对抗公众:1992-2014年中国公共领域农民工权利表达方式的转变

IF 4.1 2区 社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE Politics & Society Pub Date : 2021-09-28 DOI:10.1177/00323292211042441
Mujun Zhou
{"title":"对抗公众:1992-2014年中国公共领域农民工权利表达方式的转变","authors":"Mujun Zhou","doi":"10.1177/00323292211042441","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article extends the theoretical discussion of counterpublics and applies the concept to an authoritarian context. The article contends that it is necessary to distinguish between the counterpublic oriented by liberal ideology that criticizes authoritarianism at an abstract level (Counterpublic I) and the counterpublics that are concerned with substantive inequality (Counterpublic II). To illustrate the approach taken, the articulation of rural migrant workers’ rights between 1992 and 2014 is documented, demonstrating that, in the 1990s and early 2000s, most public discussion on the issue tended to reduce workers’ rights to civil rights. It was not until the late 2000s that alternative forms of rights, such as social rights, were thematized. As the article argues, this was because the power balance between Counterpublic I and Counterpublic II had been changed. The empirical study explains the transformation and highlights the heterogeneity within Counterpublic II by comparing the diverse strategies employed by different actors.","PeriodicalId":47847,"journal":{"name":"Politics & Society","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Contesting Counterpublics: The Transformation of the Articulation of Rural Migrant Workers’ Rights in China’s Public Sphere, 1992–2014\",\"authors\":\"Mujun Zhou\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/00323292211042441\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article extends the theoretical discussion of counterpublics and applies the concept to an authoritarian context. The article contends that it is necessary to distinguish between the counterpublic oriented by liberal ideology that criticizes authoritarianism at an abstract level (Counterpublic I) and the counterpublics that are concerned with substantive inequality (Counterpublic II). To illustrate the approach taken, the articulation of rural migrant workers’ rights between 1992 and 2014 is documented, demonstrating that, in the 1990s and early 2000s, most public discussion on the issue tended to reduce workers’ rights to civil rights. It was not until the late 2000s that alternative forms of rights, such as social rights, were thematized. As the article argues, this was because the power balance between Counterpublic I and Counterpublic II had been changed. The empirical study explains the transformation and highlights the heterogeneity within Counterpublic II by comparing the diverse strategies employed by different actors.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47847,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Politics & Society\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-09-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Politics & Society\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/00323292211042441\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Politics & Society","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00323292211042441","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

本文扩展了反公开的理论讨论,并将这一概念应用于一个专制的背景下。文章认为,有必要区分以自由主义意识形态为导向的、在抽象层面批评威权主义的反公共(反公共I)和关注实质性不平等的反公众(反公共II)。为了说明所采取的方法,记录了1992年至2014年间农村移民工人权利的表述,表明在20世纪90年代和21世纪初,大多数关于这一问题的公开讨论倾向于将工人的权利减少为公民权利。直到21世纪末,社会权利等其他形式的权利才被主题化。正如文章所说,这是因为反公众I和反公众II之间的权力平衡发生了变化。实证研究通过比较不同参与者采用的不同策略,解释了这种转变,并强调了Counterpublic II内部的异质性。
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
Contesting Counterpublics: The Transformation of the Articulation of Rural Migrant Workers’ Rights in China’s Public Sphere, 1992–2014
This article extends the theoretical discussion of counterpublics and applies the concept to an authoritarian context. The article contends that it is necessary to distinguish between the counterpublic oriented by liberal ideology that criticizes authoritarianism at an abstract level (Counterpublic I) and the counterpublics that are concerned with substantive inequality (Counterpublic II). To illustrate the approach taken, the articulation of rural migrant workers’ rights between 1992 and 2014 is documented, demonstrating that, in the 1990s and early 2000s, most public discussion on the issue tended to reduce workers’ rights to civil rights. It was not until the late 2000s that alternative forms of rights, such as social rights, were thematized. As the article argues, this was because the power balance between Counterpublic I and Counterpublic II had been changed. The empirical study explains the transformation and highlights the heterogeneity within Counterpublic II by comparing the diverse strategies employed by different actors.
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
Politics & Society
Politics & Society Multiple-
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
4.20%
发文量
16
期刊介绍: Politics & Society is a peer-reviewed journal. All submitted papers are read by a rotating editorial board member. If a paper is deemed potentially publishable, it is sent to another board member, who, if agreeing that it is potentially publishable, sends it to a third board member. If and only if all three agree, the paper is sent to the entire editorial board for consideration at board meetings. The editorial board meets three times a year, and the board members who are present (usually between 9 and 14) make decisions through a deliberative process that also considers written reports from absent members. Unlike many journals which rely on 1–3 individual blind referee reports and a single editor with final say, the peers who decide whether to accept submitted work are thus the full editorial board of the journal, comprised of scholars from various disciplines, who discuss papers openly, with author names known, at meetings. Editors are required to disclose potential conflicts of interest when evaluating manuscripts and to recuse themselves from voting if such a potential exists.
期刊最新文献
Bringing Household Finance Back In: House Prices and the Missing Macroeconomics of Comparative Political Economy Who Pays for Environmental Policy? Business Power and the Design of State-Level Climate Policies* Supervising Local Cadres in China: The Quest for Authoritarian Accountability Rethinking Antitrust for the Cloud Era Antitrust and Equal Liberty
×
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