Critical pragmatism
From Geography
KolarAparna (Talk | contribs) |
|||
| (11 intermediate revisions not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| - | + | ===Contextual understanding=== | |
| - | Critical pragmatism is an approach to planning and public policy developed by John Forester. The core ideas of this approach is to view planning as the restructuring of communication between stakeholders with divergent and conflicting interests and large inequalities in power and influence. | + | Critical pragmatism is an approach to planning and public policy developed by John Forester. The core ideas of this approach is to '''view planning as the restructuring of communication between stakeholders with divergent and conflicting interests and large inequalities in power and influence.''' In this approach the planner is looked upon as a hands-on professional who facilitates inclusive, participatory forms of collective action rather than being instrumentalist and a rational decision maker (Wagenaar, 2011). Forester's book "Critical Theory, Public Policy, and Planning Practice" explicitly states the concept of critical pragmatism. |
Pragmatism in the Forester sense is theorizing that is grounded in real-world experiences (in this case that of planning). | Pragmatism in the Forester sense is theorizing that is grounded in real-world experiences (in this case that of planning). | ||
| - | Forester gives central place to the real world obstacles of planning. He is particularly concerned about the power relations and positions of actors involved in the planning process. Drawing on Habermas's [[critical theory of communicative action]], critical pragmatism gives central significance to '''social critique''' instead of selfless behaviour (as might be implied of ideal speech-act) or consensus-orientated communicative planning. Critical pragmatism lays emphasis on questioning and shaping attention in order to reveal and counteract argumentation in which the speaker depends on holding the controlling position in power relations. Acknowledging that every actor in the planning process uses different types of power, it is then argued that the planner should play an active role in separating the factual and substantive meaning of arguments from the power-ridden connotations because of social positions of interlocuters (Sager,2006). | + | Forester gives central place to the real world obstacles of planning. He is particularly concerned about the power relations and positions of actors involved in the planning process. Drawing on Habermas's [[critical theory of communicative action]], critical pragmatism gives central significance to '''social critique''' instead of selfless behaviour (as might be implied of ideal speech-act) or consensus-orientated communicative planning. Critical pragmatism lays emphasis on questioning and shaping attention in order to reveal and counteract argumentation in which the speaker depends on holding the controlling position in power relations. Acknowledging that every actor in the planning process uses different types of power, it is then argued that the planner should play an active role in separating the factual and substantive meaning of arguments from the power-ridden connotations because of social positions of interlocuters (Sager,2006). So a planner in the critical pragmatist sense consciously steers the planning process away from power plays with the intention of leading it toward a transparent participatory process. |
| - | Critical | + | Critical pragmatism according to Forester is an analytic approach that allows us to examine planning practice and learn from it rather than providing recipes of best practice. It is aimed to encourage critical, pragmatic judgement in planning. (Forester, 1999) |
| - | === | + | ===Critique on critical pragmatism=== |
| - | + | There are some critics on critical pragmatics (Sager, 2006). First of all, a planner should be able to manage the planning process away from power play and lead it to transparent a particpatory process. However, this is difficult if one of the power-holder refuse to take part of this process. Secondly, a unconstrained dialogue is the ultimate goal of critical pragmatism. The participating actors should be able to take part freely and equally. A situation where the force of better argument is the main concept. But, this is a situation which satifies ''improbable'' conditions: openess to the public, inclusiveness, equal rights to participation, free of external or inherent complusion, participants orientation toward reaching understanding, etc. Finally, the critical planner may face the dillemma of criticizing or not criticizing the argumentation of the deprived participant. The same participant which the planner wants to favor for in a better way. Increasing the [[transaction costs]] of this group could be contradictory and untendable. Also not confronting this participant, could have as a consequence that other participants will disrespect the planner or lose confidence in the planner. | |
| + | ===Practical implications=== | ||
| + | Critical pragmatism can be used to address dead-lock or conflicting situations in communication and mediation within democratic, decision-making projects, that involve multiple actors with divergent solutions, suggestions and arguments to a shared issue. | ||
| - | + | ===References=== | |
* Forester, John. (1993). Critical Theory, Public policy and Planning practice: Toward a critical pragmatism. State University of New York, USA. | * Forester, John. (1993). Critical Theory, Public policy and Planning practice: Toward a critical pragmatism. State University of New York, USA. | ||
| Line 19: | Line 21: | ||
