ACRITICAL STUDY OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION MODERN …

Architectural Institute of Japan

NII-Electronic Library Service

Arohiteotural エnstitute 　 of 　 Japan

【カテゴリー1】日本建築学会計画系論文集　第586号，73−79．2004年12月

　　　J．Archit．　P］ann ．，　AIJ，　No ．586，73−79，　Dec、，2004

ACRITICAL 　STUDY 　OF 　PUBLIC 　PARTICIPATION 　IN

　　　　　　　　　　　MODERN 　REGIONAL 　PLANNING ・

The　transition　from　Patrick　Geddes 　towards 　Arthur　Glikson

　　　　近代地域計画における市民参加に関する批評的考察

　　　　　バトリック・ゲディスからアーサー・グリクソンへの遷移

Fumiafei　SA 　T（）＊

　　佐藤文昭

　 The　city　planner　Sir　Patdck　Geddes （1854−1932）is　defined　as　the　origin 　of 　public　participation　in　city　planning．　At　the　same 　time，　the　shi食f「om

Geddes’s　theory　towards　the　work 　of　ArIhurα ikson，　as　one 　of　his　successors ，　exemplifies 　the　conscquGnce 　of 　separating 　thc　positions　of 　citizens

from　these　ofplanners 　in　the　pl跏 ning 　Process．

　 Although　Geddesian　theory　no 　longer　fUnctions　as　a　professional　sense 　of 　the　current 　planning　theory，　it　could 　contribute 　to　empower 　individuals

．through 　discevering　one’s　own 　sensc 　ofvalue 　within 　the　two　different　attitUdes　of 　individuals　and 　planners」n　this　respect，　the　Geddesian　theery，　as

the　m （rdern　project，　ceuld 　be　reinterpreted 　as　develeping　an　autonomous 　position　of　the血dividuals　withih 　the　plarming　process，　so．that　each 　of 　them

oan 　eva 且uate 　the　visions 　that　tle　p且anners 　propose．

Kegwords ’ Patrick　Geddes，　the？〉’otation 　ofLife，　Artha厂 GlikSon、7he　Notation｛ofLife ，　modernisation 　theoりy，　dependenのy　theory

　　　　　　　パ．トリック・ゲディス、アー

サー・グリクソン、生命の表記、近代化理論、従属理論

1．　　 Introdロ ction

　，Promoting　 regiona 【planning　not 　only 　organised 　by　loGal　goverrlments

and 　planners　as 　the　professionals，　but　also 　by　being　associated 　with 　citizens，is　 becoming 　 increas孟ngly 　 important　 in　 current 　 society ．　 However ，　 the

citizen1Planner 　duality　observed 　in　currcnt 　planning　血 eory 　is　one 　of 出 e

major 　factors　obstmcting 　the　satisfaction　ofhuman 　needs ．　Between 　the　two

gmups 　ofpeople 　thcre　are 　gaps　that　still 爬 main 　in　the　planning　and 　raise 　an

issue：Is　it　possibUe　fbr　individUals　to　be　cmpowe 【ed 　in　the　planning　proocss

in　ordcr 　to　saIisfy　theirown　n ds？

　 One 　 of 　the　 answers 　 to　 this　 issue　 could 　 be　 sou 帥 t　 by　 identifying　 the

citizen’s　position　 within 　 modcm 　 oity 　plamlng　theories，　f（）llowing　 their

廿 ansitbn 　towards 出 e　present　da｝ The　 city　planner　Sir　Patrick　Geddes

（1854−1932）is　known 　as　one 　ofthe 　roots　of　modern 　city　plarming、　Based　on

his　 comprehensive 　 surveys 　of 　the‘‘plaoe

”，“work

”and

」‘felk”applying

observationa 晝 methods ，　 he　develop　 a 　 sociologioaHbrmula 　 of．geography．economy 　and 　anthropology ．1　S ce　this　work 　shows 　the　planning　process

identica且fc）r　the　planners　and 山 e　citizens 　basept　on 　the　regional 　sirrvey 　and

its　analysis ，　he　is　def1ned　as　th6　0rigin 　of 　pubIiO　participation　in　eity

plalming．

　This　paper　argues 　thc　consequen 　gf　progressive且y　separating．　thc

positions　ofc 而zens　from　these　ofplann ¢ rs　in　the　planning　process，　whibh 　is

exemplified 　by　 the　 shi食食om 　GeddGs’theory　towards　the　 work 　of 　A 曲 ur

Glikson，　who 　is　one 　of 　the　 successors 　of 　the　Geddesian　theo πy．　Based　on

the　issue　Qf　thじ empowerment 　men 口oned 　above ，　an 　altemative 　relationship

be鱈veen 　individu印s　and 　p置anners 　is　soug 血t　in　its　process，　The 　stru じtUre　Of

this　argument 　is　as 　follows：

　一］banalyse 　Geddes ’s」「Netatio耶　ef 　Life”as 　one 　ef 　the　ma 血 framework 　of

his　dleory．

　・］banalyse 　 Glikson’s　 interpretation　 of 　the 『Nota1ion　 of 　Life”and

contrast 　it　with 　Geddes’s　work

　・Tb　locate　 the 　two 　 theories 　 within 　the 　transition　f om 　modem 　 towards

cu ∬ ont　planning血 eo 理」espeGiaHy 　fbcusing　on　tle　reason 　that　the　identical

position　of　citizcns　and 　planners　in　the　Geddcsian　theory　cannot 　be　applied

孟ncurrent 　seciety．

　・恥 argue 　the　 limitatien　 of 　the　Geddesian　theory　 fUnctiening　 as　 the

curre 囗 t　planning　theory．　Instead，　its　significa 冂 of 　empowering 　indivfduals

in　current 　sooiety 　is　sought ．

蓼Senior　Staff　Researcher，　Pohcy ・Science　System　Department，　Miしsubishi　Research　Institute，　Inc．，　Ph．　D ．〔Edin）

