Power and participation are conceptualized in different ways. Rocha highlights that the source of power are “other” and “self”. “Other” refers to connections that one enjoys with other individuals and institutions. “Self” is related to personality. Rocha explains the different degrees of power through participation. The concept of “ladder of empowerment” ranges from individual to community participation. The first stage is “atomistic individual” which refers to an individual as a solitary unit; then “embedded individual” which sees an individual in larger structures; the next is “mediated” which talks about mediating relationships between experts and clients; then “socio-political” which politicizes the link between individuals and communities; followed by “political” which refers to public policy. These participation stages in an empowerment process are examined based on four dimensions: locus, process, goals, and power experience.
Social learning is a very important concept to tackle social inequalities. Collins sees social learning as a new policy paradigm. The model used to conceptualize participation as power is the Arnstein’s ladder. The first two degrees of “non-participation” are manipulation and therapy; followed by “degrees of tokenism” like informing, consultation, and placation; and then another “degree of citizen power” like delegation of power and citizen control. These stages of participation correspond to changes in degrees of citizen engagement. In this context, citizens try to move up the ladder but organizations and institutions tend to limit their ascent to the top. To address this issue, social learning, which claims that “learning occurs through some kind of collective engagement with others”, becomes a relevant concept to address inequalities since it allows learning from routine, the context, and breaking habits. The characters of social learning are interdependence, complexity, uncertainty, and controversy. The objective is to create a platform where all the parties involved can agree what the problem is ahead of the analysis and will not change during the analysis. This is an important concerted action to normalize practice, market, and to raise awareness. This concerted action shapes a large picture of an environmental problem and uses accumulated knowledge to address a specific issue in a policymaking process. Social learning also allows convergence of goals, criteria, and knowledge; establish a process of co-creation of knowledge; and change behaviors and actions resulting from understanding something through action.
Deliberative planning helps facilitate participation and address power inequalities. Umemoto points out that deliberative planning promotes a fair and an equal hearing for diverse voices in public affairs by acknowledging pluralism to understand “deep conflicts” and the relations between meanings attached to identity. The conditions and rules for deliberative planning are: no exclusion of any party affected, equal possibility to represent and criticize ideas, willingness and ability to empathize, neutralize existing power differences, open explanation of goals and intentions, and unlimited time. These conditions and rules are important to develop a reflective and transformative capacity among participants leading them to new planning discourses and new ways of understanding. Planners should consider this mediation model in order to create conducive conditions for consensus in a multicultural milieu. These conditions are collective awareness and acknowledgement of constraints and opportunities, deliberating on deliberation, mitigating constraints, and alternative strategies. In the context of deliberative planning through power and participation, Rocha claims that planners should structure the institutional shape of local communities; fund disbursement processes; read between the lines of proposals to gain clear understandings of where a particular organization or program fits; shape the magnitude of local agencies empowerment efforts; contribute to the programmatic structure of the local helping network; unpack assumptions about who should be empowered in what manner and how; and motivate local organizations. Forester, in turn, suggests that planners should reframe problems to help stakeholders identify key issues and study them together and only later attempt to negotiate agreement; reframe acknowledgement of mutual vulnerability and defining common challenges; move from an initial problem-solving focus to a shared agreement -- this reframing shifts attention from individual interests to shared needs and vulnerabilities --, focus stakeholders’ attention on substantive issues and priorities that the group together need to address -- this process is known as “moving toward joint education” --; listening for more than words by analyzing underlying interests and helping stakeholders to learn about each other’s underlying concerns; articulate less clearly whishes, needs, aspirations, concerns, obligations, and fear by listening to the reasons justifying those solutions; help parties to respond to one another’s concerns and to craft workable arguments leading to mutual gain by creating a less adversarial mode of conversation; and harness the energy of acrimony since mediation does not erase difference of worldview values, or identity. The objective of this to satisfy real interests, meet needs, and diminish suffering by considering collaboration and mediated participation as practical strategies that explore innovative proposal to achieve community planning goals.
Deliberative planning presents some limitation in addressing power inequalities. Umemoto states that this difficulty is caused by growing social, cultural, political, and economic inequalities; the absence of reciprocal willingness to engage in social exchange; and “the power of better arguments” holding sway over dominant interests but this is a subjective concept and therefore full of uncertainties. Another limitation refers to the socio-cultural challenge which creates norms of deliberation and an epistemological authority. And another concerning a political-structural challenge which deals with conceptions of citizenship -- like who has a right to be a citizen --, conformist institutional culture -- based on the force of the better argument --, an universal versus group-specific reforms, and unequal degrees of institutional and social capital. Davidson also highlights other limitations of deliberative planning. The author argues that it causes delays in the system, the real power is retained by planning officers and council members, and a waste of resources as the response is all too often apathetic. However, public involvement is still important and the author suggests an innovative approach known as “wheel of participation”, which means to promote a positive and responsive approach. It uses opinion meters, softwares like Priority Search, modeling techniques, focus groups, networking, and workshops. These instruments help promote the appropriate level of community involvement to achieve clear objectives and to foster participatory democracy planning by involving key stakeholders, applying innovative techniques, promoting discussion at inquiries, and involving schools in developing awareness and participation.
Collins, K. "Dare we jump off Arnstein's ladder?", 2006
Rocha, E. "A ladder of Empowerment", 1997
Davidson, S. "Spinning the wheel of empowerment", 1998
Forester, J. "making Participation Work When Interests Conflict", 2006
Umemoto, K. "Deliberative planning in a multicultural milieu", 2009
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário