Toward Postcolonial Openings: Rereading Sir Banister Fletcher's "History of Architecture"

Author(s): Glsm Baydar and Nalbantolu

Source: Assemblage, No. 35 (Apr., 1998), pp. 6-17
Published by: The MIT Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3171235 .
Accessed: 06/12/2014 23:33
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The MIT Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Assemblage.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 189.217.158.42 on Sat, 6 Dec 2014 23:33:13 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

1. "Treeof Architecture," frontispiece of Sir Banister Fletcher,

A Historyof Architecture on
the ComparativeMethod for
the Student Craftsman,and
Amateur, sixteenth edition,
1954

Baydar

Guilsuim

Nalbantoglu
Toward

Postcolonial

Openings:
Sir

Giilstim BaydarNalbantoglu teaches

historyand design at Bilkent University,
Ankara,Turkey. She is the coeditor of
Postcolonial Space(s) (Princeton Architectural Press, 1997).

Fletcher's

Banister

History

Rereading

of

Architecture

And this world takes place neither simply inside you nor outside
you. It passes from inside to outside, from outside to inside your
being. In which should be based the very possibility of dwelling.
Luce Irigaray,Elemental Passions'
The twentieth edition of Sir Banister Fletcher's monumen-

tal A Historyof Architectureon the ComparativeMethodfor

the StudentCraftsman,and Amateurappearedin 1996 and
marked the book's one hundredth year of publication. By
all standards, History of Architecture has been a canonical
text that has played a formative role in the history education of generations of architects in English-speaking institutions. There is something uniquely remarkable about
Fletcher's text: unlike other monumental histories (for example, those by Fisher von Erlach or James Fergusson)
that now lend themselves predominantly to historiographical analysis, it has been continuously "updated" to preserve
its "original" purpose to be one of the most comprehensive
surveys of world architecture. The preface to the twentieth
edition reads:
The central aim behind this edition reflects and continues certain of the key directions established in the nineteenth edition.
The scope has been widened to include more coverage of architecture from non-European regions and to contain more
information about vernacular buildings and engineered structures and works by architect/engineers such as bridges and for-

Assemblage 35: 6-17 ? 1998 by the

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

This content downloaded from 189.217.158.42 on Sat, 6 Dec 2014 23:33:13 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

III

.?

00,

?.

.
r

"

,. ...

"

)4
?,

brtE
.r?.

, ,

..

Ae"--

,_-

'

fr~

- ...--

'...
- ...,..
_-_.,!. S,,..
=c,.i),,
t'
3-;
.
.:

'410

101
i

..?:

' ")"

.. -i

. . .

" ' '' ' "

,r

)" L; "" l'l

Iv

..

',

,
!

. -.

,,,.

ti

.I

>:%
- _..-__5,...,.
-r
~
T-
,:,
,.,=
'
,l,
..

hop

, ?-_,3.
.- ,,

...-,

,
?

.:

,.

. -

"

-- .
'

19e4

'

,1

,:

,:

i,

""

""

:""YE"'
?

~~ ~

f~
,r

,?

m
4?
,.~~~

"-

"

..

|.

.,, ,

,.

,.,

)oil)

This content downloaded from 189.217.158.42 on Sat, 6 Dec 2014 23:33:13 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

l
, lVO'~

assemblage 35

tifications.Thereis alsomoreattentionpaid,in the partdealing

withthe twentiethcentury,to urbandesign.2
More non-Europeancoverage, morevernacularbuildings,
moreengineering structures,and moreattention to contemporarydesign: Had it not been for the omission of more
women architects,the twentieth edition of Fletcher'sbook
would have been considered most appropriatelyreformed
based on the concerns of the late twentieth century. The
final edition bears testimony to the fact that, at least for a
considerable fraction of architecturalhistorians,the book's
canonical statussurvives- not surprisinggiven the comAs I
prehensivenessachieved by A Historyof Architecture.3
trace variouseditorial changes to Fletcher'soriginal text,
however, I discover that although the latest edition marks
only a quantitativeexpansion in geographicalcoverage
compared to the previousone, the book had seen a number
of significant structuralchanges priorto that.
Until the fourthedition of 1901, A Historyof Architecture
had been a relativelymodest surveyof Europeanstyles.The
fourthedition, however,appearedwith an importantdifference: This time the book was divided into two sections, "The
HistoricalStyles,"which covered all the materialfrom earlier editions, and "The Non-HistoricalStyles,"which included Indian, Chinese, Japanese,CentralAmerican,and
Saracenicarchitecture.Curiously,in the posthumouslypublished seventeenth edition of 1961, the two partswere renamed "AncientArchitectureand the Western Succession"
and "Architecturein the East,"respectively.The nineteenth
edition of 1987, on the other hand, consisted of seven parts
based on chronologyand geographicallocation. Cultures
outside of Europe included "The Architectureof the PreColonial Cultures outside Europe"and "The Architecture
of the Colonial and Post-ColonialPeriodsoutside Europe."
Why the restlesschange in names?What is so (dis)comfortingabout naming the other?As I workthroughthese

questions,my initial reactionagainstFletcher'soriginalcategorizationof"nonhistoricalstyles"takesa differentturn.As

