本文是對塔夫利所著《建築與烏托邦》一書的評介。第一部份簡介該書內容，焦點 放在塔夫利如何分析現代建築與前衛運動之意識形態，指出其脫離資本主義生產之現實，而 成為他所謂的形式主義耍弄的過程。第二部份則摘要詹明信對塔夫利的重要批評，前者認為 塔夫利的辯證史學取向，使得他在社會變革與建築的政治角色上，都必然採取悲觀的論調： 整體的社會革命之前，一切努力皆屬枉然。詹明信並提出葛蘭西的陣地戰概念，主張即使在 資本主義的大架構裡，建築與建築師還是有從事策略性活動，並提出提升民眾自我意識之正 面烏托邦的可能性。最後一部份，本文引申幾個討論的議題：首先，筆者對於詹明信的批評 提出一些商榷。其次，筆者認為塔夫利並未照顧到資本主義在生產與技術理性以外的層面， 即關於商品化與文化消費的議題；第三，從後結構主義對於真實與虛構之二分的質疑，重新 思考意識形態批評；最後，筆者認為塔夫利的建築意識形態分析缺少了國族國家這一條重要 的線索。　　　　　　

　　　　　The first part of this review article summarizes Manfredo Tafuri's Architecture and Utopia, focusing on the failure story of modern architecture and avant-garde ideology which was excluded from the reality of production and turned into useless formalistic play in the process of capitalist development. Fredric Jameson's critique of Tafuri's arguments is summarized in the second part. Jameson identifies the pessimistic consequences of Tafuri's dialectical history and argues for Gramsci's concepts of 'war of position' and 'counter-hegemony' as an alternative approach. Finally, the author raises some disagreements with Jameson, then argues that there were some important elements missing in Tafuri's analysis: cultural consumption and commodification, the roles played by nation-states, and a more sophisticate view of ideology based on the poststructurists' critique of the dichotomy between reality and discursive construction.