People as Infrastructure: Intersecting Fragments in Johannesburg
The inner city of Johannesburg is about as far away as one can get from the popular image of the African village. Though one of Africa’s most urbanized settings, it is also seen as a place of ruins—of ruined urbanization, the ruining of Africa by urbanization. But in these ruins, something else besides decay might be happening. This essay explores the possibility that these ruins not only mask but also constitute a highly urbanized social infrastructure. This infrastructure is capable of facilitating the intersection of socialities so that expanded spaces of economic and cultural operation become available to residents of limited means.
This essay is framed around the notion of people as infrastructure, which emphasizes economic collaboration among residents seemingly marginalized from and immiserated by urban life. Infrastructure is commonly understood in physical terms, as reticulated systems of highways, pipes, wires, or cables. These modes of provisioning and articulation are viewed as making the city productive, reproducing it, and positioning its residents, territories, and resources in specific ensembles where the energies of individuals can be most efficiently deployed and accounted for.
By contrast, I wish to extend the notion of infrastructure directly to people’s activities in the city. African cities are characterized by incessantly flexible, mobile, and provisional intersections of residents that operate without clearly delineated notions of how the city is to be inhabited and used. These intersections, particularly in the last two decades, have depended on the ability of residents to engage complex combinations of objects, spaces, persons, and practices. These conjunctions become an infrastructure—a platform providing for and reproducing life in the city. Indeed, as I illustrate through a range of ethnographic materials on inner-city Johannesburg, an experience of regularity capable of anchoring the livelihoods of residents and their transactions with one another is consolidated precisely because the outcomes of residents’ reciprocal efforts are radically open, flexible, and provisional. In other words, a specific economy of perception and collaborative practice is constituted through the capacity of individual actors to circulate across and become familiar with a broad range of spatial, residential, economic, and transactional positions. Even when actors do different things with one another in different places, each carries traces of past collaboration and an implicit willingness to interact with one another in ways that draw on multiple social positions. The critical question thus raised in this ethnography of inner-city Johannesburg is how researchers, policymakers, and urban activists can practice ways of seeing and engaging urban spaces that are characterized simultaneously by regularity and provisionality.
Urbanization conventionally denotes a thickening of fields, an assemblage of increasingly heterogeneous elements into more complicated collectives. The accelerated, extended, and intensified intersections of bodies, landscapes, objects, and technologies defer calcification of institutional ensembles or fixed territories of belonging. But does this mean that an experience of regularity and of sustained collaboration among heterogeneous actors is foreclosed? We have largely been led to believe that this is the case. Thus, various instantiations of governmentality have attempted to emplace urbanizing processes through the administration of choices and the codification of multiplicity. The potential thickness of social fields becomes the thickness of definitions and classifications engineered by various administrations of legibility and centers of decision making.1 Once visible, the differentiated elements of society are to assume their own places and trajectories and become the vectors through which social power is enunciated.
In this view, urban spaces are imagined to be functional destinations. There are to be few surprises, few chances for unregulated encounters, as the city is turned into an object like a language.2 Here, relations of correspondence are set up between instances of two distinct and nonparallel modes of formalization—of expression and content.3 Particular spaces are linked to specific identities, functions, lifestyles, and properties so that the spaces of the city become legible for specific people at given places and times. These diagrams—what Henri Lefebvre calls “representations of space”—act to “pin down” inseparable connections between places, people, actions, and things.4 At the same time, these diagrams make possible a “relation of non-relation” that opens each constituent element onto a multiplicity of relations between forces.5 In this multiplicity of connotations, it is always possible to do something different in and with the city than is specified by these domains of power while, at the same time, acting as if one remains operative inevitably only within them.6 This notion of tactics operating at the interstices of strategic constraints is a recurring theme in the work of Michel de Certeau.7
End of Excerpt | Access Full Version
Notes
- Henri Lefebvre, The Production of Space (Oxford: Blackwell, 1991).
- Henri Lefebvre, Writings on Cities, trans. Eleonore Kofman and Elizabeth Lebas (Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell, 1996).
- Cary Wolfe, Critical Environments: Postmodern Theory and the Pragmatics of the Outside (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1998).
- Henri Lefebvre, “Reflections on the Politics of Space,” trans. Michael Enders, Antipode 8 (1976): 33.
- Lefebvre, “Reflections,” 33; Gunnar Olsson, “From a = b to a = a,” Environment and Planning A 32, no. 7 (2000): 1242.
- John Rajchman, Constructions (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1998).
- Michel de Certeau, The Practice of Everyday Life (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984).