I discoverthe text(s),I begin to see thatwhat is at stakehere
is not merely the boundarybetween Westernarchitecture
and its outside, but also between architectureand its outside;
between architectureand nonarchitecture.The latterissue
has also been addressedby KarenBurnsand othersin the
context of Westernarchitecturalthought.4In "Architecture:
That DangerousUseless Supplement,"Burnsfocuses on how
the categoryof building is constitutedas "aspace continually
invokedas outside architecture'sown internalspace."5She
surfacesthe tenuous natureof the inside/outsideboundaryof
architectureby thinkingarchitectureas an identitycategory
and significationratherthan a stable and secure autonomous
entity. I arguethat historicalconstructionsof the non-West
figureat the precariousboundaryof (Western)architecture's
presumedinside. Moreover,as Fletcher'stext discloses,they
are remindersof the precariousnatureof that veryboundary.
My questions multiply:What are the mechanisms that
define the inside and the outside of architectureand how
do they operate?How are architecturalboundaries constructedand on what basis?These are large questions that
continuously define and redefine Fletcher's, his successors'
and my spaces of writing.Architecture,as a fixed category,
becomes a burden. I discover how, through Fletcher's and
his successors'work, the boundarybetween the inner and
outer worlds of architectureis carefullymaintained for the
purposesof disciplinaryregulationand control. Working
with and through Fletcher's text, I discover that he knew
the need to construct a seamless boundaryto retain the distinct nature of the inner and outer realms of the discipline.
As I trace Fletcher's world history,I recognize instances
that gesture towardsomething differentthan Western
architecture'stired insistence on constituting the norm; the
so-called canon. These isolated instances, I shall argue,

This content downloaded from 189.217.158.42 on Sat, 6 Dec 2014 23:33:13 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Nalbantoglu

suggest strategiesto postcolonial discourses in architecture

based on negotiations of incommensurable differences between architecturalcultures - an entirely differentend
that is far beyond Fletcher's aims and scope. Stephen
Cairns makes a similar suggestion in his historiographical
analysisof the Javanesehouse. Based on the historianWolff
Schoemaker'sdenial of architecturalstatusto the Javanese
house, Cairns points to the possibilityof reconceiving an
architectureof radical difference.' Fletcher's and his successors'texts mobilize furtherquestions by the ways they incorporatenon-Westernarchitecturesinto their own textual
frameworks:How does the inner/outer binaryof architectural discourse articulatewith the cultural/geographicalbinary of West/non-West?How do disciplinaryboundaries
negotiate with geographical, cultural, and political ones?

And,as you wantedwordsotherthanthosealreadyuttered,words

neveryet imagined,uniquein yourtongue,to nameyouandyou
alone,you kepton pryingme open,furtherandfurtheropen.
Honingandsharpeningyourinstrument,till it wasalmostimperceptible,piercingfurtherinto my silence.
ElementalPassions7
Irigaray,
Let me work closer with Fletcher. Coined in his fourth edition of A Historyof Architecture,the term "Non-Historical
Styles"referredto
those otherstyles- Indian,Chinese,Japanese,CentralAmerican, and Saracenic- which remaineddetachedfromWestern
Artand exercisedlittle directinfluenceon it .... These nonhistoricalstylescan scarcelybe as interestingfroman architect's
pointof viewas thoseof Europe,which haveprogressedby the
successivesolutionof constructionproblems,resolutelymet and
overcome;for in the Eastdecorativeschemesseem generallyto
haveoutweighedall otherconsiderations,and in thiswouldappearto lie the mainessentialdifferencesbetweenHistoricaland
Non-HistoricalArchitecture.'
Why, I ask,should "AHistoryof Architecture"include
"nonhistoricalarchitecture"in the firstplace?Why would

properhistorydesire its lack?The frontispieceof Fletcher's

book depictsa tree that "showsthe main growthor evolution
of the variousstyles."The "Treeof Architecture"has a very
solid uprighttrunkthat is inscribedwith the names of European stylesand thatbranchesout to hold variouscultural/geographicallocations.The nonhistoricalstyles,which unlike
othersremainundated,are supportedby the "Western"trunk
of the tree with no room to growbeyondthe seventh-century
mark.Europeanarchitectureis the visiblesupportfor
nonhistoricalstyles.Nonhistoricalstyles,groupedtogether,
are decorativeadditions,they supplementthe properhistory
of architecturethat is basedon the logic of construction.
It seems strangethat Fletcher valorizesand disqualifies
non-European styles at the same time. "Ahistoryof world's
architecturewould be incomplete," he says, if he did not
review "thoseotherstyles."Yet a historyof Western architecture, which ought to lack nothing at all in itself, should
not require to be supplemented. It seems paradoxicalthat
the desire to be comprehensive and complete carriesin itself the destiny of its non-satisfaction.Let me returnto the
notion of the supplement, in the sense that Jacques Derrida
exploits the term. According to him, the supplement is
both an addition, an excess, and a substitutethat points to a
lack in the original entity. "Whetherit adds or substitutes
itself,"contends Derrida, "the supplement is exterior,outside of the positivityto which it is super-added,alien to that
which, in order to be replaced by it, must be other than
it."''For Fletcher, nonhistorical styles are at once in excess
of the conditions of Western historyand point to a lack in
the essentially complete historyof Western architecture.
When they are added on, architecturalhistorybecomes
both better (complete) and worse (impure).
Like all identities, "Westernarchitecture"and "historical
styles"are constructsconstituted through the force of exclusion. These are terms that produce a constitutive outside as

