BURMA OR MYANMAR?: The Struggle for National Identity. Editor, Lowell Dittmer.
Burma or Myanmar?民族认同的斗争》。编辑，Lowell Dittmer。新加坡；新泽西州哈肯萨克：世界科学，2010年，xiv，380页。(表、图。）98.00美元，布质。ISBN 978-981-4313-64-3。
对缅甸最近的政治改革的集体惊讶反映了自冷战结束以来的特殊话语的遗留问题。近二十五年来，缅甸的国内局势被国际化了，并通过伴随着世界其他地区自由民主国家的崛起而出现的术语和经验进行解释。对缅甸的期待和对这些规定的政治期望的失败激发了整个学术流派，强调了该国的特殊差异。因此，对缅甸当代局势的分析往往以二元对立的方式进行，而忽略了缅甸历史和社会中更为复杂的动力和长期模式的特点。乍一看，Lowell Dittmer编辑的《缅甸还是缅甸？争取国家认同的斗争》(The Struggle for National Identity)可能被认为是这种认识论背景下的产物，它是在2010年的选举和随后的2011-2012年的改革之前构思和出版的。
Dittmer在介绍这本由12篇文章组成的书集时，提出我们在过去25年中看到的当代斗争和分裂反映了更长期的发展危机，从而偏离了这种框架：
由于系统性的压制（大概是军方的压制），缅甸人民从未被允许充分发展民族认同。因此，缅甸预期的政治发展受到阻碍，导致缅甸社会内部以及与国际社会的深刻裂痕。
因此，1988年、1990年、2003年和2007年的公众示威和抗议活动可以被解读为群众为实现预先设定的目标而进行的尝试。
民主的结果。虽然读者可能会质疑该卷对国家认同的简要处理，认为它严格来说是一个连贯的、有机的、非国家的过程，但该文集的初步框架是一个重要的步骤，因为它为从一个潜在的更具包容性的、跨学科的角度思考当代缅甸提供了可能。
本书分为四个子部分（大众政治、精英政治、政治经济和外交政策），将各个章节松散地联系在一起。其中六章源于《亚洲概览》特刊中的早期版本（第48卷第6期，2008年），反映了2007年所谓的藏红花革命之后人们对缅甸的熟悉讨论。虽然其中许多章节已经更新到2009年，但围绕1988年的学生示威、1990年代的选举、民主变革、少数民族问题、昂山素季以及国家的各种失败的问题仍然是分析的重点。
在第一部分 "大众政治 "中，伊恩-霍利迪（Ian Holliday）考虑了民主过渡的前景，汤姆-克莱默（Tom Kramer）从民族群体的角度调查了国内局势，克里斯蒂安-芬克（Christian Fink）则从人道主义危机追溯到国家对其与缅甸社会关系的看法。所有这三篇文章都体现了主导关于缅甸的主流表述的关键套路，并在Dittmer关于发展危机的论述中得到了很好的体现。
第二部分 "精英政治 "是该文集中最有力的两篇文章。觉英（Kyaw Yin Hlaing）撰写的《昂山素季：缅甸持不同政见的民主人士》（Daw Aung San Suu Kyi: A Burmese Dissident Democrat）一章，将这位民主偶像及其政党的形象历史化并加以解读，既勇敢又富有洞察力。觉英的分析敦促我们重新考虑许多被剥夺了严肃学术审查的话语--特别是那些与 "反对派 "有关的话语。温敏的这一章将受到那些对国内政治中军队一言堂的描述不满意的读者的欢迎。温敏提出了一个令人信服的理由，即军队内部的斗争与当前的政治竞争关系不大，而与缅甸社会的结构关系更大。觉英和温敏偏离了传统的观点，丹尼尔-戈马的章节通过研究内比都的建立，使读者回到了对军政府更容易辨认的批评。
第三部分 "政治经济 "提供了一个重要的例子，说明我们的资料来源、标准和分析假设是如何产生缅甸的不同形象的。肖恩-特内尔（Sean Turnell）的文章重点讨论了人们经常提到的缅甸丰富的自然资源（尤其是天然气）和困扰社会的可悲的社会经济状况之间的对立，并对国家政策提出了批评，这与克里斯蒂娜-芬克（Christina Fink）先前的章节有密切交集。Jalal Alamgir的这一章对缅甸的 "孤立主义 "形象进行了及时的重新评估，他指出，尽管缅甸是一个孤立的国家，但它实际上增加了与众多伙伴的国际贸易。
孤立 "的形象进行了及时的重新评估。在本卷的所有章节中，这是唯一一个试图与国家认同问题建立联系的分析。
最后一节《外交政策》讨论了缅甸与中国、印度和东盟分别建立的关系。Min Zin评估了中国和缅甸之间的多层次关系，指出双方都有一系列的目标，尽管人们认为他们各自的政策是一致的。Renaud Egreteau对印度与缅甸关系的评论表明，印度在发展其战略地位方面不如中国成功，并探讨了不同的伙伴关系。斯蒂芬-麦卡锡（Stephen McCarthy）对东盟与缅甸关系的调查回顾了标志性的外交事件和问题，这些事件已经成为国际社会讨论缅甸国内事务的重要组成部分。冒着低估每篇文章中精细分析的风险，最后一节倾向于重申和重提自1988年以来构建缅甸主流形象的相同叙述和批评。
总的来说，这卷书在重点和执行方面都缺乏一种凝聚力。虽然大多数编辑过的书都有这样的缺点，但奇怪的是，大多数作者都没有尝试参与身份认同的主题。此外，撰稿人几乎没有尝试参与对方的论点。例如，如果能读到Goma和Min Zin（他们的章节依赖于缅甸孤立主义的传统概念）如何回应Jalal Almagir以及在某种程度上Stephen McCarthy对这一形象的批评，那就很有意思了。
最后，本卷中的大多数章节都忽略了对其资料来源性质的评论，没有对其观点进行定位，也没有认识到其分析中所采用的许多事件或立场的争议性质。缅甸面临的挑战之一是，由于在1988年之前就有不同的历史、地理、政治、宗教和语言经历，该国的许多主要利益相关者对什么是国家社会有着不同的想法。将我们的学术注意力引向这些长期因素，可能会扩大和加深我们对缅甸社区形成的理解。
新加坡国立大学，新加坡 梅特里-昂德温
The collective astonishment over recent political reforms in Myanmar reflects the legacy of particular discourses that have been in play since the end of the Cold War. For nearly twenty-five years, Myanmar’s domestic situation has been internationalized and interpreted through the terms and experiences that accompanied the rise of liberal-democracies in other parts of the world. The anticipation for Myanmar and the failure to meet these prescribed political expectations inspired a whole genre of scholarship that emphasized the country’s exceptional differences. As a result, analyses of Myanmar’s contemporary situation were often cast in binary terms that overlooked the more complex dynamics and long-term patterns that have characterized Myanmar history and society. At first glance, the publishing of Lowell Dittmer’s edited volume, Burma or Myanmar?: The Struggle for National Identity, might be appreciated as a product of that epistemological context, having been conceived and published before the elections of 2010 and the ensuing reforms of 2011-2012.
Dittmer introduces the collection of twelve essays as a departure from this framing by proposing that the contemporary struggles and fragmentation that we have witnessed in the last two-and-a-half decades reflect a longer developmental crisis: Myanmar’s people were never allowed to fully develop a national identity due to systematic suppression (presumably by the military). As a result, Myanmar’s anticipated political development was stunted, resulting in deep rifts within Burmese society and with the international community. Public demonstrations and protests in 1988, 1990, 2003 and 2007 could thus be read as attempts by the masses to realize the pre-ordained
outcome of democracy. While readers might question the volume’s brief treatment of national identity as strictly a coherent, organic, non-state process, the initial framing of the collection is an important step because it offers the potential for thinking about contemporary Myanmar from a potentially more inclusive, inter-disciplinary perspective.
