话语与权力：全球互联网治理话语与实践分析

发布时间：2018-01-11 09:16

  本文关键词：话语与权力：全球互联网治理话语与实践分析　出处：《外交学院》2017年博士论文　论文类型：学位论文

  更多相关文章： 话语 权力 互联网治理 多利益攸关方模式

【摘要】：随着国际关系研究的“语言学转向”,语言开始被视为国际政治的一个重要层面,理性主义权力观也发生了变化。在此影响下,国际关系领域的话语研究议程沿着两个主要路径展开:哈贝马斯式微观的互动过程研究,强调话语的交流作用;福柯式宏观的结构性研究,重视话语作为意义结构的影响。本文尝试借鉴批评话语分析的三维分析模式,将上述两个研究路径结合起来,在话语交往事件与意义结构之间,文本及其所处的更广阔社会政治情境之间建立起关联。权力斗争通常以话语实践的形式表现出来,政治文本由此为权力关系研究提供了合适的对象。基于这一前提假定,本文提出了话语与权力之间相互构成的关系假设:话语既以权力关系为基础,同时也是影响权力关系的核心变量。一方面,行为体通过制造主导话语并战略性地运用话语策略维护和巩固权力关系;另一方面,作为意义结构的话语可以促进或制约行为体的实践行为,从而对现实权力关系产生影响。为了验证上述理论假设,本文以全球网络治理领域治理机制的演变过程为案例分析内容,对互联网治理机制发展中几个主要阶段的治理话语和实践进行了三个维度的考察:文本层面对各个时期网络治理讨论文本的语言内容和特征进行了描述性分析;话语实践层面对与文本生产、传播和接受有关的话语斗争过程进行了论述;社会实践层面考察各时期话语互动事件所处的深层政治经济背景。经验性研究的结果表明,全球互联网治理领域强调“私营部门主导”、“多利益攸关方治理”的主导话语是现实权力关系的体现。美国政府、商业和技术精英在互联网早期治理中建立了体现新自由主义原则的治理机制并塑造了去中心化的治理话语,以此牢牢掌握了他们对互联网的控制。其后,当美国主导的互联网治理机制在多边政府间进程中遭到挑战时,现有机制的主导者借助话语结构的影响和话语策略的运用有效维护了其主导地位。然而,话语结构同时也对美国的行为具有制约性影响,并迫使美国在棱镜门事件后做出了放弃对ICANN监管权的权力关系调整。
[Abstract]:With the study of international relations, the "linguistic turn", the language began to be regarded as an important aspect of international politics, rational view of power has changed. Under this influence, the field of international relations discourse research agenda along two main paths: the interaction process of Habermas micro, emphasizing the communication effect of discourse; a study of structural Foucault macro, attach importance to discourse as meaning structure influence. This paper attempts to draw on the criticism of three-dimensional model of discourse analysis, the two research paths combine between discourse communication events and the meaning structure, between the text and the broader social and political situation establishes relationships often in the form of a power struggle. The discourse practice performance, to provide the appropriate political texts as the research object the power relationship. This assumption is based on the proposed. The relationship between language and that form of power: power to both discourse relations as the foundation, but also influence the core variable power relations. On the one hand, the behavior body by making use of dominant discourse and strategic discourse strategies to maintain and consolidate the power relations; on the other hand, practice acts as the meaning structure of discourse can promote or restrict the behavior the body, so as to the reality of power relations impact. In order to verify this assumption, the evolution of the global network governance governance mechanism for case analysis, studied the three dimensions of the discourse and practice of Internet governance governance mechanism in the development of several major stages: text in various periods of network governance are discussed the language content and features of the text of the descriptive analysis; discourse practice level and text production, dissemination and acceptance of the relevant discourse struggle The process is discussed; the level of social practice of deep political and economic background of each period of the event's discourse interaction. The empirical results show that the global Internet governance emphasizes "private sector leadership", "dominant discourse of multi stakeholder governance" reflects the relationship between the powerful force. The United States government, commercial and technical elite in the early days of the Internet Governance in the established governance mechanism reflects the new liberalism principle and governance discourse to the center of the building, to firmly grasp their control over the Internet. Later, when the leading Internet governance mechanism has been challenged in the multilateral intergovernmental process, leading the existing mechanism by using influence discourse structure and the discourse strategy of the effective maintenance of its dominant position. However, the discourse structure also acts of the United States has restrictive effect, and forcing the United States After the prism gate incident, the state has made a waiver of the power relationship adjustment to the ICANN regulatory authority.

【学位授予单位】：外交学院
【学位级别】：博士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D81;TP393.08
，

本文编号：1408948