Local government is continually becoming more important in the U.K. and networks and/or ‘plural actors’ can increasingly affect the outcome of policies and programs that influence their lives. This translates into higher chances of individuals’ interests being paid attention to by local decision makers. Many participative theorists have argued about the ways in which to gain a decision maker’s attention and the moral issues involved with the various methods available through the existing procedures and institutions as well as acts of civil disobedience; i.e. ‘direct action’. Cohen and Arato regard direct action as the last resort but Hillier feels it to be a normal political resource to be used by actors in pursuit of their objectives, and Melucci sees it as giving voice to the voiceless. Arnstein’s ladder of participation rings truest for me as it assumes governmental organisations have and do create a false sense of participation in which a predetermined course of action is already awaiting implementation. This constitutes non participation and makes up the two bottom rungs of the ladder, manipulation and therapy. Informing, consultation and placation are the next three rungs and they form tokenism. Simply informing people is certainly not enough; consulting the citizens is good, if carried out genuinely. Placation is a form of satisficing by giving in to some demands. Partnership, delegated power and citizen control are the top three rungs and they form citizen power, a very idealistic concept that could not work due to the opportunistic nature of individuals.
Modernist thought developed as part of the ‘European Enlightenment’ in the 18th century. Modernism itself is complex and has changed over time, but basically it assumed there was one truth, and through rationality and reasoning people could find the truth. Science would uncover the truth and liberate humans from spiritual captivity! Humans could control their world, the dark side of their nature and others (whether these others wanted to be controlled or not wasn't important). I believe much of modernism is based on domination because as Marx and Plato observed, that ‘between equals force decides’ (Harvey,D. 1992). Urban planning is an area where modernism and postmodernism are easily observable; modernism destroys what already exists and provides a notion of revolutionary change and a vision of a future for everyone. Influenced by the likes of Marx, political action was often based on one truth and called for global revolution. Postmodernists realize the need to move on beyond this and accept there is no absolute truth. Consensus or the search for it and one voice or truth, results in ‘terror’ in its demand to ‘adapt your aspirations to our ends - or else’ (Allmendinger, P, 2002, p.164)
The recent emphasis on the planner as mediator may reflect a new approach to the public interest: an acceptance of the multiplicity of interests, but an enduring common interest in finding viable, politically legitimate solutions. Planners serve the public interest by negotiating a kind of multi-cultural, technocratic pluralism. The recent interest in communicative action (planners as communicators rather than as autonomous, systematic thinkers) also reflects this effort to renew planning's focus on the public interest (Innes 1994; Forester 1989). This to me is postmodernity in effect.
Common themes that keep arising from the participative and the postmodern views of planning are that they both accept that there are multiple interpretations, everyone’s perception is different and is dependant upon all the things that make us different from each other, i.e. ethnicity, religion, class, caste, colour, creed, gender etc. However, in lieu of these differences participative theorists would like us to overcome all these differences so that we can more or less positively agree upon each topic raised. This may be an over exaggeration, but I feel participative thinkers have set their bar too high, for it to be deemed a success it has to work too close to perfection. Theorists have either overestimated mans understanding of one another or underestimated the level of contempt some hold for others. Postmodernism doesn’t have to work perfectly to be successful, its job is to continually evolve within the current system and bring about gradual, continual change and improvement, i.e. renewal and regeneration.
Participative and the postmodern are also concerned with planning in the local context, and mixed land uses, and both intend the decisions made at the local level to be good and just.
There have been many changes in planning that have given way to increased public participation, by involving the community more which is similar to post-modern views in that there is a greater scope of openness than before, unlike the conditions of 1960’s. Both look at moving forward in order to achieve excellence throughout planning i.e. construction, design, etc.
The two theories also differ greatly; postmodernism can exist within the present status quo as it does not ask for any radical or revolutionary change, its intention is to gradually and continually change and improve the course of planning, whereas I feel that true participation requires some sort of a utopia for it to properly thrive.
The problem with applying postmodern theory to practical planning is that there is no universally agreed answer to the question, what is postmodernism? If it is too broad a theory that can’t possibly be narrowed down by a definition, then planning would be lost in a sea of vagueness and ambiguity, impossible to proceed in a definite direction; but is this necessarily a bad thing? If so, maybe it is time to deconstruct the idea of planning and start from ground zero, if it were possible.
The major problem with implementing participative theory into the planning process is quite simply its dislike for inconsistencies; in a world full of anomalies and outsiders participative theory in its present form could not survive, if it were to redefine itself maybe it would stand a chance but it would take some revision!
Bibliography
Allemendinger, P. (2002) “Planners as Advocates”, Chap 7 in Planning Theory, Basingstoke: Palgrave, pp 133-154
Allmendinger,P. (2002) “Postmodern Planning”, Chap 8 in Planning Theory, Basingstoke: Palgrave, pp 151-182
Amstein, S. (1969): “A Ladder of Citizen Participation” in: Legates, R.T and Stout, F. (eds) (2002) The City Reader (2nd Ed). London: Routledge, pp 240-252
Taylor,N. (1998) Urban Planning Theory since 1945
Cullingworth.B, Nadin, V. (2002) Town & Country Planning In The UK
Lecture Notes
Websites
‘Participative’ and ‘Post modern’
