美好城市-为乌托邦式的思考辩护（The Good City-In Defense of Utopian Thinking） 英文文献翻译 中英文对照

美好城市-为乌托邦式的思考辩护（The Good City-In Defense of Utopian Thinking） 英文文献 中英文对照 The Good City: In Defense of Utopian Thinking John Friedmann Abstract Utopian thinking is a way of breaking through the barriers of convention into a sphere of the imagination where many things beyond our everyday experience become possible. City and regional planning have an enduring tradition of utopian thought things. In this chapter, I have set down my own utopian thinking about the good city. Keywords: Utopian thinking; City planning; The utopian impulse Utopian thinking, the capacity to imagine a future that is radically different form what e know to be the prevailing order of things, is a way of breaking through the barriers w of convention into a sphere of the imagination where many things beyond our everyday experience become possible. All of us have this ability, which I believe to be inherent in human nature because human beings are insufficiently programmed for the future. We need a constructive imagination to help us create the fictive worlds of our dreams, of dreams worth struggling for. There are, of course, other ways of deploying this capacity than the imagining of utopias. With its promise of redemption, religion is one of them and, for many people, religious faith satisfies their thirst for meaning. pith in an ideology is the secular counterpart to religion. American ideology is based on the belief that human progress is appropriately measured by continuous betterment in the material conditions of living for individuals. The goal is a mass society of consumers. Along with cornucopia, it includes an affirmation of democratic institutions (so long as they support global markets) and unswerving trust in the powers of technology to solve whatever problems might come our way. Finally, intense nationalism may also satisfy the need for a transcendent purpose in life. The question of why are we here arises precisely because the human condition leaves the future open and requires a response on our part. Beyond the alternative constructions of religion, ideology, and nationalism, there are many good reasons why we might wish to engage in utopian thinking. For some of us, it is no more than an amusing pastime. For others it is a veiled critique of present evils. For still others it may be, in the phrase of sir Philip Sidney’s comment on 1 Thomsas More’s Utopia in 1595, a persuasive means of “leading men to virtue”(quoted in Manuel and Manuel 1979,2).On the other hand, in its negative form of dystopia it may alert us to certain tendencies in the present that, if allowed to continue unchecked, would lead to a thoroughly abhorrent world. The twentieth century produced many literary dystopias(not to mention the many actual ones), from Aldous Huxley’s Brane New World to the cyberpunk novels of William Gibson and others(Warren et al.1998). but most important of all, utopian thinking can help us choose a path into the future that we believe is justified, because its concrete imagery is informed by those values we hold dear. Utopian thinking has two moments that are inextricably joined: critique and constructive vision. The critique is certain aspects of our present condition: injustice, oppression, ecological dictation to name just a few. It is precisely an enumeration of these evils that tells us chat certain moral codes are being violated. The code may not be written out or it only be symbolically suggested whenever we invoke such slogans as “freedom” equality, or “solidarity.” Moral outrage over an injustice suggests that we have a sense of justice, inarticulate though it may be. Now it is true that negative and positive images are not necessarily symmetrical with respect to each other. Most of us would probably agree that great material inequalities ire unjust, yet we would differ veered in our answer to what would constitute a "just" distribution of incomes and other material goods. These different ways of understanding social justice are ultimately political arguments. And as such they are unavoidable, because if injustice is to be corrected (or, for that matter, any other social evil)，we will need the concrete imagery of utopian thinking to propose steps that would bring us a little closer to a mare just word. It is this concrete vision—the second moment of utopian thinking—which young Sustralian of the Year, Tan Le, was calling for to give her a sense of a meaningful deployment of her own powers in the public sphere(Le 1999). I have just completed a law degree. One of the reasons I chose law----and many others young people also include this reason for choosing it----was because I believe that a law degree would enable me to contribute in a special way, to do what I could to make a better world. Of course I can do this as a lawyer, but nothing in the entire law curriculum addressed this issue in a serious and engaging way. And other tertiary courses are the same„„ young people are not being educated to take their place in society. They 2 are being trained----trained in a narrow body of knowledge and skills that is taught in isolation from larger and vital questions about who we are and what we might become. There is, in other words, a complete absence of a larger vision, and many young people who enter university in the hope that what they learn will help them make a better world soon find out that this is not a consideration. And it is not just in tertiary education courses that this lack of vision prevails. We lack it as a society. We have replaced it with what might be called a rationale. To my mind, this is not the same thing as a vision. It is more pragmatic, smaller in scope, less daring, and it does not fire the heart or capture the imagination. It does not inspire. Vision carries the connotation of value, meaning and purpose----and of something beyond our reach that is nevertheless worth striving for and aspiring to. Visioning of this kind are always debatable, both in their own terms and when measured against alternative proposals. That is why I call them political. Where the uncensored public expression of opinion is allowed, they should become the substance of political argument. Utopian thinking should not be fairy tales but concern genuine futures around which political coalitions can be built. There are always limitations to purposive action----of leadership, relations of power, resources, knowledge. But if we start with these limitations rather than with images of a desired future, we may never arrive at the future, we may never arrive at the future we desire. Successful utopian constructs must have the power to generate the passion for a political practice that will bring us a little closer to the visions they embody. The Utopian Tradition in Planning With considerations of this sort, we find ourselves back on the familiar ground of planning. City and regional planning have an enduring tradition of utopian thought things I considered are elaborating a hard—hitting critical analysis of existing conditions; assisting in devising appropriate strategies of struggle; refining the technical aspects of transformative solutions; facilitating social learning from radical practice; mediating between the mobilized community and the state; helping to ensure the widest possible participation of community members in all phases of the struggle; helping to rethink the group’s course of action in the light of new understandings; and becoming personally involved in transformative practice. I wanted it to be understood that utopian thinking, at least as far as planners are concerned, is historically grounded 3 in specific emancipator practices. Planning of this sort stands in the grand utopian tradition. Leonie Sandercock calls it an insurgent planning. In this chapter, my intention is somewhat different. Rather than talk about political struggles to resist specific forms of oppression, my aim is to identify some elements for a vision of the good city. And I want to do so in the manner of an achievable utopia rather than paint a scenario set in an indeterminate future. A century during which the vast majority of the world’s population will be living in urban environments cries out for images of the good city. I have purposely phrased this need in the plural. Taking the world as a whole, the diversity of starting conditions is so great that on single version of the city will suffice. Fifty years from now, the world’s urban population will be roughly double the existing numbers of nearly three billion. We can thus look ahead to a historically unprecedented period of city-building. And city-builders need not only blue prints for their work but guiding normative images. The following remarks are addressed to planers and to anyone else who wishes to confront the multiple challenges of the age. Imagining the Good City 1: Theoretical Considerations Before I proceed, some preliminaries must be considered. First, in setting out an account of the good city, whose city are we talking about? Can we legitimately assume the possibility of a common good for the city? Second, are we concerned only with process or only with outcomes, or should outcome and process be considered jointly? And finally, how is a normative framework such as we are considering to be thought of in relation to professional practice? Whose city? We have been bludgeoned into accepting as gospel that to speak of the common good is either propaganda of false consciousness. The attacks on the common good have come from all ideological quarters. Liberal pluralists see only a diversity of group interests striking temporary bargains in the political arena. Marxists argue on roughly similar grounds that the common good is merely a phrase invoked by the bourgeois ruling class, to hide purposes that are nothing other than an expression of their own class interest. Postmodern critics who see only a world of fleeting kaleidoscopic images, dissolve the common good into a thousand discursive fragments, dismissing attempts to raise any one of them above the rest as an unjustifiable attempt to establish a new met narrative in an age from which met narratives have been banned. Against all of these intellectually dismissive critics, I want to argue the necessity 4 of continuing to search for the common good of a city, if only because, without such a conception, there can be no political community. In democratic polities, there has to be at least menial agreement on the political structure of