20 Feminist Thoughts on the Theory and Practice of Planning Marsha Ritzdorf High on the list of popular non fiction books during 1990 was Professor Deborah Tannen’s You Just Don't Understand: Men and Women in Conversation. Tannen, a sociolinguist, decided to enter the dialogue on gender and language “because the risk of ignoring differences is greater than the danger of naming them. Sweeping something big under the rug doesn’t make it go away; it trips you up and sends you sprawling when you venture across the room” (1990; 16). When theory is put forth in general categorical language as “gender blind,” it denies that the analysis is most often based on the experience of white, middle-class and upper-class men in Western societies (Forsyth 1990). While gender is not the only possible category of analysis (certainly class and race are highly significant), it is a category that has been virtually invisible in planning theory and practice. As Okin sums up in her book on women in Western political thought, “it is by no means a simple matter to integrate the female half of the human race into a tradition of political theory which has defined them and intra-familial relationships as outside the scope of the political.” (Okin in Nelson 1989: 286). At the heart of all feminist work is a unifying idea: that gender is a significant aspect of the cultural, social, political, and economic construction of reality. Feminist thought rejects the facile Reprinted by permission from Planning Theory 7/8, 1992.446 Marsha Ritzdort explanation that theory can be or is “neutral,” and thus rejects the suppression of differences. Whether or not gender is explicitly mentioned in a theoretical construct, there is an implicit, if not explicit, set of values and attitudes about the role of women that frame the analysis. Three root assumptions are central to feminist work. While all three might not be present in an. individual piece of work, at least one of the following will frame the inquiry: (1) the position that women are exploited, oppressed or devalued by society; (2) an interest on the part of the feminist thinker in changing the conditions of women’s lives; and (3) the assertion that tradi- tional, still dominant theory, research, and practice ignore or justify inappropriate and/or exploitative treatment of women (adapted from Aker et al. 1983) Most feminist inquiry thus rejects current male-centered epistemolog- ical points of view. Feminist theory rejects the pretense of value-free research in favor of consciously valued thought, arguing that the suppos- edly value-free, neutral science model is actually male-defined (Hess and Ferree 1987). In addition, many feminists assert that the best research ideas are those that bridge the gap between theory and practice (Hesse and Ferree 1987), acknowledge that personal experience and grounded research are valuable theory-building and research tools, and do not attempt to achieve a neutral stance for the researcher toward the research. Planning Theory and Feminist Planning Planning theory, as pointed out by Sandercock and Forsyth (1990) remains a male bastion. “Of all the fields within planning that of theory remains arguably the most male dominated, the least influenced by an awareness of the importance of gender” (Sandercock and Forsyth 1990: 3). Still, planning theorists, like feminist theorists, do not agree on any one theory. Instead, competing theoretical perspectives are under dis- cussion, and it is fair to say that their differential meaning to and impact upon men and women have not been explored in the literature. Sandercock and Forsyth nonetheless suggest that there are diverse inter- sections where the analysis of gender is relevant: “the economic status of women, how women are located in and move through space, the connection between capitalist production and patriarchal relationships and between ‘public’ and ‘domestic’ life, how women know about the world and about what is good and what forms of communication women are most comfortable with or most threatened by and more” (1990: 4). In the 1970s and 1980s, literature about women and _ planning flourished. This literature primarily focused on policy and practice. GerdaFeminist Thoughts on Planning 447 Wekerle’s (1980) edited volume New Space for Women was instrumental in defining women and environments research. A special edition of Signs (the premier feminist journal) devoted to women and the city appeared the same year. These collections addressed women’s activities in the urban environment. The pieces acknowledged that women have differ- ent daily life activities and patterns than men and therefore make different use of the environment and encounter different problems than do their male counterparts. The authors asserted that understanding and responding to these differences are important in developing the commu- nity. Their analyses of urban and suburban structures and the policy-making process from a feminist perspective took into account the totality of people’s lives and the ways in which men and women are treated and situated differently in political, social, economic, and physical space. Writing about feminist advocacy theory in 1986, Jacqueline Leavitt asserted: “Planners assume a value set that is inherently and historically masculine . . . the overriding goals and objectives are more likely to be shaped by men than women politicians, male corporate heads rather than female” (187). However, in addition to the growing body of litera- ture, demographic changes during these two decades made it almost impossible for planning practitioners to continue to ignore the differences between men and women’s lives in the community. A recent census report indicates that 49 percent of mothers of one-year-old babies are currently working outside their homes, and it is estimated that 80 percent of mothers of children under the age of eighteen will be in the work force by the year 2000. A growing body of feminist planning academicians see to it that these issues are discussed in the literature and at conferences. While much of their work contains important theoretical statements that are widely quoted in other feminists’ research, their papers are rarely presented on theory panels at the conferences or cited in traditional planning theorists’ work. Contemporary planning theory, according to Beauregard, is anchored in values and perspectives that emphasize a “belief in the transferability of knowledge across time, space and social groups” and “an authoritar- ian stance that assumes an Archimedean position from which to speak” (Beauregard 1990: 2). This means that it is strongly committed to func- tional rationality as the basis of human action and to the use of abstract “principles and rights as the criteria for decision making” (Beauregard 1990: 2). Only a small number of planning theorists are questioning the notion of objectivity, neutrality, and the maintenance of a critical distance. It is little wonder that most feminist planners have steered clear of theory as their primary field of discourse in planning education. Feminist political theorists debate the scope and meaning of citizenship and the nature of political action for women in contemporary society.448 Marsha Ritzdorf Writing about the meaning of feminist citizenship, Jones (1988) suggests that the following themes are important to understanding women’s citi- ip: Expanding the Meaning of Political Action, Personal Commitment and Connection, and the Search for New Forms of Organization. Since planning is inherently political, planning theory and practice need to attend to this debate as well. The boundaries between the personal and the political are merged for women. Women are gener- ally interested in expanding the range, intensity, and modes of action in planning. They are interested in holistic approaches to problems and cooperative problem solving and see issues impacting their bodies, their families, and their neighborhoods as both political and personal. Women will often use language that is familial to discuss public actions. Words like “nurturing” appear often in their discussions. In addition, the issues they feel are important are, for most men, far removed from their primary concerns in the public policy arena. The language and issues of family life are significant to the majority of women. Reproductive and domestic activities are inextricably bound up with traditional economic production in their assessments of policy and their analysis of needed change. While the above is true for most women whether or not they are femi- nists in their orientation, female planners and planning scholars have to make a conscious choice about their “identity”. A female planner who chooses to approach planning from a feminist perspective must be ready to be labeled and have her professional credibility, intelligence or research methodology questioned by hostile, or at best indifferent, colleagues. After all, if one admits they have a perspective, they are denying the myth of neutral, technological rationality on which many planners depend for their identity. “In the planning profession, to be a feminist or interested in women’s issues is to reject explicitly much of the professional socialization of one’s training,” (Leavitt 1986: 185). While Leavitt was referring to planning practitioners, the same pres- sures to conform exist in academia. For feminist thought truly to impact planning theory will require an acceptance, at a minimum, of the notions of pluralistic thought and personal connection. It will mean a rejection of the rational model in favor of a model acknowledging that there are different ways of “knowing” the world and constructing answers to problems. It means a model based on flexibility rather than immutable principles of the “right” and “wrong” decision. Certainly, the new emphasis on negotiation and mediation as essential tools of the practi- tioner’s trade are indications that flexibility is becoming more important in planning decision making. Through their life experiences women have learned that the end result of an action always reflects the personal experiences of those involved in the decision making. A simple example of this is the lack of attention to rape and personal safety in environmental design and planning, whereFeminist Thoughts on Planning 449 most practitioners are men. For women, a poorly lit street, an ill-designed or poorly placed parking lot, even too much landscaping, can be a life- or-death issue. Women are highly sensitive to the misuse of power and arbitrary claims of rational or correct