網頁 貼吧 文章 作者 工作  
網頁搜尋
 
 愛PO吧 >> egfkrbqg >> 瀏覽文章
回覆 加入我的最愛 與好友分享

Culture and Identity (I)

本被文章 0 次, 共有回覆 0  
0
 
0
浩克 翰林高中 張弘毅[hr]
John Agnew, Chapter 15: "Nationalism" Anssi Paasi, Chapter 1: "The Changing Discourses on Political Boundaries: Mapping the Backgrounds, Contexts and Contents" Bryan Fanning and Fidele Mutwarasibo, "Nationals/Non-nationals: Immigration, Citizenship and Politics in the Republic of Ireland"

MarkAble


Nationalism, territory and boundary were the three most important keywords in these three articles. We often take these concepts for granted as objective existence without questioning how they are shaped and how they function in chorus actually. They are definitely crucial issues in global age which people, goods, and images frequently move and cross borders. Nevertheless, they often meet many kinds of stopped signs in the transnational process even though they simultaneously have hyper mobility in the global condition. According to Agnew's and Passi's arguments, I deem that boundaries dominated by nationalism and territory are the sieves which decide who/what can pass through or not.
Nationalism, territory and boundary were the concepts relating to power and geography. Agnew clearly points that nationalism is ideology shaped by territory. He argues that nationalism loses the symbolic power of national boundary without 'territorial homeland'. Territory is the key to connect nationalism with geography. Territory is the place where 'we-selves' or 'nationals' live in. In terms of Passi, the difference between the inside and outside of the territory defines the self and the other. The definition also reflects the power relationship between the self and the other, or nationals and non-nationals. This is boundary interpreted by Passi. If we associate Agnew's points with Passi, we can see the relationship between nationalism and boundary. In my opinion, it's the mutual function that nationalism can produce the boundary and people who are in the territory portrayed by the boundary defend the nationalism. So, boundary involves ideology from nationalism. For this reason, I consider that boundary is not only like the sieve but the cell membrane. It allows many people and things just like water passing unobstructedly but at the same time it resists someone or something detrimental to enter the territory.
The 2004 Referendum in the Republic of Ireland is a good example to illustrate the accessibilities and restrictions of national boundaries as sieves. In order to avoid that immigrants get citizenships of Ireland by 'jus soli' to share finite social resources, Ireland launched the referendum to decide who is accessible to get citizenship. The entitlement thus became a kind of territorial process involved Irish nationalism. There are many similar cases such as Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan, and so on, that can clearly expound the relationships between nationalism, territory and boundary.
In addition to people, things also can illustrate the boundary socially and culturally mediated. Recently, American beef becomes the serious issue of food safety in Taiwan. Just like Passi's point, the discussions about national boundary are power issues. Why American beef can enter Taiwan definitely touches upon the kind of issues. I wonder what the roles 'science' just like scientific knowledge and scientific discourses play in the process that the Ma government imports beef from American. Many agents holding different opinions exhibit 'science' scientifically to defend or resist the policy about American beef. How does 'science' mediate the national boundary in the issue of global food safety? How do the scientific discourses combine with nationalism, territory and boundary?

逛上一篇:   逛下一篇:

作者: jahuuhlsg
  (2012-12-14 01:26)
推薦文章: 將本文章推薦到【百度收藏】 將本文章推薦到【YouPush】 將本文章推薦到【udn共享書籤】 將本文章推薦到【Fiigo】書籤

 本文章共有回覆 0 篇,分 1 頁
 聲明:以上內容不代表本站立場,且內容由網友發表提供,若有爭議或違法由發表者承擔,本站將不負責連帶責任,謝謝。

 IPoBar  愛PK  愛遊戲  愛online
新手教學 客服中心 站務公告 交換連結 合作提案 關於我們
 
版權所有©ipobar Ltd., All Rights Reserved.
論壇內會員言論僅代表個人觀點,不代表本站同意其說法,本討論區不承擔由該言論所引起的法律責任