- Narrative has been viewed neither as theory nor as a method, but rather as a form of discourse
- "historical" narrative differs from "fictional" narrative on the basis of its content not form
- The content in historical narratives are real events that are "found" but they can also be "constructed"-- verbal fictions
- Historical narrative follow empirically validated facts, but also need imaginative filling
- Narrative will be a result of the application of a proper historical method.
- Dissertative discourse -- interpretation / Narrative discourse -- representation
- Annales school members like Braudel criticized narrative history
- Follows postmodernist debate that there is no truth in history
- History is literary artifacts - distinguishes between history and story
- Historical narrative -- medium not the message
the question of narrative in contemporary historical theory/ Hayden White
History in Practice/ Jordonova
Jordonova talks about the practice of history, rather than a theoretical approach. "What historians actually do, and how and why they do it"
- The most important work of a historian is writing.
- Practice of history - finding sources -- archives, oral history, engaging with the material, writing.
- However reliable, even in the hands of the most impartial historian, documents can never tell us what happened in the past objectively
- What do historians mean by "truth"? -- Mistaken claims to knowledge
- History is neither an art nor a science
- Primary and Secondary sources - subject both to unsparing irterrogation
- Public history: History has written and produced by salaried historians against what the public seems to think happened (collective memory) -- popular history
- Public history - deeply political
Between Memory and History: Les Lieux de Memoire / Pierre Nora
"Nora begins with a basic distinction: between memory and history. He suggests that we
have arrived at a juncture at which history - cold, distant, critical - is taking the place of, and
hence largely eradicating, collective memory."
Memory - Traditional, peasant, lived, vibrant, collective
History - Modern, cold, distilled, belongs to no one and everyone
"Nora argues that the form of memory prompted by and reflected in lieux de memoire is fundamentally different from ''traditional memory''. It is ''modem memory'', memory "seized by history." Where traditional memory is unmediated, unconscious, and passed down through unspoken traditions, modem memory has been transformed by history: it is deliberate, voluntary, and, most importantly, always indirect - mediated by self-consciousness and awareness of the distance of the past."
"Modern Memory is archival: Here Nora brings in the preoccupation with conservation and preservation. Archives, museums, data banks, oral history projects, even photo albums exemplify "modem memory'', since they have "become the deliberate and calculated secretion of lost memory. [They] add to life...a prothesis-memory .... Even as traditional memory disappears, we feel obliged. .. to collect remains, testimonies, documents, images, speeches, any visible signs of what has been. .. " (13) That is, we hold on to pieces of the past because we think they will enable us to remember or re-encounter that which we know to be irretrievably lost We have forgotten how to remember, so we keep everything. The things we keep become lieux de memoire.
have arrived at a juncture at which history - cold, distant, critical - is taking the place of, and
hence largely eradicating, collective memory."
Memory - Traditional, peasant, lived, vibrant, collective
History - Modern, cold, distilled, belongs to no one and everyone
"Nora argues that the form of memory prompted by and reflected in lieux de memoire is fundamentally different from ''traditional memory''. It is ''modem memory'', memory "seized by history." Where traditional memory is unmediated, unconscious, and passed down through unspoken traditions, modem memory has been transformed by history: it is deliberate, voluntary, and, most importantly, always indirect - mediated by self-consciousness and awareness of the distance of the past."
"Modern Memory is archival: Here Nora brings in the preoccupation with conservation and preservation. Archives, museums, data banks, oral history projects, even photo albums exemplify "modem memory'', since they have "become the deliberate and calculated secretion of lost memory. [They] add to life...a prothesis-memory .... Even as traditional memory disappears, we feel obliged. .. to collect remains, testimonies, documents, images, speeches, any visible signs of what has been. .. " (13) That is, we hold on to pieces of the past because we think they will enable us to remember or re-encounter that which we know to be irretrievably lost We have forgotten how to remember, so we keep everything. The things we keep become lieux de memoire.
The bungalow: The production of a global culture/ Anthony King/ 1984
King presents a cultural history of the Bungalow. He traces its growth and movement from its indigenous setting in India to the west primarily through the British. King writes that the idea of the Bungalow was modified by the British to suit their needs, and then exported to the colonized world in Africa and South East Asia. He ends the book with the coming of Bungalow to North America, and later being adopted in Australia.
King calls the omnipresence of the Bungalow all over the world as a 'global culture'.
In its original form, Bangala was a mud thatched hut in Bengal regions of India. Later on, the indigenous houses built in the region took on the same name. The British, however, modified the scale of the house, and set it in a different social and political setting to house their officials. During the later years of colonization, upward social mobility of the colonial elite allowed them to occupy similar houses "Bungalows" as the ones in which British officials lived. A large number of Bungalows were built to house both the growing colonial elites and the British officials.
This Indo-British product was exported to London, where there was excess capital and shortage of land in the city. The Bungalows came to occupy seaside locations, and emphasized a Bohemian lifestyle of the owner. With a demand for Bungalows, they started being prefabricated. With the advent of prefabricated Bungalows at seaside locations, zoning and land-use regulations were modified to accommodate them in London countryside. These dwellings came to represent working class British homes.
As British officials travelled to other colonies, this Europeanized Bungalow form was exported to other British colonies like North Africa. King argues the widespread construction of Bungalows in Africa (Western Africa) changed the familial and social structure of the society forever. During urbanization, working class Africans who could not afford to live in Bungalows were forced to have nuclear families. This arrangement did not change after the independence.
In North America, the Bungalow appealed to reformers, bohemians, feminists given its history with being one with nature, and being more individualistic as opposed to community living and apartments. But post ww2 wealth and ostentatiousness made the Bungalow appear too austere and simple. But the California Bungalow gained attention all over the world.
The California bungalow became popular in Australia post 1920's. Since there was no prior indigenous urbanization, the form of the bungalow was adopted and modified to suit regional needs.
King calls the omnipresence of the Bungalow all over the world as a 'global culture'.
In its original form, Bangala was a mud thatched hut in Bengal regions of India. Later on, the indigenous houses built in the region took on the same name. The British, however, modified the scale of the house, and set it in a different social and political setting to house their officials. During the later years of colonization, upward social mobility of the colonial elite allowed them to occupy similar houses "Bungalows" as the ones in which British officials lived. A large number of Bungalows were built to house both the growing colonial elites and the British officials.
This Indo-British product was exported to London, where there was excess capital and shortage of land in the city. The Bungalows came to occupy seaside locations, and emphasized a Bohemian lifestyle of the owner. With a demand for Bungalows, they started being prefabricated. With the advent of prefabricated Bungalows at seaside locations, zoning and land-use regulations were modified to accommodate them in London countryside. These dwellings came to represent working class British homes.
As British officials travelled to other colonies, this Europeanized Bungalow form was exported to other British colonies like North Africa. King argues the widespread construction of Bungalows in Africa (Western Africa) changed the familial and social structure of the society forever. During urbanization, working class Africans who could not afford to live in Bungalows were forced to have nuclear families. This arrangement did not change after the independence.
In North America, the Bungalow appealed to reformers, bohemians, feminists given its history with being one with nature, and being more individualistic as opposed to community living and apartments. But post ww2 wealth and ostentatiousness made the Bungalow appear too austere and simple. But the California Bungalow gained attention all over the world.
The California bungalow became popular in Australia post 1920's. Since there was no prior indigenous urbanization, the form of the bungalow was adopted and modified to suit regional needs.
Orientalism/ Edward Said/ 1978
School of thought: Postcolonial
Historiography of Scholarship: Foucault (Discipline and Punish), Gramsci (Consent and Hegemony)
Said argues the 'orient' to be an European invention, and presents three meanings of his term 'Orientalism'. First, in the academic world, Orientalism apples to everyone who studies, writes, teaches about the Orient. Second, it is style of thought based upon an ontological difference created between the 'Occident' and the 'Orient'. Third, in a larger sense, Orientalism can be thought of as a corporate institution of the west, for dominating, restructuring and having authority over the orient.
By employing Foucault's notion of discourse, Said argues Orientalism to be a discourse through which the Europe created a a systematic discipline (myth turned into a discipline) through which they managed and produced the 'orient'. Second, by using Gramsci's idea of hegemony, or rather cultural hegemony, he argues by orientalising, Europe established its identity as being far superior to all other non-europeans. The west was defining itself by defining the 'Other'. (Ex: because the religion of Christ is called Christianity, they termed the religion following Muhammed as Muhammedism")
A dichotomy was constructed with the west being civilized, hygienic, intellectual, rational world; and the oriental world being uncivilized, unhygienic, mysterious, esoteric, superstitious etc. This construction of the orient was eventually employed for political dominance.
Said uses 19th century novels by Stacy and Renan where they romanticized the East, as being an entirely different place from the west. Said argues that earlier European novels depicting the East as esoteric created a bias and prejudice for further writers and visitors who encountered the orient with a colored lens.
He argues that today (post WW2) the center of orientalism has shifted from Europe to the USA. While earlier oriental studies were undertaken to understand the colonial populace, make policies for them, and rule them; the independence of European colonies put an end to such a discourse. Later, orientalism has been occurring through western academic scholarship centered in the the US.
Said's final argument is that his primary contention is against the creation of boundaries of 'self' and 'other', rather than critiquing scholars who generalize an entire population or exclude the orient's perspective in their narrative.
Critique: Critiquing an entire scholarship created of the Orients by western scholars as Orientalism is in itself a sweeping generalization.
Historiography of Scholarship: Foucault (Discipline and Punish), Gramsci (Consent and Hegemony)
Said argues the 'orient' to be an European invention, and presents three meanings of his term 'Orientalism'. First, in the academic world, Orientalism apples to everyone who studies, writes, teaches about the Orient. Second, it is style of thought based upon an ontological difference created between the 'Occident' and the 'Orient'. Third, in a larger sense, Orientalism can be thought of as a corporate institution of the west, for dominating, restructuring and having authority over the orient.
By employing Foucault's notion of discourse, Said argues Orientalism to be a discourse through which the Europe created a a systematic discipline (myth turned into a discipline) through which they managed and produced the 'orient'. Second, by using Gramsci's idea of hegemony, or rather cultural hegemony, he argues by orientalising, Europe established its identity as being far superior to all other non-europeans. The west was defining itself by defining the 'Other'. (Ex: because the religion of Christ is called Christianity, they termed the religion following Muhammed as Muhammedism")
A dichotomy was constructed with the west being civilized, hygienic, intellectual, rational world; and the oriental world being uncivilized, unhygienic, mysterious, esoteric, superstitious etc. This construction of the orient was eventually employed for political dominance.
Said uses 19th century novels by Stacy and Renan where they romanticized the East, as being an entirely different place from the west. Said argues that earlier European novels depicting the East as esoteric created a bias and prejudice for further writers and visitors who encountered the orient with a colored lens.
He argues that today (post WW2) the center of orientalism has shifted from Europe to the USA. While earlier oriental studies were undertaken to understand the colonial populace, make policies for them, and rule them; the independence of European colonies put an end to such a discourse. Later, orientalism has been occurring through western academic scholarship centered in the the US.
Said's final argument is that his primary contention is against the creation of boundaries of 'self' and 'other', rather than critiquing scholars who generalize an entire population or exclude the orient's perspective in their narrative.
Critique: Critiquing an entire scholarship created of the Orients by western scholars as Orientalism is in itself a sweeping generalization.
Colonizing Egypt / Timothy Mitchell/ 1991
Mitchell argues that the British orientalized the Egypt in the process of colonizing them.
In the first chapter, he gives a textual tour of the Paris exposition in 1851 were British put up 'Egypt' on display. Winding roads and dirty houses were recreated in the exhibition, and dirty looking Egyptians were brought in to pose and dance for the visitors to the exposition. He argues that Egypt was made into an 'object' that was put on display. The group of Egyptians who were visiting were disgusted by this and kept themselves away. In this exhibition not even colonial elites (like the king of Egypt) was made an exception. When the rulers encountered British description of themselves they strategically decided to Europeanize themselves, and accept that Egyptians needed to embrace modernity.
The later chapter, discuss the 19th century colonial projects which were carried out in a system called 'new order'. The British created a new military framework by drafting Egyptian peasants, and to ensure the peasants stayed in the barracks they created a 'model village' of western-style houses. Concurrently the colonial elites who had encountered their constructed image in Paris, went about westernizing the streets of Cairo and introduced western style education in the schools to instill self discipline in students. He explaining the actions of both the British and the colonial elite, Mitchell employs Foucault's idea of 'institutional/ disciplinary power' to discuss the human agency in making 'objectness'. Mitchell argues that these processes of westernization were rationalized under Islamic traditions. In colonizing Egypt, Mitchell argues that British and colonial elites constructed a new Egypt.
Historiographical engagement: Foucault (Power), Said (Orientalism)
In the first chapter, he gives a textual tour of the Paris exposition in 1851 were British put up 'Egypt' on display. Winding roads and dirty houses were recreated in the exhibition, and dirty looking Egyptians were brought in to pose and dance for the visitors to the exposition. He argues that Egypt was made into an 'object' that was put on display. The group of Egyptians who were visiting were disgusted by this and kept themselves away. In this exhibition not even colonial elites (like the king of Egypt) was made an exception. When the rulers encountered British description of themselves they strategically decided to Europeanize themselves, and accept that Egyptians needed to embrace modernity.
