ABSTRACT
Rhetoric is, both theoretically and practically, an extremely impor tant part of planning.1 Simply by making such a claim, this chapter turns away from the dominant scientific or Modernist conception of planning (see part 1) and begins to propose an alternative view. Accord ing to the Modernist view, planners can use scientifically verified facts and laws to guide social process (Friedmann 1987). Persuasion and audiences are, in the Modernist view, at best irrelevant and at worst positively dangerous. The contrary view expressed here is that persua sion and audiences are at the very core of planning. Planners are embedded in a complex rhetorical situation created by the interaction of three broad audiences-lay advocates, scientists, and politicians-and three core impulses-passion, reason, and power.2 Rather than conceiv-
ing of planning rhetoric as “mere words” or manipulation, I argue that it can and should also be thought of as a hermeneutic dialogue in which planners who occupy specific roles (to be defined later in this chapter) attempt to understand, persuade, and be persuaded by their three primary audiences. Through this process, planners and their audiences fuse into new interpretive communities, and the demarcation between planners and their audiences gradually disappears in all but name only. In this Postmodern conception, planners do not guide action or simply try to influence decision makers nor do they try to perfectly represent each of their core audiences. Rather, planners actively mediate between fundamentally different audiences and thereby help to create and sustain a broadly inclusive community of advocates, politicians, and sci entists.