* Sager, Tore. (2006). The Logic of Critical Communicative Planning: Transaction cost alteration. Norwegian University of Science and Technology. Norway. | * Sager, Tore. (2006). The Logic of Critical Communicative Planning: Transaction cost alteration. Norwegian University of Science and Technology. Norway. | ||
| - | * Wagenaar, Hendrik. (2011). "A Beckon to the Makings, Workings and Doings of Human Beings": The Critical Pragmatism of John Forester. Public Administrative Review. Leiden University. Leiden. | + | * Wagenaar, Hendrik. (2011). "A Beckon to the Makings, Workings and Doings of Human Beings": The Critical Pragmatism of John Forester. Public Administrative Review. Leiden University. Leiden. (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02341.x/full) accessed on 11 October 2011 |
| - | + | ||
| - | * | + | ===Contributors=== |
| + | * Page created by Kolar Aparna--[[User:KolarAparna|KolarAparna]] 10:36, 11 October 2011 (CEST) | ||
| + | * Page enhanced by--[[User:HennyLi|HennyLi]] 21:20, 23 October 2012 (CEST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[Category: Language Pragmatic Action Theory]] | ||
Latest revision as of 19:20, 23 October 2012
Contents |
Contextual understanding
Critical pragmatism is an approach to planning and public policy developed by John Forester. The core ideas of this approach is to view planning as the restructuring of communication between stakeholders with divergent and conflicting interests and large inequalities in power and influence. In this approach the planner is looked upon as a hands-on professional who facilitates inclusive, participatory forms of collective action rather than being instrumentalist and a rational decision maker (Wagenaar, 2011). Forester's book "Critical Theory, Public Policy, and Planning Practice" explicitly states the concept of critical pragmatism.
Pragmatism in the Forester sense is theorizing that is grounded in real-world experiences (in this case that of planning). Forester gives central place to the real world obstacles of planning. He is particularly concerned about the power relations and positions of actors involved in the planning process. Drawing on Habermas's critical theory of communicative action, critical pragmatism gives central significance to social critique instead of selfless behaviour (as might be implied of ideal speech-act) or consensus-orientated communicative planning. Critical pragmatism lays emphasis on questioning and shaping attention in order to reveal and counteract argumentation in which the speaker depends on holding the controlling position in power relations. Acknowledging that every actor in the planning process uses different types of power, it is then argued that the planner should play an active role in separating the factual and substantive meaning of arguments from the power-ridden connotations because of social positions of interlocuters (Sager,2006). So a planner in the critical pragmatist sense consciously steers the planning process away from power plays with the intention of leading it toward a transparent participatory process.
Critical pragmatism according to Forester is an analytic approach that allows us to examine planning practice and learn from it rather than providing recipes of best practice. It is aimed to encourage critical, pragmatic judgement in planning. (Forester, 1999)
Critique on critical pragmatism
There are some critics on critical pragmatics (Sager, 2006). First of all, a planner should be able to manage the planning process away from power play and lead it to transparent a particpatory process. However, this is difficult if one of the power-holder refuse to take part of this process. Secondly, a unconstrained dialogue is the ultimate goal of critical pragmatism. The participating actors should be able to take part freely and equally. A situation where the force of better argument is the main concept. But, this is a situation which satifies improbable conditions: openess to the public, inclusiveness, equal rights to participation, free of external or inherent complusion, participants orientation toward reaching understanding, etc. Finally, the critical planner may face the dillemma of criticizing or not criticizing the argumentation of the deprived participant. The same participant which the planner wants to favor for in a better way. Increasing the transaction costs of this group could be contradictory and untendable. Also not confronting this participant, could have as a consequence that other participants will disrespect the planner or lose confidence in the planner.
Practical implications
Critical pragmatism can be used to address dead-lock or conflicting situations in communication and mediation within democratic, decision-making projects, that involve multiple actors with divergent solutions, suggestions and arguments to a shared issue.
References
- Forester, John. (1993). Critical Theory, Public policy and Planning practice: Toward a critical pragmatism. State University of New York, USA.
- Forester, John. (1999).The Deliberative Practitioner: Encouraging participatory planning processes. MIT. USA.
- Sager, Tore. (2006). The Logic of Critical Communicative Planning: Transaction cost alteration. Norwegian University of Science and Technology. Norway.
- Wagenaar, Hendrik. (2011). "A Beckon to the Makings, Workings and Doings of Human Beings": The Critical Pragmatism of John Forester. Public Administrative Review. Leiden University. Leiden. (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02341.x/full) accessed on 11 October 2011
Contributors
- Page created by Kolar Aparna--KolarAparna 10:36, 11 October 2011 (CEST)
- Page enhanced by--HennyLi 21:20, 23 October 2012 (CEST)
