2020年7月20日傅蘭思的讲座:肺炎疫情时期北京居民的日常生活—— 个人空间的突然、激烈缩小

疫情时期的胡同入口

2020年7月20日,中法中心主任傅蘭思(Florence Padovani)参与由巴黎当代与现代中国研究中心 Tania Lementec 举办的“受害地域”演播讲座系列。

首先,傅蘭思录音了她发言的内容,主题为肺炎疫情时期北京居民的日常生活—— 个人空间的突然、激烈缩小。查看下面听听(语言为法语):

之后,傅蘭思与听众能够线上讨论内容。关于“演播讲座系列”的更多信息请点此链接

 

Call for Papers: Authenticating China. Governance and Valuation through Intangible Cultural Heritage

New Call for Papers for a Special Feature of China Perspectives

Authenticating China: Governance and Valuation through Intangible Cultural Heritage

Guest-editors: Guillaume Dutournier (EFEO, Beijing) and Florence Padovani (CFC, Beijing)

Since the Chinese authorities adopted the UNESCO Convention on “Intangible Cultural Heritage” (ICH) in 2004, the People’s Republic of China has seen the rise of a passion for heritage. In addition to the conservation measures implemented since 1950 in historical sites, an ever-increasing number of projects and initiatives have been relying on the concept of “feiyi” (acronym for ICH in Chinese) in an attempt to obtain recognition for practices perceived as traditional and to safeguard their lines of transmission (Bodolec 2012, 2014; Gao 2014; Maags 2018). Now added to the government’s agenda through a plurality of agencies, this feiyi valuation is essentially formulated in terms of “culture” and “space of the people” (minjian), but is not homogeneous throughout the country, and presents itself as a competitive phenomenon, bringing together different types of actors over varied accreditation procedures (Smith 2006; Madsen 2014; Shepherd & Yu 2013). Beyond its impact at the national level, this new discourse reinforces the image of the country by imposing post-Maoist China on the world heritage scene. Nowadays, with 40 ICH items listed by UNESCO, the Chinese State confirms its involvement in the “typological extension” of the concept of heritage, as well as its ability to expand thecommon repertoire (Choay 2007; Bodolec 2014; Maags 2019; Bortolotto & Demgenski 2020).

The phenomenon of feiyi has been the subject of abundant research in social sciences for the past ten years. Diverse in objects and perspectives, these studies can be divided into two groups according to the positioning they adopt with respect to the protagonists. In the type of research that could be labelled as “embedded,” often conducted by Chinese researchers, the academic expertise meets in the field with local interests (for dances and music, traditional craftsmanship and artistic know-how, ritual celebrations etc.) that it seeks to guide by sometimes getting involved in the development of local projects (Gao 2006, 2014; Cui 2006; Shen 2010; Li 2014). In the second approach, often but not exclusively conducted by foreign scholars, researchers question the role of Chinese ICH in strengthening the legitimacy of power, or, on the contrary, in empowering the groups involved (Graezer 2003; Oakes 2013; Kuah & Liu 2017). Other works echo the increasingly frequent criticism in China against the commodification of culture (Bendix 2009; Taylor 2014; Pal 2009; Yan 2017). On both sides, a more or less explicit issue at stake is the normative project driven by UNESCO and its potential acclimatisation in China. Although some take the Chinese case to validate the UNESCO’s universalist orientation, others relativize the UNESCO’s influence and put forward a specifically Chinese vision of the relationship to the past, precisely because of the paramount place the “intangible” allegedly occupies in it (Yan 2015, 2016; You 2015; Li 2020; Su 2020).

By proposing an internal but non-exceptionalist approach on the manufacturing of ICH in China, this special issue can offer an alternative path. Rather than opposing China to the rest of the world, or the government to “civil society,” it intends to follow the actors and administrators of feiyi on the long run – and in their plural affiliations –, in order to highlight the system of hybrid and shifting values ​expressed by their actions. In China, as elsewhere, the reclassification of practices and artefacts in terms of “heritage” appears to be a critical moment in value ascription, which mobilises evaluative frameworks and agencies with stabilization purposes. These frameworks and agencies extend the institutions and modes of reflexivity already present in society, while providing new support to justify reassessments of artefacts, sites or practices. The kind of approach recently developed in the “sociology of valuation” sheds valuable light on these processes of heritage building and on the way in which they are articulated in specific devices or faced with criticism (Heinich 2009, 2017; Boltanski & Esquerre 2017).

By making the values in Chinese ICH explicit, this approach ​​can do justice to an aspect largely underestimated so far: the basis of the currentprocess, the very notion of feiyi, is an imported concept meant to extend international normativity, but with a relatively vague definition which gives room for many elaborations and appropriations in the field. Chinese “feiyi” operates through the involvement of actors constantly defining its scope and the issues at stake according to their own scale of action and based on their type of engagement (Ashworth 2011; Su 2019). Therefore, in this constantly reinterpreted framework, the issue of authenticity, which has been excluded from the UNESCO definition of ICH (last defined in Yamato in 2004) and solely applies to tangible cultural heritage in China so far, often appears in feiyi discourse to justify the search of a balance between continuity and creativity (Zhu 2017; Su 2019; Maags 2020). This interpretative vitality must be examined in itself, as a part of the inherent dynamics of Chinese ICH, but also of its fundamental hybridity – particularly obvious in long sequences. By offering extended studies of the various actors of feiyi, the investigations in this special issue will illustrate their back and forth at different levels: between ICH management bodies (sometimes at the intersection of different types of heritage) and their plural motives for acting; between their desire to authenticate practices and their efforts to identify “transmitters;” between the sources of heritage value, either empirical or quantifiable, and the various formulations of this value through criteria and lists. By this diachronic approach to feiyi-based heritagization processes, focusing on justifications and narratives, we intend to promote a sharper vision of the logics of action and social dynamics at work in the current effervescence – as well as a renewed approach to its political potential.

Please send abstracts of 200-300 words by July 30th, 2020 to the guest editors at guillaume.dutournier@efeo.net and florence.padovani@beijing-cfc.org.

Authors of selected abstracts will be invited to submit a full paper by the 30th September of 2020 to the guest editors of the special issue.

More information on the format of articles can be found here.

The special issue is scheduled to be published in 2021.

References

Agnew, Neville & Martha Demas (2002), Principles for the Conservation of Heritage Sites in China, Los Angeles, Getty Conservation Institute.

Ashworth, Gregory (2011), « Preservation, Conservation and Heritage: Approaches to the Past in the Present through the Built Environment », Asian Anthropology, 10:1, 1-18.

Blumenfield, Tami (ed.) (2013), Cultural Heritage Politics in China, New York, Springer.

Bodolec, Caroline (2012), « The Chinese Paper-Cut: From Local Inventories to the UNESCO Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity », in Regina Bentix & Aditya Eggert, Heritage Regimes and the State, Göttingen, Göttingen University Press, pp. 249-264.

Bodolec, Caroline (2014), « Les enjeux du patrimoine culturel immatériel pour la Chine », Tsanta 19, pp. 19-30.

Boltanski, Luc & Arnaud Esquerre (2017), Enrichissement. Une critique de la marchandise, Paris, Gallimard.

Bortolotto, Chiara (ed.) (2011), Le Patrimoine culturel immatériel. Enjeux d’une nouvelle catégorie, Paris, Editions de la Maison des sciences de l’homme.

Bortolotto, Chiara, Demgenski Philipp, Karampampas Panas & Toji Simone, (2020), « Proving participation: vocational bureaucrats and bureaucratic creativity in the implementation of the UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage », Social Anthropology, 28 (1), pp. 66-82.

Choay, Françoise 2007 (1992), L’Allégorie du patrimoine, Paris, Seuil.

Du Cros, Hilary & Yok-shiu Lee (eds.) (2007), Cultural Heritage Management in China. Preserving the Cities of the Pearl River Delta, New York, Routledge.

Cui, Jinze, (2018), « Heritage Visions of Mayor GengYanbo, Re-creating the City of Datong », in Christina Maags & Mariana Svensson (eds.), Chinese Heritage in the Making – Experiences, Negociations and Contestations, Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Press, pp. 223-244.

Fresnais, Jocelyne, (2001), La protection du patrimoine en république populaire de Chine 1949-1999, Paris, CTHS.

Gao, Bingzhong (2006), « Yi zuo bowuguan-miaoyu jianzhu de minzuzhi. Lun chengwei zhengzhi yishu de shuangmingzhi 一座博物馆-庙宇建筑的民族志——论成为政治艺术的双名制» (An Ethnography of a Museum-Temple: On the Political Art of Becoming Double-Named), Shehuixue yanjiu, 1, pp. 154-168.

Gao, Bingzhong (2014). « How Does Superstition Become Intangible Cultural Heritage in Postsocialist China? », Positions Asia Critique, 22 (3), pp. 551-572.

Graezer, Florence (2018), « Le Festival de Miaofengshan : culture populaire et politique culturelle », Etudes chinoises 22, 2003, pp. 283-295.

Heinich, Nathalie (2009), La Fabrique du patrimoine. De la cathédrale à la petite cuillère, Paris, Maison des Sciences de l’Homme, coll. « Ethnologie de la France ».

Heinich, Nathalie (2017), Des valeurs. Une approche sociologique, Paris, Gallimard, coll. « Bibliothèque des sciences humaines ».

Kuah, Khun Eng, and Zhaohui Liu (2017), Intangible Cultural Heritage in Contemporary China: The Participation of Local Communities, London, Routledge.

Lai, Guolong, Martha Demas, Neville Agnew (2004), « Valuing the Past in China. The Seminal Influence of Liang Sicheng on Heritage Conservation », Orientations 35 (2), pp. 82–89.

Lai, Guolong (2016), « The emergence of ‘cultural heritage’ in modern China. A historical and legal perspective », in Akira Matsuda, Luisa Elena Mengoni (eds.), Reconsidering Cultural Heritage in East Asia, London, Ubiquity Press (OAPEN Library), pp. 47–85.

Li, Ji, Krishnamurthy Sukanya, Pereira Roders Ana, Van Wesemael Pieter (2020), « Community participation in cultural heritage management: A systematic literature review comparing Chinese and international practices », Cities, 96, pp. 1-9

Li, Li, (2014), « Intangible Cultural Heritage and New Communities of Knowledge Production: An Analysis Based on Village Studies », Positions: Asia critique, 22, (3), pp. 721-740

Madsen, Richard, (2014), « From Socialist Ideology to Cultural Heritage: the Changing Basis of Legitimacy in the People Legal Perspective », Anthropology & Medicine, 21, (1), pp.58–70

Maags Christina, (2018), « Creating a Race to the Top. Hierarchies and Competition Within the Chinese ICH Transmitters system », in Maags Christina & Svensson Mariana, Chinese Heritage in the Making – Experiences, Negociations and Contestaions, Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Press, pp. 121-144.

Maags, Christina (2019), « Struggles of recognition: adverse effects of China’s living human treasures program », Journal of Heritage Studies, 25 (8), pp. 780-795.

Pal, Nyiri (2009), « Between Encouragement and Control – Tourism Modernity and Discipline in China », in Winter Tim, Teo Peggy & Chang T.C, Asia on Tour: Exploring the Rise of Asian Tourism, London, Routledge, pp. 153-169.

Oakes, Timothy (2013), « Heritage as Improvement – Cultural Display and Contested Governance in Rural China », Modern China, 39 (4), pp. 380-407.

Shen, Chen & Hong Chen (2010), « Cultural Heritage Management in China », in Cultural Heritage Management: A Global Perspective, ed. Phyllis M. Messenger & George S. Smith, Gainesville, University Press of Florida, pp. 70-81

Shepherd, Robert J. & Lawrence Yu (2013), Heritage management, tourism, and governance in China. Managing the past to serve the present, New York, Springer.

Smith, Laurajane, (2006), The Uses of Heritage, London, Routledge.

Su, Junjie, (2019), « Understanding the changing Intangible Cultural Heritage in tourism commodification: the music players’ perspective from Lijiang, China », Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change, 17 (3), pp. 247-268.

Su, Junjie, (2020), « Managing intangible cultural heritage in the context of tourism: Chinese officials’ perspectives », Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change, 18 (2) ; pp. 164-186

Taylor, Timothy D. (2014), « New Capitalism, UNESCO and the Re-enchantment of Culture », in Madeleine Herren (ed.), Networking in the International System – Global Histories of International Organizations, Dedrecht, Springer, pp. 163-173.

Wang, Li (2013), La Convention pour la sauvegarde du patrimoine culturel immatériel. Son application en droits français et chinois, Paris, L’Harmattan.

Waterton, Emma & Steve Watson (2013), « Framing Theory: Towards a Critical Imagination in Heritage Studies », International Journal of Heritage Studies 19 (6), pp. 546-561.

Waterton, Emma (2014), « A More-Than-Representational Understanding of Heritage? The ‘Past’ and the Politics of Affect », Geography Compass 8/11 (2014), pp. 823–833.

Yan, Haiming (2015), « World Heritage as Discourse: Knowledge, Discipline and Dissonance in Fujian Tulou Sites », International Journal of Heritage Studies, 21 (1), pp. 65-80.

Yan, Haiming (2016), « World Heritage and National Hegemony: The Discursive Formation of Chinese Political Authority », in W. Logan (ed.), A Companion to Heritage Studies, Oxford, Wiley Blackwell, pp. 229-242.

