EDITORIAL

 

From the editor

 

 

Prof. Das Steýn 2020

 

 

My father's (1902-1978) first vehicle was an ox waggon. He passed away nearly a decade after the first man landed on the moon in 1969. In his life,¹ considerable changes occurred in the field of technology and in social conditions. The rise in the Free State from poverty after the ravage of the Second Anglo-Boer War (1899-1902), the First World War (1914-1919), the Great Influenza (1918), the Great Depression (1929-1933) and the Second World War (1939-1945) divided the periods prior to or after this chain of events. In fact, each of these events also influenced the world of planning.

What changes will the Corona virus bring about in our society? Nobody knows. Changes can be expected in economies and human behaviour. Consider Castells' (1992) famous article after the fall of Communism in Russia: "The world has changed, can planning change?"

The above changes have, to a large extent, turned the world towards socialism, because modern man wanted to eradicate the risk of difficult times in countries where prosperity allowed it. Planning was also swept away by the redistribution of wealth and the notion of 'who gets what'. However, is planning a power game or was the profession driven in a corner? Some planners in the private sector know that other criteria may also apply, namely that the payability of a project is also important; thus, a capitalistic view of planning. Somewhere between these two value systems, one will have to seek what planning really ought to be.

Christian philosophy (Philosophy of the Cosmononic Idea²) attempts to determine the unique nature of every type of community or social relationship. The profession of town planning needs to reconsider the nature and character of the profession.

According to Van Riessen (1973: 337-356), the test for community development is the establishment of stable relationships³within a community, between active, free and responsible people. In philosophy, every social relationship has a guiding or leading function and a qualifying or destination function. The guiding function is usually of a historical nature and the destination function is linked to the nature of the social relationship. It is important that each social relationship has the authority to reign over its own territory. The authority is thus limited by its unique nature. Independent relationships guarantee freedom, also known as 'sphere sovereignty'. Kuyper stated the following: "Sonder soewereiniteit in eie kring is die staatsmag onbepaald gebiedend; beskik dit oor persone, oor hul lewens, hul regte, oor hul gewete en selfs oor hul geloof (Translation: "Without sphere sovereignty, state power is indefinitely imperative; it has the power over persons, their lives, their rights, their conscience and even their faith"). (Kalsbeek, 1970: 89). The authority of the church, the school, a business and any other social relationship is equally limited.

A business' origin function is the historical demand for a specific service or product and the destination function is profit. With town planning, the origin function was the historical social and spatial chaos that arises in a complex society and the destination function is to order space so that there is a place in the sun for everyone (Van den Berg, 1981: 27, 41).

The destination function not only determines the typical nature of the social relationship, but also directs all its functions towards an individual objective, so that the functions obtain an inner structural order (Van Riessen,1980: 204-215). It is interesting to note that Van den Berg (1981: 27) distinguishes between planners who are concerned with the science of planning (a planologist -"planoloog" in Dutch) and a planner who is concerned with spatial order (a "planner" in Dutch). The one is guided more by science and the other is concerned with the regulation process of space or the Alling of space within a specific policy context. Different planners can thus have different functions.

The success of their planning must be tested on the degree in which they succeed in creating or controlling the space in which society can live, work and relax in harmony. According to Nijkamp (1980: 14-18), space (environment) must be created, in order to produce contingencies, set norms, and enrich the soul. Steyn (2015: 122-123) requests that "beplanning daarop gerig moet wees om vir mens en samelewing die voorwaardes te skep om:

• tot groter verantwoordelikheid geroep te voel en gelei te word;

• tot groter vryheid om na eie aard te ontwikkel en moontlikhede te soek, en '

n klimaat te laat ontstaan waarin die mens deur kreatiwiteit 'n ryke verskeidenheid van ruimtelike gebruike, wat in harmonie verkeer, kan ontwikkel."

(Translation: planning should be aimed at creating the conditions for man and society to:

• Feel called and be led to greater responsibility;

• Greater freedom to develop as a unique being and to look for possibilities, and

• Allow a climate to develop in which man can develop, through creativity, a rich variety of spatial uses that are in harmony.)

Planning should not only be restricting, but also realise that man cannot control everything.

"Die toekoms is dus meer kompleks as wat die mens (ook die beplanner) dink. Die veronderstelling dat beplanners weet wat die volgende generasies gaan benodig en dat hul dit nou reeds kan voorsien, is 'n illusie. Die toekoms is onvoorspelbaar en is geen liniêre projeksie van die huidige situasie nie. Die toekoms behels meer as fisiese beplanningsprojeksies. Dit moet die waardes en drome van mense asook teoretiese benaderings inkorporeer in 'n tyd waarin die beplanningsteorie nie weet watter kant toe dinge moet gaan nie. Miskien sal dit help as beplanners nederig genoeg is om te aanvaar dat

• hul beste beplanningsteorieë te gebrekkig is om die werklikheid van die toekoms vas te vang;

• hul beste toekomsprojeksies die kol gaan mis, en

• hul beste planne binne 'n paar jaar nie meer werkbaar gaan wees nie en vervang sal moet word deur ander nuwe toekomsplanne. Laat dus grond (ruimte) oop vir volgende geslagte om oor te besluit en moenie alle besluite nou wil neem nie" (Steyn, 2001: 50).

(Translation: The future is thus more complex than one (also the planner) thinks. It is a misconception to assume that planners know the next generation's needs and that they can already provide these now. The future is unpredictable and is not a linear projection of the present situation. The future includes more than physical planning projections. It must incorporate people's values and dreams as well as theoretical approaches in a time when present planning theories cannot give the answers. It may be helpful if planners are sufficiently humble to accept that

• their best planning theories are too weak to capture the reality of the future;

• their best future projections will miss the point, and

• their best plans will no longer be feasible within a few years' time and will have to be replaced with other new future plans. Thus, leave room for the next generations to decide. Do not make all the decisions now. (Steyn, 2001: 50).

 

References

Castells, M. 1992. The world has changed: Can planning change? Landscape and Urban Planning, 22, pp. 73-78.         [ Links ]

Dooyeweerd, H. 1953. A new critique of theoretical thought. Vols I, II & III. Amsterdam: Uitgeverij H.J. Pretorius.         [ Links ]

Kalsbeek, L. 1970. De wijsbegeerte der wetsidee. Amsterdam: Buijten & Schipperhein.         [ Links ]

Kalsbeek, L. 1975. Contours of a Christian philosophy: An introduction to Herman Dooyeweerd's thought. Amsterdam: Buijten & Schipperhein.         [ Links ]

Nijkamp, P. 1980. Waarden en waarheid in de ruimtelijke wetenskap. Radix, 6(1), pp. 2-19.         [ Links ]

Steyn, J.J. 2001. 'n Nuwe sonering vir stads- en streekbeplanning, naamlik 'n "oop toekoms". Stads- en Streekbeplanning, vol. 44, pp. 46-51.         [ Links ]

Steyn, J.J. 2015. Reforming normative planning: Essays on a Christian approach to planning / Hervorming vir normatiewe beplanning: Opstelle oor n Christelike benadering tot beplanning. Orania: Prisca Uitgewers.         [ Links ]

Van den Berg, G.J. 1981. Inleiding tot de planologie: Voor ieder 'n plaats in de zon? Brussel: Samson Uitgeverij.         [ Links ]

 

 

1 As a fifty-year old man from the farm, he had to go to town working as a labourer cleaning workshop floors at the South African Railways, so that he could pay the hostel fees of his oldest son, who had to go to high school.
2 For more information on the Philosophy of the Law-Idea, see Kalsbeek (1975) and Dooyeweerd (1953).
3 Kalsbeek (1970: 201; 1980: 197) distinguishes between organised communities (for example, state, church, association, industry, and so on) that are also called relationships, and natural communities (for example, marriage and family). Planning is also an organised social relationship, because it is organised as a profession.