This Land Is Ours Now: Social Mobilization and the Meanings of Land in Brazil
This Land Is Ours Now: Social Mobilization and the Meanings of Land in Brazil
复制标题
这片土地现在是我们的：巴西的社会动员和土地的意义
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2010
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Wendy Wolford
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Wendy Wolford
在《这片土地现在是我们的》一书中，温迪·沃尔福德提出了一个理解社会动员的原始框架。她认为，社会运动并不是学者、新闻界和运动领导人经常描绘的政治上连贯、有界的实体。相反，他们不断地在地方道德经济和官方运动意识形态之间改变中介。沃尔福德通过分析一个特定的社会运动如何运作来发展她的论点：巴西的农村无地工人运动，被称为Movimento Sem Terra（MST）。这一非凡的基层农业运动于20世纪80年代中期在巴西最南端的各州成立，在随后的几年里迅速发展。到20世纪90年代末，它是巴西历史上最有活力、组织最完善的社会运动。
根据广泛的民族志研究，沃尔福德比较了巴西南部的圣卡塔里纳州和东北部的伯南布哥州的运动发展。正如她所解释的，在南方，该运动的大多数成员都是小农户的子女;在东北部，他们几乎都是前种植园工人，他们与该运动的议程“为那些工作的人获得土地”有着尴尬的关系。只有在当地甘蔗经济崩溃后，MST才在伯南布哥成为一个有效的存在。1990年代，全球甘蔗价格下跌，到1999年，MST成为东北种植园区的一个重要政治组织者。然而，不到四年后，该地区的大多数工人退出了这场运动。通过深入研究东北部工人加入和离开MST的动机，Wolford为一场著名的基层社会运动的叙述增添了细微差别和深度，她更广泛地强调了社会运动和政治身份的偶然性。
In This Land Is Ours Now , Wendy Wolford presents an original framework for understanding social mobilization. She argues that social movements are not the politically coherent, bounded entities often portrayed by scholars, the press, and movement leaders. Instead, they are constantly changing mediations between localized moral economies and official movement ideologies. Wolford develops her argument by analyzing how a particular social movement works: Brazil’s Rural Landless Workers’ Movement, known as the Movimento Sem Terra (MST). Founded in the southernmost states of Brazil in the mid-1980s, this extraordinary grassroots agrarian movement grew dramatically in the ensuing years. By the late 1990s it was the most dynamic, well-organized social movement in Brazilian history.
Drawing on extensive ethnographic research, Wolford compares the development of the movement in Brazil’s southern state of Santa Catarina and its northeastern state of Pernambuco. As she explains, in the south, most of the movement’s members were sons and daughters of small peasant farmers; in the northeast, they were almost all former plantation workers, who related awkwardly to the movement’s agenda of accessing “land for those who work it.” The MST became an effective presence in Pernambuco only after the local sugarcane economy had collapsed. Worldwide sugarcane prices dropped throughout the 1990s, and by 1999 the MST was a prominent political organizer in the northeastern plantation region. Yet fewer than four years later, most of the region’s workers had dropped out of the movement. By delving into the northeastern workers’ motivations for joining and then leaving the MST, Wolford adds nuance and depth to accounts of a celebrated grassroots social movement, and she highlights the contingent nature of social movements and political identities more broadly.