• About
  • Publication
  • Events
  • Urban Poetry Society

Read Cities

~ rethinking the urban world

Read Cities

Category Archives: London

世界城市里的异乡人

27 Thursday Oct 2016

Posted by Yimin in Field, London

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

identity, migration, politics, space

 

在伦敦住了这么久,每次我想吃烤肉的时候,都会去东边的 Aldgate(印巴人聚居区,拥有英国最大的清真寺)。那儿有两家店,烤肉做得都很不错,但风格迥异。

其中一家是个叫“老地方”的中国餐馆,主打东北菜,小鸡炖蘑菇曾经做得很地道。每次去,我都会不由自主地点上几个羊肉串儿,再叫一瓶青岛,仿佛还能重温一点当年在北京“撸串”的幸福时光。有一阵子他们突然停止了烤串生意,理由很搞笑,说是在英国找不到合适的木炭了。

这家餐馆的英文名是 My Old Place。 翻译很巧妙,每次我都会用这个名字引诱办公室的各国同学去吃加了很多辣椒的东北菜。我会着重跟他们强调:咱去 My old place 吃点中国菜吧!然后他们就莫名其妙地看着我点上诸如麻辣鸭舌的菜,再把一整盘菜和辣椒全部狼吞虎咽掉。

另外一家把我迷得神魂颠倒的吃肉的地儿,叫拉合尔烤肉坊 (Lahore Kebab House)。拉合尔就是著名电影《拉合尔茶馆的陌生人》里的那个地方,巴基斯坦第二大城市,玄奘曾在7世纪初到访过。

一开始,我并不知道这家店,也并不想知道 Aldgate 地区其他任何餐馆。我初来乍到,本能地保持着对陌生人和陌生空间的提防,同时,中国留学生之中还流行着种种传言,如印巴餐馆卫生状况糟糕。诸如此类的话语,都退却了我的好奇心。

当我那关系很好又在土耳其呆过很久的意大利哥们提议,去这家店考察一下巴基斯坦烤肉的时候,我内心是拒绝的。但在他们连拉带拽之下,我终于还是硬着头皮走了进去,看着满屋子嘈杂的人群,恐慌。我坐定之后发现,屋子里坐的一多半都是白人,不过老板和服务员确实还是南亚人的面孔。打开菜单,照例是看不懂的,于是就照猫画虎,跟那个意大利哥们点了个一样的菜。

我记得那是一道咖喱烤羊肉,放在一个直径比饭盒稍大的铁锅里,服务员上菜就是把一个个这样的铁锅端到我们面前,然后提醒我们小心别烫着。里面肉很多,浸在咖喱汁里,差不多占满了整半锅,而且毫不含糊,见不到中餐里常见的那些伎俩:没有土豆、没有胡萝卜、没有豆芽,真的全都是肉。肉食动物如我见到这样的场景立刻就按捺不住,更不用提锅里飘出来的香气有多诱人,于是就着旁边的馕(编按:中西亚地区常见的面饼),狼吞虎咽起来。

经此一役,我便时不时地喊上同学们去“拉合尔”饕餮一番。巴基斯坦人多信仰伊斯兰教,所以餐馆不卖酒——但不禁止喝酒。于是每次我们过去的时候,都会先在旁边的小店里买上些 cider,买上些 ale,口味重的同学就买 guinness,然后浩浩荡荡拎进去,实现酒和肉的完美融合。一番酒足饭饱之后,如果恰好遇到英超联赛,我们就围坐在电视机边,听德国、巴西和意大利人调侃英国同学——和他支持的球队。

 

Kebab 打开的社会历史视野

久而久之,我想吃肉的时候反而有些举棋不定了:到底是老地方的烤串呢,还是拉合尔的 kebab?本来,在我还只迷恋前者的时候,总觉得那里才是自己的主场。因为语言熟悉、菜单熟悉,我不仅重新找回了空间上的归属感,还能在饭桌上决断一群人的口腹之欲如何得以实现。

但我对拉合尔的好感也随着去的次数而直线上升:那儿的肉不仅好吃,而且便宜——那半锅才只卖七八块钱。更关键的是——去得越来越多,我对菜单也越来越熟悉,以至于到后来,我真的说不清老地方和拉合尔到底哪个才是我的“老地方”。

Aldgate 在我心中的定义也因此改变了。在我还只愿意吃中餐的时候,时常会对满街的南亚移民心生恐慌:我不知道(也不愿意知道)他们为什么来伦敦,在这里做什么,又如何维持生计。

但是跟拉合尔熟悉起来之后,我慢慢明白他们落脚英国的殖民起源:在两次世界大战前后,先是大量南亚次大陆的专业人士(比如医生、教师等)开始移入,然后是更多的普通人随着解殖浪潮涌向伦敦。战后的英国劳动力严重匮乏,正是这些南亚移民在各个领域填补了社会的需求。

我也明白了,他们可以在这里扎根,可以把自己的过去和未来、故土和当下齐整地拼接。据不完全统计,现在在英国有超过150万南亚移民,其中约三分之一生活在伦敦。这些移民不仅能过好自己的生活,还能继续做出好吃的烤肉,也许比在他们自己家乡的更好吃。

比如 Chicken Tikka Masala,一道被英国人奉为经典的印度菜(有人甚至宣称这才应被称为英国国菜),据说就起源于格拉斯哥的南亚移民社区,而非来自印度本土。

 

南亚移民比较危险?

只是很可惜,在伦敦的很多中国人,却依然无视或蔑视这样的地方、这样的人群,而不以为耻。就像当初的我一样,很多人只看到街上四五个南亚孩子跟着妈妈慢慢行走,只看见伦敦人选出了一个巴基斯坦穆斯林做市长,便立刻武断地下判决:什么白左圣母,什么伦敦斯坦,什么绿教蔓延……

如果真跟他们辩论,很多新的说辞又会冒出来。如这次国航事件一样,很多人会拿犯罪率的地理分布说事,说越是移民聚居区犯罪率越高。但他们却对事实不管不顾。殊不知,根据数据,伦敦犯罪率最高的地方,恰恰是定居移民最少的市中心地带:西敏市(City of Westminster)。

即便是面对数据地图,还有人会继续辩称,犯罪主体的身份并不明确,也会辩称在郊区(移民聚居区)同样有几个街区犯罪率较高。

但他们不能不面对的事实是:东部高犯罪率的地方,同时也是公共开支最匮乏的地方,是社会福利缺失最严重的地方,而不只是移民人口最密集的地方。相关性和因果性的界限,真的模糊到可以如此轻易地跨越吗?更进一步追问:犯罪的社会和政治经济根源,为何就这么轻易地被种族话语掩盖?

