Anarchism and Planning

Anarchism and Planning by Christopher J. Sholberg fiubmiÚed ro rhe tilllïi Graduate studies in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of CitY Planning Department of CitY Planning University of Manitoba Winnipeg, Manitoba lcl MaY, 1991 Bib{iothèque nationate H*E i¡8äX.i"* du Canada Cacadian Theses Serv¡ce Sefl/'ree des thèèes carncf¡ernes Ot(awa. Canada KIA ON4 The. agthor has granted.a¡¡ inevocabte non. L'àuteuraaccordé exclus¡ve licence une ticerce irrévocabte et rlþ*ia,g ú* National Ubrary non exdusrive permethnt o{ Canada ä h B¡bt¡otrrèque tg reproduce, Ëd d¡"bbut" orset¡ coples nationale du Car¡ada de reprodulre, prêtär, of hilher hes¡s byany means and ln crrshibuerou fgm vendre aescoþieJãà åd thèse 9ny or forrnaE nåldng-ft¡s ü,es¡é;lrr¡t bt de queeue ro tnterested man¡ère et sous quáquãforme persons, qug ce_ soit ponr mettre des exemplaires de cette thèse à la disposition des personnes intéressées. The author retains ownership of the copyright in his/her L'auteur conserì/e fa propriété du droit d auteur . thesis. Neithei ttre thãà¡s nor. qui protege substantial sa tt¡rèse. N¡la thèse ni des exma¡ts extracts from ¡t mãyle printeo or otherwise _substantiels de celleci ne doiveni être reproduced withoút h¡Vtrer imprimés mission. ær- ou autrement reproduits sans son autorisation_ ISBH ø-315-76923-8 eanadä ANARCHISM AND PLANNING BY CHRÏSTOPHER J. SHOLBERG A tlresis subnrined to thc Faculry of Craduate Studies of the university of Manitoba in partial fulfillment of the requirenrerrts of the degree of MASTER OF CITY PLANNING o 1991 Permision has bcen granted to the LIBRARY OF THE UNIVER- S¡TY OF MANITOBA to lend or scll copies of rhis rhesis. ro thc NETIONAL LIBRARY OF CANADA tO ¡NiCrOfîIM this thesis and to lcnd or scll copies oí rhc film, and UNIVERSITY MICROFILMS to publisir an abstracr of rhis thesis. The author rcscrves other publication rights, and neither ttrc thcsis nor extensive extracts frorn it may be pnnteC or otherwise reproduced without the author's written pcrmission. the university of Manitoba to I hereby declare that I am the sole author of this thesis. I authorize scholarly research' ,¿-nd this thesis to other individuals for the purpose of Chris Sholberg practicum by photocopying or by I further aurhorize the University of Manitoba to reproduce this or individuals for the purpose of other means, in total or in part, at the request of other institutions scholarly research. Chris Sholberg Contents i List of trlustrations ü Acknowledgements üi Abstract vi Preface Part I: Understanding Anarchism Chapter t) The Libertarian Ethos 24 Chapter 2) The Anarchist Criterion 24 Toward aDefinition of AnarchY 27 Toward a PhilosoPhY The Tenets: 30 The SovereigntY of the Individual 35 The SanctitY of Communiry 37 Aversion to Authority and Rigid Organization 4l Self-Reliance 42 Participation and Direct Action M Decentralization of Means (-ocalism) 51 Cooperation and Free Association (Mutual Aid) 52 Spontaneous Order Part II: Anarchism and Planning Chapter 3) Planning Evolution 57 65 The Organic Paradigm 67 'Weaver's Tree 73 Sociat Mobilization 77 EbenezerHoward 83 Patrick Geddes 88 Lewis Mumford The Myth of ObjectivitY 96 Transactive Planning 103 Part III: The Nexus Chapter 4) Contemporary Libertarian Movements and Their 110 Impact on Planning Sociat Ecology L13 Populism r23 The Green Movement 130 Eco-DevelopmenlC. E. D./Conserver Society 137 Bio'Regionalism TM Urban Anarchism r52 Chapter 5l Coda: (Summary and Conclusion) 161 Appendix 1: An Anarchist Typology 170 Appendix 2: Speculations on l,ocal Autonomy: The Case 183 For Municipal lndependence Appendix 3: Planning and Ecology r97 Appendix 4: Notes on Planning Evolution 206 Bibliography 2r3 Index 224 List of Illustrations Page Eisu.re v ) Drawing by Richard Hedman 7 .) Peter Kropotkin t3 r1 William Godwin/Pierre Proudhonffichael Bakunin 24 4) The Chaos Wheel 25 5) GovernmenlSocietY 29 6) The Cliterion 34 7) Josiah Warren 60 8) Mumford's Planning TYPologY 67 9) Weaver's Tree 69 10) Elisee Reclus 75 11) Radical Intellectual Influences on American Planning Theory l})Ebenezer Howard 79 81 13) The Three Magnes 84 14) Patrick Geddes 85 15) Place/TVork/Folk 89 16) l-ewis Mumford 90 17) Evolution of Community Planning Concepts Since 1890 94 18) Comparison of Anarchist Criterion and Early Planners 111 19) Modem Libertarian Movements: Their Impact on the Built Environment 20) Matrix: Social EcologY tl4 r25 21) Matrix:Populism r32 22) Matrix: Green Movement 1,39 23) Matrix: Eco-developmenlC. E - D./ Consewer Society r45 24) Matrix: Bie'Regionalism 154 25) Matrix: Urban Anarchism 26) Matrix: PoliticalÆconomic 181 208 27) Four Interpretations of Planning Evolution 28) Historical Planning Paradigms 2t0 Acknowledgements i would like to thank the members of my thesis committee - Professor Kent Gerecke (CP), Professor Ma¡io Carvalho (CP), and Professor Rob Shaver (Philosophy) for their unflaggtng commifrnent and inærest. I would