Book Review: Hobos, Hustlers, and Backsliders: Homeless in San Francisco
Book Review: Hobos, Hustlers, and Backsliders: Homeless in San Francisco
复制标题
书评：流浪汉、骗子和背道者：旧金山的无家可归者
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2010
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
T. Gowan
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
T. Gowan
也许更多的是为了奥尔德里奇所说的“过程跟踪”。在“公害”本身的物质媒介中，还有一些数据有待挖掘：除了对辐射泄漏的普遍恐惧之外，核电站加热废水的实际排放（第31页），以及机场噪音污染在空间上有限的影响，它只产生了空间上有限的反对意见（第71页）。在另一系列提示中，频繁的脚注隐藏了对日本和法国政治文化细节的有趣引用-以及公司利益在选址过程中的关键作用-例如amakudari日本官僚退休后从事他们曾经管理过的行业的一种制度（第121页），以及关于强大的法国公用事业公司EDF是"国中之国“的建议（第153页）。我怀疑奥尔德里奇的状态机对一些读者来说太干净了，鬼和阴影太少了。而频繁的修辞回归他的中心命题有时会掩盖国家-公民社会互动中实际上相当普遍的意义，即“冷漠”“不是相加的，而是组合的”（Guigni和Yamasaki，2009，第471页）。从这个意义上说，这本书可能是最好的“组合”的方式与公民社会研究借鉴其他方法（见马罗蒂，2009年，日本国家-公民社会冲突的分析作为表演）。尽管如此，Site Fights在设施选址和比较政策研究领域是一种自信和坚定的干预。它在阐述其前提和支持证据方面是彻底的，并且充满了抽象的概念模型和统计图表。它将被证明是对选址冲突和社会运动的比较定量研究的一个有价值的补充，特别是对日本社会运动的学生来说，这是一个很好的资源。格拉斯哥大学地理与地球科学学院
and is perhaps more in service of what Aldrich calls ‘process-tracing’. There remain data to be mined in the material agency of the ‘public bads’ themselves: the actual release of heated waste water from nuclear plants, aside from generalised fears of radiation leaks (p. 31), and the spatially limited impact of airport noise pollution which generates only a spatially limited opposition (p. 71). In another series of prompts, frequent footnotes hide intriguing references to the particulars of Japanese and French political cultures—and the key role of corporate interests in siting processes—such as the amakudari (‘descent from heaven’) system whereby Japanese bureaucrats retire into the industries they once regulated (p. 121), and the suggestion that the powerful French utility company EDF is a ‘‘state within a state’’ (p. 153). I suspect Aldrich’s state machine will be too clean and have too few ghosts and shades for some readers. And the frequent rhetorical return to his central proposition can at times obscure the actually quite present sense ‘‘that causality’’ in state–civil society interaction ‘‘is not additive, it is combinatory’’ (Guigni and Yamasaki, 2009, p. 471). In this sense, the book may best be used in a ‘combinatory’ way with civil society research drawing on other approaches (see Marotti, 2009, for an analysis of Japanese state–civil society conflicts as performative). Nevertheless, Site Fights is a confident and determined intervention in the fields of facility siting and comparative policy studies. It is thorough in laying out its premises and supporting evidence, and is well-populated with both abstract conceptual models and statistical charts and graphs. It will prove a valuable addition to the comparative quantitative study of siting conflicts and social movements, as well as an excellent resource for students of Japanese social movements in particular. Aaron Franks School of Geographical and Earth Sciences University of Glasgow