结论：生活在四个政体中字幕缅甸-泰国边境的国家和跨境流动

结论

在这篇论文中，我集中讨论了两个相关的问题：边境控制和跨境流动。当我第一次踏入边境检查站时，缅泰边境地区的特点--不一致性、任意性和不稳定性给我留下了深刻的印象，这仍然是我在本论文中要解决的核心难题。因此，本论文叙述了我在缅泰边境地区的经历和调查，以回答三个主要研究问题：

1）在过去的五十年里，国家和非国家行为者在多大程度上塑造了人员和商品的流动？ 

2）在历次边境管制制度下，边境社区是如何应对边境管制和国家施加的规则和条例的？

在这个结论中，我采用了与导言相似的模式。我将描述这项工作的贡献，并建议在四个研究领域进行讨论，以促进我们的知识：边境地区研究、国家转型、跨境流动以及流动和移民研究。

边境地区研究

本研究中对缅泰边境地区的调查体现了边境地区研究的新方向，即不再以民族国家的边界为重点。然而，学者们在一定程度上达成了共识，即忽视民族国家的存在和扩散，就无法充分研究边疆和边界（van Schendel & de Maaker, 2014），因此，该领域的研究人员已经设计了一些概念来理解边疆和边界在其他地方跨越时间和空间的动态（Newman, 2003; Rumford, 2006; Konrad, 2015）。缅泰边境地区是一个应用这种新方法的案例研究。

我在整个研究中认为，这个边境地区反映了高度的复杂性，因为在这里，跨境社区更承认非正式的政治边界而不是正式的民族国家边界。由国家边界隔离的双面国家空间性实际上并不与当地人感知和互动的想象中的边界相吻合。这与理想的现代民族国家的意识形态相矛盾，在这种意识形态中，两个民族国家应该被承认，并在管理边境事务中发挥积极作用。由于边境地区的多面性，个人能够根据个人情况的需要制定策略（van Schendel & de Maaker, 2014）。这削弱了民族国家边界的重要性。社会科学中的 "空间转向 "使我们不仅能看到在地图上占主导地位的民族国家边界（Rumford，2006），而且还能看到其他类型的政治和社会边界。民族国家的边界现在越来越受到争议，重新划定，并重新调整。

缅泰边境地区呈现出一种悖论。一方面，它是两个国际公认的国家的交汇点，但另一方面，它又是四个不同政治的权力关系不断变化的舞台。因此，这就赋予了边境地区以活力，国家和非国家行为者都在相互竞争中塑造这个动态的边境地区。在这篇论文中，

我证明了四个政治体--

缅甸军队、泰国国家、Maha Ja家族和南部掸邦军队的政治领土化证实了 "战略空间 "的创造（Menzies，1992），

这对以国家为中心的边境地区解读提出了挑战。

为了回答第一个问题，国家和非国家行为者在多大程度上塑造了跨境流动--显然，国家试图加强边境控制和管理人员和货物流动的努力是无效的。基于政治边界内和政治边界外建立的多种关系的跨境网络，其影响超越了民族国家的领土化。更具体地说，我通过 "边境控制制度 "的视角研究了缅甸-泰国边境地区。在过去的五十年里，三个连续的制度--边境、边界和流动--形成并影响了跨境事务。我希望这个概念性的镜头能为边境地区的学者提供一个新的视角，避免方法论上的民族主义（Wimmer & Glick Schiller, 2002, Glick Schiller & Salazar, 2013）。

国家转型

"国家总是在形成中"。

我引用伦德（2016，第1199-1200页）的话，是为了把边境的国家描绘成流动的、转变的、不一致的和任意的。国家是情境性和背景性的。然而，正如Lund（2016）所认为的，随着时间的推移，国家从一种形式转变为另一种形式并不会使该国家变得脆弱或易碎。正如我在本论文中所论述的那样，在缅泰边境地区，非国家行为者也在行使类似于国家的公共权力，因此国家和类似国家的行为者并不一定是对立的。过去的研究者试图将缅甸边境的自治政体定义为 "国中之国"、"微型国家 "或 "小国家"（Kyu，2016；Than，2016）。在这篇论文中，我通过从边境地区社区的角度来看，官方承认的国家和其他政体之间的差异已经消解。

我还说明，边境地区的领土制造是辩证的：国家越是想通过领土化来巩固其权力，就越是受到挑战--既包括类似国家的行为者，也包括跨境社区。在这篇论文中，还有一个方面涉及对国家官员在地方上的表现的分析。我从这个角度看国家，是为了挑战将国家视为一种 "结构 "而不是一种变化过程的观点。泰国的国家官员被社会认为是根据不断变化的情况来执行法律和法规的。

跨界流动

本论文旨在扩大对掸族商人和移民如何跨越政治边界和民族国家边界的研究的空间范围，包括他们在旅途中的重叠。探讨这个方面是为了回答第二个问题，即在不同的制度下，边境社区如何对规则和国家边境控制进行调整和反应。我认为他们采取了不同的策略来对抗国家和非国家权力，同时参与走私活动，操纵法规，创造他们自己的规则，以及在交易和移动货物的过程中使商品的含义多样化，跨越国家边界。

这篇论文的目的是为从根本上扩大跨境连接的范围做出贡献。为此，我与那些分别研究人员和商品流动的学者不同。我把它们放在持续的互动中来看。在商品研究中，学者们意识到，商品与人类活动密切相关，它们创造了与个人有关的 "社会生活"。商品成为 "演员"，拥有自己的社会和文化生活（Appadurai，1986）。然而，很少有学者真正强调人与商品之间的复杂互动，在这种互动中，两种流动的意义在跨越边界的运动中汇聚和互动。在这篇论文中，我强调了掸族流动与特定商品密切相关的方式。我认为，人和物在跨越政治边界和民族国家边界时，既可以是相互支持的，也可以是相互阻碍的来源。在面对旨在强化和执行边境管制措施的国家法规时，使商品的意义多样化是跨境社区的谈判策略之一。

流动和移民研究

边境社区并不总是顺从于边境管制。他们以不同的策略主动或被动地应对结构性力量。掸族跨境商人和劳工移民的叙述反映了他们通过跨境网络加强流动的做法，从而成功地移民到泰国，并有能力改变移民模式以改善他们的生活。然而，正如van Hear（2010，第1533页）所言，移民学者仍然很少关注在 "社会转型"（Vertovec，1999；Castles，2010）或 "社会变革"（Portes，2010）的更大范围内，揭示那些使许多人能够移民但却阻止其他人移民的机制。这篇论文试图通过解开支持和维持掸族跨境流动和移民泰国的机制来填补这一空白，以反映社会空间如何随着边界的重新划分而发生转变。在这项研究中，我追溯了几个在不同时期越过边境移民到泰国的掸族移民的生活故事。研究结果证实，尽管加强了边境管制，但人员和货物的流动仍然有增无减。

此外，这篇论文还对单个流动个体可能参与的移徙过程的复杂性进行了深入研究。受流动学者（Sheller & Urry，2006；Cresswell，2010；Faist，2010；2013b；Glick Schiller & Salazar，2013）的影响，我超越了几十年来主导移民学术的跨国主义的视角，考察了单人流动和移民。他们的作品提出了一些关键的主题，如移民在东道国社会中发展归属感，散居地和祖国之间的关系，以及应对新环境的身份构建（Fortier, 2000; Mankekar, 2005; Ferguson, 2008; Jirattikorn, 2008; Möhring, 2008; Panyagacw, 2008），相反，我认为流动和移民在一个动态和无尽的过程中交织在一起，对国家的形成和因此在边境地区重新扩展的空间性做出反应。在这项研究中，掸族移民往往会继续长期流动，因此他们对掸邦和泰国的社会转型做出了重大贡献。

综上所述，我已经回答了一开始提出的三个主要研究问题。首先，我认为缅泰边境地区的国家和非国家行为者都在三种不同的边境管制制度下形成了跨境流动。必须认识到，非国家行为者形成了一个复杂的混合体，包括边境地区政治的地方统治者（如Maba Ja家族和SSA-S）、商人、家庭、劳工移民、卡车司机、搬运工，以及其他许多人。不同的规则和条例被强制执行以获取利益，或者以行动自由为条件，或者与其他势力争夺。尽管如此，边境仍然具有很强的渗透性，人员和商品的流动仍在蓬勃发展。第二，边境社区和个人已经能够创造性地应对新的规则和条例，以相当大的案例来操纵它们，以支持他们和他们携带的商品的流动。

第三，我认为缅甸-泰国边境地区是一个特殊的案例，代表了国家形成的特殊历史所带来的复杂性。边境地区除了国家行为体之外，还容纳了多个社会行为体：类似国家的实体、强大的边境精英、活跃的武装民族团体以及边境社区。他们都参与了对边境控制权的积极争夺。为此，我的论文强调，边境地区研究需要警惕方法论上的民族主义，以及将边境地区概念化为仅仅由两个民族国家主导的倾向。缅甸泰国边境地区可能是一个相当极端的案例，即多个政治当局共存，边境社区长期与四个政治共存。然而，这个案例更广泛的意义在于，它应该使未来的研究者对这种多重政治当局在边境地区运作的可能性持开放态度，而这些边境地区乍看之下可能不那么复杂。

CONCLUSION

In this dissertation I have focused on two related issues: border control and cross-border mobility. The characteristics of the Myanmar-Thailand borderland-inconsistency, arbitrariness and precariousness that struck me when I first stepped into the border checkpoint have remained the central puzzle for me to resolve in this dissertation. This work therefore narrates what I have experienced and investigated in the Myanmar-Thailand borderland in order to answer three main research questions: 1) To what extent have states and non-state actors shaped the mobility of people and commodities in the past five decades?; 2) How do border communities respond to border control and state-imposed rules and regulations under the successive regimes of border control?; and 3) Are these dynamics specific to this section of the Myanmar-Thailand borderland or are they of wider significance?

In this conclusion, I follow a similar pattern as that of the introduction. I will describe the contribution of this work and suggest discussions that could further our knowledge in four study areas: borderland studies, state transformation, cross-border flows, and mobility and migration studies.

Borderland studies

The investigation of the Myanmar-Thailand borderland in this research exemplifies the new direction of borderland studies, which is moving away from taking nation-state borders as their focus. Nonetheless, there is a degree of consensus amongst scholars that borderlands and borders cannot be sufficiently studied by neglecting the existence and proliferation of nation- states (van Schendel & de Maaker, 2014), Consequently, researchers in this field have devised concepts to understand dynamics of borderlands and borders elsewhere across time and space (Newman, 2003; Rumford, 2006; Konrad, 2015). The Myanmar-Thailand borderland is a case study applying this new approach.

I have argued throughout this research that this borderland reflects a high degree of complexity because here cross-border communities acknowledge informal political boundaries more than formal nation-state borders. Two-sided national spatiality segregated by national borders does not actually coincide with the imagined boundaries that people on the ground perceive and interact with. This contradicts the ideology of the ideal modern nation-state in which two nation-states should be recognized, and play an active role in managing border affairs. Due to the borderland's multifaceted nature, individuals are able to strategize to suit the needs of their personal situations (van Schendel & de Maaker, 2014). This diminishes the importance of nation-state borders. The "spatial turn" in the social sciences allows us to see not only nation- state borders that are dominantly presented in maps (Rumford, 2006), but also other types of political and social boundaries. Nation-state borders are now increasingly contested, redrawn, and rescaled.

The Myanmar-Thailand borderland presents a paradox. On one hand, it is the meeting point of two internationally recognized states, but on the other, it is the stage on which the ever- changing power relations of four distinct politics are played out. Consequently, this endows the borderland with dynamism, and both state and non-state actors mutually and competitively shape this dynamic border zone. In this dissertation, I have demonstrated that political territorialization by four polities-the Burma Army, the Thai state, the Maha Ja family and the Shan State Army-South has corroborated the creation of 'strategic space' (Menzies, 1992) that challenges state-centered readings of borderlands.

To answer the first question to what extent state and non-state actors shape cross- border mobility-it is clear that state attempts to intensify border control and to manage flows of people and goods are ineffectual. The impact of cross-border networks based on a multitude of relationships created within and across political boundaries is felt beyond nation-state territorialization. More specifically, I have studied the Myanmar-Thailand borderland through the lens of 'regimes of border control. The three successive regimes-frontier, border, and mobility-have shaped and influenced cross-border affairs over the past five decades. I hope this conceptual lens provides a new perspective for borderland scholars to avoid methodological nationalism (Wimmer & Glick Schiller, 2002, Glick Schiller & Salazar, 2013).

State transformation

"The state is always in the making."

I quote Lund (2016, pp. 1199-1200) in order to portray states at the border as fluid, transforming, inconsistent, and arbitrary. States are situational and contextual. However, as Lund (2016) argues, state transformation from one form to another over time does not render that state as weak or fragile. As I argue throughout this dissertation, in the Myanmar-Thailand borderland non-state actors also exercise public authority similar to a state, and therefore states and state-like actors are not necessarily antithetical. Past researchers have attempted to define the autonomous polities along Myanmar's borders as "state within state", "mini state," or "statelet" (Kyu, 2016; Than, 2016). In this dissertation, I have shown by taking the perspective of borderland communities, the differences between officially recognized states and other polities dissolve.

I have also illustrated that territory making at the border is dialectical: the more the state aims to consolidate its power through territorialization, the more it is challenged--both by state- like actors and by cross-border communities. Throughout this dissertation, a further aspect concerns the analysis of state officials' performance at a local level. I look at the state from this angle to challenge the perspective in which the state is seen as a 'structure' rather than as a process in flux. Thai state officials are perceived by the community as enforcing laws and regulations in accordance with changing circumstances.

Cross-border flows

This dissertation aims to expand the spatial scale of studies on how Shan traders and migrants cross both political boundaries and nation-state borders, including their overlap along the journey. This facet is explored in order to respond to the second question, on how border communities adjust and react to rules and state-border controls under different regimes. I have argued that they adopt different strategies to outwit states and non-state powers, while engaging in smuggling activities, manipulating regulations, and creating their own rules, as well as by diversifying the meanings of commodities in the process of trading and moving goods across national borders.

This dissertation aims to contribute to an essential broadening of the scope of cross- border connectivity. To this end, I diverge from scholars who have studied the mobility of people and commodities separately. I look at them in continual interaction. In commodity studies, scholars realize that goods are closely related to human activities and that they create a "social life' in relation to individuals. Commodities become "actors" that have social and cultural lives of their own (Appadurai, 1986). However, few scholars actually highlight the complex interaction between people and commodities, in which meanings of both flows converge and interact in border-crossing movements. In this dissertation, I have highlighted the ways in which Shan mobility is closely associated with particular commodities. I argue that people and objects can either be mutually supportive or be a source of reciprocal hindrance while crossing political boundaries and nation-state borders. Diversifying the meanings of commodities is one of negotiating strategies of cross-border communities when confronted by state regulations with objectives to harden and enforce border control measures.

Mobility and migration studies

Border communities are not always submissive to border control. They proactively and reactively respond to structural forces with different strategies. The narratives of Shan cross- border traders and labor migrants reflect their practices of fluid mobility strengthened by their cross-border networks, resulting in successful migration to Thailand and with the ability to shift patterns of migration to improve their livelihoods. However, as van Hear (2010, p. 1533) argues, migration scholars continue to pay little attention to uncovering mechanisms that enable many to migrate but prevent others from doing the same within the wider scope of "social transformation" (Vertovec, 1999; Castles, 2010) or "social change" (Portes, 2010). This dissertation is an attempt to fill that gap by unraveling the mechanisms that support and sustain the Shan cross-border mobility and migration to Thailand within a period of five decades to reflect how social space has transformed with the rescaling and redrawing of boundaries. In this research, I have traced the life stories of several Shan migrants who have crossed the border and migrated to Thailand during different time periods. The findings corroborate that, notwithstanding the intensification of border control, the mobility of people and goods continue unabated.

Moreover, this dissertation provides insights into the complexity of migration processes in which single mobile individuals can be involved. Influenced by mobility scholars (Sheller & Urry, 2006; Cresswell, 2010; Faist, 2010; 2013b; Glick Schiller & Salazar, 2013), I have examined Shan mobility and migration beyond the lens of transnationalism that has dominated migration scholarship for decades. Their works present key themes such as migrants developing a sense of belonging in host societies, the relationship between diaspora and homeland, and identity construction to cope with new settings (Fortier, 2000; Mankekar, 2005; Ferguson, 2008; Jirattikorn, 2008; Möhring, 2008; Panyagacw, 2008), Instead, I argue that mobility and migration are intertwined in a dynamic and endless process responding to state formation and consequently rescaled spatiality in the borderland. Shan migrants in this research tend to continue to be on the move, over long periods of time, and thus they contribute significantly to social transformation in Shan State as well as in Thailand.

In summary, I have answered the three main research questions posed at the outset. First, I argue that both state and non-state actors in the Myanmar-Thailand borderland have shaped cross-border mobility under three different regimes of border control. It is important to realize that non-state actors form a complicated amalgam consisting of local rulers of borderland politics (such as the Maba Ja family and the SSA-S), merchants, households, labor migrants, truck drivers, porters, and many more. Different rules and regulations have been enforced to exact benefits, either on condition of freedom of movement or their contestation with other powers. Still, the border remains highly permeable and the mobility of people and commodities continues vigorously. Second, border communities and individuals have been able to respond creatively to new rules and regulations, manipulating them with considerable case to support their mobility and that of the commodities they carry with them.

Third, I argue that the Myanmar-Thailand borderland is a peculiar case representing the complexity resulting from a very specific history of state formation. The borderland accommodates multiple social actors in addition to state actors: state-like entities, powerful border elites, and active armed ethnic groups, as well as border communities. They are all involved in actively contesting control of the border. For this reason, my dissertation underlines the need for borderland studies to be wary of methodological nationalism and the tendency to conceptualize borderlands as simply being dominated by two nation-states. The Myanmar Thailand borderland may be a rather extreme case of multiple political authorities coexisting and of border communities living with four politics over a long period of time. However, the wider significance of this case is that it should sensitize future researchers to be open to the possibility of such multiple political authorities operating in borderlands that, at first sight, may seem less complex.