“Postmodernism…takes matters too far… nothing remains of any basis for reasoned action… Worst of all, while it opens up a radical prospect of acknowledging the authenticity of other voices, postmodernist thinking immediately shuts off other voices from access to more universal sources of power by ghettoizing them from within an opaque otherness…”
– David Harvey
I love the idea of planning going beyond technical or physical tasks and addressing social and economic quality of life issues. This ability to think and organize broadly is what attracted me to the field years ago. But in an academic and professional world that is increasingly complex, the practical distinctions become important to be effective. Planners have always been uniquely positioned to influence policy and design outcomes, but the field must know where their role ends and another begins. Of course, this changes with the times.
In the aftermath of the Civil Rights Era and the effectively racist urban renewal efforts of 1950s and 60s, “postmodernist” planning had a rightful place in discussions about how to remedy abject poverty and inequality in urban areas compared to suburban areas. After all, it did aid and abet that process. But at the core, today’s planners meet base needs by guiding spatial investments such as bridges, roads, and buildings as well as other land use commitments. All of these affect quality of life and we should be content with organizing from that vantage point.
Our responsibility is not to “save” marginalized communities affected by plans. We should engage them in utilizing the available tools (or making available new tools) for them to self-organize and determine their own destinies. We must create just processes that are community-focused and equitable. Leave room for social workers, educators, and community organizations to help address the many other quality of life concerns we are not trained to directly address (i.e. mental health, crime, education). Planning efforts such as redevelopment have certainly extracted investments in social services like a health facility or new schools from developers, but these are not things planners should initiate alone.
As far back as 1968, MIT lecturer Lisa Peattie rightfully concluded from her work aiding low-income communities advocate for their interests in Roxbury, MA that advocacy planning can become a manipulation tool through the power of information (which I think scholar David Forrester would agree with). I think this insight applies to more than just planners, but any professional that controls the flow of information. Because of this ability, I know we can be great community allies who enhance a community member’s technical reach. But advocacy on their behalf can only be second best on a good day.
Leave a Reply