Pitfalls and potentials

economic framework for verticalization with an emphasis on land prices and costs of construction will likely generate interesting and useful results in guiding compact city policy in sub-Saharan Africa.

PITFALLS AND POTENTIALS

During my doctoral studies, I encountered three counterproductive positions that I have participated in to some extent. More specifically, these include an excessive focus on semantics rather than material conditions, excessive focus on sophisticated algorithms for computation of urban form metrics, and exaggeration of the potential design application of urban morphology methods. Although I am critical of all three positions it is important to note that I admit to having adopted aspects of these in the papers presented in Part II. More specifically, the paper Understanding Density in Unplanned and Unregulated Settlements of Peri-urban Africa: A Case Study of Maputo, Mozambique (Jenkins & Mottelson, 2020) engages in a lengthy discussion on the appropriate use of terminology. The paper Urban Form of Informal Settlements in East Africa: A Taxonomy of Block Types (Venerandi & Mottelson, 2021) adopts advanced methods to measure and compare urban form while neglecting the fundamental questions such methods should be used to address. However, these experiences have strengthened my views on architecture, spatial planning, and research on cities which are discussed by the end of this final section of the thesis.

The first issue raised, namely the excessive focus on semantics, is linked to the emphasis some scholars place on the significance of language in constructing our reality. Such views were notably developed by French post-modernist intellectuals such as Derrida and Foucault and have gained popularity particularly in certain academic and activist milieus since then (Young & Collin, 2004). In the context of this research, the use of the term ‘slum’ has spawned endless discussions on terminology. Some view the term as derogatory to the residents of such areas. Some argue it legitimizes evictions of the residents of such areas (Jenkins, 2013). More recently, the same critique was adopted concerning the term ‘informal settlements’. Perhaps most embarrassingly, an op-ed in the Architectural Review claimed that ‘informality is a fallacy’ without considering the meaning of the term while attributing quasi-racist motives to seminal scholars of informal architecture such as Rodufsky (Agha & Lampert, 2020; Rudofsky, 1987). During the past ten years, I have spent a considerable amount of time in some of the most deficient urban areas in the world and I have never encountered a resident of these areas who was concerned about the derogative connotations of terminology used in academia to describe the obvious problems in their neighborhood. If terminology is used to justify evictions of residents, it is obviously worth discussing. However, it seems that the people in power who authorize evictions find ways of justifying such actions regardless of terminology. This is exemplified by the emerging critique of the use of the term ‘informal’. The term ‘informal settlements’ has a meaning. It refers to the extra-legal conditions relating to the construction and occupancy of the land. Unless you are in favor of complete deregulation of land acquisition and construction, so anyone can claim land and build on it without regard to regulation, terminology for describing such extra-legal conditions is necessary in order to confront the issues associated with it. It seems that amending the regulation as well as instituting more democratic control and stronger accountability measures of the powerful institutions (public and private) are more important in addressing forced evictions, social exclusion, and inequality than semantics in academia. The continued shifting critique of language may continue indefinitely, first from slums to informal settlements, then from informal settlements to non-formal settlements, and so on. However, any documentation of the effects of such critiques of language remains to be published. Accordingly, I would argue that such efforts should be curbed in favor of application of strategies with a more substantially documented impact.

The excessive focus on semantics rather than emphasis on material conditions may be rooted in the neo-liberal global hegemony, whereby the frameworks for ideological discussions exclude viewpoints challenging the economic order of society. Fukuyama (1989) famously claimed ‘the end of history’, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the end of the cold war, and the consequent global hegemony of free-market liberal democracy. Piketty (2020) argues that the neoliberal hegemony has caused a shift in the critique of ideology. Namely, that capitalism and liberal democracy are so widely accepted as the mode of governance of the social order and as a consequence, postmodernist critique of power structures neglects the fundamental material conditions. Rather than addressing issues of growing inequality through economic measures, opposition to globalization along with the consequent concentration of wealth and consolidation of elite economic power is manifested in an array of movements based on identity politics. On the right, such movements include so-called ‘ethnonationalists’ which are essentially white supremacists who seek privileges based on ethnic or national identity. On the left, single-issue minority rights movements such as LGBTQ support groups and Black lives matter have emerged in order to address structural injustices and in some cases advocate for privileges for these groups. Although policy prescriptions such as affirmative action may be justified given the nature of inequalities based on ethnicity, it is notable that large segments of both the left and right-wing contemporary political movements advocate for privileges based on minority identity rather than universal measures to address inequality. Similarly, although in a different setting, the political spectrum in many African countries transgresses the traditional right-left framework as political parties to some extent are based on ethnic identity rather than social class, as is seen in Kenya (Shilaho, 2018). Varoufakis (2016) suggests that independent nation-states no longer control the fiscal policies in Europe due to the centralization of policy in the European Union and globalization with consequent free flow of capital across borders. Žižek (2011) argues that the hegemony of capitalism is so consolidated that we cannot imagine alternatives to contemporary social order. Chomsky (2016) suggests that international corporations

constitute the most influential institutions in society. The excessive focus on semantics when dealing with issues of inequality may thus be an outcome of ideological bias as economic policy prescriptions are considered unrealistic within the established system. Furthermore, addressing material inequality related to informal urban development requires an understanding of the institutions, urban policy, and the scholarly literature on the subject. There is no quick fix in this realm and it is much more challenging to disseminate viable solutions as these require expert knowledge to assess. It is simply much easier to develop and publish a critique of language than provide policy responses to the issues associated with informal urban development. Accordingly, the ideological frameworks of public discourse, the complex nature of the discussions, as well as the structural frameworks of contemporary knowledge production and publishing may account for the excessive focus on semantics. In a utopian society where all language is cleared of problematic terminology and the material distribution of resources and the institutional power structures are preserved, the very issues such terminology addresses remain unchanged. Proponents of such postmodernist critiques will likely argue that our frameworks for understanding the problems are embedded in language and changing the language is a necessary first step in changing the power structures and distribution of resources. However, the real-world results of this strategy remain to be documented. If anything, the academic discussion on the inappropriate connotations of the slum terminology during the last 18 years has likely had a limited impact on the real-world urban deficiencies in developing countries, and the term is still used by the UN-Habitat (UN-Habitat, 2020). Accordingly, I would argue that the potential for instigating change in the real world based on changing terminology is exaggerated and discussions on policy for addressing the problems associated with informal urban development are arguably more relevant.

The second issue raised in this section, namely the excessive emphasis on technology, is arguably also linked to greater tendencies in society. In my childhood, Gary Kasparov, the highest-ranking chess player at the time lost to the IBM chess computer Deep Blue in a highly publicized match. Since then, computer algorithms have entered all domains of human existence and the tech giants of Silicon Valley have emerged as some of the most valuable companies in the world. Several scholars have noted that the dominating cultures in Silicon Valley perceive problems in society as technical challenges while neglecting conflicts of interest between different social classes (Noble, 2018). Furthermore, the emergence of advanced algorithms, increasing computational power, and access to large data sets have advanced the use of tools such as machine learning based on artificial neural networks, used in areas such as speech recognition, image recognition, and financial fraud recognition (Pasquale, 2015). Such methods are useful applications for developing engineering models for projection of the future or solutions to technical problems. For example, by feeding such algorithms vast amounts of data on the movement of a certain bird species, such algorithms may model accurate predictions of the movement of a swarm of such birds. However, it hardly generates any deeper knowledge of the biology or genetics of the bird species. Furthermore, it may be dangerous to succumb control of our knowledge production on which decisionmaking relies on to so-called ‘black box’ computer algorithms we do not adequately understand as possible conflicts of interests are reduced to technical issues. Accordingly, research based on such algorithms may undermine democratic control of society. Deng Xiaoping famously said, “The color of the cat doesn’t matter as long as it catches the mice”, referring to China’s transition from a planned economy to a more market-oriented capitalist economy (Oxford Essential Quotations, 2017; Noble, 2018). Similarly, one might argue that it does not matter how such algorithms reach conclusions as long as they are accurate. However, in this case, it is not only about ‘catching mice’. Policy is also about balancing opposing interests of different groups in society or conflicting considerations such as economic growth opposed to climate change. Reducing such conflicts to a technical matter as is a tendency in Silicon Valley is essentially undemocratic as it reduces an ethical proposition to a technocratic assessment. In addition, Madsbjerg (2017) argues that ‘Big data’ approaches to complex social problems without an adequate understanding of context have shown flawed results. Analogously, Piketty (2014) argues that economists have overly emphasized development of advanced mathematical models in economics, rather than collecting data and analyzing it thoroughly which have compromised the validity of economic theories. Accordingly, the ‘if it ain’t broke don’t fix it’ approach of Silicon Valley may lead to undemocratic decision-making based on flawed analysis. Similarly, applications in quantitative urban morphology risk engaging in technically sophisticated analysis of urban areas without providing new knowledge on how cities develop. I would argue that this is particularly important to emphasize, concerning studies of informal settlements as scholarly work in this field is increasingly done based on publicly available data and no actual field-work. I have even encountered scholars on informal settlements without any ‘hands-on’ experience from the context. The lack of ‘on-ground’ knowledge arguably limits the potential interpretation of the findings and arguably leads to lower quality of research. It seems that some of the quantitative research in urban morphology is driven by an interest in developing advanced algorithms rather than an interest in investigating how cities are shaped. Furthermore, the lack of scholarly work on urban morphology of informal settlements suggests that the basic qualitative work remains to be done before more detailed investigations in this context makes sense. I would label such excessive fascination with mathematics and algorithms ‘tech-fetishism’ and although I support the development of new tools for quantitative analysis of cities, I would stress that the application of such tools should be based on an in-depth understanding of context and in advancing the understanding the processes shaping our cities rather than complex modelling.