Immigration and the Global Economy - The Liberal Paradox

timer Asked: Feb 6th, 2018
account_balance_wallet $10

Question description

Write a 200 word post engaging the readings and video below. Also answer the questions in the post

How do the readings this week help us to understand "the world as a single social and economic system?" (Schiller et al., 19)

Drawing from these readings and the concept of the "Liberal Paradox," how is globalization presenting challenges the idea of "the nation" discussed last week?

Be sure to be specific in your references to the readings! Do not just summarize the readings, really engage with specific examples and concepts.

The Liberal Paradox Immigration and the American Dream Immigration and The Global Economy  As we discussed in the last lecture, immigration is, in large part, connected to an increasingly integrated global economy.  For example, the transnational flow of immigrant labor and remittances plays a tremendous role in the global economy.  And yet, scholars observe growing anti-immigrant sentiment. What’s going on here? That’s what we are investigating today. Push/Pull Economics Is Not The Only Thing To Consider  Historically, push/pull economics has been used to explain immigration. In a push/pull model, changing economic conditions in sending and receiving countries largely dictate levels of immigration. (Ex: Economic hardship in Mexico pushes immigrants out and economic opportunities in the United States pull immigrants in)  However, today’s migration is more complex as transnational trade agreements, international rights organizations, and national policies all play a role in shaping immigration and the global economy. Policy and Politics Matter!  So what are we getting at? Politics and policymaking matter like never before!  Today, international human rights initiatives and organizations like the United Nations pressure nations to grant immigrants certain rights and encourage granting asylum in some situations, as you will read about in Sassen’s article.  Most importantly, international trade policies and organizations like the World Trade Organization (WTO) increasingly blur the lines between the economies of various nations. Globalization and Economic Liberalism  Due to globalization and our increased global connectivity, national economies are increasingly more reliant on their participation in a global “free” market.  “Free” is key here. When we use the term “liberal” in this context we are talking about free flows of goods, capital (money), and labor across nations—free that is from restrictions, trade barriers, and governmental involvement. Globalization and Economic Liberalism  In the 1980s and 90s, the governments of many powerful democratic, industrial nations pushed for the lowering of national trade restrictions and deregulating international trade to establish a global “free market”. Basically, this meant kicking national governments out of the picture.   This is great for private businesses, who can reap higher profits when there are fewer restriction. However, import taxes, quotas, and other trade barriers are generally meant to protect national industries. Globalization and Economic Liberalism  The term “Neoliberalism” to describe this move to global free trade in the 1990s.   The institution of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) significantly aided this opening of national restrictions to free trade. Yet, since the 1990s, there has also been an upsurge in anti-immigration sentiments and policies in these same democratic, industrial nations. Coincidence? What’s going on here? The Liberal Paradox offers an explanation. So what is the Liberal Paradox?  The “Liberal Paradox” is a concept used by an immigration scholar named James Hollifield to describe the dilemma that contemporary migration poses for nationstates.  Basically, he argues that nations rely on the free flow of capital, goods, and labor in order to compete in the global economy. However, there is growing resistance to immigration as nations struggle to maintain the sovereignty of the nation-state. So what is the Liberal Paradox?  Hollifield writes that… “states are trapped in a "liberal" paradox - in order to maintain a competitive advantage, they must keep their economies and societies open to trade, investment, and migration. But unlike goods, capital, and services, the movement of people involves greater political risks”(2008). So what is the Liberal Paradox?  What are these political risks?  Borders: If goods, capital, and people are flowing across borders, what is the purpose of borders? Increased “liberalism” challenges the idea that nations are geographically bound entities.  Blurred Citizenship: With the free movement of people, is citizenship pointless? Lowering restrictions on immigration is feared to decrease loyalty to the nation and adherence to its laws and structures.  Sovereignty: As global economic systems and international organizations become more powerful, what is the role of the nation? Free flowing immigration is seen as challenging the sovereignty of the state, or the authority of a state to govern itself. So what is the Liberal Paradox?  So, we see that United States is currently caught in a situation in which it is economically advantageous to promote a free or “liberal” stance on goods, capital and labor and for that to happen immigration is needed. However, it also promotes certain political fears. Economically, we need immigration but, politically, we fear what it might mean for the nation. These fears fuel a backlash against incoming immigrants.  Overall, this concept of the Liberal Paradox reveals the complicated ways in which policy and economics affect migration and highlights the contradictions we see in contemporary attitudes on immigration. Locating these concepts in the readings…  The Bacon article from The Nation does a fantastic job of tracing how NAFTA and “free trade” affected Mexican agriculture and drove Mexican immigration. It also discusses the antiimmigrant sentiment Mexican migrants faced in the U.S. Locating these concepts in the readings…  Sassen’s article – Now this article is a bit more technical and not nearly as fun to read, but it’s short and to the point.  Key concepts to pay attention to:   She highlights how immigration policing and policies focus on individuals...what global economic factors then aren't being considered? Ask yourself, how can we connect what she’s saying to this notion of the Liberal Paradox? Why does she say that nations’ abilities to control immigration are being constrained in new ways?
