课件参考讲稿qe question papers and answers-zheng yanmin17nov

DepartmentofCommunicationQualifyingExaminationZhengYanmin,Cathy(Y-B2-7307-10–17NovemberExaminationTherearethreepartsintheQualifyingExaminations:'Theory','Methodology'and'AreaSpecialization'.Allthreepartsare'takehome'Eachparthasaspecificsetofquestions,andthestudentmustanswerallquestionswithinthestipulatedexaminationperiod:from10:00amon10November2014to10:00amon17November2014.Theexaminationscriptwillbedistributedtothestudenton10November2014at10:00amby.Thestudentmustsubmittheanswers,completedwithbibliography,toJennyLouatJennyLou@umac.moandcctoBarbaraChin@umac.mo,by10:00amon17November2014.AllanswerswillbesubmittedtoTurnitinforcheck.PleaseconsulttheTurnitinwebsite(h /en_us/)whichprovidesadviceonwhatconstitutesandhowtoavoidpossiblechargesof.Indeed,thestudentisstronglyadvisedagainstcopyingatlengthfromthereferencematerialswhichheorshehasconsultedduringthecoursewritinguptheanswers.Iftheexaminersfindexcessivesimilaritybetweenyourwritingandtheoriginalworks,itcouldbeconsidered.TheUniversityofMacautakesseriously.Penaltiesapply.AcopyoftheuniversityregulationspertainingtoacademicdishonestyhasbeensentoutwiththeQualifyingExaminationsnotification(UMAcademicCalendar:.)Theoraldefencewillbeheldon21November2014at3:00pminRm.E21-Thispapercontains4PhDQualifyingExamination–Examiner:Prof.TonyExplainanddemonstratehowdeCerteau'snotionsofpractice,spaceandplace,andtacticsandstrategiesarerelevanttoandwillinformyourresearchproject.Ingeneral,IamgoingtoelaboratethetheoreticalframeworkofmyundergoingprojectfromfiveaspectswhicharebaseduponMicheldeCerteau’snotionsofpractice,spaceandplace,andtacticsandstrategies.Morespecifically,inthefirsttwoaspects,thenotionof“everydaypractice”helpsexplainthechoiceoftargetgroupandhowthesocial-culturalconceptofidentityisconstructedbythosepervasive“everydaypractices”;inthethirdandfourthaspects,howtounderstandtheprocessofcontextualizationofthose“everydaypractices”inanewlyconfigured“non-places”whichisproposedbyMarcAugé;andlastly,howtodelimitthoseeverydaypracticebywayofresortingtothedirectionoftrajectoriesofvariousactivitiesbythetargetgroupinquestion.Thepracticeas“makingdo”bythemarginalityofaIndeCerteau’spracticediscussion,heaccentuatedpracticeasthe“artsofmaking”,inotherwords,howindividualsdosomethinginsteadof“done”istheelementof“makingdo”.Practicesarepervasiveandfragmentaryamongspaces,independentofa“proper”butpresentasa“invisibletotality”.Inotherwords,deCerteau’spracticeisabottom-upperformanceratherthanatop-downdesignationwhichistheoriginandstartingpointofmethodologyandtheoreticalcoreinthisprojectbothforresearcherandthetargetgroupinquestion.Atthesame,“themarginalityofamajority”alsohelpstoexplainthe“consumption”as“practice”;Itreat“majority”asthetysideand“marginality”asthedistancetothemainsocialandculturalresources,inthatcase,thepracticefromthoseordinarypeoplearesuppressedbytheexplicitsocialpowerrelationship.ThegenerativefeatureofdeCerteau’s“everydaypractice”theoryandtheacquiredidentityashabitusByreviewingBourdieu’spracticetheory,deCerteau’s“everydaypractice”theoryintrinsicallybearsthemeritofgenerativitypostulatedashabitusdeducinggeneralityfromethnologicalobservations.Andherethe“generality”indicatesa“socialmobility”confinedbythechangeof“socialstructure”.Structurallyspeaking,habitusinBourdieu’sthesisisagenerativesystemwhichisproducedbytheaspecificsocial,culturalandpoliticalenvironment,inotherwords,theprocessofproducinghabitusisalsoapractice;atthesametime,onceformed,habitusalsoaageneratorproducingfurtherpracticeskeeastateofmobilityinsocialstructure.Althoughproposedasinvisible,habitusis“durableandtransposable”independentofanyinstitutionalregularitiesbutiscontingenttoaspecifictypeofenvironment.DeCerteau’s“everydaypractice”figurativelyhypothesizesspatialgapslocatinginthesocialstructuresbetweenthetrajectoriesofvariousactivitiesamongdifferentsocialgroupsbasedupontheirstatusoroccupations.Inordertounderstandtheinteractionsamongthoseactivitiesandtheirsocialconsequences(structuralmobility)aftermath,deCerteauintroducesBourdieu’shabitusasa“genesis”contributingtothechangesinsocialstructureswhenpracticesdon’tconformtotheexistingsocialstructures.ThisprocessepitomizesChineseurbanizationwellfromitsruraloriginstonowadaysmega-citiesurbancollectivesandhowChineseordinarypeopleadapttothosechangescruciallyinfluencethestabilityofthegeneralChina’ssocialandculturalstructure.Inmyresearch,Iusethesocial-cultural“identity”toconceptualizethediscussionofthisadaptationprocess.Baseduponmypreliminaryinterviews,Idefinethe“identity”as“aself-expressiveassociationandattaenttotheplace/spacepeopleexperienceeveryday”.Inthisdefinition,“self-expressive”ismethodologicallyboundedandthe“associationandattaenttotheplace/space”indicatesthatthe“identity”isproducedbyaspecificenvironment,andpeople’sfuturebehaviors(practices)areprobablydecidedbytheir“gainedidentity”.Inotherwords,withtherapidurbanizationintegratingruralareasandurbanareas,people’sexitingdispositions/temperamentsmakethemdecidewhethertostayathomeorrushintobigcities,iftheychoosethelatter,thennewly-establishedsocialconnectionsmakethemthinkabouttheirfutureconnectiontoanewplace/spaceandthemselves;iftheyadaptsuchprocesswell,thegeneralsocialstructureremainsstablebetweenruralandurban,ifnot,thensocialtensionsevenantagonismarousewhichfrequentlyhappenrecently.Moreover,asthe“acquiredidentity”ashabitusinthisresearch,itworksaswelltocontributetoaprofoundtheoreticaldiscussionamongdifferentculturesbetweenwesternthoughtsandthoughts–howChinesepeopleadapttoa“strangers’modernworld”whileitstillholdsahighfocusonnetworks(guanxi)building.DeCerteau’snotionofspaceandIngeneral,deCerteau’snotionofspaceandplaceiscloselyrelatedtohislaterdiscussionontacticsandstrategies.Forhimtheplaceisaproper,generatingkindsofsocialandpowerrelationshipsbywayofdesignationorothertechnicalities.Anditisatop-downstrategicmapout;andspaceinsinuatepervasivelyandisentangledwitheverydaypracticefromothersasbottom-up“makingdo”.Iftakingtimeintoconsideration,placeis“thevictoryofspaceovertime”andspace“dependsontime”.DeCerteau’snotionofspaceandplacesituatedifferentkindsofactivitiesbypeopleinpowerandordinarygrassroots.Thedurabilityofspaceiscontingenttoordinarypeople’severydaypracticeandthephysicalplacecanexceedtimeandpeopleofthatspecifictimeperiod,inotherwords,physicalplacecarrieshistoricalinertiaaheadandspaceitselfcannotrestorememorybutitsmemoryisembeddedineveryindividualandlastgenerationbygeneration.ThederivationofMarcAugé’snon-placesfromdeCerteau’snotionofspaceandplace.Anotherkeyconceptualframeworkregardingthespatial-humanrelationshipsinthisresearchisMarcAugé’snon-placeswhichisalsotheoreticallyintertwinedwithdeCerteau’snotionofspaceandplaceinhis“everydaypractice”theory.ThederivationofMarcAugé’snon-placespartiallycontributestoalexicalcomparisonbetweentwodichotomouscombinationas“placesandnon-places”and“spaceandplace”.Inotherwords,like“spaceandplace”withoutasharpdemarcation,“theplacesandnon-places”isnottotallyexclusiveeither.Moreover,theunderstandingofnon-placesshouldbebeyonditsliteralmeaning,andsomerelationalconstructionwithinnon-placesshouldbealsoindicated.Forthisresearch,IchoosetheZhuhai-MacauborderandMacaupublictransportationsystemastwodistinctivenon-places.WhatIemphasizehereistheirrolesinreconfiguringtherelationshipbetweenhumansandtheplaces,inotherwords,thosenon-placeshelptoconstruocial-psychologicalaffiliation(identity)ofpeopleandtheplaceswhiaydecidetheirfuturelifechoices.DeCerteau’s“tacticsandstrategies”andMacau-Zhuhaipracticesasborder-crossingandpettysmugglingDeCerteaudefines“strategies”asactionsdesignedtoallocatesocialforcesinphysicalplaces.Forngso,“strategies”establishsocialrelationshipswith“exteriorities”.Asawayofoperation,tacticiswhenandhowpeoplemakesenseoftheirsurroundings;italwaysfunctionsreverselywiththedistancepeoplearefarawayfromthesocialorculturalresources.Inotherwords,thefartherthedistance,itindicatesthepeopleareweaker,andthenthetactics(people’sstrugglingtolife)aremoresalient.Strategiesandtacticscanandareoftenlocatedwithinthesamespatialconfigurationbutwithdifferenthistoricalsignificance.That’showandwhereeverydaypracticeIchooseformyresearch.ThetwomaineverydaypracticesIchooseformyresearchareborder-crossingincludingthepublictransportationoptionsfrombordertoworkplace,andtheotherpracticeispettysmugglingbusinessesaroundtheborderareas.Inthefirstpractice,timeplaysancrucialroleindeterminingpeople’sperceptionabouttheirrelationtothe“two-town”locale-suchashowtochoosedifferentvehiclesinordertoavoidunnecessarydailyexpensesorwhentocrossthebordercanavoidthosepeakmomentandsavetimeorhowtochoosethenearestroutethroughdifferentvehiclecombinations;forthesecondpractice,theprocessofdecision-makingaremorecomplicated-whetherdothebusinessornot(sincetheycrossbordereveryday,suchquestionsmaybeaskedallthetime),whatproductsbechosentodayandhowmanyofthoseproducts,andtheninordertoavoidcustomschecking,whichlaneshouldbetaken.Justimagine,ifanordinarypeoplearepackedwiththosequestionseverydayderivedfromthespecialpolitical,culturalandspatialarrangements,whatkindofrelationshipmaybeformedbetweenpeopleandtheplace?IthinkthosearethemainconcernsIamgoingtoAugé,M.(2008).Non-Places:AnIntroductiontoSupermodernity,trans.JohnHowe.LondonandNewYork:Verso.Bourdieu,P.(1977).OutlineofaTheoryofPractice(Vol.16).Cambridgeuniversitypress.DeCerteau,M.(1984).ThePracticeofEverydayLife.UniversityofMinnesotaPress.Franklin,M.I.(2006).ChapterThree:ThePracticeTheoryofMicheldeCerteau.Postcolonialpolitics,theinternetandeverydaylife:Pacifictraversalsonline. PhDQualifyingExamination–Examiner:Dr.ShiPleaseexplainthreemainmethodologiesyouwillusewhenconductingyourfieldwork?ThethreemainmethodologiesIamgoingtousewhenconductingmyfieldworkinclude:Newethnography-theemphasisoftheempathyandconscientiousnessfromtheresearcherbywayofself-reflexivityfortheplace,people,orplaces/heobserves.Themaintoolsincorporatedintothismethodologyarelife-storyinterviewsandautobiography.Whatseparatesthismethodologyfromothersistheindividualreflectionswhichareloadedontheresearcherdependingonhows/heinterpretsormakessenseofthefieldworkdata.Forngso,theresearcherfirstlyhastobeimmersedintothe“realities”andbetruthfultothe“livedexperiences”,foranother,s/healsoneedstobesensitiveenoughtoexploredeeplythefragmentaryandderivationsamongvarioussocial,culturalorpoliticaldiscoursestocriticallyevaluatetheongoingproblematic.Inthatcase,allthreeaforementionedtoolsaresupplementaryinnaturefortheirdifferentorientations:ethnographypresentsaloyaltytopeople’sreallife,life-storyinterviewsembodytwowaysofself-expressionfrombothscholarsandpeoplebeingstudied,andtheautobiographyexaminesanempatheticprocessofself-reflectionprojectingotherstoselfandmakingmeaningsofothersthroughself.Here,onepointtobementioned,isthedilemmabetween“biased”and“unbiased”.Theobservationthroughself-reflectionneverthelessnegatestheroleresearcherplaysasanoutsider,instead,itjustifiesdifferent sinunderstandingthemulti-facetproblematicfromtheresearcher’s experiencesandvaluesystems.Inquisitiveobservation–theestablishmentofinformants’“networks”throughdailycontactsandintrinsicinquisitivenessinanAsianculturalAsthetermshows,“inquisitive”describesaninitiativeoutofcuriosityfromtheindividualtoapproachasituationwhichisdistinctivelydifferentfromher/hisown.Such“inquisitiveobservation”isalsoacombinedtoolkitsetincludingobservation,interviewandparticipation.Thistermisdevelopedforencounteringthevaguenessfacingallfieldworkresearchersinquotingthetechnicalterm“participantobservation”.Therearethreereasonsfortheentanglement:first,itisnoteasy,sometimesimpossible,fortheresearchertobeareal“insider”intherealityorproblematic,especiallywhensuchproblematicinvolvessomeillegitimateundertaking;second,evenwhenthe esaninsiderofthesituation,itdoesn’tguaranteethattheresearchercouldassumethesamesocial,culturalorevenpoliticalresponsibilities;andthird,normally,theresearchperioddoesn’tlastverylong,itcannotideallyhelptheresearchersacquireallreal-life“streetwisdom”onthesite.Inthatcase,“participantobservation”cannotreflectfaithfullywhatisreallygoingoninthefield.Instead,“inquisitiveobservation”developsanaturalon-goingworkingexperiencebetweentheresearcherandthesitebeingstudied.For ngso,theresearcherhastobeawareofallpossiblecuestoaccessthestrandsofher/hisresearchnetworks.Andhere,IalsoemphasizeonitsimplicationintheAsiansocietieswhichvaluesnetworkshighlyanddifferentlyfromothercultures.(why,inwhichsenseyoumakesuchaclaim)Inotherwords,forthoseAsiancultures,whomyouaregoingtotalkandwhoaretalkingwillpulloutaninextricable,sometimesunexpectedandoverlap,network.In-depthinterview(s)–theconceptualizationofthe“socialfacts”forfurtherconsiderationinaspecificculturalcontext深度訪談和霸權的問題好像并沒有說清楚，youaretalkingmoreaboutsocialfacts,sowhatistherelationship,interviewcangetmoresocialfactorinterviewedhasbeeninvolvedinwithsocialfacts,whatareyourpoints)Durkheim(1982)hasclearlyelaboratedthe“socialfact”inhisthesisontherulesofsociologicalmethodsas“anywayofacting,whetherfixedornot,capableofexertinertheindividualanexternalconstraint”.Inotherwords,the“socialfact”actsasawayof“”orpower,explicitlyorimplicitly,oversocialindividual.Methodologically,suchsuppressiontoorstrugglingwith“power”canbetracedfromdailycontactswiththesite,includingobservationsandinterviews.