Book Review: The Landscape of Historical Memory: The Politics of Museums and Memorial Culture in Post-Martial Law Taiwan by Kirk A. Denton

IF 2.3 3区 社会学 Q1 AREA STUDIES
A. Heylen
{"title":"Book Review: The Landscape of Historical Memory: The Politics of Museums and Memorial Culture in Post-Martial Law Taiwan by Kirk A. Denton","authors":"A. Heylen","doi":"10.1177/0920203X221105559g","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"‘villages-in-the-city’ or they become villages-in-the-city engulfed by urban development. Either way, they are developed as ‘villages-as-the-city’ and are functionally unified with the city. In the absence of democratic and moral accountability, it is market incentives, patronage politics, and corruption that prevail to assert ‘the end of the village’, where societal responsibilities for the underprivileged, the displaced, and the deceased are discarded. The analysis pertaining to the state and market impetuses for village development is convincing. Smith could however have further contextualized the production of disjuncture in China’s administrative division system – a hierarchical and nested structure that runs from the centre to the province (or municipality) to the prefecture and to the county. Though Chinese cities were historically bounded by walls and, in contemporary China, by the urban construction boundary of the city proper, their administrative territories overbound large, outlying rural and urban areas that are not functionally connected to the central core. As provincial, prefectural, and county-level administrative seats, cities and towns do not suffer from the jurisdictional fragmentation or contentious political relations of urban and rural areas because the hierarchical ordering of administrative jurisdictions intrinsically transcends the categories of urban and rural. The urban–rural divisions were unambiguously defined under the communist regime to impose new land institutions and a Soviet-style ‘household registration’ (hukou) system. In both the pre-reform and reform eras, however, the disjunctures between urban categories and transformational processes serve the developmental goals of the party-state by leveraging greater jurisdictional power to realize economic rationalization and state modernization. Since the 1990s, the disjunctures have enabled the party-state to relentlessly extract labour, land, and other resources from the rural areas to feed the voracious urban growth. They also facilitate the transfer of an area to a higher jurisdiction, which deepens the power asymmetry between the local party-state and the public, further eliminating the opportunity for the latter to contest urban development processes. In this context, urban–rural coordination, new-type urbanization, and the like, would not only ‘expose this mismatch between [urban] categories and [urban] processes as a feature of urbanization’ (p. 32) but would also be harnessed by the party-state, as an artifice of political imperative, to reconcile or rather obfuscate the tension between scientific rationality and political decisionism. I highly recommend this informative and riveting book to scholars of China studies and urban studies. The book might also be equally appealing to other academics and students who are interested in the inner workings of China’s state-led urbanization (especially how power over land development is negotiated and wielded by actors at different levels of the party-state) and its inherent inequities. It documents a living history of China’s urban transition and leaves the reader pondering the nation’s urban– rural relations and integration.","PeriodicalId":45809,"journal":{"name":"China Information","volume":"36 1","pages":"294 - 296"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"China Information","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0920203X221105559g","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AREA STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

‘villages-in-the-city’ or they become villages-in-the-city engulfed by urban development. Either way, they are developed as ‘villages-as-the-city’ and are functionally unified with the city. In the absence of democratic and moral accountability, it is market incentives, patronage politics, and corruption that prevail to assert ‘the end of the village’, where societal responsibilities for the underprivileged, the displaced, and the deceased are discarded. The analysis pertaining to the state and market impetuses for village development is convincing. Smith could however have further contextualized the production of disjuncture in China’s administrative division system – a hierarchical and nested structure that runs from the centre to the province (or municipality) to the prefecture and to the county. Though Chinese cities were historically bounded by walls and, in contemporary China, by the urban construction boundary of the city proper, their administrative territories overbound large, outlying rural and urban areas that are not functionally connected to the central core. As provincial, prefectural, and county-level administrative seats, cities and towns do not suffer from the jurisdictional fragmentation or contentious political relations of urban and rural areas because the hierarchical ordering of administrative jurisdictions intrinsically transcends the categories of urban and rural. The urban–rural divisions were unambiguously defined under the communist regime to impose new land institutions and a Soviet-style ‘household registration’ (hukou) system. In both the pre-reform and reform eras, however, the disjunctures between urban categories and transformational processes serve the developmental goals of the party-state by leveraging greater jurisdictional power to realize economic rationalization and state modernization. Since the 1990s, the disjunctures have enabled the party-state to relentlessly extract labour, land, and other resources from the rural areas to feed the voracious urban growth. They also facilitate the transfer of an area to a higher jurisdiction, which deepens the power asymmetry between the local party-state and the public, further eliminating the opportunity for the latter to contest urban development processes. In this context, urban–rural coordination, new-type urbanization, and the like, would not only ‘expose this mismatch between [urban] categories and [urban] processes as a feature of urbanization’ (p. 32) but would also be harnessed by the party-state, as an artifice of political imperative, to reconcile or rather obfuscate the tension between scientific rationality and political decisionism. I highly recommend this informative and riveting book to scholars of China studies and urban studies. The book might also be equally appealing to other academics and students who are interested in the inner workings of China’s state-led urbanization (especially how power over land development is negotiated and wielded by actors at different levels of the party-state) and its inherent inequities. It documents a living history of China’s urban transition and leaves the reader pondering the nation’s urban– rural relations and integration.
《历史记忆的景观:台湾后大陆法中的博物馆政治与纪念文化》,柯克·丹顿著
“城中村”或者成为被城市发展吞没的城中村。无论哪种方式,它们都是以“城村”的方式发展起来的,并且在功能上与城市统一。在缺乏民主和道德问责的情况下,市场激励、庇护政治和腐败盛行,断言“村庄的终结”,对弱势群体、流离失所者和死者的社会责任被抛弃。有关乡村发展的国家和市场动力的分析是令人信服的。然而,史密斯可以进一步将中国行政区划体系中脱节的产生置于背景中——一个从中央到省(或直辖市)到州和县的等级和嵌套结构。虽然中国的城市在历史上是以城墙为界的,而在当代中国,则是以城市本身的城市建筑边界为界的,但它们的行政领土超出了与中心核心没有功能联系的大片偏远农村和城市地区。作为省、地、县一级的行政机构,城市和城镇不受管辖区域分裂或城乡政治关系争议的影响,因为行政管辖区域的等级排序本质上超越了城乡的范畴。在共产主义政权下,城乡划分被明确界定,以实施新的土地制度和苏联式的“户口”制度。然而,在改革前和改革时期,城市类别和转型过程之间的脱节,通过利用更大的管辖权来实现经济合理化和国家现代化,服务于党国的发展目标。自上世纪90年代以来,这种混乱局面使这个党国国家能够无情地从农村地区榨取劳动力、土地和其他资源,以满足贪婪的城市增长。它们还促进了一个地区向更高的管辖范围的转移,这加深了地方党国与公众之间的权力不对称,进一步消除了后者参与城市发展进程的机会。在这种背景下,城乡协调、新型城市化等等,不仅“暴露了[城市]类别和[城市]过程之间的不匹配,这是城市化的一个特征”(第32页),而且还会被党国利用,作为一种政治命令的技巧,来调和或更确切地说,模糊科学理性与政治决策主义之间的紧张关系。我强烈推荐这本内容丰富、引人入胜的书给中国研究和城市研究的学者。这本书也同样吸引了其他学者和学生,他们对中国国家主导的城市化的内部运作感兴趣(特别是土地开发的权力是如何在党国不同层面的参与者之间进行谈判和行使的),以及它内在的不公平。它生动地记录了中国城市转型的历史,让读者思考中国的城乡关系和融合。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
China Information
China Information AREA STUDIES-
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
4.80%
发文量
38
期刊介绍: China Information presents timely and in-depth analyses of major developments in contemporary China and overseas Chinese communities in the areas of politics, economics, law, ecology, culture, and society, including literature and the arts. China Information pays special attention to views and areas that do not receive sufficient attention in the mainstream discourse on contemporary China. It encourages discussion and debate between different academic traditions, offers a platform to express controversial and dissenting opinions, and promotes research that is historically sensitive and contemporarily relevant.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信