Beyond Sovereignty: Immigration Policy Making Today Author(s): Saskia Sassen Source: Social Justice, Vol. 23, No. 3 (65), Immigration: A Civil Rights Issue for the Americas in the 21st Century (Fall 1996), pp. 9-20 Published by: Social Justice/Global Options Stable URL: Accessed: 24-08-2014 14:09 UTC Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact Social Justice/Global Options is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Justice. This content downloaded from on Sun, 24 Aug 2014 14:09:13 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Beyond Sovereignty: Immigration Policy Making Today Saskia INTERACTION BETWEEN THE DENATIONALIZING THE OF KEY ECONOMIC Sassen INSTITUTIONS and spaces, on theone hand, and the renationalizing of politics on theother provides one of themain contexts for immigration policy and practice see a growing consensus in the community of states to liftborder We today. controls for the flow of capital, information,services, andmore broadly, to further globalization. Yet when it comes to immigrants and refugees, whether inNorth America, Western Europe, or Japan,we see the national state claiming all its old splendor and asserting its sovereign right to control its borders, a right that is a matter of consensus in the community of states. What does itmean for the state to relinquish sovereignty in some realms and to continue to be sovereign in others? Ifwe accept, as I do, that the state itselfhas been transformedby its participation in the implementation of laws and regula? tions necessary for economic globalization, we must accept as a possibility that sovereignty itselfhas been transformed.Elsewhere (1996b) I have argued that ? a marking feature of themodern state? exclusive territoriality is being destabilized by economic globalization and thatwe are seeing the elements of a process of denationalization of national territory,though in a highly specialized institutionaland functionalway. Further, theparticular combination of power and legitimacywe call sovereignty, which has over the last century become almost synonymouswith thenational state, is today being partly unbundled, redistributed onto other entities, particularly supranational organizations, international agree? ments on human rights,and the new emergent private international legal regime forbusiness transactions (Ibid.). With all of thishappening, what does itmean to assert, as is repeatedly done in the immigration literature, that the state has exclusive authority over the entry of non-nationals? Is the character of that exclusive authority today the same as itwas before the currentphase of globaliza? tionand theascendance of human rightsas a nonstate-centered formof legitimate power?1 Saskia Sassen is a Professor in theDepartment ofUrban Planning atColumbia University, New York, NY 10027. Her most recent books are Cities in a World Economy (Pine Forge/Sage, 1994) and the just completed Immigrants and Refugees: A European Dilemma (Fischer Verlag inGermany, 1996). She has begun a new five-year research project on "Governance and Accountability in aWorld Economy." This article is an extract from a book being prepared for theTwentieth Century Fund, Immigration Policy in a World Economy. The author thanks the Fund for its support. Social Justice Vol. 23, No. 3 9 This content downloaded from on Sun, 24 Aug 2014 14:09:13 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 10 Sassen My analysis focuses largely on immigration in thehighly developed receiving countries. I use the notion of immigration policy ratherbroadly to refer to a wide range of distinct national policies. I should note that it is often difficult to distinguish immigrants and refugees. Yet there is (still) a separate regime for refugees in all these countries. Indeed, there is an international regime for refugees, something thatcan hardly be said for immigration.The focus in thisbrief essay is on the constraints faced by the state inhighly developed countries in the making of immigration policy today.2 The Border and the Individual as Regulatory Sites Inmy reading there is a fundamental framework that roots all the country specific immigration policies of the developed world in a common set of conceptions about the role of the state and of national borders. The purpose here is not tominimize themany differences in national policies, but to underline the growing convergence in various aspects of immigration policy and practice.3 First, the sovereignty of the state and border control, whether land borders, airports,or consulates in sending countries, lie at theheart of theregulatory effort. Second, immigrationpolicy is shaped by an understanding of immigration as the consequence of the individual actions of emigrants; the receiving country is taken as a passive agent, one not implicated in the process of emigration. In refugee policy, in contrast, there is a recognition of other factors, beyond the control of individuals, as leading tooutflows.4 Two fundamental traitsof immigrationpolicy are, then, that it singles out theborder and the individual as the sites for regulatory enforcement. The sovereignty of the state when it comes to power over entry is well established by treaty law and constitutionally. The Convention of The Hague of 1930 asserted the rightof the state to grant citizenship; the 1952 Convention on Refugees, which asserted that the right to leave is a universal right, remained silent on the right to entry?better silence than evident contradiction. (As iswell known, the status of refugees and their right not to be forcibly returned are established in international law, but there is no corresponding right of asylum; such right is at the discretion of a receiving state.) There are various human rightsdeclarations and conventions thaturge states to grant asylum on humanitarian grounds, but they all recognize the absolute discretion of states in thismatter.5 A few states, notably Austria and Germany, ? though this give those formally recognized as refugees a legal right to asylum is under revision.More recently, thevarious agreements toward theformation of theEuropean Union (EU) keep asserting the rightof the state to control who can enter.This is quite a contrastwith the assertions in theGATT, NAFTA, and the EU about theneed to liftstate controls over borders when itcomes to the flow of capital, information, services, and state controls over the domestic financial markets. This content downloaded from on Sun, 24 Aug 2014 14:09:13 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Beyond Sovereignty: Immigration Policy Making Today 11 thematter of the individual as a site for enforcement, two different ? the one embed? operational logics are becoming evident. One of these logics ? exclusive for the ded in immigration policy immigration places responsibility process on the individual, and hence makes of the individual the site for the exercise of the state's authority.There is a strong tendency in immigration policy in developed countries to reduce the process to the actions of individuals. The individual is the site for accountability and for enforcement. Yet it is now increasingly being recognized that internationalmigrations are embedded in On larger geopolitical and transnational economic dynamics. The worldwide evi? dence shows rather clearly thatthere is considerable patterning in thegeography ofmigrations, and that themajor receiving countries tend to get immigrants from theirzones of influence. This holds for countries as diverse as theU.S., France, or Japan. Immigration is at least partly an outcome of the actions of the governments and major private economic actors in receiving countries. Eco? nomic internationalization and the geopolitics resulting from older colonial patterns suggest that the responsibility for immigrationmay not be exclusively the immigrant's. Analytically, these conditions only can enter into theorizations about the state and immigration when we suspend the proposition implicit in thatimmigration is the result of individual action. much immigration analysis? In the other logic, that embedded in human rights agreements, the individual emerges as a site for contesting the authority (sovereignty) of the state because s/heis the site forhuman rights. (For a detailed analysis of the interactionof these two logics, see Sassen, 1996b.) Beyond Sovereignty: Constraints on States' Policy Making When itcomes to immigrationpolicy, states under therule of law increasingly confronta range of rightsand obligations, pressures fromboth inside and outside, fromuniversal human rights to not-so-universal ethnic lobbies. The overall effect is to constrain the sovereignty of the state and to undermine old notions about immigration control. We see emerging a de facto regime, centered in international agreements and conventions as well as in various rights gained by immigrants, that limits the state's role in controlling immigration.An example of such an agreement is the InternationalConvention adopted by theGeneral Assembly of theUnited Nations (U.N.) onDecember 18,1990, on theprotection of therights of allmigrant workers and members of their families (Resolution 45/158). (See, e.g., Hollifield, 1992; Baubock, 1994; Sassen, 1996b: Part Three.) Further, there is a set of rights of resident immigrantswidely upheld by legal authorities.We have also seen the gradual expansion over the last threedecades of civil and social rights tomarginal populations, whether women, ethnicminorities, or immigrants and refugees. The extension of rights,which has taken place mostly through the judiciary, has confronted stateswith a number of constraints in the area of immigration and This content downloaded from on Sun, 24 Aug 2014 14:09:13 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 12 Sassen refugee policy. For instance, therehave been attemptsby the legislatures inFrance and Germany to limitfamily reunification,which were blocked by administrative and constitutional courts on the grounds that such restrictions would violate international agreements. The courts have also regularly supported a combination of rights of resident immigrants thathave the effectof limiting thegovernment's power over resident immigrants. Similarly, such courts have limited the ability of governments to restrictor stop asylum seekers from entering the country.6 Finally, the numbers and kinds of political actors involved in immigration policy debates and policy making inWestern Europe, North America, and Japan are far greater than theywere two decades ago: the European Union, anti immigrantparties, vast networks of organizations inEurope and North America thatoften represent immigrants,or claim to do so, and fightfor immigrant rights, immigrant associations and immigrantpoliticians, mostly in the second genera? tion, and, especially in theU.S., so-called ethnic lobbies.7 The policy process for immigration is no longer confined to a narrow governmental arena ofministerial and administrative interaction.Public opinion and public political debate have become part of the arena wherein immigration policy is shaped.8Whole parties position themselves politically in termsof theirstand on immigration, especially in some of theEuropean countries. These developments are particularly evident in theEuropean Union.9 Europe's single market program has had a powerful impact in raising theprominence of various issues associated with free circulation of people as an essential element in creating a frontier-freecommunity; theEC institutions lacked the legal compe? tence to deal with many of these issues, but had to begin to address them. Gradually, EC institutionshave wound upmore deeply involved with visa policy, ? all formerly exclusively in the family reunification, and migration policy domain of the individual national states. National governments resisted EC involvement in these once exclusively national domains. Yet now both legal and practical issues have made such involvement acceptable and inevitable, notwith? standing many public pronouncements to the contrary. There is now growing recognition of theneed foran EC-wide immigrationpolicy, something denied for a long timeby individual states. In the case of theU.S., thecombination of forces at the governmental level is quite different, although it has similar general implications about the state's constraints in immigration policy making. Immigration policy in theU.S. today is largely debated and shaped by Congress, and hence is highly public and subject to a vast multiplicity of local interests,notably ethnic lobbies.10We know well how very sensitive members of Congress are to the demographics of their districts. This has made it a very public process, quite different from other processes of policy making.11 The fact that immigration in theU.S. has historically been thepreserve of the federal government, particularly Congress, assumes new meaning in today's This content downloaded from on Sun, 24 Aug 2014 14:09:13 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Beyond Sovereignty: Immigration Policy Making Today 13 context of radical devolution? the returnof powers to the states.12There is now an emerging conflict between several state governments and the federal govern? ment around theparticular issue of federalmandates concerning immigrants? such as access to public health care and schools? without mandatory federal funding.Thus, stateswith disproportionate shares of immigrantsare asserting that theyare disproportionately burdened by the putative costs of immigration. The costs of immigration are an area of great debate and wide ranging estimates.13At theheart of thisconflict is thefact that thefederal government setspolicy, but does not assume responsibility, financial or otherwise, for the implementation ofmany key aspects of immigrationpolicy. The conflict is illustratedby thenotorious case of the State of California and its $377 million lawsuit against the federal government. The radical devolution underway now will furtheraccentuate some of these divisions. The Substance of State Control over Immigration One of thequestions raised by these developments concerns thenature of the control by the state in regulating immigration.The question here is not so much how effective a state's control over itsborders is? we know it is never absolute. The question concerns rather the substantive nature of state control over immigra? tiongiven international human rightsagreements, the extension of various social and political rights to resident immigrants over the last 20 years, and the multiplication of political actors involved with the immigration question. There is thematter of the unintended consequences of policies, whether immigrationpolicies as such or otherkinds of policies thataffect immigration.For instance, the 1965 U.S. Immigration Act had consequences not intended or foreseen by itsframers (Reimers, 1983; Briggs, 1994); itwas generally expected thatitwould bring inmore of thenationalities already present in the country, i.e., Europeans, given its emphasis on family reunion. Other kinds of unintended consequences are related to the internationalization of production and foreign aid (Sassen, 1988; Journal f?r Entwicklungspolitik, 1995; Bonacich et al., 1995). These often turned out to have unexpected impacts on immigration. Similar unintended consequences have been associated with military aid and subsequent refugee flows, e.g., El Salvador in thedecade of the 1980s (Mahler, 1995; Jonas, 1991). Although immigration policy has rarely been an explicit, formal compo? nent of the foreign policy apparatus in theU.S., the latterhas had significant impacts on immigration besides thewell-established fact of refugee flows from Indochina. If one were to be discreet, one would say that foreign aid has rarely deterred emigration.14 Domestic U.S. policies with a foreign,overseas impacts have also contributed to promoting emigration to theU.S. There is the notorious sugar price support provision of the early 1980s: tax payers paid threebillion annually to support the price of sugar forU.S. producers. This kept Caribbean Basin countries out of the This content downloaded from on Sun, 24 Aug 2014 14:09:13 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 14 Sassen competition and resulted in a loss of 400,000 jobs there from 1982 to 1988; for example, theDominican Republic lost three-quartersof its sugar export quota in less than a decade. The 1980s was also an era of large increases in immigration from that region. A second typeof condition thatilluminates the substantive nature of thecontrol by states over immigration is a twiston the zero sum argument. Recent history shows that ifa government closes one kind of entrycategory, another one will have a rise in numbers. A variant on this dynamic is that if a government has, for instance, a very liberal policy on asylum, public opinion may turn against all asylum seekers and close up the country totally; this in turn is likely to promote an increase in irregular entries.15 A third set of conditions can be seen as reducing the autonomy of the state in controlling immigration. Large-scale internationalmigrations are embedded in rather complex economic, social, and ethnic networks. They are highly condi? tioned and structured flows. States may insist on treating immigration as the aggregate outcome of individual actions and as distinct and autonomous from othermajor geopolitical and transnational processes. Yet theycannot escape the consequences of those larger dynamics and of their insistence on isolating the immigration policy question. These constraints on the state's capacity to control immigration should not be seen as a control crisis. This type of analysis opens up the immigration policy question beyond the familiar range of theborder and the individual as the sites for regulatory enforcement. It signals thatinternationalmigrations are partly embed? ded in conditions produced by economic internationalization both in sending and receiving areas. Although a national statemay have thepower towrite the textof an immigration policy, it is likely tobe dealing with a complex, deeply embedded and transnational process that it can only partly address or regulate through immigration policy as conventionally understood.16 Although the state continues to play themost important role in immigration policy making and implementation, the state itselfhas been transformedby the growth of a global economic system and other transnationalprocesses. These have brought yet another set of conditions to bear on the state's regulatory role. One particular aspect of thisdevelopment is of significance to the role of the state in immigration policy making and implementation: the state in all the highly developed countries (and inmany of thedeveloping countries) has participated in the implementation of a global economic system and in furtheringa consensus around thepursuit of this objective. This participation has transformed the state itself, affected the power of different agencies within it, and has furthered the internationalization of the interstatesystem. It is thusno longer sufficient simply to examine the role of the state inmigration policy design and implementation; it is also necessary to examine the transformationof the state itselfand what thatcan entail formigration policy and the regulation ofmigration flows and settlement. This content downloaded from on Sun, 24 Aug 2014 14:09:13 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Beyond Sovereignty: Immigration Policy Making Today 15 For thepurposes of immigrationpolicy analyses, it isbecoming importanttofactor in these transformationsof the stateand the interstatesystemprecisely because the state is a major actor in immigration