.jpg)
Dr. Juan del Nido, economist turned anthropologist and Research Associate at the University of Cambridge’s Max Cam Centre for Ethics, Economy and Social Change, arrived in Buenos Aires in 2015 to study the taxi industry. A year later he happened to find himself within an ardent conflict between the newly arrived ride-hail platform company Uber, and the already well-established taxi industry in the city.
In the beginning, the conflict centered around issues that were also raised against the company in other cities, such as tax avoidance, price dumping, and lack of professional permits, but as the conflict evolved it took on a character that moved beyond legal issues.
– The conflict grew and extended way beyond the court.
– We are talking influencers, political parties, unions and even the president of the country itself, says del Nido.
Del Nido’s research then shifted towards studying how this conflict came about and what logics and rhetoric was used to frame it.
Disavowing disagreement
Del Nido explains how the language we are used to hear from technocrats and governments, about best-practice and managing efficiency, now came from a certain middle-class segment of society that would describe themselves as progressive and inclusive, and which took Uber’s arrival in the city as a sign of long-awaited modernity and cosmopolitanism. This made it increasingly hard to disagree with Uber’s presence and build a solid case against them.
– Not wanting Uber was morally bankrupt, you were not getting it, you were not understanding something basic about how modern life works.
Within this conflict, disagreement then became disavowed as something pathological, and the ideas of modernity, techno-utopianism, progress, and empowerment made it so that there was in fact a right and wrong way to look at things.
Del Nido argues that this is a sign of what he calls a post-political condition; a condition in which we have lost sight of the inherent agonism within political processes which in turn is replaced by:
– A certain consciousness, informed by the notion of the consumer and its attendant moralizing language - such as ‘the right to choose’, and which increasingly trumps anything that stands in its way.
His research then seeks to explore not only the conflict between taxis and Uber in itself, but rather the politics of mobility and:
– How it is becoming increasingly harder across societies to actually disagree.
The politics of progress
Even though Uber established their business in Buenos Aires with the argument that they were bringing development and innovative solutions, the outcome was that the already mobile middle class became even more mobile, and that the people living in informal settlements neither had the means to use the platform or take part in the work provided by it.
– All the disruption and empowerment essentially empowered those who were empowered already.
Del Nido emphasizes that he is not inherently opposed to technological solutions, but he encourages us to ask the big question about how and why we integrate these technologies into the ecosystem of the city.
– These technologies are not simply privatizing relations that we used to understand as public problems, like how we move around, but also privatizing ideas and ways of understanding these problems.
– Who belongs in the city, how do they belong in the city, how should we organize movement amongst ourselves, how should we organize resources amongst ourselves - these are questions that can never be sorted by econometric equations because these pertain to something else.
Importantly for del Nido, political problems are never solved solely by technical solutions, because technological innovation brings with it a set of new political issues.
– This is not about being a luddite, it is not about being against progress, but about understanding whether this actually is progress, del Nido stresses.
Building an argument for the city
Whether it is ride-hail companies such as Uber, or housing rental services such as AirBnB, del Nido argues that these companies tend to win by default, as we have lost track of how to counter their techno-solutionist arguments.
– What all these platforms have in common is that they are preying on our decreasing ability to put together a political argument for the city and a certain kind of life that we share.
– These companies come with their own description of fairness that bolsters their own inevitability.
The consequence is that the people who own or use these platforms, the people who benefit from them, tend to win the argument.
Del Nido stresses the importance of not only seeking to regulate these companies, but rather regain the capacity of creating solid political arguments against them, and for the urban life that we want.
– We need to relearn what gives a right to the city, and what gives whom a right to the city.
– How do we say ‘it doesn’t have to be like this’?
Listen to Dr. Juan del Nido in conversation with Ph.D. candidate Marcin Sliwa on urban mobility politics in Buenos Aires and the post-politics of techno-solutionism.