How should planners in public institutions restore relationships after they have done things that cause harm to communities? This manuscript examines how Sandercock’s therapeutic imagination in planning relates to the public ethics outlined by legal and political theorists. I explore the moral paradox for planning theory of the desire to engage in healing with communities when public institutions remain accountable to democratic majorities. That paradox defines three duties for planners in possession of Sandercock’s “therapeutic” imagination who would support healing and change via the profession of planning.
AllmendingerPGunderM (2005) Applying Lacanian insight and a dash of Derridean deconstruction to planning’s dark side. Planning Theory4(1): 87–112.
2.
ArendtH (1958) The Human Condition. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
3.
BollensSA (2012) City and Soul in Divided Societies. London and New York: Routledge.
4.
CampbellHMarshallR (2002) Utilitarianism’s bad breath? A re-evaluation of the public interest justification for planning. Planning Theory1(2): 163–187.
5.
CardC (2005) The Atrocity Paradigm: A Theory of Evil. Oxford. Oxford University Press.
6.
DavisP (2002) On apologies. Journal of Applied Philosophy19(2): 169–173.
7.
DerridaJ (2001) On Cosmopolitanism and Forgiveness. London: Routledge.
8.
DeweyJ (1938) Experience & Education. New York: Kappa Delta Pi.
9.
DigeserP (2001) Political Forgiveness. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
10.
FeinbergJ (1980) Rights, Justice, and the Bounds of Liberty: Essays in Social Philosophy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
11.
GansH (1988) Middle American Individualism: The Future of Liberal Democracy. New York: Free Press.
12.
GibsonJL (2002) Truth, justice, and reconciliation: Judging the fairness of amnesty in South Africa. American Journal of Political Science46(3): 540–556.
13.
GillK (2000) The moral functions of an apology. The Philosophical Forum31(1): 11–27.
14.
GunderMHillierJ (2007) Planning as urban therapuetic. Environment and Planning-Part A39(2): 467–486.
15.
GunderM (2010) Planning as the ideology of (neoliberal) space. Planning Theory9(4): 298–314.
16.
HartleyTW (1995) Environmental justice: An environmental civil rights value acceptable to all world views. Environmental Ethics17(3): 277–289.
17.
HealeyP (2009) The pragmatic tradition in planning thought. Journal of Planning Education and Research28: 277–292.
18.
HillierJ (2002) Off the slippery ice and onto rough ground: Direct action and agonism in democratic planning practice. In: AllmendingerPTewdr-JonesM (eds) Planning Futures: New Directions in Planning Theory. London: Athlone Press, pp. 110–135.
19.
JankélévitchV (2005) Forgiveness. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
20.
KaganS(1988) Causation and responsibility. American Philosophical Quarterly25(4): 293–302.
21.
KahlS (2005) The religious roots of modern poverty policy: Catholic, Lutheran, and Reformed Protestant traditions compared. Archives Europeé ennes de sociologie46(1): 91–126.
22.
LowN (1990) Planning, Politics, and the State: Political Foundations of Planning Thought. Sydney, NSW, Australia: Unwin Hyman.
23.
LowNGleesonB (1998) Justice, Society and Nature: An Exploration of Political Ecology. London: Routledge.
24.
LubanDElsterJ (2006) Closing the books: Transitional justice in historical perspective. Ethics116(2): 409–412.
25.
MarrisP (1975) Loss and Change. Garden City, NY: Anchor Press.
26.
MarrisP (1982) Community Planning and Conceptions of Change. Boston, MA: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
27.
MacIntyreAC (2007) After virtue: A study in moral theory. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
28.
MillerD (2001) Distributing responsibilities. Journal of Political Philosophy9(4): 453–471.
29.
NozickR (1974) Anarchy, State, and Utopia. New York: Basic Books.
30.
PosnerEAVermeuleA (2004) Transitional justice as ordinary justice. Harvard Law Review117(3): 761–825.
31.
PløgerJ (2004) Strife: Urban planning and agonism. Planning Theory3: 71–92.
32.
SagerT (2011) Role conflict: Planners torn between dialogical ideals and neo-liberal realities. In: HillierJHealeyP (eds) The Ashgate Research Companion to Planning Theory: Conceptual Challenges for Spatial Planning. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company, pp. 183–214.
33.
SandercockL (1998) Making the Invisible Visible: A Multicultural Planning History. Berkeley, CA. University of California Press.
34.
SandercockL (2004) Towards a planning imagination for the 21st century. Journal of the American Planning Association70(2): 133–141.
35.
TaftL (2000) Apology subverted: The commodification of apology. The Yale Law Journal109(5): 1135–1160.
36.
TavuchisN (1993) Mea Culpa: A Sociology of Apology and Reconciliation. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
37.
ThompsonJ (2001) Historical injustice and reparation: Justifying claims of descendants. Ethics112(1): 114–135.
38.
ThompsonJ (2005) Apology, justice and respect: A critical defense of political apology. In:Australian association for professional and applied ethics 12th annual conference proceedings, Adelaide, 28–30September. Available at: http://www.unisa.edu.au/Documents/EASS/HRI/GIG/thompson.pdf
39.
VernonR (2003) Against restitution. Political Studies51(3): 542–557.
40.
WalkerU (2006) Moral Repair: Reconstructing Moral Relations after Wrongdoing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
41.
WolterstorffN (2009) Does forgiveness undermine justice. In: DoleAChignellA (eds) God and the Ethics of Belief: New Essays in the Philosophy of Religion. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press, pp. 219–248.
42.
YiftachelO (1998) Planning and social control: Exploring the dark side. Journal of Planning Literature12(4): 95–406.
43.
YoungIM (2011) Responsibility for Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
