營造亦營生、繕屋又繕性：文資修復及再利用工作中建築師的勞動處境與專業反思

隨著歷史保存觀念的普及與制度化，文資修復及再利用成了營建生產領域中方興未艾的新事業，臺灣的建築師也因此在主流新建工程之外，多了一個職涯發展的選項。本研究選擇投入文資修復及再利用工作的建築師進行訪談，輔以參與觀察的方式，嘗試回答：在此新興的執業領域中，這些建築師如何實踐他們過去在學院教育及社會環境中所習獲的專業意識。為了分析建築師「生產過程」與「專業意識」相互構成的關係，本研究援引Pierre Bourdieu進行場域分析的概念工具與公式——［（習癖）（資本）］＋場域＝實踐——作為分析架構，並通過「資本」與「場域」的分析，凸顯建築師與場域中不同行動者之間，就不同議題所形成的多元張力。　　本文首先爬梳建築專業與文資保存制度在臺灣的發展脈絡與歷史轉折，說明構成建築師專業意識的環境條件。臺灣本土意識崛起的脈絡，同時促使文資保存的興起，以及建築領域對環境及歷史人文的關懷。對比報導人的經驗反思，可以發現他們的確抱持著關懷歷史人文的實踐價值；然而，促使他們投入文資工作的原因，多半也有生計經營的考量。而他們過去養成的其他實踐傾向，包含對整合工作的想像、對設計創新的追求等等，則是有可能在場域中遭到牴觸，而使他們感到挫折。　　對此，本文以「營造亦營生、繕屋又繕性」來探討建築師在文資修復及再利用工作中，專業實踐所面臨的張力與可能性。首先，建築師透過「營造」工作實踐其專業意識的同時，背後也存在現實的「營生」需求。文資工程所提供的勞動條件，以及場域中的象徵暴力，往往使他們身陷生計經營與實踐專業意識之間的張力。儘管如此，在這門「繕屋」工作裡面，我們還是可以看到這些建築師嘗試突破場域限制，並在執業過程中開拓社會視野、展現他們對歷史及人文環境的關懷——即本文所指的「繕性」；同時，他們也透過具體的工作實踐，對本土文化及歷史保存付出貢獻。本文主張，無論是建築師的自我期許，或是社會大眾對建築專業所寄予之期盼，都不能忽視真實場域中的結構限制；唯有真實地面對理想與現實的差距，我們才有機會在專業反思的過程中，從理想朝向實踐邁開腳步。

關鍵字

文資修復及再利用；建築師；勞動處境；專業意識；場域分析

並列摘要

With the popularization and institutionalization of the concept of cultural heritage preservation, the restoration and reuse of cultural heritage has become a new business in the field of construction industry. Therefore, Taiwanese architects have an additional career option in addition to new construction works. This research selects architects who have devoted to the restoration of cultural heritages to conduct interviews, supplemented by participatory observation, trying to answer: In this emerging field of architectural practice, how do these architects put the professional awareness they have acquired in the college education and social environment into practice? In order to analyze the relationship between the architect's labor condition and professional awareness, this research quotes Pierre Bourdieu's formula for field analysis, [(habitus) (capital)] + field = practice, as analytical framework, and through the analysis of capital and field, highlight the multiple tensions between architects and different actors in the field on different issues. 　　 This article first reviews the development context and historical transition of the architectural profession and cultural heritage preservation system in Taiwan, explaining the environmental conditions that constitute the professional awareness of architects. The context of the rise of Taiwan's local consciousness has also prompted the rise of preservation of cultural heritage, as well as the care of the environment, local culture and history in the field of architectural profession. Through the informants' experience and reflection, we can find that they do hold the practical value of caring for local culture and history; however, most of the reasons that urge them to devote to this career are also based on livelihood considerations. And the other practical tendencies they developed in the past, including the imagination of integration work, the pursuit of design innovation, etc., are likely to be contradicted in the field and make them feel frustrated. 　　 In this regard, this article uses "building for a living, reflecting while repairing" to explore the tension and possibilities faced by the architects engaging in the work of cultural heritage restoration. First of all, while architects put their professional awareness in to practice through construction work, there is also a basic need for "making a living" behind them. The labor conditions provided by cultural heritage restoration projects and the symbolic violence in the field often make them trapped in the tension between livelihood needs and professional awareness. Nonetheless, in the work of "building-repairing", we can still see these architects trying to break through the limitations of the field, broadening their social vision and show their concern for local culture and history in the process of practicing and reflecting. At the same time, they also contribute to the preservation of local culture and history through their work practices. This article argues that neither the architect’s self-expectations nor the public’s expectations of the architectural profession should ignore the structural constraints in the field; only when we truly face the gap between ideals and reality can we have the possibility of putting ideals into practice.