the community and on the possibility of discovering in given circumstances and though appropriate processes, a common good. A merely administered city is not a political community and might as well be a hotel managed by some multinational concern. In that case, the answer to the question of whose city would be clear: whether cities or prisons, it is always the notorious bottom line that counts. In a putative democracy, however, the city is ultimately identified with the people," and the cliché notwithstanding, it is the demos who must argue out among themselves, rime after time, in what specific agendas of action the "common good" of the city may be found. It seems to me that there is a considerable difference in whether we seek to justify an action by grounding it in a conception of the "common good"--a conception that always remains open to political challenge, of course--or to assert it without any voices of dissent or, worst of all, to consider it an irrelevant diversion from hard-knuckle power politics. Process versus Outcomes This opposition of terms has a long pedigree. Democratic proceduralists believe in process, partly because they assume that the differences among the parties in contention are relatively minor, and because today's majority will become tomorrow's minority, and vice versa. In the long run, everybody gets a turn. Opposed to them are Kantian idealists for whom good intentions are sufficient in themselves to define what is good. A third position is held by those who are so persuaded of the rightness of their own ethical position that they lack patience with democratic procedure, pursuing their ends by whatever means are at hand. Among them are many who believe in the theory of the "big revolutionary bang." Transformative change, according to this theory, necessitates a sharp break with the past, a break that is often connected with violence, because the ancien regime must be destroyed before a genuine revolutionary age can dawn. My own position is to deny this separation of ends and means, outcomes and process. Process, by which I specifically mean transparent democratic procedures, is no less important than desirable outcome. But democratic procedures are likely to be abandoned if they do not, in the longer term, lead to broadly acceptable outcomes. Moreover, a liberal democratic process also includes the nonviolent struggles for social justice and other ultimate concerns that take place outside the formal 5 institutional framework. So, on one hand, we need an inclusive democratic framework that allows for the active pursuit of political objectives even when these ace contrary to the dominant interests. On the other hand, we need to be dear about the objectives to be pursued. The imaginary of the good city has to embrace both of these terms. Intention and Practice The good city requires a committed form of political practice. It was Hannah Arendt who formed my concept of action or political praxis (she used the terms interchangeably) when she wrote, "To act, in its most general sense, means to take an initiative, to begin.., to set something into motion… It is in the nature of beginning that something new is started which cannot be expected from whatever may have happened before. The character of startling unexpectedness is inherent in all beginnings and in all origins" (Arendt 1958, 177-88). In other words, to act is to set something new into the worm. And this requires an actor or rather a number of such, because political action always involves a collective entity or group. There are, of course, certain conditions of action. The group must first be brought together and mobilized. This means leadership. The group must also have the material, from direct supervision and control by the state. So considered, a vibrant civil life is the necessary social context for human flourishing. Multipli/city acknowledges the priority of civil society, which is the sphere of freedom and social reproduction--and it is for its sake that the city can be said to exist. Political economists might disagree with this ordering. They tend to describe the city in terms of capital accumulation, market exchange, administrative control, and the like, and urban populations in terms of their incorporation into labor markets and social classes. From an analytical perspective, I don't object to these characterizations, but if our project is the good city, a different and explicitly normative approach is needed. In its political aspect, then, civil society constitutes the political community of the city. But there are other aspects of a richly articulated civil life, including religious, social, cultural, and economic life, all of which can be subsumed under the concept of a stir-organizing civil society. Michael Waltzer calls civil society "a project of projects," foreshadowing my awn characterization of multipli/city. The relevant passage is worth quoting in full. Civil society is sustained by groups much smaller than the demos or the working class or the mass of consumers or the nation. All these are necessarily pluralized as they are incorporated. They become part of the world of family, friends, comrades and 6 colleagues, where people are connected to one another and made responsible for one another. Connected and responsible: without that, "free and equal" is less attractive than we once thought it would he. I have no magic formula for making connections or strengthening the sense of responsibility. These are not aims that can be underwritten with historical guarantees or achieved through a single unified struggle. Civil society is a project of projects; it requires many organizing strategies and new forms of state action. It requires a new sensitivity for what is local, specific, contingent--and, above all, a new recognition (to paraphrase a famous sentence) that the good life is in the details. (1992, 107) Throughout history, city populations have grown primarily through migration, and migrants come from many parts. Some don't speak the dominant language of the city; others practice different religions; still others follow folkways that are alien to the city. They come to the city for its promise of a more liberated, fulfilling life, and also perhaps, for safety, escaping from the danger of physical harm. They do not come to the city to be regimented, to be molded according to a single concept of correct living. Nor do they seek diversity as such1 Rather, they want to live as undisturbed as possible by their own lights, so that diversity appears as simply a by-product of the "project of projects." But cities are not always hospitable, and mutual tolerance of ifference must be safeguarded by the state so long as certain conditions are fulfilled: d respect for human rights and the assumption of the rights and obligations of local citizenship. In a broadly tolerant society, one may perhaps hope for a step beyond tolerance, which is m say, for mutual acceptance and even the affirmation of difference (see chapter 3). Reflected in a thickly quilted mosaic of voluntary associations, multiplicity requires a solid material base. A destitute people can only think about survival, which absorbs nearly all the time and energies at their disposal. A substantial material base therefore must provide for the time, energy, and space needed for active citizenship. Four pillars support the material foundations for the good city. First in order of importance is socially adequate housing together with a complement of public services and community facilities. As innumerable struggles in cities throughout the world have shown, individual households regard housing (along with a reliable water supply and affordable urban transit) as a first priority. Affordable health care comes second, particularly for women, infants and children, the physic and mentally challenged the chronically ill, and the elderly, as an essential condition for human 7 flourishing. Adequately remunerated work for all who seek it is the third pillar. In urban market societies, well-paying work is a nearly universal aspiration not only for the income it brings bur also for the social regard attached to productive work in a capitalist society, Finally, adequate social provision must be made for those whose own efforts are insufficient to provide for what is regarded as an adequate social minimum. Each of these four pillars has given rise to a vast literature, both technical and philosophical, and it is nor my intention here to review it. 1 do want to take up an important point of difference, however, that I herewith the old socialist Left who have consistency argued that justice---social justice demands "equalizing access to material well-being." The Left has always given priority to rectifying material inequalities. And though it is undoubtedly true that unrestrained capitalist accumulation leads to profound inequalities, gross differences in income and wealth have, in fact, existed in all social formations since the beginnings of urban society. My disagreement is therefore with a vision that regards material inequalities as primary and thus the only appropriate focus of popular struggle. But all historical attempts to level inequalities, as in Maoisr China, have had to employ barbaric methods to suppress what appears to me to be precisely the primary good, which is a flourishing civil life in association with others. It is certainly true that since 1980, major inequalities have resurfaced in urban China, but alongside these inequalities are also the first sprouting of a civil society (Brook and Frolic 1997). As much as I welcome the second, l have no wish to justify the first, which is accompanists by its own evils of exclusion, exploitation, and corruption (Solinger 1999). Still, the two phenomena are not independent of each other, as they point to a general relaxation of government control over social and economic life. And even though I argue here for "four pillars" to provide the material foundations of the good city, I regard them as chiefly a means to a more transcendent end, which is a vibrant civil life and the context for human flourishing. Genuine material equality, Maoist style, is neither achievable nor desirable. Whereas we will always have to live with material inequalities, what we must never tolerate is a contemptuous disregard for the qualities of social and political life, which is the sphere of freedom. A good city is a city that cares for its freedom, even as it makes adequate social provision for its weakest