A new double movement? Anthropological perspectives on property in the age of neoliberalism
A new double movement? Anthropological perspectives on property in the age of neoliberalism
复制标题
新的双重运动？
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2006
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
C. Hann
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
C. Hann
这篇评论文章表明，无论是从经验上还是从理论上，社会文化人类学家都可以为关于财产的跨学科辩论做出很大贡献。最长的部分介绍了最近对前社会主义国家农村部门非集体化的调查结果。私有化普遍令人失望的结果总是可以用“制度”缺陷来解释，但真实的挑战是制定更灵活的产权规则，以处理不同的商品和当地环境。论文的其余部分指出了人类学在其他领域的一些最突出的贡献，包括知识产权和“文化”。虽然一些学者拒绝接受非西方背景下的财产概念，但法律的人类学最近的工作提出了严格的定义，有利于比较分析并暴露了当前占主导地位的经济主义方法的局限性。“财产化”正在不断地建立新的“虚拟商品”，但本文认为，一些新自由主义的批评者夸大了其财产逻辑的噩梦，忽视了相反的趋势。在这方面，关于财产的新辩论让人想起两个世纪前关于所谓的“脱离”市场经济出现的早期讨论。
This review article shows that, both empirically and theoretically, socio-cultural anthropologists have much to contribute to interdisciplinary debates concerning property. The longest section presents results from recent investigations of decollectivization in the rural sectors of former socialist states. The generally disappointing outcomes of privatization can always be explained away in terms of 'institutional' shortcomings, but the real challenge is to devise more flexible property rules to deal with diverse goods and local environments. The rest of the paper notes some of the most salient anthropological contributions in a range of other fields, including intellectual property and 'culture'. While some scholars reject the concept of property in non-Western contexts, recent work in legal anthropology has laid out a rigorous definition that facilitates comparative analysis and exposes the limitations of the currently dominant economistic approaches. 'Propertization' is continuously establishing new 'fictitious commodities', but it is argued here that some critics of neoliberalism exaggerate the nightmare of its property logic and overlook the countertendencies. In this respect the emerging debates over property recall earlier discussions over the emergence two centuries ago of an allegedly 'disembedded' market economy.