ABSTRACT
Another problem with attempting to explore a postmodern planning is where to start and what to assume. Unlike some of the work on postmodernism and planning, it is important to recognise that we are not beginning with a blank sheet. There are inherited structures, land use patterns and processes, as well as influences beyond planning such as European legislation and the government’s wider commitment to questions such as social inclusion that bind any new approach. Questions of practicality also emerge that inevitably shape any approach, as do my own values which steer me away from a more extreme interpretation towards one that could be described as more a form of social democracy. This is particularly the case with the context of planning, i.e., local governance. This then provides limits on thinking that
in principle should be unlimited – a lack of ‘closure’. I am not the first to come up against the problems of trying to shoe-horn what are essentially theoretical ideas into a predominantly pragmatic and practical world. It is for this reason that many of the accusations against postmodern thinking as impractical and abstract have validity. Perryman (1994), for example, puts together a volume of work on postmodern politics that in broad aims is similar to this book, though related more to politics than land use regulation. However, the outcome is more a shuffling of the cards as opposed to any realistic alternative. Similarly, Trend (1996) attempts something similar with regards to postmodern democracy and ends up with a re-hash of postmodern social theory that has little in the way of practical use.
