The reason therapeutic planning is so successful at approaching reconciliation is because of the respect and empathy the approach shows to trauma. Trauma extends beyond the legacy of Canada’s treatment of indigenous people. Many of the stakeholders and citizens that interact with the planning process will have experienced trauma - be it personal, social or systemic - and that trauma will influence their experience of planning. It may shape their perspectives or be expressed through emotional displays or hardened into conflicts. In the current panning model there is no formal recognition of this trauma. Any expression of trauma is therefore viewed as irrational, unreasonably biased and an obstruction to decision making. It will be dismissed or if it cannot be, a problem-solving perspective will used to deal with it.
If trauma is such an important part of an individual’s experience that it is impacting their involvement in the planning process, why not build problem solving into the process in the first place. Therapeutic planning aims to do this by recognizing the role trauma plays, creating space for it to be expressed in the process and equipping practitioners with an empathic approach to trauma. This does not mean that the planner becomes a counselor; helping each participant process their trauma. That would be beyond the scope of the profession and unfeasible at a community scale. However, a lot of the obstacles of planning can be overcome by treating the emotional realm as part of the scope of rationality.
As with indigenous reconciliation, planning has a role to play in the creation of other community traumas and thus a responsibility to mitigate harm and promote healing. There is a dark side to planning (1), in which planning tools have been used to enforce and expand economic and social inequalities. One of the way this happens is through the illness narrative that develops when planning labels places as in need of development. This process is documented by Gunder & Hiller:
“In this role, planners quantify the politically qualitative lack as a measurable symptom. A lack of economic competitiveness thereby becomes a lack of transport-efficient urban form, adequate infrastructure, or available commercial land for development. A perceived lack of safety and security becomes symptomized as high crime rates and antisocial behaviour to be `cured' through `good' urban design” (2)
Mirroring the doctor-patient model in health care or the counselor-patient model in social work, planners place the burden for change on the communities labeled as underdeveloped, masking their own role in perpetuating harm (2). The medical profession has shifted to a person-centred model of care because the one-sided doctor-patient model belittles the experience and knowledge of patients perpetuating their feelings of disempowerment and trauma (3). This shift has begun in planning through the participatory power of communicative planning, but it lacks the lens of healing that creates space for the experience of trauma. Communicative planning shortchanges the empowerment and healing of communities by not encouraging an open exploration of their trauma and planning’s role in it.
To better contextualize planning’s role in fostering community trauma we can point to the explicit trauma of slum clearances and relocations (4). The legacy of these traumas lives on in the cultural memories of the affected communities. Has planning done enough to reconcile with its traumatic past? While it is uncommon for such explicit relocation to happen in modern planning practice, the displacement that occurs with contemporary planning’s redevelopment activities arguably achieves the same effect. Sennet traces this problem to planning’s preoccupation with idealism and order, a preoccupation that promotes narrow-mindedness and violence (5). The mindset of the planner as expert who problem solves the city, casts certain experiences of the city (and the people who embody them) as undesirable and in need of change, often in ways that reinforce already established power differentials.
Communicative planning has begun to try and shift this dynamic by including the voices of communities in the problem-solving process, although questions remain about who is included and how much power is shared. Therapeutic planning goes further by putting problem solving in the context of community health and healing. A path to a renewed planner-public relationship has been identified by Posner and Vermuele through their exploration of ordinary justice (2004). They see a potential starting point on this path by exposing the extent and nature of the harms done by planning. This is very in line with the recognition stage of therapeutic planning.
If trauma is such an important part of an individual’s experience that it is impacting their involvement in the planning process, why not build problem solving into the process in the first place. Therapeutic planning aims to do this by recognizing the role trauma plays, creating space for it to be expressed in the process and equipping practitioners with an empathic approach to trauma. This does not mean that the planner becomes a counselor; helping each participant process their trauma. That would be beyond the scope of the profession and unfeasible at a community scale. However, a lot of the obstacles of planning can be overcome by treating the emotional realm as part of the scope of rationality.
