The great obssion of the nineteenth century was, as we know, history: with its themes of development and of suspension, of crisis, and cycle, themes of the ever-accumulating past, with its great preponderance of dead men and the menacing glaciation of the world. The nineteenth century found its esntial mythological resources in the cond principle of thermaldynamics- The prent epoch will perhaps be above all the epoch of space. We are in the epoch of simultaneity: we are in the epoch of juxtaposition, the epoch of the near and far, of the side-by-side, of the disperd. We are at a moment. I believe, when our experience of the world is less that of a long life developing through time than that of a network that connects points and intercts with its own skein. One could perhaps say that certain ideological conflicts animating prent-day polemics oppo the pious descendents of time and the determined inhabitants of space. Structuralism, or at least which is grouped under this slightly too general name, is the effort to establish, between elements that could have been connected on a temporal axis, an enmble of relations that makes them appear as juxtapod, t off against one another, implicated by each other-that makes them appear, in short, as a sort of configuration. Actually, structuralism does not entail denial of time; it does involve a certain manner of dealing with what we call time and what we call history.
Yet it is necessary to notice that the space which today appears to form the horizon of our concerns, ou
r theory, our systems, is not an innovation; space itlf has a history in Western experience, and it is not possible to disregard the fatal interction of time with space. One could say, by way of retracing this history of space very roughly, that in the Middle Ages there was a hierarchic enmble of places: sacred places and profane plates: protected places and open, expod places: urban places and rural places (all the concern the real life of men). In cosmological theory, there were the supercelestial places as oppod to the celestial, and the celestial place was in its turn oppod to the terrestrial place. There were places where things had been put becau they had been violently displaced, and then on the contrary places where things found their natural ground and stability. It was this complete hierarchy, this opposition, this interction of places that constituted what could very roughly be called medieval space: the space of emplacement.
This space of emplacement was opened up by Galileo. For the real scandal of Galileo's work lay not so much in his discovery, or rediscovery, that the earth revolved around the sun, but in his constitution of an infinite, and infinitely open space. In such a space the place of the Middle Ages turned out to be dissolved. as it were; a thing's place was no longer anything but a point in its movement, just as the stability of a thing was only its movement indefinitely slowed down. In other words, starting with Galileo and the venteenth century, extension was substituted for localization.
Today the site has been substituted for extension which itlf had replaced emplacement. The site is defined by relations of proximity between points or elements; formally, we can describe the relations as ries, trees, or grids.
Moreover, the importance of the site as a problem in contemporary technical work is well known: the storage of data or of the intermediate results of a calculation in the memory of a machine, the circulation of discrete elements with a random output (automobile traffic is a simple ca, or indeed the sounds on a telephone line); the identification of marked or coded elements inside a t that may be randomly distributed, or may be arranged according to single or to multiple classifications.
In a still more concrete manner, the problem of siting or placement aris for mankind in terms of demography. This problem of the human site or living space is not simply that of knowing whether there will be enough space for men in the world -a problem that is certainly quite important - but also that of knowing what relations of propinquity, what type of storage, circulation, marking, and classification of human elements should be adopted in a given situation in order to achieve a given end. Our epoch is one in which space takes for us the form of relations among sites.
In any ca I believe that the anxiety of our era has to do fundamentally with space, no doubt a great uniform
imfill
deal more than with time. Time probably appears to us only as one of the various distributive operations that are possible for the elements that are spread out in space,
provisionNow, despite all the techniques for appropriating space, despite the whole network of knowledge that enables us to delimit or to formalize it, contemporary space is perhaps still not entirely desanctified (apparently unlike time, it would em, which was detached from the sacred in the nineteenth century). To be sure a certain theoretical desanctification of space (the one signaled by Galileo's work) has occurred, but we may still not have reached the point of a practical desanctification of space. And perhaps our life is still governed by a certain number of oppositions that remain inviolable, that our institutions and practices have not yet dared to break down. The are oppositions that we regard as simple givens: for example between private space and public space, between family space and social space, between cultural space and uful space, between the space of leisure and that of work. All the are still nurtured by the hidden prence of the sacred.
