Post-Structural Thinking - Critical Discussion of Its Importance for Planning Theory
Transcript of Post-Structural Thinking - Critical Discussion of Its Importance for Planning Theory
Post-structural Thinking Critical discussion of its importance for planning theory
May 2011
Pablo Alejandro Abrecht
Page 2 of 13
CONTENTS
1. Introduction
2. Post-Structural Thinking – Emergence and Relevance to Planning Theory and Practice
3. Post-Structural Thinking – Conflicts with Planning
4. Post-Structuralism, Neighbourhood Planning and the Planning Profession
5. Conclusion
References
Page 3 of 13
1. Introduction
At a time where the planning discipline was criticized for its “unresponsiveness to local needs
and its technical-rational orientation” (Huxley, 2002, 136), the contribution of post-
structuralism allowed planning theory and practice to embrace a much needed and insightful
worldview, in order to address a more fragmented world and an increasingly complex social
reality (Allmendinger, 2009). As highlighted by Murdoch (2006), current and prevalent schools
of planning thought trace their lineage to a post-structural perspective, which opens the mind
to diversity, dynamism, flexibility, interaction and understanding.
On the other hand, aspects inherent to post-structural thinking seem to prevent this theory
from delivering a ‘matching’ and ‘functional’ worldview to the planning discipline. It will be
argued that, in spite of post-structuralism’s sensitive contribution to planning, noticeable
conflicts between an essentially actor-oriented theory and a basically government-driven
profession (Boelens, 2010), appear to encourage an uncomfortable relationship between post-
structuralism and planning.
This essay will initially make a way into the emergence of post-structuralism as an influential
school of thought, to then stress the relevance of post-structural thinking in planning theory
and practice. The focus will then turn to apparent conflicts between post-structuralism and
planning, including the portrayal of the planning discipline as a mode of ‘Foucaultian
governmentality’ which “opens up its rationalities and effects to critical scrutiny” (Huxley, 2002,
141). Finally, the recent Localism Bill and neighbourhood planning will be introduced as a
further expansion of post-structural views on the planning profession.
Page 4 of 13
2. Post-Structural Thinking – Emergence and Relevance to Planning Theory and Practice
A sound understanding of after-modernity post-structural thinking deserves a brief genealogy
back into the origins of modernism and structuralism. Modernism is a worldview linked to
values of the Enlightenment, which focused on the idea of liberty through knowledge and
rational modes of thought (Harvey, 1990). As plainly stressed by Allmendinger (2009, 174),
“much planning theory… is widely regarded as being the product of modernity. The broad
underpinnings of contemporary planning theory, on the other hand, are part of a long tradition
of questioning the basis and impacts of modernity”. According to a modern view of planning
based on instrumental rationality, “there are absolute truths and it is possible to plan rationally
for ideal social orders” (Harvey in Allmendinger, 2009, 175), and the term postmodern is “often
used in opposition to the ‘modern’ in order to undermine modernist claims to the primacy of
rationality and to privilege the claims of alternative forms of knowledge” (Butler in Huxley,
2002, 139).
Focusing now on structuralism, it was initially a theory about language later applied to other
disciplines. The main concept behind structural thinking was the linguist Ferdinand de
Saussure’s view that “the study of language was not through historical change in language, but
through focusing [at one point in time] on its underlying structures as part of a system” (Olssen,
2003, 189). Afterwards, in Marxist theory, Louis Althusser extended the structuralist method
by considering “individual action simply as the trace (traeger) of system forces…, structural
forms independent of human action” (Olssen, 2003, 190).
This now provides the background for the origin of post-structuralism, which is “specifically
concerned with a rejection of structuralism and the ways in which society is composed of much
more diverse and dynamic forces, …question[ing] the idea that there are structures (economic,
social, linguistic) that shape society and our thoughts and actions” (Allmendinger, 2009, 185).
Similarly, Foucault “rejected the notion central to structuralism as a system of universal rules
or laws or elementary structures that underpinned history and explained it in surface
appearances” (Olssen, 2003, 192). Therefore, the theory’s point of departure lies in the
rejection of structuralism’s closed worldview based on shaping structures, deterministic forces
Page 5 of 13
and causal mechanisms. Key aspects of each theory are concisely summarized in table 1 below.
While modernism is centred on rationalization, focusing on liberty through knowledge, and
basing knowledge on absolute truths, structuralism is centred on deterministic forces and
causal mechanisms that produce closed and linear societies. Post-structuralism on the other
hand, within an after-modernity view, focuses on ‘understanding’ given the diverse interaction
of actors and processes. Knowledge is therefore indefinite, historically and culturally
contextualized in open and dynamic societies.
