Stop! Collaborate and Listen!

The Reading: The Communicative Turn in Planning Theory and its Implications for Spatial Strategy Formation by Patsy Healey

This week’s reading presented an idealistic approach to communicative planning. Healey’s dense phrasing and long sentences made way for two key theories, Communicative Argumentation and Inclusionary Argumentation. Healey argues this is the third major shift in planning thinking, after the methodological approach of rational strategic planning in the 1960s and 1970s and more aggressive practices of the 1980s. However, Healey’s argument doesn’t acknowledge the participatory planning theories presented in previous readings we looked at by Paul Davidoff, Sherry Arnstein and John Forester.

Instead, Healey bases her concept of Communicative Argumentation in the theories of Jürgen Habermas, a German sociologist and philosopher. Habermas advocates rationalisation, which strives to replace emotive and value laden behaviour with a more calculated and rational approach to discourse. However, this seems to go against the principles that Healey presents in her own argument of inclusionary practices, especially since she has stated that planning theory has moved beyond the methodological approach of the 1960s and 1970s. However, where Habermas and Healey come together is their agreement in the process of deliberative democracy and their presentation of distrust in the political sphere. Habermas theorised through his most famous work, Theory of Communicative Action (1981) that people must re-establish their social obligations and encourage the growth of the public realm, a concept which Healey reiterates in the reading. Thus, both scholars see the need to increased public activism to improve the communicative practices between the political and public spheres. 

The main point I took away from this reading was the theory of creating arenas to suit specific argumentation. It makes sense to craft a situation to suit a specific audience, and Healey is good to point out that anyone with a vested interest in a project should be part of the consultation process. Healey states that formal arenas can often have negative impact of communication, as ‘their form privileges some and marginalises others.” She insists argumentation must consider the arena in which is occurs and must be respective to its audience. By doing so, the process of deliberative democracy and inclusionary argumentation is easier to achieve. Healey acknowledges that different participants will have different expectations of how discussions should take place and it is important to revue proceedings. 

Choosing the right arenas is always important

However, this comes back to a point I made in the class discussions, whereby there must be a sense of mutual obligation between participants and discussion directors. As much as planners and other agents must facilitate communication and participation of stakeholders, there is only so much they can do assure active involvement. If the audience of a discussion remains passive through such an event as a community meeting, how can they challenge plans that are physically put into action when they didn’t challenge them in the theoretical stage? I think the public sphere needs to take more responsibility for its involvement and acknowledge it is not a powerless group. Maybe some of Healey’s ideas are too naive, but if a watered down version was adopted by stakeholders, I think a more involved planning process could be achieved.