Yan, Hongliang (2017), Heritage Tourism in China. Modernity, Identity and Sustainability, Bristol, Channel View Publications.

You, Ziying (2015), « Shifting Actors and Power Relations: Contentious Local Responses to the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage in Contemporary China », Journal of Folklore Research, Vol. 52 (2–3), pp. 253-268.

Zhang, Yanling, Fang Xie, Zhenghuan Li, Xiaohuai Wu (2017), On the Chinese National Cultural Heritages: Tourism Development and Education, Berlin, Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Berlin.

Zhu, Yujie, (2016), « Authenticity and Heritage Conservation in China: Translation, Interpretation and Practices », in K. Weiler & N. Gutschow (eds.), Authenticity in Architectural Heritage Conservation, Transcultural Research, Heidelberg Studies on Asia and Europe, Springer, 2017, pp. 187-200.

2020年6月17日的研究生讨论班 – 总结

2020年6月17日,中法中心在线上举办了本学期的最后一次研究生讨论班。杜明(Pierre Do)与毕慷灵(Gaël Bizet)在此发表了他们的研究成果。

首先,杜明 (Pierre Do) 在清华大学水利工程学博士学位的四年级上介绍了他的论文:“Exploring Synergies in the Water-Food-Energy Nexus by Using an Integrated Hydro-Economic Optimization Model for the Langcang-Mekong River Basin”。 这项研究考查湄公河穿越的6个国家(中国、缅甸、老挝、泰国、柬埔寨与越南)之间共享水力资源的影响。 为此,他专注于三个部门:水(河流)、农业(作物灌溉)与能源(水坝)。

杜明还考虑了体制因素,突出了由中国于2016年成立的澜沧江-湄公河合作组织(澜湄合作或LMC)的作用,此后该组织已成为该地区的政治决策机构。

他的研究注重于如何积极利用水坝,即使由于对生态系统和人口流离失所的负面影响而引起争议。研究目的即在国家间合作的基础上,如何改善大坝的管理

为此,杜明建立了一个模型,该模型包括了三个参数:水力发电、灌溉农业生产和养鱼产量。这些参数基于三个要素:水文数据,水电基础设施(水坝等)和流域的灌溉区。该模型旨在创建一个“参考条件”,作为随后进行变更并制定可能方案的基础。该模型解释流域的工作原理,并试图了解水坝管理对水文学,水力发电和灌溉部门的影响

该模型强调了不同数据之间的妥协。因此,他的研究表明,水坝可以增加灌溉获利,尤其是在干旱时期,所以在上游中国与下游国家之间进行了必要的合作和信息共享。在某些情况下,使用大坝中的水也可以提高鱼类产量,但随后会与农作物灌溉竞争。

最后,杜明坚持认为,该流域的管理突显了中国在该地区的领导地位。该国在明智的工作中通过修建水坝发展了该地区的经济。因此,他得出的结论是,这些水坝对于区域合作是积极的。傅蘭思主任(Florence Padovani)提示当地居民的示威活动,尤其是在老挝,因为中国在河上游的行为对他们产生很大的影响。另外,中国的水坝建设项目经常雇用中国工人而不雇佣当地人民。

在演讲之后的问答环节中,杜明回到了选择主题的原因,以及他与他的导师之间的关系。参与者还讨论了东南亚在水力领域的政府间合作。

在问答环节中的Arnaud Debauge

 

接下来,目前在读南特中央学院与清华大学固体力学和仿真专业的双学位毕慷灵 (Gaël Bizet) 介绍了力学仿真(和实验)。他介绍了力学仿真(和实验)的简介

首先,毕慷灵解释了三个基本物理概念:力学,有限元方法和仿真。连续介质的力学是对整体查看的可形变物体在空间中运动的研究。这提供了两个基本变量,即物体的形变以及物体承受的应力,也就是说内部压力。仿真是一种可视化工具,它使用一组方程式来预测给定情况下物体的反应。为了实现,我们使用有限元方法:对要研究的物体执行一种网格划分(因为将一个物体总体上视为将其划分为许多或多或少精确点)以便能够预测其运动。

因此,仿真相当于通过有限元方法应用连续介质的力学。网格越精细,仿真看起来越像现实。所以,工程师的作用是在仿真精度与计算成本之间做出妥协(仿真越精确,执行成本就越高)。

为了说明他的言论,毕慷灵举例介绍了硬焊,即一种他在公司实习期间学习的连接金属的方法。该技术尤其用于航空术等高精度行业。要求是他创建一个能够仿真在最终零件上硬焊产生应力的仿真。尽管仍是近似值,但是这类仿真通常用于这些高精度行业,以尽可能避免对要测试的零件进行非常昂贵的物理检测。

在演讲之后的问答环节中,毕慷灵介绍了他明年将撰写的硕士论文的主题,该论文将与使用的另一种材料技术:造型。造型在某个零件以内产生孔隙。他将研究孔隙对该零件寿命的影响。他将注重飞机反应堆的一个零件,以便能够根据造型所产生的孔隙的数量、大小和浓度,预测该零件可以接受多少次飞行、起飞和着陆。

然后,雅尼克(Yannick Podgorski)强调了由于新的计算机方法(如提供更大计算能力的量子计算机方法)而改善仿真的潜力。 此将减少仿真精度与计算成本之间的妥协。

最后,为了结束这次研究生讨论班,也结束2019-2020年中法中心的讨论班周期),中法中心主任傅蘭思老师感谢了所有参与者,并提示了这写研讨会的兴趣—— 通过硕士生的、博士生的、以社会科学与科学的演讲,这些研究生讨论班使我们彼此充实。

 

2020年5月7日– 研究生讨论班(在线)

2020年5月7日,中法中心在线举行了一次研究生讨论班,召集了在北京、法国和温哥华的十多名与会者听取雅尼克(Yannick Podgorski)与葛瑞(Grégoire Bienvenu)的演讲。我们计划在6月份如何在线举办最后一届讨论班。

首先,北京体育大学运动与管理专业的一年级博士生雅尼克介绍在上海的法国租界期间的体育和媒体方面,并附有大量复古照片。

图片:来源:
斋阿莱:http://www.shanghaiartdeco.net/lost-treasure-shanghais-jai-alai-auditorium/
休闲:https://www.flickr.com/photos/161392673@N02/27594950738/in/album-72157665777176527/

雅尼克首先回顾了19世纪末至20世纪初的西方国家与中国之间的关系历史。关键事件之一为鸦片战争。鸦片战争由西方国家领导,主要以迫使中国开放其港口和内部市场,从而能够发展贸易。这些战争也有基督教传教士的宗旨。鸦片战争后缔结的不平等条约给西方国家带来了许多商业和宗教利益

正是在这种历史背景下,像其他西方大国(例如英国或美国)似的,法国将在上海市建设法国租界。这是全世界法国最大的租界,受域外原则管辖,并由领事责任。十里洋场,汇集了40多个不同国籍,上海法国租界第一次世界大战之后到达了巅峰。

从法国带来的体育运动在“资产阶级”的生活中占有重要地位,他们在寻找玩乐,聚会和展示自己的方式。主要是练习巴斯克回力球,拳击或微型高尔夫球。爱好者聚集在法国体育圈(Cercle sportif français)或在3,000个室内座位的Jai-alai体育礼堂内(Parc des Sports Auditorium Jai-alai)。

当时已经很发达的平面媒体和广播涵盖了体育娱乐,尤其是《上海日报》,报纸上载有许多体育广告以及小型旅游手册,指出了体育方面的“好窍门”。雅尼克总结说,媒体和体育在娱乐中的主要地位,通过代表法国体育文化,像法国形象一样塑造了上海的法国租界,并为法国文化的影响做出了贡献。

演讲后的问答环节令雅尼克提出体育在社会中的重要性,不仅对于健康,而且作为一种思想工具,一种“体育实力”(sport power)工具,可以在国内与国际台上发展其知名度和影响力。最后,傅籣思主任还回顾了一些历史事实,然后强调了中国人看上海遗产的矛盾,因为他们一方面为上海辉煌历史很自豪,可是另一方面遗产证明中国在占领外国部队面前遭受的屈辱。

在研讨会的第二部分,巴黎拉索邦3大和中国传媒大学的一年级博士生葛瑞,上午6点在温哥华做了演讲。首先,葛瑞回顾了中国嘻哈发展的历史,最早出现于1990年代,其第一批主要乐队在2000年代初就出名了。自从2017年开始播放,《中国有嘻哈》(之后《中国新说唱》)标志着一个真正的转折点,将嘻哈音乐从地下场景转移到主流场景。

葛瑞的论文重点是与中国饶舌音乐发展相关的社会文化问题,他通过两个主题研究中国嘻哈:文化杂交和意识型态娱乐化。文化杂交观察中国青年把嘻哈文化如何整合,然后对其进行了重新使用以展现自己的特殊性。意识型态娱乐化, 约翰·拉格奎斯特(Johan Lagerkivst)的理论,描述由政权的流行文化工具化。这导致饶舌歌手与当局之间不断进行谈判

