- What are the ‘indicators’?
Malnutrition? Truanting? Crime figures? Unemployment? Pollution? Physical
illness? Mental illness? Commercial indicators? Lost industrial opportunities?
Species decline? - What are the ‘options’?
Acquiesce? Defer? Resist? Confront? Fight? Cooperate? Negotiate? Modify?
Mediate? Centralize? Decentralize? Ameliorate? Mitigate?
These ‘issues’ ‘indicators’ and ‘options’ enable the neomodern planner to recog-
nize that they serve a multiple-belief system; that they must learn to negotiate
mutual gain in conjunction with competitive entrepreneurial forces as well as the
generally conservative elements of central and local government administration.
From Healey, McNamara, Elson and Doak (1988) there is the view that ‘rather than
simple questions of “who do we listen to?” more complex problems arise of “who
do we ask, how do we ask them, and what do we ask them about”?’ And it is
from these attitude-with-vision and consensus-building criteria, indeed a
sustainable attitude and a clearer visionincorporating the dimension of creativity
(Weisberg 1993) that the neomodern planner gains insight into what is to be done.Of course boththe radical-multiplex and the traditional-lineal
processes engage the orthodox (figures 2.5 and 2.6) planning
sequence, which is as ancient as the first teleologically conscious
pattern of human intervention. Bothattempt to achieve ‘pro-
gressive change’ within the logic of the planning sequence for
‘designing’ and ‘implementing’ an improved and enriched com-
munity future of greater variety. Bothradical and traditional
processes are founded on the general ideal of a public service
which sets out to put in place societally beneficial outcomes for
conservation and development. Bothattempt to ‘solve problems’
and to ‘realize potentials’. And bothradical and traditional pro-
cedures are rooted in vested interests, public values, corporatism
and national morality.
What particularly characterizes radical procedures are the variations of sensi-
tivity, connectivity, cyclicity, multiplicity, mutual gain, empowerment and partici-
pation within the operational skills set and the performance-set criteria reviewed
earlier and expanded upon in box 2.2.Additional to the previous underscoring of the commonality of
outcome shared by many ‘traditional’ and ‘radical’ endeavours
arise other computer-aided ways of handling instability and com-
plexity. The ‘soft systems methodology’ (SSM) is an example of
an approach which attempts the engagement of systems model-
ling to real world problem situations. This technique, we are led
to expect, can provide a ‘social audit’ for such complex and
ambivalent scenarios as: How to mitigate adverse environmental
effects? How to integrate community boards effectively into64 Principles
‘The need for planning
[in Canada] arises from
two general sources.
One is the need to solve
problems associated with
a particular project or
ongoing development
situation...the other
main need is the desire
to attain an improved
situation[to realize new
potentials].’
Gerald Hodge and Ira
Robinson,Planning
Canadian Regions, 2001.There is a concern
about cybernetics, SSM
and GIGO electronics
‘getting’ to us and
winning us over, before
we get to address actual
and immediate concerns
and probable situations.