This content downloaded from 189.217.158.42 on Sat, 6 Dec 2014 23:33:13 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

assemblage 35

the condition of their existence. The "non"of nonhistorical

styles bears the markof externality.Their reentryinto the
historyof architecturethen, points to their role as supplement. "Nonhistoricalstyles"are signs that are allowed entry
to fill up a void. They point to a deficiency in the originary
space and yet they are alien to that which they replace.
Fletcher's narrativeinadvertentlycomplicates the plenitude
that is constructedby the precariousalliance of the terms
"architecture"and "Westernarchitecture."
Fletcher superimposesthe historical/nonhistoricaland
West/East dichotomies with another familiarbinarycategorization of the architecturaldiscipline: structure/ornament.
He opposes the "successiveresolution of constructiveproblems," which characterizedWestern architecturalhistory,
to the "decorativeschemes" of the East, which "outweighed
all other considerations."Familiar indeed, for at least since
Alberti'sDe re aedificatoriaornament has been relegated an
inferiorstatus in Western architecture.It has been associated with dishonesty, impurity,and excessivenessas opposed to the essential nature of structure.My argument is
that in Fletcher'sdiscourse, the seemingly cultural basis of
the East/Westcategorizationrepressesan ambivalence
about the definition and limits of the architecturaldiscipline. Fletcher states in an unexpectedly apologetic introduction to the nonhistorical styles:
Easternartpresentsmanyfeaturesto which Europeansareunaccustomed,and whichthereforeoftenstrikethemas unpleasing
or bizarre;but it mustbe rememberedthatuse is secondnature,
and, in consideringthe manyformswhichto us vergeon the
grotesquewe mustmakeallowanceforthatessentialdifference
betweenEastandWest.'11
It seems interestingthat Fletcher momentarilysuspends his
authorial position in these statements.It is the Europeans
who are unaccustomed to Easternart, which strikesthem as
unpleasing and bizarre.The potential critical distancing
dissolves, however, when he goes on to his analysisof the

nonhistorical styles. He then readily concurs that ornament

is acceptable only when it is subordinate to, or in the service of, structure. Overly elaborate decoration, excessive
ornamentation is to be relegated to the grotesque." In a
strikingly vivid account of Saracenic ornament, for example, Fletcher explains:
The craftsmanwho added the typically Saracenic detail had an
almost limitless scope in the combination and permutation of
lines and curves, which crossed and recrossed and were laid one
over the other, till nothing of the underlyingframeworkwas
recognisable.There was a restlessness, too, in their decorative
style, a strivingafter excess which is in contrast to the Greek
spirit that recognised perfection in simplicity and was content to
let a fine line tell its own tale. Thus we find everywhere intricacy instead of simplicity: there are bracketsof such tortured
forms as to be constructively useless and of such elaborate decoration as to be grotesque.l'
On Jaina architecture:
Sculptured ornament of grotesque and symbolic design, bewildering in its richness, covers the whole structure, leaving little
plain wall surface and differing essentially from European art."1
Then again, on Hindu architecture:
This varies in its three local styles, but all have the small
'vimana' or shrine-cell and entrance porch, with the excessive
carving and sculpture.... The grandeur of their [Brahman
temples] imposing mass produces an impression of majestic
beauty, but the effect depends almost wholly on elaboration of
surface ornament, ratherthan on abstractbeauty of form, in
strong contrast to Greek architecture.14
I am interested in Fletcher's simultaneous fascination and
disdain for non-Western architectures. In his narrative construction, Western architecture is faced with what-it-is-not;
non-Western architecture is the symptom of Western architecture. I use the term "symptom" as it is explained by
Slavoj Zizek: "If... we conceive the symptom as it was
articulated in the late Lacan - namely, as a particular signifying formation which confers on the subject its very on10

This content downloaded from 189.217.158.42 on Sat, 6 Dec 2014 23:33:13 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

NalbantoIlu

TABLE
OF

THE

COMPARATIVE SYSTEM
FOR EACH STYLE

1. Influences.

tological consistency, enabling it to structureits basic, constitutive relationshiptowardsjouissance - then the entire
relationship [between subject and symptom] is reversed:if
the symptom is dissolved, the subject itself loses the ground
under its feet, disintegrates."''What is importantfor me
here is the dimension of enjoyment (jouissance)in the
symptom. And indeed, Fletcher exposes a momentary
enjoyment in such expressionsas the "bewilderingrichness" of Jainaarchitectureand the "majesticbeauty"of the
Brahmantemples. He cannot recover full pleasure from
these as that would mean to admit the loss of Western
architecture'sself-identification.Hence he revertsto other
terms that complicate his argument in interestingways.
"Excessive"and "grotesque"are termsthat appearagain and
again in Fletcher'sanalysisto indicate undesirableexaggeration. He is equally excited and disturbedat the sight of the
lines and curvesin Saracenicdecorationthat crossand recrosstill the underlyingframeworkis totallywrittenover.
Structure,what gives life to Fletcher'shistory,is devouredby
ornament.The visible boundarythat separatesstructurefrom
ornamenthas disappearedand has given rise to the unacceptFletcher'seyes are troubledsince they
able, the grotesque.1"
cannot peel off the ornamentto revealwhat is behind. What
causes his unease, I would argue, is not the reversionof the
structure/ornamentpairwhereby,in his non-Westernexamples, the second takesthe dominant role: it is the inseparabilityof the two. Mikhail Bakhtinsuggeststhat in the
grotesque,displeasureis caused by the impossibleand improbablenatureof the image.'"In architecture,the negation
of structureis unimaginable.Yet in the grotesqueimagery,
the architecturalobject, defined by structure,transgressesits
own confines, ceases to be itself.The demarcationbetween
structureand ornamentis dissolved.Reason is threatened.
Beautybecomes unacceptablewhen it cannot be orderedby
reason.Bakhtin'spoint, however,is that there is a productive
ambivalence in the grotesqueand hence it cannot be seen

I. GEOGRAPHICAL.
II. GEOLOGICAL.
III. CLIMATIC.
IV. RELIGIOUS.

v. SOCIAL.
vI. HISTORICAL.

Character.
2. Architectural
3. Examples.
4. ComparativeAnalysis.
A. Plans,or generalarrangement
of buildings.
B. Walls,theirconstructionand treatment.
c. Openings,theircharacterand shape.
D. Roofs,theirtreatmentand development.
E. Columns,theirposition,structure,and decoration.
F. Mouldings,their form and decoration.
G.

Ornament,as appliedin generalto any building.

5. Reference Books.

2. "Comparativesystem for each style"

merely as a negation. In the grotesque,he maintains,the life

of one is born from the death of another:"The grotesque
body . .. is a body in the act of becoming. It is never finished, never completed; it is continuallybuilt, created,and
builds and createsanotherbody."'8Is it possible, then, that
nonhistoricalstylescreate possibilitiesof anotherarchitecture/architecturalhistorythat glaresat us from the cracks
that Fletcher inadvertentlyexposes in his own analysis?
On the relation between architecturaltexts and buildings,
MarkWigley arguesthat "the role of the text is to provide
the rules with which the building can be controlled, regulations which define the place of everypartand control every
surface."''So far, I have focused on aspects of Fletcher's
text that surfacea desire that exceeds the bounds of regula11

This content downloaded from 189.217.158.42 on Sat, 6 Dec 2014 23:33:13 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

assemblage 35

tion and control. As I read it, his discourse is caught up in

the tension between the desire for pleasure and the demand
to control for self-preservation.The latterappearsin very explicit terms. Fletcher'stext is structuredby what he calls a
"comparativesystemfor each style."This is an astoundingly
comprehensivesystemthat controls and regulateseverysection in the book. What I find interestingis how Fletcher
exposes the disciplinarypower of his system:
In consideringthe manyformswhichto us vergeon the grotesquewe mustmakeallowanceforthatessentialdifferencebetweenEastandWestwhich is furtheraccentuatedin purely
Easternarchitectureby thosereligiousobservancesand social
customs of which, in accordancewith our usual method, we shall
take due cognizance.2"0

Fletcher recognizes that what appears"unpleasingor bizarre"to European eyes can be made comprehensible by a
particularmethod of analysis.The self-consciouslydistanced grip of Fletcher's method tames the nonhistorical
styles by submitting them to the same frameworkof architectural analysisas the Western ones. Not only East and
West but also Indian and Chinese and Renaissanceand
modern turn into conveniently commensurable and hence
comparable categories. Fletcher's text is clearly markedby
the nineteenth-centuryinterest in the non-West, which
carriesthe double burden of curiosityand control.2"His
totalizing history,however, bears the markof its own impossibility;his gaze witnesses its own historiographicalviolence
priorto his appropriationof the non-West into his comparativemethod.2 What I am interested in here is not the
criticism of Fletcher's method per se, but his momentary
recognition of how his frameworkviolates difference; how
the writing of historymakes history.

Couldit be thatwhatyou haveis justthe frame,not the property?

Not a bondwiththe earthbut merelythisfence thatyou set up,
implantwhereveryou can?Youmarkout boundaries,drawlines,

surround,enclose.Excising,cuttingout.Whatis yourfear?That
Whatremainsis an emptyframe.
you mightlose yourproperty.
Youcling to it, dead.
Irigaray,Elemental Passions2

In 1961 R. A. Cordingley, who revised Fletcher'sbook for

its seventeenth edition, made a fundamental change in the
outline of the book by, as noted above, renaming the two
main sections "AncientArchitectureand the Western Succession" and "Architecturein the East."The scandal of
nonhistoricityis erased. East and West are turned into
seemingly neutral geographical categories. Cordingley explains: "The formergeneral heading [The Non-Historical

of the
Styles]forPartII wasanomalous;the architectures
Eastarejustas historicalas thoseof the West."'24
Yetwhat
seemsto be the mostobviouslyproperstatementfroma historianunexpectedlyviolatesthe hiddenambivalenceof
Fletcher'spremises.In revisingthe book,Cordingleycompletelyrewrotethe introductionto the secondpartand
turnedit intoa briefhistoricalaccountof the geographyof
Easternstyles.All referencesto the grotesque,to the excesto impropriety,
to the unaccussivenessof ornamentation,
of unpleasingand
tomedEuropeans,andthe qualifications
bizarreareerased.I wouldarguethatin tryingto eliminate
Fletcher'sseeminglynegativequalificationsforthe East,
Cordingleyerasedall tracesof potentiallycriticalopenings
in the earlierversion.
The twosucceedingeditionsintroducedfurtherchanges.
In 1975JamesPalmeseliminatedall broadclassifications
andprovideda straightrunof fortychapters.2 Following
the firstchapteron Egyptianarchitecture,eightchapters
sections.The "pure"continuity
coverall the non-Western
of Western styles from ancient Greece to the twentieth
century is preserved.Non-Western sections are almost rel-

status.Yetthis is not the resultof a

egateda "pre-Western"
to
the
outline,since, forexample,the
chronologicallogic
sectionon IndiaandPakistanstretchesto the eighteenth
12

This content downloaded from 189.217.158.42 on Sat, 6 Dec 2014 23:33:13 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

NalbantoIlu

century. Palmes gives no explanationsfor his changes however, and the formatwas again changed in 1984, when John
Musgrove published the nineteenth edition of the book.26
Musgrove'ssections are strictlychronological. Three of the
seven partscover non-Westernarchitectures:partsthree,
four, and seven, entitled, respectively,"The Architectureof
Islam and Early Russia,""The Architectureof the Pre-Colonial Cultures outside Europe,"and "The Architectureof
the Colonial and Post-Colonial Periods outside Europe."2
For the firsttime, "The Architectureof the Twentieth
Century"coversAfrica, China, Japan,and South and
South-EastAsia together with Western Europe.
Both Palmes'sand Musgrove'srevisionsof A Historyof Architectureconsolidate Cordingley'sresponseto Fletcher's
classification.28 All attemptsto rename Fletcher'shistorical/
nonhistoricalcategoriesin the later editions of his book are
attemptsto overcome a fundamentaldifficultythat Fletcher
had discoveredand had quickly covered over. The seemingly innocent categoriesof West/East(geographical)and
precolonial/postcolonial(chronological)do not disclose the
ambiguitiesinherent in the loaded terms historicaland
nonhistorical.Cordingley, Palmes, and Musgrovenormalize
what Fletcher had found problematicbut had failed to
problematize.Their premisesare based on cultural diversity
ratherthan cultural difference. Cultural diversity,according
to Homi Bhabha, is a categoryof comparativeethics and aesthetics that emphasizes liberal notions of multiculturalism
and cultural exchange. Cultural difference, on the other
hand, "focuseson the problem of the ambivalence of cultural authority:the attemptto dominate in the name of a
culturalsupremacywhich is itself produced only in the
moment of differentiation."29
Cordingley, Palmes, and
consolidate
Fletcher's
framework,which, to be
Musgrove
sure, is also predominantlybased on cultural diversitybut
offersmomentarypossibilitiesto think cultural difference.
The underlyingpremise in all four versionsof the text is that

cultures can be aligned on the same plane of reference;

comparedand contrastedby the tools of the historian.This
multiculturalistapproachcomes from well-intentionedpositions againstprejudice and stereotype.It coversover, however, issues of incommensurabledifferenceand problemsof
representationthat prevailat everyculturalencounter.
Fletcher'stext is multilayeredand complex.At firstsight, it
displaysarrogantcolonialismby naming non-Westernarchitecturalcultures"nonhistorical."
This is the level by which his
successorsengage with Fletcher,to correcthis prejudiced
approach.At anotherlevel, by including non-Western
architecturesin his "comparativeapproach"he adoptsa
multiculturalistperspective,with all its inherentproblems.
This is the level wherehis successorscollaboratewith him.
They expandon Fletcher'stextand makeadditionsbasedon
latestarchaeologicaland historicalfindings,but do not challenge his comparativeframework.I arguethatthere remains
anotherwayof engagingwith Fletcher'stext, capturingthe
briefmoment that makesit possibleto thinkcultural/architecturaldifference.Fletcheroffersthis moment when he displays
his unease with his own approach;when he showsboth fascinationand disdainfor the nonhistoricalstyles;when he speaks
ambivalentlyof the excess,the grotesque,the bizarre.The first
and second historiographicalinstances,of arrogantdenial and
tamedequality,violatedifference:the firstin a blatantlyobvious way;the second with the best liberalintentions.The complicity betweenthese two seeminglyverydifferentapproaches
cannot be overlooked,however.This is made strikinglyobvious in the librarycopy of Fletcher'ssixteenthedition that I
have been workingon, not by Fletcher,but by an imprudent
previousreader.As a markof apparentimpatiencewith the derogatoryimplicationsof the term "nonhistoricalstyles,"a blue
markhas crossedout the term "non"fromthe title of the second section - a crude replication,one mightsay,of what
Cordingleyand his successorshad done in a scholarlymanner. But here violence takesa furtherstep. I was astonishedto
13

This content downloaded from 189.217.158.42 on Sat, 6 Dec 2014 23:33:13 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

assemblage 35

,..

??

; ,
"...
+,

..0.

~4

..

wa _

.....~..C_.o.

.-..
.b.a..

;... . . . . ..
. . , .

....

........r.,,..,,
1-' ', .. ....

,~'r
............

....?,

?..

? 1LC?
I?.
,, 6,0\

...,.,,ljE
. .,,ll
.elllowd

....

t. .-

.,

I.. ....
.

1b.4

1.-1
's..

4 .0%

\otil]I"

., I.,,

.,.

...,,,,+

~ ~ ~ ~~I~~~1??
~
I Iahha ho
lit* Aw
of
.ll~
~ =14
?II~
11 .J()?Il

..~C
,
,.
I'.... .... ,ts?,

~?r ~~~?,?sboo

4.

~~

1?
,

.
I

... .

"."ln--4I
..
aAwl.

,?

4 11o,- . -1. -- ,
1:
1...

.a

., .'.'..,' , ',','.:
?
.
?

&& I

-0.r

1,..a

ii ,.i?

Ii ?c

rl,
- ?.,I

"
.."

L
)rlll,

?w

,IL

4 tIt&%*
.?.Mn. I*h

meon"

dT.

ld Op
d
I1
,l

IoI

Q."
my

llwl
lweihmof

Ilkrr
UpWell(M

IL

bp

IWN

It

rl

ul

uly

,,

mum
f i1ad al

l HI

IlI

(M

a tw

:eq tLl)M

4w

I(??

II
t,41

Bodo*

K
I&SOi

* o.

3. Anonymous reader's marks

on thefacingpage,on top
see thesamebluemarkappearing
to
of the mapof India,thistimecrossingouttheword"Tibet"
of a
The pagestaresat me asa marker
replaceit with"China."
of
inclusions
and
exclusions,
representacontinuingquestion
of
tionandnaming.Italsoremindsme of the importance
to
interioris
show
the
that
the
not
Derrida's
problem
proposal
butrather"to
ityof whathadbeenbelievedasthe exterior,
of
of
as
constitutive
the
speculateupon power exteriority
interiority."3

ofcountries
andofclearAnencounter
Anopeningofopenness.
ingslayingoutanother,others,whichcreateair,light,time.
Thereis always
moreplace,moreplaces,unlesstheyareimmediatelyappropriated.
Irigaray,Elemental Passions"3

As the titleof my articlesuggests,andas I haveimplied

throughoutmy analysis,a certainreadingof Fletcher'stext
surfacesstrategiesto postcolonialdiscourseby wayof recof containingthe otherin one's
ognizingthe impossibility
owntermsof reference.Fletchergesturestowarda discoursethatinvolvesthe stagingof his positionalityand
thatmarksdiscontinuitiesamongknowledges.He gestures
towardquestionsaboutthe validityof takingWesternhistoryas the necessarynormandthe measureof architecturaljudgment.I wantto emphasize,however,thatmy
readingof Fletcherhasbeen intentionallypartial.I have
onlylookedat one aspectof the workthat,I think,has
in architeccriticalsignificancein culturalrepresentations
ture.I havenot, forexample,dealtwithFletcher'spremisesbasedon assumptionsof an autonomous,formal,
linear,andprogressive
historyof Westernarchitecture.
Then again,my analysisis basedon a particularreadingof
not as an a prioriandself-evident
the term"architecture,"
but
as
a
signification.32Onlythen could I begin
category
to questionthe underlyingclaimsthathavesupported
architecture's
autonomy- itspresumed
self-proclaimed
"inside."Fletcher'ssurveydoesnot, in anyway,provide
treatmentof
the paradigmforWesternhistoriography's
No workcan takeon such a
non-Western
architectures.
charge.It does,however,containa numberof threadsthat
can be productively
wovenintolargerissuesthataddress
Letme retracethesepointswithreference
postcoloniality.
to Fletcherandfroma broaderperspective.
of
Atone level,Fletcher'stextcontainstracesof awareness
methoditsowntextuality.
It showsthatonlya particular
can
textual
of
a
framework, contain
ologicalrigor thought,
butonlyat a
his versionof a historyof worldarchitecture;
is a representaviolence.Thisframework
costof interpretive
all referenceandmeaningin
tionaltoolthatconsolidates
Westernhistoriogone's(in thiscase,nineteenth-century
ownterms;it refusesto recognizethe irreducibility
raphy's)
14

This content downloaded from 189.217.158.42 on Sat, 6 Dec 2014 23:33:13 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Nalbantolu

of the other to the termsof the self. Cordingley,Palmes, and

Musgrovedo exactlythis by erasingall tracesof ambivalence
from the earliertext. They subject an entire worldhistoryof
architectureinto a singularmachinerythat eventuallyreduces all differenceto chronologyand geography.In his
analysisof non-Westernarchitectures,Fletcher introduces
his readersto such termsas nonhistoricaland grotesque,
which disturbthe logos of his text. He exposeswhat exceeds
and cannot be contained by his framework.He uses terms
that are impossibleto assimilatein his logic but that are necessaryfor it to function. Non-Westernarchitecturesexertan
unsettlingforce on the apparentclaims and concerns of
Fletcher'senterprise.In doing so, they enable him to surface
enjoyment and desire;elements customarilysuppressedby
disciplinaryregulationsand control. Furthermore,Fletcher
declareshis subject position - as a Weststraightforwardly
erner and as a scholar - in naming non-Westernarchitecturalcultures.Awarenessis a necessarybut not sufficient
condition of critique, however.As GayatriSpivakargues,"if
you make it your tasknot only to learn what is going on there
[outsidethe Westerncenters] throughlanguage, throughspecific programsof study,but also at the same time througha
historicalcritique of your position as the investigatingperson,
then you will see thatyou have earned the rightto criticize,
and you will be heard.""The question here is not, who is
entitled to write about what?The issue of culturalrepresentation cannot simply be reduced to that of Westernor nonWesternscholarswritingtheir own history.Ethical positions
of enunciation are irreducibleto nationality,ethnicity, or
race. Yet representingothers,speakingin the name of others,
is a problem,and as Spivakremindsus, "it has to be kept
alive as a problem."14What I find interestingin Fletcher is
that he "pointsto" the problem in explicit ways.
Lastly,on categorization:Is it at all possible to speak of the
non-West as a categoryas opposed to the West? Is it possible to speak of a postcolonial experience, approach,

theory?And, then again, is it possible to speak of an inside

and an outside to architecture?Or do these categories consist of historicallyconstituted relationalterms made in and
through language? My reading of the storyof Fletcher's
book attemptsto understandhow the categoryof the nonWest is produced and restrainedby a particularthread in
Western historiography.The same categoryoperates in very
differentways in other historiographicalapproachesor, say,
regionalistdiscourses. Similarly,the (post)colonial experiences of Africa,Asia, and South and Central America have
not held the same position in relation to any given center.35
And architecturehas not had a clearly demarcatedinside
and outside. I am not making the impossible suggestion of
simply ignoring these categoriesand binaryconstructs.The
boundaries that demarcate them, however, "aremuch
more porous and less fixed and rigid than is commonly understood,and one side of the border is alwaysalreadyinfected by the other. Binarized categoriesoffer possibilities
of reconnections and realignment in differentsystems."''6
The task,then, is to workwith these possibilities toward
those positive moments that disruptthe categorical boundaries imposed on other cultures, to listen and attend to
what is silenced by and expelled from them.
Working through variouseditions of A Historyof Architecture, my premise has been that writing postcoloniality in
architecturedoes not merely entail an engagement with
previouslycolonized cultures; it is but one of the many
practices that make it possible to engage with the boundaries that guard architecture'scultural and disciplinarypresuppositions;boundariesthat remain intact through certain
exclusionarypractices that remain unquestioned once the
institutional structureof the discipline is established.Writing postcoloniality in architecturequestions architecture's
intolerance to difference, to the unthought, to its outside.
For it embraces the premise that "when the other speaks, it
is in other terms."'

15

This content downloaded from 189.217.158.42 on Sat, 6 Dec 2014 23:33:13 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

assemblage 35

Notes
I would like to thank Mirjana
Lozanovska,KarenBurns, and
Stephen Cairns for their inspiring
comments during the final stages of
my work on this article. An earlier
and slightly differentversion of the
article appeared in the Journalof
Southeast Asian Architecture1 (September 1996): 3-11. The argument
here was presented at the Society of
ArchitecturalHistorian'smeeting in
Baltimore, 16-20 April 1997, in the
session entitled "Confrontingthe
Canon," chaired by RobertaM.
Moudry and Christian F. Otto.
1. Luce Irigaray,Elemental Passions, trans.Joanne Collie and
Judith Still (London: Athlone Press,
1992), 47.
2. Dan Cruickshank,ed., Sir Banister Fletcher'sA Historyof Architecture (Oxford:ArchitecturalPress,
1996), xxiii.
3. The discipline of architectural
historyseems to have remained
ambivalent about the status of
Fletcher's history. In 1970, for example, Bruce Allshop was highly
critical of the book's methodology
and declared that it "reflectsthe
decline of architecturalhistorical
thinking." In 1980 David Watkin,
who apparentlymerited the book on
its "antiquarian"value, wrote that
"probablyit is in the end unfair to
cavil at a book which generations
of architecturalstudents have
evidently found so helpful," and
credited its importance in "the recognition of the study of the history
of architecture as an essential part
of a liberal education." See Bruce
Allshop, The Study of Architectural
History(London: Studio Vista,
1970), 67, and David Watkin, The
Rise of ArchitecturalHistory (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1980), 87.

4. See KarenBurns, "Architecture:That Dangerous Useless

Supplement," in the proceedings
of the conference Accessory/
Architecture,held in Auckland,
New Zealand, July 1995, 49-56.
Elizabeth Grosz, following the
Deleuzian notion of the outside as
the unthought, questions whether
it is possible for architectureto ask
what is differentfrom and beyond
it; see "Architecturefrom the Outside," in Space, Time, and Perversion: Essayson the Politics of
Bodies (New York:Routledge,
1995), 125-37. See also Judith
Butler, GenderTrouble(New
York:Routledge, 1990), 128-41,
where she addressesthe instability
of the inner/outerbinaryin the
constructionof sexed identities.
5. Burns,"Architecture:That Dan-=
gerots Useless Supplement,"54.
6. Stephen Cairns, "Resurfacing:
Architecture, Wayang, and the
JavaneseHouse," in Postcolonial
Space(s), ed. GfilsuimBaydar
Nalbantoglu and Wong Chong
Thai (New York:Princeton Architectural Press, 1997), 73-88.
7. Irigaray,Elemental Passions, 9.
8. Sir Banister Fletcher, A History
of Architectureon the Comparative Method for the Student
Craftsman,and Amateur, 16th ed.
(London: B. T. BatsfordLtd.,
1954), 888. Henceforth, all quotations from Fletcher will be taken
from this edition.
9. Jacques Derrida, Of
Grammatology,trans.Gayatri
ChakravortySpivak (London:
Johns Hopkins UniversityPress,
1976), 145.
10. Fletcher, A Historyof Architecture,888 (emphases mine).
11. Fletcher uses the term "grotesque"sometimes in a strictlyart-

historical sense, referringto the kind

of classical ornament that consists of
medallions, sphinxes, foliage, and
the like. At other times, he revertsto
its nontechnical use, implying incongruity,strangeness,preposterousness, and irrationality.Here I am
interested in the latter instances.
12. Fletcher, A Historyof Architecture, 961 (emphases mine).
13. Ibid., 893.
14. Ibid. (emphasis mine).
15. Slavoj Zizek, "Symptom,"in
Feminism and Psychoanalysis:A
Critical Dictionary, ed. Elizabeth
Wright (Oxford:Basil Blackwell,
1992), 426. Ray Chow, too, uses
this explanation in terms of the relation between the native and the
white man, but not in terms of enjoyment and desire; see Writing
Diaspora: Tactics of Interventionin
ContemporaryStudies (Bloomington: Indiana University Press,
1993), 30-31.
16. The structure/ornamentdistinction in Western architectural
discourse has been studied by a
number of contemporarytheorists.
MarkWigley, for example, discusses
Alberti'sdescription of a building
skin made up of coats of plaster,
which cover the building elements.
Wigley argues that this white skin
maintains a visible line between
structureand decoration. His focus
is on the production of gender in architectural texts:"The feminine materialityof the building is given a
masculine orderand then masked
off by a white skin. ... The white
surface both produces gender and
masksthe scene of that production,
literally subordinatingthe feminine
by drawinga line, placing the ornament just as the walls place the possessions in the house. The ornament
becomes a possession of the structure, subject to its order"("Untitled:

16

This content downloaded from 189.217.158.42 on Sat, 6 Dec 2014 23:33:13 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

The Housing of Gender," in

Sexuality and Space, ed. Beatriz
Colomina [New York:Princeton
ArchitecturalPress, 1992], 354).
17. Mikhail Bakhtin, Rabelais
and His World,trans. Helene
Iswolsky(Bloomington: Indiana
University Press, 1984), 303-67.
18. Ibid., 317.
19. Wigley, "Untitled," 353.
20. Fletcher, A Historyof Architecture, 888 (emphases mine).
21. This point has been brought
to my attention by Mirjana
Lozanovska.
22. In a different context, Ray
Chow writes about "a mode of
understanding the native in
which the native's existence i.e., an existence before becoming 'native' - precedes the arrival of the colonizer." She
argues that, feeling "looked at" by
the native'sgaze, the colonizer
becomes "conscious"of himself,
which produces him as subject
and the native as image. See
Chow, WritingDiaspora, 51.
23. Irigaray,Elemental Passions,

25.
24. R. A. Cordingley, ed., preface
to A Historyof Architectureon the
ComparativeMethod [by Sir Banister Fletcher], 17th ed. (London:
Athlone Press, 1961), ix.
25. James C. Palmes, ed., A Historyof Architecture[by Sir Banister Fletcher], 18th ed. (London:
Athlone Press, 1975).
26. John Musgrove, ed., Sir
BanisterFletcher'sHistoryof Architecture, 19th ed. (London:
Butterworths,1987).
27. Musgrove'suse of the term
"post-colonial"is strictlyhistorical and does not theorize the

NalbantoIlu

(post)colonial architecture of the

non-Western world. In the related
chapter, it refersspecifically to
Latin America after Spanish and
Portuguese rule.
28. At some level, all three authors'
changes to Fletcher's text can be
related to the post-1950s historiographical commitments of relating
architecture to largersocietal phenomena; reactions against the exclusion of anonymous urban and
ruralenvironments from architectural history;and the emerging
disappointment with modern Western architecture. As Dell Upton
has informed me, for example,
Cordingley was a leading figure in
studies on English vernaculararchitecture. The analysis of the precise
nature of these links falls beyond
the scope of the present essay.
29. Homi Bhabha, "The Commitment to Theory," in The Location of
Culture (London: Routledge, 1994),
34.
30. Derrida, Of Grammatology,
313.
31. Irigaray,Elemental Passions, 59.
32. Again, see Burns, "Architecture:
Useless SuppleThat Dan"gertous
ment."

nations, stating that "the concept

of the 'post-colonial' must be interrogatedand contextualized
historically, geopolitically, and
culturally.... Flexible yet critical
usage which can addressthe politics of location is importantnot
only for pointing out historicaland
geographicalcontradictionsand
differencesbut also for reaffirming
historicaland geographicallinks,
structuralanalogies, and openings
for agency and resistance."I find
much of her criticismvery pertinent to architecturalstudies.
36. Elizabeth Grosz, "Architecture from the Outside," in Anyplace, ed. Cynthia C. Davidson
(Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT
Press, 1995), 19.
37. Jennifer Bloomer, "D'or,"in
Sexuality and Space, 168.

Figure Credits
1-3. Sir Banister Fletcher, A Historyof Architectureon the Comparative Method for the Student
Craftsman,and Amateur, 16th ed.
(London: B. T. BatsfordLtd.,
1954).

33. GayatriChakravortySpivak,
"Questions of Multi-culturalism,"
interview with Sneja Gunev, in The
Post-Colonial Critic, ed. Sarah
Harasym(New York:Routledge,
1990), 62.
34. Ibid., 63.
35. Some of the problems with the
use of "postcolonial"are addressed
in Ella Shohat, "Notes on the PostColonial," Social Text 10 (1992):
99-113. Shohat questions the
ahistorical and universalizing
deployments of the term and its
problematic spatiotemporaldesig-

17

This content downloaded from 189.217.158.42 on Sat, 6 Dec 2014 23:33:13 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions