London: Verso
  13. Mouffe C. (2005). On the Political. Abingdon and New York: Routledge
  14. Norval A. J. (2007). Aversive Democracy. Inheritance and Originality in the Democratic Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511490316
  15. Pløger J. (2004). Strife: urban planning and agonism. Planning Theory, 3, 1: 71-92. DOI: 10.1177/1473095204042318
  16. Porter L. (2009). On having imperial eyes. In: Lo Piccolo F. e Thomas H., eds., Ethics and Planning Research. Farnham: Ashgate
  17. Purcell M. (2009). Resisting neoliberalization: communicative planning or counter-hegemonic movements? Planning Theory, 8, 2: 140-165. DOI: 10.1177/1473095209102232
  18. Sandercock L. (1998). Towards Cosmopolis. Planning for Multicultural Cities. Chichester: Wiley
  19. Sandercock L. (2003). Out of the closet: The importance of stories and storytelling in planning practice. Planning Theory & Practice, 4, 1: 11-28. DOI: 10.1080/1464935032000057209
  20. Young I. M. (1990). Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton: Princeton University Press
  21. Young I. M. (2000). Inclusion and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press
  22. Benhabib S. (1992). Situating the Self. Gender, Community and Postmodernism in Contemporary Ethics. New York: Routledge
  23. Benhabib S., ed. (1996). Democracy and Difference. Contesting the Boundaries of the Political. Princeton: Princeton University Press
  24. Bonafede G. e Lo Piccolo F. (2010). Participative planning processes in the absence of the (public) space of democracy. Planning Practice and Research, 25, 3: 353-375. DOI: 10.1080/02697459.2010.503430
  25. Bond S. (2011). Negotiating a “democratic ethos”: moving beyond the agonistic – communicative divide. Planning Theory, 10, 2: 161-186. DOI: 10.1177/1473095210383081
  26. Brand R. e Gaffikin F. (2007). Collaborative planning in an uncollaborative world. Planning Theory, 6, 3: 282-313. DOI: 10.1177/1473095207082036
  27. Crosta P. L. (1998). Politiche. Quale conoscenza per l’azione territoriale. Milano: FrancoAngeli
  28. Forester J. (2006). Making participation work when interests conflict: From fostering dialogue and moderating debate to mediating disputes. Journal of the American Planning Association, 72, 4: 447-456. DOI: 10.1080/01944360608976765
  29. Forester J. (2009). Dealing with Differences. Dramas of Mediating Public Disputes. New York: Oxford University Press
  30. Forester J. e Laws D. (2009). Toward a naturalistic research ethic: Or how mediators must act well to learn, if they are to practice effectively. In: Lo Piccolo F. e Thomas H., eds., Ethics and Planning Research. Farnham: Ashgate

  • La violenza dello spazio allo zen di Palermo. un'analisi critica sull'urbanistica come strumento di giustizia Giuseppe Lo Bocchiaro, Simone Tulumello, in ARCHIVIO DI STUDI URBANI E REGIONALI 110/2015 pp.73
    DOI: 10.3280/ASUR2014-110006
  • Fear, Space and Urban Planning Simone Tulumello, pp.115 (ISBN:978-3-319-43936-5)
  • Fear, Space and Urban Planning Simone Tulumello, pp.1 (ISBN:978-3-319-43936-5)

Francesco Lo Piccolo, La dimensione etica dei compiti disciplinari nella contrapposizione tra valori non conciliabili in "ARCHIVIO DI STUDI URBANI E REGIONALI" 106/2013, pp 159-165, DOI: 10.3280/ASUR2013-106015