文化與空間的再連結：「再造歷史現場」政策初探

The Re-articulation of Culture and Space: A Preliminary Study of the“Regeneration of Historic Sites”Policy

「再造歷史現場」的預算規模和論述宏圖，乃近年文化保存政策之最。該政策嘗試結合文化資產治理與城鄉空間治理，以歷史現場再造來回應現代生活，連結土地與人民的歷史記憶。本文以批判性文化治理視角探討此政策倡議的淵源與時勢，歸結為「文化與空間的再連結」，並討論其執行困局。作者檢視官方計畫與檔案，訪問產官學界人士，獲得以下發現：首先，再造歷史現場政策有三股淵源，包括既有文資政策、總統選舉白皮書，以及特定人士倡議。第二，既有治理機制難以承擔龐大預算與政策宏圖，強化了多重督導和專案管理趨勢；跨領域和跨層級的治理目標，仍仰賴縣市首長施政風格。第三，產官學界各自的差異邏輯構成內蘊張力的治理場域，體現文化與空間的地方將隨城鄉發展而裂解，但分立的文化治理與空間治理體制難以應對。最後，作者主張，應在公民參與及城鄉意義重造的條件下將治理予以政治化，並邁向文化的基礎設施化。

Regeneration of Historic Sites (RHS) is accompanied with big budget and ambition topping any other cultural preservation policy of Taiwan in recent years. RHS tries to bind the governance of cultural asset with the spatial governance of both urban and rural areas. It intends to address the contemporary life and to build connections between the land and people’s historical memories. This article explores the origin and situation of this policy initiative from the perspective of critical cultural governance, which boils down to ''the re-articulation of culture and space'', and discusses the difficulties its implementation encounters. The authors examined official projects and archives, and interviewed people from the industry, the government and the academia, and obtained the following findings. First, the RHS has three origins, including the existing cultural asset policy, the white paper on the presidential election, and the advocacy of specific individuals. Secondly, the existing governance mechanisms cannot afford the huge budgets and policy ambitions of RHS, thus strengthening the trends of multiple supervision and project management; meanwhile, the goals of cross-hierarchy and cross-disciplinary governance of RHS actually have to rely on the heads of the local governments. Thirdly, the different logics of the industry, the government and the academia constitute a governance field with inherent tensions. And the place that embodies culture and space also disintegrates with the urban and rural development, but the separation between regimes of cultural governance and spatial governance makes it difficult to cope with those developments. Finally, the authors argue that governance should be politicized under conditions of civic participation and the remaking of urban and rural meanings, and that we should move toward the infrastructuring of culture.