Tradition & Identity (Islamic Architecture)

[Islamic Party of Britain]

Identity, Tradition and Architecture
(by Prof. Abel Wahid El-Wakil)

Loss of Tradition = Loss of Identity
Change is intrinsic to all living organisms; it is intrinsic also to
human institutions and to the arts that accompany them, and without
which they cannot live. Again, the arts cannot live without
the protection of the institutions which they both reflect and
support; and this is a fundamental symbiosis. The sum of human
institutions at any given moment in history is civilisation - or, let
us say, a particular civilisation - founded upon a revealed doctrine
which infoms every aspect of it; of no civilisation is this more true
than it is of Islam.

Walk through any traditional Islamic city in any part of the world
from, say, Indonesia to the Maghreb; whatever the difference of
natural environment or climate, what is immediately apparent is its
Islamic identity. And this immediately recognisable and tangible
identity depends not upon uniformity of design or materials but upon
the fundamental unity of the civilisation and its traditional
institutions and principles. Moreover, this unity does not depend upon
the imposition of some kind of artistic totalitarianism; nor has it
come about through the absence of such changes as the introduction of
new techniques or the use of new materials. The long history
of Islamic civilisation and its very diffusion over vast areas of the
earth's surface and its acceptance by many different peoples would
necessarily preclude such a static situation. There has been constant
and inevitable change and development of forms but there has always
been continuity, and the warrant of continuity has been adherence to
tradition and its disciplines.

Tradition and Architecture
Change is intrinsic to all living organisms and institutions; but the
anchor of change is continuity safeguarded by tradition. Without this
safeguard change becomes not part of a cyclic progression, but a kind
of centrifugal violence that disrupts and fragments the arts, and none
more than architecture. But change, sanctioned and protected by
tradition, is no more than movement necessary to preserve vitality;
without movement there is death but where there is vitality, there is
variety, invention, creativity - albeit not necessarily all at the
same level; for even within the span of tradition there is always a
possibility of good and bad periods, of rises and falls; but life
remains, not necessarily uniformly vital, for these rises and falls
are also as intrinsic to organisms and institutions as change itself;
they are, in fact, the signs of life. What has to be realised is this:
change is not synonymous with what is today called 'progress'. Change,
sanctioned by tradition, has never destroyed the unity of Islamic
civilisation but the notion of 'progress' has not only begun to
destroy the unity, and integrity, of Islamic architecture, but also
to imply what is the parody of unity, namely, uniformity. This comes
about through the fact that 'progress' believes that everything is
bound to get better and better as time moves forward -
implying a progress as uniform as time's passing - and resulting, in
fact, in the almost uniform adoption by everyone of the 'International
Style' which, advocating the functional and utilitarian,
has established itself with global monotony and with varying degrees
of ethnic cosmetics, Islamic or otherwise. Thus both tradition and
identity are lost. If it is the role of tradition to safeguard an
identifiable art, or architecture, it is the role of art, and above
all of architecture, to safeguard the environment in which the
tradition can survive. Once this symbiosis is negated by
novelty, or by simple egoism on the part of the artist and architects,
then a vicious circle ensues; what was mutually supportive gives way
to what is mutually destructive. These remarks apply
wherever material affluence makes the lure of the new irresistible and
where a secular viewpoint has prevailed, in practice, over a spiritual
one. All spiritual perspectives, and the creative traditions they
foster, have about them an element of the timeless and universal; the
secular viewpoint stresses the fleeting and the egoistic. The pursuit
of the new; unguided by traditional principles, makes for egoism and
the loss of identity, because the tradition is always greater than
the practitioner and his true identity is, in fact, the tradition. To
abandon tradition, to disregard the achievements and models of the
past and to be caught up in the trauma of change means to
be incapable of handling the new; it is therefore no accident that the
'search for identity' will probably become the dominant theme in
architectural thinking throughout the 1990s. And, if so,
it will be no bad thing; change must always be for life to remain, but
it must not abandon the continuity that only adherence to traditional
precedent and principles can give it; the role of the
architect is, in fact, critical in establishing the permissible rate
of change within the spatial environment.

