English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 99910/130686 (76%)
Visitors : 37159010      Online Users : 110
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/138387


    Title: 制度變遷中的話語政治:理解中國大陸農村土地的集體化進程
    The Politics of Discourse in Institutional Change: Toward an Understanding of Rural Land Collectivization in Mainland China
    Authors: 褚剛
    Chu, Gang
    Contributors: 林子欽
    Lin, Tzu-Chin
    褚剛
    Chu, Gang
    Keywords: 集體化
    制度變遷
    話語
    權力
    治理
    Collectivization
    Institutional Change
    Discourse
    Power
    Governance
    Date: 2021
    Issue Date: 2022-01-03 16:12:48 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 20世紀中葉,中國大陸發生了一場規模宏大的集體化運動。在這場運動中,農村土地制度經歷了從「私有」到「共有」的巨大變革。農地制度的快速轉變,不僅深刻影響著當時數以億計農民的生活,還錨定了自那以後的制度變遷軌跡,形塑了如今全球最大規模的集體土地所有制度。在此意義上,集體化進程既是已經發生的歷史,同時也是凝結著歷史的當下。

    不同於以往基於史學、人類學和經濟學等學科的研究,本文選擇了後現代主義中的話語視角來考察農地集體化進程,以清晰回答「國家如何利用有關土地的話語助推農地制度實現了集體化」这一问题。本文的分析路徑以福柯關於話語和權力的研究為主,並輔以批判話語分析和話語制度主義中的可取之處,藉此分析的經驗資料涵蓋了從官方檔案、政策文件到田野調查和口述記錄等文本。

    第一章介紹了所要探討的問題及其研究現狀,闡述了從話語視角考察集體化進程的理由。第二章著重闡明了分析問題的理論路徑,以及整體分析思路和研究內容。做好理論鋪墊之後,第三章從經驗層面打開了有關土地的話語「黑箱」,揭示了國家層面的官方話語和鄉村社會的民間話語所具備的主要特徵。第四章從話語特徵的靜態分析轉到了權力運作的動態分析,以權力和話語之間的關係為軸,解析了話語生產和話語治理的複雜過程。在第三、四章經驗分析的基礎上,第五章從學理層面討論了話語治理和話語構型之於集體化進程的推動作用,試圖打通從話語、權力到制度的完整邏輯。第六章是全文的總結。

    研究結果表明:農地集體化進程的本質是土地制度的演變。在這場由國家主導的劇烈變革中,對圍繞土地的政治話語的有效治理,為推進農地制度的快速轉變發揮了重要作用。話語治理包括話語的植入、維護、增殖、排斥和更替等活動,其目的是為了維護某一特定話語和排斥其他競爭話語,它不僅幫助官方話語順利地嵌入了鄉村社會,還在一定程度上增強了官方話語在那裡的優勢地位,最終形成了有利於制度變遷的話語秩序。總的來看,國家的話語治理術是頗成體系和十分精細的。但獨有治理技術,卻不一定能夠保障農地集體化的順利進行。這一劇烈變革最終得以實現,還須從話語特徵深入到話語構型之中,尋找官方話語和民間話語的交疊,以探明重建和維護話語秩序的內在邏輯。事實上,國家的確在話語構型上下了不少功夫,不僅將傳統的「家庭」觀念嫁接在了「集體」之上,同時還以「集體所有」制度接替了過去的「家族共財」制度,並最終以「共產主義」的生活圖景激起了農民對「大同世界」的嚮往。由此可見,國家在主導這場制度變遷時,不僅系統而靈活地使用了各種權力技術來治理話語;與此同時,國家還在象徵層面吸收了民間話語中的諸多因素,將其融入到官方話語之後再予以傳播和推廣。從話語視角揭示出的這些內容,展現了一幅有別於以往研究的新圖卷,這有助於增進我們對農地集體化進程的認識和理解。

    話語是後現代主義的一把利器,但卻鮮少出現在地政學的研究領域。本文利用這一「冷門」工具,全面剖析了發生在中國大陸農村的一場社會劇變。若能為地政學界提供些許從話語視角分析制度變遷的啟發,當足矣。
    The 1950s had witnessed the large-scale collectivization of rural land in mainland China. During this political movement, the rural land institution was tansformed from the private ownership to the collective ownership. The rapid transformation not only profoundly affected the lives of peasants at that time, but also anchored the path of institutional changes since then, which had shaped the largest collective rual land institution around the world. In a sense, collectivization is the history that has taken place, and as well as the present that condensed in the history.

