The role of discourses in enacting neoliberal urbanism: Understanding the relationship between ideology and discourse in planning

Introduction

Claims that neoliberalism has been shaping planning practice and the production of space abound in the planning literature. While Peck et al. (2009) argue that “cities have become increasingly central to the reproduction, reconstitution and mutation of neoliberalism” (p. 50), Gunder (2010) states that “planning disciplines city life in a manner consistent with neoliberal market logics” (p. 308). These claims reveal an understanding of neoliberalism not only as a set of policies, but also as an ideology (Larner, 2000). As such, it is a legitimating argument that establishes neoliberal assumptions as common sense and neoliberal interventions as necessary (Purcell, 2009).

This article explores the role of neoliberalism as a central (though not the only) ideology in planning. Because the focus is on ideology in action, the discussion presented is both theoretically and empirically grounded. A theoretical survey is necessary given the diversity of meanings surrounding the term ideology as well as the multiplicity of insights into its nature and purpose. The empirical assessment of a case study enables us to get closer to the ground in which ideology operates. The empirical analysis of ideology is not an easy task, but it is essential to the contribution of this article: to provide a methodological tool for the assessment of how ideology is manifested, reproduced, and materialized in planning practice.

The notion of ideology did not present itself a priori and separated from the empirical research. Instead, it emerged as an explanatory mechanism for the phenomena observed. While studying the processes that have enabled the proliferation of suburban gated communities (SGC) in the Metropolitan Region of Curitiba (MRC), Brazil, I had expected to uncover multiple accounts employing different justifications and rationales legitimizing SGC. ¹ Rather than focusing on neoliberalism, the goal of the study on SGC was to uncover how certain planning practices, particularly potentially regressive practices such as gating, segregating, and the urbanization of environmentally sensitive areas—practices that are far from embodying the normative progressive goals of planning—are legitimized and enacted. Contrary to my expectations, interviews and participant observations revealed that local actors with different backgrounds and interests shared very similar views in support of SGC. Because urban development (and the making of SGC is no exception) involves a complex combination of actors and institutional organizations, it became relevant to ask what brings these actors and institutions together in a way that enables the making of potentially controversial spaces such as SGC. In other words, I became interested in ideology as a particular way of understanding and talking about urbanization that constructs SGC as a desirable urban typology.

In this sense, the case of SGC is not presented as an illustration of ideology. On the contrary, ideology emerges from the case as an explanatory mechanism that helps us make sense of what is being observed. Therefore, the empirical discussion is fundamental to the understanding of ideology in action. This study follows an empirically grounded approach to theorizing (Charmaz, 2006) that has been advocated in planning (Forester, 2015) and that connects theoretical discussions with the materiality of planning practice (Harrison, 2014; Yiftachel, 2006).

The accounts of my informants are expressions of a dominant discourse featuring a particular way of making sense of reality. Notwithstanding the individual or professional interest of each informant in reproducing the dominant discourse as well as the various feelings they express toward “the reality” that gives way to the discourse, the arguments in support of SGC are largely presented as commonsensical. Both the content and the structure of the discourse construct reality in ways as to leave little room for questions and alternatives. In particular, the established definitions of problems and solutions enable the emergence of SGC as a legitimate and desirable outcome. There is nothing especially unique or unexpected about the discourse. It is in fact quite ordinary, as it resembles discourses routinely employed to legitimize potentially controversial planning practices. For instance, the analysis and findings presented here might apply to discourses that justify anti-homeless policies in the name of public health and safety, bulldozing of entire neighborhoods in the name of beautification, and gentrification in the name of economic development. Furthermore, the technical language that seems to make discourses in planning “ordinary” by bringing to us ideas that make sense is exactly what makes such discourses “extraordinary.” As Fish (1972) explains,

Such language can be called “ordinary” only because it confirms and reflects our ordinary understanding of the world and our position in it; but for precisely that reason it is extraordinary (unless we accept a naive epistemology which grants us unmediated access to reality) and to leave it unanalyzed is to risk missing much of what happens—to us and through us—when we read and (or so we think) understand. (p. 390, quoted in Milroy, 1989)

Thus, this article is not primarily concerned with the case of SGC in the MRC. Nor is it concerned with neoliberalism per se. Instead, it offers an analytical and methodological tool to deconstruct the dominant discourse and render visible its ideological basis. This is particularly relevant to planning practice. If we understand practices and structures as mutually constituted (Giddens, 1984), then we must consider planning not simply as a practice bounded by social structures, including ideology, but also as capable of both reproducing, sustaining, challenging, and transforming them. For practices to be transformative, actors must be able to acknowledge the possibility of alternatives. Therefore, revealing the ideological nature of planning practices, that is, making ideology visible, is fundamental to fostering transformative reflective practices. In this sense, the analysis and discussion presented here allows practitioners to: (a) detect their own taken for granted assumptions; (b) question the rationale that justifies and legitimizes certain courses of action; and (c) consider the potential of practices to both reproduce and transform social structures.

