日常無事，有心翻譯之前一直想翻譯但沒機(jī)會翻譯的文章，打發(fā)時(shí)間。
前言：英國是世界上最早進(jìn)行工業(yè)革命的國家，在工業(yè)化的同時(shí)，圈地運(yùn)動(dòng)愈演愈烈，城市化趨勢和一系列城市問題不可避免產(chǎn)生。1906年《開放空間法》的制定和公地保護(hù)運(yùn)動(dòng)的發(fā)展，回應(yīng)了城市中公共空間的性質(zhì)、使用者、功能等問題，通過對工人居住環(huán)境的改善，在一定程度上緩解了社會矛盾。利物浦的伯肯海德公園正是在這時(shí)代浪潮里誕生的產(chǎn)物，因?yàn)楣部臻g面對社會各個(gè)階層開放，不同于以往歐洲傳統(tǒng)園林只服務(wù)于皇室貴族，而體現(xiàn)了資本主義的人權(quán)平等思想。此文深入探討了城市公園的公共性質(zhì)是維護(hù)公民行使各種權(quán)利還是使公園成為一處濫用權(quán)利的無政府狀態(tài)之境。本人更偏向于前一種說法。
To Go Again to Hyde Park
Public Space, Rights, and Social Justice
重回海德公園
公共空間，權(quán)利和社會公平
Public space engenders fears, fears that derive from the sense of public space as uncontrolled space, as a space in which civilization is exceptionally fragile.?
公共空間產(chǎn)生恐懼——源自于公共空間給人感覺是不受控制的空間，在這個(gè)空間里，文明異常的脆弱。
The panic over “wilding” in?New York City’s Central Park?in the late 1980s (rampaging young men violently terrorizing joggers and other park users for the sheer joy of it), the fright made palpable by the explosions in?Atlanta’s Olympic Park?in 1996, and the new found fear of public space spurred by the sense of vulnerability attendant upon?the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, no less than the everyday gnawing uneasiness we feel when we step around a passed-out homeless person on a sidewalk, often convince us that public space is the space of anarchy.?
十九世紀(jì)八十年代末發(fā)生在紐約中央公園的恐怖事件（橫沖直撞的年輕人暴力恐嚇公園里的慢跑者和其他公園使用者）1996年在Atlanta’s Olympic Park里發(fā)生的沖突事件更加明顯，“911”帶來的脆弱感引發(fā)了公眾對于公共空間新的恐懼感，其程度不亞于我們每天在人行道路上看到無家可歸的流浪漢時(shí)，認(rèn)為公共空間是屬于無政府狀態(tài)的擔(dān)驚受怕的感受。
Such an association of public space with anarchy is, of course, not new; it is not just a feature of the contemporary city, of the current media-encouraged,?overweaning concern about crime, homelessness, and random terrorism that makes public space seem such an undesirable attribute of the contemporary American city.
公共空間和無政府狀態(tài)的聯(lián)系如此，當(dāng)然，并不新鮮了，這不僅是當(dāng)代城市的一個(gè)特征，還是當(dāng)代媒體過于關(guān)注犯罪、無家可歸和隨機(jī)的恐怖主義等因素致使公共空間看起來是當(dāng)代美國城市不受歡迎的一個(gè)特征。
Raymond Williams(1997[1980], 3-5)?reminds us, for example, that?Matthew Arnold’s(1993)?famous declaration in?Culture and Anarchy?–that culture represents (or ought to represent) “the best knowledge and thought of the time”(1993,79)-was made in response to working people forcing their way into Hyde Park in 1866 to hold an assembly in support of the right to vote.
R使我們想起M在《文化與無政府主義》書中的著名觀點(diǎn)——文化代表了（或理應(yīng)代表了）時(shí)代最好的知識和思想——可以回答工人們?yōu)榱双@得投票權(quán)而聚集在海德公園（1866）的舉動(dòng)。
For?Arnold, the Hyde Park demonstrators were “a symptom of the general anarchy”(Williams 1997[1980],6) rather than people struggling for their rights-their right to assemble, their right to speak, their right to vote.
對于A而言，海德公園的示威者是一種“普遍的無政府狀態(tài)”，而非人們?yōu)榱怂麄兊募瘯?quán)利、演講權(quán)利和投票權(quán)利而作的斗爭。
A Hyde Park “rioter,” according to Arnold, “is just asserting his personal?liberty a little, going where he likes, assembling where he likes, bawling where he likes, hustling as he likes” (Arnold 1993, 88, quoted in Williams 1997[1980],6).?
Even more-and even more shrilly-Arnold objected to a working person’s “right to march where he likes, meet where he likes, enter where he likes, hoot as he likes, threaten as he likes, smash as he likes. All this, I say, tends to anarchy”(Arnold 1993, 85, quoted in Williams 1997[1980],6).
一個(gè)海德公園的示威者，據(jù)A所言，“這只是在維護(hù)他們的權(quán)利嗎？在他們想聚集的地方，在他們想叫喊的地方，在他們想忙碌的地方。更甚，A反對工人們想在何處集會的權(quán)利，想在何處見面的權(quán)利，想進(jìn)入何處的權(quán)利，想叫什么就叫什么，想威脅什么就威脅什么，想砸哪里就砸哪里的權(quán)利，在他看來，這都是無政府主義?！?/p>