    In order to answer the question “How does the state boost the collectivization of rural land with the help of political discourse?”, this paper employs the perspective of discourse in postmodernism, which is different from the literature based on history, anthropology, and economics. The theoretical approach to analyzing this topic mainly builds on Foucault’s research about discourse and power, supplemented by critical discourse analysis and discourse institutionalism. As for the empirical data, official archives, policy documents, field surveys and oral records are all used this paper.

    Chapter 1 introduces the research question and reasons of taking the perspective of discourse. Chapter 2 clarifies the theoretical approach of analysis and the main research contents. Chapter 3 tries to open the “black box” of the discourse on land, revealing the critical characteristics of official and folk discourse. Chapter 4 shifts from the static analysis of discourse characteristics to the dynamic analysis of the operation of power, so as to study discourse production and governance. On the basis of empirical work in Chapters 3 and 4, Chapter 5 discusses the central role of discourse governance along with discursive formation in the process of collectivization, trying to get through the theoretical logic from discourse, power to institution. Chapter 6 is the conclusion.

    According to this research, the collectivization of rural land is in essence a fast institutional change, in which the governance of political discourse has played a critical role. Discourse governance generally includes various activities such as implantation, maintenance, reproduction, exclusion, and replacement. Its main purpose is to enhance a discourse and exclude other competing discourses. It not only helps the official discourse to be embedded in villages, but also maintains its dominance there, and finally developed an advantegous discourse order conducive to institutional change. Though the state's governance of discourse is quite systematic and sophisticated, collectivization can be unsuccessful by using this single tool alone. It is necessary to deepen discourse characteristics into discursive formation to search the overlap between official and folk discourse in order to explore how to rebuild and maintain the discourse order of institution. In fact, the state has indeed made a lot of effort in reconstructing discursive formation. It not only grafted the traditional concept of "family" to the "collective", but also replaced the past "family wealth" with the "collective ownership". At last, the "communist" vision of future life had successfully aroused peasants' yearning for a "great unity". In a word, when leading this movement, the state has applied various power technologies to govern discourse, whilist it absorbes many traditional factors in folk discourse and incorporates them into official discourse. These research results show a brandnew picture that differs from the previous studies, and will help us to enhance our understanding of collectivization of rural land in mainland China.

    Discourse is a powerful weapon of postmodernism and this paper shows its power by probing into a large-scale institutional change. It is hoped that more scholars would learn some lessons from this attempt and properly applying it in other fields.
    Reference: 中文參考文獻:

    毛澤東,1977,『毛澤東選集(第五卷)』,北京:人民出版社。
    毛澤東,1988,『建國以來毛澤東文稿(第2冊)』,北京:中央文獻出版社。
    毛澤東,1991,『毛澤東選集(第一、二、三、四卷)』,北京:人民出版社。
    王謙,1995,『劫後餘稿——試辦初級社文存』,太原:山西人民出版社。
    中華人民共和國國家農業委員會辦公廳,1981a,『農業集體化重要文獻匯編(1949-1957)』,北京:中共中央黨校出版社。
    中華人民共和國國家農業委員會辦公廳,1981b,『農業集體化重要文獻匯編(1958-1981)』,北京:中共中央黨校出版社。
    行龍、馬維強、常利兵,2011,『閱檔讀史:北方農村的集體化時代』,北京:北京大學出版社。
    行龍、李懷印、胡英澤等,2017,「集體化時期中國鄉村社會研究」,『開放時代』, 5:12-38。
    朱佳木,2002,「中國工業化與中國共產黨」,『當代中國史研究』,6:30-45。
    杜靖,2011,「作為概念的村莊與村莊的概念——漢人村莊研究述評」,『民族研究』,2:91-102。
    杜潤生,2005,『杜潤生自述:中國農村體制變革重大決策紀實』,北京:人民出版社。
    李國慶,2005,「關於中國村落共同體的論戰——以『戒能—平野論戰』為核心」,『社會學研究』,6:194-213。
    李懷印,2010,『鄉村中國紀事:集體化和改革的微觀歷程』,北京:法律出版社。
    李裡峰,2014,「集體化時代的農民意願表達與黨的農村政策調整」,『南京政治學院學報』,30(01):91-97。
    李裡峰,2018,『土地改革與華北鄉村權力變遷:一項政治史的考察』,南京:江蘇人民出版社。
    吳毅、吳帆,2010,「傳統的翻轉與再翻轉——新區土改中農民土地心態的建構與歷史邏輯」,『開放時代』,3:49-72。
    吳毅、吳帆,2011,「結構化選擇:中國農業合作化運動的再思考」,『開放時代』,4:59-84。
    林耀華著、莊孔韶和方靜文譯,2015,『金翼:一個中國家族的史記』,北京:生活書店出版有限公司。
    周平,2013,「論述分析」。頁81-123,收錄於瞿海源、畢恆達、劉長萱、楊國樞等編,『社會及行為科學研究發(二)——質性研究法』,北京:社會科學文獻出版社。
    周其仁,2002,『產權與制度變遷:中國改革的經驗研究』,北京:社會科學文獻出版社。
    周曉虹,2005,「1951-1958:中國農業集體化的動力——國家與社會關係視野下的社會動員」,『中國研究』,1:22-43。
    紀程,2006,「話語視角下的鄉村改造與回應——以山東臨沐縣為個案(1941-2005)」,華中師範大學博士學位論文:武漢。
    韋伯著、康樂譯,2010,『經濟與歷史:支配的類型』,桂林:廣西師範大學出版社。
    高王凌,2013,『中國農民反行為研究(1950-1980)』,香港:香港中文大學出版社。
    高宣揚,2015,『福柯的生存美學』,北京:中國人民大學出版社。
    高宣揚,2017,『結構主義』,上海:上海交通大學出版社。
    郭於華、孫立平,2002,「訴苦:一種農民國家觀念形成的中介機制」,『中國學術』,4:130-157。
    馬克思、恩格斯著,1994,中共中央馬克思、恩格斯、列寧、斯大林著作編譯局選編,『馬克思恩格斯選集(第1卷)』,北京:人民出版社。
    馬克思、恩格斯著,2006,中共中央馬克思、恩格斯、列寧、斯大林著作編譯局選編,『馬克思恩格斯全集(第42卷)』,北京:人民出版社。
    馬社香,2011,『農業合作化運動始末:百名親歷者口述實錄』,北京:當代中國出版社。
    倪炎元,2012,「批判論述分析的定位爭議及其應用問題:以Norman Fairclough分析途徑為例的探討」,『新聞學研究』,110:1-42。
    倪炎元,2018,『論述研究與傳播議題分析』,臺北:五南。
    秦暉,2014,『傳統十論』,北京:東方出版社。
    秦暉、金雁,2010,『田園詩與狂想曲:關中模式與前近代社會的再認識』,北京:語文出版社。
    泰韋斯,1990,「新政權的建立和鞏固」。頁49-130,收錄於麥克法夸爾、費正清編,謝亮生等譯,『劍橋中華人民共和國史(上卷)』,北京:中國社會科學出版社。
    徐緯光,2006,「現代中國政治話語的範式轉換——以中國共產黨為考察對象」,復旦大學博士學位論文:上海。
    袁芳、辛逸,2019,「『新集體化史』初探——以農村人民公社研究為中心」,『黨史研究與教學』,2:31-40。
    莊孔韶,2016,『銀翅:中國的地方社會與文化變遷(1920-1990)』,北京:生活書店出版有限公司。
    常利兵,2019,「組織起來與提高技術——新中國農業集體化的宏觀機制及在地化實踐」,『上海大學學報(社會科學版)』,36(4):72-92。
    黃樹民,2002,『林村的故事:1949年後的中國農村變革』,北京:生活·讀書·新知三聯書店。
    康有為,1935,『大同書』,上海:中華書局。
    梁漱溟,2006,『鄉村建設理論』,上海:上海世紀出版集團。
    渠敬東,2019,「邁向社會全體的個案研究」,『社會』,39(01):1-36。
    張樂天,2001,「國家話語的接受與消解——公社視野中的『階級』與『階級鬥爭』」,『社會學研究』,6:73-85。
    張樂天,2012,『告別理想——人民公社制度研究』,上海:上海人民出版社。
    張佩國,2002,『近代江南鄉村地權的歷史人類學研究』,上海:上海人民出版社。
    張小軍,2003,「陽村土改中的階級劃分和象徵資本」,『中國鄉村研究(第二輯)』,1:96-132。
    費孝通,2001,『江村經濟』,北京:商務印書館。
    費孝通,2016,『鄉土中國·鄉土重建』,北京:群言出版社。
    馮天瑜,2006,『封建考論』,武漢:武漢大學出版社。
    黃樹民,2002,『林村的故事:1949年後的中國農村變革』,北京:生活·讀書·新知三聯書店。
    黃宗智,2013a,『清代的法律、社會與文化:民法的表達與實踐』,北京:法律出版社。
    黃宗智,2013b,『法典、習俗與法律實踐:清代與民國的比較』,北京:法律出版社。
    黃宗智,2013c,『華北的小農經濟與社會變遷』,北京:法律出版社。
    黃宗智,2013d,『長江三角洲的小農家庭與鄉村發展』,北京:法律出版社。
    褚剛,2021,「政治動員與土地產權觀念——理解中國農村土地的集體化進程」,『復旦政治學評論』,23(1)。
    〈當代中國農業合作化〉編輯室,1992,『建國以來農業合作化史料彙編』,北京:中共黨史出版社。
    福柯著、謝強和馬月譯,2003,『知識考古學』,北京:生活·讀書·新知三聯書店。
    福柯著、劉北成和楊遠嬰譯,2012,『規訓與懲罰』,北京:生活·讀書·新知三聯書店。
    福柯著、林志明譯,2016a,『古典時代瘋狂史』,北京:生活·讀書·新知三聯書店。
    福柯著、莫偉民譯,2016b,『詞與物:人文科學的考古學』,上海:上海三聯書店。
    福柯著、佘碧平譯,2016c,『性經驗史(第1卷),認知的意志』,上海:上海人民出版社。
    福柯著、劉北成和楊遠嬰譯,2019,『瘋癲與文明:理性時代的瘋狂史』,北京:生活·讀書·新知三聯書店。
    路遙,2017,『平凡的世界』,北京:北京十月文藝出版社。
    路遙,2012,『早晨從中午開始』,北京:北京十月文藝出版社。
    溫鐵軍,2009,『「三農」問題與制度變遷』,北京:中國經濟出版社。
    楊懋春,2012,『山東台頭:一個中國村莊』,南京:江蘇人民出版社。
    裴宜理,2010,「重訪中國革命:以情感的模式」,『中國學術』,4:97-121。
    劉少奇,1985,『劉少奇選集(下卷)』,北京:人民出版社。
    劉少奇,2008,『建國以來劉少奇文稿(第六冊)』,北京:中央文獻出版社。
    劉握宇,2016,「基層檔案揭示的農業合作化運動:以江蘇省寶應縣為例(1953-1957)」,『中國鄉村研究』,1:29-45。
    薄一波,2008,『若干重大決策與事件的回顧(上、下)』,北京:中共黨史出版社。
    龍登高,2018,『中國傳統地權制度及其變遷』,北京:中國社會科學出版社。
    盧暉臨,2015,『通向集體之路:一項關於文化觀念和制度形成的個案研究』,北京:社會科學文獻出版社。
    謝立中,2009,『走向多元話語分析』,北京:中國人民大學出版社。
    應星,2003,「身體與鄉村日常生活中的權力運作——對中國集體化時期一個村莊若干案例的過程分析」,『中國鄉村研究』,2:133-172。
    羅平漢,2016,『農村人民公社史』,北京:人民出版社。

