PDF(1593 KB)
PDF(1593 KB)
PDF(1593 KB)
平台盗猎者：民间车队的媒介战术与空间生产——以“深圳微信车队”为个案
Platform Poachers: Media Tactics and the Spatial Production of Civilian Fleets in Shenzhen
本文结合爱德鲁·希罗德的“劳工空间修复”理论和德·塞托的“战术”与“盗猎”概念，以深圳微信车队十年发展史为个案，将全国出租车司机联盟和出行平台（“滴滴出行”）置于纵向的历史维度和特有的经济、文化语境中，展示中国劳工自组织空间生产（修复）与抵抗模式的独特性，试图在平台（技术）、组织与人的多重“权宜共生”关系中，揭示平台社会劳工能动性、组织行动与空间权力几何的复杂面向，以此与国外的相关研究展开对话。
This paper combines the theory of labor’s spatial fix by Andrew Herod and the concepts of tactics and poaching by Michel de Certeau, takes the 10-year development history of Wechat fleets in Shenzhen as a case study, and places the national taxi drivers’ self-organizing union and the digital transportation platform (“Didi Chuxing”) in a historical dimension and specific economic & cultural context. This paper presents the uniqueness of the spatial production(fix) and resistance model of Chinese labor self-organization, attempts to reveal the platform-mediated labor agency, collective action and the complexity of spatial power geometry in the multi-layers of “contingent symbiosis” relationships of platform (technology), organizations and human being, so as to initiate a conversation with relevant foreign studies.
空间生产（修复） / 媒介战术 / 民间车队 / 盗猎 / 权宜共生
spatial production (fix) / media tactics / civilian fleets / poaching / contingent symbiosis
| [1] |
艾瑞咨询(2013).2013 中国手机打车应用市场研究报告.检索于https://report.iresearch.cn/report/201310/2058.shtml
|
| [2] |
滴滴清风(2018). 作弊器、洗白、刷单……关于黑产你想知道的都在这里了.检索于 https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/q_5cgilSz8k3NCe9RkoXAA
|
| [3] |
滴滴清风(2019). 作弊问题, 滴滴到底管不管?.检索于https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/xc1gcbGu5wRVCeWwC0KUDQ.
|
| [4] |
丁未(2014). 《流动的家园:“攸县的哥村”社区传播与身份共同体研究》. 北京: 社会科学文献出版社.
|
| [5] |
丁未(2021). 遭遇“平台”:另类数字劳动与新权力装置. 《新闻与传播研究》,(10),20-38+126.
|
| [6] |
付晓英(2013). 杭州“V车队”:微信车队的曲折生长. 《三联生活周刊》,(52),174-177.
|
| [7] |
郭于华(2002). “弱者的武器”与“隐藏的文本”——研究农民反抗的底层视角. 《读书》,(7),11-18.
|
| [8] |
虎嗅(2012). 从杭州微信车队的困境与突围, 看分布化协作的集中管理.检索于https://www.huxiu.com/article/5995.html.
|
| [9] |
胡杨涓, 叶韦明(2019). 移动社会中的网约车——深圳市网约车司机的工作时间、空间与社会关系. 《传播与社会学刊》,(47),135-165.
|
| [10] |
纪莺莺(2022). 社会组织与地方社会的再生产:以一个行业协会为例. 《广东社会科学》,(4),195-208.
|
| [11] |
界面新闻(2022). Uber中国刷单灰色产业链调查.检索于https://www.jiemian.com/article/318377.html.
|
| [12] |
刘楠(2021). 从“虚拟团结”到“实用团结”:基于卡协青年司机微信群组织的研究. 《中国青年研究》,(1),62-70+61.
|
| [13] |
刘学, 任奕飞, 刘金龙(2021). 虚拟社群何以组织化?——以卡友驿站平台为例. 《新闻与传播研究》,(S1),41-58+126-127.
|
| [14] |
彭兰(2018). 新媒体传播:新图景与新机理. 《新闻与写作》,(7),5-11.
|
| [15] |
人民网(2017). 马化腾公开信:7大关键词打造“数字生态共同体”.检索于http://it.people.com.cn/BIG5/n1/2017/1030/c1009-29616624.html.
|
| [16] |
36氪(2012). 《微信车队的思考:分布式社会化协作》.检索于https://36kr.com/p/170329?via=wechat_qr.
|
| [17] |
束开荣(2022). 流动的媒介化生存:平台劳动中的移动交互界面——基于“送外卖”的田野调查. 《 新闻记者》,(2),58-70.
|
| [18] |
孙信茹, 叶星(2019). 嵌入日常的流动空间——“石龙老司机”的微信生活考察. 《当代传播》,(5),26-29.
|
| [19] |
吴重庆(2020). “同乡同业”:“社会经济”或“低端全国化”? 《 南京农业大学学报(社会科学版)》,(5),9-17.
|
| [20] |
吴飞(2009). “空间实践”与诗意的抵抗——解读米歇尔•德塞图的日常生活实践理论. 《社会学研究》,(2),177-199+245-246.
