The argument over whether or not Sir David Adjaye’s should have accepted the
knighthood awarded to him is a shape-shifting one.
Just when you think you’ve arrived at a fully formed view-point on it, an adjacent
one upends it.
If the view is that Sir David Adjaye is a puppet of some sort for accepting the
highest of imperialist honours, a concurrent view is that this same honour is
testament of Sir Adjaye’s continuing monumental achievements in architecture
the world over.
If the image of a black man kneeling before a white man – whether within or
without context – represents no progress in black pride, it’s also helpful to
remember that only a handful of architects, the majority of whom are white,
have ever been knighted.
Attendant factors compound the problem in relation to the offending photo (LINK
HERE). Sir Adjaye is 50 years old while Prince Williams is a young man of 34.
All cultures place a high price on respect for elders but this is demonstrated, in
many African cultures, in a particular way that could be indistinguishable from
subservience as some squat and some kneel—and not only on occasion but as an
everyday practice.The image of a black man of 50 kneeling before a young man of 34 to accept an
award will rankle some even more, and this cannot be ignored.
It is possible that had it been the Queen herself or Prince Phillip who conferred
the honour on Sir Adjaye, not as many hackles would have been raised and the
disgust felt by some, less so.
Also, Sir Adjaye’s accomplishments as an individual will diminish those of Prince
Williams many times over.
One designed famed and expensive building projects the world over, while the
other said congratulations for doing so. The correlative achievements of
appointer and appointed in the offending picture is very unequal.
But then if a knighthood is too much the representation British imperialism, how
does it differ from having a British passport?
Take it even further, how is it different from speaking the English language which
has been spread through the same conquest that is inseparable from the
conditions that have sustained the honours system?
A British passport is democratic and acquired by birth or naturalisation, while the
honours system is very selective.
A British passport holder may think nothing of his or her possession and the wide
berth of advantages it gives in terms of hassle free international travels, trust and
respect—all trickled down from British conquests and the (brutal) order imposed
over centuries.Is it then a matter of choosing which representation is the least odious? And who
gets to decide? The individual passport holder, former colonial subjects or the
individual honoree?
An important voice in this debate, which is not being heard, is that of other Black
architects in the UK. They, better than others, will have a commanding view on
the issue but the few i approached declined to give any comments.
One, accredited by RIBA (Royal Institute of British Architects) would only speak on
condition of anonymity. Her main concern is that for the most part, only Sir
Adjaye will benefit from the honour as it doesn’t tell a very progressive story
about the fate and everyday lives of Black architects in the UK.
As recently as 2012, the Architect’s Journal, concluding from data released by the
RIBA and Fees Bureau, attests that “nearly 94 per cent of architects are white,
compared with 93.3 per cent last year (2011)”, while “Black British architects
account for 0.9 per cent of the profession, down from 1.2 per cent in 2008”, but
also adding that “the proportion of Asian architects has increased from 1.8 per
cent in 2008 to 2.5 per cent” in 2015 when the analysis was released.
So Sir Adjaye’s knighthood hasn’t come at a time of boom for Black architects.
Matter of fact, it’s significance is enhanced as a result.
Isn’t rejecting the honour tantamount to rejecting his own achievements and
those of other Black and minority architects who have thrived against the odds?