(這裡倒是有回答到這個問題)Theresearcherhastometiculouslyexamineandreexaminethenotesfromthefieldtryingtofilterthemostsalientdiscoursesusedbythepeoplebeingobserved.Atthesametime,thepresumingtheoreticalframeworkwouldbealsoindicatingincategorizingthosescatteredpieces.Onepointtobeaccentuatedhereistheculturalandlanguagedifferenceswhichhavedistinctivediscourseorlogicorientations,inotherwords,“socialfacts”areusedtoconceptualizethegeneralities,nottheotherwise-thepresumingtheoreticalframeworkdesignatestheongoingpathsofthe“socialfacts”thisissuggestivefortheapplicationanptationofaparticulartheoreticalsystemfromoneculturalroottobeusedinanotherculture,especiallywhenonelanguage,suchasEnglish,isthemainstreamdiscourseintheacademiccircle,thetheoreticalschemafromotherlanguagesalsoneedstobeconsidered,afterall,thecoresymbolicvaluesofoneculturearedeeplyrootedintheculturally-generatedlanguage,inbothspokenandwrittenformsarticulatedasfieldworknotesandacademicdiscoursesinresearch.Inthismethodology,whatIhighlightisthequalitativedataprocessingforthosekey“socialfacts”fromdailycommunicationstoconceptualizeasystematicframeworkforfurtherdiscussions,suchasthekeytheoreticalconsiderations(nonplacesandthinidentity)areinsepara yrelatedtomyfieldnotesoftheinformantsintheresearchwithinaChinesesociety,eventhoughthesetwonotionshavebeenwidelydiscussedfromvariouswesternWhatarethesimilaritiesanddifferencesbetweenthesethreeWhohasusedthesemethodologiesintheirresearches?Giveoneexampleforea Iamgoingtomeritthosethreemethodologiestothefield-worksendeavoredbyPaulRabinow,Th reC.Bestor,andFeiXiaotong,respectively.PaulRabinowandnewPaulRabinowisapioneerinthefieldofnewethnography.Asearlyas1960s,hebegantoundertakeauniquewaytoreiteratehisanthropologicalfieldnoteswhichwerecompliedasamemoirofhisdailyexperiencesinasmalltowninMoroccoinhisReflectionsonFieldworkinMorocco,whichperformsasanantidotetosolvethetensionbetween“anthropologyaslocalexperiences”and“theexperiencesofprocessingobjectivefielddata”.Hescrupulouslyyzedeachacquaintancehemet,acquired,entrenchedorevencollapsedatinthetargettownandhowthoseacquaintancesbroadenedorredirectedhistheoreticalinquiries.Rabinowtreatedself-reflectionasaprocessoftheoreticalnormalization;meanwhile,hedidn’tignorethespontaneityofnewexperiencesderivedfromresearchers’ownculturalsensitivitiesandawarenessonsite.That’swhyinhisresearchheadjustedhisscientificcategoriesallthetimebynewinformationaddedwhichhetermedas“dialecticprocessoffieldwork”.Inhisproject,healsopointedouttheeffectssuchanthropologicalinquiriesplayedontheinformantsduetotheprolongingresearchperiodduringwhichthefriendshipwasestablishedbetweentheresearcherandtheinformants.InRabinow’sproject,hecharacterizedamulti-facetself-reflectionconduitstartingfromtheinitiativestageofhisanthropologicalendeavortotheconcludingstageofthewholeproject,“self”hereemphasizestheroleof“I”pertainingthatresearchershouldbea firstbeforeenteringthefield,andthenthosefollowing-upencountersareintricatesourcesforfurther reC.Bestorandinquisitive reC.Bestor’sideaofinquisitiveobservationwasdevelopedduringhisfieldworkonalocalcommunityinstitutionresearchinJapan.Inhis“inquisitiveobservation”,heproposed“anintentiontoaskandtoapproachthesite,eventandpeople”outofcuriosityinthelocalfieldfor thevaguenessofanthropologicalinquiriesas“participantobservation”.Moreover,hepointedoutthe pletenessofsimplifyingtheestablishmentoflocalnetworksastheresultof“participantobservation”,sinceinaculturehighlyvaluing“networks”andalsoentangledwith“networks”,thewaytoaccessthegeneralstructureofthenetworksneverseemsasasinglelinearorhierarchicalmanner,thereareseveralthreadspresentingasvariousformsoutskirtedtheintegralweb.Bestorexemplifiedthoseformsasachainofintroductionsbymutualfriendssomeofwhichmaybeoverlapped,informalencounteringpeopleinvarieslocalsettings,offeringamanuallaborforalocalactivity,trivialitiestalkingwithlocalresidentsbyimmersingintolocaleverydayactivities,andpayingattentiontolittlethings(suchaslabels,signs,stylesofdress,uniforms,etc.),etc.,inhisownresearch.FeiXiaotongandhisChineseInthissubtitle,Ididn’tspecifytoamethodologyasIdidintheprevioustwo,instead,Iused“Chinesesociety”asanintegralonetopaytributetoFei’seffortstotheintroductionandapplicationofsociologyandanthropologyinChinesesocietyintheearly20thcentury.Here,Fei’s“Chinesesociety”isaninvaluableassessmentofhisdecadesofyearsoffield-worksinChinesecountrysides,smalltowns,ethnicgroupsorothersocialcollectives,inotherwords,this“Chinesesociety”isatheoreticalfoundationtograspChinesesocialstructure.Feiphasedhisacademicpursuitsintotwostages:thefirststageisfieldworkresearchonvariouscommunities,andthesecondstageistheysisofsocialstructurebaseduponthosefield-works.Themostacclaimedworkreferredinmyresearch-XiangtuZhongguo(RuralChina,orFromthesoil)conceptualizedhis“socialfacts”fromthefields,actingastheanswertohisconvictionthat“Westerninnovationsareneverpreciselyappropriate;weneedtoSinicizethem”.Asamethodology,especiallyduringthepost-fieldworkperiod,hiswayofcombiningplainlanguagewiththeoreticalrefinementsishighlysuggestiveinundertakingresearchinmodernChinasociety.HowdothesemethodologiesrelatetoyourownThereasonsIamgoingtoadoptthosemethodologiesalso lwhyIchoosemycurrentresearchtarget-mainlandnon-residentworkersinMacau.Duetomyownlanguagelimitations,onlyEnglish-Chinese,IhavenocommunicationbarrierinthisgroupsincemostofthemcomefrommanypartsofChina,normallyPutongHua(mandarin)istheirmaincommunicationmedium.AlthoughsomeofthemwouldsaysomedialectswhichIcouldn’tunderstandwithintheirsmallcircle,whenIinterviewedthemandtoldthemIdidn’tknowanydialects,theygetaccustomedtoshifttomandarin.Atthesametime,asa whoexperiencestherapidurbanizationinChinabymyself,IfeelempathytowardstheircurrentmobilityfromruralChinatourbanChinaandthentoadvanced(foreign)Macaufromtheirpointofview.Mycuriositytowardsmyownlifechanges esmyinitialfieldworkinquirytoknowtheirstories.Moreover,asauprisingscholar,IalsoputmyselfinapanoramicconcernthatwhatthemostsignificantchangetotheChinesesocietyasawhole-itisastrangers’worldnowaswhatishappeningeverydayinMacau.Insum,Ithinknewethnographyoutlinesandconfinesmyroleasainmyproject;inquisitiveobservationperformsasmymaintooluponwhichsomespecifictechniquessuchasquestionnaireorinterviewquestionsarebased;based;andthein-depthinterviewysesarethesourcesoftheoreticalframework.這個部份不是很清楚，這 isweak.Youjusttalkabouttherewouldbelanguageproblemsbetweenyouandthoseinterviewee.Butwetalkabouthowdoapplythesemethodologiestoyourownresearch,isverybrief.CanyouexplainmoreaboutthelastHowdoyouusemethodologiesinyourownThetentativeresearchdesignisason-siteobservation:theborderandlocaltransportationsystem(thestopsandpeople’sworkingplaces);Trivialitiesconversation:dailycontactintransportation,workplacesordiningplacesOn-goingon-siteinquisitiveQuestionnairedesignforspecificgroupofpeople,hereIamgoingtointerviewothersocialentitieswhoarerelatedtothegroupofnon-residentworkersinMacau,fordifferententity,differentmethodologywouldbeMacauMacauLaborMacaunon-workforcengMacauMacauGeneralIn-depthinterviewsforselectedForthispart,Ithinkmayneedtonarrowdownyourfocus.Itisquitebroad,maybejustpartofit.Bestor,T.C.(2003).InquisitiveObservation:FollowingNetworksinUrbanFieldwork. ngFieldworkinJapan,315-334.UniversityofHawaiiPress.Durkheim,E.(1982).WhatisaSocialFact?Therulesofsociologicalmethod:andselectedtextsonsociologyanditsmethod,50-59.SimonandSchuster.Fei,X.T.(1992).Fromthesoil,thefoundationsofChinesesociety:atranslationofFeiXiaotong'sXiangtuZhongguo,withanintroductionandepilogue.UniversityofCaliforniaPress.Rabinow,P.(2007).ReflectionsonfieldworkinMorocco.UniversityofCaliforniaSaukko,P.(2003).NewEthnographyandUnderstandingtheOther. ngresearchinculturalstudies:Anintroductiontoclassicalandnewmethodologicalapproaches,55-73.Sage.Weiss,R.S.(1995).Learningfromstrangers:Theartandmethodofqualitativeinterviewstudies.SimonandSchuster.PhDQualifyingExamination–AreaExaminer:Prof.TimothyTowhatextentistheconceptof“non-place”usefultounderstandingtheidentityanddailyexperienceofforeignworkersinMacau? Pleaseexplaintheconceptof“non-place”anditsrelevanceforyourongoingresearchprojectaboutMacau.Inthispart,Iamgoingtoexplaintheconceptof“non-places”andmyongoingprojectaboutMacaufromfiveaspects:first,Iwillbrieflyintroducehowthisconceptwasbroughtabout;then,Iamgoingtoreviewpreviousresearcheswhichadopted“non-places”astheirmainnotionfordiscussion;andlastIwillusethreepartstocontextualizeitsrelevancetomyresearch–non-placeandidentity,non-placeandmobility,andnon-placeandThebackgroundinformationoftheconcept“non-AsthebrainchildoftheFrenchanthropologistMarcAugé,theconceptofnon-placesisstillonthestageof“empiricaldesignation”andhasn’tbeendevelopedintoasystematictheoreticalenterprise.Instead,inhisshortconciseworkNon-Places:AnIntroductiontoSupermodernity,Augéputsmuchattentiononanarrativedescriptionandcriticsofthepreviousresearchesandliteratureregardingthediscussionontherelationshipamongspace,placeandpeopleandattributesnon-placestoanewconfigurationofpeopleandtheirplaces.ForAugé,non-placeisnotonlyadichotomouscomparisontoasociableandsymbolized“place”,butalsoasaconstitutionalconsensuswithakindofsocialsymbiosisandhistorical“consanguinity”.Inhisresearchproject,Augéfirstrespondedthenewsituationsunderglobalizationwithaconcurringtermas“supermodernity”featuredas“overabundanceofevents,spatialoverabundance,andtheindividualizationofreferences”.Ratherthandownplayingthesignificanceof nganthropologyin“here”or“elsewhere”incontemporaryworld,Augéreevaluatedanewmultiplicityofaverageindividuals,puttingthemashubsofnewly-establishedintricatesocial,culturalandhistoricalrelationships.Heassignedanewtermasnon-placestoencapsulatethosenewspatialconfigurations,ashehimselfreiteratedthat“placeiscompletedthroughtheword”andtheprefix“non-”addedinfrontofthetraditionalanthropologicalconsideration“place”providesbothpossibilityandpotentialitytofulfillpeople’simaginationsandpracticesintheworldstampedasacollectiveofspacesofcirculation,consumptionandAlthoughheaccentuatestheroleof“super-modernity”increating“non-places”,non-placescanberecognizedandidentifiedthroughsomemainfeaturessharedbymanykindsofurbanphysicalities.First,non-placessituatetransientandephemeralactivitiesthroughwhichthepracticestrategiesortacticsaredeployedspontaneouslyandtemporally;second,non-placesrestoresocialrelationspresentedasashareidentitywhichdoesnotperforminahistoricalmanner,instead,thos