Response to ‘ Why Do Planning Theory? ’
Response to ‘ Why Do Planning Theory? ’
复制标题
对“为什么要做规划理论？”的回应
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2003
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
约翰·弗里德曼（John Friedmann，2003）的评论对比什·桑亚尔（Bish Sanyal，2002;也见Sanyal，2000：322-6）提出的关于规划理论与实践的相关性的问题，或者对他试图回答的更基本的问题：规划理论究竟为什么？他的回答可以归结为这样一个论断，即有三种规划理论。理论1是用于规划的理论;这些是关于规划事业的主体或客体，通常从同源领域借用，并具体到规划中的子专业：土地使用规划，交通，环境规划等理论2是（规范）规划理论，在其一般意义上，即共同的所有领域的专业。理论3是关于规划的批判性理论，即基于实证研究或实践经验的理论。从这里开始，弗里德曼的讨论集中在理论2上，假设理论1和理论3的实际相关性是无可争议的。对于理论1来说，这是没有问题的，但我很难接受他对理论2和理论3的区分，其原因稍后会变得清楚。他继续对理论2的相关性进行了概述，回顾了其重要的（对他来说）例子，从20世纪50年代的理性决策模型到他自己的交互式规划，再到今天提出的多元文化，激进和反叛的规划。但他声称这些理论与实践的相关性只建立在一个声明上：“没有关于应该如何实践的理论，就没有规划实践”（弗里德曼，2003：8）。这句话无意中
John Friedmann’s (2003) commentary does less than justice to Bish Sanyal’s question about the relevance of planning theory to practice (Sanyal, 2002; see also Sanyal, 2000: 322–6) or to the more basic question he sets out to answer: why do planning theory at all? His answers boil down to the assertion that there are three kinds of planning theory. Theory 1 are theories for use in planning; these are about the subject or objects of the planning undertaking, often borrowed from cognate fields and specific to sub-specializations in planning: land-use planning, transportation, environmental planning, etc. Theory 2 is (normative) theory of planning, in its generic sense, i.e. common to all the field’s specializations. Theory 3 is critical theory about planning, i.e. theory based on empirical study or experience of practice. From here on, Friedmann’s discussion focuses on Theory 2, assuming that the practical relevance of Theory 1 and Theory 3 is undisputed. For Theory 1 this is no problem, but I have difficulty buying his distinction between Theory 2 and Theory 3, for reasons that will become clear later. His case for the relevance of Theory 2 continues with a synoptic review of its significant (to him) examples, from the rational decision-making models of the 1950s through his own Transactive Planning to the multicultural, radical and insurgent planning proposed today. But his claim for these theories’ relevance for practice is founded on only one statement: ‘there is no planning practice without a theory about how it ought to be practiced’ (Friedmann, 2003: 8). This statement unwittingly