planning civil society: putting value on the arts through cultural planning

This article was downloaded by: [Northeastern University]On: 20 November 2014, At: 15:10Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Loisir et Société / Society and LeisurePublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rles20

Planning Civil Society: Putting Value on the Artsthrough Cultural PlanningZiggy Rivkin-Fisha

a Princeton UniversityPublished online: 02 Jul 2013.

To cite this article: Ziggy Rivkin-Fish (2004) Planning Civil Society: Putting Value on the Arts through Cultural Planning, Loisiret Société / Society and Leisure, 27:2, 381-395, DOI: 10.1080/07053436.2004.10707655

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07053436.2004.10707655

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rles20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/07053436.2004.10707655

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07053436.2004.10707655

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Planning Civil Society: Putting Value on the Arts

through Cultural Planning

Ziggy Rivkin-FishPrinceton University

What kind of value do actors assign the arts? What kind of criteria do they use? And what kinds of contexts produce some assignments rather than others? In this paper1, I examine community cultural planning as a type of public, pragmatic activity to explore these questions.

Laurent Thévenot, in “L’action en plan” (1995), argues that planning as a social activity is an especially rewarding resource for uncovering the criteria of valuation and the logics of practice that actors use because planning forces partici-pants to articulate criteria explicitly that otherwise would remain in the background, and because the need for coordinated action forces participants to utilize criteria that are more or less knowledgeable to others. Public planning pushes such criteria even further into the intersubjective arena because participants need to articulate their goals in ways that are not only defensible or accountable to other participants but also to a larger public audience to whom they need to document the represent-ability, accountability and rationality of their actions (thereby legitimating the process). But participants do much more than just battle out criteria of valuation in the planning process. To establish the rationality of their actions, they rely on recognized and legitimate strategies of practical procedures. The strategies implic-itly or explicitly answer questions such as: How does one establish needs? Who should determine and fulfill such needs? How does one go about defending such procedures of defining and fulfilling needs as fair? And how does one go about articulating the recommendations for action that such established needs call for? I will argue that there are at least four such pragmatic strategies, which I call plan-ning styles. Each planning style involves a different source of authority, as each pragmatic action has to be defended on the basis of speaking on behalf of someone. Each one also constructs a different mode of rationality, involving different types of claims to accountable and reasonable practices, partially as a function of having

Loisir et société / Society and LeisureVolume 27, numéro 2, automne 2004, p. 381-395 • © Presses de l’Université du Québec

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

10 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

382 Ziggy Rivkin-Fish

different sources of authority. Finally, as practices that are authorized by reference to benefiting some kind of public good, these planning styles also constitute civic practices or discourses.

So what does all this have to do with community cultural planning? Commu-nity cultural planning – more than any other type of planning or policymaking for the arts – forces participants to articulate valuations in reference to a public good, namely, some type of imagined community. For the sake of this study, a community cultural plan will be defined as any plan whose sponsoring agency designated it as such on a questionnaire. It is a written document which, at a minimum, refers to a process of discovery in which an agenda for the arts and culture in an entire community is outlined in the form of objectives. All these documents studied here refer to themselves as “plans.” But the degree of planning varies considerably, from abstract goal recommendations to elaborate practical steps with designated imple-mentation responsibilities and detailed budget forecasts. A typical plan – whether sponsored by a private arts council or a city, county, other agencies or combination of these – includes a title, date, list of sponsors, consultants, a description of a plan-ning process and the list of planning objectives derived from that process. Such objectives can include any or all of a broad range of designations such as goals, objectives, recommendations, strategies or action steps. In addition, plans include the names of a steering committee and sometimes also the planning board members and task forces. (Some even include an entire list of every single person who was involved in planning decisions or was interviewed.)

