Week 6 Reading
The reading for this week is as follows. Please note that some of the articles are scattered throughout the packet.
-Gayatri Spivak, “Can the Subaltern Speak?”, Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture, ed. C.
Nelson, L. Grossberg. Urbana : University of Illinois Press, 1988: 271- 313. (Xerox)
- Benedict Anderson, selections from Imagined Communities. New York: Verso, 1991. (Xerox)
- Partha Chatterjee, “Whose Imagined Community?” The Nation and its Fragments: Colonial and Postcolonial Histories. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993, 3-13. (Xerox)
-James Scott, “Compulsory Villagization in Tanzania: Aesthetics and Miniaturization.” in Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998. (PDF)
Then choose one of the following:
-Nnamdi Elleh, “Architecture and Nationalism in Africa, 1945-1994” in The Short Century,
Liberation and Independence Movements in Africa. New York: Prestel, 2004. (PDF)
-Introduction, Pheng Cheah and Bruce Robbins. Cosmopolitics: Thinking and feeling beyond the
nation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1998. (Xerox)
It's dense, so please leave time for it!
Also, here is more information about the two new books I mentioned in class this week:
- Simon O'Meara. Space and Muslim Urban Life: At the Limits of the Labyrinth of Fez. London
Routledge, 2007. (review here)
- Nicholas Dagen Bloom. Public Housing that Worked: New York in the Twentieth Century. Philadelphia University of Pennsylvania Press, 2008. (review here)
-Gayatri Spivak, “Can the Subaltern Speak?”, Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture, ed. C.
Nelson, L. Grossberg. Urbana : University of Illinois Press, 1988: 271- 313. (Xerox)
- Benedict Anderson, selections from Imagined Communities. New York: Verso, 1991. (Xerox)
- Partha Chatterjee, “Whose Imagined Community?” The Nation and its Fragments: Colonial and Postcolonial Histories. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993, 3-13. (Xerox)
-James Scott, “Compulsory Villagization in Tanzania: Aesthetics and Miniaturization.” in Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998. (PDF)
Then choose one of the following:
-Nnamdi Elleh, “Architecture and Nationalism in Africa, 1945-1994” in The Short Century,
Liberation and Independence Movements in Africa. New York: Prestel, 2004. (PDF)
-Introduction, Pheng Cheah and Bruce Robbins. Cosmopolitics: Thinking and feeling beyond the
nation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1998. (Xerox)
It's dense, so please leave time for it!
Also, here is more information about the two new books I mentioned in class this week:
- Simon O'Meara. Space and Muslim Urban Life: At the Limits of the Labyrinth of Fez. London
Routledge, 2007. (review here)
- Nicholas Dagen Bloom. Public Housing that Worked: New York in the Twentieth Century. Philadelphia University of Pennsylvania Press, 2008. (review here)
posted by Meredith at 10/01/2008 12:51:00 PM
19 Comments:
“The solution was a static, freeze frame solution to a dynamic and variegated valley environment. “
In James Scott’s , “Compulsory Villagization in Tanzania: Aesthetics and Miniaturization” we are once again presented with an example in which the attempts made to colonize a non western region ultimately failed due to the lack of foresight in nearly all aspects of the design. In the case of the lower Shire Valley project a preconceived model was implemented based on speculative systems that had been manifested through the ideals of high-modernist planning. In the process of Villagization in Tanzania the British failed to acknowledge the specificities of the region(i.e. climate, resources, soil types, customs, etc..) and implemented a highly standardized agricultural machine that was completely ignorant to its environment. In Scott’s essay he also points out how the British also assumed a standardized model of the cultivators themselves. They did not take into account family size, gender divisions in labor, or the fact that different regions would prefer different crops. It was this rigidity and inability to adapt to a variegated environment that once again led to the systems failure.
Britain’s efforts to Villagize Tanzania were frighteningly similar to the shortcomings that we saw in the colonization in Morocco by the French, more specifically in Ecochard’s urban planning efforts in which he produced a highly systematized architecture that was completely void of any regionalism due to its modernist ideology. In both of these cases the ideals possessed by the architect outweighed the regional diversity of site. It is almost dumbfounding that the ultimate failures of these colonialization projects were arguably a result of the exact same oversight of the sites regionalism.
Parth Chatterjee also alludes to the hazards of colonialism in “Whose imagined community” when he critiques Anderson’s theory of anti colonial nationalism, and it origins. He goes on to explain the difference between the two domains of the world- the “spiritual” and the “material”; the material being the outside/western influence of technology and science, and the spiritual being the “essential marks of cultural identity”. As western counties we are too often concerned with the material, a term that has become our very definition of progress. We differ from those regions who find their identity through their history and spirit. We cannot assume that our ideals will coincide with those whom we impose them on, and to that point, it is likely that colonialism will continue to struggle until it is willing to acknowledge the importance of identity and region over their premeditated master plan.
