Airoots: With regard to your essay ‘the production of locality’, how would you present the notions of ‘agency’ and ‘participation’ in the context of urban activism?

Arjun Appadurai: When I wrote that essay (which became part of the book ‘Modernity at Large’ published in 1996) I had in mind the sense that societies, their values and structures – so far portrayed as if they were habitual and unthinking responses – were in fact the result of intention, design and conscious effort against various political and contextual environments and pressures.

The original argument was that large areas of ethnographies of the local were actually descriptions of the labour of the production of locality. In this sense agency, design and effort were important for traditional societies and this effort had relevance to globalization as well.

At that time, I did not articulate the idea of agency as part of the argument. (There did exist a sizable body of work that used agency as a basis of understanding social change). However, if I had to do that now – and it certainly begins with the idea of labour in the context of social survival – the mediating idea would be that of ‘collective agency’ (in the way that theorists like Roy Bhaskar have articulated). In this sense agency should not always be seen as an aggregate of individual choices but as something essentially social or collective.

Thus the production of locality is a symptom of collective agency. However, the qualification to that understanding is that it is not equally distributed and embodies the differences and hierarchies that emerge in collective interaction. But what is important to note is that the product – as a social force – is more than the sum of the intention, wishes and energies of any individual in the group.

Agency implies activity; action rather than mere behaviour. This also suggests that a social dimension is inevitably tied to the project – in the sense that a project is a design, a projection or a vision. In this light, the production of locality can be seen as agency that involves design and vision.

Airoots: How do organizational principles in space emerge? Can one make them more participatory?

AA: The concept of participation takes its force from its antonym – exclusion. Otherwise it is not very meaningful. It is true that any social form or movement of any complexity tends to include hierarchy – in which the more active players emerge as leaders, the less active ones play a relatively less dominant role. A natural division often emerges and becomes a genuine problem for democratically oriented activist groups. For them, accountability is important. And in fact in radical democratic movements the idea of representation itself is a problem. In some contexts – like in the west – the idea of representation is an acceptable way of representing a participatory impulse. However, in grassroots movements there is a bad odour about the idea of representation itself, somehow producing a sense of hierarchy even between members and their representative leadership. They have to recognize that inspiration and visions are not equally distributed and this makes it difficult for them to speak for others – especially when there are class differences between leaders and members of the movement. Extreme examples of this are of course the socialist revolution in Russia – which was not self-aware of the internal distinctions and eventually the dictatorship of the proletariat became a dictatorship over the proletariat.

All democratic movements are aware of the tendencies of such contradictions. There is always a tension between representation, pedagogy and mediation. While pedagogy – especially mutual pedagogy – is seen as legitimate and mediation too is legitimate, the idea of representation is viewed with some discomfort.

Activist movements – like many progressive forms in human history – have greater tensions as they have high standards and are constantly trying to reduce the gap between leaders and followers – seniors and juniors. Other groups – like corporate groups, conventional pedagogic systems, the state and bureaucracies have no problem with these at all.

Airoots: What are the problems with the concept of participation?

AA: Words like empowerment and participation can descend into clichés very easily. It is more or less meaningful in alliance with other concepts – like informed citizenship. Thus a participant is significant if he is a more informed participant. However there is something more that has to be factored in. Along with being informed, we have to ask the question if the participant is given a voice. A woman in a movement may be highly informed – but does she have a space to articulate her views and ideas. Does she have a voice? The importance of movements like that of Aruna Roy fighting for the right to information is vital since it affects grassroots movements in a big way. However it is vital because this right to information immediately expresses the idea that the informed citizen has to have a space to be heard as well. Otherwise a highly informed and aware citizen can be silenced even through custom, traditional structures and other mechanisms of control. Thus the right to information includes the fact that you are allowed to speak. Information along with the entitlement of the space to articulate that voice are both critical. Without them participation is meaningless. So participation is not simply about getting everyone equally involved since for many reasons people cannot be equally involved. This is the reality. However there are many ways of being involved as well – we have to give importance to the idea of working towards informed membership and the existence of spaces where voices can be heard. Participation thus is beyond simply the question of leadership and followers.

Airoots: With regard to individual and collective control – when does collective control start to violate individual freedom?

AA: At the level of constituency a distinction can be made between tolerance of doubt and dissent and a positive validation of the doubt. This is an important distinction. Social movements must have room for play – we must be harsh with those who repress – but we must also not take all dissidence so seriously that we paralyze ourselves. This is also about situational ethics and contexts, as leaders have to understand whose dissidence is important. At the grassroots level alienation sets in at two levels: One when your voice is not heard and second when you are forced to go along even when you don’t want to. My own experience comes from my observation of the National Slum Dwellers Federation, SPARC and other groups.

My discovery (or rediscovery) is that individuals do count – and that individual freedom and dissidence is an integral part of the way in which these organizations function. However there is something more than just looking at these spaces as places of control and dissent. These are also spaces which function on long-term friendships. And friendships is between individuals. You cannot take that out of the equation. There are long term friendships in which other friendships are connected – a network of friendships in which trust forms as the basic foundation of these networks. These friendships endure anger, difference, dissidence and complications of all kinds. This is an untold story. We usually think of such spaces and movements only in terms of institutional spaces but for me individuals also count at the level of friendship. The federation works because of friendship. This is not only about affection – it is the idea of trust. And trust is a huge social capital. Struggles can destroy trust or fortify it. Friendship also has other ramifications. It speaks about the collective in different ways as well. I often speak to Sheela about the form of the prosopgraphies – collective biographies – a collection of individual biographies that are closely inter-linked. Mapping the world of individuals in collectives through such a form would be an interesting way of documenting these social movements and seeing how the idea of the individual and collective operate in these worlds.

