This article theorizes the "narrative turn" in urban planning studies, using Gérard Genette's work to differentiate first- and second-degree narratives. Genette defines the latter as paratexts that determine the public's reception of the former. The article assesses how second-degree narratives work with different perceptual regimes to construct the reception of the political vision of territory. To that end, it resorts to the recent work of postclassical narratology. Indeed, the latter is particularly interested in the way in which the narrative, in various forms, affects its addressee. Postclassical narratology allows us to renew the theory of narrative in urban planning by focusing on what hypothetically happens in the consciousness of the receiver of the narrative when he or she becomes aware of it. Consequently, the paper sheds light on an emerging aspect of the design process: disambiguating signals embedded in urban planning documents intended for a wider public.

Plans and policies rely on knowledge about communities that is often made by actors outside of the community. Exclusion from the creation of knowledge is a function of exclusion from power. Marxists, feminist, decolonial and postmodernist theorists have documented how the knowledge of some subjects is disqualified based on their gender, race, socio-economic position or a range of other constructed differences. Often, several of these constructions intersect in one person's life, compounding their exclusion in ways that are both relational and structural (Crenshaw, 2017). Participatory planning approaches bring members of the community into contact with planning authorities in an effort to include their voices and interests in official plans. Essential to meaningful engagement in such a process is the participant's ability to turn their ideas into change through the exercise of their agency. When that potential for transformation is missing, participation is tokenistic at best and dangerous at worst (Cooke and Kothari, 2001, Hickey and Mohan, 2004; Forester, 2020). When planners ask people whose agency is restricted by institutional and cultural forms of subjugation to talk about issues that adversely impact them, but over which they have little control, we can create exposures to internal and external risks that we are ill-equipped to mitigate. How can planners work towards social transformation without shifting the burden of speaking truth to power onto community members? One of the ways in which power and knowledge are related is through the complicated process of communication. Reflecting on power and communication in planning practice, this paper contemplates the question: when working with communities that have been historically excluded from the creation of knowledge about themselves, should planners strive for undistorted communication or should the distortion in communication be analysed for what it can tell us about agency and power, and opportunities for resistance and transformation?

Participatory planning practice is changing in response to the rise of specially trained public participation practitioners who intersect with but are also distinct from planners. These practitioners are increasingly being professionalised through new standards of competence defined by their industry bodies. The implications of this are not well accounted for in empirical studies of participatory planning, nor in the theoretical literature that seeks to understand both the potential and problems of more deliberative approaches to urban decision-making. In this paper, we revisit the sociological literature on the professions and use it to critically interrogate an observed tension between the 'virtues' of public participation (justice, equity and democracy) and efforts to consolidate public participation practice into a distinct profession that interacts with but also sits outside of professional planning.