DOWN UNDER

Vänner, som jag nämnde i veckan så har jag jobbat på en uppgift i min kurs Diversity and Cultural Planning. Det har varit svårt att få ner den till 1000 ord när det finns så extremt mycket att skriva om inom ämnet, i slutändan är det ju innehållet som räknas och uppsatsen hamnade på 1152 ord, vilket var alldeles okej för min lärare. Pjuh. 

Jag tänkte dela med mig av innehållet, då jag själv finner ämnet väldigt intressant och rätt i tid. So enjoy folks!

Are indigenous issues of relevance to planners?
Planning decisions have both positive and negative consequences for how individuals and societies use and feel about the environments, which they interact with daily (Thompson, 2007a). By asking the question if indigenous issues are of relevance to planners I will present three perspectives that I have come to call; by law, by theory and by heart. By law indigenous people have the right to participate, it is written and carved into a system. By theory modernist approaches of planning fail to deal with the new multicultural landscapes and need to develop new theories of planning who are more sensitive to cultural differences. By heart planners need to put on different glasses while planning, they cannot plan for peoples needs if they do not have an understanding of cultural diversity.

By law

By law indigenous people have the right to participate. In 2006 the General Assembly of the United Nations legalized the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It aims to highlight the rights of indigenous people - to preserve and strengthen their culture, traditions, and institutions plus improve their requirements and objectives (United Nations 2006b). In view of planning it says for example in article 32 that “indigenous people have the right to determine and develop priorities and strategies for the development or use of their lands or territories and other resources” (United Nations 2006a). In the light of article 32 and the entire Declaration it is crucial that planners understand how to recognize and take indigenous peoples voices into account in planning processes. In reality, planning practisers, have a hard time doing that - they do not keep up with policies regarding indigenous issues, and there is a lack of trained planners in this field (PIA 2010, 3).

By theory

By theory modernist approaches of planning fail to deal with the new multicultural landscapes and need to develop new theories of planning that are more sensitive to cultural differences. Planners need to acknowledge ways of knowing the world, which move beyond technical considerations.As a western planner, who are trained to value abstract and theoretical approaches in planning, with their mind set doing it as concise and concrete as possible (Sandercock, 2004), it will be challenging to meet people who are accustomed with other ways of planning practices. But a planner cannot shut one’s eyes anymore, instead, planners must be able to put different glasses on while planning, meaning that they need to see the cultural diversity within planning processes - there is not only one solution that fits all. Planners must recognize the important role of how indigenous law, knowledge and traditions play in indigenous life. As Haeley (1997) arguments that the basic of planning practice must be collaborative and consensus building. Further Sandercock (1998) says, “If planning does not respond to different ways of being in the world it will become a increasingly irrelevant to contemporary society.” Just planning enable indigenous people to address their oppression.

Some failures from a Western planning perspective are found in several literatures. For example Sandercock (2004) reports that NGOs, planners, and development workers often base their work on a top-down model. A top-down model can fit projects where the outcomes of different areas are quite the same (JMDI n.a). Instead planners need to practice a more bottom-up oriented approach as the projects affects individuals and societies daily life. A bottom-up method improves different learning strategies and solutions to meet individuals where they are (JMDI n.a). Further a bottom-up approach is a social-planning process, the core of contemporary planning. Planning from a social-planning perspective means that planners understand people’s social and cultural needs and can adapt them as fairly as achievable (Thompson, 2007b). By doing this way, indigenous people would be involved in the whole process, from consultation, to participation and negotiation. Summa sumarum planners need to capture a more holistic view on planning.

By heart

By heart planners need to put on different glasses while planning. By not planning for all peoples need, in today’s apparent multicultural world, is to live in rejection, in cultural blindness. Todays planners must become better educated, properly trained and skilled considering indigenous issues in planning. Planners cannot plan for all people within the society unless they do not have an understanding of cultural diversity. As Sandercock (2000) arguments “Planners need to learn about culture: what it is and what shapes and maintains it, how and why it changes, and how one’s own culture affects one’s ability to understand that of others.” Sandercocks argument states a lot in how planners need to deal with ethnical dilemmas, because it is actually when every person in the planning process examine one self’s own perceptions, values and prejudices within their work, we come down to the real core of planning. A planner who has a bad attitude will not plan for everyone’s best, they must not necessarily change their opinions but definitely their attitudes to what is best for the whole community, while planning. To concretize this, planners need to develop a cultural competence, which are build on honest relationships, based on trust, mutual respect and a genuine willingness to listen to what other people have to say. This can increase the ability to understand what matters for indigenous people (Sandercock 2004, 123). As Cozens (2013) once said, difference and diversity enriches us all.

Conclusion: 
All people are different and we all have different understandings of ways of life. By presenting these three perspectives, I wanted to tell that they all are linked together in planning processes, and that indigenous issues are of relevance to planners. Everything starts by heart, and how people tend to look at things, for example the Declaration is a western invention created by people who cared and maybe people who changed their mind about indigenous issues. Without by heart, people caring, the world would not have reached a decision about the Declaration - so we can state that we came to an important stage developing it. But according to my opinion, as a planner, just referring and pointing at legal commitments of why indigenous people should be involved, would be to optimistic in making it work. I mean, if we look around in the world, we have people suffering daily even if there are numerous Declarations and Conventions implemented to make it better. It is all coming down to what kind of attitude planners has to the Declarations and Conventions, and how planners take it into account in their work, that would make the legal commitments function or not, once again by heart. It is the same while talking about theories, where planning theory demand to look beyond the planning document itself.

To produce meaningful outcomes in the future planners need to consider new technologies of planning, welcome participation and empowerment of indigenous people in all steps of planning, and incorporate new ways of knowing and listening within changing attitudes. Planners need to be able to balance academic rigor and respect indigenous perspectives.

References

Journals

Healey, Patsy. 1997. ”Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies.” London: Macmillan.

Low Choy Darryl, Jenny Wadsworth and Darren Burn. 2010. “Seeing the landscape through new eyes”, published in Australian Planner, 47:3, 178-190. Routledge.

Sandercock, Leonie. 1998. “Towards Cosmopolis: planning for multicultural cities.” London: John Wiley.

Sandercock, Leonie. 2000. “When strangers become neighbours”. Routledge, 1:1, 13-30.

Sandercock, Leonie. 2004. “Commentary: indigenous planning and the burden of colonialism.” London: Routledge.

Thompson, Susan. 2007a. “What is planning?”, published in Australian Planner, 22. New York: Routledge.

Thompson, Susan. 2007b. “Planning for Diverse Communities”, published in Australian Planner, 199-214. New York: Routledge.

Wensing, Ed. 2007. “Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians”, published in Australian Planner, 225-234. New York: Routledge.

Web pages

Joint Migration and Development Initiative (JMDI). n.d. Migration for Development: an bottom-up approach.http://www.globalmigrationgroup.org/uploads/UNCT_Corner/theme7/jmdi_august_2011_handbook_migration_for_development.pdf

Planning Institute of Australia (PIA). 2009. Reconciliation Action Plan 2008 - 2011. http://www.planning.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=551&Itemid=487

Planning Institute of Australia (PIA). 2010. Improving Planners’ Understanding of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians and Recommendations for Reforming Planning Education Curricula.http://www.planning.org.au/documents/item/2381 

United Nations. 2006a. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People. http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/en/declaration.html

United Nations. 2006b. FAQ Indigenous Declaration. http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/FAQsindigenousdeclaration.pdf

Lecture notes

Paul Cozens. 2013. Becoming a culturally inclusive planner. (06-08-2013).

 

Vad har ni själva för åsikter i frågan?

xx