恢复正义还是维持控制?中国警察调解的革命根源与保守成果

IF 1.8 4区 社会学 Q2 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY
Jeffrey T. Martin, Lingxiao Zhou
{"title":"恢复正义还是维持控制?中国警察调解的革命根源与保守成果","authors":"Jeffrey T. Martin,&nbsp;Lingxiao Zhou","doi":"10.1007/s11417-022-09378-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This article examines the use of mediation as a police technique in China. Our focus is the “Fengqiao Model” (<i>Fengqiao Jingyan</i>) reforms presently being implemented through the new Social Governance Scheme. Based on 1 year of ethnographic participant-observation, we propose that the overarching practical goal of contemporary Fengqiao Model mediation conferences is to engineer a “good faith/sincere” (<i>chengyi</i>) reconciliation on the part of individual participants in a manner that consolidates the overall hegemony of the market order. To evaluate the substantive qualities of justice generated by this marketized mode of production, we focus on the way it uses techniques of psychic coercion to foreclose non-marketized avenues to political justice. This evidences an illiberal ideal of legitimate force which, we argue, renders these practices inconsistent with ideal–typical definitions of “restorative justice” predicated on a liberal ideal of mediation as a space of free expression. This is a technology of mediation designed to produce <i>revolutionary</i> rather than restorative justice. We further substantiate our argument by locating contemporary practices in the broader history of policing in the PRC, focusing on the enduring significance of “emotion work” as a canonically illiberal technology forged in the context of Mass Line administration. Where Mao-era Fengqiao Model policing utilized reintegrative shaming to deal with political contradictions among the people, Market era Fengqiao Model policing repairs grass root conflict through a mode of producing depoliticized “good faith/sincerity” within the terms of the cash nexus, repurposing revolutionary techniques to uphold a market order.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":45526,"journal":{"name":"Asian Journal of Criminology","volume":"18 2","pages":"133 - 153"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Restoring Justice or Maintaining Control? Revolutionary Roots and Conservative Fruits in Chinese Police Mediation\",\"authors\":\"Jeffrey T. Martin,&nbsp;Lingxiao Zhou\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11417-022-09378-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>This article examines the use of mediation as a police technique in China. Our focus is the “Fengqiao Model” (<i>Fengqiao Jingyan</i>) reforms presently being implemented through the new Social Governance Scheme. Based on 1 year of ethnographic participant-observation, we propose that the overarching practical goal of contemporary Fengqiao Model mediation conferences is to engineer a “good faith/sincere” (<i>chengyi</i>) reconciliation on the part of individual participants in a manner that consolidates the overall hegemony of the market order. To evaluate the substantive qualities of justice generated by this marketized mode of production, we focus on the way it uses techniques of psychic coercion to foreclose non-marketized avenues to political justice. This evidences an illiberal ideal of legitimate force which, we argue, renders these practices inconsistent with ideal–typical definitions of “restorative justice” predicated on a liberal ideal of mediation as a space of free expression. This is a technology of mediation designed to produce <i>revolutionary</i> rather than restorative justice. We further substantiate our argument by locating contemporary practices in the broader history of policing in the PRC, focusing on the enduring significance of “emotion work” as a canonically illiberal technology forged in the context of Mass Line administration. Where Mao-era Fengqiao Model policing utilized reintegrative shaming to deal with political contradictions among the people, Market era Fengqiao Model policing repairs grass root conflict through a mode of producing depoliticized “good faith/sincerity” within the terms of the cash nexus, repurposing revolutionary techniques to uphold a market order.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45526,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Asian Journal of Criminology\",\"volume\":\"18 2\",\"pages\":\"133 - 153\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Asian Journal of Criminology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11417-022-09378-3\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asian Journal of Criminology","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11417-022-09378-3","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

本文考察了调解作为一种警务手段在中国的运用。我们的重点是目前正在通过新的社会治理方案实施的“凤桥模式”改革。基于1年的民族志参与者观察,我们提出当代凤桥模式调解会议的总体实践目标是在巩固市场秩序的整体霸权的方式下,在个体参与者方面设计一种“诚信/真诚”(诚信)和解。为了评价这种市场化的生产方式所产生的正义的实质品质,我们将重点放在它如何使用精神强制技术来排除非市场化的政治正义途径。我们认为,这证明了一种非自由主义的合法力量理想,使这些实践与基于自由主义的调解理想作为自由表达空间的“恢复性司法”的理想典型定义不一致。这是一种调解技术,旨在产生革命性的而不是恢复性的司法。我们通过在中国更广泛的警务历史中定位当代实践来进一步证实我们的论点,重点关注“情感工作”作为在群众路线管理背景下锻造的典型非自由技术的持久意义。毛时代的“凤桥模式”警务利用“重新整合的羞辱”来处理人民内部的政治矛盾,而市场时代的“凤桥模式”警务则通过在金钱关系的条件下产生非政治化的“诚信/诚意”模式来修复基层冲突,重新利用革命性的技术来维护市场秩序。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Restoring Justice or Maintaining Control? Revolutionary Roots and Conservative Fruits in Chinese Police Mediation

This article examines the use of mediation as a police technique in China. Our focus is the “Fengqiao Model” (Fengqiao Jingyan) reforms presently being implemented through the new Social Governance Scheme. Based on 1 year of ethnographic participant-observation, we propose that the overarching practical goal of contemporary Fengqiao Model mediation conferences is to engineer a “good faith/sincere” (chengyi) reconciliation on the part of individual participants in a manner that consolidates the overall hegemony of the market order. To evaluate the substantive qualities of justice generated by this marketized mode of production, we focus on the way it uses techniques of psychic coercion to foreclose non-marketized avenues to political justice. This evidences an illiberal ideal of legitimate force which, we argue, renders these practices inconsistent with ideal–typical definitions of “restorative justice” predicated on a liberal ideal of mediation as a space of free expression. This is a technology of mediation designed to produce revolutionary rather than restorative justice. We further substantiate our argument by locating contemporary practices in the broader history of policing in the PRC, focusing on the enduring significance of “emotion work” as a canonically illiberal technology forged in the context of Mass Line administration. Where Mao-era Fengqiao Model policing utilized reintegrative shaming to deal with political contradictions among the people, Market era Fengqiao Model policing repairs grass root conflict through a mode of producing depoliticized “good faith/sincerity” within the terms of the cash nexus, repurposing revolutionary techniques to uphold a market order.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Asian Journal of Criminology
Asian Journal of Criminology CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY-
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
10.50%
发文量
31
期刊介绍: Electronic submission now possible! Please see the Instructions for Authors. For general information about this new journal please contact the publisher at [welmoed.spahr@springer.com] The Asian Journal of Criminology aims to advance the study of criminology and criminal justice in Asia, to promote evidence-based public policy in crime prevention, and to promote comparative studies about crime and criminal justice. The Journal provides a platform for criminologists, policymakers, and practitioners and welcomes manuscripts relating to crime, crime prevention, criminal law, medico-legal topics and the administration of criminal justice in Asian countries. The Journal especially encourages theoretical and methodological papers with an emphasis on evidence-based, empirical research addressing crime in Asian contexts. It seeks to publish research arising from a broad variety of methodological traditions, including quantitative, qualitative, historical, and comparative methods. The Journal fosters a multi-disciplinary focus and welcomes manuscripts from a variety of disciplines, including criminology, criminal justice, law, sociology, psychology, forensic science, social work, urban studies, history, and geography.
×
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