members. If process is as important as outcome, as I argued at the beginning of this essay, we will have to consider the processes of governance in the good city. Governance 8 refers to the various ways by which binding decisions for cities and city-regions are made and carried out. It is thus a concept considerably more inclusive than traditional government and administration and reflects the fact that increasingly a much wider range of participants exists in these processes than has traditionally been the case. Three sets of potential actors can be identified. First are the politicians and bureaucrats who represent the institutions of the local state. It is because of them that decisions concerning city-building are made "binding." The state can be seen as standing at the apex of a pyramid whose base is defined, respectively, by corporate capital and civil society. The role of corporate capital in city-building has become more pronounced in recent years, encouraged by privatization and the growing emphasis on mega-projects, from high-rise apartment blocks, new towns, office developments, and technology parks to toll roads, bridges, harbor reclamation schemes, and airports. The role of civil society in urban governance has been a more contested issue. Beyond the rituals of “citizen participation" in planning, civil society’s major role, in most cities, has taken the form of protest and resistance to precisely the mega-projects that are so dear to state and capital’s Civil society has also put pressure on the state for more sustainable cities, for environmental justice, and for more inclusive visions of the city. In a utopian exercise, it is tempting to invert the order of things and, as in this case, to place local citizens at the top of the governance pyramid. This would be broadly in accord with democratic theory as well as with my earlier claim that the city exists for the sake of its citizens who are bound to one another, by mutual (if tacit) agreement, to form a political community. But I hesitate, because I am not convinced that city-regions on the scale of multiple millions can be organized like New England town meetings or the Athenian agora. Nor do I believe in the vaunted capacity of the Internet--even supposing universal access were realized--to overcome the problem of scale. Democratic governance requires something more than a "thumbs up"/"thumbs down" public intervention on any given issue, which is no more meaningful than telephone surveys at the end of a presidential debate in the United States, asking the question, "Who won?" An alternative would be simply to scale down city-regional governance until governance becomes itself coextensive with what I have called "the city of everyday life" (see chapter 5). Thomas Jefferson had a name for it: "The republic of the ward’s" (for a summary, see Friedman 1973a, 220-22). More recently); there have been calls 9 (in the United States) for "neighborhood governments" (Kotler 1969; Morris and Hess 1975; King and Stivers 1998). And there is even a Chinese-Taiwanese version of this idea, citing the writings of Lao-Zi (Cheng and Hsia1999), as well as a striking example from southern Brazil (Abets 2000). Evidently, there is something very attractive about this devolution of powers to the most local of local levels--the neighborhood, the street. But a city-region is more than the sum of its neighborhoods, and each level of spatial integration must be slotted into a larger whole, which is cerci; directs resources to groups favored by the state without consulting with affected citizens; responds to the expression of grievances, if at all, with derision; and resolves conflicts with the arrest of opposition leaders and the brutal suppression of citizen protest. This litany of misgovernance may no longer apply to many North American, West European, and Australasian cities. But in much of the rest of the world, and especially in Asia where urbanization is now in full swing, the dystopia of governance still prevails, and the application of criteria of good governance, especially at local levels, would be considered a novelty. In any event, good governance always hangs on slender threads, even in a democracy such as Australia. Not long ago, a State of Victoria Minister of Planning responsible for planning and development in metropolitan Melbourne suspended public consultation and decreed that the ministry would no longer be required to supply information to the public on major city projects, claiming commercial confidentiality. This is the same minister who, a few years earlier, had suspended elected local councils, replacing them with city managers appointed by the state. He then proceeded to redraw council boundaries and issue administrative instructions on the privatization of local council responsibilities. In the State of Victoria, at least, good governance is still very much in the balance and so it may not be irrelevant, after all, even in a much admired democracy, to be reminded of what some criteria of good city-regional governance might be. A Summing Up As human beings, we are cursed with a consciousness of our own death. This same consciousness places us in a stream of irreversible time. Minute by minute, lifetime by lifetime, we move through a