尺度政治理论框架

目前国内外对尺度及尺度政治的讨论十分热烈。本文在整合已有研究的基础上,基于主体与结构视角提出了一个三阶段的尺度政治理论框架,指出政治过程和权力结构的尺度化是尺度政治的前提,尺度重构是尺度政治的核心机制,权力关系重构是尺度政治的目的和结果。具体而言,尺度化涉及物质空间、组织空间和表达空间的大小、层级、范围等结构关系;尺度重构包含由尺度上推、下推、重组,以及上述不同尺度形式构成的3×3矩阵;不同政治主体会采用特定尺度重构策略改变权力关系,并造成一系列尺度关系和合法性的悖论。基于以上认识,本文进一步讨论了中西方关于尺度和尺度政治的认知差异和未来值得深入研究的课题。

Towards a theoretical framework of 'politics of scale'

Since Neil Smith initiated the arguments of "politics of scale" based on his studies of the homeless, scale has become a hot topic in political geography. However, it is a pity that a comprehensive theoretical model of "politics of scale" has still not been developed despite of a large number of debates on the concept of scale itself and various empirical studies conducted in different cultures. In this article, we propose a three-step theoretical model of "politics of scale" based on the existing literature, especially the structural and post-structural perspectives to power, the second-abstraction view of scale, and the large volume of empirical studies on scalar politics. We argue that "politics of scale" is pillared on the processes of scalization, rescaling, and articulation of scale with power relations. Specifically, in "politics of scale" power relations are embedded in various forms of scale that can be mainly decomposed into size in material space, level in organizational space, and scope in discursive space. The existing scale frames or scalar relations are reshaped or rearticulated by different political actors. A three by three matrix is developed to incorporate the dazzling strategies of rescaling in terms of scaling-up, scaling-down, and rescaling. Different political actors will adopt different rescaling strategies to transform the power relations and legitimate/problematize governmental rationality according to their own interests. Several basic laws and paradoxes of "politics of scale" are summarized. The specific characteristics of "politics of scale" in China compared with its Western counterparts are also summarized, including the dominance of administrative level, underdevelopment of scaled discourses, and decisive roles of the Internet and international intervention. We also point out some issues worth further exploration, such as the problem of political justice in "politics of scale" and extension of the "geographical meaning" of scale in political geography. This article may contribute to the growing literature on scale and Chinese political geographical studies.