Readin Partha Chatterje’s “Whose Imagined Community?” urged me to post about a theme that is totally related to the readings main theme: Mexican Vernacular Architecture and how this can or cannot become a symbol of national identity, a symbol of nationalism. It came to my mind this theme when the reading introduced the idea of “print-capitalism” and how all the symbols of the indigenous became part of the modern buildings trying to express a new style of architecture and negate their Spanish colonial dependence. It is contrasting how a building pertaining to the International Style, a completely western idea and directly related to Europe, tries to become an autochthonous thing by adding Maya or Aztec related mosaics or using materials that are locally found. Also it becomes a very powerful thing to have this buildings evoking some sort of nationalism, because the population is going to have these images on their every day life and becoming proud of what they came from eliminating their colonial past. I quote “Intangible Dimension – Concepts, Identification and Assessment on the Vernacular Architecture and Intangible Heritage in Mexico” from Valeria Prieto here is very noticeable their rejection or skip of their Spanish colonial past and the significance for them of their native culture.
“The architectonic vernacular heritage in Mexico of both urban and rural villages has very strong links with the intangible culture of villages and towns throughout the country. Traditions and ways of life that were present even before the Spaniards arrival adds importance to consider this as a significant cultural building heritage. “
I would like to comment on a few points brought up by Anderson in the extract from Imagined Communities… This piece (which was criticized by Partha Chatterjee for its views on anti-colonial nationalism) deals with the notion of sentiments for one’s country (patriotism, nationalism), its consequential development of classism and racism, and how all this feelings stem from imagined ideas based on “natural” and uncontrollable factors, such as skin color, birth place, etc. While I thought that the argument for this idea was a compelling and interesting one, and to a large extent agree with this notion that nationalism and patriotism is based on imaginary and largely abstract ideas, I have trouble agreeing with the definitions of racism set forth in the text. Anderson argues that racism stems from a desire to distinguish class and instead of originating in a prejudicial view of foreign/different ethic culture. I believe that classism and racism are both forms of prejudice, but have distinctive qualities and roots and there are examples where one exists without the other. In Brazil, for example classism is very prevalent, whereas race is largely inconsequential.
Another argument expressed in this text was referred to the role of language in colonialism and its relationship to racism and patriotism. It is the opinion of the author that language is largely an impenetrable barrier to colonialists, because there is simply insufficient time to understand and absorb the nuances each language has. It is argued that while colonialists may change and destroy many aspects of the culture they invade, the language of the colonial state remains unchanged. Anderson support’s his claims by naming Vietnam as an example. Again, I can only partially agree with this statement, as I believe that there are examples of colonialists affecting the language of the territory they are occupying. Some places lose their original dialects altogether and adopt their invader’s native tongue while others absorb words from the colonist language. In the Philippines for example, many Spanish words became incorporated in the primary language, Tagolog.
The remainder of the text deals with census, map and museum and how each plays a distinctive role in the relationship between the colonizer and the colonial state. Census in this case refers to two primary conclusions set forth by Anderson. First, in the colonial period census was largely racially based, with less of a focus on religious distinction, and second everyone can be categorized in society. When discussing the importance of the map, Anderson relates how the “innocent” exercise by colonialists documenting their conquests on maps became developed into a symbol used to advertise their political prowess and global importance. And finally, the museum, is described as a multi-functional tool used by colonialists to a: display and document the artifacts of the culture they dominated; b: a means to use the preservation of a culture as an excuse to stop the introduction of modern schooling in the colony, c: to assert control over particular areas, as museums are places that are largely kept empty, or at least the people present ( described in the text as “perambulatory tourists”) can be fairly easily monitored and controlled, which was a desired scenario for the Colonialists.
It’s seems evident here that academics and philosophers are aiming to discover the depths of humanities deepest motivations and somehow decipher some kind of “truth.” I dare not search for truth, especially the capitalized variety, but the thing I find intriguing, and at some level something which I may take for granted, is in the understandings of our motivations we discover what makes us all quintessentially human. In an effort to avoid the essentialist in “quintessentially” I would posit that indeed we all do share something of that sort. If I could analyze this point conclusively within the confines of this single blog I would, but instead I shall move into some of the discussions revolving around cosmopolitanism to provide a more specific and less essentialist argument towards this end.
Bruce Robbins speaks about the concept of cosmopolitanism as being understood as a kind of free floating view of the world from above; a fundamental devotion to human interests as a whole that is detached from the bonds or affiliations that constrain ordinary nation-bound perspectives. I would have agreed with this definition at first, but I would have had to admit that the first time I heard the word was from a seeing it on the magazine rack standing in line at the grocery store. But what was interesting as Robbins went on is how this commonly accepted definition is in need of revision given the fact that there is a pluralism within the nation-bound perspectives that would make a concept of a world-wide cosmopolitan perspective increasingly complex. As Robbins points out, contemporary nations are both varied and specific and likewise so are cosmopolitanisms. Spivak adds to this complexity, a lot, using a conversation between Foucalt and Deleuze that analyzes the track of ideology in a way that deconstructs the ideals of power and desire.
