Leveling Up to Consensus:

Cultivating Citizenship with a Willingness

to Deliberatively Participate in
Communal Planning
Christopher Sean Gandy
Doctoral Student Year One
Machizukuri Laboratory, Department of Urban Engineering
The University of Tokyo
Background
• Civil society in the USA
• Individualization and weakening of of social ties (Putnam 2000) leading to less joining/bridging
across social class (Skocpol 2013).
• This is due to rise of a “conflictual” model of participation (Saporito 2016 via Chanael Mouffe) versus a
consensual model (E.G. Forester, Susskind evolved from Habermasian Communicative Rationality).
• The loss of bridging social capital / break down of communication since the Civil Rights Movements.
• Civil society in Japan
• Long work hours breaking down local ties, leading to declines in trust (Yamagishi 2011) &
societal/civic participation (Nishide and Yamauchi 2005).
• Declines in communication and inclusion.
• Loss of bridging social capital at local level since environmentalism movements in the 1970s.
• Lack of government support towards grassroots initiatives and little linkage to political action
(Pekkanen 2006) and participatory planning (Shibata 2008).
• Liberal Economic Model (Neoliberalism) leading to ”consumer citizenship” (Campbell and
Marshall 2002, Hurenkamp et al 2012).
• Consumerism’s effect on the urban form (Oldenburg 1989). Namely, diminishing Third Places /
Public Space as collusive practices in big real estate benefits (Sorensen 2009).
Background
And with many planners and officials unaware of their own ethics and behavior
(Forester 1999, Ploger 2004, Long & Lauria 2017), especially how to respond to power interests
while maintaining consistency in planning towards the ‘common good’ (Forester 1999,
Campbell & Marshall 2002), this vicious cycle continues. Planners are no longer considered
“neutral” (Innes 1998).

Some argue that planners should act as educators and facilitators (Forester) or mediators
(Susskind) to support civic participation, educating participants in the process…
However, this is based on a “consensual model”, or civically republican (Saporito 2016) view
of democracy and supports those already willing, holding the skills necessary to
participate while fixing arguments as they arise. But what about conflictual or liberal
refrainers? How do we empower all citizen types to become the “attention shapers”
from the bottom up?
Shaping events requires people to house certain skills and a willingness to come out.
Previous Work
So, planners must react to elected officials’ policies. And if the power is
entrenched, this makes it hard to break the cycle; citizens continue to
lack opportunities and support to build the practical “skills” necessary
for active citizenship (Forester 1999, de Raadt 2002, Healey 2010, Hurenkamp et al
2011, Oldenburg 1989).

What are the skills fit for “active citizenship”?

• “Democratic skills” or competencies necessary for actively holding
representation accountable by building a strong civil society.
• Summarized as: Sense of Active Citizenship / Confidence / Deliberation / Inclusion
• These skills are transferable.
Transferable Democratic Learning (TDL)
• These questions are based off what
previously listed literature has stated is
necessary for citizens to hold
representation accountable for their
polices and plans on a regular basis.
• But how does one Transfer such skills to
others?
Through Psychological Empowerment
(Zimmerman and Rappaport, 1988)
Empowerment Process in Civil Society

Bridging Social Capital

(Spreading of Fruit Seeds)
=
Fruit: Stronger Civil Society
Citizens becoming the
governing body

Empowerment process

Empowerment process
Act as soil to help Trunk =
empower citizens to Organization
become a part of the tree, Top Soil of Support Organization
but require deeper soil for =
support Event lead Event lead

Roots Citizens
=
Participating Citizens

Deep Soil: Supporting & Connected Institutions (大企業、大学、都市計画専門家、自治体）

Previous Work
Do people participating seem to want to be empowered though?

• Most events (except Day Salon were

non-locals). Kyousou Kitchen had no
locals and many never participated
before.
• Initial willingness & desire to attend was to
meet people / eat food.
• However, responses to “what would make
you want to participate more” primarily
included: machizukuri, discussion,
monozukuri, and general improvement in
communication and confidence.
• Participants also had the greatest desire to
participate and in society overall.
• Indicating it is the most “bridging” kind of
event.
• They wanted to have political discussion
and be empowered to control the event; n=9 n=8 n=14 n=10, n=10
however communicative barriers were in
the way.
TDL as Part of the “Citizenship Model (CM)”

• The elements for TDL are primarily

part of one’s “Background and
Behavior.”
• Ethics appear to be grown via
practice and altering behavior (Forester
1999) via reflection, or “Organizational
Learning” (Argyris and Schon, based on
Aristotle’s views of “Civic Republicanism” and Virtue
Ethics).
• Political Orientation in philosophy
links directly to ones’ ethics.
• Through practice and empowering others
with Transferable Democratic Skills,
consensus may become possible.
Why can some leaders possibly empower others?
The Citizenship Model (CM) Mental Map
Family &
Friendship
Self
Trust in Others Inclusion Sacrifice for I
Others
M
Ends Opportunity
Single Loop Focus Seeking A
R Learning
Values
Active
Stability G
E Listening and
Means
Focus Seeking I
Sensitivity Personal
A Reflection
Confidence N
L Communitarianism Individualism
Double Loop E
Background and Learning
D
S Behavior Organizational
Reflection Consequentialism
E
Deliberation S
L Deontology
E
F Idealism
Education Virtue L
Ethics
Ethics F
Political Pragmatism
Civic Skepticism Civic
Republicanism Liberalism Nihilism

