Reading the Place and Role of Endogenous Governance Structures in Modernist Physical Planning: The Case of the Bogosi and the Kgotla in Botswana

IF 1 4区 社会学 Q2 AREA STUDIES African Studies Pub Date : 2021-04-03 DOI:10.1080/00020184.2021.1937057
C. Molebatsi, Seabo B Morobolo
{"title":"Reading the Place and Role of Endogenous Governance Structures in Modernist Physical Planning: The Case of the Bogosi and the Kgotla in Botswana","authors":"C. Molebatsi, Seabo B Morobolo","doi":"10.1080/00020184.2021.1937057","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Drawing from the decolonial framework, this article reinterprets the place and role of two endogenous governance structures, namely bogosi and the kgotla, in modernist physical planning in Botswana’s urban villages. Through a historicised account we argue that both structures serve two incongruous roles – firstly, a provision of spaces for mobilisation for the re-inscription of the communal, and secondly, appropriation and co-optation pursuant of a state defined development agenda. The need to differentiate between these two contradictory roles is important in the search for inclusive human settlements in Botswana. The structures are drafted into the state-defined development agenda through appropriation and co-optation, whereas the re-inscription of the communal offers local communities space for pointing out alternatives to the state’s agenda. The article draws from what Nelson Maldonado-Torres (2007, 2) calls ‘a decolonial turn’ in theory and critique. The decolonial turn is critical of Western structures of knowledge and their tendency to suppress non-Western forms of knowledge (Winkler 2018). When applied to the urban space, the decolonial framework points to the existence of other knowledges that shape human settlements in the Global South. It is posited that these knowledges shape the nature of resistance to planning initiatives considered unjust by local communities. Despite unrelenting co-optation and appropriation by modernist governance structures, interventions by bogosi and the kgotla continue to provide viable institutional guidance to planning in urban villages. In unison with the decolonial, this paper calls for the recognition of the critical role played by bogosi and the kgotla in the emergence of alternative urbanisms in Botswana.","PeriodicalId":51769,"journal":{"name":"African Studies","volume":"80 1","pages":"134 - 152"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/00020184.2021.1937057","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"African Studies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00020184.2021.1937057","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"AREA STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

ABSTRACT Drawing from the decolonial framework, this article reinterprets the place and role of two endogenous governance structures, namely bogosi and the kgotla, in modernist physical planning in Botswana’s urban villages. Through a historicised account we argue that both structures serve two incongruous roles – firstly, a provision of spaces for mobilisation for the re-inscription of the communal, and secondly, appropriation and co-optation pursuant of a state defined development agenda. The need to differentiate between these two contradictory roles is important in the search for inclusive human settlements in Botswana. The structures are drafted into the state-defined development agenda through appropriation and co-optation, whereas the re-inscription of the communal offers local communities space for pointing out alternatives to the state’s agenda. The article draws from what Nelson Maldonado-Torres (2007, 2) calls ‘a decolonial turn’ in theory and critique. The decolonial turn is critical of Western structures of knowledge and their tendency to suppress non-Western forms of knowledge (Winkler 2018). When applied to the urban space, the decolonial framework points to the existence of other knowledges that shape human settlements in the Global South. It is posited that these knowledges shape the nature of resistance to planning initiatives considered unjust by local communities. Despite unrelenting co-optation and appropriation by modernist governance structures, interventions by bogosi and the kgotla continue to provide viable institutional guidance to planning in urban villages. In unison with the decolonial, this paper calls for the recognition of the critical role played by bogosi and the kgotla in the emergence of alternative urbanisms in Botswana.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
解读内生治理结构在现代物理规划中的地位和作用——以博茨瓦纳的波哥大和科特拉为例
摘要本文从非殖民化的框架出发,重新阐释了博戈西和科戈特拉两种内生治理结构在博茨瓦纳城中村现代主义物理规划中的地位和作用。通过历史化的描述,我们认为这两个结构都扮演着两个不协调的角色——首先,为重新命名社区提供动员空间,其次,根据国家定义的发展议程进行拨款和共同选择。在博茨瓦纳寻求包容性人类住区的过程中,必须区分这两个相互矛盾的角色。这些结构是通过拨款和共同选择被纳入国家定义的发展议程的,而社区的重新命名为当地社区提供了指出国家议程替代方案的空间。这篇文章借鉴了Nelson Maldonado Torres(2007,2)所说的理论和批评中的“非殖民化转向”。非殖民化转向批评西方的知识结构及其压制非西方形式知识的倾向(Winkler 2018)。当应用于城市空间时,非殖民化框架指出,在全球南方,存在着塑造人类住区的其他知识。据推测,这些知识形成了对当地社区认为不公正的规划倡议的抵制性质。尽管现代主义治理结构不断地进行选择和挪用,但博戈西和克戈特拉的干预措施继续为城中村的规划提供可行的制度指导。与非殖民化相一致,本文呼吁承认博戈西和克戈特拉在博茨瓦纳出现替代城市化过程中发挥的关键作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
African Studies
African Studies AREA STUDIES-
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Sincere Intimacy, Genre and Heterotopology of a Confessional Public Communal Land and Belonging Among Foreign Former Farmworkers in Zimbabwe The High Court Ruling Against Ingonyama Trust: Implications for South Africa’s Land Governance Policy Neoliberal Leveraging of the Colonial Imagination: A Global South Reading of Tobacco Ads in Africa Entrenched Coloniality? Colonial-Born Black Women, Hair and Identity in Post-Apartheid South Africa
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1