also like to thank my associates at the Deparnnent of City Planning, my friends and arnily, and extend a special thanks to Helen Scholberg. u1 Abstract A careful examination of planning literature, especially the chronicles of Ebenezer Howard, Patrick Geddes, and Lewis Mumford, not to mention the work of a number of contemporary theorists, reveal a wealth of information tieing anarchist philosophy to planning theory and practice. I have attempted to illustrate this connection by developing a set of criteria based on anarchism. In turn, these criteria 1) the sovereignty of the individual, 2) the sanctity of community, 3) aversion to authority and rigid organization, 4) self-reliance, 5) participation and direct action, 6) decentralization of means, 7) cooperation and free association, and 8) spontaneous order, act as a method of inquiry around which I have tested radical philosophies for their anarchistic content. Through such a mechanism I have attempted to trace planning to its anarchist roots. I conclude that anarchism has played a significant role in the formation of planning philosophy, and furtherrnore, that anarchy continues to impact on the social, economic, and political interrelationships of the built environment; generating alternatives to the formal, comprehensive techniques traditionally practiced by planners. In turn, this foundation is underscored by the emergence of radical urban movements, namely, social ecology, populism, green movement, community-economic-development, bio'regionalism, and urban ana¡chism. 1V Alike in Europe and in America the problems of the city have come to the front, and are increasingly calling for interpretation and for treatment. Politicians of all parties have to confess their faditional party methods inadequate to cope with them. Their teachers hitherto the national and general historians, the economist of this school or that - have long been working on very different lines; and though new students of civics are appearing in many cities, no distinct consensus has yet been reached among them, even as to methods of inquiry, still less as to results. Yet that in our cities - here, there, perhaps everywhere - a new stirring of action, a new arousal of thought has begun, none will deny; nor that these are alike fraught with new policies and ambitions, fresh out-looks and influences; with which the politician and the thinker have anew to reckon. Patrick Geddes Cítíes ín Evolutionr lPutrirk Geddes. Cities in Evolution: An Intoduction to the Town Planning Movenænt ønd to the Study of Civics. @rnest Benn Limiæd, London, 1968),p.2. (Figure l,) Source: Srop Me Beþre I Plan Again, Richa¡d Hedman, (ASPO Press: Chicago),1977 vl Preface It is well to speak of grass-roots democracy, decentralization of power and of economy, and of public participation. Yet, what do such "radical" concepts entail? Can they be implemented under our present political system? If so, why has this not happened? Why do many people still feel alienated by the political process? Why are they dissatisfied with municipal, provincial, and federal policy which, after all, ofFrcially represents their interests? I feel that they are dissatisfied, by and large, because the present system oflocal, regional and national government is not attuned, nor has the capacity, to listen and act upon local initiative. The "system," first of all, is too heavily tied down by bureaucracy, the control of money interests and the cumbersomeness of a centralized system implementing centralized decisions at a localized level. Such conditions a¡e unacceptable (not to mention unworkable) and indeed, contradict the ideals of democracy in terrns of individuals deciding their own destinies, controlling their own environments, and living their own lives. Is there a soiution? We know the dilemma - the system will bend to accommodate cries for self-determination, freedom and "empowerment," but in the final analysis it cannot yield. What must be found, (and what I believe is evolving), is a new political/sociat sysrem that will allow, even encourage, the aforementioned conditions to occur. Within this new "system" (a word which I use loosely) planning will come to reflect the desires of those it must serve. What is this system, you may ask? I am reluctant to say, however, I do believe that it will have a highly "anarchistic" flavour. Indeed, it is my contention that any societal framework allowed to evolve freely will, by definition, be anarchistic. ***** vü I am not an idealist" nor do I pretend to suggest that anarchism is a "panacea," or a "cureall" for the problems which presently afflict society. Nor am I attempting to radicalize our perceprion of the planning profession. However, the role played by anarchism, both now and in the past, is well worth serious consideration and should by no means be relegated to the back pages of planning theory, decried as a political phenomenon or an outlandish and unworkable credo.

Load more