日常无事，有心翻译之前一直想翻译但没机会翻译的文章，打发时间。
前言：英国是世界上最早进行工业革命的国家，在工业化的同时，圈地运动愈演愈烈，城市化趋势和一系列城市问题不可避免产生。1906年《开放空间法》的制定和公地保护运动的发展，回应了城市中公共空间的性质、使用者、功能等问题，通过对工人居住环境的改善，在一定程度上缓解了社会矛盾。利物浦的伯肯海德公园正是在这时代浪潮里诞生的产物，因为公共空间面对社会各个阶层开放，不同于以往欧洲传统园林只服务于皇室贵族，而体现了资本主义的人权平等思想。此文深入探讨了城市公园的公共性质是维护公民行使各种权利还是使公园成为一处滥用权利的无政府状态之境。本人更偏向于前一种说法。
To Go Again to Hyde Park
Public Space, Rights, and Social Justice
重回海德公园
公共空间，权利和社会公平
Public space engenders fears, fears that derive from the sense of public space as uncontrolled space, as a space in which civilization is exceptionally fragile.
公共空间产生恐惧——源自于公共空间给人感觉是不受控制的空间，在这个空间里，文明异常的脆弱。
The panic over “wilding” in New York City’s Central Park in the late 1980s (rampaging young men violently terrorizing joggers and other park users for the sheer joy of it), the fright made palpable by the explosions in Atlanta’s Olympic Park in 1996, and the new found fear of public space spurred by the sense of vulnerability attendant upon the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, no less than the everyday gnawing uneasiness we feel when we step around a passed-out homeless person on a sidewalk, often convince us that public space is the space of anarchy.
十九世纪八十年代末发生在纽约中央公园的恐怖事件（横冲直撞的年轻人暴力恐吓公园里的慢跑者和其他公园使用者）1996年在Atlanta’s Olympic Park里发生的冲突事件更加明显，“911”带来的脆弱感引发了公众对于公共空间新的恐惧感，其程度不亚于我们每天在人行道路上看到无家可归的流浪汉时，认为公共空间是属于无政府状态的担惊受怕的感受。
Such an association of public space with anarchy is, of course, not new; it is not just a feature of the contemporary city, of the current media-encouraged, overweaning concern about crime, homelessness, and random terrorism that makes public space seem such an undesirable attribute of the contemporary American city.
公共空间和无政府状态的联系如此，当然，并不新鲜了，这不仅是当代城市的一个特征，还是当代媒体过于关注犯罪、无家可归和随机的恐怖主义等因素致使公共空间看起来是当代美国城市不受欢迎的一个特征。
Raymond Williams(1997[1980], 3-5) reminds us, for example, that Matthew Arnold’s(1993) famous declaration in Culture and Anarchy –that culture represents (or ought to represent) “the best knowledge and thought of the time”(1993,79)-was made in response to working people forcing their way into Hyde Park in 1866 to hold an assembly in support of the right to vote.
R使我们想起M在《文化与无政府主义》书中的著名观点——文化代表了（或理应代表了）时代最好的知识和思想——可以回答工人们为了获得投票权而聚集在海德公园（1866）的举动。
For Arnold, the Hyde Park demonstrators were “a symptom of the general anarchy”(Williams 1997[1980],6) rather than people struggling for their rights-their right to assemble, their right to speak, their right to vote.
对于A而言，海德公园的示威者是一种“普遍的无政府状态”，而非人们为了他们的集会权利、演讲权利和投票权利而作的斗争。
A Hyde Park “rioter,” according to Arnold, “is just asserting his personal liberty a little, going where he likes, assembling where he likes, bawling where he likes, hustling as he likes” (Arnold 1993, 88, quoted in Williams 1997[1980],6).
Even more-and even more shrilly-Arnold objected to a working person’s “right to march where he likes, meet where he likes, enter where he likes, hoot as he likes, threaten as he likes, smash as he likes. All this, I say, tends to anarchy”(Arnold 1993, 85, quoted in Williams 1997[1980],6).
一个海德公园的示威者，据A所言，“这只是在维护他们的权利吗？在他们想聚集的地方，在他们想叫喊的地方，在他们想忙碌的地方。更甚，A反对工人们想在何处集会的权利，想在何处见面的权利，想进入何处的权利，想叫什么就叫什么，想威胁什么就威胁什么，想砸哪里就砸哪里的权利，在他看来，这都是无政府主义。”
