This article was downloaded by: [Clemson University]On: 23 September 2013, At: 00:41Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office:Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Journal of ArchitecturePublication details, including instructions for authors and subscriptioninformation:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjar20

Asia: identity, architecture and modernityHarpreet Mand aa School of Architecture and Built Environment, University of Newcastle,AustraliaPublished online: 15 Jan 2013.

To cite this article: Harpreet Mand (2013) Asia: identity, architecture and modernity, The Journal ofArchitecture, 18:1, 59-78, DOI: 10.1080/13602365.2012.751801

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13602365.2012.751801

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”)contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and ourlicensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, orsuitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publicationare the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor &Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independentlyverified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilitieswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantialor systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and usecan be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Asia: identity, architecture andmodernity

Harpreet Mand School of Architecture and Built Environment,

University of Newcastle, Australia

This paper argues the need to widen the discourse of modern architecture through an

exploration of modern(ities) in Asia, and posits that modern(ities) of East and West are

intertwined. The constructed and contested nature of identities, through the medium of

colonial exhibitions, is discussed. Using Japan and India as examples, the paper examines

the notion of one, none or many modernities and argues that there are multiple alternative

modern(ities) that need to be theorised for different locations. The alternative modernities

and their dilemmas are posited as being linked to postcolonial constructions of identities,

albeit in different ways and in different Asian contexts. The Asian architect, while being

both the product and subject of different types of historical lineages and power constella-

tions, has been a key agent in the manifestations of modernity in different locations.

Introduction

At the great conclusion of the great carnival of

imitating old styles we have been struggling,

for several decades in Europe and from more

recent times in America and elsewhere in the

West, to create that form which will clearly

and precisely correspond to contemporary use,

material and technique. . .it was Japan which

contributed most, by its tradition of simplicity,

to the vigorous attempts in Europe since 1900

to get rid of the mummery of ancient

costumes.1

It’s over, and yet I haven’t said a thing!. . .Had I

done it by telling you of the harmony between

that life and its milieu, I would have had the

opportunity to speak to you about the hideous

disaster, the catastrophe that will inevitably

ruin Stamboul: the advent of modern times.2

These quotations from the formative period of

modern architecture allude to why the issues of

identity and modernity are interrelated in Asia.3

Bruno Taut writing in 1936 in Fundamentals of Japa-

nese Architecture and Le Corbusier (Charles-

Edouard Jeanneret) in his collective travelogue in

1911, published as Le Voyage d’Orient, reveal

three significant points that reference the develop-

ment of Modern architecture in the ‘East’ or ‘Asia’.4

. Modernity/modernism of East and West are inter-

twined rather than autonomous

. The issues of style and identity are interconnected

with imperialism and (de)colonisation.

. Constructions of identities are affected by formu-

lations of modernity.

Significantly, when a melange of Western styles

was being imported into the East, either as a

means of modernisation or a display of power,

Western architects were looking to the ‘East’ to

give an alternative and authentic aesthetic

expression to the changes in their societies.5 The

harmony and simplicity mentioned by Taut and

59

The Journal

of Architecture

Volume 18

Number 1

# 2013 The Journal of Architecture 1360-2365 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13602365.2012.751801

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cle

mso

n U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

41 2

3 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Corbusier above had already been compromised in

Japan and other Asian countries that had been

drawn into the vortex of imperial trade and into

direct colonial rule. However, the impact of this

interaction was variegated, as was the manner in

which Western modernity was experienced and

emulated in Asian countries.6 In addition, after

the Second World War with changes in the then

prevalent world order, the imperative for decoloni-

sation was physical, intellectual and manifested in

different entwinings in different contexts in Asia.

This paper uses Japan and India to argue for the

theorisation of multiple modern(ities) in Asia as

they exemplify two distinct roads to modernity in

architecture, as each experienced and responded

to western modernity in different ways, in the

colonial as well as postcolonial period. The

impact of the East/West encounter and its con-

nectedness to identity, modernity and architecture

are traced below through discussion of the follow-

ing issues:

. Construction and Contestations of (post) Colonial

Identities

. One, none or many (Asian) modern(ities)

. Identity: (Post) colonial modernities and their

dilemmas

. Modernity and the Making of an Asian architect

The discourse on Western modern architecture con-

cerns itself primarily with industrialisation and the

desire to formulate a new unity, in part stimulated

by developments in modern art which were,

however, conversely linked to a diffusion of knowl-

edge of non-Western art through various colonial

exhibitions.7

Construction and contestation of (post)

colonial identities

The colonial exhibitions were a means of representing

‘the Empire’, beginning with the ‘Great Exhibition of

the Works of Industry of All Nations’ held in the

Crystal Palace (1851), in which the art and crafts of

India were the major attraction.8 Breckenridge in

‘The Aesthetics and Politics of Colonial Collecting:

India at World Fairs’, argues that colonial exhibitions

were precursors of modern consumption practices,

classificatory systems and discourseon taste, and high-

lights their connection with the institutionalisation of

art and its link to colonial practices.9 She states that:

World fairs were lively fora for experimentation

with systems of classifications and presentations

for assembled objects, by classifying, organizing,

displaying, judging and labelling them by criteria

of place of productions. . .mode of production. . .

mode of distribution. . . raw material. . . or themes.

Breckenridge further argues that:

Interest in classification challenged the pre-emi-

nence of emotive, nonverbal forms of experiencing

objects. . . .and favoured the more disciplinary

languages concerned with authenticity, connois-

seurship, provenance and patronage. . .these

were discursive languages eminently suited to

politics and control.10

At Colonial exhibitions, Western modernity’s ‘other’

(the colonies) was on display; through the exhibi-

tions, the identity of the ‘Orient’ and the ‘Occident’

was constructed and consumed.11

Japan’s participation in various exhibitions

predated its status as an imperial power. Following

the arrival in 1853 of American Commodore

60

Asia: identity,

architecture and

modernity

Harpreet Mand

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cle

mso

n U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

41 2

3 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Mathew Parry, and Japan’s forced reopening to

trade, it was imperative for Japan to participate in

these exhibitions. Japan exploited this opportunity

to display traditional Japanese arts strategically to

construct its identity as a civilised nation.12 The exhi-

bitions, through their classificatory systems, con-

structed a hierarchical world structure of culture

and humanity. This structure was not monolithic

but had the means within it through which

Western superiority could also be challenged.

These exhibitions generated an anxiety about

identity, but also provided a means of constructing

identity through visual displays.13 Both the Japanese

and Indian elites thus adopted exhibitions to con-

struct cultural and national identities in the inter-

national arena and to instruct and inculcate their

visions of modernity.14 In the various expositions,

architecture was a primary conduit through which

tradition and the modern binary was articulated. As

the colonial powers sought to manage the ‘other’,

the ‘other’ also sought to write its own narrative

and negotiate colonial structuring of knowledge to

construct its own identities. For instance, in India

the Maharaja of Jaipur held his own exhibition of

arts and crafts in 1883, to consolidate his position

among the other princely states of Rajasthan as

well as to promote Jaipur’s identity as centre of

craft excellence. Furthermore, under his patronage

the Albert Hall Museum (1887; Fig. 1) showcased

and documented the best of Indian design and crafts-

manship. As Tillotson argues ‘the building itself was

regarded as part of the display. . .[it]. . .illustrated

and promoted local architecture.’15 Thus architec-

ture was used to construct and contest identity in

both the local and global arenas.