In following Spivak’s path, if one dares, we encounter the notion of whether a concept of cosmopolitanism, or more loosely a Subject establishes itself by resisting the recognition of the “Other” worlds, or the East, by assimilation. In other words, in formulating my thesis above, according to Spivak, I am digging myself into a hole if my conception of cosmopolitanism formulates a holistic view of the interests of humanity by assimilating those whom I might consider a part of that view into my own unconscious ethnocentrism. Thus, from our position in the West we must be wary of the kinds of cosmopolitan viewpoints we make of the world for in doing so we run the danger of ideologically assimilating the East into our own collectively subjectivity. Furthermore, if we are to fall in this trap we also lose the ability to decipher the varied and specific natures of the East and perpetuate the kind of Orientalist thinking that has since dominated western cosmopolitanism.
I’m struggling to find a better way of processing these readings. Maybe had I read these chapters last semester it would have been easier to digest? Last semester was typical as in it focused on the instruction of various skills or theories. But this semester my studio course has me questioning everything and how the answers or theories we have to these questions may have an effect on the future. The way this relates to this course is because the point of studying the past is a way of understanding the present and possibly predicting the future. So as I was reading Benedict Anderson’s “Imagined Communities” and trying to comprehend his views on nationality, racism and mapping. I began to question not his views and whether they are right and wrong but the validity of his questions. Why is it important to understand and justify nationality? Why do we even have to have the idea of nationality? Census and mapping reasons? Aren’t we by designating differences which are out of a persons control promoting or at least setting the ground work for racism, discrimination, etc.?
Maybe a more truthful ambition for Anderson’s “Imagined Communities” would have been to attempt to understand why do we insist on the need of having to associate ourselves with a group, nation, style, idea, etc.. And mapping, census and classification are not reasons they are merely additional symptoms to the same problem. We live in a world where we constantly assert to others our value and self worth through association. The real question is can we exist without some form of association? As a class of humans will we always exist through self definition through or against others?
Isn’t this need for separation and exclusion the cause of why we struggle as a human race? From our adolescent onset we are programmed to sort and classify individuals and then judge them purely on that association. This behavior doesn’t stop in our teenage years in continues through our adult life. We continuously need to classify individuals and make assumptions on that classification without our genuine assessed knowledge of individuals.
So the question becomes how do we exist without classification? Or to be more specific on generalized classifications which are based on factors that we have no control over? Big questions and unfortunately as a Midwestern, Mexican/Spaniard/German, east-coast educated, New York, Manhattan living, married male I don’t have the answers.
Spivak critiques Western imperialism from a Marxist-deconstructionist and feminist perspective: for me, this was an enlightening shift from the seemingly redundant content contained in the majority of the readings of the last two weeks and the supplementary readings this week. That is to say, the texts thus far have habitually been an agglomeration of repetitiveness: characterizing the failures of colonialism as a lack of recognition to integral local conditions within the colonies, coupled with the deeply-rooted complexities of racism and cultural supremacy. I am by no means discrediting or discerning the factual accuracies and theories as wrong, I am simply declaring they seem to all run excessively parallel. For instance, these same undertones along with the concentration on nationalism /national culture can be observed in the writing of Scott and Chatterjee this week.
Spivak however, through poststructuralist theory, incorporation of Marxism, and displaying how Western intellectualism underpinned the evil logic in imperialism, raises my consciousness of the vital components within colonization and post-colonialism. Her interrogation of culture and the politics within produces an understanding of appealing concepts: the notion of privilege through loss, the ill-created supposition of solidarity through a heterogeneous people, and the dependency on the West to still represent the former colony. This was more striking to me than say, Scott’s critique of the failure of the “improvement” schemes implemented in Tanzania, even though some of the same high-notes were hit. Spivak presents well-formed arguments from all viewpoints, attempting to fracture the injustices of the aggressors and victims alike. As a result of all the elements, it is seemingly Spivak’s point that the subaltern is left with no voice, and their only escape is to “adapt” enough where they are no longer their original self, producing a frustrating paradox.
In "Imagined Communities", Benedict Anderson states that today's non-Western nations came into being through the classification of European imperialists, and therefore identify themselves based on an imagined system. The explorers' method of labeling their subjects was haphazard, and gradually came to be based on nothing more than geographical boundaries and similarities that would not have been recognized by those being labeled. Given the choice, these indigenous people might have aligned themselves based on entirely different criteria.
