La exclusión social como la antítesis de la ciudadanía

As  this  research  is  interdisciplinary  and  concerned  with  determining  the  cultural   and   social   values   and   uses   of   heritage,   a   mixed   methods   approach   is   employed.   This   research   engages   with   both   Architecture   and   Heritage   studies,   thus,   two   important   sources,  Architectural   Research   Methods   (Groat   &   Wang,   2002)   and   Heritage   Studies,   Methods,   and   Approaches   (Sørensen   &   Carman,   2009),   have   informed   the   selection   of   research   methods.   In   addition,   as   I   am   looking   at   the   relationship  between  people  and  architectural  heritage,  this  research  also  benefits   from  the  literature  on  architectural  anthropology  research  methods.    

Following   Groat   and   Wang   (2002)   and   Sørensen   and   Carman   (2009)   leads,   my   research  is  based  on    qualitative  methods,  using  ethnographical  interviews  as  one   of    its    approaches.  As  this  research  seeks  to  understand  the  uses  of  architectural   heritage   as   a   cultural   tool   within   the   mediation   of   human   relationships   with   the   built  environment  and  collective  memories,  –  an  ethnographic  approach  is  one  of   most   suitable   methods.     I   employ   ethnographic   methods   influenced   by  

architectural  anthropology.  This  chapter  explains  the  utility  of  an  anthropological   architectural  and  ethnography  methods  for  the  research.    

As  architecture,  as  outlined  in  Chapter  2,  is  comprised  of  both  form  and  function,   an  architectural  anthropological  approach  gives  me  the  opportunity  to  document   the  actual  significance  and  essence  of  architectural  forms,  styles,  and  functions  to   people.    The  various  modes  of  perceiving  and  reacting  to  architectural  spaces,  and   the   various   significances   that   architecture   can   have   in   communication   systems   –   the   understanding   of   non-­‐material   functions   of   architecture   -­‐-­‐   is   the   central   concern   of   the   research   (Pieper,   1980,   p.   5).     As   Amerlinck   argues   an   anthropological  approach  to  architecture  is  “anthropologically  oriented  synchronic   and   diachronic   research   on   the   building   activities   and   processes   of   construction   that   produce   human   settlements,   dwellings,   and   other   buildings,   and   built   environments”  (Amerlinck,  2001).  In  other  words,  this  approach  documents  both   architectural   spaces   and   social   activities   (Pieper,   1980,   p.   5).   Architectural   anthropology   provides   a   systematic   framework   to   understand   the   relationship   between   people   within   small   and   larger   communities.   For   Rykwert,   the   “anthropologist   enables   architects   to   see   how   buildings   are   interpreted   and   experienced  in  the  past”;  moreover,  “an  anthropology  for  architecture  can  provide   a   corrective   lesson   about   the   essential   human   artifice,   the   urgency   of   narrative,   and   the   inescapable   but   salutary   power   of   myth”   (quoted   in   Amerlinck,   2001,   p.10).   Such   research   looks   anthropologically   at   architecture   and   vice   versa   (Egenter,  1992).  From  the  standpoint  of  architecture,  architectural  anthropology  is   closely  related  to  the  theory  of  architecture.    From  the  standpoint  of  anthropology,   the   term   allows   us   to   learn   how   humans   culturally   framed   space   and   the   environment   over   time   (Egenter,   1992)   and   how   space   in   return   forms   our  

perception  (Lynch,  1960;  Rapoport,  1976).  In  addition,  to  understand  the  creation   and   consqeunce   of   cultural   space,   Amerlinck   argues   that   architects   should   do   fieldwork,   firsthand   observation,   and   cultural   research,   and   the   anthropologist   should  understand  aspects  of  construction  and  visual  data  such  as  maps,  diagrams,   graphics,   and   drawings   (Amerlinck,   2001).   Through   an   architectural   anthropological   approach,   the   building   has   not   only   a   visual   representation   (for   example,  the  design  concept,  drawing  and  construction  plan),  but  also  its  cultural   narrative  (Amerlinck,  2001,  p.12)  and  meaning  for  people  (Egenter,  1992,  p.77).  In   other  words,  architectural  anthropology  works  to  provide  both  complete  pictures   and  narratives  of  the  buildings  in  regards  to  the  relationship  between  humans  and   architecture.    

Ethnographic   approaches   emphasize   in-­‐depth   engagement,   and   a   full   understanding  of  a  particular  setting  of  the  subject  being  researched,  to  persuade  a   wide  audience  of  its  human  validity,  yet  it  does  not  aim  to  provide  an  explanatory   theory  that  can  be  applied  to  many  settings  like  grounded  theory  (Groat  &  Wang,   2002,  p.  182).    The  methodology  asks  for  the  full  immersion  the  of  researcher  in  a   particular  context  through  a  reliance  on  unstructured  data,  a  focus  on  single  case   or   small   number   of   cases,   and   data   analysis   that   emphasises   the   meanings   and   functions   of   human   actions   (Groat   &   Wang,   2002,   pp.   182-­‐183).   It   opens   up   the   opportunity   to   talk   about   architecture   beyond   physical   objects   and   understands   buildings  beyond  planning  and  construction.  Through  this  opportunity  I  was  able   to   record   the   engagement   of   my   respondents   with   targeted   architecture.   This   engagement,  as  I  have  mentioned  in  chapter  1,  is  of  importance  for  Smith’s  (2006)   arguments   in   relation   to   heritage   that   I   adopted   in   this   thesis.   In   addition,   an   ethnographic  approach,  which  is  reliant  on  participant  observation  (Groat  &  Wang,  

2002,  p.  183),  allows  me  to  fully  engage  and  immerse  myself  in  the  activities  of  my   respondents.      

In   short,   doing   ethnography   within   the   umbrella   of   architectural   anthropology   provides   me   with   a   better   understanding   of   architectural   forms   through   documentation  of  architectural  designs  and  styles,  and  at  the  same  time  allows  me   to   understand   architectural   functions   in   the   ways   people   use   these   designs   and   styles.    In  addition,  as  data  in  architectural  anthropology  is  also  presented  in  the   form  of  narratives  and  images  (Amerlinck,  2001,  p.  12).  

I  am  also  aware  that  architectural  anthropology  is  usually  used  in  researching  old   towns  or  other  ancient  architecture.  The  opportunity  offered  by  this  approach  to   document   not   only   architectural   design,   but   also   human   uses   of   this   design,   is   arguably   not   limited   to   looking   at   only   ancient   material.   Examining   recent   architecture   and   its   meaning   in   the   present   may   follow   the   same   conceptual   framework  and  methods.      

Architectural   anthropology,   however,   in   the   light   of   Environmental   Behaviour   Studies  (EBS),  has  been  criticised  as  failing  to  engage  with  the  human-­‐environment   relationship.  This  critique  is  important  to  note  in  order  to  minimize  the  limitations   of   an   architectural   anthropology   analysis.   Rapoport   (2001),   for   example,   is   not   satisfied   with   architectural   anthropology,   arguing   that   it   its   focus   on   the     built-­‐ environment   is   too   narrow.   As   he   notes,   people   in   their   daily   life   do   not   only   interact   with   built   fabrics,   but   also   interact   with   other   environmental   contexts.     However,  for  the  purpose  of  this  research,  which  aims  to  examine  the  meaning  of  

certain   core   architectural   places   in   post-­‐disaster   contexts,   the   framework   of   architectural  anthropology  will  be  used.      

To  support  pursuing  this  anthropological  approach,  even  though  I  am  an  architect,   I  have  also  received  trained  in  doing  qualitative  research,  especially  ethnography   and  semi-­‐structured  interviews,  at  the  Aceh  Research  Training  Institute  (ARTI)  in   Banda  Aceh,  from  mid-­‐2008  to  mid-­‐2009,  by  conducting  my  own  research  under   the  supervision  of  Prof.  Barbara  Leigh  from  the  University  of  Technology  Sydney.   After   finishing   this   training,   in   mid-­‐2009   to   mid-­‐2010,   I   also   led   another   anthropological   research   project   examining   the   uses   of   architectural   heritage   for   tourism  development  in  Peunayong,  Banda  Aceh,  funded  by  the  Indonesian  Higher   Education  Board  (DIKTI).  In  addition  to  this,  I  have  also  undertaken  twelve  credits   of  courses  of  Anthropology  subjects  at  the  Australian  National  University  in  2011.