擬全球城市中心與邊陲的界線運作與穿越- 以信義計畫區與基隆路整宅為個案

Abstract

研究者希望將問題的焦點放到佔據真實空間的擬全球城市，這些空間並不存在於Sassen和Friedmann的全球城市假說與研究論述之中，但是他們卻是全球化過程，地方對於全球的具體想像與回應。本研究希望透過做為擬全球城市的台北來理解在地的行動者如何理解這樣的新空間形式？產生怎樣的互動關係？進而促使學術社群反省全球（化）城市文獻高度集中在大尺度的政治經濟分析、及其過於簡單處理空間和社會關係面向的問題。研究者採取「界線運作」（boundry work）作為分析工具，以掌握地方與全球互動的動態與細緻性，並主張空間和社會界線不只是相互建構，且是一個不斷分類、畫界、溝通與協商的過程。使用界線運作的概念來解釋全球/在地的關係，一方面是要突破二元對立的分類，再方面則是要細緻化權力關係運作的討論。 藉由觀察台北作為擬全球城市的象徵—信義計畫區如何透過畫界的修辭和都市更新論述，與其僅有一路之隔的「基隆路整建住宅」之間的協商過程，本研究分成兩個部分，一方面探討全球/在地之間社會－空間界線的建構與運作過程中，居於外圍的窳陋地區如何在界線運作中被排除又被重新收編；另一方面處理整宅居民如何回應、穿越或重新協商這些界線與分類。研究方法採取質性方法中的深入訪談和參與觀察。 首先，探討經由制度性的空間界線與象徵界線的建構，所發展出一套充滿自我中心與西方現代性意識型態偏見的畫界修辭學，藉以正當化曼哈頓計畫所隱含集中化的資源分配方式與不公平的社會權力關係，進而框架人們觀看的角度和整宅居民對整宅與自我的認同，同時污名化與排除邊緣的老舊地區，以正當化基隆路整宅的更新計畫。更新計畫的目的是透過景觀的同化與生活空間的縉紳化(gentrification)，將邊緣的差異他者(other)整併進入信義計畫區，並將界線進一步推向後方的老台北。這說明改建不只是改建老房子，也是空間與社會界線的再結構。 第二部分，在日常生活的層次，研究者觀察到相對弱勢的居民即使受限於權力與資源的不平等，但在與他人互動的過程中，還是可以利用一些策略，創造空間和自主性來協商社會標籤的負面形象，進行污名的管理，以改善個人在日常生活的處境。在工作的場域，依照不同的工作、機構，行動者受到的結構限制有所差異，也握有不同的機會和資源，可能發展出不同的策略來穿越這些空間與社會界線，進行一些個人小小的創造、顛覆、修正或反抗。

This research focuses on Taipei, a mimic global city which takes place in real world, but not in the global city paradigm of Sassen and Friedmann’s. They are the local imagination and response of the global cities. By taking a closer look at how this new city form has been imagined, perceived, conceived, and interacted with, in order to deliver the spatial and social perspectives which are over-simplified in the big scale and grand narratives of political economy. Through adopting boundary work as a tool for analysis, the research not only shows a more dynamic and delicate picture of mutual construction between spatial boundary and social boundary, but also a process of constantly sorting, drawing boundaries, communicating and negotiating. I observed how Xinyi Planning District, also known as “Taipei Manhattan”, the symbol of mimic global Taipei, through the rhetoric of boundary making and discourse of urban renewal, renegotiate its boundary with Keelung Road Resettlement Community across the road. I divided the research findings into two parts. The first dealt with how the outer-skirt urban slum has been excluded and re-included through the rhetoric of boundary work. The second part focused on how residents from the slums responded to, crossed through, or renegotiated with the mainstream boundary and category. First, in the process of the constructing institutional spatial boundary and symbolic boundary, the mainstream society also developed a rhetoric filled with the ideological prejudice of self-centered western modernity. This rhetoric of boundary drawing works to legitimize the concentrated distribution of resource and unfair power relation implied by the Manhattan plan. Furthermore, it also stigmatized and excluded Keelung Road Resettlement Community, in order to legitimize its renewal plan, which plans to integrate “the other” into the core of global city by assimilation of landscape, as well as gentrification of lived space. The rebuild is, in fact, an act of expanding the territory of global city by pushing back the boundary towards the old city. Secondly, although for the residents of Keelung Road Resettlement Community, their agency is limited to unequal power and resources, they also possess the power to renegotiate the mainstream boundary and value in everyday life. In situations of interaction, the residents can still utilize some strategies to create space for renegotiation of the labeled passive images. In the domain of work, agents in different jobs or institutions are controlled by different restrictions, while each of them also holds different resource and opportunities to develop various strategies to cross the social-spatial boundary.