Thinking with and beyond the informal–formal relation in urban thought

This commentary to the special issue on ‘Transcending (in)formal urbanism’ reviews key threads common across the issue and opens up questions as to the work that the informal–formal dynamic does for urban studies. It points out the general agreement in that none of the papers rejects the utility of the category of informal and that the terms informal and formal still have value and utility. In doing so, the special issue articles offer three key contributions to demonstrate the ways in which the informal either composes or becomes a close partner to the formal, de-link informality from its more commonplace registers, and sketch how the formal and informal have always been blurred in practice. Centrally, this calls for a critical reflection on the structures of thought through which the informal–formal relation emerges. It advances an understanding of how informal and formal operate as a kind of ‘intellectual governmentality’ reiterating the same ways of seeing, carving up, and analysing the city, getting in the way of our ability to research urbanism differently. The appreciation of the informal–formal dynamic is situated as part of the challenge to build a more global urban studies that works with multiple ways of knowing and researching. To what extent does remaining within a structure of thought around the informal–formal relation enable or get in the way of that? Borrowing alternatives from movements to ‘provincialising’ that structure of thought, this commentary calls for a renewed interest in the potential, and limits, of the informal–formal inheritance in urban thought.