圣地抑或领土:“民族国家之外”的遗产存续——耶路撒冷的日常生活与空间实践
|
摘要
知识界关于耶路撒冷的整体性理解,存在两种差异化的认知路径,即民族国家与宗教文明,但是这两种看似对立的认知路径却具有内在的一致性与连续性,从而使得有关耶路撒冷的文化遗产保护总是陷入圣地"领土化"的棘手境地之中。虽然,民族国家治理的缺位给当地遗产保护带来了文物毁损、秩序混乱等诸多问题,但同时也提供了遗产保护在"民族国家之外"发生的可能性;更多的主体以更为日常化、生活化的方式参与遗产形态的延续之中,构成了一个未经民族国家精心设计的、多元主体共存的遗产景观,而发生于"民族国家之外"的遗产存续过程,对于反思围绕领土所展开的巴以冲突同样具有相当的启发性。
The academe has been following two cognitive pathways for understanding Jerusalem:nation-state and religious civilization. But as the two seemingly opposite paths have inherent consistency and continuity,heritage protection in Jerusalem has been caught in the thorny situation of"territorialization"of the Holy Land. Due to the absence of nation-state governance,protection of Jerusalem' s heritage has been beset with such problems as damaged or destroyed relics and lack of order. But such absence has also provided the possibility that heritage protection could occur outside the nation-state. Adopting an ethnographic approach,this paper attempts to delineate the heritage and expression of different religious communities in the Old City of Jerusalem. The paper argues that the absence of a nation-state has enabled more people to participate in the continuation of the heritage forms on a more routine and daily basis,creating a multi-faceted heritage landscape without being designed by a nation-state. The continuation of heritage outside this nation-state can also inspire a rethink of the Palestinian-Israeli conflicts over the territory.
The academe has been following two cognitive pathways for understanding Jerusalem:nation-state and religious civilization. But as the two seemingly opposite paths have inherent consistency and continuity,heritage protection in Jerusalem has been caught in the thorny situation of"territorialization"of the Holy Land. Due to the absence of nation-state governance,protection of Jerusalem' s heritage has been beset with such problems as damaged or destroyed relics and lack of order. But such absence has also provided the possibility that heritage protection could occur outside the nation-state. Adopting an ethnographic approach,this paper attempts to delineate the heritage and expression of different religious communities in the Old City of Jerusalem. The paper argues that the absence of a nation-state has enabled more people to participate in the continuation of the heritage forms on a more routine and daily basis,creating a multi-faceted heritage landscape without being designed by a nation-state. The continuation of heritage outside this nation-state can also inspire a rethink of the Palestinian-Israeli conflicts over the territory.
引文
(1)Satu Kivel?and Sami Moisio,“The State as a Space of Health:on the Geopolitics and Biopolitics of Healthcare Systems”,Territory,Politics,Governance 5,no.1,2017,pp.28~46.
(1)“领土化”概念在地缘政治和边界研究中被广泛使用,其内涵指向了在现代性进程中政治空间组织形式向民族国家形态转变,即从多权力中心、交叠的权力范畴以及不清晰的权力边界转向单一权力中心、同质性的权力范畴和清晰的权力边界。在这一空间组织过程中,传统的对于空间多样化的解释被单一的民族国家框架所取代,地理空间以及由此延伸的权力空间首先被看作是民族国家排他性支配的领土而存在,其被单独享有、规划和安排,从而建立现代空间秩序。参见Paasi,Anssi,“Boundaries as Social Practice and Discourse:The Finnish‐Russian Border,”Regional Studies 33,no.7,1999,pp.669~680.
(2)宗教本身作为一种超越民族国家框架的事物,却需要转化为一种一致和连续的形态放置到民族国家框架下去理解,从而与民族国家形成同构性,这本身就是民族国家“领土陷阱”的独特表现形式。参见John Agnew,“The Territorial Trap:the Geographical Assumptions of International Relations Theory”,Review of International Political Economy 1,no.1,1994,pp.53~80.
(3)由于在民族国家“领土陷阱”观念的影响下,社会以及文明的延续需要通过领土化的方式来实现,从而民族国家的“缺位”就会自动转化为文明延续的“濒危”。John Agnew,“The Territorial Trap:the Geographical Assumptions of International Relations Theory”,Review of International Political Economy 1,no.1,1994,pp.53~80.
(4)参见《保护世界文化和自然遗产公约》第一条、第四条。
(5)Charlotte Epstein,“Embodying Risk:Using Biometrics to Protect the Borders”,in Risk and the War on Terror,Routledge,2008,pp.194~210.
(6)其并不单纯被视为一个主权决断的结果,而是作为一个更为复杂的社会过程,吸纳更多的参与主体,从而呈现出主权之外的、丰富的日常生活面向。参见Anssi Paasi,“Boundaries as Social Processes:Territoriality in the World of Flows,”Geopolitics 3,no.1,1998,pp.69~88.
(7)圣地“领土化”本身就是遗产呈现的一种主要模式,并且由于民族国家作为一种权力空间的优先性而获得合理性,甚至往往标准化为遗产保护的唯一呈现方式。
(1)[以色列]丹·巴哈特:《耶路撒冷建城史》,王俊等译,上海:同济大学出版社,2017年,第172~175页。
(2)余国庆:《联合国有关决议与耶路撒冷问题》,《西亚非洲》1997年第5期。
(3)Mark B.Salter,“Theory of the Suture and Critical Border Studies”,Geopolitics 17.4,2012,pp.734~755.
