{"title":"'<b>¡</b>Eso no se dice'!: Exploring the value of communication distortions in participatory planning.","authors":"Joanna Kocsis","doi":"10.1177/14730952221124824","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Plans and policies rely on knowledge about communities that is often made by actors outside of the community. Exclusion from the creation of knowledge is a function of exclusion from power. Marxists, feminist, decolonial and postmodernist theorists have documented how the knowledge of some subjects is disqualified based on their gender, race, socio-economic position or a range of other constructed differences. Often, several of these constructions intersect in one person's life, compounding their exclusion in ways that are both relational and structural (Crenshaw, 2017). Participatory planning approaches bring members of the community into contact with planning authorities in an effort to include their voices and interests in official plans. Essential to meaningful engagement in such a process is the participant's ability to turn their ideas into change through the exercise of their agency. When that potential for transformation is missing, participation is tokenistic at best and dangerous at worst (Cooke and Kothari, 2001, Hickey and Mohan, 2004; Forester, 2020). When planners ask people whose agency is restricted by institutional and cultural forms of subjugation to talk about issues that adversely impact them, but over which they have little control, we can create exposures to internal and external risks that we are ill-equipped to mitigate. How can planners work towards social transformation without shifting the burden of speaking truth to power onto community members? One of the ways in which power and knowledge are related is through the complicated process of communication. Reflecting on power and communication in planning practice, this paper contemplates the question: when working with communities that have been historically excluded from the creation of knowledge about themselves, should planners strive for undistorted communication or should the distortion in communication be analysed for what it can tell us about agency and power, and opportunities for resistance and transformation?</p>","PeriodicalId":47713,"journal":{"name":"Planning Theory","volume":"22 3","pages":"270-291"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/f5/0f/10.1177_14730952221124824.PMC10394399.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Planning Theory","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14730952221124824","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REGIONAL & URBAN PLANNING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
Plans and policies rely on knowledge about communities that is often made by actors outside of the community. Exclusion from the creation of knowledge is a function of exclusion from power. Marxists, feminist, decolonial and postmodernist theorists have documented how the knowledge of some subjects is disqualified based on their gender, race, socio-economic position or a range of other constructed differences. Often, several of these constructions intersect in one person's life, compounding their exclusion in ways that are both relational and structural (Crenshaw, 2017). Participatory planning approaches bring members of the community into contact with planning authorities in an effort to include their voices and interests in official plans. Essential to meaningful engagement in such a process is the participant's ability to turn their ideas into change through the exercise of their agency. When that potential for transformation is missing, participation is tokenistic at best and dangerous at worst (Cooke and Kothari, 2001, Hickey and Mohan, 2004; Forester, 2020). When planners ask people whose agency is restricted by institutional and cultural forms of subjugation to talk about issues that adversely impact them, but over which they have little control, we can create exposures to internal and external risks that we are ill-equipped to mitigate. How can planners work towards social transformation without shifting the burden of speaking truth to power onto community members? One of the ways in which power and knowledge are related is through the complicated process of communication. Reflecting on power and communication in planning practice, this paper contemplates the question: when working with communities that have been historically excluded from the creation of knowledge about themselves, should planners strive for undistorted communication or should the distortion in communication be analysed for what it can tell us about agency and power, and opportunities for resistance and transformation?
计划和政策依赖于社区的知识,而这些知识往往是由社区之外的行动者制定的。排除在知识创造之外是排除在权力之外的一个功能。马克思主义者、女权主义者、非殖民化理论家和后现代主义理论家都记录了一些学科的知识是如何因性别、种族、社会经济地位或一系列其他建构的差异而被取消资格的。通常,这些结构中的几个在一个人的生活中相交,以关系和结构的方式加剧了他们的排斥(克伦肖,2017)。参与式规划方法使社区成员与规划当局接触,努力将他们的声音和利益纳入官方规划。在这样一个过程中,有意义的参与至关重要的是参与者通过行使他们的代理将他们的想法转化为变革的能力。当这种转变的潜力缺失时,参与充其量是象征性的,最坏的情况下是危险的(Cooke and Kothari, 2001; Hickey and Mohan, 2004;佛瑞斯特,2020)。当规划者要求那些机构受到制度和文化形式的限制的人谈论那些对他们有不利影响,但他们几乎无法控制的问题时,我们可能会暴露于我们无力减轻的内部和外部风险。规划者如何在不把向权力说真话的负担转移到社区成员身上的情况下实现社会转型?权力和知识相互联系的方式之一是通过复杂的交流过程。反思规划实践中的权力和沟通,本文思考了这样一个问题:当与历史上被排除在创造关于自己的知识之外的社区合作时,规划者应该努力争取不扭曲的沟通,还是应该分析沟通中的扭曲,以了解它能告诉我们什么关于代理和权力,以及抵抗和变革的机会?
期刊介绍:
Planning Theory is an international peer-reviewed forum for the critical exploration of planning theory. The journal publishes the very best research covering the latest debates and developments within the field. A core publication for planning theorists, the journal will also be of considerable interest to scholars of human geography, public administration, administrative science, sociology and anthropology.