Ben Davy, University of Johannesburg | 2021 Jammal International Fellow - Shared screen with speaker view
Who can see your viewing activity?
Micaela Lipman Moderator
Welcome everyone, please feel free to drop your comments, questions and thoughts in the chat as we reflect collectively on this lecture today.
Micaela Lipman Moderator
Welcome to those just joining us, as we reflect on this important lecture, feel free to drop questions and comments into the chat.
Really appreciate Dr. Davy’s opinion on buzzwords and context. “meaning of words depend on context and buzzword bingo is the death of context”, is so powerful
Micaela Lipman Moderator
Nicole, way to pull out a great quote.
The Shklar quote and that the justice/injustice question seems to hinge on defining injustice simply as harm or cost to someone, which I think is an incomplete definition. Does Dr. Davy agree?
Another way of asking: is all harm unjust?
I was surprised when Dr. Davy said that the U.S. doesn't really have a proportionality equivalent. My first thought was "what about laws about takings and eminent domain? Isn't that a proportionality based response?" I'm curious to look up some of these international comparisons to see how they differ.
The meaning of the word resilient is really sticking with me. With current environmental justice initiatives, how do we approach having conversations about changing hurtful language to stop calling vulnerable cities and people resilient? How can we bring about change?
I appreciate that reflection, Angelina. It is also sticking with me as well.
Great question Angelina
Along the lines of Angelina's question-this makes me think of our studio. How do we use language that recognizes the need for change but also promotes equitable treatment and access to communities that need the change? Language has proved to be one of the most difficult skills to learn in planning for me.
What is Dr Davy’s thought on the general belief or idea ingrained in US’s culture where people are placed as either minority or majorities, and assigns them an expected role in society based on the general belief on how they should behave in society. It seems minorities should be kept as minorities, with minor concerns, minor desires and thus the government do very little to change their realities. Would Dr. Davy suggest the intersectionality framework as a way to overcome this minority-majority-trap? Any other?
Micaela Lipman Moderator
Great questions friends, keep them coming.
I greatly appreciate Dr. Davy’s emphasis on the meaning of words. In that spirit, I would question his definition of justice as a function of scarcity. It seems to me that justice is more of a function of access. I make this claim, because there are enough resources to support the global population; however, access to resources is controlled in a way that creates injustices. I would appreciate his thoughts on this distinction.
Buzzwords are the way to implement and bring planning ideas to public domain. So, we have to have a look at the positive side of buzzwords too
Thank you for your sharing of knowledge Dr. Davy. How would you suggest webecome aware of other rationalities while understanding/keeping in mind our own limitations as planners? Do we then fall under a mindset in which we have to pick our battles, win some and lose some?
Thanks for the lecture Dr. Davy! How do you suggest we move people away from a monorational way of thinking? How can we promote polyrationality in places where a monorational mindset is deeply engrained?
As someone very interested in cartography, I have learned through this lecture and previous classes that you can display something spatially in whichever way you want. I really enjoyed the emphasis on accurate spatial representation and I am interested to learn more about the intersection of Justice and Spatial Visualization.
It seems like there's been a death of subtlety, the buzzwords are easy to see through but at the same time they are perpetuated. Has this been the case or is buzzword bingo more of a modern thing?
Along the lines of Carols insightful question, Dr Davy said that when it comes to a “just city”, every social change, is unjust to someone. In a virtual setting I am wondering what Dr. Davy believes to be the best approach to the process of ensuring no one wins or loses every time?
Wonderful and very moving lecture. My question is, even if planners can embrace the concept of polyrationality, how might this new set of goals and values be impressed to the other important actors in the citybuilding process (engineers, politicians, financial interests)?
Very interesting lecture Dr. Davey, thank you! How can we better ensure that incoming and present day planning professionals understand and better incorporate polyrationality?
I feel like these buzzwords are used the most by groups already in power because they can use them and then pat themselves on the back for being progressive or "radical". How else does buzzword bingo end up simply maintaining the status quo?
Also, is there ever a good time and place to use buzzwords?
Agreed Valerie, it's a co-opting of values that often happens to late to do something meaningful
Buzzwords are largely used because it attracts the eye/ear of the masses quicker (a great marketing tool). I find your call to stop or be mindful of how planners use buzzwords to be very similar in your suggestion for planners to exercise turbulent boundaries to be idealistic in some way because planners are always subject to the requests and mission of city government. What are some structures you think can be put in place to help planners practice turbulent boundaries and be more mindful in their use of buzzwords?
Kennedy I really liked what you said and I want to add another question on top of it for Dr. Davy - would you say it is inevitable that certain words that are initially used to express deliberate thoughts or ideas are eventually diluted as they become more common in public discourse? Is that an necessary or inevitable tradeoff as ideas spread to a wider audience?
As a student of both planning and architecture I found myself very interested in your article “Plan It Without a Condom,” I was wondering in terms of Urban Design and Spatial Planning, if you see the monorational planning of individual blocks of an overall streetscape as polyrational? Or is the idea of a commercial street monorational in itself?
especially in a virtual setting and times of covid
I find a certain logical progression that polyrationality's emphasis on 'turbulent boundaries' can be moved from constructive turbulence leading to justice to harmful conflict and further injustice. How can this turbulence be managed in such a way that it remains constructive and avoids injustice? Should it be managed at all, or is it better left to collective vigilance against injustice on the part of urban citizens/planners?
Thank you for your response Dr. Davy. Your elaboration further emphasizes the importance of context in the interpretation of the words we use. My background in environmental studies was influencing my interpretation of your use of the word scarcity; your clarification that scarcity in this definition is a social construct helped me understand your perspective.
Is it mindset or access to power?
Such great advice! Thank you for the inspiration.
Thank you for your response! Community members often become frustrated with political officials because of their overuse of buzzwords to negate from focusing on the real problems communities are facing.
Thank you Micaela! Great work
Thank you for an inspiring talk!
Wonderful, eye-opening presentation! Thank you so much, Dr. Davy!
Thank you Dr.Davy
Great talk, BAP!
Thanks Ben, Hope all well, bertie
thank you Prof. Davy!
Thank you for coming professor!
Thank You very much! And thank you Micaela and Dr. B for being awesome