建构与批判：二战后西方边界研究进展及启示

doi:10.18306/dlkxjz.2021.07.014

Abstract

Abstract:

By reviewing the development of Western border studies at different stages, the current status of interdisciplinary border research, and the main terminology and practices of border research, this article discussed the logical link between the general theories and practices of border research in order to contribute to relevant Chinese studies and their improvement. The result indicates that the social construction of border has become the main paradigm of Western border studies, as the result of the cultural turn of social sciences and multidisciplinary integration. Furthermore, generic terminology for border studies, instead of unified theories, have formed, including complex border, the border of relations, the border of process, the border of transition zone, and the border of construction. The terminology, which stemmed from the practice in border areas, has facilitated the diversification of border studies on issues such as critical geopolitics, the border of social construction, and the border of scale. The implication of Western border studies for Chinese researchers is that it is necessary to promote interdisciplinary study, lay emphasis on the critical geopolitical research methods and how culture functions as a catalyst in border development. Further study on the paradigm of social construction is required. We should also strike a balance between theoretical research and practice and make them complementary to each other.

Key words: border, border terminology, border practice, social construction, critical geopolitics, multidisciplinary, Western

HOU Xuefeng, TAO Wei. Construction and criticism: The progress and implication of Western border research after World War II[J].PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY, 2021, 40(7): 1246-1256.

Figures/Tables 5

Tab.1

Tab.2

Tab.3

Fig.1

Fig.2

References 63

[1]	Paasi A. Boundaries in a globalizing world[M]// Anderson K, Domosh M, Pile S, et al. Handbook of cultural geography. London, UK: Sage, 2003.
[2]	Brenner N. New state spaces: Urban governance and the rescaling of statehood [M]. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2004.
[3]	Newman D, Paasi A. Fences and neighbours in the postmodern world: Boundary narratives in political geography[J]. Progress in Human Geography, 1998, 22(2):186-207. doi: 10.1191/030913298666039113
[4]	Hooper B, Kramsch O. Cross-border governance in the European Union[M]. London, UK: Routledge, 2004.
[5]	Ohmae K. The end of the nation state [M]. New York, USA: Free Press, 1995.
[6]	Scott A J. Global city-regions [M]. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2001.
[7]	Deas I, Lord A. From a new regionalism to an unusual regionalism? The emergence of non-standard regional spaces and lessons for the territorial reorganisation of the state[J]. Urban Studies, 2006, 43(10):1847-1877. doi: 10.1080/00420980600838143
[8]	Agnew J. Hegemony: The new shape of global power [M]. Philadelphia, USA: Temple University Press, 2005.
[9]	胡志丁, 陆大道. 基于批判地缘政治学视角解读经典地缘政治理论[J]. 地理学报, 2015, 70(6):851-863. doi: 10.11821/dlxb201506001
	[ Hu Zhiding, Lu Dadao. The re-interpretation of the classical geopolitical theories from a critical geopolitical perspective. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2015, 70(6):851-863. ]
[10]	毛汉英. 中国周边地缘政治与地缘经济格局和对策[J]. 地理科学进展, 2014, 33(3):289-302. doi: 10.11820/dlkxjz.2014.03.001
	[ Mao Han-ying. Geopolitical and geoeconomic situation in the surrounding areas and China's strategies. Progress in Geography, 2014, 33(3):289-302. ]
[11]	胡志丁, 李钰华, 王学文, 等. 西方流行地缘政治研究进展与展望[J]. 地理研究, 2020, 39(7):1463-1477. doi: 10.11821/dlyj020190550
	[ Hu Zhiding, Li Yuhua, Wang Xuewen, et al. The research progress and prospect of popular geopolitics in the West. Geographical Research, 2020, 39(7):1463-1477. ]
[12]	宋涛, 刘卫东, 李玏. 国外对地缘视野下边境地区的研究进展及其启示[J]. 地理科学进展, 2016, 35(3):276-285. doi: 10.18306/dlkxjz.2016.03.002
	[ Song Tao, Liu Weidong, Li Le. International research on the border regions with a geopolitical perspective and revelation. Progress in Geography, 2016, 35(3):276-285. ]
[13]	李灿松, 胡志丁, 葛岳静, 等. 当前国外政治地理学边境安全研究进展[J]. 热带地理, 2014, 34(4):454-462.
	[ Li Cansong, Hu Zhiding, Ge Yuejing, et al. Progress of foreign political geography in border security studies. Tropical Geography, 2014, 34(4):454-462. ]
[14]	唐雪琼, 杨茜好, 钱俊希. 社会建构主义视角下的边界: 研究综述与启示[J]. 地理科学进展, 2014, 33(7):969-978. doi: 10.11820/dlkxjz.2014.07.012
	[ Tang Xueqiong, Yang Xihao, Qian Junxi. Conceptualizing border from a social constructionist perspective: Current progress and implications for future research. Progress in Geography, 2014, 33(7):969-978. ]
[15]	唐雪琼, 杨茜好, 钱俊希. 流动性视角下边界的空间实践及其意义: 以云南省河口县中越边境地区X村为例[J]. 地理研究, 2016, 35(8):1535-1546. doi: 10.11821/dlyj201608011
	[ Tang Xueqiong, Yang Xihao, Qian Junxi. Meanings and practices of borders from the perspective of cross-border mobility: A case study of village X, Hekou, Yunnan at the Sino-Vietnamese borderlands. Geographical Research, 2016, 35(8):1535-1546. ]
[16]	廖开怀, 何金廖, 蔡云楠, 等. 国外政治地理学边界理论研究进展与评述[J]. 世界地理研究, 2020, 29(2):264-274.
	[ Liao Kaihuai, He Jinliao, Cai Yunnan, et al. A review of international political geography studies on border theories. World Regional Studies, 2020, 29(2):264-274. ]
[17]	初冬梅. 西方政治地理学对边界问题的研究[J]. 中国边疆史地研究, 2017, 27(3):162-170, 182.
	[ Chu Dongmei. Western political geography studies of border problems. China's Borderland History and Geography Studies, 2017, 27(3):162-170, 182. ]
[18]	Paasi A. Bounded spaces in a 'borderless world': Border studies, power and the anatomy of territory[J]. Journal of Power, 2009, 2(2):213-234. doi: 10.1080/17540290903064275
[19]	Amin A, Massey D, Thrift N. Decentering the national: A radical approach to regional inequality[M]. London, UK: Catalyst, 2003.
[20]	Anderson K, et al. Handbook of cultural geography[M]. London, UK: Sage Publications, 2003.
[21]	本尼迪克特·安德森. 想象的共同体: 民族主义的起源与散布 [M]. 吴叡人, 译. 上海: 上海世纪出版集团, 2005.
	[ Benny Andersson. Imaginative community-the origin and diffusion of nationalism. Translated by Wu Ruiren. Shanghai, China: Shanghai Century Publishing Group, 2005. ]
[22]	Ratzel F. Politische geographie: Oder die geographie der staaten, des verkehres und des krieges[M]. Munich, Germany: Oldenbourg, 1903.
[23]	Newman D. Borders and bordering: Towards an interdisciplinary dialogue[J]. European Journal of Social Theory, 2006, 9:171-186. doi: 10.1177/1368431006063331
[24]	Gottmann J. Spatial partitioning and the politician's wisdom[J]. International Political Science Review, 1980, 1(4):432-455. doi: 10.1177/019251218000100402
[25]	Newman D. The lines that continue to separate us: Borders in our borderless world[J]. Progress in Human Geography, 2006, 30(2):143-161. doi: 10.1191/0309132506ph599xx
[26]	Kolossov V. Border studies: Changing perspectives and theoretical approaches[J]. Geopolitics, 2005, 10(4):606-632. doi: 10.1080/14650040500318415
[27]	Paasi A. Political boundaries[M]// Kitchin R, Thrift N. International encyclopaedia of human geography. Oxford, USA: Elsevier Science, 2009: 217-227.
[28]	Rumley D, Minghi J. The geography of border landscapes[M]. London, UK: Routledge, 1991.
[29]	Brunet-Jailly E. Theorizing borders: An interdisciplinary perspective[J]. Geopolitics, 2005, 10(4):633-649. doi: 10.1080/14650040500318449
[30]	O' Dowd L. From a "borderless world" to a "world of borders": "Bringing history back in"[J]. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 2010, 28:1031-1050. doi: 10.1068/d2009