Airoots: Don’t most grassroots/ community groups rely on the charisma of individual leaders rather than on any type of a democratic process?

AA: Many people are uncomfortable with the idea of charisma. But to refer to the success of a movement through short-hand representations of leadership as being charismatic does not do adequate justice to what happens in many movements. It distracts from the fact that overtime the relationship between leaders and participants evolves into an interactive space. Overtime networks emerge and these are not built through the charisma of a single individual but an interactive charisma – a shared aura or what Weber called collective charisma (in the context of caste). Even Weber used the concept of charisma in different ways – not just in terms of leadership. Many grassroots and community groups also rely on charisma in this sense. It may emerge from leaders but eventually it is infused in the networks and relationships that emerge through many forms of associations.

Airoots: Why is the ideal of democracy so out of touch with the reality of the production of urban space (whether it is from the top-down or from the bottom-up? Or why is there such a gap between the world of civic engagement and the idea of the public sphere in a larger sense of the term?

AA: The public sphere has become so synonymous with the idea of large commercial interests – (the state, the market) that the tensions between public sphere and civil society have become more evident. In a theoretical sense civil society, starting with civic life at the smallest levels (the socially near, the socially proximate) – in its shared sense or collective dimension, ought to have seen a smooth evolution to become the public sphere. Today when we ask the question how does the ordinary, quotidian, everyday life get reproduced we find ourselves faced by highly specialized spaces and mechanisms in all aspects of our life – especially in terms of habitats, urban and civic matters.

In less privileged habitats – the reproduction of quotidian life can rely even less on this specialized and fragmented public sphere. How do we close the gap between the civic space and the public sphere? Do we infuse civic space with the forces of the public sphere? This can be done in two ways – to illustrate – one would be to encourage people to siphon off resources that (for example electricity) while the second would be to increase their capacity to participate in the commercial, expensive and market controlled public sphere. Both have their own arguments. Or for that matter – should we encourage them to become accountable to safety mechanisms within the public sphere controlled by the state – like the police who also abuse them or instead facilitate them to create their own forms of producing safety, justice and punishment in a world which otherwise denies them a safe environment?

Airoots: What is a model of local information production and decision-making that we seem to be moving towards?

AA: Information is different from knowledge – knowledge is processed and placed in an ethical framework. Information is neutral. For knowledge to be of any consequence it needs a space for articulation and traction on public outcomes and debate. There is a tendency to imagine that information by default will change things – but this is not so. Information can exist and still be a harsh picture of exclusion. What we need to do is to put it in the context of knowledge and the space for its articulation. SPARC is constantly trying to bring people on the stage – as many people as possible – so that they can articulate their concerns. The PUKAR Youth Fellowship project, the Neighbourhood project all of them get people to tell their own story in different ways. Telling your story, narrating lives is a very important space within which you have to frame the question of information. The idea of the story, the right to tell your story is an old civilizational resource. Unfortunately when classified as folklore it becomes a top-down phenomenon. But it can and should be expressed in bottom- up ways and most groups and organizations which recognize this allow for such articulation. In this way often many conflicts too can be resolved. Many women’s groups work with the idea of telling stories and collectively singing songs as modes of expressing political struggle and ideas. We must create more contexts, which allow the muscles of this kind of strength to be expressed. To tell everyone that your story counts – convince them that they have the capacity to tell it and that there are people who listen. In this light – audience building is very important. To tell your story in the right context – and multiplying this context – is the right way to express the power of performance and narration – for this is where the notion of self worth and capacity is unbounded. And more large scale the setting, the more your claims in other spaces as well get taken seriously. Thus a woman who speaks at one public context gets taken seriously in others as well.

Airoots: what is the potential of new communication technologies to radically transform the way cities get planned and developed?

AA: In a recent talk I made allusions to this. My proposal was that we have tended to think of disempowered and the disfranchised (in the context of cities or otherwise) mostly in terms of the information paradigm. I suggest that we use the imagination paradigm.

Thus for people who have access to the space of this technology, it is important to use this within the spheres you are alluding to – as much through the space of imagination and creativity as through information and knowledge.

New technologies are converging and the sinews of the imagination are also being enhanced (we know the downside too – in Japan this is producing states of withdrawal – but in many other contexts, gaming, chat rooms are spaces for innumerable imagination and fantasy possibilities). It is the counter part of the information world and these can indeed complement each other – these can infuse the world with design, invention and creativity.

It is important for all grassroots movements – whether to do with urban spaces or otherwise – to have a robust discussion on issues of information and creativity.
In fact it is vital to tell your story with proper exposure to the new technologies.

Related to this is another observation – about projects. The idea of project is linked to the idea of projection. These words are somehow connected and new technologies – both artistic and cybernetics – can be that way of projecting and providing vision. This can be the best way to bring about transformation in urban contexts and give new meaning to the world of urban design and planning as well. However, it is vital that this happens with the partnership of the local populace concerned and in a context where they work, create and imagine along with those who may have more exposure to those acts and technologies as well. They should not be rendered as passive spectators.

There is indeed a rich space for information and creativity in the world of urban planning and design by coalescing the worlds of information and imagination, but only when the people – the inhabitants themselves – become creators and a resource.

New York, October 12, 2007