Method 3: Social space decoding

Social space decoding explores the relations between social organisation and the form of space. This perspective considers space as a ‘social construct’; space is a social and cultural ‘object’ that groups of people mould by the way they use it and the codes that that space implies. As developed in the theory chapter, space has a social and cultural

‘syntax’.

105 Social space decoding is presented as a separate method, but it is complementary to spatial analysis.

I worked with key informants to understand the market and the transformation of the neighbourhood. I applied and slightly adapted the specific methods according to the kind of information I required and the difficulties that I faced. I worked with key informants with whom I build up a relationship of mutual trust; my understanding of the market and the Tepito neighbourhood is grounded on the work done with the informants.

More details about the specific analysis can be found in the following paragraphs, but in general I used discourse analysis with spatial analysis and mapping, I did this with the collaboration of the informants. I decided not to record the conversations with informants as I felt that people tended to change their discourses, I was also feeling more comfortable without recording. I took notes during conversations and visits and wrote down my impressions and details every day after the field.

The discourse analysis involved several interviews, visits to the place, and informal conversations with informants. I explained what I was searching and let informants share the information and anecdotes that they considered relevant to share with me. They invited me to their houses to have coffee and also told me many things about their culture, which was useful to have a deeper understanding of the object of study. The discourse analysis applied to the information provided by leaders was particularly challenging, as they tended to talk about their organisation as a 'family' and the group as a 'community' beyond a commercial organisation, while the vendors had a different perception. In this case, discourse analysis was done taking into account contrasting opinions and discourses from other actors.

To balance the discourses of informants, it was fundamental to stay in the place for long time, observing, taking notes, talking with different people and do cross-checking of the information obtained. I adapted some methods, for example the analysis of the transformation of the vecindades and the multi-scalar analysis of the market organisation to understand how the market worked at multiple levels.

Open questions were prepared to frame the collection of information. In relation to the market, questions were oriented to understand its functioning, the role of leaders and vendors, their story and how they were able to resist eviction and consolidate a vibrant market over time. In relation to the Tepito neighbourhood the questions were focused on

106 the story of the Tepito neighbourhood, the way it functioned before and the process of transformation from the perspective of community residents, non-vendors.

To analyse the relationship between the vendors union and the authorities over time, I held two in-depth interviews with the leaders of the union in Aztecas Street. I prepared a list of open questions. I expected them to follow the order of the questions but rather they started talking about them but jumping from one to another, their discourse was not structured. I took notes and wrote down as many details as possible after the interviews.

To make sense of the information I separated it into different topics corresponding to different analyses, for example information regarding the history of the market, information corresponding to the current organisation of the market, that related to their relation to the authorities. I compared the information with other sources to understand if it was reliable. For example, I read a research work on the leaders of the street vendors in the Historic Centre (Ziccardi 2010) and found many similarities, that validated the discourse of the leaders. Discourse analyses are reflected on Chapter 4, Part 4.2 on the history of the union, relation with the authorities and consolidation of the market over time and Part 4.3 on the functioning of the streets co-management structure 'leaders-authorities'.

In the case of the informant who introduced me to the functioning of the market, I used a technique known as 'commented visits'. He chose the paths and places to explain how the market works, we visited the area a couple of times and did detailed explanations during the visits. I used the information to build a map about the commercial organisation of the North Sector (Chapter 5, Part 5.1). He also gave me details of the functioning of his stall and the commercial connections he was able to establish, this information is explained in Chapter 5, Part 5.3. He helped me to define the information to do the quantitative analysis of Aztecas street and define the different profiles of the vendors sitting there. I did a detailed mapping with the data obtained from the quantitative survey (Chapter 5, Part 5.3).

In the case of the analysis of Tepito and the vecindades and their relation to the streets, I did 'commented visits' with a key informant to understand the neighbourhood as a social codification and took notes and photos. I produced a series of maps to understand the transformation of the neighbourhood, the analysis is presented in Chapter 6, Part 6.1. As I was researching the Tepito organisation, I realised the importance of the vecindades. I decided to do analyses at this scale to show the transformation of the social relations

107 within space, a fundamental aspect to understand how the local community reproduce its social cohesion. Two analyses of vecindades are presented in Part 6.2 and Part 6.3.

The methodology might appear to be a collection of detailed, specific analysis done to different objects of analysis at multiple levels, the challenging part was to make sense of a general process. In fact, I am arguing that the multi-scalar organisation of the market has a direct relation with the transformation of the Tepito neighbourhood, and the social relations it contains. These interrelated processes characterise a general movement: a 'production of space'. The business in Tepito is the neighbourhood itself, this is due to the fact that it has become an exchange-value, this has an impact on the organisation of the neighbourhood as a use-value depleting social cohesion, an important attribute for city sustainability. The relation of the specific analysis and the general argument related to the production of space is explained with diagrams in the Chapter 3, Part 3.3.

The main limitation of the methodology is related to the specificity of the cases, i.e. the use of the Tepito case and the specific units of analysis. Paradoxically, this limitation is also the thesis strength as I was able to look at apparently disconnected phenomena in detail. The fact that I was doing research in India about the same topic was also helpful to understand that the dynamics related to the functioning of the market presented general tendencies, while the organisation of the local community required a specific understanding.

In the case of the specific analyses, I overcome the limitations by understanding the specificity of the case in relation to a wider context. For example, I choose to analyse Aztecas Street, this is a major commercial corridor in the area. Dynamics in other streets might be different, specially their efficiency and commercial value; however this example was useful to illustrate how a street has become, in spatial form and organisation, almost a like a private mall.

The three main methods: the case historical review, multi-scale spatial analysis and social space decoding were useful to observe the transformation of the Tepito neighbourhood and the role played by the increasing organisation of the market activities in the area in social and spatial terms.

108