首页 > 专题2016 > 2016中欧人权研讨会 > 观点精粹 >
族群认同与权利的社会建构

2016-09-28 19:15:15   来源:中国人权网   作者:彼得•佩弗雷里

\
荷兰阿姆斯特丹自由大学教授 彼得•佩弗雷里  (赵一帆 摄)


族群认同与权利的社会建构
——以中国朝鲜族为例

  本文拟在社会建构主义组织理论的框架下,重新思考族群与人权。

  2007年,联合国大会通过《联合国原住民权利宣言》。宣言阐述了原住民“建立政治制度、经济制度和社会制度,以及参与经济活动和传统活动的权利”。该宣言以143票赞成,4票反对(澳大利亚、加拿大、新西兰和美国)和11票弃权(阿塞拜疆、孟加拉国、不丹、布隆迪、哥伦比亚、格鲁吉亚、肯尼亚、尼日利亚、俄罗斯联邦、萨摩亚和乌克兰)的表决结果获得通过。联合国人权事务高级专员办事处称,“《宣言》为这个世界中,原住民的生存、尊严、福祉和权利的最低标准设立了一个通用框架”。(OHCHR, 2016)

  对于这段引述,建构主义者首先会注意到“这个世界中的原住民”(the world's indigenous peoples)当中的定冠词“这个”(the)。语言在人们对这个世界的理解中起到至关重要的作用。对于该文件所使用的英语语言,定冠词的使用表明作者们认为存在一种客观现实,在这之中,这个世界的原住民具有清晰的界定。这同样适用于他们的权利,即作为原住民生来享有的权利。

  这个观察结论虽然简单,但已经给予我们足够的信息,来探明这种看法中的缺陷。首先,任何概念在建构的同时,都会自动构造其对立面。因此,原住民概念得到建构的同时,非原住民的概念也相应而生。那么,非原住民是谁,他们又拥有什么权利?《宣言》未能解决这些问题。本文试图从社会建构论的角度,通过对族群和由族群派生出的权利概念进行重新定义,以期填补这一空白。

  尽管相对主义对于“族群”(Fearon e.a., 2000; Valdez, 2013)和“人权”(Donelly, 2011; Gregg, 2011; Zwart, 2012)存在定义,但实证主义观念仍是主流,在学术界如此,在政治舞台上更是如此。在这两种语境中,人们似乎都专注于对族群进行界定,而后将其独有的立场作为唯一真理,予以坚决捍卫。每天,媒体都充斥着关于族群冲突的新闻报道,它们时常与暴力有关,这之中有人因捍卫族群而丧命。族群经常与生活中一些不太令人愉快的方面挂钩:歧视性立法、财富分配不公、课本中存在偏见的历史等等。人们固执己见、变本加厉,而另一方也没有显示出让步的意愿。许多卷入此类冲突的学者感到自己义无反顾,倾向于利用学术话语支持他们偏好的一派。学者和政治活动家因此成为亲密盟友,彼此巩固对方的立场。

  在世界许多地区,族群冲突成为每日日程,而政府为解决这些问题出台的举措时常遭到反对者批评,他们认为这些举措侵犯了相关者的权利。由于族群没有成文法典作为支撑,人们对于族群所主张的权利通常被称为人权(的一部分)。人权是另一个承载了沉重情感的词语;人权和族群相结合,调制出了一杯具有爆裂口感的鸡尾酒。

  学术界如果想在打破这一恶性循环的过程中发挥更为积极的作用,那就必须搁置实证主义思想,而更多地接受相对论的观点。在本文中,我意图从社会建构的角度,重新定义族群和族群权利,以此向着相对论方法迈出第一步。从社会建构的角度来看,视族群为暴力冲突的原因之人,以及认为政府平息冲突之举侵犯了人权之人,分别将族群和人权物化了。他们的观点产生于对这些术语抱有的固定观念,因而任何持不同观点的人(在他们看来)都是错误的。上述联合国《宣言》就是这种物化的一个例子。我们可以通过提出一种模型来破除这种物化;在这一模型中,所有的定义都以字面为义,并且是等价的,即所有的定义在其对应的社会环境中都是正确的。

  社会建构组织理论的社会融合(SI)模型是一个学术模型,它将人类行为的高解释力与极简性相匹配。此外,它将社会结构的出现与人类对世界的理解相整合,能够显示出一个人对于同一主题,在不同的社会环境中可以持有不同的看法。

 

The Social Construction of Ethnic Identity and Rights
– the case of Koreans in China

Peter J. Peverelli

 

This paper intends to rethink the notions of ethnicity and human rights in the framework of social constructionist organization theory.

