查詢結果分析
來源資料
頁籤選單縮合
題 名 | Taipei and Its Discontents:Fin-de-Siecle Mappings of Taipei in Gudu and Taipei 100 |
---|---|
作 者 | Liang,Iping; | 書刊名 | Tamkang Review |
卷 期 | 31:2 民89.冬 |
頁 次 | 頁103-129 |
分類號 | 824 |
關鍵詞 | 臺北市; 都市化; 古都; 在台北生存的100個理由; Chu Tienhsin; Taipei; Urbanity; Berman; Soja; Taipei 100; Gudu; Modernity; Memory; Appadurai; Jameson; Third space; |
語 文 | 英文(English) |
英文摘要 | While discontents with Taipei surface in a milieu of massive urban constructions, two cultural productions are noteworthy. One is Chu Tienhsin's Gudu (Ancient Capital, 1997), a highly complex postmodern narrative about urban memory in Taipei, and the other is Taipei 100 (1998), literally the “one hundred reasons to live in Taipei,” a sort of underground guidebook of Taipei by a group of five authors, whom hereby I will refer to as “the Huangs.” Very different in form, the two texts simultaneously express their discontents with Taipei: Chu detests urbanization at the cost of historicity, and the Huangs abhor “unevenness” due to the fact of deficient modernization. Taken together, they offer interesting points of connection and disconnection that would amount to “fin-de-siècle” mappings of Taipei. By “mapping,” I have in mind specially the Jamesonian conception of “cognitive mapping,” that is, how “people make sense of their urban surroundings.” (MacCabe xiv) I would like to interrogate how Chu and the Huangs “make sense of the urban surroundings” of Taipei, and by doing so, to explore the dialectics of modernity and urbanity in Gudu and Taipei 100. Taking on Jameson's “Re-mapping Taipei” (1992), I argue that the experiences of modernity and urbanity in Taipei do not and should not be regulated by the kinds of categories that Jameson employs. The sort of non-categorizability of Taipei discloses on the one hand the non-binaristic experiences of the modern and the postmodern in Taipei, and on the other the non-homogenizing trajectories of the temporal and the spatial aspects of modernity. My arguments will proceed from the temporal dimension of modernity by way of Marshall Berman (1982) and Hayden White (1978), to the spatial dimension as theorized byArjun Appadurai (1996) and Edward Soja (1996). At the end, I will contrast Soja's “Thirdspace” with Jameson's “Third World” and conclude with recourse to Foucault. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。