The transformative and reflective process discussed above acknowledges that, as Harvey (1984) pointed out, planner’s understanding of the world is influenced both by technical knowledge and ideologies, thus, “planner’s knowledge is used ideologically as legitimation and justification for certain forms of action” (p. 225). But, more importantly, Harvey suggests that ideological shifts are possible when planners understand the role of their own commitment to an ideology in shaping thoughts and actions (p. 231).

Although the notion of ideology emerged during the analysis process as an explanation for the largely uncontested reproduction of a dominant discourse, for the sake of clarity, the article is organized in a rather linear fashion. The first part of the article combines insights from van Djik’s theory of ideology (1998 and 2006) with others to portray ideology as a socially shared belief system whose primary function is to maintain cohesion and orient action. It also highlights the importance of discourses in the analysis of ideologies. The discussion presented in this first section forms the theoretical basis that enables ideology to serve as an explanatory mechanism. Deconstructive discourse analysis is discussed subsequently. The third section presents the dominant discourse and explains the context in which it has been produced and reproduced. Then, the analysis and the deconstruction of the discourse are presented in the fourth and the fifth sections and are followed by some final thoughts.

Ideology as a socially shared belief system

The term ideology, which when first appeared at the end of the 18th century meant the “science of ideas” (Fine and Sandstrom, 1993), has been employed in a variety of ways. The vagueness and possibly misconception surrounding the term has led to “epistemological skepticism” (Eagleton, 1991), however, it is still widely employed as authors find it conceptually useful (e.g. Dikeç, 2013; Eagleton, 1991). Generally, the conceptualization of ideology tends to fall into two large groups. A critical approach refers to a particular form of consciousness that entails the misrepresentation of reality through misconception, misperception, misrecognition, or incomplete knowledge (Purvis and Hunt, 1993). Ideology, thus, is conceptualized in connection to domination and oppression, reproducing the interests of the dominant classes (Thompson, 1984).

The second group, which Purvis and Hunt (1993) refer to as the sociological view and Seliger (1976) defines as an “inclusive conception,” portrays ideology as neutral, that is, as applying to all political belief systems rather than to specific oppressive systems. In this sense, ideology is not intrinsically a mechanism of oppression or domination, as it may be employed for both domination and emancipation. Accordingly, Van Dijk (1998) argues that ideology must be theorized according to its content and structure as well as its cognitive and social functions. Treating ideology as inherently negative or limiting its definition and analytical power exclusively to the study of domination means conceptualizing as ideology only the belief systems that we do not agree with. As a general concept, however, ideology may be equally useful both in the analysis of systems of oppression (racism, sexism) and systems of resistance (anti-racism, feminism, pacifism). A sociological or inclusive conceptualization of ideology does not necessarily prevent a critical analysis. In this sense, looking at ideology critically means uncovering its role in concealing, maintaining, or legitimating inequality.

Van Dijk’s (1998) theory of ideology argues for a neutral definition of ideology as a set of ideas, that is, a belief system socially shared by members of a social group. Regardless of their level of organization or institutionalization, social groups are defined primarily by shared ideology and the social practices it entails. This conceptualization is quite similar to the definition put forth by Seliger (1976), in which ideology constitutes a set of ideas that orient and justify action regardless of whether such actions preserve or transform social order. Likewise, Hall (1996) understands ideologies as “the mental frameworks—the languages, the concepts, categories, imagery of thought, and the systems of representation—which different classes and social groups deploy to make sense of, figure out and render intelligible the way society works” (p. 26).

Further exploring this definition, Van Dijk develops a theory of ideology that integrates social and cognitive aspects to explain how social groups understand and communicate ideologies and act accordingly. In this aspect, he echoes Therborn’s (1980: 2) approach to ideology as “the medium through which [. . .] consciousness and meaningfulness operates.” More specifically, for Van Dijk, ideologies organize foundational beliefs that control other socially shared beliefs. They also identify the values that are relevant for the group. For instance,

a racist ideology may control attitudes about immigration, a feminist ideology may control attitudes about abortion or glass ceilings on the job or knowledge about gender inequality in society, and a social ideology may favour a more important role of the State in public affairs. (Van Dijk, 2006: 116)

One of the cognitive functions of ideologies is to provide coherence to a set of beliefs as to facilitate their gradual acquisition and use. However, while exuding some level of organized structure, they may be heterogeneous and inconsistent. Because they are organized around fundamental beliefs, they also allow for variations within the same ideology.

Thus, following Van Dijk’s (2006) approach to ideology as a socially shared belief system that controls the attitudes and identifies the values relevant to a social group, neoliberalism may be understood as an ideology that controls particular attitudes regarding the role of the state, market, and regulations and identify relevant values such as competition, privatization, and individualism.

Deconstructive discourse analysis

To critically analyze a discourse means to denaturalize it, that is, to make clear the social determinations and effects of which participants are unaware (Fairclough, 1985). This requires the combination of detailed textual analyses with inquiry of social contexts to address the relationship between discourses and larger social structures (Van Dijk, 1993). Critical analyses often include efforts to expose assumptions and implicit propositions as well as strategies to conceal social power relations that are obscured in the style, rhetoric, and structure of discourses (Van Dijk, 1993).

In this sense, as Feldman (1995) put it, the deconstruction of a discourse entails looking at texts in ways that reveal ideological limits. Deconstructive analysis rests on two assumptions: “[t]he first is that ideology imposes limits on what can and cannot be said. The second is that most authors write and actors act from within an ideology” (Feldman, 1995: 51). Thus, deconstructive analysis is concerned with what is left out or marginalized (Milroy, 1989). Analyses conducted in this way have the potential to uncover ideologies bounding the way in which individuals act in and see the world.

Contrasting deconstructive analysis informed by the work of Derrida (1981) with the more traditional Habermasian approach to analyzing consensus in planning, Milroy (1989) explains the basis of deconstructive analysis:

In a Habermasian formulation one might ask the question “What are planners recommending here?” in order to see how the proposals are attention-shaping. Specific utterances are interpreted in terms of the model of communicative behaviour. In the alternative one instead asks “How is it that these prescriptions are plausible?.” One tries to discover the operations by which plausibility is constructed, to learn why it is possible to write this text with these propositions at this time. In the course of the analysis the deconstructionist shows how the main theme is paradoxically subverted by the very attempts to hold it in place, often by skittish manoeuvres around its opposite. (p. 318)

The focus on binary oppositions is central to Derrida’s critique of Western thought where a hierarchical organization makes some terms subordinate to their opposites. These ideas are also found in the work of Van Dijk as he argues that polarization is at the core of ideological discourses. While not all ideological discourses are organized around a problem/solution structure, “many ideologies, especially of dominated and dissident groups, organize around basic beliefs about what is wrong, and about what should be done about it” (Van Dijk, 1998: 66).

The deconstructive analysis in this article focuses on the content and polarizing structure of the dominant discourse that legitimizes SGC in the MRC and which I identified during interviews and participant observation. The discourse is presented in a composite narrative derived from the accounts of diverse informants. The data originated from 33 semi-structured in-depth interviews conducted in 2011, 2013, and 2014. The respondents included three developers, eight private sector planners, six public sector planners, one realtor, one environmental consultant, three residents of SGC, three heads of municipal planning departments, one technician at a municipal planning department, one employee of the State Environmental Agency, three academics, and two NGO representatives. The selection of respondents aimed for maximum variation to represent the different actors involved in the process of developing, designing, approving, building, selling, and inhabiting SGC. Yet, it was centered on private and public sector planners since the larger research addressed the role of planners in the making of SGC (Zanotto 2016; Zanotto 2019). In addition to the interviews, I conducted participant observations at a planning and urban design office for over 150 h in a total of 5 weeks.

The dominant discourse supporting SGC

Gated communities are neither a new nor an uncommon phenomenon in Brazil. Residential segregation, in general, and gated communities, in particular, have characterized Brazilian cities since the urbanization wave in the mid-20th century. From raising walls around one’s home, to the enclosure of existing streets, to the creation of gated single-family developments and the gating of multi-family buildings, Brazilians have been living behind gates for decades. However, the SGC of the early 2000s are different than the urban gated communities that emerged in the 1970s in a number of ways. While the latter are inserted in the urban fabric in close proximity to other urban land uses and residential communities (yet separated from them by walls and gates), the former provide a higher level of isolation. Areas surrounding SGC comprise empty or natural land, low-income neighborhoods, squatter settlements, industries, and farms. Urban gated communities are denser; they include smaller lots for single-family homes or townhouses, few amenities, and less open spaces. SGC, on the other hand, are sprawling luxurious residential communities that include parcels for the construction of large single-family houses, recreational facilities (e.g. golf courses, sports courts, and swimming pools), and natural amenities (e.g. trails, lakes, and woodlands).

Most importantly, the accounts that justify the proliferation of urban and SGC are significantly different. The vast literature on gated communities in Latin America draws mostly from the experience of urban developments to point out that the appeal of gated communities rests primarily on their offer of security. Exclusion and segregation in Latin American cities are justified by actual or perceived urban violence (Caldeira, 2000; Glasze et al., 2006). No larger public good can be attributed to these developments. Accounts supporting SGC, on the other hand, are original in that they combine elements of environmentalist and neoliberal ideologies to highlight the benefits these developments bring to the surrounding communities and the population at large. We turn to that narrative and the ideological underpinnings of the discourse enacted in the MRC after reviewing the context in which SGC have proliferated.