policy and regulation.17 Implications for Immigration Policy Today we can see in all highly developed countries a combination of drives to create border-free economic spaces and drives for renewed border-control tokeep immigrants and refugees out. The juxtaposition between these two dynamics provides one of theprincipal contexts inwhich today' s effortsto stop immigration assume theirdistinctmeaning. Current immigrationpolicy indeveloped countries is increasingly at odds with othermajor policy frameworks in the international system and with thegrowth of global economic integration. There are, one could say, two major epistemic one concerning the flow of capital and information, the other communities? immigration. Both of these epistemic communities are international and both enjoy widespread consensus in the community of states. There are strategic siteswhere itbecomes clear that the existence of two very differentregimes for the circulation of capital and the circulation of immigrants poses problems thatcannot be solved through theold rules of thegame, where the factsof transnationalization weigh inon the state's decisions regarding immigra? tion.For instance, there is the need to create special regimes for thecirculation of serviceworkers within GATT and NAFTA as part of the furtherinternationaliza? tionof trade and investment in services (see Sassen, inprogress). This regime for the circulation of service workers has been uncoupled from any notion of migration; yet itrepresents a version of temporary labormigration. It is a regime for labormobility that is in good part under theoversight of entities thatare quite autonomous from thegovernment.18This points to an institutional reshufflingof some of the components of sovereign power over entry and can be seen as an extension of thegeneral set of processes whereby state sovereignty ispartly being decentered onto other non- or quasi-governmental entities for the governance of theglobal economy. These developments have the effect of reducing the autonomy of the state in immigration policy making and multiplying the sectors within the state that are addressing immigrationpolicy and therewithmultiplying the room for conflicts within the state.The assertion that the state is in charge of immigration policy is less and less helpful. Policy making regarding international issues can engage very differentparts of thegovernment. Though the state itselfhas been transformedby itsparticipation in theglobal economy, ithas of course never been a homogeneous actor. It is constituted throughmultiple agencies and social forces. Indeed, itcould be said (cf.Mitchell, 1989) that although the state has central control over immigrationpolicy, thework of exercising thatclaimed power often begins with a limited contest between the state and interested social forces. These interest This content downloaded from on Sun, 24 Aug 2014 14:09:13 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 16 Sassen groups include agribusiness, manufacturing, humanitarian groups, unions, ethnic organizations, and "zero population growth" efforts.Today we need to add to this the fact that the hierarchies of power and influence within the state are being reconfigured by the furtheringof economic globalization.19 The conditions within which immigration policy is being made and imple? mented today range from thepressures of economic globalization and its implica? tions for the role of the state to international agreements on human rights.The institutional settingwithin which immigration policy is being made and imple? mented ranges fromnational states and local states to supranational organizations. NOTES Immigration can then be seen as a strategic research site for the examination of the relation the idea of sovereignty over borders and the constraints states encounter in the design and implementation of actual policy on thematter. 1. between The subject of the transformation of the state itself as a consequence of itsparticipation in the implementation of global economic systems cannot be addressed here. See Sassen (1996b). For good recent reviews of what globalization has actually meant, see, e.g., Briggs, Competition and Change 2. (1995), Mittelman (1996), and Knox and Taylor (1995). (1995), Rosen and McFadyen 3. There is a vast and rich scholarly literature thatdocuments and interprets the specificity and distinctiveness of immigration policy in highly developed countries (e.g., Weil, 1991; Cornelius, Hollifield, andMartin, 1994; Weiner, 1995; Soysal, 1994; Thranhardt, 1993; Bade, 1992, tomention just a few). As a body this literature allows us to see themany differences among these countries. See also Shank (1994) for an examination of Japan. 4. Refugee policy in some countries does lift the burden of immigration from the immigrant's refugee policy, particularly for the case of Indochinese refugees, does acknowledge case of economic migrations, such partial responsibility on the part of the government. Clearly, in the responsibility is farmore difficult to establish, and by its nature farmore indirect. 5. One important exception isThe 1969 Convention on Refugee Problems inAfrica adopted by shoulders. U.S. theOrganization of African States, which includes the right to entry. 6. These efforts thatmix the conventions on universal human rights and national judiciaries assume many different forms. Some of the instances in theU.S. are the sanctuary movement in the sought to establish protected areas, typically in churches, for refugees from Central judicial battles, such as those around the status of Salvadorans granted indefinite stays, an earlier wave of boat though formally defined as illegal; the fight for the rights of detained Haitians in lifts. It is clear thatnotwithstanding the lack of an enforcement apparatus, human rights considerations limit the discretion of states in how they treat non-nationals on their territory. It is also worth noting 1980s, which America; in this regard thatU.N. High Commission on Refugees is the only U.N. agency with a universally conceded right of access to a country. 7. Although these developments are well known for the cases of Europe and North America, there is not much general awareness of the fact thatwe are seeing incipient forms in Japan as well. For instance, in Japan today we see a strong group of human rights advocates for immigrants, efforts on by non-official unions to organize undocumented immigrant workers, and organizations working behalf of immigrants that receive funding from individuals or government institutions in sending to Japan announced inOctober 1995 that his government will countries (e.g., theThai Ambassador to five civic groups that assist Thai migrant give a total of 2.5 million baht, about U.S.$100,000, workers, especially undocumented ones; see Japan Times, October 18, 1995). 8. Further, thegrowth of immigration, refugee flows, ethnicity, and regionalism raises questions about the accepted notion of citizenship in contemporary nation-states and hence about the formal This content downloaded from on Sun, 24 Aug 2014 14:09:13 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Beyond Sovereignty: Immigration Policy Making Today 17 structures for accountability. My research on the international circulation of capital and labor has raised questions forme on themeaning of such concepts as national economy and national work force under conditions of growing internationalization of capital and the growing presence of immigrant workers inmajor industrial countries. Furthermore, the rise of ethnicity in the U.S. and in Europe among a mobile work force raises questions about the content of the concept of nation-based citizenship. The portability of national identity raises questions about thebonds with other countries, or localities within them, and the resurgence of ethnic regionalism creates barriers to the political incorporation of new 1994; Sassen, 1996a.) immigrants. (See, e.g., Soysal, 1995; Baubock, 9. There is a large and rich literature on the development of immigration policy at theEuropean level; please refer to footnote 2 for a few citations. Longer bibliographies and analyses on theparticular ? limitations on the autonomy of the state inmaking immigration policy angle under discussion here ? can also be found in Sassen (1996b, forthcoming). 10. Jurisdiction over immigrationmatters in theU.S. Congress lieswith the Judiciary Committee, not with the Foreign Affairs Committee as might have been the case. Congressional intent on immigration is often at odds with the foreign affairs priorities of the executi ve. There is a certain policy making tug of war (Mitchell, 1989). Ithas not always been thisway. In the late 1940s and 1950s, there was great concern with how immigration policy could be used to advance foreign policy objectives. The history of which government agency was responsible for immigration is rather interesting.Earlier, the Department of Labor (DOL) was created in 1914, it received the responsibility for immigration policy. In June 1933, President Roosevelt combined functions into the Immigration and Naturalization Service within DOL. The advent ofWorld War II brought a shift in the administrative when responsibility for the country's immigration policy: in 1940, President Roosevelt recommended that it be shifted to the Department of Justice, because of the supposed political threat represented by immigrants from enemy countries. This was meant to last for thewar and then INS was to be returned to theDOL. Yet it never was. It also meant that immigration wound up inCongress in committees traditionally reserved for lawyers, as are the Senate and House Judiciary Committees. It has been said that this iswhy immigration law is so complicated (and, I would add, so centered on the legalities of entry and so unconcerned with broader issues). 