Critical Theory, Public Policy, and Planning Practice: Toward a Critical Pragmatism 0791414469

Citation preview

~ Pp BLIC POLICY,~=-======= . -·-· ~ =======

m::::::::::= ·

PLANNING PRACTICE ==

~==== · ----- . -

Towarda CriticaiPragmatism

John Foreste r

SUNY Series in POLITICAL THEORY: CONTEMPORARY Philip Green, Editor

ISSUES

CRITICAL THEORY, PUBLIC POLICY, AND PLANNING PRACTICE Toward

a Criticai

Pragmatism

John Forester

STATE UNIVERSITY

OF NEW y

ORKPRESS

For Jack Dyckman , C. West Churchman , and Martin Krieger , teachers who knew that boundaries join

Publ ished by Sta te Universi ty of New York Press , Albany

© 1993 State Un iversity of New York Ali rights reserved Printed in the United States of America No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written permission excep t in the case of brief quotations embodied in criticai articles and rev iews. For information, address State University of New York Press , State University Plaza , Albany , NY 12246 Production by Ruth Fisher Marketing by Terry Swierzowski

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication

Data

Forester , John , 1948Critical theory , public policy , and planning practice / John Forest er . p . cm. Includes bibliographical references and index . (pbk . ISBN 0-7914-144&--0 (acid -free). - ISBN 0-7914-1446-9 acid-free) 1. Policy sciences . I. Title . H97 .F667 1993 320' .6--reproduce b r rateg1esorgan· t' wers. n particular we e iefs, consent t iza 10ns and their members use · m . h1ghly . . . ' rust, and atte n t 10n poht1. .

mu:t

!

s;

TOWARDA CRITICALPRAGMATISM

11

. d contexts . These questions lead immediately to those of the cize• tenance and vu1nera b'l't 1 1 Y of h egemomc· power . main A criti cai account of orgamzmg · · 1ea d s us d'1rectly to a dialecf power and resistance: power exists as a social relationship . t 1cs o . . lunits . d by concrete act10ns. Power, too, has 1ts its vul duce r epro . . . ' · nerabilities . If we can mvest1ga~ how the reproduct1on of power , as hegemonic patterns of attentio~, for exam~l~, _c~n be itself vul ble we would be able then to mform poss1b1htles of resistance nera ' · t 10n. ' 5 Furth ermore, 1. ·r po1·1cy making to various forms of d omma. shapes our political futur~, 1~ part by restructur~ng the political hosp1tals , relief serd adrninistrative orgamzat10n. of schools, m vices, banks , regulatory agencies, an d so on, t hen the theory of mmunicative action should inform our understanding of the ;~Iitical significance of var ious policy proposals and alternatives.

6. The Analysis o( Policy lnitiatives We have too little cogent sociology of public policy today (Bell 1976; Alford and Friedland 1985) . We have instead two forma of policy analysis, incrementalist and utilitarian, which severely constrain our vision. The incrementalist analysis focuses on the negotiations involved in the formulation and implementation of public policy. As policy is being formulated, advocates of various interests lobby and exert influence to shap e the (typically legislative ) proposals being considered (Wildavsky 1979). As policy, once legislated, then mandates administrative and organizationa1 action , a new round of negotiations takes place . Given limite d resources of time , exper tise, knowledge , and the established organizational interests at hand, how now is a broad policy directive actually to be carried out in pract~c~ (Lipsky 19~0)?Th e utilitaria n lin e of policy analysis is best typ1f1ed by the w1despr ead interest in variations of cost -bene~it analysis as a foundation for the examin ation of al te rnativ e policy proposals (Tribe 1972 ; Paris and Reynolds 1983). ln each case , policy ini t ia tives are treated as tools as instru ment ~l str ategies to reach ends . The incrementalist ask~ how compr1omises ar e mad e along th e way so that the origin a l ends are disb aced·• th e u t 1'J't a sks how, whether , and whi ch ends have P · 1 arrnn . edenr each ed. Yet neith er appro ach-h elpful as both of these may . eed be-h elp s us to un derstan d how policy m aking and policy In 1 unp ementa t ion r esh ape t h e hved • worlds of actors , r estructur e

C p0LICY,ANOPLANNINGPRACTICE THEORY , p[JBLI

12 cwrrcAL

..

h t alter actors' opportumt1es, capacities to . 1worldsin way~t 8 too Here criticai theory can help us . soc1a Jf.conceptwns · lll . act, and se intriguingways. . 1theory poses problems of soc1al learning t s's soc1a dr ast1ca . IIy refonnu.Iat h,a Haberma . Following but f analys1s. th t . . ..,g 1 two leves O • 11 1 Habermas argues a soc1eties IeA- . OCJetaeve , . ) d ~" lll Marxon as . trumental (producbve an moral-practi'caJ hnicaJ -ms h both tec . ) dimensions. The former echoes t e developrnent of (reproductived ti' . the latter echoes the development of soci'aI ' of pro uc on, . h iorce~ d tion. At the levei of act10n, owever, we Iearn i relat1_ons of_pro_ucwhichwe act communicatively: those of lllakm' n the d1mens1ons m ·~ . . g c]aims about states of aÍiaU'S m the world, about tin and tes. teg and Jegit imate soc1a · 1 re Ia t·10nsh 1ps, ' b appropr1a . . a out personaI and socialidentities,and about ways of f~ammg 1s~ues at hand. a Wemust ask, though, how the particular claims of social and olitical actors can ever be established or even routinized in :nduring socialand political structures . How can we connect the interactionsof claims-making actors to the structural Iearning embodiedin developinginstitutions? How, alternatively, can an institutional pronouncement be challenged and reformu.Iate d 80 that institutionaldevelopmentsare redirected? Wecananswerthese questions if we explore the nature of the social infrastructure that mediates : (1) between enacted truth claims and the social stock of knowledge; (2) between particular legitimacyclaimsand politicalpatterns of authority; (3) between our expressiveclaimsan~ socialp~tterns of identity and membership; and (4) betweenparticular claJms formulating the significance of proble~ and the socioeconomicinstitutions that allocate social attention. Assuchmediatinginstitutions (the knowledge industries :~ • and legislatures,and cultural organizatio ns, for example) nge, so do t?ey affect the social leveis they mediate between: structural learrungand to , d 1 . sent rei t' f ac rs eve opmg beliefs, patterns of con1: 0 ~olidarity, and !nvestments of attention.

'Th:

to w1de-ranging but closely integrated questionain t~ys1s le~ds _ howParticular~~aminat1on of public policy. We can now explore ating infrastructw'.cy iropo~als promise to alter this socially medithe livedworlds0/• to18 mid-level range of institutions that links example, with th ac rs to th e broader structures of society. For · promoting environmental dereguJation not e onset. of poricies . ' on1Y w11I givengreat.erauto corporate actors be instrumentally . nomy of act' b . ª~t'~on1s. hkely to suffer fala 1º~• ut pubhc krwwledge of private vigilanceare Iikely to ' . e claims to public safety and corporate man1pulate bl' pu 1c trust , and issues of prof-

TOWARDA CRITICALPRAGMATISM

13

.. Iikely to preempt public attention to those of public itabihtY ~ealtemative possibilities of public investment and conheaJth an cri"tical comrnunications theory can integrate a structr 0 l Here a . • 1 sis of institutional change w1th a phenomenological tural ~ºªr\he ever-vulnerable and shifting lived worlds of social analys1s o actors .7

Concludíng Notes

• t ro ductory claims have been abstract , promissory, and These m that follow seek to show how d ra th er than deep . The chapters broa•t· . t Y m1g . ht m,orm . e I ommunications theory of socie our met h a cri 1ca c·al research and our ana Iyses of a dm'm1s · t rat1ve · pract1ce, · . . d bl' 1· I . od s of soei 1·ty . ra t 10na 1 , 1·nteraction ' organ1zat10n, an pu 1cpo 1cy . ana ys1s. Whether these claims can be extended and bmlt upon rather than revised altogether only subsequent re~earch efforts wi_ll show . The attempt to "apply" critica! theory to 1ssues of planrung and dministrative practice is still in its early stages. 8 Habermas's work has been provocative , controversial , ambi tiously pitched , and consistently metatheoretical: it provides a framework rather than a series of particular explanations ; it poses systematic questions rather than sets of hypotheses to test; it seeks to integrate styles of analysis and research approaches in fresh ways. It shapes our inquiries rather than providing opera tional tools with which we might manipulate data. It brings us insistently to the intersection of concems with action , rationality , politics, structural change , and history-and then leaves us to carry out more concrete analyses, to investigate concrete cases, to try to marry ethnographic analysis with social structural accounts, and to do so without taking a pledge of normative agnosticis m (Forester 1992a) . The glass of criticai theory is surely half-empty: we are still missing a good deal of guidance about the most fruitful ways to carry out empirical , historically situated, phenomenologically cogent , normatively insightful analyses. Here surely the balanc e must now shift from necessarily abstract methodological analyses toward the effort to assess specific cases, concrete attempts to work out the implications of a criticai communications framework in ~articular cases, specific analytical experiences on the basis of wh1ch our collect ive research abilities and judgm ents will deve lop. But the glass is also half full: the theory of communicative action

LICP()LICY , ANDPLANNINGPRACTJCE cRJTICAL TJiEORY , pUB

14

· ret h'nki . th ost systemat1c 1 ng of action th rtainlY e m · · th t · representsce . tal rationahzat1on a Is ava1·1able tod eoryin the contextofnlsoc}~m the classical sources of Marx, Webay, . dr ws not o y h il to 'f . er, That it a M d but depends eav y o, 1 more llnplicitI and ea ' A ti' G d Y, . Durkheun' f w·ttgenstein and us n, a amer, and Ap l on the work okb th1more challenging and more daunting. Ase ' s the wor o . . tr t · bl' a make .. 1th ry of public admm1s a 10n, pu 1c policy """d Jt a cr1t1ca eo • d · tru · ' '"' resu , . Jik 1 to be provocativean ms cbve, but retn . 15 e YBoth its ms1stent · · · 8lllf PJanning . . d too a tte n t·10n to a dialectics margmahze . th t' l h . o istance and the very eore 1ca reac 1t detnands powerand res . th . 'de counterweightsagamst e pressures to absorb it into w111proVI b)' dm' . tr . more conventionaltheories of pu ic a ims at10n and PUblic policy. Criticaitheory remains, these chapters will argue, 8 rich sourceof insights, a source of challenge to social and political analysis,and a reminderof the structured vulnerabilities and contingenciesof social action. ~oughout society . Critica! theory remindsus, too,of our continumg need to explore the contingenciesof powerand our possibilitiesto organize a just and good life in the diversesettingsin whichwe live.

2 Understanding Planning Practice: An Empirical, Practical, and Normative Account

lntroduction This chapter explores one small part of planning education, research, and theory : understanding what planners actually do in their day to day work. The chapter is not immediately about urban fiscal crises, inflation, the history of class struggles , utopian communities, causal models, or democratic theory-however impor· tant and perhaps inseparable these topics may be. 1:he first part considers the requirements for an adequate account of planning practice. The second section considers the contributions and Jimitations of four conventional accounts of what planners do. The third part then suggests an alternative and arguably more powerful account of what planners actually do. Section four, finally, suggests practical research questions that flow from the analysis of planning as communicative action that organizes or disorganizes citizens' attention to possibili ties of public action .

Requirements for Theory of Planning Practice Since planning is a valu e-Jaden activity whose success or failure has consequences for the society encompassing it, any theory of 15

pLANNINGPRACTICE Y AND I,JCpOLIC, TflEORY , pUB urrernents than those denianded 6 cRJTICAL 1 t meet broader ~q sical sciences . ~~t only niust an. plaJ1llÍl1~ m~sthe natural o~P yractice be empmc~lly fitting, it of theor1es 111unt of pJaJlillngp ro•nriate to the settmgs in Which te aceo · llyapp r . 8 adeQU be bothpract~ ·zlu,minating,helpmg planners and I musta]so rk and ethicallY the ethical and political conse . . • 1 nnerswo d assess Pa understandan'b·l•tí'es of action, pohcy, or mtervention citizens . poss111 . • of var1ous 'th hich Richard Bemstem concludes his . quences ent w1 w . . Suchis the argum. 1and. Pol1twal Theory. ..;,, "

/Socia

Rest,v.ctu, ""' 0

.