种族歧视的路径还可以延伸下去。除了攻击移民的犯罪问题,还有人会把他们的宗教信仰也囊括进来,在宗教信仰和恐怖袭击之间,嫁接上一劳永逸的关联。在他们看来,上个月在大英博物馆旁边发生的持刀伤人案还不够严重,没法支撑他们的观点,于是2005年7月7日那一系列爆炸案又被提起。

 

作为“世界城市”的伦敦

不管是有意还是无意,这些国人都忽视了时任伦敦市长 Ken Livingstone 在袭击发生后的一席话:

(This attack) was aimed at ordinary, working-class Londoners, black and white, Muslim and Christian, Hindu and Jew, young and old. It was an indiscriminate attempt to slaughter, irrespective of any considerations for age, for class, for religion, or whatever…

Even after your (the terrorists’) cowardly attack, you will see that people from the rest of Britain, people from around the world will arrive in London to become Londoners and to fulfil their dreams and achieve their potential…

They choose to come to London, as so many have come before because they come to be free, they come to live the life they choose, they come to be able to be themselves… Whatever you do, however many you kill, you will fail.

这篇演说展现的,不是政治正确,也不是老政客的口吐莲花,而是一个有判断力的人理应认同的观察:恐怖分子的袭击,可以指向任何一个个体,这也正是他们被称为恐怖分子的原因。如果因此去煽动任何种族或宗教的仇恨,那么结果必然是掉进恐怖分子们期待的陷阱。

我们每一个人,都只是想过好自己的生活。因此我们离别故土,飘洋过海,在种种艰辛里尝试着探索。在各自的旅程里,无论是南亚人、黑人、中国人,还是意大利人、德国人、南美人,大家纷纷来到伦敦。我们愿意选择伦敦落脚,自然是伦敦的幸运,因为这充分地展现出它的吸引力和包容度。但更关键的是不同人群之间的互动——是我们的互动,在塑造着今日的伦敦。

当地理学家 Doreen Massey 说伦敦是一座“世界城市”的时候,她所指的不是作为国际金融中心的伦敦;相反,她真正想强调的正是这种日常的相遇:四面八方、不同种族、不同宗教的人相聚于此,逐渐信任彼此,共同改变伦敦的时空。这样的伦敦不再只是一座局限于本地的城市,它成了全球网络、关系、感情的联结点,并因此为更加开放和乐观的未来奠定了时空和社会基础。

 

司空见惯的“地图炮”

种族歧视的目光和心理,给这样的相遇可能性投下了浓重的阴影。前几日,在中国国际航空飞往伦敦的班机上,随机附赠的旅行指南指名道姓地提道:“到伦敦旅行很安全,但有些印巴聚集区和黑人聚集区相对较乱。夜晚最好不要单独出行,女士应该尽量结伴而行。”

如果你在伦敦的华人圈子里稍微呆过,大概会立刻点评道:这样的认知在国人心里很普遍,国航傻就傻在说话太直白,要是再委婉点多好。

但是,让我们扪心自问:这真的就只是委婉不委婉的问题吗?在英华人常常不以为意的这些歧视,只有在他者的质疑里才能暴露出真面目。

有人会说我们已经受够了政治正确。但事实上,我们的政治正确不是太多,而是太少了。“地图炮”式的地域歧视,大家早已司空见惯了吧?当一群又一群人攻击河南人、新疆人、东北人、外地人的时候,各位有没有加进去添把火?空间化了的族群歧视太深入骨髓,反倒已经被很多人视作稀松平常。不要谈什么反思,哪怕是正视自己和他人的目光,都根本不存在。

在这些语言里,无论是攻击方还是被攻击方都没有想过:这样基于籍贯和出生地的身份标签,何以就能概括那些地方和其间所有人的特质呢?当我们每个人都在极力向他人宣称自己的独特性时,为何就能对别人同样具有的独特性视而不见?

 

族群歧视问题

来到伦敦的很多中国人,自然而然延续了这种传统,开始把世界各地的人群简单归类,然后再把这些人分成三六九等。他们会挤破头去接近和模仿被贴上“先进”和“高等”标签的人群,然后尽全力避免跟“低等”人群有任何接触。

在日常行为里,中国人深藏于潜意识里的这些歧视,早已屡见不鲜。我们常常会对住在东区的朋友说:“晚上早点回家,那里印巴人太多”。我们会努力把自己的活动范围局限于泰晤士河北岸,因为南岸 “黑人太多”。我们中的很多人,大概早已忘记自己也曾属于“黄祸”,也曾是种族主义的直接受害者。

当年的种族主义者开始承认错误并承担责任(许多“政治正确”正是源于此),为何受害者却摇身一变成了施害者?真是一种吊诡的境遇。

当我们企图用标签简化他人的时候,不妨再多想想,既然人生活在社会中,那么与他人接近和交流,就是人之为人的重要条件。我自己无法确认“我”的外部边界,“你”也一样,“我”和“你”的身份认同是在交往的过程中相互认定的。在我们彼此接近之前,彼此的身份都不存在,存在的只是种种虚幻,或者说虚妄的话语。在接近的过程里,我们意识到并承认彼此的差异,探索可能的相似或连结点,逐渐确认彼此在对方生活里的位置。这样的定位过程,才应该是“identity”一词真正的内涵。

拉合尔烤肉界定了我和 Aldgate 之间的关系,界定了那些拉合尔人在我生活里的位置。因此我不再惧怕那个地方和那个人群,我敬佩他们安家落户站稳脚跟的能力,我欣赏他们做出来的,美味的旁遮普风味羊肉,我相信他们和我一样在追求自己的美好生活。我会常常跟来伦敦旅游的朋友推荐 Aldgate,推荐去尝尝拉合尔烤肉——我的老地方。

