Contesting Counterpublics: The Transformation of the Articulation of Rural Migrant Workers’ Rights in China’s Public Sphere, 1992–2014

IF 4.1 2区社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE

Politics & Society Pub Date : 2021-09-28 DOI:10.1177/00323292211042441

Mujun Zhou

引用次数: 1

Abstract

This article extends the theoretical discussion of counterpublics and applies the concept to an authoritarian context. The article contends that it is necessary to distinguish between the counterpublic oriented by liberal ideology that criticizes authoritarianism at an abstract level (Counterpublic I) and the counterpublics that are concerned with substantive inequality (Counterpublic II). To illustrate the approach taken, the articulation of rural migrant workers’ rights between 1992 and 2014 is documented, demonstrating that, in the 1990s and early 2000s, most public discussion on the issue tended to reduce workers’ rights to civil rights. It was not until the late 2000s that alternative forms of rights, such as social rights, were thematized. As the article argues, this was because the power balance between Counterpublic I and Counterpublic II had been changed. The empirical study explains the transformation and highlights the heterogeneity within Counterpublic II by comparing the diverse strategies employed by different actors.

查看原文本刊更多论文

对抗公众：1992-2014年中国公共领域农民工权利表达方式的转变

本文扩展了反公开的理论讨论，并将这一概念应用于一个专制的背景下。文章认为，有必要区分以自由主义意识形态为导向的、在抽象层面批评威权主义的反公共（反公共I）和关注实质性不平等的反公众（反公共II）。为了说明所采取的方法，记录了1992年至2014年间农村移民工人权利的表述，表明在20世纪90年代和21世纪初，大多数关于这一问题的公开讨论倾向于将工人的权利减少为公民权利。直到21世纪末，社会权利等其他形式的权利才被主题化。正如文章所说，这是因为反公众I和反公众II之间的权力平衡发生了变化。实证研究通过比较不同参与者采用的不同策略，解释了这种转变，并强调了Counterpublic II内部的异质性。

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

Politics & Society Multiple-

CiteScore

5.00

自引率

4.20%

发文量

期刊介绍： Politics & Society is a peer-reviewed journal. All submitted papers are read by a rotating editorial board member. If a paper is deemed potentially publishable, it is sent to another board member, who, if agreeing that it is potentially publishable, sends it to a third board member. If and only if all three agree, the paper is sent to the entire editorial board for consideration at board meetings. The editorial board meets three times a year, and the board members who are present (usually between 9 and 14) make decisions through a deliberative process that also considers written reports from absent members. Unlike many journals which rely on 1–3 individual blind referee reports and a single editor with final say, the peers who decide whether to accept submitted work are thus the full editorial board of the journal, comprised of scholars from various disciplines, who discuss papers openly, with author names known, at meetings. Editors are required to disclose potential conflicts of interest when evaluating manuscripts and to recuse themselves from voting if such a potential exists.