TRANSNATIONALISM: Interpretive Critique
Shange Petrini
March 2001
University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA)
Sociology 236: Immigration
Lecturer: Dr. Roger Waldinger, Chair Sociology Department
Since the 1960’s there have been many interpretations offered for the study of migrants in sociology. Transnationalism seeks to offer a new paradigm for interpreting migrant behavior in contemporary society. I believe that the term transnational has its roots in communication studies and in reference to some international organizations and businesses. Previous interpretations, such as assimilation, neoclassicist “economic man” and ethnic enclaves are often insufficient to explain many characteristics of modern migration. While transnationalism wants to offer another theory, its lack of clarity and specificity makes deductive testing or causal hypotheses impossible. It does seek to shed new light on the topic but it seems that many of its “explanations” can also be interpreted equally through many of the older paradigms of race relations, ethnic identity and change, etc. This new idea also purports to offer us vision of new social behavior, but much of this behavior has been the practice of migrants for many years. Nonetheless, its advocates are correct in assuming that there must be something new about this behavior in a new, modern society, and I believe that it does well in revealing the importance that technology and new perceptions of citizenship have on migration.
The wide variety of definitions offered for transnationalism contributes to its difficulties. These definitions encompass a wide spectrum of issues and seek to explain or observe migrant behaviors for very different reasons. Some of these appear to be cultural, social and practical or economical. Cabral Itzigsohn (1999, 316-17) offers that
By transnationalism we refer to a web of linkages that affects the lives of [Dominican migrants] in their places of residence in every social field… This transnational field can be thought of as a field of social interactions and exchanges that transcend political and geographical boundaries of one nation…
This definition concentrates on the social networks between migrants and their home. These can be for a variety of reasons but are personally social in nature, such as between family members. More practical explanations of what transnationalism is are offered by Portes (1999) and Schiller (1995): regular social contact is key, but they also put importance on business relations and commercial activity. Others stress the importance of identity and cultural change in their definitions (Vertovec; 1999). As another example, Vertovec outlines six conceptualizations of transnationalism that range from “social morphology,” identity, culture and change, commercialism, and politics, all of which address sometimes very different behaviors. We can still make some generalizations about what we mean when we talk about transnationalism: we are talking about the nature of regular contact of migrants between nations such that identity or community membership in the traditional sense (according to locality) becomes ambiguous. This attempt excludes many important paradigms, which we will still address, but helps us in identifying just what it is that we are talking about.
Many aspects of transnationalism can be observed or accounted for in other interpretations. These observations are empirically based, or at least so argued, while transnationalism still tends to be ambiguous the meanings of these behaviors. Some new behavior resulting from transnationalism we see as happening in the past, not just in a contemporary context of modern causes.
Portes (p. 223) points out the importance of technology for transnational behavior, as do others (Vertovec, p. 449; Itzigsohn, 317, Schiller, 50). Modern technology, such as transportation and communication media, facilitates social exchanges of information and contact between “here” and “there.” These exchanges can be political, social or economical. Transfer of goods and services across the border are easier and cheaper than they ever were in the past. This development provides a high volume of exchanges through very diverse media for different and sometimes daily activity creating stronger and denser ties between the migrant and his origin, which Portes indicates is the principle reason why this transnational conceptualization differs from all others (219). Vertovec states that this new technology also serves as a preserver of cultural identity, allowing for the communication and reinforcement of cultural symbols and exchanges (451). But this can also serve to speed the rate of cultural change, a type of “cultural hybridity” as diverse cultures come in increasingly close contact with one another (ibidem). One of the characteristics of a transnational community is that it is resilient to assimilation in the traditional sense. The individuals still maintain their culture of origin.
But such preservation of culture has occurred in many instances when there was no internet, air travel or telephone, such as with the Italians in San Francisco (Cinel: 1982) and New York (Orsi: 1992) and the Mexicans in California (Massey: 1987). While these communities did experience change over generations that distinguished them from their home societies, were very good at preserving their cultures, apart from the “Americans.” And this preservation occurred even when a migrant would not have contact with someone from home for many years. These communities were resilient to the kinds of changes that would assimilate them, as Gordon describes (1965). They continued to maintain their ethnic/national identities for many years, despite the technological constraints and lack of constant contact (MacDonald, 1974, 229). The migrants of Italy also had wide effects on the society at home, as can be seen by the diasporic Italians of Gabaccia (2000). Massey describes how Mexican migrants reaffirmed membership in communities where they didn’t live through travels home and the veneration of the patron saint of the home town while migrants are away (1987; 143). This behavior of cultural preservation and change through migration is not limited to contemporary characteristics outlined by the transnational perspective. The media through which culture is maintained or altered is new, and it is true that this media can allow more efficient change.
Another characteristic of transnationalism is the "national" emphasis. This approach takes for granted that national identities are salient, even extant. Justification can be found in this approach, but it does not remove the inherent ambiguity of the definition of this category, i.e. national identity. One new characteristic of the modern world is the global importance and legitimacy of the state. The state matters much more now than it has ever for most developing countries (in comparison to one hundred years ago). States are generally stronger than they have been in the past and have taken precedence in power over traditional ethnic or local leadership structures, and the world community, with the proliferation of international/intergovernmental organizations, has strengthened the importance of nations and national identities (Vertovec, 1999; 454). States are the big players in setting migration policy and therefore restricting or facilitating migration (Zolberg, 1978). What is new is the way that the law and policy of the states can extend from the restrictions of their borders to govern individuals (Schiller, 1995; 58), (Torpey, 2000). There is a rule over persons, not borders, just as the migrants maintain ties and identity beyond borders. It is an issue of membership (Joppke, 105) not location.
The writers of transnationalism have found national identity a way to identify people according to sending and receiving nations that avoids the complications of ethnic identities. There are no examples given to show how individuals consistently behave according to national identities in modern society. This has not been the rule as some observations have been made to show how individuals behave according to familial ties and other local, micro identities (Massey, 1987). The same literature that addresses these ties also shows how individuals work to preserve an identity outside of their home community. Although they may not maintain a national identity, their ethnic or hometown identity is preserved. In this way, they are preserving a sort of “deterritorialized” nation. While the state may be of salient importance in determining policy and may have great relevance in international relations, this does not require that the individuals will identify themselves accordingly. There is argument that as international organizations and human rights become more important in world politics that nation-state law is becoming less important (Soysal). Because migrants thinking of themselves, or behaving, according to national identifications is so ambiguous and transient, thinking of categorizing them according to these identities seems arbitrary.
There is discussion that what is new about contemporary migrant behavior is that their identities from “there” are preserved to such a degree, and their participation in the host nation are such, that they take on the identifications of both host and sending nations and have a sense of “dual-membership” (Portes, 217), (Schiller, 59), (Cohen, 1997; 174). The migrants’ participation in the host society when they receive many of the same benefits as a citizen can categorize them as a member of that society (Cohen, idem). Both identities are important and maintained. This is different than the concept of internationalism. But Brubaker states that for the nation-state to exist, there must be rights that are not available to non-members (1992; 29). How is membership to be defined? And what happens when a migrant is unable to fully participate in the society and call themselves a member of that macro community when there are racial or social differences that restrict this behavior? What about the enclaves that migrants often form, having their self-sustained communities within the host country? Is this participation in the nation? To say that dual membership is normative for contemporary migrants is to say that issues of race and self-segregation are non-existant. This is not the case. There is no or insufficient evidence in the literature to indicate that this is so. It can be said that it happens that some migrants maintain a sense of dual membership through constant contacts with the home society (even though there is no empirical evidence offered), but not that this a characteristic of contemporary migrants generally.
Transnationalism seeks to explain new behaviors of migrants in a new society. Since the context of behavior has changed, a new explanation that seeks to explain new behavior is offered. Some of these new behaviors include dual membership, prelevance of national identities, the effects of technology on identities. Many of the characteristics of such behavior can be seen through other perspectives, such as assimilation, ethnic change and enclave observations.
A question to ask is how this perspective adds new ways of analyzing and interpreting data. Another is how does the behavior that this perspective alleges to shed light on relate to the behavior of individuals or groups in the past. Deductive research from a transnational perspective is difficult because of the ambiguity of it definitions and of causal relationships. This could be because it interprets behavior from a constructivist perspective, as when Portes states that the unit of analysis should be the individual and that observations should be specific to each country (pp. 220, 223). Transnationalism seeks to explain behavior that has been analyzed from other perspectives such as ethnic relationships, cultural change, enclaves and migrant networks. There is a history of much of the behavior that transnationalism purports to reveal.
Still, its efforts are justifiable in that they seek to give us new vision in a new period. What can be new, though there lacks empirical analysis to confirm it, is the strength of dual membership perspectives, the strength of nation-states and national identities and the effects that technology has on cultural change. Generally, transnationalism wrestles to show the effects that migration can have on societies, both sending and receiving, in a contemporary context. This is important to address.
Transnationalism adds little substantive that can be worked with analytically. It could be that some older perspective might help to explain behavior of migrants in a modern context. Perhaps technology and the power of states can be added to a traditional conceptualization of ethnic identity and adaptation. It does show some new prevalence of behaviors or new characteristics of adaptation, acceptance and ethnic networks. While transnationalism does point out new developments of a modern society, it fails to identify uniquely new developments of migrant behavior.
It is easier to criticize than it is to create. It may not be possible to completely remove this approach from consideration as long as it can offer us some new way of perceiving a contemporary condition and it should be considered seriously, but it should be analyzed seriously also. Some of the difficulties of this conceptualization may possibly be overcome by using different terms, such as “long-distance nationalism” (title of book by Zlatko Skrbis, Ashgate 1999) or “multiple memberships” (chapter three of Immigration and Citizenship in the 21st Century, Noah M.J. Pickus ed., Roman and Littlefield, 1998). What is most frustrating is the difficulty of finding someone from this school of interpretation of migration that adequately addresses and satisfies these issues to make it unproblematic before accepting it as a valid mode of analysis. There could possibly be something recently published that we are unaware of, especially coming from the UK where this paradigm has been used extensively, and more literary research may prove very useful.