the informal city

Also by Michel S. Laguerre

A F R O - C A R I B B E A N F O L K M E D I C I N E : T h e R e p r o d u c t i o n a n d P r a c t i c e of H e a l i n g

A M E R I C A N O D Y S S E Y : H a i t i a n s in N e w Y o r k C i t y

T H E C O M P L E T E H A I T I A N A : A B i b l i o g r a p h i c G u i d e to t h e

S c h o l a r l y L i t e r a t u r e , 1 9 0 0 - 1 9 8 0 (2 v o l s )

E T U D E S S U R L E V O D O U H A I T I E N

T H E M I L I T A R Y A N D S O C I E T Y I N H A I T I

U R B A N L I F E I N T H E C A R I B B E A N : A S t u d y of a H a i t i a n U r b a n C o m m u n i t y

* U R B A N P O V E R T Y I N T H E C A R I B B E A N : F r e n c h M a r t i n i q u e as a S o c i a l L a b o r a t o r y

* V O O D O O A N D P O L I T I C S I N H A I T I

V O O D O O H E R I T A G E

* Also published by St. Martin's

The Informal City

Michel S. Laguerre Professor of Social Anthropology

University of California at Berkeley

St. Martin's Press New York

Michel S. Laguerre 1994

All rights reserved. For information, write: Scholarly and Reference Division,

St. Martin's Press, Inc., 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10010

First published in the United States of America in 1994

Printed in Great Britain

ISBN 0-312-12209^8

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Laguerre, Michel S. The informal city / Michel S. Laguerre. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-312-12209-8 1. Sociology, UrbanCaliforniaSan Francisco Metropolitan Area. 2. Sociology, UrbanCaliforniaOakland Metropolitan Area. 3. City and town lifeCaliforniaSan Francisco Metropolitan Area. 4. City and town lifeCaliforniaOakland Metropolitan Area. 5. Informal sector (Economics)CaliforniaSan Francisco Metropolitan Area. 6. Informal sector (Economics)CaliforniaOakland Metropolitan Area. I. Title. HN80.S4L34 1994 307.76 ' 09794 ' 6dc20 94-16010

CIP

F o r m y n e p h e w s M i c h a e l a n d S t e v e

Contents

iHttotltution xi

The Informal Ci ty Approach 1 Informality as a w a y of life, as a sector and as a

system 8 The limits of formal i ty 9 The social construct ion of informali ty 11 Structural or igins of informali ty 12 The genealogical order of informali ty 15 ' R a w ' versus ' c o o k e d ' informal i ty 18 T h e peripheral i ty of the informal system 19 Informality a n d urban pract ices 22 T h e meanings of informal u r b a n practices 23 T h e logic of the informal city approach 24

Informal Space 27 T h e social product ion of in formal space 28 Time, space a n d informality 31 Geography of the informal space 32 Informal space a n d the ethnic minori ty

ne ighborhood 36 T h e mult id imensional geometry of the urban

space 36 T h e 'blurring of genres ' 38 Informational space and informal i ty 39 Informality in the formal p lanning process 40 Informal space as a socio-polit ical p h e n o m e n o n 42 Making social space for informal practice 42 1 n formal space as subjugated s p a c e 43

The Informal E c o n o m y 47 An informal gardener 52 Informal m e c h a n i c s 57 Informal carpenters 60

vii

viii Contents

Street v e n d o r s 63 Visible f i rms a n d invisible laborers 66 Visible laborers a n d invisible f irms 67 Formal bus iness and in formal merchandise 68 T h e regulatory capacity of the informal sector 69 T h e informal e c o n o m y of the informal city 71

4 Informal i ty a n d U r b a n Politics 75 Informal parapoli t ical organizat ions 77 T h e ethnic factor 81 Informal parapoli t ical organizat ions a n d the

formal s y s t e m 84 Informal parapoli t ical a n d formal voluntary

associat ions 87 Informal l eaders 88 M o d e s of relat ions with the formal 91 T h e m a y o r ' s office and in formal organizat ions 92 T h e informal i ty of urban poli t ics 95 T h e politics of informali ty 96 Formal leadership and informal i ty 97 The processual i ty of in formal political pract ices 100

5 In formal i ty Interstitiality a n d the M o d e r n F i r m 103 Informali ty a n d hiring procedures 106 Informal learning and tra ining 108 Informal c o m m u n i c a t i o n 109 Informal leaders and the c l ique system 116 Informali ty a n d gender a n d ethnic discr iminat ion 118 The g r a m m a r of the interstitiality of informal i ty 119

6 Informal i ty a n d U r b a n Medica l Practices 123 Informal m e d i c a l practices 125 The informal referral sys tem 127 Il lnesses, self-care and household-healers 128 W o m e n as in formal health care providers 130 Suppor t s y s t e m 131 T h e expans ion of the informal system 134 T h e s tructuring of the in formal system as s u p p o r t

system 135

Contents ix

Core and p e r i p h e r y 136 Crisis and c h a n g e 137 C o d e switching 137

T h e Informal A r e n a of Inter-Ethnic Relat ions 139 Power a n d informal i ty 139 Dissecting the mains t ream s y s t e m and minor i ty

subsystems 140 Laws of ' s imi lar i ty ' and ' a v o i d a n c e ' 142 Laws of ' sponsorsh ip ' a n d 'credit t ransfer ' 144 Formal facade a n d informal practice 145 Formal rule a n d informal pract ice 147 Informal rule a n d formal pract ice 148 Minority versus majority 148 Territorial segregat ion or ethnic enclaves 150 Informal pract ices as a w a y of e m p o w e r i n g

minori ty p e o p l e 150 Unconsc ious a n d conscious identity 151 The theory of formal/informal inter-ethnic relations 152

Conclusion 157 The mult ivocal i ty of informal i ty 157 Informal /formal relations 159 The reproduct ion of h e g e m o n y 161

irinrs 163

171

Introduction

In observ ing e v e r y d a y life in the A m e r i c a n city, o n e s o o n realizes the complex i ty of h u m a n behavior a n d the ease wi th which p e o -ple m o v e from formal to informal pract ices . T h e formal world of facade, language g a m e s and the publ i c sphere h i d e s a second world of subtleties, n u a n c e s and ruse . That this h i d d e n dimen-sion is pervasive throughout the insti tutions of u r b a n Amer ica is both problemat ic a n d inspirat ional . It implies that the city dwel ler is constantly crossing over f ields and d o m a i n s of action as a w a y of better pos i t ioning the self in society. It indicates also that formal activities have informal aspects that must be decoded, deconstructed a n d ana lyzed in order that w e can c o m e to gr ips wi th an unders tanding of the urban process .

T h e informal arena provides a h i d d e n space w h e r e one can stand to read the city as a social laboratory of e v e r y d a y practice. The intent of this b o o k is to identify, describe a n d explain the grammat ica l , syntact ical a n d morphologica l rules a n d structures of that informal real i ty as they are inscribed, but h idden, in the textual m a p of the A m e r i c a n city. It is the city of behind- the-scenes m a n e u v e r s , an informal e thos that everyone s e e m s to par-ticipate in, a l though it is usually u n s p o k e n because of the highly sensit ive nature (personal , somet imes unethical o r perhaps ille-gal) o f the activities carried out there that shape the formal outcome.

T h e originality of this b o o k and the theory it proposes does not lie in the recognit ion o f the existence of the informal sector - s ince there are already n u m e r o u s essays o n the informal e c o n o m y -but ra ther in conceptual iz ing a r a n g e of in formal practices b e y o n d the e c o n o m i c realm, and in showing the structural and relational links a m o n g them and w i t h the formal sys tem. It forces us to theorize about the 'gray area ' of social life, a n d in the pro-cess to s h o w its impor tance and relevance to the fabric of the formal system and the mult iple w a y s it insinuates itself in the democrat ic project of the West. T h e existence of these informal pract ices is paradoxica l in the sense that they m a k e possible the

xii Introduction

s m o o t h funct ioning of the formal u r b a n system yet at t imes serve as a h indrance to the ach ievement of e thnic and g e n d e r equal i ty in the pluralist e n v i r o n m e n t of the A m e r i c a n city.

Var ious segments o f the p o p u l a t i o n r e a d the text of informal pract ices differently. T h e k ind of r e a d i n g one indulges in seems to b e re lated to the pos i t ion of the o b s e r v e r in society. O n e m a y s p e a k then of i n f o r m a l pract ices as forming a s y s t e m of sig-nif icat ion. For the p e r s o n in search of emplo ym e nt , the informal arena (rather than lack of exper ience or competence) is m o r e of ten than not the vi l lain that p r e v e n t s h i m from b e i n g hired. F o r e m p l o y e e s at the w o r k p l a c e , it is t h r o u g h the informal arena that s o m e achieve u p w a r d mobi l i ty fas ter than others . For the b u s i n e s s m a n , the i n f o r m a l arena is h is part icipation in the o ld-b o y n e t w o r k that is t h e spr ingboard to success in h is venture . For the h o m e o w n e r , it i s the h ir ing o f in formal professionals that lowers h is overhead costs . For the secretary, it is part ic ipat ion in an in formal group tha t lowers the leve l o f psychological stress at the workplace . For t h o s e involved ful l t i m e in the informal econ-omy, it can be their p r i m a r y or sole s o u r c e of income. A n d for the m a y o r of the city, it i s the quickest w a y to get things done with-out g o i n g through t h e usual bureaucra t i c red tape.

In formal pract ices are tied to f o r m a l pract ices in m a n y different w a y s . S o m e t i m e s t h e y are central a n d other t imes interstitial or per iphera l to the f o r m a l system. C h a n g i n g condit ions in the formal d o m a i n m a y affect the i n f o r m a l domain, for example in t e rms of expans ion o r constrict ion. In order to construct the case of the informal city, I h a v e ident i f ied a n u m b e r of topics for analys is .

