the rational-comprehensive approach

x

Rational-comprehensive planning - whether so-named or not - has been (and is?) the central core/mainstay/pillar of planning.  Such centrality lies, at least in part, within the common understanding of planning as discipline and profession, in particular, as(because) it emerges within the context of the western-scientific (modernist) cultural paradigm where rationality and comprehensiveness reign supreme.  What happens if we let go of this ideal of rational comprehensiveness?  Does this mean advocating an ideal of irrational narrowness?  Or is there something else - a synthesis rather than an antithesis, in dialectic thinking?  Letting go or rational comprehensiveness is something even I, in my advocacy of serendipitous planning and rhizomatic thinking and my critique of dominating power/knowledge, find a challenge to comprehend.  Surely when planning, being rational and being comprehensive are desirable qualities - the reason for arguing for something else is because these are impossible ideals, necessitating a way to achieve/deal with/arrive at the most reasonable alternative.  Surely it is about recognizing the resistance of reality, not about actually taking a-rational a-comprehensiveness as the ideal.  Yet the latter is exactly what I am talking about.  I am proposing that the notion of rational and comprehensive as ideals is a social construction that is/should be contested; that it may carry no more weight than alternatives.  The notion reflects the modernist tradition, which erupted as a contrast to the dominant religious god-knows-all-and-we-know-god paradigm; it arose as a means for disrupting, secularising and broadening power/knowledge.  I propose - and by no means am alone in doing so, in fact, am doing so by grasping at understanding and ideas crafted by others - that it may again be time for such disrupting, secularising and broadening of power/knowledge. 

[R2]  Being rational is only an ideal within a particular paradigm - one that prioritizes and legitimizes particular types of power/knowledge.  Is being reasonable an alternative - a synthesis to the a-rational antithesis?  One that might encompass, defend and legitimize broader, more inclusive variations of power/knowledge?  Or is reasonable too similar to rational, still smacking of linear logic (is this a bad thing?), a dominant knowledge, prioritizable values...? 

[R3]   Being comprehensive [what does this actually mean?] is also only an ideal within a particular paradigm.    

[R4]  

x

x

Rational-comprehensive planning - whether so-named or not - has been (and is?) the central core/mainstay of planning.  The basic procedure is outlined as a step-wise process whereby relevant information is gathered, alternatives considered, and directions chosen.  In being (or at least striving to be) both 'rational' and 'comprehensive' the approach is impeachable.  Admittedly, the number and description of steps varies (although only slightly) and the basic model has received modifications and improvements over the years.  The latter have primarily recognized the need to make the process more continuously iterative, by including evaluation throughout and at the end of the process in order to provide the opportunity for learning.

[T2]  This points to what I see as one of the subtle and powerful influences of this approach, however. Campbell and Fainstein’s (1996: 261) introducing a section on planning theory suggest that “It is useful to begin with comprehensive planning and then see the four other approaches as responses to comprehensiveness.” This seems to be a common habit – to describe ‘other’ approaches as just that, alternatives. Does rational comprehensive planning – through its continued description (even as antithesis) – continue to be viewed as the ideal despite valid critiques against it? Is this appropriate? What plays of power/knowledge are hidden behind such descriptions? ...... 

[T3]  

x

x

Rational-comprehensive planning - whether so-named or not - has been (and is?) the central core/mainstay of planning.  This theory or model is characterized by a standard rational decision-making process: (1) define the problem, (2) determine possible solutions, (3) forecast outcomes from the solutions, (4) evaluate the alternatives according to chosen criteria, and (5) choose the best solution. The rise of this approach is consistent with the rise of (bureaucratic) planning and is still pervasive as such - although the basic model hasbeen modified, primarily to represent it as a more continuously iterative process.

[E2]    

[E3]  

x

x

Rational-comprehensive planning - whether so-named or not - has been (and is?) the central core/mainstay of planning.  ... 

[M1]  

[M2]  

[M3]