. we are not confronted w1th exclusive ai ana1ys1s . t' h ln the fi•~ . ·cal theory or mterpre 1ve t eory or criti· · e1ther emprrl · l d· l · ch01ces . Rather there is an mtema 1a ectic in the cal theor;: • f ocial and political theory: when we work restructurmgO these moments, we discover how the oththroughanyone . 1 d 1· . . J'cated. An adequate soc1a an po 1tical theory . d • • l (B . ers werellllP1 ·r;,.,,1interpretwe, an critu:a . ernstem 1976• mustbeempl -~ 235)

;f

This chapterattempt.sto provide a preliminary account of lanningpractice , and thus a research framework, that does jusiiceto Bemstein's demands. ln particular, by treating planning as inherentlypoliticaland com.municative,a critica} theory of planningpradicecan: (1)be groundedin an empirical analysis of what plannersdo intentionallyand unintentionally; (2) be sensitive to the practicalsituationswhichplanners face and seek to interpret and understand;and (3) be discriminatingly criticai of the extent to whichplannerscounter (or perpetuate) unnecessary political disto~ions ofproblemformulations, analyses of options, or broa der planrungagendas. To begin,then, what does it mean to hold that a planning ~?eory(or.the resultsof planning research!) ought to be empirical, ~te~retive• or practicallyfitting, and "critica!" or ethically illummatmg?To be · · ali . · empmc Y grounded, an account of planning f . pract1cemust fit the · . expenences o real plannmg practice. Data must be avwlab]e-· · · I 'f. . couldsub ta t· m prmcip e, 1 1t is not already collected-t hat s n iate or weake th . . planningpr t' . n e account. G1ven a suggestion that describ ed (aacdice hmmetropolitan planning departments can be . n oug t to be d tood) . mgactivityfore un ers as techmcal problem -solvI lightto weak ' en xamfip e, ª wealth of evidence could be brought to . orre me th'18 • S pohtical workthat 1 view. uch evidence might reveal the . P anners must do to allow an y technical work itselfto proceed

UNDERSTANDINGPLANNINGPRACTICE

17

An empirical planning theory would suggest patterns of prac._ tice to study and data to gather . lt would be experientially pi d to b aus1 . . o servers of planning , who would ble both to practitioners an be led to say not, "That theory is about some other world • but "Yes! That's how it is!" ' Like accounts of problema in the physical sciences, an empiri cally grounded planning theory ought to be evaluated by compari son to rival and previously offered theories. Does the suggested theory explain what its competitors explain? Does it explain or order more? Can it resolve the puzzles and "anomalies " left as open questions by the competing theories? Any new empirical account of planning practice ought to lead to new research questions new data to collect, new patterns of action to explore-all of which may inform the effectiveness, efficiency, and morality of planning practice . lnforming in new ways how planners work, when and how they are listened to, how they may be effective, any new account of planning practice should teach us-and lead us to question in new ways-the art of the possible : design and implementation in a political world . To be practically appropriate or "interpretive ," a theory of planning practice must not only order data , it must also speak to the working interpretations that planners have of the practical situations and problems they face. For example, an empirical theory might be developed strictly in terms of the formal role descriptions (or job titles) of planning agencies and those with whom planners work . Such an empirical theory, though, would most likely be prac tically next to useless, for it would Jikely ignore the vast and essential types of informal roles that make any organization so much more than what its organiz ation chart sh ows. Thus , an analysis of planning might be em pirically verifiab le but simply irrelevant to the practical demands of planners' work . An interpretive account of planning, sensitive to the planners' perceptions of events, would suggest strategies of action that were both empirically concrete and practically fitting in the "real world " of planning organizations and politics . A "rigorous tech nique" that will take two years to use, when the planners need an analysis done in a month , may do no one any good. Without an interpretive account of their work, practitioners will look at existing theories and wonder if the theorists even begin to appreciate what planners face in everyday practice (Vickers 1984; Rabinow and Sullivan 1979; Bolan and Nuttal 1980; Krieger 1981). Any practically appropriate account of planning, then, should address (though not necessarily accept) the planners ' senses of con-

--

--

---:::..

U:ND =..E :=:: RS e--TAND '--'- I'-NG .,;_.:.. PLAN= :.:.. N:= IN..:..:G :..: P~RA~CT~I~CE ~---

~19

LJCY , i\NDp[..ANNJNG PRACTICE

i\LTf!EORY , p(JBUC p() cRJ'l'IC to understand that one of the mo t l us aiso . th . . s . lt shouldbe P nners face 1s eir own percepti on of 1 straillts • t constraintsth~t p a ·tuation (Catron 1977; Krumhol ·..nifican g1vens1 z, ~~-constraints in anY5. Baurni980).The account should help the er andLinner 197 ' t,rUcturalproblems of noncooperati on eogg . . teregular s . forma t'10n, and then in, der,toantiCJPª . d, distortions of m rea int.eres t, conflict, an tionsofpJanners ' I.nfluence an d efficacy ' vest.ed no •as seen throUg h th e P1anner 's eyes •• re5p0nse , torerormulat.e ianning

s 1

P can jnformthe strategic , political reading ~f Ableto und~rstaorl an int.erpretive~eo~ faceand so inform practical responses too situa_ti?nsth factsabout planning practice is not enough; f t·cemustspeakto what those facts mean to planEmpmcallY anaccounto prac'th i whomthey work. Th'1s 1s . t h e meanmg . of the th Wl ners and ose . practice . be interrequirement that an adequate~eory of P1annmg

::Je:

pretiveandpractically _aPP':'pri~te. . To be ethically1Uummatmg,an account of practice must begin withthe recognition that no theory of action can be fundamentallyneutral, for any theory reflects an organiza tion of our att.ention,to the neglectof other possibilities (Forester 1989; Sandercock and Forsyth1992) . Any account of planning practice makes normativeclairosto its readers: "You ought to consider thesevariables . To understandwhat planners do, and how they might actbett.erstill, yououghtto watch out for those problema 0 theseopportuni~ies .' A problem-sol"!ngtheory of practice dia; ne~l':t goal-sett mgor value-formulatmgprocesses, for example; 8 pohtical~eory_may neglectquestions of economic exchange or classrelat10nsh1ps . ·~gtdhatanyaccountof practice is inevitably norma· tive!dill, sla}'lt . se eciveili oes. not accountethically t' yet tel1 us wh at might make such an not attempt to spec~fy::~ng. To accomplish this, a theory ought action,for the eth. ai an~ for ali formal rules to determine inevitably arise·"H ic . qu_estions of practical judgment will Shouldanother.rul:;h m ~his situation, should I apply this rule?" again-ad ínfinitum· tt • e s~ggeate d, the question can be asked cultyfacedby any f~nn1slapp ication problem" represents a diffi· ª brule-based syste m of ethics . Specifying rules · anycasecan only bT m a I ityofplanners to inte e as good,practically speaking as the vide!:~ c~d, t~en,an a::!:~?e lrule_s in actual situatio~s. guidesT/ _gu1desfor action / an~~g practice ought to pro· normative:i: h~dly a radicat~a= phci~ just ifications for those thosedime . ensions,this claim . ' 1for if any theory must have ºª º · simp Ycalls for explicitness about 1 08

More. jmportantly, an ethically in~t~ctive account of plan ning practice ough_t to locate that ~ract1ce m a historical world of jnf}uences 8 upp~rtmg and threatemng the account's notion of good planning . By domg so, the the~ry can say more than (to 8 person) "Do good" or (to a movement) Make the revolution." Pointing out the threats to practice w?ich can ~e ~nticipated and counteracted . one ethicallY instructive contr1but1on that, we shall argue a JS f l . . ' cornmunicative account o P anmng practlce can make . Such attention to threats and º?portunities, though, can only be helpful if the recomrnended act1ons-for example, consulting earlY with sorne, supporting particu~ar co~litions--:are plausibly rooted in the common-sense and ordmary-hfe practices of society at Jarge. These recommendations must be plausibly related to notions of fairness, equality , social responsibility , minimizing harIIl, the prevention of tyranny . They should not, for example, ask us to sacrifice the minority for the good of the majority . Finally, to be ethically illuminating, an account of planning must address the relationships of planning practice to political inquiry and criticism, to the legitimation of public policy, and to the tensions between the reliance upon expertise and the nurtu rance of democratic politics (Burke 1986). We might not ask of such an account that it "have all the answers, • but we should ask that it help us ask ethically insightful questions about the present and possible practices of planning practitioners-and that it help us work together to resolve those questions in practice -

Conventional Views

Before suggesting an alternative account of planning and policyanalysis practice , we should consider severa! of the conventional notions we find both in ow· academic literatures and in "the field. " yve can review four perspectiv es, briefly: means-ends models of mstrumental _rationality ; problem -solving, rationalistic , "scientific" ~o~els; cybernetic, information -processi ng models; and "satisficmg modela of "bounded rationality " (Friedmann 1987). These are ~ot general theories of planning; they are conventional , partia!, and 17portant but problematic accounts of planning practice , accounts of the previous 0 h?w plann ers do what they do. By the standards th based . Yet only sect1on' each of th ese accounts may be empmcally . . an~ 1atter tfwo seem to addr ess practical issues of interpretation, none o the four· se ems t o a dd ress et h'1cal and normat1ve . 1ssues .

p0IJCY,ANDPLANNINGPRACTICE TJ-IEQRY , p[JBIJC

• • ZO E Joring these v1ews m depth along th . l.eJllªtic mall;'1er : bxpyond the scope of this chapter. Nev 8 m8 sys tion1s e . th . er. . f theJastsec oversimplificatJon, eir stre ngth 8 A>.d Jmeso • k of some ..,, theless , at the~s structivelybe considered here. essescanm weakn

UNDERSTANDINGPLANNINGPRACTICE

cRJTICAL

Meons-Ends Models thinking•works" as long as ends are given an d stable· nds . and self-justifying; and problema are routin ' Means-e are UJlJQUe • . e means 1 (Tribe1973). But th1s 1s usually not the case in plan and stab e n1 t . b t th . ·t .: . (1)endsarenot o y no g1ven, u ey may connmgs1uaw005· . . llict;(2) thereare aJwaysconfl1ctmgmeans to any en d; and (a) problems change , preferencesand tastes change, and ne w values arediscovered . PJannersneed to reformulate problema, str ategies and solutionapproachesrather than follow standardize d proce: dures(Churchman 1968 ; March 1978, 1988; Wiggins 1978; Schiin 1983; Feldman1989) . Furthermore , means-endsrationality falsely separates the value-Jadencharact.er of any means from the ends. Ex ponents of thisviewmaythinkthat "means" can be neutral while "ends " only arevalueJaden . Yetas longas there is a question of whi ch means are to ~ chosen(or then of how those means are to be applied), then ne1therthe means, nor the one choosing the appropriate neutral. means,canbeconsidered nds d fi ~e.ans:e _ thinkingmay also push aside, often to an ilie ne pohtical _process, • the problem of the source s of the "ends" orprogram orpohcy" 15 • Wh . couldb goa • en we think this way we act as if we uryourheads be neutral d " : oneelseworry b t' • ' an app 1Y means an d let somea ou enda• And th ' • . course , whenendsor oals· . is is espec1ally a problem, of ~ups ofpeopJe. Suchgthi ~nfüct or promise to bene fit different tional , whileturrun th nking tends to relegate goals to the irra. (Klostennan g e worldof a t· · to . • u]ations e ion In a set of poss1ble marup· 1978. • Environmenta] . 'El ster 1983,1986;Sunstein 1991). me • ID!pactreports r ans to report(ant· . , ,or example, are pres umably 1c1pate) th · mentW · ereweonJyto 1 k e unpacts of a project's develop· 00 at such wouJd m· Part' . 1~8 the significantth a means-ends relations hip, we to/bci~ation , makingproJ·eº tser .ª~Pects of EIRs: shaping political e,oreE!R e v1s1ble "d· · affected b . compJetionpr .di • provi mg a design rev 1ew 0 1 be requ:: hcs to shape; ro. ~ d n~ a basis for negotiatio ns with heremighet · Searchingfor aJec esign when EIRs may not even on]yobscurethe actuaJ one-to-one means-ends re lat 1ons · h 1p " process from our view.

21

Probfem-Solving Perspectives

bl olving views begin with the engineer's special bias, the Pr~ eal~-s of Descartes' Discourse on Method: Take the problem dl , , rat1on ism ak •t down into its component parta, an et s see what we can 1 bre b t •t This may serve well for relatively routine, conven r do a ou I • . 1 t ble problems-but perhaps not ,or most planning and 8 tiona . , blems (Baum 1980; Churc hm an 1968; Elster 1986; Peatpohcy pro 11973) . l987 · Webber and Ritte · tie Pr~blem-solving views often make social and political ques. f values interests, attachments, and meanings apparently t1ons o ' "technical" matters. Procedure or_met h od may t h reatento dr"1ve out ckman 1978; Marr1s 1975; March 1988; Innes 1990). su bst anc e (Dy . Problem solvera need to re~uce; but analysts need to cons1der. Problem solvers need to get r1d of problema; planners and analysts d to create them, to reformulate them, to make them anew so neegrammatic strategy is possible and desirable and so that their ~;;'ategy addresses some notions of "what the problem really is" (Meltsner 1975; Seeley 1963; Churchman 1971; Feldman 1989). Llke facts, problems do not speak for themselves: they are not "given," waiting to be broken down and solved. Planning problema are often ambiguous , vague, full of conflicts and competing interpretations (Wildavsky 1979). Problem -solving thin.king appeals to methods appropriate for technically "well-behaved" pr oblems-methods which may not be appropriate to the types of "wicked" pro blems that planners face (Webber and Rittel 1973). More se r ious still, the appeal to method may lead us to neglect the sources of criteria, standards , and measures of cost and benefit without which planning and policy analysis cannot make sense. The choice of "method" is an ethical choice having consequences: costs con sidere d and n eglected , strategies deemed feasible and sensible or "inappr opriate ," not right in the case at hand. ln environ.mental review sit uations, for exampl e, problems are so various , so different , that while a few standardi zed forms exist for the initial information gat hering , t he re is no uniform, codified method by which problem solving mi ght wor k . Planning staffs can not d~rive politically strategic solu ti ons like engineers solving equat_ions: Rather, they need to inte rpr et situa t ions and create (6~usible ide as about just wh at the probl em "ough t to be taken as" a nd Fore ster 1990; Schon 1983; Reich 198:-:~ an l971; ~mholz mul 't' aJone l989; Fischer a nd Forester 1993). Such problem fora mg, problem creating , sets the stag e for action : phone the

ª

C p()LJCY , ANOPLANNINGPRACTICE RJTI CALTHEORY , pUBLI

22

e

architectural staff , in volve the n . d the plans h t th 1 eigh. this depends upo~ a e p a~er~ take the developer, sen borhood group. Aliat they •make of it m the orgaruzational Bnd wh 'th' which they work. Less problem solv Problemto be, . gs Wl 1Il ale 81'8 politicalsettm . ht rather be problem m ers (constructors); planninganalystsn:Igscribes the related issue of problem selecti . AsArnoldMeltsner e on.,

