A következő címkéjű bejegyzések mutatása: modernizmus. Összes bejegyzés megjelenítése
A következő címkéjű bejegyzések mutatása: modernizmus. Összes bejegyzés megjelenítése

2013. január 13., vasárnap

Second World Urbanity: Between Capitalist and Communist Utopias


Call for Papers
June 21-23, 2013
Location: The Centre for the History and Culture of East Central Europe, Leipzig, Germany


In 1967 the architecture critic Ada Louise Huxtable published a long piece in the New York Times on Soviet advances in urban planning and construction. Surprisingly for the Cold War era, the author openly praised the Soviets for creating a country-wide system of mass production of standardised prefabricated cheap housing, ‘an architectural sputnik’ in her own words. She claimed with great enthusiasm, ‘In size, scope and boldness, in spite of crudities, failure and sometimes ludicrous imperfections it is a singularly important undertaking of the 20th century.’ Moreover, she noted, ‘the latest product is acceptable as architecture.’ Describing new residential neighborhoods mushrooming all across the Soviet Union, she wrote: ‘There is no scale, no variety, no surprise. It is monotony with light, air, sun, and greenery in season, and on sum, that effect is no worse and sometimes a good deal better than a lot of construction on the outskirts of large American cities.’ Admitting all the flaws of current Soviet construction she urged her readers to pay closer attention to this ‘special brand of modern architecture [that] is reshaping the Soviet World.’

Second World Urbanity: Between Capitalist and Communist Utopias seeks to investigate the history of the radical reshaping of the Soviet World (in our words – the Second World), that Ada Louise Huxtable reported on in the late 1960s. This project aims to bring together scholarly contributions on the various endeavors in the Second World to conceive, build, and inhabit a socialist cityscape that was an alternative to the segregated spaces of capitalist cities and the atomized world of suburbia. Imagining and designing urban space were undeniably powerful instruments of forging socialist modernity. Second World Urbanity pays close attention to the tensions between global challenges and locally driven agendas that made architects, planners, and ordinary dwellers alter socialist modernity according to more particular interests. What were the visions and meanings that architects and urban planners sought to communicate through their work? What pre-existing styles did they draw on, reject, and appropriate, and was there a Second World postmodernism? To what degree was the socialist cityscape a product of negotiation between its dwellers and its designers? Where did other local players–such as major industries and local party bosses–fit in such negotiations over the design and construction of the socialist city?

As a venue for opening a conversation about the new approaches to urbanity and planning, this project goes beyond the geographic boundaries of the Eastern Bloc and seeks transnational, comparative, and global approaches to the study of the socialist city. We propose to think of socialist urban planning from Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union to China and Cuba as a distinct and multifaceted division of global urban planning trends. Just as the geographic scope is broad so, too, is our chronological reach, which will span the early post-World War II period through the collapse of state socialism and beyond to the present day. Was there a common denominator to the variety of projects and planning efforts implemented from Cuba to China, from the Urals to Belgrade? Was it socialist in form and national in content as the common formula of Socialist Realism suggested? Or was it modern in form and undefined in content, to paraphrase the formula Kevin Plath and Benjamin Nathans recently coined for describing the nature of late-Soviet culture? In exploring such questions, what do we – urban historians and historians of architecture – have new to say on the history of the Second World? What are the new research questions that our subfield has generated in recent years?

The present stage in our project is a conference that will be hosted at the The Center for the History and Culture of East Central Europe, in Leipzig, Germany, June 21-23, 2013. Paper proposals are solicited for this conference and an edited volume of selected papers on a wide range of topics from (but not limited to) the history of professional networks and institutional organization, monumental projects, mass housing schemes, transfers of technologies and styles, the organization of public and private spaces, the political engagement of urban planning professionals, the treatment of gender, ethnic, and class differences in the socialist cityscape, the role of the state, the ideological premises of urban schemes and visionary projects, everyday life, urban residents’ (mis)uses of planned urban spaces. Papers from all disciplines in the social sciences and humanities will be considered.
Critical information:

Please send paper proposals (a 300-500 word abstract and a 1-page cv) to swurbanity[at]gmail[dot]com by February 1, 2013. Paper proposals will be reviewed by the project’s organizers and program committee. We will announce the papers that have been accepted on March 1, 2013.

If your paper is accepted for the conference, the deadline for submitting your paper will be May 20, 2013. Papers should be no longer than 5,000 words including footnotes or endnotes. Papers will be distributed to conference participants ahead of the conference via our project’s blog.

The project is presently soliciting funds to cover some of the transportation and/or housing costs of participants. We will know whether such funds are available only in Spring 2013. Therefore, interested participants should plan for covering costs through their home institutions. The conference will not have a conference fee.

Program committee: Andres Kurg, Brigitte Le Normand, Daria Bocharnikova, Kimberly Elman Zarecor, Marie Alice L’Heureux, Steven Harris, Vladimir Kulic


2012. október 4., csütörtök

A 2010-es Haiti földrengés kritikai geográfus szemmel

Találtam egy városföldrajzzal foglalkozó kutatót, Kurt Iveson-t az ausztráliai Sydney Egyetemről, aki a 2010 január 12-én bekövetkezett, katasztrofális hatású Haiti-i földrengés oktatásához gyűjtött anyagokat. Elsősorban kritikai geográfusként szeretne ezekről beszélni, és szerintem egy igen hasznos kis gyűjteményt hozott össze egy meglehetősen fontos és baromi érdekes témáról. Érdemes lenne vele foglalkozni!

Nekem elsősorban a Mulling - Werner - Peake cikk tetszik, mert a rasszizmus és a humanitáriusság összefonódását elemzi. Ez egyébként egy régóta népszerű szempont a posztkolonialista megközelítéseknél, amely azt elemzi, hogy a média a helyi népesség erőtlenségének, a "feketék" nyomorgó helyzetének (önerőből való cselekvésre képtelenség), deviáns és bűnöző habitusának (a katasztrófa veszélyeit növelő, a katonai megszállást sürgető tényező) reprezentációit keringteti, egyszóval egy olyan diskurzust alakítanak ki, amely a modernizációs, fejlesztéselvű, humanitárius beavatkozást, és ezáltal végső soron a terület igazgatásának, logisztikai megszervezésének teljes átvételét legitimálja a nagyhatalmak, így az USA számára. Egyfajta "rasszista humanitáriusság" alakul ki, amely végső soron a helyiek hatalmának és tulajdonaiknak megfosztásához vezet. A beruházók között komoly versengés alakul ki a lokális irányítás megszerzésére és az újjáépítések lebonyolítására, tehát a tőkeberuházások és a felhalmozás érdekében egy olyan kapitalista terjeszkedés bontakozik ki, amely éppen az efféle katasztrófák okozta zavarodottságot használja ki. Ám nemcsak az anyagi bevételek motivációja számít, hanem annak a politikai és gazdasági hatalomnak a kiterjesztése is, amely a nyugati civilizáció normáit fenyegető "szegény", "fekete" testek létrehozása révén a helyiek emberi mivoltától való megfosztásán alapul. Na ez biopolitika a javából. Nem arról van szó, hogy a segítségnyújtás szükségességét ássuk alá az efféle kritikával (amely morális kötelesség, és az említett reprezentációk a segítségadás elősegítésének eszközei is egyben), hanem hogy próbáljuk jobban megérteni, kritikus szemmel vizslatni a beavatkozás visszásságait és káros következményeit, amely a háttérben éppen a helyiek önrendelkezésének rovására mehet.


forrás: Tampa Bay Times

Ambraseys, N. and Bilham, R. (2011) “Corruption Kills”, Nature, 469: pp. 153-155

Dobbins, J. (2010) “Skip the Graft”, RAND Corporation, available here

Dupuy, A. (2010) “Beyond the Earthquake: A Wake-Up Call for Haiti”, available here

Farmer, P (2003) The Uses of Haiti, Common Ground Press and (2011) Haiti: After the Earthquake

Hallward, P. (2010) “Haiti 2010: Exploiting Disaster”, available here

Hallward, P. (2010) “Our role in Haiti’s plight”, The Guardian, 13 January, available here

Kennard, M. (2012) “Haiti and the Shock Doctrine”, available here

Klein, N. (2010) “Haiti: A creditor, not a debtor”, available here

Mullings, B. et al (2010) “Fear and Loathing in Haiti: Race and the Politics of Humanitarian Disposession”, ACME: An international E-journal for critical geographies, 9(3): 282-300, available here

Sheller, M. (2012) “The islanding effect: postdisaster mobility systems and humanitarian logistics in Haiti”, in Cultural Geographies, available via on-line first function (access Cultural Geographies via Library catalogue)

Sontag, D. (2012) “Earthquake relief where Haiti wasn’t broken”, New York Times, July 5, available here

World Bank and United Nations (2010) Natural Hazards, Unnatural Disasters, available here

Valamint az alábbi források is igen hasznosak:

Active Learning Network for Accountability and Performance in Humanitarian Action Haiti Learning and Accountability Portal

Centre for Economic and Policy Research Haiti Relief and Reconstruction Watch

UN Development Program Human Development Reports


Valamint a Democracy Now és a The Nation is sokat írt a USA Haiti-politikájáról kiszivárogtatott Wikileaks anyagokról.


2012. március 8., csütörtök

Posztkolonialista bibliográfia

Találtam egy rövid bibliográfiát olyan írásokról, amelyek koloniális kontextusokban kivitelezett, nagyméretű infrastrukturális tervezési és fejlesztési projektekről szólnak (pl. közúti, autópálya és vasúti hálózatok, illetve villanyáram- és vízvezeték-hálózatok). A szakirodalom leginkább olyan történelmi léptékű vizsgálatokat tartalmaznak, amelyek kolonialista technokraták és szellemi atyák nagyszabású vízióit és terveit tárgyalják, és azt, hogy az infrastruktúra-hálózatok fejlesztését hogyan használták fel a helybéli lakosság kisemmizésére.

Brody, D. E. (2001): Building empire: Architecture and American imperialism in the Philippines. Journal of Asian American Studies.

Cardinall, A. W. (1931): The Gold Coast. Accra (Government Printer).

Coleman, Leo Charles (2008): Delhi in the electrical age: Technologies of rule and rites of power in India's capital, 1903–2006. Ph.D. Thesis.

Crinson, M. (2003): Modern Architecture and the End of Empire. Ashgate Publishing Limited.

Debrie, Jean (2010): From colonization to national territories in continental West Africa: the historical geography of a transport infrastructure network. Journal of Transport Geography, 18, 292–300.

Derman, B.; Hellum, B. (2002): Neither tragedy nor enclosure: Are there inherent human rights in water management in Zimbabwe communal lands? European Journal of Development Research, 14 (2), 31–50.

Dickson, K. B. (1965): Evolution of Seaports in Ghana: 1800–1928. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 55 (1) S., 98–111.

Freed, Libbie (2010): Networks of (colonial) power: roads in French Central Africa after World War I. History and Technology.

Henry T A, (2005): Sanitizing empire: Japanese articulations of Korean otherness and the construction of early colonial Seoul, 1905–1919. The Journal of Asian Studies, 64, 639–675.

Herbert, E. (2002): Twilight on the Zambezi: Late colonialism in central Africa. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.

Hilling, David (1969): The Evolution of the Major Ports of West Africa. The Geographical Journal, 135 (3), 365–378.

Hilling, David (1996): Transport and developing countries. London, New York: Routledge.

Hilling, David (1966): Tema – The Geography of a new Port. Geography 51 (2), S. 111–125.

Hines, T. S. (1972): The imperial façade: Daniel H. Burnham and American architectural planning in the Philippines. Pacific Historical Review.

Hoyle, B. S. (1978): African Politics and Port Expansion at Dar es Salaam. Geographical Review, 68 (1) S., 31–50.

Legg, Stephen (2007): Spaces of Colonialism: Delhi's Urban Governmentalities. Blackwell.

Meredith, D. (1975): The British government and colonial economic policy, 1919–1939. The Economic History Review, 28 (3), 484–499.

Moxham, Roy (2001): Great Hedge Of India: The Search For The Living Barrier That Divided A People. Basic Books.

Myers, G. (2006): The unauthorized city: Late colonial Lusaka and postcolonial geography. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, 27, 289–308.

Njoh, A. (2002): Development implications of colonial land and human settlement schemes in Cameroon. Habitat International, 26 (3), 399–415.

Ogundana, Babafemi (1974): Seaport Development – Multi-National Co-Operation in West Africa. The Journal of Modern African Studies, 12(3), 395–407.

Patrick Joyce (2003): The Rule of Freedom: liberalism and the modern city. Verso.

Padfield, R. (2011): Neoliberalism and the polarising water geographies of the Zambian Copperbelt. Waterlines, 30 (2), 150–164.

Pedersen, Poul Ove (2001): The Freight Transport and Logistical System of Ghana. Centre for Development Research, Copenhagen (CDR Working Paper, 01.2).

Sardanis, A. (2003): Africa: Another side of the coin. London: I.B.Tauris.

Swyngedouw, Erik (2007): TechnoNatural Revolutions - the Scalar Politics of Franco's Hydro-Social Dream for Spain 1939–1975. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers.
 
Weizman, Eyal (2007): Hollow land: Israel's architecture of occupation. Verso.