Notwithstanding the previous examples, only few ‘informal’ actors were prepared to take on full responsibility from public authorities. This is due to some of the fundamental differences that they saw between their informal practice and the provision of a public service, namely their capacity and powers, their ‘operational model’ and their function.
With regards to capacity and powers, several interviewees highlighted that, unlike themselves, public authorities have the power to act on certain issues (for example, to enforce fines for spitting in a public place, to address complaints about noise levels, to build a wall on public land, or applying pesticides to trees). A couple of interviewees further argued that if public authorities are in charge of a certain campaign (such as infrastructure improvements or promoting sustainable modes of transport), they are able to attract more leverage than a group of ‘informal’ actors. Also, many ‘informal’ actors noted that they simply did not have the skills that are required to substitute a public service. For instance, the skills required to promote the enjoyment of a public park by a Friends group differ quite substantially from those required to fully
156
manage and maintain that park. Finally, ‘informal’ actors may not have access to specialist equipment required to carry out certain tasks (such as soldering or fixing chains to their mooring in a public square, repairing a foot bridge or cutting down trees).
Interviewees also pointed to differences in the ‘operational model’ between informal practices and public service provision by public authorities, the main one being the much greater requirements and expectations of the latter. For instance, interviewees from various book sharing initiatives highlighted that a library may require fees and paperwork to join, all books need to be returned, and within a particular time frame, too. A library is also expected to open at consistent times. In contrast, such requirements did not apply to book swaps and – as one interviewee pointed out – it did not even matter if the book swap was sometimes empty. Further characteristics of the ‘operational model’ of informal practices are discussed in detail in chapter 5.
Finally, while some interviewees saw their initiative as providing a public service, most argued that their practice had a different function. For instance, one book swap interviewee mentioned that if considered as a library, his project was a failure, as there are only a “couple of good books” among a lot of “dross”.
Rather, its main achievement has been to give “people an excuse to be nice to one another”. Notwithstanding the above, the organisers used the expression
“micro library” to describe the book swap – a terminology that has made them face criticism by social media users who felt that – in the context of cuts to public services – it was wrong to use the association with a library, given that it only fulfilled a very limited range of the functions.
One of the interviewees from a guerrilla gardening project summarised the view of many others, arguing that their practice was really about providing an additional, rather than an essential service. She gave the example of a discussion with neighbours about street sweeping in her area – which had been reduced by the local authority to once every eight weeks. One neighbour felt that they should organise a street sweeping rota to make up for the lost service.
In contrast, my interviewee strongly argued against this, as she felt that the
157
Council would never consider re-instating the service if they assumed this task to be taken care of by someone else. Instead, she suggested an ‘emergency top up’ approach for when it was really necessary. She admitted that there was only a fine line between taking responsibility for your environment as a community and taking over work that is a legal, statutory responsibility of the local council. However, like many other interviewees, she felt it was important to maintain this boundary and to understand their practice not as a replacement, but as an add-on to the existing public services provision.
4.11 Conclusion
As outlined in this chapter, the findings from my primary research reveal that
‘informal’ actors are motivated by a wide variety of issues, stretching from intrinsic reasons, such as personal enjoyment of the activity, to more instrumental, social or environmental agendas. While some had ambitious plans to transform society, others were content with a more contained vision of small improvements. Moreover, there was no singular aim for each individual actor.
Instead, a particular practice may be seen to fulfil a multiplicity of purposes.
However, most of the ‘informal’ actors consider their practices to play a role in improving the lives of people (including themselves) in the big cities that they live in.
By demonstrating that informal cultural practices take on a wide range of roles and purposes within cities that go beyond, and are often primary to, economic functions, this chapter also strongly challenges the economic-deterministic interpretations of culture in the urban context that remain prevalent in the literature (as argued in Chapter 2). It suggests that the narrow focus that is often placed in the literature on the role of informal cultural practices as drivers of urban economic development is highly problematic. Direct economic motivations were almost negligible for most case studies (other than busking).
While some of the other motivation themes (such as a better, safer and more vibrant neighbourhood, or an improved perception of the local area) may have a bearing on economic issues (such as local business returns and property prices), these only featured marginally in the accounts of ‘informal’ actors and
158
how they understood their role in their cities. Consequently, the findings from this chapter call for a shift in the debate by academics and policy-makers alike towards a more multi-faceted valuation of ‘informal’ cultural practices.
This chapter has provided such a conceptualisation by foregrounding the multiplicity and diversity of motivations – thus also answering my first research question. However, in order to more fully comprehend the role of ‘informality’ in these activities, a better understanding of how ‘informality’ is deployed in the practices of ‘informal’ actors is required. The following chapter provides a discussion of my findings in relation to this, thus helping to answer my second research question.
159
5 D EPLOYING INFORMALITY
In the previous chapter, I have discussed the multiplicity and diversity of motivations that lead ‘informal’ actors to engage in informal cultural practices.
The research findings have demonstrated that a simplistic conception of informal practices as a facilitator of urban economic development is reductive at the very least. However, many ‘informal’ actors do strive to improve lives in their cities, including their own.
In this present chapter, I interrogate how they try to achieve these aims. I examine their internal (or stated), theoretical values and principles that they desire to adhere to in their practices, and how they go about achieving their aims in practice. By interrogating actors’ theoretical principles and actual practices, this chapter reveals the role that informality plays in the pursuit of their goals, and in particular, the extent to which informality is a defining characteristic of their practices. It also explores how actors perceive and practically negotiate the relationship between ‘acting informally’ and ‘formal ways of doing things’.
Drawing on the same data, as in the previous chapter, I begin in section 5.1 by looking at how ‘informal’ actors themselves define rules and boundaries for their practices – a reflection of their principles and values. In the second part of the chapter (section 5.2), I then look at how, in their practical decisions, actors deploy informality.