英文摘要 |
This article aims to review the social movements launched in the name of the farmer in postwar Taiwan, as an attempt to illustrate the connotations of contemporary agrarian movements through historical comparison. By comparing causes and petitions of agrarian movements taking place in different period of times, the article argues that with the transformation of modernity, the focus of agrarian movements gradually shifted from class to environment, from securing factors crucial to the agricultural production and the distribution of agricultural profits to concerns regarding the food safety of their compatriots and the sustainability of the global environment. In such transitions, the connotation of the land shifted as well. In 1950s, the land was fought over as the essential element of production; in the 1970s, while the industrial pollutions became obvious, the land began to hold the connotation of environment; in the late 1980s, ignited by the government's attempt to corporate with the neo-liberalistic global economic order, farmers' anger that has been accumulated for a long time once again made class issue became the main concern of the agrarian movement, while at the same time, farmlands were considered as properties under the control of nation-state and were requested to be allowed to sell without restriction. At around 2010, facing the dire situation of the continuous loss of farmlands and drastic environmental changes, the agrarian movement defended farmlands as properties of farmers that had been despoiled. However, behind the petition of protecting people's property as their basic right, the core concern of the movement is the preservation of farmland and reconstructing agriculture. Reconstructing agriculture is of fundamental importance here, since it not only influences the farmer and the agrarian section, but also the reconstruction of social relations and the restoration of the ecosystem. Nevertheless, it does not mean the new agrarian movement is going to cover up or neglect the class interest of farmers in the name of universal values or eco-friendly claims. On the contrary, it tries to integrate universal value and particular interest, to incorporate environmental issue with class issue, in order to form a force to resist the prevailing developmentalistic mentality and the rent-seeking practices in land planning policies. |