Bachelard's monumental work and the descriptions of phenomenologists have taught us that we do not live in a homogeneous and empty space, but on the contrary in a space thoroughly imbued with quantities and perhaps thoroughly fantasmatic as well. The space of our primary perception, the space of our dreams and that of our passions hold within themlves qualities that em intrinsic: th
ere is a light, ethereal, transparent space, or again a dark, rough, encumbered space; a space from above, of summits, or on the contrary a space from below of mud; or again a space that can be flowing like sparkling water, or space that is fixed, congealed, like stone or crystal. Yet the analys, while fundamental for reflection in our time, primarily concern internal space. I should like to speak now of external space.
The space in which we live, which draws us out of ourlves, in which the erosion of our lives. our time and our history occurs, the space that claws and gnaws at us, is also, in itlf, a heterogeneous space. In other words, we do not live in a kind of void, inside of which we could place individuals and things. We do not live inside a void that could be colored with diver shades of light, we live inside a t of relations that delineates sites which are irreducible to one another and absolutely not superimposable on one another.
Of cour one might attempt to describe the different sites by looking for the t of relations by which a given site can be defined. For example, describing the t of relations that define the sites of transportation, streets, trains (a train is an extraordinary bundle of relations becau it is something through which one goes, it is also something by means of which one can go from one point to another, and then it is also something that goes by). One could describe, via the cluster of relations t
wxghat allows them to be defined, the sites of temporary relaxation -cafes, cinemas, beaches. Likewi one could describe, via its network of relations, the clod or mi-clod sites of rest - the hou, the bedroom, the bed, el cetera. But among all the sites, I am interested in certain ones that have the curious property of being in relation with all the other sites, but in such a way as to suspect, neutralize, or invert the t of relations that they happen to designate, mirror, or reflect. The spaces, as it were, which are linked with all the others, which however contradict all the other sites, are of two main types.
HETEROTOPIAS
First there are the utopias. Utopias are sites with no real place. They are sites that have a general relation of direct or inverted analogy with the real space of Society. They prent society itlf in a perfected form, or el society turned upside down, but in any ca the utopias are fundamentally unreal spaces.
There are also, probably in every culture, in every civilization, real places - places that do exist and that are formed in the very founding of society - which are something like counter-sites, a kind of effectively enacted utopia in which the real sites, all the other real sites that can be found within the c
ulture, are simultaneously reprented, contested, and inverted. Places of this kind are outside of all places, even though it may be possible to indicate their location in reality. Becau the places are absolutely different from all the sites that they reflect and speak about, I shall call them, by way of contrast to utopias, heterotopias. I believe that between utopias and the quite other sites, the heterotopias, there might be a sort of mixed, joint experience, which would be the mirror. The mirror is, after all, a utopia, since it is a placeless place. In the mirror, I e mylf there where I am not, in an unreal, virtual space that opens up behind the surface; I am over there, there where I am not, a sort of shadow that gives my own visibility to mylf, that enables me to e mylf there where I am abnt: such is the utopia of the mirror. But it is also a heterotopia in so far as the mirror does exist in reality, where it exerts a sort of counteraction on the
position that I occupy. From the standpoint of the mirror I discover my abnce from the place where I am since I e mylf over there. Starting from this gaze that is, as it were, directed toward me, from the ground of this virtual space that is on the other side of the glass, I come back toward mylf; I begin again to direct my eyes toward mylf and to reconstitute mylf there where I am. The mirror functions as a heterotopia in this respect: it makes this place that I occupy at the moment when I look at mylf in the glass at once absolutely real, connected with all the space that surround
s it, and absolutely unreal, since in order to be perceived it has to pass through this virtual point which is over there.
2013大学英语四级As for the heterotopias as such, how can they be described? What meaning do they have? We might imagine a sort of systematic description - I do not say a science becau the term is too galvanized now -that would, in a given society, take as its object the study, analysis, description, and 'reading' (as some like to say nowadays) of the different spaces, of the other places. As a sort of simultaneously mythic and real contestation of the space in which we live, this description could be called heterotopology.
details是什么意思Its first principle is that there is probably not a single culture in the world that fails to constitute heterotopias. That is a constant of every human group. But the heterotopias obviously take quite varied forms, and perhaps no one absolutely universal form of heterotopia would be found. We can however class them in two main categories.