Partha Chatterjee's critique of Anderson's text focuses on the deeper social implications of this observation. He agrees that nationalism originated in Europe, but argues that this is not the only way that non-Western nations should be defined. If we were to accept non-Western nationality as simply bestowed by Europe, then nations would have had nothing to unite them besides political boundaries. Chatterjee argues that there are many levels on which they can be united, and illustrates examples of literature and arts which are unique to India, which India actively encourages in their uniqueness.
I can agree with many of the points in both of these texts. The origin of these national boundaries is particularly important to acknowledge in today's political environment - much of the violence happening in Africa and the Middle East is a result of clashing social and religious groups occupying the same country (and fighting over control of the government), possibly because of an arbitrary boundary drawn by Western colonialists. These two texts begin to explain why such tensions might exist.
From this week’s reading, I found the notion of language an extremely powerful tool used in colonization. At the beginning of the article “Imagined Communities,” Anderson mentioned language as the oldest element of a nation which connects its people to the past, the present, and the future. To take this further, in my personal opinion, language doesn’t only take place in a verbal communication nor a written form, but also through a variety of other things. Anderson mentioned that, through language, a community is simultaneously open and close. It is a powerful methodology of keeping other nations out of one’s language without physically preventing them to do so.
When I said there were other forms of language presentation other than verbal and written, I meant language in architecture, i.e. the building of Bengal school of Art has two architectural languages applied to it: British for material and Indian for spiritual. The building has a European style while the courses emphasize on heavy Indian traditions.
Therefore, language affects more than what we perceive. We absorb it in our mind through daily usage. As Bipinchandra Pal’s passage on his college life in Calcutta University shows the way he described in modern European institutional terms (republic, democratic, House, Court.) It wasn’t only the words that he used that was influenced by the colonizer but also the way he thought; as analyzed in the article, he put things in terms of inside vs. outside instead of the traditional means of private vs. public. As one learns a new language, it also affects the way he thinks. As expressed in the article that our language doesn’t allow us to talk about the community and the state at the same time; I believe this has to do with the thinking process that the language regulates. This has been true in my personal experience. Another way of language usage I found striking in the article is to separate the colonized from the colonial officials by public press, English press is meant for those with responsibilities and education while the vernacular press is for the other group who, according to the colonial officials’ consensus, are more likely to be involved in sedition. It is interesting that even in this article, Chatterjee used the terms “English” and “vernacular” for the two different languages. She used the word “vernacular” instead of the actual language itself: spoken Bengali and written Sanskrit.
Two points/observations from Spivak, one:
From what I can gather he is establishing his postion outside of the arguments of the time. "I have invoked my positionality in this awkward way so as to accentuate the fact that calling the place of the investigator into question remains a meaningless piety in many recent critiques of the sovereign subject" What immediately comes to mind is Said's position that one's culture poisons one's view when understanding the Orient. Here is an alternate idea liberating us from Said's quagmire. Two, Spivak recognizes the fallacy in over-simplification and top-down mentalities when he points out ". . . the networks of power/desire/interest are so heterogeneous that their reduction to a coherent narrative is counterproductive"
Benedict Anderson
Interesting perspectives on the influence of language and nationalism, which pushes our understanding of the relationship of east vs west to include linguistic influence.
Partha Chatterjee’s (and Benedict Anderson’s) characterization of nations as imagined into existence caught my attention this week. Conceptualizing specific sovereign domains within society also reminded me of these impenetrable spaces that were so crucial for Algerian society to maintain – within the home, beneath the burka, for example. Chatterjee’s distinguishes between the spiritual/inner domain verses the material/outside domain. I was most curious about these inner domains which were essential in order for colonies to hold on to their very “essence.” Chatterjee explains, “…here [in the inner domain] nationalism launches its most powerful, creative, and historically significant project: to fashion a “modern” national culture that is nevertheless not Western. If the nation is an imagined community, then this is where it is brought into being” (6). It’s curious to me that the most powerful and resilient inner domains are zones without a physical boundary or manifestation. Language, for one, was one of these strongholds in colonial society, as Manuel DeLanda also spoke of. (Yet, I wonder how long this will be the case..) Even the odd, echoing sounds reverberating throughout the Caspah in Algeria were a kind of impenetrable inner domain in a way. Granted this domain did not necessarily capture or reflect anything particularly nationalistic about Algerian society. However, this use of sound did control a space within society and served its purpose as a way to represent colonial citizens.
I am also interested in how art was used as an inner ‘stronghold’ in colonial society. The visual arts, through the Bengal school of art, were a space that would sustain and communicate national culture. I know the comparison is totally simplified, but I’ve even made this observation here in Brooklyn. The Brooklyn design aesthetic, to me, communicates a collective identity and specific values through its design. Take one walk through the aisles of the Brooklyn Flea or Renegade fair and you will notice designs that are minimal, fonts that are sleek, colors that are of the same palette, etc. I think aspects of its design set Brooklyn apart from other communities, communicating and reinforcing values of sustainability, thriftiness, and minimalism as a collective.
