武汉市滨水公共游憩空间生产的过程与机理

城市滨水公共游憩空间是城市功能转型的典型代表。运用实地调研、访谈、批判性语篇分析等方法,基于列斐伏尔的空间生产理论和福柯的微观权力理论,建立起贯穿空间规划、建设、管理和使用全过程的解构思路,从“规训者—反规训者”视角分析了武汉市滨水公共游憩空间生产的过程和机制。研究发现：①武汉市滨水公共游憩空间的生产是规训者与反规训者相互作用、共同推动的结果,经历了由空间的表征主导的“游憩化规划”阶段,由空间的实践主导的“水岸重塑”阶段和由表征的空间主导的“流动秩序实践”阶段;②多元利益主体在不同阶段形成了自上而下的趋同性空间再造和自下而上的异质性空间实践,但政府始终主导着空间生产过程,保障了其游憩化、公益性方向。     

微观权力视角下的游船空间解读

研究以米歇尔·福柯（Michel Foucault）的微观权力学说为理论基础,收集了多元文本/话语资料,采用批评话语分析为研究方法,对珠江广州城区段上的游船空间进行解读。研究发现：①游船空间权力的对象转变促使新的权力文化的诞生,游船空间中物的使用价值让位于符号价值;②游船空间的分层体现出类型学秩序,座位的排列则渗透着等级性秩序,由此生产出不同性质的社会空间及社会关系;权力对时间的分解及序列化,确保能最大限度地使用稍纵即逝的时间来创造利润;话语的编织及渗透,形成了一种强大的心理控制场;对身体的安置,能提升权力支配及管理的效率。最后,微观权力视角下的游船空间,体现出的是资本与权力在空间中相互串谋而引发的旅游空间异化。     

(UN)DOING HISTORY: A CASE FOR EPISTEMOLOGICAL ALTERITY

This article addresses two primary tensions that currently beset medieval history. The first concerns a contentious debate within the field regarding the relative merits of two interpretative approaches: that which seeks to situate the Middle Ages within a narrative of continuity wherein aspects of the medieval bear some relationship of familiarity with the present and that which accords a radical alterity to the past that instigates moments of historical rupture. The second tension concerns the fraught relationship between history as a site of knowledge production with some proximity to engaging and producing truth and history as constructed, wherein its purported object of study, the past, is not an ontological fact but a cultural artifact. In this instance, what we witness is less a debate among scholars within history than an amorphic anxiety about history. This article makes a case for engaging the radical alterity that confronts the historian of the Middle Ages. It does so, however, cognizant of an ontological impasse: if alterity is attentive to difference, a difference that resists translation into modern knowledge regimes, then what does it mean to engage it historically—that is, through a temporal structure that would have been foreign to the very period of study?     

An American Prototype in Thomas Mann's Königliche Hoheit

This study is inspired by Henri Lefebvre's theories on the production of space to consider the issues of geographic scale, urbanism, and historical memory in Spanish playwright Jerónimo López Mozo's 1999 play El arquitecto y el relojero. In this drama, the discourses of scale and the spectacle of urban space permeate the dialogue and staging of the work while the characters confront contemporary anxieties about the spatial component of historical memory. Relying on Henri Lefebvre's tripartite theory of the production of space to explore this spatial component not only illustrates the important relationship between culture and space, but it also demonstrates how the production of space at one scale—the urban—simultaneously “articulates” (Delaney and Leitner) with the broader geography of the nation.     

Misunderstanding the Question: ‘What is Enlightenment?’: Venturi, Habermas, and Foucault

In his 1969 Trevelyan Lectures, Franco Venturi argued that Kant's response to the question “What is Enlightenment?” has tended to promote a “philosophical interpretation” of the Enlightenment that leads scholars away from the political questions that were central to its concerns. But while Kant's response is well known, it has been often misunderstood by scholars who see it as offering a definition of an historical period, rather than an attempt at characterizing a process that had a significant implications. This article seeks (1) to clarify, briefly, the particular question that Kant was answering, (2) to examine - using Jürgen Habermas’ work as a case in point - the tension between readings that use Kant's answer as a way of discussing the Enlightenment as a discrete historical period and those readings that see it as offering a broad outline of an “Enlightenment Project” that continues into the present, and (3) to explore how Michel Foucault, in a series of discussions of Kant's response, sketched an approach to Kant's text that offers a way of reframing Venturi's distinction between “philosophical” and “political” interpretations of the Enlightenment.