It was a privilege to be invited to listen in to the GLA & TNLCF Civic Infrastructure event on July 20th 2021. The goal of the afternoon’s discussion was made clear right at the start by co-host Farah Elahi, there is a vital need for “infrastructure to support a thriving civil society.” As a visual artist and narrative designer I am an outsider to this arena of work, so I was interested to learn about the challenges faced by those working in the sector, what prevents a clear understanding of the value of infrastructure, and how this results in failing those communities most in need.
I heard from people working hard with limited resources to improve both infrastructure itself and the general understanding of its value. In the concluding session these people were grouped together under the term ‘The Infrastructurers’. It was agreed this new noun is a useful term in the way it acknowledges a range of practitioners located in communities, non-profit organisations, and local authorities. I will use it going forward in this write up, along with the verb 'infrastructuring' which arose out of a previous GLA & TNLCF event on the civic imagination.
Farah Elahi describes the current understanding of civic infrastructure in the following way, “Traditionally it has been known as second tier organisations or membership organisations that support stronger networks, advocacy and capacity building. However, this conversation highlights how civic infrastructure cannot be neatly defined by an organisation type or a particular form – ultimately it is the connective tissue that nurtures greater interdependence within civic and community life.”
From my perspective the afternoon’s discussion generated three main themes. The first being the need for a more prominent profile for civic infrastructure. The second being the need for sharing expertise and best practice between infrastructurers. The third being the need for communities to have more agency in the funding process. Below I have outlined the conversation points around these three themes.
How can infrastructuring be made more visible?
“Infrastructure organisations need to be visible while infrastructure is invisible.” These are the words of Arman Nouri who used the analogy of plumbing to illustrate his point. He explained that, like the pipes hidden under the sink and in the walls, when the system is working well it goes unnoticed in our daily routine. It’s not until something goes wrong that a closer look is needed and some deconstruction and unblocking of connected parts is required.
Arman’s point is that while the infrastructure itself often remains invisible to the general population, the infrastructurers, and the sector they work in, need to have a higher profile in order to be valued more. This echoes the questions Cassie Robinson posed in the opening session where she asked, “How can we make infrastructure cool again? Or how can we make it cooler?” She expanded on this by saying that “infrastructure value is hard to quantify” because it is, to Arman’s point, mostly invisible.
How can infrastructures share best practice?
This notion that civic infrastructure needs a more prominent profile was echoed through the afternoon with the desire to see a bigger platform for sharing best practice across organisations working in different fields. There was a general consensus that there could be a lot more cooperation and networked connection to provide infrastructurers with mutual support.
Amanda Tincknell shared her excitement about how much knowledge is already held inside organisations and was sure that more can be achieved by sharing insights through networking or public information broadcasting. Picking up on the infrastructuring-as-gardening analogy used by Tracey Lazard in her opening provocation, Amanda suggested the equivalent of a gardening book or a gardening programme as a way of “making our knowledge visible to others”.
Nicola Lynch highlighted the barriers erected by competition in the sector. She said, “We need to shine a light on things that keep us apart. The value of connection and relationships have been suffocated by the structure we live within.” Ade (surname?) added her thoughts by reminding the group that, “Yes, there is power in numbers, but not everyone is the same. People need different soil. Each plant has its own way of growing. Not everyone has the same need or the same starting point.”
Ade’s comments prompted Jenni Lloyd to ask if “everyone has the same vision of what a good garden looks like? What is the understanding of infrastructure definitions? Civic/social infrastructure, formal/informal infrastructure, hard/soft infrastructure. How can all these approaches work well together?”
And so there was a question left hanging, which Amanda articulated very clearly. Given that everyone is, “coming from different spaces, how can we communicate and know each other well?” What are the requirements for networking and signposting when infrastructurers work in such different environments from each other? Is there a way to share best practice while acknowledging the very different needs of people in communities?
How can communities have more say in funding strategy?
This thought about the specifics of varying needs was addressed by Gilles Cabon in his points about funding. He explained that through the ideology of diversity, a gap in provision has opened up, allowing many people to fall through the net. He said that by providing broadly for everyone, the services offered were “diluting specific needs and then couldn’t provide the community with specific needs.” This part of the conversation examined why, as Cassie succinctly put it in her opening remarks, “Infrastructure has been underfunded” and echoed Yvonne Field’s point in her opening provocation that, “Systemic disinvestment weakens communities.”
Yvonne asked, “Why was that gap allowed to exist?” Gilles responded with his view that “infrastructure isn’t made by one organisation, it is the network and community that makes the infrastructure.” He went on to say, “Funders find it difficult to understand the amorphous nature of this. Understanding is lacking among the key decision makers about how community facilitates infrastructure.” And so the conversation arrived at the question of how funders can better support this amorphous network.
The theme of visible and invisible structures returned with Jenni saying, “Money and power are the invisible infrastructure that underpins infrastructure. We are talking not about the allowing of the gap, but the design of the gap. We must redesign money and power to enable networks.” She concluded her point by saying, “Independent pots of money don’t enable a network.”
While the group agreed the gap in infrastructure provision has been facilitated by underfunding, and a lack of understanding about how resilient communities survive through networking, Nicola wanted to emphasise that this isn’t just due to a lack of understanding. She expressed her frustration that “money has been pulled out of advocacy and financial loans organisations.” There is, she says, “a political element of silencing people and a broader piece about disempowering local communities and centralising power.” Nicola reminded the group that, “there is a danger in making infrastructure needs sound purely structural, when we should be angry about things being taken away.”
The conversation concluded with several contributions about how the ‘customers’, in Amanda’s words, or the ‘community’, in Ade’s words, can play a more directive role. Amanda asked how they can be more critical of the services they’re receiving and what are the mechanics to amplify voices? Ade asked, “How do we make it a level playing field and be empowered to be benefactors as well as recipients?” While Jenni wanted to, “disperse decision making power into the community”, and Gilles urged the community to be “brave and assertive”.