Improvised Thoughts on Planning Theory #4
Fighting divergence, advancing convergence
Why push our theoretical aspirations towards the edges of radicality? Why not argue for a peaceful, incremental process of change that does not disrupt the basis of the social systems we have grown up in? After all, many would agree that big chunks of our societies today do benefit from centuries of widely accepted human progress and they are therefore not interested in any structural changes. Many could argue that some global challenges are enough of a concern already and that we should focus our energies on addressing current threats, rather than on dismantling social systems. Why, then, worry about structural oppression?
I will not argue here again that a closer analysis of current challenges inevitably reveals that these are the consequences of long-lasting oppressive systems (capitalism, colonialism, and patriarchy). Rather, I will defend that the idea of human progress is, if not a fallacy, a social construct proposed from a position of privilege that widely disregards the minorities of the world — which are, indeed, the vast majorities of the world. Let us, then, deconstruct the idea of human progress.
First, we need to look at progress as a relative, relational concept, rather than an absolute truth. In this sense, Johan Galtung’s definition of structural violence as “the difference between the potential and the actual” provides a helpful framework. While it may seem that, in absolute terms, the world has moved forward over the centuries (for instance, if we look at overall life expectancy, among the many possible examples), the disequilibrium between the livings of the social minorities and the privileged has also widen incrementally (the difference of life expectancies between a wealthy versus an economically poor country is now bigger than ever, as is the difference of life expectancy between the wealthy and the poor within the same country). If we used a diagram, we would see two ascending lines, yet increasingly divergent. In other words, purported human progress has enlarged societal inequalities.
Neoliberals would quickly argue that “inequality is not the problem, but absolute poverty is.” In absolute terms, people live better, they would say, and progress is contributing to reduce overall human suffering. But how can one live in peace knowing that the amount of human suffering is unnecessarily high? While the privileged keep “perfecting” our lives through an over-exposition to the endless possibilities of this world, the social minorities only get exposed to minor glimpses of what exists. This duality between the over-exposition of the privileged and the under-exposition of the disadvantaged keeps on expanding. And once one understands this structural injustice, it becomes unbearable.
It follows that it is not enough to tackle pressing challenges — solving them would still leave us with a world that is difficult to swallow for the social minorities — and so it is imperative that we work to address this structural gap. As far as critical theory is concerned, thinkers have been approaching the systemic imbalances from multiple lenses — gender and feminist theories, critical race theory, postcolonial theories, indigenous epistemologies, and so on — to denounce structural injustices from the perspective of the corresponding social minorities. If properly interiorized by the majorities, these critical frameworks would progressively lead to a more bearable world.
We are left again with the theory-practice conundrum. Through what practical processes can critical theories expose us to societal spaces that are fairer and where the life possibilities of those in opposing extremes of society slowly start to converge? With the risk of being too essentialist, in what follows, I present a series of structural failures of our current systems and propose practical avenues for alternatives.
1. Top-down planning tends to exacerbate inequalities. At best, it can reduce the pace of divergence, and at worst, accelerate it. Learning from postcolonial, feminist, racial, and indigenous frameworks, bottom-up processes seem to be the only spaces where the co-production of fairer societies is possible. In other words, as of today, grassroots insurgent planning is the only capable of producing gender and race-inclusive spaces.
2. Developmentalist planning discourses and practices are too often framed around the so-called vulnerabilities of the minorities. This is a structurally blinding lens that prevents planners from seeing the actual qualities of those who are different. To counterbalance this tendency, indigenous planning theorists and other postcolonial thinkers teach us to leverage existing capabilities of those in structural disadvantage, often through social processes sustained by commemoration and celebration. In short, counter-developmentalist frameworks must be strength-based.
3. Incrementalists keep believing in the fallacy of the common good narrative. Insurgent thinkers and practitioners know instead that fairer spaces are those that support multiple narratives. As such, these pluriversal spaces (to use a concept that Arturo Escobar and others have recently popularized) can only be created through co-generative processes of knowledge production. That is, fairer societies can only result from proactive co-production processes.
4. Western culture has taken up too much historical space, as a consequence of its unquestioned universality. Without denying the value of Western culture (something I could never do as an educated classical musician), postcolonial thinking invites us to make space for indigenous resurgence and an African Renaissance (the latter being a concept articulated by Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o). In other words, fairer societies shall work as a kaleidoscope of cultures that enrich each other.
Because the Western-based idea of progress is sustained by centuries of scientific evidence, insurgent planning theorists must work hard to provide rich evidence of the possibility of alternative worlds. Those who have been exposed to this other unseen richness of the world — which we could broadly call (again) Epistemologies of the South — are aware of all the possibilities that are being disregarded by top-down, developmentalist, common-good Western narratives. It is, hence, the role of insurgent planners to make those other possibilities visible and persuade about the urgency to make space for them. Only through such evidence will insurgent planning be able to start shifting gears towards the convergence of the two lines.
Continue reading: Improvised Thoughts on Planning Theory #1 / Improvised Thoughts on Planning Theory #2 / Improvised Thoughts on Planning Theory #3