continuing present and like the Roman god jaunts, forever face in two directions: backwards, reading and rereading the past and forwards, imagining possible futures even as we deal with the practicalities of the day. Shrouded in both darkness and light, as Gerda Lerner reminds us, history as memory 10 helps us to locate ourselves in the continuing present while imagining alternative futures that are meant to serve us as beacons of warning and inspiration (Lemer 1997, chapter 4). In our two-faced gaze, we are a time-binding species whose inescapable task in a fundamentally urbanized world is to forge pathways toward a future that is worth struggling for. In this chapter, I have set down my own utopian thinking about the good city. It is a revisiting of a problem terrain on which I worked, on and off, during the 1970s (Friedmann 1979). At the time, I was thinking through what I called a transitive model of planning to which the practice of dialogue would be central. These concerns subsequently expanded into my interest in social learning and the traditions of a radical/insurgent planning. My investigations then led me further to examine the microstructures of civil action, including the household economy, culminating in a theory of empowerment and disempowerment (Fried-mann t992). Today's communicative turn in planning ( Innes 1995; Forester 1999) is a more mainstream reworking some of these ideas. The good city, as I imagine it, has its foundations in human flourishing and multiply/city. Four pillars provide for its material foundations: housing, affordable health care, adequately remunerated work, and adequate social provision. And because process cannot be separated from outcome, 1 delved into the question of what a system of good governance might look like, formulating six criteria of good governance. The protagonist of my visioning is an autonomous, stir-organizing civil society, actively making claims, resisting, and struggling on behalf of the good city within a framework of democratic institutions. I have not touched on the physical, three-dimensional city, the perennial touchstone of utopian designs: Tommaso Campanella's City of the Sun, Charles Fourier's phalansteries, Ebenezer Howard's Garden Cities, Le Corbusier's modernist ville radieuse, or Frank Lloyd Wright's Broadacre City Each of these dream cities is conceived as the setting for an exemplary life. My interest, however, is in living cities each of which moves along very different historical/cultural trajectories, building and rebuilding itself according to its self-understanding of what it is and would like to become. We come to an?- of them as outside critics. But though we may not be part of its life, we have the right to ask, does your city make possible and support human flourishing for all its citizens? Does it enables an autonomous civil life or multiply/city? Answers to these and related questions may reveal critical shortfalls. 11 Here, then, would be a starting point for a genuine dialogue with local citizens and planners about the future of their city. 美好城市:为乌托邦式的思考辩护 摘要 乌托邦式的思考是一种设想与我们熟悉的主流秩序截然不同的未来的能力，在城市和区域规划领域乌托邦思想有着悠久的传统。在本文中作者建构了自己关于美好城市的乌托邦式的思考 关键词: 乌托邦式思考;城市规划;美好城市 乌托邦的冲动 乌托邦式的思考——一种设想与我们熟悉的主流秩序截然不同的未来的能力，可以带领人们突破常规进入到想象的天空。在那里很多超越了我们日常经历的事情都成为可能。我们所有人都具有这种能力，我相信这种能力是人类与生俱来的，因为造物主并未赋予人类足够的能力去确定未来，因此我们需要一种具有建设性的想象力来为我们的梦想，那些值得我们为之奋斗的梦想，去开创虚幻的世界。当然，除了乌托邦式的想象之外还有别的方式来施展这种能力。由于对救赎的承诺，宗教就是这众多的之一:对很多人而言，宗教信仰满足了他们对生命意义的渴求。而意识形态中的信仰则是宗教的世俗对应物。美国人的意识形态是建立在这样一条信念之上:人类的进步是可以通过个人物质生活条件的持续 改善得到恰当的衡量的。因此美国人的目标就是建设一个大众消费社会。伴随着繁荣，这一社会还包括了对民主制度的肯定(只要他们支持全球市场)。并坚信技术力量能够解决我们可能遇到的任何问题。最后，强烈的民族主义可能也满足了对生活中的崇高目标的追求。人类的状况使未来具有不确定性，并且需要我们有回应，正因为如此才出现了“我们为什么在这里?”这样的问题。在宗教意识形态和民族主义这些可选择的解释之外，还有很多好的理由可以解释为什么我们会愿意沉浸于乌托邦式的思考。对于我们中的一些人，它只是一项消遣。对其他人而言，它是对现存问题的影射批评。而对另外的人来说，用PhilipSidney爵士l595年评论ThomasMore的《乌托邦》的话来说，它可能是”引导人类走向美好”的一个很有说服力的方法(转引自ManuelandManuel1979，2)。另一方面，社会中一些非常糟糕的情况提醒我们要提防当前的某些倾向，这些倾向如果不加抑制地发展下去，将彻底毁掉整个世界。20世纪产生了很多文学作品中的黑暗社会(更不用提许多现实中的)，从AldousHuxley的《勇敢新世界》JWilliam Gibson的虚拟网络小说及其它(Warreneta1，1998)。但最重要的是，乌托邦式的思考能够帮助我们选择一条通向我们相信正确的未来道路，因为它的具体意象来自于那 12 些我们高度珍视的价值观。 乌托邦式的思考由密不可分的两个要素组成:批评和建设性的愿景。前者针对我们现实的某些方面:不公正、压迫、生态恶化等等不一而足。正是这些糟糕的问题告诉我们，某些道德法则正在被亵渎。这些道德法则也许无法被清晰地表达出来，或者只有在我们用到诸如“自由”、“平等”或“团结”等口号的时候才能象征性地有所暗示。对于不公正会产生道义上的愤怒，说明我们具有正义感，尽管这种正义感可能无法清晰地表达出来。事实上正反两方面的情况并不是必然地对称。虽然我们大多数人都认为物质上的巨大差距是不公正的，但是我们对于什么是“公正的”收入和其它物质财富的分配也会有迥异的答案。对社会公正的不同理解归根到底是政治上的争论。也正因为如此这种争论是不可避免的因为如果不公正(或其它的社会问题)想要得到纠正，我们就需要将乌托邦式的思考具体化并提出行动的步骤来以便引导我们向更公正的世界迈进。这个具体的意象——乌托邦式的思考的第二个要素正是年轻的“澳大利亚年度人物”TanLe所渴望的东西，这种东西能够使她感觉到“自己的力量在公共领域得到了发挥(Le1999): 我刚刚取得了法律学位。我选择法律的原因之一，也是很多其他年轻人选择法律的理由，是因为我相信法律学位能让我用一种特殊的方式做出贡献，使我可以力所能及地做一些事情，帮助这个世界变得更美好。 当然作为一个律师我可以做到这些，但是整个法律课程并未以一种严肃认真、引人入胜的方式阐述这个问题，其它的高等教育课程也是一样。年轻人没有被教育如何在社会中承担自己的责任，他们正在接受的是一种训练，一种狭隘的知识和技能的训练，根本不涉及我们是谁以及可以成为谁这样的重大问题。换句话说，更远大的意象被彻底忽略了。很多怀着他们所学的将帮助他们建设一个更美好的世界的愿望而进入大学的年轻人，很快就发现这根本就不被关心。这种意象的匮乏并非只在高等教育课程中普遍存在，而是存在于我们的整个社会中。我们用一种也许可以称为原理的东西代替了它。但在我看来，这与意象是两回事。原理更实际，在范围上更小，不够大胆，它无法点燃心灵或抓住想象，它不能鼓舞人心。而意象则承载了价值、意义和目标，以及一些虽超越我们的能力但却无疑值得我们为之奋斗、为之追求的东西。这种类型的意象总是有争议的无论是对于它们自身还是当它们被用来比照其它的可选择的建议时。这就是我称它们为政 治的原因。在并未受到限制但公众呼声很弱的地方这些乌托邦的意象应该成为政治争论的核心，乌托邦式的思考不应该只是童话而应当关注真正的未来，政治联盟应当据此而建立。对于特定的目标来说，领导能力、权利关系、资源、知识等 总会构成制约因素。如果我们从这些限制条件而不是从我们所期望的未来的意象开始，我们可能永远也达不到我们所期望的未来。成功的乌托邦思想必须能够激 13 发人们政治实践的热情这种实践能带领我们走近其所描绘的未来愿景。 