پراگماتیسم و برنامه‌ریزی شهری: تحلیل تاریخی و مفهومی

Extended Abstract
Introduction
Planning includes today's and future tasks. The planning tasks in the past were much clearer than today, and planners analyzed the problems of the present and modeled and predicted the future with certainty. However, wars, economic stagnation, riots, environmental hazards, etc. have challenged trust in rational arguments today. In fact, our rational understanding of the world is never perfect, and most of our predictions are wrong. Acknowledging the limitations of planners to understand and control the world is related to a pragmatic (pragmatist) attitude towards truth, which emphasizes the fallibility of planners' knowledge, the experience of "what to do" in the here and now, the absence of universal laws and defining practices. It emphasizes orientations rather than a final endpoint. In fact, in contemporary complex cities constantly changing, scientific-rational methods and philosophical interpretations can no longer be the answer alone.
Pragmatism is a philosophical movement that emerged in America in the last years of the 19th century. Unlike traditional philosophical thoughts, it emphasizes theories' practical consequences and usefulness. In fact, pragmatists consider the truth dependent on what is useful for humans and believe that a theory that can be answered in practice is correct.
This philosophical approach and its contemporary reading under the title of neo-pragmatism have had many effects on urban planning and, in recent years, have attracted the attention of contemporary researchers in this field, such as Foster, Hook, Haley, etc. However, in domestic studies, very little attention has been paid to this issue. Firstly, a negative view towards pragmatism or the philosophy of originality of action is prevalent among domestic urban planners. Secondly, the plurality of opinions in philosophy makes it difficult to understand the concept of this philosophical approach and, of course, the difficulty of understanding the reading of planning attributed to it. This issue deprives urban planners inside the country of the benefits of using a pragmatic approach. Meanwhile, pragmatism can help us move beyond traditions of planning. The complexity of urban systems and the high speed of their changes have necessitated this innovative approach to urban planning. However, urban planners, students, and policymakers are always faced with the question of what is pragmatic planning and its characteristics? Moreover, what is the difference with other planning traditions? However, in previous studies, very little attention has been paid to these questions. Most previous studies have either described a specific planning tradition or compared planning traditions without considering pragmatic planning. Studies that have investigated pragmatist planning have also examined it without separating the philosophy of pragmatism and neopragmatism. While these two philosophical readings are very similar, they also have differences. Of course, most theorists in the field of planning have been influenced by reading neopragmatism. For this purpose, this research has been done to describe the characteristics of pragmatism and neo-pragmatism planning and compare it with other urban planning traditions.
 
Methodology
This research discusses the chronological study of the readings on the philosophy of pragmatism and pragmatic planning. In the next step, the concepts of pragmatism, neo-pragmatism, and pragmatic planning are explained. However, as mentioned, there are many differences in the characteristics of the philosophy of pragmatism and neo-pragmatism. Nevertheless, Papini compares pragmatism to a great hotel where a philosopher works in every room. Each of these philosophers thinks differently and about a different question. However, they all go through the same main corridor. Relying on Papini, this research intends, in the next step, to identify the characteristics of the main corridor that all or most pragmatists go through and then to identify the characteristics of pragmatist planning based on the opinions of thinkers in this field or the characteristics of the philosophy of pragmatism and neo-pragmatism.
 For this purpose, the most important and relevant previous studies have been identified using a narrative approach. Then, the features of classical pragmatism, neo-pragmatism, and pragmatic planning features have been extracted using content analysis. Finally, after identifying the characteristics of pragmatist and neo-pragmatist planning, this type of planning has been compared with other planning traditions, and their differences and similarities have been explained.
 
Results and discussion
The findings of this research show that empiricism, pragmatism, utilitarianism, and instrumentalism are the most frequent characteristics of pragmatism, and emphasis on language, pragmatism, belief in relative truth, empiricism, attention to vocabulary, and belief in representation are the most frequent characteristics of neo-pragmatism. Also, contextualism, learning from experience, emphasis on continuity, continuity, evaluation, clarity, and fallibility are the most important characteristics of pragmatic planning. Furthermore, pragmatic planning is the closest to controversial and far from comprehensive planning.
A comparison of the findings of this research with previous studies shows that no study has been done so far in connection with the classical pragmatism reading of urban planning and its difference from neo-pragmatism planning. This research has improved the findings of previous studies by examining the characteristics of pragmatism and neo-pragmatism and planning attributed to each of these movements and comparing pragmatism and neo-pragmatism planning with other planning traditions.
 
Conclusion
Pragmatic planning, especially its new reading under neo-pragmatism planning, can work more effectively than other planning traditions.
 
Funding
There is no funding support.
 
 
Authors’ Contribution
Authors contributed equally to the conceptualization and writing of the article. All of the authors approved thecontent of the manuscript and agreed on all aspects of the work declaration of competing interest none.
 
Conflict of Interest
Authors declared no conflict of interest.
 
