In urban planning, inclusion is not necessarily achieved by increasing opportunities for deliberation between planners and residents, as power and exclusion reside in the process of deliberation, especially in the rigid spaces of formal planning hearings. Plan ners' professional jargon may remain inaccessible to residents, who grasp their living envi ronment in terms of the flow of sensory and social interactions. So the framework of instrumental rationality may exclude softer, yet meaningful, local stories. What is needed in urban planning is a sensitivity for the plurality of these stories. In this article we propose that applied drama methods could provide a novel model for deliberative planning, in order to surpass the silo thinking of instrumental rationality, and ingrained, takenforgranted concepts and identities, by artistic and affective means of argumentation. Furthermore, it seems that residents gain access to the embodied understanding of different trajectories of meaning making by playing the roles of other residents. Drama may provide a channel of expression that helps people move beyond the antagonistic posturing between stake holders, as well as an empowering way to express the plurality of stories in neighbourhood spaces.We would like to thank the Ministry of the Environment and the Housing Finance and Development Centre of Finland (ARA) for funding the research project on which this article is based. Our thanks also go to the other members of our research group, Erika Lilja, Paulina Nordström, and the theatre directors involved in the workshopsMarkku Keränen, Hanna Mäkinen and Sami Rannila. The cooperation of Säätämö and the Linna Theatre of Turku were essential to the success of this project. We are very grateful to the two anonymous IJURR referees for their comments, which helped us improve this article.

The increasing interest in post‐human legal geographies is evident in the Anthropocene, but the agency of place calls for more attention in the discussion. This post‐humanistic study explores the production of lawscape – the bringing together of multiple forms of law and place – in three Indigenous (Adivasi) communities in Central India. According to the interviews and observation conducted in these remote villages, the lawscape of the community forest emerges in encounters between humans and non‐humans, which intertwine with assemblages of formal law. In these community forests, law and place constitute each other in multiple ways. The customs, norms, and relations of the lawscape are not only relationships among people with respect to the land, forest, and resources, but among the whole more‐than‐human community, including the forest itself, with respect to its constituents. The territories and their (external and internal) boundaries are defined through bodily and material practices and in the interaction between different actors. The community forest extends as far as the residents are able to actively protect the forest. The degree of exclusion of the boundaries depends on how actors from outside the villages are perceived to treat non‐humans in the forest, and for what purposes. Inside the boundaries of the community forest there are small patches that have their particular functions and rules: a variety of places for humans and non‐humans. Inside the community forest assemblage, movement, encounters, and materiality constitute these subtle lawscapes, with their particular norms.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract