Struggles for Symbolic Power: Discourse, Meaning, Nostalgia
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
STRUGGLES FOR SYMBOLIC POWER: DISCOURSE, MEANING, NOSTALGIA, AND MOBILIZATION IN MACAU A Dissertation Submitted to the Temple University Graduate Board In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy by Esther Hio Tong Castillo Examining Committee Members: Matt Wray (Chair), Department of Sociology Sherri Grasmuck, Department of Sociology Lu Zhang, Department of Sociology Mark Purcell, Department of Urban Design and Planning, University of Washington ABSTRACT This dissertation traces the formation of powerful urban discourses in the context of rapid economic transformation in Macau to understand different levels of symbolic production as they are situated within the larger symbolic structure of power. The research is motivated by my attempt to assess the Neo-Marxist utopian proposition about local culture being a possible counter-hegemonic space where revolutionary politics will develop. Exploratory in nature, my research questions are: Can local culture in the forms of personal and localized practices actually generate oppositional politics? Or do they merely serve as marketing tools for the expansion of economic development? What is the role of local culture in the context of Macau’s urban restructuring? To answer these questions, I view the ongoing cultural production of discourse as indications of local culture. Employing the extended case method, I apply reflexive science to ethnography as an ongoing process that looks continually for patterns of situations and elements to inform me about the relationship between local culture and social change. My research adopts a variety of qualitative methods --- I conducted 5 focus groups, 50 in-depth interviews which included life stories and photo-elicitation, critical discourse analysis, as well as extended ethnographic participation. Three types of discourses were identified during fieldwork to understand the formation of local culture with relation to power and social change: authorized, everyday, and mobilizing discourses. Drawing from the theoretical concepts of Pierre Bourdieu such as symbolic power, field, and misrecognition, I connect and map the production of discourses and argue that they represent the macro-, micro-, and meso-levels of a i symbolic system whereby authorized discourse (such as political rhetoric and global neoliberal ideology), everyday discourse (such as local narratives and emotions), and mobilizing discourse (such as protest slogans and grassroots campaigns) interact with one another in multiple fields where the struggle over meanings reinforces and creates social relations linked to power positions. My overall argument asserts that discourses should be conceptualized as a symbolic structure—one that provides the organization and transformation of power relations. Since the struggles over symbolic power via the construction and maintenance of effective discourses involve the production, transmission, and transfusion of cultural meanings that provide appropriate frames and positions for social agents who occupy multiple and sometimes overlapping sub-fields (e.g. fields of social activism, politics, everyday life) structured by the larger field of power relations, social change does not transpire in the field of local culture separate from or innocent of hegemonic power relations. In Macau, local culture simultaneously contains both hegemonic and counter- hegemonic frames and arguments. Social change occurs dialectically when agents negotiate their specific sets of economic, political, and ideological interests within the sub-fields they find themselves in by choosing from the reservoir of possible cultural symbols and thereby reproducing part of culture as structure, while repurposing and tailoring them to create new social practices in pursuit of what they deem desirable and valuable. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This dissertation represents 7 years of work in the Department of Sociology at Temple University. It is not only the result of my own effort, but an outcome of mentorship, guidance, inspiration, intellectual exchange, and support from those who I wish to thank and acknowledge. My deepest thanks go to my advisor, Matt Wray, who has given me considerable intellectual flexibility while still providing me with much-needed guidance and supervision throughout the dissertation writing process. His support and encouragement have helped me push past my self-doubt and discomfort. More importantly, his commitments to academic rigor, scientific honesty, intellectual curiosity, and the craft of writing were contagious, and they have inspired and motivated me even during tough times in the PhD pursuit. I appreciate all his contributions of time and ideas. I thank Sherri Grasmuck for being not only a committee member, but also a mentor and role model. She has contributed immensely to my personal and professional time at Temple. Her openness, empathy, and enthusiasm for life and for others make her the amazing ethnographer, educator, and human being she is. I have learned from her how to tell meaningful stories while conducting rigorous research. I would like to thank my other committee member Lu Zhang for her time, interest, and helpful comments. I have appreciated her broad range of expertise in globalization, labor and social movement, and China. I would also like to thank Mark Purcell for his time and insightful questions during the oral defense. His deep knowledge of Henri Lefebvre’s theory has helped me think through the link between theory and fieldwork. iii Special thanks go to my two research assistants Winnie He and Po Liu who have spent the summer of 2015 in my dining room with me translating and transcribing hours of interview and focus group recording. I could not have finished this dissertation so soon without their assistance. I am indebted to Kathryn Cates who generously offered to read and copyedited my dissertation on a very tight schedule. I truly appreciate her precise and accurate work as well as her words of encouragement during the toughest phase of the writing process. Lastly, I would like to thank my family for their love and support. For my stepson Raymond, thank you for being the wonderful young man you are and being there for me. For my husband Jimmy, I cannot thank you enough for your constant love, patience and hard work that were so much needed to get through this PhD pursuit, especially during the final stages. For my daughter who just turned one last week, your being in the world gave me the motivation to get to the finish line and push myself in ways that I have not thought possible. Thank you. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT........................................................................................................................ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS................................................................................................. iii LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................ vii LIST OF FIGURES..........................................................................................................viii LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS..............................................................................................ix CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ……….............................................................................................1 2. METHODOLOGY AND METHODS..........................................................................21 Extended Case Method..........................................................................................21 The Study Design..................................................................................................23 Focus Groups.............................................................................................23 In-Depth Interviews, Life Stories and Photo-Elicitation...........................24 Ethnographic Participation........................………...…………...…..........27 Critical Discourse Analysis.......................................................................28 Studying “My Own People”..................................................................................30 Doing Reflexive Science through ECM................................................................32 Intervention................................................................................................32 Process.......................................................................................................33 Structuration..............................................................................................34 3. THE SYMBOLIC STRUGGLE FOR AUTHORIZED DISCOURSE.........................36 Introduction...........................................................................................................36 The Production of Colonial Nostalgia...................................................................37 The Chinese Narrative of Modern Nationalistic Macau........................................41 The Urban Representation of a Sin City................................................................45 The Symbolic Dominance of Macau as a Global Casino City..............................50 The Inconsistent Discourse of the Macau SAR Government................................55 Conclusion: The Multiplicity of Authorized Discourse.........................................62 4. EVERYDAY DISCOURSES AND THE DESTABILIZATION OF AUTHORIZED DISCOURSE.........................................................................................................65