T h e S an Franc i sco -Oakland M e t r o p o l i t a n Area w a s selected as the site of the study. T h e area const i tu tes an informal metropol is , a l though formally it i s a col lect ion o f larger and smal ler towns . It is an ideal in formal metropol i s for o u r s tudy not s i m p l y because of t h e h i g h level o f i n f o r m a l pract ices carried on ( s o m e of these can b e f o u n d e l s e w h e r e ) , b u t b e c a u s e the physical boundar ies wi th in the region are themse lves i n f o r m a l and because the p o p u -lat ion m o v e s freely across the t o w n borders . For e x a m p l e , S a n Franc isco residents c ross the B a y B r i d g e every d a y to work in O a k l a n d or Berke ley a n d therefore part icipate in in formal prac-tices o n b o t h s ides o f the B a y B e r k e l e y residents w o r k in S a n

Introduction xiii

I | in< isco, and O a k l a n d residents c o m m u t e dai ly to work or i n , i H I school in Berkeley. This constant populat ion m o v e m e n t

nlotlml the Bay Area for work , school , church, hospi ta l or enter-i. in n i , along wi th the use of the te lephone, fax a n d computer I i lormal c o m m u n i c a t i o n across the town boundar ies , has . 1 . 1 . 1 . -.1 . i n informal metropol i tan identity to the local neighbor-11 1 oi (own identity. T h u s we can concentrate o u r attention on i l l.i i )',T Bay Area ra ther than on a n y of its specif ic entities.

I i.i| >icr 1 presents a n u m b e r of m o d e l s of informality, discuss-ni)., I In.' strengths a n d posit ive features of some a n d the weak-i i i -.l'

xiv Introduction

C h a p t e r 4 stresses the role of informal i ty in the conduct of city poli t ics . Focusing o n munic ipa l poli t ics , informal pract ices are s tudied at the ne ighborhood level, in the adminis trat ive structure of a B a y Area city in terms of the relat ions b e t w e e n the m a y o r ' s office a n d state a n d federal authorit ies . The c h a p t e r unvei ls the m e c h a n i s m s that sustain the processual i ty of in formal polit ical pract ices and suggests that to unders tand u r b a n politics one m u s t p a y attention to both its formal a n d informal aspects .

In C h a p t e r 5, the w a y in which informali ty ins inuates itself in the apparatus of the formal firm is s tudied. Informal i ty is f o u n d in h i r i n g and training practices, in c o m m u n i c a t i o n systems, a n d in the everyday manager ia l operat ion of all f i rms. It is located in the interstitiality of the m o d e r n f irm, and so, to unders tand its behavior , the g r a m m a r of the interstitiality of informal i ty is d iscussed .

Informal i ty as a support s y s t e m is discussed in Chapter 6. Hea l th care pract ices a m o n g the B a y Area popula t ion are f o u n d to c o m p r i s e a formal a n d an informal dimension. S o m e il lnesses are c u r e d at h o m e wi thout the he lp of a doctor or hospital . H e r e the relat ions of in formal health care with formal medica l prac-tices or the formal hea l th system are analyzed. S u c h care plays a m a j o r role in the s e n s e that it prevents the formal system f rom b e i n g c logged with m i n o r or unnecessary treatment procedures a n d provides an alternative a n d c o m p l e m e n t a r y a v e n u e to the pat ient .

In Chapter 7, the role of informal i ty in s h a p i n g inter-ethnic relat ions is discussed. The informal arena is a b a c k alley w h e r e the discourse about the 'o ther ' is h e l d . It is w h e r e people test, contest or reinforce their views of the 'other ' . Inter-ethnic rela-t ions are played out at two levels, formal and informal , and the in formal arena yields c lues for unders tanding the p e r f o r m a n c e of face-to-face interact ion in the formal arena.

T h e conclusion takes up the important issue of the mult i -vocal i ty of informal i ty as it fulfills diverse roles a n d consti tutes a s y s t e m of signification. Various structural posi t ions of the rela-t ions b e t w e e n formal i ty and informal i ty are presented . The b o o k ends wi th an open question: in a democrat ic state what , ulti-mately, is the role of informality? It provides s o m e w i t h an arena w h e r e they can rehearse their dir ty tricks whi le they present a

Introduction X V

dean face in the f o r m a l faade of society. Perhaps m o r e funda-mentally, whi le in formal i ty is an o p e n a v e n u e w h e r e individ-N . i l s can take care of their personal a n d group n e e d s a n d speed up s u c h processes w i t h o u t b e c o m i n g entangled in bureaucrat ic red tape, it nevertheless undermines the principle of fairness and equality as it helps posit ion some individuals compet i t ively in the formal system w h i l e at the s a m e t ime denying others access to the s a m e sources of privilege ( informal group , informal

mmunica t ion , o l d - b o y network) . The b o o k is not an e thnography of urban pract ices in the San

r.incisco Bay Area b u t rather an at tempt at theoriz ing some nspects of everyday life in this mult i -ethnic metropol is . To this

id, w e conceptual ize the issue of the informal sphere or arena as key to unders tanding the operation of various s e g m e n t s of the rmal system. A n u m b e r of people h a v e helped m e in the preparat ion of this

ook. A m o n g them, informants ( some of them are informal pro-ssionals and others are not) in the S a n Francisco B a y Area pro-ided m e with both information a n d their interpretation of the formal arena in the everyday life of their n e i g h b o r h o o d s and rmal offices. I w a n t to a c k n o w l e d g e their contr ibut ion to this

ollective endeavor. F o r obvious reasons , n a m e s of informants nd the institutions to w h i c h some of them belong are withheld. I we a debt of grat i tude to Ed Blakely and the Universi ty-

Oakland Metropol i tan Forum. T w o grants a w a r d e d m e by the C o m m i t t e e on R e s e a r c h of t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a at Berke ley and a sabbat ical leave m a d e the complet ion of this research possible.

Chapters of the b o o k were previously read at facul ty seminars t the Univers i ty of Mani toba (Anthropology D e p a r t m e n t and

hool of Architecture and U r b a n Planning) , Univers i t d u ubec (Institut N a t i o n a l de la Recherche Scientif ique et p a r t e m e n t des E t u d e s Urbaines) , Universit d e Montral

Anthropology D e p a r t m e n t ) , Boston Universi ty (Anthropology epar tment ) , Univers i ty of Cal i fornia at Berkeley (Geography e p a r t m e n t and Institute of Governmenta l Studies) a n d Harvard nivers i ty (Anthropology Depar tment ) . One chapter w a s pre-nted at the annual meet ings of the Amer ican Anthropological sociat ion held in D e c e m b e r 1992 in San Francisco.

xvi Introduction

T h r e e chapters of the b o o k w e r e prev ious ly publ i shed separate ly : Chapter 1 as "The S t ruc tur ing of I n f o r m a l U r b a n Prac-t ices ' , Working P a p e r s N o . 3 - 9 2 , Srie 'Recherche ' , Montra l , C a n a d a : Institut N a t i o n a l de la Recherche Scient i f ique, Institut d ' U r b a n i s m e de l 'Universi t de M o n t r a l , D p a r t e m e n t d 'Etudes U r b a i n e s et Tourist iques de l 'Univers i t d u Q u b e c Montra l a n d S cho o l of U r b a n Planning of M c G i l l University, 1992; C h a p -ter 3 appeared as "The Informal E c o n o m y in the S a n Francisco Bay Area ' , Working Paper 594, Berke ley : Insti tute of Urban a n d R e g i o n a l D e v e l o p m e n t , Univers i ty of California, 1993 ; Chapter 4 w a s publ ished as ' Informali ty a n d U r b a n Polit ics in O a k l a n d ' , W o r k i n g Paper 9 3 - 7 , Berkeley: Inst i tute of G o v e r n m e n t a l S tudies , Univers i ty of Cal i fornia , 1993. A n abr idged vers ion of Chapter 4 a lso appeared u n d e r the title ' In formal Polit ics h a s an Ethnic F lavor in the Bay Area ' , in Publ ic Affairs Report vol . 34, n o . 3 , 1993 .

W h i l e prepar ing this b o o k I s p e n t a m o n t h in res idence at the Inst i tute of Urban Studies of the Univers i ty of W i n n i p e g , a s u m -m e r in residence at the D e p a r t m e n t of Urban P l a n n i n g at M c G i l l University, and a year in the A n t h r o p o l o g y D e p a r t m e n t at H a r v a r d University. I w a n t to t h a n k particularly M a r i o Carva lho , J e a n n e Wolfe, H y m i e Rubenste in , D i c k Walker, De i rdre Meinte l , Fr iedner Wit tman, J a m e s Watson, Sal ly Falk M o o r e a n d Michae l H e r z f e l d for their c o m m e n t s . T h e final o u t c o m e of the b o o k w o u l d not h a v e b e e n the s a m e w i t h o u t the he lpfu l scrutiny of these scholars a n d the audiences - including the s tudents at Ber-keley (most notably Theresa Webster and Francisco S a n t a m a r i n a ) w h o took m y s e m i n a r on Informal Sys tems - be fore w h i c h the drafts were presented .

1 The Informal City

Approach

In reading the sociological l i terature on the const i tut ion of soci-ety, one m u s t notice that the major i ty of social scientists have con-Btantly e m p h a s i z e d unvei l ing a n d explaining the structure of lormal society. This v i e w of things is part of the l e g a c y of m o d e r -nity, w h i c h envis ioned emancipat ion through reason during the Enl ightenment per iod . This Western v iew stresses that progress can b e achieved m a i n l y through a rat ional order ing of society.

Al though one can learn a great dea l from studies of the formal institutions of society, failure to focus on informal practices h a s been a major h i n d r a n c e to our unders tanding of the operation, ramifications a n d elastic contours of everyday life. As H e n r y ( 1 9 8 1 : 1 ) notes :

W h a t is missing f r o m previous accounts is the implic i t and h i d -d e n contr ibution of informal insti tutions . . . w e n e e d to k n o w h o w these in formal institutions operate, a n d a lso h o w they relate to their f o r m a l counterparts . . . Al though informal insti-tut ions and pract ices are, and h a v e a lways b e e n , shared a n d expected b y p e o p l e w h o are involved in formal institutions, t h e y rarely feature in sociological , economic or political accounts and theoris ing.

I a m proposing an alternative a n d c o m p l e m e n t a r y approach, that of s tudying society - and for that matter the A m e r i c a n city -from the angle of in formal pract ices . The strategy that I pursue here is ' to demarcate the informal sector as a dist inct analytical a n d empir ica l c a t e g o r y ' (Papola, 1981 : 13). In this rationale, I d o not s t u d y informali ty from the s tandpoint of the formal system, but instead unders tand the formal sys tem from the s tandpoint of informality. In d o i n g so, I recognize both the centrality a n d

2 The Informal City

peripheral i ty of in formal pract ices a n d insti tutions in ie m a k e -u p , social organizat ion and smooth funct ioning of the A m e r i c a n ci ty at the end of the twentieth century.

