In its current implementations therapeutic planning has been primarily focused on planning with indigenous communities where the responsibility to reconciliation is most needed and most apparent. Indigenous planning prioritizes “long-term learning, the empowerment of community voice, and the advocacy of culture and tradition” (1), which creates space for the socio-psychological health and healing. The community planning process is well suited to meet some of the objectives of reconciliation (1)(2); a claim that is further supported by the emerging practice of therapeutic planning (3).
Reconciliation is a societal responsibility that planners need to incorporate into their practice, especially since planners often operate as arbiters of the state. Land-use planning is a central part of the colonization process and community planning has ties to Canada’s many attempts at cultural genocide where indigenous people were excluded from the conception of ‘the community’. Planning’s role in colonization has been unpacked by many theorists (4), while others have outlined pathways to decolonize the professions (5). As planning seeks to move into post-colonial practice there are deep traumas that the profession needs to heal.
The profession is beginning to explore its responsibility to reconciliation through a more liberal approach to the Duty to Consult as seen in Ontario’s Provincial Policy Statement increased consultation recommendations when it comes to cultural heritage resources (6). Professional bodies like the Ontario Professional Planners Institute (OPPI) are also beginning to foster conversation on the profession’s role in colonization and how reconcile with that history (7).
The Calls to Action stemming from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) provide a framework for reconciliation that planners can follow (8). While the Calls to Action have specific recommendations for other professions like nursing, social work and education, planning is never explicitly mentioned. This is a surprise given planning’s relationship to land use control and subsequently colonization. However, there is a call for planners, as public servants, to get educated on the history of Canada’s indigenous people alongside training in conflict resolution, human rights and anti-racism.
Given the history of land use in Canada, the legal and ethical responsibility on planners to meaningfully engage with indigenous stakeholders is surely to only grow as the reconciliation process unfolds. This is especially the case when you consider the heterogeneity of indigenous identity in Canada. There are sizable indigenous populations living in urban, suburban and rural areas. Can planners continue to treat planning with indigenous people as separate from general land use and community planning? If all planning engages with some dimension of Canada’s indigenous community, then the capacity to facilitate reconciliation and healing are primary responsibilities for all planners.
Reconciliation can seem like an insurmountable task for planners. However, that complexity does not mean that indigenous people have not experienced wrongs and harms at the collective and individual level (9). How can a profession move forward with a community in the face of these harms? Reconciliation therefore, is a necessary prerequisite for professional activity. To crack through the complexity of our colonial history, Derrida frames successful reconciliation as “positive movement in thought that seeks accountability for past wrongs so that they are better understood and can be avoided in the future” (10). Their framing aligns quite nicely with the goals of therapeutic planning, which gives space for past injustices to be recognized in relation to present activities.
In practice, therapeutic planning provides a compelling path forward with its record of improved reconciliation outcomes (3). By adopting an empathetic perspective more broadly and increasing the therapeutic communication skills of planners, the profession can become a leader at reimaging the relationship between indigenous Canadians, the public service and the broader Canadian ‘community’. As the branch of the state that is most directly focused on mediating public interests, consulting stakeholder groups, and facilitating public visioning, planning is uniquely suited to play a leading role in reconciliation.
The current divide between planning with indigenous communities and the rest of the profession that is supported by Sandercock and company’s limited scope of therapeutic planning, underplays the responsibility planners have to reconciliation. Bringing in the tools and perspective of therapeutic planning only in planning spaces that are identified as indigenous enough prevents the rest of the planning system from undertaking the change needed to happen for reconciliation. Planners will invariably interact with indigenous people in most communities. For example, there are sizable indigenous populations in many Canadian cities (11). How can planning reconcile with those indigenous people when therapeutic planning is a tool only for specialists in reaction to crisis as suggested by Sandercock?(12)
Without a broader application of therapeutic planning, planners will continue to perpetuate colonialism and be unequipped to make decisions that advance reconciliation. The separation within planning around reconciliation, also underestimates the healing potential therapeutic planning could have if adopted by the whole profession. The essence of therapeutic panning is a recognition of the past and how it embodies itself in the present through the emotional realm of conflict and trauma combined with a concerted effort to provide space for that emotional realm to heard and healed. This does not mean that every planning activity needs to become a deep dive into reconciliation like the TRC. Some may, but by adopting a therapeutic perspective the rest can still support reconciliation through smaller scale interventions that build into a new culture of healing.
Reconciliation is a societal responsibility that planners need to incorporate into their practice, especially since planners often operate as arbiters of the state. Land-use planning is a central part of the colonization process and community planning has ties to Canada’s many attempts at cultural genocide where indigenous people were excluded from the conception of ‘the community’. Planning’s role in colonization has been unpacked by many theorists (4), while others have outlined pathways to decolonize the professions (5). As planning seeks to move into post-colonial practice there are deep traumas that the profession needs to heal.
The profession is beginning to explore its responsibility to reconciliation through a more liberal approach to the Duty to Consult as seen in Ontario’s Provincial Policy Statement increased consultation recommendations when it comes to cultural heritage resources (6). Professional bodies like the Ontario Professional Planners Institute (OPPI) are also beginning to foster conversation on the profession’s role in colonization and how reconcile with that history (7).
The Calls to Action stemming from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) provide a framework for reconciliation that planners can follow (8). While the Calls to Action have specific recommendations for other professions like nursing, social work and education, planning is never explicitly mentioned. This is a surprise given planning’s relationship to land use control and subsequently colonization. However, there is a call for planners, as public servants, to get educated on the history of Canada’s indigenous people alongside training in conflict resolution, human rights and anti-racism.
Given the history of land use in Canada, the legal and ethical responsibility on planners to meaningfully engage with indigenous stakeholders is surely to only grow as the reconciliation process unfolds. This is especially the case when you consider the heterogeneity of indigenous identity in Canada. There are sizable indigenous populations living in urban, suburban and rural areas. Can planners continue to treat planning with indigenous people as separate from general land use and community planning? If all planning engages with some dimension of Canada’s indigenous community, then the capacity to facilitate reconciliation and healing are primary responsibilities for all planners.
Reconciliation can seem like an insurmountable task for planners. However, that complexity does not mean that indigenous people have not experienced wrongs and harms at the collective and individual level (9). How can a profession move forward with a community in the face of these harms? Reconciliation therefore, is a necessary prerequisite for professional activity. To crack through the complexity of our colonial history, Derrida frames successful reconciliation as “positive movement in thought that seeks accountability for past wrongs so that they are better understood and can be avoided in the future” (10). Their framing aligns quite nicely with the goals of therapeutic planning, which gives space for past injustices to be recognized in relation to present activities.
In practice, therapeutic planning provides a compelling path forward with its record of improved reconciliation outcomes (3). By adopting an empathetic perspective more broadly and increasing the therapeutic communication skills of planners, the profession can become a leader at reimaging the relationship between indigenous Canadians, the public service and the broader Canadian ‘community’. As the branch of the state that is most directly focused on mediating public interests, consulting stakeholder groups, and facilitating public visioning, planning is uniquely suited to play a leading role in reconciliation.
The current divide between planning with indigenous communities and the rest of the profession that is supported by Sandercock and company’s limited scope of therapeutic planning, underplays the responsibility planners have to reconciliation. Bringing in the tools and perspective of therapeutic planning only in planning spaces that are identified as indigenous enough prevents the rest of the planning system from undertaking the change needed to happen for reconciliation. Planners will invariably interact with indigenous people in most communities. For example, there are sizable indigenous populations in many Canadian cities (11). How can planning reconcile with those indigenous people when therapeutic planning is a tool only for specialists in reaction to crisis as suggested by Sandercock?(12)
Without a broader application of therapeutic planning, planners will continue to perpetuate colonialism and be unequipped to make decisions that advance reconciliation. The separation within planning around reconciliation, also underestimates the healing potential therapeutic planning could have if adopted by the whole profession. The essence of therapeutic panning is a recognition of the past and how it embodies itself in the present through the emotional realm of conflict and trauma combined with a concerted effort to provide space for that emotional realm to heard and healed. This does not mean that every planning activity needs to become a deep dive into reconciliation like the TRC. Some may, but by adopting a therapeutic perspective the rest can still support reconciliation through smaller scale interventions that build into a new culture of healing.
1. Jojola, T. (2008). Indigenous planning – An emerging context. Canadian Journal of Urban Research, suppl. Canadian Policy and Planning, 17, 37–47.
2. Matunga, H. (2013). Theorizing indigenous planning. In R. Walker, T. Jojola, & D. Natcher (Eds.), Reclaiming indigenous planning (pp. 3–32). Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s Univ. Press.
