IInnttrroodduuccttoorryy RReemmaarrkkss

Abidin Kusno is Associate Professorand Canada Research Chair in AsianUrbanism and Culture at University ofBritish Columbia (11). Kusno’s work canbe situated within an emerging traditionof writings on colonial and postcolonialarchitecture and urbanism, followingthe path opened by Anthony D. King’sgroundbreaking book, Colonial UrbanDevelopment (1976), as well as hissubsequent and most recentcontributions (22). Behind thePostcolonial, along with other recentpublications from the discipline ofarchitecture, constitutes an emergingscholarship critical of the mainstreamarchitectural historiography (33).

Kusno’s work on colonial andpostcolonial Indonesia addresses broadthemes through specific contemporaryand historical cases and speaks to theIndonesian audience as much as it doesto readers in other places experiencing(problematically) a condition ofpostcoloniality. Turkish readers willfind in his political history ofarchitecture and urbanism in Indonesiaa narrative that engages with both local

politics and transnational powerrelations. Moving in and out specificcontexts and asking broad questions inrelation to colonialism, modernity andnationalism, Kusno’s work onpostcoloniality offers a particular way ofthinking about other places.

Although Turkey’s relation to “colonialhistory” and the“postcolonialcondition” is rather ambiguous, thebody of postcolonial literature offersnew possibilities. Its theorization mightallow Turkish architecture to be placedbeyond the conceptual binaries of“periphery” and “center” and asproduct of a modernity, which is sharedand mutually constituted both by “thewestern” and the “non-western” world.In this sense, there are many parallelsbetween recent critical works in Turkeyon the history of architecture andurbanism and Kusno’s demystificationof the colonizer / colonized binary inthe context of Indonesian cities andother Asian countries (44).

Thus, the following interview can beseen as an attempt to forge a criticaldialogue with other historical contexts.It is structured loosely by issues raised

INTERVIEW vMETU JFA 2006/1

AANN IINNTTEERRVVIIEEWW WWIITTHH AABBIIDDIINN KKUUSSNNOO oonn ““BBeehhiinndd tthhee PPoossttccoolloonniiaall:: AArrcchhiitteeccttuurree,, UUrrbbaann SSppaaccee aanndd PPoolliittiiccaall CCuullttuurreess iinnIInnddoonneessiiaa”” ((RRoouuttlleeddggee,, 22000000)) aanndd ““AAppppeeaarraanncceess ooff MMeemmoorryy:: AArrcchhiitteeccttuurree,, SSppaattiiaallPPoolliittiiccss aanndd tthhee MMaakkiinngg ooff NNeeww TTiimmeess”” ((UUnnppuubblliisshheedd bbooookk mmaannuussccrriipptt))..

ABIDIN KUSNO

BBEEHHIINNDD TTHHEE PPOOSSTTCCOOLLOONNIIAALL::AARRCCHHIITTEECCTTUURREE,, UURRBBAANN SSPPAACCEE AANNDDPPOOLLIITTIICCAALL CCUULLTTUURREESS IINN IINNDDOONNEESSIIAA

(London and New York: Routledge, Taylor&Francis) 2000, xiv+250pp.

ISBN: 0-415-23615-0

11. Realized on electronic mail, 26-28 March; 7April and 14-15 April 2006; I owe specialthanks to Gamze Ege and Sanem Güvenç-Salgýrlý for their suggestions.

22. Anthony D. King, Colonial UrbanDevelopment: Culture, Social Power andEnvironment (1976), Urbanism, Colonialismand the World-Economy: Cultural andSpatial Foundations of the World UrbanSystem (1990), The Bungalow: TheProduction of a Global Culture (1995), Spacesof Global Cultures: Architecture, Urbanism,Identity (2004).

ttoopp rriigghhtt:: Marketing Tradition: The DutchPavilion, Paris 1931; p. 27.

in Kusno’s Behind the Postcolonial anda collection of his current essays whichwill be put together under a volumetentatively entitled, Appearances ofMemory: Architecture, Spatial Politicsand the Making of New Times.”

TTiimmee,, SSppaaccee aanndd HHiissttoorryy:: CCoolloonniiaalliissmmaanndd tthhee PPoossttccoolloonniiaall WWoorrlldd

11.. Dear Abidin Kusno. While your bookBehind the Postcolonial (2000) locatesarchitecture and urbanism within thesocial and political contexts ofIndonesia, I think that it can also be putto use in addressing issues relevant toother places. In it, you raise significanttheoretical questions central to the studyof architecture of urbanism. Yourarguments are rooted in andempowered by postcolonial criticism,but you simultaneously generate adifferent direction for thinking aboutissues around colonial culture andpostcolonial conditions. In order tointroduce the central concern of yourstudy, allow me to start with theconclusion of the book. Here, youconclude by saying that thecontemporary “dialogue with thecolonial past”, either in the form offorgetting or remembering, “hasresulted, among other things, in thereproduction of a form of colonialismitself” (55). In this sense, do you agreewith critics of postcolonial theory whoinsistently argue that “colonialism hasnot been ‘post’-ed anywhere”? (66)

You have underlined a central concernin the book one that deals with thepolitics, history and the representation

of time. The book was completed at theend of Suharto regime (which ruledfrom 1966-1998), in the midst ofatrocities in the major cities of Indonesiaand violence against the pro-Independence East Timor. It couldtherefore be seen as a form of culturalintervention critical of the recent past ofIndonesia. It approaches thepostcolonial Suharto regime as if it werea regime of colonial time whichunderwent a crisis not only in politicsand economy, but also in culture. I usedarchitecture and urbanism to tell suchstory and in my story, I point to thecontinuity between colonial time andthe era after decolonization. On anotherlevel, the book deals with colonial andpostcolonial continuum and shows howthe issues that pre-occupied architectsand planners of the colonial era are alsothose of our own time. Issues such asauthenticity, tradition, identity,modernity, and modernization inarchitecture were as important backthen as they are today in architecturaldebates. These are issues that seem tocut across colonial time and the era ofIndependence.

Whether “colonialism has not been‘post’-ed anywhere” is, I think, less amatter of fact than an intellectualposition that one has to develop formatters of his or her concern. The notionof “postcolonial” (as I used it in mywork) carries two contradictoryconsciousnesses. It indicates anawareness of a radically new era of“decolonization” which offers differentconstraints and opportunities. Yet, thissense of discontinuity on the part ofdecolonized nations is also haunted by aprofound sense of continuity with theircolonial past. The once-colonizedcountries continue to be dealing withhistorically situated forms ofrepresentation (such as architecture andplanning practices) which traverseacross both the past and the present.The standard nationalist historiographyovercome this contradiction by resortingto a dichotomy of colonial past and theera of Independence – the formerrepresents darkness and the laterrepresents light. It is a story of how thesense of victimhood is overcome byheroic recovery in economicdevelopment under the guidance of apatrimonial state. It is thisdevelopmentalist framework that thebook aims to be critical of. Instead of

INTERVIEWvi METU JFA 2006/1

33. The Modernist City: An AnthropologicalCritique of Brasilia (James Holston 1989), ThePolitics of Design in French ColonialUrbanism (Gwendolyn Wright 1991), Formsof Dominance: On the Architecture andUrbanism of the Colonial Enterprise (NezarAl Sayyad 1992), Postcolonial Space(s)(Gülsüm Nalbantoðlu and Wong Chong Thai1997), Urban Forms and ColonialConfrontations : Algiers under French Rule(Zeynep Çelik 1997), Postcolonial Urbanism:Southeast Asian Cities and Global Processes(Ryan Bishop, John Phillips and Wei Wei Yeo2003), Indigenous Modernities: NegotiatingArchitecture, Urbanism and Colonialism(Jyoti Hosagrahar 2005), Writing Spaces:Discourses of Architecture, Urbanism, andthe Built Environment, 1960-2000 (GreigCrysler 2005).

44. Modernism and Nation Building: TurkishArchitectural Culture in the Early Republic(Sibel Bozdoðan 2001), Modernin Saati: 20.Yüzyýlda Modernleþme ve DemokratikleþmePratiðinde Mimarlar, Kamusal Mekan veKonut Mimarlýðý (Ali Cengizkan 2002),Mübadele Konut ve Yerleþimleri (AliCengizkan 2004), Ýstanbul 1900-2000, Konutuve Modernleþmeyi Metropolden Okumak(Uður Tanyeli 2004).

55. Kusno (2000) Behind the Postcolonial:Architecture, Urban Space and PoliticalCultures in Indonesia, Routledge, Londonand New York; 212.

66. Ama Ata Aidoo, quoted in Andermahr,Sonya, Terry Lovell, and Carol Wolkowitz(1997) A Concise Glossary of FeministTheory, Arnold; London, New York; 168.

77. Kusno, “Introduction.”, in Appearances ofMemory: Architecture, Spatial Politics andthe Making of New Times (Unpublishedbook manuscript).

‘Colonial Replica: The Institute ofTechnology at Baudung (ITB)’, p. 82

showing the discontinuity of the pastand the present, I try to show theirconnection, or better, the presentdialogue with the colonial past whichwould lead us to the politics of memory,forgetting and invention.

22.. In Appearances of Memory you seekto problematize the relationshipbetween memory and buildings in thepostcolonial world without “taking thecolonial past as the point of departure.”Otherwise, as you have pointed out, weare likely to “repeat the Eurocentricnarrative that denies the spatial andtemporal simultaneity between thecolonizer and the colonized in theirmutually constitutive attempts to makesense of modernity” (77). If what isdefined as “postcolonial” could be seenas another form of the “colonial”, towhat extent has postcolonial theorybeen useful in developing the tools of“decolonization”? Some have arguedthat this process requires thedismantling of the “western(imperialist) forms of knowledge”transmitted through institutions such asgeography, which evolved “as awestern-colonial science” (88).

The legacy of colonialism continues invarious forms including the mostexplicit one, namely war and occupationtoday under various names. In thiscontext it is important for academicdisciplines (including architecture) tohave a sense of geo-history and geo-political economy of culture and to besensitive to the ways in whichknowledge could contribute to theexercise of power as well as a sense ofinjustices. We won’t be able toimmediately assess how oppressive,say, colonial spatial segregation basedon race had been, but that form ofknowledge would make us aware ofhow a discipline such as urban designcan become part of colonial practices. To“decolonize” forms of knowledge is toacknowledge, expose and thus sensitizethe connection between knowledge andcolonialism. On the other hand,“decolonizing” knowledge could also beproblematic. Quite often, it aspires for atranscendental, if not purified,uncolonized knowledge, a positionwhich often opens up even moreopportunity for “colonialism” to step in.I would rather suggest somethingmodest, that we recognize the legaciesand presences of colonialism as a basis

for thinking about decolonization. Thisrecognition will pose a limit to theimperial nature of knowledge.

Appearances of Memory thus could beseen as an effort to look at the“postcolonial” not only in terms of itstemporal coordinate (as has normallybeen used), but in terms of the changein space and how the transformation ofspatial and built environment helpshape new social and politicalconsciousness. It is in this sense then the“postcolonial” could be seen as anotherform of the “colonial” and similarly,during the colonial era, there arevarious politics of spatial control anddifferent attempts to achieve liberation.

33.. Do you think, out of your studies onpostcolonial architecture and urbanismthat it will ever be possible for bothscholars and people in postcolonialstates to “recognize colonialism withoutcolonizing [their] own imagination”? (99)

I think one way to “recognizecolonialism without colonizing our ownimagination” is to consider coloniallegacy as a “gift.” In a way, Behind thePostcolonial tries to make use of thatgift by repackaging it for the culturalintervention of the present. In a moregeneral sense, “recognizing colonialismwithout colonizing our imagination”would entail an incorporation ofhistorical and contemporary colonialismas contexts for thinking aboutarchitecture and urbanism. If, as anattempt to decolonize knowledge, weonly write about our own spacemobilizing only things considered as“local” and “authentic,” then we wouldend up repeating, not only themetaphysic of binarism, but also whatEdward Said used to call“compartmental view” of history andculture.

44.. In the second chapter of Appearancesof Memory, you talk about thereappearance of “modernist Art-Deco”in contemporary Indonesia, which wasone of the dominant colonial styles inthe 1930s. In your account, Budi Limpresented modernist vocabulary as apossible route to define “Indonesianarchitecture” (1100). Perhaps we, asarchitectural historians, share a commonproblematic with architects such as Lim,who resort to a (colonial) past to dealwith issues of identity and authenticityin the architectural present. I think we

INTERVIEW viiMETU JFA 2006/1

88. Sideway, James D. (2000) “PostcolonialGeographies: An Exploratory Essay”,Progress in Human Geography, 24/4, 2000;593, 606.

99. Kusno (2000) Behind the Postcolonial; 8.

1100. Kusno, Appearances of Memory, Chapter2: “The Past in the Present: The Empire, theIndies and the Art Deco,” (Unpublishedbook manuscript).

INTERVIEWviii METU JFA 2006/1

also need to problematize in the largerscale, how modernist art deco itself, as ithas originated in the west, was shapednot independently from colonial orglobal relations. Similarly, it is not lessmeaningful to ask how “authentic”British, Dutch or French architecture is.But is there an answer?

There are perhaps various ways ofchallenging the mainstream stylistic andformalist readings of architecture whichhave prevailed in architectural history.There are works on stylistic hybridityand syncretic form of architecture insay, British, Dutch or Frencharchitecture, but I think one should gofurther to trace the geopolitical andhistorical relations within which theinvention of architectural traditions areembedded. Another way is to go deeperby tracing the unconsciousidentification. This kind of tracingwould assume the existence of adimension “beneath” architecture onethat supplies the reference for the“rationality” of “European” architectureeven as this contribution is subjected tonegation.

55.. I would like to relate the case offoreign architects who came to Turkeyfrom German-speaking countries duringthe 1930s, and were commissioned bythe Turkish state to design significanturban and architectural projects (1111).This period has mostly been researchedfor the purpose of determining theinfluence of these architects on theimagination of national, western ormodern architecture in Turkey. Whathas not been very frequently asked,however, is the extent to which thesearchitects were influenced by their ownexperiences in Turkey in relation toTurkey’s architectural “traditions.” Thisaspect of identity-formation could wellbe analyzed by tracing the practice andpublications of these architects afterthey returned to their home countries orsettled in other places (1122).

Yes, indeed this inquiry can becomequite interesting especially when wewant to consider a history ofarchitecture from a truly globalperspective. This entails a study of“intertwined histories and overlappingterritories” (Said) one that would notonly studying the spread of westernarchitects/architecture in various part ofthe world, but also the ways in whicharchitectural discourses in Europe were

shaped by places outside “Europe.” Inthis context issues of colonialism andimperialism (in a broad sense) becomeimportant. It is interesting that a mostcritical minded historian such asKenneth Frampton does not take intoconsideration issues around colonialismin his critical history of modernarchitecture. I recently saw a book onarchitecture called Dutch Modernism,but in the book no where could one findan entry on Dutch East Indies eventhough H.P. Berlage gave a lecture andwrote a book on Indies architecture inEurope following his trip to colonialIndonesia in the 1920s. Today, therehave been increasing interests amongDutch architects to study and preservecolonial buildings in the Netherlands’sex-colonies, from Colombo, Suriname,to Indonesia. Yet, (with few exceptionssuch as the work of Tony King on the(post)coloniality of Bungalow) very littlehas been done on tracing the ways inwhich the building cultures of thesedifferent places shaped the intellectualhistory and the architectural thinking ofthe metropole.

PPoolliittiiccss ooff BBiinnaarriissmm:: MMooddeerrnniizzaattiioonn,,LLooccaalliizzaattiioonn aanndd tthhee IInnvveennttiioonn ooffTTrraaddiittiioonn

66.. In Behind the Postcolonial, youquestion the dichotomy of colonizer andcolonized in the writing of(post)colonial history. In what ways didyou utilize architecture and urbanism inIndonesia to go beyond this dichotomy?

Like other works critical of colonialurbanism, I was trying to show theoperation of architecture (its rationalchoices of styles and organization ofspace) as a kind of “soft power.” As anaesthetic of hidden persuasion speakingthrough unspoken language of formand space, architecture neverthelessneeds to come up with a language withwhich it could communicate withpeople it seeks to serve and shape. Tocommunicate most effectively, the formof communication would need to be onethat is connected to both the psychicand the intelligibility of particularperson or public. This kind ofarchitectural strategy often (eventhough not always) demands atechnique of localizing the significantform of, say, modernist architecture, byblending it with local “familiar”elements.

1111. Nicolai, Bernd (1998) Moderne und Exil,Deutschsprachige Architekten in der Turkei1925-1955, Verlag für Bauwesen, Berlin.

1122. This question was raised by BülentBatuman in a personal conversation.

I started to look at this point throughthe optic of the early twentieth centurycolonial Indonesia, when architecture asa profession first entered the colony.Several Dutch architects were workingwith the architectural problematic ofhow to communicate their work to thepublic. These architects came at the timewhen the Netherlands just decided tochange its strategy of rule by promotingand cultivating “local” cultures. Thisform of governance was conductedunder the notion of Ethical Policy whichsought to turn colonial exploitation intocolonial civilizing mission through thenurturing of local cultures.

The official merging of culture andpolitics generated a dynamic in thearchitectural world of colonial Indonesiaespecially in the context in which someDutch architects working under thismandate were in fact socialist democratswith “anti-colonial” inclination. Some ofthem were born and grew up in thecolony before they were sent to themetropole for their degree inarchitectural engineering. When theyreturned to the colony as architects,their subjectivities could no longer beunderstood through a binary oppositionof colonizer / colonized. They weresuspicious of Europe, and yet theyworked for the government and privateenterprises under the aegis of theEthical Policy. They had “gone native”and genuinely believed in their missionto promote “indigenous” culture. Andperhaps if we go deeper into theirvisions, we would not be surprised tosee that some of them saw the colony asan ideal place for the creation of a“third” space, one that would belongs toneither Indonesia nor the Netherlands.Through the case of Dutch architectsworking in the Indies, I was trying is todispose the narrative of domination(which is based the colonizer/colonizedbinarism), and develop a way tounderstand the complexity andambiguity which often formed colonialrelation without undermining theimportance of power relations (1133).

77.. Perhaps, that is the reason why“localizing modernities” should be seena conceptual tool to challenge theuniversalistic conception of Europeanmodernity (1144). Yet, I also want tounderline the “universalist” character ofmodern architecture and urbanism,through which, not only colonizers but

also “colonized subjects” have locatedthemselves as the “modernizing selves”(1155).

I agree with your observation. Behindthe Postcolonial in fact shows thereemergence in the era afterdecolonization of modernizing eliteswhich constructed categories of “others”in the urban space of Jakarta. To add toyour point, these “others” were notmeant to be modernized. Instead, theywere created for the self-formation ofthe “modern” elites. This formation of“internal” other follows the logic ofcolonial “civilizing mission” which in itsattempt to modernize the colony stillmaintained a distance or a gapnecessary for hierarchal identification.This mechanism of identificationjustifies the continuous discourse ofmodernization. If the “others” could befully absorbed into the “self,” gonewould be the need for modernizationand dependency. This raises the wholeissues of the parallel between “colonial”and “national” development as well asthe inner contradiction of“modernization.”

88.. Paul Rabinow’s discussion on specificintellectuals who combined their“utopist” visions with imperialistprojects of colonial regimes can also beapplied here (1166). However, what ismore interesting to me is seeing howarchitects and planners in “third world”countries assumed a similar role inrelation to their own modernization. Asyou have underlined elsewhere, “wealso, a lot of times, use our ownuniversal modernist architecturalframework to understand the strangeand the incomprehensible” (1177).

Rabinow points out that besides“middling modernism,” there is anotherstrategy called “techno-cosmopolitanism” that was used todevelop the colony. Like “middlingmodernism,” “techno-cosmopolitanism”is also a technique of modernization,but its strategy is to use “local” culturesas the basis for modernization. Thisanthropological take on developmentassumes the importance of culturaldifference. In Behind the Postcolonial, Ishow how these two paradigms wereused in both colonial and postcolonialcontexts. “Techno-cosmopolitanism”while investing development with“tradition,” has also become a tool forconservative politics under postcolonial

INTERVIEW ixMETU JFA 2006/1

1133. In fact this position resonates with someof the concepts used variously inpostcolonial literary studies (such asmimicry, hybridity, and translation).Anthony D. King, as we know, has alsowritten about the production of bungalow ascolonial “third culture” that was specific tothe social environment of the colony.Gwendolyn Wright and others have alsowritten about architecture strategy ofassociation.

1144. “Localizing modernities” connotespostcolonial possibilities to reflect on the“European modernism”, its “association withnationalism” and the way it crafted nationalsubjects, by means of reflecting on diversecases and sources in the world. Smith,Michael Peter and Thomas Bender, “TheLocalization of Modernity”, in Smith,Michael Peter and Thomas Bender, eds.(2001) City and Nation, Rethinking Place andIdentity, Transaction Publishers, NewBrunswick and London; 1-14.

1155. Here I am using these terms only from a“postcolonial” point of view, in an attempt todecentering the “center.”

1166. Rabinow, Paul (1995) French Modern,Norms and Forms of the Social Environment,The University of Chicago Press, Chicagoand London.

1177. Kusno (2003) “The reality of One-Which-is-Two”- Mosque Battles and Other Stories:Notes on Architecture, Religion, and Politicsin the Javanese World, Journal ofArchitectural Education, 2003; 57-67.

“Burden of Representation: Towards anIndonesian Architecture’, p. 187.

Suharto’s regime. In this context,“middling modernism,” in its radicalcall for universalism, quite oftenthreatens the state’s “essentialist”assumption of cultural identity anddifference. In other words, we cannotassume that “middling modernism” isessentially colonial and imperial for itsuniversalistic claim and that “techno-cosmopolitanism” is less dominatingsince it is attentive to local cultures.Both can be used and abused in anycontext. Both can create oppressivehierarchy and their own form ofbinarism.

I think it is fine to use binarism (such asself and other) as a way to write historyfor this will allow us to talk aboutdifference and power relations. Theimportant thing is to avoid seeing onlythe “self” as the maker of history. Wedo not want to repeat the problem ofprivileging the “self” (as in the writingof the 20th century modern architecturewithout connecting it to the colonialworld within which it is embedded).The key issue is to show how the“others” contribute to and constitute the“self.” In Behind the Postcolonial, I useseveral binarisms to structure myargument and to show how theymutually constitute each other eventhough in many instances one ended updominating the other. Exposing thisdynamic could be seen as bothrecognizing and decolonizing colonialpower.

99.. Michelle Facos and Sharon Hirshwrite that the evolution of “modernnationalism” in Europe is largely a latenineteenth century phenomenon (1188).One conclusion drawn from thisargument in relation to the OttomanEmpire and modern Turkey may be thatnot only Turkish national identity was aresponse, in the 19th century, to the lossof a vast amount of the Empire’s landfollowing the birth of nationalistmovements within its territories (1199).But also, national identities in Europewere shaped through the self-images ofEuropeans against its “other,” such asthe Ottoman Turks. Assuming anambivalent position, both as a colonizerand colonized, the Ottoman Empire wasnot a distant land that the west broughtinto civilization. The Ottomans had aconsiderable amount of militarypresence in Europe. It was perhaps theonly instance in world history that

Europe itself was, for centuries, underthe threat of being “colonized” by an“eastern” force. In that sense, it wouldbe interesting to tease out theconstructive elements in “European”identities of Ottoman image, culture andidentity.

It is indeed interesting especially whenwe consider how the geographicalproximity to Europe might complicateand enrich the case of Turkey. In thenineteenth and early twentieth century,South or Southeast Asia was still adistanced sea and land from Europeeven after the opening of the SuezCanal. In those places, there wereperhaps more opportunities for the localto take over the global. The notions of“localization,” “ambiguities,”“ambivalent,” “translation,” “goingnative” that we find in postcolonialstudies that sought to “provincializeEurope” (Chakrabarty) might havedeveloped out of this sense of distance.There are plenty of opportunities forTurkey to develop new concepts out ofits specific geographical and historicalcircumstances.

For me, the transformation fromOttoman Empire to the RepublicanTurkey from “within” is interesting –especially the issues around the makingof “national” subjects. So you thinkTurkey’s national consciousnessstemmed from an attempt to align withthe “civilization” of Western Europe(instead of, say, identification withIslam), for example throughromanization, visual environment andso on. Following your thought, thisenterprise of heightening Turkishnationalism (via an alignment withEurope in the earlier or later stage of“modernization”) might have an effectof shaping or strengthening “European”identities?

1100.. I must say that the question orrather, the speculation on the effect ofOttoman identity on European identitieswas not formulated with modernTurkey in mind. But we might alsoaddress here what one would refer to asTurkey’s “self-colonizing” process,where the nation created its own“selves” and “others” by replicating theEuropean national-models on a differentscale (2200). It was the relocation of theEuropean identity, or better, its image,within the context of Turkey that gaveform to the construction and search of

INTERVIEWx METU JFA 2006/1

1188. Michelle Facos and Sharon L. Hirsh,“Introduction” in Michelle Facos and SharonL. Hirsh, eds. (2003) Art, Culture, andNational Identity in Fin-de-Siécle Europe,Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,New York; 1-15.

1199. Smith, Anthony D. (1993) NationalIdentity, University of Nevada Press, Reno,Las Vegas, London; 103.

2200. Bozdoðan, Sibel (2001) Modernism andNation Building: Turkish ArchitecturalCulture in the Early Republic, Seattle, WA:University of Washington Press.

INTERVIEW xiMETU JFA 2006/1

an “authentic” Turkish identity.

So the search and construction for an“authentic” Turkish identity could beseen as stemming from a much deepercause related to the positioning ofTurkey as a reference for European“self.” This is quite an interesting line ofinquiry. Do you think that the Turkish’s“self” (as Europe’s “others”) was anunconscious move that existed“beneath” the sovereign power ofTurkey? Could we say that this positionwarrants the sense of superego forEurope? I said “unconscious”, partlybecause I thought that this was not theoption for which Turkey wouldformally aspired. The position as the“other” exists only when otherprevailing forms of identifications weresomewhat denied by Europe?

1111.. I would agree with your argument,but let us explore this by discussing

issues around political cultures and theconstruction of tradition and customarylife. One approach perhaps, as you didin the third chapter of Behind thePostcolonial is to trace the “origins” ofcontemporary architecturalimaginations in the nation’s own past(2211).

The discussion on “recreating origins”has two purposes. First is todemythologize “tradition” mobilized bythe conservative turn in Indonesianpolitical cultures during the reign ofSuharto, especially after the 1980s. Theincreasing authoritarian measures underthe state ideology of (capitalist)“development” came in tandem withthe promotion of (feudalistic) Javanese“tradition” as the political cultures ofthe nation. The purpose of that chapteris to show the fabricated nature of“tradition” and the inventedness ofwhat was considered as “authenticcultures.” The context for the inventionwas the state’s inceasing sense ofinsecurity as the country began toexperience various unprecedentedchallenges and protests against itsauthoritarian rules.

This phenomenon has been studied inother fields. My contribution wasmerely to illustrate the conditionthrough series of events and discoursesrelated to architecture and urbanism. Ilook at the ways in which various oftenunrelated discursive moments in thearchitectural life of Indonesiaconstituted nevertheless a more or less“unified” discourse that meditated onthe state’s obsession with identity andtradition. The second purpose is tomake sense of how the intellectualframework of these discursive eventsmight have been overdetermined bythose of the colonial time. Linking thepostcolonial invention of tradition withthat of the colonial past woulddemystify the originality of the state’ssearch for origin. Whereas the statewould claim its origin in thepresumably golden age of theprecolonial era, I show that its origincould be found during the colonial time– a connection that the state and itsnationalists would prefer to negate.

1122.. It is tempting for architecturalhistorians to theorize the processes ofsubject- formation on the basis ofpractice or everyday experience, or

2211.. Kusno (2000) Behind the Postcolonial,Chapter 3: “Recreating Origins: The Birth of‘Tradition’ in the Architecture of the NewOrder”; 71-94.

2222. Kusno’s comment, 03.01.2004.

Putting the Final Touch: SukarnoExplains the Model of the MainThoroughfare, p. 58.

Sukarno Instructs: “Set the WingsBack 30%” and Wisma NusantaraApproved!, p. 58.

seeing the everyday as site of resistance.On the other hand, as you have alsopointed out in a previous discussion, itis difficult to put the everyday in the therealm of the past, particularly because itresists museumization (2222).

It is interesting that you brought up theissue of everydaylife here – a subjectthat I haven’t thought about for thischapter. But I think you have aninteresting point here if we read thechapter on “recreating origins” asbasically a chapter tracing a series ofdiscourses that have led to amuseumization of cultures andeveryday life. The argument for thischapter would then be about the loss offamiliarity as the city, the nation and itssubjects have increasing been displacedby capitalist development. In response,the state thus felt the need to retrieve“traditional – spiritual” order to restoreits authority. The everyday life sincethen has been felt as becoming moreartificial (and moving according todevelopmental projects) even though“cultures” continues to be representedas “authentic” and timeless. In thissense too, what constituted theeveryday has also changed especiallywhen people begin to look at the“replica” as the “original” – as this hasbeen played out in some experiences ofvisiting the Beautiful Indonesian inMiniature.

I can see the theoretical investment ofconceiving the “popular,” or the“everyday practices” as the realms ofthe authentic which can serve as aplatform for resistance against power,orthodoxy and reification, but I have

been wondering for a while if theeveryday has ever escaped power? Canthe everyday ever be autonomous?What would happen if the everyday hasbeen colonized; will it come back in its“original” form? I was trying to avoid aromantic idea of the everyday as therealm of the authentic even though Irespect such attempts on the ground ofcultural strategy.

1133.. In colonial texts, and also in themainstream architectural history writingin the west, tradition was seen as therealm of the anonymous or the“collective architect.” In the same way,building traditions that did not dependon or primarily determined by theprofession were categorized asvernacular architecture: it was“architecture without architects.” Doyou agree with Greig Crysler that theseparation of modern and traditional as“two contrasting models of socialorganization” has resulted in theuniversalization of tradition as acategory in opposition to the modern?Crysler also argues that this is how the“constructed landscapes of tradition”were created (2233).

There are several assumptions behindthe categories of “modern” and“tradition.” And all the assumptions areconstructed for various purposes someof which are more conservative (orprogressive) than others. I don’t have aproblem with the invention of binaryoppositions especially the ones thatcreate creative comparison, connectionand tension between the opposite poles.The binary opposition of tradition andmodernity allows us to talk about crisis,displacement, and loss – terms that areessential for conceiving social change,different political formation andtransformation. It is better than acategory that only stands on its own orone that got stuck in a permanentequilibrium. Binarism becomes aproblem when one pole overcomes theother and claims its position as theembodiment of truth, the origin, or therighteous. Often, under thiscircumstance, the other pole would playinto the game by resisting or alsoclaiming another truth for its own sake.

This is how I see the formation of seriesof architectural discourses aroundnotions such “organic,” “body”“memory,” “anthropology,” “tradition,”“vernacular, “ “dwelling,” and “place.”

INTERVIEWxii METU JFA 2006/1

2233. Crysler, C. Greig (2003) Writing Spaces,Discourses of Architecture, Urbanism, andthe Built Environment, 1960-2000, Routledge,London and New York; 97-99.

Representing the Nation: Territory, Place andIdentity in the Miniature Park, 1975, p. 76.

Some people use these notions in anessentialist way while others are morestrategic and dialectical in the usage (-“strategic essentialism” of Spivak).Regardless of whether this vernacular-turn in architecture is mobilized tocounter particular, presumably,modernist approach, to create anotherhegemonic practice or to preserve orcarve a distinctive new identity forarchitecture, it is definitely an“invented” tradition.

I think there is something liberating inthe fact that “traditions” are alwaysmore or less invented, for this wouldallow counter invention and furtherinvention of traditions. On the otherhand, there are discourses inarchitectural world claiming “nature,”“culture,” “body,” “custom,” and“everday life” in an ahistorical way. Butthe question is not only how do oneknow that one has designed on thoseterms, but how one is in fact involved inthe “invention” of those terms. Insteadof encouraging the search forauthenticity in architecture, it would bemore interesting to see how one couldacknowledge his / her involvement inthe construction of “authenticity,” areinvention of a tradition that is alwaysalready an invented one. Greig Cryslerhas shown us how the knowledge of the“vernacular” has been constructed andhow it has become as hegemonic as the“modernist.” Greig also indicates howthis presumably “organic” architecturecannot stand outside power relations.

1144.. In this sense, “tradition”, “local” and“modern” do not only exchangemeanings in different contexts andtimes; they cannot be defined orexplicated as universalistic, unitaryconcepts either.

Indeed, the categories of “modern” andtradition” depend on the temporal andspatial contexts within which theyoperate. While shaped by the context,the categories also, in turn shape thatcontext. For example, in the earlytwentieth century under Dutch colonialpower, young Indonesians aspired tothe idea of the “modern” and they didnot associate the term with“colonialism.” In fact, in their minds,modernity carried the idea of anti-colonialism. Yet, few decades later,some of their children and grandchildren (grew up under the socialenvironment of postwar development)

associated the idea of “modern” withthe “colonial,” and aspired to practicesof “tradition” that their parents andgrand parents sought to leave behind(of course the meanings of the termschanges over time). On the other hand,members of the Dutch colonialgovernment back then also felt thethreat of “modernity” and they tried todomesticate it by creating “traditions”for the colonized. These are crude andsimplified examples. We can perhapsthink of more delicate and subtle cases.

In any case, it is important to payattention to the local dynamics when wedeal with terms that try to capture atotality of experience. The presence of,say, “international style architecture” inparticular place might indicate to us thespread of certain global culture, but thesignificance of this statement could onlybe reflected through questions of howand why it is placed and received inparticular ways and with what socialand political implications for that place.Similarly, it would be problematic thento assume that “tradition,” the“organic” or “the vernacular” is beyondpolitics and more truthful.

AArrcchhiitteeccttuurree,, UUrrbbaann SSppaaccee aanndd tthheeFFoorrmmaattiioonn ooff NNaattiioonnaall SSuubbjjeeccttss

1155.. In Behind the Postcolonial you wrotethat “the shaping of the builtenvironment is also a writing of thehistory of a nation.” And writing thehistory of a nation, as in the case ofpostcolonial Indonesia, is “concernedwith the articulation of sequences, offinding an appropriate time and space”(2244). At this point, architecture andurban design appear as significant entrypoints for us in tracing this process of“reinventing” the nation during thepostcolonial period.

Nationalism, as Benedict Andersonindicates, works through a range ofrepresentations that act on humanimaginations. Architecture and visualenvironment could be seen as one ofsuch form of representation which,either intentionally or unintentionally,attempt to mold social practices, valuesand imaginations. For example, I showthe syncretic building of Dutch architectMaclaine Point as an embodiment of theterritorial integrity of the vast areas ofIndonesian archipelago and ponder howthis ostensibly pan-Indonesian

INTERVIEW xiiiMETU JFA 2006/1

2244. Kusno (2000) Behind the Postcolonial; 4.

2255. Kusno (2000) Behind the Postcolonial; 14.

Interior Design of Henri Maclaine Pont’sBandoeng Technische Hoogeschool, 1920, p. 46.

architecture might contribute to nationalimagination. In the post-colonial era, Iindicated the ways in which modernistarchitecture were contextualized to formnationalist imagination. But how wasthis architectural strategies received byIndonesians of various backgrounds?

In many respects, this is an issue ofsubject formation. I aim to show theimportance of reception by indicatingthe connection between architecture,urban space and formation of nationalsubjectivity. I argue for the possibilitiesof such connection even as I couldn’tclaim if the connection has beensuccessful. This type of inquiry isdifferent from works that center on theintentions and products of architects orthe state with little or no interpretationof how they might be received andinvested with different meanings.

1166.. Where then should we placearchitects in the possible making ofnational consciousness?

Architects are not only specialists oftheir field, but they are also members ofparticular social orders. They are notabove anyone even as they oftenimagine themselves as beyond power. Isee them as working for as well asagainst the interests of economy and thestate. They could be seen as“nationalist” helping to give form to aswell as fighting against “nation-state.”Here, as far as the discussion ofnationalism is concerned, it is importantthat we make clear that the state is notthe same as the nation. Ben Anderson’sbook is in fact an attempt to show the

difference between the nation and thestate and how they have merged intoone as well as failed to come together.He is intrigued by the fact that manyalternative and oppositional discoursesagainst the state have mostly beennationalist discourses. Perhaps we couldconsider again his discussion on thedifference between official and popularnationalism and find within this contexta place for architects. The question forus then is where to put architects,planners, and designers in the strugglebetween the state and the nation.

1177.. A significant goal of Behind thePostcolonial is to show the pivotal rolearchitecture plays in creating collectivesubjectivities, as well as representingtheir various appearances. My questionconcerns the issue of method, orapproach, to studies of architecture andurbanism in relation to nation-makingand subject formation. How can we, asarchitectural historians, study the builtenvironment in a way that architectureand urban design are not understood asdirect translations of state power butspatial mechanisms that “mediate therelationship between social structures?”(2255).

This issue of method specific toarchitecture as a built environment iscertainly an interesting one. When wesee architecture as a medium for aninquiry into power, we are talking aboutnot merely stylistic appearance of abuilding but also functional spaceswhich is part of everyday life. Foucaulthas talked about the space ofpanopticon to illustrate how users ofspace (such as the inmates) might followthe instruction of the space and thusbecome the subject of power withouthim or her realizing it. Yet Foucault alsotalked about how people might changespace constructed for them byarchitects. Space (or say architecture) isan amorphous technology of power thatis shaped and reshaped by all kinds offorces ranging from macro politicaleconomy to specific psycho-cultural. Ithas “elements” (such as doorway, walls,and windows) which form a “language”of its own one which demands aresponse from users. Yet, this formallanguage is subjected to differentperceptions and experiences of varioussocial actors.

Analyzing architecture thus poses manymethodological challenges and invites

INTERVIEWxiv METU JFA 2006/1

2266. This is an insight from GwendolynWright.

2277. Kusno, “Introduction”, Appearances ofMemory.

2288. Kusno, “Introduction”, Appearances ofMemory.

2299. Vale, Lawrence J. (1992) Architecture,Power, and National Identity, YaleUniversity Press, New Haven.

Representing Authority: The RectorateTower of the University of Indonesia, p. 87.

creative approaches. For us who focuson the social and political aspects ofarchitecture, we know that architecturecannot in itself form identity and changesociety, but it can contribute to identityformation and social change byaddressing particular issues in itsarchitectural discourses (2266). Moreover,architecture is merely one among manytechnologies that inform our world.Without the cooperation of otherpractices, architecture in itself cannotarticulate a unified discourse powerfulenough to form or contest a hegemonicidentity. Knowing this limit opens upopportunities for architecture to beunderstood along with other discoursesand practices.

1188.. Appearances of Memoryproblematizes the ways in which“people with various memoriesinternalize a particular hegemonicversion of memory as their particularpast.” (2277). You argue that peoplerefashion their built environment inorder to deal with various situations inthe present (2288). I find this an interestingproblematization. It is perhaps acommon practice among architecturalhistorians to study certain buildingforms as transmitters of officialideology. I remember here LawrenceVale’s work on major Capitol buildings(2299). But how were these messagesrearticulated or negated by their users isa different question, which cannot beeasily answered. How can we makevisible this process of memorizing /forgetting through architecture andurbanism?

Indeed one of the main objectives is toconsider the ways in which varioussocial classes (-the ruling class, thearchitects, or the state) adapt theirpolitical communications (througharchitecture and visual environments)for the shaping of the everyday life ofthe urban population, and how peoplein turn adapt to that power in variousways. Instead of seeing power as ascheme imposes from above, the idea isto see how power translates itself togain local effects. As power translatesitself into the practices of everyday life,it also shapes those practices andconditions the possibility of bothsubjectivation and resistance.

The concepts of memorizing andforgetting allow us to talk about theembodiment of power in the everyday

life and the ways this process iscontested. Memories can be the item ofsurplus that, after power-effect, liesbelow or beyond subjectivation. It canalso be a component that can emergeaccidentally in an unpredictable waywhen various discourses, strategies andregimes of power contest for hegemony.It is however important to avoid theidea that memory exists independentlyoutside power, society and materialenvironment. There are various ways tomake visible processes of memorizingand forgetting. Architecture and thevisual environment are one of thevarious sites through which we couldtalk about the process of memorizingand forgetting because, as we couldargue, the politics of memories aremediated by the built environment.

This process could be visualized, forinstance, by comparing different timesand spaces while making connectionbetween them. We can trace theintention of the architects, the clients,the state through the buildingprograms, but how much did theyreally shape the consciousness of thepublic? How much did the multituderespond positively to the unifyingproject of nationalism? We would neverbe able to fully know this. As far astopic of subject formation is concerned,we are still poorly equipped to dealwith the everyday built environmentand how it contribute to the shaping ofsubjectivities.

1199.. The changes brought by the colonialregimes in Indonesia to both“normalize” and improve life in orderto control public unrest and urbanmovements such as “urban popularradicalism” were later utilized as tacticsto fight against the colonial regime.Railroads and newspapers were the twoprominent devices, which mobilizedopposition and connected cities andtowns, as well as their alternativeimaginations across and beyond thenation (3300). Perhaps, as you write, thesewere the “moments” of postcolonialcondition, surfacing much before itsappearance as a category today.

Yes, if we define the postcolonialmoment as the moment ofdecolonization of mind as this wasmediated by the change in social andphysical environment. Quite often thismoment came in tandem with thecirculation of visual technologies which

INTERVIEW xvMETU JFA 2006/1

3300. Kusno, Appearances of Memory, Chapter5, “Colonial Cities in Motion: VisualEnvironment and Popular Radicalism”(Unpublished book manuscript)

3311. Shaw, Wendy (2003) Possessor andPossessed: Museums, Archaeology and theVisualization of History in the Late OttomanEmpire, University of California Press,Berkeley; 148.

3322. Abidin Kusno’s comment, 22.03.2004; fora discussion rethinking the late OttomanEmpire as a colonial power, please see SelimDeringil, “‘They Live in a State of Nomadismand Savagery’: The Late Ottoman Empireand the Post-Colonial Debate,” ComparativeStudies in Society and History vol. 43. July2003.

in turn provides the condition for theemergence of anti-colonial “nationalawakenings.” Benedict Anderson in hisbook the Spectre of Comparisons talkedabout such moments through the “logicof seriality” which, he argued producedvarious strands of nationalconsciousness. Discussing about thechange in the social environment of thelate nineteenth and early twentiethcentury colonies, Anderson identifiestwo kinds of seriality that were at worksimultaneously: the bound and theunbound. The bound serialitymanifested itself in technologies of thestate such as the census, map, andmuseum – these are official technologiesprogrammed by the (colonial) state toclassify identity and identification. Incontrast to this making of officialnationalism, another seriality, which heidentifies as the unbound ran from andto different direction. These werenewspapers, films, novels and otherproducts and practices generated bypopulation at large following more orless the forces of market.

We can see the logic of Anderson’sargument which is based on the ideathat the state and the market occupydifferent spheres but they bothprofoundly shaped social imaginationsin more than one way. The boundseriality (being obsessed withclassifying subjects in certain categories)produces fixed identities. On the

contrary, the unbound seriality,working through the improvisation ofmarket, expands the possibility of newidentity and identification. Andersonargues that both these two seriesprovide different “grammars ofrepresentation” which in turn shape theimagining of the nation. I find theanalytical division of Anderson quiteuseful, so in Appearances of Memory, Iwork out a place for visual environmentas part of the bound and the unboundseriality. I argue that there were various“new grammars of representation” inthe colonial city that help produceofficial and popular nationalism.

I should mention that in the historicalcontext of Indonesia (on which caseAnderson draws many of his insights),the idea of the “nation” (-popularnationalism) originally emerged out of astruggle against the “nation-state” ofcolonial power. Wouldn’t it beinteresting to compare this with the caseof the formation of Turkey as a nationout of the remnants of the OttomanEmpire?

2200.. If we want to locate the late OttomanEmpire within postcolonial theory, Isuppose that we should be searching forsuch moments as well, particularlywhen everyday (spatial) practices werefilled with new grammars ofrepresentation. During the 19th century,similar developments occurred in theOttoman Empire, including the institu-tionalization of archaeology, the birth ofmuseums and the dissemination ofprinting, documentation andtransportation technologies (3311). Youhad argued once that perhaps “whenthe Ottoman Empire felt the ‘need’ totake the west seriously, as a cultural‘sparring partner’, the empireencountered its ‘postcolonial’ condition(3322).”

There are two aspects perhaps in thismoment of encountering, but both arerelated to the shifting and reconfiguringof social relations and identities at thetime of change. The first aspect wouldbe the changing subjectivity of theruling class as the previous domain ofpower underwent a serious crisis andrupture. The other aspect would be thechange in the subjectivity of the ruled.As a new form of political and culturalcommunication between the ruler andthe ruled was called for, technologiessuch as museums, archeology and so on

INTERVIEWxvi METU JFA 2006/1

3333. Kusno, Appearances of Memory, Chapter6, “The Significance of Appearance in theZaman Normal, 1927-1942,” in Kota lama,kota baru: Sejarah kota-kota di Indonesiasebelum dan setelah kemerdekaan / Thehistory of the Indonesian City Before andAfter Independence, Freek Colombijn,Martine Barwegen, Purnawan Basundoro,Johny Alfian Khusyairi, eds.(2005)Yogyakarta;, Ombak; 493-520.

3344. Abidin Kusno, “Whither NationalistUrbanism? Public Life in GovernorSutiyoso’s Jakarta,” Urban Studies, 41 / 12,2377-2394.

Jakarta 2005: Where Have All the KampungsGone?, p. 148.

INTERVIEW xviiMETU JFA 2006/1

became important for the provision ofdifferent narrative. Yet, we need toremember that these were stateinstitutions which were mobilized tocreate particular form of identities forthe state and its “people.” Outside thisofficial domain, there were otherunbound technologies, such as printsfor popular consumption, publictransport, and should we say, urbancultural and visual environments. Allthese popular technologies operatedrelatively outside the control of thestate, but they might profoundly shapeif not create different (and oftenconflicting) social and politicalimaginations.

2211.. I think as a technology of power,urban space too could be seen in termsof the logic of the bound and theunbound. As you have written in“Phantom of Urban Design” the colonialregimes utilized urban design for visualorder and self-surveillance, not only onthe basis of huge open spaces and gridsystem, but also their representations(i.e., model kampongs and the 1937 planfor Koningsplein) (3333). Integrating“indigenous” forms into suchframework, “good citizens” of colonialIndonesia found their bazaars, placesand buildings relocated into a gridsystem, which functioned as controllingdevice. All these schemes created amode of seeing that formed an eracalled the “zaman normal” (-the age ofnormalcy). This was basically an era ofpolicing and surveillance articulatedthrough urban space.

It is always interesting to reflect on thequestion of power and its embodimentin urban project and visualenvironment. The essay on “zamannormal” deals with the urban discoursesof normalization such that subjects arepositioned to accept the “truthfulness”of urban govenance embodied in thephysical space. It shows that followingthe violent death of urban popularradicalism in 1926-27, the colonialgovernment offered an assuarance ofthe a new “normal” life.

This attempt was communicatedthrough the organization of visualenvironment. I argue that this process ofsubjectivation in the major cities came intandem with the spectacle of“rehabilitation” of the radicals in thepenal colony in the outer island. In thesetwo radically different places, people

nevertheless lived under a similarcondition of normality. Thejuxtaposition between the “normal life”of a penal colony and that of the city inthe age of post-radicalism prompts us toreflect on how thin the line thatseparates coercion from consent and onthe means through which material spacecome to seize subjects independenly ofsubjects’ own self-representation. On theother hand, resistance to subjectivationoccured inside the “zaman normal”even as this disruptive action had notbeen made explicit.

2222.. The Appearances of Memory givesus instances of how colonial past isrepeatedly revisited to “provide aspectral order for the built environmentof the post-colonial” (3344). One exampleof that was the attempt in Jakarta torestore the colonial town as a tourismcenter. This was not only a policy forattracting foreign exchange, but “part ofthe nostalgic remembering of theorderliness of the old regimes and theforgetting of the chaotic present.” Thegovernor was trying to cope with the“‘looseness’ at the center”, which gaveway to the creation of many smallerspaces as locales of power. Do you seethis recent development in oneIndonesian city, where the relationshipbetween the nation and the state lost itsstrength, as an indication of a“postcolonial moment”?

The essay on post-1998 Jakarta can beconsidered as an attempt to figure outthe formation of a different mode ofurban governance after the collapse ofthe centralizing regime of Suharto in1998. In a way, if “zaman normal”constitutes a “unity of discourse,” thechapter on the “crisis of the center”examplifies the disruption of that order.We know that processes ofsubjectivation in and through urbanspaces are never homogenous, but theurban space of post-Suharto’s Jakarta(with its ‘looseness’ at the center)expressed more clearly a disparaterange of discourses and unpredictedstrategies ones that are simultaneouslycoercive, hegemonic and resistive.

Under this circumstance, different socialclasses mobilized some recognizable butdisjointed discourses of urban spacefrom the recent and distant past in orderto come to grip with the present.Beneath the disorderly “looseness at thecenter” lies various orders that

3355. Tan Malaka was a “trans-national”, left-wing Indonesian intellectual and “hero ofnational independence.” See Chapter 7,“From City to City: Tan Malaka, Shanghaiand the Politics of Geographical Imagining,”Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, 24,3, November 2003; 327-339.

INTERVIEWxviii METU JFA 2006/1

contradictorily co-exist with each other.The power-effect of the Suharto’sregime could still be felt (under theurban discourse of “nationalisturbanism”), but its register shows morethe sign that its grand narrative is introuble. This power trouble has openedup various possibilities for differentways of imagining urban life and urbandiscourses and practices. But it has notyet been clear to me what kind of urbansurvival do people have in mind andhow the new and the old bearingspermit us to navigate the present. In asense, the essay lacks precise term forthe new energies released after the endof an authoritarian era, and yet we areaware that a relationship to this newtime remains to be made.

The appearance of politics is changingand yet a term is still needed. It mayturn out that the term “postcolonial” (inits skeptically hopeful sense; in itsdiscontinued continuity with the recentpast) represents the changing situationwe have been living through. At leastthe term “post” offers a double-ness thatrecalls a hope for a different momentwhile recognizes its own powerlessnessin articulating that moment which couldbe easily reabsorbed into another formof colonialism. It is all about the

difficulty of distinguishing the newfrom the old.

2233.. As my final question, I amwondering if one could think about TanMalaka’s journey and his “politics ofgeographical imagination” as providingan inspiration for today’s Indonesiancities (3355). In other words, could “thecity” and possibly the rest of thepostcolonial world be “on the railway”again?

Can the city of our time be “on themove” again? It partly depends on howwe reflect on power and space of ourown time. The discursive chapters in the“New Times” are pressed to come upwith different concepts while reworkingthe old ones in the light of the present.Tan Malaka, the railway journey andthe visual experiences in the colonialcity represent urban excesses thatdisrupted processes of subjectivation. Ina way, Tan Malaka’s transnationalmovement under the earlier geopoliticalcolonial landscape might provide aground for a reflection on the possibilityas well as the impossibility for a radicalimagining of our own urban worldwhich is currently under the grip ofneoliberal urbanscapes.

KIVANÇ KILINÇ