Problematising responsibility in planning theory and practice: On seeing the middle of the string?

Spatial planners are often told that they must be responsible to ensure equitable and democratic planning processes, or to ensure the sustainability of our communities and wider planet. The words ‘responsible’ and ‘responsibility’ are readily assumed to be an unambiguous ethical stance that all spatial planners understand and undertake. Does this mean that when our planning outcomes are neither equitable nor sustainable (as in many cases), that we have failed in our responsibility? More fundamentally, what does responsibility actually mean and imply for our practices? s monograph we problematise the concept of responsibility as a social construct from diverse theoretical perspectives. These perspectives draw on a tradition of duty, responsibility as delineation of the good, responsibility to the other regardless of proximity, and responsibility as the ability to act and accept liability for the consequences in ambiguous situations while allowing the potential for future radical betterment. We take empirical examples from the planning literature to demonstrate the implications of the various interpretations of responsibility and question each position through a lens of ideological analysis and critique prior to evaluating each perspective for its appropriateness in planning ethics and practice. gest that our questions are often undecidable and that ‘responsibility is like a string that we can only see the middle of. Both ends are out of sight’ [(McFee, 1916). Casuals of the sea: The voyage of a soul. New York: Doubleday]. We conclude by proposing a contemporary response to the conceptualisation of responsibility in spatial planning. This is a response predicated on the avoidance of avoidance in a globalising world.