In the so-called primitive societies, there is a certain form of heterotopia that I would call crisis heterotopias, i.e., there are privileged or sacred or forbidden places, rerved for individuals who are, in relation to society and to the human environment in which they live, in a state of crisis: adoles
cents, menstruating women, pregnant women. the elderly, etc. In out society, the crisis heterotopias are persistently disappearing, though a few remnants can still be found. For example, the boarding school, in its nineteenth-century form, or military rvice for young men, have certainly played such a role, as the first manifestations of xual virility were in fact suppod to take place "elwhere" than at home. For girls, there was, until the middle of the twentieth century, a tradition called the "honeymoon trip" which was an ancestral theme. The young woman's deflowering could take place "nowhere" and, at the moment of its occurrence the train or honeymoon hotel was indeed the place of this nowhere, this heterotopia without geographical markers.
eta
高杉さと美But the heterotopias of crisis are disappearing today and are being replaced, I believe, by what we might call heterotopias of deviation: tho in which individuals who behavior is deviant in relation to the required mean or norm are placed. Cas of this are rest homes and psychiatric hospitals, and of cour prisons, and one should perhaps add retirement homes that are, as it were, on the borderline between the heterotopia of crisis and the heterotopia of deviation since, after all, old age is a crisis, but is also a deviation since in our society where leisure is the rule, idleness is a sort of deviation.
惟妙惟肖造句The cond principle of this description of heterotopias is that a society, as its history unfolds, can m
ake an existing heterotopia function in a very different fashion; for each heterotopia has a preci and determined function within a society and the same heterotopia can, according to the synchrony of the culture in which it occurs, have one function or another.
As an example I shall take the strange heterotopia of the cemetery. The cemetery is certainly a place unlike ordinary cultural spaces. It is a space that is however connected with all the sites of the city, state or society or village, etc., since each individual, each family has relatives in the cemetery. In western culture the cemetery has practically always existed. But it has undergone important changes. Until the end of the eighteenth century, the cemetery was placed at the heart of the city, next to the church. In it there was a hierarchy of possible tombs. There was the charnel hou in which bodies lost the last traces of individuality, there were a few individual tombs and then there were the tombs inside the church. The latter tombs were themlves of two types, either simply tombstones with an inscription, or mausoleums with statues. This cemetery houd inside the sacred space of the church has taken on a quite different cast in modern civilizations, and curiously, it is in a time when civilization has become 'atheistic,' as one says very crudely, that western culture has established what is termed the cult of the dead.
Basically it was quite natural that, in a time of real belief in the resurrection of bodies and the immort
ality of the soul, overriding importance was not accorded to the body's remains. On the contrary, from the moment when people are no longer sure that they have a soul or that the body will regain life, it is perhaps necessary to give much more attention to the dead body, which is ultimately the only trace of our existence in the world and in language. In any ca, it is from the beginning of the nineteenth century that everyone has a right to her or his own little box for her or his own little personal decay, but on the other hand, it is only from that start of the nineteenth century that cemeteries began to be located at the outside border of cities. In correlation with the individualization of death and the bourgeois appropriation of the cemetery, there aris an obssion with death as an 'illness.' The dead, it is suppod, bring illness to the living, and it is the prence and proximity of the dead right beside the hous, next to the church, almost in the middle of the street, it is this proximity that propagates death itlf. This major theme of illness spread by the contagion in the cemeteries persisted until the end of the eighteenth century, until, during the nineteenth century, the shift of cemeteries toward the suburbs was initiated. The cemeteries then came to constitute, no longer the sacred and immortal heart of the city, but the other city, where each family posss its dark resting place.
Third principle. The heterotopia is capable of juxtaposing in a single real place veral spaces, ver
al sites that are in themlves incompatible. Thus it is that the theater brings onto the rectangle of the stage, one after the other, a whole ries of places that are foreign to one another; thus it is that the cinema is a very odd rectangular room, at the end of which, on a two-dimensional screen, one es the projection of a three-
>put up什么意思