The other question that came to mind is why was it easier or possible for these domains to be held onto? How important were domains such as art, literature, and language to colonists? Did they gain anything from overtaking them?
after so many readings i get the idea that colonialism is bad, and with every new article i read i get the sense of trying to expand on the subject yet it usually falling short of the interesting tree, and farther still of the relating to architecture tree. this weeks dense reading was met with fuzzy text and a lack of motivation to try to delve into a subject severely beaten but apparently not quite dead yet.
something that none of the articles i've read is what the point of is trying to encourage indigenous architectures--most if not all seem to grasp onto it for the sake of cultures sake. though sadly enough, history has shown that preserving culture for culture's sake is somewhat futile considering that cultures will be lost and gained over time, and even if a language is dead, there can still be a great deal of people who still learn and understand it.
what i think becomes a useful way at looking at indigenous architectures is in what solutions have they learned over the years of living in some region and how newcomers to the area may use that information to guide future designs.
Cosmopolitics
Wow was I under the impression that cosmopolitan meant something different than the definitions brought up here. I assumed cosmopolitan was a way of life meaning you were at home anywhere in the world. The renaissance man of different cultures and countries, if you will. That said, I was lost in the discussion of nationalism, capitalism, and pride of country or lack thereof that was brought up in association with cosmopolitanism and the cosmopolite. In advance, if I have misunderstood this article I apologize. It was very dense even though it was short.
But that’s not what I was planning on discussing. I was interested in discussing one of the aspects of this new definition of cosmopolitanism. The concept of nationalism. In this situation, “the nation takes the place of religion, becoming ‘the most universally legitimate value in the political life of our time.’” The issue of willingness to die for one’s country came up in this topic. Are there still people who are so devoted to their countries that they would die for it? Some would argue yes, most would argue no in favor of dying for one’s religion as the quote above states. Then two examples were brought up regarding the behavior of some German citizens towards the Jews during the reign of the Nazis. The first said that “those who risked their lives to save Jews did so less because they considered the Jews fellow human beings than because, together with the particular Jews involved, they belonged to some smaller social grouping, the same city or neighborhood or profession...Common humanity is too weak a force to generate sufficient solidarity.” Commonality through location, profession or feeling is what saved those people. The second opinion is that “those who rescued Jews from the Nazis, thereby putting their own lives in grave danger, did so precisely because they saw the Jews as fellow human beings… ‘The Lord God is for the whole world, not only for the Germans.’” This opinion said that because we’re all human we deserve to be saved. As a small side point here I would like to point out that these two opinions while worded differently mean the same thing. The first one saw similarity in a persecuted people through location—we’re all humans living and working on this earth. The second one just outright stated that people deserve to be saved on the basis that we are all people. They are the same concept. Both opinions also come to the same conclusion. Too few people stood up to what they believed in. How do we get them to stand up and bring others to our defense as well. Next the article brings up the Islamic situation with the Bosnians. I find it fascinating that the two situations brought to light are in reference to the two religions most well known for dying for their beliefs. Whether it be the unwillingness to convert by force to other religions or a refusal to assimilate into common and popular culture. I find it contradictory to the point the article was making about the national identity overcoming the power of religion in the face of these examples. Even removing the solely religious aspect of these two situations…look at Israeli and Palestinian, for that matter Arab soldiers. Willing to die for love and country BASED on a religion.
(For readers, this blog is a combination of my thoughts, pre and post class discussion on this week’s reading)
This is a desperate attempt to actually analyze and comment on the Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak reading, ‘Can the Subaltern Speak?’
Defined in Wikipedia, Subaltern is used in postcolonial theory and commonly used to refer to the perspective of persons from regions and groups outside of the hegemonic power structure.
Spivak initially defines her argument as a critical analysis of Western intellectual production complicit with Western intellectual economic interests in order to focus on her main discourse, ‘Can the Subaltern Speak?’ Spivak uses theories from the activist philosophers, Faucault, Deleuze, and Guattari to support her argument by articulating reasons to disagree with them, agree with them, or alter their point of view to better support her own. While this may sound a bit confusing, so does her theoretical language. Much of Spivak’s premise to her main argument has to deal with redefining a number of dictionary definitions. Simple terms such as subject, desire, power, economy, interest, machine, ideology, representation, theory, etc. have suddenly become much more complicated in definition. Without much knowledge in theory or philosophy, it takes ultimate concentration to even begin to grasp her intentions to dialogue mini arguments concerning these terms in order to eventually support in main argument. I try to dissect one example.
