ABSTRACT
Much of John Friedmann’s scholarly work has long grappled with value-based philosophical challenges underpinning diverse conceptions and struggles for the “Good Society.” One of his early books on this subject spells out three conditions that must be met by those trying to sketch a theory of the Good Society: “a foundation in specific values must be made explicit; in the light of these values, a critical theory of reality must be devised; and a consistent set of action principles to bring about a changed reality has to be stated” (Friedmann 1979, p.xv). John has significantly advanced this line of thinking in a series of major works, including his magnum opus, Planning in the Public Domain: From Knowledge to Action (1987). Friedmann (1987) fleshes out four major traditions of planning theory:
social reform, policy analysis, social mobilization and social learning. His passion lies with the latter two traditions which include radical planning and practice. The central task of radical planning in complex times, Friedmann argues, is “the mediation of theory and practice in social transformation” (1987, p.391). John’s advocacy for linking theory and practice, knowledge and action has had a lasting impact on my academic work. In his Foreword to my book Human Settlements and Planning for Ecological Sustainability (Pezzoli 2000), John writes: “[T]here are two interconnected human struggles going on in the world today that, despite their local particularities, are fundamentally the same. I refer to the struggle for a subsistence livelihood and the struggle for the life space of land and housing” (p.ix). Friedmann inspired his students to do immersive field research at the front lines of social struggle-especially where grassroots organizations are mobilized as countervailing forces for transformative development. I’ve kept in touch with John ever since first linking up with him as my
graduate studies advisor over three decades ago. Most recently I’ve interacted with John about urban agriculture in poor neighborhoods of Southeastern San Diego where I work with other researchers, land owners, nonprofit organizations and local residents in building community gardens and urban food forests on vacant land. John shares my enthusiasm for neighborhood-based
work of this sort, but he is less optimistic about the potential of bioregionalism or sustainability science. I appreciate his perspective; he is not alone. Many scholars with an interest in regionalism argue that the term “bioregion” is a fuzzy concept, hard to define, too large and remote from the exigencies of daily life in neighborhoods and unknowable as an object of study. As for sustainability science, many find it to have a de-politicized technocentric emphasis, notwithstanding its call for building knowledge-action collaboration at a regional scale for sustainable development. During his early career Friedmann identified himself as regional planner-
including work at the famous Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)—and since then has published serious contributions to the field of regional planning (Friedmann & Bloch 1990; Friedmann 2001). But as time goes on many cities of the world are expanding into sprawling megalopolitan messes, and the prospects for meaningful civic engagement in comprehensive regional planning are declining. Friedmann’s (2015) most recent work thus concentrates on challenges posed by “recovering our cities, neighborhood by neighborhood” (p.9); this approach, he argues, is the most expeditious way to make our cities socially more sustainable. I agree. But at the same time a new bioregional narrative for the 21st century can bolster neighborhood struggles by embedding them in a transformative theory that speaks more broadly about socio-ecological change in the context of progressive and transformative development. I’ll argue the case here for the utility of bioregional theory and sustain-
ability science using a handy metric that Friedmann (2008) provides in his article on the “Uses of Planning Theory.” John identifies three ways that planning theory can contribute to the field of planning, including practice and education: (1) articulate a deeply considered humanist philosophy for planning attuned to practice; (2) adapt planning practices to their real-world constraints with regard to scale, complexity, and time; and (3) translate knowledge and ideas generated in other fields into the domain of planning (p.247).
