地理研究 ›› 2019, Vol. 38 ›› Issue (9): 2148-2161.doi: 10.11821/dlyj020180924

• 观点与争鸣 • 上一篇    下一篇

城市化进程中的“去领域化”与“再领域化”:兼议城乡治理——对广州市江口村 (① 按照学术规范,本文对人名和地名进行匿名处理。)的分析

黄晓星1,马凌2()   

  1. 1. 中山大学城市社会研究中心、社会学与社会工作系,广州510275
    2. 广州大学地理科学学院,广州大学华南人文地理与城市发展研究中心,广州510006
  • 收稿日期:2018-09-03 修回日期:2019-06-12 出版日期:2019-09-20 发布日期:2019-09-11
  • 通讯作者: 马凌 E-mail:maria_ma1977@126.com
  • 作者简介:黄晓星(1984-),男,广东普宁人,博士,副教授,博士生导师,主要研究方向为城市社会学、社区研究。E-mail: huangxiaoxing@hotmail.com
  • 基金资助:
    国家社会科学基金重大项目(15ZDA046);国家自然科学基金项目(41971183);中山大学高校基本科研业务费专项资金(18wkzd10)

“De-territorialization”and “re-territorialization”in the process of urbanization: A case study of Jiangkou Village, Guangzhou

HUANG Xiaoxing1,MA Ling2()   

  1. 1. Center for Urban Studies & Department of Sociology and Social Work, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510275, China
    2. School of Geographical Sciences, Research Center for Human Geography and Urban Development in Southern China, Guangzhou University, Guangzhou 510006, China
  • Received:2018-09-03 Revised:2019-06-12 Online:2019-09-20 Published:2019-09-11
  • Contact: Ling MA E-mail:maria_ma1977@126.com

摘要:

领域化是当前政治地理研究的核心概念和理论。城市化将农村区域划入“城市”之中,城市局限往往通过土地扩张来解决,地方和国家等不同行动者呈现出不同尺度的领域化和去领域化的策略。本文以广州一个正在城市化的村落为例展开历时态研究,并得出以下结论:首先,城市化中的“领域化”和“去领域化”第一层次为土地,国家根据法律以及城市依据自身发展需要将土地纳入城市范畴;其次,第二层次为围绕利益空间的“领域化”和“去领域化”,伴随着地方政府、企业、村集体、村民等的策略,不同主体和话语开始进入并协商博弈;第三层次为地方认同,竞争性的“再领域化”促成地方认同的产生和变化。这三个层次的不一致性导致了不同时期治理方式的差异和治理困境的产生。本文从领域化理论视角深入探究尺度政治如何在城市化过程中产生和得以体现,以及不同城市化发展时期和城市空间转变中的城乡边界动态变化、村落自我调整的复杂过程以及城乡融合过程中的治理挑战,最后给出政策思考和建议。

关键词: 城市化, 城乡边界, 领域化, 去(再)领域化, 城乡治理

Abstract:

Territorialization is a key theoretical concept in political geography. In this paper, the authors adopt the perspective of territorialization and re(de)-territorialization to analyze the urbanization in China. In the process of urbanization, the limitation on urban development is resolved by the territorial expansion, in which the city expropriates more land for development and the ‘non-urban’ area is absorbed into ‘urban’ area. The actors in different scales, including the local government and central government, adopt different strategies of re-territorialization and de-territorialization. Based on the diachronic analysis of a case of an urbanizing village in Guangzhou, the paper summarizes three levels of territorialization of urbanization in China: First, the territorialization of urbanization is on space level. The land is the basic element in urbanizing process. The urban state and the peasants held the same recognition on land ownership that the land belongs to the state. The state and the city, based on the land rules and the needs of urban development, transfer the rural land to urban area. In this process, the rural area is absorbed into urban area, and the urban and rural space is re-adjusted. In the meantime, the administrative institution is transferred from rural system to urban system, from village to community. The second level is on the territorialization and de-territorialization of the space for interests. With their own strategies, multiple actors - local government, companies, village committee and villagers - enter the space for interests, negotiating and bargaining for their respective benefits. Different actors adopt different discourses in order to acquire more benefits. The urban state expropriates the rural land in order to develop economy. From the viewpoint of peasants and the collective, they benefited from the land expropriation, but lost the stable benefits of land in the end. As the economy develops, the peasants hope to obtain sustainable benefit. The third level is about place identity, where the competing strategies of re-territorialization lead to the generation and transition of place identity. The urban sprawl brings changes to the villages as well as the villagers. The communities finally get into the bottom layer of the urban administrative structure. The inconformity in these three levels causes discrepancies in governance at various times and further leads to the dilemma of governance. From the the perspective of territorialization, the paper discusses how the political scale is emerging from and reflected by the process of urbanization. After a review of the transitions of the boundaries between ‘urban’ and ‘rural’ areas in different periods, the complicated process of self-adjustment of the village, and the governance dilemma in the integration of ‘urban’ and ‘rural’ areas, the paper gives some advice.

Key words: urbanization, the boundaries of urban and rural areas, territorialization, de-territorialization, governance