“…Desire and its object are a unity; it is the machine, as a machine of a machine…”
Taken from context, Spivak defines desire offered by psychoanalysis in order to criticize Deleuze’s and Guattari’s attempts to redefine the desire and the subject as irrelevant. I believe I support this position in that there must be an object in order to provoke desire and if desire is viewed as a ‘so called’ machine of itself, then I would support the ideology of desire and object as a machine, with desire as a machine of an object, also as a machine.
Now given that this single sentence took far too long to dissect and understand, I think we all can agree that we shared similar feelings of frustration and struggle throughout this entire reading. While discussing analysis in class, of course the theories Spivak provoked became a bit clearer. We discussed the misunderstanding between different nations as the colonizers and the ones being colonized. One can simply not understand the other and in the case of Spivak’s argument, the women are the subaltern, the ones who are not given a choice.
To elaborate on class discussion, I would like to further express my point of view. In regards of enforcing non-sacrificial laws, clearly I strongly disagree with widow sacrifice, but Spivak promotes another option of the possibility of ‘choice’ in her argument. I am torn because in either regard, women are not given a choice; they were either forced to sacrifice themselves or forced not to. Just as widow sacrifice is foreign to us, being given a choice is foreign to these women. As we discussed in class, I believe that being given the choice would only work on how open-minded the culture is. Without giving the society the benefit of doubt, I can only assume that these women would feel loyal to their culture and therefore sacrifices would continue in order to uphold tradition. Perhaps these women want their lives, but are too timid to stand up and say so. How do we deal with a situation such as this? Should the women have been given the choice before enforcing rash law-making? What if nothing changed? The bottom line is that these women, the subaltern, were never consulted or asked what their opinions were. This is where the colonizers went wrong. They didn’t try to understand the culture. Decisions can’t be made without understanding what exactly is getting changed and without fully acknowledging the consequences and the opinions of the colonized society.
What happens to place, space, identity, infrastructure, and culture post colonialism? This is the subject in Elleh’s article “Architecture and Nationalism in Africa, 1945 – 1994”. The article address edge condition, political influences, and urban design in several ‘capital’ cities in Africa. During European occupation, development was concentrated on the coast due to economical agenda of trade. The decision to concentrate more inland presented the opportunity for natives to reconnect with their identity as a sovereign nation and focus on national reform. Each new development offered a very prescriptive approach to urban planning.
During colonization: (problem)
1. Architecture used for ‘social oppression and urban segregation’
2. Native land used as a testing ground for ideas that could not be implemented in Europe
3. Architecture used to dominate subject
4. Architecture to neutralize identity
More importantly after independence Architecture was used “as a tool for formulating national identity and unity, and as a template for structuring national development policies. For instance, in Tanzania, the decision to move the capital from Dar es Salaam to Dodoma offers the government to reestablish ideas of a Socialist state. The master plan included citations of the family scale. Families had to have access to land to grow part of their food… implying more space required for the security of the family.
More topics:
The idea of the monument or in this case monumental icon attributes to nationalism.
Mosque of Hassan II in Morocco vs. Houphouet-Boigny’s Our Lady of Peace basilica in Yamoussoukro.
Mosque: Edge condition yet accessible and part of a larger master plan of connecting capitalist gain.
Basilica: centrally located, reasoning behind locating the new capital in Yamoussoukro was one of personal political agenda… built for aristocracy… a collection of ‘villas’
Three Arms Zone and its (non) relation to the people: geographically cut off by a river with only one bridge access point… leaving people of Nigeria feeling disassociated with its leaders
Touches on the issues of displacement in Morocco with Pinseau’s urban design plan calling for large avenues connecting the mosque to business district.
In the last component of chapter 10 in the Benedict Anderson selection he writes about “three institutes of power” that shaped the way colonizers understood, represented and ruled their colonies. The three organizations are the census, the map and the museum. Anderson explains in the third section on museums that the colonizers created museums and specifically monuments for a few reasons, the most obvious to me being that they were tourist attractions. Giving prestige to unique native culture attracted tourists because it was romantically exotic, similar to the initial interest in the Orient and roots of Orientalism. The monuments are described as a paradox reconstructed to look indigenous, but with manicured lawns and explanatory tablets that proved unrealistic arranged settings. The end of this section on the museum concludes by explaining that the post-independent states inherited this form of “political museumizing.” I do not follow the rest of Anderson’s explanation and examples. I can only guess that possibly keeping the Orientalist monuments would still attract tourists and keeping the same symbols would help the new independent nation to maintain a familiar image to the rest of the world. But wouldn’t a newly independent nation want to cut old ties with its past oppressor and break away from Orientalist stereotypes that exploit its heritage?