Most plans are documentation of legitimate process and status addressed to actors on whom the plan will depend for implementation, future funding or general goodwill for the sponsoring agency. This means they have to establish their authority as representing the needs of the community planned for. Hence a legitimate process of discovery of community needs is usually referred to, often in some depth. Moreover, the publicness of such process is often established and the names of steering committee members are included with some reference to their representability of the entire community. In whatever form they claim represent-ability, and however they establish legitimacy of process, the needs they establish are usually linked to the final plan objectives. This is what allows me to treat the planning documents’ language as documentation of the legitimization of a planning process, and the plan recommendations as the outcomes of that process, as well as examine the legitimacy of such outcomes. It is also a documentation of assignment of worth, in the sense of articulating a public value on the arts.

I argue here that the community cultural planning2 process follows four different planning style models. Of course in reality most plans use a combination of planning styles, but I hope to show that even when reality is more messy, these categories allow us to understand the priorities and consequences of using particular planning styles in creating arts policy. Specifically, I will show that each style is

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

10 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

383Planning Civil Society: Putting Value on the Arts through Cultural Planning

associated with different understandings about how planning should be accom-plished, who should be involved in planning decisions or be the targets of needs assessments, and what types of conceptions of the arts and culture derive from the planning process. In other words, how arts and its value are constructed3.

The Four Planning Styles

In this section, I will briefly go over the four different planning styles4 and outline some of the major characteristics of each style. Tables 1 and 2 present more specifics on each planning style.

The technocratic style is characterized by an emphasis on expert knowledge as the most legitimate way to accomplish public goods. The source of authority for the technocratic style is the claim to benefit and represent a larger common good based on equitable, efficient criteria. The aim here is to find the most effective way to accomplish given goals; it is the most outcome-oriented of the different planning styles. The technocratic style is opposed to a bureaucratic mode in the sense that it is much less rule-bound and less concerned about equity in process. Instead, the focus on outcomes and expert-based decisions yields a very flexible, pragmatic attitude to means, which are subject to change if desired outcomes are not achieved. It is also the least constituent-based of the different planning styles, for it sees the entire public as its “constituency”. This is where words such as public and client (and sometimes, consumer) are likely to be used. This style often solicits as broad input as possible in terms of needs assessment, but is the narrowest in terms of inclusion into the planning process as it restricts decision-makers to experts or officials.

In the process of community cultural planning, political realities often diminish the exclusive focus on expert knowledge. However, plans that fall in this category rely heavily on economic and demographic data, arts service orga-nizations, artists, external consultants and academic advisers5. In addition, since there is no pre-made societal consensus regarding what a “need” is in the cultural sphere, these plans often solicit needs from citizens through surveys, especially marketing-type surveys.

The stakeholder or interest-group style considers any solution legitimate which satisfactorily balances the needs and desires of recognized stakeholders. The source of authority for stakeholder participants derives from representing a constituency, and the implied logic of public good is therefore one which balances the claims of each stakeholder. This is where we would expect listings of organi-zational affiliation of planning board members, but not professional titles. In this approach, active participation by recognized stakeholders is solicited. The point is not necessarily consensus, but fair compromise around distribution of resources. Needs assessment is directly tied to stakeholders so this approach is least likely

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

10 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014


to incorporate extensive citizen participation or input. In the community cultural planning process, this planning style relies more heavily on interviews with and/or active participation of stakeholders. Cultural inventories will likely be drawn from existing mailing lists of arts agencies or funders, and planning becomes largely an “internal” affair of those who have most at stake in the arts, whether professionally or emotionally. Specific outcomes tend to be less important than a fair distribution of resources and recognition of stakeholders, so this approach does not lend itself well to re-evaluations and follow-ups that are outcome-based. It does, however, guarantee commitment on the part of participants.

