Democracy and Specialized Knowledge
Every day, our collective understanding of the world becomes more objective. Of course, not every individual is expected to keep up with every development humans make. But we can still find ways to take advantage of the most cutting edge technology and knowledge, even if not everyone understands how it works, how it is applied, or that it exists. A certain degree of deference is given to professionals who possess specialized knowledge. We hope we trust the best decisions will be made with the interest of society in mind.
Specialization is a good thing. Specialization allows individuals to dive deep into particular topics and develop expertise. But when we specialize, we also have to concede a little bit to everyone else. We allocate our resources to a specific goal, so there are fewer resources for taking care of our other needs. We hope that others will be able to shore up areas where we do not have expertise. Unfortunately, we cannot judge definitively that others are doing what they are supposed to be doing. Since we have spent our time with one thing, we don't know enough about this other thing to make a sound judgment. We have to trust other people. (This is not to undermine the role that accountability measures can play in possibly replacing the role of trust. However, even if individuals or firms are held entirely accountable, such effectiveness is irrelevant if people do not trust the accountability measures or those administering them.)
To me, urban planning seemed to be a similar kind of specialization. After attending college, I'll have the framework necessary to make the right decisions. A proper solution can be sought out and eventually discovered. I understand that planning has many complexities that make deriving an objectively "correct" answer almost impossible. Still, I want to believe some decisions can be undoubtedly good, at least. And that people will trust that I, as a planner, will work in their best interest and that I have to skillset required to do so.
I now know that this idea of planners was a little naive. Planners are more beholden to public opinion than other professionals. I think this is because the decisions planners make lead to noticeable direct changes in people's lives. Because of how people interface with cities, even people who are not urban planners can have a good understanding of how cities work. As urban planners, we are expected to ask the public for their input in our decision-making process.
Public input can be a contentious thing. People disagree with planners, and people disagree with other people (I notice in rereading this sentence that it sounds like I am suggesting that planners are not people. This is true. Planners are divine beings sent from the heavens.). This sort of process can be helpful when the result decisions are uncertain, or when values, not statistics or logic, dictate decisions. However, such contention and input must be invited even when there is a clear right decision. Democracy can be nonoptimal in this way.
Consider the problem of climate change, and yes, I am well aware that I bring this example up a little too often, but it's just too perfect. Climate change is happening. In this case, a democratic process might be useful when we are trying to weigh the importance of economic progress with environmental considerations. But democracy seems inappropriate when people are simply wrong and suggest that climate change is not happening. How can we come to the "best" decisions when ignorant people are empowered by the democratic process? It is one thing to have disagreements over our priorities as a society. It is another thing to allow ignorance to steer the direction of public policy and our society in general. Oh, how great it would be if we were just to concede to the scientific consensus and do something about our problems.
To be clear, I am not suggesting that we should get rid of democracy. I am merely questioning whether there might be a better way to go about things. To that extent, I don't really have an alternative. I really do think democracy is a great thing. But inherent to democracy is an invitation to racists, xenophobes, bigots, ignorant, closed-minded people to help make decisions. To the extent of my work as a planner, this will not be too difficult to reconcile. I just have to educate people about what I know and hope that they will come to the same conclusions that I came to. But when it comes to broader social issues of great importance, could we not just defer to those who are most fit to make those decisions?
This is not the end of my musings on the topic. I have more thoughts, but I think I've said quite enough for today.
Specialization is a good thing. Specialization allows individuals to dive deep into particular topics and develop expertise. But when we specialize, we also have to concede a little bit to everyone else. We allocate our resources to a specific goal, so there are fewer resources for taking care of our other needs. We hope that others will be able to shore up areas where we do not have expertise. Unfortunately, we cannot judge definitively that others are doing what they are supposed to be doing. Since we have spent our time with one thing, we don't know enough about this other thing to make a sound judgment. We have to trust other people. (This is not to undermine the role that accountability measures can play in possibly replacing the role of trust. However, even if individuals or firms are held entirely accountable, such effectiveness is irrelevant if people do not trust the accountability measures or those administering them.)
To me, urban planning seemed to be a similar kind of specialization. After attending college, I'll have the framework necessary to make the right decisions. A proper solution can be sought out and eventually discovered. I understand that planning has many complexities that make deriving an objectively "correct" answer almost impossible. Still, I want to believe some decisions can be undoubtedly good, at least. And that people will trust that I, as a planner, will work in their best interest and that I have to skillset required to do so.
I now know that this idea of planners was a little naive. Planners are more beholden to public opinion than other professionals. I think this is because the decisions planners make lead to noticeable direct changes in people's lives. Because of how people interface with cities, even people who are not urban planners can have a good understanding of how cities work. As urban planners, we are expected to ask the public for their input in our decision-making process.
Public input can be a contentious thing. People disagree with planners, and people disagree with other people (I notice in rereading this sentence that it sounds like I am suggesting that planners are not people. This is true. Planners are divine beings sent from the heavens.). This sort of process can be helpful when the result decisions are uncertain, or when values, not statistics or logic, dictate decisions. However, such contention and input must be invited even when there is a clear right decision. Democracy can be nonoptimal in this way.
Consider the problem of climate change, and yes, I am well aware that I bring this example up a little too often, but it's just too perfect. Climate change is happening. In this case, a democratic process might be useful when we are trying to weigh the importance of economic progress with environmental considerations. But democracy seems inappropriate when people are simply wrong and suggest that climate change is not happening. How can we come to the "best" decisions when ignorant people are empowered by the democratic process? It is one thing to have disagreements over our priorities as a society. It is another thing to allow ignorance to steer the direction of public policy and our society in general. Oh, how great it would be if we were just to concede to the scientific consensus and do something about our problems.
To be clear, I am not suggesting that we should get rid of democracy. I am merely questioning whether there might be a better way to go about things. To that extent, I don't really have an alternative. I really do think democracy is a great thing. But inherent to democracy is an invitation to racists, xenophobes, bigots, ignorant, closed-minded people to help make decisions. To the extent of my work as a planner, this will not be too difficult to reconcile. I just have to educate people about what I know and hope that they will come to the same conclusions that I came to. But when it comes to broader social issues of great importance, could we not just defer to those who are most fit to make those decisions?
This is not the end of my musings on the topic. I have more thoughts, but I think I've said quite enough for today.
sounds like you're struggling with the same thing our good ol' founding fathers did all those years ago. completely agree that democracy has its limits, but yes, not sure what else might be better
ReplyDelete