راضیه موسوی خورشیدی

In recent times, various "relational views" based on the "principle of complexity" have emerged as alternatives to essentialist approaches, collectively referred to as the "relational turn". However, the philosophical foundations of these views are often ambiguous, leading to potential confusion with "relativist perspectives" or "interactive views" informed by Habermas' Communicative Action. Contemporary scholarly concerns in the humanities and social sciences -such as new emphasis on materiality, embodied practices, affects and intuition, spatiotemporality, post-humanism, and even the co-disciplinary- to understand human-societal processes, stem from "relational thought" but lack proper elucidation of their ontological and epistemological underpinnings. The article employs the Synthesis Research Method to comprehensively analyze and categorize "relational perspectives" based on their ontological roots to address these issues. Moreover, it seeks to elaborate a "co-disciplinary and (deep) relational epistemological and methodological framework" by utilizing "general epistemic components" and "key components of the (deep) relational view based on flat ontology". From this viewpoint, knowledge possesses multiple, heterogeneous, mediated, and contextual nature, drawing from the intertwined resources of "conscious subjectivity" (conscious deliberation or reflexivity) and "objectivity" (external environment). Furthermore, unconscious mediators, such as "collective ideal" (culture and discourse) and "individual embodied" (psychophysical characteristics) mediators, play an essential role in shaping knowledge. Knowledge exhibits uncertain and contingent boundaries, and is in a perpetual state of "becoming". Drawing inspiration from Latour, the methodology is premised on developing "assemblage/deployment programs". Importantly, the epistemic framework can apply to a wide spectrum of fields, from humanities and social sciences to art, spatial planning, and public policy, with the potential to promote single disciplines into co-disciplinarity and co-disciplines into trans-disciplinarity.

"Relational perspectives" have been proposed since the 1990s as an alternative approach to the philosophical foundations of social sciences, rejecting hierarchical or binary modes of thought of conventional traditions and avoiding deficiencies of moderate theories. Emphasizing "complexity", "interconnectivity" and "uncertainty" of the world, these views provide accounts of human and social dynamics and processes of "becoming". The latest of these perspectives is "flat ontology" or "deep relationalism". This article provides a comprehensive account of the "flat ontology" concept, its key ideas, and fundamental assumptions through the Research Synthesis, and explores its contributions to co-disciplinary, often suffering from eclectic gaps and the absence of a coherent methodological framework. "Flat ontology" implies "relationality," "multiplicity," "heterogeneity," "contingency," and "spatiotemporality" of reality; and regards entities in a deeply relational way, as dynamic intertwined associations and configurations. This perspective proposes a fluid interpretation of "power", whether among humans or between human and non-human entities, and responds to critical concerns about the necessity of social and environmental inclusiveness. Recent global crises such as the Coronavirus pandemic and climate change confirm the validity of this perspective. According to this view, knowledge fields are deeply interconnected, underscoring the necessity of the co-disciplinary, including multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary. Furthermore, flat ontology redefines the philosophical foundations of the co-disciplinary, towards the transdisciplinarity. Applying such a perspective is important and necessary both in social sciences, which deal with social phenomena, and in public decision -making which prescribes generally in a co-disciplinary way.

The present paper poses the claim that the use of the term ‘paradigm shift’ in relation to the evolution of planning theory in general on one hand, and explaining the theoretical development of planning in Iran on the other, lacks scientific accuracy, and that from this perspective the validity of indigenous theories such as the ‘strategic-structural’ theory must be re-examined. A review of the nature and content of the terms ‘paradigm’ and ‘paradigm shift’, and exploring their possibilities to explain the fundamental changes in planning theory will be first steps in making the case for the above claim. The distinction between ‘theory development’ and ‘paradigm shift’ and addressing the essential differences between the two, has led this research towards developmental methodology, so that in addition to explaining elements of planning theories whose evolutionary course results in a new generation of theories, the underlying and structural conditions of this transition are also examined. Finally, the continuum of transformation of planning theories will be introduced in its general sense in temporal and spatial contexts, based on which the development of a pathology of theorising planning in Iran from the perspective of the internal logics planning theories is made possible. Based on this pathology, the point can be made that rather than paying attention to new, modern planning approaches – such as strategic planning or communication planning – it is necessary to rethink Iran’s planning system within the requirements of its Institutional context, and try to make changes in institutions and institutionalise planning.

From the late 1960s، a fundamental shift took place from Modernism to Post-Modernism in art and aesthetic fields: «post-modernism as a movement against the simple functional art and design styles of modernism». Some described this movement as a «conservative reaction of modernism to itself». Basically، post-modernism as a «part of modernism» is considered as an outcome and result of modernism which stood against modernistic beliefs and thoughts. From the fundamental tenets of post-modernism which shape its other branches، one can mention to: belief in difference، diversity and pluralism، criticism of common scientific methods and rationalism، negation of any meta-narrative and any all-encompassing universal theory. Post-modernism، as to other fields of social science، has also affected urban planning from the late 1980s and caused change in the commonly applied views، processes، results، principles and methods and، in short، in the thinking and practice of planning. Post-modernist planning is depicted as a severance from modernist intellectual tradition. Such a view insists on two significant distinctions between modernist paradigm of urban planning and post-modernist paradigm: first، epistemological basis of planning، and، second، application of normative values and theory in planning. Today، post-modernist approach is prevailing in all levels of plans، even unconsciously، and often as a part of them، and forms their strategic visions، goals، priorities and their outlines. The present research aims to examine post-modernist approach in planning from different aspects.