Citizenship and care  公民身分和關懷

The voluntary participation of citizens in environmental protection is a key piece of the sustainability puzzle. Examining the values and actions of individuals is therefore important to an understanding of the impetus for, and impacts of, environmental policy making. This chapter looks at the role of individuals as citizens and carers in the public and private spheres. The following themes and debates are explored:
公民自願參與環境保護是永續發展難題的關鍵部分。因此，檢視個人的價值觀和行為對於理解環境政策制定的動力和影響非常重要。本章著重於個人作為公民和照顧者在公共和私人領域的角色。探討了以下主題和辯論：

This chapter is concerned with social membership and participation. Citizenship and care are contested terms that have different meanings for different political theorists as well as for the individuals who put them into practice. Here citizenship is defined as:
本章涉及社會成員資格和參與。公民權和關懷是有爭議的術語，對於不同的政治理論家以及將其付諸實踐的個人來說，它們具有不同的含義。這裡公民身分的定義是：

There are many theoretical perspectives on citizenship - liberal, communitarian, civic republican, feminist and green - each bringing different assumptions and goals to the discussion. Care can be viewed as an ethical orientation and as a practice of providing support (protection and sustenance) for something or someone. Most scholarly work on care is done by feminist theorists who look at the gender aspects of care and women’s socially ascribed role as caregivers in families. There is also a vast literature on social care, which looks at the delivery of caring services like childcare, education and health in welfare states.
關於公民身份有許多理論觀點——自由主義、社群主義、公民共和主義、女性主義和綠色主義——每種觀點都為討論帶來了不同的假設和目標。護理可以被視為一種道德取向，也是為某事或某人提供支持（保護和維持）的做法。大多數關於護理的學術工作都是由女性主義理論家完成的，他們研究護理的性別方面以及婦女作為家庭照顧者的社會角色。還有大量關於社會關懷的文獻，著重於福利國家中兒童照顧、教育和健康等關懷服務的提供。

It is significant that care and citizenship are being considered together in this chapter because in traditional western approaches to politics they belong to two separate spheres: citizenship to the public sphere of politics and care to the private or domestic sphere. In the dominant political traditions citizenship is celebrated as the means by which humans can fulfil their true nature, while care is constructed as a ‘necessary evil’ that must be provided so that citizens may get on with the real business of politics. Some argue that the relegation of care to the household has fostered a belief that citizens are autonomous individuals who do not depend on others. As Sevenhuijsen (1998: 130-1) puts it,’ $\dots$$\dots$dots\ldots care is associated with immanence, necessity and the private sphere, while politics is constructed as a social activity that enhances the freedom of the human subject, by freeing him from the burdens of necessity’.
本章將關懷和公民身份放在一起考慮是很重要的，因為在傳統的西方政治方法中，它們屬於兩個不同的領域：公共政治領域的公民身份和私人或家庭領域的關懷。在主導的政治傳統中，公民權被視為人類實現其真實本性的手段，而關懷則被視為一種“必要之惡”，必須提供這種手段，以便公民能夠繼續從事真正的政治事務。有些人認為，將護理工作下放給家庭培養了一種信念，即公民是不依賴他人的自主個體。正如Sevenhuijsen（1998：130-1）所說，“ $\dots$$\dots$dots\ldots 關懷與內在性、必然性和私人領域相關，而政治被建構為一種社會活動，透過將人類主體從必然性的負擔中解放出來來增強人類主體的自由」。

In recent decades it has become common to question any rigid division of public and private spheres and to challenge the archetype of the ‘citizen’ as independent, asocial and disembodied. From feminists arguing that ‘the personal is political’ to green theorists claiming consumer choices to be acts of citizenship, there is a growing movement to recognise the relevance of the private sphere - and activities and relationships that take place therein - to political life. As we will see, the concept of environmental citizenship presents fundamental challenges to longstanding conceptions of what it means to be a citizen. However, the connections between citizenship and care have been under-theorised in both the environmental citizenship and broader environmental policy literature. It is this gap that later sections of the chapter aim to fill.
近幾十年來，質疑公共領域和私人領域的嚴格劃分以及挑戰獨立、非社會和脫離實體的「公民」原型已變得司空見慣。從主張「個人即政治」的女性主義者到聲稱消費者選擇是公民行為的綠色理論家，越來越多的運動認識到私人領域以及其中發生的活動和關係與政治生活的相關性。正如我們將看到的，環境公民的概念對長期以來關於公民意義的概念提出了根本挑戰。然而，在環境公民和更廣泛的環境政策文獻中，公民與關懷之間的聯繫尚未得到充分的理論化。本章後面的部分旨在填補這一空白。

