[Mark Levine]

  I am interested in the cultural implications of the persistence/acceptance of the informal and oftentimes illegal commercial and social/community networks in the East Asian cities (as described by Hou).  I wonder how the historical patterns of urbanization and informal trade have contributed to the persistence of the dynamism of the "soft city".  While Hou states that this phenomenon is not unique to East Asia, it does seem to me that there is something unique about East Asian cities, in terms of the dynamism of the street life- the "organized disorder" that permeates most urban areas.  Sadly it seems that in China at least, the government has been clamping down on the informal networks of vendors and destroying the temporary structures inhabited by migrants, artists, etc.   The perfectly designed, symmetrical multistory megamalls in these cities just feel sterile compared to the spontaneous flow of people and goods in the "in-between" spaces that Professor Bharne discusses so eloquently.  I wonder if these megamalls and the government support of large scale projects in addition to omnipresent surveillance technologies are further diminishing the informal community of vendors and urban migrants/workers.

[Mark Levine]

While there were not many parks or other places that we associate with public meeting spaces in traditional China, most Chinese cities and towns had flourishing markets where the merchant and official classes would meet, and interact.  This started as early as the Song dynasty (10th century), and the long scroll "Qing-Ming festival" that Prof. Bharne discusses in the video lecture depicts the lively market culture.  Teashops and theatre-houses  were also important places that people would meet; of course, mostly men.   

[Mark Levine]

Ping Xu writes, "The characteristics reflected in the Beijing courtyard dwelling may still be found in many Chinese people today: a cold outside with a warm inside, a modest surface with a proud interior; a manner that is reserved with strangers, but unrestrained, in style and content, with friends and family; and a speech that takes a meandering path.  It is difficult to say whether Chinese courtyard dwellings instilled these cultural values, or whether Chinese culture formed the characteristics of Chinese courtyard houses."   Although this statement is a bit reductive and may promote cultural stereotypes, it shows the strong influence that our built environments have on our personalities and values.

My question:  If I am not mistaken, the intricate, grid-like hutong (alleys) and the courtyard homes nestled among them were first built during the Khitan-ruled Liao and Mongol-ruled Yuan dynasties (12th- 14th centuries).  The word "hutong" derives from the Mongol word for "well".   In addition, these hutong (alley) neighborhoods were occupied by the ruling Manchus during the Qing dyansty (1644-1911).  So I wonder if the architecture and aesthetics of the vernacular courtyard style houses (siheyuan) were influenced at all by these foreign groups?  I know this may be more of a question for a Chinese historian, but just was wondering if Prof. Bharne has any thoughts about this.

[Author]

Posts