资本循环视角下大遗址区乡村社会空间生产机制研究——以秦始皇陵为例

中国大遗址名录中80%以上的大遗址位于城郊或郊野地区,遗址文物保护与旅游开发不可避免地会影响到大遗址区乡村社会空间。分析大遗址区社会经济发展的规律,是实现大遗址区乡村振兴的关键。论文以秦始皇陵大遗址区为案例地,探寻资本逻辑下大遗址区乡村社会空间生产机制。研究发现：① 资本对最优区位的选择产生大遗址区乡村社会空间分异。由于各村庄的自然环境、交通条件、保护区划的限制条件及其与已开发遗存点距离等因素存在差异,资本的选择性投入产生了大遗址区乡村社会空间分异。② 村庄生产方式调整是大遗址区社会空间演变的内在动力。大遗址区乡村社会空间生产是在文物保护的框架下,由于旅游开发的正外部性促进资本流动影响到村庄生产方式调整,进而影响社会关系转变的过程。③ 政府政策措施对大遗址区资本的引导控制是外部影响因素。大遗址的文物脆弱性决定了展示利用过程中必须保证政府的强干预性,村庄生产方式转变可能产生保护与发展的矛盾,因此需要政府权力的介入,进一步导致了村庄生产方式调整。大遗址区乡村社会空间生产是一个动态演进、螺旋式上升的过程。政府有效管理、市场与村庄社区合理介入才能保障大遗址区乡村合理发展与转型。

Rural social space production mechanism in a Great Relics Area from the perspective of capital circulation theory of Harvey:A case of Qin Shihuang Mausoleum

As more than 80% of the sites in the list of China's Great Relics Sites are located in suburban or rural areas, relics protection and tourism development will inevitably affect the rural social space around the heritage areas. Analysis of the patterns of social and economic development is the key to achieving the rural revitalization strategy. This study took the heritage area of Qin Shihuang Mausoleum as a case study area and used questionnaire, face-to-face interview, field survey, and other methods to examine the development of rural society around the area in the past 30 years. The study transformed the traditional society-space binary opposition analysis and constructed the society-space dialectical analysis method based on the Space Production Theory and David Harvey's Capital Circulation Theory to explore the mutual feedback mechanism of society and space in the countryside around the heritage area of the Qin Shihuang Mausoleum under the influence of capital. The results show that: 1) The flow of capital to the optimal location results in the differentiation of rural social space in the study area. Due to the differences in the natural environment, traffic conditions, constraints of protection zones, and the distance from the developed heritage sites, the selective investment of capital has resulted in the differentiation of rural social space in the heritage area. 2) The adjustment of rural production mode is the internal driving force of the evolution of social space in the heritage area. Under the framework of cultural relic protection, rural social space production in the relics area is a process in which the positive externality of tourism development promotes the capital flow to adjust the rural production mode, thereby affecting the social relations. 3) The government policy to the restriction of capital access in the heritage area is an external factor. The vulnerability of cultural relics in the heritage area determines that the government's strong intervention must be guaranteed in the process of display and utilization. The transformation of rural production mode that may lead to the conflict between protection and development requires the intervention of the governments, further affecting the adjustment of rural production mode. The spatial production of rural social space in the heritage area is a process of dynamic evolution and spiral rise. Only by the effective management of the government and reasonable participation of the market and rural community can we guarantee the rational development and transformation of rural communities in the heritage area.