Bruce Robbins begins his introduction to his book Comopolitics by listing “characters” that at one point were referred to as cosmopolitan, namely Christians, aristocrats, merchants, Jews, homosexuals, and intellectuals. He explains that the cast of characters has changed to North Atlantic merchant sailors, Caribbean au pairs in the US, Egyptian guest workers in Iraq and Japanese women who take gaigin lovers. The original and implied outdated definition Robbins gives of cosmopolitanism consists of the phrases, “universality by virtue of its independence, detachment from affiliations that constrain nation-bound lives” (1). The new definition quoted from Paul Rainbow is “transnational experiences that are particular rather than universal and that are unprivileged—indeed, often coerced” (1). After reading the end of the introduction that relates cosmopolitanism to US politics the modern definition was clearer, although the list of “characters” was more confusing. I think the author would relate the United States intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan today to cosmopolitanism. Although, one could argue that the underlying reason for intervention is oil, which would be a national interest. My conclusion is that the list of characters in the beginning is some kind of intellectual joke that I do not understand. A few characters historically thought of as cosmopolitans could possibly make sense in accordance with the original definition cross referenced with dictionary.com, “free from local, provincial, or national ideas, prejudices, or attachments; at home all over the world”. For example, Christians and Jews could be cosmopolitan because their strong devotion to their religion outweighs their nationalistic ties, but I cannot conjure up a single reason for why the second list of characters would be particularly tied with the intellectual idea of cosmopolitanism.
Classification and representation are two themes that I, perhaps mistakenly, latched onto in this week’s readings. First the Spivak reading dealt with the notion of desire and the structure it creates. A subject object relationship is discussed with the concept of desire playing a transitional role, a directional role as I understand it. A subject can be interested in many objects but not desire them, desire here is seen as a different entity than that of interest, one that is not necessarily so intimately linked to the subject. I.E. a subject does not need to take interest in an object in order to desire it. In this sense it is as if the object and desire actively seek out a subject. However, the object of desire has no control over what desires it, here desire is truly seen as a third entity. The object of desire does not need to be considered as something so alien or entirely different than the subject. The subject can take an active role in this concept of desire to objectify another subject through its desire for it. Denying the subject of its subjectness and transforming it into an object. Here the subject and desire entities (A and B) change another subject (also A) into and something that is not a subject but an object (an A’). This transformation of a subject into an object in the perspective of another subject all happens through this concept of desire without direct roles of either subject. So where does power fit into this relationship? Is it a by-product of desire or another transformation that occurs within the subject?
Perhaps I was way off base but this theory Spivak vaguely explains and that I further clouded reminds me of the “Da Sien” concept of being/Being and the notion of Derrida’s (bracketing). A simultaneous recognition and denial of a subject and a notion that two subjects are completely different yet one in the same. These were confusing theories for me, and quite frankly still are, and perhaps not at all what Spivak was trying to explain but I found it useful to think about when Spivak goes on to examine class systems.
Briefly because I want to post this,…sorry so late!
Census; the notion of the Census is an attempt to classify the masses for taxation purposes, which is fine if every “subject” of the masses is “represented” and “ re-presented” in the same matter and also objectively for lack of a better word. Like the example of a bar code for each individual that is telling of that individual but does not draw attention to categories or classifications, the information blends in with all the other bar codes. The Census fails and becomes corrupt when demographics are inserted to the format.
Map; This was very interesting to me! The way it briefly went through the history of maps and the struggle of perception of the environment. From the non-orienting perspectives to the distorting grid patterns of longitude and latitude to again a forcing of a classification into a puzzle like coding of a map region demographics etc. This section had me thinking about norms and generalizations of maps. Like north is always up and America is centered. But Bucky Fuller made maps on a tetrahedron that could be reoriented to center whatever country or classification you were from. You can look at this way of producing a map and finally come to the realization that Antarctica, Canada, and Russia aren’t as big as they appear. Just the whole notion of maps and the classifications that go into them is fascinating to me and I hope we have time to discuss it. Also perhaps more closely related to the perspectival maps is the notion of the derive’ in terms of experiencing an environment through a haphazard more personal way. The action maps of Dadaism, the more recent informational maps that work on how info is presented, tons of examples here that deal with the shortening of space with the advancement of technology.
Museum; Found it interesting that commemorative stamps iconisize moments or figures of a class that work to identify with all but generally mislead people. Misinformation through representation. Statue of Liberty is an icon for America but there is also one in France? Kentucky Fried Chicken probably has nothing to do with Kentucky but if I’m ever there I’m ordering a five piece. Beside the point, but it’s the representation of a particular subject(s) re-presented in a way to iconosize the subject but ultimately condemn it to a logo, which is something entirely different (an A’). There I came full circle so I think I’ll stop here for now.
Operation planned villages.