[31]	Vila P. Border identiﬁ cations: Narratives of religion, gender, and class on the US-Mexico border [M]. Austin, USA: University of Texas Press, 2005.
[32]	Turner B S. The enclave society: Towards a sociology of immobility[J]. European Journal of Social Theory, 2007, 10(2):287-304. doi: 10.1177/1368431007077807
[33]	Paasi A. Territories, boundaries and consciousness[M]. Chichester, USA: John Wiley, 1996.
[34]	Rumford C. Theorizing borders[J]. European Journal of Social Theory, 2006, 9(2):155-169. doi: 10.1177/1368431006063330
[35]	Perkmann M, Sum N L. Globalization, regionalization and cross-border regions[M]. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002.
[36]	Paasi A. Boundaries as social practice and discourse: The Finnish‐Russian Border[J]. Regional Studies, 1999, 33(7):669-680. doi: 10.1080/00343409950078701
[37]	Sack R. Human territoriality: Its theory and history [M]. Cambridge, USA: Cambridge University Press, 1986.
[38]	Anderson M. Frontiers: Territory and state formation in the modern world[M]. Cambridge, USA: Polity, 1996.
[39]	Newman D. On borders and power: A theoretical framework[J]. Journal of Borderlands Studies, 2003, 18(1):13-25. doi: 10.1080/08865655.2003.9695598
[40]	Hannam K, Sheller M, Urry J. Editorial: Mobilities, immobilities and moorings[J]. Mobilities, 2006, 1(1):1-22. doi: 10.1080/17450100500489189
[41]	Nagel C. Questioning citizenship in an age of migration [M]// O'Loughlin J, Staeheli L, Greenberg E. Globalization and its outcomes. New York, USA: Guilford Press, 2004.
[42]	Taylor P J. Embedded statism and the social sciences: Opening up to new spaces[J]. Environment and Planning A, 1996, 28(11):1917-1928. doi: 10.1068/a281917
[43]	Agnew J. The territorial trap: The geographical assumptions of international relations theory[J]. Review of International Political Economy, 1994, 1(1):53-80. doi: 10.1080/09692299408434268
[44]	Krishna S. Cartographic anxiety: Mapping the body politic in India[J]. Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, 1994, 19(4):507-521. doi: 10.1177/030437549401900404
[45]	Balibar E. The borders of Europe [M]// Cheah P, Robbins B. Cosmopolitics. Minneapolis, USA: University of Minnesota Press, 1998.
[46]	Berg E, Ehin P. What kind of border regime is in the making? Towards a differentiated and uneven border strategy[J]. Cooperation and Conflict, 2006, 41(1):53-71. doi: 10.1177/0010836706060935
[47]	Prescott J R V. Political frontiers and boundaries[M]. London, UK: Routledge, 1987.
[48]	Van Houtum H, Kramsch O, Zierhofer W. B/ordering space [M]. Burlington, USA: Ashgate Publishing, 2005.
[49]	Pavlakovich K V, Morehouse B, Wastl W D. Challenged borderlands: Transcending political and cultural boundaries [M]. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Publishing, 2004.
[50]	Paasi A. Generations and the development of border studies[J]. Geopolitics, 2005, 10(4):663-671. doi: 10.1080/14650040500318563
[51]	Newman D. The green line and the separation Fence: Oddly shaped boundaries for Israel/Palestine[M]// Diener A, Hagen J. Border lines: Stories of odd borders and contemporary dilemmas in world politics. New York, USA: Rowman & Littlefield, 2009.
[52]	Jakola F. Borders, planning and policy transfer: Historical transformation of development discourses in the Finnish Torne Valley[J]. European Planning Studies, 2016, 24(10):1806-1824. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2016.1194808
[53]	Koch K, Vainikka V. The geopolitical production of trust discourses in Finland: Perspectives from the Finnish-Russian Border[J]. Journal of Borderlands Studies, 2019, 34(5):807-827. doi: 10.1080/08865655.2019.1646152
[54]	Laine J P, Casaglia A. Challenging borders: A critical perspective on the relationship between state, territory, citizenship and identity: Introduction[J]. Europa Regional, 2017, 24(1/2):3-8.
[55]	Paasi A, Harrison J, Martin J. Handbook on the geogra phies of regions and territories [M]. Northampton, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2018.
[56]	Koslowski R, Schulzke M. Drones along borders: Border security UAVs in the United States and the European Union[J]. International Studies Perspectives, 2018, 19(4):305-324. doi: 10.1093/isp/eky002
[57]	Konrad V, Brunet-Jailly E. Approaching borders, creating borderland spaces, and exploring the evolving borders between Canada and the United States[J]. The Canadian Geographer/Le Géographe Canadien, 2019, 63(1):4-10. doi: 10.1111/cag.v63.1
[58]	Mountz A. Seeking asylum: Human smuggling and bureaucracy at the border [M]. Minneapolis, USA: University of Minnesota Press, 2010.
[59]	Barcus H, Werner C. Transnational identities: Mongolian Kazakhs in the 21st century[J]. Geographische Rundschau: International Edition, 2007, 3(3):7-10.
[60]	Favell A. Immigration, migration and free movement in the making of Europe [M]// Checkel J T, Katzenstein P J. European identity. Cambridge, USA: Cambridge University Press, 2009: 167-190.
[61]	Longstaﬀ P H, Yang S U. Communication management and trust: Their role in building resilience to "surprises" such as natural disasters, pandemic flu, and terrorism [J]. Ecology and Society, 2008, 13(1): 3. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss1/art3/.
[62]	Radil S M, Castan Pinos J, Ptak T. Borders resurgent: Towards a post-Covid-19 global border regime?[J]. Space and Polity, 2020. doi: 10.1080/13562576.2020.1773254.
[63]	Richard B, Beatrice W M. Economics in the time of COVID-19[M]. London, UK: Centre for Economic Policy Research, 2020.

时间	边界内涵	边界特征	代表事件或人物	主要观点
16—17世纪	模糊边界转向清晰边界	现代民族国家的诞生,国家与国家之间开始划定边界从而进行国家内部治理	威斯特伐利亚条约	国家之间有明确的政治边界划分
18—19世纪	自然边界转向人为边界	边界本身并不是完全的自然现象,随政治、经济和社会环境的变化出现普遍的边界空间	拉采尔(F. Ratzel)	边界被视为生存空间斗争而形成的流动和动态的结果
20世纪初至 20世纪80年代	边界的分类体系及描述	边界分离国家现代化进程且是被动的领土标记	哈特向(R. Hartshorne)	边界地理位置的经验描述比边界的划定更重要
20世纪90年代以来	边界的社会建构	边界是流动、混杂的、多样的、高度动态的过渡区域	帕西(A. Paasi)	边界、区域甚至民族国家都不是固定的,它们都受到社会、文化的影响

学科	研究重点	研究贡献
人类学	以领土为中心的局部、特殊边界社区的日常生活与跨境实践	采用民族志的方法,从自下而上的视角解释边界社区的建构性特征
地理学	边界分类、描述及边界景观	为边界研究提供实证模型和特征归纳
政治学	边界过渡区,领土、身份和主权之间的关系	有效探析边界管控和跨界合作等实际问题
社会学	跨界少数民族、民族认同、认同政治	有效分析跨境民族的民族认同与国家认同之间的关系