规划中的乌托邦传统 经过这样一些思考我们发现自己竟然回到了熟悉的规划领域。在城市和区域规划领域乌托邦思想有着悠久的传统(Friedmannl987:FriedmannandWeaver1979 Weaverl984)。回顾经典——罗伯特?欧文(RobertOwen)、查尔斯?傅立叶(CharlesFourier)、皮埃尔?约瑟夫?普鲁东(PierreJosephProudhon)、威廉?莫里斯(WilliamMorris)、彼得?克鲁泡特金(PeterKropotkin)、霍华德(EbenezerHoward)、芒福德(LewisMumford)、赖特(FrankLloydWright)、珀西瓦尔(Perciva1)和保罗?古德曼(PaulGoodman)——这些名字都是经常出现的。在最近的几十年中我还想加上简?雅各布(JaneJacobs)、凯文?林奇(KevinLynch)、舒马赫(E，ESchumacher)、伊凡-伊里奇(IvanIllich)和墨里?布肯(MurrayBookchin)。离我们更近的以及实际上和我们处于同一时代的，我乐意提到多洛莉丝?海登(DoloresHayden l984)和萨德尔考克(LeonieSandercock l997)的一些作品。上述提到的绵延200多年的乌托邦著作或多或少地影响了规划师的教育也塑造了他们的实践。我们很难说主流规划职业没有受到乌托邦思想的影响。在最近的一篇文章中，SusanFainstein对我们能否建成我们想要的城市提出了疑问(Fainstein1999)。她认为，在我们对城市的思考中应当体现这样一些重要的价值:城市及其周边地区的物质上的平等文化的多样性，民主参与和生态可持续。Fainstein的背景是政治经济学所以一点也不奇怪她会把物质上的平等放在重要地位，追随了——即使没有不加批判地——DavidHarvey在公平、自然与地理差异》(Justice，Nature，andtheGeographyofDifference，1996)中的思想。关于这个问题在后面我还会涉及。但在此之前，我想回顾一下l4年前我在公共领域的规划》(PlanninginthePublicDomain，Friedmann1987)中的一个观点。在那本书的第二和第三部分我试图勾勒出规划思想的发展史——规划思想的谱系图同时试着超越这个历史，来倡导一种关于规划的改革观，我把它称为激进式规划因为它是建立在动员社会中没有权力的团体的基础之上的。我认为激进式规划关注的核心是公民社会中有组织的团体的政治活动，其激进性在于这些行动，无论是否有政府的参与，或者甚至可能是反政府的，都是以普遍自由为目标。我这样写到:“激进、改革的实践的一个关键原则，就是没有哪一个团体能够在所有团体都得到自由或摆脱了压迫之前，能够完全得到自由或摆脱压迫。因此在或许只是乌托邦的自由人类社会这一终极目标实现之前，为自由而进行的奋斗所产生的结果总会是局部的和矛盾的”。在这之后我分析了那些选择为自由事业而奋斗的规划师们的实际工作在这许多工作中我仔细考虑了这样一些问题:对现状进行有力的批判性分析帮助动员各社会团体改进现状;帮助筹划合适的斗争 14 策略;从技术上改进改革方案;促进社会从激进式的规划实践中学到更多东西:协调被动员的团体和政府之间的关系;帮助确保各个团体的成员能最大程度地参与到斗争的各个阶段中去;帮助在新的理解下重新考虑团体的行动过程以及亲身参与到改革的实践中去。我要让大家明白的是，乌托邦式的思考——至少就规划师的乌托邦式的思考而言，在历史上植根于特定的追求自由的实践之中，因此这种类型的规划也是站在伟大的乌托邦传统之上，Leonie Sandercock:这类规划称为反叛式的规划(Sandercock1999)。但是今天，我的目的稍微有些不同，不是去讨论反抗各种形式的压迫的政治斗争，而是要鉴别一个美好城市的意象有哪些 要素，而且我想通过提出一个可以实现的理想境界而不是仅仅是描绘出一个不确定的未来的某一情境来达到这一目的。在这个世界人口的绝大部分将生活在城市中的世纪，我们迫切需要知道美好城市的各种图景。这里我特地用复数形式(各种图景)来表示这种需要，因为如果将世界作为一个整体，那么初始状况的多样性是如此丰富，以致没有任何一种城市图景能够满足各类地区。今后50年，世界城市人口大约将是现在城市人口数量(近30亿)的两倍。因此，我们可以预测到一个史无前例的城市建设期，而城市建设者们在工作中所需要的，不仅仅是蓝图，还需要能够引导他们行动的规范性图景。接下来的讨论就写给规划师们和那些愿意应对这个时代的多重挑战的每一个人。 在我深入到实质性内容之前，必须先确定一些理论前提。首先，在展开一个对美好城市的阐述时，应该明确我们所讨论的是谁的城市，我们对城市存在一个公共利益状态的可能性的假定是否合理,其次，我们是不是只关心过程或是结果，还是应该把两者结合起来考虑,最后，应当如何理解一个规范框架(如我们 正在思考的)与职业实践的关系, 谁的城市? 我们已经被迫接受这样一条真理，即谈论公共利益不是一种宣传就是脑子出了毛病。对公共利益的攻击来自于各种意识形态的角落。自由主义多元论者只看到各种利益集团的多样性他们在政治舞台上为短期利益竭力讨价还价。基于相似立场，马克思主义者认为公共利益只是资本主义统治阶级用来掩盖其目的的一个措词，不过是其阶级利益的一种表达方式。而那些只看到一个瞬息万变、五花八门的世界的后现代评论家们将公共利益拆解成无数个令人不得要领的部分，拒绝任何将其中某个部分提到其余各部分之上的尝试，因为这只是在一个超叙述(metanarrative)(不同于后现代叙述)已经被废黜了的时代，仍然试图建立根本无法给以证明的新的超叙述。和所有这些高水平、目空一切的评论家们相反，我要强调继续为城市寻求公共利益的必要性，即使仅仅因为如果没有这个概念就将不存在政治团体这一个理由。在民主政治中，对于群体的政治结构和在一个给定 15 的环境下通过适当的程序发现公共利益的可能性必须有最低限度的共识。一个仅仅受行政管理的城市并不是一个政治团体，而可能正像一个跨国公司管理的宾馆。如果是那样的话，是谁的城市这个问题的答案将会很明显:无论城市还是监狱，都由一条臭名昭著的底线决定了谁是主宰。但是，在公认的民主中，城市从根本上是和公民联系在一起的，并且同时，仍然必须要民众自身通过多次反复的讨论，最终明白通过怎样特定的行动议程来找出城市的公共利益。在我看来，我们是否寻求将某个行为放到公共利益的天平上来衡量它的正当性(尽管无疑，什么是公共利益总是可以从政治上进行讨论)，或者是毫无保留地接受这种行为，或者，最糟糕的，认为这个行为只是与己无关的权力政治的某个变异，这三者是有着很大不同的。 过程与结果 这两个词语的对立有着悠久的历史。民主程序主义者信任过程，部分是因为他们认为党派之间观点的差异总是相对较小的，而且因为今天的多数明天可能就会变成少数，反之亦然。从长远来看，每个人都有机会。与他们对立的是康德理想主义者，在他们看来，好的意图就足够他们来定义什么是好的了。第三种立场的持有者是这样一些人，他们如此相信自己道德立场的公正性，因此对民主程序缺乏耐心，通常会选择通过任何可用的方式来实现他们的目标。他们当中很多人都相信大革命;中击理论。根据这个理论，革命性的变化使与过去的彻底决裂成为必然，且这种决裂通常与暴力相联，因为在新的革命年代的黎明来临之前，旧的制度必须被摧毁。我自己的立场是不同意这种将目标和方法、结果和过程分开的做法。过程，这里我特指透明的民主程序，和期望的结果同等重要。但是民主的程序如果从其长远来看不能达成被广泛接受的结果，则将可能被抛弃。此外，一个自由的民主过程还包括为正规体制框架之外的社会公正和其它的终极关怀而采取的非暴力斗争。因此，一方面，我们需要一个包容的民主框架，允许对政治目标的积极追求，即使这些目标和主流利益相冲突:另一方面，我们必须清晰自己所要追求的目标。对美好城市的构想必须同时包含这两个方面。 愿望与实践 美好城市的实现需要有效的政治实践。HannahArendt帮我形成了关于行动或政治实践(这两个词语被她交替运用)的概念，她写道行动，在最一般的意义上意味着采取主动，开始„„然后进入运行。这样就进入一种状态，某些新的东西萌发了，它是不可能期望来自干过去发生的任何事情中。这种令人惊异的不可预期性天生于一切开始和一切新生中(Arendt，1958:177—88)。换言之行动就是为这个世界带来新生事物。同时这需要一个或毋宁说许多行动者，因为政治行动总是需要一个集合体或群体。当然，行动也有特定的条件，首先必须召集并动员 16 起一个团体。这就意味着领导能力。这个团体还需要足够的物质的、象征性的和精神的力量，以克服其所面临的阻力。从更长远的观点来看这个团体的行动和由其创新所引起的抵抗行动都会导致无限的结果，因此需要不断的社会研究。这个团体必须对其实践活动充满热情、立场坚定，否则，在斗争的初期它就会被击败(Friedmann198744—47)。 美好城市的原则如果不是被武断地界定出来的那么就必然有一个逻辑上的起点必然可以逻辑地追溯到某些基本价值。这样一个基本原则必须清晰而明白地陈述出来使我们当中那些即使不习惯于哲学思辨的人也能够理解。我想这样阐述这条原则:在广泛的社会环境中，每个人应该被赋予获得自身智力，体质和精神充分发展的权利。这就是人的发展权，我认为它是最基本的人权。但是它从来没有被作为一个天赋的人权得到广泛的认可奴隶社会对此一无所知，封建社会、氏族社会、农业合作社会或极权主义国家也都一样。从来没有一个社会，妇女能够享有和男性同等的发展权。但是作为每个人的不可剥夺的基本权利，人的发展植根于自由民主思想的精髓。在当今西方社会中，尤其在美国，以人的发展权为基础，一个坚定的信念就是权利应是通过努力获得的而不是世袭的。因此，每个人的人生应当有一个平等的起点。当然，经过一生的时间以后由于天赋的能力，家庭的培养、既定的阶级特权和社会压力等的差异，个人和团体会有迥异的成就和结局。同时，所有公民基本平等的观点也奠基了西方社会温和的社会主义它提供系统的公共教育、公共医疗，累进收入税制度，反歧视的立法等等，所有这些都是在个人和团体之间寻求某种对生存和发展机会的平衡。这里涉及的政治体制问题很清楚地表明。人的发展潜力只有在更广泛的社会环境中才能得到实现。因此从一开始，我们就将人当成关系动物、本质上的社会人，而不是单细胞生物来看待。因此，类似报导中所说的玛格丽特?撒切尔那样，将社会的概念当成某种虚构物是有害的。离开了其他人的直接支持一从亲密的家庭关系直至大的社会结构以及个体、群体之间强烈的情感联系，人将无法生存、一事无成。社会关系本身会施加特定的要求，这些要求可能看起来是对任意作为的约束。尽管作为个体。我们最终要对自己的行为负责但我们通常还是会受到这些限制:(1)我们和家庭、朋友、同事及邻居之间的社会关系简言之，一种具有文化地域特性的关于彼此责任与义务的道德规范，(2)我们生活所处的广泛的社会政治环境，这种环境可能在不同方面制约人的发展。这两者在很多方面相互联系，而一旦要开始将它们区分开，并对我们(尤其是女性)在这些所谓的社会关系层面上所遇到的强大制约因素进行评价，则将需要单独撰写一篇文章。因此我将专注于社会政治方面这是我研究的重点。简单地说我的观点就是:我们不仅仅要通过城市促进个人发展(有些人会比其他人成功得多)，而且要像政治团体的成员一样为集体创造出入的发 17 展所必需的政治、经济，社会、物质和生态等方面的最基本条件。我称这些条件——我认为它们只是最起码的条件——是一个政治组织或美好城市的公共利益，因为没有它们人的发展将难以想象。在这个理解下，城市的公共利益”看起来类似于公民权利，也就是根据权利在这种政治团体之中，公民可以合法地获得基本的发展权。提出权利并致力于其实现，是地方公民的根本义务之一。 人的发展为我们提供了一个评判城市功能的样板。但是要想更详细、严格地评价一个城市在多大程度上为人的发展提供了足够的条件还需要进一步的指针。我建议将丰富多样性与允许丰富多样性得到实现的一些特定的条件一起，作为美好城市的首要条件。 所谓城市的丰富多样性我指的是一个真正摆脱了政府的直接监管的自治的城市生活。我认为充满生机，多姿多彩的城市生活是人的发展所必须的社会环境。城市的丰富多样性承认公民社会的优先意义，这是自由和社会再生产的基础，也正是由于这一点城市才能被认为是存在着。政治经济学家们可能不同意这一点。他们倾向于从资本积累、市场交换、行政管理等诸如此类的方面来描述城市，以及从劳动市场和社会阶层的角度来描述城市人口。