Dry Place: Landscapes of Belonging and Exclusion
Dry Place: Landscapes of Belonging and Exclusion
复制标题
干燥之地：归属与排斥的风景
DOI：
10.1111/j.1467-8306.2006.00517_11.x
复制
发表时间：
2006
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
K. Madsen
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
K. Madsen
成为公民，并被授予集体林地，后来又被授予自由保有林地。值得强调的是，云南是中国集体林最多的省份。相比之下，中国东北的大部分森林都是国有的，但那里的居民也有完全的公民权。换句话说，Akha两个地方的森林产权与公民身份之间的一致性是有条件的。国家对森林的权利主张并不总是也不一定成为排除公民资格的理由。相反，正如斯特金所表明的那样，正是这两种形式的排斥的融合彻底摧毁了泰国阿卡人的生计。同样值得注意的是，自本研究结束（1997年）以来，中国实施了大规模的农田退耕还林计划，以及在某些情况下非法扩大到集体森林的伐木禁令。所有这些变化肯定会对咸丰的景观灵活性和生计产生不利影响。这本书有一个逻辑结构，是非常彻底的，如果略有重复。我必须承认，它的一个关键术语“景观可塑性”及其同源词“塑料景观”有点不恰当。可塑性当然是关于可塑性，但它也可以意味着合成或人造，与工业化有关，如果不是后现代主义。这并不是斯特金想要捕捉的内容，她强调的是与景观有关的知识、实践、记忆和想象力的悠久历史。在一个相关的静脉，斯特金指出，“景观可塑性的概念不是一个阿卡术语，但来自我自己的扩展经验”（第121页）。简短地讨论阿卡人自己用来谈论他们的景观实践和知识的习语或术语（如果有的话）将丰富这项研究。这些都是小问题。任何关心中国、泰国和缅甸自然资源管理、少数民族以及领土和国家权力问题的人都应该读这本书。它不仅在关于生计和资源管理的比较制度的辩论中，而且在关于边界、边界和国家决策的辩论中，都进行了重要的干预。斯特金的比较研究设计和方法作为跨学科研究潜力的典范，也使本书适用于东南亚、政治地理学、政治生态学和自然社会地理学的研究生和本科课程。
became citizens and were granted collective and later freehold forestland. It bears emphasizing that Yunnan has the most collective forests of any province in China. By contrast, most forests in Northeast China are stateowned, yet there too residents have full citizenship. In other words, the alignment between forest property rights and citizenship status in the two Akha places was contingent. State claims on forests do not always and necessarily justify an exclusion from citizenship. Instead, as Sturgeon shows, it is precisely the convergence of these two forms of exclusion that has so thoroughly devastated Akha livelihoods in Thailand. It is also worth nothing that since the end of this study (1997), China has implemented a program of large-scale conversion of agricultural fields to forestry, as well as a logging ban that was, in some cases, illegally extended to collective forests. All of these changes will certainly have unfortunate effects for the landscape flexibility and livelihoods of Xianfeng. This book has a logical structure and is very thorough, if slightly repetitive. I must confess to finding one of its key terms, ‘‘landscape plasticity,’’ and its cognate, ‘‘plastic landscapes,’’ a bit infelicitous. Plasticity of course is about malleability, but it can also connote the synthetic or artificial, associated with industrialization if not postmodernism. This isn’t quite what Sturgeon wants to capture with her emphasis on a long history of knowledge, practice, memory, and imagination with respect to the landscape. In a related vein, Sturgeon notes that ‘‘the notion of landscape plasticity is not an Akha term, but derives from my own extended experience’’ (p. 121). A brief discussion of the idioms or terms, if any, that the Akha themselves use to talk about their landscape practices and knowledge would have enriched the study. These are minor quibbles. This book should certainly be read by anyone who cares about natural resource management, ethnic minorities, and issues of territory and state power in China, Thailand, and Myanmar. It makes important interventions not only in debates about livelihoods and comparative institutions of resource management, but also about frontiers, borders, and state-making. Sturgeon’s comparative research design and methods serve as a model for the potential of interdisciplinary research, and also make the book appropriate and useful for both graduate and undergraduate courses in Southeast Asia, political geography, political ecology, and nature-society geography more generally.