In the MRC, SGC are mostly located to the east and west of Curitiba, in areas that concentrate environmental resources, such as water sources and native vegetation. To preserve natural resources of importance to the region, a series of State Decrees approved throughout the 1990s created five macro-zones called Area of Environmental Protection (Área de Proteção Ambiental—APA) that restrict development, and five macro-zones called Territorial Planning Unit (Unidade Territorial de Planejamento—UTP), which are less restrictive. While APAs are defined in regards to watershed capacity and water quality, UTPs are considered part of the watershed under pressure for urbanization. They establish a transition between already urbanized areas and APAs or rural areas.

The creation of APAs and UTPs reveals tensions between the neoliberal project of urban expansion, on one hand, and the need for environmental preservation, on the other. In the 1990s, seeking its insertion in the global economy, the state government adopted a series of policies to attract multinational corporations and ultimately promoted deep spatial transformations to accommodate growth in the MRC (Moura and Firkowski, 2009). Incentives from the state formed the grounds for inter-city competition. But, cities whose territories were largely transformed into areas of preservation resented their limited capacity to attract investment and increase tax base since the restrictive zoning puts them at a competitive disadvantage:

People have a lot of trouble to install an industry here. They have to listen to [the State Environmental Institute], they have to do I don’t know what. Recently, we lost two thousand jobs that went to [the neighboring city], because of the environmental question. (Interview with Planning Analyst at a Municipal Planning Department)

The economic disadvantage of zoning for environmental preservation is coupled with another problem: undeveloped land may become target for squatter settlements. The rationale that connects the need to preserve the environment, the inability of public agencies to monitor and protect natural resources, and the risk of squatter settlement is at the heart of the discourse that justifies zoning changes and the approval of SGC. A planner at the Metropolitan Planning Agency articulates this rationale:

[. . .] these green areas, for them to function as something sustainable, they should be connected and not be within walls. But, if they are not within walls, they end up being deforested or invaded, mostly because of lack of monitoring. We have a project to start monitoring by satellites, but this is new technology and the State does not invest enough to make it usable. The ideal would be to leave the green areas open and we would monitor them. But, the reality is that this does not work. So, [. . .] the gated communities are seen as a way of preserving the green areas. You take a large parcel and, instead of deforesting it completely, you preserve a large area and occupy a smaller part. This is seen with good eyes, so we are more favorable to [gated communities in areas of preservation]. (Interview with Urban Planner at Metropolitan Planning Agency)

To facilitate the transfer of responsibility for environmental protection from the public sector to developers and property owners, allowing the urbanization of these areas through SGC, often referred to as “low-density controlled occupations,” the Metropolitan Planning Agency sought in 1999 a zoning change that transformed part of an APA into the less restrictive UTP. Because UTPs allow higher density urbanization, the zoning change rendered economically viable the development of the largest SGC in the MRC, which includes over 1100 single-family parcels, a golf course, a strip mall, and several recreational amenities. The change from more restrictive to less restrictive zoning was justified on the basis of squatter settlement risk, as a planner for the Metropolitan Planning Agency explains:

What [the Metropolitan Planning Agency] thought at that time? One way to try to avoid irregular occupations would be to give land a value. Because when the land has no value the owner does not care for it, he abandons it, stops paying taxes, and the land is invaded. So, areas suffering pressure for occupation were identified. These are small areas when compared to the total, but at that time they were considered strategic for the State government to create legislation since the municipality wasn’t taking care of them. (Interview with Urban Planner at the Metropolitan Planning Agency)

Federal environmental law from 1986 (CONAMA n.001) requires residential developments with over 100 hectares or those located in environmentally sensitive areas to undergo an environmental licensing process. Thus, since most SGC in the MRC are located in the watershed or within areas zoned for environmental protection, they must complete an Environmental Impact Study (in Portuguese, EIA). An analysis of EIAs for two SGC in the MRC revealed their poor quality (Rocha, 2012). Only including the bare minimum information required (sometimes even lacking some required information), or discussing environmental issues broadly without providing site-specific and deep analyses, these reports are ill-equipped to satisfactorily contribute to environmental quality control in environmentally protected areas. Still, despite incomplete information and methodological flaws, these studies provide an assessment of the rich environmental assets in the MRC. The study for the largest SGC in the MRC, for example, found that the territory is home to 5 river sources, 40 plant species, 9 fish species, 85 bird species, and 7 mammals (Rocha, 2012).

