Paul Davidoff acknowledges the a need for humility and openness on the part of planners, but that advocacy can be an opportunity to use expertise and knowledge of the functional aspects of ‘the city.’ He seems to say that a good advocate is able to develop social goals with the client’s best interests in mind, while integrating these with the big picture. An advocate wants the best possible outcome, one that is good for the community and the city as a whole.
Davidoff also makes a strong statement against value neutrality. Planners can’t be neutral; their ‘prescriptions’ need be based on desired objectives. I immediately thought of the quote by Desmond Tutu- “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality” Davidoff’s statement need not only apply to situations of injustice or oppression; planners should work to create plans with explicit objectives, goals, vision. Bringing this back to last week’s topic of participatory planning; without adequate and mindful citizen participation, it’s hard to know what the desired objectives really are. The planner and the municipality might already have a vision, but so do community members, and other interrelated actors. The concept of pluralism seeks to draw on the plans of multiple actors with vested interests in the outcome of a project. Whether each body/actor creates their own plan, or all come together to collaborate on goals, pluralism recognizes that no one group can have ultimate authority over the vision.
Comparing these articles, which ranged from the “Executive Summary”, published in association with the International Institute for Environment and Development, to an individual project proposal by Gabriella Carolini, showed that advocacy can be seen on a multitude of scales. The UN, especially the UNDG might wish to call itself an advocate for masses of people, “the urban poor”, “slumdwellers”, citizens of “developing countries,” while individual planners can be advocates for neighborhoods, or even certain special interest groups within committees. What does it mean when planners advocate for such a huge body of people? Do the UNDGs really speak accurately for the people they want to help? Are they useful to planners/advocates working in individual projects? I am interested to hear what Gabriella Carolini has to say about the UN Development Goals, how she finds them relevant to her practice.
Davidoff believes that pluralism and advocacy are particularly important in representing low-income families. Plans created with low-income families would “seek to combat poverty and propose programming affording opportunities to member of the organization. Carolini mentions that often community organizations function because of the voluntary work of community members. Those that can least afford non-income-generating labor seem to be most involved in community building. In Sao Paulo and Cape Town I had the opportunity to meet community organizers in neighborhood /’informal settlements’ ravaged by unemployment that survived thanks to a well developed informal economy. People ‘volunteer’ a great deal of time/energy to CBOs, and receive benefits other than money. Gaining power and respect within the community, and creating a safer living environment seem worthwhile, especially if there is little hope or possibility of finding a formal job. Many would have had to travel two hours each way to reach jobs that often only exist outside of the neighborhood. To me this seems to be an ideal place for donors to come in, and pay people for the work that they are doing anyways, and create a more formal work/organizing environment.
Bringing in a gendered lens is especially interesting when one considers that in a traditional/western/capitalist economic model, a huge portion of labor that is essential for a functional society is expected to be performed ‘voluntarily’ by women. Housekeeping, food preparation, childcare, medical care are already unpaid jobs often expected to be completed by women. Does it make sense that women in some communities are actively involved in community organizing even when they are not compensated monetarily for it?
Leave a Reply