如果你也在伦敦,不如撕掉标签,放下成见,去尝尝他们那里的美味吧。

(本文最初以“老地方和拉合尔”为标题发表于豆瓣,修改后转载于端传媒)

Advertisement

RGS-IBG AC 2016: Narrating Displacements

06 Wednesday Jul 2016

Posted by Yimin in Academic, Events, London

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

conference, displacement, Geography

Narrating Displacements: A Radical Way to Rethink Urban Theories and Politics

RGS-IBG Annual Conference, August 30 to September 2, London, UK

Convenors

Hyun Bang Shin (The London School of Economics and Political Science, UK)
Yimin Zhao (The London School of Economics and Political Science, UK)
Mara Nogueira (The London School of Economics and Political Science, UK)

Session abstract

We have been witnessing the rise of urban expansion, gentrification, mega-events and many other political economic events in urban space; all of them have direct impacts on the daily life of local residents through large- or small-scale displacements. Displacement hence becomes a term that has been widely used for critical urban theories in analysing contemporary urban change, especially in the Anglo-Saxon world. When people use this word in the literature, however, relatively few attentions are paid to mechanisms through which place-based understandings and discourses of displacement are enabling/ bounding the historical-geographical conjuncture of domination and resistance.

Discourses of displacement are diverse geographically; they are also narrated and deployed by different subjects from distinct perspectives in displacement processes. Expressions like “chaiqian” (demolition and relocation), “qianyi” (relocation), “qiangpo qianyi” (forced relocation) are used in China to express actions through which the state institutions and businesses operate. In South Korea, “cheolgeo” (demolition), “gangje cheolgeo” (forced demolition) or “yiju” (relocation) are more frequently utilised by those subject to displacement. Elsewhere in Latin America, for example in Brazil, “despejo” (eviction) “desalojamento forçado” (forced eviction) and “expulsão” (expulsion) are common concepts deployed by those suffering displacement threats and their allies. On the other hand, the actors promoting displacement prefer to deploy milder terms such as “desocupação” (evacuation) or “realocação” (reallocation).

The use of these particular expressions shifts the focus towards the final act of displacement; even though in reality people would experience (the feeling of) displacement long before actual demolition, eviction or relocation. Moreover, discussions about belonging and the sense of place show how displacement may occur even in the absence of such events. In this regard, abrupt changes to space might cause people to feel “out of place” even though they remain in the same location. To narrate the experience of displacement focusing only on the final acts has serious negative implications for formulating effective strategies that allow pre-emptive earlier contestations to resist and counteract displacement pressure. Furthermore, how displacement is actually narrated in a given local context is not trivial, for conceptualising displacement is itself political.

This session invites papers to reflect on narratives and discourses mobilised around displacement in a diverse range of social, political, economic and cultural settings by attending specifically to the tensions emerging from conceptualisation of displacement by different subjects in daily practices. The aim is to collaboratively reveal the role of displacement discourses in constructing the historical-geographical conjuncture of domination/ resistance, and to uncover power relations/ mechanisms and state effects produced within this conjuncture. Suggestive topics include:

  • Place-based understanding (especially outside the Western context) of displacement and its socio-spatial effects;
  • Conceptualising displacement by different subjects;
  • The role of space in enabling or bounding people’s conceptualisation of displacement, or in affecting their reflections on the gaps between different conceptualisations;
  • The state manoeuver and tactics in promoting displacement with legitimised (sometimes hegemonic) ideology;
  • The effects of different narratives in reshaping understandings of displacement and in opening up possibilities for resistances.

Abstracts of presentations – Session 1

Chair: Hyun Bang Shin
Time: Friday 02 September 2016, 14:40 - 16:20
Venue: TBC

Antagonistic Space and Subjects in Beijing’s Greenbelt

Yimin Zhao (The London School of Economics and Political Science, UK)

In the mainstream literature of contentious politics, space is frequently assumed as a container or a bounded entity. This view has been gradually altered by political geographers, who attend more to the constitutive role of space in understanding socio-political changes. Yet what has been under-examined in the literature is how and to what extent individuals become both spatial objects and political subjects simultaneously in the rise and fall of social movements. This research, drawing on the observation of contingent construction (and decaying) of collective actions in Beijing’s Greenbelt, aims to demonstrate that space and subjects of resistances are mutually constitutive of each other. The paper will illustrate that this mutual constitution needs to be identified by focusing on residues of the hegemonic logic underlying the rise of spatial antagonism. In Beijing’s Greenbelt, the local state’s urbanisation project not only transforms the territorial structure of the rural-urban continuum and the political economy within this structure but also shapes the way villagers view their land, houses and (property) rights. Following transformations of their lifeworld, villagers’ bodies and subjectivities are remade to the extent that their consciousness, identities and discourses are all affected and redefined by the local state’s hegemonic logic. For example, money, rather than the sense of place, becomes the predominant evaluation principle in the displacement process, deployed by both local state and villagers themselves. These impacts altogether make their resistances to displacement possible, but at the same time make these actions contingent and render difficult, if not impossible, the call for wider and stronger resistance alliances for “the right to the city”.

Disciplining Street Life in Hong Kong: Narratives of Displacement and Urban Resistance

Maurizio Marinelli (University of Sussex, UK)

This paper investigates the mega-project of transforming the physical and socio-economic structures of retailing and dwelling in colonial-global Hong Kong. The selected focus is on the progressive annihilation of street markets to create space for ultra-modern, luxury high-rise buildings. Street markets play a crucial role in the policies of urban regeneration, heritage, place making, healthy eating, sustainability, environmental impact, social and community cohesion (Watson, 2005; Stillerman 2006; Shepherd, 2009). Based on the premise that street hawking and street markets are historically part of a wider socio-economic, political, and cultural system, this paper will concentrate on the stories of survival, resistance and metamorphosis of the ‘vital living past’ of Graham Street Market in Hong Kong’s Central District. This 150 years old market, a remarkable example of ‘living heritage’, is currently under threat due to neo-liberal logic of redevelopment and gentrification of colonial-global Hong Kong: in 2007 the Urban Renewal Authority announced its plan to destroy the vibrant market (which was declared ‘a slum’), and replace it with four brand new, sleek, luxury high-rise office buildings, hotels and shopping malls. The paper analyses the role of concerned civil society organisations (such as ‘Savethemarket’) vis-à-vis Government authorities, urban planners and developers in the battle against domicide: the destruction of home which also implies the destruction of memory (Porteous, Smith, 2001). The analysis of this historical market will shed light on the entanglement between the condition of precarity of the street hawkers and the complex socio-economic and political mechanisms which are leading to the annihilation of this ‘living heritage’.

