Informality

Understanding Informality – Hypothesis (Haris)

Posted in Definitions, Haris by Harisheiz on October 7, 2007

Understanding Informality (in progress)

a. Informality is what is not formal. (the term “informal” contains both the field of the opposites of formal but also the field of the non defined as formal)

b. Informality is to be found in the realm of the social and the technical, not in nature since it presupposes a structure, an authority or a system that defines what is formal. (wide and large someone could say that there are the formal, the informal and the natural)

c. Informality emerges

d. Informality refers to practices, informal objects are such because of the nature of the practices that produce, constitute or situate them

e. Informality is context and scale specific. There are sets of exteriorities that define what is formal.

f. There are different kinds of informality

– Social

– Cultural (Social – Cultural)

– Political

– Economical (Political – Economical)

– Spatial

Spatial informality, is the material or immaterial spatial expression of other kinds of informality or combinations of them (cultural, social, political and/or economical informality). The nature of these combinations needs to be defined.

We roughly distinguish four general categories of spatial informality:

– performed

– applied

– appropriated

– constructed

6 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Micah Tillman said, on October 15, 2007 at 4:01 pm

    Fascinating.

    So we have a dichotomy between authority and nature, then? I can see that.

  2. Jaap said, on October 23, 2007 at 11:59 pm

    so, here goed my first blog-post ever… i agree on your claim that ‘informality is to be found in the realm of the social and the technical’. Actually, it might be that it is not the informal but the formal that is to be found in the social and technical. The informal, being the counterpart, is in the social sence to be found in the not-social accepted or a-social, the technical informality is found in those performances that are described as undesirable/forbidden in the technical system of laws and procedures.

    I keep feeling that we should stress this dichotomy -social/technical- again when discussing point F.
    The social/cultural as a set of common (cultural) habits and non-written rules (social contract). (non-formalized fules from the legal viewpoint)
    The economical/political as the situation in which rules have settled down in written documents with a legal status. (a ‘formalization’ of the social contract)(see p.e. De Soto)

  3. harisheiz said, on October 24, 2007 at 12:42 am

    Jaap, I promise to read your comment really carefully and discuss about it soon…

  4. anthonyphos said, on October 27, 2007 at 11:31 am

    hey guys, taking hte presentation in account we should clarify the perceptual model we use. In our model nature is interchangeable with archaic state of man kind. It is a choice we should make to clarify the model and only deal with informal-formal dichotomy. We could base this on Rousseau (we should have a look on the social contract, including Hobbes and Locke – I still have some documents I think) and speaking of a state of nature before pre-historic human become more than a singular hunter. Linking with anthropology and the definition of a human being a higher thinking and social animal (though old school def.) this state of nature is more of rhetorical value. The argument is as soon human engaged with each other on permanent basis, formalized practices emerged as compromise and or consequence to live together. (eating habits, etc.) We should stretch the point that force gave way to other forms of negotiations or representations. But let’s don’t get too much in depth here as the focus should be somewhere else. Anyway it’s more Haris issue 😀

  5. Dr. A. Poleev said, on May 29, 2008 at 2:48 pm

    Apposite to this topic is my manuscript “Form and informality”, 2006 (german).


Leave a comment