The Master’s Tools:  Subversive Planning in the Self-Help Revolution

Author: Marlena Hanlon June 1, 2016 6 Comments

Nobody can give you freedom.
Nobody can give you equality or justice or anything.
If you’re a [hu]man, you take it.
-Malcolm X

Introduction

There is no planning that is separate from the essential function to make the human experience better: this inherently requires equity and justice.  There are many divergent beliefs in how “better” may be achieved:  an imposition of hyper-ordered space; the embrace of a frenetic choreography; ensured access to public transportation; a desire to house the indigent; a call to all voices with rights to the city.  But these are not separate goals, only varied tactics.  Therefore, ultimately the mechanisms of planning and goals of social justice are conflated, if not fully congruent:  social justice is not only the most important aspect of planning, it is its raison d’etre.  However, in an environment where the heady, Libertarian notion of entrepreneurial governance masks a dystopian process of dismantling the commons, planning as a municipal-scaled mechanism to effect social justice is dead before it ever arrived.  I assert that in current conditions, in order to serve her intrinsic function, Planner must become both subversive and revolutionary, using the tools of planning to support a self-help insurgency which frees citizens from complete dependency on a neoliberal controlled State.

Reflecting on Social Justice in Practice

It is aptly asserted that planning has always embedded and aspired to the tenets of social justice, from Engels’ horrified recoil from urban conditions (Engels, 1845) to the Settlement House Movement; from Modernism’s attempted use of order to inoculate against misery to the Houser Movement.  Even with the acceptance of tactics we now find misaligned, such as racial deed restrictions, it may be well-argued that there was a belief – or rationalization – that such separation practices led to social harmony.  And this professional social justice predicate have existed without a reflective stance:  it always required an appraisal of conditions, contrasted with a desire, and a recognition of the disparity.

But as Thomas points out, with the exception of some sporadic publications and conference discussion before and during the 1950s, social justice did not become an explicit topic in planning until the 1960s, following Civil Rights and contemporary civil insurgency.  And it wasn’t until the 1970s that the language of equity became codified in planning, through inclusion in guiding documents (2012).  Likewise, some personal accounts with self-reflection were seen earlier, but it was not until the 1980s that planner memoirs commonly began to reveal both the bureaucratic and internal experience of planning actors, replete with varying levels of personal self-assessment in the planning role (Fischler, 2012).

Although notable contributors such as Sandercock, Young and Fainstein have continued to embellish on social justice imperatives and reflective practice in contemporary literature, Krumholz’s work remains a quintessential fusion of self-reflection, social consciousness, and professional practice into a manifesto of planning for social justice.  In his short article, A Retrospective Look at Equity Planning, he provides a concise account of the underpinning equity framework and Cleveland case studies in which it was applied – with mixed outcomes, but with an intentional justice focus (1982).  What appeared to be only the beginning of radical planning, planners as advocates, and the like in the context of municipal-scaled planning, however, now seems likely to have been its heyday.

Splintered

The Western crisis of the urban is multi-variate:  polynucleation as a process of increasing ground rent in urban cores; diversion of infrastructure investment to the hinterlands; the rise of certain technologies, like the automobile and the internet; the fall of industrialization; racism; media sensationalism; Starbucks.  However, what was not anticipated in the social justice optimism of the 1970s was that the many social factors would eventually be filtered through a neoliberal lens which would dominate sociopolitical and economic ideology, literally and figuratively restructuring relationships within the Public.  (I use the term “Public” to refer to a composite of the State – at local, regional or national levels – its citizenry as a whole, and the discrete communities within the citizenry.) Today, even the most basic premise of the State’s governance role to fund and provide integrated public utilities and basic infrastructure – through the mechanism of planning and in service to the citizenry – has been altered by a neoliberal hijacking.

