|
Learning Platform for Rural Housing
Rural
housing has for long been one of the most pressing problems of the
developing world. The figures show that the problem is so large and
complex that it is beyond a single agency and/or a single strategy.
There is perhaps no doubt that it is basically connected with
poverty. However, questions related to society, life style and
belief system etc. appear no less important. In view of the great
variety and complexity one faces in rural housing, it is desirable
for SDC to facilitate creation of learning platforms which are to
the advantage of all concerned. A learning platform in this case
could not be to develop a strategy but a place for interaction
between various initiatives with different strategies working in
different regions and may be even with different goals. The
objective, however, is to learn through enhanced understanding and
facilitation.
Let us try in this note
first to look at some of the conceptual issues involved, taking the
discussion to concrete questions relating to building of such a
platform.
1. Conceptual
Background
The question of
housing has been predominantly seen as related to poverty. True as
it is, it leaves the scope for additional understanding in relation
to society, its codes, rights and privileges etc. This is to propose
that we do some thinking on the relation between the ownership of a
house and membership of the civil society.
Voting right has traditionally
been considered as granting membership (entry) in to the civil
society, but this is the formulation belonging to an era when the
general populace did not have voting rights that were (in general)
conditional to possession of property etc. So, a political route
had come into existence to grant a certain type of social equality
thought of in terms of membership of the civil society. But, now
with universal suffrage being there for over five decades in most
parts of the world, the situation has changed greatly. Political
rights no more seem to enable men and women to seek social equality.
The poor have the voting rights but are denied civil rights socially
in a great many ways. Having a house seems to go a long way towards
obtaining the desired social space and rights. It is true that
having or not having a house is primarily related to economic
conditions but the fact remains that the consequence is sweepingly
social.
It is a common
understanding that having a house enhances the individual's social
status. However, it seems that sufficient attention has not been
paid to understand it’s relation with the very membership of the
civil society. Possessing a house guarantees a status to the
owner’s keen sense of belonging to a locality. This in reality
gives rights in the societal intercourse whether in terms of
participation in the decision-making local processes or the
significance of one’s role in social activities.
Another
aspect, other than owning a house but related to it, which is
important in this respect, is being part of a habitat solidarity.
Mostly, when the poor are concerned, just owning a house is not
enough to ensure membership in the civil society. The additional
requirements are perhaps the habitat solidarity. Unless he/she and
their family is part of a habitat solidarity (community, village,
extended families or some new forms that may be emerging), they
neither have the strength nor the space for taking initiatives to
interact significantly in social processes.
This draws our attention to how the
questions related to the quality of life in general are pertinent in
the context of the housing issue.
2. Key Factors
Following is an identification of some of the key factors
whose interplay may define the canvas of the learning platform for
rural housing.
i) Strengths and initiatives among beneficiaries
If a programme is to ultimately serve the people, it is
meant for, then it must be based in a significant sense in their own
strengths and initiatives. These would, of course, depend upon the
community, the region, and so many other things. The strengths and
initiatives must not be seen only in the areas of technical
practice, but in their values, knowledge, belief system,
organisational thinking and ability to innovate and adapt etc.
ii) Habitat Solidarity
Any rural housing
scheme must tune itself with an objective of developing a habitat.
It is not just a house for a family. Just as an individual man or
woman is a person and a human being contextuated by his village,
communities, family etc., a house must belong to a family of houses,
a community of houses, call them colonies, settlements, or what have
you.
iii) Gender sensitivity
It is extremely
important to guard against the ‘know-alls’. Gender sensitivity must
find explicit expression other than being woven into everything and
the ‘whole’. Women must find opportunities to represent their
specific needs (e.g. internal organization, ownership etc.)
iv) Sustainability
Environmental
friendliness, ecological considerations and low cost must somehow
work in tandem. In each specific situation, satisfying criteria of
sustainability amounts in part to striking parity between local and
global considerations.
v) Local Market
From the point of
view of the delivery of a low cost house, the idea of local market
may appear relevant. House of a poor man must be in tune with the
local planning, expertise, materials, ethics, and aesthetics
—everything that is local. Owning a house means belonging to the
locality. Adhering to the canons of the local market may be a stock
way of ensuring belonging to the locality.
vi) Production by small and decentralised
units
It is a key factor to realize that the building materials
used must come as far as possible from small and decentralised units
of production. Brick, adhesive mortar, even metal contraptions
belong to this category.
vii) Culture sensitive architecture
Popular thought is very rich in thinking on architecture. There are
expert communities and there are experts in every community who
inherit an idea of architecture woven into the life style of the
community. Professional architectural thinking, at least in the
sphere of rural housing, ought to be very sensitive to such a
tradition.
viii) Institutional Finance
Whether finance
comes from banks, government, financial institutions, social
organisations, religious organisations, local bodies, all should be
expected to satisfy at least one criteria i.e. social concern.
