The Architect as the translator

Day 2

I apologise for how short and rushed this post may be. I find myself in a 6 bed dorm, with women of all ages tired after a long day of briefing. All 20 of the workshop participants arrived today and were briefed in the afternoon. The usual ice breaker activities followed and we all discussed our expectations as well as our intentions for participating in this two week workshop. Some members spoke of worries with regards to how they may be perceived by residents of the settlements and Siezwe questioned everyone on the word community. I found everyone speaking broadly and with a certain disconnection. I do not say this critically, as this is for many their first experience of such kind. However as Siezwe said, the word community was being so loosely used. We should begin to unpack it. We as a group of professionals participating in such a programme come with agendas and will be working as a team, therefore are we a community of outsiders?

Such questions remind me of the postcolonial literature I studied at university which will forever define my practice as a researcher. The position of the researcher is equally as important as that of the subject as the architect is in this sense the translator. Spivak speaks of how easily the outsider can appropriate the voice of the subaltern when trying to proliferate it. Bhabha’s works draw importance to the experience of the translator and the impact it can have on the research. For example I am Indian, brown skinned and a woman. During research in India, I interviewed residents with relative ease as I was not perceived as an outsider. However I am western, I am the hybrid. I must acknowledge that I can not be the voice of the subaltern because of my beliefs, experiences and societal values. They have marks on me and also shape my perceptions. By acknowledging them, I do not pretend to have a clinical distance but accept points where influence can infiltrate my translation of people, environment and place.

These conversations followed nicely after my run with Jack this morning. We were both in agreement that the architect is a translator, who can bring together these multiple bodies through playing a mediating role. Their practice and education means that they can draw out the socio-spatial needs of a group and relay them in a language to government officials for example. The architect can be the catalyst for development, not the dictator of it.