面对权力,规划者如何即兴发挥:唤醒理论为实践

IF 3.4 2区 经济学 Q1 REGIONAL & URBAN PLANNING
J. Forester
{"title":"面对权力,规划者如何即兴发挥:唤醒理论为实践","authors":"J. Forester","doi":"10.1080/14649357.2023.2210474","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"How we understand the kinds of challenges that planners face on the job remains a central problem for planning ‘theory.’ Writing in a style that non-academics can read remains another problem. Easy labels get in the way: ‘communicative’ or ‘post-colonial’ or ‘insurgent’ (planning) often signal aspirations or righteous intentions, but they tell us precious little about what such planners do in the complex and messy circumstances of their practices. Telling us what planners ‘should do,’ however righteously, should not displace careful analysis of how planners might actually do what they can. For years it seems, discussions of communicative planning led to broader problems of democratic participation; discussions of post-colonial planning led to analyses of trajectories of colonialism; discussions of insurgent planning ushered in further examinations of neo-liberalism or capitalism. Surely, the logic seems to go, to understand any kind of planning, we need to understand its context, the system in which it exists. Yes, but rarely then do we return to what such planners might do and how they might do that in their grounded practices – even as those practices might also teach us about the weaknesses of those encompassing structures. I have collected planners’ stories for years, not as a search for gimmicks or technical fixes, but to mine and analyze what planners have experienced and learned – as they have been variously thrown into complex circumstances and forced to deal with racism and patriarchy, inequality and ideology, authoritarian bosses and corrupt city councils. But to researchers eyeing the bigger systemic pictures, I have been interviewing practitioners who were rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Those researchers, privileging their ‘structural analyses,’ have wanted to find the keys to the control room of the ship, the control room that will set white supremacy and patriarchy and diverse forms of capitalism on a new course. I too hope they might find the keys and then figure out (together?) what to do, but I worry they’re looking under the wrong lamppost, no matter how bright the light is there. In the meantime, each day, planners working on transportation and housing, environmental protection and urban design go to work and look for ways to find, engage, and serve broader publics at the same time as they try to confront the looming dangers of going down with the ship. These planners resist those dangers by resisting automobile dominance, experimenting with land trusts and new forms of ownership, mitigating climate change, creating beautiful and vital public spaces now, building coalitions with diverse allies for such change. But planning researchers often ‘describe’ these public-serving efforts without asking still more closely how these planners do better or worse work: how do they strategize? How do they think about value? How do they listen to conflicting claims and respond as they are situated in more or less porous ‘bureaucracies’ or political and administrative ‘structures’ all the time? How do these planners find allies, build coalitions, learn to be more insightful and less presumptuous? How do they develop wise means to their inevitably ambiguous ends – justice, economic development, environmental protection? Too often planning theory seems to ignore these pressing (‘phenomenological’), grounded (‘situated’) problems of actually doing planning.","PeriodicalId":47693,"journal":{"name":"Planning Theory & Practice","volume":"24 1","pages":"147 - 150"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How Planners Might Improvise in the Face of Power: Waking Up Theory for Practice\",\"authors\":\"J. Forester\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/14649357.2023.2210474\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"How we understand the kinds of challenges that planners face on the job remains a central problem for planning ‘theory.’ Writing in a style that non-academics can read remains another problem. Easy labels get in the way: ‘communicative’ or ‘post-colonial’ or ‘insurgent’ (planning) often signal aspirations or righteous intentions, but they tell us precious little about what such planners do in the complex and messy circumstances of their practices. Telling us what planners ‘should do,’ however righteously, should not displace careful analysis of how planners might actually do what they can. For years it seems, discussions of communicative planning led to broader problems of democratic participation; discussions of post-colonial planning led to analyses of trajectories of colonialism; discussions of insurgent planning ushered in further examinations of neo-liberalism or capitalism. Surely, the logic seems to go, to understand any kind of planning, we need to understand its context, the system in which it exists. Yes, but rarely then do we return to what such planners might do and how they might do that in their grounded practices – even as those practices might also teach us about the weaknesses of those encompassing structures. I have collected planners’ stories for years, not as a search for gimmicks or technical fixes, but to mine and analyze what planners have experienced and learned – as they have been variously thrown into complex circumstances and forced to deal with racism and patriarchy, inequality and ideology, authoritarian bosses and corrupt city councils. But to researchers eyeing the bigger systemic pictures, I have been interviewing practitioners who were rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Those researchers, privileging their ‘structural analyses,’ have wanted to find the keys to the control room of the ship, the control room that will set white supremacy and patriarchy and diverse forms of capitalism on a new course. I too hope they might find the keys and then figure out (together?) what to do, but I worry they’re looking under the wrong lamppost, no matter how bright the light is there. In the meantime, each day, planners working on transportation and housing, environmental protection and urban design go to work and look for ways to find, engage, and serve broader publics at the same time as they try to confront the looming dangers of going down with the ship. These planners resist those dangers by resisting automobile dominance, experimenting with land trusts and new forms of ownership, mitigating climate change, creating beautiful and vital public spaces now, building coalitions with diverse allies for such change. But planning researchers often ‘describe’ these public-serving efforts without asking still more closely how these planners do better or worse work: how do they strategize? How do they think about value? How do they listen to conflicting claims and respond as they are situated in more or less porous ‘bureaucracies’ or political and administrative ‘structures’ all the time? How do these planners find allies, build coalitions, learn to be more insightful and less presumptuous? How do they develop wise means to their inevitably ambiguous ends – justice, economic development, environmental protection? Too often planning theory seems to ignore these pressing (‘phenomenological’), grounded (‘situated’) problems of actually doing planning.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47693,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Planning Theory & Practice\",\"volume\":\"24 1\",\"pages\":\"147 - 150\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Planning Theory & Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2023.2210474\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"REGIONAL & URBAN PLANNING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Planning Theory & Practice","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2023.2210474","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REGIONAL & URBAN PLANNING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

我们如何理解规划者在工作中面临的各种挑战仍然是规划理论的核心问题。另一个问题是,写作风格要适合非学术人士阅读。“沟通型”或“后殖民型”或“反叛型”(规划)等简单的标签往往暗示着抱负或正义的意图,但它们很少告诉我们,这些规划者在复杂而混乱的实践环境中做了什么。告诉我们规划者“应该做什么”,无论多么公正,都不应该取代对规划者实际上可能如何做他们能做的事情的仔细分析。多年来,关于沟通计划的讨论似乎导致了更广泛的民主参与问题;对后殖民规划的讨论导致了对殖民主义轨迹的分析;关于叛乱计划的讨论引发了对新自由主义或资本主义的进一步审视。当然,逻辑似乎是这样的,要理解任何一种规划,我们需要理解它的背景,它存在的系统。是的,但我们很少回过头来思考这些规划者可能会做什么,以及他们在实际实践中可能会如何做——即使这些实践也可能告诉我们这些包围结构的弱点。多年来,我一直在收集规划者的故事,不是为了寻找噱头或技术上的补救措施,而是为了挖掘和分析规划者的经验和教训——因为他们被各种各样地抛入复杂的环境,被迫应对种族主义和父权制,不平等和意识形态,专制老板和腐败的市议会。但对于着眼于更大的系统性图景的研究人员来说,我一直在采访那些在泰坦尼克号上重新安排甲板椅子的从业者。这些研究人员以他们的“结构分析”为特权,想要找到这艘船的控制室的钥匙,这个控制室将把白人至上主义、父权制和各种形式的资本主义推上一条新的道路。我也希望他们能找到钥匙,然后想出(一起?)该怎么做,但我担心他们找错了路灯柱,不管那里的灯有多亮。与此同时,每天,从事交通和住房、环境保护和城市设计工作的规划者们都在努力寻找方法,找到、吸引和服务更广泛的公众,同时他们也在努力面对与船一起沉没的迫在眉睫的危险。这些规划者通过抵制汽车主导、试验土地信托和新的所有权形式、减缓气候变化、创造美丽而充满活力的公共空间、与不同的盟友建立联盟来应对这些危险。但规划研究人员经常“描述”这些公共服务工作,却没有更仔细地询问这些规划者是如何做得更好或更差的:他们是如何制定战略的?他们如何看待价值?当他们一直处于或多或少漏洞百出的“官僚机构”或政治和行政“结构”中时,他们如何倾听相互矛盾的主张并做出回应?这些规划者如何找到盟友,建立联盟,学会变得更有洞察力,更少自以为是?他们如何发展明智的手段来实现他们不可避免的模糊目标——正义、经济发展、环境保护?很多时候,规划理论似乎忽略了这些紧迫的(“现象学的”)、扎根的(“定位的”)实际做规划的问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
How Planners Might Improvise in the Face of Power: Waking Up Theory for Practice
How we understand the kinds of challenges that planners face on the job remains a central problem for planning ‘theory.’ Writing in a style that non-academics can read remains another problem. Easy labels get in the way: ‘communicative’ or ‘post-colonial’ or ‘insurgent’ (planning) often signal aspirations or righteous intentions, but they tell us precious little about what such planners do in the complex and messy circumstances of their practices. Telling us what planners ‘should do,’ however righteously, should not displace careful analysis of how planners might actually do what they can. For years it seems, discussions of communicative planning led to broader problems of democratic participation; discussions of post-colonial planning led to analyses of trajectories of colonialism; discussions of insurgent planning ushered in further examinations of neo-liberalism or capitalism. Surely, the logic seems to go, to understand any kind of planning, we need to understand its context, the system in which it exists. Yes, but rarely then do we return to what such planners might do and how they might do that in their grounded practices – even as those practices might also teach us about the weaknesses of those encompassing structures. I have collected planners’ stories for years, not as a search for gimmicks or technical fixes, but to mine and analyze what planners have experienced and learned – as they have been variously thrown into complex circumstances and forced to deal with racism and patriarchy, inequality and ideology, authoritarian bosses and corrupt city councils. But to researchers eyeing the bigger systemic pictures, I have been interviewing practitioners who were rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Those researchers, privileging their ‘structural analyses,’ have wanted to find the keys to the control room of the ship, the control room that will set white supremacy and patriarchy and diverse forms of capitalism on a new course. I too hope they might find the keys and then figure out (together?) what to do, but I worry they’re looking under the wrong lamppost, no matter how bright the light is there. In the meantime, each day, planners working on transportation and housing, environmental protection and urban design go to work and look for ways to find, engage, and serve broader publics at the same time as they try to confront the looming dangers of going down with the ship. These planners resist those dangers by resisting automobile dominance, experimenting with land trusts and new forms of ownership, mitigating climate change, creating beautiful and vital public spaces now, building coalitions with diverse allies for such change. But planning researchers often ‘describe’ these public-serving efforts without asking still more closely how these planners do better or worse work: how do they strategize? How do they think about value? How do they listen to conflicting claims and respond as they are situated in more or less porous ‘bureaucracies’ or political and administrative ‘structures’ all the time? How do these planners find allies, build coalitions, learn to be more insightful and less presumptuous? How do they develop wise means to their inevitably ambiguous ends – justice, economic development, environmental protection? Too often planning theory seems to ignore these pressing (‘phenomenological’), grounded (‘situated’) problems of actually doing planning.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
5.10%
发文量
35
期刊介绍: Planning Theory & Practice provides an international focus for the development of theory and practice in spatial planning and a forum to promote the policy dimensions of space and place. Published four times a year in conjunction with the Royal Town Planning Institute, London, it publishes original articles and review papers from both academics and practitioners with the aim of encouraging more effective, two-way communication between theory and practice. The Editors invite robustly researched papers which raise issues at the leading edge of planning theory and practice, and welcome papers on controversial subjects. Contributors in the early stages of their academic careers are encouraged, as are rejoinders to items previously published.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信