Roldan 在這篇文章中,揭露了哥倫比亞區域首都 Medellin的雙面性: 一面是秩序的,效率的和廉潔的市政服務; 另一面則以假日期間窮人地區例行性的男性屠殺為特徵。Roldan 認為這是都市階級差異造成的都市暴力, 以及政治參與和公民身份不平等所致。

    Medellin 中的Antioquia 地區, 在19 世紀因為礦業,商業和咖啡生產而發展起來。但是經濟,政治和社會權力卻集中在大家族的廣大網絡中,而社會的平撫則依靠經濟機會的流通和父權式的慈善事業而達致。鄉村移民和難民在1950年代晚期擁進Medellin,集居在富人住宅區周遭的山坡地。有兩種都市意識存在於都市: 例如幫派老大Antonio形容Medellin的中心是支食人族,準備要將貧民窟的住戶吃掉; 而Medellin 的富人卻覺得這些窮人是都市的疾病, 一群失序的人。在1980年代拉丁美洲由於外債而面臨經濟再結構以及公共部門投資的衰退, 失業率增加造成許多失業人口從事毒品交易, 青少年也因此與社區生活隔離。而毒品經濟的成長也促成了區域經濟的成功, 並重新定義了城市的品味, 消費與行為。甚至, 這個情況也挑戰了原先少數特權階級的政治經濟權力。然而在1991年毒販老大Pablo Escobar 入獄之後, 這一群毒品販賣組織轉而從事綁票, 暴力攻擊和搶劫。一些鄰里自衛隊開始組織”掃街”行動, 要將毒販, 娼妓, 同性戀, 地痞流氓, 強暴犯與小偷趕出社區。Roden認為都市暴力是這些被剝奪公民權的都市人參與Medellin社會的策略。Medellin 的居民實驗了, 也勾連了一種完全不同版本的民主與社區參與, 不同版本的合法性與權威, 這些也都根本的改變了在Medellin ”公民身份”的定義。

    Roden 在這篇文章中避開了道德性的譴責, 而透視了都市暴力的政治與經濟起因, 然而,都市暴力僅僅是由階級衝突所造成的嗎? 有沒有性別或種族與族群的衝突存在? 如果我們擴大歷史視野, 都市暴力是否也是第三世界國家的殖民遺產? 
 

Roldan, Mary (1997), “Citizenship, Class and Violence in Historical Perspective: The Colombian Case” in the Meeting of the Latin American Studies Association, Continental Plaza Hotel, Guadalajara, Mexico.

Roldan reveals the double sides of Medellin, which is the regional capital of Colombia in this article. The one side is the orderly, efficient and incorrupt management of municipal services; the other side is characterized by routine weekend massacres of males in the city’s poorest neighborhoods. Roldan thinks it is because urban class differences contribute to the urban violence and the unequal political participation and citizenship in Medellin. The region of Antioquia in Medellin has developed since 19th century because of mining, commerce and coffee production. These economic, political and social power concentrated in the hands of a broad network of extended families, and social peace tended to be guaranteed through the access to economic opportunity and the assertion of paternalistic philanthropy. The rural migrants and refugees crowded into Medellin through late 1950s and settled on the hillsides that surround Medellin’s wealthier inhabitants. There is existing bifurcated urban consciousness: for example, the gang leader (Antonio) described the center of Medellin as a cannibal ready to consume the slum dwellers; however, Medellin’s wealthier inhabitants treated the poor as diseased and disorderly people. In 1980 because of debt, Latin America was facing economic restructuring and declining in public investment. The unemployment rate was increasing and the narcotics trade was absorbing the unemployment and alienated youths in the comunas of Medellin. The growth of drug economy made regional economic successful and redefined the codes of taste, consumption and behavior in Medellin as well. Moreover, this situation challenges the previous political and economic entitlement that was limited to a privileged few. However, after the imprisonment of drug leader (Pablo Escobar) in 1991, those people engaged in narcotics organization turned to kidnapping, assault and rubbery. Some other armed neighborhood groups organized themselves in “clean up” campaigns to rid their neighborhoods of drug dealers, prostitutes, homosexual, molesters, rapists and thieves. Roldan thinks that urban violence is the strategy with which the urban disenfranchised attempt to participate in Medellin’s society. Finally, the inhabitants of the comunas experimented with and articulated a different vision of democratic and community participation, a different vision of legitimacy and authority, that has fundamentally changed the definition of “citizenship” in Medellin. In this article Roldan looks into the political and economic causes of urban violence instead of moral condemnation, however, does urban violence only result from class conflict? Is there any conflict between gender or ethnic group? If we expand our historical perspective, is urban violence also the colonial legacies of the Third World countries?