Post-structural Thinking

Critical discussion of its importance for planning theory

May 2011

Pablo Alejandro Abrecht

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 2 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 poststructuralism 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-structuralisms 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 poststructuralism 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 3 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 Saussures 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 theorys point of departure lies in the rejection of structuralisms closed worldview based on shaping structures, deterministic forces

Page 4 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 5 of 13

Having traced post-structuralisms 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, poststructural 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 6 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 poststructural analysis of planning, the central issue of power would appear to disappear through the back door (Headlam, 2011).

Page 7 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 disciplines 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 disciplines 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 disciplines operation and objectives. A third uncomfortable issue relates to post-structural actor-oriented views undermining one of the planning professions 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 8 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 ones 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: Murdochs Case of Planning in his book Post-structuralist Geography (Murdoch, 2006)

Page 9 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 requiresclose 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 theres 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 10 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 governanceoriented 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 11 of 13

5. Conclusion Post-structural thinking appears to be the tipping theory in the planning disciplines 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 plannings government-driven approach and post-structuralisms 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 disciplines 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 12 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), 203207 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), 190207 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 Foucaults 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

Page 13 of 13