UNDERSTANDINGPLANNINGPRACTICE

to

'!'.

alyst makes a primary economic and politi,.n1 Jndeedthe an k ""! . . ' . electing8 problem to wor on-economic in th t dec1s10n ms 1 t.s h uld a resourcewhose ta end s l~ot be wasted on. he is a scarce . ·a1or unsolvableproblems, an po I ca m that problezn tri!VI he takes toward insurlll· g h'IS 1. n i·s the first critical step seec10 . . politicalsuccess. Choosmgthe r1ght problem is crucial in ~:;ding political efficaciousness. (Meltsner 1975, 122; cf Jnnes1990;Reich1988;but contrast Forester 1993) ·

tti

Cybernetic Perspectives The cybemeticimageryis fitting for many physical and natural systems,but it is moreproblematic for self-constituting, self-transformingsocialand political ones (Faludi 1976; Vickers 1970). Jn the cybemetic perspectivethe definition of "error" and the evaluation of feedbackseem no longer to be fundamentally political and ethicalmatters. As~nestudentof politics pointedly put it, social systems, the systems m and upon which planners and policy analyst.s work, may be n?morepoliticallyself-regulating than the Bastille was self-stormmg (the image is Langdon Winner's (19771). Cybemetics ma~helpus significantlyt.omodel systems- behauiors but not norm settmgand socialaction; it may be less helpful with "normative• matters . of strategy and effec.ofplanning pract·ice, the formulation t. . 1veact1on (Vickers1973· Ad • ams et ai 1987). How, for example, m cyberneticacco of "feedb k" untscan persons be held responsible? The language responsib~~tcan drive out the moral language of agency and y,

By what process f (! · · I to be articulated es O eg1timate?) communication are goa s forth?If feedback::de -offs made, compromises come to, and so the game, how, and bst always be evaluated in terms of rules of , have these rules been made? And howrigidor lllon l'th'Y :,Vhom of politicalfeasibi~i~.1~~8 th ~ structure of rules? This is a matter systelllic changes ~-h w might the existing rules change? What 'ble, can be imagined? The grea t lll1g t be poss1

23

contribution of cybernetic theories has been their focus upo _ d. t' . n sys . temic relat1ons an mter~c 1~ns as they 1nfluence system stability and control. Yet norma~1ve _1ss~es of system control (e.g., governance, legitimate author1ty , Justice) seem to lie beyond the systematic boundaries of present cybernetic accounts (Vickers 1970; Friedmann 1973, 1979). Again, in environmental review , it is one thing to speak colloquially of getting feedback on a document or an idea, but that is 8 far cry from modeling the _plann ing_process that way. There are too f w well-defined production funct10ns or transformations ; errors a:e continuously being def~ned and redefined; system boundaries are fluid. Cybem etic theories have been most helpful as systems theories · they have been less appropriate as theories of action, whethe; of the social practices of planning practitioners or of other social actors (Friedmann 1978).

"Satisficing" Perspectives The "satisficing n account of bounded rational action (and its disjointed incremental cousins) has been Pru:1icularly provocative and troublesome (Simon 1957; March and Simon 1958; March 1978, 1988; Friedmann 1987). Th e essential contribution of theories of bounded ra tionality has been their rejection of the practically irra tional rationality of comprehensiveness, collecting all the facts, surveying ali possible alternatives, tracing ali possible consequences, and so forth . Yet we may not be left with a substantial account of rationality in its pla ce, for satisficing becomes an invita tion t.o"make do." We may bound rationality by adding constrain ts of time , resources, and knowledge , but there the questions begin ; they do not then end by "settling for less" (Denhardt 1981). Like incremen talism, satisficing threatens to be myopic, perhaps a strategy of "making do" and no more . lt separates from practical action the ~ues~ions of the política) and ethical norms that ought to be satisfled m the particular cases at hand. Satisficing accounts may ~educe "politics" to "disrupt ion" or to the perpetuai , seemingly mso!uble war of conflicting interests of all against ali. Given rpri~v~ from the utopian demands of Comprehensive Rationality omn'.sci~nce), plann er s are not given a substantive account of pract1cemstead.

t.o Once more, in environmental review, sat isficing may cover 0

many cases of planners doing what th ey can (independent of

ICp0L1CY , ANDPLANNINGPRACTICE: , pUBL ALTf{EORY cRl'l'IC • 24 . t there comes some point at Which . ry proJec h . the ·ty')' W1theve I th t they've done enoug , given th qual, . . d fee a S . .. e con ... ners 5t;op an ._1 rmation, and ao on . at1sf1cing doe h · 8 elp pl....~. · poor uu 0 y • t' r· , straintsof tune, rehensive EIRs. et, smce ~a is icing seetne t;oavoidsupe':°mp actions that are practically possible t.oo . tify manY d A W'ld , onee easilYto JUS ·veness is rejecte , aron l avsky'8 Pol . · comprehensi • be a dap ted·. If 88t'1sfi1c1ng · 18 · evenu. utop1an lanning might calquip aboutPb 't's nothing, Satisficing accounts offer too 1~· 1 rtunism, and they indicat.e little along 1the thing, ~henmaYe po tectionfromop , ti th . e tanding the pJanner s ac ons as ey influence t pro linesof unders y po!iticalworld encompassing the domain ' or betteror worse,an . t' e Pop. , ai and informal orgaruza 1ons. ompromises nu·h ulatedby ,orm l g t 'th local agencies, but 1 p anners were to think p . . h re. bereached Wl 1 dominantlyaboutsatisficmg, gettmg a ong, t . ey would likely th en neglect8 host of pressing ~ncems: the contm?ency of plana and outcomesuponrelations of mfluen~e and e~clus1on, leveis of neighborhoodinvolvement , access to information and expertise th opennessofreviewprocesses, and so on (Simon 1957 ; Perrow Í97 2~ Denhardt1981; Forest.er1982a). '

·e

Planning Practiceas Comm11nicative Action

Planningand policyanalysis can be understood as forma of social action. But what is social action? Colloquially , we tend to think of our ac~onsas ~Is . When we act, we say that we're tryin g to "get somethingdone. Yet our actions are not only often tool-like but they are practicallycommunicative as well (Vickers 1965· H;bermas 1970). Actions as diverse as threateni ng promisi~g and encoura_ging can illustrate the point; each one U:ay be inst~ en· tally _orientedtoward some end, but each is fundamentally and practi~y conununicativetoo.To varying degrees in each specific case . . commurucates: the most . , act1onseeks ends and mearungfully instrumentalacrion Wit · hout meaning would be simply meaningless, not evenrecogru ·zable as an act1on. . . soei·a1 . . ln a nutshell wh1le act wn maybe mst tal . , . ~en at tunes, it is more fundamentally and alwaysco or plannin ~urucat~ve as well. But this does not mean that action, tive CO""- g 1~ P~icular , is just "talk," merely a matter ·of "effec· uu.uUmcat1ons skill8 • F . . or commurucative action 1s always • interaction bet reproducing whetehn pers~ns, thus political in a very broad sense, • w e er mamta·1 · 1· · a1 relations. To think of ~m~ or altering, social and po 1t1~ commumcative action as just talk is to miss

UNDERSTANDING PLANNING PRACTICE

25

the point altogether and to ignore such important actions as chal lenging , criticizing , 8:°°ouncin~, ~xpo?ing , ~hreatening, predicting , promising, encouragmg , explammg, msultmg, forgiving , present ing , recommending, and warning, among many others (Austin l965 ; Wardhaugh 1985). As a form of social or communicative action, the planners ' actions shape others' expectations , beliefs, hopes, and understand ·ngs even though planners do not strictly control any of these out~om~s. The planners' work .may be threate~ing to some but promising to others , for action shapes mearung (Marris 1987; Berger and Luckmann 1966). Planners know this , of course, and they try to anticipate such effects. ln community meetings, for example, people often take planners to mean more than they intended, even though the planners may have had only the ''best of intentions. • Even a planner 's deliberate silence in a meeting may be meaningful and make a practical difference to the flow of events and citizens' participation . Yet if we think of action only as instru mentally "doing things" or "getting things done, • such an effective silence becomes difficult to understand . Planning, then, is not instrumental or communicative . Always com mun icatiue action structured by social and political rules and conventions , planning practice may sometimes also be, in addition, more narrowly techni cal, structured and evaluated by technical conventions and rules too (Pitkin 1972). To be practical, then, the planner's work has to be meaningful to others ; it has to "make sense" to other people , no matter how t.echnically rigorous or correct it may be on its own technical merits. "Being practical " in planning, therefore, should not be confused with "being technical. " Mistaking either one for the other may well endanger both. Distinguishing and cultivating both technical and practical planning skills represents a major challenge for planning education or, more precisely , for planning educators to address syst.ematically. Once we recognize the practical consequences of communica ti:e action,_we can develop a powerful account of everyday plan mng pract1ce. Now we can understand that as instrumental actions "get things done ," they also necessarily set up expectations ~e.g., no more delays!), affect meanings (they won't cooperate!) , · J re Iat10ns · mfluence . portI 1ca (trust them?!) , and shape understand 8 (now we can go on ... ). Once we recogn ize that the instrumen itngl • pract1ce • are msepara • a and communica ti ve aspec ts of p 1annmg bl e and not mutually excJus1ve, · we may be better able to anticipate

-26

ALTI{EORY,

cRJTIC

pUBL IC p() LICY, AND PLANN ING PRAc-rrc

27

F:

. . of planners ' act10ns m concrete cases in the consequences . case of action , then , shouid shift fro the our par adl~ toor to the interactive case of on rn the fu ture · , "usmg a e acto.., .1s0Iated 8 ctor s ·se • (or a thr eat ) to. another actor · ln b oth tA.ra ·making a proxn! ( r thr eat) makmg , we may "get sorn -:uol rom1se o . thre t eth;h_ using an d P ak' g a prom1s e or a a we capture ~ • t 1·n m m h . I . tno... . done, bu ati cally, t he way t at socia actions shape tne •., ciea.rly, pa.radigm t' 1 atte n tion of others , as well as shapin an. ings and the prac ~c;6 . Bauman 1978; Marris 1975, 1982 · any 1 ' "ends" (Giddens ~nbe . 1965; Hab ermas 1979 . ,· B . a te son 1975· , F orester ' 198 1973; V1ckers xnxnunicati ve act10n IS so much more than •t 011 Because co . I ' In . ,._ ,_ r rmation flows m p anners .,.,rac t·Ions with~ .~ f more th an iruo II Ch kin Iy with a ne·ºwi• ar Respons1'bil't1 y can flow as we . ec g ear . 1gh• ers. d ·ation for exampi e, may mvolve them in the pi b?rhoo assoc~nd : 1s0 make them partially responsible for ~rung process . . h h th t " wie that process. A v01ding t e e arge a no one frotn •1. resu Its. ofd partmen t checke d w1'th us a b ou t th IS · proJect . wie . . ' " the Plan• pIanrung e h does such check.ing does more than gather inform ation· h ner w o . il ' l dd·t · I . e he also spreads respons1b 1ty. n a I 10n, as p anners' actiona or s di communicate encourag ement or scouragement to others, developers or community organizations , for exampie, so will the depen. dency or autonomy of those citizens be influenced as well. As a result of planner's actions , then, the ability of affecte d persons to respond and act for thems elves can be weakened or strengthened. The common case here involves jargon, of course: the more jargon in planning, the less public understanding, accessibility , and possibility of meaningful action or participation . Yet the cooperative or uncooperative gestures, signals, or timing of planners' actions have a similar, if far more subtle, impact . P lanners influ• ence not only what others knQw, but what they may be able to do as well. By shaping other s' perceptions of their own opportunities for ~ffective action, plann ers shape not only documents but política! 1dentities·· other peop1e•s un d erstan dmgs . of themselves of what they can and cannot r 'bl d p . . ,eas1 Y o. lanners may welcome or •d1scour· age a commuruty •8 . for action grou? mvolvement: they may s uggest strategies Iternat1vely · I "D • ,ed or•aA get involv h • nnp Y, on t worry; you don •t nee d f;o developers co . nunst _ey work with program or project initiators, • uruty · 1ons, · planners influen h associat or other agencies, therefore, also and more si%t~ ºh~as what informa tion, certainly, but they preempt these, sim:its ift res ponsibility, and response-ability, or sner 1976; Forester ;~ eously (Freire 1970 ; Webber 1963 ; Melt· 19 . In addition to Providin . g informat1on, then, the planning ana·

t,

~>;

