抢我前妻休想,前车之鉴的意思,且行且珍惜出处
许多旅游产生的国家可以通过后现代、后现代、全球化的社会中，媒体，特别是电子视觉媒体，主宰人们的日常生活提供了大量的信息，表示和图像的世界在一个全球性的规模。大众文化形式的媒体，如电视，电影和书籍是可访问的和普遍的娱乐，是享受和人民群众的喜悦，快乐，白日梦，幻想和幻想，以及理解世界的日常生活（卡蕾，1988）。可以说，它是那些媒体代表和图像，人们实际上是消费而不是现实，并且通过他们了解世界。在旅游业，这是说贸易
60旅游研究6:1的图像，期望，梦想和幻想（塞尔温，1996；乡绅，1996），这些媒体的形象和旅游目的地的形象中发挥重要的作用，影响着人们的假日决策过程为依据，游客选择在哪里参观（Gunn，1972；亨特，1975；Gartner 1989；管家，1990；稳定，1990；Echtner和里奇，1991）。媒体在各种形式的表现和建设的地方和旅游目的地发挥了突出的作用。大众文化形式的媒体，如电影，电视节目和小说，这是不直接关注旅游促销或营销，越来越多地施加的力量，影响旅游业，创造一个日益增长的全球现象，旅游者访问目的地，因为它是在一本书，电影或电视。这种现象引起了影视旅游的文化旅游–新形式（莱利et al.，1998），'media-related旅游”（Busby和Klug，2001：316），和“文学旅游”（Butler，1990）。这些新的旅游形式可以归纳为“大众传媒诱导旅游”。本文认为，大众媒体诱导旅游，并说明媒体表示和图像的旅游目的地构建在流行文化中的意义，主要是在日本游客的调查收集到的数据，英国英国（英国）。What are the contemporary ‘limits of the liberal state’ with respect to immigration, citizenship and the rights of ethnic and religious minorities in contemporary Europe? The papers in this special issue of the Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies examine how recent developments in Europe raise new questions regarding the relationship between liberalism, migration, identity and belonging. In this introduction, we identify three major themes that run through the papers in the issue*the use of liberal norms by states for exclusionary purposes; the possibility of the emergence of ‘illiberal liberalism’; and the extent to which identity politics and policy-making may be increasingly transcending and transforming the limits of the liberal democratic state in Europe. After briefly presenting these three themes, we summarise the arguments of the individual authors and suggest possible directions for future research. Contemporary developments in Europe raise complex and challenging questions regarding the ‘limits of the liberal state’ with respect to immigration, citizenship and the rights of ethnic and religious minorities. Whereas it has regularly been assumed that liberal norms and identities foster greater inclusion, openness and pluralism with respect to migration policies and minority rights, a number of events suggest the Fiona B. Adamson is Senior Lecturer in International Relations at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London. Correspondence to: Dr F.B. Adamson, Dept of Politics and International Studies, SOAS, University of London, Thornhaugh Street, Russell Square, London WC1H 0XG, UK. E-mail: fa33@soas.ac.uk. Triadafilos Triadafilopoulos is Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Toronto. Correspondence to: Prof. T. Triadafilopoulos, Dept of Political Science, University of Toronto, 100 St George Street, Toronto, Ontario M5S 3G3, Canada. E-mail: t.triadafilopoulos@utoronto.ca. Aristide R. Zolberg is Walter P. Eberstadt Professor of Political Science at the New School for Social Research, New York. Correspondence to: Prof. A.R. Zolberg, New School for Social Research, 6 East 16th Street, New York, NY 10003, USA. E-mail: arizol@newschool.edu. ISSN 1369-183X print/ISSN 1469-9451 online/11/060843-17 # 2011 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/1369183X.2011.576188
844 F.B. Adamson, T. Triadafilopoulos & A.R. Zolberg need to re-evaluate such assumptions. What are we to make, for example, of the decision of French authorities to deny a Moroccan woman’s naturalisation application because she wore the niqab?1 In its ruling upholding immigration and social service officials’ initial 2005 decision, the Conseil d’Etat stated that the applicant’s decision to wear the niqab constituted ‘a radical practice of her religion (and) behaviour in society incompatible with the essential values of the French community, notably the principle of equality between the sexes’ (Crumley 2008). The proliferation of similar bans on religious attire in public spaces, restrictions on speech, mandatory integration courses, citizenship tests and controls on the admission of spouses through amendments to family reunification policies*all defended on the grounds that they further liberal ends*suggest the need for a closer interrogation of the relationship between liberalism, migration, identity and belonging in contemporary Europe. The papers brought together in this special issue of JEMS take up this central task of exploring and untangling the boundaries of identity and belonging in the liberal state in Europe. The authors in this issue employ a mix of empirical, normative and legal analyses to make sense of the changing landscape of migration and integration policy. In so doing, they contribute to an emerging