Who has the right to remain in place?

Mara Nogueira (The London School of Economics and Political Science, UK)

How far can we stretch the concept of displacement? This paper discusses this question drawing on qualitative data collected during five months of fieldwork in the city of Belo Horizonte/Brazil regarding three cases of “displacement” connected to the World Cup. The first one concerns an informal settlement, evicted to give room for an urban mobility project. The second focuses on a group of informal workers displaced for the modernization of the local stadium. The third case discusses the struggle of a neighbourhood association to stop the construction of a hotel in their residential street. I argue that only the first case is rightfully considered a “displacement” case, in the sense that the State recognizes the right of the occupiers to be reallocated. I further discuss how the past historic struggle of the social movements for the right to dwell has engendered both legislation that acknowledges their rights and institutions that manage the process, guaranteeing some minimum rights. On the other hand, in the case of the stadium workers, their claims for the right to reallocation are based on weaker assumptions that are not covered by appropriate legislation and, therefore, not recognized by the State. In their struggle for the recognition of their rights, the workers have employed many strategies and alliances that are described in the paper. Finally, the paper raises the question of how appropriate is the use of the concept of displacement to categorize the processes unfolding in the third case. The neighbourhood association wants to keep their residential neighbourhood from changing. I argue that, although they’ve deployed a series of arguments (legal and political) to stop the hotel construction, what motivates their struggle is the desire to remain in place. However, the search for a place within the urban is a conflictive process. Who has the right to remain in place and who doesn’t? Is every claim against displacement equal through the lens of social justice? Does the concept of displacement become a-political once you stretch it too far?

Understanding multiple voices within the resistance movement of the Occupations of Izidora in Belo Horizonte, Brazil

Luciana Maciel Bizzotto (Federal University of Minas Gerais, Brazil)

Urban occupations stand out as a strategy to fight for the urban re-appropriation in the current political resistance scenario in Brazilian metropolis. What has been observed is the multiplication of horizontal occupations of empty or abandoned lands, with the support of social movements organized against the eviction of thousands of families that make up the current housing deficit in the country. This form of resistance comprises a series of discourses, considering the different actors that are activated by it. To illustrate this point, I present the case of the resistance movement of the Occupations of Izidora, located in Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais. The network of supporters that formed the resistance process of these urban occupations – #ResisteIzidora movement – is inserted in a context of strengthening social mobilization in the city and has helped to prevent the eviction of about 8,000 families that now resist to a project that fits in strategic planning’s logic. Based on the methodology of Mapping Controversies, data were compiled through interviews, newspaper reports, blogs and Facebook pages, which were analyzed by the various discourses made by the actors of the resistance network settled – social movements, residents, universities, public institutions and others. The study has shown how even within a resistance movement, in which different actors fight jointly to the non-eviction of the occupations, they do, however, adopt different speeches, ultimately attributing the resistance process itself different meanings.

Abstracts of presentations – Session 2

Chair: Yimin Zhao
Time: Friday 02 September 2016, 16:50 - 18:30
Venue: TBC

The Revanchist Politics of Benevolent Disaster-Induced Evictions Across Metro Manila: Pasig City in the Post-Ketsana Moment

Maria Khristine Alvarez (University of the Philippines, The Philippines)

In this paper, I examine the discourse of disaster-induced evictions in Metro Manila using Pasig City as case study. I draw on critical discourse analysis of interviews and policy documents to discuss the peculiar portrayal of ‘danger zone’ evictions as both apolitical and political, and reflect on the political expediency of this particular configuration, to point to a nascent mode of enunciating and enforcing evictions. I demonstrate how portraying slum evictions as logical interventions and as “technical”, “neutral”, and “apolitical” acts of governance (Ferguson, 1994) de-problematizes the common wisdom of disaster risk management and depoliticizes ‘expert’ opinion in order to diminish the hostility at the heart of evictions. I argue that the deployment of benevolence, which materializes as performance of concern for safety, is instrumental in facilitating outward flows of unwanted bodies. Yet, I show that this benevolence is betrayed by the insistence on contested vulnerabilities and the persistence of eviction orders, by the harassment to self-demolish and ‘voluntarily relocate’ to off-city resettlement sites, and by stories of relocation that dispute the peddled promise of a safe future. I conclude that mobilizing the discourse of ‘apolitical’ yet ‘benevolent’ evictions conceals the revanchist politics of Metro Manila’s disaster resiliency program.

Gusur and Rusunawa: Rebuild Indonesia Cities from the Scratch

Syarifah Aini Dalimunthe (Indonesia Institute of Sciences, Indonesia)

Jakarta current inhabitant is 19 million and 5 million of them are occupied and clogged waterways. This has created flood, then frequently resulting in severe socioeconomic damage. City administrator is now looking for options to reduce the risk. Current city administration terms and operating procedures to reduce the risk are gusur (violent eviction) and rusunawa (low-cost apartment). By December 2015, the city administration conducted gusur program to 12,000 families occupying riverbanks in a single slum neighborhood namely Kampung Pulo in order to speed up its river normalization program. The victim of gusur is set to be relocated to the nearby rusunawa expected to be able to accommodate 4,500 families. While the rest has to survive on their own such as rented a house nearby or send their children back to hometown. Despite the housing backlog, the city administration pledged not to stop the gusur project. The term gusur is now a formula spread among city administration across Indonesia. Gusur claimed to change Indonesian cities to meet global standard, ensure public order, remove squatter settlement or clear land for infrastructure projects. However, the government has used excessive force to conduct gusur across Indonesia cities and failed to provide alternative housing or other assistance to the displaced. It has created discourses which emphasize the right of the poor in the city and their right to make a viable living.