|
| [21] |
张茂元(2013). 社会地位组织能力与技术红利的分配——以近代缫丝女工为例. 《中国社会科学》,(7)90-108.
|
| [22] |
郑莉(2014). 东南亚华人的同乡同业传统——以马来西亚芙蓉坡兴化人为例. 《开放时代》,(1),210-223.
|
| [23] |
中国新闻网(2012). 的哥微信微博约生意月入上万还有铁杆粉丝团.检索于https://www.chinanews.com.cn/sh/2012/02-29/3707805.shtml.
|
| [24] |
中国日报网(2018). 滴滴出行发布交通大脑:用智能系统实现最优交通组织. 检索于https://baijiahao.baidu.com/s?id=1590979164908836125&wfr=spider&for=pc.
|
| [25] |
中新社(2021). 中国官方:2020年1728万货车司机完成全社会74%货运量.检索于https://m.yangtse.com/wap/news/1729231.html.
|
| [26] |
庄曦, 王旭, 刘百玉(2019). 滴滴司机移动社区中的关系结构及支持研究. 《新闻与传播研究》,(6),36-58+127.
|
| [27] |
This paper uses the case of mobilization of delivery workers from digital platform Deliveroo in order to illustrate the production of space of resistance, which develops as a result of the tension of two emerging factors shaping the digital labour realm: logistics and precarity. On the one hand, I consider how logistics in the digital capitalist context produce precarious workers whose ICT-driven connectivity and flexibility responds to the logistical imperatives of effective commodities circulation. On the other hand, taking advantage of the tech-savvy precarious position they were hired for, Deliveroo workers display the capability to strategically cut across abstract and differential space, and therefore re-territorialize a third space dimension where digital labour can organize and antagonize digital capitalism.
|
| [28] |
|
| [29] |
|
| [30] |
|
| [31] |
|
| [32] |
|
| [33] |
|
| [34] |
|
| [35] |
|
| [36] |
|
| [37] |
|
| [38] |
|
| [39] |
|
| [40] |
|
| [41] |
|
| [42] |
|
| [43] |
|
| [44] |
|
| [45] |
|
| [46] |
|
| [47] |
The past decade has seen an explosion in what is popularly known as the “sharing economy,” perhaps most visibly in the realm of transport. Digital “shared mobility” platforms like Uber, Car2Go, and Mobike, as well as emerging, more sophisticated “mobility-as-a-service” platforms which coordinate multiple discrete services into a single portal, have risen to prominence as modes of reworking everyday urban transport in cities of North America, Europe, and East Asia in particular. This paper aims to explore the driving forces and concrete expressions of this platformization of urban mobility, as a particularly diverse and volatile component of a broader platform urbanism. Based on the construction and analysis of a database consisting of 200 urban mobility platforms drawn from across the globe, we highlight five key trajectories of platform formation, focusing on the firms, institutions, and social interests that have fueled the growth of this sector, and the modes of infrastructural organization, spatial formation, and governance that they entail. We further highlight the fragility of this particular form of “spatial fix,” and the prospects for a more redistributive form of platform urbanism. We conclude by reflecting on implications for future research.
|
| [48] |
In light of the individualisation, dispersal and pervasive monitoring that characterise work in the 'gig economy', the development of solidarity among gig workers could be expected to be unlikely. However, numerous recent episodes of gig workers' mobilisation require reconsideration of these assumptions. This article contributes to the debate about potentials and obstacles for solidarity in the changing world of work by showing the processes through which workplace solidarity among gig workers developed in two cases of mobilisation of food delivery platform couriers in the UK and Italy. Through the framework of labour process theory, the article identifies the sources of antagonism in the app-mediated model of work organisation and the factors that facilitated and hindered the consolidation of active solidarity and the emergence of collective action among gig workers. The article emphasises the centrality of workers' agential practices in overcoming constraints to solidarity and collective action, and the diversity of forms through which solidarity can be expressed in hostile work contexts.
|
| [49] |
The sharing economy has been booming in China. Within the sharing economy, the ridesharing sector has been a profit-generating engine. This sector is generally associated with the strikingly rapid and viral rise of major companies. However, there are alternative practices of ridesharing outside of the mainstream sphere constructed by major platforms. This article investigates these alternative practices in a prefectural area in China. They are enabled by the intertwinement of new technology usage and traditional social relations. The way in which local taxi drivers form exclusive groups resembles the differential mode of association proposed by Fei Xiaotong. Therefore, I have coined the term “differentially associated sharing economy” to describe these alternative ridesharing practices. I argue that the intersection of technology usage and traditional social relations enables resistance against platform monopoly as well as restrains the potential of technologies to kinship and friend cliques.
