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.

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)

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?

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.

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 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.

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'? 

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."

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.

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."