Japan emulated Western colonial powers, and

thus colonial exhibitions and architecture were

fertile grounds for contention and generation of

meaning. In the colonial exhibitions, a variety of

methods constructed and challenged Western hier-

archies of race in which architecture played a

major part. For example, Japan used its traditional

architecture to promote the high skill level of its

crafts industry, such as in the Japanese pavilion

Ho-o-den (‘Phoenix Hall’; Fig. 2) at the 1893 World

Columbian Exposition held in Chicago.16 Sub-

sequently, one of Le Corbusier’s disciples, Junzo

Sakakura, designed the Japanese Pavilion at the

Paris Exposition of 1937 (Fig. 3). The pavilion,

though constructed in the language of modern

materials, subtly displayed a Japanese sense of pro-

portion and attention to detail.17

In contrast in India, the architecture of the second

Indian Industries Fair (Bombay, 1937; Fig. 4) was a

simulacrum of Western modernity that, like the

Ideal Homes exhibition (Bombay, 1937), sought to

propagate a cosmopolitan modernity.18 However,

Indian nationalistic articulations of modernity were

constructed through holding various Khadi (home-

spun cotton) exhibitions across India that visually

mapped the geography of India and through

which the community of modern Indian subjects

was constituted. The various Khadi exhibitions

intentionally constructed a unified visual experience

of the nation in different localities. Trivedi argues

that ‘exhibitions effectively offered their participants

a unique experience of the nation by promoting kind

of national tourism that was comprised of three fea-

tures: demonstrations, displays and sales. . . exhibi-

tors restaged the authentic Indian village economy

61

The Journal

of Architecture

Volume 18

Number 1

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cle

mso

n U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

41 2

3 Se

ptem

ber

2013

that they argued would make India sovereign.’19

From the 1851 exhibition onwards, debates on colo-

nial art education and in which style to build in India

centred on the status and state of crafts.20

Reaction to the Western discourse on style also

became a major catalyst in formulating modern iden-

tity in architecture in Asia, which is linked to the issue

of style in Western architecture and the discourse of

imperialism and (de)colonisation. For instance,

Ruskin’s discourse on style was informed by an imperi-

alist ideology, which in turn hinged on the association

of style and race.21 The discourse on style in Western

architecture was varied and imported into the East

through the incursions of the West, but did not

become an ingrained method of evaluation or analy-

sis.22 Josiah Conder first articulated his view of Japa-

nese architecture through a colonial structuring of

knowledge.23 Watanabe illustrates this with reference

to Rokumeikan and the Ueno Imperial Museum

designed by Conder: ‘his design emphasised Oriental

elements. . ..He owed his Orientalism to the High

Victorian ideology of British Colonial architecture.’24

Further, he quotes Conder on his reasons for the use

of Saracenic elements:

According to my studies of the Japanese national

style (though I am an ardent admirer of the beauty

62

Asia: identity,

architecture and

modernity

Harpreet Mand

Figure 1. Opening of

the Albert Hall

Museum, 1887, Jaipur,

India.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cle

mso

n U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

41 2

3 Se

ptem

ber

2013

of the Japanese art), there are no decorative or

patterned forms or outlines that can be structu-

rally adopted. . ..if one wishes to maintain a sys-

tematic method when building in brick or stone,

then one needs to search within Indian or Sarace-

nic architecture for forms that will confer an

Oriental character on a building.25

However, the stylistic differentiation of Indian archi-

tecture was itself initiated by British writers such as

James Ferguson.26 Before style became a contested

issue in India, British army personnel and engineers

relied on copying features from buildings in

England thus importing Western styles into India.

However, style became a deeper ideological issue

in India after the 1857 rebellion and India’s formal

annexation.

The debate on style and its complexity, contention

and imperial ideology, and finally its demise is best

understood with reference to the architecture of

New Delhi.27 The discourse on the style in which

63

The Journal

of Architecture

Volume 18

Number 1

Figure 2. Ho-o-den

(‘Phoenix Hall’), 1893,

World’s Columbian

Exposition, Chicago.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cle

mso

n U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

41 2

3 Se

ptem

ber

2013

the new capitol of India should be built was played

out in both the popular and professional press.

While Havell was petitioning for the use of Indian

craftsmen to establish the continuity and evolution

of Indian crafts, Baker argued for the adoption of

a style that imprinted on India the spirit of British

rule, with concessions to some surface elements

incorporating input from Indian craftsmen.28 The

issue of race and in what style to build, and the sen-

timent behind these, can be gathered from the

statement ‘it is unthinkable that we should throw

away all the lessons taught us by the finest architec-

ture in the world and allow the new capitol of our

great Indian Empire to be handed over to modern

master builders or architects of India, or the com-

bined efforts of a race of native craftsmen,

however genuine and vital their tradition may be.’29

The centrality of style in architectural discourse in

the West can be attributed to such factors as an

evolutionary view of progress, and hierarchal

64

Asia: identity,

architecture and

modernity

Harpreet Mand

Figure 3. Japanese

Pavilion, Paris

Exposition, 1937.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cle

mso

n U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

41 2

3 Se

ptem

ber

2013

classificatory systems and the impact of new disci-

plinary formations of archaeology and anthropol-

ogy. A further impetus towards examining style in

the West was to mark a difference from the past

and to represent the grandeur of newly founded

empires. Initially, the intentional use of Western

styles in Japan and India as practised and deployed

by the native elite was to erase the difference

between East and West. For instance, the

Akasaka Detached Palace (1899–1909) in Tokyo

designed by Tokuma Katyama and the Jagatji

Palace (1908) designed by the French architect

M. Marcel for the Maharaja of Kapurthala both

appropriated Western styles for the complex con-

struction of identities.30 While the Japanese elite

used Western styles to lay claim to Japan’s status

as an imperial power, the Indian elite used their

buildings to stake claims for equality within the

British imperial system.

Implicit in the varied uses of style were concerns

with racial hierarchy, anxiety about hybridity and

style as a status marker. In this discourse on ‘in

what style should (we) they build’ was present the

essentialist linking of style with race, nation and

culture as well as the evaluation of a certain style

as a marker of superiority of the West.31

65

The Journal

of Architecture

Volume 18

Number 1

Figure 4. Second Indian

Industries Fair, 1937,

Bombay.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cle

mso

n U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

41 2

3 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Concern with style as an evaluative category con-

tinues to this day to engage contemporary Western

architectural discourse, but it has diminished in the

architectural discourse of Japan and India.32 From

the contemporary writings of local critics and archi-

tects, it becomes clear that their focus is on how

best to express a ‘Japaneseness’ or ‘Indianness’.33

It can be argued that style has the characteristics

of a monologue and does not adequately represent

the discursive nature of architecture or cultural pro-

duction, and for which the metaphor of language is

deemed appropriate.34 The paper argues that this

approach can better illustrate that issue of identity

in postcolonial modern architecture in Asia as it is

concerned with intercommunication in an inter-

national arena, and self-representation related to

the decolonisation process.

One, none or many (Asian) modern(ities)

Variously defined, according to the position of the

author, modern, modernity, modernism and mod-

ernisation are terms that are usually used without

specificity. Implicit and sometimes explicit in the

use of terms without a qualifier is that these terms

are universal, but in fact, they are mainly applicable

to particular features of Western historical develop-

ment.35 In non-Western countries, these terms have

different origins and meanings.36 Literature on

modernity, modernisation and modernism,

although varied in focus, tended to be Eurocentric

even when that focus was on other localities.

