Look at those Colonial Discourse

一个被盖住的背景：

关于一种殖民话语的阐述和意识形态的的再现。
所谓的话语掌握人的视角，可以作为殖民系统中的参照坐标。对，参照系，即一种观看“他者”的自我定位。
讲述着所处的位置和他的讲述方式，能让接受者不自觉的代入位置，并成为那个被动的“接受者”，或者说“被殖民者”。

殖民话语得以通过翻译（translation）进行构建，进一步说，是通过一种意识形态的重新转述落地于另外一个文化语境。为了达成殖民的功效，翻译可以通过三个步骤进行：第一，将“他者”（潜在的被殖民对象）再现成一种较低级的对象；第二，欧洲语言的教学， 第三，消除一些差异性以达到控制。尤其第三点可以展开说，所谓消除差异，具象地讨论，可以说是忽视个体和个体之间的差异而试图将个体们都进行同化，“大家都是一样的”、“大家都是中国人”。听起来更像是意识形态的控制，达到一种想象的共同化。

当然，第三点在实现的时候也充斥着大量矛盾性。殖民的过程永远都只是过程，是一种不稳定的状态和属性。需要一种第三者来容纳和协调。需要一种杂糅（hybridity）的主体性介入。

当然问题来了，阅读的时候，是应该抽离自身的主体意识，还是，保留一种意识的选择？殖民的定义，都是来自于他者。然而在两个话语系统结构大相径庭时，可能需要一个“第三者”的协调。就是Homi Bhabha所谓的“第三空间”，一个悬置的，过度的状态。跟Edward Soja所说的“第三空间”又有所不同。
bhabha所谓的是一种过程状态，一种平台。而soja所讨论的，是一种成果状态。我觉得他们在行为层面上而言，所说的内容是有区别的。



Anyway, 书里面有个部分是被批判的，如下：
Quote in <Bhabha for Architects> by Felipe Hernandez
https://book.douban.com/subject/5466594/


P53-57
...As such ,modern architecture resorts to a linearity of architectural production whose origins can be traced to European industrialisation and whose genealogy includes the work of a select group of architects: Le Cobusier, Mies van der Rohe, Frank Lloyd Wright, to mention only some. Despite the 100 years that separate us from Humboldt's derogatory description of indigenous American architectures, contemporary architectural historians continue to use the same rhetoric in order to belittle architectural production in the so-called developing world.

... William J. R. Curtis' Book Modern Architecture since 1900, which looks at the chronological 'evolution' of modern architectural ideas in Europe and examines the way such ideas travelled to other locations around the world. Due to the linear historical structure of book, there is no significant discussion of non-western architectures until Chapter 21, where Curtis talks briefly about the spread of modernist ideas to northern Africa, ...

Subsequently, Curtis proceeds to explain that, 'by the end of the 1950s, transformations, deviations and devaluations of modern architecture had found their way to many other areas of the world' (Curtis 2000: 491; my emphasis). The expression of 'found their way to many other areas of the world' is particularly interesting. On the one hand, it implies difficulty in the sense that it stresses the length and arduousness of a journey to other parts of the world. On the other hand, it suggests that the transformations, deviation and devalutions found their way to other countries by themselves. ... So it is clear that for Curtis the dissemination of modern architecture follows a genealogy which finds its roots in Europe and develops via the work of an exclusive selection of European and North American architects whose work becomes the referent agains which non-western architectural production is judged. ... the expression 'found their way' reveals an anxiety at the moment when modern architecture escaped the exclusive control of western architects - and so, threatened the authority of Curtis' select group of architects and the countries who own the intellectual right of architectural modernism. ...

...
Paraphrasing Bhabha, who asks 'what is at stake in the naming of critical theory as western?' (Bhabha 1994:31), I ask: what is at stake in naming modern architecture as western? According to Bhabha the answer to the question is rather obvious :' a designation of institutional power and ideological Eurocentrism' (Bhabha 1994: 31)

...

Bhabha, H. (1994) The Location of Cultures. London and New York: Routledge.
https://book.douban.com/subject/2375705/


其实这种殖民话语的分析也是有些很不好玩的地方，不免流出出一种被害者的自卑感。如同《娱乐至死》中，责备科技的态度。
不如就将这种不稳定的自我怀疑，看作一种催化剂以促进稳定。
我真是矛盾。