城市规划文献翻译--规划、指导、形象和城市理论与实践的分离形象作为其纽带.docVIP

　 文献翻译一：原文 Planning, Governing, and the Image ofthe City THE SEPARATION OF KNOWLEDGE FROM ACTION, AND THE IMAGE AS A TIE THAT BINDS THEM Planning theory has tended to emphasize the separation of knowledge from action, as evidenced by the subtitle of a main text, Planning in the Public Domain: From Knowledge to Action (Friedmann 1987). Doing so has perpetuated a long line of enlightenment thinking that nourishes the epistemological roots of endeavors such as planning and design. Hannah Arendt (1958) identified knowledge with command and action with obedience to command. Thus she was able to claim that the separation of knowing and doing is the root of domination. Arendt was influenced by Martin Heidegger who, in his famous essay The Question Concerning Technology, questioned how society questions technology (1977). What he achieved by this was a radical rethinking of what technology is, and how society mediates thought and action by technology. For Heidegger, technology is not limited to machines nor popular ascriptions like means and tools. For him the essence of technology is enframing. Technology enframes the real and transforms it into a standing reserve. Everything lies in wait to be used and transformed by technology. In this sense institutions are a technology that turns agents and ideas into objects subject to institutional technology. This places agents and ideas in a subordinate relation to the institution. In Heideggers analysis, knowledge is both subordinate to institutional action and superordinate to the power that enables the institution to act. In contrast, Arendts analysis of the individual person places knowledge in a position superior to action. The separation of knowledge from action, object from subject, being from doing, and command from obedience is picked up in the historical studies of Michel Foucault and his theorizing on power and knowledge (Foucault 1978, 1979, 1980). Juirgen Habermas is also sympathetic to Arendts treatmen