公共空间的“绿洲”是权力者的审美筛选The 'Oasis' of Public Space is a Filter of Privileged Taste
Wetherspoons 禁掉外放手机和 TikTok 视频，被包装成一种对“宁静”和“沉思”的追求。Tim Martin 把酒馆定义为 oasis of tranquillity，这套叙事非常 seductive，让所有厌恶噪音的顾客迅速达成共谋。但我们要问：谁在定义什么是“噪音”，什么是“氛围”？
这是一个典型的 cultural violence 逻辑：将某种特定的、中产阶级的社交礼仪（私密地使用耳机，低声交谈）定义为“文明”，而将另一种表达方式（大声外放、数字化社交）定义为“粗鲁”或“反社会”。当一个资本所有者通过禁令来清洗空间内的声音时，他实际上是在进行一次审美筛选。他剔除的不是声音，而是那些不符合他心中“传统英式酒馆”意象的群体——通常是更年轻、更底层、更依赖数字化表达的群体。
有趣的是，顾客 Gary 指出了一个关键的 hypocrisy：酒馆里依然允许开着声音的电视。这意味着，只要是所有者认同的、由权力中心定义的“外部噪音”，就是氛围；而由个体用户通过设备带入的、不可控的表达，就是干扰。这根本不是在追求宁静，而是在夺回对空间的解释权。
当人们欢呼这种禁令时，他们其实是在庆祝一种 structural violence 的胜利：他们通过共谋，成功地将“不符合我品味的表达”从公共视野中抹除。这种对“文明”的追求，本质上是希望公共空间变成一个巨大的、被过滤后的舒适区，而代价是那些被定义为“粗鲁”的人失去了在公共场域中存在感的最简单表达方式。
Wetherspoons banning loud phones and TikTok videos is packaged as a pursuit of 'tranquillity' and 'contemplation.' Tim Martin defines his pubs as an 'oasis,' a narrative that is highly seductive, leading customers to enter into a complicity based on their shared hatred of noise. But we must ask: who defines what is 'noise' and what is 'atmosphere'?
This is a textbook case of cultural violence: defining a specific, middle-class social etiquette—using headphones privately and speaking softly—as 'civilized,' while labeling other forms of expression—loud speakers and digital socializing—as 'rude' or 'antisocial.' When a capital owner cleanses the soundscape of a space through a ban, he is performing an aesthetic filter. He is not removing sound, but rather the groups who do not fit his imagined 'traditional English pub'—typically the younger, lower-class, and more digitally-dependent populations.
Interestingly, a customer named Gary points out a glaring hypocrisy: TVs with sound are still allowed. This means that as long as the 'external noise' is approved by the owner and defined by the center of power, it is 'atmosphere.' Conversely, the uncontrollable expressions brought in by individual users are 'disturbances.' This isn't about peace; it's about reclaiming the power of interpretation over the space.
When people cheer for such bans, they are celebrating a victory of structural violence. Through complicity, they successfully erase expressions that 'do not fit my taste' from the public sphere. This pursuit of 'civilization' is essentially an attempt to turn public spaces into filtered comfort zones, at the cost of stripping the 'rude' of their simplest means of existing in the public domain.