Commune-by-regional-ties: “Nostalgia” of the Forty Years Architectural Practice in Subculture Rural Regions

Durkheim found that certain “places” carry exceptional and powerful meanings for members of a society, meanings bestowed upon them by society itself. Among the Arunta, for example, caves hidden in isolated areas are called sacred storehouses. Because the sacred elements of society touch these “places,” they become “places of peace—true sanctuaries” [5:142]. Their sacredness is produced by social forces, which give the “place” as a physical location a spiritual texture. Just as consciousness is a crucial dimension distinguishing human beings, and language and communication are ways through which we understand ourselves, “place” is a principal concept for defining the human condition. It approaches that condition through three intrinsic relationships with human beings: (1) a sense of personal identity; (2) a sense of belonging to a social community; and (3) a sense of temporal continuity [6:15–21]. Together these relationships give “place” its human radiance. The expression genius loci captures this meaning relatively precisely. Loci denotes a definite place or trace and is commonly joined with genius to mean the trace of a deity, a locality’s guardian spirit or its spirit of place. Here, genius is evidently a product of projected human intention. It is from this starting point that Norberg-Schulz’s Genius Loci examines the structure and spirit of place [7].

涂尔干发现，一些“地点”的存在对其社会成员来说，具有特殊而强大的意义，这是社会所赋予它们的，例如在阿兰达（Arunta）的部落中，有一些隐藏于孤立区域的洞穴，被称作神圣仓库，因社会的神圣因素触及到这些“地点”，使它们成为一个“和平的地点——真正的庇护所”[5]142，这些“地点”之所以成为神圣的“地点”是社会力量所造成的，社会力量赋予了物理位置的“地点”以精神的质感……；正如意识是区别人类的重要维度，语言和交流是人类认识自我的途径，“地点”则是定义人类生存状态时运用的主要概念，“地点”通过与人类之间存在着的三种内在的联系探讨人类的生存状况：①一种个人身份的认同感；②一种社会共同体的归属感；③一种延绵的时间感[6]15-21；这三种联系共同营造出“地点”的人性光芒；英文中的genius loci较为准确地再现了这一内涵，loci即确切的地点、轨迹，常与genius组合为词组genius loci，意指神的轨迹、地方的守护神或地方精神，这里的genius显然是投射了人类意志的产物，诺伯格-舒尔茨的Genius Loci正是由此探讨基于“地点”的场所结构与场所精神[7]。

Fei Xiaotong’s three principal dimensions of rural community society—the locality of social space, the immobility of social subjects and the familiarity of social relationships [8:51–59]—provide the basis for this analysis. Starting with the locality of social space makes clear that the sense of being among familiar neighbours is jointly produced by enclosed geographical conditions and isolated “social circles.” The immobility of rural society reflects its agricultural livelihood and the associated social organisation: the clan system and settlement over successive generations. In the nature of its social relationships, the rural community has two typical characteristics. First, its rules are endogenous: the customary and ritual rules sustaining the community arise naturally within the settlement;

以费孝通赋予乡土共同体社会的三个主要维度：社会空间的地方性、社会主体的非流动性及社会关系的熟悉性[8]51-59为分析依据，从社会空间的地方性着手，清晰地呈现了乡土共同体系封闭的地缘条件+孤立的“社会圈子”共同生产出的“乡里乡亲”般的存在现象；而乡土社会的非流动性所反映的客观现实则是乡土社会的农耕生计模式以及与这一生计模式相联系的社会组织结构：世族制与世代定居；在社会关系性质的层面观察，乡土共同体具备两个典型的特征：一是规矩的内生性，即乡土共同体所赖以延续的礼俗规则是在聚落氛围内自然

second, these rules are acquired: observance of customary and ritual rules relies primarily on the subtle inculcation and education afforded by materialised and embodied symbolic structures of “consensus.” Bourdieu’s concept of “habitus,” or a “disposition towards existence” [9:213–250], allows us to probe further into how these phenomena arise and endure. Clan-based social structures operate through a particular materialised, symbolic composite of “consensual historicity” [7:16–56, 167–176]. This mediates the projection and internalisation of the development of collective and individual “mental structures,” gradually producing a specific “habitus” or “disposition towards existence” suited to the requirements of the social structure [10:471–539]. Endogenous rules follow, embodying the social structure and maintaining the stability of the community’s “social circle” in this particular “place.”

形成的；二是规矩的习得性，即遵守礼俗规矩，主要依靠物化与身体化的“共识性”象征结构潜移默化地灌输和施教；紧接着依据布尔迪厄的“习性”（或称作“生存心态”）的观点[9]213-250，进一步深入剖析以上现象成立并能稳定传承的原理，从中发现世族制社会结构系通过一种特殊的被物化的“共识历史性”象征性[7]16-56,167-176组合结构为中介，投射并内在化族群集体与个体的“心态结构”的成长，逐渐生产出特定的吻合社会结构需求的“习性”或“生存心态”[10]471-539，进而派生出内生的规矩，使社会结构身体化，以维持这种特殊“地点”共同体“社会圈子”的稳定性。

Zhaoxing Dong Village in Liping, Guizhou (Fig. 2a), occupies a broad valley riverbed enclosed by mountains. Its five groups—Li, Yi, Ren, Zhi and Xin, or propriety, righteousness, benevolence, wisdom and trustworthiness—are linked linearly into a growing cluster following the river. It is a typical example of a clan commune. Each group has a concentric structure, with a materialised symbolic structure at its centre projecting the clan commune’s “consensual history + memory + secular public life.” This is translated into a combination of drum tower, theatre stage, covered bridge and open square (Fig. 2b). The soaring, multi-eaved drum tower establishes a landmark emblem of the group through its height; it is also the clan’s sacred place for solemn rituals, major decisions and the adjudication of justice. Clay representations of historical and mythological stories among its dense layers of eaves vividly convey the group’s “consensual history,” bringing people’s minds into accord. As a vehicle for activating “memory,” the theatre stage subtly influences and reconstructs public memory and collective imagination through drama. The covered bridge over the river and the open square together provide sites of public life that enable communication and sharing among individuals. The combined educative action of these structures nurtures a ritual society that is culturally cultivated, knowledgeable about the past and worldly affairs, and collectively desired: the realisation of a dream of an independent, harmonious pastoral society.

