Angelique Chettiparamb

Insurgencies: Essays in planning theory

Editorial note: The publication of a retrospective selection of John Friedmann’s life works seemed an important opportunity to reflect on the impact of Friedmann on the evolution of planning theory over the last half of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st. Not surprisingly, few invitations to contribute were declined; no one who teaches or writes planning theory today is without an opinion on John Friedmann’s work. The comments by Angelique Chettiparamb, Judith Innes, ER Alexander, Charles Hoch, Kang Cao, and Richard Margerum are testimony to the breadth of methods Friedmann has utilized and the depth of his impact. He is described as an intellectual historian, utopian, ethicist, bridge builder, and provocateur, as well as mentor, colleague, and role model. It is impossible to read these comments without challenging the modalities of one’s own work and asking when convention should be abandoned for possibility. The commentators also point unmistakably to the power of theory to change practice.

Metaphors in Complexity Theory and Planning

This article reviews the use of complexity theory in planning theory using the theory of metaphors for theory transfer and theory construction. The introduction to the article presents the authors positioning of planning theory. The first section thereafter provides a general background of the trajectory of development of complexity theory and discusses the rationale of using the theory of metaphors for evaluating the use of complexity theory in planning. The second section introduces the workings of metaphors in general and theory-constructing metaphors in particular, drawing out an understanding of how to proceed with an evaluative approach towards an analysis of the use of complexity theory in planning. The third section presents two case studies – reviews of two articles – to illustrate how the framework might be employed. It then discusses the implications of the evaluation for the question ‘can complexity theory contribute to planning?’ The concluding section discusses the employment of the ‘theory of metaphors’ for evaluating theory transfer and draws out normative suggestions for engaging in theory transfer using the metaphorical route.

Re-Conceptualizing Public Participation in Planning: A View Through Autopoiesis

This article examines the relevance of the concept of autopoiesis for public participation in spatial planning. The concept of autopoiesis within social science, as advanced by Niklas Luhmann (1995) argues for a systemic, consistent and sophisticated theory of society based on a systems view, as opposed to more familiar action-based theories (for instance as in the case of the Habermasian tradition). By examining the relevance of the concept for public participation in spatial planning, this article highlights specific aspects of public participation that draw attention to dimensions of planning that are not currently explicitly highlighted within mainstream discourses in planning.1

Complexity theory and planning: Examining ‘fractals’ for organising policy domains in planning practice

This article examines selected methodological insights that complexity theory might provide for planning. In particular, it focuses on the concept of fractals and, through this concept, how ways of organising policy domains across scales might have particular causal impacts. The aim of this article is therefore twofold: (a) to position complexity theory within social science through a ‘generalised discourse’, thereby orienting it to particular ontological and epistemological biases and (b) to reintroduce a comparatively new concept – fractals – from complexity theory in a way that is consistent with the ontological and epistemological biases argued for, and expand on the contribution that this might make to planning. Complexity theory is theoretically positioned as a neo-systems theory with reasons elaborated. Fractal systems from complexity theory are systems that exhibit self-similarity across scales. This concept (as previously introduced by the author in ‘Fractal spaces in planning and governance’) is further developed in this article to (a) illustrate the ontological and epistemological claims for complexity theory, and to (b) draw attention to ways of organising policy systems across scales to emphasise certain characteristics of the systems – certain distinctions. These distinctions when repeated across scales reinforce associated processes/values/end goals resulting in particular policy outcomes. Finally, empirical insights from two case studies in two different policy domains are presented and compared to illustrate the workings of fractals in planning practice.

Bottom-Up Planning and the Future of Planning Education in India

The article discusses normative guidelines for reorienting planning education in India within the context of the immensely influential Constitutional Amendment Act of 1993. First, it briefly sketches the status of planning education at present in India, in relation to the role of planners in planning practice. It then descibes the changes that have taken place in general, following the Constitutional Amendment Act, dwelling more on the specific changes within the State of Kerala. The implications of these for planning education in general are then discussed normatively, highlighting three areas that need immediate attention from the planning academic community.

Responsible tourism and sustainability: the case of Kumarakom in Kerala, India

This paper discusses the notion of ‘responsible tourism’ and its current use within the tourism literature. We argue that the concept as used currently means everything and therefore adds nothing to the conceptual terrain of tourism trends and nomenclatures. We then introduce our own understanding of the concept arguing that while responsible tourism is linked to sustainability initiatives such as alternative tourism, ecotourism, ethical tourism, green tourism, soft tourism, pro-poor tourism, geo-tourism, integrated tourism, community-based tourism, etc it also demarcates an analytical realm of its own. We suggest that the practical use of the term in areas where it has been adopted (such as South Africa and Kerala for instance) suggests a rather restricted use. We identified this realm as the tourism sector-specific manifestation of the corporate social responsibility (CSR) agenda. Following Flyvbergs [(2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219–245] call for exemplars and paradigmatic case studies to advance knowledge in a particular domain, the responsible tourism initiative in Kumarakon, Kerala, is presented. Discussion of the case study traces the particular governance context of Kerala and the position of tourism in the state economy. The responsible tourism initiatives at the state level and local level are then described highlighting the ‘how’ of the implementation and the impact that it has produced. Generic, non-prescriptive principles that could be said to be necessary in some form for the successful translation of responsible tourism principles to practices are then identified. Such an approach is contrasted with one that places faith in the voluntary adoption of ‘responsible’ practices by the private sector on its own. It is argued that responsible tourism can make a contribution to practice provided the conceptual terrain is delineated against other forms of tourism and if research within the terrain can unpack the particular forms of challenges that are thrown up by the delineation itself.

