One cannot dismiss the concerns about whether therapeutic planning is overstepping planning’s professional boundary. However, it is unclear whether there is another field already taking on the community-caregiver role. Sandercock & Atilli, despite their concerns, also wonder that if planning is “about negotiating a relationship between the past and the future, a relationship that is often fraught with tension, conflict, and trauma, then perhaps planning is the ideal forum for talking about trauma and healing” (1). The spaces in which we live often become vessels for a community’s emotions. Since planning explores the transformation of these spaces it also touches upon the transformation of these emotions. Erfan sees planners as being well suited to the role of community healing because planning:
The second and third point are really important to emphasize. The second pulls back to the experience of change and the emotional dimensions that it triggers. By hosting discourse on change planning is able to bridge the traumas of the past to the potential for transformation that lies in the future. The third point is referencing the challenges surrounding direct conversations about trauma. Talking about experiences of harm can seem too scary or intense for people. However, once those feelings are housed in something tangible like a bike lane or a specific building they become easier to work with. Erfan elaborates on this effect:
“Many planning discussions make a good doorway into healing – if held with the intention to heal – because they link the internal and external conflicts and historic traumas to tangible things that are relevant to people’s lives today” (2)
If therapeutic planning has been shown to be beneficial in planning with indigenous communities, and if the planning process is well suited for community scale healing, what does it mean for the profession to fully embrace the therapeutic imagination? Schweitzer has begun laying out this ground work by exploring how planners in public institutions can approach community harm, in particular the harm caused by the profession. They lay out three professional duties for planners looking to become more therapeutic:
The deliberation in Schweitzer’s first point aligns with the practices Sandercock, Atilli and Erfan have explored to process community trauma and conflict. The second point adds in the principles of reflective practice, which encourages professionals and the institutions they represent to reflect on their role in systems of trauma and conflict. Reflective practice is already encouraged in other caring professions (4). Schweitzer’s third recommendation points to the idea of planners as advocates on behalf of the marginalized for social transformation. While planners may value being seen as unbiased actors, they exist in a society that is filled with cycles of trauma and conflict, and often work for institutions that have contributed to those cycles. By becoming an advocate for transformation and by fully embracing their role in societal trauma, planners create space for healing to occur.
Therapeutic planning is an emerging practice within planning. So far it has been used in practice only by a few planners working with indigenous people in British Columbia (1)(2). While there exists little research on the application of therapeutic planning, what has been done has shown that therapeutic practices have been effective in indigenous social planning and have led to greater feelings of community cohesion and even healing. The champions of therapeutic planning have pointed to greater applicability in the world of planning at large; However, questions remain about how therapeutic practices fit into the identity and skill set of planners.
Schweitzer sees an opening in planning at large by pairing therapeutic techniques with reflective practice and advocacy (3). To do this means a dramatic shift in current conceptions of planning from one of solving problems through rational tools to a profession that actively cares for and with communities. To support this shift, the rest of this inquiry will elaborate on why all planners should be therapeutic and will provide a roadmap for how this can happen.
- Is a relatively accessible collective and public activity.
- Lends itself well to negotiating a relationship between the past and the future.
- The practical and tangible aspects of planning discourse keep the space grounded compared to more directly emotional conversations.
- Often has less baggage with marginalized populations than other caring professions.(2)
The second and third point are really important to emphasize. The second pulls back to the experience of change and the emotional dimensions that it triggers. By hosting discourse on change planning is able to bridge the traumas of the past to the potential for transformation that lies in the future. The third point is referencing the challenges surrounding direct conversations about trauma. Talking about experiences of harm can seem too scary or intense for people. However, once those feelings are housed in something tangible like a bike lane or a specific building they become easier to work with. Erfan elaborates on this effect:
“Many planning discussions make a good doorway into healing – if held with the intention to heal – because they link the internal and external conflicts and historic traumas to tangible things that are relevant to people’s lives today” (2)
If therapeutic planning has been shown to be beneficial in planning with indigenous communities, and if the planning process is well suited for community scale healing, what does it mean for the profession to fully embrace the therapeutic imagination? Schweitzer has begun laying out this ground work by exploring how planners in public institutions can approach community harm, in particular the harm caused by the profession. They lay out three professional duties for planners looking to become more therapeutic:
- Deliberate with individuals and groups who have experienced harms and wrongs, and to explore both a) the calls for the remedy of those with the tools of ordinary justice and b) forge collective understandings of what constitutes harms and wrongs.
- Foster within agency dialogues regarding remedy for individuals and groups that have been harmed and, in turn reform the institutional practices such that they align with the norms and values of the wronged and the larger political community, depending on the context.
- Echo and support efforts at transformation within the broader political community so that its norms and values begin to align with those of the wronged.(3)
The deliberation in Schweitzer’s first point aligns with the practices Sandercock, Atilli and Erfan have explored to process community trauma and conflict. The second point adds in the principles of reflective practice, which encourages professionals and the institutions they represent to reflect on their role in systems of trauma and conflict. Reflective practice is already encouraged in other caring professions (4). Schweitzer’s third recommendation points to the idea of planners as advocates on behalf of the marginalized for social transformation. While planners may value being seen as unbiased actors, they exist in a society that is filled with cycles of trauma and conflict, and often work for institutions that have contributed to those cycles. By becoming an advocate for transformation and by fully embracing their role in societal trauma, planners create space for healing to occur.
Therapeutic planning is an emerging practice within planning. So far it has been used in practice only by a few planners working with indigenous people in British Columbia (1)(2). While there exists little research on the application of therapeutic planning, what has been done has shown that therapeutic practices have been effective in indigenous social planning and have led to greater feelings of community cohesion and even healing. The champions of therapeutic planning have pointed to greater applicability in the world of planning at large; However, questions remain about how therapeutic practices fit into the identity and skill set of planners.
Schweitzer sees an opening in planning at large by pairing therapeutic techniques with reflective practice and advocacy (3). To do this means a dramatic shift in current conceptions of planning from one of solving problems through rational tools to a profession that actively cares for and with communities. To support this shift, the rest of this inquiry will elaborate on why all planners should be therapeutic and will provide a roadmap for how this can happen.
1.. Sandercock, L., & Attili, G. (2014). Changing the Lens. Journal of Planning Education and Research,34(1), 19-29.
2. Erfan, A. (2017). Confronting collective traumas: An exploration of therapeutic planning. Planning Theory & Practice, 18(1), 34-50.
3. Schweitzer, L. (2016). Restorative planning ethics: The therapeutic imagination and planning in public institutions. Planning Theory,15(2), 130-144.
4. Doane, G. H., & Brown, H. (2010). Recontextualizing Learning in Nursing Education: Taking an Ontological Turn. Journal of Nursing Education,50(1), 21-26.
2. Erfan, A. (2017). Confronting collective traumas: An exploration of therapeutic planning. Planning Theory & Practice, 18(1), 34-50.
3. Schweitzer, L. (2016). Restorative planning ethics: The therapeutic imagination and planning in public institutions. Planning Theory,15(2), 130-144.
4. Doane, G. H., & Brown, H. (2010). Recontextualizing Learning in Nursing Education: Taking an Ontological Turn. Journal of Nursing Education,50(1), 21-26.