Recently, these terms have been conceptualised as

being multifarious in their meanings and conten-

tious in how and by whom they are defined. A

summary of the psychoanalytic, nominal, relational,

binary, circular and metonymic definitions of these

terms are provided by Susan Stanford Friedman.37

She indicates that the meaning of the terms not

only varies across the disciplinary boundaries of the

social sciences and the humanities, but also how

the meaning of the terms has changed over time.

Implicit in her critique is the need to re-conceptualise

modernity in different locations.

In addition to the critique of modernity, by the

Frankfurt School, and the re-conceptualisation of

modernity, by scholars such as Anthony Giddens,

Ulrich Bech and Marshall Berman, there is now a

small, but growing body of literature that redefines

modernity from a range of different viewpoints,

including a non-Western perspective.38 The

re-mapping of multiple modernities is both an indi-

vidual and a collective effort. In addition to the

works of Anthony King, Arjun Appadurai and

Dipesh Chakravorty, conference outputs provide

alternative conceptions and manifestations of mod-

ernity.39 Of particular note are the publications

Modernity and Culture, Alternative Modernities

and Modernity and Identity: Asian Illustrations.40

These debates provide productive, yet conflicting

views; however, the significance of this scholarship

resides in the initiation of a discourse that seeks to

extend the meaning of these terms by re-theorising

it in both non-Western and Western contexts.41

The new theories of modernity in the social

sciences and humanities highlight different features,

in general terms of space/time compression, as

structural changes or as a questioning and assertion

of different worldviews. The renewed theorisation

of modernity raises issues with reference to its

impact on identities.42 There is an increasing

66

Asia: identity,

architecture and

modernity

Harpreet Mand

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cle

mso

n U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

41 2

3 Se

ptem

ber

2013

demand and attempt to enlarge the discussion of

modernity from the vantage point of excluded per-

spectives, such as those of women. There is concur-

rently also an attempt to explain the impact of

Western modernity on the periphery and scholars

have increasingly challenged the postulation that

modernity is universal in character.

The theorisation of modernity from non-Western

contexts has famously been the call to ‘Provincialise

Europe’.43 In Habitations of Modernity, Chakrabarty

provides a different conception of modernity that

allows for specificity and takes into account differ-

ent contexts. He defines modernity as the ‘capacity

to create the future as an object of deliberate

action—relates to the past.’44 Although, his focus

is on the theorisation of modernity in an Indian

context, he raises questions with reference to

cross-cultural encounters generally, but specifically

to the legacy of European modern development in

territories separated by geography and history. An

understanding of modernity as simply descriptive

of reality is being replaced with modernity and

other associated terms being constituted through

discourse. Chakrabarty states succinctly:

Modernity is easy to inhabit but difficult to define.

If modernity is to be a definable, delimited

concept, we must identify some people or prac-

tices as nonmodern. . .Western powers in their

imperial mode saw modernity as coeval with the

idea of progress. Nationalists saw in it the

promise of development.45

In architecture, there has been a gradual disappear-

ance of discourse that outlines the development of

modern architecture in the West in a search for an

alternative style, and a gradual increase in aware-

ness and incorporation of architectural production

from non-Western sites under the umbrella term

of modern architecture.46 Until the publication of

Hilda Heynen’s Modernity and Architecture and

Mari Hvattum’s and Christian Hermansen’s Traces

of Modernity, there was inadequate attention paid

to the connection between modernity and how it

is understood, expressed and theorised by different

architects and in different places.47 Heynen,

drawing on the works of critical theorists, posited

that architecture, although embroiled in the capital-

ist institutions of modernisation, could nonethe-

less—as part of the cultural domain—resist and

critique the very same institutions, the prime one

being the architects’ articulation of a socialist

agenda for providing mass housing.

Heynen provides a broader definition of modern-

ism as theoretical and artistic ideas that allow

change to be managed and in the process trans-

forming the people involved. She summarises

various theoreticians’ conceptions of modernity,

such as the poet Octavio Paz’s contention that mod-

ernity is a Western concept, Habermas’ conception

of modernity as a project and Charles Baudrillard’s

assertion of modernity as transient or momentary,

in which change is a value by itself. By blending

these theories, Heynen construed modernity as

pragmatic and transitory, which is both objective

and subjective. Although succinct, the explanation

does not take into account how modernity is ima-

gined and experienced beyond a development

goal or a discarding of tradition and a craving for

novelty.48

Most literature that discusses modernity or

modern architecture as an umbrella term has

67

The Journal

of Architecture

Volume 18

Number 1

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cle

mso

n U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

41 2

3 Se

ptem

ber

2013

limited analysis of inter-related developments in

Asia. However, scholars from Asia primarily based

in the West are increasingly addressing these

deficiencies. For example, Vikramaditya Prakash

raises the issue of modernity in a non-Western

context in Chandigarh’s Le Corbusier: The Struggle

for Modernity in Postcolonial India, as does Jyoti

Hosagrahar in Indigenous Modernities: Negotiating

Architecture and Urbanism. Both are concerned

with multiple manifestations of modernity and

how the issue of modernity is connected with the

construction of identities whether individual,

group, regional or national.49

This paper argues that various Asian intellectuals

have, since their encounter with Western modernity

and its perceived negative impact on their societies,

sought to conceptualise modernity in different

terms. These conceptualisations need to be further

theorised in modern architectural history.50 From

the understanding of modernity as multiple mani-

festations in Asia—rather than one or none of

Western modernity—the paper posits that moder-

nity and related issues of identity can be best under-

stood through modernity as a ‘future imaginary’

which is circumscribed by the ‘horizon of the

present’ and mediated by the ‘cultural imaginary.’

These three terms refer to the delineation of a

desired future in discourse, the historical and

socio-economic and political circumstances, and an

historical worldview respectively. Modernity as

future imaginary provides insights into the

dilemma faced in articulating alternative moder-

nities in Asia vis-a-vis Western modernity. Western

Modernity itself was a future imaginary derived

from a Western cultural imaginary affected by the

horizon of the present in the West. However, all

three were shaped and formulated through inter-

actions with colonisation.

Identity: (post)colonial modernities and their

dilemmas

Western Modernity was experienced by, and had an

impact on non-Western societies in different ways.

In Asia, Western modernity was experienced as

result of the forces of colonisation and imperialism.

With decolonisation, the main issue became how to

modernise while maintaining a sense of continuity

and common purpose. But, as stated by Fornas,

‘Modernity induces an enduring experience of

swift time-shifts’, and, as he further emphasises,

‘such a generalized transformation-consciousness

is only truly modern when it is structurally bound

to certain development logic’.51 Various theorists

have posited (Western) modernity as being charac-

terised by increased reflexivity, instrumental and

systematic rationalisation, and a universalising

tendency.

The language of modern architecture, as it devel-

oped in the West and particularly in the work of Le

Corbusier, was employed in the post-war era in

both Japan and India. The reasons for the enthu-

siastic adoption of Western modernism in architec-

ture are multifarious. This paper argues that the

affiliation of Japanese and Indian architects with

proponents of Western modernism (such as Le

Corbusier, Wright and Gropius), and the conscious

appropriation of the language of Western modern-

ism was perhaps facilitated by number of Indian

and Japanese architects working in the West

before starting their practice in their respective

68

Asia: identity,

architecture and

modernity

Harpreet Mand

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cle

mso

n U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

41 2

3 Se

ptem

ber

2013

countries; but equally important is the architectural

discourse that posited Western modernism as

having a resonance with Eastern aesthetics.52 Its

adoption for decolonisation in architecture was

perceived as desirable because of its rhetoric of

equality and emancipation.53 Whether Western

modernism was subversive of, or complicit with

imperialism is still under debate. However, this

adoption of Western modernism was soon seen

as problematic, as Bilimoria contends: ‘Modernism

purged of the archaic became problematic for its

excessive representation of a basically Euro-Ameri-

can-centred movement on Indian soil’.54 Similarly,

the desire to express alternative modernisms in

Japanese and Indian architecture was intertwined

with issues of envisioning alternative modernities

and identities.

