In the last post (link), I was faced with an ah haan question of ‘what is the politics of informality?’ or rather what is my politics in studying urban informality. I have been trying to make my position clear in my own head. I tried to tie it together in a presentation to the ‘informality …
In other words, for the world which doesn’t accepts him (as gay), he is a mere artist, and for world which accepts him (as artist) he is gay. This is the critique of the hidden oppression which the Tate misses to materialize, or chose not to materialize to cater to the voyeuristic nature of looking from the developed world to the developing world.
Three women who came to the city of Delhi at three different points in its history, with three different backgrounds, and to three different settlement “categories”. All of them see their work as something which is making a difference, education, housing and food….yet three different positionalities…three kinds of differential access to resources…..three different ways of negotiating these differential access….
‘Informal’ due to its dependence on formal and the connotation in the development discourse usually comes up in a negative sense and is almost always referred with urban poor. For the study of fast changing urban agglomerations (specific to India in this case), we need to have a far more neutral term.
I am in no way making a case for Koolhaas, but using Koolhaas as a tool to argue that nothing much has changed in urban theory for the past two decades. This is resulting in projects and studies of cities, specially in the global south to have the same perspective as of Keith Hart.