UNDERSTANDIN G PLANNING PRACTICE

. disorganizesd ha es-that is, organizes or . . lyst calls, dir ects, an s (Fp ter 1989). Just as informat1on 1~ the a ttention of others ores . lvements are developed an pro cessed , collected , or sprea~, so l~:o and networks are built and participa t ion is shaped, relatI~nsh1p are s e lectively included or altered, affected and intereste persons et rais e d and low ered dif t tions and hopes are s , t . like exclude d • expec a d litical engagemen IS for others. The planning ferently among different actor5i:n ~d wise en couraged for some a~d w . t only to be understood analyst's communicati: e act10n , then , is notical social and political as inform a tion processmg , but also as hapes action and inacacti on . By shaping attention , t~ - a~::~n~erstanding of th e praction as well . This sug~e sts ª / ~~e plann e r is not a processor of tical role of the plannmg ª':1 ª ys · . aniz er as the case may be) facts , but a pra ctical orgam ze r (or d~sorgd Re . 1984 · N ee dleman . (M lts 1976· Marr1s an m , of attentwn e ner . • 974 · Wºld ky 1972 · Benveniste and Needleman 1974 ; Te1tz 1 • 1 avs • 1977 · Forester 1989) . For a sch ematic summary , s~e table 2.~ . _ 'now , though, do planning ana~ysts ~rganize attent1~m m pract ice? Analyti cally , all com.municative a ct10n m~es f~ur 1ns e p (1) ~f arable but distinct claims r egarding the express_e d mtent1ons th e actors , the supposed truth (2) and con vent10~?l comp:ehens1bility (3) of what's said, and the arguably leg1bmate fit (4) o~ what's said with the practi cal context at hand (Habermas 1979, Forester 1989). Yet more con cret ely, as the planner' s ongoing pr a c ti cal questioning of options shapes others' respo nses , so does the work of planning and policy an a lysis shape design and even i.mplementation . ln the commun icative dialogue , conversation, and play of power that constitute the planning process, the evoiution of the questioning of selective possibilities and t he shaping of equally selective responses , plann ers' and policy ana lysts' action s work to organize (or disorganize) ci t ize ns ' attentio n, their engagemen t, investment, and participation . Su ch work is captured far bet te r by the imagery of "org a nizing n t han by that of "problem solving . n ln their everyday, ordinary qu esti oning of possibilities, then , plan ners and policy analysts op e n or foreclo se possibilities, al e rt or ignore others, call forth or disregar d particular concerns, and sprea d or narrow the bas es of design, criticism, partic ipation, and thus decision making . _Structurally and organizationa lly, the pro cesses of attention sha~mg ar~ t_hose of polític a ! and bureaucratic organizing (or again , o_f d1sorgamzmg, as the ca s e may be). If social act ion is communica tive, t?en organization s too may be underst ood as stru ctur e s of sys temabcally (n onac cid en tally and perhaps unn ec e s sarily) distort e d

tr:c

ª

f

y AND,... ;:.:..:P:..::. LANN ___ IN_G_P_RA -..::CT ..:.. I~CE IJCp0IJC ' oRY , PUB •

f pJanning Pract1ce: The Shift &o 00 ~ J-Conununicative Action ReforIJlulati ln fable 2,1~ entalto Practica StrictlY Ins TO pRACTICAL -COMMUNIC ATIVE

28

c1t1 r1ci\L1'liE

to _______ shapingattention __

_

problem reformulating probleJJl solvilli seekin gdetachznent to 1urtbe r objedJVIt}'

to

seekingcriticism to checkbias and misrepresentation

gathering fact.l

to

addressingsignificance: gathering facts that matter and interacting

treating partici pation _ asasource ofobstruct 1on

to

treating participation as an opportunityto improve analysis

informing decisions

to

organizingattention to formulate and clarifypossibilities

supplying a single product, adocwne nt with•answers•

to

developinga processof questioningpossibilities, shaping responsesand engagement

to

fosteringmeaningful political participationand autonomy

to

fosteringpolicy and design criticism,argument, and political discourse

reinfortin gpolítica! depen dencyof alfected persons passing on•solutions'

abstractin gfrom social relations

___________

to

reproducingsocial and political r_e...: 1ª:ti:.::: .::: ons =- --------

CO DUn unications Th 1 tie8 0fl · • · e P anner's respons'b'J't 1 1 1 Y to address possibiliegitunatepubli 1. Clllllve r e po 1cy callsth r . n ing Ulln ecess ary tru en ior work redressing or cird 8 ctura]dist.ort· . ehbe rate f . . im0 . exc1Us1on of affeted ions o communicat10ns: rmation co . e publics · • tionsof . . ncerrungP0licy ' repress1on of available guagean':hcies, incomprehens ~~sequences, ideological justifica· Hab e~as 1;;~~(Da!Jmayr 1974. ; or obscure bureaucratic lan · ' Marcuse197G ) ,;IL orester 1989;Friedmann 1973; · nnen Be . nveniste speaks of uncer-

UNDERSTANDINGPLANNING PRACTICE

29

tainty management, when Meltsner writes of feasibility testing and preemption, when Rein and Marris write of information -brokering , when the Needlemans write of "public secrets " and "double under grounds , • what we have is an interactive politics of planning analy sis: organizing support, checking and co-opting implementers, shaping coalitions , working through networks as well as data bases (Benveniste 1977, 1989; Meltsner 1975; Marris and Rein 1984; Needleman and Needleman 1974). As planners manage attention to possibilities of public action in these and related ways , so is their work politically , and quite obviously , an organizing (or disorganizing) practice . To assess the traditional political significance of such a communicative, attention -shaping account, we must relate planners ' and policy analysts ' work to the strengthening or the preemption of democratic political participation and education (Burton and Murphy 1980; Walzer 1980; Barber 1984). Technocratic approaches may neglect or even preempt citizens ' autonomous actions: their learn ing, their abilities to act responsibly , and their knowledge of their own political world (Baum 1980; Meltsner 1976; Frieclmann 1987). As an alternative to technocratic styles, planning analysts can try to elaborate roles that seek to employ technical excellence while simul taneously diffusing and spreading design responsi bility, promoting critically constructive design and policy criticism, and educating politically-rather than perpetuating exclusion, ignorance, false expectations, deceptive myths of expertise , public distrust, and apa thy. Effective planning and policy analysis require s technique , but political and organizational tact too. Planning practice attempting to join criticai analysis to implementation requires technical knowl edge, practical skills, and political and ethical vision as well. Treating planning and policy analysis practice as comm u nicative action provides a conceptual (and researchable) bridge from analysis to implementation (via the shaping of attention), from information to organization (via the shaping and reproduc tion of political identity ), from cognit ion to action (via the claimsmaking structure of communic ative actio n), and thus from the analysis of abstract meaning t o a pragmatic assessmen t of practi cal professional activit y. 1 Finally, the analys is of planning and policy analysis practice as communicative acti on has deep ethical roots in "the ethics of ordinary discourse" we gen erally presuppose in daily Jife. As we ordinarily appeal to th e possibility of commun ication free from domination when we speak ("Wha t time is it?"), that is, we assume we shouldn't need to coerce others to underst and our qu estions or

ucpOL!CY,ANDPLANNINGPRAc-rrc

TJ-lEORY , pUB RJT!C,\l,

30 e

Janners and an

, so are~cate to citizens urclaiJns accePt o d conunun1 . 2

B

a1

ysts called to actual possib .1',V~rk t.o

to 'f reveal,an . tor}' actions. 8 dal'lY, . g ernanCIP ]ife-enbanclll '

i

ltiea

of

. s çorResearchand Practice

ftt1plicat1otr ,,

. d policyanalysis practice can be und ·r lallJ11Ilg an ) f 'ti , erst,..__, Finall y, 1 P . . (or disorganizing o c1 zens attention to 0~ as theorgani~g,; n 8 host of research questions follow Wp 881· . . . fpubhcac.,o , . hre . · e cn.. O b1hties ticalimplicatíons at t e mseparable but ..., discussth_es~pr~\able Jevelsof analysis: the structur aI or ª1~~. . a1 d . Po 1t1. Jyti. Jlydistinguis ca . 1 vel the orgamzat1on an mterorganizat· e , . . 1onaJ caJ-econom1c d th 1velofactionand mteract10n. leveian e e Atthestructurallevei, the a bil1·tY to dir ect attention tak theformoftheabilityt.oinvest or control vario~s forms of capi~~ Foras capitalis accumula~d,controlled, and mv~sted, so is the socialcapacity to pay a~nt10n con~ntrate~, orgaru~e~, allocated, andinvest.ed. Yetattentíonmay be directed m two distmguisha ble butrelat.edways:pnxwctiuelytoward some goals and not oth towardthe articulatedneeds of some and not others; and re;rs~ ductiue/y, sociallyand politicallyre-creating the form and conte:t of existing,moreor less structurally functional social relatio patt.ernsof attention(commitments, loyalty, allegiance, pref:;~ ences , wants,values,roles, and responsibilities) themselv es. . If plannersand policyanalysts are concerned with occupationalhealthandsafety:for example, they must anticipate both of t~esestructural_ d_yn_~cs of attention setting . The abstract planrulngg~!1.6 of~urummngrisks to workers' health may for examP e, COwJict withthe od t' ' whocontrolth k plr uc ive and accumulative goals of those e wor P aces Furth 1 canexpectthat th · ermore, P anners and analysts e presentstru t 1 1 • structuresuchconflicts(at _e ura _re abons of contro1 not only fi wntion paid to safety and health vs. attentionpaid to employee attitud pfrto it rates), but also work to encourage es O rust and · · resignabon , of acceptance of whateverhealthrisksar th · b • e present a8 • . e Jo , thusdisco . necessary evils" or as "all part of uragmgempJ f 1nd · · ecisions aboutth k oyees rom actively participating Providint e wor process. twostru g he conwxtin wh· h generaU ctura]Proeesses ofatte t' Ic _Pla~ning takes place, these ing /.ªCCUJnulative 00 th n ion-direction can be understood as ' poiticalJyintegrating e hand and socializing (legitimat· or isintegrating) on the other. While

t~

UNDERSTANDING PLANNING PRACTICE

31

each process may be contested at any point intime, the point here, simply, is that planners and policy analysts can practically antici pate both of these structural processes of the management of citi zens ' attention. For insofar as these processes are indeed structural, fundamental to the organization of the política! economy, they will be regularly expectable: planners and analysts can antici pate and respond to their influences regularly as these structure the conditions in which actual planning and policy development take place (Lukes 1974; Gaventa 1980). Here, of course, the research questions only begin. How do these attention-directing processes work in particular policy domains? How do they frame or stage the practical work of planners and analysts? How do planners and analysts now anticipate and take these influences into account in their practice? How could they? What are the obstacles? How might planners' and analysts' organizing of attention strengthen, or subvert , various forros of the structural processes of attention investment? Such questions need to be addressed through case studies and comparative institutional analyses . Organizationally , attention is framed by organizational mandates, responsibilities, and precedents and reproduced through the concrete communicative interactions of organízation members with one another and with the larger public. Just as action is not only instrumental at times but also and always meaningful, so are the organizations surrounding and facing planners both instru mentally achieving objectives and communicati vely shaping expectations. But what sort of expectations are created? As I have indi cated above but argued at length elsewhere , communicative action works practically in four dimensions: shaping the listener's sense of truth or beliefs, sense of rightness or consent, sense of sincerity or trust, and sense of understanding or comprehension (Forester 1989). While I have argued that the management of these dimen sions, deliberately or systematically , can tel1 us much about concrete relations of power in the planning process, an organizational analysis building on the study of practical communicative action could develop many more insights . For in each dimension of the practical reproduction of citizens ' beliefs, consent, trust , and understanding, interesting research questions arise. Just how, actually , do organizations structure and change the beliefs of th eir members and those they affect? How are factual claims made and backed up? How is credibility maintained? And similarly, through what processes is consent appealed to, gained, or lost? By what organizational process es is trust strength ened or weakened?

PRACTICE Cy ANDpLA.NNING !JBLICp()Ll ' TJ{EORY ,p

cJUTJ CAL . . 1 (re)production of beliefs w0 ., 1d izat1ona ... tel1" n '-erfor. trUSh:.. the faceof ?PPo8alf conversation, argument, tum tat.L toug u• iittl ritu s o ak th . . -....uig ancesoftbe e tting someone spe err p1ece, defending talk,~: in 8 meeting, and so on, d~ w~ disclose our. : ordin81'Y someone interrllP . ways that our self-descnpt1ons can never anotbermhff l982· Lukes 1975). selvesto one988· Myer o • . do(Kertzer1 ' eeting and the contacta outs1de of thoae Eachan~ everY~ d field of socially defined and normatively . providea var1 h hi h meetinP ·tual performancesthroug w c actors manifest s~ctured !1 ts and stances t.o one another. For example, the thell'coIIllllltmf en CO"'"'ittee member's continuai interruptions of •gnificance o one " ........ 81 , _,1:~.,.., conversationscan extend far beyond the immediothersº""""' • t·10ns di se }ose an att1tude · . atJ hand. For those mterrup . akin · ateocc&nons d racticalorientationtoward others, bre g the ntuals of an .! ...1 talkmaysignalhere egotism, disrespect for others, arro~ gance or simplyan incompetence~1or coopera t'1ve working relations~"He's impossible to workwitht Knowing howsomeonehas acted under unique circumstances will be lessusefulthan knowinghow he or she acts on the day-todayconventions of sociallife, for out of those day -to-day elemente are the planner's(and everyoneelse's) working relationships constructed.Sensitiveto these ordinary ritual performances of othe~mmittee members,other planning staff, 'providers' , 'consumers',andstillothers-the planner becomes a practical historian and~~pologist. At stake are continuing and trusted working relatlonships and the possibilitiesof new ones without which all the . m . the world ' . amount to . data analysisand pol't' 1 1ca1 an aiys1s will J~tdtbdabt, ~ysis, withoutany forthcoming action yet informed or gw e y1t. Distinctfroma 't' a politicalte . cogru.ive terrain of knowledge production and structured of relations_of power and authority , the ritual· of a practi!ai~th! of pr!ctice is a mapping of social identities, defending (orstop ?8 who for planners: who is committed to or lesseven-hand pd~g)hth~ hospital no matter what; who is more whh e, wo1sor garuzationally · · ~ andlesconflict astute and who not; II nd Thisaspectofp!Ann ~e ª who avoids it altogether-and so on,8 ous ordin ~um,g practice18 • 8t ' ' ary and extr80 d' . once mundane and mysten· r Inanly complex in practice as weU-as

