Memory without Monuments: Vernacular Architecture

Stanford Anderson

Published by Praeger Publishers, 1988.

The article is an inquiry about the role of memory in vernacular architecture. Social memory
and disciplinary memory are the two major factors through which the author questions the
forms of memory embodied in the vernacular architecture of preliterate and literate societies.
He claims that the preliterate societies had both social and disciplinary memory that allowed
to perceive the information about the past. While the literate societies develop records of their
past. He also claims that the architectural profession is a result of the growth of disciplinary
memory which can be destructive without cohesion of social and disciplinary memory.

The author recalls the essay he wrote in 1995 in the journal Daidalos where he distinguished
‘memory through architecture’ and memory in architecture. He states through the example of
Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem that though the architecture of that times was trying to replicate
it, there was no certain architectural norms that one was following to yet they were quite
similar to one another. Here social memory dominated the form. As compared to that if we
look at the Pyramid of Turenne, there is a vast difference in terms of its scale organisation
and meaning, yet there is an essence of social memory. Revolutionary architects used
familiar forms used for other purposes, with differences of scale and detail. He then
speculates about various topics by questioning the relationship between social and
disciplinary memory and how did it change with time? He draws our attention to the
possibility of utter separation of both these memories that might lead to hazard for
architecture and society.

The previous questions lead him towards questioning the past. Was there any condition
under which social and disciplinary memory were not separated? He says that vernacular
architecture is very close to the answer of these questions. He used the term vernacular
architecture to the works done by builders not known. Here he adds types of societies as a
factor of considering the relation of vernacular with memory. The preliterate societies had
vernacular buildings that had no historical value in those times but had a rich relationship
amongst social and disciplinary memory. While the literate societies had distinct historical
values that is being documented as is treated as past. The vernacular architecture in the
preliterate times was based on social changes that kept on adding and removing to the
existing form with respect to the present situation of that time.

The idea of social memory without record makes it possible to change itself with time. The
homeostatic organisation of cultural tradition is a result of lack of records. According to
Goody and Watt, one is able to analyse and enquire about the past because it has been set
apart from the present. While sharing his experience of visiting a commercial building in Saudi
Arabia, he states that there can be various influences on the same building with respect to
various times and allows a stylistically mixed form. He also points out through the example of
Islam that what is remembered and how, also differs. With respect to various factors such as
language, country, social structure etc. the character of society varies. Discipline is also one
of those factors and architectural discipline has changed the way one relates history. There

08 07 2019 1/2 Ruchesha P

are certain instances where the existing forms and organisations have been repeated through
time without any conscious attempt of social memory. This as per author is the invented
tradition for example the urban fabric of the old city centres of Dutch town. He then quotes
Jacques Le Goff, who says that the history of mentalities have various meeting points such
as individual and collective, long term and every day, unconscious and intentional, etc. The
existing dwelling types raise various issues about its connection with memory. As he said
earlier that the homeostatic organisation of built form is possible by forgetting the past and
improvising as per the current situations, yet that also contradicts itself by the fact that the
buildings are usually long term. Does the people who didn’t document the past miss on the
inherent values that the history caries? Or do they realize that the cultural form itself is a
reflection of various historic changes?

There are various societies and periods due to two reasons as per the author. The first where
building itself being a language for preliterate people as a document of cultural change but he
also states that at a certain point in time there requires a proper document rather than the
building performing in the present. Secondly there are many similar building elements serving
the same purpose, it gives one a freedom for alternative uses. Also there are possibilities of
using the same elements for different purposes. But he also argues that the vernacular
architecture has an ambiguous document for reconstructing the previous uses.

In the conclusion the author tries to point out various aspects related to the future of
architecture discipline such as the linkage of disciplinary memory and independence in
architecture. He says that vernacular architecture is the purest sense of unconscious
unification of both social and disciplinary memory. Certain aspects such as inventing
tradition and manufacturing heritage sound as an immediate threat to him. Also it’s not easy
to find purely preliterate societies that are engaged in vernacular building. As a conclusion he
has various questions. Do the vernacular practice itself provide the historic document for the
present day contemporaries? And does the work in question evokes social memory first and
disciplinary memory on the later stage? And if so then is the autonomy of the discipline of
architecture still maintained?

08 07 2019 2/2 Ruchesha P