This project argues that culture – including the vernacular building practices as they form part of the cultural heritage of a place - should be recognised as a dynamic and active agent of social transformation and community rebuilding. Cameron Sinclair states that ‘we have to understand that culture is an element of sustainability and by ignoring heritage we are actually discrediting the desires and needs of a community; we need to protect the cultural heritage in order to enable social and economic sustainability’ (AIA 2013 Convention Keynote, National Convention in Denver). ‘Development actors worldwide, such as UNESCO, have been made progressively aware of the inter-linkages between culture and development. Recognizing culture as a dynamic and transformative force, they seek to explore culture as an indicator and facilitator of social development. Today, its role as an active agent of social transformation has been increasingly recognized. Cultural Heritage is an expression of the ways of living developed by a community and passed on from generation to generation, including customs, practices, places, objects, artistic expressions and values’ (ICOMOS, 2002)’ (http://www.cultureindevelopment.nl/).
Susan Moore (2013), in her paper titled, “What’s wrong with best practice? Questioning the typification of New Urbanism”, argues that the use of ‘best practice’ guides as powerful heuristic tools for the dissemination of innovation and knowledge is seldom questioned. Moore (2013: 1) is concerned with the ‘unquestioned compliance with practices labelled as ‘best’ as this ‘obscures the processes of typification that enable it, that is to say the cultural struggles, tensions, conflicts, collaborations, alliances, and personal/professional justifications that prefigure it.’ Like Moore, Gramsci argues that ‘to move beyond contests over meaning to unquestioned acceptance is to become hegemonic’ (Lyons M. et al., 2010: 357). In their paper titled “Constructing sustainable urban futures: from models to competing pathways” Guy and Marvin (2001) develop an analytical framework of social constructivist theory to demonstrate that a multiplicity of pathways towards different sustainable futures are likely to co-exist within a single city.
35
They (ibid) are concerned with the unquestioned use of ‘models’ in sustainable regional development, and argue that the achievement of sustainability is a complex and multilayered process and not the result of implementing a specific model.
Vellinga (2013) alludes to the need of the Architectural Sustainability discourse to start a dialogue with other disciplines which have been working on the ‘cultural embodiment of the vernacular and the role of human agency and practice’. Vellinga (ibid) observes that ‘many recent studies on architectural sustainability tend to ignore or appear unaware’ of such work. Nevertheless he (ibid) explains that these studies are valuable as they illustrate ways of designing, building and dwelling other than those regarded as proper and advocated by the conventional architectural community.
The research proposes that it is imperative for the disciplines of Architecture and Sustainability to communicate with for example the discipline of Anthropology as the two would gain insights from and inform each other’s work. This dialogue may in turn benefit the way experts and expert organisations work with communities, and also enable a better understanding of the context in which they practice.
In the light of the above, I argue that the simplistic use of model(s) for post-disaster reconstruction would not work. ‘It would be a mistake to employ the model as a blueprint to implement within the existing context’ (Guy & Marvin, 2001: 134). Models should be used in a more flexible way, not as specifications for reconstruction but rather as conceptual devices to sensitise us to different visions of what the sustainable way might be (Guy & Marvin, 2001). Like Guy and Marvin, Susan Moore argues that ‘there is interpretative flexibility attached to any artefact: it might be designed in another way’ (1997: 25). Therefore, this research considers the traditional building practices as a conceptual device, pathway or framework which would need to be contested in specific local contexts within post-disaster reconstruction initiatives.
Lyons (Lyons M. et al., 2010: 346) discusses the case study of the Community Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Partnership (CRRP) example of an approach to reconstruction. The latter was developed upon the mainstream of the Sri Lankan housing building tradition, following the strategies and methodologies of the Million
Houses Programme to reach people. Individual families form the main plank of housing
36
strategy. She (ibid) maintains that such models can be sensitively adapted to a local scale and accommodate a wide variation of household needs.
Guy & Marvin’s (2001) framework of social constructivist theory suggests their compliance with Lev Vygotsky's theory of social constructivism. Vygotsky (1978) emphasizes the critical importance of culture and social context for (cognitive) development and learning. He argues that learning is a collaborative process which cannot be simply assimilated or separated from social context. Constructivist learning environments: emphasize authentic tasks in a meaningful context rather than abstract instruction out of context; encourage thoughtful reflection on experience; and enable context- and content-dependent knowledge construction. In her paper titled “Vygotsky, Piaget & education: a reciprocal assimilation of theories & educational practices” DeVries (2000: 189) argues that ‘the child cannot construct physical knowledge without getting information from the object's reactions to actions on it. However, physical knowledge cannot be elaborated without logical reasoning. Knowledge about physical events requires inferences drawn from observations.’ I find DeVries’ paper useful to my topic despite the fact that it is concerned with child development and learning. A number of reconstruction initiatives provide training and a ‘learning space/environment’ for members of local communities. Therefore I argue that like in DeVries’ description of child development above, these initiatives have been developing their improved techniques by experimenting and drawing from observation. The technically improved vernacular methodologies have derived from physical knowledge based on experiences of acting on objects and observing their reactions. These actions are to find out if the techniques/methodologies will react to a natural hazard. The source of physical knowledge is partly in the vernacular techniques themselves whose reaction depends on their properties and external factors such as the climate.