The modern view is one of seeking a better or improved future. The modernist tends to be of an experimental and radical nature. But we now live in the postmodern world and have “moved on to the next phase in life” if you want to say. It is difficult for one to define postmodernism mainly because, I believe, we live it. For some reason, it is hard to put your finger on what is going on now. Once it becomes history, it is much easier to define and explain. While postmodernism is what is a part of our lives now, I would rather like to focus on modernism, which I would say still remains central in the third world. An example of this modernist idea in the third world is the city of Brasília.
Brasília was developed on a premise that it would change the evolution and social ideas of the entire country. The city was planned out long before its creation. Modern views heavily influenced the planning of Brasília and later the layout and look of the city. The idea was to produce a type of utopian capital for Brazil in order to set the stage for the future. It was to be an instrument for social change. There were hopes “to skip undesired stages in (the country’s) evolution” (Holston: 4: 1989). The feel of modernism and a hope for change is seen in the city’s architecture and design. But in this process, the existence of the daily social disorders and problems were denied. I will show that society’s views were not so easily changed and the premises of this “utopian capital” were over time were actually inverted after its inauguration.
Brazil’s capital was initially located in the northeast of Brazil in the city of Salvador until 1763 when it was moved to Rio de Janeiro in the southeast of the country. The idea of once again moving the capital of Brazil was discussed in 1891 just after Brazil changed to a republic from a monarchy. The site for this new capital was not identified until 1922. It was proposed to locate the new capital in the country’s central region in order to develop the vast area of unused land. The idea was also to help more people to migrate more towards the interior and less towards the overcrowded and popular coasts. In 1946, after WWII, a new constitution was written which stated that “the capital of the Union shall be moved to the central highlands” (Holford: 16: 1962). Surveys began in search of the ideal spot of land to create the new nations capital and in 1955 an area of land, among several, was finally chosen.
In 1956 a man named Jucselino Kubitschek was elected president of Brazil. He promised to build the new city and relocate the capital from Rio de Janeiro on April 21, 1960. This tremendous promise actually occurred and Brasília was built in 41 months, from 1956 to April 21, 1960.
The ambition and excitement that this city brought to the nation was led by modernist planners and architects. This utopia was to be built from nothing, from the ground up. The plans for Brasília were very urbanized and very unfamiliar to the rest of the country. The plan was to build the city in the shape of a cross but had to be adapted to fit the topography and ended up in the shape of an airplane. Anthropologist Jose Jorge de Carvalho gives an interesting interpretation of this change from cross to airplane. He states that it furthers the understanding of modern ideology. The idea of the cross gives the intention of a sort of New Christian Rome but in reality the idea of building the city was to build a “new machine to live in” (Carvalho: 361: 1991). The idea of living in a machine rather than a cross is more modern and more technological. Take it a bit further, one could even say that it is a symbol behind the city’s premise. A modern and new way of life for Brazil was the initial idea of the capital and this is shown even in the actual shape of the city.
The modern architecture and planning for Brasília were in hopes “to create new forms of collective association, personal habit, and daily life” (Holston: 31: 1989). Brasília’s master plan was to create urban order and do away with disorder as much as possible. But in doing so it created a view completely unfamiliar to Brazilian lifestyle. Innovative ideas in the country were planned and developed in Brasília and it became a city very different from all other cities in Brazil.
These new urban and modern ideas are seen in the architecture and design of the city. The streets of Brasília were built all as one way streets with no traffic lights. All cars travel through tunnels and on overpasses in order to avoid intersections. This idea is very modernistic in style, but also is problematic in various ways. Pedestrians have difficulty crossing the street where there is no break in traffic. It is a more dangerous venture to cross the street in Brasília than other streets in Brazil. Also the complaint of no “street life” or the absence of urban crowds is commonly heard of in Brasília. The idea of no street corners is shocking to the Brazilian culture. This lack is attributed to the enormous separation between buildings, the segregation of activities to urban areas and mainly because of the actual shortage of street corners (Holston: 105: 1989). These corners are a very important part of Brazilian life and they draw the public city and the street life together. Because of this lack of street corners, Brasília has been often characterized as lacking in human warmth and hospitality.
