後建築:穿越建築的意識形態批判

Abstract

後建築是一個建築研究的方法論,目的在於分析前/殖民地台灣的當代建築(美學) 論述。台灣當代的建築(美學)論述,體現於自上個世紀九十年代中期興起的建築熱,以 美麗的房子(beautiful artifact)、建築人表裡如一的真(authenticity)與公共的善(public value) 三位一體為核心,使得建築人藉由設計在台灣社會中取得一直以來夢寐以求的尊榮--被社 會承認的特殊的象徵地位與話語權,並將此稱之為「遲來的正義」。然而本論文認為必須 將此建築(美學)論述的實踐,視為建構台灣社會之主體性的重要環節。正是此主體性支 撐了台灣的政治、經濟與社會之困境的生產與再生產,因而並非「遲來的正義」,而是不 同以往的支配形式(forms of domination)回溯性地(retroactively)建構的產物。這些台灣 社會的困境包括島內藍綠分裂形成民主危機,以愛台灣之名,用分裂偷渡/掩蓋其他社會 不平等與不正義,阻礙經濟轉型與發展,同時再藉此危機的宣告,以自由化與競爭力之名, 放任資方,放棄勞方;藉由將前/殖民者與被殖民者的不平等位階與歧視轉嫁給新的他者 --包括膚色較深的東南亞移工、外籍新娘,以及來自中國的新娘與學生,他們取代了過去 的他者如違建戶、樂生病友、原住民與外省人,然後以乾淨、安全、美麗、品味的文明之 名,讓地方政府得以「超克藍綠」,完成城市的縉紳化(gentrification)。 新的支配形式特殊之處,在於它毫不隱藏藉由操弄認同取得政治與經濟利益,它不 掩飾地歧視自己構造出來的新的他者,即使引來軒然大波,也在所不惜。同時更弔詭地, 還在於被支配者對此也都心知肚明。支持權勢者的一方對於政客們、財團們聲嘶力竭的愛 台灣、要改革、拼經濟,早就學會不嚴肅對待;反對的一方儘管因為權勢者或無能而錯誤 百出,或顢頇粗暴而毫不遮掩,得以盡情批判,保持清醒。然而,前述的困境與矛盾,卻 依然如故。大家都知道,但是卻像不知道一般,繼續順著此支配形式的指令(command) 行動/不行動。 為了穿越(traverse)此一新的支配形式,本研究採取Zizek的理論視角,以主體--形式 --慾望為軸線,將建築的意識形態批判從內容轉向形式,從意義(Meaning)轉向快感 (jouissance),從「非知」(non-knowledge)轉向「不注意/忽略」(unbewusste/overlook)。 一方面將Tafuri視為將建築的意識形態批判轉向形式的第一人,另一方面他也同時是意義 取向的最後一人,是將建築的意識形態批判從意義轉向快感與無意識的後建築 (post-architecture)到來之前,必要的誤認(misrecognition)。換言之,只有先揭露真相, 建構出完整的現實,作為支撐此現實的內核(kernel)--崇高客體(sublime object)--才得 以辨識。藉由將建築再理論化為崇高客體,後建築得以將建築熱所建構的三位一體的建築, 視為填充空缺(the lack)的日常客體。一旦我們震懾於三位一體的建築,所有現實中的破 洞(矛盾與困境)就會不斷引發我們解釋、批判與揭祕,現實就越能呈現出一致性。隨著 現實一致性不斷被挑戰,新的現實會被重新生產,如此循環反複。在此循環之中,我們被 欲望驅使,隨著滿足與失望起落,快感充斥其中。然後我們就會都知道,卻像不知道一般, 心不甘情不願地進入給定的社會秩序所賦予的身分認同,然後夢想著作為慾望的客體--成 因的自我掌控(self-mastery)的主體性。既然幻象(fantasy)不但無法經由解祕與批判而 解除,反而被解祕與批判所滋養,那就只能藉由主體的貧困化(subjective destitution)穿越幻象,這就是「只有以卵擊石,方能與卵共存」之所謂。

“Post-Architecture” is a methodology of architecture studies, the purpose of which is to examine the contemporary (aesthetic-) architectural discourses in Taiwan qua (ex-)colony. Such discourses have been enacted in the “architecture zealotry” since the mid-nineties of the last century, in which architects in Taiwan procure their coveted glorious honor by virtue of manipulating the Architectural Trinity—a synthesis of beautiful artifact, public good, and the authenticity of architects’ sincerity. Thereby, architects are acknowledged their symbolic position and discursive hegemony, and in return assert herein as “belated justice.” Post-Architecture argues that the practices of such (aesthetic-) architectural discourses have to be considered a critical juncture of the construction of Taiwan’s Subjectivity. It is this Subjectivity that underpins the production and reproduction of the predicaments in Taiwan’s political, economic, and societal development. Therefore, the consequence is by no means “belated justice,” but a product retroactively constructed by different forms of domination. These predicaments include: democratic crisis that results from the split of blue/green partisan wrangles; inequality and injustice that are veiled by the cry for loving Taiwan, which then obstructs economic transformation and development; by declaring a state of crisis and in the name of improving liberty and competitiveness, the consensus to spoil capitalists and sacrifice laborers; passing on the discrimination and unequal hierarchy in the past between the colonizer and the colonized to the new Other—which is now represented by migrant workers and foreign spouses from South East Asia, as well as students and spouses from mainland China, which in turn have displaced the Other in recent past decades, such as squatters, lepers, aboriginals and mainlanders. All of the above, contribute to the government’s endeavor—in the name of sanitation, security, beauty, distinction and civilization—to “transcend the blue/green partisanship” and achieve the gentrification of the city. One important feature of the new form of domination is, that the power bloc accumulate political and economic interests by virtue of blatantly manipulating identity politics, as well as undisguised discrimination against the new Other it frames; even though this would result in violent iii disturbance, it doesn’t matter. Paradoxically, the popular sectors are also well aware of the state of affairs: On the one hand, those who support the powerful have learned not taking seriously the latter’s harsh crying for loving Taiwan, reform, and economic revitalization. On the other hand, those who oppose live up to their consciousness by indulging themselves in criticizing the powerful. However, the aforementioned difficulties and predicaments remain unchanged. Everyone knows, but just as if they still don’t know—keeping on their performance according to the command of this form of domination to act and/or in-act. In order to traverse the new form of domination, Post-Architecture builds on Zizek’s theoretical perspective: Taking subject-form-desire as the analytical axis, it turns the ideological critique of architecture from the analysis of the content to that of the form, from meaning to jouissance, and from non-knowledge to unbewusste/overlook. On the one hand, it takes Tafuri as the first person who contributes to such epistemological shift from the content to the form; on the other hand, he is also understood as the last person who holds on to the meaning-approach—“Tafuri” is the necessary misrecognition before the arrival of “post-architecture,” which then could overturn the ideological critique of architecture from the meaning to jouissance and unconscious. In other words, it is necessary to uncover the truth, to construct the whole reality, so that the kernel which underpins the reality—that is, sublime object—is possible to be discerned. By re-theorizing architecture as sublime object, Post-Architecture takes architecture qua Trinity as the ordinary object to be filled in “the lack.” Once we are deterred by the Architectural Trinity, the “black hole” in the reality—i.e., contradictions and predicaments—will continue to provoke us to unmask, construe, and criticize, and thereby produce a consistant reality. With the consistency of the reality continues to be challenged, the new reality will be re-produced in the same way, so the cycle repeats. In this vicious circle, we are driven by our desire; with ups and downs of satisfaction and frustration, we indulge ourselves with jouissance. In this way, we get to know what we know, but just as if we don’t know at all—we reluctantly enter the identities conferred by the given social order, and then dream of becoming a self-mastery subject qua object-cause of desire. Since the fantasy cannot be discharged through criticism and deconstruction, but in fact is nurtured by disillusion and demystification, then the only way to traverse the fantasy is by virtue of “subjective destitution”—that is, “To strike a stone with eggs, is the only way to survive together with eggs.”