透過您的圖書館登入
IP:3.91.176.3
  • 學位論文

反璞玉運動的行動邏輯:當代竹北的發展民族誌

The Logic of Action in Anti-Poyu Movement: A Development Ethnography of Contemporary Zhubei

指導教授 : 陳瑞樺

摘要


「竹北地方的人們是如何、以及為何反對璞玉計畫」是本論文主要的問題意識。璞玉計畫,指的是竹北地區的「台灣知識經濟旗艦園區」開發計畫。計畫推出後,地方上反對該計畫的人們成立了「反璞玉自救會」,試圖阻擋、改變這個計畫的內容。2009年台灣農村陣線成立以後,「反璞玉自救會」的訴求逐漸與台灣農村陣線主張的「反土徵」論述靠攏;然而,我長時間的田野觀察卻發現,地方上反對璞玉計畫的人們其實存在另外一套反璞玉計畫的行動邏輯。了解反璞玉運動的行動邏輯,便是本文主要的目的。 我將本文的研究取徑命名為「發展民族誌」。這個構想在架構上受到James Scott《弱者的武器》一書的啟發,觀察內容則借鏡於後發展(post-development)的批判以及莊雅仲等人的研究成果。透過「發展民族誌」,我希望說明反對璞玉計畫的勢力如何在一個快速發展的背景之下形成,以及當代地方社會對於發展的想像又是什麼。 在竹北長時間的發展過程中,抵價地的區段徵收一直是政府取得土地的政策工具,許多地主也因此累積了財富。透過地方社會中「日常生活的人際網絡」,個人透過徵收累積財富的經驗,得以被轉化為一種集體的認識和心態。另外,竹北過去的發展經驗,主要透過科學園區與大學城論述,作為合理化區段徵收的願景。經過了幾十年之後,隨著這些政策支票的透支,人們不僅懷疑類似的開發計畫的合理性,也對於這些發展計畫所宣稱能帶來的經濟效益感到不信任。綜合以上,反璞玉運動的行動邏輯,其實是在反對現行璞玉計畫所做的安排,擔心計畫宣稱的經濟發展效益可能跳票,而非如反土徵所宣稱的反對區段徵收制度。 透過發展民族誌的考察,我希望說明反璞玉運動中「私利」的歷史成因。行動者並非「搭便車」或「假公濟私」,而是在經過長時間的發展經驗中,找尋自己的生存之道。 關鍵字:發展民族誌 璞玉計畫 社會運動 竹北 區段徵收

並列摘要


The main thesis of this paper is to figure out how and why people resist “Poyu Development Plan”, an urban development plan in Zhubei area, Taiwan. The “Poyu Development Plan” is also known as the Construction of Taiwan Knowledge Economy Park. When the development plan was proposed, people lived in Zhubei area formed the Anti-poyu Organization as an initiation against Poyu Development Plan. In 2009, Taiwan Rural Front, organization established by several academics and activists, became the major force to against zone expropriation in Taiwan. With the help of Taiwan Rural Front, the appeal of the anti-poyu movement has changed into anti-zone-expropriation. According my five-year fieldwork, anti-poyu movement however has followed another logic of action, which cannot be in accordance with the appeal of anti-zone expropriation. Thus, this paper mainly aims to explain the logic of action behind anti-poyu movement. I define my methodology as a “development ethnography”. The framework of this methodology is inspired by The Weapon of the Weak, a classic anthropology works in contemporary by James Scott. On the other hand, the content of this ethnography refers to the studies of post-development school and the research by Professor Ya-Chung Chuang, et al. With this development ethnography, I hope to give an explanation about how the force of anti-poyu movement is organized during a rapid developing era, and what people really think of development. By the means of “pay-for-land” zone expropriation, the local government was able to expropriate the land they need with little resistance, yet the landlords meanwhile could accumulate their wealth with these “pay-for-lands”. With a “daily-life –network” in local society, these experiences of accumulation would transform into a collective mentality that accounts for the means of how people value the institution of zone expropriation. In spite of material and institutional condition, both an expecting growth of science park and a “university-city” discourse support zone-expropriation development in Zhubei. Whereas, few decades later, people finally began to question about the liability of these developmental plans after the expectations and goals have fallen. Through the “development ethnography”, I hope to give a picture on how self-interest in anti-poyu movement has been constructed in chronicle and historical perspectives. Within a long duration of development, actors are searching for the suitable ways of living, which yet cannot be simply regarded as taking free rides. Above all, the logic of action in anti-poyu movement is a protest against the content of Poyu Development Plan. The protest reflects the fact that rather than an overall resistance to zone expropriation institution, the locals does not satisfy the arrangement for the plan, and they hardly believed in what authorities has proclaimed: the development plan will eventually benefit to economy. Keywords: development ethnography, Poyu Development Plan, social movement, Zhubei, zone expropriation.

參考文獻


吳沛憶。2012。《挑戰發展主義霸權:國光石化爭議研究》,新竹市:國立清華大學社會學研究所碩士論文。
李素蘭。2010。《台灣區段徵收制度之政經分析》,台北市:國立台灣大學政治學研究所碩士論文。
陳瑞樺。2014。《一本呈現主體運動經驗的 後解嚴民主民族誌:評【民主台灣:後威權時代的社會運動與文化政治】》,台灣社會學 (28),頁193-204
夏傳位。2014。《什麼是新自由主義?三種理論觀點的比較研究》,台灣社會學 (27),頁 141-166。
趙鼎新。2007。《社會運動與革命:理論更新和中國經驗》,台北市: 巨流圖書股份有限公司。

延伸閱讀