以贵州黎平肇兴侗寨为例（图2a），其地缘特征为群山夹持的宽谷河床带，由“礼”“义”“仁”“智”“信”五个组团组成，通过线型链接成一顺河流淌的生长型簇群集合，是典型的世族公社的共同体样本：五个组团均为同心圆结构，在各自的中央区域都建构着一种投射着世族公社组织结构的“共识历史+记忆+世俗公共性”的象征性物化结构，这一结构具体由鼓楼、戏台、风雨桥与空坝子的组合转译完成（图2b）；高耸的多重檐鼓楼不仅从高度上建立了族群的地标性族徽，更系崇高仪式、重大决策、裁决公理的家族神圣地，其层层密檐间泥塑的历史与神话故事生动地传达着族群的“共识历史”，并以此同化人心；作为活化“记忆”载体的戏台则以戏剧的方式潜移默化地影响与重构大众记忆和集体想象，而那跨河的风雨桥与空坝子的组合则以公共生活发生地为媒介促成族群个体间的交流及共享；通过这些结构组合体们的共同教化，孕育了一种有人文修养的、知古明事的、人心所向的礼仪社会的状态，这是遗世独立、人性和谐的田园社会梦想的实现。

At the foot of Leigong Mountain, Xijiang’s Thousand-household Miao Village (Fig. 3) joins more than ten naturally developed hillside villages. Its geography is typical of clustered karst peaks. Following the terrain, the settlement develops an ascending organisation of multiple spiralling involutes centred on three hilltops,

位于雷公山麓的西江千户苗寨（图3），则由十余个依山而建的自然村寨相连成片；地缘特质为典型的峰丛地貌，聚落因山就势形成了以三个山头为核

combining this geographical framework with a social model of “mountain worship” and an ethical hierarchy of seniority. The result is a tripartite symbolic structure: sacred places on the summits, for worship and the residence of elder-level natural leaders; ordinary dwellings on the middle slopes; and productive farmland in the valleys below. Ethnic kinship groups use these resources of “consensual history” and belief to secure the consensus and continuity of collective memory through sacrificial rituals, speaking on behalf of ancestors, and elders’ teaching and explanation.

心盘旋向上的多螺旋渐开线组织架构，将“山岳崇拜”与长卑伦理制度的社会模型同这种地缘架构相结合，形成山顶信仰之地（祭神、长老级别的自然领袖居住地）+山腰普通民众居住区+山脚谷地生产场所的三段式象征性结构模型，种族血缘集团通过运用这种“共识性历史”与信仰资源，以神祭仪式、祖先代言、长老传道解惑等手段达成集体记忆的共识与延续；

Within these communities of differing geographies, the relationship between social organisation and the collective and its individuals is mediated by materialised symbolic structures. The model of “consensual history,” the vehicles activating ethnic “memory,” and forms of secular public life internalise collective and individual memories. They elevate “place” into a local deity and a particular home, anchoring the special relationship of “memory” and mutual identification between individuals and “place.” Ultimately, they become nostalgic bonds and spiritual homes linking individuals with their homes or homelands. Ontologically, this reflects the materialisation of the traditional place structure of nostalgia—“consensual history” + “memory” + “the nostalgic subject”—as it encounters a unique and concrete locality. The rural community is the concrete manifestation of the traditional speculative model of nostalgia.

这些不同地缘的共同体社会组织结构与其族群集体与个体间的关系中介——物化的象征性结构所显现的“共识历史”模型+族群活化“记忆”载体+世俗公共性的方式，内化了族群的集体与个体记忆，并使“地点”升华为地方的神明与特定的家园，由此锚固了族群个体与“地点”间特殊的“记忆”关系与相互的身份认同，最终成为主体个人与家园或故乡的怀旧纽带与精神归宿，本体上影射了传统“乡愁”的场所结构——“共识历史”+“记忆”+“怀旧者”与独特而具体的“地点”性相遇的物化进程，乡土共同体是传统“乡愁”思辨模型在现实中的具体呈现。

The English word nostalgia derives from two Greek roots, nostos and algia—returning home and longing—projecting bodily action and conscious activity respectively. Behind them lies a particular set of relations of “displacement”: spatial and temporal displacement, both directed towards a special “place” [11]. In homecoming, it is a materialised, static site, an objective “place”; in recollection, it appears as a dynamic process of repeatedly reassembling memory, constructing and dispersing a subjective “place.” The nostalgic subject, objective “place” and subjective “place” form a distinctive triangle. Through displacement, the nostalgic subject enters into corresponding relationships with both subjective and objective “places.” These two “places” also interpenetrate reciprocally: through memory, subjective “place” mirrors, transforms or regenerates objective “place” within the subject’s intention, representing space through time;

“乡愁”的英文nostalgia源于两个希腊词根——nostos与algia，即返乡与怀想，分别是身体行为与意识活动的投射，其背后都潜伏着一组特别的“位移”关系——空间位移与时间位移，都指向着某种特殊的“地点”[11]：在返乡中，是物化的静态的场所，是客体的“地点”；在怀想内显现为记忆的重组与反复的动态过程，是主体“地点”的建构与离散。怀旧者、客体“地点”与主体“地点”三者间形成一种特殊的三角关系：怀旧者通过位移分别与主客体“地点”发生一一对应关系；客体“地点”则与主体“地点”之间产生互逆的渗透过程：主体“地点”通过记忆的方式在主体的意志中镜像、异化或重生客体“地点”，是在时间上图

objective “place,” through practice, attempts to capture, repair and fix the changing subjective “place,” representing time through space. Their relationship resembles Janus’s two faces, looking forwards and backwards and proceeding in paradoxical parallel: a double continuity of imagination and practical operation. This understanding distinguishes “restorative nostalgia” from “reflective nostalgia.” The triangle deliberately dissolves the distinction between subject and object, creating a hybrid condition of existence. Investigating nostalgia therefore calls for a double archaeological method encompassing memory and place.