The later chapter, discuss the 19th century colonial projects which were carried out in a system called 'new order'. The British created a new military framework by drafting Egyptian peasants, and to ensure the peasants stayed in the barracks they created a 'model village' of western-style houses. Concurrently the colonial elites who had encountered their constructed image in Paris, went about westernizing the streets of Cairo and introduced western style education in the schools to instill self discipline in students. He explaining the actions of both the British and the colonial elite, Mitchell employs Foucault's idea of 'institutional/ disciplinary power' to discuss the human agency in making 'objectness'. Mitchell argues that these processes of westernization were rationalized under Islamic traditions. In colonizing Egypt, Mitchell argues that British and colonial elites constructed a new Egypt.
Historiographical engagement: Foucault (Power), Said (Orientalism)
The Politics of Design in French Colonial Urbanism / Gwendolyn Wright / 1991
Wright argues that urban design was strategically used as a tool to make colonialism more tolerable for colonized and more popular among colonizers. Analyzing three cities in French colonized North Africa: Indochina, Madagascar, and Morocco, she argues that urban culture was used in political endeavor.
She argues that the French modernized certain sections of the city like public health, industries, and supported certain other aspects (like building and maintaining opulent palaces for Sultans) so that the traditional values are preserved.
Main argument: French used the colonies as laboratories where they could experiment urban planning strategies that could be eventually implemented in the metropole: Paris, Lyon etc. They saw the colonies as tabula rasa. As administrators were seeking to maintain colonies without having to use military, they used architects, urban planners, geographers etc to introduce urban planning measures in the colonies. Through this they hoped that the colonized people would become loyal and appreciative of the French, and the French planners could test planning methods.
Contradictory methods were suggested in doing this. The early 19 century method called "assimilation" which was more heavy handed and hegemonic. French planners introduced standardized buildings, simplified geometric forms, and the city was imagined as a unified whole rather than as haphazard organic growth. French predominance in language, laws, and military dominance by destroying indigenous cities. As this process came under attack, primarily for moral reaons in the early 20th century, a second process called "association", that tried to respect indigenous traditions and architecture, and aimed to maintain a balance between modernization and preservation was introduced -- "laboratory for colonial life and conservatory for oriental life".
Morocco: Herbert Luatey - association - dual city - preserving the indigenous city with mosques and winding streets, and constructing an outer neighborhood for colonial officials. There was a no-construction zone between the two settlements - "sanitary corridor". The French quarters had large roads, sanitation, zoning guidelines but used Moroccan motifs in design and used to indigenous climatological design solutions. Habous districts were newly created as harmonious districts to accommodate growing population. These provided some facilities that old Arab cities lacked like sanitation and thoroughfares, but were still inherently Moroccan in cultural form. This became the western setting for tourism.
Indochina (Vietnam): Here too they wanted to strike a balance between modernization and preserving local architecture and culture. But the architects and planners only had superficial knowledge of the cultural differences. Herbard outlined a zoning plan that restricted uses for different districts in the city. But here the restriction and segregation was not not based on military dominance but relied on modern industry, financial development, cultural tolerance.
Madagascar: This island had resisted colonization for 100 years by refusing to built inland roads. But French abolished slavery, and forcibly put former slaves who migrated to cities to build roads. Seeing the success of Morocco and Indochina they wanted to follow a balanced model without disturbing local traditions unnecessarily. But since malaria and plague were major concerns they built wide roads outside the native city - cordon sanitaire - to segregate the population. But this separation did not help prevent mosquitoes, and the next governor general implemented standardized building with concrete, and uniform buildings were built for both Madagascar workers and French officials in place of old indigenous buildings.
Comments: Local voice is lost as Wright only narrates the story of French colonial urbanism and politics using references from French architects and planners. Were the lessons learnt in the colonies used in the metropole? What was the fate of these colonial designs post the nations' independence? How did the dual city model affect the natives' lives?
She argues that the French modernized certain sections of the city like public health, industries, and supported certain other aspects (like building and maintaining opulent palaces for Sultans) so that the traditional values are preserved.
Main argument: French used the colonies as laboratories where they could experiment urban planning strategies that could be eventually implemented in the metropole: Paris, Lyon etc. They saw the colonies as tabula rasa. As administrators were seeking to maintain colonies without having to use military, they used architects, urban planners, geographers etc to introduce urban planning measures in the colonies. Through this they hoped that the colonized people would become loyal and appreciative of the French, and the French planners could test planning methods.
Contradictory methods were suggested in doing this. The early 19 century method called "assimilation" which was more heavy handed and hegemonic. French planners introduced standardized buildings, simplified geometric forms, and the city was imagined as a unified whole rather than as haphazard organic growth. French predominance in language, laws, and military dominance by destroying indigenous cities. As this process came under attack, primarily for moral reaons in the early 20th century, a second process called "association", that tried to respect indigenous traditions and architecture, and aimed to maintain a balance between modernization and preservation was introduced -- "laboratory for colonial life and conservatory for oriental life".
Morocco: Herbert Luatey - association - dual city - preserving the indigenous city with mosques and winding streets, and constructing an outer neighborhood for colonial officials. There was a no-construction zone between the two settlements - "sanitary corridor". The French quarters had large roads, sanitation, zoning guidelines but used Moroccan motifs in design and used to indigenous climatological design solutions. Habous districts were newly created as harmonious districts to accommodate growing population. These provided some facilities that old Arab cities lacked like sanitation and thoroughfares, but were still inherently Moroccan in cultural form. This became the western setting for tourism.
Indochina (Vietnam): Here too they wanted to strike a balance between modernization and preserving local architecture and culture. But the architects and planners only had superficial knowledge of the cultural differences. Herbard outlined a zoning plan that restricted uses for different districts in the city. But here the restriction and segregation was not not based on military dominance but relied on modern industry, financial development, cultural tolerance.
Madagascar: This island had resisted colonization for 100 years by refusing to built inland roads. But French abolished slavery, and forcibly put former slaves who migrated to cities to build roads. Seeing the success of Morocco and Indochina they wanted to follow a balanced model without disturbing local traditions unnecessarily. But since malaria and plague were major concerns they built wide roads outside the native city - cordon sanitaire - to segregate the population. But this separation did not help prevent mosquitoes, and the next governor general implemented standardized building with concrete, and uniform buildings were built for both Madagascar workers and French officials in place of old indigenous buildings.
Comments: Local voice is lost as Wright only narrates the story of French colonial urbanism and politics using references from French architects and planners. Were the lessons learnt in the colonies used in the metropole? What was the fate of these colonial designs post the nations' independence? How did the dual city model affect the natives' lives?
The Edge of Empire: Postcolonialism and the City/ 1996
Jacobs book marks a critical move from earlier colonial discourses on urbanism by moving the spatial rhetoric to 'real' geographies. She studies four cities --two in London and two in Autralia -- to bring together the theories of colonial and postcolonial urbanism with studies of postmodern contemporary cities. She traces contemporary processes of urban redevelopment in postmodern cities which were previouslt the seat of Imperialism, to show how the relations of power and difference of colonialism still lingers on in first world cities, and is challenged through politics of identity and power that artculates itself through spaces.
By picking four cities - London, Spatialfields, Perth, Brisbane -- she destablises the edge and periphery model of postcolonial urbanism at the outset. These examples represent the presence of a third world inside the firest world (the aboriginal australia, disporic communities in London). By examining the local in the global city, Jacobs says, she unsettles the cultural geographies and politics of power and identity. Jacobs situates both the postcolonial and postmodern in the first world. If one followed, Anthony King and Brenda Yeoh, these cities can be termed "post-imperial"metropoles.
Colonialism/Imperialism: "Imperialism defined as the practice, the theory and the attitudes of a dominating metropolitan centre ruling a distant territory. Colonialism, by his definition, is a specific
By picking four cities - London, Spatialfields, Perth, Brisbane -- she destablises the edge and periphery model of postcolonial urbanism at the outset. These examples represent the presence of a third world inside the firest world (the aboriginal australia, disporic communities in London). By examining the local in the global city, Jacobs says, she unsettles the cultural geographies and politics of power and identity. Jacobs situates both the postcolonial and postmodern in the first world. If one followed, Anthony King and Brenda Yeoh, these cities can be termed "post-imperial"metropoles.
Colonialism/Imperialism: "Imperialism defined as the practice, the theory and the attitudes of a dominating metropolitan centre ruling a distant territory. Colonialism, by his definition, is a specific
articulation of imperialism associated with territorial invasions and settlements." (Said)
Jacobs argues that term 'postcolonial' is prematurely celebratory since there still exists unresolved tensions and conflicts in the spaces of both the colonized and colonizer. Aboriginal in Australia are still fighting for their identity as indigenous/native, and Bangaladeshi immigrants in London are still victims of Xenophobia etc. Jacobs conceptualizes postcolonialism as "an historically
dispersed set of formations which negotiate the ideological, social and material structures of power established under colonialism."(p.25) Citing several postcolonial critics, she writes, by terming an entire set of nations postcolonial, there is generalization of diverse culture and geographies.
London: Bank Junction - Urban redevelopment struggles. Jacobs argues that imperialism, the power struggle is continuing even today in postcolonial cities. People protested the re-development of heritage area of Bank Junction in London. The buildings and memorials here were considered to be reminiscent of the Imperial domination.
Spitalfields: Bengali immigrants were being driven out due to gentrification.
London: Bank Junction - Urban redevelopment struggles. Jacobs argues that imperialism, the power struggle is continuing even today in postcolonial cities. People protested the re-development of heritage area of Bank Junction in London. The buildings and memorials here were considered to be reminiscent of the Imperial domination.
Spitalfields: Bengali immigrants were being driven out due to gentrification.
The International Style/ Hitchcock and Johnson/ 1932
"Architecture is always a set of actual monuments, not a vague corpus of theory".
The 18th century was a time of revival, chief among which were styles of Classical Revival and Medieval Revival. But the stylistic confusion of combining the styles of revivalism with the new methods and technologies of construction was the
In the 19th century, the revival styles came to be used as decorative elements with no relation to interior space and function. The style of 'Eclecticism' created more chaos. The authors argue that one of the primary reasons that some architects revolted in the 20th century to these styles was that "eclecticism' had broken away from the disciplines of classical architecture, and was simply imitating them. They write that it is possible to imitate the essence of past styles, but imitating their surfaces is problematic.
In this context, they argue, a new style was born -- that which resembled Gothic in terms of structure, and resembled the classical in terms of handling problems.
International Style: Not international in the sense that buildings built in different countries look similar. Neither is it so prescriptive that works of different architects are indistinguishable. This has become distinguishable as a style only after different architects in different countries have carried out similar experiments which share characteristics.
Three characteristics:
conception of architecture as volume and not mass
regularity vs axial symmetry
Proscribing decorative ornamentation
Chapter 2:
The need to break away from existing architectural traditions:
1. availability of new building technologies
2. development of architectural design regardless of limitations
Beginnign of 19th century architects began to move away from revival styles. But stylistic integration did not happen until after world war. Although Industrial architecture of Germany, Berlage at Amsterdam, use of ferroconcrete at paris had initiated principles of International style independently before war.
But it was in America that the International style came into fruition. Walter Gropius, JJ Oud, Mies Van Rohe, Le Corbusier can be considered to be the primary figures of International style.
All That is Solid Melts into Air/ Marshall Berman/ 1982
Marshall Berman's book is a critique of postmodernism. He urges the readers to reconsider the history of modernity which will enrich our present and may even guide us into the future. In his introduction 'Modernity- yesterday, today, tomorrow' he briefly traces the different experiences of modernity in 17th, 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries and argues that our ancestors experience with modernity has been much richer.
He begins with this childhood home in Bronx that was demolished to build highway under the orders of Robert Moses. He writes that since highways symbolized modernity, the people opposing the construction (as they were loosing their homes from the demolition) were made to feel guilty, as if they were opposing modernity.
Modernity: Historical experience. Experience of men and women in modern environments.
Modernization: Social processes that bring a maelstrom (industrialization, scientific progress etc) into being, and keep it in a perpetual state of being. People being both subjects and objects on modernization.
Modernism: The visions and values that modernization brings, and gives people the power to be changed and change the world they live in modernism.
History of Modernity
1st Phase: 16th to 18th century : people don’t know what hit them. Beginning to grapple with new ideas.
2nd phase: French revolution – 1790 – end of 19th century – revolutionary ideas, upheavals in social and political lives.
1st Phase: 16th to 18th century : people don’t know what hit them. Beginning to grapple with new ideas.
2nd phase: French revolution – 1790 – end of 19th century – revolutionary ideas, upheavals in social and political lives.
19th century: People can understand what it means to live in modernity. Ideas of modernism and modernization emerge. People are living in two worlds simultaneously.
3rd Phase: 20th century: expands to the entire world. Modernity breaks down society into fragments – people loose touch with their roots.
He critiques post-modernists as being too quick to reduce modernism into a closed monolith that is incapable of being shaped by modern men anymore. He critiques postmodernism as leading towards a nihilistic point of view, and sucking the optimism of modernism. He critiques Foucault and his postmodernist theories for behaving as if everything in the society is new, and modern man does not have any freedom in shaping his/her own world. Berman suggests that postmodernist ideas are "simply iterations of the constant intellectual evolution of modernity itself, that in seeking to destroy the modernist ideas that preceded them they have in fact become simply the newest destructive forces that are inherent in the modern cycle of destruction and rebirth."
3rd Phase: 20th century: expands to the entire world. Modernity breaks down society into fragments – people loose touch with their roots.