As with indigenous reconciliation, planning has a role to play in the creation of other community traumas and thus a responsibility to mitigate harm and promote healing. There is a dark side to planning (1), in which planning tools have been used to enforce and expand economic and social inequalities. One of the way this happens is through the illness narrative that develops when planning labels places as in need of development. This process is documented by Gunder & Hiller:
“In this role, planners quantify the politically qualitative lack as a measurable symptom. A lack of economic competitiveness thereby becomes a lack of transport-efficient urban form, adequate infrastructure, or available commercial land for development. A perceived lack of safety and security becomes symptomized as high crime rates and antisocial behaviour to be `cured' through `good' urban design” (2)
Mirroring the doctor-patient model in health care or the counselor-patient model in social work, planners place the burden for change on the communities labeled as underdeveloped, masking their own role in perpetuating harm (2). The medical profession has shifted to a person-centred model of care because the one-sided doctor-patient model belittles the experience and knowledge of patients perpetuating their feelings of disempowerment and trauma (3). This shift has begun in planning through the participatory power of communicative planning, but it lacks the lens of healing that creates space for the experience of trauma. Communicative planning shortchanges the empowerment and healing of communities by not encouraging an open exploration of their trauma and planning’s role in it.
To better contextualize planning’s role in fostering community trauma we can point to the explicit trauma of slum clearances and relocations (4). The legacy of these traumas lives on in the cultural memories of the affected communities. Has planning done enough to reconcile with its traumatic past? While it is uncommon for such explicit relocation to happen in modern planning practice, the displacement that occurs with contemporary planning’s redevelopment activities arguably achieves the same effect. Sennet traces this problem to planning’s preoccupation with idealism and order, a preoccupation that promotes narrow-mindedness and violence (5). The mindset of the planner as expert who problem solves the city, casts certain experiences of the city (and the people who embody them) as undesirable and in need of change, often in ways that reinforce already established power differentials.
Communicative planning has begun to try and shift this dynamic by including the voices of communities in the problem-solving process, although questions remain about who is included and how much power is shared. Therapeutic planning goes further by putting problem solving in the context of community health and healing. A path to a renewed planner-public relationship has been identified by Posner and Vermuele through their exploration of ordinary justice (2004). They see a potential starting point on this path by exposing the extent and nature of the harms done by planning. This is very in line with the recognition stage of therapeutic planning.
1. Allmendinger P & Gunder M (2005). Applying Lacanian insight and a dash of Derridean deconstruction to planning’s dark side. Planning Theory 4(1): 87-112
Yiftachel O (1998) Planning and social control: Exploring the dark side. Journal of Planning Literature 12(4): 95-406.
2. Gunder M & Hillier J. (2007) Planning as urban therapeutic. Environment and Planning- Part A 39(2): 467-486.
3. McCormack, B. (2003). A Conceptual Framework for Person-Centred Practice with Older People. International Journal of Nursing Practice,9(3), 202-209.
4. Fullilove, M. (2004). Root shock: How tearing up city neighborhoods hurt America, and what we can do about it. New York, NY: Ballantine Books.
Marris, P. (1974). Loss and change. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Fried, M. (1966) Grieving for a Lost Home: Psychology of Relocation. In: Wilson, J. (eds.) Urban renewal: the record and the controversy. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.
Young, M. & P. Willmott (1957). Family and Kinship in East London. London: Routledge Kegan Paul.
5. Sennet, Richard (1990). The Conscience of the Eye. New York: Norton
Yiftachel O (1998) Planning and social control: Exploring the dark side. Journal of Planning Literature 12(4): 95-406.
2. Gunder M & Hillier J. (2007) Planning as urban therapeutic. Environment and Planning- Part A 39(2): 467-486.
3. McCormack, B. (2003). A Conceptual Framework for Person-Centred Practice with Older People. International Journal of Nursing Practice,9(3), 202-209.
4. Fullilove, M. (2004). Root shock: How tearing up city neighborhoods hurt America, and what we can do about it. New York, NY: Ballantine Books.
Marris, P. (1974). Loss and change. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Fried, M. (1966) Grieving for a Lost Home: Psychology of Relocation. In: Wilson, J. (eds.) Urban renewal: the record and the controversy. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.
Young, M. & P. Willmott (1957). Family and Kinship in East London. London: Routledge Kegan Paul.
5. Sennet, Richard (1990). The Conscience of the Eye. New York: Norton