;am

THE GEOGRAPHYOF PRACTICE

101

anY one personality , not to say the hundreds with whom any one pJanner might work, can be. The Economic-Resource Geography of Attention

FinallY, planners can recognize immediately that attention is a scarce and unequally distributed resource. Information is poor, and often Iittle more can be collected in the time available. Various criteria might be used to evaluate a project, but full analyses of need, cost, and equity considerations are likely to be impossible to caITY out. Review committee members have limited time to spend either on the seemingly incessant meetings or on the careful reading of the stacks of project documentation materiais that they receive. The applicant who proposes a project, of course, may have a staff of experts whose attention has been focused on little else than this project for months. As political scientists are fond of quoting, every organization reflects a particular "mobilization of bias• (Schattschneider 1960; Lukes 1974; Gaventa 1980). Formal organizations and social orga nization more generally reflect particular patterns of attentiveness and neglect. Budgets are only the most common accounting device of the distribution of deliberately organized attention, but the division of labor reflects a more subtle and pervasive patterning of attentiveness and neglect as well. How does this matter for our health planner preparing for the review committee meeting? If attention is unevenly distributed, the planner wishing to foster a public-serving review process must seek to assure that important public-disserving aspects of the proposed project are able to be considered, not pushed aside, scheduled so late that they cannot be discussed, or raised in only a token manner (Krwnholz and Forester 1990). The applicant and the review committee members alike bring a type of social capital with them. Depending upon their skills , interests, and political dispositions, they will press attention to certain issues rather than others. Whenever a practitioner won ders, "How might this committee pay attention to the issuesr a question of practical economic geography is being asked. ln this review process, attention will be invested selectively, but how? What skills do the committee members have; to what and in what ways are they able to pay attention; and what might they neglect? More generally , of course, the planner must read the environment of the planning process in the same way. Who will bring pressure to bear on which issues? What can be publicized and

r • .AND~~PLAN= :..c N :..c l=--N-'G'--'P:c.:RA=-:.:CT:::.!:IC~E~

ucFOL lcy~

Tl{EORY , pUB

102 cRJTICAL ... edia play in bringing attention to . ht the ,.. 't . ? W}!atrolem1g bout local cornmum Y orgamzations, or 8 tructure of the health -plannin whatnot. t band?What D the s . . g ·ecta theprol J1llXlent?oes issues rece1ve attention while oth 1ocalgove urethat some . . 5 itselfens proce5 do? . ractical political -econom1st, asking in rs never . JnnnerJS a p t t·th . e Herethe P ":'~'. jnstitutional struc ure pa ~rns . e invest5t;mg ways the eXI .. _..,,. and t.o what pubhc or pnvate Purwhat . and resow ~, h l entsofattention . iIJlpleenough for t e p anner to anticipat.e again bis ques?on about Big Brother ~es andresults-~t1 thatMr-MurPhY will t Yet it is somethmg else altogether for . . • e practically that andtheroIe Of govenunen pu bl'1c-servmg review the pJannerto recolit'cal~Yz vulnerable and produced agendas-agenes bavepo 1 di · th · ~roc;:t distractor otherwisefoc~gnifs, .. sorgtambzel' or o erwise orgaas . ti' n to issues of s1 1can pu 1cconcern. nize,pubhcatten o

;:ce ask

The significanceof the Four Geographies These four geographies--cognitive, political -legal, ritual-structured, andeconomic-areoverlays of course, overlapping and complementary mappingsof the world of planning practice. If planners ignorethe cognitivegeographyof practice, they will risk producing documents that fewpeoplewill read, fewer will believe , and fewer stillwillbe ableto use. If they ignore the political geography of pradice,they willfmd politics not supporting planning but only thwartingit-and miss legitimate practical opportunities as a result. Blindto patterns of conflict, bureaucratic self -protection, class an~ groupinterests, planners may-against much experi ence-failto cultivatesupport and find that their plane go unim plemented andunappreciated.9 If Planners unlikely tod I ignoreth e _n·tu ai .geography of practice , they are ~sted (if caubous) working relationships with 8 widerangeevefo~ • organizedando c1ttzens-offi . ici·a18 , deve 1opers , profess1onal sta ff , Failingto pay =r~~ruzed neighborhood residents , and more. thosecitizenspi n ion to the ordinary ritual performances of be f0und,may' trust anners . . where 1t • 1s • not t.o h may assume re 1·1ab1bty · w ere th ·11· 158 ~ ºPPortunities for b ey WI instead find betrayal, and may t emselves. su stantial cooperation where these present Andif J their ra . P anners fail to atte P cticesand Practic 1 .nd to the economic geography of 8 settings, they will be far less efficient

THE GEOGRAPHY OF PRACTICE

103

d effective than they might be. Presenting information and anunsel without regard to the social organization of attention to ;~e issues at hand, planners will find their advice heeded at one oment, overwhelmed more often. If this practical geography of ~tention is itself neglected, planners working in a setting of ªevere inequalities of resources may work to provide equal oppor:unity for all to speak, and find again and again that the less pow erful, the less resourceful, will be the systematic losers. These four aspects of the geography of practice suggest regions for empirical, practical, and theoretical investigation. Each of these four regions requires an extensive analysis of its own. With that done, these geographies might then inform actual plan ning practice by showing how the reproduction of belief , consent, trust, and attention constitutes the practical environment of plan ners ' work . Conclusion: lmplications

for Social Learning

We have seen that planning practice is a contingent, situated com municative activity that regularly confronte issues of uncertainty and ambiguity . Since such communicative action always involves questions of content and context, we saw , too, that uncertainty and ambiguity were systematically tied to the structure of social action and thus planning practice as well . We then set out a preliminary sketch of the geography of practical communicative action as we mapped the domains in which the pragmatic claims of action are established or contested . Now we can argue that if planners are to be sensitive to the continuai reproduction of relations of knowl edge , power , trust, and attention, they must assess practically this institutional geography of four dimensions-cognitive , political and economic . We can assess, finally , the ~egal, ritual-structured, rmplications of this analysis for the problems-and prospects-of social learning . Commentators from diverse backgrounds agree that social learning occurs-when it takes place-in two dimensions, broadly characterized as technical and practical. Even if a consensus upon goals . and norms were to exist in a given organization, strictly techmcal questions might yet be unanswered. Given a consensus , let us say , about the desirability of protecting patients ' health , w~at medical technologies or public-health preventive strategies will be most effective at particular leveis of expenditure?

1.]BLICp()L TJ-IEQRY, P

Ic y .ANOpLANNING PRACI'ICE '

104 cRJ11CAL ·cal but practical moral questiona ho~ xnost Iegitimately or justly to ativelY , not A)te!'llaYbe conteste ·to protect the health of workers to •ssues!li ·aJ roduct, nfl' t · l h ' ~ d ~butethe sOCI p f xnultiple and co ic mg goa s w en PerO dJStrl the probleJilS ·t1i be coxnpared nor perhaps even reli-•nJve ne1 er · th '"'"'a1preferencescan ats regard these questiona as ose of conson asured?Democr d thexn as issues of class struggle· a_blyalm~ebate; others regardthe unf ettered market as the appro: tlllU •;ves regar · t h ese pro bl ems. Despite ral conserva... . to deal with .b li e . mechanISlll . t· b riste Jearning tion for p}anrung prac ice ecomes: How P .,, ces the ques · 11 · · thesediueren_ ' rather than obstruct soc1a earmng in these Jannersimprove canP. . ? • • • twodilllensions .. gests answers to th1s question. First, it ur analys1s sug . f nfl. . O . of ambigw·ty, questiona o co 1ctmg nonns . . , that questíons warns to be reducedto technical quest1ons of uncertamty . For ?ugbt~ot1 Janningwill systematically confront problema both of if practi _catyp d of ambiguity, then reducing ambiguity t.o a techni• uncertam an z il t.o t·1c1pa . te an d respond . calissuewill leadto the practical 1ab' ure·t an th e .ªh'ft· to the regularsources of such am 1gw !: 1 _mg constellationsof groupand class interests, changmg leg1slative mandates, multipleandconflictinggoals and obligations, and so on. Actionin the faceof technical uncertainty calls for experirnentationandthe hedgingof one's bets. Action in the face of ambiguity callsforuncoerced moral and political discourse, argument, debate, or appeal,for a new interpretation of precedent or obligation or a newconsensusupona courseof action. But if planners treat issues of ambiguityas ones of uncertainty, they will systematically ignore o~portunities formoraland political learning-opportunities for pos· ~ible':°~nsus _b~din?,legitimate compromise, mediation and fair argammg,politícaldiscussion and democratic debate (Susskind 1987; ~?1:5ter 1992b). Issues of political and moral will be depobt1c1zed and rendered technical the province f 0 experts perhapsbut n t Po1·t·ca1 · · • and representation. ' • If 1 1 1 part1c1pation P annersrenderthe amb· . . failto Jearnabo t th I~ous as simply the uncertain, they will work-andth . u e ~ormativeand contextual dimensiona of their eir pract1ceis Jik 1 sensitive perhapsto the . _e Y to suffer . Such planners would be ~ationalandeventhe itgru~ve geography of their work, the inforlikelybeblindto-and eological_environment, but they would most uai-structurect and pay th e pnce of neglecting-the political, rit, econom· . Practice. ic geographies of their own professional . Second,our an 1 . e1ther8 tec . a YB1ssug ts . hnicaJor pract' 1ges that actual social learnmg of ica sort is likely t.o be a multilayered,

tech;1

~=~an.k °

THE GEOGRAPHY OF PRACTICE

105

carious process of practical communicative interaction. This pre JJlS true enoug hz 1or proJec . t -review . processes, legislative arenas see f t ·t· · · processes, neigh t ali leveis o governmen , c1 1zen p art· 1c1pation :orhood organizing efforts, or attempts at environmental media tion and conflict r~solutio?. 1º If this is so,. then planners who hope to foster democratic learrung processes will have t.o work t.o antici ate and counteract those particular forces and exercises of power ihat threaten present attempts t.o institutionalize widespread democratic participation and discourse. This is a problem not only of democratic theory but of professional, organizational, and politi cal practice as well . In each of the dimensiona of practice discussed above, planners can play organizing or disorganizing roles: (1) keeping information restricted from those affected, or seeking t.o provide access to such information; (2) enabling or undercutting popular political participation and aut.onomous political organization; (3) building cooperative coalitions and networks that seek t.o overcome social inequities and inequalities, or accepting "givenn social roles and contacta as immutable; and (4) working to call attention to the needs of the relatively disenfranchised and unorganized, or assum ing that the present structure of control of investment and atten tion optimally addresses social needs. Planners do not solve the world 's problems in their day-t.o-day work; yet they do serve practi cally and professionally t.o shape others' perceptions, expectations, senses of problems and opportunities. Thus, in part, planners help t.o organize or disorganize social efforts seeking social justice-and and they do this on the cognitive, political -legal, ritual-structured, economic terrains of their daily work. Justas defining democratic processes is a significant analyti cal problem, counteracting the institutional and structural forces subverting such processes is an equally significant analytical and practical problem. Interested planners might begin to anticipate and fonnulate responses t.o these antidemocratic influences by surveying and probing a powerfully articulated geography of practice: con~retely assessing in each case the plays of infonnation, power , ?rdi?ary performance, and selective attention through which dom mation in severa! fonns may be reestablished-or resisted.

6 Challenges of Organization and Mobilization : Examples from Community-Labor Coalitions

This chapter explores the empirical dimensiona of critica! social theory , as articulated most systematically in Jurgen Habermas's Theory of Communicatiue Action (1984). The argument develops as follows. Part 1 briefly describes three cases of political conflict. The first involves the efforts of a citizens action movement-the New York Citizens Action Network (NYCAN)-linked to a national campaign to fight toxic chemical threats to workers and community residents . The second case concerna the Philadelphia organizing effort of the Delaware Valley Toxics Coalition, a communitylabor coalition that won communitywide right-to-know legislation (Chess 1983). The third account briefly describes a successful labor-community effort to resist the privatization of health services in Sheboygan, Wisconsin (Montouri 1984). Part 2 shows how Habermas's criticai theory helps us to account for the complexities of these política! conflicts and the strategies and tactics used by ali participants. While the cases lend concreteness and specificity to Habermas's conceptual framework, Habermas's formulation provides insight into the political and practical dynamics of these cases as well (Misgeld 1984; Thompson 1983; Giddens 1982; Wellmer 1983). If this much c~~ be accomplished we would be on the way to specifying an empmcal research pro~am along Habermasian lines-something that has 107

-

C p()LICY,ANDPLANNING PRACTICE Tl{EORY, pUBLl

08 cRJTICAL

•

1

1985; A}vessonand W1lmott 1992). . ·t·1es of H ab ennas ,s Prese t beendone(Forester h the contmu1 dly har part3 bne . flYsketc es n ted selectively here, w1'th t h e traditiona1 . . f •t· 1 5 elabora 'ticaltheory, ª th broader auns o a cri 1ca social theory ~arxist project 19: 2; McCarthY1978; Giddens 1982; Welbner ('l'homPson andHei . . . 1983). d by outlining an empmcally or1ented, criti1 Part~ coneu ~ program that could assess ongoing issues of caI-theoretlc re~earcti . policychoice and political action. poweranddomina on,

an!