Recovery of Tradition = Restoration of Identity
In considering what needs to be done to repair matters, it is
important to see where architecture now stands. Let us look at the key
concept of 'originality', for that is what most modern architects
appear to have been aiming for. The word, as it is now used, means
simply to be new, novel, different - to display one's creative
individuality. But this is not what the word should mean: the
word 'original' implies a return to the origins of things, to the
archetypes which relate to the cosmic order and, hence, to the path of
tradition which leads back to the universal. Similarly, the
word 'creative' should relate to the Creator, the Architect of the
Universe; far from inspiring individualism - or egoism - the notion of
'creativity' should inspire awe and humility. Yet, nowadays, attempts
at 'original' or 'creative' design are a denial of these words' true
definitions: they are often no more than an agglomeration of
architectonic acrobatics destroying the very purpose of architecture
which should, by the use of meaningful forms, establish a subtle
language pattern and communication system of visual images; and these,
in their turn, should never abandon certain archetypal reflections nor
cut off all access to the past, the familiar and the proven human.
Modernism is, essentially, a provincialism, since it declines to look
beyond the horizon of the moment. In architecture, the modernist ideal
created the 'International Style', it was the architecture of ideals,
adapted - in time - to the fleeting present, a style without an
anchor. Organic architecture, on the other hand, adapted - in space -
to a particular environment has been unable by simplifying functional
forms, to produce a universal solution either. The accelerated pace of
technology and the need for quick results made the ascendancy of the
International Style inevitable - but only as long as its motivating
ideals continued to prevail. But Modernism has already been deposed in
the minds of the modern generation, who no longer see
it as expressing their own 'Modern' ideals; it has been succeeded by
Post-Modernism. All fundamental architecture - and especially that of
sacred buildings - develops around forms related to the cosmological
order. Thus the first step towards the restorations of identity can
only be taken by means of a correct evaluation and re-integration of
historical forms; this must be undertaken not in such a way as to
produce a dead record of past events but, on the contrary, in
order to see them as a vital and perceptive reflection, through
changing forms, of the unchanging patterns which regulate the
universe. The importance of continuity can hardly be overstated.
It is well known that imprisonment and confinement may well destroy an
individual's identity simply by depriving him of contact with his
fellow men. It is through relation to others and to the ancestral past
that identity is strengthened and maintained; such is the saving role
of continuity. Identity requires a context; it cannot stand alone. The
International Style stood alone and isolated from the past. Whereas
architectural styles from periods covering many centuries
had, in our ancient towns, flowed into an integrated whole, modern
architecture interrupted this continuity and through its very
isolation contributed to, and largely brought about, the present
identity crisis. The increased concern now being shown for the
restoration of historical sites and the preservation of the
architectural heritage, whether through antiquities departments or
cultural organisations, basically reflects a longing to recover our
lost identity. The seeming lack of concern, on the contrary, in
societies where the old social matrix is still alive, even after
tradition's protective shell has been partially destroyed, is
explicable in terms of a social, or spiritual, identity that has
survived. But, there too, the shattered environment will eventually
produce the same results, and then the conservation movement will
doubtless emerge. A new sense of commitment is called for. In
advocating what is new and fashionable, modernism has
made it almost impossible for us to relate to, or commit ourselves to,
our own particular, traditional architecture. An architectural
Don-Juanism has been generated. Modern architecture
has proved a flirtatious mistress, a stranger to true emotions or
love, and one incapable of accepting even the passionate attentions of
the Romantic, which it sees as mere sentimentality.
Modern architecture cannot afford abiding commitment; its stillborn
offspring litter our lifeless modern towns. Modern architecture lacks
love. It is by committing ourselves lovingly to our buildings, through
our care for them and our tending them and through treasuring the
patina of time, that we can relate to them. They will then become
beautiful and enduring objects that will not be cast aside or
demolished at the first sign of age. From the laying of the foundation
stone to the fixing of the keystone the act of building is symbolic
and meaningful, and only through a realisation of this can
architecture recover its true content

Designing within a tradition is not a pretence for repeating the old
in order to avoid the pains of new birth. It is no mere act of
imitation, for mimicry destroys all the significance of form.
Traditional design is a complex process of adaptation and assimilation
in a perpetual act of gestation. Only through the re-establishment of
our spiritual identity can the dynamic and continuous process of
consolidation and reorganisation be truly assured.

The attached article was produced by the
Islamic Party of Britain and is posted with
permission of the editor of its quarterly magazine
"Common Sense". Common Sense is available at a
subscription rate of £10
(+£5 postage for subscriptions outside UK)
from Islamic Party, PO Box 844, Oldbrook,
Milton Keynes MK6 2YT, UK.
Comments and enquiries to islam...@smb.powernet.co.uk
http://www.muslims.net/islamparty/islamparty.htm