Meant to save the people of Tanzania from their “Life of Death”, but resulted in a failure. Of course it was going to fail. Creating new villages with new methods in mechanically controlled agriculture, it is telling the peasants that their root grown knowledge of the land and old methods in agriculture are obsolete. Even though the planners of the new villages with the best intent thought they were saving the people and teaching them to be more efficient, they were also demeaning the people. People don’t like to be told what to do, and what they have always done is wrong, especially when it comes to agriculture. The peasants feel they know the land better than any machine, they have an understanding of nature beyond technology. I am thinking of some of the old farmers back in my little island who would talk about the young people and their stupid little technical gadgets, swearing and laughing at the ignorance of the next generation. However, today these old farmers have all the latest technology, it just takes time for these technological revolutions to take place in the average farmer’s life. That is why the planned ujamaa villages failed. The government wanted it to happen too fast. They went over the peasants’ heads and decided, without including them in the planning of the villages, what would be the most efficient, regardless of how alien it may seem to the future villagers. Fail. Like Scott explains in his text, the designers of the new villages “had forgotten the most important fact about social engineering”, which as he describes, that “its efficiency depends on the response and cooperation of real human subjects. If people find the new arrangement, however efficient in principle, to be hostile to their dignity, their plans and their tastes, they can make it an inefficient arrangement.” I think here you might as well replace the word can with the word will. Changes in societies must happen gradually, you cannot fast forward a whole nation successfully and it must be done with the involvement of the inhabitants of the culture. This is why Esperanto never caught wind. Languages, like societies, change gradually. They need a society, a culture to keep them alive and it is only through the people, the “real human subjects” that a language can survive and evolve.
The Icelandic language survived Danish and English through the “real human subjects.” While Iceland was under the Danish Crown (till 1945) some of the bourgeois of Reykjavik saw Icelandic as inferior to the Royal Danish language and tried to make Danish the native tounge of Iceland. The “real human subjects” of Iceland kept this from happening. And I am forever thankful, it is one of the most valuable treasures we have.
The article, “Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improves the Human Condition Have Failed,” by James C. Scott does not remotely surprise me in it’s account of colonial social engineering. The fact that colonizers could come into African towns, relocate all of the citizens to “modern settlements” and redefine how these citizens have lived productively for centuries is outlandish. Some of the plans provided for these new settlements seem awkward, and inefficient as living spaces that it is no wonder that they failed in more ways than one. Taking the formality of the plan they reminded me of the masses of awkwardly planned suburban developments outside our many cities today. Each lot for each unit is divided equally into a rectilinear shape regardless of the topography and how one unit may receive a flat lot in a marsh and another the side of a mountain. These plans also tend to have a green space centrally located as if the developer is providing the gift of a park to the residents. This particular instance reminds me of a situation Jane Jacobs recorded in “The Death and Life of American Cities” where the developers of public housing units provided a “nice” green area for the residents of a tower on E. 115th Street thinking that they were providing a service to the residents. In fact, it turned out that the residents despised the green area as they felt that it was the developer providing something he would think pleasant without understanding the residents and in essence patronizing to them. Everyday as these residents looked at this green space they were constantly reminded of this underlying governmental condescension. Aside from this is the fact that these Authoritarian Western cultured people truly held their ideas about production, farming, and function above that of generations of people who have worked with their land for centuries. The ignorance it utterly astounding.
Reading “Compulsory Villagization in Tanzania: Aesthetics and Miniaturization” brings again into my mind in how westerns imposition over none-western countries changes the course of a living “culture” and thinking that there are benefiting this populations by supplying a different type of life, and we get to see something similar with “Algeria Unveiled”; but Julius Nyerere's attempt from 1973 to 1976 to move all the rural inhabitants of Tanzania into villages and the fact that five million farmers and their families were relocated into newly-constructed villages set up so that the state could easily deliver social services to the populations; but he believed that Tanzanians should live in villages--rather than scattered across the countryside where agricultural resources were to be found but what if the farmers did not want to live in villages, or did not want to grow the crops that Nyerere's bureaucrats back in ‘The House of Peace’ thought that they should grow?, well finally, like soviet collectives, Ujamaa villages were economical and ecological failures. For ideological reasons, the designers of the new society had paid virtually n attention to the local knowledge and the practice of cultivators, and they had also forgotten “the most important fact about social engineering: its efficiency depends on the response and cooperation of real human subjects”pag.225.
Changing the subject and getting into “Imagined Communities” I see Benedict Anderson defining a nation as "an imagined political community that is imagined as both inherently limited and sovereign" but this is obviously different from an actual community because it is not based on quotidian interaction between its members. Instead, members hold in their minds a mental image of their affinity. As he says it, a nation "is imagined because the members of even the smallest nation will never know most of their fellow-members, meet them, or even hear of them, yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion"; but this look toward the future of individual nations in part explains the use of racism in nationalism, because "The fact of the matter is that nationalism thinks in terms of historical destines, while racism dreams of eternal contaminations."pag.149. Alongside racism, patriotism was also necessary to ground national consciousness, and only at this point is language instrumental in preserving national identity because it is now the link to the past and is a vehicle for people to understand the history of their nationality.
Post a Comment
<< Home