Communicative planning involves heavy citizen participation, in order to articulate problems as well as solutions. This typically involves active solicitation of such citizen participation. Typically, town hall meetings and other types of discussion-intensive forums are utilized with participation of both stakeholders and regular citizens. These same actors are also involved in the planning phase through task forces or committees. Ideas and needs may also be solicited through surveys or interviews that allow citizens to contribute, especially open-ended questions. Public hearings are then also utilized towards the final phases of the planning process. Since communication, inclusion, and expression of public will is what matters, demographic analyses or other more “hard” evidence are rarely used. One caveat: In the U.S., the construction of authority as centered in the individual’s self-expression often gets a consumerist bent. Here, self-expression is equated with consumption, not necessarily talk. In this version, market analysis is used to ensure that a variety of tastes are satisfied. This version substitutes dialogue-intensive forums with broadly inclusive surveys and focus groups with regular citizens, and makes its legitimating logic awfully close to the technocratic style.

In the participatory communicative style the focus is on realizing a public good through a broadly inclusive process with emphasis on participation and indi-vidual expression. This communicative style centres on the expressive individual, who is the ultimate authority of authentic needs. A collective construction of public good therefore centres on representing the broadest possible range of desires of individuals. More than in any other style, the process of individual expression in-and-of-itself is as much an end as is the final result. Here we expect planning participants to have neither organizational affiliation, nor titles to be listed. The aim in this planning style is to draw in as many participants as possible, allow them as much input as possible, and collectively arrive at decisions that are reflective of the range of needs in a community as a whole6.

Finally, in the advocative planning style the logic governing legitimate planning centres around redress of perceived imbalances. Here authority derives from representing those who are perceived to have no voice. In some ways, this planning style resembles the stakeholder approach in the sense that what is being sought is “a seat at the table” and a fair share of resources for those who have

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

10 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014


been previously excluded. In other ways, this style resembles the communicative one in the sense that it appeals to discussion and a re-imagining of the status quo through a broadening of participation. In community cultural planning, this is a style that will invariably be combined with at least one of the other styles, and is likely to refer to words such as underserved, marginalized and inequity as related to funding or access.

Table 1

Planning Style Features – Process

Technocratic style

Stakeholder/Interest-based style

Communicative style Advocacy style

Planner role Expert Negotiator Mediator/ Facilitator

Advocate/

Criteria for optimal planning solution

Efficiency Compromise, pragmatism

Consensus or maximal inclusiveness

Redress of excluded groups

Planning target Community (planning for)

Special interests (recognized, powerful)/ (planning with)

Community (planning with)

Special interests (unrecognized, weak) / (planning for)

Features of planning solution

Objective, knowledge-based

Negotiated “contracts” of give-and-take

Legitimate, dialogue-based

Redress of advocated group

Process features Analytical, calculating, professional excellence

Pragmatic balancing and management of different interests

Free, open, and inclusive deliberation

Argumentative support and empowerment

To illustrate the value of using the planning style typology, I examine the plan of one community in northeastern Ohio and draw a few contrasts to other plans as I go along. The analysis, while sketchy, shows some of the factors that determine why planning actors choose a particular style, and the effects these decisions have on the actual plan recommendations adopted towards arts and culture, that is, what kind of construction of art and its value are embedded in these recommendations.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

10 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014


Table 2

Planning Style Features – Legitimation/Justification

Technocratic style

Stakeholder/Interest-based style

Communicative style

Advocacy style

Argumentative support of planning solution

Serves all in most efficient way

Satisfies needs of recognized constituents

Serves all in most inclusive and participatory way

Serves and satisfies needs of advocated

Evidence of legitimate planning

Charts, data, calculations of different planning solutions to prove the superior efficiency of chosen one (feasibility plans, cost-benefit analyses, impact studies).

Outlines and testimonials of needs of different constituent groups and how the planning solution addresses the needs of all in a balanced way.

Evidence of broad-based participation, inclusiveness in planning process, emphases on open forums and hearings. Fair process.

Outline and testimonial of needs of the advocated and making a case for its previous excludedness, how the planning solution redresses those needs.

Examples of procedures for data collection in community cultural planning

Surveys of constituent needs (artists, arts organizations, citizens). Arts facility inventories. Organizational budgets by size.