He critiques post-modernists as being too quick to reduce modernism into a closed monolith that is incapable of being shaped by modern men anymore. He critiques postmodernism as leading towards a nihilistic point of view, and sucking the optimism of modernism. He critiques Foucault and his postmodernist theories for behaving as if everything in the society is new, and modern man does not have any freedom in shaping his/her own world. Berman suggests that postmodernist ideas are "simply iterations of the constant intellectual evolution of modernity itself, that in seeking to destroy the modernist ideas that preceded them they have in fact become simply the newest destructive forces that are inherent in the modern cycle of destruction and rebirth."
Berman argues that by examining our contemporary society (Today) through the visions and lens of (Yesterday), 19th century modernists will encourage us to create the modernisms of 21st century (Tomorrow). He argues modernisms of the past can help us connect the world and brings together people who are going through the processes of modernization together.
He engages with Goethe's Faust, Marx's Communist Manifesto, Baudelaire's essays on modernity, and Dostoevsky's and Gogol's digresses about Crystal Palace to introduce the vitality and dynamism inherent in early modernist writers.
He engages with Goethe's Faust, Marx's Communist Manifesto, Baudelaire's essays on modernity, and Dostoevsky's and Gogol's digresses about Crystal Palace to introduce the vitality and dynamism inherent in early modernist writers.
The End of Tradition, or the Tradition of Endings/ Nezar Alsayyad/ 2004
Alsayyad begins the essay by tracing the four threads of recent discourses on endings. The first is Daniel Bell's "The end of ideology". Bell argued that 19th century ideologies like Marxism were ending, and that a new utopia of social harmony cannot be brought about through ideological means. But this theory was proved false with the radicalism that arose in 1960's. The second is Fukuyama's 'End of history and the the last man' which argued that as western liberal democracy takes root and the sociocultural evolution of man will halt with liberal government becoming the final form of governing. But this was also wrong since liberal democracy has been constantly challenged by fundamentalism, radical movements, and authoritarianism. The third discourse was Ohmae's End of Nation state that argued that as the money that moves between nations are mostly private, there is no need for a nation-state involved. Fourth, Jacoby's 'End of Utopia' that argues with the wide spreading of free market capitalism there cannot be any radical changes and that utopia that brings about change is dead. Alsayyad argues that all these endings are a fallacy, and in the 21st century there exists real threats to liberal democracy, history, capitalism, and new ideologies still emerge.
On tradition: Alsayyad argues that tradition has to be seen as the process that creates contested subjectivities involved in producing/occupying spaces. First study of tradition in 1989: Tuan argued Tradition to be a constraint. Paul Oliver presented the concept of handing down traditions and Rapoport came up with a list of attributes to test the degree of trasitionality.
On built environment: How built traditional environments have to studies in response to changes in society? Glassie and Rapoport say architecture is material culture/cultural landscape and they reflect the norms of the society. Abu Lughod argues for breaking down of dichotomies and suggests the use of 'traditioning' as a verb in opposition of tradition as a noun (process over product). She argues that traditional environments should not be seen as endangered environments. Following this argument Alsayyad argues that deterritorialization of identity through globalization happens in 4 phases, Insular phase (indigenous vernacular) colonial (hybrid architecture) independent nation building (modernization), and globalization (settlements homogenized, and people are ethnically aware).
Alsayyad asks, if the end of tradition as an object of enquiry suggests an end of tradition as an objective reality? Answering his question negatively, he says the new modes of enquiry into tradition only suggests that tradition as a concept we have know thus far is ending, and not the end of tradition itself.
The book is divided into 3 parts:
Part 1 examines the dialectic nature of tradition and modernity. The three essays present new ways of looking at tradition through the lens of modernity.
Jane Jacobs: Tradition is (not) modern - Tradition and modernity are codependent but mutually exclusive. Tradition is imagined by modernity. Globalization has not killed tradition but rather reshaped it. Aboriginals in Australia hired architects to insert aboriginal identity into contemporary architecture of touristic buildings. Traditional authority was channeled through modes of modernity.
Ananya Roy: Nostalgias of the Modern: End of tradition is end of traditional ways of thinking. Consumption of tradition is production of tradition.
Dwelling: Authenticity- Recovering authenticity by creating nostalgia. (Crystal palace, Eifel Tower)
Performing: making explicit acts of consuming tradition. (Algiers)
Part 2: examines traditions as a process of invention. The three essays examine how traditions are "manufactured, packaged and deployed". An invented landscape inherently depeds upon succesful deployment of invented traditions. Since invented traditions are often messy and are competitive in what traditions they are excluding invented landscapes are usually a failure.
Part 3 examines tradition as a representation of a regime. It shows how tradition is programmed, policed, and deployed in hegemonic struggles that create both built environemnts and citizen subjects through its reworking of tradition. Essays include Mia Fuller's examination of standardized farmhouses enforced by Italian fascist regimes to ensure that people thought of national identity before regional identity, and Dufang Lu's example of breaking and rebuilding city walls in China as a symbolic entity.
"What has ended is not tradition itself, but the idea of tradition as a harbinger of authenticity, and as a container of specific cultural meaning, as a place-based, temporally situated concept; as a static authoritative legacy; as a heritage owned by certain groups of people."
On tradition: Alsayyad argues that tradition has to be seen as the process that creates contested subjectivities involved in producing/occupying spaces. First study of tradition in 1989: Tuan argued Tradition to be a constraint. Paul Oliver presented the concept of handing down traditions and Rapoport came up with a list of attributes to test the degree of trasitionality.
On built environment: How built traditional environments have to studies in response to changes in society? Glassie and Rapoport say architecture is material culture/cultural landscape and they reflect the norms of the society. Abu Lughod argues for breaking down of dichotomies and suggests the use of 'traditioning' as a verb in opposition of tradition as a noun (process over product). She argues that traditional environments should not be seen as endangered environments. Following this argument Alsayyad argues that deterritorialization of identity through globalization happens in 4 phases, Insular phase (indigenous vernacular) colonial (hybrid architecture) independent nation building (modernization), and globalization (settlements homogenized, and people are ethnically aware).
Alsayyad asks, if the end of tradition as an object of enquiry suggests an end of tradition as an objective reality? Answering his question negatively, he says the new modes of enquiry into tradition only suggests that tradition as a concept we have know thus far is ending, and not the end of tradition itself.
The book is divided into 3 parts:
Part 1 examines the dialectic nature of tradition and modernity. The three essays present new ways of looking at tradition through the lens of modernity.
Jane Jacobs: Tradition is (not) modern - Tradition and modernity are codependent but mutually exclusive. Tradition is imagined by modernity. Globalization has not killed tradition but rather reshaped it. Aboriginals in Australia hired architects to insert aboriginal identity into contemporary architecture of touristic buildings. Traditional authority was channeled through modes of modernity.
Ananya Roy: Nostalgias of the Modern: End of tradition is end of traditional ways of thinking. Consumption of tradition is production of tradition.
Dwelling: Authenticity- Recovering authenticity by creating nostalgia. (Crystal palace, Eifel Tower)
Performing: making explicit acts of consuming tradition. (Algiers)
Part 2: examines traditions as a process of invention. The three essays examine how traditions are "manufactured, packaged and deployed". An invented landscape inherently depeds upon succesful deployment of invented traditions. Since invented traditions are often messy and are competitive in what traditions they are excluding invented landscapes are usually a failure.
Part 3 examines tradition as a representation of a regime. It shows how tradition is programmed, policed, and deployed in hegemonic struggles that create both built environemnts and citizen subjects through its reworking of tradition. Essays include Mia Fuller's examination of standardized farmhouses enforced by Italian fascist regimes to ensure that people thought of national identity before regional identity, and Dufang Lu's example of breaking and rebuilding city walls in China as a symbolic entity.
"What has ended is not tradition itself, but the idea of tradition as a harbinger of authenticity, and as a container of specific cultural meaning, as a place-based, temporally situated concept; as a static authoritative legacy; as a heritage owned by certain groups of people."
"Tradition is no longer found only in ‘real’ places; it lives on in the most fake of all places, where
it is reborn everyday in the social practice of those who inhabit what used to be the
space of fakery."
Behind the postcolonial/ Abidin Kusno/2000
School of thought: Postcolonial Critique
Others scholars mentioned: Spiro Kostof 'motivation of sequence'; Ben Anderson 'spectre of comparisons'; Anthony King 'colonial modernity'; Paul Rabinow 'social modernity'; Said 'social mission'; Partha Chatterjee 'material and spiritual realms'
Kusno address broad themes in postcolonial architetcure using specific historical examples from Indonesia. He begins the book by laying out the politics of the built environment in postcolonial Indonesia. While the old-order Sukarno's government favored a modern architectural style for newly independent Indonesia, and built a national mosque' symbolizing the narrative of progress, the new-order Suharto's regime favored going back to classical javanese architecture as a symbol of national identity. Several mosques were built across the archipelago in traditional javanese style trying to substitute one national style in place of several indigenous architectural styles. With Kusno argues architectural to be a produce of social and political forces, and as a way of rewriting history. He questions, where Indonesian architecture is rooted, and when should the beginning be placed? He argues architecture and urbanism is not only a lens to understand political and cultural formations of a postcolonial nation, but they are the tools themselves that shape particular social, cultural, and political formations. He uses the theoretical frameworks of Anthony King, Paul Rabinow, and Said to argue that architecture in Indonesia can only be grasped through a serious analysis of political cultures of regimes in power, and the continuing presence of colonialism in today's postcolonial society.
The book divided in three parts examines the architecture, urban spaces, and transnational architectural and political cultures of Indonesia. The primary themes of the book are: colonial origins of contemporary Indonesian architecture, the violent genology of the New Order, and the hybrid modernities that protest the New Order culture.
Part 1: Dutch architects who designed 'Indies architecture' were raised in the colony, and went to Netherland to obtain education. Returning as architects they believed in the colonial mission of modernizing subjects as a 'social mission'. This architecture provided a grammar for postcolonial arhcitects to imagine a national identity. Through the case of Dutch architects working in the Indies, Kusno tries to break away from the narrative of domination (colonizer/colonized binary), and "develop a way to understand the complexity and ambiguity which often formed colonial relation without undermining the importance of power relations."
Part 2:
Part 3: Contemporary protests after New Order:
Kusno argues that the creation of Self and Other as Said argues is occuring even after colonialism ended. Modern elites modernizing elites construct categories of “others”in urban spaces. "These “others” were not meant to be modernized. Instead, they were created for the self-formation of the “modern” elites. This formation of “internal” other follows the logic of colonial “civilizing mission” which in its attempt to modernize the colony still maintained a distance or a gap necessary for hierarchal identification." (Kusno interview)
1. Examines the role of architecture and urbanism in formation of collective subjectives in postcolonial Indonesia
2. It is a political history of Indonesian architecture, by studying the colonial origins of postcolonial architecture not only for the past, but to understand it in present and future
3. It transcends the criticism of modernist architecture as colonial and presents an understanding of how it can be nation-specific.
4. Studying the nexus of power that is located outside the east-west paradigm and understanding the different types of modernities.
Others scholars mentioned: Spiro Kostof 'motivation of sequence'; Ben Anderson 'spectre of comparisons'; Anthony King 'colonial modernity'; Paul Rabinow 'social modernity'; Said 'social mission'; Partha Chatterjee 'material and spiritual realms'
Kusno address broad themes in postcolonial architetcure using specific historical examples from Indonesia. He begins the book by laying out the politics of the built environment in postcolonial Indonesia. While the old-order Sukarno's government favored a modern architectural style for newly independent Indonesia, and built a national mosque' symbolizing the narrative of progress, the new-order Suharto's regime favored going back to classical javanese architecture as a symbol of national identity. Several mosques were built across the archipelago in traditional javanese style trying to substitute one national style in place of several indigenous architectural styles. With Kusno argues architectural to be a produce of social and political forces, and as a way of rewriting history. He questions, where Indonesian architecture is rooted, and when should the beginning be placed? He argues architecture and urbanism is not only a lens to understand political and cultural formations of a postcolonial nation, but they are the tools themselves that shape particular social, cultural, and political formations. He uses the theoretical frameworks of Anthony King, Paul Rabinow, and Said to argue that architecture in Indonesia can only be grasped through a serious analysis of political cultures of regimes in power, and the continuing presence of colonialism in today's postcolonial society.
The book divided in three parts examines the architecture, urban spaces, and transnational architectural and political cultures of Indonesia. The primary themes of the book are: colonial origins of contemporary Indonesian architecture, the violent genology of the New Order, and the hybrid modernities that protest the New Order culture.
Part 1: Dutch architects who designed 'Indies architecture' were raised in the colony, and went to Netherland to obtain education. Returning as architects they believed in the colonial mission of modernizing subjects as a 'social mission'. This architecture provided a grammar for postcolonial arhcitects to imagine a national identity. Through the case of Dutch architects working in the Indies, Kusno tries to break away from the narrative of domination (colonizer/colonized binary), and "develop a way to understand the complexity and ambiguity which often formed colonial relation without undermining the importance of power relations."
Part 2:
Part 3: Contemporary protests after New Order:
Kusno argues that the creation of Self and Other as Said argues is occuring even after colonialism ended. Modern elites modernizing elites construct categories of “others”in urban spaces. "These “others” were not meant to be modernized. Instead, they were created for the self-formation of the “modern” elites. This formation of “internal” other follows the logic of colonial “civilizing mission” which in its attempt to modernize the colony still maintained a distance or a gap necessary for hierarchal identification." (Kusno interview)
1. Examines the role of architecture and urbanism in formation of collective subjectives in postcolonial Indonesia
2. It is a political history of Indonesian architecture, by studying the colonial origins of postcolonial architecture not only for the past, but to understand it in present and future
3. It transcends the criticism of modernist architecture as colonial and presents an understanding of how it can be nation-specific.