(4)因此在联合国教科文组织《世界遗产名录》中,“耶路撒冷老城及城墙”一项被标注为:Old City of Jerusalem and its Walls[site proposed by Jordan],特别标识了该遗产由缔约国约旦申请,而在当时以色列并非联合国教科文组织缔约国。
(1)赵萱,刘玺鸿:《耶路撒冷阿克萨清真寺的人类学解读---从国家的遗产到遗产的文明》,《世界民族》2017年第6期。
(2)Implementation of 35 C/Resolution 75 and 186 EX/Decision 34 Concerning Educational and Cultural Institutions in the Occupied Arab Territories,联合国教科文组织官方网站,http://www.unesco.org,2018年7月17日。
(3)参见坎斯坦勒拉尼注释《布哈里圣训实录精华》,北京:中国社会科学出版社,1981年。
(1)赵萱,刘玺鸿,“耶路撒冷阿克萨清真寺的人类学解读---从国家的遗产到遗产的文明”,《世界民族》2017年第6期。
(2)Jason Dittmer and Nicholas Gray,“Popular Geopolitics 2.0:Towards New Methodologies of the Everyday”,Geography Compass 4,no.11,2010,pp.1664~1677.
(1)Helga Tawil-Souri,“Uneven Borders,Coloured(Im)mobilities:ID Cards in Palestine/Israel”,Geopolitics 17,no.1,2012,pp.153~176.
(1)“领土化”概念在地缘政治和边界研究中被广泛使用,其内涵指向了在现代性进程中政治空间组织形式向民族国家形态转变,即从多权力中心、交叠的权力范畴以及不清晰的权力边界转向单一权力中心、同质性的权力范畴和清晰的权力边界。在这一空间组织过程中,传统的对于空间多样化的解释被单一的民族国家框架所取代,地理空间以及由此延伸的权力空间首先被看作是民族国家排他性支配的领土而存在,其被单独享有、规划和安排,从而建立现代空间秩序。参见Paasi,Anssi,“Boundaries as Social Practice and Discourse:The Finnish‐Russian Border,”Regional Studies 33,no.7,1999,pp.669~680.
(2)宗教本身作为一种超越民族国家框架的事物,却需要转化为一种一致和连续的形态放置到民族国家框架下去理解,从而与民族国家形成同构性,这本身就是民族国家“领土陷阱”的独特表现形式。参见John Agnew,“The Territorial Trap:the Geographical Assumptions of International Relations Theory”,Review of International Political Economy 1,no.1,1994,pp.53~80.
(3)由于在民族国家“领土陷阱”观念的影响下,社会以及文明的延续需要通过领土化的方式来实现,从而民族国家的“缺位”就会自动转化为文明延续的“濒危”。John Agnew,“The Territorial Trap:the Geographical Assumptions of International Relations Theory”,Review of International Political Economy 1,no.1,1994,pp.53~80.
(4)参见《保护世界文化和自然遗产公约》第一条、第四条。
(5)Charlotte Epstein,“Embodying Risk:Using Biometrics to Protect the Borders”,in Risk and the War on Terror,Routledge,2008,pp.194~210.
(6)其并不单纯被视为一个主权决断的结果,而是作为一个更为复杂的社会过程,吸纳更多的参与主体,从而呈现出主权之外的、丰富的日常生活面向。参见Anssi Paasi,“Boundaries as Social Processes:Territoriality in the World of Flows,”Geopolitics 3,no.1,1998,pp.69~88.
(7)圣地“领土化”本身就是遗产呈现的一种主要模式,并且由于民族国家作为一种权力空间的优先性而获得合理性,甚至往往标准化为遗产保护的唯一呈现方式。
(1)[以色列]丹·巴哈特:《耶路撒冷建城史》,王俊等译,上海:同济大学出版社,2017年,第172~175页。
(2)余国庆:《联合国有关决议与耶路撒冷问题》,《西亚非洲》1997年第5期。
(3)Mark B.Salter,“Theory of the Suture and Critical Border Studies”,Geopolitics 17.4,2012,pp.734~755.
(4)因此在联合国教科文组织《世界遗产名录》中,“耶路撒冷老城及城墙”一项被标注为:Old City of Jerusalem and its Walls[site proposed by Jordan],特别标识了该遗产由缔约国约旦申请,而在当时以色列并非联合国教科文组织缔约国。
(1)赵萱,刘玺鸿:《耶路撒冷阿克萨清真寺的人类学解读---从国家的遗产到遗产的文明》,《世界民族》2017年第6期。
(2)Implementation of 35 C/Resolution 75 and 186 EX/Decision 34 Concerning Educational and Cultural Institutions in the Occupied Arab Territories,联合国教科文组织官方网站,http://www.unesco.org,2018年7月17日。
(3)参见坎斯坦勒拉尼注释《布哈里圣训实录精华》,北京:中国社会科学出版社,1981年。
(1)赵萱,刘玺鸿,“耶路撒冷阿克萨清真寺的人类学解读---从国家的遗产到遗产的文明”,《世界民族》2017年第6期。
(2)Jason Dittmer and Nicholas Gray,“Popular Geopolitics 2.0:Towards New Methodologies of the Everyday”,Geography Compass 4,no.11,2010,pp.1664~1677.
(1)Helga Tawil-Souri,“Uneven Borders,Coloured(Im)mobilities:ID Cards in Palestine/Israel”,Geopolitics 17,no.1,2012,pp.153~176.