然后,葛瑞介绍他上个月进行的一项研究,为将来在《神州展望》杂志上发表文章。他在研究了中国饶舌歌手对Covid-19的反应,尤其是通过分析这段时期出版的歌曲中所使用的词汇。他在演讲中展示了中国饶舌歌手的一些图片、音乐摘录和短视频。

肺炎疫情之初,歌曲中使用的词汇正在改善并带来了积极的信息,以支持中国当局的故事,即动员中国抗击冠状病毒的故事。使用的图片也很重要。医学世界无处不在,通过手术口罩和医生的身影(有时是英勇或战士)来象征,但始终以笼统的描述和比喻来避免采取政治立场。

不过,从第三周开始,所使用的词汇会逐渐改变到与死亡有关的更暗词汇表,即使看起来微不足道或不怎么批评,该词汇表也已显示出一种政治立场。改善歌曲中未经审查的词,假如“武汉”或“病毒”之类的词,被简化为首字母缩写以避免Margaret E. Roberts所谓的疏松审查制度,也就是说,只有与负面词汇表关联才审查这些词汇。为了避免审查,饶舌歌手通过避免提及这些关键字来将故事改编成虚构作品,或者决定不在聆听平台上播放其歌曲。

自葛瑞播放名为“生命就是美丽”的视频摘录(“Life is Beautiful”)。

尽管对政府的批评有时很明确,但是中国嘻哈音乐不应仅归结为大卫面对巨人的对抗。他们主要源于舞台表演的商业模式,由于冠状病毒疫情所有现场演出停止,受到了强烈影响。虽然一些批评将他们的行为叫作商业机会,可是艺术家仍必须继续出版。 葛瑞坚持认为,当今在中国背景下,经济强加构成音乐创作的标准,这一因素可能比政治因素更为重要

总而言之,葛瑞从这项研究中提出了两点教训:首先,尽管中国饶舌似乎对政府不批评,但是它并非政治性的。其次,虽然当局通过审查控制内容,可是经济因素在饶舌歌手的立场中发挥重要作用,并且构成了中国嘻哈界的基本结构。

在问答环节中,葛瑞能够将嘻哈音乐与中国朋克音乐区分开来:后者更多批评因为它仍然在地下场景。此外,通过意识型态娱乐化理论,中国案例可以与俄罗斯的情况同化,俄罗斯当局公开宣布不想审查嘻哈,而是要重新使用它。反而在韩国或日本事实非如此。葛瑞能够根据他们所在的城市(成都,西安或长沙),也根据他们所使用的语言——例如新疆,西藏或内蒙古的饶舌歌手有时使用当地的方言,回到饶舌乐队的分化。最后,葛瑞说,在国际上,尤其是在美国进行巡回演出的中国饶舌歌手并不再批评政府。他们使用的标准与美国饶舌的(谈性别、犯罪或毒品的话题)不同,因为他们主要针对富裕的中国留学生观众——经济因素似乎仍然是优先事项,并且受到在国外中国爱国主义的影响。

尽管本次会议是在线进行的,但是这次讨论班非常热烈,还汇集了来自世界各地的研究生。

Research fellowship for a PhD in demography (CURAPP – INED, with Hong Kong HKUST)

Analysing the Generations and Gender Programme survey data and participating in the preparation of a new series of family behaviour surveys in Europe and Asia

 One scholarship is open for a PhD candidate interested in the Generations and Gender Programme (GGP) and especially its extension to Asian cities.

The GGP is a collaborative network of European research institutes, which collects survey data (Generations and Gender Surveys [GGS]) on family dynamics and relationships (https://www.ggp-i.org). A large community of scholars are involved in the GGP or use GGS data for their research. A new GGS programme is opening and will be devoted to conducting surveys in several major Asian cities.

The French National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS) and its Centre in Hong Kong, the French Centre for Research on Contemporary China (CEFC), seek to support a PhD candidate working on the project. She or he will be registered at the doctoral school of the university of Picardie Jules Verne, and the contract is based at CURAPP (Centre Universitaire de Recherches Administratives et Politiques de Picardie), a CNRS and university centre, as well at the French Institute for Demographic Studies (INED), in Paris, with a co-supervision at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (HKUST).

Research activities, to be discussed with the applicants, include:

  1. Analysis of existing European GGP data
  2. Comparisons between Europe and Asia
  3. Participation in implementing the Asian GGP. For example, through a qualitative approach on the applicability of GGS for deployment in urban contexts in Asia. This can be conducted through expert interviews, focus groups etc.
  4. Participation in implementing a French 2020 GGS pilot survey.