Dealing with Complexity: An Autopoietic View of the People's Planning Campaign, Kerala

Complexity is integral to planning today. Everyone and everything seem to be interconnected, causality appears ambiguous, unintended consequences are ubiquitous, and information overload is a constant challenge. The nature of complexity, the consequences of it for society, and the ways in which one might confront it, understand it and deal with it in order to allow for the possibility of planning, are issues increasingly demanding analytical attention. One theoretical framework that can potentially assist planners in this regard is Luhmanns theory of autopoiesis. This article uses insights from Luhmanns ideas to understand the nature of complexity and its reduction, thereby redefining issues in planning, and explores the ways in which management of these issues might be observed in actual planning practice via a reinterpreted case study of the Peoples Planning Campaign in Kerala, India. Overall, this reinterpretation leads to a different understanding of the scope of planning and planning practice, telling a story about complexity and systemic response. It allows the reinterpretation of otherwise familiar phenomena, both highlighting the empirical relevance of the theory and providing new and original insight into particular dynamics of the case study. This not only provides a greater understanding of the dynamics of complexity, but also produces advice to help planners implement structures and processes that can cope with complexity in practice.

Tourism and spatial planning

This issue of JPRiTLE is a dialogue between the two disciplinary and professional domains of spatial planning and tourism. Some of the overlaps of interest between tourism development and policy, and spatial planning policy, are beginning to develop a systematic literature. Hayllar, Griffin, and Edwards (2008), for example, point out that tourism activity in cities is geographically concentrated. The so-called precincts in which tourism can often be concentrated are both part of, and distinctive within, the city. How these connections between the city and the precinct work, and what their socio-economic and cultural implications might be, are questions which exercise policy-makers in spatial planning as well as tourism. These are simply a sample of questions which demonstrate some coincidences of interest between spatial planners and tourism policy-makers. In this issue, however, our focus is different. Professions and disciplines are partly constituted by distinctive ways of seeing the world; what we might call distinctive gazes. These gazes are inevitably spatial, as spatial relations are co-constituted with social relations. The significance of the spatiality of tourism – and particularly its relationship to places and their meanings for people – has been recognised for decades, for example, in discussions of urban tourism, and tourism geographies more generally (Mugerauer, 2009; Nepal, 2009). In examining tourism-related issues, through a planning lens, we hope here to reverse what can be termed the ‘gaze’ of the narrator. So, instead of looking at issues in communities and places from the position of a tourism policy-maker or analyst, in this issue we encourage a gaze at tourism from the broader society. A gaze that emanates from society, and planning for society, to the role of tourism and the contribution it makes to the society and planning for society. What then does such a gaze entail? Simply stated the concern in such a focus moves to the meaning and power of tourism to an external observer, a non-tourist. It raises issues of embeddedness and interaction that go beyond the seductive qualities of tourism to reveal and repair the disjunctions and overflows that make up tourism when viewed from the perspective of communities, societies and places. In such a project, the very rationale of tourism is called into question and the interrogation of tourism is not any more exclusively on goals set within the tourism and for tourism. Places then are more than ‘destinations’, arguably a dominant term in tourism studies that reifies the touristic gaze by reducing the complex realities of lived experiences in a location to one that is essentially tourist centred. The emphasis then is not so much on the creation of new attractive ‘tourist bubbles’ (Magerauer, 2009, p. 303), but is more on the liveability and attractiveness of ordinary spaces as well. Communities are more than ‘local communities’ that populate touristic destinations, staking instead a claim to be the ultimate client in tourism ventures. Recognising this in a number of studies of spatial planning’s engagement with tourism unearths a number

Inter-Disciplinarity in Teaching: Probing Urban Studies

Abstract This article arises from a research project funded by the Subject Centre for Sociology, Anthropology and Politics and a literature review on ‘interdisciplinarity’ commissioned by the Subject Centre for Languages, Linguistics and Area Studies (Chettiparamb, 2007). It attempts to unpack how disciplinarity and interdisciplinarity are created through pedagogy in higher education at the module level while teaching an interdisciplinary subject such as ‘urban studies’. In particular, comparisons are made between the teaching aims and methods in two disciplines: planning and sociology. Comparisons are also made between the approach of two types of universities — a pre-1992 university and a post-1992 university. The article argues that the differences between the universities are more profound than the differences between the disciplines. The research reveals two key findings. In the pre-1992 university case study, even though the ‘contributing’ subject domains of the disciplines are similar, the disciplinary identities are maintained and accomplished in subtle ways. In contrast, in the post-1992 university, disciplinary boundaries are not so purposefully maintained, resulting in the realisation of a different construction of interdisciplinarity.

Articulating ‘public interest’ through complexity theory:

The ‘Public interest’, even if viewed with ambiguity or scepticism, has been one of the primary means by which various professional roles of planners have been justified. Many objections to the concept have been advanced by writers in planning academia. Notwithstanding these, ‘public interest’ continues to be mobilised, to justify, defend or argue for planning interventions and reforms. This has led to arguments that planning will have to adopt and recognise some form of public interest in practice to legitimise itself. This paper explores current debates around public interest and social justice and advances a vision of the public interest informed by complexity theory. The empirical context of the paper is the poverty alleviation programme, the Kudumbashree project in Kerala, India.