area of debate and research on changing migration and incorporation policies in European states (Guild et al. 2009; Joppke 2007a; Schmidtke and O ¨ zc.u¨ru¨mez 2008). Collectively, the papers raise a number of challenging questions for further exploration. When, for example, does the deployment of ‘liberal norms’ become an illiberal practice? What are (and should be) the symbolic boundaries of identity, belonging, membership and community in liberal democratic states? Has liberalism replaced nationalism as the ideology of belonging in Europe, and how do and should states respond to ideas, practices or politics that can be interpreted as ‘illiberal’? Moreover, does it indeed make sense to even discuss such issues with reference to individual states*or do the boundaries and limits of contemporary identity politics, as well as state policy-making, now both transcend, quite literally, the physical and policy-making limits of the liberal state? As a prelude to the analyses in the individual papers that follow, we briefly discuss here some of these key themes, situating them in broader scholarly debates. We focus on discussions regarding the ‘exclusionary’ nature of liberal norms, the question of when liberalism becomes illiberal and the changing nature of boundaries in liberal states. We then turn to a short summary of the individual papers before making a few concluding remarks.
Liberal Norms as Exclusionary? 自由规范作为排除？
The migration studies literature has traditionally conceptualised liberal norms as key factors in producing open migration policies, fostering integration and securing migrants’ rights (i.e. Freeman 1995a; Hollifield 1992; Soysal 1994). Yet states in Europe increasingly appear to also be deploying liberal norms as boundary-markers that delimit and demarcate the symbolic borders of the state. Liberal norms, it seems,
Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 845 may in some cases be replacing or supplementing other boundary-markers, such as ethnic or civic nationalism, in shaping migration and integration policies in European states.2 In many respects, this trend stands in marked contrast to assumptions regarding policy-making in the post-WWII period. The literature on postwar immigration and citizenship politics has emphasised the opening up of liberal states to previously excluded groups, through the renunciation and replacement of racially discriminatory admissions policies (Joppke 2005a; King 2000; Tavan 2005; Triadafilopoulos 2010); the expansion of foreigners’ rights to family reunification (Hansen 2009; Soysal 1994); and the relaxing of rules governing residency, the provision of civil and social rights and the acquisition of citizenship (Carens 2002; Hammar 1990; Hansen and Koehler 2006; Hansen and Weil 2001; Jacobson 1996; Jacobson and Ruffer 2003; Joppke 1999; Howard 2009; Soysal 1994; Weil 2001). That states are using liberal norms in an exclusionary fashion thus presents a challenge to much of the literature on immigration and citizenship politics and policy-making. How are we to understand these developments? Some might argue that they simply represent a shift in the ‘immigration cycle’ (Brubaker 1995; Freeman 1995a, 1995b) or, alternatively, that they are primarily a reaction to a specific set of real or imagined security threats (Hampshire 2009; Tsoukala 2005). Such policies could also be viewed as an extension of the increasingly hostile approaches taken by liberal states to asylum-seekers and undocumented migrants in the 1980s and 1990s. These policies have often been explained by reference to the influence of extreme-right-wing parties*political actors whose adherence to liberal principles, however, is questionable (Angenendt 2003; Betz 2003; Givens 2005; Messina 2007; Minkenberg 2001, 2002; Zaslove 2008). The deployment of liberal norms in an exclusionary fashion could represent a populist turn in European migration and integration policy*in effect a ‘democratising’ of policy-making in this area in ways which reflect popular sentiment rather than entrenched interest groups, thus shifting what is considered to be legitimate public discourse on migration (Brubaker 1995; Freeman 1995a; Guiraudon and Joppke 2001). Arguably such developments could also be interpreted as symbolic of a deeper transformation of state identity and community boundaries away from nationalism and towards the notion of ‘civilisational’ identities of which liberalism then becomes a key tenet (Huntington 1996). |
