抗爭下的環境“異議”：大林反焚化爐事件分析

本文試圖透過對大林反焚化爐事件的分析，回顧近20年的焚化爐政策，及在地抗爭的權力操作。該事件起於嘉義縣大林鎮小型焚化爐的設置，引發在地居民歷時約一年的集體抗爭。90年4月12日，一場自發性的宗教護土儀式，爆發成反焚化爐的流血衝突，也躍爲全國媒體矚目的焦點，最後結果焚化爐停建。相對於先前的環境論述，將此類事件定位爲個人身體、居住空間或自然環境被侵害後的反抗，本文由批判理論著手，透過環境社會學相關論述，重新理解事件中的權力佈局與在地抗爭的源由，並注入所有權概念，探索主體行動力的基礎。焚化爐的興建，是爲快速處理社會生産/消費的最終廢棄物，然而，連帶的邊陲效應與污染疑慮，經常是抗爭事件的焦點。大林事件中，老農民所展現強大的動員力，反對的只是焚化爐嗎？事件的主導與自我的參與，如何在老舊農業社區成形？2004年初，參與行動的個別受訪者清楚而明確地陳述，焚化爐興建過程中，階級/利益/派系衝突所導致的各方對立/使力，更重要的是，對照個人在社會生産關係中的自我認知，個別主體強調此事件與切身相關，自發性地投入抗爭的同時，也壯大自我，重新註解個人生命歷程。回溯此事件，值得提問的是，個人如何對合理化的權力提出異議，策略性地突破外在結構的制約？

關鍵字

批判理論；權力；抗爭；自我的技術；焚化爐；所有權

並列摘要

With the analysis of the local combats in Dalin, this article attempts to retrace the incineration policy in the past 20 years and the corresponsive management of powers in the local field. For about one year, people there struggled to annul such a plan. On April 12, 2001, the local religious celebration turned to be a blooded conflict, drawing public attentions throughout Taiwan. Finally, the planned incinerator had been hung up. Researching similar cases, previous discussion has fixed attention on resistance to damage to bodies, living space, and nature. By contrast, this study focused on critical theories which have commented the social movements for the past decades. The structural power deployment and causes of local resistance will be reexamined with environmental sociology and the analysis of ownership. An incinerator is assigned to clear the wastes of social production/consumption. However, its associated peripheral effects and dubious pollution often set it at the center of local resistance. In this case, why were the old farmers mobilized to be against the incinerator? How the determination and participation of the self was made in the old community? At the beginning of 2004, the invisible power struggle was revealed in conversation with local participants. It is more important that everyone stressed this incinerator concerned him on account of his conceptual relation of social production. They were invested in combats on their own initiative, empowered themselves, and redefined their life. How was the structural limit broken through dissidence of existing political rationality? It's a worthwhile question in this case.