It is m y v iew that informali ty p e r m e a t e s e v e r y aspect of the funct ioning of society. 1 It is a vast r e a l m - a mult ipl ic i ty of n i ches - w h e r e h u m a n b e i n g s place themselves , e i ther prior to the a d v e n t of an i m p o s e d formal s y s t e m or wi thin the nooks a n d crannies of the f o r m a l societal s y s t e m . They d o s o in order to dea l ef fect ively wi th the rout ine issues of everyday life. Informal i ty is u n d e r s t o o d here as a reality not total ly separated f r o m the formal sys tem, but rather l inked to a n d s h a p e d b y it. Informal i ty is a s t ructure of act ion that contains b o t h h a r m o n i o u s (adaptat ion) a n d contradic tory (resistance) relat ionships. It is a site of p o w e r in relat ion to external discipl inary a n d control p o w e r .

In this vein one m a y argue that informal i ty 'is a po int of resist-ance n o t so m u c h against a certa in class or g r o u p but against f o r m s of p o w e r w h i c h deny the individual i ty of the subject . It is a site of struggle over competenc ies , k n o w l e d g e s a n d pr iv i leges ' ( M a t t h e w s , 1 9 8 8 : 1 9 ) . Its m e a n i n g s c a n be constructed in terms of both its genea logy a n d its relations to the contextual condit ion of the formal system.

Informal i ty has b e e n variously conceptual ized b y social scien-tists, d e p e n d i n g on w h e t h e r it is conce ived of as a separate reality or as part of formality. It is w o r t h present ing a n d analyzing brief ly m o d e l s of informal i ty that h a v e been cons t ruc ted in the extant sociological a n d anthropologica l l i terature. S o m e of these can b e seen as c o m p l e m e n t a r y in a unif ied theory of informality. Let us n o w start deconstruct ing in a succinct m a n n e r their bas ic content .

T h e informal s y s t e m is s o m e t i m e s conce ived of as an alter-nat ive system. Th is implies that it is a separate reality. As Fitz-patr ick ( 1 9 8 8 : 1 7 9 ) p u t s it, it is seen as 'essential ly al ternative a n d resistant to formal sys tems and, usual ly , as opera t ing in d i m i n u -tion of them' . Cri t ic iz ing the l i terature on informal organizat ions , Car l son (1958: 367) notes that ' it creates a m e n t a l image of t w o separate and dist inct organizat ions in purpos ive organizat ions . It sets u p menta l categories of formal and informal organizat ion a n d impl ies that al l observat ions m u s t be sifted into one or the o ther category. ' T h i s m o d e l proposes the idea that the informal

The Informal City Approach 3

lys tem is in a state o f competi t ion, thereby at t ract ing individual actors from the f o r m a l system to its c a m p with the possibil i ty of i ii it ranking the f o r m a l system altogether. This s tructure of c o m -petition leads to the bel ief that the success of o n e m e a n s necess-arily the failure of the other. This v i e w of informali ty as forming a p.irallel sys tem fur ther leads to the not ion of vert ical informali ty (whereby the i n f o r m a l system can potential ly h o l d the same k i n d Oi strength as the formal sys tem) and hor izontal informality (whereby the in formal system is w e a k e r than the formal sys tem) . As a separate reali ty it can b e e i ther visible or h i d d e n - as an example , consider the underground economy.

T h o s e w h o extol the dualist na ture of the u r b a n e c o n o m y divide it into t w o sys tems : u p p e r a n d lower circuits , traditional and m o d e r n , factory a n d non-factory, capitalist a n d subsistence. They use the organizat ion of product ion as a m a j o r criterion for this distinction (Mittar, 1988: 1 2 - 1 3 ) . In his s tudy of the informal sector, Hart (1973) w a s a m o n g the first social scientists to observe I hat m a n y income-generat ing activities take place in the informal sector. H e proposed that to unders tand the m e c h a n i s m s of u n e m -ployment in urban Afr ica , a focus o n informal i n c o m e opportuni-ties w o u l d be in order .

For Harding a n d Jenkins (1989: 5 1 ) , ' informali ty a n d formality . . . s h o u l d b e regarded as representing the poles of a cont inuum' . Clear ly informali ty is postulated here as being par t of the whole ; therefore it is be l i eved to be l inked to the f o r m a l system. Th is l inkage is effected n o t through the core of both po les , but rather through their per ipher ies . The per ipher ies b e c o m e then the point of meet ing and depar ture of b o t h poles . It has b e e n empirical ly substantiated a n d argued b y P a p o l a (1981: 112) that 'the con-tinuity of variables a n d submerging of one sector into another at the m a r g i n cannot b e ruled out ' . This corroborates an earl ier observat ion m a d e b y Dalton (1959: 222) in his s t u d y of formal organizat ions. H e n o t e d that ' exc lus ive reliance o n this couplet ignores the w h o l e confused m i d d l e ground w h e r e there are " m i x -t u r e s " a n d where n e w formal a n d informal act ions are obscurely initiated .. .when u s e d as the counter pole of a couple t there is dif-ficulty in saying w h e r e the informal ends and the formal begins . ' One stresses here the idea that w h a t e v e r differences the formal and informal m a y h a v e in their core , these dif ferences are l ikely

6 The Informal City

O n e of the p r o b l e m s I confronted in explaining the nature of in formal i ty a n d the funct ioning o f informal sys tems is def ining this reality. W h a t is the in formal sys tem? H o w should it b e de f ined , so that w e c a n s tudy its i n n e r w o r k i n g a n d relations to the f o r m a l sys tem?

A f o r m a l de f in i t ion of i n f o r m a l i t y m u s t t a k e into c o n -s i d e r a t i o n a large n u m b e r of v a r i a b l e s . T h e s e inc lude : i t s o r i g i n , e i ther as p r e c e d i n g the f o r m a l s y s t e m or as g r o w i n g f r o m it ; i ts re la t ion to the f o r m a l s y s t e m ; the p a r t i c i p a t i o n of i ts a c t o r s in the f o r m a l s y s t e m ; t i m e and s p a c e fac tors ; t h e m e a n i n g s of e v e r y d a y prac t i ces ; a n d the s t r u c t u r a l loca t ion o f i n f o r m a l p r a c t i c e s in re lat ion to o ther p r a c t i c e s . D o e s t h e i n f o r m a l share charac te r i s t i c s w i t h the f o r m a l s y s t e m ? T h e s e are c r i ter ia that m a y p r o v i d e c l u e s for a de f in i t ion of t h e i n f o r m a l s y s t e m .

What is informal? Informal i ty re fers to the b e h a v i o u r of actors . It refers to procedures , or the o u t c o m e s of processes , whether the actors are formal or informal . Of ten formal inst i tut ions are l inked to each other through individuals w h o s e b e h a v i o u r s consti tute an in formal coordinat ing m e c h a n i s m . A n e x a m p l e is the l inkage of var ious transport systems in the San Franc isco-Oakland M e t -ropol i tan Area. G r o s s (1964: 59) den ies the in formal actor a n y consc iousness of h is or her act ion. H e notes that ' the difference b e t w e e n formal a n d informal organizat ions is that whi le the f o r m e r is a system of consciously coordinated act ivit ies , the latter is unconsc ious , indef ini te , a n d ra ther structureless . ' Dal ton takes an oppos i te view, w h i c h is in m y j u d g m e n t m o r e accurate. H e notes that ' for our a i m of s tressing the ties b e t w e e n formal a n d in formal we n e e d to consider m o r e than w h a t supplies a p o t e n t i a l for j o i n t a c t i v i t y ; w e m u s t talk of t h e ac t iv i ty i tself . T h i s largely consc ious action is w h a t w e pr imar i ly m e a n b y " i n f o r m a l " ' (Dalton, 1959: 223) .

T h e informali ty of any given b e h a v i o r can be i m p u t e d in t w o w a y s , either through the intent ional i ty of the actor, or through the external construct ion of ' in formal i ty ' b y the audience . In other words , one m a y decide to d i s p l a y an in formal behavior or o n e ' s behav ior can b e def ined as in formal by o thers . T h e formal legal system is, ironically, what a l l o w s us in s o m e instances to dis t inguish b e t w e e n the formal a n d the informal . In that vein,


Hi H I - (1990: 405) judic iously notes that ' s o m e activities are normal because there do not exist rules that w o u l d formalize

i n ; other activities are informal , precisely b e c a u s e there are M i l . s that either m a k e condit ions or even prohibi t the activities i n v o l v e d . '

I de f ine i n f o r m a l i t y as a s t r u c t u r e of ac t ion. T h i s m i n i m u m definit ion i m p l i e s t h e e x i s t e n c e of: a p lace ( h o m e , s treet , bus iness) w h e r e t h e ac t ion is c a r r i e d out ; a c t o r s , w h o s e ac t ion Can b e e i ther f o r m a l or i n f o r m a l ; a f o r m a l s y s t e m that in lormal izes the i n f o r m a l s y s t e m ; a n d an i m p l i c i t or expl ic i t

ih-ntionali ty tha t h a s a spec i f i c g o a l ( re laxing, e v a d i n g tax , o l i t ica l e n d s ) . O n e m u s t also recognize that there are degrees of informality.

Ihese range from v e r y informal to almost formal . In a mult i -hnic urban environment , one identif ies levels of informali ty in lation to the formal i ty of the mains t ream a n d o f the minor i ty

i m m u n i t i e s . I a m referring here to practices that are considered i lormal by minor i ty s tandards . Here again, the degree of

informality can b e def ined b y internal or external criteria. T h e degree of an act ion 's informali ty can b e measured in terms of its closeness or dis tance from the formal system, as interpreted b y Ilu- k n o w i n g subject . The closer it is to the formal system the more formal it is ; the m o r e distant, the more in formal it is. Close-n e s s a n d distance are not to be unders tood in geographica l terms, but rather in a structural and hermeneut ica l sense . T h e degree of ' c loseness ' m a y b e o n e w a y to c o m p a r e the behav ior and posi t ion ol informal organizat ions vis-a-vis the formal sys tem. As H e n r y (1981: 6) puts it ' ra ther than differentiate b e t w e e n informal insti-tutions on the bas is of the kinds of rules which g o v e r n the trans-act ions and relat ionships wi th in them, w e c a n dist inguish between them according to the degree to w h i c h they are integral to, or an al ternative to , official insti tutions, a n d a lso according to their s tatus . '

Informal i ty s h o w s itself in different domains . W h e r e v e r there is a densi ty of formality, there is a lso a potential for informality. To b e informal is h u m a n . O n e m a y g o a bit fur ther and say that behind every f o r m a l organizat ion there is an in formal institution. The mult iple relat ions between the formal a n d t h e informal are, however , yet to b e spel led out.

