Critical Theory and Planning Practice

Abstract

In planning practice, communication is political. When a community organization or a developer obtains information can be as important as what information is obtained. What planners do not say can be as important as what they do say. Planners shape not only documents or information, then, but also citizens' access to information, their understanding and interpretation of such information, and their ability to participate effectively in political processes affecting their lives. The structure of the planning process reflects a systematic patterning of communication that thus influences levels of community organization, citizen participation, and autonomous, responsible citizen action. This paper applies Jurgen Habermas' critical communications theory of society to planning practice in order to clarify (1) how planning practice works as communicative action, (2) how planning action and broader political-economic forces may work to thwart or foster a democratic planning process, and (3) how, then, a planning theory assessing planning practice can be concretely empirical and immediately normative, offering us pragmatic strategy and political vision together. Critical theory illuminates both structural obstacles to a democratic planning process and the practical opportunities planners have to counteract and overcome those obstacles.

Looking for the role of nature experiences in planning and decision making: a perspective from the Helsinki Metropolitan Area

“…Without measuring, it is impossible to understand the size of the population being affected by the decisions. Forester's (1993) division of two dimensions of planning-uncertainty and ambiguity-reminds us that in different levels and phases of planning, different questions are being responded to: in addition to what and where it is necessary to ask also what kind of and how. Certainty can be sought with increased technical knowledge, while ambiguity calls for understanding, making experience-based and value-based knowledge indispensable.…”

Conflicting rationalities, knowledge and values in scarred landscapes

“…In addressing issues of stakeholder engagement and community participation, deliberative and collaborative planning approaches have moved centre-stage in theory and practice over the last two decades (Forester, 1993;Murtagh, 2004). Deliberative approaches have been developed largely from Habermasian ideas, which in the 1990s were increasingly applied to fields related to planning practice and strategic formulation (see Forester, 1989;Healey, 1992;Healey, 1997;Innes, 1998;Innes, 1996;Sager, 1994).…”

“…Deliberative approaches have been developed largely from Habermasian ideas, which in the 1990s were increasingly applied to fields related to planning practice and strategic formulation (see Forester, 1989;Healey, 1992;Healey, 1997;Innes, 1998;Innes, 1996;Sager, 1994). Collaborative SCARRED LANDSCAPES PAGE 5 OF 54 approaches emphasise a discursive and interactive process as a means of identifying priorities and developing strategies for collective action, and can be summarised as a process whereby: …stakeholders representing the different interests meet for face-to-face dialogue and collectively work out a strategy to address a shared problem.…”

“…This process is primarily a form of critical listening to the words of others and modes of interaction (Forester, 1993) with an emphasis on reasoned dialogue among participants to get around the deficits of other policy process models (Vigar and Healey, 2002). The aim of deliberation is to encourage a plurality of perspectives in the policy process in order to overcome narrow self-interest (Jones, 2003).…”

Developing a Communicative Planning Approach to Resolve Land Use Conflicts in Jelutong Area of Georgetown, Penang, Malaysia

“…As a result, many conflicting land uses developed in the city. In fact, the issue of land use conflicts has been mentioned in the Draft Structure Plan (Amendment) of MPPP 2000, in the following words: PLA1V1V/1VG 1l1ALA YSIA Journal of the 1'efafaysia11 !11stit11te of Plmmers (2007) criticism, not from silence or a party line (Forester, 1980). Healey (1994) has made some contributions to our understanding of communicative theory in planning.…”