Social concern occurs in a great variety of ways and the learning
platform must have the capacity to recognize it.
One may note that
all the key factors fall in place with respect to one another in the
general context of quality, decentralization and a systemic
approach. The question of quality in housing is not the question of
quality of the house. The house is so central to life that it is
more a question of quality of life. Considerations of quality and a
systemic approach need to provide the dynamic criteria governing the
desirable proportioning and orientation of the various factors
mentioned above.
3. Collaborative
Learning
Since the learning platform needs to aim at cogency amidst
great diversity of approaches, methods of work, strategies, even
objectives in addition to attempting a holding together of the
diverse factors systemically and proportionately, it is imperative
that a process of collaborative learning be designed for the
purpose.
The learning platform for Rural Housing should chiefly
attempt to incessantly construct and reconstruct the process of
collaborative learning. Collaborative learning may be viewed as a
collective process made of several angles, each capable of shaping a
wholesome learning process on its own. These may be information
processing, experience sharing, thought provoking, knowledge
management and may be some others specifically pertaining to rural
housing (take the context of the factors provided above).
Lifeline of this collaborative learning process (and
therefore of the proposed platform) lies in hierarchy-breaking and
not-compartmentalizing. In one word — in isotropic holism.
Simply said, isotropic holism involves seeing every point of the
whole as the centre of the whole providing full and equal view of
(and relationship with) all the directions.
4. Construction
and Structure of the Platform
As much as the platform is a product, the process of building
it is of critical importance.
The crucial feature of the process involves identification of
partners, keeping in view the multifacetedness of the platform to be
built. It is the group of partners who will actually build the
platform.
To have some idea of the nature and kind of the desired
platform, it may be helpful to start anchoring the thought in this
respect to concrete issues which may be involved.
l
- It should have multifaceted membership, in
some sense corresponding to the key factors mentioned above.
l
- All members must be equal
l
- The partners should build the platform.
l
- The activities of the platform may pertain to research, database
and experimental work in the context of rural housing.
l
- Platform’s leadership should not be expert but facilitative.
For members to find the exchange of learning meaningful and
relevant to their work, it would help if the platform is operative
at regional levels. Its secretarial functions would get anchored in
a regional host institution that has a non-hierarchical facilitative
position in the network.
The platform is, in practice, expected to shape for (and
between) the partners dialogue, discourse, brain storming, free
expression, information exchange, critical interaction, experience
sharing, empathetic understanding of one-another’s problems,
shortcomings and strengths etc.
What different partners, or generally participants, in
the platform, take home as learning from the platform could
therefore be very different. But isn’t that both desirable and
inevitable?
q
SDC has shared
this note with DA for discussion. DA found it interesting and
relevant to share it with their readers to promote a larger
discussion on the need and mechanics for such a platform. The
readers views can be solicited by DA.
|
Popularisation
Systems For Appropriate Architecture |
|
A
Workshop on ‘Multimedia Interactive Platform
for Appropriate Architecture’ was held in
Visakhapatnam from
December 18- 20th,
2002.
It was organized by Architecture & Development (A&D)
which works for promotion of Appropriate Architecture
specially through renewed engagement by architects with the
practices and needs expressed by emerging actors in the South.
The primary concern behind the workshop was to analyze the
relationship between appropriate architecture, Information &
Communication technologies (IC&T) and development and to
understand how IC&T can be utilized to accelerate development
and sustainability. The workshop served to bring together
organizations and individual professionals to share resources
and collectively work on furthering communication
technologies in promotion of sustainable architecture. The
participants consisted of professionals from various
organizations involved in developing and implementing
sustainable building practices- CED, Habitat Technology Group,
Auroville Building Centre, CART, A&D, Gram Vikas, Anangpur
Building Centre, Inhaf, etc. Development Alternatives
presented two ICT based models in particular- TARAhaat and
BASIN (Building Advisory Services Information Network).
Through presentations and discussions
between participants, the current situation of dissemination
strategies used in India and the use of IT& C as a pedagogic
tool was understood and analyzed. An assessment of existing
strengths and weaknesses and felt needs was made. In the
efforts to organize the workshop, A&D had already been
successful in collating dissemination and communication tools
developed by various participating organizations. The
workshop, which is first in a series of similar initiatives
to be undertaken in different parts of India, served to create
a platform of the ‘first’ participants. It was decided to
bring out a brief document of shared experiences and stating
the mission of the platform till the next workshop to be held
around April 2003. The platform will hopefully grow as more
organizations and individuals join and would like to
demonstrate the effectiveness of IC&T by utilising them in
live projects. This will create a scenario to facilitate the
development of a prototype of a communication model.
Reported by Pankaj Khanna
For more information on activities of A&D
visit www.archidev.org |
|