INTERROGATING CONCEPTIONS OF ‘MODERNITY’ AND ‘TRADITION’ IN THE PRODUCTION OF THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT IN SOUTH ASIA•
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has been argued that concepts of modernity and tradition are historical categories that emerged in the context of imperial encounters with the .other. during Colonization. This paper will show how the contingent nature of these categories becomes apparent when considering the production of the built environment in South Asia. The advent of British Colonialism in the 18th century precipitated a significant change in the urban landscape of South Asian cities. It also created a binary conception of a modern order that was a break from the local or native order of space. From then on, modernity became the institution of a liberal western order and tradition was what was retained by the natives that had been eclipsed by the new order. This trope of the dysfunctional Pre-Modern entered into native, nationalist imaginings of the past as well by establishing a binary between what was and what came after as being forever opposed to each other. In order to assert one, the other had to be negated. The Imperialist narrative achieved this through asserting the inherently moral nature and legitimacy of the Colonial order while the Nationalist narrative strove to recover the .tradition. that had been displaced by the Colonial order. The modern disciplines introduced with Colonial rule did provide a powerful prescriptive model of urban planning that created a privileged position for what has come to be seen as the modern form of the city. However, drawing upon contemporary South Asian urban historiography and research it is argued here that this order was constantly destabilized by native resistance, appropriation, hybridity and accommodation. In doing so, it appears that the production and reproduction of space in the built environment of South Asia constantly challenges notions of a dynamic, all-consuming modernity against a static tradition that needs to be preserved. Keywords: Modernity, tradition, colonial, culture
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".