(Re)location, Resistance and Memory: Narratives of displacement amongst earthquake relocatees in Christchurch, New Zealand

Simon Dickinson (University of Exeter, UK)

Forced relocation as a result of government initiative and intervention has received significant attention. Much of this work has focused on the entrepreneurial politics of market-orientated development (Wu, 2014) and discourses surrounding the deconcentration of the urban poor by way of clearing-the-way policy (Goetz, 2003). Yet, disasters, and the subsequent relocation of affected populations during ‘recovery’, has received less attention – presumably because the pre-text of chaos and ‘public safety’ seemingly obscures the need to examine how particular power relations/mechanisms play out under the context of ’emergency’. With this in mind, this paper develops an account of resistance and place-making amongst forced relocatees after the Christchurch earthquakes of 2010-11. Relocation was prompted following a government decision to compulsorily acquire property based on damage and future risk – the criteria for which have never been published. Arguing that local coverage has shaped discourses that speak of romanticised, homogenous forms of ‘pushing back’, I draw attention to the ephemeral and interminable acts of resistance that may not otherwise be observed during relocation. Pointing towards these alternative narratives, the paper highlights the various (and often illicit) ways in which movers sought to maintain connections with their earthquake-damaged community/property. Given the contentious process by which relocation was dictated, these acts of resistance derive from a complex interplay between exhibiting agency in ‘place-making’ and the perceived capacity to subtly undermine the power mechanisms at play in the post-quake environment. I contend that these acts have a distinct temporality and speak to motifs of absence, presence and memory.

Discussant

Hyun Bang Shin (The London School of Economics and Political Science, UK)

 

城市边缘

23 Wednesday Mar 2016

Posted by Yimin in Field, London

≈ Leave a comment

 

IMG_7235

The City of London

 

我这学期给一年级的方法论课当助教。按照惯例,这门课在每学年的最后都要安排整整一星期的田野调研。今天是田野的第三天,学生们四散开去做观察与访谈的时候,我闲坐在Tate Modern附近的小酒吧,顺手写下了一些感想,#不一定对#

在去年的巴黎恐怖袭击之后,比利时布鲁塞尔郊区的莫伦贝克忽然成了全世界的焦点。最近几天的一系列激烈冲突,进一步把这个地区暴露在各国围观群众的目光里。在目前所见的热烈讨论里,最打动我的是BBC的一个主播去年11月(巴黎恐袭后)追问比利时前首相的问题:为什么是莫伦贝克?你们比利时的内政是否在这里出了问题?ISIS的蔓延,究其本质,是否其实是一种本地化了的事件?

去年12月,我闲着无聊去比利时转悠了几天,碰到了一个特别能聊的Airbnb房东。她主动跟我聊起莫伦贝克区,说那里之所以变成现在这样,跟比利时人普遍的排外保守、乃至种族主义的态度不无关系。虽说那里以前是郊区工业中心,但是重工业衰落、运河冷清之后,整个区域逐渐变成北非和阿拉伯移民聚居地。

尽管人口快速增长,公共服务设施却没有跟上。教育、医疗,等等等等,应有尽无。年轻的移民二代们纷纷辍学,继而在就业市场上受歧视,只能通过各种灰色、黑色手段谋生。于是莫伦贝克也就在当地的话语里变成了人人谈之色变的地带,毒品、黑市、犯罪、黑社会…… 如果经济恶化到连这些谋生手段都会受阻,接下来被IS招募也就几乎成了顺理成章的事儿——哪怕他们很多人之前并不信仰伊斯兰教。

看似全球化了的世界,看似无处不在的ISIS,其实就扎根在这些琐碎平凡的本地细节里。这就是 Doreen Massey 想借助 “a global sense of place” 概念加以说明的东西。在面对这些细节和后果时,请先不要轻易下定论,急急忙忙地去指责某些人、某些族群、或者某种宗教。我们,以及有司,在做这些指责之前,是不是应该反思:比利时政府做错了什么?面对大量移民涌入的郊区(或城市边缘),他们本应该做些什么,能够让事情不会走向如此糟糕的局面?

这些反思很重要,无论是在政治还是在地理层面。但是本文的目标并没有如此宏伟。我只是想用莫伦贝克作为引子,把这几天带学生在东伦敦做田野时的所见所感给素描出来——毕竟,这里像莫伦贝克一样,也曾被归入 “城市边缘” 的范畴。

伦敦并不是一个城市,而是一群市镇的集合。事实上,直到今日,伦敦市长 (The Mayor of London) 总共也才只有两任。现任是 Boris Johnson,前任是2000年就职的 Ken Livingstone。在那之前长达十五年的时间里,伦敦是没有“市政府”这一行政级别的。这其中牵扯到的左派前“市政府”和保守党/撒切尔夫人之间的恩恩怨怨,大概也反映了英国中央政府鲜明的集权特征(而不是什么大宪章、分权、自治之类的招牌)。这个话题暂且按下,留待日后再写吧。

大伦敦地区总共有二十多个市镇,其中只有两个获颁特许状,拥有城市权,一座是威斯敏斯特,另一座是金融城 (The City of London)。 金融城的别名叫 “一平方英里” (The Mile),足可见其袖珍程度。但是这并不能阻碍它的影响力:这里有英格兰银行(和它庞大的地下金库),有伦敦证券交易所,有各种各样的“总部”。虽说东边新建的金丝雀码头分流走了不少巨头,但是这里依然是名副其实的欧洲(乃至世界)金融中心。

就在这一平方英里的边缘,存在着另外一种截然不同的空间和生活,并常常被贴上 “East End” 的标签。那曾是一个贫穷、疾病、无序的地带,是开膛手杰克盘踞的场所,是混杂着孟加拉商店和索马里难民的社区;那里有着英国巴洛克风格的教堂、乔治时代的联排别墅,但也有整个英国最大的清真寺。初看上去,这里似乎跟布鲁塞尔的莫伦贝克区并无不同:没落的城市边缘,杂居的各色人群、看似停滞了的社会流通渠道。

但是如果深入到这里的街巷,事情又变得完全不一样。故事实在太多,这里就讲一讲具有代表性的福涅尔街 (Fourneir Street) 吧——它就坐落在 The City of London 曾经的城墙之外;城墙是罗马人的遗存,直到中世纪晚期一直是划分城市内外的界线。

这条不长的街巷紧挨着 Spitalfields Market,东侧与著名的 Brick Lane 毗邻。我们从这个市场说起:Spitalfields Market 由查理一世下令兴建,后经查理二世扩建(多么悲催的身世)。当时的想法很简单,在 The City of London 的城墙外有很多荒废的空地,不如拿来建成集市,既能方便本地居民,也能趁机收点税。这个市场一直演化和扩展,后来逐渐成为伦敦全城的蔬菜水果批发集散地,直至1991年迁往远郊的Leyton。

因为这个市场,在17至18世纪遭受严酷迫害的法国胡格诺派新教徒有不少搬到了英格兰,并在这里落脚。邻近的福涅尔街也逐渐成为胡格诺教徒们的保留地。他们不少人来自南特和里昂,掌握着相当先进的纺纱技术,并纷纷在福涅尔街上兴建前店后厂的建筑——确切地说是下店上厂:底层橱窗展示样品,阁楼放置纺纱机。为了满足居住和生产的双重需求,这里的阁楼都建得相当高,甚至可比肩晚近时髦的所谓”loft”。就在这条街的19号,一个叫霍华德的胡格诺教徒后来纺出了维多利亚女王加冕礼服所用的全部丝线。

经济实力的积累逐渐让他们有能力兴建自己的教堂。1743年,在福涅尔街的东端,一座雄伟的胡格诺派教堂建成启用了。但是在乔治时代晚期,胡格诺人的生意逐渐式微。与此同时,大批犹太人从东欧和俄国移居英格兰,并且像当年的胡格诺教徒一样落脚在福涅尔街上。他们自然很快就展现出了强大的经商能力,并且最终控制了整个街区,包括街区的地景和建筑——在1898年,当年胡格诺教徒兴建的教堂被犹太人改建成了自己的教堂。

犹太人的崛起并没有让伦敦东区全面建成小康社会。19世纪中晚期,整个东区(包括福涅尔街和砖巷在内)的贫穷和混乱逐渐成为社会的共识,但是当时的政府还没有演化出“福利国家”的特征,各种社会事务基本都由“社会改革家”们 (Social reformers) 操持。他们建成妇女儿童救济中心 (现在是LSE的一座学生宿舍),法律援助中心,移民事务服务中心,志愿服务组织,儿童玩具交换中心等等等等。在做这所有事情的时候,他们没有区分“我们”和“他们”,没有歧视所谓“外来人口”,虽然最终的效果并不如设想的显著,但是却的确真真切切地改善了很多人的生活。

于是在这个城市边缘,我们能够见到的只有闻名遐迩的开膛手杰克(作为一个事件,以及一种空间的表征/再现),而无恐怖袭击、族群冲突或其他更为恶劣的结局。

到了20世纪之后,来自巴基斯坦和孟加拉的移民逐渐成为落脚伦敦东区的主体族群。像之前的每一个移民潮流一样,他们也带来了自己的习俗和文化,带来了自己的烤肉店、咖喱店、街头小摊点和露天市场。随着穆斯林成为这个社区的主体,最终,福涅尔街上的犹太教堂在1970年代被改造成了一座清真寺,并且一直延续到现在。

从新教教堂到犹太教堂,最后到清真寺,这个空间转换不仅具有物质性,而且也可以被视作一种隐喻。这个空间隐喻所再现的是伦敦金融城边缘过去三个世纪的社会过程及其囊括的经济和人口巨变。这样的巨变并不能用简单的诸如 “落脚城市” 一类的概念来归纳,因为后者往往只强调整个社会过程的某一个面向,而忽视了其他很多极为关键的要素和瞬间。

这个街道所在的市镇政府 (Borough of Tower Hamlets) 并没有把孟加拉人和他们的宗教、习俗、文化视作洪水猛兽,反而尝试着用孟加拉移民和他们故乡之间千丝万缕的联系来推进本地街区的发展。现在走在福涅尔街旁边的砖巷 (Brick Lane) 里,如果你足够细心的话,会发现他们的路牌都已经变成了英文和孟加拉双语书写。不仅如此,雄心勃勃的市镇政府甚至还在努力搞个大新闻,把这整个区域变成 “Bengla Town”。

在这里,我们已经能够看到在东伦敦和莫伦贝克区存在着相当的区别,而 “落脚城市” 之类的概念则倾向于用某种同一性(比如过度强调移民的社会流动)抹杀这些在地性的差异,因而必须进行批判性地反思。在此,仅止于描述差异似乎还不够,我们还需要思考:到底还有什么样的空间话语 / 路径能够被应用过来,进一步解读和反思像莫伦贝克、福涅尔街这样的城市边缘?

再进一步追问,在中国这样的地方,当城市持续扩张时,我们是否以及如何可能界定城市的边界与边缘?在任何尝试界定城市边缘的话语里(比如最近流行的 “城中村”、“城乡结合部”),我们该如何探究隐藏其间的政治和政治经济野心?

如果你感兴趣,并且有空间/时间上的便利的话,欢迎在本月29日(下周二)到旧金山参与我们在AAG上组织的分论坛:(对,这其实是个硬广!)

 

1445 Rural-urban continuum area as a “blind field”: Critical reflections on the spatiality of China’s urbanisation

is scheduled on Tuesday, 3/29/2016, from 12:40 PM – 2:20 PM in Union Square 18, Hilton Hotel, 4th Floor

Sponsorship(s):
Asian Geography Specialty Group
China Specialty Group
Urban Geography Specialty Group

Organizer(s):
Yimin Zhao – London School of Economics
Hyun Bang Shin – London School of Economics and Political Science

Chair(s):
Hyun Bang Shin – London School of Economics and Political Science

Abstract(s):

12:40 PM Author(s): *Calvin King-Lam Chung – University College London
Abstract Title: Urban Sustainability Fix, Rural Environment, and China’s Evolving Rural-Urban Continuum Areas

1:00 PM Author(s): *Mi Shih – Rutgers University
Abstract Title: The Multiplicity of Land Expropriation: Villages, Agency and Urbanization in China

1:20 PM Author(s): *Ye Lin, Visiting Scholar – Department of Anthropology, Harvard University
Abstract Title: Temporary Life in the “Ruins”

1:40 PM Author(s): *Ziyan Wang – London School of Economics
Abstract Title: Contesting Space and Identity: mediated resistance of Chinese migrant workers’ NGO in a rural-urban continuum area.