The intention of characterizing SGC as an environmental protection tool is explicit in the Environmental Impact Studies. In one of the reports analyzed, the applicant (i.e. developer) states that the proposed SGC presents a new urban typology to counter “the disorderly occupation process of the region that cause extremely negative environmental effects,” while the other report affirmed that the proposed SGC “aims at protecting water resources from the watershed, adopting all the rules and restrictions imposed by legislation in APAs and UTPs, as an alternative to disorderly occupation” (Rocha, 2012: 128). Yet, a number of actions and projects to monitor environmental quality and mitigate negative effects were never implemented or only lasted for a few years after the conclusion of the development (Rocha, 2012).

Despite the limitations in relying on SGC for environmental protection, they are characterized as preferable when contrasted with what is seen as the other possible alternative, that is, irregular occupations. In the quotes below, the preference for a legally approved development and the need to attach monetary value to private property are emphasized:

We prefer a legally approved gated community than an irregular development . . . because one or the other is going to happen. [. . .] If you do not approve this person’s development within the parameters . . . You have to have parameters that give some financial return in the person’s land; otherwise he will do it another way. He will do it himself no matter what. And it does not help to have someone at the State Environmental Institute reading the laws from his chair and only taking care of things after they already happened; he needs to provide a solution; he is in the same boat, he needs to row along. (Interview with Planning Analyst at Municipal Planning Department)

At least in Brazil, it is like that: if you say “it cannot be occupied” what will happen? Invasions will happen. This is much worse than having a development like [the largest SGC in the MRC], which has higher economic level, so you may have lower density with the sewage emission, I don’t know . . . more controlled. So, that is better than saying nothing can be developed [on this land]. (Interview with Urban planner at Municipal Planning Agency)

As these quotes illustrate, the failure of the public sector to prevent squatter settlements is taken for granted. The two possible alternatives these planners and analysts envision are either legally approved gated community or irregular settlements; “because one or the other is going to happen.” The ideal scenario illustrated in laws and regulations is contrasted with the reality, which might not be grasped by officials who are “reading the laws from his chair” instead of dealing with the messy reality in which the ideal of open and preserved green areas does not work. Thus, restrictive zoning that largely limits urbanization is considered unrealistic. Determining that “nothing can be developed” in a private property is out of question. The solution offered is to ensure that the regulatory process enables “some financial return in the person’s land.” This view shapes the role of regulatory agencies as facilitators of private development based on market rules. As the planner from the Metropolitan Planning Agency summarizes: “when legislation is created [. . .] you have to consider the real estate market and the question of revenue for people.”

Privatization is positively depicted since the private sector is deemed more efficient at providing the services and infrastructure needed at a lower cost for the public sector. This view is explicit in accounts justifying the privatization of public space (e.g. green areas and streets) through gating. Planning staff and developers acknowledge the government’s failure to perform its duties; hence, their accounts contrast the value of SGC with the public sector’s inefficiency. Informants highlight the benefits that SGC bring to society at large as they provide infrastructure improvements, tax revenue, and jobs to local communities, at no cost to the public sector:

The road was made by [the developer], the pavement, everything, the water distribution system, the sewage system, public lighting. One hundred percent of the investment in the region was done by [the developer], including the security. (Interview with Realtor)

Two of my developments generate around 20, 30% of the city’s property tax revenue and have created 15 to 20 kilometers of well done infrastructure. (Interview with Developer)

In a way, [gated communities] employ maids and maintenance workers. There has not been a survey; there are no indicators, but the majority of people working in construction in [a large SGC] are from [surrounding communities]. (Interview with Secretary at Municipal Planning Department)

These accounts present arguments in support of SGC that position these spaces in the context of a failed public sector. Taken together, they reveal a neoliberal approach to urbanization as the commodification of land, the importance of exchange value, the primacy of economic growth, and inter-city competition for investment are taken for granted. In this context, economic growth, privatization, and individual freedom are positively depicted as values to be pursued through policy.

The next paragraph articulates the dominant discourse that was enacted by all respondents in support of the proliferation of SGC in the MRC. ² It is dominant for two main reasons. First, it expresses claims highly naturalized among a diverse group of people (including developers, residents, public officials, and planners in the public and private sectors). In other words, interviewees explained the proliferation of SGC in the context of how things are without considering alternative understandings or alternative courses of action (as a municipal planning agent put it: “at least in Brazil, it is like that”). Second, it is dominant because its legitimacy is linked to the level of political, socio-economic, or symbolic power enjoyed by those enacting it, especially public officials and developers. The dominant discourse is conveyed below through a composite narrative that draws from interviews and field observation. ³ It reproduces in a more orderly fashion the arguments illustrated in the quotes presented earlier:

The state created zoning and land use regulations to restrict the urbanization of environmentally sensitive areas. However, the government lacks technological, financial, and human resources to enforce legislation and monitor these areas. Squatters have irregularly settled in environmentally protected areas that remain undeveloped. Irregular settlements are harmful to the environment because squatters deforest the land and dispose of garbage and human waste at nearby water sources. The establishment of low-density controlled occupation in these areas will impede squatting. These developments attract high-income residents who wish to escape from urban problems such as pollution, traffic congestion, lack of open space, and violence. Since the government is unable to address these issues, it is natural that those who can afford it will seek communities where the provision of services is provided by private firms and paid for by each resident. These developments also have the potential to attract investments in surrounding neighborhoods, increase the city’s revenue through property tax, and offer jobs (as maids, nannies, and drivers) to local low-income communities. Developers provide improved public infrastructure (particularly roads) and ensure the preservation of pockets of green areas. All of that at no cost to the public sector. So, it is a win-win scenario for developers, residents, public officials, and the population at large.