Although Western modernity was seen as

material and social progress with the potential for

emancipation, it was experienced as the oppression

and destruction of local cultures. Contrary to the

ideals of progress and enlightenment, writing

associated with Western modernity induced and

constructed hierarchies of identities with pejorative

adjectives associated with non-Western societies.

This paper argues that in Asia, due to the particular

historical experience of its different nations, invol-

ving either the transition to independence from

colonisation in India, or the forging of a distinct

modern identity to inscribe itself symbolically as an

international power in Japan, the issue of the articu-

lation of alternative modernities is intricately linked

to the issue of postcolonial modern identities.

Thus, concern with identity has been an enduring

issue in Asia since its encounters with Euro-America

and retained its prominence following the Second

World War. This period in Japan was marked by

rapid economic growth, with architects facing the

challenge to accommodate rapid social and techno-

logical changes, and the desire to overcome and

overtake the West, but on Japanese terms.55

India’s focus was on finding ways to modernise its

vast rural hinterland whilst aiming to address

issues of rapid urbanisation and industrialisation,

and the realisation that Western models were not

suitable with regard to resources, climate and heri-

tage. This was coupled with the desire to be nation-

ally autonomous both intellectually and artistically.56

The (re)constructions of identities in India and Japan

emerged through reactive and creative endeavours,

which sought to destabilise and question stereotypi-

cal images whilst formulating their alternative

visions of modernity.

Modernisation is not a one-way process,

however: Westernisation and modernisation are fre-

quently interpreted as having the same meaning.

The dilemma for architects became—what is the

purpose of modernisation? Is it for increased

empowerment and prestige, or is it to find solutions

to the problems of urbanisation and environmental

degradation? The dilemma that sought resolution

centred primarily on the relationship of tradition to

modernity. As Suzuki states: ‘Tension arising from

the claims of tradition and Westernization has

characterized the process of modernization not

only in Japan but in other non-Western countries

and countries on the Western periphery’.57 This

has generated an identity crisis, which legitimately

fears assimilation or a sense of loss even when mod-

ernisation has been positively espoused.

69

The Journal

of Architecture

Volume 18

Number 1

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cle

mso

n U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

41 2

3 Se

ptem

ber

2013

The second dilemma facing Asian countries is that

globalisation has accelerated the rate of change

and, as remarked on by the architect Bal Krishna

Doshi:

New dimensions have entered our perceptions.

Our measure of time is accelerating, and events

are now coupled with rapid changes and uncer-

tainty. The relationship of man to built form has

become transitory, and identity has become

synonymous with quick result orientated action.

Symbols are now dependent upon a constantly

changing and increasingly uncertain worldview.58

Thus concern with identity, rather than diminishing,

has gained further centrality. In an attempt to gain a

share of the market, regions compete to provide

modern infrastructure thus unwittingly destroying

local fabric.59 In this context, cities and architecture

become strategic sites for concentrations of human

resources and services, which set up new tensions

between the centre and periphery.60 With regard

to architectur, as pointed out by Peter Rowe:

The task of maintaining authentic local expressive

traditions, in the most progressive of senses is

made that much more difficult by the easy

erasure of local senses of identity that often

seem to accompany more global outlooks and

international design practices.61

As previously argued, Asian historical experience

demonstrates that modernity and identity are inter-

related: however, like the term ‘Asia’, the term

‘Asian architect’ is primary in bringing to the fore

important issues in architectural discourse. The

next section posits that the Asian architect has

been a crucial agent in the production and articula-

tions of multiple modernities and this role can be

best understood through the theorisation of the

connection between modernity, identity and Asia.

Modernity and the making of an Asian

architect

In Asia, the profession of architecture was formally

instituted during the colonial period marked by

British influence, with the founding of professional

bodies such as the Architectural Institute of Japan

(AIJ) in 1886 and the Indian Institute of Architects

(IIA) in 1929. Whereas the AIJ had an initial member-

ship of 26, today it is close to 35,000; the IIA, with

an initial membership of 158, currently has only

12,000 members.62 Both organisations were

formed in collaboration with British architects: in

Japan, Josiah Conder was the first and only

foreign honorary president, but in India, the British

continued to be office bearers beyond Indepen-

dence in 1947. Although there are commonalties

in relation to the modern formation of architecture

as a discipline, there were some important

differences.

Architecture was subordinate to engineering in

both countries and there was a continuing struggle

to establish architecture as a discipline in its own

right, as well as an art form, which in turn subordi-

nated the position of traditional artisanship. Further-

more architecture had to assert its independent

stature vis-a-vis engineering.63 After the Second

World War, architects in both countries sought to

reformulate the role of the architect in line with

socio-political changes.

Architectural education in these two countries

initially relied on models from Europe. In Japan,

Western influences were in the main derived from

70

Asia: identity,

architecture and

modernity

Harpreet Mand

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cle

mso

n U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

41 2

3 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Britain, France and Germany, whilst in India, archi-

tecture relied solely on British architectural

discourse. In Japan and India, architectural educators

struggled to incorporate the inherent, rich architec-

tural heritage of their respective countries into the

curriculum. Concern about architectural education

was perhaps more vigorously debated in India than

in Japan.64 The pre- and post-Second World War

concern with reformulating education in India

included goals to align education in terms of cultural

heritage and practices, to adapt to changes in the

socio-economic sphere, and to raise public aware-

ness and appreciation of the role of the architect.

The professionalisation of architecture evolved in

both countries during the colonial period, but this

had a negative impact to varying degrees on

strongly established construction practices.

Although in Japan architects and engineers replaced

the ‘daiku’, the existing carpenter guilds were able

to reconstitute themselves into major construction

companies.65 These construction companies today

play an important role in innovative and collabora-

tive practice, with architects and the building indus-

try.66 However, the relegation of the ‘sthapathi’

from master architect to mere labourer occurred

while the British-established Public Works Depart-

ment (PWD) continued to dominate in postcolonial

India, this preferred conformity thereby hindering

collaborative practice and innovation. Since Inde-

pendence, government departments rather than

private construction companies undertake most

major works. Indian architects continue to struggle

to loosen the grip of the PWD and to nurture and

develop local construction practices for both

ethical and aesthetic reasons.

In both Japan and India, atelier architects only

came to prominence after the Second World War.

In ‘colonial Japan’, although Japanese architects

were initially trained by Westerners, the government

and other private institutions appointed them to

design major projects.67 However, in India, architec-

tural training was only to supplement the needs of

British design professionals. Indian architects were

only able to engage as equals with the rise of the

nationalism, after which British firms appointed

Indian partners.68 Indian architects have had to

work to establish themselves in their role in Indian

society despite their proportionately small

numbers, and to decolonise education and con-

struction practices. However, in both India and

Japan, interactions with Western architects were

crucial in asserting and consolidating their positions

as architects within their society and within the

international architectural community.

