Planning Power

Town Planning and Social Control in Colonial Africa

Ambe Njoh

• Publisher: UCL Press
• Year: 2007
• ISBN:
  9781135391591
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Architecture
• Subtopic: Urban Planning & Landscaping

With a multidisciplinary perspective, Planning Power examines British and French colonial town and country planning efforts in Africa. Drawing out similarities in the colonial administrative and economic strategies of the two powers, rather than emphasizing the differences, the book offers an unusually nuanced view of African planning systems in a time of upheaval and political change. In showing how the colonial authorities sought to gain political and social control in Africa, it can be seen how their will to exert political power influenced every area of planning practice during this era.

This unique comparative analysis of British and French colonial town planning – covering the entire sub-Saharan African region – takes theories from a wide range of disciplines, including political science, history, urban and regional planning, economics and geography to paint a comprehensive picture of the subject. Written by a prolific researcher and writer in the political-economy of urban and regional planning in Africa, Planning Power is valuable reading for students and academics in a range of disciplines.

1 Power and the built environment in colonial Africa

The built environment received much attention during the heydays of colonialism in Africa. For colonial authorities, each opportunity to influence spatial form and function was seen as an occasion not only to solidify their grip and control over the colonized but also to reaffirm preconceived notions of European supremacy and power. Colonial authorities had ample opportunity to influence the structure and purpose of the built environment in Africa. For one thing, colonial Africa boasted vast areas of unsettled terrain. For another thing, colonial powers controlled valuable resources, and were therefore able to manipulate the built environment to suit their own goals. As Kim Dovey (1999: 1) suggests, ‘place creation is determined by those in control of resources’. There was certainly no question regarding who controlled the resources. Quite early in the colonial epoch, colonial powers had crafted and implemented perfidious plans that ensured them uninhibited access to, and control over, all economic resources in Africa.

Increasing attention is being paid to the fact that the built environment in colonial settings was designed and programmed to accomplish certain goals – particularly those relating to profit, prestige and political power – of the colonial powers (see e.g. Abu-Lughod, 1980; AlSayyad, 1992; Çelik, 1997; Coquery-Vidrovitch, 1993; Njoh, 2004; Wright, 1991; Yeoh, 2003). Thus, as the authority system that governed it, the built environment in colonial Africa was essentially political. It manifested to a lesser degree silhouettes of struggles between the colonizer and the colonized. To a greater extent, it reflected the multiple interests of the colonial powers.

Theoretical framework

Before delving further into the notion of ‘state power’, it is necessary to examine the concepts of power, ideology and social control that are central themes in this book. These three concepts are inextricably interconnected in the discourse on spatial policies and structures as instruments of domination (see e.g. Foucault, 1982; Yeoh, 2003; Elleh, 2002; Lefebvre, 1974; AlSayyad, 1992; Çelik, 1997). Although the concepts are central to social enquiry, they are yet to assume universally accepted meanings (Oliga, 1996; Mannheim, 1985; Knights and Willmott, 1985; Lukes, 1974; Mannheim, 1950). My aim in this segment is not to undertake an exhaustive review of the literature on these widely discussed concepts. Rather, my objective is a modest one – namely, to provide a theoretical backdrop against which French and English town planning schemes in colonial Africa will be examined later in this book.

Power

Power is the ability to influence the outcome or results of events (Dovey, 1999; Mannheim, 1985; Oliga, 1996; Shively, 2001; Therborn, 1980). Karl Mannheim’s (1985) characterization of the concept of power is particularly insightful. Mannheim breaks power into a number of categories. One of these categories, institutionalized power, is of particular interest in efforts to appreciate planning, an institutional activity, as a tool of power and social control in colonial Africa. Mannheim notes that, ‘the most advanced form of institutionalized control is the law as interpreted and enforced by courts and police power’ (Mannheim, 1985: 50). Therborn (1980) has also proposed a useful analytical framework for understanding power as an important force in society. Therborn’s framework suggests that power may assume three main forms, namely ‘subjectivist’, ‘economic’, and ‘dialectical materialist’ (Oliga, 1996: 70). From a subjectivist’s perspective, the focus is on the ‘subject’ or entity, be it an individual or group, exercising power. Of primary importance in this case is the question of ‘who has power?’. The focus from an economic perspective is on the quantity of power as a capacity to attain desired ends (Oliga, 1996). Thus, the question to be addressed from this perspective has to do with ‘how much power’ does a given entity possess over another. It also has to do with ‘how much power’ a given entity possesses to complete a specified task.

Marxian structuralists, such as Althusser (e.g. 1971), Poulantzas (e.g. 1973) and Therborn (1980), view power as the ability of any given class to realize its objectives in society. Underlying this definition is the assumption that the privileged class almost always possesses the ability to realize its desired objectives. This perspective raises questions about the focus on interpersonal relations, particularly because such a focus tends to ignore the impersonal, structural basis of domination and exploitation, which are commonplace in society in general, and colonized territories in particular.