The first two items will make up the bulk of the doctoral work; research will deal with analysis on existing data, on one or two research topics, such as the gender relations and fertility nexus in different policy contexts, or the links between couples’ marital status, union instability, and fertility (men and women from different social groups), or changing intergenerational relationships within the family (coping with rapid ageing). The third activity consists of assisting and implementing the GGP Asia project. Travel to the fieldwork sites – possibly Bangkok, and a city in Mainland China may be organized, as well as research stays in Hong Kong. The fourth point is an option if we conduct a new GGP online survey in France during the PhD contract.

The candidate must hold a Masters degree in Demography, Statistics, Sociology, or a related discipline. There is no restriction on the nationality of applicants. She or he must be able to work and write in English and in French. Competency in an Asian language (Chinese or Thai) will be greatly appreciated.

Coordinators:

  • In Hong Kong: Prof. Stuart Gietel-Bastel, Associate Dean (Research), School of Humanities and Social Science; Professor, Divisions of Social Science and Public Policy, The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology.
  • In Amiens: Nathalie Le Bouteillec, Professor of Demography, University of Picardie Jules Verne (UPJV) and CURAPP.
  • In Paris: Laurent Toulemon, senior researcher, French Institute for Demographic Studies (INED).

Three-year PhD contract, starting May 2020.

Please send an application with a CV, a one- or two-page covering letter, your Masters thesis, and at least one reference to toulemon@ined.fr, sgb@ust.hk, and nathalie.lebouteillec@u-picardie.fr. Please contact us if you have any questions.

The application file must imperatively be downloaded on the CNRS platform www.emploi.cnrs.fr. We will contact you when the needed information is available.

Deadline: 31 March 2020. Skype interviews will be organized for 8 April 2020.

                                

史曼慈副教授在北京大学参与讲座的总结,题目为:“软法是法国法的「侵入者」吗?”

艾克斯-马赛大学法学院史曼慈副教授 (Christine Chaigne) 于2019年12月19日星期四在北京大学参与了题为“软法是法国法的侵入者吗?” 的讲座。跟中法中心合作举办讲座、北京大学法学院的彭錞副教授热情地欢迎了史曼慈副教授。

史曼慈副教授与彭錞副教授

史曼慈副教授首先关注与软法有关的词汇领域:协定,宪章,通函,良好行为守则,技术标准,定准,决议,建议,谅解备忘录等。她提示软法的概念首次在国际法律中出现的,针对它不能约束的国家。在法国法中,软法 本身没有约束力:它激励,提议而硬法则规定,命令并制裁。

接下来,史曼慈副教授讨论了与软法相关的一些假设和问题。例如,我们应该说“软”法,“柔”法,“柔软”法还是20世纪著名的法学家让·卡伯尼耶(Jean Carbonnier)所说的“灵活”法律?使用软法文书时,怎么保证法律安定性?在法国法律的背景下,软法是一个症状还是硬法功能障碍的后果?许多问题存在,关于软法识别的定准,何时能够使用软法以及软法文书的可诉性。

史曼慈副教授解释她所谓的“法国法律病”:多余法规的现象。可能在中国法律制度还不够发展了,可是在法国,法律制度太发达了!也许此点说明在法国法律中软法发挥的作用。

接下来,史曼慈副教授介绍了由法国最高行政法院提出的软法文书的定义,其中确定了三个累积特点:

  1. 软法文书的目的必须是修改或指导人们的行为:软法并不限制个人自由而进行指导行为。
  2. 软法文书本身不能创造权利或义务。确实,软法不修改法律秩序,这是将软法与硬法区分开来的基本要素:即使它可以进行责任的承担,也不会产生约束性义务。
  3. 软法文书必须具有一定程度的形式化和结构化像英法法规似的。这一点将软法与非-法法律区分开来。

然后,史曼慈副教授解释了软法产生的两个基本问题:法律安定性与正当性问题。 软法不像硬法在《官方杂志》出版,也没有标准结构。 其实,“没有人应该无视法律。” 此外,软法不具有硬法所享有的正当性——硬法由国民议会表决。因此,最高行政法院尤其关注这些限制并建议,在通过与起草软法文书时要提高透明性以解决软法的“民主缺乏。

最后,史曼慈副教授提出软法不是法国法的侵入者」而硬法的补充,可以作为法国法律“病”的可能“补救办法”。只需要法国人扩大他们对法律的理解,并且接受法律还发挥激励、推荐或指导的作用,从而达到让·卡伯尼耶对灵活法律的定义

