Throughout its history, the planner-public relationship has continued to expand to provide better care for the public even if the profession does not have an established discourse on care. While none of the configurations of the planner-public we explored explicitly mention caring or a theory of care, there are clear elements of care woven into them that become apparent when one approaches through a lens of care. As experts, planners are able to define the public interest and map out the best way for society to achieve it. Caring is embodied in the pursuit of the best outcomes and is a key stipulation of the public’s trust in the profession.
Moving into the negotiator role has allowed planners to root improved outcomes in the realities of a heterogenous society. It also has emphasized the relational side of planning’s caring. Planners care with the public not just for the public. The facilitator role has expanded on that relational element, creating space for more voices to be considered and has given the public more of a say in its care; Meanwhile, the advocate role has opened the door for planners to care for more than just good outcomes or better relationships. The planner-public relationship has become a venue for communities to build counter power and advance equity. The advocacy role points out that there are auxiliary benefits for the public when planning embraces more of a caring role. What happens when this is pushed even further into a community caregiver role?
Planners have already begun moving toward this area through an exploration of the profession’s relationship to the emotional realm (1). Planners tend to resist emotion, but when they do embrace it there is the potential for further public benefits as seen in the case studies of Forester (2). If the profession deliberately embraced a therapeutic planning mindset, it could provide a pathway for planners to become community caregivers alongside a set of concepts and skills to better address the complexity of the planner-public relationship. If planners are encountering challenges in their relationship to the public, especially if they see themselves as experts, negotiators, facilitator or advocates, perhaps it is time they more seriously considered the caregiving capacity of therapeutic planning. From this literature review we have seen how elements of care have been an implicit part of the planner-public relationship since its beginning. Now we will shift our focus ahead, to the new planner as community caregiver configuration that is emerging in the theory and practice of therapeutic planning.
Moving into the negotiator role has allowed planners to root improved outcomes in the realities of a heterogenous society. It also has emphasized the relational side of planning’s caring. Planners care with the public not just for the public. The facilitator role has expanded on that relational element, creating space for more voices to be considered and has given the public more of a say in its care; Meanwhile, the advocate role has opened the door for planners to care for more than just good outcomes or better relationships. The planner-public relationship has become a venue for communities to build counter power and advance equity. The advocacy role points out that there are auxiliary benefits for the public when planning embraces more of a caring role. What happens when this is pushed even further into a community caregiver role?
Planners have already begun moving toward this area through an exploration of the profession’s relationship to the emotional realm (1). Planners tend to resist emotion, but when they do embrace it there is the potential for further public benefits as seen in the case studies of Forester (2). If the profession deliberately embraced a therapeutic planning mindset, it could provide a pathway for planners to become community caregivers alongside a set of concepts and skills to better address the complexity of the planner-public relationship. If planners are encountering challenges in their relationship to the public, especially if they see themselves as experts, negotiators, facilitator or advocates, perhaps it is time they more seriously considered the caregiving capacity of therapeutic planning. From this literature review we have seen how elements of care have been an implicit part of the planner-public relationship since its beginning. Now we will shift our focus ahead, to the new planner as community caregiver configuration that is emerging in the theory and practice of therapeutic planning.
1. Baum, H. (2015). Planning with half a mind: Why planners resist emotion. Planning Theory & Practice, 16(4), 498-516.
Hoch, C. (2006). Emotions and planning. Planning Theory & Practice, 7(4), 367-382.
2. Forester J. (2009). Dealing with Differences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hoch, C. (2006). Emotions and planning. Planning Theory & Practice, 7(4), 367-382.
2. Forester J. (2009). Dealing with Differences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.