Schild 運用Foucault 影響下的研究進路, 來挖掘智利社會政策的論述, 與作為統治的新自由形式的公民身份（citizenship）之間的關連, 以及這些政策從1990到1997年對智利的文化影響。

    首先, Schild回顧了拉丁美洲有關民主與公民身份的論戰。他認為英國社會學家T.H. Marshall 提出的公民身份涵蓋了三個觀念—公民權,政治權和社會權, 而大部分的拉丁美洲學者未加批判的便接受了這些觀念。然而Schild認為這些概念忽略了階級的文化與衝突,內化了性別偏差和去歷史的論點。

    Schild 追溯了智利的歷史,說明智利為何從1930年代的福利國家轉變成1973 年的經濟自由國家, 並且由獨裁者Augusto Pinochet 利用立法改革,政策措施和軍事鎮壓的手法來進行。在這樣的歷史脈絡下,隨後接收Pinochet的公民政府也必須維持新自由經濟和政治民主的一致承諾，在這樣的政治經濟情勢中,新自由主義現代化論述中的社會政策,必須強調對市場更積極的關係,與責任的自主運用,這包括了經濟的自我依賴與政治參與。新的社會機制—"團結與社會投資基金"(Solidarity and Social Investment Fund )(FOSIS)在1990年成立,目的是為了輔助那些符合貧窮標準但卻未被社會安全網絡照顧的窮人。例如, Programa Entre Todos 計畫的目的就是協助窮人去根據自己的需求,從事改善自己生活品質的行動。許多專家學者參加這個計畫,並為市政府和NGOs工作。這些人大多是年輕,中低階層的專業者,大學生,勞工階級行動者,大部分是女性, 他們大多在獨裁者的統治時期就在NGOs裡工作。 他們最先的教育工作便是傳達何謂”貧窮”,”社區需求”,和”參與”的基本定義,並且幫助窮人瞭解他們的現實,挖掘原因並尋求解決。

    這些協助者的工作結果是將這些窮人整合到市場經濟裡頭,他們在新自由主義市場公民身份的塑造中扮演了關鍵的角色。Schild也提醒我們這個十分依賴婦女的社區角色與溝通技巧的社會計畫中, 卻是男人在做決策, 並且與專家和地方政府代表互動。最後,從區域的角度思考,Schild注意到經濟和政治現代化下的新議程是受到國際專家和國際基金的支持,並且透過”參與”的計畫將大多數的窮人整合到發展計畫中。

評論:或許這並不是作者的關切,但我仍然認為認識到智利窮人的文化與歷史的特殊性,是如何勾連到新的公民身份社會計畫中來是十分重要的。這些當地社區的“傳統”公共性是什麼?在新的社會計畫執行之前,他們是如何在處理社區的公共事務?並且他們是如何來抗拒這些核心國家支持下的新的文明化的社會計畫？又是透過如何的方式呢？

Review(4/6/1999)

Schild, Veronica (1998), ‘Neo-Liberalism’s new Gendered Market Citizens: The “Civilizing” Dimension of Social Programmes in Chile’.

    Schild uses the approach influenced by Foucault to explore the discourse of social policies and their connection to citizenship as new-liberal forms of governing and their cultural effects in Chile from 1990-1997. First, Schild reviews the debates of citizenship on democracy in Latin America. Citizenship comprising three notions --civic rights, political rights, social rights—promoted by the English sociologist T.H. Marshall are uncritically accepted by Latin Americanists, however, Schild thinks that this notion ignores the culture of class, blunts class conflict, internalizes gender biased and ahistorical base. Schild traces the Chile’s history to explain how Chile changed from welfare state from 1930s to 1973 to economic liberalist state which was led by Augusto Pinochet using legal reforms, policy measures and the use of military repression. Then the new civilian government taking over from Pinochet has to maintain a continuity of the commitment to neo-liberal economic and political democracy. In this political and economic situation, the social policies in the new discourse of neo-liberal modernization emphasize an active relation to the market, the autonomous exercise of responsibilities, including economic self-reliance and political participation. The new social agency—Solidarity and Social Investment Fund (FOSIS)—established in 1990 is to target the poor who are not covered by the social security net and meet the criteria of poverty. For example, The goal of Programa Entre Todos is to help poor people to develop initiatives that respond to their own needs and priorities to improve their “ quality of life”. Many professionals and technical experts are articulated in this program and work for municipal government and for NGOs. Most of these promoters are young, lower-middle class professionals, university students, working-class activists, mostly women, who built careers working for NGOs during the dictatorship. Their first pedagogic task is to convey the basic definitions like “poverty”, “community needs”, and “ participation” , and to help the poor to understand their reality, discover the causes and to find the solution. As a result, the promoters are integrating the “poor” into the market and play key agents of new-liberal market citizenship. Schild also reminds us the gender relation in the programme that it depends on women’s community-based and personal skills, but men make decisions and interacts with experts and local government representatives. Thinking regionally, Schild notices that the new agenda of economic and political modernization is supported by international exports and funds, and integrate the poor majority into development through “participatory” programmes.

Critics
    Maybe it is not the author’s concern, but I think it’s important to see how the cultural and historical specificity of this poor majority in Chile articulates into the new program of citizenship. What is the traditional publicity of these local communities? Don’t they have any public domain to deal with public affairs before the implement of these social programmes? Do they resist to these programmes? How ?