三菱総合研究所政策科学システム研究部

主任研究員・Ph．　D ．

一 73 一

N 工工一Eleotronio 　Library 　



ArchitecturalInstitute ofJapan

Aiso, two models of their communication: `trnodenlisation

theory" and

"dependeney

theery" will be applied as the foundation for arguing the

positions of citincns or individuals and plarmers in regional pianning.2 It

will show the shift of their relationship from modern towards post-modern,

based en which an alternative function of the Geddesian theery will be

placed in the cunent p)anning precess.

2. PatrickGeddes'"NotationofLife"

Geddes develops the so-called `fNetation

of Life" that is one of the"Thinking

Machines", and proposes it in the explanatory diagrarns in Civics:

As Conc ete and A Lie Sociolo Part II, written in 190S.] As shown in

Figure l, the Notation of Life diagram comprises four concepts of life:

LtActs"/ thc simpte practical life,

"Facts"/ the simp]e menmi life, "Drearns":

the fu11 inner life and "Deeds":

the fu11 effective life. Ihrough the successive

I lPLACEi IT- +-----lvvoRKl1

r1 l-"

iFOuc

'f lFEEUNGtL tllEXPERIENCEt1t l

SENSEI ll l

cycle ofthe four parts ef]ife in this order, the city and its inhabitants eyolve

towards the ultirnate goal of thei[ synthesis.4

Geddes uses metaphorically "Town"

for 'tActs" as the first part of life, by

which he means the eomprehension by both the natural and social sciences

of human activities in "lbwn"

through the theoretical development frorn

biology to sociology. The three formu)as of `tplace::,

ttwoTk"

and "folk:'

together with the six correlated conditions (plaee-WORK, place-FOLK,

work-PLACE, work-FOLK, foLk-PLACE, folk-WORK) create the nine

squares ef the matrix, This matrix of "Acts"

is applied to the fo11owing"Factsi',

`"Dreams"

and "Deeds",

creating a total of 9 x 4 =

36 squares in the

complete diagram shown in Figure 2, ln the "Acts" matrix, each square

corresponds te another in the nine-square rnatax by retating at right angles

anticlockwise at the centre of the figure,

AorS DEEDS ACTS DEEDS ACTS DEEDS ACTS'-

L...lf--H'1"-.J --'i

LJ----'1-.-

FACTS DREAMS FACTS DREAMS FACTS DREAMS FACTS

Figure 1: The process of the eyo[ution ofcity: "Acts"

and "Facts"

correspond

Source: Philip Boardman, The Worlds of Pani k Ge des: B'ele ist TownPlanner Re-educatorPeace-wa.ttor (Lendon: Routledge & Kegan Paut,

l978). pp. 469-70.

;\i

g,

pmcv-1ble,t-------tT----J"

-wh.iEta

DathndpmeLfie

r-lo,,f･!ize2ajf)

tMELPOMENE]

[E E,:dzaderedbyop

i･ rmby7,lniJ!i, [TERPStCHDRE]iAC".em

::e

----""'--H'-T------.--------tt- -------

.'.'.Si,,,pml,t{}EIGth'.ainvlasth"

[cALuopE] l 4ffeZtl[cuo] l [THAL-A]

tg211tatix

fixii;T

'jlLli'Jbi]E'"-"I''-2;II'n'bue-'-"'-ltiig[I"19'-i6jo'p;

deeigine

r;vanj

i -

1 -

:pm :i -- -

: : Xwgeed J

iblofifpm, 1 'mony

i LL!{!!te,7

lge¢e

;epoette7ndiSeeh vaLurv

""

[[,'

;&:"'/"'

i/･pt"`W.5,Xg'v""Iiiil,.l..llli"òbe'"'m"Sii""-

l b l tflad RntOl: [moorYNIA] : [EurERPE]

setdetPgt inelaimledwn,-fpm

,`be"bfpa.

g

,,,}$,Egkt11,tSig/.,l/rJ'ae･d--"------!---- --;-----------om

t..-----..-".--.

:.erTJalblitg

.

'tvtfmbew

,t IZnvsTtnty

'--'- -'s---

ktyXop

:buthrdlhev

r!E!IeeLnj

,mapafh7afin

-.rlleuaHrst uC

-----------h

l'mpbu,,lv, ie -.' ti'fouenma"ha,t,,ha,aijl,atijii"el}gept.4,.d

l

t

/igtFigure2;TheNotationofLife

Source: Amelia Defries, !ILt

Inte reter Geddes the Man and hi

!GIQspg!1 (London/ Goorge Reuttedge

& Sons, 1927), pp. 146-7.

-74-

NII-Electronic



ArchitecturalInstitute of Japan

'LFacts"

foHewed by 'Àcts:'

focuses on the psychelegy of the subjective

world, Geddes claims that the survey is not meant only to discoyer the

technical facts and dat'a of the "Tbwn"

CÀcts"), but also te deyelop the

ifidividual eonsciousness of the ptace in daily life,S Each "place:'.

`"wo[k"

and CLfolk"

is perceived by individuals as C'sense:1

tCexperiepce":,

and

"feeling"', Another name that Geddes uses for this stage is tCSchool",

where

indiyiduals learn the conditions of the "Town"

through their respective

petceptions., Still,

"School"

not only contributes te･ accurnulating the

knowledge of the place, but also leads actions based on what the individuals

leamgd from "Facts",

What Geddes develops at the next stage is a more

censtructiye and critical analysis of life - tCDrearns"/

the fu11 inner life.6 In

"Drearns", he envisages transceriding the coltective individual pcrceptions

of the place towards tCthe

whole human world of sympathy", which Geddes

crystallises in the werd `

℃loister". Eaeh "sense",

C'experience"

and "feeling"

in LCFacts" is sublithated to "emetion"

(ideals), "iqeation"

(ideas) and

"iMagination" (imaginary), which are explored as

"good:',

"true" and

"beautifut".7 This synthesised consciousness in the transcendent world

offers a means of criticisifig and ,reflecting upon the conventional practical

activities of "Acts".

The criticism gives individuals a strong motivation for

taking actions leading to the comrnon goal of the city.

Through the three stages of life, CCDeeds",

which Geddes calls CCCity':,

emerges as the reaLisation of an altemative world that is built according-te

"Dr'earns". Yeg as the words

"the

futt effectiye life': show; "City"

meat{s net

only a physical phenemenon but also represents. the `tideals

of human

relationship': towards a "theory

of the universe and mari".S Geddes'

intention is

to

create

a'path

from

indiyidual

perception,towards the

deyelopment of a pelitical argument, For example, collective "feeLing"

in

"Facts" develops a commoh

"emotioh" in "Dreams",

which manifests itself

as tCetho-pelity",

Also, `tideas':

follevvcd by `Cexperience" becemes tLsynergy::.

Physically, "integratien"

derived frem individual "sense"

creates "nature

and architecture" in ttp]ace",9

This alternative manifestation of "City"

returns to the first practical Life ef "Tbwn:"

as a status quo, centinuing the

process of the cityrs evelutien in an endless Hegelian spiral,

It can be said that the Notation o £ Life describes the communication of the

diiierent worlds/ from the subjectiye. the social, and the objectiye towards

the transcendent world, al1 interacting with each other in an e"elutionary

broeess. Through this process one is able to seek the single goal of the four

wer]ds, threugh which the individual consciousness ofthe region develeped

in `CFacts" has a significant role for creating altematiye "Drearns",

3. Arthur Glikson's interpretation of Geddesian theory

A post-Geddes example of

applyin.g

the

Notation

of

Life

is the

work

of

ArthurGtikson,InhisbookRtggiQgaj.llannipg.gndDgyglQpn!gntlPl dD1 tpublished

in 1953, Glikson develops Geddes: Netation ofLife fot his own framework

10for the regional planning process.

in the same way as Geddes'had envisaged, Glikson tried a comprehensiye

approach to regional planning. based en surveys using different kinds of

kriowledge. Geography, as a descriptive science that tetls "what

it is", is

explored towards "geoteehnics"

as the applied science that shows ttwhal

ought to be", claiming to re-cstablish the equilibrium between society and

nature in the planning theory. This argument also threws a q'ue'stion to the

arbitrary. and

testrictiye

definition

of

urban

developments

in his

age,

representedbyLeCorbusier,it

As shown in Figure 3. Gliksen"s frarneviork consists of four phases. It

starts by accumulating

`tBasic Past" (natu{a] science) and

"Histdric Past'"

(sociai sCienee) tewards their synthesis in the "Present

Cultura] Landscape",

which leads to tCPIanned Actioni'. Each of them is summarised as fotLows:

- Phase A asic ast: Tb recegnise the regional landscape in its natural

eriginal form, including plang animal and prehistoric man's life. This is an

indication.of the climax deyelopment of a landscape before the planned

inte[ventionofseciety

- Phase B istoric Past : Tb fface the destiny of the [egion within historic

times. Frem this history, the gradual stabiliSation of settlements' locations

etc. can be gerived by ways oftrial and erfor oyet leng stretches oftime.

- Phase C The Present Cultural Landsca e : The comprehensive review of

contemporary occurrences in the regien, which in so many parts of the

werld reveal symptoms of maladjustment and crisis, It should lead to

conclusions as regards populatiofi distributioni use ef land and natural

resources and settlement forms,- Phase D lanned Action :.Te deal with the operatien-planning itself It is

the culmination ef our effort te arrive at creative synthesis, and expresses al1

we have learned about the region within the comprehensive view of its

space and time/ it expresses at the same time our desire te develep bette[

coordinated cultural regionai 1ife and a more beautifu1 environment.i!

This process fo11ows the Geddesidn ctassification ofsciences frorn natural

science towards ･the complexities of social science. Succeeding to the

Geddesian positivist pesition, the synthesis efthe natural and social sciences

in Gtikson's planning process is ac ¢ epted as selfievident, Yet, Gllkson's '

frarnework focuses only on the `tActs:i

of the place-werk-folk manix as the

practical aspect of rcgions, and the fourfbtd process of "Acts",

"Facts",

"Dreams" and

"Deeds" of which the F]eddesian Notation of Life consists is

ne longef retained. This leads to the one-threugh process without interacting

with indiyiduals and their consciousness of the place,i3

This interpretation is one of the origins of separating individuals from

regienal planning precesses. Table 1 shows a detailed comparatiye summary

of the two theories with a focus on "Acts",

Glikson defines the details to be

investigated in each of "place::,

ttwork",

"folk"

and their combinatiens, in

contrast with Geddes' contrib,ution to developing a planning outline. This

incTeasing signifieance of scientific data based on yarious prefessional

surveys is crucial for regional planning. At the same time, the rela.tionship of

interaction between the technical language derived from the surveys at

"Acts" and the erdinary tanguage perceived by indiyiduals at

`CFacts:'

dcscribed through the Geddesian Notatien of Life, has been absorbed into

the teehnical language of professienal planners. They are comtnitted to

maintaining the man-nature equilibrium in, the region as Glikson

alternatiyely defined it. Individuals are no longer expected to be the citizens

iTith the power to impToye their own liying ptaces activelM but merely te

passiv61ysubmittoprofessionaldecision-making.

-75-

NII-Electronic




SIXGE

@ eASIe PASTO"twwLECOLOGV

SPtoCL cuHAX

STAGt

@ HrvroRtcmm

or

StTTLM-ENT

+lroLkl 1

"'tpt'iq"l'"

ll---+-------

l lvvotu,

o

pAsr

reXHUMLCTV"

rCeNMVpttTY

:DucATroN

ormtwmmwwas

yyt IAseoRpnebvcTlvlTy

";Fl"CLENCy

M

aFSKTTzaHnNT

pRtceNsrblJcTnvt

eF tNMnorHmeNT

wasceNeMy OFLooue"S

KsceNeMlc

avlkNLtzanow

ec INeifSTtuAL

ZONE5ANO FAnMS

W

ueNoMttosvrtemusur

SuaE

@?LANNEO ACTION

o:

oj

,"(il

le

o

"

@è K

ep

efil,ce THE

rmGE

@PRESENT CULTURAL

LANDSCAPEptE uaJSTR. Nor tO

tt"i#

ttttt!.wa,,#'##ma'nvamwim'l,.',･esre/lifi\'i..fiii}41''li'

tttt getttttttttttt

'A--･Il,xuFigew",'l"fitt'-nmt tt

ocielegicalanddemographicdata AnthrepologyFolkRegion'spepulation

PlaceTepography,drainagebasins,climate,geelegy,waterresourccs,seils,etc.Geegiaphy

WorkRegion'sccenomicpotential EcerLomy

Theinfiuanceofspatialfactersonthelifeofsociety,{.e.,pepulatioFOLKtpttce Dwellingsindiffereritplaces'stributionTheimpactofoccupations,economicstructure,andregienalsituatione

FOLIUwork Occupationepopulaion

MedifYirtgthegeographyoftheregienbysecialinfluenecs,e.g.,landusPLACEtfo]k Natives,neighbours

residential,recreatienal,seeial,administrative)

Tlieinfluericeofeeonomicactiviti¢ sonthemapeftheregion,e,g.,lan'Naturaladwntages''whichdetermin

PLACEtwerkeforecenemicpurposeserkefeachkindattherightplaceferit

Theecenemicsituatienandprespectsoftheregioninviewefthesize,WORKtfoIk Wotkers

atures,andqualifieatiensefitspopulation

lhetypesefproduodonandemploymentmadepossiblebyspatiaWORICtplece Fields,facteries

onditiens 'Processesthatmaintaintheregion'svitality Eveluticrnofcities

CircttlationThcfiowsofpeeple,goods,energy,water,andtelecemmunications'

4, The Notation ofLife as a "modernisation

theory" .

ln rccent planning theories, Michael Fagence points to Geddes" Notation

of Life as one ef the roots ef citizen participation within the modern regienal

process.]4 ln the Notation of Life, individuals are motiyated emotienal]y to

c[eate the citizens who are conscious of the region where they belong.

Geddes intended to involye the citizens dhectty as the manpower for

irnproving the regien in thc planning process through interaction with the

pLanners: decisien-making process. The roles of planners and goyernments

Figure 3: Theoretical Outline of

Stages and the Main Subjeets of the

Survey and Planning of Ragions

UsingGeddes'NotationofLife

Sources: Arthur Glikson, pmt 1

ts u/ dDlometS

Lectures Delivered at the Institute ef

Stggiaj-StudjgsLaLtl!gTLIagug.alStudtthH1953

(The Hague/ Leiden, 195S), p, 83.

Tlable 1: Comparison of the

Thinking Machines by Geddes and

Glikson

Sources/ Arthur Glikson, tLggiguLt

tL!/an!!ing- dD 1 t S

Lectures Delivered at the Institute of

StQgialTSgidigsFgLtr!g-HqgugLu!S531StudtthHa 1953

(The Hague: Leiden, 1955), pp.

70-8S. Patrick Geddes, "Civics/ As

Concrete and Applied Sociolegy,

Part ll", in tLgml/dgaLCity.d1C ed.

Meller, Helen (Leicester: Leicester

University Press, 1979), pp. 148-55.

are to optimise the regional potential, which is synchrenised with the

citizens' motiyation. As a result, beth plariners and citizens seek the same

goal of equilibrium between man and nature in society, and their

decision-making is supposed to be identical in constructing commen

regional opinions.

However, the individual perception of the region today is no longer

eleyated towards creating a new seciety. Centrasting the Geddesian Notatien

of Life, Fagence summarlses some different models of planning

-76-

NII-Electronic




methedelogy (Lichfield (1968), Travis (1969), Kozlowski (1970). Roberts

(1974), McCohneH {1969), McDgnald (1969) and DOE (1971).]S Most

models clearly distinguish between the rele ef individuals and that of

plarmers, which shows the differences between their positions and

yiewpoints. As a result, plaimers - as professionals - require far more

complicated processes than those of Geddes. This duality of individuals and

planners can be comrnonly found in current planning theory. Evcn Glikson,

as the successor of Geddesian theory has omitted the citizen-planner

relationship in his planning process, concengating his argument on the

professienal positiorf of pianners. His wolk would be one of the evidence

'

that citizen partteipation in the Geddesian theery 4as been absorbed in the

dominating power of specialism, without fully exploring Ged.des's position

to generalise various kinds of knowledge into the planning process,]G

One of the reasons that the Geddesian rnodel of citizen participation has

been undervalued in current society ceuld be explained from the duality of

individuals and planners, in which the grahd narralive that is supposed to be

shared in the sogiety no longer exists,i7 In analysing the transition ftom

rnodern to post-modern planning theories, Jehn Abb6tt summarises the

retationship between individvals and planners in two ways/ tCmodernisation

theory" and "dependeticy

theory", The `tmedernisation

theory" assumes a

shift frem the primitive and traditional society towards modern seciets

through which the' primary goal of economic growth can be guaranteed.

Based en this principle, gommunity participation ,is given a place in

planning theery in order to "creat6'

conditions of econ6mic and social

prog[ess for the whole conimunityi'.iS Ofthe two types eftheir relationship,

Geddesian theory will be categorised ds a 'Lmodernisation theory"1 In his

vision of

modern

industrial

seciety,

ryhich is harmonised

with

mari

and

nature, community participatign ･is

presupPesed to seek the same goal as

each individual, and to promete yarious economic activities by optimising

the nataral petential ofthe regien. The Acts-Facts pTocess in the Notation of

Life indigates only the premised process of indiyidual perception. The

individual envisagcs the synthesis of the information derived from the

planners: objective survey (Acts) and the subiective perception of "place"

(Facts) in a positivist's sense. But for this premised identical view from

`'Acts": to

"Facts:' to reach an identica] goal in

"Dreams",

the indiyidual

perception of the region has to be imprinted by scientific knowledge rather

than bei"g deyeloped critically from the self aiid its needs. As a result, this

restriction bf the individual's potential causes two serious prebtems in

plarming theory. One is that the comrnon goal sought by plarmers cannot

always be identical t6 community interests. When a community's s,ense of

values contradicts planners' intentions, it woutd be undervalued by

dominating professionalisrn and its technical Janguage. The other is that

professional de6ision-rnaking cannot a]ways reconcile itself with the

different interests of different groups Dfpeep]e because there is no premise

for an ahsolute answcr in planning,]9 Through the argUments en the

modernisation theorM Geddes' Notation of Life has lost currency as a

planningtheory.

5. Conclusion:re-evaluAtingthcGeddesiantheery

Currently, the Geddesian theery no longer functions as a professienal

sense ef the planning theory, which, however, does not necessarily mean to

undervalue his theory. CIiffHague has been researching the transition ofcity

planning in the Edinburgh of Geddes' day, and criticises the planners for

purFuing the interests of･capita1 by means og technical change through

professional city planning. The planneTs "lack

a coherent image of the kind

of city that they are trying to create". The ambiguous p.lanning proeess

inevitably leads itself to. chaos, which iS destroying･ not only the

opportunities for individuals to be involved in decision-making, bUt also to

share a common image of the city with p[ofessionals.2e

One of the ways of re-evaluating the Geddesian theory could be sought

from Abbott:s term "dependency theory". This theery no longer pursues the

primary geal ef economic growth, althollgh vafious social values and

diffbrent interests are allowed to exist simultaneously in a society When the

duality ofplanners and individuals is premised in the theorM it is crucial for

indiyiduals to eyaluate planners' technical language with their own ordinary

language. Instead of expecting t℃ommunity development" that pfesumes

econornic greiuth, the "empowerment""

of the cemmunity is pursued to

satisfy individuat needs.i] The relationshiti between the dependency thpory

and the m.odernisation theory mentiened above, and their approathes te

communiry participation are summarised in Figure 4. Despite the increasing

sigriificance of the indiyidual sense ef value, public inyelyement is not

intended to replace current social systems with an alternative structurc. The

positions ef individuals and planners will never be identical. It only provides

an opportunity for each individual lo eyaluate the professional activity in

terms of one's own sgnse, Yet, based on their autonemous pesitions, the

planning should take place while sustaining their terision.

hradigrt:

Approafh:

Orlginal , supersededby

linkage

j

-

Newlinkaee

Figure 4: The

paradigm, apprgach model

of

communify

participation

Source: John

Abbott,

Sharin

the

Ci

: Communi

Partici

etion in Urban

ML!agagg!ng!Lt (Longoni

Earthscan, 1996),

p, 21 ,

This argument will lead a conclusien for the indiyiduaVplanner

relationship. An altemative framework for regional plarming could be

defined from ･two different atritudes tbwards rationalisation. One is the

ebjectivating attitude, which pursues its rationalisation in terms of the

technical lariguage, and the otfier is individual expressive attitude in terms 6f

the ordinary lariguage.i2 SVithin this frarnervork, the Geddesian theory could

contribute to develop an autonomous position of individuals within the

-77-

NII-Electronic




planning process, so that each of them can cyaluate the visions that the

planners propese. The Notation ef Life will function as a process for

empowering individuals through discovering one's own sense of value. It

will ensure an oppertunity for each indiyidual to explere their own idea

rooted in their "sense",

ttfeeling"

and "experience".

Through this

interpretation, the Geddesian theory; as the modern project, could be reyised

and applied in current society

In order for this empewermenL cellective attitudes of individuals and

their senses of values should be lead towards creating an intersubjective

sphere in current society A comprehensive sense ef regional planning,

therefore, should be seught not frem compromising the parallel attitudes ef

individuals and plannefs negatiyely, but developing a pesitiye solution based

en their consensus beyond their exclusive attitudes,

References

1 Fumiaki Sato,

Architec IPIan

191.2l96.

EÀ Cemparative

ln 'r

See/ John Abbotg Shann

nmentStudy andef

Regional Sustainability:; in uaJ al of

En ineerin, No,SIO (August, 199g). pp.

i Cem um P 'ei tnm ra ement

S Phitip Boardman,

Re-educ rPeaee-

6 Philip Boardman,

Re-educator

"Scheo]" is rather

(LondonrEartbscan,1996).Theceneeptualformef"dependeneytheery"hadbeendeveloped based on Marxist theery by the Latin American ecenomists in l97e's.

Origina]1y,itdealswithurbandeve1oprnentinthedevelopingworldinordertoenhance

thesatisfactionofbasicneeds,CurrentlsAbbotts-mmarisesthehistoryofcornmunity

participationthroughthetraiisit{onfremmodernisationtowardsdependencytheory,

ctaiming the need for an alternative theory ofcommunity participation. in this paper,

ihe two theories are queted as models for analysing public participation in the Geddes's

theory, which does net refer wider senses ofthe theories and their critiques. Based on

this analysis, it seeks an altemative frarnework for regional planning in curTent society

withovtrestrictedinthetwotheories.

3 Panick Geddes, "Civics/ As Concrete and App]ied Soeiology, Part ll", in The Ideal

ory, ed. Helen Meller, deicester University Press, 1979).

4 Phi]ip Boardnan, The or]ds of Patnck eddes' Biol Tbwn Planne

Re-educator Peaee-vvarTior {London/ Routleclge & Kegan Paul, 1978). pp. 465-75.

The Wr]d ef Patnck eddes Bil To Planne

r, pp. 138-4e.

The Wbrlds of Patrick Geddes/ Biolo 'st

Tbwn P]anner

Routledge &Sons, 1927). p.

9 Th

Peaec-vvarTior, p. 149. Geddes finds that this procedure from 'tTown:'

to

"deterrninistic:',

which tends to lead individuals towards enly a

rnaterialistic and regulative interpretation. The individual perception ofissues in daily

life results only in reactions to particular issues witheut optimising the potential of

"Facts:' as a whole.7 Panick Geddes,

`'Civics/ As Concrete and Applied Socio]egy, Part U", in Zbgu!ggal

City, ed. Helen Meller, pp. 14S-SS.

g AmeliaDefries In reter Geddes the Man and hi Gos el (Londen Geerge

Philip Boardman,

Re-educator Peace- arTi

1O Arthur Glikso4 Re

15L

IKk)rtd ef Patrick Gedde Bi to ist T wn Planner

r, p. 472.nal

Plannin and Develo ment/ Six Lectures Delivered at thetp mttut fS IStd tthH 1953(IlreHague/Leiden.1955),pp.70-8S,

11 ArthurGlikson,Re 'onat

P] m andD vet ent Six Le sDelive eda the

In titute efSocial tudies at the Ha e, 1953, p. 7S. Glikson argues as fo11ows/

"Regional

Surveys, too, fe11 in many cases into the hands ofspecialists who cannot

see the weod for the trees, and whe consider the survey as an end in itself. Another

faction f architect-p1anners is eigaged in attempts to adapt the approach to plannillg

prob]emsto"thesphitofeurtechnelogicalage:Ltheiebyavoidingthecemprehensive

78

regiollal interpretation. They are convinced that out tcchnical inventiens and the

mechanical energy at our disposal enable lls te apply arbitrari]y any urban development

idea we 1ike to any geographical and climatic development. Now it is tme that out

technica1 means make it pessible to create artificial climate and Le Corbusier's"artificial

plots" high up in the air, and to overcorne height differenees mechanically ete.

But those whe uphoEd the viexv that we should fo11ow the way shown by technics in

new urban deve1opment, do not obviously, realize the rnore urgent tasks efhomanity;

whosesolutioncallstedayfortheaidofourwholepotentialofteehnologyand

mechanical energy, sueh as the deyelopment of virgin er ended land and the increase ef

foodproducingsoiL"

12 AmhurGlikson,Re ionalPlani De 1 ment SixLecturesDelivr tthe

Instittite ofSocial Studies at the Ha e, i953, p. 82.

13lblkerM.Welter,ArthufGlilcson,m ptkMhes'dthPlanni fl 1

(TheCityafterPanickGecldes/InternationalSymposium,8-1OMay,l99S).14 tsdichael Fagence, Citizen P

'i

'n in Pl nin (Oxford/ Pergamen Press,

1977), p. 102. in researching citizen participation in plaiming, he mentions the

significanceofGeddesas/

'`He(Geddes)remarksuponthreemeansefinvolvement/involvementbyeducation

threugh pllblic exhibitions. active participation in the co]lection of information, and

involvement by effedng altefinative planning solutions and proposals to those of the

planningauthorityoritsconsultants...

Geddes' pioposition was tbat the scope be extended to captufe the interest and

imagination of wide sectiens of the community, even if in so doing, it resulted in

pondering some of the particular causes of we]1-intentioned cominunity groups. Such

actiom, Geddes suggested, would be 1ikely to engender a sympathetic public attitude

tewards the conduct of planning by giving expression to cornmunity matters. and by

revealing the context of constraints and epportunities which effectively give shape to

p]anningp;eposals"

15 MichaelFagence, itizen Partici ationinPlannm ,pp. 100-12.

16 See/PatrickGeddes. amatisai n ofHisto CLondon/SocielogicalPublications.1923). Geddes tries te generalise vNrieus kinds of knowledge required for cieating

citiesintermsof"art".ThisshowshispositionoftPegeneralist.

I7See/byotaTd,Jeaii-Frangois,a uthPtd Cdti AR rt Knld,

trans.GeoffBenningtonandBrianMassumi(Minneapolis/

Press. I984).

IS JohnAbbott,Sharin theCit Comrnunrt Partici

UniversityofMimesota

12-17.19

See/ Jolm Abbott,

Mana emen . Al}bot alsomodemisationtheory.

20 Cliff Hague, The D

mUrb ement, pp.

Sharin the ]t Commm P tatioo m Urban

points out the limitation of eornmunity development m

le ment of Plannm Thou t A cntical ers ective

(London/2117-20.22

e1987)p.

Hutchinsog 1984), pp. 318-28.

John Abboeq SharintheCit Comm ni Partici i ninUrbanMana ement,pp.

Jargen Habermas, The TheoofComtnttmeativeAct'en Nblumc l e enand

ationalisation ofSocie . trans. Tl]omas McCarthy (Cambridge/ Po]ity Press,

238. In a seciologicai sense, Habennas presents a provisional framework for

the relationship between the three worlds and attitudes. The diagram, called"ratienalisationcernplexiges:'.consistsoftwoaxes/worlds<objective,sooia],and

subjective)andbasicattitudes(expressive.objectivating,andnormeenformative).11ie

rationalitywithintheheavier1{oesineachofthethreebasicattitudesisdefinedas

generating human knowledge in society. Habermas names these three ratienalities as

'`cognitive-instmmentalrationality","merat-practicalrationality",and"aesthetie-practicalrationatity".

.

NII-Electronic



Arohiteotural エnstitute 　 of 　 Japan

和文要約

1．　はじめに

　今日の都市計画において、行政やプランナー

などの専門家だけではなく、．

市民との協働により計画を推進することが重要である。しかし、市民と専門

家の並列的な関係により、計画が人々のニーズを十分に満たすことができな

い中で、その過程において個人の意見をどのように反映することができるか

が、ひとつの大きな課題となる。

　本論では、都市計画における市民参加の原転となる近代都市計画家バトリ

ック　ゲディス〔1854・1932）の理論である「生命の表記」に焦点を当て、その

中における市民参加の位置づけを明ら力斗こする。また、ゲディスの考え方を

継承した都市計画家であるアーサー　グリクソンの理論との比較を通して、

近代からポスト近代の計画論において、個人と計画者Qミ引き離されてきた過

程について検証する。さらに、現代の都市計画が抱える問題を踏まえ、近代

のゲディス理論が今目において期待される役割とその可能性について検証す

る。なお、個人と計画者との関係を検討するための基盤として「近代化理論i

ど「従属理論」を用いて分析を行う。

2．　バトリック　ゲディスの「生命の表記」

　ゲディスは、1905年に「生命の表記」と昭まれる思嬲を発表している。

それは、生命の発展過程を示す 4 つの概念：「行為（科学に基づく人間の活

動の把渥）、「事実亅（日々の生活における「場所」の個人的な認謝、「夢」（個々

の認識を超えた、人々が共感できる世界の構築）、「業績」（「夢亅に基づく新

・たな世界の構築）によって構成される。「事実1 では、都市の中での人々の活

動を捉えるため、彼は「場所亅（地理学）、「仕事」（経済学）、「人」（人類学）

を社会学の基礎鑢念として位置づけている。それ以降の「事実」「夢」「業

績1は、これら3 つとその組み合わせによるダイアグラムが徐々に発展してい

く過程を示している。さらに、この 4段階の概念を 1サイクルとする過程を

繰り返すことにより、都市が進化しながらひとつのゴールへと収束していく。

　　「生命の表記」の中でゲディスが思い描いていたものは、個人による場所

の認識から政治的な議論までの道筋を構築することであったと言える。彼は、

個人が地域に興味を持ち参加する市民となるよう、感情面でめ動磯付けを行

うと同時に、市民を新たな都市づくりを実現するための原動力として、重要

な役割を担うよう位置づけていることが分かる。それば市民とプランナー

が、人間と自然との調和という社会が目指すべき共通の目標を抱き、言わば、

同一の社会観を有していることを前提としている。

3．　アーサー　グリクソンのゲディス理諭の解釈

　ゲディス以後、生命の表記は、者肺計画家であるアーサー　グリクソンの

理論の中に引用されている。1953年に発表した著書である『地域計画と開発1の中で、彼は独自の地域計画プロセスの枠組みを示している。彼の理論は、

ゲディスが定義した 4 段階の概念のうち、一番初めの「行為」、つまり科学に

よる人聞活動の把握のみを用いている。それを含む計画過程として 4つのス

テージ：自然科学の視点による「基本的過去」、社会科学の視点、による「歴史

的過去」と、それらの統合による「現在の文 fヒ的景観」、さらにそれが導き出

す「計画的行動亅を設定している。ゲディスの「場所一仕事一

人」は、社会

科学の視点による「歴史的過去」として位置づけられており、より基礎的な

学問としての自然科学による視嶽とあわせて、地域の現状を把握しようとし

ている点で綜、実証主義に基づくゲディスの理論と共通すると考えられる。

　しかしながら、ゲディスの生命の表記とグリクソンによる新たなアクショ

ンとしての都市計画プロセスとの相違点は、前者が、「行為」、「事実亅、「夢」、

　「業績」からまた「行為」へと戻る循環するプロセスとして記述されている

のに対して、後者は、「計画的行動」で終わる 1 サイクルとして表現されてい

ることである。また、ゲディスの「行為とグリクソンめ「歴史的過去」の過

程における「場所亅、「仕事亅、「んを比較した場合、グリクソンの定義が、よ

り詳細な専門的調査に基づく科学的デー

タを重視している。

4．’

「近代化理耡としての生命の表記

　今日の社会において、プランナー

と市民の並列的な関係に基づく計画は、

必ずしも人々のニーズを満たすごとを保証しているとは限らない。ゲディス．

以後の都市計画のモデルでは、プランナー

と市民の並列した位置づけと視点

が明確に示されており、今日の計画理論にも共通して見られることが分かる。

ゲディス理論の継承者であるグリクソンが描いた人と自然との調和に基づく

地域づくりのプロセスでも、積極的に自らの生活の場を改善しようとする市

民の力に依存することはなく、住民は、専門家としてのプラン《ナーの意思決

定に消極的に従うものとして位置づけられてしまった。ゲディスが「事実」

の中で示した憾覚」、「経験」、「感情」といった日常の言語による地或の認識

は、すべて専門のプランナーによる技術的な言語による地域の把握に吸収さ

れている。このことは、ゼネラリストとしてのゲディスの理論がスペシャリ

ストによる計画に移行する過程を示す一

っの根拠として捉えることが出来る。

　今日、ゲディスの理論が過小評価されている理由として、市助プランナー

の並列的な関係から捉えることができる。都市計画家ジョン・アボットは、

近代からポスト近代に至る計画論を、「近代化理論」と「従属理論」として整

理している。「近代化理論」では、その主たる目的を経済的、社会的発展と位

置づけ、市民はその目的達成のために計画に参加するように位置づけられて

いる。この視点に基づいた場合、ゲディスの理論は、人と自然との調和を目

指すことをすべての個人にとっての共通の目的であると前提とすることによ

り、「行為」から「事実亅の過程において、調査に基づく客観的な地域の把握

と個人の知覚、経験、感情による主観的な地域の理解とが同一

であると考え

られており、それが「夢」としての新たな計画を導き出している。しかしなが

ら、この問題点は、仮にこれら2 つの認識に差異が生じた場合には、専門性

とそれに基づく　　・譯。が日常言語による主観的な認識を軽視する傾向に

あること、またこうした専門性は、必ずしも複数の異なる住民の地域間のず

れを調整する機能を持っていないことである。

　したがって、現代におけるゲディスの理論は、2 つの問題を示していると

．言える。ひとつは、すべての人々が共有できる都市の姿が存在することを前

提とすることはもはや出来ないということ、もうひとつは、プランナーが持

つ専門・謡。　　，性が、市民を都市計画から遠ざけていることである。

5．　結論：今日におけるゲディス理論の再評価

「近代化理論」としてのゲディメの理論が目指すプランナー

と市民との同一

の社会観の構築は、もはや今日の都市計画理論として応用できるものではな

い。しかしながら、彼が唱える「生命の表記」は、プランナー

の価値観のみ

に依存することなく、個人が地域に対する自らの価値観を構築するための、

個人の発展プロセスとして捉えることは可能である。このゲディス理論の解．

釈は、地域の経済的発展を第一の目的として置かず、その代わりに地戚住民

の異なる価直観や利益追求が共存できるように地或仕会のエンパワーメント

を推進し、個人のニーズを満たすための理論として定義することができると

考える。

　このことにより、今日の都市計画の枠組みを、、専門家による客観的態度と

個人の主観的な自己表示的態度から捉え、その中で、ゲディスの「生命の表

記」を、個人が自ら快適な生活の場、仕事の場を追求するためのひとつの手

法として位置づけることが可能となる。さらに、より包括的な意味における

都市計画には、これら2 つの態度とそれぞれの価値規範を超えた公共圏の構

築が必要であDL その中で両者の具体的な合意形成を行うことが求められる。

CZOO3ff−11月10日原稿受理，2004年 9月 16日採用決定｝

一 79 一

N 工工一Eleotronio 　Library 　

Documents

ACRITICAL STUDY OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION MODERN …