8 The Informal City

I N F O R M A L I T Y A S A WAY O F L I F E , A S A S E C T O R A N D A S A S Y S T E M

A n analysis of in formal urban pract ices confronts us with the n e e d to s tudy the e v e r y d a y life o f those u r b a n i t e s to contr ibute to a general theory of practice. H u m a n life is recognized as h a v -ing b o t h a formal a n d an informal side. At the individual level, informal i ty is unders tood here as a w a y of life. A t the personal level , it is a reflection of h u m a n freedom, an impl ic i t or explici t cho ice that an indiv idual actor m a k e s to locate h i m s e l f or herse l f in a retreat posi t ion vis--vis the f o r m a l apparatus of society. T h e c a u s e s for such a retreat are mul t ip le . They inc lude the necessi ty to m e e t a personal n e e d , to exper ience a different reality, to chal -lenge the formal s y s t e m or s imply to express o n e ' s social ization a n d o n e ' s routine of everyday life.

A t the group level , informali ty responds to the desire of indi-v iduals to b a n d together to accompl i sh stated goa ls wi thout for-m a l restrictions. It sustains the g r o u p spirit of solidarity. It p lays a catalytic role in m e e t i n g the expectat ions of the m e m b e r s of the g r o u p . It a l lows m u c h flexibility for the composi t ion , d e co m po s i -tion a n d recomposi t ion of the g r o u p .

A t the insti tutional level, informal i ty forms the l i feblood of f o r m a l organizat ions. It protects individual interests , provides a n al ternat ive exper ience to m a n a g e m e n t and staff, restricts the control of power-holders , u p g r a d e s the inf luence of subaltern staff ( informal leaders) and glues the corporat ion together. In other words , informal i ty helps s h a p e everyday pract ices a n d the contours of the formal system.

Informali ty is a l so seen by s o m e researchers as a sector: econ-omis ts and heal th care professionals use the p h r a s e ' informal s e c t o r ' of the e c o n o m y or of hea l th care. As a sector, it is under-s tood as sharing commonal i t i es wi th , and s h a p i n g the organ-izat ion of a specif ic field, activity or d o m a i n in society. It is seen as an extension oppos i te or c o m p l e m e n t a r y to a ' f o r m a l ' sector.

T h e notion of informali ty as a system impl ies the idea that in formal practices are l inked - in their individual , group a n d insti tutional d i m e n s i o n s - to var ious d o m a i n s in society a n d share a subjugated status in terms of their relat ions to the formal system. The use of the concept ' s y s t e m ' recognizes the hierarchy


positions a n d differences of pract ices wi th in the informal i r e n a , but also stresses the structural l inks b e t w e e n the informal nd formal sys tems . Whi le the informal sys tem is l inked to the I. rmal, it is n o t e v id e nt that all the sectors of the informal sys tem re directly l inked to each other. S o m e t i m e s they are so l inked indirectly, through the media t ion of the formal system. All the in formal pract ices a n d institutions are seen as f o r m i n g a sys tem because they display the common identity of subjugated practices. T h e y occupy a different structural posit ion vis-a-vis the formal I iractices of the f o r m a l system.

T H E L I M I T S O F F O R M A L I T Y

We h a v e learned f r o m the soc io logy of everyday life that social existence is not m a d e u p of only formal pract ices . Furthermore , even these are inf luenced b y in formal practices. T h e rational soci -ety that the m o d e r n i s t s have a t tempted to construct has not b e e n ,ible to formalize all of its insti tutions (Cook et al., 1990) . Even the legal system h a s l imits on its abil ity to dis t inguish b e t w e e n formal and in formal practices. T h i s is so for at least two reasons. First, the legal s y s t e m does n o t cover every h u m a n activity. S e c o n d , legal n o r m s d o not necessar i ly coincide w i t h social ones (Rose , 1983: 12) . M a n y social pract ices are covered under social n o r m s and not legal ones . T h e y consti tute parts of the rea lm or n iches where informal i ty flourishes.

T h e main p r o b l e m we confront in our analysis is to explain the minut iae of the dist inct ion b e t w e e n on the one h a n d the d o m a i n of pract ice w h i c h has historical ly differentiated through legis -lation a n d other m e a n s a formal sys tem that is s u p p o s e d to b e the bedrock on w h i c h society funct ions and the informal sys tem w h i c h is v iewed as occupying a subordinate posi t ion, and on the other h a n d the ' d o m a i n of object ive reality' w h i c h is m a d e u p of mult ip le sectors that are inter twined and feed e a c h other. F r o m this point of view, all sectors contr ibute in their o w n w a y to the overal l m a k e - u p o f society.

Interestingly, informali ty is crucia l to the formal organizat ion of m o d e r n society. F o r example , o n e sees l imits to formali ty in the organizat ion of the m o d e r n industr ia l firm. Informal i ty p o p s u p

10 The Informal City

e v e n in the select ion a n d recrui tment process of n e w employees . P e o p l e are not recrui ted on the bas i s of formal tests and criteria a lone - these are o n l y part of the process . Informal m e a n s are a lso used to comple te it. These in formal m e a n s s p r i n g out of the expecta t ion of the recruiter w h o is aware of the existence of in formal organizat ions in the corporat ion and m u s t assess t h e abil i ty of the n e w c o m e r to m e e t the expectat ions of both the f o r m a l a n d informal sectors in the f irm. In other w o r d s , recruiters use n o t only formal selection procedures , but a l so w h a t D a l t o n ( 1 9 5 9 : 1 9 8 ) once cal led ' informal s tandards of f i tness ' .

Th is use of in formal standards indicates that f o r m a l s tandards are l imi ted in w h a t they can d o to h e l p achieve the s tated goals of the f irm. F o r m a l s tandards m u s t b e b a c k e d up b y informal s tand-ards . O n e can p u s h the argument further by stat ing that f o r m a l organizat ions are n o t run exclusively on the bas i s of formality. S ince they funct ion o n the basis of b o t h formality a n d informal i ty one w o u l d natural ly expect recrui tment to be regula ted through f o r m a l a n d informal m e a n s as wel l . T h e formal test or interview relies on objective criteria such as professional c o m p e t e n c e , inc luding w o r k exper ience . It refers to the technical aspect of the w o r k . T h e informal test is subject ive a n d refers to h u m a n qual i ty a n d to the abil ity of the indiv idual to m e r g e wi th exist ing in formal organizat ions , to serve as a buffer or a counter force to i n f o r m a l cl iques, a n d to be able to function as a product ive e le-m e n t in the firm. T h e need for s u c h skills m a y v a r y from o n e s i tuat ion to another a n d these in formal skills cannot b e m e a s u r e d exc lus ive ly through formal tests.

T h e limits of formal i ty b e c o m e apparent w h e n w e try to expla in the g e n e a l o g y of social act ion, which is of ten a m i x of both formali ty a n d informality. T h e informal aspec ts of social act ion are se ldom taken into considerat ion w h e n w e study the h is tory of urban inst i tutions. T h e y are the 'gray a r e a s ' a n d are cons idered rather impalpable . Th is h a s created a m a j o r p r o b l e m in u r b a n histor iography, because (1) it is not a l w a y s possible to trace the informal aspects of social action, (2) the result of social act ion is a global product consis t ing of the e l e m e n t s of b o t h formal i ty and informali ty, and (3) social action is u n d e r s t o o d as if informal i ty did not m a t t e r much .


Examinat ion o f certain forms of social act ion reveals wi th in tliem m a n y i n f o r m a l aspects . T h e fact that these are s u b s u m e d under the f o r m a l aspects d o e s not imply that they are unimportant or non-existent . It is s imply a fact that w e see social act ion as be ing dr iven b y its formal aspects.

This issue of formali ty s u b s u m i n g informal i ty in its o w n expression points to the h idden na ture of informal i ty in the over-all packaging of formality. This packaging leads only to a part ia l unders tanding of social action to the extent that it blurs the influ-ence of the in formal aspects in the outcome.

A central p r o b l e m that needs to b e solved is h o w we account for the contr ibut ion of informali ty in our formal discourse about the city. Perhaps w e should b e g i n to pay m o r e attention to the mult ip le w a y s informal i ty ins inuates itself into formal sys tems . This will not so lve o u r problem completely, b u t it wil l contr ibute to a better unders tanding of the city. We m u s t u s e not only the formal angle to unders tand informality, b u t a lso the informal angle to u n d e r s t a n d formality.

T H E S O C I A L C O N S T R U C T I O N O F I N F O R M A L I T Y

Informali ty is socia l ly constructed, as is formality. Informali ty is a pattern of b e h a v i o r that the f o r m a l system def ines as be ing s o m e -w h a t different f r o m its o w n w a y s . The formal system has the p o w e r to define the arena of informal i ty because it can del imit its own boundar ies . T h e informal s y s t e m also m a y s e e m to p r o d u c e its o w n definit ion of itself as b e i n g different f rom the f o r m a l sector. In fact, though , the in formal system d o e s not produce a definit ion of informality. It e i ther accepts or resists the rules of the formal system. It adapts itself to them.

Informali ty is n o t a property inherent in the informal s y s t e m because the s a m e institution c a n be declared legal or i l legal , formal or in formal . Informali ty is a social construct ion. This is w h y the c h a n g i n g legal definit ion of formality leads necessar i ly to the shifting b o u n d a r i e s of informality. Informal i ty is a m a t t e r of convent ion (see also Herzfe ld , 1988) . S o m e t i m e s its boundar ies are f ixed by law, w h i c h can c h a n g e over t ime.


