Supporting mindful planners in a mindless system: limitations to the emotional turn in planning practice

Abstract

Despite widespread acknowledgment within planning scholarship that emotion-both present in knowledge and a form of knowledge-is integral to lived experience and the judgement of planners, it is often sidelined within planning practice. The extent to which mainstream planning has been able or willing to accommodate emotions remains constrained and the emotions of planners and the public remain an unacknowledged but pervasive presence. Antonio Ferreira recently highlighted in this journal the importance of attending to emotions at the level of the individual planner through the concept of mindfulness. We argue this approach must be complemented by an acknowledgement of the structural and institutional limitations of including emotions in planning practice. Drawing from the emotional geographies literature to describe a social-spatial conceptualisation of emotion, we highlight ontological and practical tensions associated with the achievement of the 'emotional turn' and advance a more purposeful engagement with emotion in mainstream planning practice.

It's the Lungfish, stupid: knowledge fights, activism, and the science–policy interface

“…More inclusive forms of public engagement may prove effective at accessing other ways of knowing; for instance, many scholars have emphasised the value of storytelling‐based processes (Sandercock, ; Throgmorton, ; van Hulst, ). However, there remain structural constraints affecting the ability of particular individuals and groups to use data gained from such processes to clearly and openly influence decision‐making (Osborne and Grant‐Smith, ; van Hulst, ). Planners, policy‐makers and politicians still tend to fall back on arguments grounded in (or that appear to be grounded in) positivist scientific data to the exclusion (or invisibility) of other kinds of data.…”

“…The scientific method undoubtedly has a critical role in decision‐making, and it is not the purpose of this work to argue otherwise. Rather, we contend that rational policy‐making and decision‐making processes give a primacy to positivist forms of knowledge to the exclusion of other ways of knowing and suggest that this prioritisation can detract from achieving more sustainable and equitable outcomes (Osborne and Grant‐Smith, ). As such, community members and activists are required to adopt a certain discourse in order to be heard, and may have to shift the avowed basis for their objections from those grounded in ways of knowing other than those grounded in positivist scientific knowledge.…”

Hear the Rime of the Fellow Mariner? A Letter to the Next Generation of Emphatic Co-Creators in Planning

“…As we know from the field of organizational studies, emotions play a central role in influencing individual cognition and behaviour (Brief & Weiss, 2002;Huy, 1999Huy, , 2012, as well as the associated formation of social identity and group mood (Adams & Anantatmula, 2010). Without deeper understanding of these dynamic emotions embedded in social networks (Chen & Huang, 2007), hand in hand with an appraisal of the structural limitations facing the planning institutions where those feeling planners are embedded (Osborne & Grant-Smith, 2015), a strategic transition in planning will be very hard to accomplish. If we fail to understand these important aspects of organizational (un)learning, institutional transformation will overlook organizational governance approaches for dynamic and interactive change (Ansell & Trondal, 2018).…”

Emotional Dimensions in Integrated Care for People with Multiple Complex Problems

“…Less attention is paid to the social, emotional and affective dimensions of integrated care. As in planning processes in general, these may even be considered irrational and irrelevant (see Osborne and Grant-Smith 2015). Emotional and other relational dynamics are present in particular when implementing integrated care, because ultimate implementation takes place at grass-root level in interaction between human beings.…”

“…As a phenomenon, emotions can be approached from a variety of perspectives. Traditionally emotions have been considered to be individual and internal phenomena (Osborne and Grant-Smith 2015). Psychodynamics emphasize the nonconscious nature of emotions at individual level; systems psychodynamics (developed by the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations) link nonconsciouos dynamics with organizational structures and see that routines and practices can serve as a social defence to manage the emotions of organizational members (Pratt and Crosina 2016).…”