Tltreecases of Política# Conflict TheNewYorkCitizenAction Net_ work (N:CAN) andtheNationalCampaignagamst Tox,c Hazards

Toxicwastesthreaten communities across the nation. ln recent years citizenshave increasinglyorganized to protect themselvesso muchso that EnvironmentalProtection Agency administrators havecomplained that citizen-initiated suits threatened to obstruct the EPA'seffortsto clean up hazardous waste sites . ln New York State,this citizens' struggle was illustrated by a short primer distributedby NYCAN(1983) and entitled, The toxics crisis: a citizen's response . Theprimerbegins with eight newsflashes, the typical first of whichreads: Hazardouswasteexceedsestimates-The Environmental ProtectionAgency(EPA) fineis that the amount of hazardous ":'88te~ing generated in the United States is nearly four previouslyestimated. (New York Times, 31

~1:;;;;;;tan

Notingthe multiplethre workpiacessch Is data to our land, drinking water, and air, in prograrnnu:tic ~: : homes, the primer sets out the following Tomeetthiscris' h menta], worker18 ~dr~ ofneighborhood, citizen, environ~cros~the natio~ citizen, and ~inority organi~ati~ns in theJ.r conunuru ·t· hhave been fightmg toxic contarnmat10n ment. Thenew ies ave 1·0·med together to fonn a new move· movernent18 . th e National . . Campaign Aga1nst

:::t

___

c;:..HALLE ___ N_G_E _S_O _F_O _Rc:.. G:..:AN..:::...:..:J=ZA:.:.:T :.:l.:::.O ~ N.!:.AND~~M~O~B~IL~l~Z~AT!!I~O~N '..___ l~09~

Toxic. Hazards .... (T)he Campaign will work to·• 1) 1ncrease · , the bl pubhc s awareness of the full dimensiona of the tox· 2) 1cspro em · l t· an d 1ts so u 1ons; strengthen existing laws de 1· 'th . bta 3). amgwi wm passage of a comprehensive legisla ~x1c su s nces; tive program ~ det:e~t, corz:e~, ~d prevent toxic problema; 4) make the toxics cns1s a cntical 1Ssue in the upcoming ·. . l an d congress1on . al e 1ect1ons. . pres1 den t 1a The organizing primer continues in two parts . The first The Toxic Crisis, sets out the dimensiona of the problem : 1,00() new chemicals are introduced each year in the United States yet inadequate information exists regarding their health effects; the num ber of poorly controlled ?azardous waste sites (at the time, 17,000) is growing; food and drinking water supplies are threatened; and ao on: for example, "25 million American workers are exposed to potentially toxic chemicals and an estimated 17,000 die each year from cancer caused by the exposure; when other occupationallyrelated diseases are added, the estimated toll climbs to 100,000." ln addition, this first part of the primer seta out estimated economic costs of toxics to complement the discussion of health effects . Thus, for example, "the cost of occupational disease is esti mated to be $11-4 billion per year in lost income alone. This cost has been paid by the public in the form of programs such as social security (instead of industry-funded worker compensation)." This is an initial portrayal of the facts of the matter . Finally, the characterization of the problem closes with a section criticizing the existing national response as inadequate. Federal legislation is weak and fragmented. Enforcement has been poor. The Reagan administration had cut back EPA staff and numerous pollution and toxic control programa . Poor information is thus hardly the sole problem: legislative and regulatory mea sures have not been pressed strongly . The second part of the primer , entitled The Toxics Solution, provides directions for action . The following paragraphs characterize NYCAN's and the campaigns ' proposed solutions . Across the nation hundreds of newly formed community groups are reacting to local problema by demanding cleanup and opposing the use of landfills and other hazardous waste facilities . National environmental, labor and consumer organizations are forging linkages with and between these groups to solidify the base for a country safe from the harmful affects of exposure to toxic hazards .

p0LJCY AND pLANNING PRACTICE TflEORY , plJBLIC '

aign AgainSt Toxic Hazards has linked TheNationalC8Jll~ litical, and lobby components of th 8 rese~ ' pod the toxic coalitions in nearly 30 the technical, ·zat1onan b' d tional orgaJll . ations have a com me constituenc na tate organ1z . hb h d y states•Thes 'Jt Jargely thJ'Ough ne1g or oo canvasses of millions::b~5 million houses.... Through the use of the that will v1S1t . . g staff the campaign can conduct work d organizm ' . . canvassan 200congressionaldistr1cts.. . . in morethane localand statewide or~aru~at~ons part1cipating ManY ofthh aiready achieved victones m the toxics area · th's effort ave in I CitizenAction and Clean W a te r h e l ped lead a· ln NewJersey, ups in a campa1gn · th a t pro d uce d t h'1s counf 100gro networkO t state Right-to• Know law . s·1m1 'l ar coa 1·itions · try's bStranguecscessful in California where tough restrictions on have eens d d landfillingofhazardous waste and un e~groun storage were assachusetts and Connect1cut, state toxic netenacted. ln M . workssucceededin specificdumps1te cleanups .

110 cRfl'ICAL

Giventhis organizingthrust, the primer concludes first by that Congresswas soonto consider reauthorization of many Jawsdealingwith toxic substances, and second by setting somedetail a "Statement of Rights" to be defended . That mentis worthconsideringbriefly. The statement begins:

noting of the out in State-

Thebasicprincipieof the National Campaign Against Toxic Hazardsis that citizens have a basic right to a healthy envi ronment.Todaywe have no guarantee to this right: industry and ~overnmenttoo often view public health as an expend able 1~m to be bartered in the name of economics ... . The C~paign believesthat every citizen has certain rights ... : Rightto be safe fromharmful exposure ... Rightto Know Rightto Clean~~... R!ghtto Participate... Rightto Compensation Rightto Prevention .. · Rightto Protect' ... 10n and Enforcement ...

::e~:; tts.

Finally the . age~da _disc~sses ?ut ~ "Legislative agenda." That sp~cify1ng Particular blhe rights lísted above in some detail , leg1slat' prot erns (e.g., inadequate · . iveProvisionath prevention) an d aging•sourcereduction"). a respond to t h ose problema (e.g ., encour·

CHALLENGES OF ORGANIZATION AND MOBILIZATION

111

The NYCAN organizing primer thus described th to · d e x1cs . t· .ssue, problems of leg1s1a 10n an enforcement, and a set of citi· d . . l L' l . . zen i responses an ~rmc1_pea . 1tt e 1~ sa1d about specific actions of industry; more ~a sa1d about the madequacies of state interven tion-inadequ~c1es . at least from the_ perspective of community health protection, 1f not from that of mdustry's prerogatives. Let us return to these issues after reviewing two more cases of politi cal organizing and conflict. Consider next a case of local labor-community organizing for right-to-know legislation in the city of Philadelphia. The Delaware Valley Toxics Coalition (DVTC) and Winning the Community-Labor Right-to-Know in Philadelphia

ln January 1981 a broad-based popular coalition won legislation in the Philadelphia City Council that both: (1) gave workers and community residents access to information about toxic substances used in workplaces or emitted into the air , water , or land; and (2) gave the city the authority to regulate storage and emission of tox ics as well (Chess 1983) . How did this happen? How was this possi ble? As Caron Chess , a DVTC organizer , tells it, the story began many years before 1981. The following summary draws heavily from Chess's account. ln 1976 the Philadelphia Area Project on Occupational Health and Safety (PHILAPOSH) worked with local union mem bers on health and safety problema and began to push the Occupa tional Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) for a federal right-to-know provision. Residents in local communities had also been organizing around pollution problems . Staff at the Public Interest Law Center had been marshalling statistics documenting cancer mortality rates . The staff, Chess writes, "were researching the ties between industrial pollution and cancer while assisting community groups to organize around toxics issues ." ln 1979 , Chess continues, "PHILAPOSH and the Law Center organized a 'chemical killers' conference to explore the links between toxics in workplaces and neighborhoods. ... Conference Participants , including more than 300 representatives of commu nity , environmental, and labor groups ... called for the development of a coalition to maximize the power of th e diverse groups working on toxics issues ." The Delaware Valley Toxics Coalition was born . Its first goal would be a Philadelphia law granting the right-toknow to workers and residents .

p0L1CY,ANDPLANNING PRACTICE -"'nRY

cALTfl'>':'..•

112 cRJTI VTC. troduced Right-to-Know legislatio une 1980,D tinthesummer building support for thn J ln Th y "spen tr te ,. e . ·ty council. e h and pJanning our s a gy . . in~ ~ tion doingresearc , wntes •jndustry was churrung out one legis~y S;pterober, Chess int ~ut that Right-to-Know would b _..,,,,menta{t.eranother ~ pohealth of the corpora te cornrnumty ~ ... i;th econom1c . • h . bazardousto ewith 8 "highlYvisible camp9:1gn mars alling the oVTC responded 40 organizations as diverse as the United supportof •rooreth;_: gue of Women Voters, the Friends of the AutoWorkers ,. th81 h? Council of Neighborhood Organizations Philade Pr 18 · " U ru·t Y among these' th Earth, e . r Democratic Action. Amencans io ·t· to di . sm1ss right-toand the d ·t difficult for their oppos1 10n 1 groupsroa e 1 bor issue or as simply one more demand fro1n. knoWas a narrow a theneighborhoods. By the day of the 0ctober public hearing,. coalition members had appearedon almost eve~ talk s~~w m _town, ?~titioned t comers, met with c1ty administrat1on offic1als, and h on Stree . . made8 pitchto just about every orgaruzation w ose members weretouchedin any way by toxics issues .. .. The committee hearingdrewmore than 200 supporters , who donned surgical masksto dramatize their concem about toxics, making front pageheadlines. Despite the testimony (of diverse supporters), the legislationstalled in committee after the city administra tion proposeda watered down version of (the) bill. While the Administrationattempted to quietly confuse council members withits complexcounter-proposal, industry mounted a vigorouslobbyingcampaign. Pointingto DVTC's strategy and tactics, Chess (1983) continues, Right-to•knowbecame a political football. We stayed in the game_by mountingdemonstrations , organizing mass political lobbymgand letter writing, and keeping cloae taba on council mh edmbers '. positionson the legislation . Although the Coalition a a flair for makin h dl. The La C ~ ea mes, substance did not get loat .... tion's 1wgt~nter 88818 ted with analyaea of the Administrashowede~ proposals, leading to ... poaition papers which sion. e awa of the Aclministration 's 'Know -Nothing' ver-

ri

PressurefromDVTC1 . . ed city council membera to aend induss ration' an d DVTC to the negotiating table. As

try, the cityadmllll · •t

-

__

___: C::HALLE=~ _N_G_E_S-'O'-'F_O :...: R:.:.: G=:AN.=..:.:I:::ZA :.:. T:..:I:c::'.O~N ~AND~ :!M~O~B~I~L~IZ~A::!:T~IO~N!.__ _ _!l!lªg

pl]BLIC

resulting legislation provided both .bl ' n oted above,· the inf t· d 1or pu 1c toXIcs orma 10n an for the city to regulate to . to ccess to a · · Th f xics a ren , o courae, the political work cont mue · d : to age and em1ss10ns. . . m t he legislation , to ensur e 1•mp 1eget regulat1ons that put teeth "d xnentation, to e d ucate rea1 ents and workers to use the law , and to ensure enforcement . Turn no~ to the case of a struggle involv ing a public sector employees uruon, a county government , and the threat of contracting out severa! local health services .

Pubfic or Private Control of Health Services: Fighting Contracting Out in Sheboygan, Wisconsin Consider the following labor-community struggle over the control of local health services . Joe Montouri is worth quoting at length : The Reagan administration and private industry both advo cate more "contracting out " of public services to private firma. They have hitched their scheme to the public's demand for tax relief . The situation leaves public sector employees on the defen sive, and at apparent odda with the interests of the taxpaying public. But are they? Experience with contracting out shows the opposite. Not only is the efficient use of taxpayers' money compatible with quality public services and decent public sector jobs, they are, in fact, complementary . How have uniona been fighting the "contracting-out• fever? ln the Fall of 1982, AFSCME Local 2427 organized against a plan to contract out the services of three Sheboygan County , Wisconsin institutions . Over 450 members joined with other employees, patients , and citizens to save quality patient care and jobs . The County Board of Supervisors set up a comm ittee to study whether Sheboygan County should continue to own and operate three institutions that provide care for drug and alcohol abusers, mentally ill patients , and the elderly and physically disabled. AFSCME rank and filers formed a Fightback Com.mittee, mapping out a strategy tha t provides a usefui model for public employee/community alliance. A 20-member W atchdog Committee made sure that all open meetings of the county board , its study committee , and

~RY

p0LICY, ANDPLANNING PRACTICE , plJBLIC

114 cRJ1'ICAL ttended by eight to ten AFSCMF; institution were a each . • ted •-r mbers. C mmittee d1ssemma 1monnation to D'le • Onlat1ons O C Apubhci:w • • such as the en tr a l Lab or Council , anizat1ons d h M ' conunlJlllty~rg Ontarded Citizens , an t e ental Health nc; ' f T · t1on for the Associa rum 1es, community 11as the patients Association , as wteers It beceme clear to all that the county nd volun e · Jeaders,8 • ted onlYin saving money . boardwasmteresbers and community residents made patient AFSC~ memFr six months the daily paper printed an o barrage of Ietters to th e e d 1tor. ' carethe issue. dinated Twelve AFSCME-~ortures were gathered in a three-month period thousand · an d ownersh1p• of ali' . th s1gna unty to continue operat10n urgmg e co tbree institutions. Wbat clinchedthe victory, however , was the visible and vocalsupportdemonstrated at each of the three public hear-

ings. "Weknew we would win after that first meeting, • says stewardSandy Nytes. "We saw that the public felt strongly enoughon this issue to show up. The [county] committee was afraidof ali these people at the hearing . • The county board decidedto keepali three institutions funded. (Montouri 1984) Montouricontinuesto discuss other efforts of public employee unions to resist efforts to privatize public services, yet even this brief descriptionof organizingin Sheboygan is instructive. Eachofthese three cases illustrates challenges to priva te economic power,abettedor weakly regulated by the administrative or legislativestate. Each of the organizing efforts makes demands upon8 nominallydemocratic state, if hardly suggesting that the passageofleo-iAlat . . ..~ 1·on will tru1Yor even suffic1ently solve any problem. Eachof these cases raises issues of corporate "responsibility" andaccountability-orJackof such too Interesting t ica · I 1ssues · ' as · well. Where in the laborarise based strategyofprac or , . d in? Whym 'to ga~zmg oes letter writing to the presa come oru r counc1! · or comnuttee meetings with more than oneor twopeo 1 ? H . ow should we understand the focused atten · tion on legislaiive . casesto r fie arenas?· Whªt Iessons can we infer from these br1ef e me our think · ourpossiblepractice?I h mg about future conflicts, to inform mas'scriticaitheory.hn t e next part we consider whether Haber· cases-and others. as anything interesting to say about these