    外文參考文獻:

    Bernstein, T. P., 1967, “Leadership and Mass Mobilization in the Soviet and Chinese Collectivization Campaign of 1929-30 and 1955-56: A Comparison”, The China Quarterly, 31:1-47.
    Blyth, M. M, 1997, “‘Any More Bright Ideas?’ The Ideational Turn in Comparative Political Economy ”, Comparative Politics, 29 (2):229-50.
    Chen, S. and Lan, X. H., 2017, “There Will be Killing: Collectivization and Death of Draft Animals”, American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 9(4):58-77.
    Chouliaraki, L., 2008, “Discourse Analysis”, in Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction, vol. 1, Discourse as Structure and Process, eds. Bennett, T. and Frow, J., pp. 674-698, London: Sage.
    Deng, J., 2017, “How did Land Reform and Collectivization Reshape China’s Rural–Urban Relations”, Fudan J. Hum. Soc. Sci. 10:523–546.
    Duara, P., 1988, Culture, Power, and the State: Rural North China, 1900-1942, Redwood: Stanford University Press.
    Fairclough, N., 1992, Discourse and Social Change, Cambridge UK: Polity Press.
    Fairclough, N., 1995a, Media Discourse, London: Longman.
    Fairclough, N., 1995b, Critical Discourse Analysis, Boston: Addison Wesley.
    Fairclough, N., 1998, “Political Discourse in the Media: An Analysis Framework”, in Approach to Media Discourse, eds. Bell, A. and Garrett, P., pp.142-162, Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
    Fairclough, N., 2000, New Labour, New Language, London: Routledge.
    Fairclough, N., 2006, Language and Globalization, London: Routledge.
    Fairclough, N. and Wodak, R., 1997, “Critical Discourse Analysis”, in Discourse as Social Interaction, ed. van Dijk, pp. 258-284, London: Sage.
    Fei, Hsiao-Tung, 1939, Peasant Life in China: A Field Study of Country Life in the Yangtze Valley, London and Henley: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
    Foucault, M., 1972, “The Discourse on Language”, in The Archaeology of Knowledge, New York: Pantheon Books.
    Foucault, M., 1994, Dits et écrits, Vol. I-IV, Paris: Gallimard.
    Foucault, M., 1997, Il faut défendre la société, Paris: Gallimard/Seuil.
    Gee, J. P., 1999, An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method, London: Routledge.
    Hall, S., 1997, Representation: Cultural Representation and Signifying Practice, London: Sage.
    Hall , P. and Taylor, R., 1996, “Political Science and the Three New Institutionalisms”, Political Studies, 44(5):952-73.
    Halliday, M. A. K., 1993, Exploration in the Function of Language. London: Edward Arnold.
    Harris, Z. S., 1952, “Discourse Analysis”, Language, 28:1-30.
    Huang, C. C. P., 1995, “Rural Class Struggle in the Chinese Revolution: Representational and Objective Realities from the Land Reform to the Cultural Revolution”, Modern China, 21(1): 105-143.
    Kendall, G. and Gary W., 1999, Using Foucault’s Methods, London: Sage.
    Le Bon, G., 1982, The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind, Marietta, Georgia: Larlin.
    Li, H. Y., 2008, “Confrontation and Conciliation under the Socialist State: Peasant Resistance to Agricultural Collectivization in China in the 1950s”, Twentieth-Century China, 33(2): 73–99.
    Lin, J. Y., 1990, “Collectivization and China's agricultural crisis in 1959-1961”, Journal of Political Economy, 98(6):1228-1252.
    Liu, Y., 2006, “Why Did It Go So High? Political Mobilization and Agricultural Collectivization in China”, The China Quarterly, 187:732-742.
    North, D. C., 1981, Structure and Change in Economic History, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.
    North, D. C., 1990, Institutions, Institutional Change, and Economic Performance, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    O’ Brien and Li, Lianliang, 2006, Rightful Resistance in Rural China, Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
