“失序”的自然

【作者】 荀丽丽；

【导师】 包智明；

【作者基本信息】 中央民族大学 ， 民族社会学， 2009， 博士

【摘要】 本文立足于一个位于内蒙古中西部边境的荒漠化草原社区,综合历史分析与结构分析的视角,探讨了现代民族国家的权力形态在这一特定的生态区域内的建构与生长过程及其所带来的复杂的生态后果、社会后果和道德意涵。民族国家作为现代性秩序的核心充分体现了现代主义的“规划”本质,即按照其自身的逻辑再造自然和再造社会。在这一过程中,对原有秩序的“问题化”是再造秩序的前提,这也是本文以“失序”的自然为题的本意。现代国家在依其自身的视野与利益,“创制”一个清晰而驯服的“自然”,一个边界明确的个体主义的社会,一个将人与自然简化为“虚拟商品”的市场体系。“创制”一词是极为关键的。本文的核心观点在于指出,现代国家权力的建构与成长过程是地方性的社区共同体日益衰落的过程。国家主义、科学主义和市场主义都是建立在对社区共同体的结构与精神的压制与贬抑之上的。而晚近全球化扩张的过程中,国家与垄断市场力量的联合对地方社区的再组织以新的方式加速了劳动力的商品化,进一步加剧了地方社区的解体。土地和劳动力的商品化无疑带来了巨大的社会危机和生态危机。而可持续发展秩序的建立离不开“社区”的能动性与自主性的发挥。本文的主体部分由三章构成:第二章、第三章和第四章。在第二章中,笔者通过叙述我国草原边界不断深入的建构过程,梳理了草原产权体系的变更过程。“产权”的意义并不具有先验的假定,它的涵义是在国家与地方社区的持续互动中确定的。尽管在政策的表层,这是一个逐渐的清晰化的过程,但在社会地层的深处却蕴含着更多的不确定,自然秩序对这一清晰化过程的回应本身就是非常复杂并远在我们今天所能达到的把握能力之外的。不可否认的是,这一边界的细分过程是国家权力的触角日渐深入的过程。同时,更应该注意到的是,这一细分的过程是“集体”或“共同体”崩解的过程。集体的弱化和消失,不仅仅意味着集体经济的弱小,更意味着人们道德实践的基础的缺失。面对日益频繁的草场纠纷,人与人之间的疏离与冲突在加剧。似乎一个霍布斯曾经深感忧虑的“战争”状态在逐渐升级。当然,这一分散的个体主义是有利于现代国家的治理模式的。但是对于自然来说,哈丁所担忧的“公地的悲剧”并没有在一个强大的国家的保护之下获得解决,也没有在一个私有产权的体系中得到真正有效的消除。人类学家早已经提醒我们,人们会根据资源的特点选择产权形式,并认为在资源利用上并不存在一个从公共产权到私有产权的单一趋势。在一个看似强大却监管不力的统一的国有产权之下,和在一个看似严密却在实践中漏洞百出的统一的私有产权体系下,生态都无法得到有效的保护。在国家与个人之间,我们还可以选择在人类历史中持续存在并有效实践的“共有产权”。在第三章中,笔者通过对传统整体性自然观向科学自然观的转变揭示了这一过程与现代国家权力的建立的一致性。而科学自然观所诉诸的人与自然的分立和人对自然的控制是一个一以贯之的逻辑,也是内在于现代性本身的特性。