听
From Colonial Urbanism to Hybrid Urbanism
The segregation of the colonizers and colonized into 鈥渨hite town鈥� or the 鈥淓uropean quarter鈥� and 鈥渘ative town鈥� or 鈥渂lack town鈥� is a central tenet of 鈥渃olonial urbanism,鈥� as described in "Refiguring the Colonial City."1听It is also characterized by the use of space to control the colonized. Preeti Chopra examines this phenomenon in India and its repercussions on the spatial expressions of culture for the colonies鈥� residents.
Homi K. Bhabha writes about the ambivalence of mimicry in colonial discourse. Mimicry is a double-edged sword.2 In colonial discourse, it is a way in which colonials take on the culture, knowledge, morals and religion of the mother colony but benefit from few if any of the rights afforded to the colonizers.3听It is a way of controlling the colonials and asserting colonial power by reforming them into 鈥渁 subject of a difference that is almost the same, but not quite.鈥�4听Quoting British historian Thomas Babington Macaulay, Bhabha talks of a balance of the ability to educate and reform colonials as 鈥淓nglish in tastes, opinions, in morals and in intellect鈥�听in order to use them as labour.5 As a result, freedom is afforded to those who are English in blood and colour.6听
Another important concept that Bhabha writes about and is also mentioned by architectural historian Chopra is hybridity. Hybridity is a mix of Eastern and Western cultures and can be viewed as a way in which the colonized subverts certain forms of oppression.7 Both mimicry and hybridity, however, demand that the colony鈥檚 cultural identity acknowledges the colonizers鈥� culture and practices.8
According to Chopra, mimicry and hybridity are useful ways to interpret architectural forms in Bombay between 1854 and 1918.9听She argues that building and architecture during the colonial regime in India was not simply determined by the British but also shaped by local inhabitants. British architecture was reserved for the 鈥渨hite town鈥� and governmental structures, but with time, it appeared in 鈥渘ative town鈥� with Indic details and motifs.10 The goal of the British was to produce 鈥渕imic men鈥� or hybrid Indian subjects. However, the strong blend of British architecture and excess of Indic motifs was threatening to colonizers as the locals took on building the city in a hybrid form that could not be distinguished from the city constructed and controlled by the British, thus endangering the hierarchy between the English and Indian identities.11 The architecture was not just an imitation of Western architecture. Rather, it developed its own aesthetic, particular to the local culture and context.12
The Co-Creation of a Common Architectural Culture
What is most interesting in Chopra鈥檚 architectural analysis is the blend of British facades and Indian interior uses. The British saw the facade of a building as the representation of the dominant culture; 鈥渢he colonial regime viewed the city from the outside.鈥�13听Further, the British wanted to create 鈥渁 beautiful Bombay, a city to be admired for its grand buildings set in spacious, landscaped settings and street schemes that acted as screens for old Bombay.鈥�14 She exposes how urban landscapes were recorded in history through white elites鈥� eyes, from inside a carriage, and without experiencing the inner workings of the city.15听This way of recording thus overlooks the life of the inner courts of the 鈥渘ative town鈥� hybrid buildings. The buildings had inner courts whose organization and structure reflected the social, cultural and economic realities of the locals, while boasting British-inspired facades.16 The author sees these structures as examples of 鈥渢ransculturation鈥� (similar to hybridity) that suggest a loss of culture to create a new culture.17听However, it is also a way in which colonials mould and adapt British culture to their needs, which act to subvert the power of that dominant culture.18 So, it may seem as though the landscape is dominated by British imagery and culture, but in reality, many of the diverse facets of local life are preserved. Also, hybrid architecture blurs the lines between the segregated 鈥渨hite town鈥� and 鈥渘ative town,鈥� to make way for the construction of co-created 鈥渘ative urbanism鈥� instead.19
The Current Interpretation of these Hybrid听Structures: What Do They Mean and Whom听Do We Recognize as their Creators
When India decolonized, it was common practice to change the names of buildings, institutions, streets, stations and cities. Was this is an attempt to appropriate British architecture further into local culture? Or is it to signify a change in power structures? Or was it an attempt to erase part of British culture in India? Is the creation of a hybrid culture empowering in a colony or should the local people strive to dismantle all colonial imagery? What hold does British architecture have on interpreting local culture and power dynamics? Can the significance of structures change over time?
Debates on cultural appropriation and authenticity sometimes suggest that there are 鈥減ure鈥� versions of food, architecture, and language, for example, that should remain untouched and as if they are not the product of a blend of cultures. We should perhaps use language such as inspiration and creativity to describe the intermingling of cultures.听 In this way, the mixing of architectural styles and place-making subverts the power of the British in Bombay. The British prided themselves on knowing Indian culture and being able to adapt it to their buildings as a sign of superiority.20听Meanwhile, local communities showed that they could adapt the British aesthetic to their own needs. Architecture thus acted as a type of intellectual equalizer. It was most likely the key to push past British architecture鈥檚 role in colonial urbanism instead of making it integral to 鈥渘ative urbanism.鈥� Chopra shows that colonies are not simply victims of the colonizers. Local communities can be active creators of space and culture in the colonies, their contributions should be studied and highlighted as well and their points of view recounted.
鈥斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌�
1听Preeti Chopra, 鈥淩efiguring the Colonial City: Recovering the Role of Local Inhabitants in the Construction of Colonial Bombay, 1854-1918,鈥澨�Buildings & Landscapes: Journal of the Vernacular Architecture Forum听14, no. 1 (2007), 109.
2听Homi K. Bhabha, "Of Mimicry and Man: The Ambivalence of Colonial Discourse,"听October听28 (1984), 126.
3Ibid.
4Ibid.
5 Thomas Babington Macaulay, "Minute on education,"听Sources of Indian tradition听2 (1835), 49.
6听Bhabha, "Of Mimicry and Man," 28.
7听Amardeep Singh, 鈥淢imicry and Hybridity in Plain English.鈥� Lehigh University (blog), May 8 2009, Accessed September 21, 2020.
8听Ibid.
9听Chopra, "Refiguring the Colonial City," 119.
10听Ibid, 118.
11 Ibid, 123.
12听Ibid, 123.
13听Ibid, 115.
14听Ibid, 117.
15听Ibid, 110.
16听Ibid, 117.
17听Ibid, 119.
18听Ibid, 123.
19 Ibid, 119.
20听Ibid, 121.
