Formality as exception

• Published in: Urban studies (Edinburgh, Scotland) Scotland), 2019-02, Vol.56 (3), p.612-615
• Main Author: Pratt, Andy
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Devaluation; Economics; Epistemology; Global economy; Informal economy; Naming; Ontology; Otherness; Special issue commentary: Transcending (in)formal urbanism; Teleology; Urban areas
• ISSN: 0042-0980; 1360-063X
• DOI: 10.1177/0042098018810600

In this commentary piece, we are reminded that naming (in-formality) is an inherently political act. Informality is discussed through a number of dimensions: conceptually in relation to the term ‘formal’; considering its (ordinary) presence in the city; discussing the recognition and devaluation of the informal economy; and pointing to the contribution it makes to the global economy. Analytically, it is argued that informality requires a balancing concept of the formal; politically, informality is ‘the Other’, bound into a teleological relationship with the formal, but unable to ever achieve it. As such, informality is tied to and legitimates the ‘formal’. By reviewing the ontological critique and epistemological diversions deployed by some of the articles of this special issue, the commentary shows that the informal economy is not a ‘residual’ category but one that encompasses the majority of the human experience (urban and non-urban). In this sense, it puts forward the suggestion of viewing formality as exception and informality as the norm, for it is difficult to imagine a totally formal activity with no informality. Informality, then, should be interpreted as a hybrid of what is termed formal and informal. In all its varieties, it is shown that informality constitutes the everyday of the city. Yet, this commentary also calls to resist generalisations so as to be able to ‘see’ particular timed and placed informalities that exist in relation to a wider (local) social, political and economic setting, as well as a global one. 本篇评论文章提醒我们，非正规性（in-formality）是一种固有的政治行为。我们通过多个维度对非正规性进行了讨论：从概念上与“正规”一词相联系进行讨论；考虑其在城市中的（普通）存在；讨论对非正规经济的褒贬；并指出它对全球经济的贡献。从分析的角度来看，有人认为非正规性需要一种平衡的、关于“正规”的概念；在政治上，非正规性是“另一端”，与“正规”有一种目的论关系，但这种目的永远无法实现。因此，非正规性与“正规”联系在一起并使“正规”合法化。通过回顾本期特刊中某些文章所采用的本体论批评和认识论转移，本篇评论表明，非正规经济不是“剩余”类别，而是包含大部分人类经验（城市和非城市）的类别。从这个意义上说，它提出了将“正规”视为例外、将非正规性作为常态的建议，因为很难想象一个没有非正规性的、完全正规的活动。因此，非正规性应该被解释为所谓的正规和非正规的混合体。在所有变种中，都表明非正规性构成了城市的日常生活。然而，本篇评论还呼吁抵制一概而论，以便能够“看到”存在于更广泛的（地方）社会、政治和经济环境以及全球背景内的、具有特定时间和地点的非正规性。