    Oi, J. C., 1989, State and Peasant in Contemporary China: the Political Economy of Village Governance, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
    Paltridge, B., 2006, Discourse Analysis, New York: Continuum.
    Phillips, N. and Hardy, C., 2002, Discourse Analysis: Investigating Process of Social Construction. London: Sage.
    Rorty, R., 1967, The Linguistic Turn: Essays in Philosophical Method with Two Retrospective Essays, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    Schmidt, V. A., 2008, “Discursive Institutionalism: The Explanatory Power of Ideas and Discourse”, Annual Review of Political Science, 11:303-26.
    Schmidt, V. A., 2010, “Taking Ideas and Discourse Seriously: Explaining Change Through Discursive Institutionalism as the Fourth New Institutionalism”, European Political Science Review, 2(1): 1-25.
    Schmidt, V. A., 2015, “Institutionalism”, in The Encyclopedia of Political Thought (First Edition), ed. Gibbons M. T., John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
    Schurmann, F., 1968, Ideology and Organization in Communist China. Berkeley: University of California Press.
    Scott, J. C., 1985, Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance, New Haven: Yale University Press.
    Selden, M., 1993, The Political Economy of Chinese Development, New York: M. E. Sharpe.
    Shue, V., 1980, Peasant China in Transition: the Dynamics of Development toward Socialism, 1949-1956, Berkeley: University of California Press.
    Skocpol, T., 1979, States and Social Revolutions: A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia and China, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Spivak, G. C., ed. and trans., Derrida, J., 1976, Of Grammatology, Maryland: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
    Stubbs, M., 1998, “Whorf’s Children: Critical Comments on Critical Discourse Analysis”, in Evolving Models of Language: British Studies in Applied Linguistic 12, eds. Ryan, A. and Wray, A., pp.100-116. Clevedon, UK: BAAL/Multilingual Matters.
    Tse, Ka-Kui., 1977, “Agricultural Collectivization and Socialist Construction: The Soviet Union and China”, Dialect Anthropol, 2:199-221.
    Van Dijk, T. A., 1991, Racism and the Press, London: Routledge.
    Van Dijk, T. A., 1993, Elite Discourse and Racism, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
    Vogel, E. F., 1969, Canton under Communism, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
    Widdowson, H. G., 1995, “Review: Norman Fairclough: Discourse and Social Change, 1992”, Applied Linguistics, 16(4): 510-516.
    Wodak, R. and Meyer, M., 2016, Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis (Third Edition), London: Sage.
    Wodak, R., 1997, Gender and Discourse, London: Sage.
    Zhang, Xiaojun, 2004, “Land Reform in Yang village: Symbolic Capital and the Determination of Class Status,” Modern China, 30(1): 3-45.
    Zhou, K. X., 1996, How the Famers Changed China, Boulder. Colo.: Westview Press.
    Description: 博士
    國立政治大學
    地政學系
    104257503
    Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0104257503
    Data Type: thesis
    DOI: 10.6814/NCCU202101740
    Appears in Collections:[地政學系] 學位論文

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    750301.pdf12134KbAdobe PDF0View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏,無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用,惟仍請適度,合理使用本網站之內容,以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用,則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    2.本網站之製作,已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益,如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者,請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw),維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback