Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
Transferring this understanding to the form of cartographic representations in plan-
ning could then imply that plans are always updated on the basis of the predeces-
sor plan, thus providing a continuation of certain beliefs and values over time.
THE APPLICATION OF CONTEMPORARY SOCIAL THEORIES TO
PLANNING
Over recent decades, planning theory has become increasingly aware of and inter-
ested in the analysis of how structural distortions of power are manifested in the
practice and discourse of planning. Throgmorton (1993: 119), for example, has
pointed out that planners
learn - and come to say - that planning and analysis are technical and
disciplined by objective methods, but they also learn - and come to fear - that
planning and analysis are political and subject to outrageous manipulations.
The focus on the interaction of meta and micro levels of planning and dimensions
of power in planning is strongly influenced by contemporary social and political
theorists and draws in particular on Habermas's theory of communicative action
(1984) and Foucault's (1972, 1980) work. The Habermasian approach used in the
model of communicative planning is based on thoughts of the so-called critical
theory of the Frankfurt school (Habermas, 1984). This theory assumes that science
or scientific methods cannot simply produce 'truth'. Rather, science is an instru-
ment which can be used to manipulate, and is formed by, power in society.
Science may not only fail to show truth, but similarly may disguise it: while there
might be truth or reality 'out there', it is hidden behind socially constructed agree-
ments (assumptions, theories) for all people. These agreements represent the
power relations in a society. They can dominate the life-world and make us blind to
other or 'deeper' realities. This basic idea results in an understanding of critical
theorists which is directed against the principle of unbiased science.
Some of Habermas's ideas are explicitly concerned with the relationship
between knowledge and policy-making, and his theory of communicative action
marks an important shift in the conceptualisation of public policy-making. The new
elements in Habermas's approach are especially a different understanding of
'expert knowledge' or 'knowledge' in general, and the question of what constitutes
valid knowledge. The monopoly of the experience of experts is broken down and
the value of both expert knowledge and local knowledge recognised. Habermas
thus seeks to answer not only questions of 'truth' (which in Habermas's under-
standing refers to agreement or consensus reached through critical discussion)
but also questions of justification of interests and norms. In his view, the explana-
tion of (scientific) claims as well as the justification of norms can be achieved