4. Studying the nexus of power that is located outside the east-west paradigm and understanding the different types of modernities.
The Invention of Tradition/ Eric Hobsbawm and Terence Ranger/ 1983
Introduction:
Hobsbawm in his introduction 'Inventing Traditions' makes the claim that traditions that often seem ancient and well established might in reality be created/invented in a more recent dateable time period. He defines 'Invented traditions' to mean "a set of practices, normally governed by overtly or tacitly accepted rules and of a ritual or symbolic nature, which seek to inculcate certain values and norms of behavior by repetition, which automatically implies continuity with the past." (p.1). He introduces an idea of a 'historic past' -- where traditions are invented to establish a continuity with a suitable historic past, but they are factitious. In a constantly changing modern world, invented traditions attempt to structure some parts of social life and to create a semblance to an unchanging past.
Tradition, he argues, has to be differentiated from 'custom'. While the object and characteristic of traditions is to be unchanging and invariant, 'custom' cannot afford to be invariant, because life even in traditional societies is constantly changing. Customs, therefore, "gives any desired change the sanction of precedent and social continuity" (p.2). A decline of custom inevitably changes tradition.
Second, he writes, social practices which have to be repeated frequently are often formalized into a set of conventions or practices for the sake of convenience and efficiency. These set of practices, he argues, are not 'invented traditions' since their function is technical and not ideological. He identifies three overlapping types of invented traditions formed post industrial revolution - one, that is used to establish social cohesion or membership to real/imagined groups, second, establishing or legitimization social institutions and third, those which were instituted for value systems and inculcation of beliefs. But argues that the first type is what primarily qualifies as invented traditions.
He identifies two major differences in invented and age-old traditional practices: Old ones were strong, specific, and social binders. Latter ones are unspecified and vague to reflect nature of the values. Second, even though a lot of new traditions have been invented they only fill a small part of the vacuum created by the loss of 'real' traditions by secularization.
Why is the study of invented traditions important: 1)they are both symptoms and evidences of the changes occurring in the society. They in fact point to breaks in continuity. 2) they showcase human relationship to the past, and how they want the past to be preserved and remembered. Especially in case of nationalism, symbol of nation-state, national languages etc. constructing historic continuities is crucial to the formation of social cohesion.
Chapter 2: The Invention of Tradition: The Highland Tradition of Scotland / Hugh Trevor-Roper
Trevor-Roper examines Scotland's national symbols (such as kilt, bagpipe, highland myth, wearing of different patterned Kilt to be representative of different clans etc.) and argues that they are not symbols of antiquity but rather modern inventions, that were developed in reaction to Scotland's Union with England. The highlands were always culturally connected to Ireland than to Scotland. They were isolated clans from Scottish lowlands, and their gaelic language was also considered to be closer to Irish. But after Scotland's union with England, the Scottish crown banned the usage of cultural Highland symbols like kilts, and popularized English in schools, in an attempt to unify the state and anglicize it. After the ban was lifted, Scottish gentry and Highlanders started wearing kilt, not only to preserve their identity but also to ease transition. Trevor- Roper argues that the Kilt as we know it today was invented by a Englishman in 18th century, and Sottish nationalists eventually claimed it as a symbol of their Celtic ancestors.
Chapter 4: The British Monarchy and Invention of Tradition/ David Cannadine
This chapter examines the pageantry and ceremonial practices associated with the British Monarchy. He argues that most ceremonial rituals associated with the royal family and the crown was established in 20th century, not only to bolster a shaky monarchy but also to foster a sense of national identity and belonging. He identifies the beginning of certain traditions, like the king's funeral in Westminister Abbey, the jubilee functions of the monarch's survival in office, investiture ceremony etc. Cannadine discusses the role of television media (BBC) in promoting of of this invented traditions, by commenting that it has enhanced the "fairytale splendor" of the royal families by bringing them to people's living rooms.
Chapter 5: Construction of Ritual idiom in Victorian India/ Bernard S Cohen
At the beginning of Raj, the first governor general travelled across North India carrying the message of the Crown and held "durbars" for Indian princes, British and Indian officials. At these "durbars" Indian prices were bestowed with titles such as Nawab, Rai Bahadur etc. These "durbars" Cohen argues became an invented tradition. The durbars were modeled upon those held by Mughal and Hindu kings where people were offered gold coins, clothes, keepsakes, and sometimes even elephants, horses etc. While in the Indian culture these gifts were reflective of a relationship forged b/w the emperor and his subject, the British mistook them to be bribery/ tributes. Gradually, Indian prices were ranked in terms of their allegiance to the British empire, their land holding etc. and at the British durbars Indian prices had to wear a certain attire, stand at a certain position, and would be greeted a certain way based on their rank and title.
Hobsbawm in his introduction 'Inventing Traditions' makes the claim that traditions that often seem ancient and well established might in reality be created/invented in a more recent dateable time period. He defines 'Invented traditions' to mean "a set of practices, normally governed by overtly or tacitly accepted rules and of a ritual or symbolic nature, which seek to inculcate certain values and norms of behavior by repetition, which automatically implies continuity with the past." (p.1). He introduces an idea of a 'historic past' -- where traditions are invented to establish a continuity with a suitable historic past, but they are factitious. In a constantly changing modern world, invented traditions attempt to structure some parts of social life and to create a semblance to an unchanging past.
Tradition, he argues, has to be differentiated from 'custom'. While the object and characteristic of traditions is to be unchanging and invariant, 'custom' cannot afford to be invariant, because life even in traditional societies is constantly changing. Customs, therefore, "gives any desired change the sanction of precedent and social continuity" (p.2). A decline of custom inevitably changes tradition.
Second, he writes, social practices which have to be repeated frequently are often formalized into a set of conventions or practices for the sake of convenience and efficiency. These set of practices, he argues, are not 'invented traditions' since their function is technical and not ideological. He identifies three overlapping types of invented traditions formed post industrial revolution - one, that is used to establish social cohesion or membership to real/imagined groups, second, establishing or legitimization social institutions and third, those which were instituted for value systems and inculcation of beliefs. But argues that the first type is what primarily qualifies as invented traditions.
He identifies two major differences in invented and age-old traditional practices: Old ones were strong, specific, and social binders. Latter ones are unspecified and vague to reflect nature of the values. Second, even though a lot of new traditions have been invented they only fill a small part of the vacuum created by the loss of 'real' traditions by secularization.
Why is the study of invented traditions important: 1)they are both symptoms and evidences of the changes occurring in the society. They in fact point to breaks in continuity. 2) they showcase human relationship to the past, and how they want the past to be preserved and remembered. Especially in case of nationalism, symbol of nation-state, national languages etc. constructing historic continuities is crucial to the formation of social cohesion.
Chapter 2: The Invention of Tradition: The Highland Tradition of Scotland / Hugh Trevor-Roper
Trevor-Roper examines Scotland's national symbols (such as kilt, bagpipe, highland myth, wearing of different patterned Kilt to be representative of different clans etc.) and argues that they are not symbols of antiquity but rather modern inventions, that were developed in reaction to Scotland's Union with England. The highlands were always culturally connected to Ireland than to Scotland. They were isolated clans from Scottish lowlands, and their gaelic language was also considered to be closer to Irish. But after Scotland's union with England, the Scottish crown banned the usage of cultural Highland symbols like kilts, and popularized English in schools, in an attempt to unify the state and anglicize it. After the ban was lifted, Scottish gentry and Highlanders started wearing kilt, not only to preserve their identity but also to ease transition. Trevor- Roper argues that the Kilt as we know it today was invented by a Englishman in 18th century, and Sottish nationalists eventually claimed it as a symbol of their Celtic ancestors.
Chapter 4: The British Monarchy and Invention of Tradition/ David Cannadine
This chapter examines the pageantry and ceremonial practices associated with the British Monarchy. He argues that most ceremonial rituals associated with the royal family and the crown was established in 20th century, not only to bolster a shaky monarchy but also to foster a sense of national identity and belonging. He identifies the beginning of certain traditions, like the king's funeral in Westminister Abbey, the jubilee functions of the monarch's survival in office, investiture ceremony etc. Cannadine discusses the role of television media (BBC) in promoting of of this invented traditions, by commenting that it has enhanced the "fairytale splendor" of the royal families by bringing them to people's living rooms.
Chapter 5: Construction of Ritual idiom in Victorian India/ Bernard S Cohen
At the beginning of Raj, the first governor general travelled across North India carrying the message of the Crown and held "durbars" for Indian princes, British and Indian officials. At these "durbars" Indian prices were bestowed with titles such as Nawab, Rai Bahadur etc. These "durbars" Cohen argues became an invented tradition. The durbars were modeled upon those held by Mughal and Hindu kings where people were offered gold coins, clothes, keepsakes, and sometimes even elephants, horses etc. While in the Indian culture these gifts were reflective of a relationship forged b/w the emperor and his subject, the British mistook them to be bribery/ tributes. Gradually, Indian prices were ranked in terms of their allegiance to the British empire, their land holding etc. and at the British durbars Indian prices had to wear a certain attire, stand at a certain position, and would be greeted a certain way based on their rank and title.
Architectural Theory in an Expanded Field/ Grieg Crylser / 2001
School of Thought: Postmodernist
Text: Review of Architectural Theory
Other Scholars mentioned: Tschumi (postmodern), Levi Strauss (Structuralism), Husserl (phenomenology, essentialism), Manfred Tafuri (neo-marxist), Slaughter and Rhoades (Academic Capitalism)
Crysler's introduction to the Sage Handbook of Architectural Theory begins with an overview of the state of architectural theory in contemporary academia and practice.
Crysler begins the essay with a textual tour of Bernard Tschumi's Parc De La Villette (PDLV), which he won in a competition organized by French government in 1982. PDLV is picked an example to illustrate theory in design for its notoriety in "self-consciously animating theory". PDLV is an architectural manifestation of Tschumi's critique against foundational principles of architectural modernism -- that function, structure, finance should play a determinate role in architecture. PDLV stands as a collaboration of architecture with literature theory and philosophy (through Tschumi working with Eisenman and Derrida). PDLV came into limelight for bringing postmodernist and post structuralist theories into architectural design. Crysler, however argues that, PDLV should not be seen as ushering theory in design, but rather it arrived at a time when the time was ripe and was accepted into the architectural cannon , and gave rise to 'auto-generative' theory based design projects where conventional agencies of user, client, architect was scrambled. Despite the critiques PDLV got from replacing functionalism with extreme formalism, Crysler argues that it still encapsulates the hope and ambiguity of post structuralist theory and reminds us of the ways architecture renewed itself by interacting with other disciplines.
A large chunk of the essay discusses the interaction of architecture with scholars from other disciplines, which not only gave fodder to the intellectual agency of architecture but also helped by providing "practical alternatives for how architecture might conduct itself in the new world". As these discourses took shape, established theories of architecture, both ancient theories that worked with aesthetic formalism, proportions and composition, and the modern theories of neo-rationalism were questioned. In the wake of post-structuralist theories, architecture's engagement was marxism was found to be "too normative and cheerless" (4).
End of Theories: Manfredo Tafuri's neo-marxist critique of modern architecture's alliance with capitalism ushered in the 'end of theories' period where the influence of market economy and flows of capital on architecture was constantly critiqued by post structuralists. Architectural theories interactions with a wider field, Crysler argues, helped the practice of architecture by injecting theories and intellectual possibilities into buildings which would otherwise be dictated by economy. .
Institutional Context: Crysler begins by noting that the prominent medium for the dissemination of architectural theory and its intermixing with other disciplines is the print medium through journals, anthologies, monographs etc. He also notes that the primary language of communication is English, and the best known academic institutions are located in the anglo-saxon cultural sphere.
Crysler also notes that even as scholars (in the handbook) originally come from different places in the world, they were all educated in the US or UK, and are presently situated in the western institutions. Given this, he asks provoking questions about the geographic expansion of architectural academic world. He asks, does geographic expansion signify an intellectual diversification, does the academy support knowledges created outside of established centers, does the academy support a new commodified global format of production and consumption of knowledge.
Crysler observes that teachers of architecture have been clearly divided into two categories -- those who teach architectural history and theory, and those who teach design. He notes that these two categories rarely overlap, thus depriving the students to engage with critical theory in studios, and vice versa.
Text: Review of Architectural Theory
Other Scholars mentioned: Tschumi (postmodern), Levi Strauss (Structuralism), Husserl (phenomenology, essentialism), Manfred Tafuri (neo-marxist), Slaughter and Rhoades (Academic Capitalism)
Crysler's introduction to the Sage Handbook of Architectural Theory begins with an overview of the state of architectural theory in contemporary academia and practice.
Crysler begins the essay with a textual tour of Bernard Tschumi's Parc De La Villette (PDLV), which he won in a competition organized by French government in 1982. PDLV is picked an example to illustrate theory in design for its notoriety in "self-consciously animating theory". PDLV is an architectural manifestation of Tschumi's critique against foundational principles of architectural modernism -- that function, structure, finance should play a determinate role in architecture. PDLV stands as a collaboration of architecture with literature theory and philosophy (through Tschumi working with Eisenman and Derrida). PDLV came into limelight for bringing postmodernist and post structuralist theories into architectural design. Crysler, however argues that, PDLV should not be seen as ushering theory in design, but rather it arrived at a time when the time was ripe and was accepted into the architectural cannon , and gave rise to 'auto-generative' theory based design projects where conventional agencies of user, client, architect was scrambled. Despite the critiques PDLV got from replacing functionalism with extreme formalism, Crysler argues that it still encapsulates the hope and ambiguity of post structuralist theory and reminds us of the ways architecture renewed itself by interacting with other disciplines.