Table 1: Ascendency of Modernism and Structuralism in Post-structuralism
Page 6 of 13
Having traced post-structuralism’s emergence onto the theoretical scene, we can now go on to
assess the impact upon planning. Opposing views envision on one hand structuralist spaces as
“integrated unities with a singular driving dynamic, contained with clearly defined spatial
boundaries” (Healey, 2007, 2), and the planning system “as the primary mechanism for
‘ordering’ nature and society in spatial terms” (Murdoch, 2006, 131). On the other hand, post-
structural spaces are seen as a temporary stabilization of physical, cultural and social processes
(Allmendinger, 2009, 186), with space “always ‘becoming’ and therefore always likely to be
unfinished” (Massey in Allmendinger, 2009, 186), and the role of planning as “one of ‘carving
out’ performances from the flow of processes that create space”(Harvey in Allmendinger, 2009,
188).
As highlighted before, the importance of post-structural thinking on planning theory was
stressed by Murdoch, who “traces the lineage of a number of schools of planning thought to a
post-structuralist perspective, including collaborative or communicative planning”
(Allmendinger, 2009, 186). Moreover, post-structuralism appears to be the tipping theory in
contemporary planning thought increasingly centred on spatial and collaborative approaches.
As argued by Beauregard (2005, 205), “planning theorists turned to civil society as a source of
ideas and legitimacy”. This generated what Boelens (2010, 55-56) calls ‘the socially more
committed and engaged’ post-modern and/or post-structural planner, versus the ‘to much
steering’ modernistic planner. Similarly, the post-structural notion of spatial planning “captures
some of the multi-sectoral, coordinating role of planning: planners and planning can
legitimately be concerned with health, education, and social issues, as well as the more
traditional land use concerns” (Allmendinger, 2009, 191).
Figure 1: The post-structural planner
(Headlam, 2011)
Page 7 of 13
As a valid critique to post-structural views of the planning profession, and in spite of the fact
that “Foucault always stood opposed to a marked tendency among structuralist writers to
prioritising the structure over the parts” (Olssen, 2003, 193), it is argued that “institutional
structures… limit what planning, whether channeled through social dialogue or carried along
by planning expertise, can accomplish” (Beauregard, 2005, 204). On this regard, ‘institutional
transformation’, as an approach to planning theory, can also play a role in an open and
dynamic post-structuralist view of diverse actors and processes that need to be understood
and scrutinized, since planners “trained to understand how the world works and to intervene
to make it better, they operate within… existing institutions” (Albrecht in Beauregard, 2005,
204).
Institutional transformation is “arrayed against the prevailing emphases of planning theory –
storytelling, persuasion, and communication – that seem disinterested in addressing
institutional structures that limit planning... [and in a governmentality exercise], the approach
has great potential to sharpen our thinking about institutions and the role of planning within
them and to bring to the surface the pathways of power and influence that exist prior to
planning deliberations” (Beauregard, 2005, 205-206). The crucial question ‘beneficial to
whom?’ should not only be answered at the local community micro-level but also at the
regional/national and macro-level of steering global institutions that influence national and
local values and outcomes. As argued by Flyvberg and Richardson (2002, 44), “power may
become the acid test of planning theory”, and without the Foucaultian perspective in a post-
structural analysis of planning, the central issue of power would appear to disappear “through
the back door” (Headlam, 2011).
Page 8 of 13
3. Post-structural Thinking – Conflicts with Planning
The importance of post-structural contribution to planning seems not to be able to circumvent
an inherent discomfort with the planning discipline’s post-structural scrutiny. On one hand,
planning as a basically government-driven discipline encounters stumbling blocks in the
perspective of an essentially actor-oriented school of thought (Boelens, 2010). As argued by
Murdoch (2006, 131), “in part difficulties arise because the technological ‘ways of seeing’
utilized by planning tend to draw actors and entities only selectively into its governmental
approach”. This generates an initial conflict between planning and post-structural views, which
question the sound engagement and comprehensiveness of the discipline’s approach. Similarly
Boelens (2010, 28) argues that, “since the 1980s at least, modernist, state-controlled planning
has been fundamentally debunked as a highly regulatory and prescriptive operation …[but],
time and again […] alternatives continue to be formulated from within the existing planning
framework, from a specific governmental, or at least a government influenced, view of
planning: in essence from the inside-out”. He therefore calls for the “reassembling of spatial
planning in an actor-oriented, as opposed to a government-oriented, way” (Boelens, 2010, 29).
Related to its governmental approach, planning can also be regarded as a ‘dominion’ discipline.
Within a post-structural perspective, Foucault coins the concept of governmentality, a
“semantic linking of governing (gouverner) and modes of thought (mentalite)” (Lemke, 2000, 2).