Cultural inventory using existing mailing lists or agency or arts directories. Interviews and focus groups with major “players” (representative groups) and political and business leaders.

Public hearings, forums, town hall meetings, community surveys, as broadly inclusive as possible. Demographic profile of community.

Interviews with community arts groups, minorities, underserved. Cultural inventory with emphasis on social or community groups with cultural component. Funding and organizational budget patterns by ethnicity.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

10 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014


A Case Study: The Northeast Ohio plan

Northeast Ohio’s Arts & Culture Plan (2000) is interesting in that it is both broadly participatory and technocratic in style. Unlike almost any other communities I have encountered in analyzing some 60 plans, this plan was almost exclusively funded by private foundations, including some businesses. The planning process was initiated by two foundations and a Cleveland cultural alliance, which then brought major community leaders to the planning table. Since it was civic founda-tions that pushed the process, the emphasis was on strong research and expertise combined with broad participation. Civic foundations in the U.S., in general, occupy an interesting position, bridging an ideology of democratic reform and citizen participation with an emphasis on technical expertise and expert mediation7. The planning process chosen, in effect, comprised a blending of the two: community dialogues were held in each of the different counties making up the planning region, and ordinary citizens were encouraged to join the advisory committee. The steering committee, however, was made up of major community leaders who sifted through the community dialogue reports as well as several major research studies commissioned by the committee. The research studies were conducted by nationally recognized firms which had specific expertise in each area: audiences and potential arts markets; organizational finances and potential funding sources; the region’s cultural facilities. Technocratic markers, such as the inclusion of titles and affili-ation of all planning leaders and facilitators, and the inclusion – with these same markers – of external professionals who assisted with planning are emphasized, but so are communicative markers in the form of randomly included quotes from “community dialogues” (which, of course, are unattributed).

The language in the planning document also reflects the dual value system: References to phrases such as research, statistics and qualitative and quantita-tive analysis are blended with words such as dialogue, civic, access, citizens and participation. Tellingly, despite the inclusion of an economic impact study, there is only a single reference to economic growth, and that is in the context of identifying potential private sector funding for the arts. Even the single sub-recommendation referring to cultural tourism does so in terms of audience outreach and access, not in terms of economic growth. References to consumers are abundant and reflect a service orientation that blends the roles of citizen with that of consumer. But consistent with a participatory communicative approach, the final product – the conceptualization of the arts as articulated in planning goals and programs – is not seen as an entertainment good, but instead as civic expression. There are references to festivals and fairs, but not to sports arenas, or even rock concerts (something one might very well find in the consumerist variant).

In terms of the particular visions of arts that get expressed, then, there are virtually no references to arts-as-an-economic-engine or arts-as-consumer-good. Instead, the focus is on arts-as-personal-growth and fulfillment, representing a

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

10 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014


particular American vision of a personalized civic experience. In fact, this is the only plan to include the phrase personal growth and one of only two to include the term personal development. This contrasts starkly, for example, with The Indianapolis Cultural Development Initiative of 2001. This was a collaborative stakeholder plan8 in which the city supplied the focus on cultural tourism and then invited stakeholders as planning partners that would enable this focus to be sustained. Besides the local arts council, the Convention & Visitor Bureau, Indianapolis Downtown, Inc. (a private business coalition) and the City-initiated Indianapolis Cultural Development Initiative were planning partners. The plan is explicitly focused on cultural tourism and refers to visitors and residents and their interests and tastes. Unlike the Ohio case, explicit analogies are made between the arts and sports events, shopping and other entertainment venues, emphasizing a vision of the arts-as-entertainment and arts-as-an-economic-engine.

In the Ohio plan, despite inclusion of ethnic-based community dialogues and even a single reference to arts-as-cultural-bridge-builder, the focus is on the arts as a form of individual rather than community expression. Even the recommenda-tion for neighbourhood festivals and fairs prominently asserts their potential to draw in new audiences and ensure convenient citizen access, while only fleetingly alluding to the possibility that such events would sustain a neighbourhood’s identity – and even here the modifier is the word local, with no mention of words such as multicultural, ethnic, heritage, minority or even diversity.

