Improvised Thoughts on Planning Theory #2
On Pragmatism and Critical Theory
In theory, social emancipation sounds like a compelling aspiration for the planning discipline — at least to those who believe that solving immediate problems is not enough in a world afflicted with oppressive structures and discourses. Oppression has been the object of study by critical theorists since, at least, Marx. Approaching the topic from multiple perspectives — feminism, critical race theory, indigenous epistemologies, and even language and discursive analyses — theorists today continue envisioning future society structures where oppression is overcome. In practice, however, social emancipation does not materialize in an instant.
Such is the logic behind the philosophy of pragmatism, particularly as it plays out in the theory of planning practice. Theory, pragmatists argue, should not be about discerning social truths nor what is right or correct, but rather focus on what can be done to achieve a desirable end that is valid for those at stake around a particular societal challenge. Almost by definition, pragmatism is a philosophy of practice concerned with immediate change. As such, it seems to have been born to give meaning to the field of planning, which is equally concerned with effecting change in the immediate social-material world.
At best, pragmatic approaches to planning result in positive shifts for people struggling to enjoy well-being in their daily lives. Through communicative and collaborative practices, individuals and communities formulate collectively the problems that need to be solved — and solve them. The solutions found, pragmatists would say, are not only good, but they are right and truthful, for they become meaningful for the interested parties as the self-defined goals are accomplished.
At worst (as has been thoroughly criticized), pragmatism risks not only overlooking, but also reproducing and reinforcing power relations and oppressive structures. According to this critique, communicative rationality seems to benefit those whose rationality is considered such in the first place, as well as those who can communicate better following (pre)established communicative conventions. That is, pragmatic approaches suit well to people raised within the system and make it harder for people at the margins or outside to engage with the system — let alone to challenge it.
Even if, in the short term, we can only dream about small, immediate changes, one cannot remain silent about the neoliberal discourses and practices that perpetuate everyday forms of oppression. (Being silent, as I argued before, is equal to being complicit). Planners, and planning theorists, must be explicit about the overarching values and philosophy that guide our thinking and practice. When it comes to proposing new theories of practice, clearly positioning ourselves as political subjects will one way or another pervade our theorizing, even if we end up adopting pragmatic stances when it comes to immediate social change.
In fact, pragmatism as an encompassing epistemological stance is still a powerful means to pursue meaningful change if it is complemented (at least) with the following guiding principles:
1. Critical theory (or theories) must be integrated into pragmatists’ intellectual framework. We cannot conceive of deliberative and collaborative practices without a proper understanding and critique of the oppressive structures underpinning the social challenges in question. Specific planning approaches will be more effective socially if they derive from such frameworks.
2. Local power relations must be analyzed, made visible, and challenged. Pragmatist planners must be aware of the micro-political manifestations of the overarching social structures, which prevent from a fruitful collaboration and the possibility of questioning the status quo at a local scale. In practice, facilitation strategies will tackle said power imbalances.
3. The notion of rationality must evolve into that of rationalities, incorporating in the process “Southern Epistemologies.” Without rejecting the incalculable developments that Enlightenment has brought to humanity, pragmatists must pay attention to the many worldviews left behind by this particular, even if very rich, form of rationality. Planning practitioners must actively incorporate in their toolkits the worldviews and practices of those who have suffered colonizing processes — that is, those from the “Global South” (the latter understood in the broad social sense proposed by Boaventura de Sousa Santos, and not just as a geographical south).
4. Planners must repurpose “ideal speech situations” to build co-generative arenas that leverage multiple epistemologies and ways of knowing. Taking Habermas’s concept as a metaphor (going beyond his emphasis on rational language over other forms of communication), pragmatist practitioners aspire to facilitate the emergence of creative spaces where the publics can convene and co-create their futures by leveraging different ways of making sense of the world.
5. The “Right to the City” must be reconsidered in its most subversive reading. Planning practice seeks to open avenues for the dispossessed to retrieve their urban space and pursue the lives they have “reason to value,” to use Amartya Sen’s famous phrase. Tying back to the first point on this list, planners must address underlying oppressive structures through each intervention, however small, if they aspire to the fulfillment of this underrated human right.
Pragmatism, it follows from this list, has still today potential to tackle social challenges through the practice of planning if it is merged with critical theory and reoriented towards the goal of social emancipation. Even the ideal of incrementalism (one change at a time) can be embraced if the challenges pursued aspire to bring about some degree of human liberation — be this material or, perhaps more important, cognitive. In other words, pragmatism has still value as a guiding philosophy for our planning practice. For planning aims to become a liberatory discipline that not only deals with tangible changes but is also concerned with fulfilling dreams and hopes. Let the planning practice nourish, in Arjun Appadurai’s terms, our “capacity to aspire.”
Continue reading: Improvised Thoughts on Planning Theory #1 / Improvised Thoughts on Planning Theory #3 / Improvised Thoughts on Planning Theory #4
