被壓抑的回歸－－珠江三角洲農民與城市空間

The Return of the Repressed： Peasant and city space in the Pearl River Delta

葉蔭聰(Iam-Chong Ip)

指導教授 ： 夏鑄九

國立臺灣大學/工學院/建築與城鄉研究所/博士(2007年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2007.01517

摘要

本研究嘗試處理兩個新問題，這些新問題既源於當代中國開放改革以來的社會轉變，亦受著近年城市理論及研究的啟發；第一類問題涉及「城市」的當代意義，在行政體系轉變以外，當代中國出現了怎樣的新的城市空間？；第二類涉及主體問題，在國家權力運作下，城市論述的問題意義偏向自上而下，只關心如何使各類群體如何適應，與官方政策及制度如何整合起來，卻沒有注意到各類群體如何主動生產城市空間，當中的社會過程又如何？只有回答及回應這些問題，才能為當代中國城市研究尋找到新方向，亦是探尋當代中國現代性的切入點。本研究選擇研究珠江三角洲兩類基層社會的群體－－外來農民工及本地農民，並以東莞S鎮中井村作為田野考察基地，從他們的主體城市經驗角度來看城市過程。

珠江三角洲的農民工是這個「世界工廠」的勞動大軍，他們由內陸農村來到城市及沿海地區，被置放在「打工仔�女」的身份位置上。不少研究文獻指出這個社會群體由生產體制所塑造，在勞動過程中，生產體制複製著現存制度中的不平等關係，包括城鄉及地域差距。本研究試圖進一步從再產生（reproduction）的面向，指出生產的社會關係與城市的政治經濟過程的連結，資本主義帶來的社會矛盾，沒有體現在再生產勞動力的集體消費（如住屋及教育）上，更沒有由於政府介入而產生的城市政治，他們作為「打工仔�女」，被抽離於工業城鎮的社會之外。值得注意的是兩類特別的新空間，一為親屬同鄉關係，另一為工廠－宿舍體制，大部份集體消費功能被吸納回資本主義生產制度及空間中。工人的「打工仔�女」身份，不是一個階級身份，而是一個被工廠規訓、監視甚至收納的個體，這樣的身份設置，限制了他們發展成當地社會的一員，使他們無法作為一個社會階級在當地社會安頓及扎根。

同時，農民工亦並不完全被動接受這種制度安排，他們亦有回應這種新權力組合的方式。雖然工廠－宿舍制度打造個體化的「打工者」，但是，不少民工期望部份或全部脫離工廠－宿舍，建立自己的「家」，甚至進一步在銷售市場上當小規模個體戶，在兩者互相滋長下而形成當地的民工社群。他們在日常論述中，把自主與自由投注在「家」這個空間，以及「老闆」的身份上，後者更成為出人頭地的代名詞。他們追求獲取小老闆身份的慾望，源起於他們對薪資勞動的異化制度感到挫折，進而渴望重新進入及掌握金錢經濟、商品流動，以及地方市場。故此，他們的異化勞動所帶來的城市經驗，並不是西方社會學理論所理解的「都市厭棄」，他們真正的厭棄對象，是工廠制度與薪資勞動，但諷刺地，它帶來自由與羈絆，而農民工應對的方式亦主要並非個體心理的封閉，而是主動籌謀逃逸，想像向上的階級流動。從這個角度看，「小商戶化」既是擺脫異化舉動，亦是一種特別的金錢「拜物主義」（fetishism），成為一種特有的都市文化。

至於本地農民，他們經歷了農村內部的階級分化。80年代後，農民面對無產階級化壓力增加，農民失去土地，在地方市場上也開始失去優勢，這些正在改變著農村的社會分工，唯一減慢或轉化這個過程的是，農村基層組織的膨脹及吸納，由於其基層管理權力的膨脹，以及加強治安能力的需要，增聘了不少年青勞動力，稍為紓緩了部份無產階級化的壓力，同時形成了本地社群的基礎。然而，90年代的土地風潮亦形成了新的社會階級結構，90年代末以後，雖然隨著土地風潮的過去，幹部不再容易在改動土地用途上積累財富資本，但過去的十多年，已造就了一群富人，幹部的特權在工業生產體系中仍然延續，他們的資本積累依靠工廠繼續進行，地方幹部的權力在工業資本發展中，仍然是造成階級分化的重要因素，並在地理空間形成獨特關係。

階級分化以及本地社群的形成，構成了多種非官方「集體」或社群冒現的背景，形成農村城市化過程中空間政治的重要社會關係。村民重新發明及活化的村落傳統，以及由此形成的社會紐帶，彰顯道義經濟，衝擊著黨國在基層的權威，同時，亦構成新農村治理的動態關係。這些社群的冒起，是本地農民脫離土地過程中及後的產物，他們環繞著作為社會財貨（social goods）的「土地」，商議出一種道義經濟的社群共識，並以此作為爭取自身利益的基礎，與農村政權周旋。

本研究所辨認的群體能動性，曾是及持續受社會主義中國所壓抑的，他們正以迂迴的路徑回歸，展現在當代中國的都市文化及現代性中。本文嘗試把本研究的發現，置放在當代中國現代性論述中進行考察，指出了知識份子論述在新的語境中建立批判性所遇到的困境，無法在理論或實踐上對社會動力群體作出辨認及展望。因此，本研究從主體及空間的角度，所呈現的新興都市文化多樣性，特別是「家居－市場」與社群的自主性，以及非正規與傳統的新意義，這些認識可以協助我們作重新建構當代中國知識份子的批判性視角，以及社會投入與實踐（engagement）。

關鍵字

中國 ； 珠江三角洲 ； 城市 ； 城市過程 ； 農民 ； 農民工 ； 社群 ； 村落 ； 現代性 ； 都市文化

並列摘要

This study attempts to answer two new questions. These two questions emerge out of the social transformation since the open policy and economic reform in contemporary China. They are also inspired by the urban theories and research in recent years. The first question involves the contemporary significance of “city”. Beside the changes in administrative system, what new urban spaces appear in contemporary China? The second question is about subjectivity. The operation of state power turns the problematic of urban discourses into a top-down perspective. It is only concerned with how various groups of people adapt to the new environment and how they integrate themselves into the government policies and institution. However, it neglects how various social groups actively produce urban spaces and the social processes involved. Answering and responding to these questions, one could be able to look for new directions for urban studies in contemporary China. This is also the cutting point for exploring modernity. This study focuses on two groups of people from the grassroots in the Pearl River Delta, peasant workers from inland province and local peasants. With the field experience in Zhongjing village, Town S, Dongguan city as the site of this research, I analyze the urban processes from the subjective experience of peasant workers and local peasants.

In Pearl River Delta, peasant workers are the labor force of this “World Factory”. They comes from inland province to cities and coastal areas. They are placed at the subject position of “dagong zai/mei”. Many studies point out that the production regime shapes this social group, and in the labor process, it replicates the inequality of the current social system, including urban-rural and regional disparities. This study attempts to further explore the dimension of reproduction and to specify the articulation of the social relations of production with the urban politico-economic process. The social conflict brought about by capitalism emerges neither in the collective consumption for labor reproduction (such as housing and education), nor in the urban politics initiated by state intervention. As “dagong zai/mei”, they are alienated from the society of industrial towns. There are two types of new spaces are noteworthy. The first one is kinship and native-place relationships. Another one is factory-dormitory regime. Most functions of collective consumption are absorbed into capitalist production and space. The identity of “dagong zai/mei” is not a class identity. It is an individual subject to factory discipline, monitoring and even absorption. This identity position restricts them from developing into members of the local society. They are not able to settle down and take roots in it as a social class.

Yet peasant workers do not accept these institutional arrangements passively. They strongly respond to this new power configuration. Even though the factory-dormitory regime builds up the individualized identity of “dagong zai/ mei”, many peasant workers seek partial or complete ways out of factory-dormitory to establish their “homes”. Some even becomes self-employed in the local retailing market. In the midst of the interaction between the factory and the local market, there emerges the local peasant workers' communities. In their daily discourses, they see their “homes” and the identity of “boss” as a space of autonomy and freedom. To become a boss is to achieve upward mobility. Their desire of gaining the identity of “small boss” arises from their frustration by the alienated system of wage labor. They desperately pursue access to money economy, commodity circulation and local market. Their urban experience of alienated labor is not “blasé” defined by western sociological theories. What they detest is factory system and wage labor rather than city life. But ironically these two systems bring them both freedom and fetter. In response, they do not retreat to their individual psychology; instead they actively plan to escape and imagine ways of upward mobility. From this perspective, “petty bourgeois-ization” is not only getting out class alienation, but also a sort of money fetishism, a special kind of urbanity.

The local peasant undergoes the process of class differentiation within rural village. From the 1980s onwards, they are under the pressure of proletarianization. They lost farm land and advantages in local market. These transformations change the social division of labor in rural village. The only way against this process is the expansion of village government and its administrative power. The need of strengthening security force leads to more recruitment of young people. It mitigates the pressure of proletarianization and forms the basis of the local society. In the 1990s, a new class structure is also formed by land expropriation and speculation. After the late 1990s when the land speculation no longer runs high, the local cadres could not accumulate wealth and capital by expropriating farm land. In spite of it, a small group of wealth people have become established over the past two decades and the privilege of cadres continues to exist in the industrial production system. They could rely on factory to further capital accumulation. The power of local cadres in the industrial production is still an important factor widening class difference and shaping local geography.

In the context of class differentiation and the formation of local society, various “collectivities” or communities comes out as the important social relations in urbanization. They play important role in the spatial politics of the village. Villagers re-invent and revitalize their historical heritage and build up social connections. Their moral economy poses a great challenge to the authority of the part-state power in the grassroots. The new governance of village also relies on it. The emergence of these communities are consequence of the alienation of peasants from their land. With their land as “social goods”, they conjure up a community consensus of moral economy to fight for their interest and negotiate with the village government.

The social agencies identified by this research were and are repressed by socialist China. But now many communities return to contemporary urbanism and modernity in oblique ways. This study attempts to contextualize itself in the contemporary Chinese discourses on modernity. It addresses their difficulties in establishing a critical perspective facing intellectuals in the new context,. They are not able to identify and call for any social agent in theory and practice. This study, from the perspectives of subjectivity and space, shows the diversity of newly emerging urbanities, particularly the autonomy of “household-market” and community, and the new meanings of “informality” and “tradition”. They provide a new beginning for contemporary Chinese intellectual to formulate critical perspectives and social engagement.

並列關鍵字

China ； Pearl River Delta ； city ； urban process ； peasant ； peasant worker ； community ； village ； modernity ； urbanity

參考文獻

顧忠華（2005）〈論社會科學的開放性與公共性〉。《臺灣社會學刊》第35卷，第12期， 1-21。

瞿宛文（2001）〈全球化與自由化之後的台灣石化業〉。《台灣社會研究》，第44期，13-47。

吳介民（2000）〈壓榨人性空間：身分差序與中國式多重剝削〉。《台灣社會研究季刊》，第39期，1-44。

趙剛（2000）〈如今批判還可能嗎？－－與汪暉商榷一個批判的現代主義計劃及其問題〉。《台灣社會研究季刊》，第37期，45-73。

汪暉（2000a）〈當代中國的思想狀況與現代性問題〉。《台灣社會研究季刊》，第37期，1-43。