wrote about heterotopias in his brilliant essay, ‘Of Other Spaces,’ concerning the difference between homogenous and heterogenous infrastructure. However, Foucault’s account of power dealt with top-down administration, spatial regimes, and physical barriers. As Galloway notes, today’s ‘virtualization’ is more akin to what Deleuze calls ‘any-space-whatever’ [espace quelconque], as this accounts for digitization’s metastability. Heterotopias, on the other hand, are suspended between two antipathetic poles and better suited to describe the antecedent epoch of the mid-twentieth century. It is, in fact, true that Chung protracts heterotopias beyond Foucault’s dictum – after all, as Deleuze’s prescient 1990 essay, ‘Postscript on the Societies of Control,’ discerns, Foucault understood power in relation to sites of enclosure (the prison, hospital, factory) rather than diffused and malleable modulation (the internet, cybernetics, digital circulation) (1992). Nonetheless, aside from this small critique, Chung’s book certainly provides a comprehensive analysis of digital flows and transnational production, inserting a material and politically minded commentary on industry studies within the post-cinema milieu, prudently evaluating labor and the body without lapsing into affect.

中文翻译：

---

哲学的希区柯克：眩晕与不知不觉的焦虑

在他的精彩文章《其他空间》中，他谈到了异质症，其中谈到了同质和异质基础设施之间的差异。但是，福柯关于权力的论述涉及自上而下的管理，空间体制和物理障碍。正如盖洛韦（Galloway）所指出的那样，今天的“虚拟化”更类似于Deleuze所谓的“任何空间任何” [eque quelconque]，因为这说明了数字化的亚稳定性。另一方面，异视症则悬挂在两个反感的极点之间，更适合描述二十世纪中叶的前世时代。实际上，Chung确实使异位症延及了福柯的教义，毕竟，正如德勒兹（Deleuze）1990年的有远见的论文《控制社会的后记》所言，福柯理解与封闭场所有关的权力（监狱，医院，工厂），而不是分散和可延展的调制（互联网，控制论，数字流通）（1992年）。尽管如此，Chung的书除了有这么小的批判之外，当然还提供了对数字流和跨国生产的全面分析，在电影后的环境中插入了对产业研究的实质性和政治性评论，审慎地评估了劳动和身体而没有受到影响。