Value Or Instrument? an Ethics and Planning Critical Review
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURE AND URBANISM ISSN 2029–7955 / eISSN 2029–7947 2017 Volume 41(3): 221–233 doi:10.3846/20297955.2017.1355278 COMMUNITY ACTION: VALUE OR INSTRUMENT? AN ETHICS AND PLANNING CRITICAL REVIEW Luca TRICARICO Politecnico di Milano Dipartimento di Architettura e Studi Urbani, Dastu, Via Bonardi 3, Milano, 20133 Italy Fondazione Giangiacomo Feltrinelli, Viale Pasubio 5, Milano, 20154 Italy E-mail: [email protected] Received 05 September 2016; accepted 20 April 2017 Abstract. The community concept has maintained a constant and growing interest in urban studies and many related fields. The origin of this continuing interest seems to derive from the importance of the concept of community within diverse forms of political language and interpretations within different planning practices. In this contribution, through the analysis of different ethical and planning theories, we want to provide an update framework on community action. According to this objective, the argumentation will proceed through a literature review on four ethics theories and three key aspects related to spatial planning, as well as matching this theoretical analysis with exemplifying practices. The final objective is to provide an original analysis on drivers and outcomes of different forms of community, raising general issues that refer to spatial planning, social organization and regulation. Keywords: community, politics, city society, interpretation, local communities. Introduction: the concern for communities the critiques of central government and bureaucratic In recent years there has been an increasing interest systems for their inability to respond to environmental in the debate on the role of communities in urban challenges and social inequalities. This inability stems studies. Furthermore, the literature developed dur- from a lack of freedom, which enables public policy to ing these years reveals some particular aspects of promote self-reliant initiatives (Sen 1990) based on the this topic in relevant debates such as the definition of “ambitious” assumption that the needs of communit- community development in planning (Phillips, Pittman ies can be readily and broadly categorized and serviced 2014), the various views of local governance and loc- remotely (Habermas 1984). We can briefly define these alism (Davoudi, Madanipour 2015) and the different evident difficulties in public policies and planning interpretations of the planning practices within the models as the inability to reach a precise “object and community action (Gallent, Ciaffi 2014). The origin of subject” (Fainstein 2000). This political phase is thor- this continuing interest seems to derive from the im- oughly described by the geographer Erik Swyngedouw portance of the concept of community within large (2011: 372) as the “disappearance of the political”, and and diverse forms of political language. Therefore, also “the de-territorialization and de-nationalisation this interest seem to grow together with the crisis of of bio-political relations, primarily as the result of participation in democratic systems, as the Economist growing nomadism and the explosion of multi-place Intelligence Unit (EIU 2015) “Democracy and its dis- networked identities”. According to this definition, the contents” report suggests for the whole of western so- community concept seems quite effective as a catalyst ciety1 (the EU in particular) during the past five years. to re-establish legitimacy to the depleted public territ- The diverse and new meaningful roles given by politi- orial action, as a “post-democratic” (ibid: 371) response cians to local communities also seems to derive from of socio-spatial configuration. In this way, the community concept progresses as a similar construct as the complex forms of community 1 Measuring the participation rate in General Elections over the last five years. action, namely the drive of groups of individuals Copyright © 2017 Vilnius Gediminas Technical University (VGTU) Press 221 http://www.tandfonline.com/ttpa 222 L.Tricarico. Community action: value or instrument? An ethics and planning critical review “to control and have responsibility for their own lives” to spatial planning, social organization and regulation (Gallent, Ciaffi 2014: 5). Different scholars and related related to community actions. research fields have analyzed these controversial as- pects of community organizations and action in urban Methodology: ethics and community action studies. In social policies, the community concept has Before discussing on the ethics theories we must estab- been abundantly debated in recent years (Burrows et al. lish a general definition of the concept of community 2000). In particular, social policy scholars underline the action and its spatial dimension. This should be con- emphasis of the community concept in the self-help and sidered as the action of a collective unit of individuals inclusion policy design and practices, related to public toward a common goal, generally related to the im- health provision, social housing and local welfare in- provement of the living conditions within their hab- novation. In terms of economic geography analysis, the itats or environments. In this sense, the improvement community concept has often been identified as a node of may be initiated through the: new complex polycentric governance scenarios (Ostrom – Affirmation of a shared moral imperative; 2010). From this perspective, the different community – Specific political and economic objectives. units are leading to the disaggregation and decentraliz- In this contribution we aim to provide an original ation of central state power, transferring responsibilities contribution on the ethical background of community towards what some scholars identify as civil society (Cox organizations’ spatial practices2 (Crosta 2010). This 1999) while others refer to the phenomenon as volun- contribution does not intend to generalize about these tary aggregation of individuals creating a “spontaneous complex social phenomena, nor to provide an exact order” of spatial organization (Bladel 2005: 11). Due to prevision of a methodological approach. It also does not this ambiguity in definition, communities have also intend to define a priori the order within the practices come to be appointed as part of the “shift in neoliberal of “community action”, due to the fact that these are public governance” (Moore, McKee 2014: 521) and the part of unpredictable forms of individual initiatives retreat of the state from “the direct provision of pub- (Popper 1944; Hayek 1948). The possibility of realizing lic goods, welfare and services, and its devolution of a general analytical framework can represent a mis- autonomy and responsibility for these needs to active leading argument, unable to build replicable models, and empowered citizens and communities” (ibid). The evaluations and indicators or predict consequential concept also comes to play a role in local assets in con- outcomes. The ethical reflection is important to deeper trast with the globalization process against what Sassen understand the strategic moves of community in spa- (2001) defines as the perverse dynamics of global cities tial action. As Behnam and Rasche noticed (2009: 80), with communities acting as a tool of empowerment for any “strategy process inevitably entails a way of reflec- local markets and endogenous growth factors (Shaffer tion that is highly commensurable with the ethical et al. 2004). Furthermore, they have been considered for reasoning process – no matter whether the strategist their potential role in “bracing” social capital (Holman, explicitly is aware of that or implicitly just follows the Rydin 2004), a valuable process leading to the sustain- same procedures”. A literature review on the different ability of local initiatives and trusted companion of local ethical interpretations on community action is relevant economic development policies (Dale, Newman 2010). if we adopt a reformist perspective on spatial planning. Taking into account this background, the objective In this contribution we want to consider the ethical of this work is to provide a theoretical contribution interpretation as an alternative of the orthodox vision debating and remarking on two research questions: given by the normative and prescriptive dimension of First. How can we interpret community action com- communities and social aggregations. For planning bining ethics and planning theories? scholars, the adoption of different lens of analysis on Second. Which are the interests that mobilize com- community action can represent a tool of interpreta- munity actions (values) and which different spatial tion on changes occurring in the relationship between planning aspects (scale and ownership) can help us to space and society and consequently a certain relation- frame different practices? ship between state and society. Through the review of In order to address these questions, the paper pro- specific ethics theories, we can therefore observe the ceeds as follows: the Section 2 describes four ethical connections between certain conditions of community theories through which we can look at community action: a priori values, “enabling” policies or regulative action. Section 3 discuss on three concepts related to frameworks. For these reasons, and for requirements community action and spatial planning: values, scale and ownership. Section 4 concludes by remarking how 2 Other contributions adopting a similar methodological appro- different