Scholars in the ‘dialectical materialist’ camp, particularly Marxists, focus on capitalism as a mode of production. The aim in this case is, more often than not, to illuminate its ‘social contradictions’, ‘historical reproduction’, and ‘evolution’ (Oliga, 1996: 70). Thus, the questions of interest relate to the type of society in question, the role of the state (including all entities acting on its behalf) in society, and the impact of state power on society. Oliga (1996) has done a fine job summarizing Therborn’s conceptualization scheme. His summary, which incorporates the views of Robson and Cooper (1989), suggests that power may assume one of the following four forms: (1) ‘a conflictual zero-sum, negative view: power over whom’, (2) ‘a harmonious, synergistic, positive view: power to accomplish a common goal’, (3) ‘a conflictual, negative, and essentially critical view: oppressive and exploitative power’ or (4) ‘the analytic relations of power’, which considers knowledge as an important source of power (Oliga, 1996: 70). It is the connection between knowledge and power that constitutes the focus of one of Michel Foucault’s best-known works, Power/ Knowledge (Foucault, 1980a). However, it is important to note that Foucault never equated knowledge with power, as did earlier writers such as Francis Bacon in his well-known maxim, ‘knowledge is power’. This notwithstanding, it is knowledge in the Foucaultian sense of ‘savoir’, as we will show, that was employed as a dominant source of power by French and English architects, planners, and other authorities in colonial Africa. We therefore posit that European knowledge on how to organize space in a manner designed to facilitate the functioning of human settlements and improve living conditions constituted an important source of power in colonial Africa. Here, it is safe to say that knowledge and power enjoyed a reciprocal relationship in which they enhanced each other (cf. Yeoh, 2003). The genre of reciprocal entrainment between planning knowledge and administrative or disciplinary power hypothesized here is central to Foucault’s discourse on the power–knowledge nexus (Allen, 1999: 70).

Ideology

The concept of ideology is commonly associated with Marxism. However, while most of the significant statements on this concept are rooted in Marxian thought, the concept predates Marxism (Mannheim, 1985). Given the long history of the concept, one would think that it has succeeded in taking on a universally accepted meaning. It has not. Karl Mannheim (1985) makes a similar observation but contends that the many meanings of the term can be subsumed by two distinct conceptual categories – the particular and the total.

The particular conception of ideology is implied when the term denotes that we are sceptical of the ideas and representation advanced by our opponent.

(Mannheim, 1985: 56)

This is particularly evident in situations wherein questions exist in relation to the ulterior motives of an authority’s ideas or proposals. Such questionable plans, Mannheim (1985: 55) contends, are often meant to camouflage the intentions of those involved or the real nature of situations whose recognition may be at variance with the interests of authorities. The disguises employed usually differ from one situation to another, but generally tend to range from outright fabrications to halftruths. Ideology of the ‘total order’ is relatively more inclusive.

Control

To understand the notion of, and need to, control in the context of colonialism, it is necessary to first appreciate the main goals and objectives of the colonial enterprise. This is particularly because ‘every control action entails a set of objectives, goals or values’ (Oliga, 1996: 125). Some of the best-known goals and objectives of this enterprise include territorial conquest, the economic development of the metropolitan countries, incorporation of the colonized territories into the global capitalist system, acculturation and assimilation of the colonized peoples, and broadcasting of Europe’s real or perceived grandeur and superiority. Tucked in the shadows of these grand goals was the objective of ensuring the maintenance and functioning of colonial governments in the conquered territories. It is arguably within this context that instruments of control found their most immediate utility. In this respect, control was required to sustain the system of colonial governance in place.

The success of colonial authorities in this regard can be better understood by re-examining the notion of ideology, particularly in terms of what Althusser (1971) and Therborn (1980) call the ‘subjection-qualification’ dialectic (Oliga, 1996). On the one hand, subjection alludes to the individual’s (or subject’s) ‘subjugation to a particular force or social order that favors or disfavors certain values and beliefs’ (Oliga, 1996: 172). On the other hand, qualification has to do with training subjects to carry out activities necessary for the system’s survival. Prominent in this regard, is the role of participating in the social change process. In practical terms, subjects are formally trained or informally socialized to appreciate: (1) ‘what exists and what does not exists’, (2) the difference between ‘good’ and ‘bad’, ‘right’ and ‘wrong’, ‘just’ and ‘unjust’, and (3) what is possible (Oliga, 1996: 173). This three-mode interpellation make up what Oliga (1996) calls the ‘is-ought-can’ trio and constitutes part of a rather elaborate and meticulous process to structure the subject’s view of the social world, and shape his desires, preferences, values, hopes, ambitions, and fears. Resulting from this process is a situation in which subjects, that is, the ruled, unquestioningly accept the rulers’ ideologies as dominant. According to Oliga (1996: 173), ‘this means subjecting the ruled to a social order that is in the interest of the ruling class; the ruled thus become qualified to obey’.

An important rationale for obedience is predicated upon, or results from, a fear of the consequences of acting otherwise or disobeying. In this case, the consequences, usually in the form of fines, punishment or other penalties, for non-compliance are clearly stated by the ruler. Thus, when the subjects obey, it is not out of a sense of ‘inevitability’, ‘deference’, or ‘resignation’, but out of a fear of the consequences of disobeying. In modern societies, the state is the sole agent endowed with the power to fine, punish or otherwise sanction violators of government rules, regulations and/or laws.

Such power as the state (including the colonial state) and/or its representative may wield from time to time is generally referred to as ‘authority’ or ‘legitimated power’. Authority or legitimated power in this case is defined as power based on a general agreement that: (1) a person or group has the right to issue certain sorts of commands and (2) those commands should be obeyed (Shively, 2001: 139). Perhaps the most succinct and insightful statement to date on the question of ‘power’ (on the part of the state or other powerful entities) and ‘obedience’ (on the part of the citizenry or other less powerful or powerless entities) was made by Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712– 1778) when he opined that the pinnacle of the relationship between the powerful and the powerless is attained when the former has successfully transformed his strength into a right and obedience into a duty (cited in Gerth and Mills, 1964: 195).

In practice, and with the exception, to some extent, of the advanced democratic polities, the state and its agents constitute the powerful while the citizens are the powerless. It is therefore hardly any wonder that governments in non-democratic polities consider the range of activities over which they can exercise authority as limitless. Colonial governments in Africa were particularly notorious in this regard. These governments perceived authority as a cost-effective kind of power. As is commonly the case with states throughout the world, the state in colonial Africa employed a number of strategies, including the threat of punishment, coercion, persuasion, or in rare instances, the construction of incentives, to effectively back its authority in all spheres.

Backing authority with the threat of punishment on the part of the state or government entails making the citizenry aware of the fact that violators of any law, rule or regulation will be punished accordingly. In some cases, compliance is sought by persuasion, such as through programmes designed to teach the citizenry about the importance of doing what the government wants them to do. British and French colonial authorities are well-known for coaxing and persuading members of the indigenous population to adhere to Euro-centric standards of hygiene as part of indefatigable colonial efforts to create healthy environments especially for Europeans based in colonial Africa. The fact that diseases, especially those in tropical Africa, were communicable dictated a need for colonial sanitation and public health officials to extend health campaigns to the non-European or so-called ‘native areas’, including ‘native reservations’. Success in this connection hinged tightly on the ability of these officials to convince members of the indigenous population to observe proper, and quite often Euro-centric, rules of hygiene. This entailed simply educating them on the need to diminish the spread of communicable diseases.

Occasionally, colonial officials deemed it necessary to back their authority with the ‘construction of incentives’, which entailed making the alternative to the desired behaviour so unattractive that the ‘natives’ had no choice but to indulge in the desired behaviour. This strategy was commonly used in efforts designed to discourage members of the native population from re-locating to urban centres. Here, the colonial state employed strategies ranging from those requiring ‘natives’ to obtain written authorization to settle in towns (e.g. the infamous pass laws of southern and east Africa), to refusal to extend utility services to non-European settlements. In contemporary terms, consanguine policies are used, for instance, in the US, for the purpose of managing growth. In this case, the local state may refuse to extend utility services to areas outside the city limits as a means of promoting more intense land use, and/or ‘in-filling’ within the built-up areas. In this case, the local state’s decision against extending necessary services beyond the city limit serves to make the option of developing such areas an unattractive choice to developers.

The extent to which any one of these strategies can succeed in achieving the desired ends depends on several factors. At a more general level, Shively (2001) contends that the ability of any form of power to attain its intended objective(s) depends on factors such as money, affection, physical strength, legal status (e.g. a police officer’s power to control traffic), the possession of important information, a winning smile, strong allies, determination, and desperation. Four of these factors, namely money, strong allies, determination and knowledge (or possession of important information), constituted incontestably viable sources of power for colonial governments. After all, what was colonialism without guaranteed and uninhibited access to a seemingly limitless pool of resources in the colony?

Colonial authorities in Africa possessed and exercised other forms of power. For instance, they exercised what may best be characterized as ‘naked power’ as opposed to ‘legitimated power’. As hinted at already, the latter is typically associated with governments in democratic polities, while the former constitutes what victors of a war are wont to exercise over captured territories. Colonial territories were, for all practical purposes, captured territories and the colonialists treated them as such. Over time, even in territories captured through war, the victors would succeed in transforming ‘naked power’ into ‘legitimated power’.

In the case of colonial governments in Africa, this was seldom the case as most were never successful in transforming the power they wielded over citizens or the socalled natives into ‘legitimated authority’. For this to have taken place, the colonialists needed to have first and foremost clothed colonial government power with elements of ‘justice’, ‘morality’, ‘religion’, and other cultural values. These values, as Gerth and Mills (1964: 195) note, are necessary to define acceptable ‘ends’ and ‘means’, including the responsibilities of those who wield power in the process.

Power and the built environment

A number of works, including books (e.g. Abu-Lughod, 1980; AlSayyad, 1992; Dovey, 1999; King, 1990; Rabinow, 1989) and articles (e.g. Cooper, 2000; Faubion (on Foucault), 2000), have analysed the built environment as a source or tool of power. I find Kim Dovey’s (1999) discourse on the articulation or mediation of power in ‘built form’ particularly illuminating in appreciating how colonial authorities employed physical and spatial policies as a source and tool of power in Africa.

In everyday life, power is often construed as having to do with control ‘over’ others. Thus, power can be sub-divided into two categories, namely ‘power to’ and ‘power over’. These two sub-categories are essentially synonymous with power as capacity, and power as a relationship between individuals, agents or groups (Dovey, 1999). Although ‘power over’ is generally more obvious in everyday life, it is the ‘power to’, as Dovey (1999) contends that is more primary. Thus, for example, Ralph Miliband (1969) is talking of the ‘power of the state to’ make citizens do as the state wants, rather than the power of the state ‘over’ citizens as in the case of an ‘oppressor’s’ ‘power over’ the ‘oppressed’, when he asserts that more and more people in capitalist societies are living under the shadow of the state. Miliband was talking of advanced capitalist states, where oppression is unlikely although not nonexistent. To be sure, there are instances in which the state everywhere may elect to use any one of many forms of power. Dovey (1999) identifies five specific forms of ‘power over’, including force, coercion, seduction, manipulation, and segregation, that are relevant to the built environment.

Force entails making an individual or group comply with another’s will without any choice of acting otherwise. Foucault’s notion of the ‘Great Confinement’, exemplifies the use of force in the built environment. As Markus (1993: 95) narrates it, Michel Foucault used the phrase, ‘great confinement’, in reference to what he described as a

‘phenomenon of European dimensions’ which was born with the 1656 decree setting up the landmark Hôpital Général in Paris.

What Foucault was alluding to, was a system designed to collect and confine, within a specific space delineated with walls, fences or similar barriers, those considered to be a real or potential threat to social order. Structures for enforced spatial confinement, including asylums, prisons, orphanages and sanatoriums were plentiful in eighteenth-century Europe and constitute manifestations of the use of force in built form. In colonial Africa, the application of force involving the manipulation of elements of the built environment included the use of visible objects such as fences enclosing the residential areas of Europeans, or those circumscribing or ‘enframing’ workers’ camps, and military barracks.

Coercion is a latent kind of force as it only threatens the use of force but does not quite use it. The threats are used to secure compliance. Its power is derived from implied sanctions. Coercion finds expression in the built environment in several ways, including the use of armed or unarmed uniformed guards of honour, public monuments and exaggerated scale. These conspicuous structures coerce through ‘domination’ or ‘intimidation’. The construction of gigantic monuments and buildings of exaggerated scale such as chapels, government official and residential facilities and so on by colonial powers or their agents in Africa achieved the goal of ‘domination’ and ‘intimidation’ in two ways: by ostentatiously displaying Europe’s resourcefulness and technological might; and by overwhelming and belittling the African with sheer size. Or as Kim Dovey (1999: 10) puts it,

spatial domination through exaggerated scale or dominant location can belittle the human subject as it signifies the power necessary to its production.

Coercion also occurs in the built environment through surveillance. Colonial authorities in Africa typically situated their offices and residential districts on elevated sites overlooking the low-lying residential quarters of the colonized. Here, coercion manifested itself in built form through surveillance to the extent that such a spatial arrangement placed the colonized under the constant gaze of the colonizer.

Seduction is a potent and complex form of ‘power over’. This form of power was commonly used in colonial Africa. Colonial authorities, in their bid to achieve the imperial and capitalist goal of expanding markets for European goods, particularly building and cognate materials, proceeded with unprecedented alacrity to develop a plethora of propaganda campaign strategies. The aim of these strategies was to promote pseudo-European middle-class standards of environmental design. These campaigns included disparaging qualification and disdainful treatment of traditional construction practices and materials while extolling European equivalents. The s...