Saturday, February 16, 2013
In what ways did London years transform Gandhi’s ideas and activities?
-->
15 February 2013
Sai
Prateek Narayan
HST300:
Gandhi and Gandhism
Professor
Subho Basu
Essay
1
The then premier and developed city of London was
undeniably a great influence in Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi’s perspective and
attitude on life and living as a whole. But what is often overlooked is the
magnitude of change that the influence of two historic societies inculcated in
Gandhi, which consequentially transformed Gandhi into a personality that
believed the congregation of all of India would lead to one of the most life-changing
events in India’s history.
Even
as a young child, being the son of a Diwan of a princely state in British-ruled
India, Gandhi was very well exposed to various political intrigues. Coming from
a very conservative family with an amalgamation of Vaishnav and Jain traditions
and beliefs, he was introduced to the process of British rule being injected
into Gujarati life. He was swiftly taken in awe of the British civilization,
which according to him was “the largest city on Earth, the capital of the
greatest empire, and the center of power that was transforming India”[1],
a small country in comparision to India, but nevertheless extended its rule to
various parts of the world. It was the time when the British civilization was
one of the most technologically advanced empires at the time, with the
introduction of the telegraph and the up and coming economic boom, and it’s
rapid growth during the Industrial Revolution. He had gone as far as to
identify London as “the land of philosophers and poets, the very center of
civilization”[2]. It was at
this young age that Gandhi attempted to convince his family to place him within
an English medium school, much to his orthodox mother’s dissent. A few years
down the line, once again he beseeched his family to let him travel across the
Arabian Sea to Great Britain and London, where he aimed to take up law as a
career and study for The Bar.
Out
of the several instances that impacted Gandhi’s life, two such occasions were
comparatively crucial – his introduction to The Vegetarian Society, as well as
the Theosophists of London. Coming from a closely-knit community, where
traditions concerning all aspects of life were of the utmost importance,
Gandhi’s mother and several of the other elders in his caste had placed food at
the top of their priorities. Upon hearing that people could not live in the frigid
climates of London without indulging in meat and alcohol[3],
Gandhi’s mother requested that he refrain from those nonessentials. Through the
travel to London and the first weeks there, Gandhi was satisfying his hunger
only the sweets and fruits he brought along. When Gandhi was made aware of the
presence of vegetarian restaurants in the city, he came across Henry Salt’s “A
Plea for Vegetarianism”, it was at that moment that he decided to be a
vegetarian by choice, rather than only to fulfill his mother’s wish.
During
one of his visits to The Central Restaurant, he had heard about the Vegetarian
movement that expressed the vigor and zeal that middle-class Victorians
admired. Led by the London Vegetarian Society, which not only believed in the
precept and practice of vegetarianism, but also attempted to make the public
more aware of the concept and philosophy of vegetarianism through lectures,
discussions and publishing writings in the newspapers, namely one called “The
Vegetarian”[4]. His inclinations to vegetarianism
coerced him to read various writings about the topic, such as those of many
then contemporary figures, such as Tolstoy, Theoreau and Edward Carpenter. Other
renowned individuals such as Morris and Ruskin obligated Gandhi to move towards
simplicity. The Vegetarian provided an appropriate coverage of Gandhi’s
activities in London. It is clear how much the concept and attitude of
vegetarianism was valued by Gandhi, by the endeavors he made later on in South
Africa. He considered the notion of vegetarianism to be favorable for India, as
it provided a more spiritual focus, one where there existed “people who never
depend for their existence on the blood of their fellow creatures”[5].
Perhaps this opinion convinced Gandhi that the idea of vegetarians being “pure”
would be an advantageous method to congregate the varied Indian communities in
their struggle for independence.
The
other society that inculcated in Gandhi the sense of camaraderie that was
fundamental to India’s needs was Theosophical Society of London, more
specifically the words of Annie Besant. The Theosophical Society in London was
deeply indebted to Hinduism and Buddhism, as well as promoted the understanding
of Sanskrit readings as well as Madame Blavatsky’s writings[6].
Madame Blavatstky was a Russian scholar who was contributory to the restoration
of Theravada Buddhism in western societies[7].
It was due to this interest in Hinduism and Sanskrit texts that Gandhi was
compelled to learn about his history and traditions.
It
was in the late 1880s that Annie Besant announced her conversion to theosophy.
She was known for being quite instrumental in several publicized areas of
interest, one of them being a fighter for birth control[8].
It was thus understood that she was well recognized and regarded by the Indian
society in London. Gandhi’s attendance to one of her lectures, entitled “Why I
Became a Theosophist”, she put forward her concept of man, which very clearly
was drawn from Hinduism. She claimed that man was composed of three levels of
spiritual constituents, which was in turn implanted in a body of four levels of
material components, the former three levels being separable from the latter
until the moment the soul departs the human form. She then began to defend
various Hindu beliefs, such as karma and reincarnation. But what caught
Gandhi’s attention the most, was her affirmation that truth was of extreme
importance compared to all else. It was through Annie Besant that Gandhi came
to discern that “while the West was the world’s specialist in material welfare,
the East was to provide the spiritual foundation that the modern science of the
West lacked”[9].
This in turn led Gandhi to understand that India, more than the rest of the
East, was to be the world’s resource in spirituality. Through theosophy, Gandhi
came to understand that a need for a brotherhood that resurfaced from the
recovery of one of the world’s most ancient religious traditions was imminent.
It
is thus critical to understand that of the several instances that changed
Gandhi’s initial way of thinking were meager in comparision to the impact made
by the London Vegetarian Society and Theosophical Society. It was in the
presence of these societies that he realized in the power of congregating a
group of like-minded people to promote a sense of awareness and through such a
cause, create an equally powerful effect on society at large. I believe that it
was through the understandings inculcated in him by these societies that Gandhi
was able to bring together a vast group of compatible Indians and create an
immense effect of the British Empire’s understanding of the Indians.
Endnotes
1.
Arnold, David. Gandhi. Harlow, England: Longman, 2001.
Print.
2.
Hunt, James D, Gandhi in London. New Delhi: Promilla,
1978. Print.
3.
Besant, Annie. Why I Became a Theosophist. London:
Freethought, 1889. Print.
4.
Jacobs, Alan. Gandhi: Radical Wisdom for a Changing World.
London: Watkins Pub., 2012. Print.
[1] Arnold,
David. "A Diwan's Son." Gandhi.
Harlow, England: Longman, 2001. 35. Print.
[2] Arnold,
David. "A Diwan's Son." Gandhi.
Harlow, England: Longman, 2001. 35. Print.
[3] Hunt,
James D.. "1888-1891: The Student Years." Gandhi in London. New Delhi: Promilla, 1978. 20. Print.
[4] Hunt,
James D.. "1888-1891: The Student Years." Gandhi in London. New Delhi: Promilla, 1978. 22. Print.
[5] Hunt,
James D.. "1888-1891: The Student Years." Gandhi in London. New Delhi: Promilla, 1978. 30. Print.
[6] Hunt,
James D.. "1888-1891: The Student Years." Gandhi in London. New Delhi: Promilla, 1978. 31. Print.
[7] Volume I, The
Theosophist, page 89
[8] Hunt,
James D.. "1888-1891: The Student Years." Gandhi in London. New Delhi: Promilla, 1978. 32. Print.
[9] Hunt,
James D.. "1888-1891: The Student Years." Gandhi in London. New Delhi: Promilla, 1978. 34. Print.
Monday, February 27, 2012
The Two-Faced Company that is Coca-Cola
According to Rhea Borja’s article in “Education Week”, entitled “Coca-Cola Plays Both Sides of School Marketing Game”, Borja has accused the massively renowned soft drink brand of indirectly going against its policies. It put an end to the various commercials and advertisements focused on their younger audiences, but instead created Swerve, an artificially flavored milk-based drink, available in most schools.
Borja also claims that these seemingly conflicting actions of Coca-Cola are nothing but acts to stay on the good side of the parents and educators of the younger generations. By participating in this “corporate philanthropy”, the pioneer of the soft drink industry has been successful in marketing their drinks under different subsidiaries, Minute Maid being the most popular among them. Professor Deron Boyles, a professor at Georgia State University, stated the charades to be “the most egregious form of doublespeak you’ve ever heard in your life”. Coca-Cola, by performing several double entendres to the masses, convince the customers into purchasing their various chemically filtered beverages, thereby filling their systems with unwanted chemicals and other such harmful ingredients.
Fortunately, some states, such as California and Arkansas have seen the reasons behind Coca-Cola’s constantly increasing profits, and have passed statutes to regulate foods and drinks in high school vending machines. Ever since 2003, over 20 states have followed in their footsteps and banned soda and candy sales in schools. Coca-Cola spokeswoman Kari Bjorhus, in retaliation, claims that the one and only intention of the company is to let parents know about the other beverages they have to offer, and not just the excessively sweet and carbonated soda they are known for. In fact, Swerve was introduced to schools to give students a healthier choice to Coca-Cola. Authorities against the company argue that these claims are “PR hogwash”.
No matter which side actually is considered the right one, Borja is upset that the public schools that once accepted the famously infamous soda in their domain, are now transformed into battle grounds where corporations fight for private profits, which lead to the endangerment of the future of this country.
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Building Systems: Final Wall Section Project
So, for the final of our Building Systems class, we were asked to do a detailed wall section of our final project, indicating the different cladding systems, finishes, insulation, load bearing systems, etc. that would, in simple words, make our building stand up. That's mine down there.
The Postwar House: Aesthetics or Affordability?
Subsequent to the end of the saga that was the Second World War, two important figures, John Entenza and Siegfried Giedion produced their unique epilogues regarding the birth of postwar residential architecture. While both Entenza and Giedion claim that creativity and imagination are of utmost concern when it comes to the conception of postwar architecture, Entenza diverts to the economical and affordability factors of postwar residential architecture, whereas Giedion focuses more on the aesthetic qualities of postwar housing and the abolishment of the term “International Style”.
John Entenza, in an ability to provide developers with an understanding as to how modernism is affected by modest means[1], created the “Case Study House Program”[2], which turned out to be one of the most innovative experiments in American residential design. The Case Study House Program involved the designing and building of a series of economically efficient houses by several prominent architects, such as Charles Eames, Eero Saarinen and Richard Neutra. These houses would then be open to the public for educational purposes before being sold. This project was brought up to make use of the best materials to arrive at an economically efficient solution, thereby providing the average American with a house he can afford to live in. Entenza believed that man would express himself in the way he wants to be housed in the future. The one thing that would stop man from achieving this goal would be his resoluteness to stand by the old norms, as he would have not understood the new yet.
Siegfried Giedion on the other hand, claimed that the western world has once again realized that human experience plays an important role throughout one’s day-to-day life. He goes ahead and further declares that the term “International Style” is a complete misnomer, as is the term for any other architectural style[3]. Instead, he generated a new term for postwar housing – The “New Regional Approach”[4], which could be the architecture that suits the environmental factors of the region it is built in. By giving the examples of some apartments and row houses built in Brazil and Cuba, respectively, Giedion tries to imply that the modern architect should not strive to produce an exterior façade that adheres to the traditional buildings in that region. The transformation of postwar housing at that specific time often depended on the development of new production methods and materials, but according to Giedion what was most important was the development of what he claims to be “the new aesthetic”[5]. Being an admirer and greatly inspired by Frank Lloyd Wright’s work, where the architecture adapts itself to the site or the client or even portrays Wright’s innermost ideas, Giedion declares the main focus of his article – “What we need today is Imagination more than anything else”[6].
Although John Entenza and Siegfried Giedion both emphasized that imagination and creativity is what the postwar architect should adhere to the most, their primary concerns took a slightly alternate paths. While Entenza’s main consideration is that postwar housing be economical and affordable for the average American, Giedion believed that the appearance each postwar residence be unique in its own way, and not abide by old traditional customs. Even though Entenza and Gideon’s concerns on the designs of residential architecture greatly differed, they managed to influence numerous upcoming architects in the postwar era.
[1] John Entenza: "The Case Study House Program"." Architectural Theory Volume II. Mallgrave Edition 270-272.
[2] John Entenza: "The Case Study House Program"." Architectural Theory Volume II. Mallgrave Edition 270-272.
[3] Siegfried Giedion: "The State of Contemporary Architecture"." Architectural Theory Volume II. Mallgrave Edition, 304-306.
[4] Siegfried Giedion: "The State of Contemporary Architecture"." Architectural Theory Volume II. Mallgrave Edition, 304-306.
[5] Siegfried Giedion: "The State of Contemporary Architecture"." Architectural Theory Volume II. Mallgrave Edition, 304-306.
[6] Siegfried Giedion: "The State of Contemporary Architecture"." Architectural Theory Volume II. Mallgrave Edition, 304-306.
The Architect of the Future: Battling Real and Virtual Worlds
As the architect finds his way through the 21st century, he should have the ability do combine the thinking and execution of both real and imaginary realms. While Ben Van Berkel, Caroline Bos and Rem Koolhaas all agree on the fact that the “new architect” should have the unique ability of accomplishing several tasks, from both the real and the imaginary, Van Berkel and Bos claim that the future architect should have an unbiased view while playing with ideas in the real and imaginary realms, whereas Koolhaas asserts that the architect should focus on the abstract realm over the physical realm (see Fig. 1).
Ben Van Berkel and Caroline Bos, in an attempt to indicate the responsibilities of the architect as they enter into the 21st century, describe what they believe “the new architect” should do. By “dressing the future, anticipating coming events and holding up a mirror to the world”[1], they demonstrate how the architect should be both a designer and a scientist. While a scientist performs experiments based on facts in the physical world, a designer has to focus on the abstract idea that then blends in with the physical, creating what they claim is the architect’s practice: “a limitless virtual studio”[2]. By blending the imaginary with the real, the architect would be potentially fusing the two worlds providing the administration in “an endless seamless system”[3].
Rem Koolhaas, on the other hand, was impressed by the fact that modernists, like Frank Lloyd Wright, had the aptitude to pull off a sense of perfection, simplicity and completeness in their work. However, he believed in the fact that the architect of the future should focus on contemporary forms, rather than being a modernist. According to Koolhaas, in the past 15 years, the cities that have been created or pictured have “been conceived in a sort of unconscious utopia”[4]that concealed the full abilities of the contemporary architect. Koolhaas remarks that it is impossible to focus on the ideal in the contemporary world of the 21st century, as the incongruity shown by both the architect’s ideas and the complexities of daily life. Rather than portraying the physical and abstract realms, Koolhaas symbolically uses the idea of the form as the real and the void as the imaginary. He states that by voids are “the principle lines of combat”[5] and should be focused on more, over the real and actual, simply because it would be easier to control void rather than controlling form. More so, there are numerous opportunities one can seek and achieve when interacting and designing abstractly using the void. By being a contemporary architect, as Koolhaas says, one must have the ability to work in both physical and virtual domains, but must focus on the virtual more than the physical. Koolhaas himself divulges the fact that he, as time goes by, tries “more and more not to be modern, but to be contemporary”[6].
Although the three visionaries – Van Berkel, Bos and Koolhaas – all emphasized the idea that the “new architect” should balance the dexterity of adapting to both the substantial and intangible, their opinions compelled them to take alternate paths. While Van Berkel and Bos considered that the architect should have an unbiased view of both the real and imaginary, in order to cause a seamless blend of the two, Koolhaas believed that the imaginary would lead the architect into the future, compared to the real. Even though their concerns on the dexterity of the “architect of the future” greatly differed, they managed to pave the way for the up and coming contemporary architects in the future.
[1] Ben Van Berkel and Caroline Bos, “The new concept of the architect”, Architectural Theory V.2., Mallgrave ed., p.581
[2] Berkel and Bos, “concept”, Architectural Theory, 581.
[3] Berkel and Bos, “concept”, Architectural Theory, 581.
[4] Rem Koolhaas,”Toward the Contemporary City”, Design Book Review 17 (Winter 1989): 15
[5] Koolhaas, “City”, Design Book Review, 16
[6] Koolhaas, “City”, Design Book Review, 16
Saturday, October 22, 2011
The Modern City: Monotone or Variety?
There are numerous ways that a city can portray itself through its distinct characteristics. Certain aspects, such as the façade, the program, and the movement of people through the spaces all lead to the shaping of a city’s personality. Adolf Loos and Ernst May embody two extreme outlooks on the spectrum of city representation. While Loos’ main concern is that the city should form a unique architectural style that portrays the true nature of the city, May believes that each residence should be made in a more industrialized setting, promoting the idea of mass production. These polarized views have sprouted different opinions of the portrayal of the modern city.
Adolf Loos dives straight into the discussion by proclaiming, “The Potemkin city of which I wish to speak here is none other than our dear Vienna herself”[1]. The Potemkin City was based on the idea of creating an exterior façade to deceive onlookers to believe that was the true nature of the city. When taking Vienna into consideration, the people were bent on misleading the outsiders to believe that Vienna was a city of aristocrats, and none else. This strengthened Loos’ idea that Vienna was a ‘hollow shell’, where people were more concerned with the ornamentation of the exterior than the working on the inside. This led to Adolf Loos’ venture into linking the private (the interior spaces) and the public (the exterior façade) of the building. In order to address this, Loos suggests that the city should possess a personality; an architectural style that portrays the true principles and ethics of the city and proceeds to create a sense of everlasting pride.
Ernst May, on the other hand, was highly influenced by the success of mass production in the age of industrialization. May believed that it would be extremely inefficient to use the income of the city to create innumerous plans for each residence, not to mention the vast differences in calculations and variety in materials. May claims, that by establishing the idea of a “collective element”[2], the city would grow to be one meant for the people. By implementing the concept of mass production, May surmises that a city should create a uniform style of residence through a similar process. Creating these monotonous residences, in May’s belief, would “quiet down architecture”[3], rather than the chaos of embellishments and the promotion of classes that rose in
Although Adolf Loos and Ernst May both kept the modern city as the object of utmost concern, they had different opinions of how the city should work, in contrast to how it was working at that specific time. While Loos’ main consideration is that the city should form a unique architectural type that reflects on it’s true nature, May believes that each residence should be made in a uniform monotonous method, representing the process of mass production and the idea of economic efficiency. Even though Loos and May’s outlooks on the portrayals of cities greatly differed, they managed to master the application of their ideas into their work.
[1] Mallgrave, Harry Francis. "Adolf Loos, "The Potemkin City"." In Architectural Theory Volume II: An Anthology from 1871-2005. USA: Blackwell Pub., 2006. 98-99.
[2] Mallgrave, Harry Francis. "Ernst May, "Housing Policy of Frankfort on the Main." In Architectural Theory Volume II: An Anthology from 1871-2005. USA: Blackwell Pub., 2006. 224-225.
[3] Mallgrave, Harry Francis. "Ernst May, "Housing Policy of Frankfort on the Main." In Architectural Theory Volume II: An Anthology from 1871-2005. USA: Blackwell Pub., 2006. 224-225.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)