I think colonialism was a grave evil.

However, what's interesting about this piece is that it tries to make a "woke" feminist anti-colonial case, but ends up completely backfiring in my opinion. https://failedarchitecture.com/how-british-colonial-architecture-excluded-pakistani-women-from-the-public-sphere/

Note that I'm not endorsing any of what follows as what I think the truth of the matter is.

I'm just arguing that what the article claims to have been the case about pre-British and British architecture in Muslim India undermines its own narrative and conclusion.

It paints pre-British Muslim-India as having a complex and strict array of gendered norms, produced and enforced by architecture which provided for a high degree of social control, collectivism, and gender inequality.

By contrast, it depicts British architecture as providing for far less social control, as well as being more individualistic, and also relatively gender blind.

It then discussed Britain bringing their architecture to India.

The article in effect argues that, as pre-British Muslim-India did not allow women to participate in gender neutral spaces, bringing relatively gender blind architecture to India ended up restraining women further.

Whereas before, women had their clearly defined and strictly controlled – and highly limiting – spaces, now they lacked even those.

This argument is plausible, but surely the implication here is surely that the fault lies with these social norms, and not with British architecture!

The problem was that unequal social norms did not mesh well with built space designed for relatively more equal social norms.

I'd also imagine that in the long-run, British architecture may have even improved the condition of women.

In the short term, the architecture changed but the norms remained the same, worsening the condition of women.

But in the long term, without the built space producing and enforcing high levels of social control, collectivism, and gender inequity, the norms might have changed to be more conducive to the new physical reality.

This would likely improve the condition of men too.

From the article, it seems that complex and strict gender norms require pretty oppressive architecture to sustain them.

Men being liberated from this seems like a win-win.

A more private, individual, and equal society also seems more conducive to political, social, and economic development.

If there is another takeaway from this article, it's a point in favour of small-c conservatism.

Attempts to "rationally" replace what has organically built up over time may have unintended consequences, frustrating the very goal of the "rational" plan (eg greater gender equity).

Again, I'm not necessarily saying any of this was the case with respect to pre-British and British architecture in Muslim India – just that the articles claims conflict with its own narrative and conclusion.

More broadly, the article reminds me of this study, suggesting that societies which provide for female inheritance may end up with more constraining gender norms for women: https://twitter.com/DumanBRad/status/1131924356441944065?s=19

The article also reminds me of @hbdchick's work on how societies with and without cousin-marriage have different built spaces, indicative of and contributing to significant social differences between them

The description of cultural differences in architecture in the article also serves as an evocative reminder that things like liberalism, markets, and democracy can't exist in a vacuum but require a particular social structure as prerequisites.

For instance, its hard to imagine the notion of "individual liberty" making much sense at all given the norms and built space of (what the article describes as) pre-British Muslim India.

Accordingly, if we value liberalism et al in societies which have it, a degree of conservatism is necessary.

We can't have them if our very peculiar (from an historical and geographic perspective) set of social arrangements are eviscerated or replaced.

(This is a fatal flaw with ideologies like libertarianism when taken in their pure form.)