برنامه‌ریزی فضایی: یک تعریف جدید، مفاهیم و اصول

Introduction

Spatial planning aimed at shaping the spatial organization of human and non-human forces. While the term “spatial planning” has become increasingly prominent in contemporary geographical discourse, its conceptual definition and foundations remain theoretically underdeveloped. This paper seeks to address this gap by advancing a new definition of spatial planning. Accordingly, spatial planning is a normative-collective-rational-political action oriented towards the array and re-array of spatial patterns and processes of domination through the production and actualization of spatial maps and plans across different geographical scales and temporal horizons. The study conceptualizes spatial planning as a normative, collective, rational, and political action directed toward the (re)configuration of spatial patterns and processes of domination. It distinguishes spatial planning from other forms of public planning—such as economic or social planning—by emphasizing its unique concern with the representation, organization, and transformation of space.



Methodology

The paper adopts a philosophical–theoretical methodology, building mainly on the two concepts of space and domination to reinterpret spatial planning as a field of relation between human and non-human forces. This article engages in conceptual reconstruction, synthesizing ideas from philosophy, political theory, and geography to develop a conceptual framework for spatial planning. The article proceeds through two central analytical axes: 1) The political–rational–normative collective action which situates spatial planning within the broader spectrum of public planning practices and emphasizes its inherent politicality and collective rationality; and 2) The (re)arraying of spatial patterns of domination which elucidates how spatial planning operates as an active practice of spatial reconfiguration that both reveals and transforms relations of power among human and non-human actants.



Findings and discussion

The findings of this article are articulated across two major conceptual axes: 1) Spatial Planning as Normative Political Action: Spatial planning is interpreted as an arena of confrontation between active and reactive forces. Drawing on Nietzsche’s distinction between these forces, this article argues that active forces are creative, affirming, and capable of generating new spatial configurations, whereas reactive forces seek to preserve existing spatial orders and inhibit innovation. Spatial planning, therefore, is never a neutral process but a political battlefield where the will to create and the will to conserve contend for dominance. True spatial planning, in this sense, is characterized by its creative intentionality—its capacity to reimagine spatial relationships and produce new forms of spatial organization. Furthermore, the article introduces a sophisticated understanding of political action in spatial planning. Politicality, here, does not simply refer to governmental influence or policy-making but to the ontological condition of choice among competing spatial configurations. Every act of selecting one location, spatial pattern, or spatial distribution of resources over another constitutes a political act, for it implies an exercise of power and a moral judgment regarding who benefits and who is excluded. Therefore, spatial planning is unavoidably political, and claims to scientific neutrality serve only to obscure its underlying power dynamics. In addition, rationality is reconceptualized in this article as collective rationality. While individual rationality privileges the pursuit of private interest, collective rationality emphasizes deliberation, participation, and the democratic inclusion of all spatial actors and units. The legitimacy of spatial planning, it is argued here, depends upon its ability to safeguard the spatial interests of the majority rather than the privileges of an elite minority. Democracy, thus, functions not as an end in itself but as an instrumental mechanism for realizing activity and creativity in line with the spatial interests of the majority. In this sense, spatial planning becomes an ethical-political process through which society learns—via trial, error, and reflexivity—to align spatial structures with the collective will. 2) The (Re)Configuring of Spatial Patterns of Domination: The second major finding concerns the moral and ontological dimensions of spatial domination. The article defines domination as the relational dynamic between dominant spaces and subordinated spaces. These relations are intrinsic to all social-spatial systems. The task of spatial planning, however, is not to perpetuate subordination but to transform subordinated spaces into dominant, active, and creative spaces. Thus, the ethical mandate of planning is to expand the geography of active forces. Engaging with Nietzsche’s and Deleuze’s interpretations of will to power, the article advances the idea that spatial planning must aim for the normativization of domination—that is, the structuring of domination according to moral and democratic norms that promote creativity, vitality, and collective empowerment. The present article contends that the true spatial banality of evil lies in the normalization of reactive, passive, and uncreative spaces. Evil, therefore, is not the exercise of domination per se but the proliferation of spaces devoid of agency and innovation. From this perspective, spatial planning is legitimate only insofar as it fosters the multiplication of dominant spaces and resists the reproduction of subordinated (reactive) ones.



Conclusion

This article concludes that spatial planning is both a product and a producer of power relations. Its legitimacy derives from its capacity to nurture creative and active spaces rather than reinforcing passive and reactive ones. The key principles that define the article's new conceptualization are as follows: 1) Spatial planning as a field of force—a site of interaction between active and reactive powers; 2) The ironic nature of spatial planning—its dual character as both scientific and political practice; 3) Commitment to the production of dominant spaces—its political function directed toward empowerment and creativity; 4) Normative reconfiguration—its moral obligation to continuously redefine spatial norms in favor of collective rationality and equality; 5)Transformation rather than subordination—its strategic aim to elevate subordinated spaces to the level of dominance rather than perpetuating their subordination. This article calls for planners to act not as neutral technicians but as ethical agents engaged in the continuous production of active, self-determining spaces. The study thereby contributes a profound theoretical foundation for spatial planning as both a scientific and creative practice.