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