요약(패치힐리의 협력적 계획이론 제2장 공간변화와 환경계획에 대한 제도론적 접근방법)

문서 내 토픽

1. 도전(The challenge)

지방환경에서 일어나는 여러 갈등을 매체를 통해서 알고 있다. 지방환경갈등은 물질적인 이익 혹은 도로 혼잡의 관점뿐만 아니라 우리의 생활방식, 우리가 나아가야 하는 방향에 대해서도 영향을 끼치고 있다. 이렇게 환경을 둔 갈등양상은 과거 영국에서 계급, 대기업과 일반시민 사이의 거대한 투쟁으로 일어났었으나 현재는 구조적인 투쟁들이 명확하게 나타나지 않고 있다. 오늘날에 일어나는 환경갈등은 다양한 이해관계 속에서 일어난다.
2. 구조(structure)와 과학(science)

신제도주의는 관계론적 관점에 기초한다. 이 이론은 사람들이 사회생활을 하면서 능동적, 상호작용적, 물질적인 요소들을 형성하게 되고, 이 속에서 다양한 종류의 제약에 둘러싸여 있는 사람들에게 초점을 두고 있다. 마르크스는 노동자들이 자신이 처한 지위를 깨닫고 자본주의적 착취를 뒤집기를 원했다. 그러나 1970년대 서구사회는 과학의 객관성에 대해 신뢰를 의심했으며, 철학과 과학사회학에 대한 연구를 통해서 과학이 사회적으로 생산되고 있었다.
3. 모더니티와 포스트모던으로의 방향 전환

제도론적 접근방법은 사람들이 합리적이고 계산적이며 개인이 자율적으로 행동한다는 것에 이의를 제기한다. 모더니티 기획은 호용의 극대화를 추구하는 개인과 객관적인 합리주의, 경쟁적, 계층적 조직 모형으로 우리의 사고를 지배했다. 포스트모더니즘적 개인주의는 공유된 공간과 관련하여 공존을 관리하는데 심각한 문제점이 있다.
4. 모더니티의 변형: 기든스(Giddens)와 하버마스(Habermas)

기든스는 우리가 존재하고 있다는 것을 사유할 만큼 우리가 고립되어 있거나 자율적이지 않다고 주장했다. 하버마스는 경제적 질서와 정치적 질서에 대한 구조를 확인하기 위해 추상적 체계 개념을 이용했다. 하버마스는 우리가 결합시키는 도구적-기술적 추론, 도덕적 추론, 감성적-심미적 추론이 존재한다고 주장했다.
5. 문화적 맥락에서의 추론

과학과 도구적 이성의 활용을 문화적 맥락에서 이해를 하면서 다른 사람의 추론방식에 대해서 인정하는 것이 중요하다. 공동체에서는 문화적 지지대상과 전제조건에 대해서 깊이있게 이해하는 것이 필요하다. 따라서 서로 다른 문화 사이에 대화하는 방법을 발견하는 것이 중요하다.
6. 제도론적 접근방법(An institutionalist approach)

제도론적 사회이론은 우리 생활의 사회적 관계의 흐름을 통해서 우리가 정체성을 만들어내고 다른 사람들과의 관계를 쌓아가는 방법을 강조한다. 제도적 능력은 관계적 연결망의 축적에 대한 종합적인 질과 연결된다. 공간 및 환경계획은 관계형성과 담론, 사회적 자본을 구체화할 수 있는 잠재적 가능성을 가지고 있다.
7. 문화적 착근성(Cultural embeddedness)

제도론적 접근방법이 주장한 것과 같이 문화적 차이를 극복하기 위해서는 차이에 대한 문화적 차원의 잠재적 가능성을 인식해야 하며, 능동적으로 새로운 문화를 형성하고 공유된 의미체계를 구축해서 하나의 문화를 새롭게 만드는 것이다.
8. 공간계획과 복합 문화적 합의형성

계획분야에서 광범위한 이해가 필요한 것은 기술적인 과정이 아니라 사회적 맥락에서 수행되는 상호작용적 과정이다. 우리는 정책실행에 있어서 잠재적 개별 참여자를 공론의 장으로 끌어들이고, 다른 관계망 및 다른 문화에서 살아온 사람들의 요구나 주장의 다양성을 이해하는 과정이 필요하다.
9. 규범적 관점

제도론적 접근방법은 사람들이 자신의 행동과 사고방식을 변화시키고, 어떻게 이를 수행해야 하는지를 강조하고 있다. 그러나 이러한 과정을 통해서 나온 산출물들이 무엇인지는 확인하기가 어렵다. 따라서 목적이 효율적이고, 효과적으로 달성된다는 규범적 기준이 정책개발 과정에서 조절될 필요가 있다.

