The Buchanan Report And The Monderman Thesis

The statement is false. This is a tricky question Although the Buchanan Report and the Monderman thesis do qualifying visions of how to manage traffic they also offer us two competing visions of social order. The Buchanan Report is underpinned by a social order which privileges the segregation of humans and motors done an array of measures in urban design and the regulation of the conduct of both drivers and pedestrians. This social order emphasises the value of a social environment delivering the conditions for individual mobility and railway car acquisition as a valued mark of success. The Monderman thesis stresses a social order where involvement and cooperation emerges from an individual capable of negotiating with others a shared put on of public space. In this shared space approach, people are not segregated from traffic. Youre right. Although Goffmans view of the centrality of interaction is visible in Mondermans approach to negotiating shared space, Chapter 7 argues that, as Foucault shows, social order tends to be specified by experts within particular historical discursive frameworks. Although both Buchanan and Monderman were important in their own right, their ideas were highly-developed and taken up within particular contexts that authorised their development (made their ideas seems appropriate and fitting to the needs of the time). Foucault claims that expert discourses, established by those with power and chest, are often contest by competing expert discourses. Buchanans ideas have dominated for a long period. Mondermans are perhaps gathering force and challenging those of centralised planning and direction. Foucaults view of how the authority to order social life is bound up with scientific knowledge is demonstrated in the discourses and practices of both Buchanan and Monderman.