Journal of Planning Education and Research , Volume 19, Number 4 , Summer 2000

Symposium: The Limits to Communicative Planning Theory
A Brief Introduction
Mickey Lauria

New Paradigm or Old Myopia? Unsettling the Communicative Turn in Planning Theory

Margo Huxley and Oren Yiftachel

Abstract

During the last decade or so, many planning theorists have taken a so-called communicative turn, to the point where some have declared the emergence of a dominant new paradigm supported by increasing consensus among theorists. We wish to raise a number of broad questions about the communicative paradigm and claims for its theoretical dominance. We point to alternative analytical positions that focus on issues of power, of the state, and of political economy, in ways that are often underplayed in the communicative literature and that demonstrate a healthy diversity in the field. We offer six critical propositions about communicative planning theory as a contribution to the ongoing debates, in theory and practice, about the contested nature of planning, its practices and effects.

Communicate This! Does Consensus Lead to Advocacy and Pluralism?

Michael Neuman

Abstract

This article presents a critique of communicative planning theory, especially its consensus-based variation. Limitations in communicative planning theory are pinpointed. Consensus processes as practiced and theorized in the United States tend to be divorced from power, to shun important issues, and to result in general and thin agreements. Consensus processes also rely on position-based and interest-based methods that overlook norms and meaning. Finally, communicative planning theory has focussed on words and not images—a severe shortcoming in a society where images exert a dominating influence. Recent literatures on images are briefly examined, and a question about the shape of a more rich and integrated theory of planning is posed.

Planning the Public: Some Comments on Empirical Problems for Planning Theory

Simone A. Abram

Abstract

This paper addresses the notions of communicative and participative planning through an examination of some empirical difficulties in the case of a British planning process. It focuses on the different understandings found amongst participants to a local plan process in terms of the aims and methods of planning and of the future. Two particular problems are considered: the notion of representativeness required for participants to achieve legitimacy, and the disconnections between process and outcome. The paper further considers the rituals of planning as a form of institutionalized thought that supports a particular sort of governance and lends weight to certain epistemologies and technologies. This also challenges the Habermasian notion that participants can somehow set aside their own interests or power during discussions, since this assumes that power and interests are attributes that can be shed, rather than flowing from intrinsic ways of thinking and being in the world.

Communicative Planning Theory: A Foucauldian Assessment

Raphaël Fischler

Abstract

Given the philosophical opposition that existed between Foucault and Habermas, a Foucauldian reading of communicative planning theory may yield a very critical assessment of that body of work. Rather than develop such a critique, this paper shows that there are in fact significant points of agreement between communicative theorists and the French historian of modernity, in particular with respect to the relationship between theory and practice. However, Foucault’s work raises important questions about the relationship between theory and history, and it challenges Forester, Healey, and others to situate communicative planning in its historical context and to assess the dangers that it poses for individuals and for society at large.

The Limits to Communicative Planning

Margo Huxley

Abstract

While studies undertaken by communicative planning theorists provide valuable insights into everyday planning practice, there is a growing debate around the need for greater acknowledgement of relations of power and inequality. In particular, communicative planning theory has tended to obscure planning’s problematic relation to the state. This paper opens for debate conceptions of public discourse in planning that, on the one hand, draw on Habermas’s notions of communicative rationality, but on the other, fail to critically examine his positioning of these in opposition to state and economy. It is argued that the implications of critiques of Habermas’s ideas may involve questioning the very possibility of communicative planning itself.

Articles

Planning, Representation, and the Production of Space in Lexington, Kentucky

Katherine Jones

Abstract

Much of planning theory has incorporated the communicative practice critique to deconstruct both plans and planning. These critiques have given planning theorists and practicing planners a useful way to think about how plans—through their very structure, language, and techniques—may empower certain participants and disempower others. To date, however, the deconstruction of plans as texts still remains to be extended to a critical deconstruction of plans as spatial texts. Because planning embodies representations about the spatial-material world, its language is also spatial, and this spatial language may benefit from the lens of a deconstructive spatial critique. This paper begins by laying out a rationale for such a critique. I then show how an explicitly spatial deconstruction might proceed, and finally, I turn this examination to one particular plan for a neighborhood in the city of Lexington, Kentucky.

Informal Settlement Upgrading: Bridging the Gap Between the De Facto and the De Jure

Basil van Horen

Abstract

In order for informal settlement upgrading to build the institutions necessary to ensure continuity of the improvement process, planners must move beyond a narrow concern with legality and illegality. Upgrading should comprise a gradation of strategies that legitimize and integrate aspects of settlements’ de facto institutions into the planning process. In so doing, it is possible to contribute to legal regulatory frameworks that are more appropriate to informal settlements. This article considers planning, tenure delivery, and public participation as three aspects of a recent upgrade in South Africa, and the extent to which they bridged the gap between the de jure and de facto.

Conservation, Participation, and Power: Protected-Area Planning in the Coastal Zone of Belize

Roger Few

Abstract

Drawing on debates over social impacts of biodiversity conservation and the role of power relations in community participation, this paper reports on field research examining community involvement in protected area planning in Belize. The research takes an actor-oriented approach to analyze the social, political, and technical processes involved in initiating and planning of two protected-area projects. Discussion focuses on the scope of public involvement, the power differentials among actors in the planning process, and the mechanisms through which power was exercised. The pattern that emerged showed planning officials endeavoring to mitigate or circumvent social and political dissent rather than foster an active, broad-based form of community participation. The paper suggests that the notion of containment may have a general applicability wherever protected areas are planned by external agencies that aim to engage local participation.

Comparing In-Class and Computer-Mediated Discussion Using a Communicative Action Framework

Richard Willson

Abstract

Communicative action offers a promising framework for assessing discussion activities in planning education. This article reports on students’ ratings of the quality of in-class and computer-mediated discussion in a planning theory class. The computer-mediated discussion was a useful augmentation to student learning, but it was rated lower than in-class discussion for sincerity, legitimacy, and comprehensibility. The article concludes with suggestions for enhancing the quality of both forms of discussion.

Comment

The Rising Importance of Voluntary Methods of Land Use Control in Planning

John B. Wright and Robert J. Czerniak

The Ambiguous Role of Private Voluntary Methods in Public Land Use Policy: A Comment

Harvey M. Jacobs

Comment on Voluntary Methods of Land Use Control in Planning

Arthur C. Nelson

Editors’ Note

Mickey Lauria and Robert O. Washington