As Graham and Marvin elaborate, the Keynesian ideal of a vertically integrated public infrastructure has yielded to “entrepreneurial governance.”  This form of governance uses pervasive public-private partnerships to financialize infrastructure on a project basis.  The process unbundles integrated systems, such as public utilities, and splinters them into discrete components which are financed by global, mobile capital.  This creates infrastructure which is globally interlinked by capital and partially removed from local State control – and consequently from public accountability or recourse (2001).  The process has not fully evolved, and so the State’s control at present is still only partially hindered in what Torrance calls “glocal governance,” (p. 5) or the contractual relationship between private, non-local investors and local regulators.  However, as Torrance makes clear with the Ontario toll-road case study, the local State will eventually have to cede governance which is responsive to public political pressure if it wishes to continue financialization of projects:  otherwise, the risk that a local government will renege on a contract in order to satisfy its citizenry will deter mobile capital investment (2008).

This basic restructuring of the social contract exemplifies that planning has shifted from an overarching municipal or regional scaled strategy to project work which is dependent on mobile capital which is divorced from place in its source, interest, and obligation.  This type of ad hoc capital infusion and project management has already been a hallmark of international development, with generally disastrous results for sustainable local governance.  An international investment group specializing in toll roads has no inherent interest in providing a local water utility, and to whatever extent financialization of infrastructure takes place, it does so in accord with maximizing return and minimizing risk.  This trends toward creating premium infrastructure networks for the affluent who can afford access, while abandoning crumbling public infrastructure which serves those who cannot.  Mobile, global capital does not have to adopt a goal of promoting public good with equitable resources, and its selective investment can only amplify existing urban disparities (Graham & Marvin, 2001).

In this context, then, the current literature on social justice in planning seems moot.  Miraftab’s (2016) insurgent planning requires some form of public space as an actor, and while humans have shown a resilience and resistance in reclaiming power through space in all types of ways (Roy, 2016; Roy, 2011), it is unclear how that results in true change and inclusion if the capital-State response is a gated compound with eyes averted from the public spaces abandoned by those who control capital (Caldeira, 1996).  Eyes on the street have now been replaced with camera lenses, indifferent to a citizenry once rooted, but now trapped in place.  It is also less convincing that applying political pressure with public spectacle will continue to hold sway or influence, especially as the courts are increasingly constrained to matters of international contract law between a controlling private party which has no public accountability, and a State party which has no effective governance authority (Miratrab, 2016; Graham & Marvin, 2001; Torrance, 2008).

Bootstrapping Revolution

Power in defense of freedom is greater than power in behalf of tyranny and oppression, because power, real power, comes from our conviction which produces action, uncompromising action.
– Malcolm X

I echo critiques of various “self-help” schemes particularly prevalent in development – whether microfinance, “entrepreneurialism,” savings groups, or housing – as an abdication of government’s obligation to create a national strategy, economic or otherwise, that provides sustainable opportunities and coherent public policy for its citizenry (Kamani, 2007; Ward, 2012).  I do not advocate for self-help in conventional Libertarian terms which deny either the existence or importance of structuralism in social problems – social justice paramount among them.  Instead, I advocate for self-help as an anarchist-framed response to the increasing failure of the State to protect its citizenry from the ravages of unchecked capitalism:  an implementation of a collaborative, non-hierarchal, reciprocal reclaimation of power and the commons.  A response which rejects the inherent, assumed power relationship when petitioning the State for reform, and instead assumes the power to co-create an alternative.  With deference to co-option critiques of Burgess and others (Ward, 2012), I do not say that planners or activists and citizens of all vocations should abandon other paths of resistance, but only that for social justice, now, planners must use their tools to enable the public directly, without mediation of either the State or the market.  This is somewhat ironic to propose, given that Ward posits that self-help was initially a reaction against planning: following a highly critiqued policy of slum clearances, planning underwent a self-conscious existential crisis and the community organized to give it a try, instead (2012).

But as Ward states, self-help tactics are the true “bottom-up approach to city building” that reflect protest and “political awareness of the poor” (p. 283), forming “crucibles of social learning and political mobilization” (p. 290).  Therefore, self-help is seeded with social justice at its root.  As already noted, these tactics are readily seen and accepted as practice in “developing” countries, but they are as applicable in the US.  This is particularly true because while the approach is “usually associated with crises in capitalism” (p. 286), we find our current government less “hard-pressed” (p. 286) than distracted by an economic strategy of courting global capital – unless one argues that this is a form of a capitalist crisis.  Self-help is a “rational response to poverty,” (p. 290), and a reasonable, empowered reaction to failures of both government and the market.

Ward’s (2012) article deals specifically with the issue of housing, and there is no question that housing is a pivotal social justice issue which is languishing under the current neoliberal governance regime.  In Detroit, Michigan, for example, there has been ongoing, significant displacement of either low-income homeowners or renters due to a policy of tax seizures.  This might make some kind of “market” sense if the houses were subsequently sold so that tax arrears could be paid and a new tax base captured.  Instead, most of the forfeited stock was left vacant after seizure, or already abandoned, deteriorating until mass demolition campaigns became the next logical step.  Thus, Detroit accelerated population attrition and created a domino effect which more permanently eroded the potential tax base by razing taxable structures and exiling lifelong residents.  Here is where Planner intervention could have – and still can – take place.  By appropriating vacant housing for low-income renters or homeless citizens, planners could aid the transition of fallow structures into habitable homes.  In part, planners could work with micro community groups on a block by block basis to create a micro plan, identifying which houses have the greatest return potential.  When scrapping was at its peak, a much greater use and exchange value would have been gained by the financially destitute if materials extracted for scrapping had been instead salvaged for repair and renovation of self-housing – a direct deconstruction/reconstruction process. Planners could support this type of constructive recycling by co-creating a systematic, mapped approach.

Issues of food security and urban food deserts are always a component of social justice.  There is currently a significant community-driven movement in Detroit to leverage empty lots for urban agriculture.  Planners can involve themselves in this pro-social movement by consulting with communities, using planning tools to help them develop strategic plans for their microlocality; identify and map parcels; create linkage plans; and design lots.  Planners might also assume the role of liaison, mediating issues and translating exclusive jargon around land use and zoning, creating community land assemblages with the municipality, and establishing land trusts.

In both housing and lot appropriation, neither community nor planners are wholly independent from the State or the market.  However, the direct action creates a social security buffer, first by providing housing and second by providing food security, both of which reduce dependence on capricious welfare systems, shifting public policy and employment upheavals.  More, as we have seen from other self-help case studies, these undertakings can be converted to sanctioned spaces under the right conditions.  Part of these conditions involve identifying areas unlikely to be targeted for certain kinds of future development and ensuring that the process achieves an outcome at least as sufficient as other State alternatives.  Planners, with their inside knowledge of criteria and tactics, can assist communities in preemptive planning, design and execution.  But what is fundamentally different about this notion from the current situation of planners working for municipalities, and in turn working with communities to effect possibly the same goals, is that I intend the process to be unmediated by the State.  The State is an unavoidable actor, but direct self-help actions do not wait for State response, initiation, approval, or aid.  Instead, the community dis- and re-mantles its own public infrastructure for the purposes it has determined meet its needs.

An opportunity for more independent action and results lies in applying “green” approaches to infrastructure problems.  For example, water is a potential infrastructure crisis in situations like the pervasive water shut-offs in Detroit, or the public health failure in Flint.  In both cases, arming all dwellings with potable water cisterns provides a significant buffer against the impact of capital-State actions.  By ensuring that families routinely have up to 3,000 gallons of potable water at any one time, systemic contamination (eg, lead) can be avoided, and even with only average rainfall, there is sufficient water available for basic needs.  By further augmenting households with greywater retrofits and composting toilets, overall water and sewage use is reduced; given that water and sewer utilities in Detroit, specifically, comprise a significant portion of household expenses, this reduction translates not only into reduced institutional dependency, but also into capital gains for households.  There is also a green cascade effect, in that loads on the sewer infrastructure are reduced, and basic earthworks to support water harvesting can remediate flooding and water flow problems on individuals’ properties and public streets.  Planners have ample opportunity to be useful here, working with residents to calculate watershed, mapping current water flow on the terrain, and designing earthworks.

