Week 41/1
Diversity can be defined as the coexistence of several specific socioeconomic,
socio-demographic, ethnic, and cultural groups within a certain spatial entity, such as a city
or a neighborhood.
‘Hyper-diversity refers to an intense diversification of the population, not only in
socio-economic, socio-demographic and ethnic terms but also concerning lifestyles, attitudes
and activities’
Acknowledgement in the planning process that population groups, are different by criteria of
age, gender, class, dis/ability, ethnicity, sexual differences, culture and religion.
Planning must think diversity > thinking diversity can contribute to create more inclusive or
more exclusive cities.
Which groups:
1) Inter-group difference: in terms of class and material conditions, ethnicity, age,
gender, etc.
2) 2. State-citizen society differences: how public authorities manage their relationship
with their consumers/citizens differently according to the groups. It is related to how
different groups are governed.
‘Local laws and regulations are framed for the majority of the community. If the minority
doesn’t fit in, then bad luck’
Norms and values of the dominant culture are also expressed in the attitude, behaviour, and
practices of the planners.
How can you reach a consensus when differences are so deep?
According to Watson, reaching a consensus in a context of deep difference is problematic •
‘Deep difference’ confronts planners with the fact that there is no unique interest • Interests
are multiple, and consensus is not considered the best way to represent this multiplicity (see
also Davidoff) • According to Watson, diversity is a challenge for reaching a real consensus
because of the potential conflicts regarding values.
A diversity policy (since the1990s) > distancing from the national government discourse
(migrant policy)
“The power of a diverse city” (memorandum, 1999): the concept of diversity has been
introduced in policies.
Rejection of dichotomies between immigrants and natives > these are replaced by the notion
of the Amsterdammer, who has a multifaceted identity.
New terminologies: Immigrants are called ‘newcomers’; ‘new residents of Amsterdam’
(nieuwe Amsterdammers)
Amsterdam considers itself a Hyper-diverse city (including ethnicity, gender, age, and sexual
orientation.
,A ‘good’ citizen is considered who is seen as possessing so-called “urban citizenship
competences” (grootstedelijke burgerschapscompetenties)
“Urban citizenship competences”:
Identification with the city and ‘the other’,
responsiveness (taking responsibility for your statements and acts),
tolerance (Amsterdam, 2012).
Objectives of the urban diversity policy
1) To increase the common ground of people with different backgrounds
2) To promote the ability of Amsterdammers to participate and to take responsibility for
themselves and their surroundings
3) To make sure that less people feel unsafe as a result of the behavior and attitude of
others
4) To improve the cooperation between citizens and the government
5) To improve urban citizenship competencies (Amsterdam, 2012)
How? Instruments/Channels/Planning processes
1) Participation: shift from a top-down to a more cooperative approach. Participation is
encouraged in different areas (E.g. Education, employment, health, etc.)
2) Public and private partnerships: the municipality aims to involve civil society
organizations and the private sector (e.g. housing associations)
3) Civil society initiatives: distribution of subsidies to citizens and organizations that
develop initiatives within the aims of the citizenship and diversity policy.
Critiques
1) This approach on diversity (an ‘Urban Citizenship’ approach) has been criticized for
depolicizing the question of migrant incorporation, and to hide existing inequalities
and segregation that are still very marked by ethnic origin (cf. Wilson, 2015).
2) Is there space for political organizations beyond the principles defined by the
municipality?
Week 41/2
,Ways of knowing
1) Knowledge is gained through talking (about feelings, the personal)
2) Knowledge is gained through listening
3) Knowing is also tacit or intuitive
4) Artistic creations are also forms of knowing
Critique
1) Assuming 9–5 jobbers are male and all care-givers female
2) Difficult balancing act between “making gender explicit” and “stereotyping” (→
reinforces, reproduces structural gender inequalities)
3) Need to acknowledge the diversity among women (and men) integrating additional
discriminatory factors (intersectionality)
Important
1) Feminist planning critique rooted in the experience of difference btw men and women
(in using urban spaces)
2) Shift towards gender-sensitive planning (where gender is understood in
nonessentialist, intersectional terms)
, 3) Feminist perspectives make us critically reflect on/problematize the binaries that
have underpinned (modern) planning –> Male/female, public/private,
objective/subjective, theory/practice
4) Challenges:
a) tension between short-term action and long-term, transformative strategies
b) keeping planning practices 'radically open', sensitive to multiple axes of
difference
c) asks a lot from planners: reflexivity, self-consciousness, political awareness...
"By way of closing, we turn to some final thoughts on what a feminist planning practice would
look like. One such vision, going beyond a simple awareness of gender bias, beyond a
'women and ... 'perspective, has been offered by Susan Fainstein (1992). A planning
practice from a feminist perspective would be one 'that starts with concepts of communal
relations and incommensurable values, that substitutes the development of consensus for
adversarial approaches, that protects the weak and recognizes the importance of sentiment.'
There is much work to be done
A Gender Agenda: New Directions for Planning Theory. Sandercoc & Forsyth.
Since 1970 more focus on gender and planning practice but not planning theory. Feminist
planning has much to contribute in 5 area’s: communication, spatial & economic & social
relationships, ethics, epistemology and the nature of the public domain.
Leavitt: woman faces problems and it can no longer be ignored. But the connection between
knowledge and practice is rare in regards to gender etc.
Different planning theory approaches: planning practice, political planning and metatheory.
1) planning practice: involve analysis of actions and behavior of planners.
2) political planning: examine the nature and meaning of urban planning in capitalist
society. Disinterest in planning practice.
3) metatheory: generic planning. Planning as rational human activity.
Spatial, economic and social relationships
Mid-twentieth-century: differentiated gender roles: womens often go to work, but then have
to pay for daycare. When daycare is unavailable they cannot work so lost in wages.
Feminist theory says that other theories the work of womans in households ignored. So
feminist came with new theories that described the work of the woman in households. When
those new theories are made to understand the context of planning it fits into the political
planning approach to planning theory. When it generates strategies to change it fits into the
planning practice approach. Examples are:
1) Hayden: What would a nonsexist city be like?
2) Hayden: Redesigning the American dream?
Both have the focus on more than one activity. She describes different women with their
different needs.
