"Greek temples, Roman basilicas and medieval cathedrals are significant to us as creations of a whole epoch rather than as works of individual architects. Who asks the names of these builders? Of what significance are the fortuitous personalities of their creators? Such buildings are impersonal by their very nature. They are pure expressions of their time."
Mies van der Rohe
1.1.0 Preview
While my intention is not to dwell on the ideology and philosophy associated with all aspects of architecture and nationalism, it is of importance to clarify that architecture is a cultural discourse imbued with ideology. This is evidence in all the works of architecture down the time line.
1.1.1 Architecture
The idea of architecture is at one point a ‘thing and an intellectual activity’. In judging architecture we note both ‘the attributes of the thing and the intellectual process’ by which the thing is arrived at. Only with the simultaneous presence of both do we acknowledge architecture.[1]
Architecture is perhaps the most enduring and expressive of all the types of material culture. As a medium, architecture has a language, or rhetoric of its own; the elements used invoke various historical allusions and ideological connotations. As anthropologist Victor Buchli asserts, “Often the way to understand a given society is to understand the physical and, by metamorphic extension, the social architecture of its organization.”[2] Architectural organization inherently reflects in itself, in the styles and elements it employs, an affinity or an agenda.
While the discourse of the local against global has been a favourite amongst architectural theorists, these theoretical explorations remain far from being adequate in representing the constituencies central to these theoretical writings. This is so especially when we are discussing a regional identity such a Kenya.
The exact relation between architecture and identity remains undiscovered. This search for identity is supposed to follow a consistent line, and care should be exercised not to see through western clued-up theories. The power of architecture to represent the ‘local’ requires a thorough re-examining.
1.1.2 National Identity versus Architectural Style
Should an architect be defined by his national identity or by the expression of his architectural style? Such was the polemic among historian in reference to architect Konstantin Jovanovic being commissioned to design the Parliament building, itself a construct of nationalist discourse, both in Sofia, Bulgaria, and Belgrade, Yugoslavia.
The project "Unification becomes Strength"[3], questions the meaning of a Parliament building as a symbol of nationalism, as well as the architect’s right to have an identity of her own other than nationalist.
When it comes to the design of government / public building in many of the identity conscious states, I have found out that, not only is the identity expression put to task but also the architect’s identity. It will be disingenuous to conclude that the architects culture and historical background do not make a mark in the architect’s perception and the worldviews. This draws attention to the training and its philosophical / ideological foundation. On a higher level, and in this case the most influential, is the role of the intellectual elites. They have the ability of forging the policy frameworks and with deep understanding of the populace traditions forge the state’s ‘vision’.
Eric Hobsbawm, on the other hand, explains that traditions are often constructed and given a semblance of historical continuity and legitimacy, when in fact these so-called ‘traditions’ are mere innovations of older customs or very novel and relatively recent creations. Often the continuities or meanings claimed were based on misconceptions of the historic past or on myths. He defines the term 'invented tradition' as “a set of practices… which seek to inculcate certain values and norms of behaviour by repetition, which automatically implies continuity with the past,”[4] and cites as an example the use of the anachronistic architectural style of Neo-Gothic in the re-facing of the British parliamentary building in the late nineteenth century. The British intellectual elite, maintaining that the English national character was best embodied in a style that reflected the Medieval era, a period in which English identity was most ‘authentic,’ chose to build an important government building and a prominent national symbol in an antiquated style rather than in the Neo-Classical trend that was then currently en vogue. This conscious choice of style suggested continuity with the past that was not necessarily factual but was rather a revision of history: the Gothic style in Britain had not persisted uninterrupted throughout the centuries but was rediscovered.
As Hobsbawm opines, it was not uncommon to find “the use of ancient materials to construct invented traditions of a novel type for quite novel purposes.”[5]
The Hungarians’ nationalist endeavours and responses to the aforementioned historical stimuli were representative of a larger movement throughout Europe on the part of nations to assert a unique cultural autonomy within their own state and to distinguish themselves internationally.
Many other peoples, in the spirit of self-determination, asserted their own cultural hegemony through a nationalist rhetoric and through the creation of a strong national identity. This endeavour to attain a national distinction often manifested itself through symbols and through material culture. ‘Styles in architecture became the most reflective national symbols’.[6]
For instance, it is not a coincidence that nations throughout the world utilize a monumental, Neo-Classical style in architecture for their respective governmental buildings. Adorning civic structures with columns and porticoes makes a conscious reference to ancient Greek or Roman architecture, and to those highly revered civilizations that represent democracy and republican governmental values. Such an allusion lends the government some sense of legitimacy and cultural capital. Thus architecture’s rhetoric is full of latent and manifest ideological references.
1.1.3 "Pitfalls of National Consciousness"
As Neil Lazarus suggests in his Resistance in African Literature, one of Fanon's most telling theoretical contributions is his insistence on what he terms the "pitfalls of national consciousness." Nationalism, as Fanon argues in The Wretched of the Earth, often fails at achieving liberation across class boundaries because its aspirations are primarily those of the colonized bourgeoisie--a privileged middle class who perhaps seeks to defeat the prevailing colonial rule only to usurp its place of dominance and surveillance over the working-class "lumpenproletariat."
In the passage below, Fanon explains that "national identity" only carries meaning insofar as it reflects the combined revolutionary efforts of an oppressed people aiming at collective liberation:
“A national culture is not a folklore, not an abstract populism that believes it can discover the people's true nature. It is not made up of the inert dregs of gratuitous actions, that is to say actions which are less and less attached to the ever-present reality of the people. A national culture is the whole body of efforts made by a people in the sphere of thought to describe, justify, and praise the action through which that people has created itself and keeps itself in existence.”[7]
Contextualising this argument, more emphasis should be put on the architect’s power to express a consistent control and mastery over all these forces that mostly dictate the architectural style.
This is challenging as the clients whom the architects seek to serve or from whom they seek to elicit design criteria may be so disoriented by modernization that they cannot express a coherent set of spatial and visual values.
1.2.0 Identity through Symbolism
It is my concern that symbolism in relation to initiating an architectural style with its ‘roots deeply engaged in our traditions but its trunk higher up in the air’ must be informed by extensive study in semantics in African traditional architecture. Architecture must be taken like a language with emphasis not only on the ‘words’ construction but also the ‘spiritual’ meaning decoded.
Carol Blair (1999) urges us to ‘look beyond the symbolicity of the rhetorical text and study the materiality of rhetoric with its consequences and partisanship—the material force of rhetoric “beyond goals, intentions and motivations.” In distinguishing between what a text means (symbolic level) and what a text does (consequence level), Blair reminds us that a text—whether in sound, script, or stone—has an existence and meaning beyond authorial intentions.[8]
It is in this dimension that architectural studies should be geared. I propose that the search for this traditional semantic architecture start with public and government building. However, much of the in put, especially the cultural information on our numerous cultures is not documented. This, therefore, explain why a cultural resource centre should be established. This will coordinate all the research, documentation, dissemination, and reinterpretation works. It is only then, that we can make the initial steps towards realizing architecture that converse with the people.
1.2.1.0 Commonly Used Symbols
In my research, I have identified the following symbols as the most used to imply the national identity. However, these symbols have also been used to entrench extreme nationalism. They include; the flag, national anthem, songs, sports teams and medals, national dress/uniform religion, language, buildings among others.
Symbols such as these create and construct a national identity often made up of many different cleavages of peoples.
a. Sports Teams and Medals,
Governments are now involved in sport to promote the prestige of a group. The other reason is to encourage a sense of identity, belonging and unity through ‘sporting nationalism’.
Sport as a diplomatic tool can be considered like a public diplomacy to influence opinion. Sports are a central hobby in our modern society. Sports should be considered entertaining, enjoyable and peacefully passionate. That does not mean academic people should disregard it. Sports have become an instrument of identity[9].
In every country, sports have become such a large part of the cultural tradition that it has become a way to promote a region, to prove superiority, and/or to affirm existence for national or regional groups. It is therefore appropriate that architects should be informed by this culture and spirit and reflects it in their works.
b. Songs,
Alter offers an excellent example of this. National Passions aroused by the Rhine crisis in 1840 produced songs such as ‘The watch of the Rhine’, Nickoloas Becker’s ‘They shall not take the free German Rhine’, and August Heinreich Hoffmann von Fallersleben’s ‘Song of Germany’ later to become the national anthem.[10]
c. Flag and National Anthem,
K.R Minogue states that ‘Flags and anthems can be use to create members of a nation by developing new habits and emotions; the Star spangled banner with its stars increasing as new state joined the Union was an important symbol of America to the millions of immigrants to the United States.’[11] ‘Nationalist theory requires that a national anthem should express the deepest aspirations of the nation; and this often means that the words carry a heavy ideological cargo.’ [12]
d. Religion,
Religion creates its own symbols but these can ‘often be inaugurated into the national consciousness. A nation’s religion in itself can be the defining symbol and aspect of its nationalism’ dictating the ideological position for its people. A good example is the Islam in Pakistan and the religious conflict in Ireland, where nationalism and religion are irrevocably entwined. Religion often plays an important part in the history of a nation also, which helps to create the sense of a national identity through shared history.
e. Language
National identity through shared history is also symbolized in Language. Anderson states that ‘Languages thus appear rooted beyond almost anything else in contemporary societies.
At the same time, nothing connects us affectively to the dead more than language. If English –speakers hear the words ‘Earth to earth, ashes to ashes, dust to dust’ – created almost four and a half centuries ago – they get a ghostly intimation of simultaneity across homogeneous, empty time. The weight of the words derives only partly from their solemn meaning; it comes also from as-it-were ancestral ‘Englishness’.[13]
The potent ness of language and its role in creating nations is an essential consideration. Great Poets and author’s works written in a nations tongue can be a very effective symbol of that nation. We have only to look at Shakespeare’s wide influence or the works of Machiavelli or Dante to see this.
Also, the response to the Austrian implementation of the ‘German language as the governmental lingua franca throughout its multi-ethnic empire, coupled with the writings of the historical philosopher, Johann Gottfried Herder’, in the late eighteenth century which portrayed ‘the Germans as a conquering people, had an impact on Hungarian nationalism: such variables instilled in the Magyars a fear of becoming assimilated into extinction, or completely ‘Germanised.’’[14] Surrounded by states comprised of Slavic peoples, the Magyars perceived themselves as ‘a small and seemingly ‘threatened’ majority in the multiethnic lands of Hungary’. These Hungarian elite endeavoured to place the Magyar language and cultural mores above those of the numerous minorities in the state, emphasizing their cultural hegemony.
g. Buildings
Like I had mentioned in my abstract, revolutions or changes in a nation’s political, economical and social construct are sealed through the act of building. Great works are designed and constructed as symbols of liberty and democracy, authority, commercial prosperity…
To highlight this, let’s take the case of the western world in the latter part of the nineteenth century and the early part of the twentieth century. ‘Many new nations were emerging from the dust of crumbling empires throughout Europe, a period when notions of self-determination emboldened numerous ethnic or cultural enclaves to demand their own states. Whether these nations wanted to assert their own autonomy, distance themselves from a neighbouring power, or claim their cultural hegemony in a region’, all of them looked towards building as a means of declaring their unique cultural identity.[15]