The examples of other tactics, like weatherization which radically reduces dependence on and the expense of heating, or using salvaged materials to create public play and respite spaces, abound.  Yet I am mindful that Ward (2012) cites observations that self-help is not capital-less:  it avoids a utopian vision of being completely outside the market.  To an extent, these examples do not escape capital inputs, either.  However, these are low-tech, low-energy implementations which can be cost-minimal and high-yield if approached strategically – and this is where Planner’s tools translate and apply.  The capital of self-help lies mostly in agency and social networks, rather than access to cash or conventional credit.  In addition to lowering dependence on capital-State controlled infrastructure and immediately conserving capital through reduced operating costs, these areas of self-help also have the potential to create alternative side economies through trade of labor or surplus production.

Conclusion

In the current urban climate, the ideal of State-led infrastructure planning and provision as a means to achieve social equity is on the verge of collapse, or has already collapsed.  Beyond the immediate devastation of post-industrial economies, cities continue to struggle with how to achieve sustainable economies that can maintain public infrastructure and ameliorate unabated poverty.  The State has veered toward a neoliberal dictate of competing with other municipalities for mobile capital, and increasingly finances its own operations through effectively privatizing public services and assets.  As a result, publicly-accountable governance has been compromised, with chilling consequences for equity and social justice:  as disparities rise precipitously, citizens have fewer options to effectively engage the State for change, because the State’s authority is being subsumed by capital with no obligation to support the public good.  With the shift of the capital-State’s gaze and gradual abdication of its governance role, however, lies an opportunity for citizens to take direct action.  Planners who collaborate in service of these self-help initiatives, providing and applying professional tools and knowledge for the subversion of the system which no longer represents any but the privileged, will continue to place social justice principles at the forefront of their practice.

References

Caldeira, T.  (1996).  Fortified enclaves: The new urban segregation.  Public Culture, 8(2), 303-328.

Engels, F.  (1845).  The great towns.  R. LeGates, & F. Stout (Eds.), The City Reader (46-54).  New York:  Routledge.

Fischler, R.  (2012).  Reflective practice.  B. Sanyal, L. Vale, & C. Rosan (Eds.), Planning Ideas that Matter (480-498).  Cambridge:  The MIT Press.

Graham, S., & Marvin, S.  (2001).  Splintering Urbanism.  New York:  Routledge.

Kamani, A.  (2007).  Microfinance misses its mark.  Stanford Social Innovation Review.  Retrieved from http://ssir.org/articles/entry/microfinance_misses_its_mark

Krumholtz, N.  (1982).  A retrospective look at equity planning, 1969-79.  Journal of the American Planning Association, 48(2), 163-74.

Miraftab, F.  (2016).  Insurgent planning:  Situating radical planning in the Global South.  S. Fainstein (Ed.), Readings in Planning Theory (480-498).  Oxford:  Wiley Blackwell.

Roy, A.  (2011).  Slumdog cities:  Rethinking subaltern urbanism.  International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 35(2), 223-238.

Roy, A.  (2016).  Urban informality.  S. Fainstein (Ed.), Readings in Planning Theory (524-539).  Oxford:  Wiley Blackwell.

Thomas, J.  (2012).  Social justice as responsible practice.  B. Sanyal, L. Vale, & C. Rosan (Eds.), Planning Ideas that Matter (359-387).  Cambridge:  The MIT Press.

Torrance, M.  (2008).  Forging glocal governance?  Urban infrastructure as networked financial products.  International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 32(1), 1-21.

Ward, P.  (2012).  Self-help housing ideas and practice in the Americas.  B. Sanyal, L. Vale, & C. Rosan (Eds.), Planning Ideas that Matter (283-310).  Cambridge:  The MIT Press.