王蔚副教授与张莉教授

史曼慈副教授演讲之后,在北大法学院的彭錞副教授指导下进行的讨论非常富有成果。中国政法大学的王蔚副教授与张莉教授首先发表了讲话,谈到了软法的定义问题,软法创立的起源,史曼慈副教授演讲中所体现法律的社会学视野,以及最高行政法院对通常不承担义务的法律的审查权。鹏春副教授也把软法文书与英国法律的基本概念,即 duty of care,做了比较。

这些辩论使史曼慈副教授暗示,软法在法国的重要性日益提高可能是在软法似乎占主导地位的中国法律的影响下产生的。学生的许多问题也使史曼慈副教授提示技术标准的不同接受。在法国,技术标准通常是自愿使用的,它是非强制性技术标准。而在中国,大多数技术标准是强制性的(像英国),可是不配合硬法的任何法规。

林琳翻译者与史曼慈副教授

师生之间的这种丰富的交流很大程度上是由于林琳女士在一个微妙领域的出色翻译,我们对她表示衷心的感谢。

在清华大学苏世民书院傅蘭思副教授的讲座:“从三峡大坝到广东省:三峡外迁移民的故事”

2020年1月6日,清华大学中法社会科学研究中心主任傅蘭思在苏世民书院做了题为“From the Three Gorges to Guangdong – The story of Three Gorges resettlees”的演讲。这次会议简介了傅蘭思副教授(Florence Padovani)在超过15年的时间里从重庆和湖北到广东省和上海的外迁移民进行的研究。她的演讲主要介绍被搬到广东省三水县峣山村的巫山县居民。

起初,傅蘭思副教授回到了建造大坝的项目本身。孙中山(Sun Yat-Sen)曾在1919年设想过该大坝。不过,直到李鹏总理的冲动,工程在1990年代初才开始。工程于2009年完成,于2013年全面投入运营。在湖北修建,但由于水库在重庆市受到了最大的影响,该大坝淹没了20多个市镇。据官方消息,该项目使70万人移民,据专家称,超过了200万人。

长江对于本地人来说非常重要,他们认为长江又是饮食的储备,又创造了与渔业、农业和旅游业相关的工作岗位。因洪水泛滥而也导致死亡,有时被视为神灵。傅蘭思副教授展示了本地当局警告水位上升(海拔170m)的海报照片。她还展示了在山腰上方建起的新村庄的照片,这些村庄最初被设计为在考虑滑坡风险之前为移民提供住房。

接下来,傅蘭思副教授介绍了她在距离三峡大坝一千多公里在广东省的外迁移民村庄峣山进行的实地调查。她展示了村庄的组织结构,将外迁移民与本地人口清楚地分开了。根据家庭人数的不同,为外迁移民建造的房屋有三种尺寸,可是都很相同。最普通的问题是:家庭中未申报的子女以及对补偿的估计有关,在分配这些新房方面出现了很多困难

随后,傅蘭思副教授讨论了社会专家马佩力(Marc Breviglieri)所定义的某个地方的依恋感,以研究这些非志愿移民。该地方有时远离其本老家,并表现出与他们不同的风俗习惯。在“转型”中,即重新安置的背景下,外迁移民的身份出现很多矛盾,在剥夺与依恋之间或在当地与全国规模之间。在某个地方“居住”或“生活”的差异可以说明依恋任何地方的不同方式。

在峣山的研究中,傅蘭思副教授注意到与本地居民的互动很少,甚至对新移民也产生了排斥:不同人群之间的婚姻很少,葬礼仪式也分开等。这导致许多外迁移民返回自己的老家,因此新村逐渐变成了“鬼城”。有些外迁移民还认为回到三峡地区能够获得更多的专业机会,那边已经由关系并他们更多了解商业环境。

最后,傅蘭思副教授讨论了各博物馆中存在的三峡大坝地区人口移动的“官方历史”问题,这遵循了中国共产党的爱国主义路线,并无视了中国外迁移民的经验。博物馆维护社会稳定和统治力合法性的社会政治背景下(托多罗夫 / Todorov)特别提出了“移民文化”的观念。至于外迁移民,他们几乎没有念物(照片,物体等),也没有地方来纪念他们的创伤。

最终,通过与观众的问答,傅蘭思副教授阐明了她的研究方法:在15年的时间里,她主要对几代移民中的外迁移民进行了公开采访。 她还谈到,外迁移民很少参与新安置的决策过程。此外,还存在着问题,即对国家分配给地方当局的款项的津贴额和财务管理不明确。