Easy AI와 토픽 톺아보기

1. structure and science

The relationship between structure and science is a complex and multifaceted one, with important implications for how we understand and shape the world around us. On one hand, the scientific method provides a powerful framework for uncovering the underlying principles and mechanisms that govern the natural and social world. Through rigorous observation, experimentation, and analysis, science has the potential to reveal fundamental truths about the structure of reality. At the same time, the structures and institutions that shape the practice of science itself can have a profound impact on the direction and focus of scientific inquiry. Funding priorities, academic incentives, and prevailing ideological biases can all influence what questions get asked, what methods get used, and what findings get prioritized. This raises important questions about the objectivity and impartiality of science, and the need to constantly scrutinize and challenge the structures that shape its development. Ultimately, I believe that a productive and mutually reinforcing relationship between structure and science is essential for advancing human knowledge and addressing the complex challenges we face. This requires a commitment to interdisciplinary collaboration, critical self-reflection, and a willingness to question and reshape the structures that govern the scientific enterprise. Only then can we harness the full transformative power of science in service of a more just, equitable, and sustainable future.
2. Modernity's transformations: Giddens and Habermas

The work of Anthony Giddens and Jürgen Habermas offers important insights into the transformations of modernity and the challenges we face in navigating this complex and rapidly changing landscape. Giddens' concept of 'reflexive modernization' highlights the ways in which modernity has become increasingly self-aware and self-critical, with individuals and institutions constantly reflecting on and reshaping the social, political, and economic structures that govern our lives. This has led to a greater awareness of the unintended consequences and risks associated with modernization, and a need for more adaptive and responsive forms of governance and decision-making. Habermas, on the other hand, emphasizes the importance of communicative action and the public sphere in mediating the tensions and contradictions of modernity. He argues that the colonization of the lifeworld by the instrumental rationality of the state and the market has undermined the democratic potential of modern societies, and that the revitalization of the public sphere is essential for reclaiming this potential. Both Giddens and Habermas offer valuable perspectives on the challenges and opportunities presented by the transformations of modernity. Their work underscores the need for a more reflexive, dialogic, and participatory approach to social, political, and economic change – one that recognizes the complexity of the modern condition and the importance of inclusive, deliberative processes for navigating it. Ultimately, I believe that engaging with the insights of Giddens, Habermas, and other critical theorists can help us develop more nuanced and effective strategies for addressing the pressing issues of our time – from climate change and social inequality to the erosion of democratic norms and institutions. By embracing the complexity and dynamism of modernity, and by cultivating the communicative and reflexive capacities of individuals and institutions, we can work towards a more just, sustainable, and emancipatory future.
3. An institutionalist approach

An institutionalist approach to understanding social, political, and economic phenomena offers valuable insights into the ways in which formal and informal institutions shape and constrain human behavior and decision-making. At its core, the institutionalist perspective recognizes that individuals and organizations do not operate in a vacuum, but are embedded within complex webs of rules, norms, and organizational structures that profoundly influence their actions and outcomes. These institutions – whether they be legal frameworks, bureaucratic systems, cultural traditions, or professional networks – can enable and empower certain actors while marginalizing or constraining others. By focusing on the role of institutions, the institutionalist approach encourages us to look beyond simplistic, individualistic explanations of social and economic outcomes, and to instead consider the ways in which broader structural and systemic factors shape the choices and behaviors of actors. This can shed light on the root causes of persistent social problems, the barriers to meaningful change, and the potential levers for transformative action. At the same time, the institutionalist perspective also recognizes the dynamic and evolving nature of institutions themselves. Institutions are not static, but are constantly being shaped and reshaped through the actions and interactions of individuals and organizations. This opens up the possibility for strategic interventions and institutional reforms that can help to create more equitable, sustainable, and democratic forms of governance and social organization. Ultimately, I believe that an institutionalist approach offers a valuable complement to other theoretical frameworks in the social sciences, helping us to develop a more nuanced and contextual understanding of the complex social, political, and economic realities we face. By focusing on the role of institutions, we can better identify the structural barriers to progress and the opportunities for transformative change.
4. Spatial planning and complex cultural consensus-building

The intersection of spatial planning and complex cultural consensus-building is a critical area of inquiry, with important implications for how we design and govern our built environments. On one hand, spatial planning is a fundamentally technical and rational endeavor, involving the application of various analytical tools, design principles, and policy frameworks to shape the physical and infrastructural landscapes of our communities. However, this technical process is always embedded within a broader cultural context, shaped by the values, norms, and power dynamics that characterize the communities and stakeholders involved. Effective spatial planning, therefore, requires a deep understanding of the complex cultural dynamics at play, and a commitment to inclusive, participatory, and consensus-building processes that can help to reconcile the diverse and often competing interests of different social groups. This means engaging with a wide range of stakeholders, from community members and local organizations to policymakers and industry representatives, and working to build shared visions and collaborative solutions. At the same time, the process of complex cultural consensus-building is itself a challenging and multifaceted undertaking. It requires a willingness to acknowledge and engage with the inherent tensions and power imbalances that characterize many cultural contexts, and to develop innovative strategies for navigating these complexities in ways that are equitable, inclusive, and sustainable. Ultimately, I believe that the integration of spatial planning and complex cultural consensus-building represents a critical frontier in the pursuit of more just, livable, and resilient communities. By embracing the cultural dimensions of spatial planning, and by developing more inclusive and collaborative approaches to decision-making, we can work to create built environments that better reflect the diverse needs, values, and aspirations of the communities they serve.