Informality, b e c a u s e of its relat ions to formality, does not h a v e a n y f ixed structure - its structure shifts and m a y vary according to t h e size of the informal inst i tution ( n u m b e r of p e o p l e i n v o l v e d ) , its durat ion (period d u r i n g which it funct ions) , its locat ion (the space it occupies) a n d its structural posit ion (in a speci f ic formal organizat ion or in society at large) .

T h e social construct ion of informal i ty does n o t rest s imply o n the n o t i o n of legality. A n informal institution or pract ice can b e legal , not legal, i l legal or cr iminal . A n informal organizat ion can b e perfect ly legal , l ike the cl ique in a formal organizat ion. Sel l ing a f e w fruits f rom o n e ' s garden m a y not b e legal , but it is n o t i l legal in the sense that there is n o legal provis ion that prevents u s f rom so doing, t h o u g h that b e h a v i o r m a y b e c o m e cr iminal if w e d o n o t p ay tax on this specific earning . There is n o empir ica l bas is for a n essentialist definit ion of informality. Informal i ty can b e constructed only in relation to formality.

Within the informal system there are degrees of informality. A system can be informal not only in relation to the formal system b u t also in relation to another informal system. A distinction must b e m a d e between the informal system within the mainstream culture and that within a subculture. A behavior can be considered informal b y both the formal a n d the informal systems, falling then into the domain of sub-informality. This phenomenon of sub-informality is also a social construction of reality as it owes its existence to its relation to the accepted practices of the formal system.

S T R U C T U R A L O R I G I N S O F I N F O R M A L I T Y

T h e r e m u s t b e a po int at which b o t h formali ty a n d informal i ty e m e r g e . This w e refer to as the structural roots or origins of informality. It consis ts of three processes : a beg inning , a separ-at ion a n d a relat ion. The b e g i n n i n g refers m o r e precisely to the bir th of the sys tem, the separat ion to different d o m a i n s in the s a m e total sys tem a n d the relat ion implies that formal i ty a n d informal i ty feed e a c h other and s h a p e each o t h e r ' s boundar ies .

Structural ly s p e a k i n g informal i ty comes a b o u t in three dif-ferent w a y s : as a historical precedent , as a legal super impos i t ion a n d as a funct ional adaptation. F r o m the perspect ive of history,


the informal s y s t e m originated before the formal system. Before the advent of wr i t ing and the f o r m a l state, there existed inst i tu-tions which today w e refer to as informal . With the creation of the nation-state, s o m e aspects of these exist ing informal organ-izations were c o - o p t e d and formal ized. In this l ine of argument , the informal exis ted w h e n the formal system b e g a n to b e s truc-tured, and so the f o r m a l system conta ins an in formal content that has been formal ized.

In the same w a y that informal i ty has historical ly preceded for-mality, in e v e r y d a y life informali ty frequently precedes formality. We tend natural ly to be informal a n d we use o u r formal c loak to interact wi th others and to transact formal bus iness matters . To put it in another way, one m a y say that ' in formal organizat ion gives rise to f o r m a l organizat ions ' (Barnard, 1958 : 123) . Because informal pract ices often precede formal pract ices , they give u s c lues concerning the forms f o r m a l practices w o u l d take as a result of the formal izat ion of in formal practices.

T h e informal s y s t e m also emerges because of the super-imposi t ion of the formal system. D u r i n g the colonia l era, the col-onists imposed o n the nat ives a n e w legal system, thereby m a k i n g the n a t i v e s ' legal system ' informal ' . Accord ing to Waller-stein ( 1 9 7 6 : 5 8 ) the super imposi t ion of the capital ist m o d e of p r o -duct ion has c a u s e d the tradit ional m o d e of product ion - b e c a u s e of its n e w l y created link with the formal colonial system - to funct ion as an in formal system.

T h e informal s y s t e m can also b e seen as an adaptat ion to the formal i sm that is super imposed . Harding a n d Jenkins (1989: 15) observe that 'h is tory m a y b e v i e w e d as the progress ive encroach-m e n t of formali ty u p o n w i d e n i n g areas of social life, as a con-sequence of l i teracy and the introduction of ever m o r e sophist icated informat ion technology, on the o n e hand , a n d the increasing p o w e r a n d bureaucrat izat ion of the state , on the other. '

T h e colonial exper iment conver ted nat ive institutions into i n f o r m a l o n e s , s u b j u g a t e d ins t i tu t ions w h o s e ex is tence w a s n o w t ied to the f o r m a l ins t i tu t ions of the c o l o n y , a n d later t h e s ta te . H e r e w e s e e the idea t h a t an i n f o r m a l ins t i tut ion is d e f i n e d as such, n o t b y the nat ives , but b y the conquer ing power . Informali ty e m e r g e s here through an act of aggression a n d marginal izat ion.


F r o m a legal s tandpoint , informal i ty is de f ined by law. T h e state apparatus provides a legal f r a m e w o r k wi th in w h i c h indi -v iduals and inst i tut ions can operate . Since the state cannot p r o -v i d e a legal f r a m e w o r k for e v e r y aspect of h u m a n behavior , it b e c o m e s obvious that there is m u c h room for the f lourishing of in formal pract ices .

Funct ional is ts s e e the informal system as an outgrowth or p r o -duct ion of the formal system. F o r Davies (1978 : 20) , 'dec is ion-m a k i n g a n d pol ic ies related to the formal sector define the boundar ies of the informal sector. Official at t i tudes and legis -lat ion are crucial in determining the nature of in formal act ivi t ies . ' T h e state 's pol ic ies of exc lus ion can be a sure w a y for the in formal sys tem to emerge . D r u g trafficking is a good e x a m p l e . S ince it is not a l l o w e d on the o p e n market , it goes u n d e r g r o u n d . F o r F r e n c h e c o n o m i s t A l f r e d S a u v y (1984 : 2 1 3 ) , it w a s t h e s i m u l t a n e o u s progress of indust ry and social legislation that l ed to margina l a n d informal e c o n o m i c practices.

There are n o w available severa l studies a rguing and s h o w i n g that the formal s y s t e m gives b ir th to the informal system. A s B o e r (1990 : 406) puts it, ' formal izat ion engenders informal izat ion ' . B a r n a r d (1958: 123) , in his inf luential s tudy o n organizat ion theory, concludes in the s a m e v e i n in not ing that ' formal organ-izat ions, once establ ished, in their turn also create i n f o r m a l organizat ions . ' F o r a n u m b e r of researchers, the existence of the in formal s y s t e m cannot b e expla ined outside that of the f o r m a l sys tem. T h e exis tence of the f o r m a l system is a necessary require-m e n t for the exis tence of the i n f o r m a l system.

F r o m this perspect ive , the in formal system emerges f rom the inflexibil ity of the formal system. To the extent that one is u n a b l e to operate an institution according to the rules of the f o r m a l sys tem, one f inds oneself located in the informal system. In o ther w o r d s , anything that cannot b e d o n e within the r igid structure of the formal s y s t e m is likely to fal l into the rea lm of the in formal sys tem.

T h e informal sys tem emerges to fill a need b e c a u s e of a fai lure of the formal system. It he lps smooth the funct ioning of the f o r m a l system. Its existence rests on the inabil i ty of the f o r m a l s y s t e m to m e e t everyone ' s expectat ions . T h e n e e d is created in the formal sys tem, its fulf i l lment is achieved in the i n f o r m a l


l y s t e m . To the e x t e n t that t h e i n f o r m a l s y s t e m p r o v i d e s s o l u -tions to u n m e t n e e d s , it p a r a d o x i c a l l y a l l o w s p a r t i c i p a n t s t h e opportuni ty to cont inue to funct ion in the f o r m a l system.

One m u s t m a k e a dist inction here b e t w e e n permanent a n d sporadic failures of the formal system. In h is s tudy of the S a n Francisco B a y A r e a transport system, C h i s h o l m (1989: 32) h a s observed that ' informali t ies m a y also b e d e v e l o p e d because of " ep i sodic " fai lures of formal organizat ions that interfere w i t h the I u-rformance of important e n d s . . . informal channels , which tend to cut through layers of author i ty and p r o v i d e direct contact be tween relevant part ies , are of ten effective remedies . '

Since the f o r m a l system can h e l p generate informali ty through Ms failure to sat isfy all the n e e d s of the urban citizenry, it is l ikely I hat the birth of in formal pract ices in the A m e r i c a n city scene can-not b e relegated solely to the colonia l period. T h r o u g h the h is tory of the A m e r i c a n city, n e w types of in formal practices h a v e e m e r g e d in response to processes that occurred in the formal system. Thus , S a u v y (1984: 213 ) has identif ied one aspect of the birth of the in formal e c o n o m i c system with the s imul taneous progress of b o t h social legislat ion and industry coupled wi th pressure c o m i n g from organized labor. Also , Castel ls and Por tes (1989: 27) h a v e l inked its expans ion with the process of e c o n o m i c restructuring of the 1970s.

T H E G E N E A L O G I C A L O R D E R O F I N F O R M A L I T Y

T h e analysis of the genealogy of informal u r b a n practices takes us f rom the quest ion of their origins to that of their h is tory through t ime. W e tend to think o f the origins as before the a d v e n t of western formality, or as p r o d u c e d b y it. T h e colonizat ion of native inst i tutions accounts for the former, w h i l e the inabil ity of the formal s y s t e m to regulate every aspect of life explains the latter.

Western formal i ty w a s the ideological apparatus that sus ta ined colonizat ion a n d is one form of exper imentat ion in the order ing of society f rom the European viewpoint . It is basical ly a w a y of uni fying the w o r l d through a s y s t e m of logic that western rat ion-ality can u n d e r s t a n d and of course manipula te . In the U n i t e d


States , the es tabl ishment of the formal s y s t e m h a s led to the p r o -duct ion of minor i ty c o m m u n i t i e s . The informal izat ion of m i n o r -ity institutions h a s a different polit ical m e a n i n g than that found a m o n g the mains t reamers . In the m i n o r i t y c o m m u n i t i e s , informal i ty w a s produced through an act of aggression a n d the forced subjugat ion of the p e o p l e . In the m a i n s t r e a m c o m m u n i t y , formal i ty c a m e about as the result of the victory of reason over traditions. T h u s , the informal izat ion process consis ted in the imposi t ion and u p g r a d i n g of the rational w e s t e r n formal s y s t e m a n d the d o w n g r a d i n g of folk a n d minori ty w a y s .

