Culture as an Ethical Responsibility in Architecture AN ARTICLE / By Mehr 20th of November, 2020 Expressing my views on the subject through Avijit Pathak’s work on “Culture as an Arena of Struggle” from his book “Indian Modernity”
Ruth Benedict once said, “If we are interested in cultural processes, the only way we can know the significance of the selected detail of behavior is against the background of the motives and emotions and values that are institutionalized in that culture.” What is the deep meaning behind culture? What are the contents of Indian culture we are dealing with? Is it important to think of culture as an ethical responsibility which retains the freedom it contains, flexible to change and transform into a diverse urge? Culture is a way of life. It is beyond the arts, beyond religion, literature, behavioral patterns, and many more. If one views himself exterior to the physical universe, one realizes that culture isn’t entirely composed of matter, energy, time or space as well. But then if it isn’t entirely physical, it isn’t necessarily spiritual, what makes Culture an extremely complex, multi-layered, multi-faceted word – or has it been made one? When really, it was very simple. A being lives based on different urges in his life, those different urges that he individuates compose his definition of culture. What does a being live for? He lives for himself – his well-being, his interests, He lives for a family – his sexuality, children; He lives for a group – friends, work; he lives for the betterment of the planet – mankind; For nature and the animal kingdom, for the physical universe, his spirituality and lastly, the supreme being or well, his definition of god. There’s nothing beyond these eight urges that a being lives for roughly, these comprise most of everything, but how do these urges define his culture and consequently, how does culture link itself with ethics? 1
So now draw up a girl who defines her individuality in terms of her art, the more she paints, the more she feels free, she believes being healthy comes first and her paintings revolve around painting anatomy and bodies, you’ll realize this defines a lot of her other urges, her sexuality, her openness and the bold decisions she takes, it questions her taste in mythology or her stand on rights and politics and which part of history she relates to, the effect of materiality and her way of seeing the world. This is one person’s definition of culture. Every person operates differently, thinks differently, feels differently. It is necessary to know there are over seven billion definitions of culture. Each one of them is equally important and collectively leads to growth and evolution. The idea is to remind oneself over and over, Now, is it important to think of culture as an ethical responsibility which retains the freedom it contains, flexible to change and transform into a diverse urge? Is the idea becoming clearer as you start defining from the basic word? What are ethics? They’re nothing but the way you look at the different urges of life. How you decide if something is ethical is the way you reason out the good and bad. Ethics are individual. So is Culture. But the latter is entirely driven by the former and the former takes the upper hand on the latter. What is interesting is that you can apply the same theory on a space, we are all striving to make ethical spaces, one that can relate to everyone, can make everyone feel something, everyone be a part of it. Ethical spaces have a heavy involvement of culture in them. The freedom and diversity that culture contains, the collection of thoughts from the past and present and what they might hold in the future. How do you make a space like that? Take up an architectural space that seems to carry most of the trends with it. Nightclubs. Nightclubs are a typology that came up in 1886 which makes them pretty old to be so socially exclusive today, but these were essentially spaces for people to gather in and dance, a source of entertainment, something to look forward to after a strenuous day of work and as far-fetched as this sounds, the typology has changed drastically through the years because the music and dance forms have changed and spiraled through the years. In the 1920’s Jazz and swing were the popular genres, by the 150’s-60’ (post the second world war) these venues increased in number and the genre changed to rock n roll and dance music, the 70s came up with the emergence of Disco Jockeys and rock n roll was quickly left behind. It quickly passed through hip-hop and ultimately to what is now EDM and trap music. And you’ll realise that with this what has also changed is the social inclusive. No, night clubs were never socially inclusive but their parameters have changed. While in the earlier times there was a clear distinction between clubs for white people and black people - today this discrimination is felt on a broad spectrum, age, caste, gender,
2
CLOTHES and the luxuries they afford. The place was always very certain about how it wants to be seen from the beginning and therefore still is very critical based on it. But would that make nightclubs ethical? A nightclub owner may say yes. He may say it will do my club much better if only a certain type of people are allowed to get in. But as a designer, as an architect does your integrity shake while designing something you know may minutely stand as a social statement and add to the culture of the society? Of course, it does. Now, obviously one cannot stop designing for people every single time their integrity is questioned but there is the responsibility that comes and this power that a designer holds that when he is analyzing his design he looks at the different urges and weighs out as much good as one can possibly try. It is not as such that no one has ever thought of these concepts. There was a conscious decision made by a lot of architects while designing a space, every element was put responsibly and consciously and made people feel inclusive. For example, Frank Lloyd Wright, Geoffrey Bawa, Tadao Ando, Laurie Baker, etc. There is this conscious responsibility that drove them to create what they did. There is a stark difference between the two words. Democratic and ethical. Which is an important aspect to take in account. One cannot design a completely democratic space. One can design an entirely ethical space. But you see, ethics are personal. These are personal decisions that you make on a daily basis, the better are your decisions, the more responsible you are and the greater power you have in terms of the skill you are perfecting. Laurie Baker designed for the common man. His designs were for everyone. He made low-cost effective buildings that people could afford but there was nothing about them that made them look “cheap”. They were not stripped out of elements or devoid of their aesthetic sense because they were not built for the elite. The simplicity was highly intricate. If you equate his architectural style and concepts with the same ideology of urges, I put forth earlier you realise his designs are indirectly intertwined with all of them. His designs are unique, they’re a self-expression, an experience he’s creating - pieces of himself he’s putting in his design. This is where it caters to the first two urges. Then the fact that his designs revolved around making it accessible to all sorts of people, completely inclusive designs where one does not ever feel like they are out of place. Like they don’t belong. All of his designs revolve around this feeling of belongingness, from his own home that he calls “the hamlet” to the Indian coffee house - all of his designs have that native feeling. A belonging.
3
We move up on the urges and realise they’re deeply connected with nature and the physical universe and the spiritual nature of culture that Avijit Pathak talks about, also becomes prevalent. His designs are sustainable and do their best in terms of the betterment of the planet. While Frank Lloyd Wright said no space could ever be democratic, he did say the most he could do was do his best to make it. But there is nothing such as part of almost democratic, it’s either democratic or not and therefore the most one can do as a designer or quite literally, a human being is making a space that is ethical. That is inclusive. That reasons out the good and the bad. That sustains itself. That evolves into something based on the change in the urges. So there are indeed a wonderful set of examples of spaces and architects in this world who are practising it, who are doing their everyday best to incorporate as much as they can but what can you as a budding architect do to take these measures and be sensitised about them and actually incorporate them into your design? What about looking at a developed and local context? You’re designing a library, you’re placing it in the middle of cyber hub, already a space that allows all sorts of people to visit from all sorts of backgrounds - there is obviously restriction of accessibility still in between people but now we really don’t want to get into the ethics of cyber hub. Some things are the way they are. So a library. The first thing you look at is people (the first four urges in whole). You decide, you want it to cater both urban and rural population - you figure out a function that could make them interact over this bound of knowledge. You realise workshops and spaces that resemble that of dilli haat seem the best for such attractions and you finalize a function. This is your first step to making a conscious decision . You realise there are two sorts of urban population that arrive in your context, one that is completely oblivious to the agenda of libraries and the one that is entirely in love with it. You decide you need a function for the oblivious and you decide the cafe works perfectly and maybe you could connect it to the library in a way that it makes them feel inclusive as well. You’ve covered the broader context of people dividing them off in categories. You categorize based on age and realise older people won’t be very happy to climb three stories so you give them a ramp and an elevator, you realise not all people will come in cars and bikes so you give bicycle stands, you realise there are kids who wouldn’t have anything better to do so you give them an area to play. You think of privacy you think of the public you think of this semi private space that you could create. You cover all aspects that come with different types of people and you move to the nature and materiality of it. To give back to the environment you use materials that give less waste and are more energy efficient, that are mostly re-usable, techniques that require less damage, more sustainability, you make the design its 4
pair of lungs. You allow it to breathe. You give back the green you took - you do not take it in the first place, almost as if you were already creating a world within your design and now you have just managed to give it the air to breathe with. You use the most of the physical universe by making it withstand time, which sounds like a very big deal but it really is not. Your design’s ability to withstand time comes with losing out on the fear of thinking something would perish and taking the command over the space you’re creating in. The upper hand. To conquer the physical universe all you have to do is realize that you are not a constituent of it, yet it is a constituent of you. You give it a spiritual meaning, well obviously if you do come this far with your design exactly you will realise it is acting as a being within itself. There’s saying that “walls talk” and it is true. The more people you let in, the more memories these walls hold and the more it becomes easier to make the place live on for years to come. Isn’t that a reflection of a culture in itself? It is really that simple. The human body is just meat, to create a being you have to give life to it. That is how a design works as well. So you see, culture is an ethical responsibility, yes. But architecture as a whole becomes an ethical responsibility when you realise you have the power to create something that has never before existed. This ability to stem worlds from the ground and command the space comes with your ability to trust yourself in the process of creating it and the only way that is possible is by being conscious of every step one takes in creating it. You are not just trying to be architects; you are trying to be a good human first. Even if you are designing as little as room or as grand as the multiverse.
References Pathak, A., 1998. Culture as an Arena of Struggle. In: Indian Modernity. s.l.:s.n., p. 243.
5