2:00 PM Author(s): *Yimin Zhao – London School of Economics
Abstract Title: Urbanising Greenbelt in Beijing: Spatial tactics, land politics, and urban expansion

 

A Tribute to Ulrich Beck

25 Wednesday Feb 2015

Posted by Yimin in Events, London

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

lecture, LSE, notes, Sociology

A tribute to Beck

Ulrich Beck教授不幸在今年元旦去世了。在一个风险社会里,这自然是很容易发生的情形,并不十分让人诧异。但是风险社会的寰宇性 (cosmopolitanism) 使得他去世这个事件的后果超出了个人层面。比如,他早先已经像往常一样接受邀请,在春季学期进驻LSE,并且确定了一场定在2月19号的公开讲座。

没有了主讲人的讲座该怎么进行呢?这难不倒以LSE校长Craig Calhoun为首的社会学家们。他拉上老伙计比如Anthony Giddens和Nikolas Rose以及Richard Sennett一合计,干脆,就把这个活动扩展一下,做成一个学术形态的追思会吧,顺手还能推销一把好基友生前所写的最后一本书,这样才是真爱啊。

几经周折,各位大佬们最终把讲座的时间定在了24号的晚上,也就是刚才。

因为是追思会,所以最主要的议程当然是各位嘉宾排队发言,用学术话语来表达自己对贝克的情感。虽然情感都是真挚的,但是贝克他老人家大概还是架不住竟然有人会在他身后接着较学术的真,具体后详。

会议从吉登斯对风险社会的概念回顾开始。他首先就提醒我们要注意对“风险”和”风险社会“的误解。贝克提出“风险社会“这个概念,并不是说现代社会变得比以往更有风险 (risky),而是在另外两个层面进行探讨:第一,现代性的崛起意味着我们开始更多地关注未来,而”风险“就是一个面向未来的概念,因此这个观念就随之变得无处不在;第二,在现代社会中,我们自己创造出很多新形态的风险,比如蕴含在新的自样态以及然我们与自然之关系之中的那些无法提前探知全景的风险。也正是在这个语境里,我们开始动用知识来重构自己的生活,甚至我们的身体也逐渐变成反思性工程 (reflexive project) 的产物。

接着他又回顾了贝克针对全球化和寰宇主义 (cosmopolitanism) 所做的工作。在吉登斯看来,贝克关注的核心是人们的相互依赖是如何随着技术演进而不断增加的,尤其是这种不断增进的互赖关系如何反过来进一步影响个体层面的生活,这也是诸如”全球寰宇联结“ (global cosmopolitan ties) 之类的概念提出的背景。

而在贝克生前所写作的最后一本书里(吉登斯本尊补充:顺便说一句,这书过几个月就会出版,欢迎大家捧场),他把全球化的新阶段放在了核心的位置上,进一步考察了技术进步如何带来了更高程度的全球和寰宇整合 (global and cosmopolitan integration). 在这本书里,贝克还进一步更新了他有关”风险社会“的理论,更加强调概念之间的关联:风险和机遇就是一对孪生的概念,风险出现的同时也就带来了解决风险的潜在机会。比如他在书里宣称:气候变化可能会拯救地球——因为当我们开始探讨气候变化的时候,我们已经开始考虑采取措施来应对这种风险,气候变化才因此不至于带来灾难结局。

“我并不买贝克最后这个观点的帐,” 吉登斯总结道,”在座诸位不妨读了书之后各自做出自己的评判。” (继续推销书XD)

随后是研究”寰宇民主“ (cosmopolitan democracy) 的M. Caldor教授出场,她从贝克的寰宇主义概念出发,进一步阐述了贝克有关欧洲一体化和欧元的论述。根据她所转述的贝克的观点,提倡欧洲一体化是因为欧洲国家日益面临着全球性的风险,这些风险无法在传统的国家层面得到完美处理。而当前的欧盟实践也进一步论证了寰宇主义理论的有效性,可以被视为“事实中的寰宇主义” (cosmopolitanism in reality),成为一个被现实中的政治结构所映射的观念。至于欧元最近所遭遇的危机,则并非是将它树立为共同货币的本意。除此之外,贝克还特别关注在欧盟民主化的过程中,一个“寰宇主义的欧盟”应该长成什么样的问题,细节在此略过不表。

随后出场的是曾长期在Goldsmiths和LSE任教,最近刚转会KCL社会学系的Nikolas Rose,他也是最新版福柯文集的共同主编 (with Paul Rabinow),并长期担任Economy and Society的主编。

他就是那个来砸场子的,一上来就说,“我一向与贝克意见不合,今天我也会继续坚持己见.“ 这当然不是一句开玩笑的话。Rose老师细数了自己九十年代初在Yale与贝克相遇之后的种种思想交流,然后话锋一转开始批判后者的”风险“概念。在Rose看来,贝克的风险理论非常关注生态危机和气候变迁一类对象,并因此一直试图遵循一种实在论 (realist) 的方法路径。他所探索的主要是”现代化“工程带来的种种”真正“风险 (genuine risks), 却忽视了另一种也许无形但更致命的风险。这后一种风险未必有物质形态,也许只是经由人们对未来的预期和想象而得以呈现 (staging risks),却对当下产生着实实在在的影响,而没有被贝克纳入自己的视域之中。更进一步看,”风险“是什么,这个问题在贝克的著作里也没有得到完美地解答,他只是通过种种附加的形容词进行着五花八门地描述而已。

在另一方面,Rose认为贝克所大力鼓吹的方法论的寰宇主义 (methodological cosmopolitanism) 也需要做更多的反思,因为现在这个说辞看起来特别像一种不靠谱的乐观主义。但不管怎样,贝克自己也曾经针对自己的理论做过”忏悔“ (confession)。他2006年在Economy and Society上发表过一篇演说稿,在结尾是这么说的:

Let me end with an ironic confession of non-knowledge. I know that I, too, simply do not know. Perhaps I may add something ‘off the record’, a postscript to my lecture, as it were: knowledge of the irony of risk suggests that the omnipresence of risk in everyday life should also be treated with sceptical irony. If irony were at least the homeopathic, practical everyday antidote to world risk society, then there would be less need to worry about the British, about the Germans. At any rate this piece of advice is no more helpless than the current hope of finding the lost wallet at night in the cone of light cast by the nation-state street lamps.

这个引用是一个十分讨巧的策略,Rose老师一方面借此把自己的批评都”归咎于”贝克本人的鼓励,同时彰显了贝克的 “reflexivity,” 另一方面又顺手给自己主编了很多年的杂志做了一把广告。

在Rose的批判之后,来自LSE Media的T. Rantanen回到了正常的追思会的频率。她所讲的主要是贝克如何大力襄助Media系过去若干年的研究和博士生培养,尤其是他所提倡的”寰宇主义实在论” (cosmopolitan realism) 如何深刻地影响了她自己和她的同事们的研究路径。两个要点:一是要批判方法论的国族主义 (methodological nationalism),二是要将寰宇主义视为一种关乎日常生活和道德经验的事物,而非高高在上的抽象概念。紧随Rantanen之后的是一位LSE的年轻研究员,讲述了贝克如何提携年轻人的个人史,也从另一个侧面补充了观众们对贝克的印象,细节略过。

最后一位出场的是Richard Sennett,又一个大佬,但更是一个图书推销员。他是直接举着贝克在2002年出版的Individualization: Institutionalized Individualism and its Social and Political Consequences走上讲台的,所讲的自然也是与这本书相关的内容。

在桑内特看来,这本书最大的贡献就是用 “个体化” (individualization) 的概念取代了僵硬的 “自我” (slef) 概念,而这个过程可以通过三个关键词加以解读,分别是”经历” (experiences), “特征” (characters), 和 “话语” (narratives).

首先,德语里与 “经历” 相关的词汇有三个,分别指称 “拥有一个经历” (have an experience)、”成为一个经历” (becoming an experience) 和 “经历的性质” (qualities of experience)。传统上 “自我” 的出场都是在第一个维度上展开的,也就是首先拥有一个经历,而后作为经历之对象的自我才会浮现。贝克将关注点转向了第二和第三个维度,强调个体化是一个过程,包含着不断学习 (re-learn) 的步骤,同时也突出了经历的性质的重要地位,而非仅仅拥有一个经历那么简单。

其次,在 “特征” 方面,贝克的个体化概念最关键的点是强调个体在个体化过程中是能够与碎片共存的 (live with fragments),而非依赖于整合。

再次,以往关于自我的叙述话语大多是线性的,经典的例子可以参见托马斯曼的某部小说(名字没记住)。但是在 “个体化” 的概念之中,生活话语 (life narrative) 不再是线性的,而是如同全球性进程 (global process) 一样,不再有清楚界定的开端和结尾,而是处在不停的运动之中。

桑内特的结尾也是相当峰回路转:”上述观点由贝克负责,我并非全盘接受,但是我承认这些问题和思考这些问题的贝克路径是具有相当力量的.”


在各位嘉宾排队说完话之后,追思会进入讨论环节。具体细节继续省略,只简单记两笔好玩的事儿吧。一是吉登斯(挺贝派)跟Rose(倒贝派)相互调侃,彼此在对方发言时都做出砸场子的架势,让观众忍俊不禁。二是吉登斯在发言里好几次提到 “福柯如是说,” 听众如我感到一种莫名的违和感。回来一查谷歌学术,果然,福柯的引用率还是比吉登斯不知道高到哪里去了 (最高引用对比:45245 vs. 30624) XD

讲座录音不久会放在LSE Public Events Podcasts and Videos上,感兴趣的各位不妨到时候自己听听上面这么多人物的交流,以及更关键的,他们对乌尔里希.贝克的追思吧。

Time

March 2023
M T W T F S S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  
« Feb    

Space

  • February 2023 (1)
  • July 2022 (1)
  • March 2022 (1)
  • December 2021 (1)
  • February 2021 (1)
  • December 2020 (1)
  • May 2020 (1)
  • April 2020 (1)
  • March 2020 (2)
  • December 2019 (1)
  • April 2019 (1)
  • December 2018 (1)
  • March 2018 (1)
  • January 2018 (1)
  • December 2017 (1)
  • September 2017 (1)
  • April 2017 (1)
  • March 2017 (1)
  • November 2016 (1)
  • October 2016 (1)
  • August 2016 (1)
  • July 2016 (1)
  • June 2016 (1)
  • March 2016 (2)
  • February 2016 (1)
  • July 2015 (1)
  • May 2015 (1)
  • April 2015 (1)
  • February 2015 (2)
  • March 2014 (1)
  • October 2013 (3)

Spacetime

  • Academic (25)
  • Beijing (1)
  • Events (16)
  • Field (7)
  • London (4)
  • Publication (2)
  • Reading (12)
  • Teaching (3)
  • Travel (1)

Moments

  • About
  • Events
  • Publication
  • Urban Poetry Society

Articulation

  • Register
  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.com

The right to the city

  • 23,543 rights

Keywords

Beijing central-park conference critical displacement encounter ethnography event Geography Greenbelt identity infrastructure jiehebu land lecture Lefebvre London LSE materiality method methodology metropolitan migration modernism modernity neoliberalism notes nyc PKU political economy politics property Quito-papers research RGS-IBG rights Sociology space state summer syllabus Teaching theory urban urbanisation waste

Seminars

Reeva Mills on Selected Panels in 2015 AAG An…
Professor Hyun Bang… on About
Enid on 大卫·哈维的黄金时代
Follow Read Cities on WordPress.com

Join!

RSS Feed RSS - Posts

Encounters

No upcoming events

Blog at WordPress.com.

Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
  • Follow Following
    • Read Cities
    • Join 27 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • Read Cities
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...