A large chunk of the essay discusses the interaction of architecture with scholars from other disciplines, which not only gave fodder to the intellectual agency of architecture but also helped by providing "practical alternatives for how architecture might conduct itself in the new world". As these discourses took shape, established theories of architecture, both ancient theories that worked with aesthetic formalism, proportions and composition, and the modern theories of neo-rationalism were questioned. In the wake of post-structuralist theories, architecture's engagement was marxism was found to be "too normative and cheerless" (4).
End of Theories: Manfredo Tafuri's neo-marxist critique of modern architecture's alliance with capitalism ushered in the 'end of theories' period where the influence of market economy and flows of capital on architecture was constantly critiqued by post structuralists. Architectural theories interactions with a wider field, Crysler argues, helped the practice of architecture by injecting theories and intellectual possibilities into buildings which would otherwise be dictated by economy. .
Institutional Context: Crysler begins by noting that the prominent medium for the dissemination of architectural theory and its intermixing with other disciplines is the print medium through journals, anthologies, monographs etc. He also notes that the primary language of communication is English, and the best known academic institutions are located in the anglo-saxon cultural sphere.
Crysler also notes that even as scholars (in the handbook) originally come from different places in the world, they were all educated in the US or UK, and are presently situated in the western institutions. Given this, he asks provoking questions about the geographic expansion of architectural academic world. He asks, does geographic expansion signify an intellectual diversification, does the academy support knowledges created outside of established centers, does the academy support a new commodified global format of production and consumption of knowledge.
Crysler observes that teachers of architecture have been clearly divided into two categories -- those who teach architectural history and theory, and those who teach design. He notes that these two categories rarely overlap, thus depriving the students to engage with critical theory in studios, and vice versa.
Kate Nesbitt’s Theorizing a New Agenda for Architecture: An Anthology of Architectural Theory 1965–1995 that was published in 1996, Rethinking Architecture edited by Neil Leach that came out in 1997, and Architecture Theory since 1968 , edited by K. Michael Hays, appeared a year later,
Twentieth Century Reform Movements in India/ Kenneth Jones/
Kenneth Jones begins with an overview of the socio-political
climate of 20th century India, and identifies three crucial
modifications that affected the way socio-political movements functioned,
succeeded, or failed. Later, he identifies five
socio-religious movement that began in 19th century and extended
into the 20th century: Ramakrishna Mission and Math, The Radhasoami Satsang, Arya Samaj, Ahmadiyas, Swaminarayan Guru of Kerala
First, the secular nationalism introduced by Indian National
Congress that came in waves of Gandhian movements. Second, is a contrasting
communalism and severe religious conflicts that arose as a counter-design to
nationalist peak. The third major modification in Indian society was th
allocation of sepereate electorates to muslim population. The census (as
Anderson has theorized) defined religious communities, counted them, and
presented them as social and economic units. He identifies this constitutional
reform as the factor that stimulated and reinforced a new form of political
institution. These led to the formation of the first ‘religio-political’ groups
in India. Muslim league was founded on the basis of Muslim nationalism, and
expressed a concept of Pakistan. Hindu Mahasabha was formed under the
leadership Savarkar and expounded a Hindu nationalism opposing secular
nationalism of INC. Similarly, Sikhs too moved towards their own religious
nationalism. Jones argues that while in 19th century most new ideas
and symbols would turn into some form religion, in the 20th century,
the ideologies that travelled from the west.
Ramakrishna Math and Mission:
-Expanded across India and to the US after Vivekanada’s
death.
- Managed by Swami Brahmananada and the trustee board of
Belur Math
- Often the mission carried out local initiatives without
involvement from the central board. But the activities of mission and math
often overlapped.
- Spread to US cities through Vedanta society – but the role
here was different since there was no social service involved – only teaching
of Vedanta doctrines.
Rethinking the Nation/ Abidin Kusno/ 2012
Kusno's chapter discusses the "implications of nationalism for architecture by reflecting historically on how architecture participates in the construction of and contestation over national identities and historical memories" (214). He studies the interaction of architecture with nationalism and the forces of capitalism, colonialism and modernity acting on architecture.
Kusno's chapter has four main objectives:
1.To see architecture plainly as a state's ideological artifact to exercise its power, Kusno argues, limits the ways architecture can be perceived. Instead, he aims to distinguish between conflated terms of nation and state, to conceive architecture as national narratives or practices.
2. He argues postcolonial nationalism is not an enemy of modern liberalism. It should not be associated with fascism or totalitarianism.
3. To understand the influence of globalization on mega architectural projects across the globe -- he argues these mega projects get incorporated within existing order of capitalism rather than interrogating it like early independent projects.
4.Due to neo-liberalism governmental power now reached deeper into everyday communities, and even these everyday communities have acquired tactics of insurgency
The second part of the essay, surveys the literature on the relationship of architecture and nationalism that have largely seen architecture as a vehicle of the state to exhibit power.
Anthony King, Diane Ghirado, Gwen Wright, Barbara Lane -- impact of western imperialism on nationalism and architecture
Nezar Alsayyad, James Holston, Lawrence Vale -- nationalism and architecture in postcolonial perspective.
In this section he asks two important questions: How does architecture challenge the dominant power of the national regime and help in imagining a nation? And second, how does architecture allow one to imagine a limited sovereign?
In the third part, Kusno uses Vale and Ksiazek's work on capitols and governments to argue that "architecture is never autonomous". he writes as this ideological framework has been well established, he wants to focus on how architecture is politicized and used by a national regime to legitimize national sentiments. Here, he wants to clarify the difference between nation and nation-state. He suggests using the terms, people-nation and state-apparatus instead.
The fourth section heavily draws from Anderson's 'Imagined Communities'. Kusno writes that the crucial issue in Anderson's argument is not the employment of idealized national culture to imagine communities, but rather how these are represented and experienced. Kusno suggests architecture is also a medium of representation along with maps, museums, census, newspaper, novel etc. Architecture, Kusno writes, is a "technology of power". Architecture can both narrate the themes of nation as idealized by a particular power group, or it can challenge a regulatory regime of a nation state.
Anderson identifies two ways of how nation was imagined historically: one was through a horizontal comradeship and second was the official nationalism sanctioned by the nation-state. But in Anderson;s formulation, the nation was always conceived through horizontal comradeship. Thus there is a dialectic relationship between a nation and state which invites one to think the role of architecture in not only supporting state power, but challenging it or even transforming the state through the formation of a new national imagination. To demonstrate this he uses the example of The Institute of Technology at Bandung.
The next sections delve into the relationship between regionalism and nationalism in the west, and in the colonized world. The US adopted international style as "inherits of western civilization". Kusno argued, the leaders of the newly independent world Nehru, Sukarno, Mao Zedong etc. embraced modern architecture for their newly independent cities like Brasilia, Jakarata, Vhandigarh to rise above regionalism and vernacular inspirations, and to provide the people an architecture to imagine themselves as a part of a pan-regional community. He argues these leaders performed insurgency by showcasing modernist architecture as national symbol. But now, modern architecture has been forgotten as the place for utopian visions of nation and has been replaced by market economy.
Kusno's chapter has four main objectives:
1.To see architecture plainly as a state's ideological artifact to exercise its power, Kusno argues, limits the ways architecture can be perceived. Instead, he aims to distinguish between conflated terms of nation and state, to conceive architecture as national narratives or practices.
2. He argues postcolonial nationalism is not an enemy of modern liberalism. It should not be associated with fascism or totalitarianism.
3. To understand the influence of globalization on mega architectural projects across the globe -- he argues these mega projects get incorporated within existing order of capitalism rather than interrogating it like early independent projects.
4.Due to neo-liberalism governmental power now reached deeper into everyday communities, and even these everyday communities have acquired tactics of insurgency
The second part of the essay, surveys the literature on the relationship of architecture and nationalism that have largely seen architecture as a vehicle of the state to exhibit power.
Anthony King, Diane Ghirado, Gwen Wright, Barbara Lane -- impact of western imperialism on nationalism and architecture
Nezar Alsayyad, James Holston, Lawrence Vale -- nationalism and architecture in postcolonial perspective.
In this section he asks two important questions: How does architecture challenge the dominant power of the national regime and help in imagining a nation? And second, how does architecture allow one to imagine a limited sovereign?
In the third part, Kusno uses Vale and Ksiazek's work on capitols and governments to argue that "architecture is never autonomous". he writes as this ideological framework has been well established, he wants to focus on how architecture is politicized and used by a national regime to legitimize national sentiments. Here, he wants to clarify the difference between nation and nation-state. He suggests using the terms, people-nation and state-apparatus instead.
The fourth section heavily draws from Anderson's 'Imagined Communities'. Kusno writes that the crucial issue in Anderson's argument is not the employment of idealized national culture to imagine communities, but rather how these are represented and experienced. Kusno suggests architecture is also a medium of representation along with maps, museums, census, newspaper, novel etc. Architecture, Kusno writes, is a "technology of power". Architecture can both narrate the themes of nation as idealized by a particular power group, or it can challenge a regulatory regime of a nation state.
Anderson identifies two ways of how nation was imagined historically: one was through a horizontal comradeship and second was the official nationalism sanctioned by the nation-state. But in Anderson;s formulation, the nation was always conceived through horizontal comradeship. Thus there is a dialectic relationship between a nation and state which invites one to think the role of architecture in not only supporting state power, but challenging it or even transforming the state through the formation of a new national imagination. To demonstrate this he uses the example of The Institute of Technology at Bandung.
The fifth section is a discussion of how histories of colonialism have influenced architecture. In this he identifies two ways in which architecture has been as a form of dominance: One, middling modernism (free from influence of the local). Second, techno-cosmopolitism (using local for inspiration). He argues, territorial power of the west set up boundaries of the colony and and produced symbolic mapping of national space.
The Institute of Technology at Bandung was a dutch colonial design which brought together disparate elements from various island of the Indonesian archipelago to form a syncretic architectural style called the "indies architecture". This style, Kusno argues, inadvertently gave the colonized a platform to imagine a new nation, with all its different cultures coming together. However, post independence in Sukarno's time, Indies architecture was forgotten and a modern international style was embraced. But when Suharto's regime came in, Indonesian architects went to Indies architecture which was a combination of various architectural styles of the archipelago to oppose Suharto's choice of using javanese architecture as national symbol. Thus, Kusno argues, architecture became a tool for insurgency, and did not remain a vehicle to exercise state's power.The next sections delve into the relationship between regionalism and nationalism in the west, and in the colonized world. The US adopted international style as "inherits of western civilization". Kusno argued, the leaders of the newly independent world Nehru, Sukarno, Mao Zedong etc. embraced modern architecture for their newly independent cities like Brasilia, Jakarata, Vhandigarh to rise above regionalism and vernacular inspirations, and to provide the people an architecture to imagine themselves as a part of a pan-regional community. He argues these leaders performed insurgency by showcasing modernist architecture as national symbol. But now, modern architecture has been forgotten as the place for utopian visions of nation and has been replaced by market economy.
Rethinking History / Keith Jenkins /1991
School of thought: Postmodern
Text: Critiquing conventional view of history
Scholars from same school (mentioned in the book): Hayden White, Michel Foucault, David Lowenthall, Lyotard
Summary:
Jenkins compellingly argues that the conventional view of history in academia is greatly flawed. Coming from a postmodernist school, Jenkins argues that there is no 'one' history, but there are many histories. Even well trained historians' methods when analyzed through postmodern methodologies reveal that no person can objectively write about the past. He terms history to be a narrative, or a collection of stories. he denies that there is anything called a historical fact, and argues that everything in history is fiction to varying degrees. History, for Jenkins, is a textual and linguistic construct. It is written by 'salaried' historians who narrate (make) histories as a part of their job. Since the gap between history and the past is ontological, there is no way for a historian to have any methodological objectivity, free of bias and prejudice. "History is always for someone. History always has a purpose. History is always about power."
"History is a shifting, problematic discourse, ostensibly about an aspect of the world, the past, that is produced by a group of present-minded workers (overwhelmingly in our culture salaried historians) who go about their work in mutually recognizable ways that are epistemologically, methodologically, ideologically and practically positioned and whose products, once in circulation, are subject to a series of uses and abuses that are logically infinite but which in actuality generally what history is 31 correspond to a range of power bases that exist at any given moment and which structure and distribute the meanings of histories along a dominant-marginal spectrum." (p.31)
Text: Critiquing conventional view of history
Scholars from same school (mentioned in the book): Hayden White, Michel Foucault, David Lowenthall, Lyotard
Summary:
Jenkins compellingly argues that the conventional view of history in academia is greatly flawed. Coming from a postmodernist school, Jenkins argues that there is no 'one' history, but there are many histories. Even well trained historians' methods when analyzed through postmodern methodologies reveal that no person can objectively write about the past. He terms history to be a narrative, or a collection of stories. he denies that there is anything called a historical fact, and argues that everything in history is fiction to varying degrees. History, for Jenkins, is a textual and linguistic construct. It is written by 'salaried' historians who narrate (make) histories as a part of their job. Since the gap between history and the past is ontological, there is no way for a historian to have any methodological objectivity, free of bias and prejudice. "History is always for someone. History always has a purpose. History is always about power."
"History is a shifting, problematic discourse, ostensibly about an aspect of the world, the past, that is produced by a group of present-minded workers (overwhelmingly in our culture salaried historians) who go about their work in mutually recognizable ways that are epistemologically, methodologically, ideologically and practically positioned and whose products, once in circulation, are subject to a series of uses and abuses that are logically infinite but which in actuality generally what history is 31 correspond to a range of power bases that exist at any given moment and which structure and distribute the meanings of histories along a dominant-marginal spectrum." (p.31)
Worship and Conflict under Colonial Rule: A South Indian Case/ Arjun Appadurai/ 1981
Appadurai presents a 200 year ethnohistory of a South Indian temple (Parthasarathy Temple in Triplicane, Madras). Following anthropologist Clifford Geertz theories on ethnography and social and cultural systems, Appadurai argues that "alterations in social structure, over time, interact dialectically with a fundamentally unaltered cultural system." He critiques that while several monographs have noted the economic, political, and cultural workings of the temple, these relations have not been analyzed or synthesized. Historians, he says, adopt a "loose-leaf" model where they juxtapose the workings of different parts of temple, but there has not been a study of the temple as a "south Indian institute" from "inside". Hence, his study, links the historical past of the temple with the ethnographic present.
The first chapter begins with the primary argument of the book that there has not been any cultural change in the temple in the last two centuries, while the social system of the temple has reasonably changed. During British rule and in the post independent years, the power residing in the temple has been complicated and authoritative relations have become fragmented in the temple. In short, while the deity in the temple is still accepted as the supreme authoritative power, there are conflicts about how the power of this authority has to be managed in everyday affairs. He argues that the questions of power and authority is not limited to the domain of rule (the entire cosmos symbolized in a temple) but also extends to the process -- a redistributive process. He sees worship as a redistributive process, and analyses it with the terminologies of economic anthology -- reciprocity and redistribution. While gift-giving in expectation of reciprocity is one side of Hindu worship, he suggests, redistribution is the other. The deity (even its image, at that) is imagined to be "chief" who will give out justices and assume the redistributive role. In the material world this translates to redistributing the gifts given by "donors"to the deity (food items are dispersed among public, a part of the donation goes to priests etc.)
The second part of the first chapter discusses several complaints filed by priests and donors claiming their share in the ritual / distributive process of the temple. These citations, Appadurai writes, indicated the fragility in the consciousness of the priests about redistribution. While kings were traditionally seen as "protectors" of the temple, and had the obligation to mitigate conflicts and oversee the redistributive processes of the temple, with the arrival of the British, the conflict resolution became highly complicated. As the role of kings disappeared and the administration of the temple moved from dominant Brahmins (Thenkalai) to State government, the power structure of the temple changed from a hierarchical pyramid to a "complicated set of "honorable" shares in the divine polity of the deity." (61)
The second chapter discusses the role and authority the kings possessed in maintaining of the temple. Through several textual evidences and inscriptional readings, Appadurai suggests that the Parthasarathy temple was highly involved in royal participation and had organized sectarian involvement. Being under British jurisdiction for a century, he argues, resulted in sub-sectarian conflicts over power.
The third chapter, very interestingly, presents three key ways in which temple administration changed under British jurisdiction. First, since British merchants did not view the temples as necessary for their authority (unlike Kings), their interaction with brahmin priests stopped. Second, while kings stayed away from daily activities of the temple and would only involved themselves in resolving conflicts, British stayed away from conflict resolution and gradually got more involved in everyday temple activities. Three, unlike royal system which had both administrative and judicial branches under the same arm, British system often had contradictions involving the two. He examines two conflicts that resulted in prolonged interaction of the temple with the State. In both cases, the cause of the conflict was complicated by the involvement of the British instead of arbitrating amongst the conflicting parties (in the case where which sub-sect of Brahmins should recite prayers in the temple, British decided to cancel prayer recitation until the case was resolved) The revenue flow was centralized and the everyday activities of the temple were made more dependent on the British treasury. Until the British state was called in for arbitration, the temple had maintained much of its affairs. But by 1826, the temple was taken over by the British due to the "explosive nature" of the conflict, and inherent contradictions between the ideas of "protection" and "subordination" in English bureaucratic policy.
The fourth chapter examines the period between 1826 and 1848 where British gradually withdrew its power from temples after reaching the Zenith (in 1820's). Appadurai writes that this withdrawal of power gave rise to new sectarian politics, exacerbation of conflicts over temples, and changed prior notions of 'protection' and 'subordination' in English bureaucracy. After the British withdrew power and appointed trustees to manage the temple, there were several litigations from brahmins and non-brahmins on who should assume power and what compensations they should receive. At this time, the term 'Thenkalai' acquired local and constitutional connotations shedding its sectarian underpinnings.
The fifth chapter of the book discusses the interactions of these litigants with the British judicial system, and the appropriation of the British system to suit Indian purposes. "Because the activities of Hindu kings in respect to temples were "administrative" and not "legislative," and because their resolutions were context specific and not absorbed into a general body of evolving case law, it is no surprise that a "law of endowments" had not been developed." (169). The contrast between traditional way of conflict resolution and British judicial system of using codified law resulted in much more conflict than resolution.
In the final chapter, Appadurai uses this historical analysis of the past to understand the present day workings of the temple and its complex web of power relations. He argues that today the temple has remnants of pre-British King model, British secularization model, and the post-British judiciary model, along with an influence of the modern day political party (DMK party mandated that all prayers have to be recited in Tamil instead of age-old Sanskrit thus breaking the requirements to have Brahmin priests only). He frames the contemporary temple through Geertz's model of distinguishing between 'culture' and 'social structure', and argues that " the set of ideas and symbols that focus on the sovereign personality of the deity constitute the "cultural system" of the temple." and the questions of authority on who will control the temple constitute the "social structure". While the cultural system has remained the same in the last 200 years, the social structure has undergone important changes (220).
Cross question from readings: How would Partha Chatterjee respond to Appadurai's theory of British being called upon as arbitrators in temple disputes and the locals placing British officers in place of kings, as authorities in the redistributive processes of the temple? Chatterjee argues this to be the "spiritual realm" of the natives where they detested any interference from the colonizers.
The first chapter begins with the primary argument of the book that there has not been any cultural change in the temple in the last two centuries, while the social system of the temple has reasonably changed. During British rule and in the post independent years, the power residing in the temple has been complicated and authoritative relations have become fragmented in the temple. In short, while the deity in the temple is still accepted as the supreme authoritative power, there are conflicts about how the power of this authority has to be managed in everyday affairs. He argues that the questions of power and authority is not limited to the domain of rule (the entire cosmos symbolized in a temple) but also extends to the process -- a redistributive process. He sees worship as a redistributive process, and analyses it with the terminologies of economic anthology -- reciprocity and redistribution. While gift-giving in expectation of reciprocity is one side of Hindu worship, he suggests, redistribution is the other. The deity (even its image, at that) is imagined to be "chief" who will give out justices and assume the redistributive role. In the material world this translates to redistributing the gifts given by "donors"to the deity (food items are dispersed among public, a part of the donation goes to priests etc.)
The second part of the first chapter discusses several complaints filed by priests and donors claiming their share in the ritual / distributive process of the temple. These citations, Appadurai writes, indicated the fragility in the consciousness of the priests about redistribution. While kings were traditionally seen as "protectors" of the temple, and had the obligation to mitigate conflicts and oversee the redistributive processes of the temple, with the arrival of the British, the conflict resolution became highly complicated. As the role of kings disappeared and the administration of the temple moved from dominant Brahmins (Thenkalai) to State government, the power structure of the temple changed from a hierarchical pyramid to a "complicated set of "honorable" shares in the divine polity of the deity." (61)
The second chapter discusses the role and authority the kings possessed in maintaining of the temple. Through several textual evidences and inscriptional readings, Appadurai suggests that the Parthasarathy temple was highly involved in royal participation and had organized sectarian involvement. Being under British jurisdiction for a century, he argues, resulted in sub-sectarian conflicts over power.
The third chapter, very interestingly, presents three key ways in which temple administration changed under British jurisdiction. First, since British merchants did not view the temples as necessary for their authority (unlike Kings), their interaction with brahmin priests stopped. Second, while kings stayed away from daily activities of the temple and would only involved themselves in resolving conflicts, British stayed away from conflict resolution and gradually got more involved in everyday temple activities. Three, unlike royal system which had both administrative and judicial branches under the same arm, British system often had contradictions involving the two. He examines two conflicts that resulted in prolonged interaction of the temple with the State. In both cases, the cause of the conflict was complicated by the involvement of the British instead of arbitrating amongst the conflicting parties (in the case where which sub-sect of Brahmins should recite prayers in the temple, British decided to cancel prayer recitation until the case was resolved) The revenue flow was centralized and the everyday activities of the temple were made more dependent on the British treasury. Until the British state was called in for arbitration, the temple had maintained much of its affairs. But by 1826, the temple was taken over by the British due to the "explosive nature" of the conflict, and inherent contradictions between the ideas of "protection" and "subordination" in English bureaucratic policy.
The fourth chapter examines the period between 1826 and 1848 where British gradually withdrew its power from temples after reaching the Zenith (in 1820's). Appadurai writes that this withdrawal of power gave rise to new sectarian politics, exacerbation of conflicts over temples, and changed prior notions of 'protection' and 'subordination' in English bureaucracy. After the British withdrew power and appointed trustees to manage the temple, there were several litigations from brahmins and non-brahmins on who should assume power and what compensations they should receive. At this time, the term 'Thenkalai' acquired local and constitutional connotations shedding its sectarian underpinnings.
The fifth chapter of the book discusses the interactions of these litigants with the British judicial system, and the appropriation of the British system to suit Indian purposes. "Because the activities of Hindu kings in respect to temples were "administrative" and not "legislative," and because their resolutions were context specific and not absorbed into a general body of evolving case law, it is no surprise that a "law of endowments" had not been developed." (169). The contrast between traditional way of conflict resolution and British judicial system of using codified law resulted in much more conflict than resolution.
In the final chapter, Appadurai uses this historical analysis of the past to understand the present day workings of the temple and its complex web of power relations. He argues that today the temple has remnants of pre-British King model, British secularization model, and the post-British judiciary model, along with an influence of the modern day political party (DMK party mandated that all prayers have to be recited in Tamil instead of age-old Sanskrit thus breaking the requirements to have Brahmin priests only). He frames the contemporary temple through Geertz's model of distinguishing between 'culture' and 'social structure', and argues that " the set of ideas and symbols that focus on the sovereign personality of the deity constitute the "cultural system" of the temple." and the questions of authority on who will control the temple constitute the "social structure". While the cultural system has remained the same in the last 200 years, the social structure has undergone important changes (220).
Cross question from readings: How would Partha Chatterjee respond to Appadurai's theory of British being called upon as arbitrators in temple disputes and the locals placing British officers in place of kings, as authorities in the redistributive processes of the temple? Chatterjee argues this to be the "spiritual realm" of the natives where they detested any interference from the colonizers.
Postcolonial Cities / Anthony King / 2009
Kings begins the essay by defining postcolonial cities as it is understood in different parts of the world. First, postcolonial cities simply refer to cities that were previously colonized. As the city here, is seen solely through the lens of colonialism, postcolonial critics argue that this understanding of postcolonial city privileges a western interpretation of the city over an indigenous one. The second understanding of postcolonial cities refer to metropoles such as Paris, London, Birmingham or Amsterdam which are inhabited by large number of immigrants from their previous colonies, and since the fabric of the city itself has changed after the end of colonialism.
Postcolonial cities have usually been dichotomous and dualistic in nature (Ex:Algiers) where a native indigenous core is separated and demarcated from the colonizers' neighborhoods. While the native core will have poor sanitation, narrow roads, small houses etc, the colonial part will have wide boulevards and large bungalows. King writes, during the 1960's - 70's several native scholars were dissatisfied with western theories being applied to colonial contexts (Chicago school to understand Africa), and through use of local archives and native knowledge produced three key findings about postcolonial cities. First, the colonial part of the city which was thought to be inspired by the modern cities of the west was often grossly exaggerated by the colonizers to deepen the divide between themselves and the natives. Second, the newly independent nations often retained earlier colonial buildings as an affront to their democratic aspiration (modernization). Third, the spaces that were vacated by the colonizer after independence were occupied by the indigenous elite, symbolizing their role as new rulers of an inferior class.
King critiques the use of the term postcolonial cities as being an "outsider's label", where a city is made to exist in the shadow of its colonial past long after independence. He condemns the terminology that makes postcolonial cities remain forever in the shadow, and asks how they can metamorphose into global cities like Hong Kong and Singapore. The term 'Postcolonial' cannot be free from the burden of its anglophone positionally and its disseminence from western discourse.
The third section, compares the earlier studies of postcolonial cities by european scholars with the 20th century work of natives. While European studies propagated and supported the dual city narrative, the natives' study portrayed the city as a product of indigenous hybridization. It was argued that the colonial parts of the city provided an opportunity for the indigenous elites to assimilate with the colonial officials. While in some cities colonial urbanism was disliked, in some other cities like Jakarta that had a dictatorial rule after independence, viewed colonial urban projects as a 'gift' from the enlightened.
The final section brings to foreground the ambivalence in the terms 'post-colonial' and 'post-imperial'. King argues that the applying term post-imperial for former metropoles like Paris (instead of grouping all cities under the umbrella postcolonial) will make clear the suppositions being made about the city's history. Quoting Brenda Yeoh, he argues that postcolonial cities are umbilically connected to their colonial metropoles. Cultural hybridization in cities like Paris and Britain where large number of former colonial population lives is a testimony to their continual connections.
Question: For how long will the shadows of colonialism haunt the (post)colonial city? Although some cities like HongKong and Singapore have come out on their own and forayed into the 'global world', there are several other cities stuck with their dual characters still fighting the demons of colonialism. In this light, can be there be one understanding of 'The Postcolonial City'?
Postcolonial cities have usually been dichotomous and dualistic in nature (Ex:Algiers) where a native indigenous core is separated and demarcated from the colonizers' neighborhoods. While the native core will have poor sanitation, narrow roads, small houses etc, the colonial part will have wide boulevards and large bungalows. King writes, during the 1960's - 70's several native scholars were dissatisfied with western theories being applied to colonial contexts (Chicago school to understand Africa), and through use of local archives and native knowledge produced three key findings about postcolonial cities. First, the colonial part of the city which was thought to be inspired by the modern cities of the west was often grossly exaggerated by the colonizers to deepen the divide between themselves and the natives. Second, the newly independent nations often retained earlier colonial buildings as an affront to their democratic aspiration (modernization). Third, the spaces that were vacated by the colonizer after independence were occupied by the indigenous elite, symbolizing their role as new rulers of an inferior class.
King critiques the use of the term postcolonial cities as being an "outsider's label", where a city is made to exist in the shadow of its colonial past long after independence. He condemns the terminology that makes postcolonial cities remain forever in the shadow, and asks how they can metamorphose into global cities like Hong Kong and Singapore. The term 'Postcolonial' cannot be free from the burden of its anglophone positionally and its disseminence from western discourse.
The third section, compares the earlier studies of postcolonial cities by european scholars with the 20th century work of natives. While European studies propagated and supported the dual city narrative, the natives' study portrayed the city as a product of indigenous hybridization. It was argued that the colonial parts of the city provided an opportunity for the indigenous elites to assimilate with the colonial officials. While in some cities colonial urbanism was disliked, in some other cities like Jakarta that had a dictatorial rule after independence, viewed colonial urban projects as a 'gift' from the enlightened.
The final section brings to foreground the ambivalence in the terms 'post-colonial' and 'post-imperial'. King argues that the applying term post-imperial for former metropoles like Paris (instead of grouping all cities under the umbrella postcolonial) will make clear the suppositions being made about the city's history. Quoting Brenda Yeoh, he argues that postcolonial cities are umbilically connected to their colonial metropoles. Cultural hybridization in cities like Paris and Britain where large number of former colonial population lives is a testimony to their continual connections.
Question: For how long will the shadows of colonialism haunt the (post)colonial city? Although some cities like HongKong and Singapore have come out on their own and forayed into the 'global world', there are several other cities stuck with their dual characters still fighting the demons of colonialism. In this light, can be there be one understanding of 'The Postcolonial City'?
Can the Subaltern Speak? / Gayatri Chakraborty Spivak/ 1988
Spivak begins the essay by critiquing Foucault and Deluze who are inattentive to their own position of power in narrating a third world subject, and are ignorant of the implications of transplanting western ideological theories into colonial discourse of oppression. In a debate, Foucault and Deluze emphasized on the "counter-productiveness to reduce the networks of power/desire/interest because they are so heterogeneous and the need for intellectuals to disclose their knowledge and know the discourse of the Other." Yet, she writes, "they systematically ignore the question of ideology and their own implication in intellectual and economic history" (66). She argues that the representation of 'subalterns' by western intellectuals is one that they have unconsciously created themselves by falsely pretending to be "transparent" (The example given is of Foucault where in an interview at an "unguarded moment" he gives away the pretense). She argues the knowledge production in the west is also a commodity having deep roots in social, economic and institutional capital. Spivak questions the use of the terms, 'Maoist' and ' the worker's struggle' by French theorists in their discourse of revolution. She criticizes the usage of these essentialist terms as they assume a cultural solidarity for a heterogeneous group. Foucault and Deluze, she argues, represent the Other through their own cultural system. The second part of the essay clarifies the meaning of Subject and Subjectivity in Subaltern studies as compared to the Marxist Subject. She argues that colonial Subject is a heterogenous entity and cannot be understood as an undivided consciousness striving for the same things. She writes, "My view is that radical practice should attend to this double session of representations rather than reintroduce the individual subject through totalizing concepts of power and desire" (74).
In arguing against Foucault's narrative of the epistemic violence as being located in late 18th century Europe, Spivak uses examples from 17th and 18th century colonial India. First, she examines the British reformation of traditional legal system in India that was based on Hindu Dharmashastra that used Shruti, Smruti, Shastra, Vyavahara as four tools in settling disputes. The codification of these traditional laws in accordance to British value system is symbolic of the epistemic violence by the colonizers. Accompanied by suppression of Sanskrit in the overhauled educational system, a version of history was gradually established where Brahmins were shown to have same intentions as the British in writing down the laws in 'high culture' Sanskrit and making them rigid and inaccessible to lower castes, peasants, and tribals. Here, she argues, that while Foucault and Deluze propose that the 'oppressed' in the first-world can speak or revolt, they do because they have access to socialized capital (Foucault) and know their conditions, whereas the subaltern of the third world cannot.
The final part of the essay uses the example of Sati practice in 18th century India and the suicide of an Indian woman to further explain the notions of epistemic violence in the colonized nation. Indian women were initially 'spoken for' by the learned Brahmins (men) who inscribed the importance of Sati (widows committing suicide by jumping into the burning pyre of their dead husband), and indirectly controlled what an 'ideal Hindu woman', 'a good wife' should and shouldn't do. Here, even though several Indian narratives portray women as voluntarily wanting to commit suicide post their husband's death, one should be aware that these women were a part of intrinsic belief system that was circulated through generations by power yielding Brahmins (brown men). As Spivak's often misunderstood and controversial sentence - "White men saving brown women from brown men" - suggests, at the end of 18th century, British reformers noticing this barbaric practice banned the practice of Sati, much to the anger of brown men. The larger point of this example is to showcase that women who belonged to the lowest strata of the subaltern, had absolutely no agency. First, they were ‘spoken for’ by the Brahmins, and then by the British. They could not speak. Additionally, as the suicide of Bhuvaneswari indicates, despite trying to displace the sanctioned hegemonic narrative, the subaltern as female cannot even be heard or read.
Paragraph Summary:
Spivak's question is not one that looks for a binary answer, but it rather is an enquiry into the agency of a subaltern and whether it is possible for a subaltern to speak. Even as she answers her own question negatively, she presents a four-fold argument on the nature and perceptions of the colonial Subaltern by the western world, by calling intellectual behemoths as her witnesses.
a) Western theorists impose their own value system when examining the Subaltern. b) The Subject cannot be described in Marxian terms as an undivided personality. It has to be understood as "divided and dislocated subjects whose parts are not continuous or coherent with each other". c) Earlier explorations of the Subaltern studies Collective examined the colonial Subject as a coherent whole and suppressed the heterogeneity of the subaltern consciousness. She cautions the subaltern theorists that the voice of the Subaltern is being heard through a group of intellectuals, which can seem like French theorists' who speak for oppressed groups using essentialist terms of 'workers' or 'maoists'. d) Using the example of British codifying Hindu laws and legal system, she argues that "epistemic violence" -- a complete overhaul of the episteme -- is not located in Europe at the end of 18th century as Foucault identifies, but rather is present in the epistemic violence carried out by Europe in the nations it colonized.
In arguing against Foucault's narrative of the epistemic violence as being located in late 18th century Europe, Spivak uses examples from 17th and 18th century colonial India. First, she examines the British reformation of traditional legal system in India that was based on Hindu Dharmashastra that used Shruti, Smruti, Shastra, Vyavahara as four tools in settling disputes. The codification of these traditional laws in accordance to British value system is symbolic of the epistemic violence by the colonizers. Accompanied by suppression of Sanskrit in the overhauled educational system, a version of history was gradually established where Brahmins were shown to have same intentions as the British in writing down the laws in 'high culture' Sanskrit and making them rigid and inaccessible to lower castes, peasants, and tribals. Here, she argues, that while Foucault and Deluze propose that the 'oppressed' in the first-world can speak or revolt, they do because they have access to socialized capital (Foucault) and know their conditions, whereas the subaltern of the third world cannot.
The final part of the essay uses the example of Sati practice in 18th century India and the suicide of an Indian woman to further explain the notions of epistemic violence in the colonized nation. Indian women were initially 'spoken for' by the learned Brahmins (men) who inscribed the importance of Sati (widows committing suicide by jumping into the burning pyre of their dead husband), and indirectly controlled what an 'ideal Hindu woman', 'a good wife' should and shouldn't do. Here, even though several Indian narratives portray women as voluntarily wanting to commit suicide post their husband's death, one should be aware that these women were a part of intrinsic belief system that was circulated through generations by power yielding Brahmins (brown men). As Spivak's often misunderstood and controversial sentence - "White men saving brown women from brown men" - suggests, at the end of 18th century, British reformers noticing this barbaric practice banned the practice of Sati, much to the anger of brown men. The larger point of this example is to showcase that women who belonged to the lowest strata of the subaltern, had absolutely no agency. First, they were ‘spoken for’ by the Brahmins, and then by the British. They could not speak. Additionally, as the suicide of Bhuvaneswari indicates, despite trying to displace the sanctioned hegemonic narrative, the subaltern as female cannot even be heard or read.
Paragraph Summary:
Spivak's question is not one that looks for a binary answer, but it rather is an enquiry into the agency of a subaltern and whether it is possible for a subaltern to speak. Even as she answers her own question negatively, she presents a four-fold argument on the nature and perceptions of the colonial Subaltern by the western world, by calling intellectual behemoths as her witnesses.
a) Western theorists impose their own value system when examining the Subaltern. b) The Subject cannot be described in Marxian terms as an undivided personality. It has to be understood as "divided and dislocated subjects whose parts are not continuous or coherent with each other". c) Earlier explorations of the Subaltern studies Collective examined the colonial Subject as a coherent whole and suppressed the heterogeneity of the subaltern consciousness. She cautions the subaltern theorists that the voice of the Subaltern is being heard through a group of intellectuals, which can seem like French theorists' who speak for oppressed groups using essentialist terms of 'workers' or 'maoists'. d) Using the example of British codifying Hindu laws and legal system, she argues that "epistemic violence" -- a complete overhaul of the episteme -- is not located in Europe at the end of 18th century as Foucault identifies, but rather is present in the epistemic violence carried out by Europe in the nations it colonized.
Interrogating Difference: Postcolonial Perspectives in Architecture and Urbanism / Jyoti Hosagrahar / 2012
Hosagrahar in her survey article on the Postcolonial thought interrogates changing perspectives on architecture and urbanism in the colonized world. Her arguing of intellectual decolonization is reminiscent of Chatterjee's challenging question -- should even the thoughts of the colonial world remain colonized forever? She introduces the emergence of postcolonial thought as a rebellion to "dominance of universalizing paradigms and simplistic categorizations in conventional scholarship in architecture and urbanism focused on Western Europe and North America. Simply, it is thinking about the "relationship between a dominant power and its subjects under colonialism."
The essay begins with a discussion of key ideas and concepts in postcolonial theory and the influence of decades of postcolonial critiques on architecture and urbanism.
Frantz Fanon's "The Wretched of Earth" (1961) that critiqued French colonization of Algeria, denounced psychopathology of colonialism and forewarned about the violence in the aftermath of independence struggles. It inspired anti-colonial liberation movements for decades
Edward Said's "Orientalism" (1978) was a literary analysis of the creation of the 'Orient', and discussed learned Orientalists who disdained indigenous scholars and bestowed authority to historical texts by European scholars. Said showed that identity was culturally constructed and paved way for architectural historians to study buildings and the urban fabric as cultural documents that could reveal hidden biases.
Foucalt's seminal works on Power, Knowledge, and Culture presented the networks of power that could dominate without the assertion of physical force, and led to new ways of postcolonial thinking where architecture was seen as tool of power.
The Subaltern Group started in 1980's and spearheaded by Ranajit Guha, Gyan Pandey, Partha Chaterjee, Gayatri Spivak opened a new window to colonial history by proposing that history should be seen from below. They argued that the non-elites (peasants in India) were the agents who had brought radical socio-economic changes in the colonies, and the experiences of these marginalized people opens a new window to national history. Hosagrahar suggests that the works of Subaltern group has influenced Architetcure and Urbanism in two ways: One, by legitimizing the history from margins, and second, by recognizing the power of even non-elites in controlling and shaping the built environment.
She also discusses the commentaries of Henry Louis Gates and Kwame Appaiah's on black culture and African-ness, Hosgargar argues, that brought an awareness of the subjectivities in aesthetic appreciation based on race.
Finally, key works of Homi Bhabha, Arjun Appadurai, and Dipesh Chakrabarty have been instrumental in introducing the hybridity between the east- west, modern- traditional, and have provided complex readings of modernity and globalization. Dipesh. C. in Provincializing Europe (2007) presents an idea of Europe, not as the center of humankind and its scholarship, but as a "mythical site of the original modern."
The essay begins with a discussion of key ideas and concepts in postcolonial theory and the influence of decades of postcolonial critiques on architecture and urbanism.
Frantz Fanon's "The Wretched of Earth" (1961) that critiqued French colonization of Algeria, denounced psychopathology of colonialism and forewarned about the violence in the aftermath of independence struggles. It inspired anti-colonial liberation movements for decades
Edward Said's "Orientalism" (1978) was a literary analysis of the creation of the 'Orient', and discussed learned Orientalists who disdained indigenous scholars and bestowed authority to historical texts by European scholars. Said showed that identity was culturally constructed and paved way for architectural historians to study buildings and the urban fabric as cultural documents that could reveal hidden biases.
Foucalt's seminal works on Power, Knowledge, and Culture presented the networks of power that could dominate without the assertion of physical force, and led to new ways of postcolonial thinking where architecture was seen as tool of power.
The Subaltern Group started in 1980's and spearheaded by Ranajit Guha, Gyan Pandey, Partha Chaterjee, Gayatri Spivak opened a new window to colonial history by proposing that history should be seen from below. They argued that the non-elites (peasants in India) were the agents who had brought radical socio-economic changes in the colonies, and the experiences of these marginalized people opens a new window to national history. Hosagrahar suggests that the works of Subaltern group has influenced Architetcure and Urbanism in two ways: One, by legitimizing the history from margins, and second, by recognizing the power of even non-elites in controlling and shaping the built environment.
She also discusses the commentaries of Henry Louis Gates and Kwame Appaiah's on black culture and African-ness, Hosgargar argues, that brought an awareness of the subjectivities in aesthetic appreciation based on race.
Finally, key works of Homi Bhabha, Arjun Appadurai, and Dipesh Chakrabarty have been instrumental in introducing the hybridity between the east- west, modern- traditional, and have provided complex readings of modernity and globalization. Dipesh. C. in Provincializing Europe (2007) presents an idea of Europe, not as the center of humankind and its scholarship, but as a "mythical site of the original modern."
Postcolonial theory, Hosagrahar writes, "has informed thinking about buildings and urban space as symbolic cultural landscapes that are historically constituted, culturally constructed, political artifacts whose forms are dynamic and meanings constantly negotiated."
The second part traces the historiography of postcolonial architecture and urbanism which contests the european architectural canon as the 'original' history of architecture. As Gwen Wright's book on French Urbanism and Thomas Metcalf's work on Imperial India demonstrate, even seemingly antagonistic projects of architecture in the colony were only built to promote tourism and garner public support (French Algeria), or as a symbolic representation of power that articulated the cultural difference (India). Further, Anthony King's Bungalow and Hosagrahar's work on 19th century Delhi showcase the making of a new 'hybrid culture' that is neither the colonizer's nor from the colony.
Citing the early works on architectural history which precluded non-western architecture from the canon, she calls for a change in the teaching of history in European and American universities to include indigenous architecture as a part of the larger canon.
The third section discusses the creation of national identity through architecture. Hosagrahar identifies three ways in which architecture is used for nation building: One, by rejecting everything that was western and getting inspiration from the traditional-vernacular architecture of the region (Turkey), second, to embrace modernity by having European architects design new capitals (Chandigarh, Dhaka), and third, where changing nationalist agendas results in a diverse range of architecture and hence constructing a diverse national identity. After a brief discussion on who decides what to preserve as cultural identity through architecture, and the effects of globalization on postcolonial thought, the final section presents four elements that are crucial in postcolonial designing in the margins - in-depth knowledge of the site, regional emphasis, being socially responsible and sustainable.
In conclusion, Hosagrahar argues that postcolonial thought has a transformative effect on architecture and urbanism by challenging the paradigms if modernism which are accepted to be universal, second, they urge architectural historians to think of the various alternative narratives to the traditional historical canon of architecture and alert us about the marginalized vernacular histories from the colonies.
In conclusion, Hosagrahar argues that postcolonial thought has a transformative effect on architecture and urbanism by challenging the paradigms if modernism which are accepted to be universal, second, they urge architectural historians to think of the various alternative narratives to the traditional historical canon of architecture and alert us about the marginalized vernacular histories from the colonies.
The Nation and its Fragments: Colonial and Postcolonial Histories / Partha Chatterjee /1993
Partha Chatterji challenges the euro centric model of nationalism and argues that nationalism in the colony preceded the political claims and stemmed from 19th century projects of cultural differentiation and identity formation.
Chapter 1 "Whose Imagined Communities" objects to Anderson's argument that historical experience of nationalism in Europe and America had supplied the template for nationalism (as a modular form) to the colonized world. The central argument of the book, and the primary objection to Anderson's theory is summarized by his asking if the rest of the world has to choose their imagined communities based on the modular forms created and presented to them by Europe and the Americas, "what do they have left to imagine?". He asks, whether history has decreed the postcolonial world to be perpetual consumers of modernity, and whether even the imaginations of the postcolonial world should remain colonized. Chatterji breaks from popular nationalist epistemology by arguing that nationalism should not be understood as a political movement. He argues that anti-colonial nationalism has to be thought of as the true beginning of nationalism in the colony. He suggests two domains exist in anti-colonial nationalism -- the material and the spiritual. The material domain was where the west has superiority and the East wanted to imitate it, and the spiritual was the inner cultural identity which was unique to the colony. Since the natives objected to the colonizers interfering and changing this spiritual side as early as 1870's in India, he argues that nationalism was already present then. Here, he suggests that by protecting its inner domain the nation was already being sovereign even as the state was colonized.
He discusses four areas in the spiritual domain that transformed nationalism by inserting it into the public sphere and were constituted by the processes and forms of modern colonial state. Agreeing with Anderson that print-capitalism was the key factor in spread of nationalism, Chatterjee discusses the use of Bengali language by Bengali elites as a tool for asserting the inner domain of nationalism, adapting of Sanskrit plays to popularize a new art form - bengali drama, the creation of new secondary schools where bengali was generalized and normalized the native language, and finally the unique 'modernization' of Indian women where they worked in the public sphere but had to display the sings of national tradition making her different from 'modern western women'.
In arguing that nationalism in India was not based no "derivation" but on"differentiation" he presents examples in chapter 2- 11 to showcase how the nationalist project strived to maintain sovereignty over the inner spiritual realm and keep the colonizers from conquering it. While it was agreed that the West had superiority in the material realm, and East could imitate it, they strived to keep western influences out of the spiritual realm.
Chapter 2 deals with the making of colonial state and the various instances where the colonial"other" was created. Colonial difference -- 'of representing the "other" as inferior and radically different -- was used to justify colonial rule.
Chapter 3 discusses the creation a new sphere in the domain of private -- the new strata "middle class" -which would both be subordinate to an elite class, and dominate over lower-castes. Chatterjee presents the 'middle-class' as agents of nationalist modernity but carrying unique markers of cultural differences to distinguish them from the West - "The culture of middle-class... is in its overwhelming cultural content, Hindu."
Chapters 4 and 5 traces the nationalist project of writing India's history as a cohesive 'classical' one to imagine/create a central identity and to justify the demands of independence. He writes, nationalist history has a clear agenda and was thought out to have a clear beginning and an end -- begins with the subcontinent's centuries of glorious past and ends with its decline due to the Islamic invasion. He notes the exclusion of several people in this 'classical history' - women, lower-castes, Jains, Buddhists etc.. and questions, if there can ever be one single pre-history of India that could be considered a "national history"?
Chapters 6 and 7 presents the "women's question". Being a central issue in the controversial reformation of mid 19th century, the nationalists sought to rationalize and reform the nature of women in their inner domain without the interference of the colonizers. Evan as the "new woman" differed from 'common' woman with her education and bourgeois virtues, she still carried "signs" of her spiritual domain in her dress, social demeanor, religiosity etc.. thus maintaining a clear distinction from "western modern woman." He argues women themselves wrote against traditional gender biases in their memoirs and family histories even though are rare to be seen in public archives.
Chapter 8 draws from the arguments of Subaltern scholars and focusses on the peasant rebellion and struggles in the mid 19th century, and the role of peasants in the formation of a distinct nationalism through folklore, puzzles, and songs which was markedly different from both Indian bourgeois and western politics. Referring Ranajit Guha's work on peasant insurgency, Chatterjee argues that understanding the reasons how peasants reacted radically in their opposition of the colonial compared to their "educated" compatriots tells an alternative history of India that is fundamental to understand arising consciousness in a colonial state.
Chapter 9 discusses the nature of caste in relation to the identity of lower castes, and the various ways in which caste was challenged in both the private and public realms in the colonial state.
The two final chapters bring back the discussion to the ideas of 'community'. Chapter 10 is a discussion of Capitalism, national planning, and the place of communities in making of a nation. He suggests the changes in capitalism in modern nation-state of India followed the Gramscian passive revolution model where bourgeois hegemony does not get established in the 'classical way.
Comments: Following Chatterjee's argument that there cannot be a single modular form of nationalism, but every colony imagines/creates its own version of nationalism that stems from factors distinct to the region, it is surprising that Chatterjee presents all his examples from Bengal in his discussion of "Indian" nationalism. Can Bengal be a proxy for India? How was the women's question resolved in Chennai? Did northwestern India find a common language amidst all of its different dialects?
Chapter 1 "Whose Imagined Communities" objects to Anderson's argument that historical experience of nationalism in Europe and America had supplied the template for nationalism (as a modular form) to the colonized world. The central argument of the book, and the primary objection to Anderson's theory is summarized by his asking if the rest of the world has to choose their imagined communities based on the modular forms created and presented to them by Europe and the Americas, "what do they have left to imagine?". He asks, whether history has decreed the postcolonial world to be perpetual consumers of modernity, and whether even the imaginations of the postcolonial world should remain colonized. Chatterji breaks from popular nationalist epistemology by arguing that nationalism should not be understood as a political movement. He argues that anti-colonial nationalism has to be thought of as the true beginning of nationalism in the colony. He suggests two domains exist in anti-colonial nationalism -- the material and the spiritual. The material domain was where the west has superiority and the East wanted to imitate it, and the spiritual was the inner cultural identity which was unique to the colony. Since the natives objected to the colonizers interfering and changing this spiritual side as early as 1870's in India, he argues that nationalism was already present then. Here, he suggests that by protecting its inner domain the nation was already being sovereign even as the state was colonized.
He discusses four areas in the spiritual domain that transformed nationalism by inserting it into the public sphere and were constituted by the processes and forms of modern colonial state. Agreeing with Anderson that print-capitalism was the key factor in spread of nationalism, Chatterjee discusses the use of Bengali language by Bengali elites as a tool for asserting the inner domain of nationalism, adapting of Sanskrit plays to popularize a new art form - bengali drama, the creation of new secondary schools where bengali was generalized and normalized the native language, and finally the unique 'modernization' of Indian women where they worked in the public sphere but had to display the sings of national tradition making her different from 'modern western women'.
In arguing that nationalism in India was not based no "derivation" but on"differentiation" he presents examples in chapter 2- 11 to showcase how the nationalist project strived to maintain sovereignty over the inner spiritual realm and keep the colonizers from conquering it. While it was agreed that the West had superiority in the material realm, and East could imitate it, they strived to keep western influences out of the spiritual realm.
Chapter 2 deals with the making of colonial state and the various instances where the colonial"other" was created. Colonial difference -- 'of representing the "other" as inferior and radically different -- was used to justify colonial rule.
Chapter 3 discusses the creation a new sphere in the domain of private -- the new strata "middle class" -which would both be subordinate to an elite class, and dominate over lower-castes. Chatterjee presents the 'middle-class' as agents of nationalist modernity but carrying unique markers of cultural differences to distinguish them from the West - "The culture of middle-class... is in its overwhelming cultural content, Hindu."
Chapters 4 and 5 traces the nationalist project of writing India's history as a cohesive 'classical' one to imagine/create a central identity and to justify the demands of independence. He writes, nationalist history has a clear agenda and was thought out to have a clear beginning and an end -- begins with the subcontinent's centuries of glorious past and ends with its decline due to the Islamic invasion. He notes the exclusion of several people in this 'classical history' - women, lower-castes, Jains, Buddhists etc.. and questions, if there can ever be one single pre-history of India that could be considered a "national history"?
Chapters 6 and 7 presents the "women's question". Being a central issue in the controversial reformation of mid 19th century, the nationalists sought to rationalize and reform the nature of women in their inner domain without the interference of the colonizers. Evan as the "new woman" differed from 'common' woman with her education and bourgeois virtues, she still carried "signs" of her spiritual domain in her dress, social demeanor, religiosity etc.. thus maintaining a clear distinction from "western modern woman." He argues women themselves wrote against traditional gender biases in their memoirs and family histories even though are rare to be seen in public archives.
Chapter 8 draws from the arguments of Subaltern scholars and focusses on the peasant rebellion and struggles in the mid 19th century, and the role of peasants in the formation of a distinct nationalism through folklore, puzzles, and songs which was markedly different from both Indian bourgeois and western politics. Referring Ranajit Guha's work on peasant insurgency, Chatterjee argues that understanding the reasons how peasants reacted radically in their opposition of the colonial compared to their "educated" compatriots tells an alternative history of India that is fundamental to understand arising consciousness in a colonial state.
Chapter 9 discusses the nature of caste in relation to the identity of lower castes, and the various ways in which caste was challenged in both the private and public realms in the colonial state.
The two final chapters bring back the discussion to the ideas of 'community'. Chapter 10 is a discussion of Capitalism, national planning, and the place of communities in making of a nation. He suggests the changes in capitalism in modern nation-state of India followed the Gramscian passive revolution model where bourgeois hegemony does not get established in the 'classical way.
Comments: Following Chatterjee's argument that there cannot be a single modular form of nationalism, but every colony imagines/creates its own version of nationalism that stems from factors distinct to the region, it is surprising that Chatterjee presents all his examples from Bengal in his discussion of "Indian" nationalism. Can Bengal be a proxy for India? How was the women's question resolved in Chennai? Did northwestern India find a common language amidst all of its different dialects?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)