There is no planning—only planning practices: Notes for spatial planning theories
There is no planning—only planning practices: Notes for spatial planning theories
复制标题
没有规划，只有规划实践：空间规划理论注释
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2016
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
E. Alexander
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
E. Alexander
“什么是规划？”约翰·弗里德曼（John Friedmann，1987）在最近的一篇论文中重新审视了这个问题，该论文讲述了他是如何将规划定义为知识与行动之间的联系的（现在很流行）。38-44）。这个问题也引起了其他人的关注，他们关注的是更具体的特征：作为理性选择的计划（Davidoff和Reiner，1962），作为控制未来的计划（Wildavsky，1973），或者作为制定后续决策的计划（Faludi，1987：116-128）。Forester（1989）将“计划作为未来行动的指导”定义为“规划”。（第3页）;后来，我们发现计划是对未来的讲故事（Throgmorton，1992;货车胡尔斯特，2012：301），作为“行动的预谋”（Harris，1996：483）、期望管理（Hartmann，2012：243）和“语言游戏”（Lord，2014：37-39）。所有这些定义的问题不在于它们不正确;而是它们太抽象而无法关闭。2 Vickers（1968）的定义，“规划就是规划者所做的”，看起来像是同义反复，但它为这个问题提供了一个务实的答案。它的优点之一是，它结束了一个无限倒退的辩论。3作为一个老党在这场辩论中，我得出的结论是，努力定义“规划”是徒劳的。4柏拉图式的定义可能使有趣的理论，但现实主义需要一个偶然的，而不是普遍的，规划的定义。维克斯定义的另一个优点是它的验证原则，即知识的社会建构。根据这一原则扩展维克斯：“规划者”是一个特定社区承认参与它认为是“规划”的过程的人。这导致了一个有趣的发现：只有一组人谈论“规划”没有任何资格-规划理论家。其他人都用实质性的描述语（暗示或明确）来提及“规划”。参考对象可以是学科或专业：城市和区域或城镇和乡村规划，经济规划或交通规划;或
“What is Planning?” is the question John Friedmann (1987) revisits in a recent paper1 that tells how he arrived at his (now popular) definition of planning as the link between knowledge and action (pp. 38–44). This question has engaged others, focusing on more specific traits: planning as rational choice (Davidoff and Reiner, 1962), as controlling the future (Wildavsky, 1973), or as framing subsequent decisions (Faludi, 1987: 116–128). Forester (1989) defined “planning (as) the guidance of future action” (p. 3); later, we find planning as storytelling about the future (Throgmorton, 1992; Van Hulst, 2012: 301), as “the premeditation of action” (Harris, 1996: 483), as expectation management (Hartmann, 2012: 243), and as a “language game” (Lord, 2014: 37–39). The problem with all these definitions is not that they are not true; it is that they are too abstract for closure.2 Vickers’ (1968) definition, “Planning is what planners do,” looks like a tautology, but it offers a pragmatic answer to the question. One of its merits is that it closes an infinite regress of debate.3 As an old party in this debate, I have come to the conclusion that the effort to define “planning” is futile.4 Platonic definitions may make interesting theory, but realism demands a contingent, not a universal, definition of planning. Vickers’ definition’s other merit is its validation principle, the social construction of knowledge. Expanding Vickers in the light of this principle: “Planners” are the people who a particular community acknowledges are involved in a process it recognizes as “planning.” This leads to an interesting discovery: only one set of people talks about “planning” without any qualification—planning theorists. Everyone else refers to “planning” with a substantive descriptor (implicit or explicit). The referent may be disciplinary or professional: city and regional—or town and country planning, economic planning or transportation planning; or