Abstract
In the last two decades, there has been significant growth in the body of knowledge that views the urban environment as a complex system. In her article Patterns of Self-organization in the Context of Urban Planning: Reconsidering Venues of Participation, Eizenberg,s (2019) critically investigates the phenomenon of self-organization within urban planning. By examining participating venues through the lens of power structures in self-organization dynamics, the article presents crucial inquiries for future studies in urban complexity. This comment traces the fundamental assumptions underlying Eisenberg's analytical approach and attempts to further investigate the interplay between formal planning, urban complexity, and social structure. In addition, this discussion suggests that the correlation between the two theoretical frameworks of power structure and self-organization presents new perspectives on both paradigms.
Firstly, fundamental assumptions about formal planning, urban development, and social structure within the framework of complexity theory need to be identified. While a precise definition of a complex system remains elusive, the characteristics of such a system are in consensus. It typically comprises of numerous elements or agents operating across various scales with interdependencies that influence each other. The interconnectedness and interdependence of these elements pose challenges regarding predictability and control. The absence of centralized control in the constant exchange of information, goods, and other resources among various entities enables the emergence of spontaneous order. The mentioned order, which emerges at the local level, engages in interactions with other systems and, as a result of feedback loops, generates novel organizational patterns at higher levels forming a self-organization system (Portugali, 1999). When this theory is applied to the urban system, it holds basic assumptions that, different from rational long-term plan-based planning, such a system is too complex and cannot be controlled or predicted. Specifically, as a plan becomes more precise, its effectiveness deminishes due to its inability to accommodate social processes (Moroni, 2015; Alfasi, 2017). Hence, this approach inherently perceives top-down planning solely as one component of the elements that shape the development and dynamics of the urban environment rather than the primary mechanism for the social organization it aims to achieve.
In contrast to this premise, Eizenberg applies McFarlane’s (2011) assemblage approach in examining self-organization dynamics. This approach adopts a power structure perspective to analyze the process and outcomes of planning and views the urban one as the manifestation of ongoing unequal practices. This sheds light on the power dynamics between various social groups and their interactions with the formal planning system that lead to spontaneous emergence. Although the study cases presented in Eizenberg's article refer to self-coordination (the independent formation of collective organization which does not fit the formal definition of self-organization), the critique regarding the impact of power structures on self-organizing dynamics is significant, thereby stimulating further discussion. Different from self-organization research which investigates uncontrolled local interactions, Eizenberg analyzes the role of participation active citizenship, and the concept of agency in the planning process and examines the quality of such order and its functioning within the understanding of pressures and limiting conditions generated by political, ethnic, and economic power relations. This critique challenges the prevailing premises of an unregulated urban environment and shows how political constraints challenge local interactions and the autonomy of the actors involved in the system. It offers a novel viewpoint on urban complexity and self-organization dynamics, which expands the understanding of bottom-up relations and social organization towards a comprehensive analysis of power dynamics within the national context beyond the interactions at the local level.
While the article primarily focuses on self-organizing dynamics in the context of insurgent practices in formal planning within colonizing or ethnic nation-based regimes, this approach may also be applied to the general research examining self-organization as a planning system. As such, research on self-organizing dynamics conducted in liberal regimes which define the relations between individual freedom and the state's responsibility (Rauws et al., 2020), should also examine power structure and mechanisms concerning communal rights within society.
Moreover, the author's analysis of self-organizing dynamics within the theoretical framework of informality raises insights within the research of informality. The article reveals that approaches concerning informality primarily examine its genesis due to intentional disregard by the state. Eizenberg rightfully emphasizes Roy's (2011) criticism of bottom-up self-organization research, which tends to idealize “the tactics of the poor.” However, informality research limits the investigation of these spaces to the discourse of their “legality.” Conversely, studies investigating self-organization dynamics demonstrate the undeniable power of bottom-up emergence, even under state control (Silva & Farrall, 2016). Despite their creation out of necessity, in these cases where people operate outside the law, the idea of self-organization assumes there is an order to which they are subjected. This order may be informal, which they might not be aware of it, yet it exists. This means that despite their unregulated nature, the manifestation of structure in informal spaces presents a challenge to analyzing power dynamics in informal processes. Therefore, it is imperative to conduct a more comprehensive investigation of these settlements, going beyond the scope of their legal status. The examination of informal spaces solely through the lens of informality fails to consider the inherent characteristics of these spaces. Furthermore, they serve as a compelling illustration of patterns of organization within seemingly chaotic environments and offer valuable insights into the dynamics of bottom-up planning in various contexts.
Additionally, the point of self-coordination patterns raised in the article stresses insights concerning insurgent planning (Rauws et al., 2020). The article recognizes that formal planning is used as a mechanism for establishing social order and delineating spaces for legal activities by certain groups in contrast to illegal ones by others (Yiftachel, 2009). It also suggests that informality can only be understood in relation to formal rules and that there is no dichotomy between the formal and informal realms and processes. This means that the critique of formal planning as a tool for social control is structural. Therefore, if informality is a result of an oppressive planning system, then any formal planning process may result in a “legal” plan; however, such a plan would still serve as a mechanism of control and oppression. This implies that spaces of informality where residents resist formal planning might offer them more spatial rights than formal practices (Chiodelli and Moroni, 2014). Therefore, particularly within non-liberal regimes, where informality is a product of a political planning system, exploring alternative planning systems should be investigated instead of adhering to a repetitive planning tool within the same system that will inevitably perpetuate other forms of oppression. As such, a self-organization planning system facilitates the establishment of a distinct professional planning framework based on shared values separate from the state's political structure. A self-organization planning system that empowers bottom-up processes and provides a formal framework that defines the responsibility of public investments that may be more equitable.
In conclusion, Eizenberg's critique of power structure should also be extended to internal relations when examining self-organization dynamics. A society that (Chiodelli and Moroni, 2014) organizes itself and tends to perpetuate existing power relations between groups. Therefore, it is crucial to incorporate these limits of self-organizing mechanisms when developing a planning system. The role of power dynamics in planning systems raises the question of how planning can facilitate social ordering. The interplay between social and spatial transformation is a gradual process of reciprocal interactions. The interconnected nature of these two phenomena evolving through feedback loops is similar to the self-organizing evolutionary system. In that manner, spatial variables may trigger social change, and conversely, social change may be reflected in the built environment. Therefore, self-organizing systems inherently hold more adaptive and non-controlling characteristics adhering to social change compared to long-term top-down planning. Finally, while studies researching self-organizing urbanism have investigated the role of planning in facilitating the emergence of bottom-up patterns (Rauws, 2017), future studies may furtherly investigate Eizenberg's significant challenge of power dynamics within such a system while ensuring equitable opportunities and access for all individuals and groups.