In 2007, the General Assembly adopted the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The declaration describes their ‘rights to build political, economic, and social systems, and participate in economic and traditional activities’. It was adopted by a majority of 143 states in favour, 4 votes against (Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States) and 11 abstentions (Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Burundi, Colombia, Georgia, Kenya, Nigeria, Russian Federation, Samoa and Ukraine). According to Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights, ‘The Declaration establishes a universal framework of minimum standards for the survival, dignity, well-being and rights of the world's indigenous peoples.’ (OHCHR, 2016).

The first cue a constructionist will notice in the quoted statement is the definite article ‘the’ in the term ‘the world’s indigenous peoples’. Language plays an essential role in the way people make sense of the world. In English, the language selected for the document, the use of the definite article indicates that its authors believe that there is an objective reality in which the indigenous peoples of the world are clearly defined. The same applies to their rights, i.e. the rights that come with their being indigenous peoples.

This simple observation already gives us ample ammunition to pinpoint the flaws in such a perception. First of all, the construction of any concept automatically constructs its opposite. The construction of the notion of indigenous peoples, thus simultaneously creates the notion of non-indigenous peoples. So, what are those nonindigenous peoples and what are their rights? The Declaration fails to address those issues. This paper will try to fill that gap by redefining ethnicity and the notion of rights derived from ethnicity from a social constructionist perspective.

Although more relativist definitions of ‘ethnicity’ (Fearon e.a., 2000; Valdez, 2013) and ‘human rights’ (Donelly, 2011; Gregg, 2011; Zwart, 2012) do exist, positivist perceptions continue to be the mainstream, in academia and even more so in the political arena. In both contexts, people seem to be preoccupied with determining what ethnicity is and then fiercely defend the own position as the only truth. Every day the media are fraught with news of ethnicity-related conflicts, often of a violent nature, with people dying in defence of their ethnicity. Ethnicity is frequently mentioned as a factor playing a role in many of the less pleasant aspects of life:
discriminatory legislation, unfair distribution of wealth, biased historiography in textbooks, and more. People put their feet down and do so more strongly, as the other side shows no sign of willingness to make concessions. Many academics involved in such conflicts tend to feel obliged to support the party of their preference with academic discourse. Academics and political activists thus become close allies, mutually reinforcing their position.

Ethnic strife is the order of the day in many parts of the world and measures by governments to deal with those issues are often criticised by opponents as violating the rights of the people involved. As ethnicity is not based on codified legislation, the rights people claim on the basis of their ethnicity is usually referred to as (part of) human rights. Human rights is another term with a heavy emotional loading and the combination of human rights and ethnicity forms an explosive cocktail.

If the academic world wants to play a more active role in breaking that vicious circle, it is imperative to put down the positivist thinking and adopt more relativist perspective. In this paper I intend to make a first step towards a relativist approach by redefining ethnicity and ethnic rights from a social constructionist point of view. In the social constructionist perspective, people who see ethnicity as a cause for violent conflicts and those who accuse attempts to quell such conflicts by governments as violations of human rights are reifying ethnicity and human rights respectively. Their views are based on a fixed perception of these terms and anyone with a different view must therefore be wrong. The aforementioned UN declaration is an example of such reification. We can break open these reifications by proposing a model in which all definitions are regarded as, literally, equivalent, i.e. in which all definitions are right in their own social context.

The Social Integration (SI) model of social constructionist organization theory is an academic model that pairs high explanatory power of human behaviour with extreme simplicity. Moreover, it integrates the emergence of social structure with people’s making sense of the world, and can show how one and the same person can hold different views about the same topic in different social contexts.

分享到:

上一篇:穆斯林身份与西欧社会的渐进融合
下一篇:少数群体权利和欧洲大规模移民的新挑战