解析北领地干预计划中的新自由主义和种族主义

发布时间：2019-01-29 03:11

【摘要】：2006年,北领地土著社区的儿童性虐待问题引起了澳大利亚人民的广泛关注。北领地政府随即设立调查委员会调查此事。该调查委员会的报告(《儿童是神圣的》)指出,儿童性虐待确实是一个严重而普遍的社会问题,它与土著社区的其他社会问题(诸如酗酒、色情、赌博、贫穷、住房短缺、失业等)密不可分。为解决这一系列的社会问题,霍华德政府出台了一项具有争议性的政策—北领地干预计划。尽管不少学者从不同的角度研究过该政策,到目前为止,还未有人研究过其中的意识形态。为弥补这一研究空缺,本文采用话语分析的方法来研究北领地干预计划背后的意识形态。首先,本文鉴别出两种意识形态:新自由主义和种族主义。北领地干预计划体现了三种新自由主义的设想:市场原则应当在社会生活中占主导地位;公民应当为自己的生活状况负责;政府有权干预个人生活。同时,它也体现了以下三种种族主义的设想:土著个体、土著社区和土著文化都存在固有问题;土著事务应当被纳入白人主流;土著人需要殖民式、家长式的统治方式。这两种意识形态都将土著社会问题归罪于土著个体、土著社区和土著文化。同时这两种意识形态对政府的作用持有相似观点:新自由主义认为政府有权干涉个人生活,而种族主义进一步肯定了强制性和歧视性的治理方式。其次,本文指出,以新自由主义和种族主义思想处理土著事务是不合理的。理由是:澳大利亚政府过去的殖民行为与政策不力在一定程度上滋养和助长了土著社会问题;土著文化本身不存在明显问题,反而可以帮助解决问题;土著事务主流化完全忽略了土著人的主观意愿。最后,通过追溯这两种意识形态的历史渊源,本文解释了为何它们能够在政府文件中占据主导地位。在20世纪80年代,新自由主义成为了澳大利亚经济政策的指导思想。1996年霍华德领导的自由党执政后进一步将新自由主义延伸到社会领域。而种族主义在澳大利亚的历史更为悠久,可以追溯到殖民地建立之初。可见新自由主义与种族主义的盛行并非意外。
[Abstract]:In 2006, the issue of child sexual abuse by indigenous communities in the Northern Territory attracted widespread attention among Australians. The Northern Territory government immediately set up a commission of inquiry into the matter. The report of the Commission of Inquiry ("Children are Divine") notes that child sexual abuse is indeed a serious and widespread social problem associated with other social problems of indigenous communities (such as alcoholism, pornography, gambling, poverty, housing shortages), Unemployment, etc.) is inextricably linked. To solve this series of social problems, Howard government issued a controversial policy-Northern Territory intervention plan. Although many scholars have studied the policy from different angles, so far no one has studied the ideology. In order to make up for this gap, this paper uses discourse analysis to study the ideology behind the Northern Territory intervention plan. First, this paper identifies two ideologies: neoliberalism and racism. The Northern Territory intervention Plan embodies three neoliberal assumptions: market principles should dominate social life; citizens should be responsible for their own living conditions; and the government has the right to intervene in individual life. At the same time, it embodies three racist assumptions: indigenous individuals, indigenous communities and indigenous cultures have inherent problems; indigenous affairs should be mainstreamed into the white; and indigenous peoples need colonial, paternalistic forms of governance. Both ideologies attribute indigenous social problems to indigenous individuals, communities and cultures. At the same time, these two ideologies hold similar views on the role of government: neoliberalism believes that government has the right to interfere in individual life, while racism further affirms mandatory and discriminatory forms of governance. Secondly, this paper points out that it is unreasonable to treat indigenous affairs with neoliberal and racist ideas. The reasons are that the past colonial practices and policies of the Australian Government have to some extent nurtured and contributed to the problems of indigenous societies, and that indigenous culture itself does not have obvious problems, but can help to solve them; The mainstreaming of indigenous affairs completely ignores the will of the indigenous people. Finally, by tracing the historical origins of these two ideologies, this paper explains why they can dominate government documents. In the 1980s, neoliberalism became the guiding ideology of Australian economic policy. After Howard's Liberal Party came to power in 1996, it further extended neoliberalism to the social field. Racism has a longer history in Australia, dating back to the early days of the colony. The prevalence of neoliberalism and racism is not surprising.
【学位授予单位】：北京外国语大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：K611.54

【相似文献】