Local International: State-society relations and international-local interactions in post-war states

这个拟议的项目建立在我的论文的主要贡献的基础上，认为近年来在斯里兰卡和其他战后国家，对“国家”、“社会”、“地方”和“国际”的理解造成了与当地现实不准确的看法。该项目通过询问关于国家和主权(Caporaso 2000；Gainsborough 2010；Scott 1998)和后殖民国家(Chatterjee 1993；Harris-White 2003；Jalal 2002)的文献来探讨这个问题，以形成对战后国家总体、特别是斯里兰卡国家的有力批评。斯里兰卡在1986年至2009年间因斯里兰卡政府和泰米尔伊拉姆猛虎解放组织之间的战争而严重分裂。我的博士学位分析了三个战后时期产生的背景，最后一次是在2014年。对于本PDF，我将在2019年3月再进行一次实地考察，采访公民社会、国家和国际捐助组织中新的和已建立的联系人。随着新政府现在掌权，以及对外国研究人员的接受程度大大提高，我将有更多机会接触国家行为者(2014年缺乏接触是我通过文献分析克服的博士学位的一个限制)。因此，通过这段时间的实地考察，我将加深和拓宽我对社会-国家和国际-地方互动的理解。该项目揭示了公民社会的思想，特别是探索复原力的思想(达菲尔德2010：459；埃文斯2013：39；里德2009)。利用采访材料，该项目分析了这些想法的人性方面，以及围绕如何经历弹性和疲惫的错综复杂的情况。该项目主张，国家和社会的构成部分--以及其中的个人--必须分开分析，因为基于“国家”以某种方式对“社会”行事的全面论点与斯里兰卡战后的背景是不准确的。该项目认为，国家和社会参与者之间的差异更多地取决于他们的个人背景和目标，而不是他们属于哪个领域。因此，被视为“反政府”的非政府组织的个人很可能与公务员有密切的工作和个人关系(Evans 1996：1122)。同样，国家的雇员可能对国家持有高度的批评意见(Stepan1978：XIII)。虽然“国家”可能会关闭被认为是反国家的公民社会活动，但在斯里兰卡的情况下，这种情况可以说只发生在有问题的活动明显旨在影响选民观点的地方。这些想法得到了采访材料的证实。这个项目将询问与固定的“本地”相关的固定的“国际”的想法。它将争辩说，国家更多地是一系列实践和权力关系造成的结果--国家不是一个单一的物理实体，而是多个物理实体的投射(尽管这些单独的部门或行为者彼此往往存在分歧)。米切尔认为这是国家的影响(1991：94-95)。还有人认为，同样的预测也适用于民间社会、地方行为者和国际行为者，这种过于简单化的做法只会使分析战后环境的人感到困惑。通过这一分析，该项目阐明了经常发生的与这些分类相冲突的详细的人类互动。这一分析也适用于其他国家(包括英国)，因为它有助于我们更多地理解为什么身为外部同质组织成员的个人实际上具有不同的观点。然而，在一系列战后环境中进行测试，将为这项研究发展成一项规模大得多的研究铺平道路，其研究结果可以由民间社会组织、政府和国际行为者实施。

This proposed project builds on the main contributions of my thesis, contending that in recent years in Sri Lanka and other post-war states, understandings of 'state', 'society', 'local' and 'international' have created perceptions that are inaccurate to the reality on the ground. The project approaches this problem by interrogating literatures around the state and sovereignty (Caporaso 2000; Gainsborough 2010; Scott 1998) and the postcolonial nation (Chatterjee 1993; Harris-White 2003; Jalal 2002) to form a robust critique of the post-war state generally, and the Sri Lankan state specifically. Sri Lanka was deeply divided by a war between the Government of Sri Lanka (GoSL) and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam between 1986 and 2009. My PhD analysed the resultant post-war context during three fieldwork periods, the last of which was in 2014.For this PDF, I will conduct one further fieldwork period in March 2019, interviewing new and established contacts in civil society, the state and international donor organisations. With the new Government now in power and much more accepting of foreign researchers, I will have much greater access to state actors (the lack of access in 2014 being a limitation to my PhD that I overcame through documentary analysis). Therefore I will deepen and broaden my understanding of society-state and international-local interactions through this fieldwork period. The project unpacks ideas of civil society, particularly exploring the ideas of resilience (Duffield 2010: 459; Evans 2013: 39; Reid 2009). Employing interview material, the project analyses the human side of these ideas and the intricacies surrounding how resilience and exhaustion are experienced. This project asserts that the component parts of the state and society-and the individuals within them-must be analysed separately, as sweeping arguments based on the idea of 'the state' behaving in a certain way toward 'the society' are inaccurate to the Sri Lankan post-war context. The project argues that the difference between state and society actors depends much more on their individual backgrounds and objectives than on which sphere they 'belong' to. Thus, individuals belonging to NGOs perceived as 'anti-government' may well have close working and personal relationships with public servants (Evans 1996: 1122). Equally, employees of the state may hold highly critical views of that state (Stepan 1978: xiii). And while 'the state' as an effect may close-down civil society activities deemed to be anti-state, in Sri Lanka's case this has arguably only occurred where the activity in question clearly aimed to influence the electorate's views. These ideas are substantiated with interview material.This project will interrogate the idea of there being a fixed 'international' in relation to a fixed 'local'. It will contend that the state is more an effect caused by an assemblage of practices and power relations-that the state is not a unitary physical entity but the projection of multiple physical entities (even though these individual departments or actors often disagree with each other). Mitchell terms this the effect of the state (1991: 94-95). It is further argued that similar projections occur for civil society, local actors and international actors alike, an oversimplification which has only served to confuse those analysing the post-war environment. Through this analysis, the project illuminates the detailed human interactions taking place often in contravention to these categorisations. This analysis is applicable to other states (including the UK), as it helps us to understand far more about why individuals who are members of externally-homogeneous organisations in fact have heterogeneous views. However, testing it on a range of post-war environments will pave the way for this to be developed into a much larger research study, the findings of which can be operationalised by civil society organisations, governments and international actors.