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?

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. 

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. 

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'? 

Beyond Postcolonialism: New directions for the history of non-western architecture / Kathleen James Chakraborty/ 2013

Kathleen James Chakraborty's comparative literature study calls attention to new scholarship on non-western modernism. While the first part is a historiographic survey of scholarship on colonial and post colonial architecture from the non-western countries, the second part prescribes what new directions this emerging scholarship can lead into.

She traces the historiography of colonial and postcolonial architecture, beginning with the 1980's books on Indian colonial architecture which worked with the lens of postmodern classicism and the writings of Said, Hobsbawm, and Foucault, to turn of the century "Berkeley School" of non-western studies. She outlines the changing trajectory of postmodern/postcolonial studies as they changed from stylistic study of buildings to the scale of cities and the changing place of buildings in it (influenced by Stuart Hall and Henry Lefebvre). She writes that in 1980's when scholarship on African and Asian colonial architecture first emerged, there was tension in the literature because the relationship of architecture to power had been undeniable shown by Said and Foucault. (Metcalf's 1989 book on IndoSaracenic architecture showed the style as a tool to solidify political power rather than as being respectful of indigenous traditions). In tracing the emergence of scholarship on colonial architecture she identifies the early graduate seminars taught by Renata Holod, Bozdogan, and Anthony King as pioneering which was later bolstered by the emergence of a 'Berkeley School' which was spearheaded by Norma Evenson and Spiro Kostof. At Berkeley, modern non-western architecture occupied center stage as Paul Rabinow and Gwen Wright authored important books on French Urbanism. Supported by its faculty - Nezar Alsayyad, Dell Upton, and Kathleen Chakraborty herself, a string of monographs on 19th-20th century urbanism in non-western world was published by students. The work of those trained at Berkeley, Chakraborty writes, "focussed not on issues of architectural style or its relation to identity but instead on space and the social processes through which it was constituted." She argues that even as the relationship between modernism and social progress is debatable, it is certain that iconic examples of modern architecture has been widely distributed around the world and their study marks the new direction for postmodern studies in architecture.

Four topics that Chakraborty identifies as the most promising in this new direction are 1)the study of  the architecture of empire 2) recognizing the periphery as the place where innovations are occurring 3) analyzing architecture as the locus of cultural memory, and 4) studying the ways in which immigrants are changing the fabric of the western world. The study of architecture in Empire and its colonies is important to understand the question of exporting of modernity, and the questions of who wanted modernity and why. She argues that it also helps in the dissolution of the presumption that all new ideas come from Europe or European architects. Study of migration of both people and ideas is necessary to uncover the ideas and perspectives that have been taken to western countries by European architects working in the 'other world' (Corbusier's inspiration from Mughal palace pavilion and Lois Kahn's philosophy on bricks). Chakraborty suggests that 'memory studies' is one of the most rapidly growing areas of enquiry in humanities. The role of buildings and cities in shaping the ways we understand the past, and how the buildings' own changing role can reflect the changes in the society are key questions.

In concluding James-Chakroborty asks several questions which remain unanswered in the realm of architectural history, and whose answers can change our understanding of cities in colonial and postcolonial times.
"New knowledge about the people who commissioned, designed, constructed, inhabited and viewed colonial and postcolonial buildings has implications for the humanities and the social sciences as a whole, as it overturns preconceptions by no means unique to architectural historians. What does it mean if some of the most potent symbols of modernization created during the twentieth century sunk deeper roots in Calcutta and Cairo than in the suburbs of Chicago and even possibly Copenhagen? Who was the modern movement really for and why? Did it more effectively express the aspirations of working class Europeans for political empowerment or middle class Indians and Egyptians for economic progress? Was it above all the purview of a small cluster of immensely talented designers intensely aware of what each other were doing or is it the property as well of relatively unskilled labor and of housewives? And is it a living tradition, or is it time for it to be consigned to history as the tree of architecture gains a new crown in response to different concerns, such as sustainability."