Transforming Property, Persons, and State: Collectivization in Romania 1949-1962

自1989年以来，“私有化”是后苏联时代转型的首要议题，即在社会主义时期建立的集体财产形式基础上重新建立或重建私有制。西方对这一现象的理解，不仅对社会主义中财产的运作方式一无所知，而且对财产最初形成的过程以及它们对社会关系的破坏性影响一无所知。因此，私有化计划冒着将乌托邦式的目标强加于不被充分认识的现实的风险，就像布尔什维主义在本世纪初所做的那样。该项目考察了这两个属性转换的早期，一个属性对象是土地，另一个是东欧的后社会主义国家罗马尼亚。该项目将由来自美国、英国和罗马尼亚的15名人类学家、社会学家和历史学家（包括高级学者和研究生）共同合作，研究1949年至1962年（罗马尼亚宣布完成集体化）期间罗马尼亚土地集体所有制的形成过程。研究方法包括口述历史访谈和档案研究；这个项目之所以成为可能，是因为一些经历过集体化的人还活着，而且新开放的档案将提供以前无法获得的信息。该项目的目标是分析集体化揭示了社会主义国家信息和人的创造/转化的运作。集体化有助于确立新的党国体制及其治理对象的性质；因此，对于遭受其后果的农民和发起该政策的机构来说，该政策都是一个决定性的时刻。指导性问题包括：关于如何创建和应用新的规则技术，人们可以学到什么？在某种程度上，不同形式的财产导致了对人的不同理解以及对什么是受人尊敬的人的不同理解，集体化是如何影响人格的？在集体化的过程中，不同村庄和地区的民族构成是否有明显的差异？中央指示是否多次推翻地方针对地方问题采取的政策？当地对集体化的抵制是否实质性地改变了集体财产的形成方式，从而影响了罗马尼亚共产主义政权的后续运作以及国家机器各部分之间的相互关系？该国某些地区的耐药性是否比其他地区更明显？因此，某些地区是否不成比例地影响了全国的结果？对这类问题的回答将有助于揭示一种服从斯大林主义模式的政策是如何在罗马尼亚形成的，并有助于在那里形成一种特殊的官僚间和国家主体关系的结构。这项工作的结果将是与当今财产的重新评价相关的财产制造的分析历史-这是一个在当代世界日益增加的兴趣和实际关注的话题。

High on the agenda of post-Soviet transformation since 1989 is "privatization," the creation or recreation of private ownership from the collective property forms created during the socialist period. Western understanding of this phenomenon suffers from ignorance not only of how property in socialism worked but also of the processes by which that property was constituted in the first place, with their devastating effects on social relationships. As a result, privatization programs risk imposing a utopian goal on an insufficiently appreciated reality in much the same way that Bolshevism did earlier in the century.This project examines the earlier of these two property transformations for one property object -- land -- and one post-socialist country in Eastern Europe -- Romania. By means of a collaborative venture involving fifteen anthropologists, sociologists, and historians from the U.S., Great Britain, and Romania, including both senior scholars and graduate students, the project will research the process through which collective property in land was created in Romania between 1949 and 1962 (when collectivization there was declared complete). Research methods include both oral-history interviews and research in archives; the project is possible because some of those who experienced collectivization are still alive and because newly opened archives will provide information not previously available.The project's goal is to analyze what collectivization reveals about the operations of the socialist state-in-formation and the creation/transformation of persons. Collectivization was instrumental in establishing the nature of the new Party-state and of the subjects it would govern; the policy was thus a defining moment both for the peasantry who suffered its consequences and for the apparatus that initiated it. Guiding questions include: What can one learn about how new techniques of rule were created and applied? To the extent that different forms of property entail different understandings of the person and of what it means to be a respectable human being, how did collectivization affect personhood? Are there discernible differences in the course of collectivization according to the ethno-national composition of different villages and regions? Did central directives repeatedly override policies adopted locally in response to local problems? Did local resistance to collectivization substantially modify how collective property was being made, thus affecting the subsequent operations of Romanian communist power and how the parts of the state apparatus related to one another? Was resistance more marked in some parts of the country than in others -- thus, did certain locales disproportionately affect the national outcome?Answers to these kinds of questions will help to show how a policy instigated in obedience to the Stalinist model took specific shape in Romania and helped to form there a particular configuration of inter-bureaucratic and state-subject relations. The result of this work will be an analytic history of property-making relevant to present-day remakings of property -- a topic of increasing interest and practical concern in the contemporary world.