The Justice of Land in a Land of Injustice

处理历史上与殖民主义、种族主义和资本主义扩张有关的土地剥夺的后果困扰着世界各地的许多国家。没有哪个国家的土地和解问题比南非更为重要。这个国家今天面临着各种各样的土地问题，这些问题来自该国土地被剥夺的历史，从城市无地者的“土地掠夺”，到农场工人争取土地所有权的努力，再到“剩余人口”对在种族隔离时期被政府驱逐的土地的要求。土地和解提出并说明了许多重要的理论问题，这些问题与新兴的过渡司法和司法心理学跨学科领域有关。一般来说，司法研究认为，人们判断法律和政治是否符合他们的公平标准。这种判断很重要，因为被认为不公正的法律和政治制度不太可能被赋予合法性，如果没有合法性，遵守就会变得有问题（即，它可能与成本和收益的计算更密切相关）——可能因此加剧非法土地入侵等行为。在政治制度层面，本项目将研究土地和解，假设当法律与精英和大众偏好一致时，土地和解最有效。在微观层面（本研究的层面），本研究考察了土地和解政策的偏好。假设这些偏好来自(1)如何根据正义的四个子维度（分配、程序、报应和恢复）来构建问题；(2)工具利益，特别是在各种形式的土地剥夺经验中所反映的利益；(3)基本的文化价值观，特别是个人主义（预计在欧洲血统的人中最常见）和集体主义（可能在非洲人中占主导地位）。此外，首席调查员将调查(4)南非人是否赞成土地入侵，以及将来是否有可能加入这类运动。研究设计的主要组成部分是对南非精英和大众公众成员的样本进行调查。该调查采用了各种创新技术，包括说服力实验、使用旨在评估司法竞争维度对土地和解偏好的作用的实验小片段，以及对知识渊博的受访者进行后续深入访谈。

Dealing with consequences of historical land dispossessions associated with colonialism, racism, and capitalist expansion dogs a variety of countries throughout the world. Nowhere is the issue of land reconciliation more important than in South Africa. That country today confronts a variety of land issues flowing from the country's history of land dispossessions, ranging from "land grabs" by the urban landless, to efforts by farm workers to achieve rights of ownership to their land, to claims by "surplus people" to land from which they were removed by government actions under apartheid. Land reconciliation raises and illustrates many significant theoretical issues related to the emerging interdisciplinary fields of transitional justice and justice psychology. Generally speaking, justice research argues that people judge law and politics by whether they comport with their standards of fairness. Such judgments are important since legal and political institutions perceived to be unjust are unlikely to be accorded legitimacy, and without legitimacy, compliance becomes problematical (i.e., it may become more closely related to calculations of costs and benefits) -- perhaps thereby exacerbating behaviors such as illegal land invasions. At the level of the political system, this project will examine land reconciliation, which is hypothesized to be most effective when law and elite and mass preferences coincide. At the micro-level (the level of this research), this study examines preferences on land reconciliation policies. These preferences are hypothesized to flow from (1) how issues land get framed in terms of the four sub-dimensions of justice (distributive, procedural, retributive, and restorative); (2) instrumental interests, especially as reflected in experiences with various forms of land dispossession; and (3) basic cultural values, in particular individualism (expected to be most common among those of European ancestry) versus collectivism (which may predominate among Africans). In addition, the principal investigator will investigate (4) whether South Africans approve of land invasions and are likely to join such movements in the future. The principal component of the research design is a survey of samples of both South African elites and members of the mass public. The survey incorporate a variety of innovative techniques, including persuasibility experiments, the use of experimental vignettes designed to assess the role of competing dimensions of justice on preferences for land reconciliation, and follow-up in-depth interviews with especially knowledgeable respondents.