南非和斯威士兰传统权力对城市发展影响的比较分析

IF 1 4区 社会学 Q2 AREA STUDIES African Studies Pub Date : 2021-04-03 DOI:10.1080/00020184.2021.1932417
H. Simelane, M. Sihlongonyane
{"title":"南非和斯威士兰传统权力对城市发展影响的比较分析","authors":"H. Simelane, M. Sihlongonyane","doi":"10.1080/00020184.2021.1932417","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Scholars have tended to overemphasise the influence of the colonisers. This precludes an analysis of the ability of indigenous populations to resist, reimagine and remake colonial visions of urban life. However, Tom Goodfellow and Stefan Lindemann (2013) have observed a widespread ‘resurgence’ of traditional authorities in Africa since the 1990s – meaning indigenous political structures have recently experienced a revival (Englebert 2002; Foucher & Smith 2011; Ubink 2008a). Chimhowu (2019, 898) writes, ‘Typical reform countries like Ghana, South Africa, Kenya, South Sudan, Tanzania, Burkina Faso, Uganda and Zambia have built this into their reforms’. This article explores the institution and influences of chiefs in both South Africa and Eswatini. It looks at the historical relationship between chieftaincy and the urban, and explores factors that have implications for the future of urban governance in the two countries. The article examines the ways in which chieftaincy influences over urban life have both subverted and been subverted by the colonial project in the two countries. The authors argue that while many of the categories and divisions of (settler) colonial rule are still visible in the two countries, the traditional authorities have engaged in local practices that reimagine and remake urban life, centred on the role of chieftaincy. These practices are made visible mostly on the urban peripheries, which have absorbed a large proportion of the poor since the end of the colonial era.","PeriodicalId":51769,"journal":{"name":"African Studies","volume":"80 1","pages":"153 - 171"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/00020184.2021.1932417","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Comparative Analysis of the Influence of Traditional Authority in Urban Development in South Africa and Eswatini\",\"authors\":\"H. Simelane, M. Sihlongonyane\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/00020184.2021.1932417\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Scholars have tended to overemphasise the influence of the colonisers. This precludes an analysis of the ability of indigenous populations to resist, reimagine and remake colonial visions of urban life. However, Tom Goodfellow and Stefan Lindemann (2013) have observed a widespread ‘resurgence’ of traditional authorities in Africa since the 1990s – meaning indigenous political structures have recently experienced a revival (Englebert 2002; Foucher & Smith 2011; Ubink 2008a). Chimhowu (2019, 898) writes, ‘Typical reform countries like Ghana, South Africa, Kenya, South Sudan, Tanzania, Burkina Faso, Uganda and Zambia have built this into their reforms’. This article explores the institution and influences of chiefs in both South Africa and Eswatini. It looks at the historical relationship between chieftaincy and the urban, and explores factors that have implications for the future of urban governance in the two countries. The article examines the ways in which chieftaincy influences over urban life have both subverted and been subverted by the colonial project in the two countries. The authors argue that while many of the categories and divisions of (settler) colonial rule are still visible in the two countries, the traditional authorities have engaged in local practices that reimagine and remake urban life, centred on the role of chieftaincy. These practices are made visible mostly on the urban peripheries, which have absorbed a large proportion of the poor since the end of the colonial era.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51769,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"African Studies\",\"volume\":\"80 1\",\"pages\":\"153 - 171\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-04-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/00020184.2021.1932417\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"African Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/00020184.2021.1932417\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"AREA STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"African Studies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00020184.2021.1932417","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"AREA STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

学者们倾向于过分强调殖民者的影响。这就排除了对土著居民抵抗、重新想象和改造殖民地城市生活愿景的能力的分析。然而,Tom Goodfellow和Stefan Lindemann(2013)观察到自20世纪90年代以来非洲传统权威的广泛“复苏”-这意味着土著政治结构最近经历了复兴(Englebert 2002;Foucher & Smith 2011;Ubink 2008)。Chimhowu(2019,898)写道,“加纳、南非、肯尼亚、南苏丹、坦桑尼亚、布基纳法索、乌干达和赞比亚等典型的改革国家已经将这一点纳入了他们的改革中。”本文探讨了南非和斯瓦蒂尼酋长的制度及其影响。它着眼于酋长与城市之间的历史关系,并探讨了对两国未来城市治理有影响的因素。本文考察了酋长对城市生活的影响是如何被两个国家的殖民项目所颠覆的。作者认为,虽然(定居者)殖民统治的许多类别和划分在这两个国家仍然可见,但传统当局已经参与了以酋长角色为中心的重新设想和重塑城市生活的当地实践。这些做法主要体现在城市边缘地区,自殖民时代结束以来,这些地区吸收了很大一部分穷人。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
A Comparative Analysis of the Influence of Traditional Authority in Urban Development in South Africa and Eswatini
ABSTRACT Scholars have tended to overemphasise the influence of the colonisers. This precludes an analysis of the ability of indigenous populations to resist, reimagine and remake colonial visions of urban life. However, Tom Goodfellow and Stefan Lindemann (2013) have observed a widespread ‘resurgence’ of traditional authorities in Africa since the 1990s – meaning indigenous political structures have recently experienced a revival (Englebert 2002; Foucher & Smith 2011; Ubink 2008a). Chimhowu (2019, 898) writes, ‘Typical reform countries like Ghana, South Africa, Kenya, South Sudan, Tanzania, Burkina Faso, Uganda and Zambia have built this into their reforms’. This article explores the institution and influences of chiefs in both South Africa and Eswatini. It looks at the historical relationship between chieftaincy and the urban, and explores factors that have implications for the future of urban governance in the two countries. The article examines the ways in which chieftaincy influences over urban life have both subverted and been subverted by the colonial project in the two countries. The authors argue that while many of the categories and divisions of (settler) colonial rule are still visible in the two countries, the traditional authorities have engaged in local practices that reimagine and remake urban life, centred on the role of chieftaincy. These practices are made visible mostly on the urban peripheries, which have absorbed a large proportion of the poor since the end of the colonial era.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
African Studies
African Studies AREA STUDIES-
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Sincere Intimacy, Genre and Heterotopology of a Confessional Public Communal Land and Belonging Among Foreign Former Farmworkers in Zimbabwe The High Court Ruling Against Ingonyama Trust: Implications for South Africa’s Land Governance Policy Neoliberal Leveraging of the Colonial Imagination: A Global South Reading of Tobacco Ads in Africa Entrenched Coloniality? Colonial-Born Black Women, Hair and Identity in Post-Apartheid South Africa
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1