3. Sandercock, L., & Attili, G. (2014). Changing the Lens. Journal of Planning Education and Research,34(1), 19-29.
Erfan, A. (2017). Confronting collective traumas: An exploration of therapeutic planning. Planning Theory & Practice, 18(1), 34-50.
4. Jackson, S. (1998). “Geographies of Co-existence: Native Title, Cultural Difference and the Decolonization of Planning in North Australia.” Unpublished PhD dissertation, School of Earth Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney.
Jojola, T. (1998). “Indigenous Planning: Clans, Intertribal Confederations and the History of the All-Indian Pueblo Council.” In Making the Invisible Visible: A Multicultural History of Planning, edited by L. Sandercock. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Porter, L. (2010). Unlearning the Colonial Cultures of Planning. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Dorries, H. (2012). “Rejecting the ‘False Choice’: Foregrounding Indigenous Sovereignty in Planning Theory and Practice.” Unpublished PhD dissertation, Department of Geography, University of Toronto.
5. Hibbard, M., and M. Lane. (2004). “By the Seat of Your Pants: Indigenous Action and State Response.” Planning Theory and Practice 5 (1): 97–109.
Walker, R., T. Jojola, and D. Natcher. (eds.). (2013). Reclaiming Indigenous Planning. Montreal: McGill-Queens University Press.
6. Government of Ontario. (2014). Provincial Policy Statement.
7. Brook, C. (2017, December 1). Land and Truth/Land and Reconciliation. OPPI. http://ontarioplanners.ca/Blog/Planning-Exchange/December-2017/Land-and-Truth-Land-and-Reconciliation
8. Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (2015). Calls to Action. http://www.trc.ca/websites/trcinstitution/File/2015/Findings/Calls_to_Action_English2.pdf
9. Young IM (2011) Responsibility for Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
10. Derrida J (2001). On Cosmopolitanism and Forgiveness, London: Routledge.
11. INAC. (2018). Fact Sheet – Urban Aboriginal population in Canada.
www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100014298/1100100014302
12. Sandercock L. (2003). Cosmopolis 2: Mongrel cities of the 21st century. London: Continuum.
2. Matunga, H. (2013). Theorizing indigenous planning. In R. Walker, T. Jojola, & D. Natcher (Eds.), Reclaiming indigenous planning (pp. 3–32). Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s Univ. Press.
3. Sandercock, L., & Attili, G. (2014). Changing the Lens. Journal of Planning Education and Research,34(1), 19-29.
Erfan, A. (2017). Confronting collective traumas: An exploration of therapeutic planning. Planning Theory & Practice, 18(1), 34-50.
4. Jackson, S. (1998). “Geographies of Co-existence: Native Title, Cultural Difference and the Decolonization of Planning in North Australia.” Unpublished PhD dissertation, School of Earth Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney.
Jojola, T. (1998). “Indigenous Planning: Clans, Intertribal Confederations and the History of the All-Indian Pueblo Council.” In Making the Invisible Visible: A Multicultural History of Planning, edited by L. Sandercock. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Porter, L. (2010). Unlearning the Colonial Cultures of Planning. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Dorries, H. (2012). “Rejecting the ‘False Choice’: Foregrounding Indigenous Sovereignty in Planning Theory and Practice.” Unpublished PhD dissertation, Department of Geography, University of Toronto.
5. Hibbard, M., and M. Lane. (2004). “By the Seat of Your Pants: Indigenous Action and State Response.” Planning Theory and Practice 5 (1): 97–109.
Walker, R., T. Jojola, and D. Natcher. (eds.). (2013). Reclaiming Indigenous Planning. Montreal: McGill-Queens University Press.
6. Government of Ontario. (2014). Provincial Policy Statement.
7. Brook, C. (2017, December 1). Land and Truth/Land and Reconciliation. OPPI. http://ontarioplanners.ca/Blog/Planning-Exchange/December-2017/Land-and-Truth-Land-and-Reconciliation
8. Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (2015). Calls to Action. http://www.trc.ca/websites/trcinstitution/File/2015/Findings/Calls_to_Action_English2.pdf
9. Young IM (2011) Responsibility for Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
10. Derrida J (2001). On Cosmopolitanism and Forgiveness, London: Routledge.
11. INAC. (2018). Fact Sheet – Urban Aboriginal population in Canada.
www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100014298/1100100014302
12. Sandercock L. (2003). Cosmopolis 2: Mongrel cities of the 21st century. London: Continuum.