| Paper ID | 603 |
|---|---|
| --- | |
| Authors | Duineveld, M., Van Assche, Ark, R., van |
| Title | Obstacles for Change in Dutch Planning. A Planners’ Paradise Lost in Modernist Thought? |
| Keywords | Planning system, innovation, post-modernism |
| Abstract | Recently more and more planning scholars adhere to a post-modern and analytical approach. Instead of creating new concepts and new models in the self referential world of actual planning systems these people try to improve plans and planning from a more profound analytical base. By doing so they not only show more accurately how planning really works, they also deconstruct many of the dominant modernist theories, concepts and ideas still present within the planning discipline. One would expect that the planning discipline, in parallel with other disciplines like anthropology, policy studies and cultural studies, would undergo a major change towards a more analytical and post-modern approach. Although this seems to be the case at some European Universities, where scientists like Flyvbjerg, Hillier and Allmendinger, seem to become increasingly influential, in the Netherlands the modernist discourse is still dominant in the planning disciplines and institutions. It is produced and reproduced, seemingly unaffected by the upcoming post-modern frame of thought. In this article we will describe the problems that originate from that modernist discourse and we will elaborate on the need for a post-modern approach of planning. We will argue that a post-modern scientific look the planning system reveals the presence of images of self and the outer world that are far from realistic and far form democratic. Consequently there is a real need for change. Next we will make explicit the constraints, power relations and attitudes, which constitute obstacles for change. Successively the following obstacles will be discussed: - The ethnocentric core of the planning discipline [Dutch planning can be regarded as a highly ethnocentric culture. It is reproducing a particular set of norms and truth claims reflecting a minority opinion] - The relationship between content and position [Ideas, theories and concepts within a discourse are produced and reproduced according to positions in networks of power] - The hidden assumptions (political and otherwise) of Dutch planners [Many Dutch planners seem to be unaware of the political ideas structuring their thought] - The hybrid relationships of Dutch planning science with politics and the administration Making these obstacles for change explicit is not only a way to critically reflect on planning approaches within the Dutch academic context. An analysis of the obstacles for change is simultaneously an analysis of the reproductive mechanisms of the planning discourse and an analysis of the gradual breakdown of the democratic character of planning. A shift from a modern to a post-modern planning approach is therefore not only an academic challenge, but also a struggle for new forms of democratic legitimacy. |
| full text print |  file.pdf (64,900 bytes) |
| Track-Topics | 03 Planning theory and methods
06 Planning education and practice |
| Type of Submission | Paper session |
| ADMINISTRATIVE | |
| last changed | 2005/06/06 11:17 |
   |
AESOP 2005: Submission | 
|