User:ClareParlett/sandbox/Approaches to Knowledge/Seminar Group 10/Imperialism

This is for UCL BASc Approaches to Knowledge (https://www.ucl.ac.uk/basc/current/core/atk) Seminar Group 10.

These content pages will be populated by student content October - December 2018.

Imperialism and Urban Planning

The article "Europeans, modern urban planning and the acculturation of 'racial others" by Ambe J. Njoh lists many examples how different European countries used urban planning as a means either to universalize western ideologies or to better consolidate their power in their colonies.

Some examples the author mentions are: Germany and the introduction of zoning to Cameroon to make sure the colonial government has abundant access to plantation lands; several countries in Latin America and Asia directly adopted British policies on health/sanitation; Portuguese government in Brazil set specific policies on how each Brazilian family must live in house with at least 6 rooms, children's rooms should be separated by sex, etc., and the colonial government also outlawed the batuque dance for it involves female dancer moving their buttocks; the examples go on and on.

At the end of the article, the author points out that it is not the diffusion of cultures that could make a mess, but rather the incentives behind the diffusion. In the case of urban planning, diffusion can be both positive and negative based on the nature of the model: whether it only addresses a certain problem in the Western world, or it is a system of thoughts that helps people figure out a way to solve a problem.

Imperialism: Discussion of the Lecture

When I saw the question whether the forms of knowledge are different from disciplines to disciplines in class, I initially didn't notice the key word "forms" and thus provided a quite straight-forward answer to my partner, that they are definitely different, even though there is undoubtedly a grey area of varying sizes in between. But then I realized the question is asking about forms of knowledge. It is quite self-obvious that knowledge that are being categorized into different disciplines are distinct; even if they are taken out of the context of disciplines, the knowledge needed still varies depends on situations/occasions. So the question itself is quite tricky since the two things are not interdependent.

But the form of knowledge do not necessarily correspond with our artificial division of knowledge. Personal choice/preference can also influence the form of knowledge we pick when conducting certain activities. For example, to someone, the process of painting is in essence the process of collecting, analyzing, classifying and reinterpreting information and resources, and congregating and balancing diverse elements - in this case being dots, lines, color blocks, etc. - on a much larger platform. In this sense, we can argue that when painting, they are essentially using the form of knowledge required to make accurate predictions (of the visual and other possible effects all these elements might produce when being put together in this certain way) - as urban planners / chemists in lab / weather predictors / marketing consultants / … do. We could also compare the form of knowledge some artists utilize with that of data analysts.

Thus, my idea is that the forms of knowledge people choose to use are independent of the actual content of the knowledge. Yx2018 (discuss • contribs)

One aspect of the lecture that has fascinated me the most, was the explanation of McArthur´s universal corrective map of the world. I have never realised that they way we look at the earth (geographically seen), is only a matter of perspective. We are used to the assumption that north is towards the top and south towards the bottom, however this map questions and disrupts the mental image of north on top and south on the bottom. This claim has more ramifications than just the way that we understand a world map. I believe that it is an essential point in life that we are able to examine problems, claims and actions from more than one perspective. (Elisa)

Before the lecture, I have barely known imperialism and colonialism. Thus, it was great that the lecture started with concise definitions. Furthermore, it also allowed me to think about the link between the evidence and imperialism that maybe the evidence that I have believed I know was perhaps affected by imperialism such as the world map. Thus, I appreciate that the lecture alarmed the danger of imperialism that has embedded in my knowledge. However, I was also disappointed that the way to challenge imperialism was not specifically suggested. (Ed Nam)

The lecture made me realise how closely linked imperialism/ colonialism and knowledge are. Before attending the lecture I hadn't really closely considered those links. Willinsky's three main aims of imperialism particularly drew my attention as I could see how in History these have been implemented. The relationship between education and imperialism is also very crucial nowadays and the lecture made me realise this too. Overall I enjoyed the quantity of approaches to the theme and how imperialism as a whole as been put in relation to our study of knowledge. (Clara)

In the presentation of Darren Chetty, I liked McArthur’s Universal Corrective Map of the World and how north is associated with good as in richer people, more expensive real estate, and higher altitude whereas south is associated with bad, poorer people, cheaper prices, and lower altitude. Even Pope Francis’ quote ‘’If we want a future of prosperity for all, we need to keep our compass pointing toward ‘true North’, in the direction of authentic values.’’ depicts the north-south bias. It made me realize that imperialism is the reason the world map we use is how it is. This article demonstrated me the significance of psychology because when people were presented with a south-up oriented map the north-south bias disappeared. I was interested in this because it made aware of the psychological consequences on the world map, which we use all over the world with no doubt of its reliability. (Aysesu)

The history of colonialism and imperialism is an interesting and complicated one and I really appreciated how we stopped on the difference between the two, and the historical anchoring of the lecture's content. For a comparative history of colonial empires, I would recommend H.L. Wesseling's book on the subject, and for a specific case of knowledge being formated by colonialism and then imperialism, see the École Normale William Ponty. The lecture also approached the relativity of the classification of knowledge and how it is tainted with imperialism and colonialism and is western-focused. In that sense, studying the works of Auguste Comte (notably, his law of three stages) and Nicolas de Condorcet shows a certain categorisation of knowledge and with that, a paternalist comprehension of the history of humanity and the evolution of knowledge.(Susan)

We usually think of education as something that does good, as something that helps and saves people and that it should be universal. We believe that education is the true answer to many problems today, and believe in ‘education for freedom’. We are used to the common statement that ignorance should be banned and knowledge should reign in order to live in a better world. But I never questioned the basements of education themselves and made the link between imperialism and education. We can find signs of imperialism in education, such as the fact that a hierarchy exists (between teachers and students). This is a first sign of imperialismtculture. Darren also cought my interest on disciplines and imperialism. I had never thought this way, I would have never imagined that disciplines were our creations and distinctions. Although I do agree that maths and arts are different, I believe we often use the same structure: we have a formula and then apply it.

(Maud)

The lecture made me reflect a lot on the history of the world we've been taught and how imperialism has affected this. In particular the way the lecturer described that we are taught to see the world divided into two parts, the civilised west and uncivilised rest of the world - whilst not something explicitly taught in school after reflecting on the idea I can appreciate how certain aspects of my education have reflected this tendency showing how the presence of imperialism is still felt in the education system today. (Tzveti)

I was surprise -but definitely not in a wrong way- that the lecture did not put much emphasis on the American imperialism, which seems to be the most obvious and acknowledged form of imperialism of our era, or at least of the XXth century. As we were encouraged to give out any further reading suggestions, I would suggest the well-known, yet controversial, Huntington essay on The Clash of Civilization. It relates to the lecture quite well as Huntington undertakes a very imperialistically biased division of the world during and after the Cold war. He sees the world of the 1950s-1970s as bipolar, with the Western world, qualified by him as democratic and rich, on the one hand, and the Non-Western World, poorer, on the other hand. The world was itself divided imperialistically, by two imperial countries, who separated the world in two on ideological, political and economic basis: you depended either on the Western values of democracy and capitalism incarnated by the USA or on the Russian communist and socialistic views. After the war, the separation began to be more cultural, and we can see how the United States, through their powerful Soft Power, aspired to impose their values, considered (by them) as being the righteous and the most universal ones, to all countries of the world, neglecting all sense of national identity. The American imperialism still has a strong influence on the way of living of citizens of all continents. The French journalist, Régis Debray, even speaks of an Americanization of the World in one of his latest works, entitled Civilization : how we became Americans ()

Imperialism, however forgotten when we go about our everyday lives, is an important concept in understanding the structure and aims of education in West. Although one might think that the influence of imperialism is only visible if one looks hard enough, Darren Chetty would argue, that the whole of our knowledge system is wrongly based on assumptions and colonialist aims from the past. He used examples such as a comparison between the classic world map and Gall–Peters projection to prove his point, and had his audience reflect upon whether disciplines have distinct types of knowledge or whether it was originally all part of a grand scheme to present knowledge in favour of the West, which has resulted in our sense of superiority ever since. Although this issue is essential to consider in the process of understanding our projection and presentation of knowledge in both geography and history, I believe there is a point at which the theory of the implementation of imperialism into our education system, it starts resembling a conspiracy theory. Yes, we need to acknowledge the fact that our previous knowledge is based on a world-view that includes only the West as a civilisation, making geography and history rather obscure from reality. We need to be aware of this, but I question the extent to which we find it necessary to dwell on the past and make accusations of a corrupt systems. Of course, mistakes have been made, but the falsely representation of knowledge in favour of the West, was also simply the effects of incompetence at the time. Our knowledge systems need updating all the time in order for them to include and reflect new knowledge that we acquire, and this includes a modification of knowledge that may have been created at a time where there was no such thing as a global perspective and where we were honestly convinced of facts such as different races of human beings. We owe it to ourselves as well as the people who have been wronged in the past due to imperialism to discard such knowledge and replace it with an updated version. However, going as far as saying that the very basis of our education system is still based on imperialism, and that in fact, we need to question every piece of information ever acquired in a time of imperialism, I believe is a waste of time and completely unnecessary. Perhaps the lines between different disciples are artificial in some ways - the natures of knowledge will overlap - however, this is pragmatically sensible. We need those categories to make generalisations about types of knowledge. Arguably we need the existence of distinct disciplines in order to acknowledge the benefits of interdisciplinary as well. In conclusion, we need to update our knowledge systems according to new realisations and breakthroughs, as we do with everything else as part of evolution of society and civilisation. This includes unravelling assumptions made in the past based on imperialistic goals, however is not limited to it. I refuse to believe in the conspiracy theory that all previous knowledge is now wrong because a new light of globalism has been shunned upon it. Instead of blaming the west for the defaults in their representation of knowledge in the past we should focus on the fact that we are now smarter and more able to include other world parts in history, geography etc. instead. I believe we are plenty aware of our imperialist roots and although we need to be aware of their presence within our knowledge systems, and update the most obvious examples, it’s not only difficult but also not beneficial for anyone to discard all knowledge previously acquired because of it.  (Francesca)

One thing I found to be a weakness of the presentation was the lack of clear direction. I found that he found himself jumping backwards and forwards between ideas quite randomly which got me quite confused at points. Saying this, I found the distinctions between imperialism and colonialism quite clear which was useful. Everything else he mentioned I have talked and heard about before just under the topic "colonialism" instead. (Ravi)