What do many generally think of when they hear the word “slum”? It probably brings vivid images to the mind: small houses often built with mud or an asbestos roof, narrow and sandy streets, children in faded shirts, shorts or skirts snaking their way through these streets, tired women in saris with cloth wrapped around their head (often carrying heavy loads) and many more. It most likely evokes feelings of either pity, fear, discomfort, or disgust (though as HS students, I hope not).
Why is it that these particular things are associated with this word? As students who study concepts like “development”, “economy”, “post-colonial/modern frameworks”, and “subaltern”, why do we still have these associations? More importantly, are these associations right? Or are they just lazy visuals adapted from public discourse on “slums” being places that need to be cleared up and “urbanized” for the city?
So many questions were both answered, and established as stepping stones for further questions during Dr Priti Narayan’s talk on new conceptualizations on producing “the slum”. She began by introducing her field of study, what she calls “MGR Nagar”, and how predominant South Indian literature focuses on it being the centre of “peri-urbanization”. But she mentioned what she found most interesting were the spatial strategies people observed to negotiate their living facilities (many being basic like electricity and water) from local governing bodies. Rather than looking to public discourse on how these settlements must be “cleared up”, she encouraged us to conceive of this creation and maintenance of a neighbourhood by its people — a social production of urban settlements.
Producing their Settlement via Care
Dr Narayan called our attention to two facets of assistance which child care centres provide the women of these settlements. Firstly, they enable the women to actively look for other economic opportunities. The second is that their children are prepared for further education. Drawing on her field work, she mentioned that many of these women did it primarily to establish a claim for life, i.e, by showcasing to potential “re-developers” that they have produced a resourceful home, and hence don’t need to be evicted or have their house demolished. Dr Narayan called our attention to the philosophy outlined by Ananya Roy in subaltern urbanism, by stimulating us to think of these infrastructures of care as tools to negotiate how governance and facilities come together by affective ties. As a need-based engagement of production, it is a far outcry from what most of us are used to in our lived realities.
Connotations Surrounding Urban “Redevelopment”
Scholar Arabindoo asks, “Is it enough to talk about the “slum” at the risk of surrealizing it?” I think seeing this question on the slide forced most of us to look at the real picture. In our academic battle against the global south urbanism being depicted as an apocalyptic reality, recognition of these spaces of poverty and agency raised questions on the hypervisibility of the “slum” as well. Several accounts of field work in this regard seek to differentiate and conceive of these spaces as more than the standard biopolitical narrative of “encroachment” and the “urban poor”. But it was mind bending to think of how many scholars risk creating yet another narrative of hyper-agency, by denoting the “active efforts” of residents to attain basic necessities.
Designing a New Framework – Labour et al
The answer to the previously mentioned risk is to simply encourage more academic perspectives in its multitudes, conduct more active research, and constantly try to reframe how we conceive of urban spaces. As the highlight of the talk, Dr Narayan put forth her insights on reframing existing frameworks by thinking in terms of labour. She outlined how “slums” kept growing due to the demand for labour, and how the collective blindness of media agencies and state policy to the role of labour has affected it. She elaborated on how state benefits for unorganized workers did not involve many for housing (nor the financial assistance accompanying it) and that several welfare wards do not concern themselves with it.
She touched upon how subaltern urbanism terms the collective production of a settlement as “practices”, but that in itself is a spatial devaluation of the labour geography. Dr Narayan stressed on how the labour of social reproduction needs more focus — a framework that can implicitly allow state mechanisms to function and provide provisions for housing a labour population (an essential subsidization of the state).
Challenges and Reflections:
Some of us in the hall took time to muse in thought, others marvelled at a new pathway of thinking, and a few others focused on practical challenges. Dr Narayan brought light to the fact that the fight for property rights is ongoing, largely due to nearly forty years of the State not recognizing these settlements, and the dire need to break the historical and structural distinctions that prevent social progress. She highlighted how the so far recognized unorganised labour (setting up of shops, paid domestic work, etc) require an active role to be played from the side of the government. Only recognition due to representation, can further improve the current scenario (presumably due to the statistically mammoth challenges in research). Dr Narayan then concluded her session with answers to questions on further statistical challenges, caste as a structural barrier to urban spaces representation, and the academic difficulties in streamlining subaltern discourse.
— Edited by Samhita, design by Alphin Tom
Article 19 