Conclusion
The thrust of this chapter questions high-modernist schemes characterized by the hubris of planners who viewed themselves as near-omniscient. These planners, driven by the desire to improve societal conditions, often failed to recognize the complexities of human nature and the unpredictable nature of future events. The chapter emphasizes that such visions of order, backed by systematic and uniform planning, often led to unintended harmful consequences despite intentions for societal betterment.
Key Criticisms of High-Modernist Planning:
- Overestimation of Knowledge: Planners operated under the misconception that they could predict and control all outcomes.
- Underestimation of Subjects: Societies impacted by these plans were often seen as less competent, obscuring the actual potential of individuals and communities.
Planning Failures and Adaptations:
The chapter illustrates that planning oversights commonly disregarded the unpredictable elements like natural disasters and human responses, which crucially shaped outcomes. It advocates for approaches that are more responsive to uncertainties:
- Embrace small steps: To avoid large-scale negative impacts, plans should involve gradual steps and constant reassessments.
- Ensure reversibility: Plans should be designed so that actions can be undone if they fail to deliver or lead to undesirable outcomes.
- Expect the unexpected: Flexibility should be embedded in planning to accommodate unforeseen circumstances.
- Empower human inventiveness: Recognizing and incorporating the capacity of people to innovate and adapt is crucial for the success of any scheme.
The Abstract Citizen and Standardization:
High-modernist planners often designed their strategies around an abstract idea of the citizen, which negated individual identities and needs, reducing societal elements to uniform metrics that could be easily managed but lacked personal relevance.
Resilience Through Mētis:
Building from historical examples like the Vietnam Memorial which allows individual interpretations and the dynamic adjustments at collectivized farms, the text argues for a system that respects and incorporates mētis, or practical local knowledge. The importance of mētis-friendly institutions is stressed, suggesting that systems should encourage adaptability, diversity, and the personal input of those involved, ensuring environments where human skills and creativity can thrive.
Implications for Broader Systems:
- Natural Systems: Diversity in ecological contexts tends to offer more stability and resilience, pointing to the limitations of overly simplified agricultural and ecological management.
- Human Institutions: Like natural ecosystems, human institutions benefit from flexibility that can respond to changing conditions. The survival and efficacy of diverse and adaptive systems often outperform rigid, centrally-planned structures.
Final Reflections:
The chapter calls for a reevaluation of large-scale planning and the acknowledgment of the intrinsic value in localized, adaptable practices that honor the complexity of both natural and human systems. It advocates for a fundamental respect for the detailed, often chaotic realities of life that high-modernist visions have traditionally overlooked. This approach not only avoids the damages of over-simplified, authoritarian planning but also enriches the potential for human agency and ecological sustainability.