There are t w o types of historical cont inuity involved h e r e in o u r analysis of the genealogy of informality. T h e evolut ion of informal i ty that precedes formal i ty takes v a r i o u s shapes . T h e informal sys tem remains a s i te of c o u n t e r p o w e r and funct ions wi thin the f r a m e w o r k of the f o r m a l system a n d is s h a p e d b y it. T h e informal s y s t e m m a y b e co -opted b y the formal sys tem a n d b e under its control . It m a y e i ther coalesce o r mainta in its iden-tity. However , the informal s y s t e m can a d o p t a retreat pos i t ion unti l the t ime c o m e s w h e n its practices c a n b e revital ized a n d resurface u n d e r bet ter c i rcumstances .

The genea logy of subjugated pract ices h a s a different d y n a m i c b e c a u s e of the inf luence f rom the dominant sector that it m u s t adjust to. T h e informal system m u s t adjust its w a y s to constra ints generated b y the formal s y s t e m for its survival , adaptat ion a n d expansion. I agree with D a v i e s (1978: 2 0 - 1 ) w h e n h e notes that ' the informal sector is both d e p e n d e n t on a n d per ipheral to the formal sector. It develops in spi te of restrict ions but the e x t e nt a n d nature of that d e v e l o p m e n t are invariably subject to those restr ict ions. '

T h e genea logy of informality w h e n it is p r o d u c e d by formal i ty tends to evo lve according to p e o p l e ' s needs a n d the f o r m a l cir-c u m s t a n c e that g ive it birth. F o r example , there are informal p r a c -t ices that are ins tantaneous or h a v e a o n e - p u r p o s e orientat ion. W h e n the goal is met , the in formal system m a y cease to surv ive . T h e s e are i n f o r m a l practices that either coalesce with the f o r m a l s y s t e m or g ive b i r th to other f o r m s .

T h e genea logy of informality m u s t be u n d e r s t o o d in three dif-ferent w a y s : (1) the genealogy of the format ion of the i n f o r m a l sys tem, (2) the genealogy of the informal s y s t e m once it is es tab-


l l H h e d , and (3) the genealogy of the relations b e t w e e n the formal and i n f o r m a l s y s t e m . O n e m a y re fer to t h e f irst as formative o i constitutive genealogy, to the second as developmental or evolu-tionary genealogy, and to the third as associative or relational p n e a l o g y .

Constitutive genealogy concentra tes on the var ious uni ts , the relations b e t w e e n them a n d the behavioral , symbol ic a n d ideo-logical content of the i n f o r m a l system. It deconstructs the m formal sys tem as a w a y of unvei l ing the mul t ip le patterns that may lead to its reconsti tution.

Developmental genealogy concentrates on the t ransmutat ion of the informal sys tem. This inc ludes the his tory of h idden struc-tures that reappear in the m a k e - u p of the informal system. It analyses the b e h a v i o r of b o t h informal s y s t e m s co-opted b y the formal system, a n d folk inst i tut ions like e thno-medic ine that con-tinue to surv ive side b y s ide with the formal system. T h e informal m a y b e formed to r e s p o n d to a specif ic problem. O n c e the problem is so lved or d imin ished , the in formal system m a y m o v e to a latent state to b e act ivated later for the s a m e or a similar p u r p o s e . A s C h i s h o l m (1989: 67) observes , w h e n ' the formal channe l w o r k s wel l e n o u g h . . . the in formal channel stays mostly dormant . It is not usual ly needed b u t remains avai lable . '

S o m e informal practices remain dormant after a formal sys tem has been es tabl ished - d o r m a n t , not e l iminated, because they reappear cycl ical ly in the interstices of the formal system. Their expressions cont inue to take the s a m e shape a n d have the same meanings . W h e n the formal s y s t e m goes through a crisis, it m a y be unable to conta in them in their hidden n iches . H e n c e informal practices s o m e t i m e s reappear at the m o m e n t w h e n the formal system is in a state of crisis. Foucaul t (1980: 6 ) speaks of in formal practices ' w h i c h predate the sett ing up of a judic ia l sys tem a n d w h i c h are regular ly revived in popular upr is ings ' . The genea logy of these pract ices has four m a i n features: (1) their appearance is cyclical ; (2) they depend on the b r e a k d o w n of the formal sys tem; (3) they remain in a state of d o r m a n c y in b e t w e e n crises in the formal sys tem; a n d (4) their genealogy is pret ty m u c h tied u p wi th that of the formal system.

The genea logy of the in formal system cannot be unders tood outs ide the f r a m e w o r k of the genealogy of the formal s y s t e m


b e c a u s e the latter constantly p r o d u c e s , inf luences or a l lows the recogni t ion of the existence of n e w informali t ies . Because their genea log ica l deve lopment is l inked to that of the formal sys tem, w e refer to this as associative genealogy. It is the genealogy of the re la t ionships b e t w e e n the formal a n d informal sys tem.

F u r t h e r m o r e , the informal s y s t e m serves as a reservoir attract-ing formal pract ices that have b e e n marginal ized and informal -ized . They remain in this n iche unt i l better c i rcumstances a l l o w t h o s e informal ized formal pract ices to de- informal ize themselves a n d regain their posi t ion in the f o r m a l system.

T h e genea logy of informal pract ices m a y vary according to their status in a g iven system. T h e y m a y be re jected, persecuted , m a d e il legal or neutral ized b y the formal appara tus of society. T h e variat ion wi l l b e the result o f the dif ferences in the w a y in w h i c h they are t ied to the formal system.

Assoc ia t ive genealogy addresses the issue of the relat ional impera t ive n o t o n l y as related to the inf luence that one exerts o n the other, b u t also the trajectory f r o m informal to formal a n d v ice v e r s a . Concrete si tuations a n d their deconstruct ions provide the f ie ld of s tudy w h e r e one can ana lyze the re lat ions of one to the other , the impl ica t ions of one in the other, the product ion of o n e b y t h e other, a n d the failure or the success of o n e to reproduce the other .

' R A W V E R S U S ' C O O K E D ' I N F O R M A L I T Y

M u c h of w h a t h a s b e e n said so far concerns the behavior of ' r a w ' informali ty, a f o r m of informal i ty that is not purposeful ly created b y the formal insti tutional sys tem. Within the f irm, raw in formal -i ty impl ies b o t h discr iminat ion a n d secrecy. In the formal f irm, it is a n arena in w h i c h a small g r o u p or a cl ique c a n part icipate a n d in a sense discr iminate against o ther people w h o are not invi ted t o j o i n in. B e c a u s e others are b a r r e d from b e c o m i n g part of t h e g r o u p , it tends to b e secretive, in the sense that o n l y the m e m b e r s are pr ivy to the content of the information e x c h a n g e d a m o n g t h e m .

I n contrast , ' c o o k e d ' informal i ty is purposeful , p lanned a n d o p e n to a larger group. It is c o o k e d in the s e n s e that it is c rea ted


by and for a s m o o t h funct ioning of the f o r m a l system. In the modern firm, it refers to in formal gathering w h e r e the dress code Is d o w n ' a n d p e o p l e are cal led to behave informally. This c o o k e d informality is m e a n t to break down class, e thnic and g e n d e r barriers and to t ransform the m e m b e r s of the corporat ion into the members of an informal family.

Informality is cooked to bet ter serve the interests of the cor-poration, to a l low the m e m b e r s to know each other better, to root the group informal ly in the corporat ion, to iron out difficulties created in the formal system a n d to express the h u m a n s ide of the corporation. Because it is c o o k e d b y the formal system, o n e m a y say it const i tutes a formal ized f o r m of informality.

T H E P E R I P H E R A L I T Y O F T H E I N F O R M A L S Y S T E M

A system c a n n o t b e per ipheral in itself. Per ipheral i ty is n o t a mat ter of e s s e n c e , but r a t h e r of ex i s tence , t h a t is of re la t ion-s h i p . S o m e t h i n g can be p e r i p h e r a l only in re la t ion to a c o r e or centra l system. T h e fact that a system is f o r m a l does not m e a n that it is a centra l system. T h e r e are formal systems that are peripheral in relation to other formal sys tems . T h e fact that a system is i n f o r m a l m e a n s necessari ly that it is peripheral . Yet, it can b e central in relation to o ther satellite or per ipheral sys tems .

O n e m a y w o n d e r w h y the informal sys tem is a per ipheral one . It is so only w h e n w e look at its relationship wi th formal inst i tu-t ions through w h i c h it can b e further per ipheral ized or c o m e closer to the f o r m a l system. O n e m a y conc lude that the f o r m a l system per ipheral izes the in formal system so that it m a y a c c o m -plish the fo l lowing three th ings : (1) it m a y e x p a n d its bas is of operat ion as a w a y of reducing the sphere of activity of the informal sys tem; (2) it m a y d o m i n a t e the in formal system so as to b e able to control its arena with a view to m a k i n g it d e p e n d e n t o n the formal sys tem; and (3) it m a y trivialize a n d neutral ize the informal s y s t e m in order to e l iminate it.

T h e informal sys tem is per ipheral because of the existence of a center in the formal system. T h e informal is j u d g e d according to the mains t ream values and behaviors of those attached to the center. The center sets the s tandards . The farther a w a y a s y s t e m is


f r o m the s tandards of the center the m o r e per iphera l it is . T h e i n f o r m a l sys tem is evaluated, appreciated or s t igmat ized accord-ing to the logic of the mains t ream formal system.

T h e informal s y s t e m is per iphera l b y reason of its s t ructural locat ion in relat ion to the formal system. T h e p e o p l e w h o part ic i -pa te in the in formal system b e h a v e according to the rule of the system. Per ipheral i ty must b e unders tood in s tructural terms a n d n o t s imply in t e rms of geographic space. Structural ly speaking, it is n o t located at the core of the formal system.

T h e informal s y s t e m is per iphera l because the formal s y s t e m ass igns it such a status. The per ipheral i ty of its informal i ty c o m e s a b o u t because it is recognized a n d labeled as s u c h by the f o r m a l s y s t e m or s i m p l y because it is re jected by the f o r m a l system. It is per iphera l n o t necessar i ly b e c a u s e there is s o m e t h i n g inherent in it that is false, i m m o r a l or c r iminal , but s imply because it fails to ge t a formal recognit ion from the formal system.

