“侨而不易”何以实现?——以二十世纪六七十年代精简职工为例  

How can “Immigrants Disagree with the Culture of the Destination” be Realized——Take the Streamlining the Employees in the 1960s and 1970s as an Example

作　　者：林盼[1] Lin Pan(Institute of Economics,Chinese Academy of Social Sciences,Beijing,China)

机构地区：[1]中国社会科学院经济研究所,北京100836

出　　处：《社会科学论坛》2021年第5期206-215,共10页Tribune of Social Sciences

摘　　要："大跃进"后期,为了应对城市粮食供应不足的问题,中央制定了精简职工的政策,"运动式"地将千百万企业职工精简到农村。这些办理退职手续前往农村的原职工,表现出对迁入地长时期的不适应,仍然以"单位职工"自居,并采用各种方式提出诉求,要求原单位给予精神关怀与经济补助。该文借用侨易学的相关理论为概念工具,探讨退职职工迁入农村之后,未能实现"因侨致易",而是出现"侨而不易"现象的原因。研究认为,"因侨致易"并非绝对出现,而是建筑在一系列制度基础上。被动的"侨"和地位落差,使制度基础发生变化,对行为主体造成影响,最终导致"侨而不易",因此需要对具体的制度基础进行辨析,加深对物质位移和精神漫游之间相关性的认识。In the late period of the Great Leap Forward, in order to deal with the problem of insufficient food supply in cities, the central government formulated a policy of streamlining employees, and reduced millions of enterprise workers to rural areas in the way of campaign-style governance. These retired workers who went to the countryside after going through the resignation procedures showed that they did not adapt to the move in place for a long time. They still regarded themselves as "unit workers" and used various ways to appeal for spiritual care and economic subsidies from the original unit. Based on Kiao-Iology theory, this paper discusses the reasons why the phenomenon of "changes caused by immigrants" does not come true after the retired workers move to the countryside. The research shows that "immigrants disagree with the culture of the destination" does not appear absolutely, but based on a series of systems. The passive emigration and the status gap change the institutional basis, affect the behavior subject, and eventually lead to "immigrants disagree with the culture of the destination". Therefore, we need to analyze the specific institutional basis, and deepen the understanding of the correlation between material displacement and spiritual roaming.

关 键 词：精简职工 侨易学 “侨而不易” 物质位移 精神漫游 

分 类 号：D669.3[政治法律—政治学]