Abstract
Emerging out of the International Round Table on Indigenous Community Planning and Land Use Management that was held in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada, in June 2010, this edited collection draws on the insights and experiences of both scholars and practitioners with an interest in Indigenous planning. The book includes twenty chapters that speak to a wide variety of planning experiences involving Indigenous communities in Canada, the United States, New Zealand, and Australia—four former British settler-states that share numerous commonalities in terms of their histories of colonialism. As several of the authors included in this book implicitly or explicitly note, this colonial history is very much present in contemporary planning practices, creating an urgent need to decolonize planning in settler societies and to reclaim Indigenous planning practices.
Indigenous planning is defined by Matunga in the opening chapter as planning “done according Indigenous analyses, frameworks, values, and processes” (6). It is a highly political project that seeks to transform both the processes and outcomes of planning in Indigenous communities. Indigenous planning asks: “What frameworks, institutions, and organizations are being used to guide the planning processes that most affect Indigenous peoples? Where are Indigenous peoples positioned in the construction of that frame?” (4). Attempts to reclaim Indigenous planning approaches, therefore, need to be understood as a response to the systemic undermining of Indigenous authority, knowledge, ethics, and methods. Put more simply, Indigenous planning is inextricably linked to sovereignty and self-determination and grows out of an understanding that the “planning resolve” (Jojola 1998) of Indigenous peoples is not a by-product of the colonial process. As Matunga and Jojola (who wrote the concluding chapter) forcefully assert, Indigenous peoples have always planned according to their own cultural traditions.
These themes run through much of the book, as the editors’ stated goal is “to continue to reconnect past [Indigenous] practice with present circumstance, all in the context of planning for the future” (xviii). In this way, the book creates opportunity to explore how planning theory and practice might be better informed by Indigenous resurgence. As articulated by a growing number of critical Indigenous theorists, Indigenous resurgence relates to the everyday practice of Indigenous culture (the speaking of Indigenous languages, the eating of traditional foods, etc.), but also to long-term community organization and visioning. As Nishnaabekwe scholar Simpson writes, We need to be able to articulate in a clear manner our visions for the future, for living as Indigenous Peoples in contemporary times. . . . We need to do this on our own terms, without the sanction, permission or engagement of the state, western theory or the opinions of [settler society]. In essence, we need to not just figure out who we are; we need to re-establish the processes by which we live. (2011, 17)
Indigenous resurgence does not entail a complete disengagement from settler-society, but it does necessitate a complete re-thinking of the institutions and governance processes that guide Indigenous and non-Indigenous relations. It requires thinking about the different modes of expressing Indigenous visions for the future and the potential trade-offs that are made when these visions are expressed through state-based planning processes. These are challenging ideas that planning scholarship has only begun to address (see, e.g., Dorries 2012; Barry and Porter 2012).
Upon reading this book’s preface and opening chapter, I saw great potential in terms contributing to this very nascent conversation about how both Indigenous and non-Indigenous planning scholars and practitioners might work to support Indigenous resurgence. The preface takes steps towards articulating the difficult work of Indigenous resurgence and the difficult encounters that often arise as Indigenous peoples work to make their traditions more visible within a conception of planning that continues to be dominated by Western ontologies and epistemologies. It draws attention to issues of “mobilization and various forms of resistance, awareness raising, and visioning taking place” (xx) as Indigenous peoples engage in their own community planning processes and in those organized by the settler-state. However, the editorial decisions made with respect to the organization of the collection has meant that this important discussion has not been carried through the rest of the book as strongly as it needed to be.
The book was organized into three major parts: (1) Indigenous Communities; (2) the Urban Experience; and (3) Lands and Resources. Although the preface indicates that the first part was intended to draw attention to the importance of Indigenous cultural values and traditions, it reads more as a “catch-all” for chapters that did not fit neatly into either of the remaining two parts. There are still some excellent contributions. For example, Cornell’s chapter explores how the political and cognitive legacies of colonialism are reinforced and challenged through the production and crossing of boundaries. Hibbard and Atkins use their chapter to think through how some of the principles embedded in the idea of a self-determining political system might be applied to socio-economic development. The remainder of the chapters in this part are much more reflective in tone, presenting detailed commentary on a range of planning inventions—from Sandercock and Attili’s work on the use of film to Hardess and Fortier’s discussion of the role of an external capacity-building organization in a “co-creative” (151), community-based Indigenous planning process. Many of these chapters work well as stand-alone pieces. However, it is entirely unclear what they collectively illustrate in terms of the reclaiming of Indigenous planning. Although the entire book would have greatly benefited from editorial comments at either the beginning or end of each part, this first part was in particular need of additional input to help draw its chapters together.
The remaining two parts also present a wide range of cases, though none speak directly to the characteristics of Indigenous planning presented in the book’s opening chapter. In fact, some of the cases (Porter’s chapter in particular) speak to a complete lack of recognition of Indigenous planning and a complete lack of engagement with the need to promote Indigenous self-determination. The cases presented in these parts relate more to the equally important issue of the huge variations that exist in the interface between Indigenous and state-based planning systems. Some of the chapters (the Maori cases, in particular) are suggestive of ways in which the integration of Indigenous and non-Indigenous values and knowledge systems might fundamentally transform both the processes and outcomes of planning. Others speak to some rather partial attempts to include Indigenous cultural knowledge that leave the colonial systems of planning largely intact. While a diversity of experiences is an important characteristic to capture in an edited collection, these issues needed to be explored with much greater conceptual precision. For although the more disappointing stories of piecemeal attempts to include Indigenous peoples and Indigenous knowledge do have a place in a collection such as this, they need to be properly contextualized. As this book so clearly illustrates, the entire field of Indigenous planning needs to do more to tease these cases apart from those that genuinely make space for a more fulsome expression of Indigenous culture and governance traditions. As Howitt et al.’s chapter suggests, we need to be equally concerned with how we conceptualize appropriate ways of addressing the “intercultural incompetence and incapacity” that exists within many state-based planning institutions (332). Without this clarity, the field leaves itself open to the possibility of a gross and (arguably) dangerous misinterpretation that all processes that simply include Indigenous people are creating sufficient space for the expression and resurgence of Indigenous planning traditions.
Despite these reservations, I have now used this book in two of my courses (a community-based studio involving several partnering Indigenous communities and a seminar that explores Indigenous peoples’ complex and often conflictive relationships with state-based planning). I can honestly say that it has been a welcome and incredibly useful addition to my syllabi. My students have responded positively to the book’s accessible tone, the inclusion of several chapters written from a practitioner-perspective, and the unparalleled diversity of cases. Given the structural and conceptual weaknesses noted above, I would not recommend it as a stand-alone textbook. Rather, I found that it needed to be supplemented with other readings and in-class discussions to help students develop their own critical perspective on the nature of Indigenous planning and its interface with state-based planning systems. So, while I am unconvinced of the book’s collective contribution to the small but growing body of scholarship on Indigenous planning and its relationships to state-based processes, many of the included cases provide excellent fodder for learning and discussion, and will potentially play a significant role in promoting increased awareness of the complexities of Indigenous peoples’ relationships to planning.