“It was not absence that structured these neighborhoods, but presence—of responsibility, reciprocity, and embedded social control.”

 Zahra Breshna, Kabul fieldnotes, 2004

 

Introduction

 

In the fast-growing cities of the Global South, self-organization is often misunderstood—reduced to informal housing, market improvisation, or administrative failure. But what if these structures represent not a lack of order, but another kind of order altogether?

 

Drawing on urban studies in Kabul’s historic neighborhoods, this essay revisits the concept of self-organization not as resistance to planning, but as an inherited system of coexistence and regulation—a “forgotten order” deeply rooted in cultural norms, moral obligations, and spatial practice.

 

 

Coexistence Before the State

 

Before centralized administrations took hold, urban regulation in cities like Kabul was governed through a layered ecology of responsibilities:

 

• wokil guzar (neighborhood representatives) mediated conflict
• guilds managed price stability and trade
• mosques and community elders organized care, safety, and sanitation
• property norms were negotiated through shared memory and moral obligation.

 

“Mechanisms of distribution in the alleys of Kabul did not primarily follow formal state directives but rather a social code that was based on fair use, respect, and reputation.”

Zahra Breshna, Kabul fieldnotes, 2004

 

 

These systems evolved through practice, negotiation, and collective ethics, forming a governance architecture both durable and dynamic.

 

From Regulation to Respect

 

This form of cultural regulation was never just about efficiency. It relied on “honor economies”—trust, reputation, and intergenerational learning. This is what allowed these neighborhoods to function even in the absence of external control. Self-organization, then, was not unplanned—it was differently planned.

 

This makes it distinct from what today is labeled “informal.” While informality often reflects survival in the absence of access, self-organization is an inherited framework. It imposes duties, not just rights. It is neither romantic nor nostalgic—it is demanding, participatory, and deeply relational.

 

 

What We Lost (And Can Learn)

 

Today, urban development programs often mistake self-organization for administrative failure—or attempt to replace it with participation models that ignore the power of embedded norms.

 

“Planners tend to treat community as a resource to be activated, not as a governance system already in place.”

Zahra Breshna, Kabul fieldnotes, 2004

 

 

By failing to recognize this, we overlook what cities already know how to do.

 

 

URBAN STEPS and the Return of Memory

 

URBAN STEPS does not seek to idealize self-organization, but to learn from it. We explore how these forms of “cultural cohabitation” might support more inclusive, flexible planning—especially in areas where state presence is limited.

 

Our methods Uncover/Study (U/S) and Bridge/Activate (B/A) draw directly on these field studies: historical maps, neighborhood surveys, and the living memory of street-level planning. Through this lens, we understand cities not only as challenges to be governed, but also as systems that have long governed