|
| [50] |
This paper examines the socio-spatial dynamics of worker agency in the platform economy in the Washington, D.C. region. Drawing on the field of labor geography, we document the collective and inherently spatial conditions of laboring under and through new technologies for three years prior to, and six months after, a strike by Uber drivers in May 2019. In doing so, we explore what Uber’s platform means for the production, accumulation, and contestation of power. We argue that the big innovation of this platform is the creation of a “just-in-place” worker. Akin to those materials for assembly lines that arrived just-in-time for production, so too do drivers end up in just the right place for Uber’s services to be offered. We also argue that Uber’s attempts to keep its workers “just-in-place,” which generally isolate and disempower drivers, can actually enable new modes of organization. At a D.C. airport, drivers who were emplaced in a parking lot overcame one of the fundamental conditions of the Uber workplace: socio-spatial atomization. The airport became a space in which the “just-in-place” worker could, at least for a time, challenge such emplacement and exercise a form of collective worker agency by re-working Uber’s dynamic pricing system.
|
1. 指参与集体行动的平台工人组织的地面纠察队，他们除了动员其他骑手一起参加集体行动，有些还对不愿参加集体行动的平台劳工进行劝服、阻止甚至破坏其生产工具。
2. 指骑手登录后，在接到配送订单时却故意拒绝配送。也叫“拒单”。
3. 司机要求客户从应用程序取消订单，这样司机就省去了平台的抽成。据作者介绍，这样司机的收入可以增加20%，有时甚至达50%。
4. 高棉风格的tuk tuk车前面是摩托车，后面带一个装饰性很强的可以坐最多6人的拖车；印度风格的tuk tuk则是摩托车和车厢连为一体、使用液化石油气的三轮车，车厢可以坐2人。
5. 本文标题所称“深圳微信车队”包括2013年创建的“深圳V车队”（中国“V车队联盟”的主要发起者和实际运营者）、后来从“深圳V车队”分裂出来的车队（如文中提到的飞鹰车队、九头鸟车队等）以及自行复制深圳V车队模式、同样以微信为平台的其他深圳民间车队（如文中提到的精英车队等）。据访谈，在深圳这样的微信车队共有十几个，最盛期总人数在1000左右。需要说明的是，民间车队队员都是隶属或挂靠出租车公司的普通司机。
6. 2018年之前，滴滴对出租车司机端的接单模式采用的是“抢单模式”。2016、2017年滴滴在深圳招集了500名出租车司机进行指派模式实验，这些司机被称为“指派司机”。
7. 据深圳出租车司机为作者提供的日常工作数据，在正常情况下按每天工作12小时、日营收额500元计，每个司机在市内最少载客次数为20次；而从市区到机场只需3－4个来回。
8. 参见蒋烨2012年9月13日，10月22日，12月6日，10月31日微博，账号名为“杭州出租车预约蒋烨”。检索于
9. 参见谢丽雯（2013）。深圳最潮的哥可微信订车支付宝付费还送WiFi。检索于
10. 受访者特别提到了支付宝的二维码支付业务，所谓的合作就是一种推广活动，通常在推广中司机跟司机、亲朋好友之间，甚至乘客之间相互刷单。
11. 参见巡鹿驿家（2017）。老司机杭州街头开车18年，被大佬请去滴滴的1204天。检索于
12. 内容原载微信公众号“V车队联盟”（taxi-china）。2020年该公众号由“深圳深微汽车服务有限公司”转让给了“甘肃深微汽车服务有限公司”，公众号内容已全部更新。
13. 这里借用了Wang Wei研究安徽一个地缘型司机社群所用的概念。许多城市的出租车司机群体作为流动人口通常结成同乡社群（如深圳的湖南籍攸县出租车司机），但民间车队刚成立时完全打破了司机籍贯、所属出租车公司及居住地（流动人口有聚集居住的习惯）这些界线。
14. “贴单”指队员抢到自己完成不了的订单时将具体信息发布在“业务群”中；“接单”指愿意完成某个订单的队员在该订单后面加上自己的名字，也发布在“业务群”里，表示这个订单由自己来完成。
15. 在东西长、南北窄的深圳，皇岗差不多在深圳的中部。由于深圳宝安机场在深圳的最西边，所以皇岗以东的订单到宝安机场的出租车营业价格在100元以上，也就是司机喜欢的长单。后面提到的罗湖比皇岗的地理位置离机场更远。
16. 数据来自：酷传官网 《滴答出行司机端———顺风车车主司机平台》上对滴滴车主 APP 的 IOS 系统升级次数统计，检索于
17. 一款模拟手机触摸、按键操作的软件，有的叫“触键精灵”等，用于手机的自动识别、自动操作。
18. 2015 年滴滴出行成立前夕上线了企业版，大中企业与滴滴实行公对公转账，只此一招就严重蚕食了民间车队商旅客户的业务，这也是他们从此倚重黑产的一个重要原因。这充分表现了在与平台的权力关系上，民间车队极其脆弱的一面。
19. 作者在写作前曾就本文的个案与加拿大多伦多大学的陈玉洁助理教授有过多次线上交流。《国际新闻界》第50期深研会《平台、劳动与社会福祉》为本文的写作与发表创造了条件。在此一并表示感谢。
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |
