Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Contradictory cares in community-led planning

Electronic data

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

Contradictory cares in community-led planning

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Published

Standard

Contradictory cares in community-led planning. / Yuille, Andy.

In: Nordic Journal of Science and technology Studies, Vol. 9, No. 1, 19.04.2021, p. 39-52.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Harvard

Yuille, A 2021, 'Contradictory cares in community-led planning', Nordic Journal of Science and technology Studies, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 39-52. https://doi.org/10.5324/njsts.v9i1.3527

APA

Yuille, A. (2021). Contradictory cares in community-led planning. Nordic Journal of Science and technology Studies, 9(1), 39-52. https://doi.org/10.5324/njsts.v9i1.3527

Vancouver

Yuille A. Contradictory cares in community-led planning. Nordic Journal of Science and technology Studies. 2021 Apr 19;9(1):39-52. doi: 10.5324/njsts.v9i1.3527

Author

Yuille, Andy. / Contradictory cares in community-led planning. In: Nordic Journal of Science and technology Studies. 2021 ; Vol. 9, No. 1. pp. 39-52.

Bibtex

@article{371370954d554916a38dadf5674caeea,
title = "Contradictory cares in community-led planning",
abstract = "The affective, practical and political dimensions of care are conventionally marginalised in spatial planning in the UK, in which technical evidence and certified expert judgements are privileged. Citizens are encouraged to participate in the planning system to influence how the places where they live will change. But to make the kind of arguments that are influential, their care for place must be silenced. Then in 2011, the Localism Act introduced neighbourhood planning to the UK, enabling community groups to write their own statutory planning policies. This initiative explicitly valorized care and affective connection with place, and associated care with knowledge of place (rather than opposing it to objective evidence). Through long-term ethnographic studies of two neighbourhood planning groups I trace the contours of care in this innovative space. I show how the groups{\textquoteright} legitimacy relies on their enactment of three distinct identities and associated sources of authority. Each identity embodies different objects, methods, exclusions and ideals of care, which are in tension and sometimes outright conflict with each other. Neighbourhood planning groups have to find ways to hold these tensions and ambivalences together, and how they do so determines what gets cared for and how. I describe the relations of care embodied by each identity and discuss the (ontological) politics of care that arise from the particular ways in which different modes of care are made to hang together: how patterns of exclusion and marginalisation are reproduced through a policy which explicitly seeks to undo them, and how reconfiguring relations between these identities can enable different cares to be realised. This analysis reveals care in practices that tend to be seen as antithetical to caring, and enables speculation about how silenced relations could be made visible and how policy could do care better.",
keywords = "Care, Neighbourhood planning, Relationality, Identity, Multiplicity",
author = "Andy Yuille",
year = "2021",
month = apr,
day = "19",
doi = "10.5324/njsts.v9i1.3527",
language = "English",
volume = "9",
pages = "39--52",
journal = "Nordic Journal of Science and technology Studies",
issn = "1894-4647",
number = "1",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Contradictory cares in community-led planning

AU - Yuille, Andy

PY - 2021/4/19

Y1 - 2021/4/19

N2 - The affective, practical and political dimensions of care are conventionally marginalised in spatial planning in the UK, in which technical evidence and certified expert judgements are privileged. Citizens are encouraged to participate in the planning system to influence how the places where they live will change. But to make the kind of arguments that are influential, their care for place must be silenced. Then in 2011, the Localism Act introduced neighbourhood planning to the UK, enabling community groups to write their own statutory planning policies. This initiative explicitly valorized care and affective connection with place, and associated care with knowledge of place (rather than opposing it to objective evidence). Through long-term ethnographic studies of two neighbourhood planning groups I trace the contours of care in this innovative space. I show how the groups’ legitimacy relies on their enactment of three distinct identities and associated sources of authority. Each identity embodies different objects, methods, exclusions and ideals of care, which are in tension and sometimes outright conflict with each other. Neighbourhood planning groups have to find ways to hold these tensions and ambivalences together, and how they do so determines what gets cared for and how. I describe the relations of care embodied by each identity and discuss the (ontological) politics of care that arise from the particular ways in which different modes of care are made to hang together: how patterns of exclusion and marginalisation are reproduced through a policy which explicitly seeks to undo them, and how reconfiguring relations between these identities can enable different cares to be realised. This analysis reveals care in practices that tend to be seen as antithetical to caring, and enables speculation about how silenced relations could be made visible and how policy could do care better.

AB - The affective, practical and political dimensions of care are conventionally marginalised in spatial planning in the UK, in which technical evidence and certified expert judgements are privileged. Citizens are encouraged to participate in the planning system to influence how the places where they live will change. But to make the kind of arguments that are influential, their care for place must be silenced. Then in 2011, the Localism Act introduced neighbourhood planning to the UK, enabling community groups to write their own statutory planning policies. This initiative explicitly valorized care and affective connection with place, and associated care with knowledge of place (rather than opposing it to objective evidence). Through long-term ethnographic studies of two neighbourhood planning groups I trace the contours of care in this innovative space. I show how the groups’ legitimacy relies on their enactment of three distinct identities and associated sources of authority. Each identity embodies different objects, methods, exclusions and ideals of care, which are in tension and sometimes outright conflict with each other. Neighbourhood planning groups have to find ways to hold these tensions and ambivalences together, and how they do so determines what gets cared for and how. I describe the relations of care embodied by each identity and discuss the (ontological) politics of care that arise from the particular ways in which different modes of care are made to hang together: how patterns of exclusion and marginalisation are reproduced through a policy which explicitly seeks to undo them, and how reconfiguring relations between these identities can enable different cares to be realised. This analysis reveals care in practices that tend to be seen as antithetical to caring, and enables speculation about how silenced relations could be made visible and how policy could do care better.

KW - Care

KW - Neighbourhood planning

KW - Relationality

KW - Identity

KW - Multiplicity

U2 - 10.5324/njsts.v9i1.3527

DO - 10.5324/njsts.v9i1.3527

M3 - Journal article

VL - 9

SP - 39

EP - 52

JO - Nordic Journal of Science and technology Studies

JF - Nordic Journal of Science and technology Studies

SN - 1894-4647

IS - 1

ER -