--

cHALLENGES OF ORGANIZATION AND MOBILIZATION

criticai Theory and the Analysis of Concrete Conflicts The Habermasian Center : rhree Oimensions of Social Reproduction At the center o~ Habermas's social theory lie three processes of social reproduction. He refers to these as processes of: (1) ult ai reprod~ction, ~ wh~ch wo:ldviews are elaborated and sha~ed~2) social mtegrat1on , m wh1ch norms, rules, and obligations are shaped and ado~ted; and (3) socialization, in which social identi ties and express1ons of self are altered and developed. "If, as a first step, • Habermas writes , we conceptualized society as the life-world , and see this as centered on communicative action , then three components of the life-world, culture, society and personality , can be corre lated with .the components of action oriented to reaching understanding . As (table 6.1) shows, the maintenance of the symbolic structures of the life-world can be analysed in these dimensiona .. . The individual reproduction processes can be evaluated according to standards of the rationality of knowledge , the solidarity of members, and the responsibility of the adult personality . (Thompson and Held 1982: 278) Table 6.1

Reproduction processes

Culture

STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS Society

Personality

Cultural Interpretative schemata reproduction susceptible to consensus ('valid knowledge')

Behavioral Legitimations pattems influential in self-formation, educational goals

Social

Legitimately ordered interr elations

Social memberships

Motivat ion for norm conformative actions

Capability for interact ion ('personal identity')

Obligations

Socialization Interpretive accomplishments

Source:

-

115

Habermas , in Thompson and Held 1982, 279.

+ p0LICY, ANO PLANNING PRACTICE ALTHEORY , Pl]BLIC

116 cRJTI C occur in, and contribute conti ... . process88 " .... Tbesereproduct1o~stitutionalenvironment . I am supposing, to a strUctural • ..-marizes , gentlY • • f-labennassw•{urtherI110re , . t' two sub-systems have been differen . rn soc1e,es d that in mode h the media of money an power, natnely thrOUg . system anda rationalized (in Weber' tiated out 'tali8t econom1c e the cap1 • , tration . Each forros a complementn-. tate admllllS vu.ty ) sense s for the other ... envirOnmen t th economic and administrative system 8 of Naturally beeanchored in the life-world by way of instituto f the money and power me di a. Th 1s " means that • actiOn have O . • • ti.onaJjzatiOO b l'cally structured hfe-world 1s connected w1th the 1 O the sym " · . 1 . peratives of th e economy an d a dm 1mstration functionarivate un d t h e leg al system; it is households an through P · · t·1ons of ma te ri ' al pro d uction to the hm1ta thereby subiect , . . d t' l . .th. the frameworkof existmg pro uc 1ve re ations. On the ~e:hand , the economy and the a~inistrative system of domination, are dependent on accomphshmenta of the sym bolicreproductionof the life-world, namely on individual skillsand motivations, as well as on mass loyalty . (Thompson andHeld1982,279-80) Thissketchraises the following sorts of problems. How do the reproductionprocesseswork? What do they reproduce? If we can showhowthese processes reproduce the lifeworld, how are they vulnerableto "system• pressures from the economy and state administration? For empirical research , how are we to identify specificactionsthat contributeto one process or another, or wh ich represent systempressures upon them? Through what institutional channels , in what institutional infrastructure do these reproductive processeswork,perhaps becoming more ~r less rationalized? How · about policy issues and the . '.specificall Y, are polit'cal 1 conn1cts pohtical organizin th t · . ' . 8 th. Íl' g constitutes such confhcts to be assessed m is Asamework? Theseare problems to which we ~ow tum . · dicates, these processes of social . reproduct1on . have table 6. ·2 m pragrnat1c and ph 1 · · everydayspe h . h en~meno ogical bases m the structure of sation The fect, mit ~ clau:nswe ordinarily make in any converak . . ac ua clauns ment.sabout th ld we m e regarding the truth of statesocialworldviewe ~ may ~hape beliefs and be organized in lenges, request.ss.f' e n?nnat1ve claims we make (threats, chalo ,ers) in a . texts may gain' co ~anety of moral -legal-political connsent and inte gra te our spec1fic . • · to actions m

-

_____

c:.... HALLE _ __ N_G_E_S_O _F_ O_R_G...:. AN ::..= IZ:.:A:.:T:.:. IO :::N ~ AND ~ ~M~O~B~l~L~IZ ~A~T~IOQ:N~ __ l~l~7

'fable 6.2

Performative

Bases of Reproducti ·on Pr ocesses

Reproduction process

Pragmatic Claims

Output

Cultural reproduction

factual truth

social belief

Social integration

legitimacy

consent

Socialization

expressivenes!V'sincerity

identity

larger streams of organized social action. The expressive claim 'd t· . s we make presen t our own 1 en 1ties and may be routinized in soe· 1. h'h IB ization processes m w 1c we develop,-for ourselves and for oth ers-attributions of character, or reputations. ".. . (F]orms of argu mentation," McCarthy writes , take shape which may be transmitted and developed within a cultural tradition and even embodied in specific cultural institutions. Thus, for instance, the scientific enterprise, the legal system, and the institutions for producing, disseminating, and criticizing art represent enduring possibilities of hypothetically examining the truth of statements, the rightness of actions and norms , or the authenticity of expressions , and of productively assimilating our negative experiences in these dimensiona. Through the connect ion with cultural traditions and social institutions the concept of communicatiue action becomes seruiceable for social theory. (Habermas 1983, xi, Translator 's Introduction, italics added) Now what do these reproductive processes have to do with these cases and with political struggles more generally? If, as Habermas suggests, these reproductive processes are rooted in the structure of social interaction itself, in the possibility of social beings acting in concert, then these reproductive processes will form dimensions in which social and political conflicts are con cretely fought out . Again , McCarthy summarizes: ... to the different structural components of the lifeworld (cul ture, Society , personality) there correspond reproduction processes (cultural reproduction , social integration , socializa tion) based on the different aspects of communicative action (understanding, coordination, socialization) which are rooted in the structural components of speech acts (propositional,

y,.AND~ ::_p:....: LAN c...-_N_IN _G _ P_RA _ CT_I ..::.. CE:::__

UBLIC pOLIC :!..

cHALLENGES ------=-=---------

OF ORGANIZATION ANO MOBILIZATION

- ----=.:.:::...:=~ ~~~

119 - ~~

ALTf!EORY ,P

. These 8tructur~ co~spondences . ...,, exPress1ve) . . to perform 1ts d1fferent func..., , . t· e action . ,, h illoeut1on . ounUJllcaiv •table med1um 1or t e symbolic rin1tco as a SUi f • ~ d to serve . !d When these unct1ons are intert1onsan f the ]Jfewor . . th d roductiono . disturbances, m e repro uction rePd with, there arisedi g crisis manüestations: loss of fere n nfu . f rocessand COrrespon f legitimation, co s1on o orienta. I p aning, withdrawab.l~ tion of collective identities, alien me . desta l iza . t di . tions anoIJlle, 1 . breakdowns m ra tion, with ' hopathoog1es, 83 ) ation, psyc . t" (Habermas 19 , XXV drawalofmotivaion. ._, to begm· that effort in each of these ' · ht mJ.er Thuswe IJ11g . in democratizing struggles. lndeed in · will be require · ali thre e d omains: ' di1Jlens1ons ee evidenceof conf!º1ct m thethreecasesabovewes cRfl'IC

d

t to the reproduction of beliefs, NYCAN, DVTC, ali mounted "educational" campaigns to alert an~ b rs and others to the dangers of toxics, to the inad thetrmem e • of present Jegislation, or to"the costs and• benefits of equac1es . variouspolicyproposals(like that to contract out services). .

1. Witb ;;~~

2. Withrespectto the reproduction of consent , the process~s of socialintegration, NYCAN, AFSCME and DVTC orgamzed pressurein Jegislativearenas, drawing up and assessing legislativeproposals,appealing to basic "rights" and marshalling supportfromcitizens. 3. Withrespectto the reproduction of identity, NYCAN, DVTC andAFSCMEeach created coalitions of supporters, thus creatingnewpoliticalforces;they gathered signatures, expressingthe appealof the signatories for their positions, they were carefulto considertheir image, their presentation of self, their organizationalidentity, how they would be identified (asnotnarrowlylabor-based, for example) (Goffman 1967). The pointhere is not simply to find empirical examples for tb~sethree central reproductiveprocesses. Instead the practical pomt · · efforts 'neglect any of th may dimbe put . as fOliows.• ü democrattzmg d ese ens1onsthey 8 ta d to n undercut their own power an abilityto biJº' belief-poJi "m·ºt 1izedsupport. First, ignoring the reproduction of . statementstca of an technicaI educatton-would allow opponents • quencesto go u~~ts,llassura~ces of safety , predictions of conse· ~ª enged; it would provide potential supporters withnoevidence counterwhat may be opponents' (mis)informa ·

tion. Second, ignoring integrati~e processes-by which norms or undercut the tradi rights or entitlements are e~tabhshed-would f nal moral, customary, eth1cal, procedural or legal bases support.1ºg efforts for citizen power . NYCAN can appeal to a "Statement of ~ghts" beca use our _liberal .~emocratic culture lenda such appeals to rights a colloqmal leg1t1.n:1acy : Third , ignoring socialization processes would mean neglectmg ~ssues of public image, credibil ity, stature, and pop~lar repu_tabo~-to _say nothing of internai solidarity-a sure rec1pe for bemg discredited, marginalized , identified (n.b.) as anything but a serious political force. We can elaborate in some detail below, now , how organizing efforts can-theoretically and practically-pay serious attention to each of these three dimensiona of social reproduction.

Recognizing the /nstitutional lnfrastructures of the Three Reproduction Processes Habermas suggests that systemic forces toward accumulation and the consolidation of power may penetrate , invade , colonize, or come to control people's ordinary lives by threatening each of the three reproductive climensions indicated above . This means that each mode of reproduction is uulnerable, that each may be commodified , bureaucratized, or be the site of political conflict. Furthermore, each of these reproductive processes takes place concretely through a variety of specific institutions, through (more abstractly) a communicative infrastructure of social action and interaction that shapes and pattems evolving social relations of belief, political consent, and social identity . Consider, then, the institutional forma and organizational processes through which NYCAN, DVTC, and AFSCME (and their opponents) worked . First, NYCAN sought to shape public belief by appealing to presa reports and the findings of specialized agencies like the EPA. DVTC shaped public knowledge by drawing upon the organized expertise of the Public Interest Law Center , the PHILAPOSH staff, and labor and environmental groups . They also worked through the press, publicizing positions papers and expert responses to the city administration 's counterproposals . AFSCME monitored the official county Study Committee to keep abreast of any of its findings; the local union also created a Public Relations Committee specifically to educate the public and major constituent organizations and to keep letters coming to the press to keep the contracting-out issue in the public eye.