从分析的角度，我并不反对这些特征化描述:但如果我们的目标是美好城市，我们就需要一种不同的、具有明确的对城市的描述。 在政治方面，公民社会构筑了城市的政治团体，但一个丰富的城市生活还包括其它方面，包括宗教、社会、文化和经济生活，所有这些都可以包含进一个自组织的公民社会的概念中。MichaelWaltzer将公民社会称为“一个由众多细小活动组成的整体(aprojectofprojects)，预见了我对丰富多样性城市的归纳， 相关的章节值得引用:公民社会由比民众、劳动阶层、消费群体或民族小得多的群体构成。他们互为一体，充当着多重角色。他们是家庭、朋友、同志和同事关系中的一部分，人们在这里相互关联并对彼此负有责任。相互关联和彼此负责，没有了这两者，“自由和平等”就没有我们先前想象得那么有吸引力了。我没有建立相互关联和强化责任感的神奇配方，这些都不是能用历史的担保来决定或通过联合统一的斗争来实现的目标。公民社会是一个由众多细小活动组成的整体，它需要很多有组织的策略和政府行动的新形式，它需要一种新的敏感来理解什么是地方的、特殊的、偶然的，以及最重要的，它需要一种新的认识，套用一句名言，就是认识到美好的生活在于细节(1992，107)。 纵观历史城市人口的增长主要是通过移民，而移民来自很多地方。其中一些人不使用该城市的主流语言，另一些人信仰不同的宗教，还有一些人遵循与本地不同的风俗习惯。他们来到这个城市，因为这个城市承诺了更自由、令人满足的生活，或许也有可能是为了安全，为了逃避伤害。他们到这里来不是为了被某个 18 关于什么是正确的生活的单一答案所束缚、所铸造，他们同样也不愿像这样来寻求多样性;相反他们想尽量不受打扰地过他们自己的生活，多样性将只是这个“由众多细小活动组成的整体”的一个自然顺带的结果。但是城市并不总是那么热情好客，差异的相互容忍必须要由政府来维护，这是建立在特定的条件基础之上的:对人权的尊重和对当地公民权利和义务的认同。在一个总体上宽容的社会中，人们才有可能期望得到比宽容更多的东西，也就是说，人们才有可能期望相互接受，甚至肯定差异。具有丰富多样性的城市需要坚实的物质基础，这一点由城市中需要大量志愿者组织的现象就可以反映出来。穷困的人所想的只有生存问题，这几乎要占用他所能支配的所有时间和精力。因此，一个充分的物质基础必须要能为活跃的市民活动提供其所需的时间、能量和空间，美好城市的物质基础需要四个支柱的支撑:处在重要性第一位的，是为社会提供充足的公共服务和社区基础设施配套的住房。世界各地城市无数的斗争表明，每个家庭都将住房(配有可靠的供水和负担得起的城市交通)视为最优先考虑的问题:可以负担的医疗保健排在第二位，尤其对于妇女、婴儿和儿童，以及身体和精神上有困扰的人、慢性病人和老年人对所有人来说，拥有一份酬劳充足的工作是第三位的。在城市的市场社会中，待遇良好的工作受到普遍欢迎不仅仅因为它带来的收入，还因为在资本主义社会中富有成效的工作所带来的社会尊重:最后，必须要为那些以其自身努力无法达到社会最低保障线的人提供充足的社会保障。这里的每一方面都有大量的文献进行过论述，既有技术性的也有哲学性的，对此不再加以回顾，但我想指出我与传统社会主义左翼的一个重要分歧点。传统社会主义左翼坚持认为公平—— 社会公平——需要均财富，他们总是将矫正财富不公置于优先地位。虽然毫无疑问，不加限制的资本积累导致了严重的不平等，但事实上收入和财富总体性的差异从城市社会开始之初就已经存在于所有的社会形态中了，因此我不赞成将物质不平等当成个首要的、因而也是一般斗争中唯一合适的主题。但是历史上所有的调整不平等的尝试，都不得不采取相对简单粗暴的方式来压制那些在我看来恰恰是最重要的美好的东西，那些东西和其它方面联结起来，就是繁荣的市民生活。的确，从1980年开始，严重的不平等重新出现在中国的城市地区，但伴随着这些不平等同时也出现了最初的公民社会的萌芽(Brook和Frolic，1997)。我对后者持欢迎态度，但并不承认前者是正确的，因为前者往往伴随着排外、剥削以及腐败等严重问题(Solinger，1999)。而且这两个现象不是孤立的，它们表明政府从总体上放松了对社会和经济生活的控制。但尽管如此，我仍然在这里强调”四大支柱”为美好城市提供了物质基础，我将它们主要当成引向一个更卓越的目标的通道，这个目标意味着丰富多彩的市民生活和适于人发展的环境。绝对的(毛泽东时代式的)物质平等既不可行也无必要。尽管我们的生活中常常伴随着物质 19 的不平等，但我们更加不能容忍的是对社会和政治生活的轻蔑的漠视，它是自由的组成部分。一个美好的城市是一个珍爱自由的城市，即使在它为其最弱势的群体提供充足社会保障的时候。 如果过程和结果一样重要，正如我在本文开篇所说的，那么我们将有必要考虑美好城市中的管治过程。管治指为城市和城市区域制定和执行系列决策的各种过程，因此它是一个比传统的政府和管理广泛得多的概念，这反映在比起传统的情形，这些过程中有越来越多的参与者。有三类可能的参与者。首先就是代表地方政府机构的政治家和官僚。正是由于有他们的参与，关于城市建设的决策才总是“难以决断”。政府可以看作是位于金字塔的顶端，在它下面的基础由公司资本和公民社会构成。近年来公司资本在城市建设中的作用愈益突出，这得益于私有化的发展和对大型项目的日益重视。这些大型项目从大量出现的公寓街区、新城、办公区、科技园到收费公路、桥梁、海港改造工程和机场等不一而足。公民社会在城市管治中的地位已成为一个更具争议性的议题。除了规划中的“公共参与”外，在大多数城市中公民社会的主要作用恰恰表现为反对和抗议那些国家和资本如此青睐的大型项目181。公民社会同时在可持续的城市、环境的公平以及更包容的城市方面对政府施加压力。 在乌托邦的实践中，人们努力转变事物的顺序，因此，地方居民被置于管治金字塔的顶层。这和民主理论有着广泛的一致性，也和我早期的观点“城市是为其市民而存在的，而市民之间通过相互的(如果默许)协议联系形成一个政治团体”是一致的。但是，我还有些犹豫，因为我不能肯定数百万人口规模的城市区域是否能组织得起像新英格兰小镇的集会或雅典的人民集会，我也不相信因特网的能力可以克服距离的障碍，即使假设全球通达性得到了实现。民主管治要求的不仅仅是对某个特定议题动动嘴皮子式的公共干预，那样做不会比在一场美国总统大选辩论后的电话调查“你认为谁会赢,”更有意义。一个办法就是缩小城市一区域管治的范围，使管治的范围和我所说的“日常生活的城市”一样大。托马斯杰斐逊(ThomasJefferson)称之为:”分区政体”(Therepublicofthewards其概述详见Friedmann1973a，220—22)。最近，(在美国)有人呼吁建立邻里政府(Kolter1969;Morris和Hess1975:King和Stiver1998)。此外这一思想还有一个中国台湾的版本，它引用了老子的著作(Cheng和Hsia1999);在巴西南部也有一个令人惊异的案例(Abers，2000)。显然将权力下放到“最基层的地方层次”——到邻里、街道，是很有诱惑力的。但是城市区域不只是邻里的总和，每一层次的空间整合都必须放到一个更大的空间整体即城市区域中去，因此问题就是怎样来清楚地理解、阐释这个整体，从而可以进一步深化贯彻美好城市的丰富多样性和四个支柱的观点。 20 我不认为我提出的城市一区域(city—regions)的良好管治标准是伟大的创新，但是我认为它们具有一定的跨越文化的有效性，因为它们致力于解决那些对于世界任何地区的大城市而言归根到底都非常现实的问题。当然尽管如此，在尝试应用它们的时候，我们还是必须注意政治文化的差异。在这样的基础上，我认 为评价城市一区域管治系统的性能可以有以下六个标准:鼓舞人心的政治领导力。领导者要具备为政治团体建立一个共同意象，围绕这个意象建立起强大的共识，并调动所有资源实现这个意象的能力。 公共责任。(1)非强制性的定期的政治代表选举;(2)市民有充分了解选举人、参选政府的行动记录和选举结果的权利。 透明度和获取信息的权利。管治的运作方式应该透明，并尽可能地在市民观察者的视野中贯彻执行。市民有权知道各种信息，尤其是城市和私人公司之间的协议。 包容性。所有的市民都有权直接参与政策、规划和项目的制定过程，只要这些政策、规划和项目预计会对他们的生活和生计产生较大的影响。 回应。市民一项最基本的权利就是要求权利和表达不满，并拥有达到这一目的的适当渠道，拥有一个在他们”日常生活”中就可以接近的政府，并对他们的要求和不满做出及时的、关注的和适当的回应。 非暴力的冲突处理。不诉诸于暴力的解决公民与政府间冲突的各种制度化方法。当我们使条件发生转化，管治的型态表现为一个没有战略远见的表现拙劣的领导层，想当然地认为没有必要向公众汇报其行动;秘密地处理政府的交易;将资源分配给政府中意的阶层而不和受到影响的市民协商:即便对不满的表达给予回应，也是以嘲笑蔑视的方式对冲突的解决是通过拘捕反对者的首领和对市民 的抗议进行残忍镇压的手段来进行，在这样的情况下，上述这些标准的“理想化”特征立刻就变得很明显。 以上陈述的一堆不适当的管治方式可能不再适用于北美、西欧和澳大利亚的许多城市，但是在世界上的很多其它地方，尤其是在城市化进程正非常活跃的亚洲，这种与良好管治截然相反的管治方式仍旧很盛行，对良好管治的标准的应用尤其是在地方层面仍被当成新鲜事物。不管怎样，良好管治总是命若游丝的，即使是在像澳大利亚这样的民主国家。就在前不久，负责大墨尔本地区规划与发展的一位维多利亚州规划部长就暂停了公共咨询并且以商业机密为理由，宣布政府部门将不再必须向公众提供关于主要城市工程的信息。早几年，也正是这位部长就暂停了选举出的地方议会，而代之以政府任命的城市管理者，然后他进一步修改了议会的章程，通过私有化的地方议会发布行政指令。至少在维多利亚州，良好管治仍然很像是处于被讨价还价的状态，因此提醒一下良好的城市区域管治的 21 标准是什么并不多余，即便是在一个非常令人尊敬的民主社会中。 小结 作为人类，我们总是因为意识到自己的死亡而倍受折磨。同样的意识也将我们置于不可倒流的时间之河，每一分钟、每一生，我们都在经历一个永恒的现在，就像罗马神话中的两面神，即使是在我们处理日常事务的时候，都永远面对两个方向:向后，阅读和再读过去向前，想象可能的未来。黑暗和光明同时笼罩着我们，正如GerdaLerner提醒我们的，历史就像记忆帮助我们在永恒的现在找到自己的定位，而设想可能的未来就如同为我们竖起一个指引和鼓舞人心的灯塔(Lerner1991)。在我们两面的凝视中，我们是受时间约束的一类，在这个基本城市化了的世界中，我们无法逃避的任务就是开辟一条通向一个值得我们为之奋斗的未来的道路。在本文中，我建构了自己关于美好城市的乌托邦式的思考，这是对我在1970年代反复研究过的一个问题的再审视(Friedmann1979)。当时，我正在思考我称为规划的谈判模式的问题，这个模式的中心是对话的运用，这些关注后来延伸到我对社会研究和激进,反叛式规划的传统的兴趣中。我的探索后来使我进一步去检查市民行为的微观结构，包括家庭经济等，最终形成权力授予和权力剥夺的理论(Friedmann1992)。今天在规划中出现的对沟通的重视(Inners1995 Forester1999)是对这中间部分观点的更主流的再研究。美好城市按我的设想，在人的发展和丰富多样性方面确立了自己的基础四个支柱则为它提供了物质支撑:住房、可负担的医疗保健、报酬充足的工作和充分的社会保障。此外，由于过程和结果是不可分离的，我深入研究了良好的管治体系可能是怎样的问题阐明了良好管治的六条标准。我设想的图景的主角是一个自治、自组织的公民社会在民主体制的框架内为着美好城市的目标积极地去争取、反抗和奋斗。这里还没有涉及乌托邦设计永远的试金石——物质的三维城市:托马斯?康帕内拉(TommasoCampanella)的太阳城(CityoftheSun)、查尔斯?傅立叶的法朗吉(phalansteries)、霍华德的田园城市、勒?柯布西埃的光明城市或赖特的广亩城市。这里的每一个梦想城市都被认为是在建立一种典范的生活模式。然而，我感兴趣的是那些活生生的城市它们的每一个都沿着非常不同的历史和文化轨迹运行每一个都根据它自己对它是什么和想变成什么的理解来对自身进行着建设和重建，我们对它们中的任何一个而言都是外在的评论者。虽然我们也许不能成为其生命的一部分，但是我们仍有权寻问:你的城市为所有的市民在人的发展方 面提供了可能和支持吗,它在激活一个自治的市民生活或丰富多样的城市吗,对这些和相关问题的回答有可能揭示出关键性的不足，因此，这将会是规划师和当地居民之间关于他们的城市未来的一个真正的对话起点。 22