The discourse is particularly relevant given the institutional context in which development approvals occur. Despite the existence of master plans, the enactment and enforcement of land use regulations is flexible and subject to negotiation. Land use is shaped by small-scale ad hoc decisions made through a bargaining process. Plans serve as instruments for arbitrary power (Maricato, 2000). So, as an urban planner from a municipal planning department pointed out in an interview, “what you see in plans and what you see in the city are two very different things.” Similarly to what has been noted in the United States, plans are “generally treated as only policy guidelines to be ignored when convenient” (Tarlock, 2014: 105) and land use regulations serve as “tenders for bids” (p. 106). In a process of “regulation through bargaining,” developers are expected to ask for zoning changes and to engage in negotiations with public agencies.

Negotiations are encouraged through conditional zoning, which allows the rezoning of a parcel upon some conditions imposed to the developer. Supporters of this approach argue that it allows zoning to be tailored to a particular situation and gives cities the flexibility to make good deals. But, as Tarlock (2014) points out, “whatever the merits of regulation by bargaining, the process erodes any form of planning except site planning” (p. 107). In the MRC, the dominant discourse has been successfully used as a negotiation tool during zoning changes and approval processes.

Analyzing the dominant discourse

As the composite narrative illustrates, the dominant discourse is structured around claims that reveal a specific way of understanding reality. The most significant claims refer to: (a) the inefficiency of the government, which is unable to perform its duties, including to promote safety and to protect the environment; (b) the privatization of natural resources and public services as beneficial to society at large; (c) the role of public agencies as facilitators of development based on market rules and ensuring private profit; and (d) an individualistic view where individual agents are expected to maximize their opportunities and those who can pay are able to enjoy a better quality of life. The naturalization (or commonsensical character) of these claims reveals a way of understanding and talking about urbanization that reproduces what is often associated with neoliberalization in cities worldwide (Peck and Tickell, 2002) and in Brazil (Caldeira, 2008). The unquestioned focus on state-enabled privatization, economic efficiency, competition, and individualism shapes a particular understanding of reality and orients action accordingly. In this sense, neoliberal urban policies are not necessarily about state withdrawal or deregulation; they support, instead, a different kind of state intervention and re-regulation that ultimately benefits only a few (Aalbers, 2013). Thus, neoliberal urbanism as practiced in the MRC is not characterized by the reduction or absence of zoning and land use regulation, but by flexible laws and policies that favor the elite, developers, and the real estate market.

Invoking the need to protect environmentally sensitive areas as a justification for privatizing public functions and gating common spaces, the discourse illustrates both the complexity of ideological discourses and the hybrid nature of neoliberalism. As a heterogeneous process whose mechanisms, causes, and consequences are contextually variable, existing neoliberalisms represent both local specificities and global interconnections (Peck et al., 2009). In this sense, the successful distribution and consumption ⁴ of the dominant discourse depend on the spatial and temporal context that gives rise to them. The discourse crafted in the early 2000s, in the MRC, found traction among a variety of actors in the public and private sectors by combining features of both an environmentalist and a neoliberal ideology. In other words, the rationale expressed in the composite narrative draws from a growing concern with environmental issues to legitimize neoliberal urban policies that enable the creation of SGC.

Discourses emphasizing environmental benefits are particularly appealing in the MRC given that the city of Curitiba takes pride in its “sustainable city” title. ⁵ Thus, the environmental concerns that serve as justification for the proliferation of SGC are important to residents, politicians, and public officials. Likewise, the support for privatization of public services (including urban planning, environmental preservation, and security) is appealing to public officials struggling with limited resources. The possibility of increasing revenue through property tax is attractive to municipalities that must raise revenues as state and federal contributions dwindle. The potential for attracting investments is crucial in regions where municipalities compete to entice businesses, tourists, and high-income residents.

Given that Curitiba has a successful history of top-down planning (Irazábal, 2004), the discourse combining environmentalism and neoliberalism is effective insofar as it characterizes SGC as an urban planning instrument and is supported by planners and public officials. The same discourse might be less successful in places where environmental protection and planning interventions are unappreciated. More importantly, if we consider planning to be a “consensus-steering” practice (Pløger, 2004), we should note that the dominant discourse is built upon consensus about what is best for the collective interest. The “goods” that come out of SGC are “public goods”—namely environmental protection and orderly growth—that allegedly benefit everyone. By highlighting societal and environmental improvements, the discourse mobilizes support from a variety of actors. Yet, the focus on collective benefits downplays the individual gains accrued by only a few privileged residents who can afford to live within the developments’ gates.

The composite narrative depicts the choice of words used by informants to emphasize certain characteristics of SGC and irregular occupations. Actors who expressed support for the proliferation of SGC often referred to these developments as “low-density controlled occupations.” This choice of words is used in lieu of “gated communities” (condomínios fechados), which is a more popular, but also more controversial and pejorative term. ⁶ The expression “low-density controlled occupations” focuses on what public officials and planners understand as positive aspects of these developments. Characterizing SGC as “controlled” and “low-density” developments puts them in clear opposition to the uncontrolled (i.e. unplanned) and high-density slums that typically occupy the peripheries. Likewise, informants refer to low-income communities that are self-built outside the formal real estate and housing markets as “irregular settlements” (ocupações irregulares). This term highlights these communities as a problem. Rather than being “human,” “spontaneous,” or “improvised,” settlements, they are seen, first and foremost, as irregular.

The discourse conveyed in the composite narrative also constructs unambiguous identities for each actor. The government is characterized as incapable of performing its duties. Squatters are associated with environmental destruction. Developers are presented as good-willed problem solvers providing benefits for the greater good. This construction leads to an understanding of roles and responsibilities divided into those who are responsible for the problem and those capable of proving solutions.

Finally, besides the content of the discourse, as discussed so far, there are particular structural properties that help reproduce reality. Because ideas are structured around oppositions, there is little room for alternative views and nuanced interpretations of reality. Arguments are presented in implicit and explicit binary oppositions such as public versus private, good versus bad, desirable versus undesirable, efficient versus inefficient, regular versus irregular, squatters versus residents, gated communities versus slums, and problem versus solution. It is to the extensive use of oppositions that we turn our attention next.

Deconstructing oppositions

The binary opposition problem/solution is central to the arguments featured in the dominant discourse. The basic structure of the narrative implies that problems—such as irregular occupations and environmental degradation—require a solution. Low-density controlled occupations are presented as solutions to address these problems. Therefore, the use of the opposition problem/solution establishes a particular relationship between the two that orients actions, including zoning changes, approval of exceptions for gating, and issuing permits for SGC in environmentally sensitive areas.

The relationship between problem and solution may be deconstructed in at least three ways, as shown in Figure 1: (A) by questioning what is defined as problem and solution, (B) by accounting for what is left out of the dominant discourse, and (C) by challenging the relationship between problem and solution. The three forms of deconstruction are discussed separately in the next paragraphs. They highlight polarization and implicit ideas as communication strategies typical of ideological discourses (Van Dijk, 1998). In doing so, the deconstructive analysis presents alternative ways of understanding reality that could lead to different practices and policies. These alternative interpretations intend to make explicit the ideological nature of the discourse. In other words, the deconstruction of the dominant discourse challenges naturalized ideological propositions that form the background knowledge individuals draw upon when enacting the discourse.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Deconstructing the discourse.

Same discourse, different purposes

The neoliberal ideology has been identified as dominant in planning practice (Purcell, 2009). Yet, it is not clear why exactly it has found traction among planners. For instance, Farhat (2014) acknowledges a cognitive function of the neoliberal ideology when he suggests that neoliberalism has been successful “because it addresses anxieties about arrested social mobility and the erosion of community power.” On the other hand, Roy (2006) implies that the dominance of neoliberalism in planning is unavoidable since planners cannot be dissociated from the political regimes in which they work.

Thus, while the focus of this article has been on how (not why) neoliberalism is enacted in planning practice through particular discourses, the data gathered suggest that the reproduction of the dominant discourse serves the interests of different groups. While respondents mention the threat of irregular occupations as a justification to urbanize environmentally protected areas, they tend to emphasize different aspects of the narrative. They also tend to express different feelings toward the realities that give rise to the discourse. The variation is systematic and dependent on the respondent’s role.

Developers’ accounts of SGC focus on their role in addressing people’s demand for quality of life, which they claim is not fulfilled through existing housing options. Thus, developers enact the discourse emphasizing, on one hand, people’s desire for the lifestyle that their developments offer and, on the other hand, the inability of the public sector to meet this demand. They also highlight the societal benefits of SGC, including the creation of jobs, tax revenue increases, environmental protection, and infrastructure improvement. Developers utilize the discourse to garner support for their projects from local communities, politicians, and municipal agencies. This support is deployed during negotiations with metropolitan and state agencies.

The accounts of private sector planners and designers working for developers characterize SGC as a tool to control and organize growth in the peripheries. They highlight the design quality of these developments, their compliance with the law, and their ability to prevent the proliferation of squatter settlements. The (perceived) legality of these developments is particularly emphasized given that they are located in areas where irregular occupations are the norm. They also point to the benefits these developments bring to the larger society, particularly in terms of environmental preservation and infrastructure improvement. The discourse enables planners and designers to downplay the negative social and environmental outcomes of exclusionary communities, which they are generally aware of by virtue of their professional education.

Planners and public officials working at municipal planning departments and the metropolitan planning agency enact the dominant discourses while expressing a great deal of frustration with the reality of their jobs. They characterize the need for privatization as an unfortunate result of the state’s lack of investment in planning, implementing, and monitoring processes. These professionals often lament the shortage of personnel to conduct monitoring and permitting tasks; the lack of or outdated technology such as satellites and geographic information system (GIS); difficulty in hiring skilled workers; inexistent, confusing, or ineffective legislation; and restricted time dedicated to planning-related (rather than bureaucratic) work. They also feel their technical expertise is underappreciated both by developers and by their own bosses, who some say are politicians with their own agendas.

Still, planners and public officials responsible for approving these projects and issuing permits use the dominant discourse to justify their decisions. It provides technical reasoning, instead of potentially contentions political motivations, as the impetus for approving these projects. This was observed during interviews when planners and public officials resorted to the dominant discourse when first asked about SGC. However, closer to the end of the 1-h interview, respondents often brought up issues of corruption, unethical behavior, or political motivation as important influences in the permitting process.

Residents of SGC also reproduce the dominant discourse legitimizing these developments. They often mention environmental protection and fiscal benefits generated by the communities they live in. Like developers, residents emphasize the quality of life afforded by SGC as well as their own desire to escape from urban problems, particularly violence.

Because the claims in the dominant discourse are taken for granted, actors might not detect the ideological basis that supports these claims. In the same way that racists or sexists rarely self-identify as racists and sexists when discriminating against racial minorities and women, those supporting neoliberal urban policies do not define themselves as neoliberals. Yet, their attitudes regarding the government, privatization, and flexibilization, as expressed in the current discourse, are shaped by a particular way of understanding reality that could be alternatively represented. This is the realm of ideology, or as Dikeç (2013) put it, ideology “is about the very (re-)configuration that presents a certain situation as the naturally given one” (p. 26).

Conclusion

Neoliberalism has been treated in this article as an ideology, that is, a socially shared belief system. This is not to say that neoliberalism constitutes a homogeneous and consistent set of ideas but that it is organized around foundational beliefs regarding the role of states, markets, and individuals. Still, these beliefs are flexible and adaptable. Thus, material manifestations of neoliberalism—in the form of policies, practices, discourses, and their spatial and non-spatial consequences—vary across space and time (Aalbers, 2013; Brenner and Theodore, 2002; Peck et al., 2009).

Although ideologies are expressed and enacted both discursively (e.g. written and oral texts) and non-discursively (e.g. actions, images, and spatial arrangements), discourse analysis reveals ideology in action, since discourses explain and communicate the rationale that provide cohesion and orient action. In this sense, the article looked at how neoliberalism is manifested in accounts regarding the recent proliferation of SGC in the MRC.

Both the content and structural properties of the discourse supporting SGC in the MRC guide action despite (or because) of simplistic characterizations of the phenomena involved. The ideological nature of the discourse is revealed when alternative ways of seeing and acting challenge commonsensical approaches to the role of governments and private sector, intra-city competition, and commodification of land. Still, by highlighting public goods, particularly from an environmentalist lens, the discourse addresses collective interests and appeals to a wide range of actors, including public officials and planners whose professional activities are linked to environmental protection and the wellbeing of society at large.

Following Van Dijk’s approach, (neoliberal) ideology is not treated as inherently positive or negative. Instead, the effects of ideology are determined in its use. In the case discussed, the discourse structured by combining environmental concerns and neoliberal principles has been successful in providing plausible arguments that turn controversial practices (such as sprawl, privatization of public services and natural areas, gating, exclusion, and urbanization of environmentally protected land) into positives. Thus, when employed to form the basis of the dominant discourse about SGC in the MRC, neoliberalism legitimizes actions that might perpetuate environmental degradation and social exclusion.

It is important to note, however, that ideology is not revealed here solely in the kinds of solutions and actions employed. Instead, it forms the foundation through which the problem is defined and the possibilities are considered. This entails an approach to ideology as the very “situation” that makes certain actions “conceivable, possible, legitimate, even ‘necessary’ in the first place” (Dikeç, 2013: 26). Thus, the analysis highlights the importance of discourses in enacting ideologies by helping to shape how we understand and talk about the situation, which ultimately orient certain kinds of actions. In doing so, it intends to inform more reflective practices