p0UCY,ANDPLANNINGPRACTICE: -,,,llRY P(JBLIC

cALT'= ' 120 cJl]TI f urse the claims of NYCAN, h o co , • i\,; case, thoug ' eh In ea testable. As statements of fact, of hazards , , oscME werecon d 50 on, these statements arel>Olitif th problem,an l . te . and/U' scopeo e . ·nstitutional p aces, m concre sett1ngs· ts cos' h pen m l ·1 h b calacts.'fhey ap fice the foyer of the counc1 c am ers, a news.. th 1awQeoterOf1 ' tside 8 chemical plant. The effectiveness · Part depen d upon the e office,the street ou paper poiitical act.s W1'li m ofthesestatements:s hich they aremade and in which they are institutional ~eans y wporterspresent or 200, on a soapbox, or in ed·withtwosup . te d l channe . . talk hows and ali), from an m reste Party or a ~e. massmedi;depen~entlycredible research o~ganization ... ? dismterested , 'd the institutions that provide the settings in . f . Secondcons1er .all ' • tegrative claims-the shapmg o pubhc nonns SOCI Y m b ' h" ch ~ 1 gulations, entitlements-can e art1culated, con-' 1 ru es,ta~lished . The NYCAN primer points to legislative r1ghtsd, teste , or esi leveisof govemment an d to th e po l't1 1c ' al traditions t al arenas ª · f h ·t· DVTC fought 1 .tim ting basicuniversal r1ghts o t e c1 1zenry. f~~ rig:t-t.o-know provisionsb~ invoking the p~blic will,_through by workingthrough the c1ty councll mecha titionsto Jegislat.ors, and formalprocedures, by invoking the expertise of outsidersto Jegitimatetheir demands. AFSCME similarly appealed to publicopinionchanneledthrough petitions and letters oriented towardthe forum of the county legislature. These organizing effortsworkedt.odeveloptheir own legitimacy by appealing to the recognizedexpertise of particular organizations, to particular política!precedents,t.othe legitimacy of already established organizations(thus in part coalitionbuilding), all in addition to mak ingargumentaaboutthe merits of the issues at hand. In eachcase, too,these claims to legitimacy were contestedin the pressand legislativeareas, in the judgments of experts, in appealsto the traditions of unfettered (and thus "free•) enterpnses. ln Philadelphiaindustry representatives held that right -toknow~ouldboth duplicateexisting federal law and damage the econonuc he~th ofthe region, arid thus be unjustifiable , So federal l awandbusmeasregu) to . . . • tin . h' ª ry practices were broad mstitutional setfought gs m w ichDVTC . . Considera mo 1 1' Conunerce th r~ oca settmg. While the local Chamber of • as e voiceOf · d cred.ible source f m ustry, could hardly be taken as a materepresen~/ancer stati~tics,still it would be seen as a legiti · gainlegitunacyrte .~f l_ocal mdustry. Thus it only helped DVTC Phialnquirer quo~~ t~ght-~-know proposal when the Philadelconceding ... "th' . president of the Chamber of Commerce , Is IS a ve d'ffi ry I icult thing to oppose. I mean, it

n,m,,.,

:sms

----

___

__.:: c~HALLE :::.:....._N _G _ E_S_O _F_ O _R _G :... AN ....::..:.: IZ =A .:.:.: T:.:.IO :::.: N~AND~~M~O~BI~L~IZ~A!Tl~O~N ~_J l~2~1

ounds Iike you are standing up for cancer ." Here DVTC' . s d d 1 ·t· te . 1 . s oppos1tion helpe to ~- egi ima itse f. Th1s was possible precisely because repro~uction processes are not only sites of argumentation and contestation, but ~hey are also concretely contingent. Actors can go wrong, make m1stakes; strategies and tactics are mult' 1 . t· !p e, ambiguous, an d confl1c mg . Th~d, NYCAN,_DVTC,_and AFSC~ each paid a good deal of attention to questiona of image and 1dentity. They formed new organizations and coalitions, adopting names, purposes state ments of principie, becoming newsworthy . Having created these new identities--coalitions, "Fight Back Committees , • and so onthey encouraged public expressions of solidarity through petitions , call-ins to talk shows, letters to newspaper editors and Jegislators . 'fhey wore surgical masks to committee meetings to dramatize-to express , present, act out-their concerns . They developed their own presence carefully and insistently, appear ing en masse at ~ommittee hearings, organizing demonstrations or public displays of support at other times . Chess provides a striking example of DVTC's careful negotia tion of the institutional terrain on which social and political identi ties are established . "Use care before asking for the support of large entrenched organizations, • she writes, First try to get assessments from insiders of your chances of receiving an endorsement . A rebuff from an organization such as a local medical society may undermine your credibility . DVTC chose not to approach certain organizations rather than risk rejection that might harm us !ater . Besides public education and legislat ive pressure, DVTC recognized, the coalition itself had to be built and protected . So to work or organize in these three reproductive dimen· sions, citizens need to be able to identify the specific institutions and organizational and cultural forros through which belief, consent , and identity are elaborated , patterned , routinized . With respect {l) to the shaping of belief, this calls for attention to govemment agencies issuing reports and findings; to brokers of knowledge (corporate, labor -based , scientific , and so on) of ali sorta; to the institutions of science, learning, and research; even to political action committees , claiming expert knowledge in an area . With respect (2) to the garner ing of consent , this calls for attention to Political traditions ; to the political processes of campaigning down to the ritual objects of picket signs and buttons ; to moral ,

p0L1CY,ANDPLANNING PRACTICE TI-IEQRY, pUBLIC

• . 2 cRJTICAL 12 t and legitimatíon. W1th respect (3) to d reJigiouspreced~ this means attention to style· to '.egalt,tY and iJnageforma 11reºn~dy identified as legitimate by 'th iden 1 'th ,;•amups . (th e me dº1a, the press e •,.,.iations Wl h a els of express1on to the e ann . 1 an d po 1·t· l ' as"""' bl' broaderpu ic; tre) that allow soc1a i ica position talkshows,street thea ed· to the dramatic and ritual processe and identityto be exptr~~;ns'and testimony at hearings that rou~ 8 · s, demons ' • · that ofmeeting .. Jlective express1ons of se lf an d 1'd entity, tinizeandpub!~~z:;orester 1992a). establishrepu 10 ..

.

d Respondingto Hegemonic Power

Ant1c,pating an

Asthe next chapterwi!l ai~~argue, democr~tizing efforts need to f . te and resist pr1vat1zmgor hegemomc efforts to control the ~ 1~P~ these infrastructural domains (Giroux 1983). The institu ti:s ;at makepossiblethe ~production of belie~ and worldview , consent,obligationand aileg1ance,trust, reputation and identity willbe contested-for as they are controlled, so will the política! definitionofissuesbe controlled;so will political pressure be mobi lizedand broughtto bear; and so will the expression of popular interests and sentiment be molded, channeled, guided, or misguided. This has very specific implications for the politics surroundingpolicychoicesand "social problems ." DVTCcouldanticipate corporate responses to the coalitions' right-to-know proposal;industry claimed that the policy would be too expensive , that it would drive away jobs, that the legislation was red~dant-and they marshalled experts to prove it. So, of cour~e,did DVTCuse experts, official studies, university reporta studies . . own' . . and reports done bY consuit·mg fiirms supportmg 1ts pos1t1ons . ' ln such cases in part'1cu1ar, Ha b ermas suggests we can expecttwosystempressure8 to 8 h h ' ape t .e reproduction processes of the ordinarylifeworld· accumulf · pressures resultmg from the imperatives of a ion and pressures re lt' f expansionof hier h. b su mg rom the protection or Chesspointedto b~~ IC·hureaucratic power . ln one quick line, "whilethe adm· •ºtr ~ en she described the DVTC experience: m1s ation attem ted . P °:emberswith its com I to qmetly confuse council vigorouslobbyingcamp~iex. counterproposal, industry mounted a soughtto maintain its gn (Chess 1983). The city administration power . voice . d art·icu1ated in the ·t ,and limi·t th e potentially democrat1c· m ustry, tor 1ts · Part 8 cih Ys formal 1eg1s · Jative • processes-an d . 1ts . prerogatives to accu ' oug t to mai nt am

___

__:C::::HALLE='--'--N_G_E ...cc S_O'----F _Oc:...:R:.::G=-:AN=.:..:I~ZA:.:T.:,:l'..=O'.::N'...:AND~!...:.M~OB~I!!:L~IZ~A~T~IO~ 2~3

. liy mte. to control that sarne leaislati mulate by lobbying ... ve (soc1a 1 grative) process . oVTC fought back, anticipating and respond · to th " mg ese sys · . temic an d h egemomc pressures. DVTC developed ," Ch ess wr1tes, a list of points on which we felt vulnerable and deve Iope d rea sonable .responses ~ h · . We were rarely caught offguar d . Be,ore the pu bl 1c earmgs, we ~o~ the most potent industry argu ments and our responses m srmple question and answer factdº sheets for supporters, council members, and the (Chess 1983) me 18· No~ice !hat those fact sheets ~ent to three_ places : to supporters (to mamtam the s~rength and mternal sohdarity , the identity , of DVTC; to council members (to press arguments and justifications for the regulations in question); and to the media (to keep informa tion flowing to shape public belief). So DVTC's work here was at once, of course, communicative, pragmatic, and política!. Anticipating suppose~y ~xpert arguments _and industry claims that rightto-know legislation would cause mdustries to leave Philadelphia DVTC countered with the claims and arguments of a Wharto~ School study showing that environmental regulations were "low on the list of reasons why businesses leave town. n . D~C, NYCAN, and AFS~ME focused dose attention upon leg1slative processes. They momtored hearings, kept track carefully of individual legislator's positions, assessed past conflicts and alliances in legislative bodies, and built supporters and allies carefully . That industry had such (or greater) access was presumed, but not taken as cause for resignation. ln these cases, the state functioned as-provided-an arena for conflict, an arena in which power, rules, decisions, and implementation were contingent contestable, and winnable. ' Further, as noted above, DVTC and AFSCME were concemed abou~ the importance of political image and interna! solidarity , the creat10n and reproduction of their social and política! identity . DVTC sought many avenues to express their positions as those of ª br?ad -based coalition. Anticipating industry's efforts to use the media to discredit them, DVTC members spoke on talk shows , Worked with the press, organized letter-writing campaigns , reached out to the League of Women Voters as well as the United tuto Workers (UA W). Again, the practical political point is that ~ ~ ~ocial m~ans of identity formation, reputation, and image ulldmg are d1ffuse and variously accessible rather than monolith -

p0LICY .ANDPLANNING PRACTICE •

Tf{EQRY , pUBLIC

124 cJUTICAL bureaucratic interests . Yet toolit rate or d . J)edby corpo . ms to have been one to exani 1·n tro •caJIY con __1 1ys1ssee . e 1 JiedpolitiC1U an~d t·ty formation. How do rituais, tradi . I tle. apP of I en and · jn[rastrUcture (lress const·t1 u te pu bl'1c 1dentity ~ 15 styles of 1anguag~Myerhoff 1977)? Research here could 1988;Moo: :propriated differently in different situat~r provideJessons , to . . citizen movements (but perhaps, too, in tions, for democr:~g position as well: consider only the Propa . twistedways,for ~ir ºfirrns that exploit this dimension of social gandaofunion-bustíng reproduction).

Anticipating /ssue(Re)Definition three cases have 8 lesson to incorporate into Habennas's socialtheoryas well. DVTC,NYCAN, and AFSCME were concemed to focusattentio~ ?n the issue at ~and in ~articular ways.Montourinotesthis exphc1tlywhen he wntes that 1t became clesrthat the SheboyganCounty Council saw the contracting-out issueas an economicone, while AFSCME worked hard to make the issueoneofpatient care instead. Here not only facts and people'sbeliefsare at issue, for the very framing of the question , the veryframingofthe politicalissue, is at stake. Thomas Pynchon is saidto havewrittenin Grovity's Rainbow, "If I can get them askingthe wrongquestions,I won't have to worry what the answers sre...: DVTCand NYCANworked to keep community health protection,rather than narrow economic-efficiency criteria , the issue mostcentrallyin the publiceye. Here the social means of commu nication , the variousmeans to pose, identify , and frame issues, are processesthat must be politically identified, worked with, fought for-for the languagein whichissues are posed is a crucial matter as anyorganizerknows. ' Habermas's thr rod • . thº tte ee rep uctive processes deal poorly w1th 18ma r ofproblemdefi 'f · did . lDl ion °_r1ssue formulation, yet his ear· lier work ste problem(Fore~m~9~ 9)aªY matic or theoretical solution to the that a fourth 8 r . · ln that earlier work, Habermas argued · toprcoagmatihc •validity claim" was raised in eve..., speech act: 8 claun mpre e ºbTt . •.J • a sharedJanguag . . ~ 1 11 Y, a claun to be recognizably usmg by a speakerfail:~: 1~cant ways. Notice that when this claim rnean?"ln situati' ef istener ordinarily asks "What does that cli · ons . ent 1nt.eractions f O doctor·pat·ient or more ' generally expert· 0 course the ' ~ • s1ona) Jargon · int.elligible~ 0 proiess1onal may speak in profesther experts but meaningless (or

~~:i

:i;

-----~

C;;.. HALLE __ N _G _E _S _O _F _ O_R_G _AN _ IZ_A_T _IO :..: N c.:...:.:: AND :..:.:::...:: M~O~B~IL~I~ZA~T~I~O~N _ _; l~2~5

. t:...,idating) to. the. lay public. ln such cases t te g1c . ...... . ' experts and sra 1n advoeates mystify 1ssues and cloak them m technical jargon, and ü ch claims are not challenged, the advocates or experts m li sU h fte h . fr . ay we succeed, as t ~~ o _n av_e, m ammg the issue at hand (e.g., the terms , terms they control. Haberpatient 's condit1on) m their º"".11 mas does not seem to recogruze such processes as reproductive though certainly they seem to reproduce patterns of attention pat ~ terns of popular orientations to what is taken to be the probl;m at hand. We need , accordingly, to explore a fourth contingent and politically influential reproductive process, that of framing or defining the issues at hand .

Requisite Skílls These issues of contestation and resistance in four dimensions of social reproduction involve very much more practically than a 'correct' or rigorous political analysis, anyone's having a 'correct line' on a problem. For the problema of conflict in these dimensions are generally not cognitive problems, though in part of course they are. The practical problema here involve marshalling not only "the factsn but justifications, not only arguments justifying political positions but ways of building commitments, nurturing identifica tions, maintaining image, and not only that, but framing issues selectively as well . So democratizing organizing requires diverse skills, abilities to act in these arenas of social and political reproduction. Here we run quickly into the limits of any theory "with practical intent." Critica} social and political theory can give us powerful questiona to ask, insightful dimensions to explore, but one theoretical account cannot do more than schematically indicate specific organizing or resistance strategies , tactics , skills (Giroux 1983). The theory can generate and call our attention to the structural space in which such strategies and skills come into play , but the choice of a given strategy and the appropriate place of any skill can only be determined in specific settings. lnsightful theory helps us to learn from experience , to appreciate what others have or have not yet done, to anticipate what we must do in the situations we face. Combined with the study of real cases , criticai theory points us toward repertoires of political practices of several kinds, but taken by itself that theory--or any theory--