Chart Legend Consensual Civic Orientation Conflictual

Hypothesis Relation

Literature Connections

Transferability
D E L I B E R A T I V E S E L F
Previous Work: The Citizenship Model (CM)
• In order to understand more holistically why
some event leaders are empowering others with
these Transferable Democratic Learning skills, I
made a long, in-depth survey supplemented by
interviews and observations.
• However, as Forester Notes (1999), ethics are
hard to gauge and grow through practice.
• Thus this category could not accurately be assessed
via survey/interview. It requires reflection (Argyris
and Schon via multiple works on Organizational
Learning), and many say and do different things.
• However, the CM Survey indicated accuracy
regarding other categories when supplemented with
interviews and observations.
• 9/10 event leaders said this framework helped
them to learn new things about themselves in
addition to assisting their frameworking of
ideas.
Hypothesis
The Citizenship Model has potential to help event leaders/planners, as well as participants, understand
complex mentalities (citizen types) regarding democratic citizenship which may lead to either conflict or
consensus in participation.

Additionally, if this model is implemented with certain bridging events (like Kyousou Kitchen) favored by a
majority of “Citizen Types” (including refrainers) in a strategic fashion prior to participating in full-blown civic
participation (e.g. a participatory workshop), there is potential to not only increase participation willingness for
a majority of citizen types’ by psychologically empowering them with skills that increase self and political
efficacy (Transferable Democratic Learning), but also potential to shift ethics & values to bridge citizens
together in this process, making consensus more possible when a participatory workshop happens.
Research Questions
1. What sorts of events attract the most kinds of citizens to attend,
regardless of housing various levels of skills (TDL) deemed necessary for
holding representation responsible?
2. How do values & ethics change throughout the process of participation in
this event?
3. When participants are organized based on their TDL levels by myself
and/or a planner helping them to grow these more, does this
“empowerment” increase a majority’s willingness to participate further?
4. And when events are implemented with additional discussion regarding
mentalities of citizenship, does this make situated consensus easier to
achieve?
 Research Framework Implementation
of Planning
Q.2 Workshops
Assessed via post
surveys & observation
Theoretical Framework: Grown and
Discovered in
Citizenship Model Practice Event Structure 1:
Control
(no CM organization)
Values Ethics
Structuring of Events Event Structure 2: Q.4
based on Willingness + Organization Situated
Reflection (CM types organized
Networking & Hosting of Events Consensus?
TDL survey results Organizing
in groups)
Background Civic
and Behavior Orientation Event Structure 3:
Organization + CM
Participation
Utilization
Event
Q.1 Q.3
Post Participation
Transferable Participation Internet Willingness
Democratic Willingness Survey Assessment
Learning (TDL) Assessment
Elements
Attend Current Online Participation

Aug 2020 Dec 2020 April 2021

Methodology
• Create an online survey to assess the connection between the most preferred event type regardless of
levels of “Transferable Democratic Learning.”
• Distributed via FB groups, networking and personal contacts with civil society organizations, past work (UW Dept. of
Community Standards, University Park Community Club, etc.)
• From findings, propose hosting and coordinating events with Olympia City Hall, Share Okusawa,
University of Washington, and/or other bodies & civil society organizations.
• Two Scenarios:
• Support with event hosting (Planners assist me in running events)
• No-support with hosting (renting of private spaces such as University Heights Center, Share Okusawa, Okasan no Ie TOMO, etc. and/or
ZOOM).
• Host events
• control (Event Type 1) without TDL assessment and CM discussion throughout process.
• Implement Transferable Democratic Learning survey on non-control event groups (Type 2 & 3) prior to participation.
• Then implement CM discussion throughout participation process for Event Type 3.
• Implement a post participation “willingness survey” after each event to understand shifts in TDL,
motivations, and gauge how ethics grow in practice.
• Implement participatory planning workshops to test outcomes of organization towards situated
consensus after a majority expresses:
• A. Desire to engage in deliberation further (via TDL/willingness assessment).
• B. Indicate observable growth in confidence, deliberation, inclusion, sense of active citizenship (via TDL survey).
Timeline
• By September 2020
• Publish journal article regarding master's thesis.
• By December 2020
• Implement TDL/Civic Orientation + Willingness Survey Online
• Attend civic workshops.
• By April 2021
• Organize and Structure Events to Propose to Civil Society Organizations and Local Governments.
• Observe the consensus process in practice via online participation and implement a TDL/Civic Oriention &
Willingness survey.
• By D2 Jury
• Host first range (all event types) at least three times and report findings on:
• Changes in participation willingness.
• Effectiveness of the Citizenship Model (CM) in practice in terms of organizing citizen types to bridge.
• Changes in Transferable Democratic Learning (TDL) over time – aka, increases in psychological empowerment.
• Shifts in the ethics of participants, especially towards valuing reflection.
• Possible kyuugaku depending on progress, results, and personal medical situation.
• Remaining time.
• Implement planning workshops across event types based on the previous results.
References
1. Argyris, C. (1980). Inner contradictions of rigorous research, New York: Academic Press. 24. Tulin, Marina & Lancee, Bram & Volker, Beate. (2018). Personality and Social Capital. Social
- (1982). Reasoning, learning, and action: Individual and organizational, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Psychology Quarterly. 81.
2. Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness, San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass. 25. 宇都宮 浄人 (Utsunomiya, J). (2015). 地域再生の戦略: 「交通まちづくり」というアプローチ
3. Brown, L.D. (2007). ‘Civil Society Legitimacy and Accountability: Issues and Challenges, Working paper 32, The (Chiiki Saisei no Senryaku). Shinsho Publishing.
Hauser Center for Nonprofit Organizations and The John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University
4. Campbell, H. and Marshall, R. (2002). Utilitarianism’s bad breath? A re-evaluation of the public interest 26. 梅津 政之輔 (Umezu, M). (2016). 暮らしがあるからまちなのだ！ 太子堂・住民参加のまちづ
justification for planning, Planning Theory 1(2); 163-187, Sage publications くり(Kurashi ga Aru kara Machi nanoda!: Taishido, Civic Participation Machizukuri). Gakugei
5. Forester, J. (1989). Planning in the Face of Power (Berkeley and Los Angeles, University of California Press. Publishing.
- (1999). The Deliberative Practitioner: Encouraging Participatory Planning Processes (Cambridge, MIT Press
- (2009). Dealing with differences: dramas of mediating public disputes. New York: Oxford University Press. 27. Yamagishi, Toshio. (2011). Trust and Social Intelligence in Japan. The State of Civil Society in
- (2013). Planning in the face of conflict. The surprising possibilities of facilitative leadership. Chicago: APA Japan,281-297.
Planners Press.
6. Healey, P. (2010). Making Better Places: The Planning Project in the Twenty-First Century. Houndmills, 28. Zimmerman, M.A., and Rappaport, J. (1988). "Citizen Participation, Perceived Control, and
Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. Psychological Empowerment." American Journal of Community Psychology16, no. 5, p.725-50.
7. Hein, C. and Pelletier, P. (2009). Cities, Autonomy and Decentralization in Japan. London: Routledge. Chapters: doi:10.1007/bf00930023.
Andre Sorensen (p.109-123), Watanabe Shun-ichi J. (p.129-138)
8. Honohan, P. (2017). Liberal and Republican Conceptions of Citizenship. The Oxford Handbook of Citizenship.
Oxfordhandbooks.
9. Hurenkamp, M., Tonkens, E., & Duyvendak, J.W. (2012). Crafting Citizenship: Negotiating Tensions in Modern
Society. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
10. Innes, J.E. (1998). Information in communicative planning, Journal of American Planning Association, 64(1), pp.
52–63.
11. Low, M. & Barnett, C. (2004). Spaces of Democracy: Geographical Perspectives on Citizenship, Participation and
Representation. London: SAGE.
12. NienHuis, I., Van Dijk, T., & De Roo, G. (2011). Let's Collaborate! But Who's Really Collaborating? Individual
Interests as a Leitmotiv for Urban Renewal and Regeneration Strategies. Planning Theory & Practice, 12(1), 95-
109.
13. Nishide, Y., & Yamauchi, N. (2005). Social Capital and Civic Activities in Japan. Nonprofit Review,5(1), 13-28.
14. Oldenburg, R. (1989). The Great Good Place: Cafés, Coffee Shops, Community Centers, Beauty Parlors, General
Stores, Bars, Hangouts, and How They Get You through the Day. New York: Marlowe.
15. Pekkanen, R. (2006). Japan’s Dual Civil Society: Members Without Advocates. Stanford: Stanford University
Press
Thank you for your time and consideration.
16. Pekkanen, Robert & Krauss, Ellis. (2010). The Rise and Fall of Japan's LDP: Political Party Organizations as
Historical Institutions.
17. Pløger, J. (2004). Ethics in Norwegian planning: Legitimacy, ambivalence, rhetoric. Planning Practice and
Research,19(1), 49-66.
18. Purcell, M. (2017). Our Own Power to Act, Planning Theory & Practice, DOI: 10.1080/14649357.2017.1379787
- (2016). For democracy: Planning and publics without the state. Planning Theory/Sage. DOI:
10.1177/1473095215620827
19. Putnam, R.D. (2000). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York, NY: Simon &
Schuster.
20. Saporito, E. (2016). Consensus building versus irreconcilable conflicts: Reframing participatory spatial planning.
Switzerland: Springer.
21. Shibata, Kuniko (2008). "The Public Interest in Planning in Japanese Jurisprudence: The Limits to Participatory
Democracy." LSE Research Online.
22. Susskind, L. (2009). Multiparty negotiation. Cambridge: Sage.
23. Susskind, L., & Cruikshank, J. (1987). Breaking the impasse. New York: Basic Books.
- (2006). Breaking the Robert’s rule. Oxford: Oxford University Press.