In our times defined by crisis narratives, from environmental degradation to escalating geopolitical instability and pervasive exploitation, cities stand at the nexus where historical patterns of capitalist urban transformation converge with the complexities of contemporary challenges. Against this intricate backdrop, this thesis aims to foreground the lived experiences of those within cities who are striving to reshape their own narratives, offering a counter-voice to prevailing accounts of history that privilege the agency of the “powerful” over the diverse, transformative efforts shaping urban futures.
At the heart of this research is the concept of “middle-out” transformation. This analytical lens facilitates an exploration of the “push-and-pull” dynamic in which top-down institutional planning and bottom-up community initiatives are both immersed – a game they must engage with in order to operationalise systemic change within rigid governance structures – while simultaneously unpacking the contested and deeply politicised nature of “justice” as a volatile guiding principle in urban transformation.
Methodologically, the research draws on in-depth ethnographic fieldwork in Leeds (UK), critically positioned at the intersection of a city-wide, community-led climate action platform and the development of the Leeds Local Plan 2040, a key document in setting future urban policy. Through a triangulation of critical discourse, framing and narrative analyses, and informed by a postmodern ontological framework, the analysis unfolds across three “tangled” thematic threads, each examined in a dedicated chapter.
The first thread re-examines urban participation by delving into the challenges “change seekers” (from council planners to grassroots activists) face while navigating a “middle-out” space that is simultaneously enabling and constraining. Moving beyond participation as mere involvement, it emphasises the struggle to exercise agency within frameworks driven by economic imperatives, highlighting a key paradox: while formal structures acknowledge the necessity of participation, their underlying mechanisms tend to limit radical reimagination, necessitating a hidden emotional labour from those attempting to operationalise alternative and collaborative models amidst entrenched neoliberal practices and relationships.
The second thread refines this analysis through a focused examination of two intersecting “grammars of justice” emerging in the struggle for sustainable futures. It surfaces a “politics of possibility” located in the friction between what is deemed
“viable” within existing institutional frameworks and what is “necessary” for justice. This tension calls into question the capacity of conventional urban governance to accommodate justice-oriented transformation, ultimately demanding a radical rethinking of how justice can be meaningfully actualised, rather than merely managed, within the urban fabric.
As the climate crisis shifts from a techno-centric issue of resource management towards a recognition of its roots in structural injustice, pluralistic justifications of what ought to be done converge in a “battleground of ideas” characterised not merely by procedural friction but by the vibrant contestation of diverse epistemologies, normative claims and visions for urban transformation. Building upon this, the third thread explores the points of conflict between competing narratives of just futures, drawing on Boltanski and Thévenot’s sociology of justification to examine how different groups mobilise distinct “orders of worth” to validate their stances and contest opposing views. This discursive mobilisation, where ethical ideals and moral standards serve to both mediate policy interventions and motivate everyday activist practices, reveals the inherent vulnerability of “justice” to co-optation and ideological redefinition.
In contemporary urban discourse, justice emerges as a fluid and contested site of meaning, constantly reshaped by shifting power dynamics and evolving moral imperatives, and no single conceptualisation seems to be able to capture the full spectrum of dilemmas confronting cities today. Recognising this light fluidity – the way the concept remains agile, moving and morphing as it is wielded politically – is therefore essential to more meaningfully engage with the transformative practices shaping our collective futures, tracking how justice unburdens itself from rigid definitions to navigate diverse urban imaginaries.