The book is organized into four sub-sections (Mass Politics, Elite Politics, Political Economy and Foreign Policy) that loosely link the individual chapters together. Six of the chapters stem from earlier versions that appeared in a special issue of Asian Survey (vol. 48, no. 6, 2008) and reflect familiar discourses of Myanmar that followed the so-called Saffron Revolution in 2007. While many of these chapters were updated to 2009, issues surrounding the student demonstrations of 1988, the 1990s elections, democratic change, minority issues, Aung San Suu Kyi, and the various failures of the state continue to structure the analyses.
In the first section, Mass Politics, Ian Holliday considers the prospects for a democratic transition, Tom Kramer surveys the domestic situation from the perspective of ethnic groups, and Christian Fink traces the humanitarian crises to the state’s perception of itself in relation to Burmese society. All three contributions exemplify key tropes that have dominated mainstream representations about Myanmar and settle comfortably upon Dittmer’s thesis of a developmental crisis.
The second section, Elite Politics, features two of the strongest articles in the collection. The chapter by Kyaw Yin Hlaing, “Daw Aung San Suu Kyi: A Burmese Dissident Democrat” is both courageous and insightful in the way that it historicizes and unpacks the image of the democracy icon and her party. Kyaw Yin Hlaing’s analysis urges us to reconsider the many discourses—especially those connected to “the” opposition—that have been deprived of serious academic scrutiny. Win Min’s chapter will be appreciated by readers who have been unsatisfied by the portrayal of a monolithic military in domestic politics. Win Min makes a convincing case that the struggles within the military has less to do with current political contests and more to do with the structures of Myanmar society. Where Kyaw Yin Hlaing and Win Min depart from conventional views, Daniel Goma’s chapter returns readers to a more recognizable critique of the military government by examining the founding of Naypyidaw.
The third section, Political Economy, provides an important example of how our sources, criteria, and analytical assumptions produce different images of Myanmar. Sean Turnell’s article focuses on the oft-mentioned dichotomy between Myanmar’s abundant natural resources (in particular natural gas) and the deplorable socio-economic conditions afflicting society, and provides a criticism of state policy that intersects closely with the earlier chapter by Christina Fink. Jalal Alamgir’s chapter offers a timely reassessment of the “isolationist” image of Myanmar by showing that the country actually increased its international trade with a wide range of partners despite being
characterized as reclusive and insular. Of all the chapters in the volume, it was the only analysis that attempted to make a connection with the issue of national identity.
The final section, Foreign Policy, addresses relationships that Myanmar has developed with China, India, and ASEAN, respectively. Min Zin evaluates the multi-layered relationship between China and Myanmar, noting that both sides have a range of objectives, despite the perception that their respective policies are coherently articulated. Renaud Egreteau’s comments on India’s relationship with Myanmar suggest that India has not been as successful as China in developing its strategic position and explores the different partnerships. Stephen McCarthy’s survey of ASEAN’s relationship with Myanmar recaps the signature diplomatic events and issues that have become part and parcel of the international discussion on Myanmar’s domestic affairs. At the risk of understating the moments of fine analysis within each of these contributions, the final section tended to reify and rehash the same narratives and critiques that have structured the mainstream image of Myanmar since 1988.
Taken together, the volume lacked a sense of cohesiveness, both in focus and execution. While most edited volumes suffer from this shortcoming, it was curious that most of the contributors did not attempt to engage the theme of identity. In addition, there was little attempt by the contributors to engage each other’s arguments. For example, it would have been interesting to read how Goma and Min Zin (whose chapters rely on the conventional notion of Myanmar isolationism) would have responded to the critique of that image by Jalal Almagir and, to some extent, Stephen McCarthy.
Finally, the majority of the chapters in this volume neglected to comment on the nature of their sources, situate their perspectives, or recognize the contested nature of many of the events or positions employed in their analyses. One of the challenges facing Myanmar is that many of the key stakeholders within the country have had different ideas about what constitutes a national community, due to different historical, geographical, political, religious and linguistic experiences that began well before 1988. Directing our scholarly attention to those long-term factors might broaden and deepen our understanding of community formation in Myanmar.
National University of Singapore, Singapore Maitrii Aung-Thwin
留言
張貼留言