Advantages and Dilemmas of Communicative Planning

It is widely noticeable that urban regions have become fragmented areas in which a variety of social and economic relations coexists, ‘linking people in a place with those in other places rather than those in the same place’ (Healey, 1996, p. 217). This results in tensions among people within area which in turn means that actions of one may deteriorate the opportunities of another (Healey, 1996, p. 217). The reason for these conflicts seems to be in traditional planning methods in which the focus is mainly on economic growth leaving environmental and cultural issues in the background (Healey, 1996, p. 218).

Healey (1996), a critical planning theorist, provides a communicative approach in urban planning as a solution to these problems. In her approach, all members of a community are ‘given voice’ in a planning process that is takes into account five aspects of participation that are:

1. The place where discussion is to take place and how community members can participate this discussion
2. Style of the discussion
3. Sorting of arguments and issues raised in the discussion
4. Creating a new discourse
5. Reaching agreement and enabling critique (Healey 1996, p. 222-223).

Healey’s (1996) approach does not offer specific guidelines how to conduct a communicative planning process: it offers a set of questions that help planners and communities to develop their own process in order to find a shared consensus in different contexts (p. 231).

Healey’s (1996) ideas are based on Jürgen Habermas’s (see Habermas, 1984; 1987) philosophical Critical Theory and his concept of ‘communicative rationality’ which can be described as ‘an unforced argumentation held in an ideal speech situation between participants where, by making claims and testing their validity in reference to shared lifewordly criteria, it is possible to achieve consensus on common issues and decisions’ (Mäntysalo, 2002, p. 418). Consequently, this kind of planning approach would lead to better neighborhoods and urban regions where common satisfaction with living environment is reached.

Habermas’s communicative rationality and incorporative planning methods such as Healey’s communicative approach have, however, met criticism of their inability to explain how they can be put into practice and how to organize and manage such planning process (Mäntysalo, 2002, p. 418). Indeed, even Healey’s (1996) communicative approach does not define certain rules or characters that should be included in communicative planning process. Therefore, examples of actual communicative planning processes are extremely rare (Mäntysalo, 2002, p. 419).

Critical planning theory and incorporating theories such as Healey’s communicative approach presented above can be perceived as tools of critical observing of traditional and current planning practices. They might have positive influence on citizens’ possibilities to have their say in planning processes. On the other hand, critical planning theory and other complementing communicative planning theories are still too inarticulate to be put into practice. As discussed in previous blog text, arenas and avenues for public participation in urban planning have increased during the last couple of decades. For instance, critical planning theorists could harness advances in technology in order to put theory into practice.

References

Habermas, J 1984, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume 1: Reason and the Rationalization of Society, Polity Press, Cambridge.

Habermas, J 1987, The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity, Polity Press, Cambridge.

Healey, P 1996, ‘The communicative turn in planning theory and its implications for spatial strategy formation’, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 217-234.

Mäntysalo, R 2002, ‘Dilemmas in Critical Planning Theory’, The Town Planning Review, vol. 73, no. 4, pp. 417-436.