Home / Summaries / Planning theory / communicative-action-lifeworld

Huxley, Margo. 2000. The Limits to Communicative Planning (transactive). Journal of Planning Education and Research: 369–377

Q: How does the text (Huxley) critique the role of planners as 'counselors or critical friends'?

The text questions whether planners, in their role as 'counselors or critical friends,' might actually be part of a system's colonization of the lifeworld and the co-optation of social movements rather than facilitating genuine transformation.

9 important questions on Huxley, Margo. 2000. The Limits to Communicative Planning (transactive). Journal of Planning Education and Research: 369–377

What is the focus of Habermas's concept of politics, and how does it relate to communicative action?

Habermas's concept of politics emphasizes non-violence, where speech acts are the primary form of social interaction. It is preoccupied with the public and nonviolent strength of the better argument. Fundamental to this concept is the possibility of consensus inherent in speech itself.

How does Habermas connect communicative action to the lifeworld, and what threats does he identify?

Habermas links communicative action to the lifeworld, which is the world of everyday life outside the system, formal economy, and state. He sees it as free from the media of money and power. The system is identified as a source of systematically distorted communications and a constant threat to colonize the lifeworld.

What does Habermas call for in relation to the public sphere, and what is the objective of this transformation?

Habermas calls for a transformation of the public sphere to overcome confusion about the 'public' and 'private.' The objective is for members of the public to discover or create a common good through deliberation, although formal decisions about the public good are not made.

What challenges does Habermas's concept of communicative action face in relation to self-knowledge and reflexivity?

Achieving complete self-knowledge, reflexivity, clarity, and transparency to oneself and others is problematic. Constant self-questioning may lead to practical paralysis rather than promoting communicative rationality and active participation in communal life.

How does the author (Huxley) critique Habermas's failure to engage with specific oppressions, and what implications does this have for communicative action?

The author criticizes Habermas's failure to address gender, race, and sexual identity oppressions that occur in the "non-public/non-system" realm. This renders the potential for communicative action problematic and precarious, as it doesn't fully account for these real oppressions.

What limits to communicative planning are highlighted in the text (Huxley)?

Communicative planning faces limits related to communicative rationality, consensus, persuasion, and power. While planners can work to overcome distorted communications, questions arise about planners as a vanguard imposing their knowledge on others.

How does the text (Huxley) critique the role of planners as "counselors or critical friends"?

The text questions whether planners, in their role as "counselors or critical friends," might actually be part of a system's colonization of the lifeworld and the co-optation of social movements rather than facilitating genuine transformation.

According to Fraser (1990), what interconnection is needed in the public sphere, and why is it important?

Fraser argues that there needs to be an interconnection between opinion-formation and decisions in the public sphere, preferably through elected parliaments rather than state-employed bureaucrats. This interconnection is important to ensure democratic processes.

What potential role do planners play in participatory practices, and how is it critiqued?

Planners' role in participatory practices could be interpreted as part of the system's colonization of the lifeworld and the co-optation of social movements. This role is critiqued as potentially reinforcing existing power structures.

The question on the page originate from the summary of the following study material:

Planning theory

View summary

A unique study and practice tool
Never study anything twice again
Get the grades you hope for
100% sure, 100% understanding

Remember faster, study better. Scientifically proven.

Huxley, Margo. 2000. The Limits to Communicative Planning (transactive). Journal of Planning Education and Research: 369–377

9 important questions on Huxley, Margo. 2000. The Limits to Communicative Planning (transactive). Journal of Planning Education and Research: 369–377

What is the focus of Habermas's concept of politics, and how does it relate to communicative action?

How does Habermas connect communicative action to the lifeworld, and what threats does he identify?

What does Habermas call for in relation to the public sphere, and what is the objective of this transformation?

What challenges does Habermas's concept of communicative action face in relation to self-knowledge and reflexivity?

How does the author (Huxley) critique Habermas's failure to engage with specific oppressions, and what implications does this have for communicative action?

What limits to communicative planning are highlighted in the text (Huxley)?

How does the text (Huxley) critique the role of planners as "counselors or critical friends"?

According to Fraser (1990), what interconnection is needed in the public sphere, and why is it important?

What potential role do planners play in participatory practices, and how is it critiqued?

Summaries related to Why do planning theory? - John Friedmann

Planning theory

Global politics

Essentials of international relations

Behavioral genetics

Management and organisational behaviour

Follow Up Engels idioom 4/5 H

International Business

Marketing fundamentals

Projectmanagement, A practical Approach-Engl…

Basic Management Accounting for the Hospital…

International business

Organization theory and design