This article is concerned with the current developments in planning theory literature, with regard to its extensive focus on flexibility and process. When emphasizing the open-endedness and procedural validity of planning, planning theorists do not seem to consider ethical considerations about the results of planning outcomes. This is understandable given that postmodernism and its ardent defense of “open-endedness” is often considered to contradict any prescriptive nuances. However, I argue that normativity of planning is possible within the postmodern paradigm and that postmodern concepts and theoretical standpoints can propose a basis for normativity. To demonstrate this, I adopt the works of political theorists who have addressed normativity and political solidarity within the postmodern paradigm (anti-essentialist, anti-Cartesian), most of whom are inspired by the future paths of feminism. To be clear, what I refer as “feminism” is about not only defending the status of women as a legal category, but also how to construct political solidarity against inequalities—without essentialist categorizations or a priori conceptualizations. Using the ideas of Young (second-/third-wave feminism), Laclau and Mouffe (post-Marxism), Mouffe (post-Marxism/third-wave feminism), and Butler (third-wave feminism/body politics), I outline what could be considered “anti-essentialist norms.” Based on these norms, a planner can judge which people and whose voices—which social groups or “serial collectives”—should be prioritized and heard first, in order to promote a more inclusive and just urban space. The three anti-essentialist norms that I propose are (1) taking into account the historicity of social relations, (2) having a modest attitude toward what we claim as the representation of “the public,” and (3) recognizing a human interdependency that leads to pursuing future-orientedness in a political project.

中文翻译：

---

用女性主义社会理论改造后现代计划：迈向“反本质主义规范”

本文关注规划理论文献的最新发展，并广泛关注灵活性和过程。在强调计划的开放性和程序有效性时，计划理论家似乎并未考虑关于计划结果的伦理考虑。鉴于后现代主义及其对“开放性”的热烈辩护通常被认为与任何规定的细微差别相矛盾，因此这是可以理解的。但是，我认为规划的规范性在后现代范式中是可能的，而后现代的概念和理论观点可以为规范性提出基础。为了证明这一点，我采用了政治理论家的作品，这些理论家解决了后现代范式（反本质主义者，反笛卡尔主义者）中的规范性和政治团结，其中大多数人受到女权主义未来道路的启发。明确地说，我所谓的“女权主义”不仅是在捍卫妇女作为法律类别的地位，而且是在没有本质主义的分类或先验的概念化的情况下，如何建立反对不平等的政治团结。我用扬（第二波/第三波女权主义），拉克劳和穆菲（后马克思主义），穆菲（后马克思主义/第三波女权主义）和巴特勒（第三波女权主义/身体政治）的思想来概述可以被称为“反本质主义规范”。根据这些规范，规划人员可以判断应该优先考虑和听取哪些人和谁的声音（哪些社会团体或“集体”），以促进更具包容性和公正性的城市空间。