As argued by Huxley (2002, 137), “planning can be seen as a form of what Foucault calls
‘governmentality’ – practices shaping the actions of others and strategies for the management
of a population”. Therefore, in addition to planning legally-given regulatory powers, it can also
be seen as a ‘strategy for governing’ or ‘planning-as-governmentality’, “which is itself a mode
of social regulation of these identities and the spaces of their performance” (Huxley, 2002,
138). This uncomfortable point of view further challenges the planning discipline’s operation
and objectives.
A third uncomfortable issue relates to post-structural actor-oriented views undermining one of
the planning profession’s most heralded aims, which is to “advance the science and art of town
planning for the benefit of the public interest” (RTPI, 2007). As suggested by Huxley (2002, 137),
Page 9 of 13
“The multiplicity of ‘differences’ based on identity politics challenged planning – in practice and
in theory – to reassess the idea of a homogeneous public interest”. Similarly, Murdoch (2006,
131), stresses that “planning is not only a technology of spatial management, it is a political
arena also … Planning decisions are made on the basis of political calculation and this too can
result in very partial assessments of space being made. The upshot is that planning has
considerable difficulty in ‘representing’ the complex and heterogeneous spaces in which it is
inevitably immersed”. Moreover, “it views space through technological and political
mechanisms that select the spatial attributes thought to be of most significance and intervenes
in space o the basis of this selection. Planning therefore holds very partial linkages and fails, in
the main, to engage with the full range of entities to be found within the discrete spatial
locations” (Murdoch, 2006, 156). Therefore, to claim consistency, the planning profession will
have to open one’s heart to loyalties and interests, including ‘stake – aims’ associations such as
neighbourhoods – public interest, government – political agendas, private interests – urban
development, among others.
Figure 2: Murdoch’s ‘Case of Planning’ in
his book Post-structuralist Geography
(Murdoch, 2006)
Page 10 of 13
A fourth conflict arises from the need for planning to pragmatically close down knowledge to
implement planning decisions. The orthodox post-structuralist notion that knowledge is
indefinite and socially constructed becomes a double-edged sword by opening the mind and
scrutinizing new perspectives, but also tearing the potential of sound and successful values and
methods (Allmendinger, 2009). As pragmatically stated, “planning action requires…’close
down’ knowledge, inputs and ‘voices’… criteria against which to judge different knowledge”
(Rydin in Allmendinger, 2009, 195). But on the other hand, as accurately stressed by Alexander
(2008, 208) “the social construction model … implies that there’s no single observable reality
out there…, while ‘engagement with material reality’ must acknowledge that some absolute
truth-claims may be valid”. This uncomfortable ‘knowledge stalemate’ between open-minded
post-structuralism and expedient planning generates what appears to be a form of moral and
cultural relativism which de-centres expertise (Headlam, 2011). As further argued by Boelens
(2010, 55) “post-structural views on planning have been popular, while at the same time the
developed practical proposals are hardly convincing”. As a constructive contribution to solve
the rift, complexity theory, with strong connections to post-structural approaches, is a way of
conceptualizing and understanding spaces and places (Allmendinger, 2009), and “the link
between planning and complexity is one that allows progress back into the narrative, bringing
planning back from the postmodern abyss of indeterminacy” (Byrne in Allmendinger, 2009,
191).
Page 11 of 13
4. Post-structuralism, Neighbourhood Planning and the Planning Profession
The 2010 change in the UK government expediently generated the shifting Open Source
Planning Policy Green Paper No. 14, which includes considerable modifications to the planning
inertia. A main initiative includes “civic engagement and collaborative democracy as the means
of reconciling economic development with quality of life” (Mabbutt, 2009). In a post-structural
perspective, the 2004 ‘first round’ shift from conventional planning to spatial planning, and the
recent 2011 ‘second round’ focus on neighbourhood planning seem to point into a consistent
direction, including increased community involvement for stronger consensus and ownership,
increased stakeholder participation for more effective implementation and commitment, and
increased planning system governance for more integral and comprehensive visioning,
strategising and delivery (Ellis, 2011).
The Localism Bill was received with mixed feelings (Hambleton, 2011), requiring planners to
increasingly act as mediators, organizers, negotiators, supporters or advocates, depending on
the circumstances. In a concise retrospective, Murdoch (2006, 132) stresses how “early in its
development planning successfully incorporated physical entities; it then began to shift its gaze
to social entities; finally, it began to look more closely to heterogeneous entities”. Once again,
an uncomfortable new issue arises for planners given the potential of these heterogeneous
entities and processes to diminish their professional status, since planners will have to play a
more flexible role between communities and plan delivery, emphasizing the governance-
oriented shift of the profession that will need to deliver “agendas set by others” (Morphet,
2009, 409) and further involve the realigned Local Enterprise Partnerships (Tewdwr-Jones,
2011). Within this new context, “the planner no longer ’knows best’; s/he learns from the
collective what is in the best interests of the collective. This form of planning would no longer
be seen as master planning – rather it would involve such activities as ‘collecting’, ‘mixing’, and
‘sustaining’” (Murdoch, 2006, 157).
