【作者】 孔卫拿；

【导师】 肖唐镖；

【作者基本信息】 西南政法大学 ， 政治学理论， 2011， 硕士

【摘要】 当代中国农民的抗争,尤其是在后农业税时代的农民抗争,是在国家建设与市场渗透的双重情势下,农民通过各种抗争行动表达自己的利益或权利诉求。目前学界关于农民抗争的缘起、动员、过程、治理对策等范畴,均有相关的阐述,但对于农民抗争结果的研究却显得比较稀薄。这个方面理论的薄弱,又在一定程度上制约了我们对于实践层面对民众表达行动的评价和应对理念、举措。因此,研究农民抗争的结果,无论是在理论层面还是在实践层面,都具有相当大的研究价值。本文就是从这个相对薄弱的口子切入,目的就是要努力达到在界定农民抗争结果及其解释层面有所突破。本文以“理论抽样”为原则选取了20世纪90年代以来,分别发生在东、中、西四省市的四个农民抗争事件案例。四案例的经验材料,均系笔者分别在当地的田野调查而得来,在资料收集中分别使用了访谈法、观察法和文献法,而在分析资料时采用了案例比较研究法,具体来说就是两大步骤,即在描述抗争事件是以叙事策略描绘总体的“过程—事件”,在解释特定抗争结果时,运用“机制—过程”的解释方法。通过对四案例的深度解剖和对比分析,本文得出的主要观点是:第一,把农民的抗争视为一种反向运动。具体来说,在当前基层“开发—建设”政治的大背景下,农民的抗争鲜明地表现为一种对市场资本侵袭和国家抑制双重压力下的反向运动。诸类抗争性反向行动,在实践中经常演绎成农民与国家之间的互动型政治。第二,通过考察农民抗议诉求的解决程度与国家治理的转变程度这样一个二维矩阵,从四个案例可以透析出农民抗争的四类典型结果,即“双占”、“非预期收获”、“衡平”和“溃败”。这样一种互动式划分,既忠实于抗争政治的重要特征与经典界定,又相对比较切合于转型期“强国家—弱社会”关系的时代特点,并且可以将抗议的直接效应与间接效应结合起来考察。第三,立足于经验材料,运用“机制—过程”的解释学可以发现,导致“双占”结果的有“精英突破”、“策略性暴力”、“传播”、“合法性确认”等机制;导致“非预期收获”结果的有“批评性介入”、“嵌入式联结”、“选择性切割”、“策略性暴力”等机制;导致“衡平”结果的有“舆论临时调整”、“切割”、“志愿人士纳入”、“策略性暴力”等机制;而导致“溃败”结果的有“舆论撤离”、“打压”、“常规化移交”、“非策略性暴力”等机制与过程。第四,为弥补机制解释学的不足,通过机制聚合分析后本文认为,特定机制总是在互动中形成的,抗争政治互动中特定机制的运转无法脱离对特定行动主体、行动空间的分析。从四案例的比较分析中,本文最终提出了一个“空间—行动—机制”的抗争结果分析框架。总之,笔者认为当代中国农民抗争性表达行动的结果,是底层政治社会、中间性公共领域、国家政治三大空间互动作用的产物,是在一系列中间性互动机制下的产物,这些互动机制并不是一成不变的,而是在流动的抗争政治实践中频繁变化的,甚至某个偶然的机制性动力会对抗争结果起到决定性作用。这些中间性机制在错乱的抗争剧场中呈现出不同的组合秩序和链条,从而展现出千姿百态的变化。复杂多变的机制是与各个空间及其互为型构的行动是紧密联系的,“行动—空间—机制”也因而可以成为分析农民抗争结果的一个重要框架。更多还原

【Abstract】 Contemporary Chinese peasant protest, especially during the period of Post-Agricultural Tax, just displays varieties types of activities either expressing their substantial need or demonstrating their civil right aspects under the double circumstance of state-building and market’s invading. The academic groups have some discussion upon the origin, mobilization, process and countermeasures of peasant protest. However, the consequence of protest has been relatively studied not enough. And this scarcity may to a certain extent restrict the evaluation of the expression of popular action and the opinions and measures during the reaction process. Therefore, studying consequence of peasant protest, both have considerable value at the theoretical level and the practical one. This paper just begins from the relatively weak aspect so as to get some progress in defining and explaining the consequence of peasant protest.In accordance with the principle of“Theoretical Sampling”, this paper has selected four cases respectively in eastern, central and western provinces of China since the nineties 20th century. The empirical materials are all from the author’s local fieldwork. Ways of interviews, observation and literature were be used in the date collection, and comparative case study method in the analysis of them, specifically speaking, that contains two steps, to reveal the total“process-event”by narrative method in describing the protest cases , and using“mechanism-process”method in explaining the consequence of certain protest. From the deep dissection and comparative analysis of the four cases, the paper’s main points are listed as follows.Firstly, we view the peasant protest as a kind of reverse movement. Specifically, in the political background of current“development-building”by local governments. Peasant protest s clearly demonstrate as a type of reverse movement under the double pressure from invasion of market capital and state’s suppression. Various expression of reverse movements often formulate the interaction politics between peasants and state.Secondly, by examining a two-dimensional matrix, that is the extend of settlement of peasant protest and that of change in the state’s governance, we can distinguish four categories of consequence, they are“win-win”,”non-expected harvest”,“balance retrieve”and“defeat”. Such an interactive division, is not only faithful to the important features and classical definition of the contentious politics, but also relatively in line with the characteristics of the“strong state-weak society”relationship during the transition times, and it can realize an inspection including both the direct effect and the indirect ones.Thirdly, based on the empirical material and the way of“mechanism-process”, we can find that the“win-win”result may comes from mechanisms of“elite breakthrough”,”strategic violence”,“spread”and“recognized the legitimacy”etc.”Non-expected harvest”may be produced by the mechanisms of“critical intervention”,“embedded link”,“selective cutting”and“strategic violence”etc.“Temporary adjustment of public opinion”,”cutting”,“strategic violence”may lead to“balance retrieve”,and“defeat”may be from those of“withdrawal of public opinion”,”suppressing”,”routine transfer”and“non-strategic violence”etc.Fourthly, to compensate the disadvantage of mechanism explanation, through the polymerization of mechanisms, this paper upholds that certain mechanism is formed in the process of interaction, this way of interpretation can not be divorced from specific subject and action space. From the comparative analysis of four cases, the paper finally proposes an analytical framework of“space-action-mechanism”in the analysis of protest consequence.In short, the paper insists that the consequence of expression of contemporary Chinese peasant protest is just the product of there spatial interaction among the bottom political society, the middle public sphere and the national politics, and also is the product of a series of intermediate mechanism’s interaction. These interaction mechanism are not static, but change frequently in the practice of contentious politics, even an accidental power of mechanism may play a decisive role in the protest consequence. These intermediate mechanisms are more like a platter mold on a whole, in the disorder theater of protest this platter mold displays different combinations of order and chains, which shows a mix of changes. Complex and changing mechanisms are linked closely with different types of space and their actions, therefore,“action-space-mechanism”can be an important framework in the analysis of consequence of peasant protest.更多还原