Territorialising ethnicity: the political ecology of pastoralism in Northern Kenya and Southern Ethiopia
Territorialising ethnicity: the political ecology of pastoralism in Northern Kenya and Southern Ethiopia
复制标题
种族地域化：肯尼亚北部和埃塞俄比亚南部畜牧业的政治生态
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2010
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
G. Schlee
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
G. Schlee
民族国家的理念已经深深地渗透到肯尼亚和埃塞俄比亚的殖民和后殖民国家组织中，其层次远低于“民族”国家（在非洲和其他地方是一个有争议的实体）。殖民时期对“部落”的看法导致了一种行政命令，其中根据“部落”边界划定地区和牧场保护区，这些边界通常被认为是预先存在的，但实际上是在此过程中创建的。在这一过程中，种族并不是被发明的（正如非洲其他地区所声称的那样），但它已经发生了变化：它获得了以前这种形式所没有的领土特征。政策制定者头脑中对土地（现代领土民族国家的缩影）的群体权利观念与保护范围的观念相结合，正如现代牧场生态学最近发现的那样，这种观念是错误的。这些想法导致了限制游牧民族活动范围的政策。该文件从殖民政策到现代政治，行政单位的领土划分和游牧活动的限制仍在继续。对此进行了探讨。人们发现这些原因是由自封的精英的利益引导的，而不是受他们不利影响的牧民的利益。 1 本文的一个版本已在第 16 届 IUAES（国际人类学和民族学联盟）世界大会游牧民族委员会研讨会上发表，题为“抵御抵抗的能力：应对非洲当代政治和生态破坏与变化的牧区策略”。会议于 2009 年 7 月 27 日至 31 日在中国昆明举行。当前版本借鉴了 Fekadu Adugna 和 Kirill Istomin 的评论以及芝加哥大学非洲研究研讨会参与者和蒙特利尔麦吉尔大学 John Galaty 博士生的评论。 2 Günther Schlee，马克斯·普朗克社会人类学研究所，德国哈勒/萨勒，邮政信箱 110357, 06017 哈勒/萨勒，电子邮件：schlee@eth.mpg.de
The idea of the nation state has penetrated the colonial and postcolonial organisation of statehood in Kenya and Ethiopia deeply at a level much below the “nation” state (a debatable entity in Africa and elsewhere). The colonial perception of “tribes” led to an administrative order in which districts and grazing reserves were delineated according to “tribal” boundaries which often were thought to be pre-existing but in reality were created in the process. Ethnicity in that process was not invented (as has been claimed for other parts of Africa) but it has changed: it has acquired a territorial character which it did not have in this form before. Ideas of group rights to parcels of the land (the miniature version of the modern territorial nation state) in the mind of policy makers combined with ideas of preservation of the range which, as modern range ecology has found not so recently, were misconceived. These ideas led to policies that restricted the range of movement of pastoral nomads. The paper draws a line from colonial policies to modern politics, in which territorial subdivision of administrative units and the restriction of nomadic movements continue. A number of reasons for this are explored. These reasons are found to be guided by the interests of self-styled elites and not by the interests of the pastoralists who are adversely affected by them. 1 A version of this paper has been presented at the 16th IUAES (International Union of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences) World Congress in the workshop of the Commission on Nomadic Peoples, entitled “Resilience to Resistance: Pastoral Strategies in Response to Contemporary Political and Ecological Disruption and Change in Africa”. The conference was held in Kunming China, 27th–31st July, 2009. The present version has profited from comments by Fekadu Adugna and Kirill Istomin as well as the comments of the participants of the African Studies Workshop at Chicago University and John Galaty’s doctoral students at McGill University, Montreal. 2 Günther Schlee, Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology, Halle/Saale, Germany, PO Box 110357, 06017 Halle/Saale, e-mail: schlee@eth.mpg.de