The Ohio plan contains a few references to the arts as a solver of social or community problems. The starkest contrast here is to the Las Vegas Metropolitan Area Community Cultural Plan of 1994, which is replete with references to the arts as engendering mutual understanding, the importance of ethnic-cultural heritage and multicultural diversity, and thus a broader definition of culture which includes food as well as music, dance and literature. Las Vegas adopted a stakeholder approach through a partnership between a regional private arts council, county and city governments with heavy use of focus groups, interviews with key leaders and the utilization of market analysis9. The stakeholder style is marked, for example, by the listing of planning board members which includes affiliation, but not titles – unlike Ohio. The prominence of local governments coupled with the stakeholder approach lead to an emphasis on arts-as-social-problem-solver with explicit linkages to social and human service programs. The community-based conception of the arts yields recommendations focused on local cultural centres, historic preservation, and arts in public places programs.

The technocratic-communicative planning style in Northeast Ohio is reflected in the final plan recommendations: the broad participatory aspect of the communica-tive style and the universalistic public service orientation of the technocratic style lead to recommendations such as free and subsidized cultural events, advertisements in mainstream media, better public transportation planning, and other access and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

10 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014


Initiators of planning process;Specific planning agendas

Selection of planning partners;Possible issue framing; Selection of consultants

Selection of research strategy and relevant data;Selection of informants for needs assessments;

Selection of decision-making contexts

Identification of needs;Problem framing

Linking of needs and problems with particular conceptions of the arts

Arts Policies:Formulation of arts objectives; action steps

Figure 1

From planning initiators to arts policy

Initiators of planning process;Specific planning agendas

Selection of planning partners; Possible issue framing; Selection of consultants

Selection of research strategy and relevant data;Selection of informants for needs assessments;

Selection of decision-making contexts

Identification of needs;Problem framing

Linking of needs and problems with particular conceptions of the arts

Arts Policies:Formulation of arts objectives; action steps

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

10 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014


outreach programs ensuring access for all. In addition, emphasis on education was paramount, and several recommendations deal with neighbourhood-focused arts events. These arts events – unlike the Las Vegas example – function only to make the arts accessible and facilitate individual participation, not to celebrate local neigh-bourhood identity, cross-cultural cohesion or communal quality-of-life issues.

Conclusion

The adoption of a particular planning style is of course not the only thing that shapes final recommendations and their embedded values. However, planning styles do shape policy because they determine what type of knowledge and what types of actors are legitimate and authoritative. This does not mean that planning styles determine outcome, even when tightly controlled. As Figure 1 shows, the planning process allows for intervention at many points in time, which may influ-ence the outcome. Furthermore, planning styles do not have any a priori linkage to policy values. Even planning styles such as the technocratic style which, in the U.S., is strongly associated with either a market or service conception of the arts, can be used to promote artistic values that may seem counterintuitive to the plan-ning process, such as promoting art-for-arts-sake or civic-expressive conceptions of the arts. However, the types of arguments, views and data that can be brought to the table are constrained by the process associated with each planning style.

In the case of the Northeast Ohio plan, the initial civic foundations identified a need for the arts to be strengthened. This then led the foundations to assemble a planning team made up of civic leaders, and a planning process heavily focused on professional research and community dialogue forums. The format discour-aged constituent or stakeholder-based participation, so that participants were not speaking in the name of any particular interest or group. The non-geographic and non-constituent format then led to problem framings in terms of how individual citizens could access the arts as a civic resource. This bracketed alternative concep-tions frequently found in stakeholder or government approaches, where one often sees the arts as an economic engine of downtown development, a force in social integration or as providing a positive image, marketing the community to visitors and residents alike.

This example shows how the initial actors involved in the planning process select issues and partners, and design a planning process. This process then strongly determines the kind of research and data that is collected and what types of needs for the arts are identified. These choices, in turn, frame particular conceptions of the arts as reflected in the final plan objectives and recommendations.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

10 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014


Notes

1. The research this paper draws on was supported by a dissertation grant for 2001-2002 from the Center for Arts and Cultural Policy Studies at Princeton University, and a SSRC Arts Fellowship grant for 2002-2003. This paper is part of a larger research project that examines the ways local communities in the U.S. plan for the arts. The larger research project uses coding and content analysis of published community cultural plans, as well as interviews, surveys, ethnographic research and case study analysis to address the question of how the planning process shapes what the arts become in a given community. The paper draws on preliminary content analysis of some 60 plans, and uses case study illustration to show how the adoption of specific planning styles constructs particular visions of what the arts are and what they are good for, and consequently shapes the final recommendations and goals articulated in a cultural plan. As I finish coding the material and collect the ethnographic data, I hope to show how decision-making contexts shape the boundaries of legitimate civic arts talk.

2. For the sake of this paper, a working definition of a community cultural plan would be any plan for arts and/or culture that self-consciously plans for an entire broadly recog-nized geographic community. The plans in question were drawn from an annual survey conducted by Americans for the Arts of those local arts agencies who had indicated that they “participated in community cultural planning” (Davidson, 2001). It should be noted that such planning in the U.S. is always collaborative, even in the extreme case where a single government or private arts agency undertakes the effort without other formal planning partners. All the plans had steering or advisory committees that drew on members representing the larger community, although the implicit definition of who constituted a legitimate community stakeholder and the degree of their involvement varied according to planning style.

3. A few important disclaimers: (a) I am not providing a template for successful planning. Success is in the eye of the

beholder and is a forever-shifting target. Criteria of success depend heavily on which style is adopted.

(b) I am not recommending one particular style over another. No one style is inher-ently more valuable or effective. Rather, each style responds to different optimal conditions, but is also flexible enough that it can work even under conditions that might make it more difficult to manage and ensure a legitimate process.

(c) Lastly, I make no assumptions about which style is more democratic. Instead, I assume that each style projects a different vision of democracy in the sense of planning for the public good.

4. These planning styles are inspired by Tore Sager (2001). Sager identifies four different styles: synoptic, incremental, communicative and advocacy. I have retained the idea that each style is associated with different value orientations, goals and structural contexts, but I disagree with Sager’s particular typology. The incremental style Sager discusses can take either a rationalist or a stakeholder orientation, each of which assume different values. I have therefore collapsed the rationalist incremental style and the synoptic one into “technocratic” (Heydebrand & Seron, 1990) and have disaggregated the stakeholder style into its own separate category. I have also elaborated Sager’s approach into emphasizing procedural aspects of planning and conditions of procedural legitimacy – something that is almost entirely absent in Sager’s article.

5. This is also where one would expect professional titles in the list of planning board participants to denote expert authority.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

10 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014


6. This individual-identity basis for authentic expression is at odds with Habermas’ notion of communicative action, which imagines a situation in which authority to speak derives directly from the individual’s capacity for deliberation rather than expression of desire (or taste) (Habermas, 1984, 1996). On the other hand, Habermas imagines that such an individual should speak from within a framework of a larger public good, something that becomes exceedingly difficult in the American variant where arguments about public good end up being grounded in a discourse of self-interest (see Eliasoph, 1998).

7. This goes back to at least the Progressive Era, which was largely a response to what was seen as an inept government corrupted by business and money (Hofstadter, 1955; Mattson, 1998) and a perceived sense of a deep loss of social integration. This led to several different – often competing – reform movements aimed at reintegrating the citizenry into the fabric of society, while attending to the needs of citizens: profes-sionalization, democratization, civic involvement, public education and social service programs to address all kinds of societal ills. Many charitable and civic foundations arose to fill the void. In the arts, the Carnegie Corporation in New York combined a belief in professionalism and technocratic planning with public education and arts service delivery (DiMaggio, 1988). In the U.S., foundations have often embodied a technocratic public-service orientation that in Europe is seen as the property of govern-ment policymakers. Government officials in the U.S. (local and national) – despite historic fluctuations in the use of technocratic planning – have always been vulnerable to accusations of centralization, bureaucratization, inefficiency and anti-democratic elitism.

8. It was more like a blue-ribbon panel. There was no planning board, nor any public hear-ings. Instead, the plan was developed by a small task force which relied on marketing and audience development research to articulate the recommendations and actions. In addition, interviews with key stakeholders were conducted, as well as forum planning sessions with representatives from the arts, cultural and hospitality fields, all facilitated by arts council staff. However, not even the names of the staff or the key informants were included in the plan. Only a list of names and organizational affiliations of the task force (which, except for the mayor and the arts council, were all business repre-sentatives) was included as an appendix. This was not a traditional community cultural plan since it focused on a particular issue area, one which is unproblematically seen as the province of business and government interests. There is therefore no need to lend it legitimacy as a function of broad representative participation; government and the key task force members were understood as sufficient representatives for the direct interests involved. Moreover, there was no dependency on external funding as the funding was set aside by the City as part of the plan.

9. The market analysis was conducted by AMS, which was hired as a cultural planning consulting agency for several of the plans I have studied.

Cited Plans

Mayor’s Office, City of Indianapolis. (2001). The Indianapolis cultural development initiative: Building participation through cultural tourism. Indianapolis, IN: Mayor’s Offi ce, City of Indianapolis.

Allied Arts Council of Southern Nevada. (1994). Las Vegas Metropolitan Area community cultural plan. Las Vegas, NV: Allied Arts Council.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

10 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014


The Community Partnership for Arts and Culture. (2000). Northeast Ohio’s arts & culture plan. Cleveland, OH: The Partnership.

References

Davidson, B. (2001). Local arts agency facts: Fiscal year 2000. Washington, DC: Americans for the Arts.

DiMaggio, P. J. (1988). “Progressivism and the arts.” Society 25, pp. 70-75.

Eliasoph, N. (1998). Avoiding politics: How Americans produce apathy in everyday life. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action. Vol. 1, Reason and the rational-ization of society. T. McCarthy (Trans.). Boston: Beacon Press.

Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. W. Rehg (Trans.). Cambridge: MIT Press.

Heydebrand, W. V. & Seron, C. (1990). Rationalizing justice: The political economy of federal district courts. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Hofstadter, R. (1955). The age of reform: From Bryan to F. D. R. New York: Vintage Books.

Mattson, K. (1998). Creating a democratic public: The struggle for urban participatory democracy during the Progressive Era. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.

Sager, T. (2001). “Planning style and agency properties.” Environment and Planning A 33, pp. 509-532.

Thévenot, L. (1995). “L’action en plan.” Sociologie du Travail 37, pp. 411-434

Ziggy Rivkin-FishPlanification de la société civile: valoriser l’art par le biais de la planification culturelle

Résumé

Dans le présent article, nous analysons un plan culturel communautaire publié (en le comparant à d’autres plans) afin d’illustrer le cadre théorique adopté lors d’une étude plus vaste portant sur les plans culturels communautaires dans l’ensemble des États-Unis. Notre étude sert notamment à démontrer les préférences particulières des divers responsables de la planification en matière de modèles de planification, et la façon dont les modèles affectent le choix des partenaires dans ce domaine ainsi que la cueillette et l’analyse des données, les forums de prise de décisions (audiences

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

10 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014


publiques, groupes de discussion, équipes de travail, etc.) et, en fin de compte, le choix d’objectifs et de programmes de planification particuliers en matière de culture et d’art. Dans le cas à l’étude ici, le fait que les autorités civiles aient élaboré ce plan a engendré un processus de planification qui alliait une approche communicative et un modèle technocratique. En conséquence, la participation des dirigeants politiques et municipaux était importante et une place prépondérante était accordée à la recherche professionnelle. Le plan combinait le jargon des experts et le langage des administrateurs-citoyens; le processus de planification se caracté-risait par l’importance accordée aux rencontres communautaires de discussion de même qu’aux résultats de la recherche visant à déterminer les besoins de la collec-tivité. Cet amalgame de modèles de planification communicatif et technocratique était aussi à l’origine des objectifs de planification qui mettaient l’accent sur des programmes visant à résoudre les problèmes d’accessibilité du citoyen. Toutefois, ces programmes laissaient de côté les cadres alternatifs de politiques des arts, tels que l’utilisation des arts pour se construire une identité communautaire ou pour trouver une solution à des problèmes d’ordre social.

Ziggy Rivkin-FishPlanning Civil Society: Putting Value on the Arts through Cultural Planning

Abstract

This paper analyzes one published community cultural plan (with contrasts to other plans) to illustrate the theoretical framework adopted for a larger study of community cultural plans from across the U.S. In particular, the case study illus-trates how different planning initiators prefer specific planning styles, and how such styles shape the selection of planning partners, the collection and analysis of data and decision-making forums (public hearings, focus-group sessions, task-force meetings, etc.) and ultimately the specific planning goals and programs adopted for the arts and culture. In the specific case studied here, the driving force of civic foun-dations in initiating the plan led to a planning process that combined a communica-tive with a technocratic style of planning. This meant a broad inclusion of political and civic leaders combined with a heavy emphasis on professional research. The plan intermingled a language of expert-based professionalism with a language of civic individualism, and the planning process was marked by a focus on extensive community dialogue sessions in combination with hard research data to establish community needs. The combination of a communicative and technocratic planning

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

10 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014


style also led to planning goals that emphasized programs addressing issues of citizen access, while disregarding alternative framings of arts policy, such as using the arts to build community identity or address social problems.

Ziggy Rivkin-FishPlanificación de la sociedad civil: valorizar el arte por medio de la planificación cultural

Resumen

En el presente artículo, analizamos un plan cultural comunitario publicado (comparándolo a otros planes) con el fin de ilustrar el cuadro teórico adoptado durante un estudio más amplio que trata sobre los planes culturales comunitarios en todos los EE. UU. Nuestro estudio sirve principalmente a demostrar las preferencias particulares de los diferentes responsables de la planificación en lo que concierne a los modelos de planificación, y a la manera en que los modelos afectan la selec-ción de los socios en este ámbito así como la recolección y el análisis de datos, los foros de toma de decisiones (audiencias públicas, grupos de discusión, equipos de trabajo, etc.) y, finalmente, la selección de objetivos y programas de planificación particulares en cuanto a cultura y arte. En el caso de este estudio, el hecho que las autoridades civiles hayan elaborado este plan generó un proceso de planificación que combinaba un enfoque comunicativo y un modelo tecnocrático. Por consecuencia, la participación de los dirigentes políticos y municipales fue importante y un lugar preponderante fue otorgado a la investigación profesional. El plan combinaba el argot de los expertos y el lenguaje de los administradores-ciudadanos; el proceso de planificación se caracterizaba por la importancia concedida a los encuentros comunitarios de discusión así como a los resultados de la investigación que tenía como objetivo de determinar las necesidades de la colectividad. Esta amalgama de modelos de planificación comunicativo y tecnocrático al principio era también uno de los objetivos de planificación que hacía hincapié sobre los programas que pretenden resolver los problemas de accesibilidad del ciudadano. Sin embargo, estos programas dejaban de lado los cuadros alternativos de políticas de las artes, tales como la utilización de las artes para construirse una identidad comunitaria o para encontrar una solución a los problemas de orden social.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

10 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

planning civil society: putting value on the arts through cultural planning

Documents