Epilogue: Brokers – Pawns, Disrupters, Assemblers?
Epilogue: Brokers – Pawns, Disrupters, Assemblers?
复制标题
尾声：掮客——棋子、破坏者、组装者？
DOI：
10.1080/00141844.2017.1362455
复制
发表时间：
2018
期刊：
影响因子：
1.3
通讯作者：
Steffen Jensen
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Steffen Jensen
“我不喜欢组合理论，”我的一个好朋友兼同事在我给他寄给我编辑的一本书的导言时责备他说（Jensen and Ronsbo 2014）。“这只是意味着一切都是相关的。”我温顺地回答说，事情可能比这复杂一点。然而，这一评论反映了围绕组合等理论使用的更深层次的问题，这些理论在大约十年前成为最新的热潮，尤其是随着科利尔和翁的开创性著作（2005年）的出版。随后是一系列真正创新的出版物，在不同领域使用组合理论，例如Abrahamsen和Williams对全球和非洲安全组合的出色分析（Abrahamsen和Williams 2009）。突然间，作为全球网络的一部分来谈论和讨论安全供应是可能的，在全球网络中，军火商、安全框架、发展援助和男子气概危机是相互联系的，可以通过曼努埃尔·德·兰达所说的“外部性关系”（de Landa 2006）被包含在一个理论框架中。在我自己的工作中，我探讨了南非农村的一个小型妇女危机中心是如何在一个包括北欧纳税人、发展政策、腐败的国家做法、农村性别关系和组织中妇女的愿望的集合中挣扎的（Jensen 2014）。对我和其他许多人来说，集合理论构成了超越地方背景和人类代理的理解社会过程的激动人心的承诺。虽然对组合理论仍有许多新的贡献，但我必须承认，这种兴奋，包括我自己的，可能已经稍微冷却了一些。在许多方面，这期特刊既表达了人们对这一理论工具有用性的兴奋之情，也表达了人们对其日益增长的怀疑。一个挥之不去的批评是，它忽略了人类能动性的中心地位：虽然虾作为一个行动者可能很重要，但它仍然存在于人类的利益之中，并被赋予了意义。这一合理的批评在本期特刊的引言和投稿中得到了呼应，本期特刊关注经纪和经纪人——既作为其本身的分析对象，也作为理解当地过程和动态如何与全球过程交织在一起的视角。这一期特刊在这两个方面都做得很好。《导论》很好地阐述了关于经纪业的主题和讨论，虽然我对组合理论的使用（完整性）有一些犹豫或疑问，但它也为理解地方之间的经纪业带来了新的途径
Aalborg Universitet Institut for Samfundsudvikling og Planlagning, Denmark ‘I don’t like assemblage theory’, a good friend and colleague chided, as I sent him the Introduction to an edited volume that I had written (Jensen and Ronsbo 2014). ‘It just means that everything is related’. Meekly, I responded that maybe it was a bit more complicated than this. The comment, though, reflects a deeper issue around the use of theories such as assemblage, which became the newest craze a decade or so ago, not least with the publication of Collier and Ong’s seminal book (2005). This was followed by a string of really innovating publications using assemblage theory in diverse fields, like for instance Abrahamsen and Williams’ excellent analysis of security assemblages globally and in Africa (Abrahamsen and Williams 2009). Suddenly it was possible to talk about and discuss security provision as part of global networks where arms dealers, security frameworks, development aid and the crisis of masculinity were connected and could be contained within one theoretical framework through what Manuel de Landa calls ‘relations of exteriority’ (de Landa 2006). In my own work, I explored how a small women’s crisis centre in rural South Africa struggled within an assemblage that encompassed Nordic tax payers, development policies, corrupt state practices, rural gender relations and aspirations of the women of the organisation (Jensen 2014). For me and for many others, assemblage theory constituted the thrilling promise of understanding social processes beyond the local context and beyond human agency. While there are still many new contributions to assemblage theory, the excitement, my own included I must admit, might have cooled off slightly. In many ways, this special issue expresses the excitement as well as the mounting doubts about the usefulness of the theoretical apparatus. One of the more lingering critiques relates to its writing off the centrality of human agency: while a shrimp might be important as an actant, it still exists within and is rendered meaningful by all too human interests. This legitimate critique is echoed in the introduction and the contributions to the special issue, which focus on brokerage and brokers – both as an object of analysis in its own right and as a lens to understand how local processes and dynamics intertwine with global processes. The special issue does an excellent job on both accounts. The Introduction sets out the themes and discussions about brokerage in really competent ways and while I do have some hesitations or questions about the use(fullness) of assemblage theory, it also brings new ways to understand brokerage between local