behavior or answers. Process is extremely important. More and more frequently, the importance of process is acknowledged in many contemporary planning theorists’ work. I doubt, however, that by process these theorists are thinking about the totality of life experiences that the planner or theorist brings to her or his work. Planning theory is grounded in many of the principles that feminist theorists reject outright, making it difficult to find a common ground. In addition to the feminist acceptance of a relationship between research subject and object, feminist theorists question the existence of universally applicable principles and do not regard rationality as the basis of most human action. They are generally uninterested in knowledge only for its own sake and want to see how it will be applicable to real problems. Beth Moore Milroy and Caroline Andrew (1988: 177) comment: The debate about theorizing in the research community at large reminds us to think about why we do research in the social sciences in the first place. Is it purely to acquire knowledge for its own sake? Or is it to change and improve something? Feminist researchers who are acutely aware of the pervasive androcentricity that has influenced the shape of urban environ- ments cannot be disinterested inquirers removed from the prospect of creating @ non-sexist environment. For that half of humankind which feels isolated from the social science explanations of its own experience, it would be shooting itself in the foot to settle simply for understanding. Acknowledging purposefulness in the research experience, in both researcher and researched, creates a dialectic between understanding and changing. For feminists, theory and practice will always be integrated activities. For planning theory to be meaningful in a changing world “acknowledged purposefulness” needs to be the benchmark of discourse. Acknowledgments 1 wish to thank John Forester and Ann Forsyth who gave generously of their time to discuss feminist theory and planning theory with me while I was in resi- dence at Cornell University during fall semester, 1990. This material is excerpted from a longer article in Planning Ethics, Sue Hendler, editor, from Center for Urban Policy Research (New Brunswick, NJ), 1985. References Andrew, C., Moore Milroy, B. (eds.) (1988), Life Spaces: Gender, Household and Employment, Vancouver, Canada, University of British Columbia Press450 Marsha Ritzdorf Acker, J., Barry, K., Essveld, J. (1983), “Objectivity and Truth: Problems in Doing Feminist Research”, Women’s Studies International Forum, 6, 423-435. Beauregard, R.A. (1990), “Raising the Questions: The Meeting of Feminist Theory and Planning Theory”, unpublished memorandum. Forsyth, A. (1990), Correspondence and conversations with the author. Forester, J. (1990), Correspondence and conversations with the author. Hess, B.B., Ferree, M.M. (1987), Analyzing Gender: Handbook of Social Science Research, Newbury Park, CA, Sage. Jones, K.B. (1988), “Citizenship in a Women Friendly Polity”, Signs, 15, 781-812 Leavitt, J. (1986), “Feminist Advocacy Planning in the 1980s”, Strategic Perspectives in Planning Practice, in Barty Checkoway, ed., Lexington, MA, Lexington Books. Okin, $.M. (1979), Women in Western Political Thought, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press. Cited in Barbara Nelson “Women and Knowledge in Political Science: Texts, Histories and Epistemologies”, Women and Politics, 9, 1-25, Sandercock, L., Forsyth, A. (1990), “Gender: A New Agenda for Planning Theory”, Working Paper 521, Institute of Urban and Regional Development, Berkeley, University of California Tannen, D. (1990), You Just Don't Understand: Men and Women in Conversation, New York, NY, Williams Morrow. Wekerle, G., et al. (1980), New Spaces for Women, Boulder, Westview Press.Readings in Planning Theory Edited by Scott Campbell and Susan S. Fainstein PR BLACKWELL 2 easeSelection and editorial matter copyright © Scott Campbell and Susan Fainstein 1996 First published 1996 [ee Blackwell Publishers Inc. 238 Main Street Cambridge, Massachusetts 02142, USA Blackwell Publishers Ltd 108 Cowley Road Oxford OX4 JF UK All rights reserved. Except for the quotation of short passages for the purposes of criticism and review, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher. Except in the United States of America, this book is sold subject to the condition that it shall not, by way of trade or otherwise, be lent, resold, hired out, or other- wise circulated without the publisher's prior consent in any form of binding or cover other than that in which it is published and without a similar condition including this condition being imposed on the subsequent purchaser. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Readings in planning theory/edited by Scott Cambell and Susan S. Fainstein p. cm, Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 1-55786~612-0. — ISBN 1-55786-613-9 (pbk.) 1. City planning. 1. Campbell, Scott, 1958- . Il. Fainstein, Susan S. HT165.5.R43 1996 307.1'216'0973—de20 95-36047 cP British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A CIP catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Typeset in Meridien Printed in Great Britain by T.J. Press, Padstow, Cornwall This book is printed on acid-free paper