ABSTRACT
Emotions that run high enough for each side to describe the other as ‘fat cats’ or as ‘stupid activists’ are an analyst’s dream. Studying a relatively mundane issue such as the two sides that coalesced for and against a new main railroad station in the city of Brno presented the opportunity to address this issue, and the highly emotional language employed by both sides, augmented by extensive interviews, allowed for close analysis of the two discourses. Interpretive studies on planning have stated the heuristic potential of discourses for explaining policies and related conflicts (e.g., Bevir and Rhodes 2003; Griggs and Howarth 2004; Feindt and Oals 2005; Hajer 2005; Gualini and Majoor 2007; Fischer 2009a; Huxley 2010). This chapter advances the interpretive argument and suggests that we need to develop a deeper understanding of emotions that are part of these discourses and that, as such, enter the planning process. Emotions are neither side-effects nor faults of planning processes, but rather they have a governing role in such processes because they steer the identification of actors, explain any opposition to discourse and lay the ground for mediation when the policy becomes controversial.