At the beginning of the nineteenth century,

debate in both countries related to forming a dis-

tinctive architecture but mainly concerned the for-

mation of a new style.69 In Japan, this debate

related to the rising wave of nationalism and anti-

Western sentiment, and to the expression of its

own imperial stature. For instance, the emergence

of the so-called ‘imperial crown’style of architecture

in Japan was primarily due to these factors. In India,

the demand for home rule meant that the British

authorities felt a need to express some token

measure of Indian stylistic features in architecture

as an appeasement measure and to legitimise their

rule. Lastly, Japanese and Indian architects con-

sciously developed a distinctive identity in modern

architecture in both countries after the Second

71

The Journal

of Architecture

Volume 18

Number 1

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cle

mso

n U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

41 2

3 Se

ptem

ber

2013

World War that moved beyond simply adding stylis-

tic features.

Although individual architects introduced modern

architecture concurrently with developments in the

West, it occupied a secondary position in both

Japan and India in the colonial period. However,

the idiom of Western modern architecture became

crucial to future development in both countries in

the postcolonial period. In Japan, it gained currency

as a means of repudiating its own imperial past and

to mark Japan as a part of the democratic inter-

national community. In India, it was imported as a

result both of the efforts of the first prime minister,

Jawaharlal Nehru, and of wealthy Indian industrial-

ists employing it as a marker of new beginnings

for a new society.

After the Second World War, debate on the issue

of identity in architecture in Japan focused on what

role tradition should play in opposition to Westerni-

sation in the formation of modern Japanese archi-

tecture.70 In India, it centred on the issue of new

beginnings, which were based on ideals and the

issues facing Indian society. The outward focus of

Japanese architects and the inward focus of Indian

architects are in the main due to economic and pol-

itical conditions, development in both countries and

the path to alternative modernities. Two key confer-

ences held one year apart further highlight this

outward and inward focus. The World Design Con-

ference, 1960, in Tokyo provided opportunities for

Japanese architects to establish a Japanese presence

on the international architectural scene and the

Seminar on Architecture held in 1959 in Delhi,

allowed for the gathering of mainly Indian architects

to discuss the challenges and future direction of

modern Indian architecture.71 The distinct trajec-

tories and cases of multiple modernities, and the

role played by architects are discussed in detail in

my doctoral thesis.72

In Conclusion

The triad of nation-identity-modernity is crucial in

understanding the making of the multiple moder-

n(ities) in Asia. In architectural discourse, the con-

nection between the conceptual coupling of

nation and identity has explicit affinities with moder-

nity and identity as a conceptual couple that needs

to be theorised in different contexts. Modernity

and identity as interlinked phenomena are self-

reflective, and are concerned with the relationship

of self with the ‘other’. However, communication

between self and ‘other’ is conducted through

various stages or modes. Modernity and identity as

self-reflective concepts also imply a measure of

design and construction. Modernity as the envision-

ing of the future occurs within a framework of its

relationship—real or imagined—with its own past

and context, and the creation of a cultural imaginary

that is different from the past yet remains linked to

it. In the writings on modern architecture in the

West, the narrative of the emergence of modern

architecture is articulated mainly in terms of industri-

alisation, and the ensuing changes and attempts at

formulating a social agenda and a new aesthetic.

In Asia, the emergence of modern architecture is

seen as being derivative of the West. Postcolonial

theory, however, allows us to create alternative

readings of modernity. Furthermore, an understand-

ing of the making of the multiple modern(ities) in

Asia as multidimensional challenges a monolithic

72

Asia: identity,

architecture and

modernity

Harpreet Mand

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cle

mso

n U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

41 2

3 Se

ptem

ber

2013

epistemology based on Western experience and

envisioning of modernity. In conclusion, as demon-

strated with reference to Japan and India, the mul-

tiple modernities and their dilemmas are specific to

their time and cultural context. The emergence of

a modern architect(ure) in Japan was context-

dependent, as it was in India. As this article

suggests, modern architecture, although previously

construed as monolithic, was, and remains, a

series of articulated intertwined modern(ities), cultu-

rally and temporally specific.

Notes and references1. B. Taut, Fundamentals of Japanese Architecture

(Tokyo, Kokusai Bunka Shinkokai, 1937), p. 9.

2. Le Corbusier, Journey to the East, I. Zaknic, trs.

(Cambridge, Mass., The MIT Press, 2007; originally

published as Le Voyage d’Orient, 1966), p. 160.

3. For the purpose of this article, ‘East’, ‘Asia’ and ‘Non

West’, appear interchangeably as are ‘West’, ‘Europe’

and ‘Euro America.’ Rather than referring to any

inherent differences or similarities, these group identi-

ties are seen as constructs through which certain geo-

political as well as socio-economic and historical shifting

alliances and constellations are imagined.

4. Both Taut and Le Corbusier were instrumental in bring-

ing to the foreground the traditional architecture of the

Orient but also in shaping its future direction in both

East and West. Whereas Taut’s influence is mainly

limited to his writings on Japan, Corbusier’s influence

on Japan and India was foundational. For examples of

the influence and critique of Bruno Taut’s writing on

Japanese architecture see: S. Kaji-O’Grady, ’Authentic

Japanese Architecture after Bruno Taut: The Problem

of Eclecticism’, Fabrications, 11 (2001), pp. 1–12 and

Y. Zenno, Bruno Taut’s Other Discovery: A Modernist

Encounter with Japanese Farmhouse Architecture

(paper presented at the ‘Architecture and Modern

Japan’ Conference). For the influence and critique of

Corbusier’s writings on the Orient see: S. Bozdogan,

‘Journey to the East: Ways of Looking at the Orient

and the Question of Representation’, Journal of Archi-

tectural Education, 41 (1988), pp. 38–45 and Z. Celik,

‘Le Corbusier, Orientalism, Colonialism’, Assemblage,

17 (1992), pp. 58–77.

5. Recent scholarship has outlined the debt owed by

Western modernism to the East—for example, the influ-

ence of Japan on Frank Lloyd Wright: K. Nute, ‘Frank

Lloyd Wright and the Arts of Japan: A Study in How to

Borrow Properly’, Architecture & Urbanism, 233

(1990), pp. 26–33; K. Nute, ‘Frank Lloyd Wright and

Japanese Architecture: A Study in Inspiration,’ Journal

of Design History, 7 (1994), pp. 169–85; K. Nute,

‘Frank Lloyd Wright and Japanese Homes: The Japanese

House Dissected’, Japan Forum, 6 (1994), pp. 73–88.

6. Although there is a growing literature on modernity in

Japan and India, this is being produced mainly outside

the architectural disciplinary boundaries. Notable

exceptions to this are the works of Jonathon Reynolds

and Jordan Sand: J.M. Reynolds, Maekawa Kunio and

the Emergence of Modernism in Japanese Architecture

(unpublished PhD, Department of Art, Stanford Uni-

versity, Palo Alto, CA, 1991) and J. Sand, House and

Home in Modern Japan: Architecture, Domestic

Space, and Bourgeois Culture, 1880–1930, Harvard

East Asian Monographs, Vol. 223 (Cambridge, Mass.,

Harvard University Asia Center, 2003). With reference

to India, perspectives on modernity from other fields

are incorporated into the interpretation of scholars

such as Jyoti Hosagrahar and Vikramaditya Prakash:

see J. Hosagrahar, Indigenous Modernities: Negotiat-

ing Architecture and Urbanism, Architext series

(London, Routledge, 2005) and V. Prakash, Chandi-

garh’s Le Corbusier: The Struggle for Modernity in

Postcolonial India, Studies in Modernity and National

73

The Journal

of Architecture

Volume 18

Number 1

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cle

mso

n U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

41 2

3 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Identity (Seattle, WA, University of Washington

Press, 2002).

7. E. Evett, The Critical Reception of Japanese Art in

Europe in the Late Nineteenth Century (unpublished

PhD, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 1980).

8. D. Dewan, Deepali, Crafting Knowledge and Knowl-

edge of Crafts: Art Education, Colonialism and the

Madras School of Arts in Nineteenth-Century South

Asia. (unpublished PhD, University of Minnesota,

Minneapolis, MN, 2001).

9. C.A. Breckenridge, ‘The Aesthetics and Politics of

Colonial Collecting: India at World Fairs’, Comparative

Studies in Society and History, 31 (1989), pp. 195–216.

10. Ibid., p. 212.

11. A.S. Walker, Savage to Civilized: The Imperial Agenda

on Display at the St Louis World’s Fair of 1904 (Kansas

City, TX, University of Missouri, MA, 2005).

12. Mizuta argues that Japan used art in the colonial

exhibitions as a strategic weapon and armour for the

push to be accepted as a civilised nation. C.A. Christ,

“‘The Sole Guardians of the Art Inheritance of

Asia’: Japan and China at the 1904 St Louis World’s

Fair”, Positions: East Asia Cultures Critique, 8 (2000),

pp. 675–709, Mizuta, ‘“Fair Japan”: On Art and

War at the Saint Louis World’s Fair, 1904”, Discourse:

Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 28

(2006), pp. 28–52. Japan further applied this frame-

work in its colonies. For a detailed discussion, see

P-S. Wu, M-F. Hsu, ‘Phantasmagoric Venues from the

West to East: Studies on the Great Exhibition (1851)

and the Taiwan Exhibition (1935)’, Journal of Asian

Architecture and Building Engineering, 5 (2006),

pp. 237–44.

13. B. Benedict, ’International Exhibitions and National

Identity’, Anthropology Today, 7 (1991), pp. 5–9.

14. For a summary of the formulation of early hakurankai

(‘exhibition’) using temple and shrine treasures and

hakubutsukan (‘museum’), see M. S. Jackson, ‘Live

the Way the World Does’, or, Reflections on Calcutta

as an Allegorical City of Modernity (unpublished PhD,

Department of Sociology, University of Alberta,

Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, 2007); P.F. Kornicki,

‘Public Display and Changing Values: Early Meiji Exhibi-

tions and Their Precursors’, Monumenta Nipponica, 49

(1994), pp. 167–96; A. Lockyer, Japan at the Exhibi-

tion, 1867–1970 (Palo Alto, CA, Stanford University,

unpublished PhD, 2000).

15. G. Tillotson. ‘The Jaipur Exhibition of 1883’, Journal of

the Royal Asiatic Society, 14, no. 2 (2004), pp. 111–

26. See also ‘Jeypore Exhibition of 1883’, The Journal

of Indian Art, (1886), p. 39; ‘The Albert Hall

Jeypore’, The Illustrated London News (Saturday,

March 29th, 1888), p. 607.

16. For the impact of the colonial exhibition on the restruc-

turing of Japanese knowledge and for the influence of

Ho-o-den on the evolution of the Prairie house, see

K. Nute, ’Frank Lloyd Wright and Japanese Architec-

ture: A Study in Inspiration,’ op. cit., pp. 169–85.

17. For a further discussion of Japanese architects and the

government’s strategic use of architecture at the exhi-

bitions, see A. Takenaka, ‘Orientalism and Propa-

ganda: The Construction of a Wartime National

Identity: Pan-Asianism vs. Changeless, Timeless

Japan’, Thresholds, 17 (1998), pp. 63–68.

18. ‘Indian Industries Fair’, Journal of the Indian Institute of

Architects (January, 1937), p. 208. See also G. Prakash,

Mumbai Fables (Princeton, NJ, Princeton University

Press, 2010), pp. 95–104.

19. L.N. Trivedi, ‘Visually Mapping the “Nation”: Swadeshi

Politics in Nationalist India, 1920–1930’, The Journal

of Asian Studies, 62, no. 1 (2003), p. 33.

20. A. McGowan, Developing Traditions: Crafts and Cul-

tural Change in Modern India, 1851–1922 (unpub-

lished PhD Thesis; University of Pennsylvania, PA, 2003).

21. D. Ogden, ‘The Architecture of Empire: “Oriental”

Gothic and the Problem of British Identity in Ruskin’s

74

Asia: identity,

architecture and

modernity

Harpreet Mand

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cle

mso

n U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

41 2

3 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Venice’, Victorian Literature and Culture, 25 (1997),

pp. 109–20.

22. The importation of this debate to Japan and India is

evident in architectural discourse with reference to

the building of the National Diet Building in Tokyo

and the architecture of Imperial Delhi: J.M. Reynolds,

‘Japan’s Imperial Diet Building: Debate over Construc-

tion of a National Identity’, Art Journal, 55 (1996),

pp. 38–47. For opposing positions with reference to

the use of European or Indian architecture as the

basis for the formation of a style for New Delhi, see

H.V. Lanchester, ’The Architecture of the Empire:

India’, The Architectural Review, 55 (1924), pp. 230–

35 and B. Pite, ‘Delhi and Style’, The Architectural

Review, 32 (1912), pp. 240–46.

23. C. Barry, ‘Discussion on Mr Conder’s Paper: Notes on

Japanese Architecture’, Transactions of the Royal

Institute of British Architects (1877–78), pp. 209–12.

24. T. Watanabe, ‘Josiah Conder’s Rokumeikan: Architec-

ture and National Representation in Meiji Japan’, Art

Journal, 55 (1996), pp. 21–27.

25. Ibid.

26. J. Hunt, ‘Review: The Influence of Race on Art’,

Anthropological Review, 1 (1863), pp. 216–27.

27. ‘The Architecture of India: Can its Features be Success-

fully Blended with European Styles?’, Builder (7thMay,

1864), pp. 327–29; E.K. Morris, ‘Symbols of Empire:

Architectural Style and the Government Offices Com-

petition’, Journal of Architectural Education, 32, 2

(1978), pp. 8–13; B. Pite, ‘Delhi and Style’, op. cit.,

pp. 240–46.

28. E.B. Havell. ‘The Building of the New Delhi’, The British

Architect (25 October, 1912), pp. 91–94, 282; E.B.

Havell. ‘The Building of the New Delhi’, The Journal

of the Society of Architects (November, 1912),

pp. 24–33; H. Baker, ‘The New Delhi: Eastern and

Western Architecture’, The Times (3 October,

1912), p. 7; H. Baker, E.B. Havell & G. Curzon, The

Architecture of New Delhi’, The British Architect

(11 October, 1912).

29. ‘Indian Architecture’, The British Architect (11thJuly,

1913), pp. 19–20. The debate was varied and raged

from 1912–1913. See also P.J. Dear, ‘Architecture

to-Day and the New Delhi’ The British Architect

(28thJune, 1912), p. 469; ‘The Building of New Capi-

tals’, Architecture: A Magazine of Architecture and

the Applied Arts and Crafts (September, 1912),

pp. 428–32; W. Corfield, ‘New Delhi’, The British Archi-

tect (18thOctober, 1912), pp. 259–61; ‘The New Delhi’,

Journal of the Royal Institute of British Architects (19th

October, 1912), pp. 748–49; B. Pite. ‘Delhi and Style.’

op. cit., pp. 241–46; ‘Architecture for Delhi’, Architec-

ture, a Magazine of Architecture and the Applied Arts

and Crafts (November, 1912), pp. 34–35; ‘The New

Delhi’, The British Architect (20th December, 1912),

pp. 435–6. ‘The Architecture of Delhi’ The British Archi-

tect (27thDecember, 1912), pp. 444, 553; ‘Delhi, the

Metropolis of India’, The British Architect (10thJanuary,

1913), pp. 58–59; ‘The New Delhi’ The British Architect

(31stJanuary, 1913), p. 102; S.H. Heathcote, ‘The Archi-

tecture of the New Delhi’, Fortnightly, 93 (February,

1913), pp. 361–65.

30. D.B. Stewart, The Making of a Modern Japanese Archi-

tecture: 1868 to the Present,1st ed. (Tokyo, Kodansha

International, 1987); T.R. Metcalf. An Imperial Vision:

Indian Architecture and Britain’s Raj (Berkeley, CA,

University of California Press, 1989).

31. D. Ogden, ’The Architecture of Empire’, op.cit.,

pp. 109–20.

32. J.M. Crook, The Dilemma of Style: Architectural Ideas

from the Picturesque to the Post-Modern (London,

Murray, 1987); and G. Hartoonian, ’In What Style

Could They Have Built?’, Fabrications, 17 (2007), pp.

72–91.

33. The issue of identity in architecture was first explicitly

articulated by Balkrishna Doshi in 1980 and was later

75

The Journal

of Architecture

Volume 18

Number 1

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cle

mso

n U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

41 2

3 Se

ptem

ber

2013

discussed by various Asian architects in the 1983 Confer-

ence hosted by the Aga Khan Foundation and more

recently in the Conference ‘Architecture and Identity’

hosted in Germany from December 6th-8th, 2004. See

Aga Khan Award for Architecture (Organisation), Univer-

siti Teknologi Malaysia and Kementerian Kebudayaan

Belia dan Sukan Malaysia, Architecture and Identity:

Proceedings of the Regional Seminar; W.J.R. Curtis,

‘Modernism and the Search for Indian Identity’, The

Architectural Review, 182 (1987), pp. 32–38; S. Desh-

pande, ‘Search for Identity’, Journal of the Indian Institute

of Architects (June, 1987), pp. 29, 33; P. Pethe, ‘Indian

Architecture: Quest for Identity’, Journal of the Indian

Institute of Architects (June, 1987), pp. 31–33.

34. See D. Craven, ‘Art History and the Challenge of Postco-

lonial Modernism’, Third Text, 16 (2002), pp. 309–16.

35. Eisenstadt argues that the concept of multiple moder-

nities is in direct opposition to the theories of moder-

nity outlined by Marx, Durkheim and Weber. The

underlying assumptions of these theories have been

refuted by subsequent development in non Western

societies. S.N. Eisenstadt, ‘Multiple Modernities’,

Daedalus, 129 (2000), pp. 1–29.

36. In Japan and India, ‘modern’ was initially considered a

derogatory term signifying superficiality such as the

easy adoption of Western modes of dress by men

and women. It generally referred to people of lax

character and of questionable morals.

37. S.S.Friedman,‘DefinitionalExcursions:TheMeaningsof-

Modern/Modernity/Modernism’, Modernism/Moder-

nity, 8 (2001), pp. 493–513.

38. M. Berman, All That Is Solid Melts into Air: The

Experience of Modernity (New York, Viking, 1988);

A. Huyssen, ‘Critical Theory and Modernity,’ New

German Critique, 26 (1982), pp. 3–11.

39. A. Appadurai, Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions

of Globalization (Minneapolis, MN, University of

Minnesota Press, 1996); D. Chakrabarty, Habitations

of Modernity: Essays in the Wake of Subaltern Studies

(Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 2002); A.D.

King, Spaces of Global Cultures: Architecture, Urban-

ism, Identity (London, Routledge, 2004).

40. E. Deutsch, Culture and Modernity: East-West Philo-

sophic Perspectives (Honolulu, HI, University of

Hawai’i Press, 1991); D.P. Gaonkar, Alternative Moder-

nities (Durham, NC, Duke University Press, 2001); A.G.

Gomes, Modernity and Identity: Asian Illustrations

(Bundoora, Victoria, Australia, La Trobe University

Press, 1994).

41. See the special issues of Daedalus on Multiple Moder-

nities and Early Modernities: S.R. Graubard, ‘Special

Issue on Early Modernities’, Daedalus, 127, no. 3

(1998); S.R. Graubard, ‘Special Issue on Multiple

Modernities’, Daedalus, 127, no. 3 (2000).

42. A. Giddens, Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and

Society in the Late Modern Age (Cambridge, Polity

Press, 1991); S. Lash, J. Friedman, Modernity and

Identity (Oxford, Blackwell, 1992).

43. D. Chakrabarty, Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial

Thought and Historical Difference (Princeton, NJ,

Princeton University Press, 2000).

44. D. Chakrabarty, Habitations of Modernity: Essays in

the Wake of Subaltern Studies (Chicago, University

of Chicago Press, 2002).

45. Ibid.

46. K. Frampton. World Architecture 1900–2000: A

Critical Mosaic, vol. 5 (Beijing, China Architecture &

Building Press, 1999); C. Jencks, K. Kropf, Theories

and Manifestoes of Contemporary Architecture

(Chichester, Academy Editions, 1997).

47. H. Heynen, Architecture and Modernity: A Critique

(Cambridge, Mass., The MIT Press, 2000);

M. Hvattum, C. Hermansen, Tracing Modernity: Mani-

festations of the Modern in Architecture and the City

(London, Routledge, 2004).

48. H. Heynen, ibid.; M. Hvattum, C. Hermansen, ibid.

76

Asia: identity,

architecture and

modernity

Harpreet Mand

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cle

mso

n U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

41 2

3 Se

ptem

ber

2013

49. J. Hosagrahar, Indigenous Modernities, op. cit.;

V. Prakash, Chandigarh’s Le Corbusier,op. cit.

50. For further discussion of the various articulations of

(post)colonial modernity and identity by intellectuals

and architects in Japan and India see H. Mand, ‘Architec-

ture and Identity: Strategies in Contemporary Asian

Design’, paper presented at the 5th International Sym-

posium on Architectural Interchanges in Asia :Global

Environment and Diversity of Asian Architecture,

Matsue, Japan, 2004; H. Mand, ‘Constructing Modern

Japaneseness: Kurokawa’s Nakagin Capsule Tower’,

paper presented at the Safeguarding and Revitalizing

Local Heritage: mAAN 4th International conference,

Shanghai, China, 2004; H. Mand, ‘Alternative Moder-

nities: Representing the Subaltern in (Post) Colonial

India’, paper presented at the Re-Thinking and Re-Con-

structing Modern Asian Architecture: mAAN 5th Inter-

national conference, Istanbul, Turkey, 2005; H. Mand,

‘Importing Technology, Constructing Identity in a Global

World; Kuala Lumpur International Airport (Klia) Malay-

sia’, paper presented at the Globalisation and Construc-

tion: Joint International Symposium on Globalization

and Construction, Bangkok, Thailand, 2004.

51. J. Fornas, Cultural Theory and Late Modernity (London,

Sage, 1995).

