This thesis focuses on the period at the end of the nineteenth century when knowledge of the colonized cultures and their histories became an integral part of European imperial policies. In the...Show moreThis thesis focuses on the period at the end of the nineteenth century when knowledge of the colonized cultures and their histories became an integral part of European imperial policies. In the search for tools legitimizing their overseas venture, architecture turned out to be one of the most visual and lasting tools for boosting such efforts. It is precisely by exploring this aspect of empire-building through architecture that my thesis attempts to redress the lacunae of historical research on colonial architecture as a measure for studying colonial history. Conventional historiography has largely neglected this aspect of empire-building, leaving much of it for architects, urbanists and art historians to deal with. Most of the scholarly contributions to colonial architecture have not yet been able to sufficiently expose the underlying imperial designs or the socio-cultural processes behind such building projects. In this thesis, I have made attempts to trace these processes and examine them from a comparative perspective using Foucault’s power/knowledge dimension. By pitching the three former Asian colonies of British-India, Dutch-Indies and French-Indochina next to each other and analysing the hybrid architecture found in their main public buildings, the ways in which the colonial government tried to impress the people through their building styles can be revealed. They resorted to the incorporation of often randomly mixed local architectural elements into buildings which looked European otherwise. This resulted in buildings depicting hybrid architectural styles. Such designs reflected a self-proclaimed European mastery in managing knowledge of the colonized cultures. In trying to claim their legitimacy as new rulers, colonial governments went to great lengths, using the visual qualities of architecture to shield a relatively weak system. The erection of confident and mighty stone facades, however, did little to bury the lingering orientalist prejudices and the inherent unequal status of the colonizers and the colonized. In fact, the knowledge on local histories generated by the colonizers helped create local identities that gave a boost to the upcoming nationalistic movements. But there were interesting differences among the colonies though, that this comparative exercise laid bare. The nuances manifested in the different colonies in terms of the willingness to spend financial resources, the often conflicting objectives between colonial institutions, the effects of shifting colonial policies and the paradoxical underlying principles that defined those policies, and other contextual factors, led to differences in imperial policies and their consequent architectural plans. By probing into these differences as well as by highlighting the similarities cutting across all the three colonies, my thesis contributes to understanding the varying shades of colonialism through the seemingly silent yet starkly telling structures.Show less