Page 12 of 13
5. Conclusion
Post-structural thinking appears to be the tipping theory in the planning discipline’s shift from
modern rationality to a current post-modern openness to diversity, flexibility and dynamism.
As a school of thought, it encourages constructive understanding, questioning and
problematizing, but on the other hand it also releases the potential to de-centre expertise and
to confuse observable realities needed to operate in a pragmatic discipline such as planning.
The fact that ‘post-structural planning’ has not been able to achieve the switch into a new
functioning paradigm appears to be related to conflicts between planning’s government-driven
approach and post-structuralism’s more actor-oriented concern. It has been argued that
several views of post-structural thinking place planning in an uncomfortable standing. A
governmental approach that ‘draws actors and entities only selectively’ (Murdoch, 2006),
challenges the engagement and comprehensiveness of the planning discipline. Similarly,
planning as ‘a strategy for governing’ (Huxley, 2002), renders the profession as subjective and
tendentious, also questioning the discipline’s strongly heralded public interest and consistency.
Further stressing the importance and influence of post-structural thinking on planning, the
recently proposed Localism Bill seems to ‘look more closely to heterogeneous entities’
(Murdoch, 2006) by introducing neighbourhood planning and a realigned relationship with
Local Enterprise Partnerships, reshaping the role of planners with ‘agendas set by others’
(Morphet, 2009), that will require planners to learn from and sustain the ‘collective’ (Murdoch,
2006).
Post-structural views increasingly permeate and challenge planning theory and practice, but
the profession holds the potential to coherently embrace diverse, dynamic and heterogeneous
processes and entities. The role of specific institutional structures should not be
underestimated, since planners operate within existing institutions that might limit and
influence planning deliberations (Beauregard, 2005). Wholeheartedly addressing these
questionings, uncomfortable issues and conflicts should provide the planning discipline a
deserved consistency and generate a more solid theoretical support, bringing the profession
into a more exalted and mature stature.
Page 13 of 13
REFERENCES
Alexander, E. R. (2008), ‘The Role of Knowledge in Planning’, Planning Theory, 7(2), 207-210
Allmendinger, P. (2009), Planning Theory, Palgrave, Basingstoke
Beauregard, R. (2005), ‘Introduction: Institutional Transformations’, Planning Theory, 4(3), 203-
207
Boelens, L. (2010), ‘Theorizing Practice and Practicing Theory: Outlines for an Actor Relational
Approach in Planning’, Planning Theory, 9(1), 28-62
Ellis, H. (2011), ‘Questions of far-reaching reform’, Town & Country Planning, 80(1), 15-23
Flyvberg and Richardson (2002), ‘Planning and Foucault: In Search of the Dark Side of Planning
Theory’, Planning Futures: New Directions for Planning Theory, Routledge, London, 44-62
Hambleton, R. (2011), ‘A Jekyll and Hyde Localism Bill?’, Town & Country Planning, 80(1), 24-26
Harvey, D. (1990), The Condition of Postmodernity, Blackwell, London
Headlam, N. (2011), Planning for Postmodernity, Planning Theory and Ethics, Centre for Urban
Policy Studies, The University of Manchester, Manchester, 1 March
Healey, P. (2007), Urban Complexity and Spatial Strategies: Towards a Relational Planning for
our Times, Routledge, London
Huxley, M. (2002), ‘Governmentality, Gender, Planning: A Foucauldian Perspective’, Planning
Futures: New Directions for Planning Theory, Routledge, London, 136-152
Lemke, T. (2000), ‘Foucalt, Governmentality, and Critique’, Economy and Society, 30(2), 190-
207
Mabbutt, A. (2009), Policy Green Paper No.14: Open Source Planning, Conservative Party,
London
Morphet, J. (2009), ‘Local integrated spatial planning – the changing role in England’, Town
Planning Review, 80(4-5), 393-414
Murdoch, J. (2006), Post-structuralist Geography: A Guide to Relational Space, Sage, London
Olssen, M. (2003), ‘Structuralism, post-structuralism, neo-liberalism: assessing Foucault’s
legacy’, Journal of Education Policy, 18(2), 189-202
RTPI (2007), Code of Professional Conduct, Royal Town Planning Institute, London
Tewdwr-Jones, M. (2011), ‘A Delicate Balance’, Town & Country Planning, 80(1), 29-32