The Prague Metro: Socialism, Time and Space, c. 1950-2000

布拉格的地铁几乎与20世纪的历史相同。虽然它在1974年才开放，但第一个计划可以追溯到1899年。从那时起，布拉格经历了几次政权，时间和空间的变化，以及不同意识形态的统治。本项目旨在从文化历史的角度审视布拉格地铁及其建设的历史，审视其意义的复杂性，特别是探索时间和空间的概念。在这样做的时候，我希望有助于当前关于不同形式的现代性的辩论-自由资本主义，斯大林主义，后斯大林主义和后社会主义。本书将从布拉格地铁不同愿景的大图景开始，然后集中讨论社会主义和后社会主义时代。社会主义历史学家正在从早期的极权主义视角转向研究公共和私人领域的相互作用，从其复杂性中看到这一点。布拉格地铁可以被看作是“现代性的实验室“，通过与其他现代性的历时性和共时性的对比和比较，表明它是欧洲现代性的一部分。此外，到目前为止，除了少数几本流行的书外，关于布拉格地铁的任何东西都没有写过，这些书纯粹是对历史的回顾，只有轶事研究，缺乏分析。地铁作为一个能指出现在各个层面的话语中，我想研究这些话语，从高层政治到技术官僚辩论，再到日常通勤。中心问题是现代时间性的抽象概念及其在地铁空间中的具体想象和实现。这一建设发生在人们对未来的兴趣沿着高涨的时期，同时，人们对技术官僚主义的信仰正在减弱，独特的“社会主义科学”诞生了，这种科学假定科学规范与日常生活之间没有矛盾。地铁是一台时间机器，既通往未来（技术的体现），也通往过去（国家遗产的展示），它（通过意识形态）将两者联系在一起。一个新的体验空间正在布拉格下成长，它描绘了一个新的期望地平线。《地铁》提供了一个视角，通过它来分析西方时空压缩时代不断变化的时间和历史性制度，以及尽管意识形态的目的论宣言不断，但晚期社会主义的永恒性。与此同时，1989年后，地铁不再被视为“捷克斯洛伐克人民的作品”，联邦停止资助其建设，壁画上覆盖着亭，记忆的层次从字面上改变了。过去的遗产，反共主义和怀旧都可以在地铁被重新命名的方式中观察到，重塑，并在后社会主义下记住。然而，我理解地铁不仅仅是话语的一部分，而是人们穿过的具体空间。因此，我的论文将考虑史学的空间转向，这要求更多地强调空间，不仅记录，但调解，隔离，市场，展示，或忽视。社会主义和其他现代性的抽象概念的宇宙学与创造存在立足点的空间现象学形成对比，在这种立足点中，主体体验到聚集的意义，一个地方的特征。技术乌托邦进入了真实的框架，国家的理性通过空间巩固了世界。地铁使人们有可能探索城市作为一个现代项目和一个时间空间的不断变化的心理形象。我希望不仅阅读文本，而且阅读空间及其（音频）视觉表现。布拉格有几个档案馆，其中包括官方文件，专家期刊，报纸，官方杂志，电影和电视制作。传记文学使对主体性的探究成为可能。

The Prague Metro is almost coeval with the 20thcentury history. Although it was only opened in 1974, the first plans date to 1899. And since then, Prague has undergone several regime, temporal, and spatial changes, as well as rule of different ideologies. Thisproject aims to examine the history of the Prague Metro and its construction from the perspective of cultural history, examining the complexity of meanings surrounding it, and particularly exploringconcepts of time and space. In doing so, I hope to contribute tocurrent debates on different forms of modernity - liberal capitalist, Stalinist, post-Stalinist and post-socialist. It willstart with the bigger picture of different visions of the Prague Metro and then centre on the socialistand postsocialist eras.Historians of socialism are movingaway from earlier totalitarian perspectives, focused on the politics of oppression, in favour of studying the interplay of public and private spheres, seeing it in its complexity. The Prague Metro can be seen as "a laboratory of modernity"and, by contrasting and comparing it with other modernities both diachronically and synchronically to show it as part of European modernity. Furthermore, nothing has been written on the Prague Metro so far, apart from a few popular books, which treat history purely descriptively, with only anecdotal research and a lack of analysis. The Metro as a signifier appears on various levels of discourse, which I want to examine, from high politics to technocratic debates to everyday commuting. The central issue is the abstract notion of modern temporality and its concrete imaginations and realizations in the space of the Metro. The construction came at a time of heightened interest in the future along with a waning belief in technocracy and a birth of distinct "socialist science", which presumed no contradiction between the norms of science and everyday life. The Metro was a time machine to both the future (manifestation of technology) and the past (display of national legacy), which it linked together (by ideology). A new space of experience was growing under Prague which drafted a new horizon of expectations. The Metro offers a perspective through which to analyse the changing regimes of time and historicity in the age of time-space compression in the West and timelessness of late socialism despite continuing teleological proclamations of the ideology. Meanwhile, after 1989, the Metro was no longer presented as "a work of the Czechoslovak people", the federation stopped financing its construction and the frescoes were covered with kiosks, as the layers of memory literally transformed. The legacy of the past, anticommunism and nostalgia can all be observed in the ways in which the Metro was renamed, reshaped, and remembered under postsocialism. However, I understand the Metro not as a mere part of discourse, but as a concrete space, which people pass through. My thesis will therefore take account of the spatial turn in historiography, which calls for more emphasis on the spaces that do not merely document, but mediate, segregate, market, display, or ignore. The cosmology of abstract concepts of socialist and other modernities contrasts with the phenomenology of spaces which create the existential foothold wherein the subjectivities experience the gathered meanings, the character of a place. The technological utopia enters the framework of the real, the state's rationale consolidates the world through space. The Metro makes it possible to explore the changing mental image of the city as a modern project and a space in time. I wish to read not only the texts, but also the space and its (audio)visual representations. There are several Prague-based archives, which include official documents, expert journals, newspaper, official magazines, film and television production. Biographical literature makes possible the inquiry on subjectivities.