Until the 1960s few acknowledged the relevance of the natural environment to the sphere of politics or the concept of citizenship. Today, most contemporary texts on citizenship cite trans-boundary environmental problems, like biodiversity loss and climate change, as reasons why traditional liberal understandings of citizenship have become outdated. There is now a need to rethink both the spatial and temporal construction of citizenship as being confined to people living in bounded, sovereign territories, for example, nation-states, in the here and now. Green political theorists have gone further than this to develop a literature on environmental citizenship, drawing on but also reinterpreting civic republican, communitarian, feminist and liberal understanding of citizenship to accommodate green concerns. These perspectives will not be discussed in detail here, having been reviewed in relation to ‘justice’ in Chapter Six (this volume). The aim of this section is to summarise some of the key themes that are relevant to environmental policy making, with environmental rights and responsibilities coming top of the list.
直到 20 世紀 60 年代，很少有人承認自然環境與政治領域或公民概念的相關性。如今，大多數關於公民身份的當代文本都引用生物多樣性喪失和氣候變遷等跨境環境問題作為傳統自由主義對公民身份的理解過時的原因。現在需要重新思考公民身分的空間和時間建構，因為公民身分僅限於此時此地生活在有限的主權領土（例如民族國家）中的人們。綠色政治理論家比這更進一步，發展了關於環境公民的文獻，借鑒但也重新解釋了公民共和主義、社群主義、女性主義和自由主義對公民的理解，以適應綠色議題。這些觀點在此不再詳細討論，已在第六章（本卷）中結合「正義」進行了回顧。本節的目的是總結與環境政策制定相關的一些關鍵主題，其中環境權利和責任是首要主題。

The reason why citizenship is such an important issue in environmental politics is that moving towards a ‘sustainable society’ (or a less unsustainable one) will require fundamental changes in how people live together and distribute resources to meet their needs. These are ultimately political questions. Unless we want a Leviathan-style authoritarian ruler to come along and ‘save us’ (which most people agree is an undesirable prospect) it will be necessary to involve citizens democratically in the process of change. The argument is that citizen involvement will not only enable good policies, but also ensure the consent of all concerned. People with environmental values must have their interests represented if there is to be a democratic transition to a sustainable society. But when considering the idea of representation, two important questions are commonly raised. First, how might we take the interests of future generations into account in decision making? And second, should citizenship be limited to humans? How will the interests of non-human animals and the rest of nature be taken into account? These are challenging questions that follow from the green commitment to expanding the circle of moral consideration beyond humans to the larger biotic community (see Chapter Five, this volume).
公民身份之所以成為環境政治中如此重要的問題，是因為邁向「可持續社會」（或不太不可持續的社會）將需要從根本上改變人們的共同生活和分配資源以滿足他們的需求的方式。這些最終都是政治問題。除非我們想要一個利維坦式的獨裁統治者出現並「拯救我們」（大多數人都認為這是一個不受歡迎的前景），否則就有必要讓公民民主地參與變革過程。他們的論點是，公民參與不僅可以製定良好的政策，還可以確保所有相關人員的同意。如果要民主過渡到永續社會，具有環境價值的人的利益就必須被代表。但在考慮代表性的想法時，通常會提出兩個重要問題。首先，我們在決策時如何考慮子孫後代的利益？其次，公民身分是否應該僅限於人類？如何考慮非人類動物和自然其餘部分的利益？這些都是具有挑戰性的問題，源自於將道德考量從人類擴展到更大的生物群落的綠色承諾（見本卷第五章）。

In addition to becoming a topic of debate among green theorists, since around the mid-1990s the concept of environmental citizenship has been deployed by governments and environmental non-governmental organisations (NGOs), particularly in affluent countries, as part of an institutional environmental agenda.
除了成為綠色理論家爭論的話題之外，自 1990 年代中期以來，環境公民的概念已被政府和環境非政府組織 (NGO) 採用，特別是在富裕國家，作為機構環境議程的一部分。