Tropes of Indolence and the Cultural Politics of Development in Lhasa, Tibet
Tropes of Indolence and the Cultural Politics of Development in Lhasa, Tibet
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/j.1467-8306.2007.00565.x
复制
发表时间：
2007-09
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
E. Yeh
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
E. Yeh
摘要拉萨的藏族人通过当地的习俗和历史沉淀的记忆所激发的成语，把发展作为一项霸权工程来谈判。有两个相关的成语用来描述发展，一个是普遍的比喻，形容藏人懒惰，另一个是形容藏人被宠坏了。葛兰西对矛盾意识的分析对于理解懒惰的比喻至关重要，懒惰既是一种施为性言语行为，也是对劳动和时间分配模式的参考。这种比喻是由当代国家发展话语和经济改革下的国家“质量”价值编码以及文化、历史和宗教构成的适当工作概念所告知的。这些习语将人们对生活的多个方面的矛盾心理联系在一起，这些方面因发展而改变，包括就业不足、城市化和化学密集型农业。尽管这些发展的习惯用法具有文化上的特殊性，但它们并不“仅仅是文化上的”。相反，它们是由西藏自治区的经济发展和政治控制的具体政策形成的。反过来，这些习惯用语也塑造了在改革和发展的更大轨道上机动的可能性。这种分析建立在地理学家、人类学家和其他人的工作基础上，他们最近认为，将发展概念化为一个整体和全球统一的话语，忽略了发展的文化影响以及制定和争议发展的基础实践。
Abstract Tibetans in Lhasa negotiate development, as a hegemonic project, through idioms animated by situated practices and historically sedimented memories. Two related idioms through which development is experienced are a pervasive trope of Tibetan indolence and one that describes Tibetans as being spoiled. A Gramscian analysis of contradictory consciousness is critical to understanding the trope of indolence, which is both a performative speech act and a reference to patterns of labor and time allocation. The trope is informed by contemporary state development discourse and national value-codings of “quality” under economic reform, as well as culturally, historically, and religiously constituted notions of proper work. These idioms tie together ambivalence about multiple aspects of life as transformed by development, including underemployment, urbanization, and chemically intensive agriculture. Though culturally specific, these idioms of development are not “merely cultural.” Instead, they are shaped by specific policies for economic development and political control in the Tibet Autonomous Region. These idioms, in turn, also shape possibilities for maneuver within the larger trajectory of reform and development. This analysis builds on the work of geographers, anthropologists, and others who have recently argued that conceptualizations of development as a monolithic and globally uniform discourse elide the cultural effects of development as well as the grounded practices through which it is enacted and contested.