The general objective of the research presented here is to find, learn, and describe how are neighbourhoods in Tel-Aviv are defined by couriers who work via platforms of food-delivery P2P (peer to peer) applications; those who (because of their job) experience the city by working in constant movement within it and experience both the city's exterior and its interior to great extents. In order to achieve this research objective, this research also studies how (if at all) their use of digital technologies affects their experience and their definition of possible neighbourhoods.

    This research reckons that people's experience may be understood by them (and therefore narrated) by the implementation of interpretation systems that are embedded with cultural references to concepts, values, outlooks, practices, etc. Hence, when studying people’s experiences, a sociocultural anthropological approach might be the most revelatory. Further, anthropological methods (e.g., ethnography, in-depth interviews, participant observation, etc.) might best serve a study of neighbourhoods if we suppose that the definition of neighbourhoods is more informal and might rely on thick descriptions derived from experiences (hereafter: ‘neighbourhood making’), as opposed to the definition of cities which might mostly be made in formal terms (e.g., metropolitan borders shown on a map, establishment of municipal authorities, infrastructure, etc.). This does not mean that cities cannot be defined by thick descriptions and experiences, but that while a study of cities can be aided by formal definitions, a study of neighbourhoods has almost no formal definitions that could aid the researcher and, thus, the use of anthropological methodology is crucial. In addition, because digital technology may be extremely ubiquitous in certain fieldsites and become an integral part both in people’s experience of neighbourhoods and in their interpretation of their experience, digital anthropology, which addresses digital material like any other cultural material, provides this study of neighbourhoods with a holistic advantage in approach, in data collection and in analysis.

        In choosing a fieldsite for this anthropological study, my own circumstances went through a bit of ‘neighbourhood making’: my department (UCL’s department of anthropology), naturally, is located in London, which is the original location of this study’s fieldsite. Due to COVID19 restrictions, my classmates and I had to study online rather than on-campus. This left many of the international students scattered around the globe. As a result of the pandemic, therefore, even I, who resided in London and had settled there almost four years ago, went back to my hometown, Tel-Aviv (Israel). Hence, in lieu of London, the location of this study’s fieldsite is Tel-Aviv. And yet, because of the nature of this study, and because of its subject matter (neighbourhoods), I cannot consider Tel-Aviv as the fieldsite itself, but only reckon that the fieldsite is within Tel-Aviv and that conversations with my research participants were held in Hebrew.

        Pinning Tel-Aviv as my fieldsite is, and this became more evident upon retrospective reflection, too rudimentary. The borders of this fieldsite, or of the ‘neighbourhood’ of this study (if not set by the subject of study), I am quite glad to say, were actually framed by all three of my research participants. Or more specifically, through my fieldwork it became clear that my participants’ are less concerned with a definition of an existing city (e.g. Tel-Aviv) or with any other formal definitions. And on my part, I avoided asking them guiding questions that define Tel-Aviv (nor any zone within it) as our fieldsite. Instead, I have tried to find out if they sense or conceptualise — in their eyes — a neighbourhood (hence my use of the term ‘neighbourhood making’). Their practices of such ‘making’ are, in part, what this presentation will present but not just. It will also be illustrated that the considerations taken by my participants in the ‘making’ of such neighbourhood(s), and what the ‘making’ involves, are understood by them as something that affects their social role in their environment and in society at large. Therefore, it is not just a geographical entry that this study examines.

        The findings of this study suggest that we can consider ‘neighbourhood making’ as an informal practice in which an individual points at a zone in a lived environment by way of social-cultural comparative perception, identification, or definition. In stating their perception, identification and definition of a zone, one is — in practice — constructing a unit of conditions they find applicable to and constructive of that zone/location. Such practice might not be consistent nor linear. In fact, the same conditions may be applied to several places even though an individual might only apply them onto the one zone that they are trying to singularly define as that neighbourhood. This is not at all a concern for me as a researcher. Inconsistencies, actual, have much explorative potential and they might not necessarily be contradictory. Further, if participants are inconsistent in how they ‘make a neighbourhood’, it does not mean that they are making an error, it simply means that their ‘neighbourhood making’ is inconsistent and dynamic (this is their way of ‘making’), and it still shows that ‘making’ takes place. A researcher could, and should, try to find out what about their position (or ‘what’ in general) makes their ‘making’ inconsistent. But, for anthropological ends, the same questioning should also follow more consistent practices of ‘neighbourhood making’.

        If our focus is on individuals, any attempt at ‘neighbourhood making’, consistent or inconsistent, should expose the many ways these individuals might see, describe, and define a zone. If our focus is on a specific zone, we can then study the ways neighbourhoods are ‘made’ out of this zone in particular. The latter sort of ‘making’ is insightful regarding the many ways this zone is experienced and observed and it reveals various (vastly different or similar) versions of ‘neighbourhoods’ that stem from the same zone. The examination of each (even separately), projects on the other. This study, to clarify, focuses on individuals. And yet, no matter where our focus is, ‘neighbourhood making’ — which can, I believe, only seem as ‘making’ to the researcher — is mostly expressed in conversation with research participants when they prioritise elements they have experienced and observed in the zone they are referencing. The prioritisation of such elements in order defines that zone in a way that makes these elements seem to the couriers as the conditions that this zone holds.

