The Justice Cascade: How Human Rights Prosecutions are Changing World Politics
The Justice Cascade: How Human Rights Prosecutions are Changing World Politics
复制标题
正义之梯：人权起诉如何改变世界政治
DOI：
10.1177/0094306112457769ll
复制
发表时间：
2012
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
J. Blau
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
J. Blau
《壮观的国家》探讨了后苏联时期乌兹别克斯坦民族认同的产生。主要的参与者是文化精英，他们参与制定了新的国家赞助的大型国家节日：Navro'z（琐罗亚斯德教新年）和独立日。总的来说，尽管乌兹别克斯坦的大众奇观创作者渴望重振民族认同，但他们复制了大部分苏联文化作品。民族认同一直是中亚最令人担忧的问题之一，那里的民族是苏联统治的矛盾和复杂的产物。虽然国籍这一类别是在20世纪20年代由苏联国家发起、产生和强加的，但它最终成为包括文化生产者在内的地方精英的权力和权威的来源。苏联的解体为修改和扭转社会主义政权制造的许多理解提供了可能性。然而，1995年，劳拉·亚当斯抵达塔什干，对民族认同的重新谈判进行研究时，她发现，大多数乌兹别克知识分子，特别是与国家合作的文化生产者，并没有拥抱新获得的恢复更真实历史的自由，而是避免在这一方向上探索得太远。他们没有完全抛弃苏联殖民遗产，而是有选择地修改历史。虽然他们的文化生产的意识形态内容从社会主义转向民族主义，但许多以前的文化“形式”仍然存在。同样，乌兹别克政府继续雇用文化精英来执行加强国家建设计划的任务，从而遵循苏联的文化生产模式。本书由四章组成。第一章阐述了国家认同建设的广泛主题，其余章节通过区分三个要素来探讨大众景观创作：形式（第二章），内容（第三章）和生产方式（第四章）。本研究以两个奥运式国定假日的内容分析、文化生产者的访谈、参与节庆活动与幕后筹备会议的观察为基础。虽然亚当斯提供了一些参考，观众和他们的态度，公共假日表演，她的书并没有提供一个扩展的参与接待和消费这些假期。该书的主要成就之一是全面和多层次地概述了乌兹别克斯坦修改民族认同的过程。在亚当斯看来，国家认同的产生并不是一个由国家强制的、不言自明的、天衣无缝的过程，而是一个动态的、复杂的、对话性的、各方（知识分子派系、国家官员、大众奇观制作者等）之间的协商过程。她的叙述揭示了国家认同生产的混乱和往往矛盾的本质，从而摆脱了将国家及其政策物化的倾向。这本书对民族主义的研究做出了重大贡献，因为它表明乌兹别克斯坦民族认同的产生主要是由对“国际受众”的考虑构成的。尽管亚当斯研究的公共假日旨在促进民族认同，但这些庆祝活动的表演形式（包括民族舞蹈和音乐）表明了文化生产者成为国际社会一部分的愿望。这种自觉地面向国际观众的民族生产是苏联民族政策的遗产，所有文化生产者都必须生产“内容社会主义，形式民族主义”的艺术。尽管有世代或流派的差异，
The Spectacular State explores the production of national identity in post-Soviet Uzbekistan. The main protagonists are the cultural elites involved in the elaboration of new state-sponsored mass-spectacle national holidays: Navro’z (Zoroastrian New Year) and Independence Day. The overall argument is that despite their aspirations to reinvigorate national identity, mass spectacle creators in Uzbekistan have reproduced much of the Soviet cultural production. National identity has been one of the most fraught questions in Central Asia, where nationality was a contradictory and complicated product of the Soviet rule. Although the category of nationality was initiated, produced, and imposed by the Soviet state in the 1920s, it eventually became a source of power and authority for local elites, including cultural producers. The collapse of the Soviet Union opened up possibilities for revising and reversing many understandings manufactured by the socialist regime. Yet, upon her arrival in Tashkent to conduct her research on the renegotiation of national identity in 1995, Laura Adams discovered that instead of embracing newly-found freedom to recover a more authentic history, most Uzbek intellectuals, especially cultural producers working with the state, avoided probing too far in this direction. Rather than entirely discarding the Soviet colonial legacies, they revised their history selectively. Whereas the ideological content of their cultural production shifted from socialism to nationalism, many of the previous cultural ‘‘forms’’ have remained. Similarly, the Uzbek government continued to employ cultural elites to implement the task of reinforcing its nation-building program, thus following the Soviet model of cultural production. The book consists of four chapters. The first chapter delineates the broad themes of national identity building, and the remaining chapters explore mass spectacle creation by distinguishing between three elements: form (Chapter Two), content (Chapter Three), and the mode of production (Chapter Four). The study is based on content analysis of two Olympic Games-style national holidays, interviews with cultural producers, and participation observation of festivals and behind-the-scenes preparation meetings. Although Adams provides a few references to viewers and their attitude toward the public holiday performances, her book does not offer an extended engagement with reception and consumption of these holidays. The comprehensive and multi-layered overview of the process of revising national identity in Uzbekistan is one of the book’s major accomplishments. For Adams, the production of national identity is not a selfevident and seamless production forced by the state but instead a dynamic, complex, and dialogical process of negotiation between various parties (intellectual factions, state officials, mass spectacle producers, etc.). Her account reveals the messy and often contradictory nature of national identity production and thus moves away from the tendency to reify the state and its policies. The book makes a significant contribution to studies of nationalism by suggesting that the production of national identity in Uzbekistan was centrally constituted by the consideration of the ‘‘international audience.’’ Although public holidays, studied by Adams, aimed at fostering national identification, the forms in which these celebrations are performed (including national dances and music) indicate the aspiration of cultural producers to be part of the international community. This kind of national production self-consciously oriented toward the international viewer has been the legacy of the Soviet nationalities policy where all cultural producers had to produce art ‘‘socialist in content, national in form.’’ Notwithstanding the difference in generations or genres,