Another example of this plan for urban order was the complete segregation of work and residence. Places of work were organized into specific uniform areas and likewise areas of residence were organized in the same manner. Two separate functions of the modern world were carefully organized in the city and placed in a very pragmatic way. As mentioned before the city takes the shape of an airplane. The city is divided up into the Monumental Axis (fuselage), and the North and South Wings. In the wings the areas are divided into nine sections that include libraries, clinics, schools, and what are called superquadras - which consist mainly of apartment buildings. The superquadras surround these community facilities (schools, clinics, etc.) and each wing has a standardized pattern in architecture (Holston: 166-67: 1989). These areas of residence are meant to be functional and egalitarian in nature. They are to help promote social equality and unity.
Another approach to modernity in Brasília was to open a brand new city, one that seemingly sprang from no where and was ready to receive anticipated tenants. In this way it was easy to see the utopian difference between the new capital and the rest of the nation. This idea of opening an empty city was problematic before it was even inaugurated. The city already acquired a population of builders. But the city denied these builders, known as candangos, the right to live in the very city they built. This is where the idea of utopia and egalitarian society went objectively awry. Instead of building a city based on changing social inequality and creating a type of utopia, a city was built that demonstrated social inequality by denying these workers rights to their city. The solution to this problem was not much of an improvement either. They created cities outside of the originally planned city called satellite cities to house these workers. It is interesting to note that the original plan strictly forbade the development of “neither the legal nor the illegal periphery of working-class poverty that typically occurs around Brazilian metropolises” (Holston: 257: 1989), or in other words, no slums in the periphery of this new city. The whole premise of which the city was based upon became turned around and Brasília “shows one of the most extreme patterns of social segregation in the country” (Carvalho: 361: 1991).
After the inauguration of the city, residents moved into the new modernistic city. But after only the first generation of residents, the city’s plan began to be rejected. The city’s intention, as stated before, was to create a whole new social order, but the first residents of the city rejected these objectives. The familiar ways of Brazilian life were nowhere to be found in the new city. The residents began to shape the city in order to restore the common ways of life.
The standard pattern of architecture was difficult for the Brazilians to accept. Many Brazilians “simply object to having to live (and die) in uniform concrete boxes that by law they cannot change” (Holston: 182: 1989). They felt the modern architecture was very anti-individualistic and Brazilians like to show their differences and individualism. The Brazilian culture is full of personality and the attempt to suppress it in a way or equalize it failed completely.
The idea of the superquadra was pretty much completely eliminated. Most people who did not like the identical look of each apartment or public buildings, moved out and created their own neighborhoods outside the city. Not only did they reject their apartments, but also the “egalitarian clubs” in the superquadras and created their own private clubs (Holston: 309: 1989). In this process of moving and creating other neighborhoods and areas of recreation, they defined social differences, which go against the entire premise or idea of the creation of the city.
The whole idea of the city was to create a new social order. They wanted to create a modern utopia to pattern the rest of Brazil after in the future. But why did this plan fail? Creating a new social order takes a lot of time and development. Building a new city with new standards of life will not be successful in changing a generations of existence. Certain evolutionary processes of social development cannot just be skipped. In order to reach a “higher standard of living,” depending on how one defines it, one must be willing to work their way up to get there. The modernistic approach was almost completely turned around in Brasília because it was unfamiliar to the society that occupied its space. The people rejected the ideas of standardization and egalitarian and changed the shape of the city within the first generation of residents. The whole premise Brasília was founded upon was turned around and the city is now one of the most socially segregated cities in the nation.
The Brazilian culture is a very dominant and lively one. To try and tell them to be and act in a way that is contrary to the way they want is a very difficult task. It is that way for many other cultures as well. Most people do not want to be someone they are not, especially if it is forced upon them. Brazilians are no different and they changed the way of the city to the way they are comfortable and used to living; to a way that they thought Brazilians should live.
Bibliography
Carvalho, Jose Jorge de. 1991. Brasília: From Utopia to Reality. Current Anthropology, Vol. 32, No. 3. pp. 359-362. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Holford, William. 1962. Brasília: The Federal Capital of Brazil. The Geographical Journal, Vol. 128, No. 1. pp. 15-17. The Royal Geographical Society.
Holston, James. 1989. The Modernist City: An Anthropological Critique of Brasília. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