        As I focused most of my conversations with participants on the issue of working in constant movement, evidence suggesting ‘neighbourhood making’ first came up within a theme I identified as ‘productivity’: they choose deliveries according to their pick-up point, and their drop-off point. As references to the significance of pick-up/drop-off points came up more often, it became clear that the choosing of such encourages couriers to make their own rules (cantering on productivity) on what deliveries to take, that these rules are geographically demonstrated, and that a look into the making of such rules might reveal the ‘neighbourhood’ relevant to my informants; a ‘neighbourhood’ of conditions.

        In their attempt to re-conceptualise the city, the couriers, through deliberation and experimentation, make radiuses. I.e., they independently define radiuses in which they are willing to pick-up and drop-off deliveries. Also, my participants do not (or cannot) configure the platform (app) they use to filter out any deliveries outside of that radius. Each participant has one radius, though they might decide they want to change it. The radius itself is not arbitrarily round, but defined by the shape of street roads, and their making is done in close consideration with certain factors which will be specified in the body of this presentation. Despite this practice might be referred to as ‘radius making’, this (due to the factors involved) is a manifested practice of ‘neighbourhood making’ which the participants exhibit.

        In their ‘making’ of ‘neighbourhoods’, as it will be illustrated, most elements, practices, and considerations heavily rely on demonstrative forms (visual representations provided by apps the couriers use, e.g., a map, a timer, navigation instructions, etc.). This offers a view into how the couriers’ relationships with digital means (tools) materialise into an outlook that serves them not just with an environmental understanding, but with an instrument for practical decision making (the outlook being the instrument). Above all, however, their ‘neighbourhood making’, the elements that this ‘making’ involves, and the fact that they work outdoors, on the move, and on a P2P (peer to peer) platform, might explain why I found their (the research participants’) ‘neighbourhood making’ to be less motivated by a need to conceptualise the city/zone they live in, but more by the need to conceptualise the environment they work in (i.e. their place of employment). In addition, the fact that their ‘neighbourhood’ and its ‘making’ considerate the value of productivity highly — a value to which the participants often refer — this project also offers a study of how productivity is culturally understood in this fieldsite.

        Having mentioned earlier that the couriers’ ‘neighbourhood-making’ contributes toward their understanding of their place of work, this should be clarified that this place of employment is also understood in terms both physical and temporal; it is not just the app (the platform) that enables them to work (in conditions they are obligated to), but also the city. In other words, attempts at deliberation, trial (experimentation), and re-definition are devoted to re-conceptualise the city as the place of employment itself for the couriers; these are attempts that together, in this study, constitute a ‘making’. Further, as the presentation will show, the city sets conditions much more immediate to the couriers than those set in the agreements they have signed with the platform, and its conditions (the city’s) are prioritised highly to be of a defining effect on how they set make a radius (a ‘neighbourhood’).

        The findings presented in this study were obtained in the following methodology: (a) participants were recruited using a recruitment ad that I circulated through various local Facebook groups, one of which was dedicated to couriers from a specific platform. This recruitment ad was also circulated with the help of some local friends. (B) participant information sheets were handed and explained to candidates that wished to participate. (C) interviews with the participants were scheduled individually and have taken place on a video conferencing platform (most participants contributed over three hours, each, to the interviews in separate sessions). I drafted a semi-structured guide to aid me in these conversations. This guide was somewhat revised at the last stage of the interviews due to the discovery of radius making’s significance. (D) Participants were also asked to take pictures and videos of anything they think is relevant to issues discussed in the interviews. Assuming that they will document elucidative elements to the themes discussed in the interviews, the media they shared with me were addressed in the interviews and have been guiding us (the participants and I) as focal references which stood for moments, or phases, in their working routine (elements that were exceptional to that routine, helped clarify it by contrasting it).

        One last note: during the stage of recruitment, I have approached and have been approached by over 20 couriers who work with one platform or another in Tel-Aviv. Only a few were willing to volunteer their time to participate in this research for free. The rest, as they should, expected to be paid. It was unfortunate that this research had not had the funding to offer those who considered their participation, but it is even more unfortunate that it cannot reward those who have participated. I thank them deeply, here, as I did in every stage of the fieldwork. They have given their time for this research, shared their insights with me, dedicated their energy and state of mind to answer questions and photograph the media featured in this presentation, and they have made my fieldwork fascinating and encouraging. I have promised them to keep their anonymity and the anonymity of the platforms through which they work, and this promise is kept. But even if I had mentioned their names here, their contribution is so massive that their generosity would simply eclipse their identities.

​

 *  Photos featured in this presentation were captured by me unless specified otherwise.

​

      David Teveth, Summer 2021

      Masters candidate (MSc) in Digital Anthropology

      UCL (University College London)

      david.teveth.20@ucl.ac.uk