主要术语	主要内容	代表作
复杂的边界	表征为政治边界,以国家机器、民族主义等意识形态实践、民族认同叙事为主要表现形式,边界、符号和制度结合形成领土的制度化	Paasi^[33]揭示了民族主义意识在芬兰和俄罗斯领土边界上的作用及影响
关系的边界	领土与身份不再是固化关系,导致跨越边界的个人或组织与权力机关的边界控制发生矛盾和冲突,从而衍生多种多样的边界景观	Rumford^[34]以“边界属于每个人”观点为基础,发展了一种以非国家为中心的边界研究方法
过程的边界	边界有一套固定的规则并执行相应的管理职能,随着政治、经济的不断变化,边界建立的制度化和边界管理的永久化会被瓦解和更新	Newman^[23]对无边界世界话语的叙事分析,认为需从自下而上的视角重点关注个体的边界叙事
过渡区的边界	边界是相对模糊且没有明确的界限,边界两边是混合的存在,过渡区边界促使边界变成了一个接触的空间,差异和威胁得以降低	Perkmann等^[35]分析欧盟在跨境公共治理中的表现,探讨国家制度和区域政策的作用
建构的边界	不同行动者为自身利益建构了边界,权力精英可以对社会群体进行排序、分级、管理和控制,普通大众围绕边界进行日常生活实践	Paasi^[36]提出基于话语和社会实践的分析方法分析去领土化和再领土化边界

Construction and criticism: The progress and implication of Western border research after World War II

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

Like

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

Figures/Tables 5

References 63

Related Articles 15

Metrics

Comments

Recommended 0

[1]	WAN Hui, ZHU Hong. Gender, resources, and power of female cross-border marriage immigrants’ home space: A case of villages in Western Guangdong Province [J]. PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY, 2020, 39(11): 1909-1922.
[2]	WU Danxian, GAO Xiaolu. A geographic review of Western research on long-term care for the elderly [J]. PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY, 2020, 39(1): 132-142.
[3]	YANG Rong, LIU Chen, XUE Desheng. A review of the studies on globalization and urban spaces: From the perspective of geographies of religion [J]. PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY, 2020, 39(1): 153-165.
[4]	LIU Xiaofeng, GE Yuejing, HU Wei, HUANG Yu, MA Teng. Spatial impacts of the geopolitics of non-state actors and their formation pathways [J]. PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY, 2019, 38(11): 1735-1746.
[5]	HE Canfei,LI Zhenfa,CHEN Hanghang. Cross-border mergers and acqusitions of Chinese enterprises under the influence of regional integration and institutional distance [J]. PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY, 2019, 38(10): 1501-1513.
[6]	Jianshun WANG, Liyue LIN, Yu ZHU, Genijan·JELIL. Migrants' hukou transfer intention and dynamics in western ethnic minority regions: Evidence from Xinjiang Autonomous Region [J]. PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY, 2018, 37(8): 1140-1149.
[7]	Xueqiong TANG, Junxi QIAN, Xihao YANG. Examining festival culture and ethnic identity from the perspective of cross-border mobility:A case study of Huashan Festival at the Sino-Vietnamese borderland [J]. PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY, 2017, 36(9): 1081-1091.
[8]	Heqiang ZHANG, Yungang LIU. Border identity of Quemoy [J]. PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY, 2017, 36(12): 1521-1530.
[9]	P. LAINE Jussi. Borders and borderscapes under contemporary globalization [J]. PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY, 2017, 36(12): 1531-1539.
[10]	van der VELDE Martin, van NAERSSEN Ton. Acting on Thresholds: Policies and geographical thresholds to mobility [J]. PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY, 2017, 36(12): 1540-1551.
[11]	Xiaobo SU, Xiaomei CAI. Territorial trap and China's transnational anti-drug practices in northern Myanmar [J]. PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY, 2017, 36(12): 1552-1561.
[12]	Jiaoe WANG, Jingjuan JIAO, Yue JING, Li MA. Transport hinterlands of border ports by China-Europe express trains and hub identification [J]. PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY, 2017, 36(11): 1332-1339.
[13]	Chenglong WANG, Hui LIU, Mengtian ZHANG. Progress and prospects of border effect research [J]. PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY, 2016, 35(9): 1109-1118.
[14]	ZHOU Chunshan,YANG Gao. Progress of studies on migrant workers’ residential cummunity in China [J]. PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY, 2016, 35(5): 569-579.
[15]	Tao SONG, Weidong LIU, Le LI. International research on the border regions with a geopolitical perspective and revelation [J]. PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY, 2016, 35(3): 276-285.