Speaker
Description
This paper presents an initial set of thoughts around the idea that professional disciplines – in the ways that they interact with each other (and how they act in the world generally) – can demonstrate many of the characteristics of a ‘personality’. Because planning almost invariably finds itself embedded in interdisciplinary, cross disciplinary and transdisciplinary environments (Davoudi, 2010) – with various degrees of success or effectiveness – an enquiry such as this may prove useful in framing how our discipline shows up and behaves in these arenas which by their nature are often contested, complex and ethically challenging (Campbell, 2006).
If we start with the idea that the persona of a discipline or profession – the way it presents itself to the world - can be explored in more depth (as a psychoanalyst might interact with a client) it may be possible to infer many of its other dimensions, analogous perhaps to ego stances, shadow influences and even its essential core (or ‘self’). By deliberately using Jungian concepts such as these (Jung & Jaffé, 1989), but without attempting a precise correlation with depth psychology, this allows us – for planning at least – to draw out some developmental principles about this relatively new profession including its foundational knowledge base, its ethical stance, its canonical core, its maturity as a discipline and ultimately how it speaks with its own essential, individuated voice.
Whilst many popular personality typologies (such as Myers-Briggs or the Enneagram) can assist managers, therapists and individuals to get a feel for how typical interactions and responses play out in real world behaviours, it is not inconceivable that some professions can be seen as more generally agreeable and empathetic than others (or for that matter more logic-driven, charismatic or inspiringly creative). Whilst it is interesting that Lewis Mumford showed early interest in this topic (Novak, 1995 pp. 184-185), an over-simplification needs to be avoided here especially if a useful lens is to be found for asserting disciplinary identity in these settings. For this reason the initial focus might usefully turn to the planning voice.
Given that the planning voice - loosely defined here as the voice of those who are steeped in the principles and ethos of town and country planning– has some role to play in key day to day decision-making processes about sustainable development, there is merit in trying to bring clarity to its role and purpose. How do members of the planning discipline articulate what it means and how do they advise decision-makers about it? When doing this, do they speak with a distinctive and authoritative voice? And are they listened to? What strategies do they use when they feel that their voice is not being heard? Are there times when this voice gets drowned out, sidelined or ignored? Does planning suppress its instincts or project its intrinsic reactions elsewhere in the face of power dynamics in the arena? On occasion, do archetypal figures (such as the scapegoat) emerge in these arenas?
We might also ask where planners draw their authority from? What is their nature of their formation as professionals? What is the epistemological and ethical basis for how they act? Are planners even aware of these influences in mundane, tricky settings? Given that the roots of modern planning can be found in such a range of different traditions (in the same way that an individual’s psyche is subject to parental influences), is it fully formed yet as mature discipline?
Based on these lines of inquiry, the paper considers possible ways in which the disciplinary personality of planning might be framed, constellated and explained.
References
Campbell, H. (2006). Just Planning: The Art of Situated Ethical Judgment. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 26(1), 92-106.
Davoudi, S (2010). Planning and Interdisciplinarity. in Geppert, A. and Cotella, G. (eds) ‘Quality issues in a changing European higher education area’. AESOP
Jung, C.G. and Jaffé, A. (1989). Memories, Dreams, Reflections. New York. Vintage Books
Novak, F.G. (1995) ed. Lewis Mumford and Patrick Geddes : the correspondence. Routledge: London and New York
| Keywords | the planning voice; disciplinary identity; day to day planning practice |
|---|---|
| Best Congress Paper Award | Yes |