52. ‘The Japanese had Some of Our Best Ideas 300 Years

Ago’ (editorial), House & Home, 5 (June, 1954),

pp. 136–41; W. Gropius. ‘Architecture in Japan’,

Perspecta, 3 (1955), pp. 8–21, 79–80.

53. Le Corbusier, ‘Architecture Yesterday, Today and

Tomorrow’, Marg, 2, 4 (1948), pp. 9–17; F. Lloyd

Wright, ‘On the Right to Be One’s Self’, Marg, 1, 2

(1947), pp. 20–24, 47. For a different evaluation of

Western modernism and its relationships, see

P. Williams, ‘“Simultaneous Uncontemporaries”:

Theorising Modernism and Empire’, in Modernism

and Empire, H.J. Booth, N. Rigby, eds (Manchester,

Manchester University Press, 2000), pp. 13–38.

54. P. Bilimoria, ‘The Enigma of Modernism in Early

Twentieth-Century Art: “School of Oriental Art”’, in

Modernity in Asian Art, J. Clark, ed. (Sydney, The

University of Sydney, 1993), pp. 29–44.

55. The overcoming of Western modernity has its roots

in the intellectual discourse of the interwar period.

It has become infamous for its links and use for

war propaganda. R. Calichman, Overcoming Mod-

ernity: Cultural Identity in Wartime Japan

(New York, Columbia Universsity Press, 2008),

pp. 101–18; K. Sangjung, ‘Overcoming Modernity’,

in Contemporary Japanese Thought, R. Calichman,

ed. (New York, Columbia University Press, 2005),

pp. 101–18.

56. V. Doshi, ‘Cultural Continuum and Regional Identity in

Architecture’, in Regionalism in Architecture. Proceed-

ings of the Aga Khan Award for Architecture Regional

Seminar: Exploring Architecture in Islamic Culture: 2,

Dhaka, R. Powell, ed. (Singapore, Concept Media,

1985), pp. 87–91; J.T. Lang, M. Desai, M. Desai, Archi-

tecture and Independence: The Search for Identity:

India1880 to 1980 (Delhi,Oxford University Press, 1997).

57. H. Suzuki, ‘Japanese Architecture Today’, GA Docu-

ment, 47 (1996), pp. 6–13.

58. B. Doshi, ‘Give Time a Break’, in Anytime, C.C. David-

son, ed. (New York, Anyone & The MIT Press. 1999),

pp. 274–81.

59. T.G. McGee, ‘Triumph of the Profane: Shielding the

Sacred in Southeast Asian Cities’, in Cultural Identity

and Urban Change in Southeast Asia: Interpretative

Essays, W.S. Logan, M. Askew, eds (Geelong, Victoria,

Deakin University Press, 1994), pp. vi– ix.

60. S. Sassen, ‘Reconfiguring Centrality’, in Anywise, C.C.

Davidson, ed. (New York, Anyone & The MIT Press,

1996), pp. 126–133.

61. P.G. Rowe, W.S. Saunders, Reflections on Architectural

Practices in the Nineties (New York, Princeton

Architectural Press, 1996).

77

The Journal

of Architecture

Volume 18

Number 1

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cle

mso

n U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

41 2

3 Se

ptem

ber

2013

62. Architectural Institute of Japan, http://www.aij.or.jp/;

The Indian Institute of Architects, http://www.

iia-india.org/.

63. C. Bately, ‘The Engineer and the Architect in India: A

Plea for Co-Operation Rather Than Competition’,

Journal of the Indian Institute of Architects, (April,

1936), pp. 117–23; H. Izumida, ‘A Study of British

Architects in East and Southeast Asia’, Journal of

Asian Architecture and Building Engineering, 2, 2

(2003), pp. 131–36; H.J. Rowse, ‘Engineer and Archi-

tect: Possibilities of Collaboration’, Journal of the

Indian Institute of Architects (April, 1944), pp. 87–91.

64. ‘Architectural Education in India’, Marg, 2, 3 (1948),

pp. 4–7; C. Bately, ‘Architectural Education in India:

Survey of Progress During the Last Quarter of a

Century’, Journal of the Indian Institute of Architects

(January, 1940), pp. 82–85; C. Bately, ‘The Prospect

for Architectural Education in India’, Journal of the

Indian Institute of Architects (January, 1942),

pp. 212–15; M. Chatterjee, ‘Viewpoints on Architec-

tural Education: Excerpts from Research Interviews,

Conducted over December, 1984–June, 1985’, in

Architecture in India, Ecole Nationale Superieure des

Beaux-Arts de Paris from 27th November, 1985 to

19th January, 1986, Raj Rewal, et al., eds (Paris,

Electa Moniteur, 1985), pp. 173–74; C.M. Correa,

‘Learning from Ekalavya’, in The Education of the

Architect: Historiography, Urbanism, and the Growth

of Architectural Knowledge: Essays Presented to

Stanford Anderson, S. Anderson, M.D. Pollak, eds

(Cambridge, Mass., The MIT Press, 1997),

pp. 445–56; S. Mazumdar, ‘Cultural Values in Archi-

tectural Education: An Example from India’, Journal

of Architectural Education, 46, 4 (1993), pp. 230–38.

65. K. Frampton, K. Vincent, K. Kudo, Japanese Building

Practice: From Ancient Times to the Meiji Period

(New York, Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1997).

66. D. Buntrock, Japanese Architecture as a Collaborative

Process: Opportunities in a Flexible Construction

Culture (London, Spon Press, 2001).

67. D.B. Stewart, The Making of a Modern Japanese

Architecture: 1868 to the Present. (Tokyo, Kodansha

International, 1987).

68. J.T. Lang, M. Desai, Architecture and Independence:

The Search for Identity: India 1880 to 1980 (Delhi,

Oxford University Press, 1997).

69. J. Mordaunt Crook, ‘Josiah Conder in England: Edu-

cation, Training and Background’, in Josaia Kondoru:

Rokumeikan No Kenchikuka (‘Josiah Conder: AVictorian

Architect in Japan’; Catalogue of an Exhibition Held at

Tokyo Station Gallery, May 30th–July 21st, 1997),

K. Kawanabe, et al., eds (Tokyo, Higashi Nihon Tetsudo

Bunka Zaidan, 1997); T. Watanabe, ‘Vernacular

Expression or National Style?: Josiah Conder and the

Beginning of Modern Architectural Design in Japan’, in

Art and the National Dream: The Search for Vernacular

Expression in Turn-of-the-Century Design, N.G. Bowe,

ed. (Blackrock, Dublin, Irish Academic Press, 1993).

70. This debate is elaborated on in my PhD thesis:

H. Mand, Constructing Architecture, Interpreting Iden-

tity: The Making of Postcolonial Modern Architecture

of Japan and India (unpublished PhD, Department of

Architecture and Allied Arts, Faculty of Architecture,

Design and Planning, The University of Sydney, New

South Wales, Australia, 2010).

71. With reference to the themes of the conferences see

A.P. Kanvinde, ‘National Architectural Style: Conve-

nor’s Address,’ Paper presented at the National Archi-

tectural Style: Seminar on Architecture at Jaipur

House, March, New Delhi, 1959; J. Sakakura (on

behalf of the World Design Conference) ‘Tokyo

declaration’, paper presented at the World Design

Conference, Tokyo, 1960.

72. H. Mand, Constructing Architecture, op. cit.

78

Asia: identity,

architecture and

modernity

Harpreet Mand

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cle

mso

n U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

41 2

3 Se

ptem

ber

2013