PARÁMETROS ARQUITECTONICOS Y DE SEGURIDAD164

In thinking about power and its relation to planning, one almost always thinks of Michael Foucault.

Michael Foucault’s work is complex at the very least and will not be drawn on directly in this section. However, reference will be made to some of his work through exploring the concept of power and how it has been applied to planning.

Habermas has attempted to encapsulate the understanding and role of power in Communicative Planning. Flyvbjerg and Richardson (2002) state that the understanding Habermas promotes is unrealistic and not in touch with the real planning world but works positively in theory.

Habermas’s approach is one where communication between parties is placed in an ideal world where consensus is always reached and the negative perceptions of power are always removed.

Habermas promotes the following elements in terms of communicative planning in reaching rational outcomes (Flyvbjerg, 2001):

1. No individual or group affected should be excluded from the discussion;

2. All participants should have an equal opportunity to present and criticise claims;

3. Participants should be objective to others perspectives;

4. The manifestation of power difference must be neutralised to limit the negative effects on consensus-building initiatives; and

5. Transparency of intentions and outcomes to cease strategic action.

This Habermasian view and approach above is perceived as being unrealistic as power cannot be removed from planning processes in the real world. Power is almost always viewed as a negative element within planning and procedures within it. Habermas’ understanding of power in planning is based on utopian ideals (Flyvbjerg & Richardson, 2002).

Flyvbjerg & Richardson (2002, p6) state that a researcher should ask the following questions in terms of understanding power within planning:

1. “... how communication takes place, and how politics, planning and democracy operate?”

2. “Is communication characterised by consensus-seeking and absence of power?”

3. “Or is communication the exercise of power and rhetoric?”

4. “How do consensus-seeking and rhetoric, freedom from domination and exercise of power, eventually come together in individual acts of communication?”

The questions above were formulated to assess whether power could be distinguished from rationality within communicative practices, as Habermas clearly separate these two elements.

Page | 49 However, this research is not concerned with this particular body of theory but rather with that which has been developed in response to this stance.

Habermas’ theory on communicative planning has been applied widely to work of other academics and authors. These include John Forester, Patsy Healey and Judith Innes (Flyvbjerg &

Richardson, 2002). Even though planning theory has embraced some of Foucault’s work in contrast to that of Habermas’ understanding of power, it has been limited and poorly developed.

Theorists attempt to remove the negative aspects of power which undermines findings in research in the end.

Foucault’s theories, according to Flyvbjerg (1998 & 2002), provide an alternative to understanding planning and power relations. They show that a power-sensitised method should be employed in understanding planning processes and in this, knowledge, rationality, spatiality and inclusivity in planning should be concentrated on. What needs to be remembered is that, according to Foucault’s work, knowledge is produced by discourse² where power, knowledge and truth are all interrelated. Put in simple terms, Foucault argues that power is knowledge and knowledge is power (Maeder, undated; McHoul & Grace, 1993; Smart, 1985; Fillingham, 1993).

McHoul & Grace (1993) mention that Foucault was concerned with the “softer”, more social side of how truth and knowledge was created rather than through conventional ways, namely scientific methods and studies. This makes studying and understanding ‘truth, discourse and power’

challenging as it is difficult to control and is subject to change without notice or warning.

Flyvbjerg has built and developed his understanding on elements of Foucault in response to Habermas and the extensive reliance on rationality in planning. Rationality in planning has, in many case studies, been linked to power in planning. This section attempts to analyse what power is and how it has been used and applied in planning. Flyvbjerg (2001), in Faludi and van der Valk (2001, p272) state that “Rational decision making is the foundation on which Western Democracy rests”. Flyvbjerg further states that “rationality derives from the Enlightenment idea that knowledge is power”. Flyvbjerg (2001) has further stated that rationality is relied on too much in planning and that planning places too much faith in rationality.

In this research, Rationality is understood, in simplistic terms, to be a method of gathering as much data as possible in a systematic manner over extensive periods of time. Based on the extensive data which has been gathered, a calculated and informed decision is made, based on the knowledge that the data provides. The decisions are made on which actions will maximise the expected and anticipated outcomes of the decision.

In Flyvbjerg’s book, Rationality and Power, the ideas of rationality and power are explored in terms of a case study of transport planning in Aalborg. This case study showed some of the following findings:

2 “Among critical discourse theorists such as Foucault, the term ‘discourse’ refers not to language or social interaction but to relatively well-bounded areas of social knowledge” ( McHoul & Grace, 1993, p31)

Page | 50 1) The greater the concentration of power, the less inclined powerful interests is to engage in

rational argument.

2) Stable power relations are more characteristic of politics and public administration than is open conflict.

3) Power relations are constantly being recreated and reaffirmed and the balance of power is not constant over long periods of time.

(Faludi and van der Valk, 2001, p274)

Flyvbjerg (2001) states that “rationality is the tool of last resort for those who lack power” (Peattie, 2001, p257). Flyvbjerg also stated in earlier work of his that power was directly linked to knowledge or knowing, moving towards Foucault’s understanding of the subject. Flyvbjerg therefore dismissed that rationality on its own can satisfy decisions made in planning and reiterated that power and other influences will always have an impact on decisions (Faludi and van der Valk, 2001; Peattie, 2001; Forester, 2001).

Forester (2001) states that power has a context and occurs in context and is closely related to knowledge and the sharing of knowledge. He articulates it as follows: “In a political world, surely we should expect that planners will often withhold information or manage consent or be pressured to manipulate people, and we should assess in detail how they do so... but to say this, of course opens up the possibility that both planners and authors, both professionals and researchers, have choices to manipulate more or manipulate less, to bluff more or to bluff less, to withhold information that might weaken their case more or less...” (Forester, 2001, p266-267).

Forester, in the quote above and as a statement in his article (2001) further mentions that work in the fields of political science and planning has illuminated the fact that planners and public officials can by choice misrepresent facts, manipulate people and their trust and therefore influence and shape agendas.

Power, in this research, is explored in two ways and draws directly from the examples of how power has been researched by other academics. Firstly, power is understood to relate to politics and political role players. In the research, power is conceived as a decision making influence or agendas being promoted by role players enjoying senior or political positions in the planning process and the practice of Strategic Spatial Planning.

Secondly, power is viewed as knowledge in the process of practising and formulating Strategic Spatial Planning. Knowledge in the research is what will be probed to determine how concepts are understood and used and how this knowledge provides influence in decision making processes.

2.4 CONCLUSION

This research is based on a qualitative research method where secondary sources are analysed, which are mainly policy documents relating to Strategic Spatial Planning, as well as interviews undertaken with the authors and implementers of the relevant policy. The methodology of the research is built around a case study, the City of Johannesburg.

The interview component of the methodology is underpinned by literature relating to the transference and translation of concepts, policies and ideas and the main elements which have

Page | 51 been extracted from this body of literature are who transfers ideas/concepts/policies, what ideas/concepts/policies are transferred, how are these transferred, when are these transferred and from where are these ideas/concepts/policies transferred? These elements are used in Chapter 5 of the research.

This chapter has also looked at conceptual framework elements in terms of Institutionalism, Governance, the Third Way Approach and Issues of Power. The last column of Table 2.3 below summarises the relevance of these theories for this research.

Page | 52 Table 2.3 Conceptual Framework Lenses

BODY OF LITERATURE ELEMENTS (AIMED) RESEARCH PERSPECTIVE