示空间；客体“地点”则通过实践试图捕捉、修复与固化流变着的主体“地点”，在空间上图示时间；二者关系就如同亚努斯神的前后两张脸，悖论般地并行着，是有关幻想与实际操作的双重延续性；这样的理解形成了对于“修复型乡愁”与“反思型乡愁”的划分；这组三角关系蓄意消除主体与客体间的区别，成就一种主客体杂交的生存状态，因而导致对“乡愁”的挖掘需要一种记忆与地点的双重考古式的工作方法。

Boym observes that “restorative nostalgia” [12:46–54] emphasises homecoming. It seeks to reconstruct a lost homeland through material means, transcending history and defending a supposedly absolute truth. It stresses the “home” in homesickness, proposes rebuilding a lost “place,” and attempts to convert temporal distance into spatial relationships. Conspiracy and returning to origins are its main characteristics. Conspire means “to breathe together”: to establish an atmosphere of shared collective imagination and longing for home. In effect, this manipulates memory and consciousness, deliberately selecting a particular traditional image from a moment that serves present needs, fixing it and inventing tradition [13].

博伊姆指出，“修复型乡愁”[12]46-54强调返乡，注重以物质性手段超历史地重建失去的家园，维护所谓绝对的真实，强调“乡愁”中的“乡”，提出重建失去的“地点”，试图将时间中的距离关系转换为空间关系。密谋与返回源头是其主要特点，“密谋”在英文（conspire）解释里为“一起呼吸”，意指建立某种共呼吸的集体想象的怀乡氛围，其实是试图通过记忆与意识的操作，蓄意筛选某一与当下需要相吻合的时间节点的特定传统形象进行固化与发明传统[13]。

“Reflective nostalgia” [12:55–63], by contrast, generally remains with longing itself. It attends to the ambiguous meanings of human longing and belonging, does not evade memory’s contradictions and questions absolute truth. It emphasises nostalgia’s ache—longing and loss, and incomplete processes such as reconstructing memory [14:44–70]—reflecting the fluidity and uncertainty between the nostalgic subject and subjective “place.” This very fluidity indicates a new plasticity, showing space through time. Reflective nostalgia can explore consciousness’s virtual reality, interweaving voluntary and involuntary personal recollection with collective memory. It constructs a collective frame of reference shared historically and synchronically, individually and collectively [15], rather than a fixed model of restoration. This shared frame mediates between present and history, individual and collective. Reflective nostalgia seeks precisely to grasp this “collectively shared framework” of memory.

而“反思型乡愁”[12]55-63却多限于怀想本身，注重人类怀想和归属的模糊涵义，不避讳记忆的种种矛盾，对绝对真实提出疑问；强调“乡愁”的“愁”，亦即怀想与遗失，记忆的重构[14]44-70等不完备的过程……，反映了三角关系中怀旧者与主体“地点”间的流变与不确定状态；正是这种流变指示着新的可塑性，以时间展现空间。反思型“乡愁”具有一种潜能，允许探索意识的虚拟现实，将个人的自主的和不自主的回忆与集体的记忆交织在一起，建构一种历史性和共时性、个人和集体共享的集体参照系[15]，而非固化的复原样板；这种共享参照系就是在当下与历史之间，在个体与集体之间发挥着调停者的作为，“反思型乡愁”的目标正是在捕捉这种记忆的“集体共享架构”。

Comparing this framework with the place structure of traditional Chinese nostalgia [16:131–142] shows that both attempt to establish a shared frame of reference that is collective and individual, diachronic and consensual. Yet the “collectively shared framework” breaks the hierarchy between “consensual history,” “memory” and “the nostalgic subject.” It favours checks and balances between collective and individual memory, a broader understanding of time and a more plural plasticity of “memory.”

将“集体共享架构”与中国传统“乡愁”的场所结构相类比[16]131-142，发现二者都是在试图建立一种集体和个人的历时性+共识性的共享参照系，但不同的是，“集体共享架构”打破了“共识历史”+“记忆”+“怀旧者”之间的主次等级关系，更倾向于集体记忆与个体记忆的制衡关系，具有更开阔的时间观与多元的“记忆”可塑性。

During the forty years from 1979 to 2019, China entered an unprecedented period of rapid development. Previously, most towns and cities had maintained relatively closed relationships of attachment between people and land. Reform and opening-up broke

1979—2019年的四十年间，中国进入一个前所未有的高速发展期；在此之前，大多数城镇基本保持着相对封闭的人地依附关系；改革开放打破了

this static social model. Cities that had been highly localised under a closed economic system were inevitably drawn into globalisation. Differences in geographical economies, policy orientations and the degree of global influence rapidly widened regional disparities, producing such distinctions as east–west and coast–interior. Local cities began a rapid and profound global transformation. The expansionary nature of global market mechanisms, the international organisation of production, greatly increased capacities for circulation, and the accompanying export of universal society’s values and rules gradually formed a differential network with hierarchically ranked central cities as its nodes. Its influence radiated from centre to secondary centre to periphery. To improve a region’s position in the global economic chain, megacities concentrating functions, large markets and dense populations became the obvious choice. This model was copied among peers and transmitted step by step to lower levels.

这种静态的社会模式，在封闭经济模式下曾经高度地方化的城市不可避免地卷入全球化进程。由于地缘经济、政策倾向、全球化影响程度各异，各地区迅速拉开差距，东部-西部、沿海-内陆等等词组应时而生，地方性城市开始经历迅速而深刻的全球化转型；全球市场机制的扩张性本质，生产的国际分工组织，流通能力的大幅度提升，以及匹配的普世社会的价值规则的输出，逐步形成了分层级的中心城市为节点的级差式网络体系，呈现为中心→次级中心→边缘的辐射态势。为提升各区域在全球链的经济地位，功能聚集/规模市场/高密度人口的超大城市成为当然的选择，这种模式不仅同级拷贝，并梯次传递至下一层级。

Yet its implementation in rural subcultural regions on the margins of global urban networks, while effectively improving local economies, simultaneously revealed a series of paradoxes: (1) central cities expanded while settlements and small towns declined and contracted; (2) economies grew rapidly while ethnic communities and their corresponding place structures disintegrated; (3) megacities urgently needed urban governance capacity while inherited influences from pre-industrial society and the planned-economy era remained intertwined; (4) interregional connections and cooperation intensified while the distinctive qualities of “place” progressively disappeared. Fundamentally, these reflect the interpenetration and mutual constraint of universal social structures and subcultural structures.

然而这种模式在位于全球城市圈边缘带的次文化圈乡土带的推行中，在有效提升地区经济水平的同时，却共时性地呈现出一系列悖论：①一方面中心城市规模扩张，一方面聚落与小城镇凋零收缩；②一方面经济迅速增长，一方面族群共同体及其相应的场所结构纷然瓦解；③一方面是超大规模城市急需的城市治理能力，一方面则是前工业社会与计划经济时代混合着的潜移默化；④一方面增强了区域间的紧密联系与合作，一方面“地点”性的差异特质逐步丧失等等；本质上体现着普世社会结构与次文化圈层结构的相互渗透与相互制衡：

1979–1989: development and progress were the principal priorities, while subcultural structures were seriously neglected and damaged. 1990–1999: faced with increasingly unrecognisable surroundings, awareness of nostalgia revived. History began to be reshaped and fixed; contemporary construction copied traditional images from a particular moment to restore an image of the past. Restorative nostalgia dominated. 2000–2009: nostalgia was appropriated by the global economic chain, and tourism industries were developed on a large scale. Subcultural settlements were transformed into commercialised settlements, while the attachment between traditional “places” and ethnic groups continued to disintegrate. 2010–2019: the proliferation of “ancient towns” prevailed. Historic remains and settlement fabrics were swept up in commerce and property development, and materialised subcultural community structures were progressively replaced by universal society’s chains of interests.

1979—1989年，追求发展与进步是主要工作重心，次文化圈层结构被严重忽视与破坏；1990—1999年，面对日益严峻的面目全非，“乡愁”意识复苏，开始重塑历史，固化历史，以当代建造方式拷贝某一特定时间点的传统形象进行图像式复原，“修复型乡愁”思维方式起主导作用；2000—2009年，“乡愁”意识被全球经济链所利用，成规模建设旅游产业链，次文化圈层聚落被异化为商业化聚落，传统“地点”与族群的依附关系持续解体；2010—2019年泛古镇盛行，古镇的遗迹与聚落肌理被商业与地产开发所裹挟，物化的次文化圈共同体结构逐步置换为普世社会的利益链结构……

Following Bourdieu, the production of social space can be understood as an interaction of social structure + habitus + practice [9]. Through this interaction, social structure and its concretised knowledge generate dispositions that exert lasting effects on practice; those dispositions, through concrete practice, in turn constitute social structure. Under contemporary conditions, the crucial factor of habitus shaped by subcultural structures [17:32] has actually been replaced by universal society’s generalised habitus. Contemporary rural regions have mutated into a special condition of dual social structures—universal and subcultural—plus generalised habitus and contradictory practice. They occupy an intermediate transition constrained simultaneously by two

根据布尔迪厄的观念，社会空间的生产可以被理解为社会结构+习性+实践共同构成的交互作用[9]，通过这一交互作用，社会结构及其具体化知识生产出对实践具有持久影响的习性，这些习性通过具体的实践反过来又构成了社会结构；在当代现实条件下，受次文化圈结构所影响的习性[17]32这一重要因素，其实已被普世社会的普适习性所置换，当代乡土带已变异为双重社会结构（普世型与次文化圈型）+普适习性+矛盾性实践的特殊状态，处于双

sets of social standards, yet ultimately still risk replacement by the model of universal social structure + generalised habitus + universal social practice.

重社会标准同时制约下的中间过渡状态，最终仍将面临被普世社会结构+普适习性+普世社会实践模式所取代的危险。

Lévi-Strauss’s analysis in “The Science of the Concrete,” in The Savage Mind, and Colin Rowe’s architectural application and development of those ideas in Collage City reveal two practical tool systems: the “bricoleur” of subcultural structures and the “engineer” of universal social structures [18:13–33]. The bricoleur looks towards the past, contingently gathering and reorganising fragments of past experience. It superimposes rational bricolage in mythical thinking and technical bricolage in craft thinking. The result is an uneven, intermittently replenished “periodic table” of components: tools, sampled techniques and stocks of materials. Typically, a particular problem is addressed by taking stock of this table according to actual and possible relationships, making expedient collages of samples and assembling temporary combinations. Unconventional structures emerge from collaged events and details or combinations of fragments. Bound by fragments of past structures, the system necessarily tends towards stability, heterogeneous plurality and incremental growth.

依据列维·斯特劳斯《野性的思维》中“具体性的科学”一章的分析，与柯林·罗在《拼贴城市》中对斯特劳斯的观点在建筑学领域的引用与发展，发现次文化圈结构的实践工具——“修补匠”（bricoleur）系统，与普世社会结构的“工程师”系统[18]13-33。“修补匠”系统指向的是“往昔”，是往昔经验的片断集的偶然收编与再组织，是神话思维层面的理性修补术与工匠思维层面的技术修补术两个平面的叠合，由此形成一套参差不齐的、断续补充的工具配置、手法采样和材料储备等零件集的周期表，其操作方式通常是针对具体的特殊问题，根据实际和可能的关系，从周期表中清点零件、权益式的样片拼贴，与临时组合的方式解决，并在事件及细节拼贴或片断组合中推演出非常结构；由于是受制于“往昔”结构的片断集，注定是一套倾向维稳、多元混杂、渐进成长的工具系统。

The contrasting “engineer” embodies a scientific view of progress governed by absolute intention. It is goal-directed engineering, a tool system resembling an integral structure. First it defines a clear objective; then, around that objective, it integrates scientific empirical theories, practical knowledge and technical means into a guiding framework. It subsequently produces specialised tools, dedicated resources and particular working approaches to meet the framework’s requirements. This is a planned, logical system that advances development through an overall structure.

而与之相对的“工程师”方法则体现了绝对意志的科学“进步”观，是目标明确的工程式作业，是整体型结构般的工具系统；其操作方式首先是确定清楚的工作目标，其次围绕既定目标，将科学实证理论、实践知识及技术手段整合成一套指导性的工作框架，再次，按工作框架的要求制造一系列专门的工具子项、专有的资源准备与专属的工作思路，系计划性的、逻辑性的、借助整体结构推动发展进程的工具系统。

Lévi-Strauss clearly distinguishes the two: “the scientist creates events by means of structures, while the bricoleur creates structures by means of events.” He proposes the concept of the scientific bricoleur [18:33–47], and explores their possible integration through the “artist,” who is “something of a scientist and something of a bricoleur,” seeking a point of convergence between combinations of experiential fragments and overall structure. Following him, Colin Rowe compares Hadrian’s Villa at Tivoli, with its evident bricolage, to Versailles as a projection of absolute intention, and considers Rome–London and Houston–Los Angeles models. This initiates a methodological enquiry into the joint development of the bricoleur’s wild thought and the disciplined thought of the engineer/scientist: “If we are willing to agree that ‘civilised’ thought, by virtue of its premise of logical coherence, and ‘wild’ thought, by virtue of its non-logical leaps, are equal, then in reconstructing ‘collage’ scientifically one might even consider that a genuinely practical

斯特劳斯清晰地从二者中分辨出“科学家通过结构创造事件，而‘修补匠’用事件来创造结构”，提出科学的“修补匠”[18]33-47概念，并进而以所谓“艺术家”的“既有点科学家，又有点修补匠”的工作模式探讨二者融合的可能，试图寻找经验片断组合与整体性结构间的某种契合点。紧跟其步伐的柯林·罗则在建筑学层面以带有明显“修补匠”方式的蒂沃利·阿德良离宫与绝对意志投射的凡尔赛宫模型，以及罗马-伦敦模型、休斯顿-洛杉矶模型等等，开启了“修补匠”般的野性思维，与工程师/科学家规训思维相伴成长的方法论研究：“如果我们愿意同意‘文明’思维（由于它逻辑连贯性的前提）和‘野性’思维（由于它非逻辑性的跳跃）之间是平等的，那么在按照科学重新建立‘拼贴’的过程中，甚至可以认为一种真正实用的

future dialectic has already been invented” [19:105]. “This is a Lévi-Straussian unstable equilibrium, a balance between structure and event, necessity and contingency, the internal and the external—continually threatened by forces from one direction or affected by fashion, form and general social change” [19:136]. Methodologically, notions such as “stabilisers,” “potentially interminable set pieces” and “ambiguous composite buildings” test this thinking about existence through scientific bricolage.

未来的辩证法已经发明好了”[19]105，“这就是一种列维·斯特劳斯的不稳定平衡，也就是在结构与事件、必然与偶然、内在与外在之间的平衡——它经常遭受到来自某个方向作用力的威胁，或收到源于时尚、形式和社会总体变化的影响”[19]136；并在方法论上以“稳定源”“潜在的无尽段落”“模糊整块的建筑群”等科学的“修补匠”思维尝试这种存在之思……

The preceding discussion begins with the traditional Chinese place model of nostalgia revealed in Reading the Stele. It examines human intentions projected onto “place” and analyses how rural communities in subcultural spheres survive and perpetuate themselves within historical remains. A working framework gradually emerges, translating nostalgia from a speculative model into concrete reality: “consensual history + memory + the nostalgic subject” + “place.” Comparing this framework with nostalgia’s operating mechanism—the triangle between the nostalgic subject and subjective and objective “places”—and with Boym’s account of reflective nostalgia yields the universal, synchronic working framework of “collectively shared framework + place.” The discussion also starts from the contemporary condition in which nostalgia appears, disappears and becomes alienated during forty years of urbanisation in rural regions. It identifies the tools of social practice behind the universal and subcultural structures shaping this reality—the engineer/scientist system and the bricoleur system—and explores the possibility of a scientific bricoleur. Thus a working model takes shape: working framework (collectively shared framework + place) + practical method (scientific bricolage). It embodies the mutually balancing growth of scientific “structure” and fragments of “memory.”

上文，一方面从《读碑图》中所揭示的中国传统“乡愁”场所模型为启，到对“地点”被投射的人类意志的剖解，并深入至历史遗存中的次文化圈乡土共同体生存与延续手段的分析，逐渐显现出“乡愁”由思辨模型转化为具体现实的工作框架：“共识历史+记忆+怀旧者”+“地点”；进而将此框架与“乡愁”的运行机制——怀旧者与主客体“地点”间的三角关系，和博伊姆关于“反思型乡愁”的阐释相比对，从中推演出“集体共享架构+地点”的普遍性共时性工作框架；另一方面，则从乡土带四十年城市化进程中“乡愁”意识的时隐时现并异化的当代入手，由此发现左右这种现实的普世社会结构与次文化圈结构背后的社会实践工具——“工程师/科学家”系统与“修补匠”系统，探讨建立“科学的修补匠”系统的可能。据此，工作框架（集体共享架构+地点）+实践方法（科学的修补匠）的工作模型成型，体现了科学“结构”与记忆“片断”的制衡生长。

This reborn model of nostalgia results not only from reasoning and observation, but also from the gradual growth of western Chinese architects through practice, exploration and reflection in rural subcultural regions. As early as the 1980s, architect Tang Hua wrote in his entry for Japan’s competition for an “Activity Centre in a Tiled-roof

这一重生的“乡愁”模型不仅是思维推理与现实观察的结果，更反映了西部建筑师直面次文化圈乡土带实践、探索与反思渐进的成长过程。早在1980年代，建筑师汤桦在一份提交日本“瓦屋顶

Residential Neighbourhood”: “The sense of crisis latent in modern life and the awareness of home accumulated in human blood over centuries and millennia lead people to seek their own identity and spiritual home. This gives rise to an inexplicable nostalgia. Such longing makes us weave dreams, legends and stories of every kind. We leave them to the future through various forms of transmission from generation to generation, seeking a spiritual return. Ultimately we obtain a ‘bridge’ linking our spiritual homeland with ourselves—a metaphysical bridge” [20:77–78]. His drawing omits a specific “place.” It depicts the dissolution of the centripetal structure of “consensual history” formed by a traditional village’s square, stone bridge, pool and ancestral hall, and the reassembly of isolated fragments of alienated “memory” (Fig. 4).

居住小区活动中心”竞赛的方案中写道：“现代生活所潜伏的危机感和千百年来积淀在人的血液中的家园意识，使人们寻找着各自的认同和精神上的归宿，由此也就产生了一种莫名的‘乡愁’。这种怀旧情绪使我们编织了各式的梦、各式的传说和故事。并以各种世代相传的方式遗留给未来，以达到某种精神上的回归。最终获得一座连通我们的精神故乡和我们自身的‘桥’，一座形而上的桥。”[20]77-78其省略了具体“地点”的图纸呈现了一个经典的传统村落里由坝子、石桥、水池与祠堂所组合的“共识历史”般的向心结构的瓦解，与异化的“记忆”零星片断们的重组（图4）。

Liu Jiakun’s West Village is more concerned with the “collectively shared framework” [21]. An encircling running track links functional spaces into an immense urban megastructure, establishing an ambiguous shared framework. It seems to re-present the basin relationships of the western Sichuan plain and the geography of traditional large courtyards, while also recalling a miniature people’s commune of the Cultural Revolution and the “socialist compound” of the planned-economy era. At the same time, it matches the scale of contemporary metropolitan Chengdu. It is undoubtedly a shared system in which multiple, heterogeneous collective memories meet and intermingle across any single period. “West Village does not need privacy, but it needs independence, sharing and visibility.” “West Village is a little like a bookshelf I have made: every book placed in it is different, but once it is full, they remain within the bookshelf’s order.” Note ② (Fig. 5).

刘家琨的西村大院则更倾向于对“集体共享架构”的思考[21]，以一圈环形的跑道串接功能空间达成超级的城市巨构，建构了一种似是而非的共享框架，似乎是川西坝子的盆地关系与传统大院落的地缘再现，又仿佛文革时代人民公社的缩影，还带些计划经济时期“社会主义大院”的味道，更与当代成都超大都市的规模相匹配等等，毋庸置疑，这是一个跨越单一时限的多重而异质的集体记忆汇合杂糅的共享系统；“西村大院不需要私密性，但需要独立、共享和被看见”，“西村有点像我做了一个书架，放进去的每本书都不同，但放满以后，它们还是在书架的秩序中”②（图5）……

Long rooted in the heartland of rural subcultural regions, West-Line Studio has consistently explored the regeneration and development of nostalgia as a speculative model [22]. Its work proceeds on two simultaneous levels. The first concerns ways of thinking: exploring how the general framework of “place + collectively shared framework” can combine with a particular geographical setting and the existential habitus of rural ethnic communities. Starting from an understanding of “place,” it seeks to make explicit the relationships concealed behind this object onto which subjective intention is projected:

长期在次文化圈乡土带腹地扎根的西线工作室始终坚持对“乡愁”这一思辨模型重生与发展的探索[22]，其具体工作呈现在两个同时行进的层面。一是工作思维层面：试图探索将“地点+集体共享架构”的普遍性工作框架同具体的地缘环境、乡土族群共同体的生存“习性”相结合的方案；首先，在对“地点”认知的基础上，为了将隐藏在“地点”——这种带有主体意志投射的客体背后的

the environmental hierarchy from territory, phenology and region to settlement and building, at macro and micro scales, and their links with the human lifeworld [7:7–75]. These are translated into a “geographical order” exploring relationships between natural places and established settlements, as a way of entering the environment. Next, the habitus of traditional rural communities within subcultural spheres, contemporary ideas of community and concern for public life are incorporated into the “collectively shared framework.” Together they establish a reflective place framework: “a model of community public life = ethnic ‘consensual history’ (transmission of collective history) + vehicles activating ‘memory’ (internalisation of ritual and customary belief) + generators of contemporary cultural knowledge reproduction [23:489–505] (cultivation of modern cognition and imparting knowledge and skills) + secular public life (concern for public affairs and construction of civic awareness).” Unlike a traditional rural community, this is a specific community model in which the dual structures of subcultural spheres and universal society coexist and balance one another.

疆土、物候、地域、聚落、建筑物等从宏观尺度到微观尺度的环境层次关系，以及与人类生活世界的关联清晰地呈现出来[7]7-75，转换为以探讨自然场所与既成聚落间关系的“地缘秩序”作为嵌入环境的方式；其次，将次文化圈传统乡土共同体的“习性”、当代社区理念及对公众公共生活关注等方面的内容包容在“集体共享架构”之内，共同建立“共同体公共生活模型——族群‘共识历史’（族群集体历史传承）+活化‘记忆’载体（礼俗信仰的内化）+当代文化知识再生产发生器[23]489-505（现代认知方式的培养与知识技能的灌输）+世俗公共性（对公共事务的关心与公民意识的构建）”的反思型场所框架，这是迥异于传统乡土共同体的，次文化圈层+普世社会二元结构相互共生制衡的特殊的共同体模型。

The second level concerns practical method. Guided by the scientific bricoleur’s tool system, it develops a concrete mode of operation: “overall framework + clusters of fragmentary ‘memories’ for ‘atmosphere-making’” [24]. The overall framework embodies scientific thinking’s systemic outlook, aiming to realise the proposed frameworks of geographical order and community public life. Clusters of fragmentary memories rely on particular sampled sections and basic spatial types, combining construction techniques, material configurations, light environments and the organisation of symbolic objects to produce distinctive atmospheric spaces that influence people’s “mental structures.” This combination runs through West-Line Studio’s “Up to the Mountains and Down to the Villages” series [25], gradually developing into the working model of “commune-by-regional-ties” (note ①) [26]: geographical order + a model of community public life + tools of scientific bricolage.

二是实践方法层面：以“科学的修补匠”工具系统为指导，形成了“整体性架构+‘氛围制造’的片断‘记忆’群”[24]的具体操作模式；其中“整体性架构”工具体现着科学思维的系统观，其目标是实现“地缘秩序”与“共同体公共生活模型”的框架预设；而“片断‘记忆’群”则以特定的采样剖面、空间基本型等为依托，综合建构技法、材料配置、光环境生产与标志物组织等方式，生产特殊的氛围空间，达成对人的“心态结构”的影响；这套组合方法贯彻在西线工作室“上山下乡”[25]系列实践之中，并逐渐成长为“地缘共同体①[26]——地缘秩序+共同体公共生活模型+科学的修补匠工具”的工作模型。

Chetian Cultural Centre (note ③) clearly demonstrates this exploration (Fig. 6a) [27]. Chetian is a four-hundred-year-old Miao stone village in the central Guizhou plateau, where karst peak forests and peak clusters interweave. To conserve scarce level farmland, its settlement pattern groups parallel units in stepped tiers around slopes facing different directions. The hillsides thus form multiple

车田文化中心③清晰地呈现着这种摸索（图6a）[27]：车田村系四百年的苗族石头村落，地处贵州高原中部的喀斯特地貌峰林峰丛交织区，为保住稀有的平地耕作带，村落的地缘格局采用了绕不同方位山体的层级跌落的平行单元组团方式，多个山

parallel areas. The cultural centre occupies an abandoned, open rocky site south of the Sancha River in the middle of the village, where three groups of parallel hillside settlements with different orientations meet. At the level of geographical order (Fig. 6b), the design first identifies and continues this tendency to form groups of parallel, isomorphic units. It seeks to integrate Chetian Cultural Centre (note ④) into the village’s wider geographical setting and actively participate in the growth of its spatial order.

坡就此形成多个平行片区；文化中心选址于村落中部三岔河南侧的荒弃空旷的石质用地上，系三组不同朝向的平行山地组团的交接处，设计在“地缘秩序”层面（图6b），首先明确并延续了这种平行单元同构成组的趋势，试图将车田文化中心④融入村落的总体地缘环境，主动参与到村落场地秩序的生长进程中。

The market economy has also broken Chetian’s village-bounded “social circle” and familiar-neighbour way of life. Households depend more on market society and become detached from local interpersonal relationships. Villagers consequently neglect and abandon the social life of their ethnic community. Several sites associated with historical legends have been occupied by houses or left derelict, and the rural community’s established clan-based system of education has ceased to function. Moreover, the public spaces and facilities expressly required by contemporary community concepts and standards have largely failed to materialise. More than three hundred households share only one basketball court and a temporary, weed-covered public space of two or three hundred square metres. The lack of ritual and customary public spaces has also encouraged uncontrolled occupation of the village’s circulation system. Meanwhile, the left-behind population—two-thirds of all residents—consists of elderly people, children and people without specialised skills, lacking opportunities for spiritual exchange, personal development and skills training.

其次，市场经济机制下的车田村打破了以村落为边界的“社会圈子”与“乡里乡亲”的生活惯性，家庭单元更多地依附于市场社会，疏离于当地村落的人际关系，导致了村民对村落族群共同体社会生活的漠视与放弃，多个历史传说地被民房侵占或遭荒弃，乡土共同体既定的世族教化体系失效；而且，由于当代社区理念与规范明确要求的相应的公共生活场所与公共配套设施基本没有在车田村落实，造成全村三百余户仅一个篮球场，一处长满荒草的两三百平米的临时公共场所的现状，同时，相应的礼俗公共空间的缺失促成了对村落交通系统无节制地占用；另，占村落人口2/3的留守人群为老人、孩子及无技能人群，缺乏精神交流、人格培养与技能灌输等等；

On one side stands the loss of the traditional structure of nostalgia, with its familial cohesion and belonging; on the other, the absence of rational community governance. A dual-structured model of community public life that is both emotionally appropriate and rationally justified therefore emerges (Fig. 6c). It distinguishes between rebuilding Chetian’s “consensual history” system and contemporary rural cultural reproduction/village public affairs, realised in two parallel groups. Group One is a system for regenerating traditional nostalgia through landmarks of “consensual history,” vehicles activating “memory,” such as the Miao theatre stage, ritual sites and customary public spaces. It occupies the open north-eastern

一方面是亲情般的具有凝聚力与归宿感的传统“乡愁”结构的丧失，一方面是理性的社区治理的缺席，于是，一种既“合情”又“合理”的双重结构的“共同体公共生活模型”应时而生（图6c），分划为车田村“共识历史”系统的重建，与当代新乡村文化再生产/村落公共事务两种类型，具体由两个平行组团分别兑现：组团一系由“共识历史”地标、活化“记忆”载体（如苗戏台）、祭祀遗址与约定俗成的各类公共生活场所等组成的传统“乡愁”重生系统，位于基地开阔的东

part of the site. Group Two is a cultural-production and public-affairs system supporting cultural exchange, displays of villagers’ talents, reading and internet access, presentations of harvest achievements, skills workshops and everyday administration. It takes the form of a stone volume compressed into the constrained trapezoidal south-west corner. The two groups stand diagonally opposed in plan, creating confrontation and dialogue between the extraordinary and everyday, tradition and the present.

北部；组团二则是承载着村落文化交流、村民才艺展廊、图书网络阅览、丰收成果展示、技能工坊、日常事务等的文化生产/公共事务系统，系一方被压缩在用地西南角局促的梯形地块中的石体，二者在总图关系上互成犄角，呈现出非常与日常、传统与当下的对峙与互语。

Within the constraints of this geographical framework and community system, tools of scientific bricolage guide implementation. In Group One, a spatial skeleton of waterwheel + stone wall + winding water channel first establishes the overall place structure of the open north-eastern site, recalling the village’s “consensual history” of introducing waterwheels, irrigating fields and developing abundant harvests. From this skeleton, a parallel controlling order extends south to north, from higher ground towards the river; the paving also hints at this relationship. A cluster of fragments of “memory” then floats within it as historical “islands”: an altar at the legendary Jiulongpo site, a stone Miao theatre stage, fragments of a well platform recalling the saying “When drinking water, do not forget those who dug the well,” and chess platforms at varying heights. According to the content and scale of public activities at different seasons and times of day, these fragments combine into corresponding places. Jiulongpo, the waterwheel and the channel walls can form a place for ancestral and agricultural rites; the Miao stage and well platform can become a theatrical setting for historical education and traditional weddings (Fig. 6d), or a stage for children’s cycling displays and performances.

再次，在前述地缘秩序框架与共同体系统的约束下，以“科学的修补匠工具”指导具体的落地操作：在组团一中，先以水车+石墙+曲折水渠组合的空间骨架建立东北部空旷场地的整体性场所结构，再现车田村引入水车、灌溉农田、丰产发展的“共识历史”，并以该空间骨架为起点，从南向北，由高地往河边形成平行控制秩序，广场上的铺地处理亦暗示着这种关系；随后，一组“记忆”的片断群以历史“浮岛”为基本型漂浮其间——“九龙坡”传说遗址地的祭坛、石砌苗戏台、“吃水不忘挖井人”的井坛断片、高低错落的棋台组等，这些断片群依各时节与各时辰的村落公共活动的内容与规模应时组合成相应的场所状态，如“九龙坡”与水车、水渠墙的组合就可达成祭祖祭农的场所，苗戏台+井坛则可转换成有戏剧感的历史教化及传统婚庆场地（图6d），以及孩子们飞车走秀的舞台……

Group Two, the stone cultural centre in the south-west corner (note ⑤), constructs a shared framework for the village collective. It is both a transparent stone (Fig. 6e) and a condensed stone village, with suggestions of a stone machine (Fig. 6f). Parallel courtyards and a circulating alley form its overall skeleton (Fig. 6g). Three systems of materials and

而在组团二即西南角石头文化中心的处理上⑤，则构建了村落集体的共享架构，既似一方透明之石（图6e），又仿佛是石头村落的浓缩，还带些石头机器的联想（图6f），具体以平行院落+环巷（图6g）的方式建构整体骨架；继而以贯彻当地传统干抹石砌法的青石集+再现隐藏的混凝土构造系统的黑色金属片段群+彩色玻璃采光组的三系统材料与

construction techniques are then combined (Fig. 6h): locally traditional, dry-built bluestone masonry; black metal fragments revealing the otherwise concealed concrete structural system; and groups of coloured-glass rooflights. They create a stable, inward-looking atmospheric space with the texture of bricolage. Associations between rigid industrial materials and raw stone worked by traditional masons—like the sounds of repeated hammering—and skylights transmitting red light, yellow light and daylight suggest the coexistence of different manufacturing techniques and temporalities.

制造工艺的组合（图6h），营造出一个稳定而内向的透着“修补匠”质感般的氛围空间，工业化的刚性材料与传统工匠打造的原生石材通过敲敲打打的声音般的联想、透射着红光、黄光与天光的天窗系统等等都暗示着多种制造工艺与有差异的时间性并置的事实；

At the same time, the circulating alley links sectional fragments of village stone lanes with ascending and descending steps, paths through a stone forest imbued with divinity, winding cave-like passages and modern public galleries; fragments of doorstep conversations, or “telling dragon-gate tales”; fragments resembling old film made from coloured translucent glass; and fragments of fireside dancers evoked by red skylights. The homogeneous structure of parallel courtyards connects stone-court fragments—the ceremonial entrance court, the empty end court and the central court overgrown with wild grasses (Figs. 6l–6n)—as well as practical fragments of parallel functional spaces such as contemporary exhibition and training rooms. Through characteristic sections/spatial

与此同时，分别以“环巷”体系串接村落内拾级上下的石巷/石林里透着神明的路径/洞穴中曲径通幽的隧道/现代公共展廊等的剖面片段、家门前的“摆龙门阵”的片段、彩色透光玻璃组合的老胶片片段、红色天窗所影射的篝火舞者片断；“平行院落”的匀质结构并联的入口仪式院落/端部空院子/中部野草疯长的庭院等石头院片段（图6l—6n），以及各平行功能空间如当代展示空间/培训空间的实用片段等等；它们均在以特征剖面/空间

archetypes + material systems + light environments + symbolic objects, these recombinations of “memory” convey traditional and contemporary associations with the village and a flowing sense of temporal intention.

基本型+材料系统+光环境+标志物所组合的“记忆”重组方式传递着关于村落的传统/当代联想与流动着的时间意志。

Here, geographical order explores how to enter an established environment. The model of community public life develops a symbolic system of reflective nostalgia confronting social reality. The overall-framework tool within scientific bricolage both carries the higher-order structure and supplies a logical thread controlling the generation of actual space. The tool of fragmentary memory clusters activates diverse memory factors; through atmosphere-making (note ⑥), it subtly enables bodily interaction and cultivates dispositions among individuals and the collective.

此例中，“地缘秩序”探讨的是切入既成环境的方式；“共同体公共生活模型”则是直面社会现实的“反思型乡愁”象征系统的思维生成；而“科学的修补匠工具”中的“整体性架构”工具既是上层结构的承担，亦是实际空间生成控制的逻辑线索；“片断‘记忆’群”工具则激活着多样的“记忆”因子，通过“氛围制造”⑥潜移默化地达成对族群个体及集体的身体互动与心态教化……

Exploring the working model of “commune-by-regional-ties—geographical order + a model of community public life + scientific bricolage” demonstrates the influence of nostalgia’s speculative model on architectural practice. It reflects West-Line

“地缘共同体——地缘秩序+共同体公共生活模型+科学的修补匠”工作模型的探讨，体现了“乡愁”思辨模型对建筑实践的影响，反映了西线

Studio’s attempt to address the practical difficulties arising from forty years of interaction between two social structures in western China’s rural regions. More fundamentally, it is an effort to protect diverse models of human existence in subcultural spheres and enable their symbiotic growth. □

工作室对西部乡土带四十年双重社会结构相互博弈所产生的现实疑难的尝试解决，更是直面多样的次文化圈层人类生存范本的保护与共生成长的努力。□

Image sources: Fig. 1 from Chen Yunquan and Wang Huijun, Appreciating Masterpieces of Song Painting: Selected Song Landscapes, 2018; Fig. 2a from http://image.baidu.com/search/detail; Fig. 2b from http://www.bytravel.cn/Landscape/20/sanbaodongzhai.html; Fig. 3 from http://www.novel520.net/image/140618688/; Fig. 4 from reference [20]; Fig. 5 from https://www.jiakun.com/project/detail?id=17. All other photographs and drawings are by West-Line Studio.

图片来源：图1引自陈运权、汪惠君，《宋画精品赏析：宋人山水精选》，2018；图2a引自http://image.baidu.com/search/detail；图2b引自http://www.bytravel.cn/Landscape/20/sanbaodongzhai.html；图3引自http://www.novel520.net/image/140618688/；图4引自文献[20]；图5引自https://www.jiakun.com/project/detail?id=17；其余图片均由西线工作室拍摄或绘制。

① “Commune-by-regional-ties” is a working method developed progressively by West-Line Studio over fifteen years. In October 2019 it received the World Architecture News Awards (WAN Awards—Best of the Best), Architect Practice/Of the Year

①“地缘共同体”系西线工作室持续十五年逐步成型的工作方法，并获得了2019年10月世界建筑新闻大奖（Wan Awards—Best of the Best）——年度建筑师实践大