对草原退化的问题化自建国之初便被提出,这时所初具形态的草原科学和一系列的专业技术机构的建立已经建立了现代性中“专家知识”治理的雏形。在实践过程中,我们发现“专家知识”是在与“本土知识”的意识形态式的斗争中确立自身的权威的。而国家专业技术机构的设立也保证了这种知识权力的集中性和权威性。随着国家技术力量的成长,技术在再造自然空间的同时也重塑了社会空间,更改变了人们的生态伦理。国家变成了诸如水和草这样重要资源的供给者,它既部分地替代了“长生天”的权威又制造了很多新的更为严重的环境危机。当下以技术为依托以资本为保障的密集型的资源开发体制不能不说是国家草原建设与草原管理带来的意外后果。现代国家权力的兴起使其成为人与自然关系的主导者。技术的引进以及其支持的公路、铁路和运河等强化了国家的中心性的控制与监控。一些更为细密的技术,如地图和统计调查等大大等加强了国家对地方人口和自然资源的监控能力。国家试图通过“科学化”的管理方法来“理性化”其人民和环境以便将其置于自己的治理之下。在此,笔者想特别强调的是,尽管本土生态知识又被科学体系所接纳并不断地为其提供合法性。但是,需要注意的是,知识同样是“集体”的作品,它并不是个体头脑中的既有的存在。当孕育本土知识的共同体的文化消失衰落之后,很难说这样的所谓“本土知识”的实践不是间接地服务于外在的资本与权力。在第四章中,笔者通过叙述一个生态移民村的产生与衰落的过程,来讨论在新的生态治理的时代中草原和草原人的命运。笔者发现,在这次生态危机之后,国家的生态治理行动将牧民视作草原的破坏者和生态负担,并将国家治理视为保护草原的根本途径。这在很大程度上剥离了当地人与草原之间的共生关系,从而削弱了以此为基础而产生的道德责任。以生态移民为标志,各种名目的“人口转移”还在继续推进。笔者在生态移民项目的运作中揭示了国家与市场力量的合谋将底层的分散的民众裹挟进高度风险的市场体系。一个完全背离了当地生态特质的奶牛产业,在地方政府的推动下大幅扩张。这不仅使弱势的牧民被市场无情地套空并排斥出局,更给当地的生态埋下了更深的隐患。笔者还注意到,后牧业税时代的国家,以“悬浮治理”为标志,国家权力主要表现为一种监控权力。而这一体制与自上而下的项目经济相配合,一方面加剧国家与市场对社区自主性的双重压抑,另一方面也使国家作为自然的保护者与作为发展推动者之间的深刻矛盾更加突出。国家在其理论设计的形象中是公共利益的维护者,但在实践当中,它的行动总是很令人失望,它往往不但没有解决问题,反而加剧了这些问题。综上,以功利主义道德为核心的私有产权体系、自然与社会分离的科学世界观以及将土地和劳动力商品化的市场体系都是与现代国家权力的建构相辅相成的,在其运作机制上都表现为对“社区”共同体的消解和共同体规范的破坏。本文认为,回归人之为人的社会本性,及其根植于社会性的道德性,赋予社区共同体以自主性和能动性才是可持续发展的途径。更多还原

【Abstract】 The ethnographic materials for this study are drawn from an Inner Mongolian community, located in the central-west of that Autonomous District, and this is one of many such communities that have suffered from severe problems for their environment. The theoretical perspective for the research is historical-structural, that is, empirically grounded and yet conceptually oriented. My argument is that the form of modern state power, in its attempt of transforming the local community, has caused a complex of environmental problems, social consequences, and moral dilemmas for the people involved. The nation state, as the central order of modernity, incarnated the modernism which is characterized by modernization project. It means that the modern state reconstruct the nature and the society according its own logic. In this process, the premise of order reconstruction is to treat the traditional order as problematic. This is the key point: in order to create a society according to such a new logic, that is, to tame nature, to define individual rights clearly, to bring everything into transaction on market, the state started its project by taking the local community as a "disorder" condition of life. The notion of "creation" is important here, because I want to show that the decline of local community is "created" by the development of modern state power. That is, statism, scientism, and marketism are all based on the repression and disparage of the local community both in the structural and spiritual sense. As part of global capitalist expansion, the combination of the state power and the monopoly power of market reorganized the local communities and accelerated the commercialization of labor and land, which brought great social and environmental crisis. My point is that there is no way to develop or develop sustainably without the vitality of a healthy and self-determination community.After the Introductory chapter, in chapter two, I have provided a discussion of the process in which the grassland-boundaries were defined and redefined, in order to show the development of a new system of property-rights. The property rights are not given but constructed in the process of continual interaction between the state and the local community. For the government, this is a process of pursuing certainty in the full sense of the term, but, in fact, with much uncertainty involved. Its environmental consequence still beyond our understanding. One thing is certain: along with this development, the reach of the state penetrated deeply and collective or communal conscience began to collapse. And this does not simply mean the decrease of collective or communal economy but, rather, a weakening of the foundation of people’s moral practice. With more and more disputes over property rights, people became hostile to each other, and there seems arising of a world perfectly understandable for Hobbes: War of everyone against everyone. This kind of fragmented individualism is fit for the governance of the state. But for the nature, Hardin’s "tragedy of commons" was never resolved under the uniform property right. No matter it is the state property or the private property. As anthropologists have shown, there may be different understandings of rights and properties among different cultures. What looks clear a system of rights, may not work well in any actual situation of life, and this has been proved by the continued ecological deterioration in this part of Inner Mongolia. There may be, as I argue, between the state and the individual, "common property" which has been practiced efficiently and sustainably in the human history is an alternative choice.In chapter three, I have tried to show how the state facilitates the substitution of scientific view of nature for the traditional holism view of nature, and argued that this substitution is necessary for the state-making process. The state view is built on modern science which emphasizes the distinction between the human world and the natural environment and resorts to the human’s manipulation over the nature, which is the epistemology of modernity. In the case of China, from 1949 onwards, there has been a systematic attempt by the state to set up scientific institutions to deal with grasslands and other environmental issues. Albeit different in form, this modern idea of man struggling against nature has always been part of the state policies. In practice, as we have seen, the expert knowledge which is supposedly scientific, has gained its authority by fighting with and denouncing "local knowledge". Though, the importance is to note that, in such a struggle for scientific victory, the social world of local people has also been reconstructed, which has resulted in a reformation of their ethical practice. One of the consequences is that the state has gained a symbolic power as a provider of key natural resource such as water and grass which has been partly as a substitution for the authority of the God, however, created a lot of environmental crisis. The intensive natural resources exploitation system which is based on the application of technology and the management of capital was the result of state’s grassland construction and grassland management policy. The emergence of the modern state power makes itself as a dominant role in the relationship between the human and nature. The introduction of technology, especially the huge construction projects such as highroad and railroad and the more elaborated techniques such as map and statistics, consolidated the central surveillance and control of the state. In short, the state tries to rationalize the population and natural environment and make them under its governance through scientific administration method. Although the indigenous ecological knowledge has been gradually accepted and legitimated by the scientific knowledge, my sociological point is that knowledge is by definition social, both in terms of its genesis and function; it is not simply a set of brilliant ideas produced by a single mind. And when the social context for local knowledge disappears, there is no longer any hope for such knowledge to function for the community in any proper sense. It would have to become a means for assisting the power of capital, national or global.Chapter four discusses the birth and decline of an ecological relocation village, and shows how local people experienced the policy change in the eco-governance age. In such a change, local herders came to be objected as the grassland destructor and the ecological burden, and therefore the state sees itself and its intervention as the only solution. Such an attempted solution further destroyed the symbiotic relationship between local people and the grassland. People’s moral engagement with nature and other people was weakened. The state has asked people to move away from their lands, to be resettled in a more rational or economically beneficial way. This is, in fact, a serious attempt to get local people involved in this seemingly indispensable process of marketization, which contains risks which are beyond the control of them. The cow breeding industry which is unfit for the local ecological quality was developed rapidly with the support of government. This does not only mean that the poor herders were changed into commercial labor but also mean that the new ecological risks were created. The combination of state and market force oppressed the vitality of local community. The conflict between the state as environment protector and the state as development promoter became more evident.In sum, the private property system characterized by utilitarian morality, the scientific world view characterized by the distinction between human and nature and the market system characterized by commercialization of land and labor are all matched the state-making process which was represented as the collapse of local community and its collective norms. This thesis want argue that we can not ignorant the social nature of human being and the morality rooted in people’s sociality. To empower the local community the power of self-determination is the only way of sustainable development.更多还原