The Darker Side of Local Communities: Is this the Real World of Planning?

The term ‘community’ is synonymous with the very essence of planning. Planners work with and for communities, whether that is through the traditional institutional arenas of representative local democracy or in more direct advocacy or community development roles. Currently, it is hardly possible to pick up a government report about planning, wherever you happen to be in the world, that does not mention the word ‘community’. Similarly, a content analysis of academic papers would highlight the same widespread use of the term. An important feature of this emphasis is that communities should not simply be regarded as collections of individuals who have things done to them. Effective planning is as much about planning with communities as it is about planning for communities, hence the emphasis on community (or public) involvement and participation. Community participation, depending on the perspective of the advocate, may be viewed as complementing the role of local politicians and planners or alternatively challenging what may be perceived as their combined insensitivity to the needs of diverse and marginalized communities. It is intriguing that local communities in the abstract tend to be regarded as benign sources of creative and progressive potential while the manifestations of representative democracy they collectively produce are regularly condemned for their cumbersome and even oppressive practices. However, regardless of whether focus is on the formal arena of local government or the apparently less formalized environment of community development initiatives, what is the nature of the community contexts in which planners work? What does the ‘real world’ look like? Communities provide the context and the backdrop for planning. Their environments and lives simultaneously influence and are shaped by the actions of planners. But what is the nature of communities? Certainly the tenor of government documents and much of the academic literature, which makes reference to communities, is suggestive of a force for good and of untapped creative energy. However, it is vital if this positive potential is to be harnessed and released that the real world of local communities is understood, rather than basing policy and theory on an overly romanticized notion of ‘community’. The aim of this issue of Interface therefore is to explore the darker side of local communities through the voices of two practitioners who have had lengthy experience of working with marginalized and disadvantaged communities. However, the purpose is not to be negative. Rather it is to suggest that, only through understanding of the complexities and tensions inherent to local communities, can effective and progressive planning be achieved. A sense of idealism is crucial to planners but it should not be combined with naivety about the contexts in which planners find themselves. This raises several questions. How far does the culture of a community influence what is possible and how should planners respond to the challenges and tensions? Similarly, how do communities, and more particularly their representatives, seek to control, manipulate or even corrupt Planning Theory & Practice, Vol. 6, No. 4, 517–541, December 2005