Acknowledgments
 We are grateful to all the scientific consultants of this paper.
BSTRACT
A
The complexity and plurality of opinions in the philosophy of pragmatism make it challenging to understand this philosophical approach and pragmatic planning. While pragmatism helps us not to be passive in the face of the plural future and the rapid and unpredictable changes in the country's urban communities, it also helps us to provide efficient urban planning based on real needs. For this purpose, this research has been done to describe the characteristics of pragmatism and neo-pragmatism planning and compare it with other urban planning traditions. The findings of this research show that contextualism, learning from experience, emphasis on continuity, continuity, evaluation, openness, and error proneness are the most important characteristics of pragmatic planning. Also, pragmatic planning in terms of features such as effective scientific philosophy, the future situation from the point of view of the planner, the definition of planning, relationship with power, rationality, laws and policies, present or future, relying on the ideas of philosophers, the perspective of contradictions, planner's concern and attention, planner's role, planning process, consensus-based planning, market or government, planner's goal, relationship with people, the direction of planning, perspective on democracy, method of achieving truth, planner's vision, values, type of judgment, process or product, method, methods and techniques of planning, widely used tool and the nature of planning is closest to agonistic planning and farthest from comprehensive planning. This research shows that pragmatic planning, especially its new reading, can work more effectively than other planning traditions.
Extended Abstract
Introduction
Planning includes today's and future tasks. The planning tasks in the past were much clearer than today, and planners analyzed the problems of the present and modeled and predicted the future with certainty. However, wars, economic stagnation, riots, environmental hazards, etc. have challenged trust in rational arguments today. In fact, our rational understanding of the world is never perfect, and most of our predictions are wrong. Acknowledging the limitations of planners to understand and control the world is related to a pragmatic (pragmatist) attitude towards truth, which emphasizes the fallibility of planners' knowledge, the experience of "what to do" in the here and now, the absence of universal laws and defining practices. It emphasizes orientations rather than a final endpoint. In fact, in contemporary complex cities constantly changing, scientific-rational methods and philosophical interpretations can no longer be the answer alone.
Pragmatism is a philosophical movement that emerged in America in the last years of the 19th century. Unlike traditional philosophical thoughts, it emphasizes theories' practical consequences and usefulness. In fact, pragmatists consider the truth dependent on what is useful for humans and believe that a theory that can be answered in practice is correct.
This philosophical approach and its contemporary reading under the title of neo-pragmatism have had many effects on urban planning and, in recent years, have attracted the attention of contemporary researchers in this field, such as Foster, Hook, Haley, etc. However, in domestic studies, very little attention has been paid to this issue. Firstly, a negative view towards pragmatism or the philosophy of originality of action is prevalent among domestic urban planners. Secondly, the plurality of opinions in philosophy makes it difficult to understand the concept of this philosophical approach and, of course, the difficulty of understanding the reading of planning attributed to it. This issue deprives urban planners inside the country of the benefits of using a pragmatic approach. Meanwhile, pragmatism can help us move beyond traditions of planning. The complexity of urban systems and the high speed of their changes have necessitated this innovative approach to urban planning. However, urban planners, students, and policymakers are always faced with the question of what is pragmatic planning and its characteristics? Moreover, what is the difference with other planning traditions? However, in previous studies, very little attention has been paid to these questions. Most previous studies have either described a specific planning tradition or compared planning traditions without considering pragmatic planning. Studies that have investigated pragmatist planning have also examined it without separating the philosophy of pragmatism and neopragmatism. While these two philosophical readings are very similar, they also have differences. Of course, most theorists in the field of planning have been influenced by reading neopragmatism. For this purpose, this research has been done to describe the characteristics of pragmatism and neo-pragmatism planning and compare it with other urban planning traditions.
 
Methodology
This research discusses the chronological study of the readings on the philosophy of pragmatism and pragmatic planning. In the next step, the concepts of pragmatism, neo-pragmatism, and pragmatic planning are explained. However, as mentioned, there are many differences in the characteristics of the philosophy of pragmatism and neo-pragmatism. Nevertheless, Papini compares pragmatism to a great hotel where a philosopher works in every room. Each of these philosophers thinks differently and about a different question. However, they all go through the same main corridor. Relying on Papini, this research intends, in the next step, to identify the characteristics of the main corridor that all or most pragmatists go through and then to identify the characteristics of pragmatist planning based on the opinions of thinkers in this field or the characteristics of the philosophy of pragmatism and neo-pragmatism.
 For this purpose, the most important and relevant previous studies have been identified using a narrative approach. Then, the features of classical pragmatism, neo-pragmatism, and pragmatic planning features have been extracted using content analysis. Finally, after identifying the characteristics of pragmatist and neo-pragmatist planning, this type of planning has been compared with other planning traditions, and their differences and similarities have been explained.
 
Results and discussion
The findings of this research show that empiricism, pragmatism, utilitarianism, and instrumentalism are the most frequent characteristics of pragmatism, and emphasis on language, pragmatism, belief in relative truth, empiricism, attention to vocabulary, and belief in representation are the most frequent characteristics of neo-pragmatism. Also, contextualism, learning from experience, emphasis on continuity, continuity, evaluation, clarity, and fallibility are the most important characteristics of pragmatic planning. Furthermore, pragmatic planning is the closest to controversial and far from comprehensive planning.
A comparison of the findings of this research with previous studies shows that no study has been done so far in connection with the classical pragmatism reading of urban planning and its difference from neo-pragmatism planning. This research has improved the findings of previous studies by examining the characteristics of pragmatism and neo-pragmatism and planning attributed to each of these movements and comparing pragmatism and neo-pragmatism planning with other planning traditions.
 
Conclusion
Pragmatic planning, especially its new reading under neo-pragmatism planning, can work more effectively than other planning traditions.
 
Funding
There is no funding support.
 
 
Authors’ Contribution
Authors contributed equally to the conceptualization and writing of the article. All of the authors approved thecontent of the manuscript and agreed on all aspects of the work declaration of competing interest none.
 
Conflict of Interest
Authors declared no conflict of interest.
 
Acknowledgments
 We are grateful to all the scientific consultants of this paper.