In response to Yamamoto’s comment on our paper, we briefly discuss three points that further clarify our appeal to the plural values that animate and motivate thought and action, not just as a politics, but as an engagement with the social in an attempt to engage, as Andrew Sayer (2011) notes, with ‘what matters to people’. The first has to do with the definition of value pluralism we employ and the claim Mouffe has, ‘[a]lready appreciated insights from value pluralism in her agonistic pluralist theorising’ (Yamamoto, 2020: 4). Yamamoto provides an excellent précis of Mouffe’s argument for a democratic ethos, including a lucid heuristic representation. However, our conceptualisation of value pluralism, drawn from a more-than-political provenance, differs from Mouffe’s. We draw our value pluralism from an interdisciplinary engagement with anthropology, moral philosophy and social theory in order to present a value pluralism that privileges the individual and the social rather than the political. We expand Mouffe’s engagement with ethico-political democratic values to consider ethical and normative values beyond those tied to political conceptions of liberty and equality. Our aim is to gain greater insight into the working of agonistic pluralism in planning praxis. The second is Yamamoto’s desire for more clarity regarding the ontological claims in our argument. Yamamoto’s request is reasonable, particularly given his own concerns with the ontological status of Mouffe’s antagonism as presented in this journal (Yamamoto, 2017). We do not disguise that our paper is primarily concerned with planning praxis rather than ontological claims. We seek to develop a theoretically informed applied approach to the practice of planning and the wider politics of urban development. Third, then, we respond to Yamamoto’s call for clarity by briefly discussing the ontological framing of our conceptions of value pluralism, agonism and antagonism, and how this supports our modalities of antagonism.

中文翻译：

---

在城市规划中重视多元性

为了回应Yamamoto对我们论文的评论，我们简要讨论了三点，进一步阐明了我们对赋予和激励思想与行动的多元价值观的吸引力，这不仅是一种政治，而且是一种与社会的互动，旨在使人们参与其中，正如安德鲁·萨耶（Andrew Sayer（2011））所言，“对人而言重要”。第一个与我们所采用的价值多元化的定义有关，而穆菲则宣称：“ [在她激动的多元主义理论中，已经很欣赏价值多元化的见解”（Yamamoto，2020：4）。山本为穆菲关于民主精神的论点提供了极好的准则，其中包括清晰的启发式代表。但是，我们对价值多元化的概念化，是从一个超过政治的层面上得出的，与穆菲的不同。我们从人类学，道德哲学和社会理论的跨学科参与中汲取我们的价值多元化，以提出一种赋予个人和社会而非政治特权的价值多元化。我们扩大了Mouffe对种族政治政治民主价值观的参与，以考虑伦理道德和规范价值，超越与自由和平等的政治观念相关的价值观。我们的目标是对计划实践中的激动性多元主义的工作有更深入的了解。第二是山本希望对我们论证中的本体论主张更加清晰。Yamamoto的要求是合理的，尤其是考虑到他自己对此杂志提出的对Mouffe对抗的本体论状态的担忧（Yamamoto，2017年）。我们不会掩饰我们的论文主要是关于实践计划而不是本体论主张。我们力求为规划实践和更广泛的城市发展政治发展一种理论上可行的应用方法。第三，然后，我们通过简单地讨论我们的价值多元性，竞争性和对立性概念的本体论框架，以及这如何支持我们的对立形式，来回应山本的清晰要求。