1990 年以来广州市摊贩空间政治的规训机制

近年来,针对某些群体的复仇型或后公正空间政治成为西方城市地理学理解20 世纪80 年代以来城市转型的重要理论。现有的研究注意到了这种空间政治嵌入地方的多样形态,但对其内含的对立性缺乏研究。中国社会转型过程中发生的现实空间矛盾为开展我国背景下的公共空间政治研究提供了源泉。本文基于列菲弗尔的基本空间理论,采用结构-能动的分析路径,运用宏观的政策和制度分析与对典型案例的观察、半结构式访谈、深度访谈相结合的综合方法,以摊贩现象为切入点对90 年代以来广州城市空间政治进行了研究。研究表明,一种排斥性公共空间政治内在地包含了由结构性的规训与能动性的反规训构成的对立性,这一特性在广州表现为：① 对摊贩的排斥性空间政治是作为解决发展的潜在危机而实施综合环境改善战略的组成部分而产生,并导致一种更为明显的“全景敞视主义”式规训机制的形成。② 对立的空间通过摊贩日常式的伺机而动和温顺的不遵守与插曲式的个体暴力和集体行动而形成,结果战略空间被重构为以维持个体生存、摆脱贫困和追求自由为目的的工具空间。这种对立性在根源上是一种社会产物,而产生的实际冲突状况则将取决于空间发展观念及规训策略与反规训力量两者之间的对抗或协调程度。

Discipline and Anti-discipline:Spatial Politics of Urban Street Vending in Guangzhou since the 1990s

In the recent Western urban geography, the revanchist or post-justice politics of space targeting urban subaltern groups has become a critical concept for understanding urban changes since the 1980s. Current literature has demonstrated the diversity of the revanchist city or urban revanchism which emerges in specific place with“actually existing”form. However, the excluded disadvantaged groups have been always placed in a passive position where they seem to have no agency to respond to the revanchist politics. This article aims to demonstrate the contrariety and instability of such an exclusionary, revanchist politics of space, through the study of spatial politics of urban street vending in Guangzhou since the 1990s. Based upon Lefebvre's space theory, the analysis is conducted within a structure-agency framework. We integrate the methods of analysis of related policy and institution and observation, semi-structure and in-depth interview of street vendors, city managers, residents and indoor shop owners. It is argued that an exclusionary politics of public space essentially includes mutual-contradictory factors consisting of the structural discipline force and anti-discipline force as agency. On the one hand, the revanchist politics of street vendors has been embedded in the process of urban environment improvement strategy for solving the potential crisis of development in the 1980s. A discipline mechanism with an analogous form of panopticism is appropriated by municipal government to regulate and exclude street vendors for the sake of strategic space. On the other hand, the counter spaces are formed through the everyday and episodic form of resistance by street vendors. The former is characterized by tactics of waiting game and docile inobservance, while the latter is marked by individual violence and collective protest. As a result, strategic space is redefined as a tool space by street vendors for sustaining individual survival, alleviating poverty and pursuing freedom. The contrariety of the revanchist politics of space is in its origin a social product, while the conflict situation it engendered will to a large extent lie on the extent to which the discipline and anti-discipline forces coordinate or confront in the practice.