T h e informal s y s t e m is per ipheral because of the kinds of act iv-it ies in w h i c h p e o p l e are involved. All h u m a n activities are b y definit ion h u m a n s o they cannot b e informal b e c a u s e they are n o t h u m a n . These are h u m a n activities that are n o t considered f o r m a l b y the formal s y s t e m and this factor tends to reinforce their in formal character. They m a y b e c o m e illegal w h i c h m e a n s that to survive the actors m u s t go u n d e r g r o u n d or use i l legal m e a n s .

T h e informal s y s t e m is per iphera l because of the rat ionale u s e d that m a y b e different from that used in the m a i n s t r e a m f o r m a l sys tem. It can b e both the reason for the rejection of the i n f o r m a l s y s t e m and the reason for its stabil i ty - because it fol lows its o w n logic .

T h e informal s y s t e m is per iphera l because of the intent ional i ty of the actors. Al though they m a y participate full t ime in the formal system, t h e y m a y also part ic ipate in the informal sys tem. They, themselves , m a k e a dist inct ion and adjust their b e h a v i o r s as they m o v e f r o m the formal to the informal system. Th is is a subject ive cr i ter ion they use to identify the per ipheral charac ter of the informal system. T h e actors recognize that their act ion be longs to a d o m a i n different f r o m that of the formal system.

T h e informal sys tem is per iphera l because its actors m a y b e power less a n d in n o posit ion to force the f o r m a l recognit ion of the informal sys tem. This lack of p o w e r is w h a t def ines the s ta tus


of the informal system. It is a lso what m a k e s possible its control by the formal sys tem.

W h a t is the structure of the peripheral i ty of the informal system? Because the informal sys tem is per ipheral , it compr ises both a core a n d a periphery. W e must then s tudy the informal system both in its internal m a k e - u p and its external l inkage.

T h e core of the informal s y s t e m is able to e x p a n d itself b y con-stricting the periphery. The core maintains itself because it is the incarnation of p o w e r and the mains t ream s tandards . The per iph-ery can also e x p a n d itself at the expense of the core. Both can e x p a n d their b o u n d a r i e s through co-optat ion a n d invasion.

Per iphery m a y b e discussed in relation to both the central mains t ream s y s t e m and the core of the in formal system. T h e periphery of the informal s y s t e m is c loser to the core of the i n f o r m a l s y s t e m than to t h e c o r e of the m a i n s t r e a m s y s t e m . T h e core in the informal s y s t e m has a s tatus similar to the per iphery in the mains t ream system vis-a-vis the center in the mains t ream sys tem. Both are peripheral to the mains t ream core .

The relat ionship be tween the center a n d the periphery in the formal system does not operate necessari ly in the same w a y as that be tween the center and the periphery in the informal system. In a mult i -e thnic urban environment , one w o u l d expect the center and p e r i p h e r y in a minor i ty c o m m u n i t y to be inf luenced a n d shaped b y a sub-cultural orientation that m a y be different f rom the d o m i n a n t mains t ream culture.

By deconstruct ing the relat ions be tween the core a n d the periphery, o n e u n m a s k s a set of relationships. These include: the relation of the formal system to the informal in the mains t ream; the relation of the core of the informal sys tem to the per iphery in the informal sys tem; and the relations of the formal to the informal system.

The informal system in its relation to the formal system m a y achieve a certa in level of stabil i ty or routinization. In this k ind of environment , total co-optat ion of the in formal b y the formal sys tem could lead to total integration. Total co-optation of the formal b y the informal sys tem could lead to a complete reversal of societal w a y s because the informal w o u l d necessari ly b e c o m e the formal . Part ia l co-optat ion b y the informal system is l ikely to lead to polar izat ion because of the s trengthening of the informal

22 The Informal City The Informal City Approach 23

cannot u n d e r s t a n d what susta ins public life or public b u r e a u -cracies if the in formal life of its agents is left untouched.

T h e c e n t r a l i t y of i n f o r m a l i t y r e m a i n s in t h e fact that s o m e of its a s p e c t s p r e d a t e f o r m a l i t y a n d s o m e o t h e r s are p r o d u c e d b y formality. In any case, the formal sys tem depends o n it, is shaped by it, a n d attempts to transform it and possibly to colonize it. D e Certeau (1984) sees informal i ty in e v e r y d a y life as it ins inu-ates itself through ruse a n d tactics into the formal system.

T h e informal life, to the extent that it provides a layout for the expression of f reedom and produces a subterranean form of socialite through a manifestat ion of h u m a n solidarity, is central to the product ion of the formal system (Maffesoli , 1989). It is the locus where e v e r y d a y life mani fes ts itself, w h e r e solut ions are sought to r e m e d y failures in the formal system, and w h e r e resistance is ga lvanized.

It is a f o r m of p o w e r to the extent that knowledge is shared, a n d back-al ley strategies are developed. It provides an alternat-ive perception of society. Wi th in the overarching arm of formal society, the individual pulls b a c k to regain h is or her f reedom, to create a free space , to s t rengthen his or h e r position, to under -m i n e rivals, to consol idate his or her basis, to acquire knowledge .

T h e importance , hence the centrality, of informal i ty s tems from the fact that publ ic life is s h a p e d b y it, it g r o w s in the n o o k s and crannies of publ ic bureaucracy, a n d it s tands as an arena that is used and explo i ted by the formal system b u t cannot b e total ly colonized b y it.

T H E M E A N I N G S O F I N F O R M A L U R B A N P R A C T I C E S

A n exegesis of informal u r b a n practices recognizes the diversi ty a n d heterogenei ty of such acts . Their c o m m o n a l i t y resides in the fact they occupy, if not a sub jugated posit ion, at least one that is not under the direct survei l lance of the formal system. T h e r e are t w o basic locat ions for the per formance of informal urban prac-tices: the individual , and the g r o u p or the institution.

P o s t m o d e r n thinking celebrates the return of the subject. The subject is here at the very hear t of our distinction, in the sense that he or she decides or n o t to engage in informal pract ices .

sys tem. Partial co-optat ion b y the formal s y s t e m necessar i ly l eads to m o r e integrat ion.

I N F O R M A L I T Y A N D U R B A N P R A C T I C E S

A s paradoxica l it m a y sound, t h e informal s y s t e m is also centra l . T h e centrality of informali ty b e c o m e s manifest w h e n the soc ie ta l s y s t e m is s tudied f rom the ang le of informality. The e m p h a s i s a n d focus on the informal angle is privi leged h e r e so as to bet ter u n d e r s t a n d social action in its everyday pract ices (see a lso Bourdieu , 1990) . T h e sociology of everyday life provides t h e t w o necessary tools n e e d e d to achieve this end.

T h e focus on e v e r y d a y life a l lows us a different perspec t ive t h a n t h a t o f p r i v a t e s p h e r e v e r s u s p u b l i c l i f e o n e f i n d s s o v i g o r o u s l y d e b a t e d in the feminis t l iterature (Nicholson, 1 9 9 0 ; R o s a l d o , 1974; a n d Moore , 1988) . It is not empir ica l ly s o u n d to locate the i n f o r m a l exclusively in the d o m a i n of pr ivate l ife. W h i l e one does n o t deny its ex is tence there, or t h e i m p o r t a n c e of pr ivate life as the arena where the informal is consol idated a n d w h e r e the s trategies for in formal action are o f ten plot ted o u t b e f o r e an in formal behavior c a n b e i m p l e m e n t e d in the p u b l i c life, the in formal h a s a lways b e e n wel l alive in the publ ic s p h e r e .

In the previous section, w e h a v e discussed h o w from the s t a n d -p o i n t of the f o r m a l system the informal s y s t e m is seen a s per i -p h e r a l a n d secondary. In this sect ion we will discuss h o w , in a b o t t o m - u p a p p r o a c h to the city, the informal s y s t e m m u s t a l so b e v i e w e d as p l a y i n g a central role . It is so b e c a u s e the f o r m a l s y s t e m operates o n the basis of b o t h formal a n d informal ru les .

T h e centrality of informali ty s t e m s f rom the empir ica l o b s e r v -at ion that it is located foremost in the individual actor, w h o is the h u m a n agent in w h o m we find a mixture of in formal and f o r m a l behav ior a n d pract ices . Even w h e n w e are s t u d y i n g the b e h a v i o r of a specific s t ructure or organizat ion, we can n o t afford to dis -m i s s the control of the h u m a n agent .

T h e informal is central b e c a u s e it is the locus of pr ivate life. H e r e the indiv idual recoups his or her strengths, plots o u t s t ra-tegies and regains his or her f r e e d o m a w a y f r o m the constra ints of publ ic life, w h e t h e r generated b y g o v e r n m e n t or bus iness . O n e


U r b a n informal i ty is the express ion of the f r e e d o m of the subject . Th is m e a n s f reedom from the constraints of formal inst i tutional life, but also f reedom as a k ind of manifest dest iny where the self aff irms itself. T h e yearning for h u m a n f reedom cannot b e con-trolled or conta ined by the regulat ions or convent ions of f o r m a l society. Informal practices prov ide a corridor for the protect ion of the self against regulatory structures.

Informal u r b a n practices a lso mean that the h idden s t ructure they provide is a resilient but fundamenta l aspect of the m a k e - u p of society. T h e s e practices are m a d e possible wi th in a w e b of rela-t ionships . T h r o u g h this w e can identify the relational as the second characterist ic of in formal urban pract ices . This aspec t is expressed t h r o u g h h u m a n sol idari ty in terms, for example , o f gift a n d exchange in general . This characteristic is probably the m o r e visible and bet ter known, p e r h a p s because of the works of M a r c e l M a u s s on the not ion of gift, b u t also because in everyday life w e can pinpoint instances where p e o p l e help e a c h other in i n f o r m a l w a y s .

Informal u r b a n practices f inally mean that the h idden s t ructure they provide is also one of resistance, both pass ive and act ive . W h i c h e v e r way, such a s tructure of resistance m u s t b e seen as b e i n g either ant i - formal sys tem or c o m p l e m e n t a r y to the f o r m a l system. T h e idea of resistance implies the recognit ion of the resil iency of cul tural tradit ions that cannot easi ly be b r u s h e d aside b y the formal system.

T H E L O G I C O F T H E ' I N F O R M A L C I T Y ' A P P R O A C H

O u r argument is that there exists an informal city located jus t beneath and in the interstices of the formal city. T h e m e t a p h o r is not geographical , but rather structural and hermeneut ica l . T h i s is the city w h e r e m a n e u v e r s that cannot be d o n e publicly, legally, ethically or o therwise are per formed. This is the resilient cul tura l arena that suppor ts , or s o m e t i m e s obstructs , b u t is a l w a y s in interaction wi th the formal system.

W h y is it impor tant to s tudy or pay at tent ion to the i n f o r m a l s ide of the city, s ince in m a n y cases these s tructures are h i d d e n ? There are severa l reasons. A t the outset, one m a y a d v a n c e that


the occurrence of informal pract ices has a lways been k n o w n .imply because w e part icipate in them, e v e n though w e tend to

i (insider them unimportant . Af ter all, posit ivist thinkers such as Karl Marx , M a x Weber a n d Emi le D u r k h e i m have not m a d e informality the center of their intellectual preoccupat ion.

Our approach is to quest ion the positivist thinking about hier-archy. In this tradition, the hierarchical a n d formal is considered more important than the informal . They are not seen as inter-dependent sys tems which share a c o m m o n reality and feed each other 's existence.

Our approach recognizes the importance of informal pract ices as providing a balance to formal practices. It is a ' b o t t o m - u p ' approach in the sense that it magnif ies or m a k e s visible in formal reality so as to show its dialectical relat ions with the f o r m a l system. It s tresses that its exis tence must b e a c k n o w l e d g e d if w e are to c o m p r e h e n d the societal system a n d m a k e useful u r b a n policies.

Because informal i ty is the other side of formality, it is con-s idered to b e o n e ins tance o f a m e c h a n i s m of power . It is u s e d by the formal sys tem to s trengthen its power . It is used b y the informal s y s t e m in the s a m e w a y as well to infiltrate or chal lenge formal power .

The informal city is seen as omnipresent in the nooks a n d cran-nies of the city. It is found in informalizat ion of urban space , the informal economy, informal pol icy in judic ia l systems, the c l ique system in the m o d e r n f irm a n d informal c o m m u n i c a t i o n in public bureaucrac ies . A n d , it is found, of course , in ne ighbor -ho o d s a n d fami ly practices. In a sense, it is a vibrant city. A n analysis of its parameters , its operation a n d relation to the formal system is a necessary step t o w a r d unders tanding urban process .

M y interest in a t tempting to conceptual ize the structure of informali ty c o m e s from a genera l observat ion of the A m e r i c a n city scene. P u t very simply, it is m y view that informal pract ices -which are b y n o means trivial - constitute a n important factor in the shaping of everyday life at the personal , group a n d insti tu-tional levels . In fact, these in formal pract ices shape , sustain, sup-port , u n d e r m i n e a n d inf luence in m a n y di f ferent w a y s the f low of processes a n d activities of the formal s y s t e m of society. With-out them, the formal sys tem w o u l d not b e able to funct ion

2 6 The Informal City

smoothly. T h e y constitute an integral part of its operat ion. T h e i n f o r m a l city is seen then as the hidden dimension of the f o r m a l ci ty. In this l ight , I a m p r o p o s i n g that the s t u d y of i n f o r m a l i t y b e used as an alternative a n d c o m p l e m e n t a r y route for the unders tanding of the formal apparatus of the A m e r i c a n city.

Notes

1. The informal aspect of societal life remains constant. There is, how-ever, a variability in the manifestation of the phenomenon. It can be household, workplace or social-function based.

2. For a critical review of the literature on the sociology of everyday life, see Comeau (1987).

3. This phenomenon has also its political and social ramifications. If the informals do not pay taxes, it is argued that the city and the state may not have the necessary resources to provide basic ser-vices to the local urban community. Furthermore, informals are seen as individualists who do not contribute to the common good, but rather work for their personal gain.

2 Informal Space

O n the A m e r i c a n urban scene - including the San Francisco B a y Area - e v e r y d a y life contains both a formal a n d informal d i m e n -sion. Such in formal pract ices are not trivial, b u t rather const i tute an essential factor that h e l p s shape the structure of the formal societal sys tem. To further ground empir ica l ly our theory of the centrality of the relations b e t w e e n informal i ty and formal i ty in the organizat ion of the m o d e r n Amer ican city, let us a t tempt to analyze the anchor ing of in formal practices in the organizat ion of urban space . T h e informal c i ty needs an informal territorial infra-structure to anchor its in formal practices in the organizat ion of the urban space . Such in formal space exists , a n d provides a basis for the carry ing out of these kinds of act ion.

Informal i ty does not occur in a v a c u u m . T h e space w h e r e the informal pract ices take place is often a f o r m a l space that h a s been informal ized. T h e mult ipl ic i ty and var iety of informal spaces cannot b e ignored if w e w a n t to unders tand the role of informal-ity in the A m e r i c a n city. It b e c o m e s a centra l issue here , and therefore the object of our study, because of its relations to both the formal space and informal practices. It is not s imply w h a t w e do that g ives an informal content to the formal space , b u t also structural boundar ies a n d constraints generated within the formal sys tem.

Previously, the concept of informal space has been u s e d m a i n l y in the field of proxemic s tudies and refers to the spatial distances individuals mainta in in encounter interact ions with others . Hall (1966: 105) , w h o introduced the concept of informal space in the anthropological l iterature, d i d so to identi fy this specific ca tegory of spatial exper ience . In h is view, space b e c o m e s in formal or is created as s u c h 'because it is unstated, n o t because it lacks form or has n o i m p o r t a n c e . . . Informal spatial patterns h a v e distinct b o u n d s , a n d such deep, if unvoiced, s ignif icance that t h e y form an essential par t of the cu l ture ' (Hall, 1 9 6 6 : 1 0 5 ) . This loose defini-

27


t ion of in formal space implies that it is a social construct ion and the presence of at least two individuals a n d the distances m a i n -ta ined b e t w e e n t h e m in interact ing with each other are a sine qua non. In this context , the not ion of informal s p a c e is in terchange-able with that of personal space . Other researchers have e x t e n d e d the not ion of informal space to include or c o v e r the interact ions of individuals wi th the physica l environment of bui ldings . S i t ton (1980: 6 5 - 8 2 ) , for example , h a s argued that there is a h i d d e n d imens ion in the interaction of the Amer ican s tudent p o p u l a t i o n with public school structures a n d discusses the negat ive i m p a c t of these s tructures on s tudent behavior. H e concludes that , because of its impersonal character , the publ i c school 's spat ia l a r rangement negat ively inf luences the level of interaction a m o n g teachers , adminis trators a n d s tudents . In a sense , h e is chal leng-ing architects to bui ld publ ic structures that m e e t both the f o r m a l a n d i n f o r m a l n e e d s of the u s e r s (see a l s o S o m m e r , 1 9 8 3 ; E l l i s e t a t , 1985) .

A l though the encounter is important in the product ion of informal or persona l space, our a im will not b e to discuss spat ia l distances a m o n g individuals local ly or cross-cultural ly the w a y H a l l did, or se l f -management styles, procedures and tactics fol-lowing the path of the dramaturgica l analyses of Erving G o f f m a n (1959, 1961) . Rather , in this chapter, w e ana lyze the relat ions b e t w e e n formal a n d informal space , the product ion of i n f o r m a l space , the c h a n g i n g spatial identi ty of the w o r k p l a c e a n d the g e o g r a p h y of u r b a n informality. Space is a f lexible ent i ty - a socio-polit ical product ion - that can b e informal ized, and , in the S an Francisco B a y Area, it c learly serves as an infrastructural bas is for the p e r f o r m a n c e of in formal pract ices .

T H E S O C I A L P R O D U C T I O N O F I N F O R M A L SPACE

T h e urban l a n d s c a p e in the San Francisco B a y Area (as in m a n y other regions) is divided into formal space a n d informal space where daily activities and pract ices are carr ied out. T h e f o r m a l space is regulated and falls immedia te ly u n d e r the jur isdict ion of various agenc ies of the state or the local g o v e r n m e n t . 1 It con-forms to c i ty l a w s . This is w h y developers a n d other individuals

Informal Space 29

must seek permiss ion in order legally to t ransform unoccupied into occupied land, according to laws set b y the formal system.

The in formal space is m o r e elusive. S o m e t i m e s , as unregulated space, it m a y not be under the direct control of city government . It can either precede the establ ishment of f o r m a l space or b e pro-duced b y f o r m a l space or the formal use of space .

Prior to the formal use of the urban space , there is an informal use of that space . Through the establ ishment of city c o d e s , the formal s y s t e m s lowly invades the informal space and br ings it into the orbit o f the formal b y transforming it into formal space , with the p u r p o s e of control l ing it. The city government is a lways devising f o r m a l rules so as to reduce the extent of informal space .

Informal space is also a product of the formal use of the urban space. Because the formal s y s t e m is unable to meet the expecta-tions of every m e m b e r of the ci ty communi ty , individuals feel it necessary to t ransform formal space into informal space to con-duct their in formal activities. Informal space develops in this instance wi th in the formal spatial system. It is an outgrowth of that system.

There are a n u m b e r of w a y s that specif ic spatial units have been informal ized in the San Francisco-Oakland Metropol i tan area. H o w e v e r , the process of informalizat ion of this u r b a n land-scape is very different f rom that of the typical third-world city. In both sites, o n e witnesses the transformation of the urban land-scape into informal spatial units , mani fes ted most str ikingly in the informal appropriat ion of parcels of u r b a n land for settle-ment . This is the most vis ible and spectacular form of spatial informal izat ion in the third world . T h e land is appropriated slowly by squatters w h o o c c u p y u n u s e d or vacant lots . The squatters i n v a d e the land, bu i ld their shacks , and t ransform the area into an informal set t lement until such t ime as it is e i ther bull-dozed or incorporated into the formal city system.

In the case of the third-world squatter set t lements , the land that was vacant is n o w occupied and has b e c o m e informal ized as a spatial ent i ty or has g o n e through a process of informalizat ion. The process of appropriat ion is itself i

the informal city

Documents