基礎設施化存有及其不滿：文獻評述

Infrastructural Being and Its Discontent: A Literature Review

本文回顧臺灣人文與社會科學界的基礎設施研究，以及都市、區域發展暨環境規劃領域之英文期刊的基礎設施研究，嘗試掌握其議題、概念和方法。英文期刊方面，筆者以有限樣本歸納出六種取徑，包括現代化發展、批判的政治經濟學、後殖民／南方都市論、拼裝都市論、空間的文化研究，以及女性主義與酷兒理論等。這些取徑的關注議題各有不同，並針對類似現象提出基於不同立場的分析，暴增的研究數量彰顯了學界的基礎設施熱潮。臺灣學界方面，筆者辨識出人類學、科技與社會研究，以及建築與城鄉研究等三個研究群落，各有不同的知識生產網絡特徵，但彼此重疊且共享某些概念。筆者接著提出六個值得注意的研究議題，包括現代性及其追趕；基礎設施化的時空修補、不均發展與正當性；基礎設施的多重時間性；基礎設施再現、想像與情感；自然的基礎設施化與基礎設施的自然化；重新界定都市為多重基礎設施化的拼裝體，進而反思在世存有的基礎設施化。最後，筆者倡議通過三組區別基礎設施概念的方式，同時限縮和延伸基礎設施的概念，並強調基礎設施作為方法的潛能。

The article reviews infrastructure research in the humanities and social sciences in Taiwan, as well as infrastructure studies in English-language journals in the fields of urban, regional development, and environmental planning, attempting to grasp the issues, concepts, and methods involved. Regarding English-language journals, the author, based on a limited sample, summarizes six approaches: modernization development, critiques of political economy, postcolonial/Southern urbanism, assemblage urbanism, spatial cultural studies, and feminist and queer theories. These approaches focus on different issues and offer analyses from diverse perspectives on similar phenomena. The surge in research reflects the academic trend of heightened interest in infrastructure studies. In the context of Taiwan's academic community, the author identifies three research communities: anthropology, Science, Technology and Society (STS), and architecture and urban-rural studies. Each has its own distinct knowledge production networks, yet they overlap and share certain concepts. The author then raises six noteworthy research topics: modernity and its catch-up; the spatiotemporal fix, uneven development, and legitimacy of infrastructuralization; the multiple temporalities of infrastructure; the representation, imagination, and emotions surrounding infrastructure; the infrastructuralization of nature and the naturalization of infrastructure; and reimagining the city as a multi-infrastructural assemblage, thereby reflecting on the infrastructuralization of being-in-the-world. In conclusion, the author advocates for distinguishing the concept of infrastructure through three sets of distinctions, simultaneously narrowing and expanding its scope, while highlighting its potential as a method.