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?

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. 

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."