11. There are diverse social forces shaping the role of the state depending on thematter at hand. Thus, in the early 1980's bank crisis, for instance, the players were few and well coordinated; the state basically relinquished the organizing capacity to the banks, the IMF, and a few other actors. Itwas all very discreet, indeed so discreet that ifyou look closely the government was hardly a player in that crisis. This is quite a contrast with the deliberations around the passing of the 1986 Immigration and was a sort of national brawl. In trade liberalization discussions, there are often multiple players, and the executive may or may not relinquish powers toCongress. 12. Aman, Jr. (1995) has noted that although political and constitutional arguments for reallocat? ing federal power to the states are not new, the recent reemergence of theTenth Amendment as a Reform Control Act?which politically viable and popular guideline is a major political shift since theNew Deal in the relations between the federal government and the states. Urban Institute found that immigrants contribute 13. The latest study by theWashington-based $30 billion more in taxes than they take in services. 14. Take El Salvador in the 1980s: billions of dollars in aid poured in, and hundreds of thousands of Salvadorans poured out as U.S. aid raised the effectiveness of El Salvador's military control and aggression against its own people. The Philippines, a country that received massive aid and has had high emigration, is similar. In both cases itwas foreign aid dictated by security issues. Emigration resulting fromU.S. economic and political interventions is evident in theDominican emigration in the ? with the latter two associated also 1960s and in the emigration from India and Pakistan to theU.S. with security aid from theU .S. (I have long argued as a scholar thatpolicymakers impact statements attached to various policies.) should have migration 15. Increasingly, unilateral policy by a major immigration country is problematic. One of the dramatic examples was that of Germany, which began to receive massive numbers of entrants as the This content downloaded from on Sun, 24 Aug 2014 14:09:13 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 18 Sassen other European states gradually tightened their policies and Germany kept its very liberal asylum countries ? policy. Another case is the importance for the EC today that theMediterranean Italy, ? and control their entrants. borders non-EC Spain, Portugal regarding On a somewhat related matter, it seems tome that the sense of an immigration control crisis today inmany of the highly developed countries is in some ways unwarranted, even 16. that prevails though states have less control than theywould like because immigration is caught in a web of other dynamics. When we look at the characteristics of immigrations over time and across theworld, it is clear that these are highly patterned flows, embedded in other dynamics that contain equilibrating mechanisms, and have a duration (many immigrations have lasted for 50 years and then come to an end). There ismore returnmigration thanwe generally realize (e.g., Soviet engineers and intellectuals who went back toMoscow from Israel, orMexicans who returned after becoming legal residents through the IRCA amnesty program, feeling thatnow they could circulate between the two countries). We also know from earlier historical periods, when therewere no controls, thatmost people did not leave poorer areas to go to richer ones, even though therewere plenty of such differences inEurope within somewhat reasonable travel distances (Sassen, 1996a, in progress). here are the changed articulation of the public functions of the state with major sectors and thedisplacement of what were once governmental functions onto non- or quasi governmental entities (Sassen, 1996b). 17. Crucial economic 18. Another instance of the impact of globalization on governmental policy making can be seen in Japan's new immigration law thatwas passed in 1990 (actually an amendment of an earlier law on the entry and exit of aliens). This legislation opened the country to several categories of highly specialized professionals with a Western background (e.g., experts in international finance, in Western-style accounting, inWestern medicine, etc.) in recognition of the growing internationaliza? tion of the professional world in Japan; itmade the entry of what is referred to as "simple labor" illegal 1993). This can be read as importing "Western human capital" and closing borders to (Sassen, immigrants. 19. For instance, an item on internal changes in the state thatmay have impacts on immigration to some observers, recent policy is the ascendance of so-called soft security issues. According government reorganization in the Departments of State, Defense, and the CIA reflects an implicit redefinition of national security. REFERENCES Aman, Jr.,Alfred C. "A Global Perspective on Current Regulatory Reform: Rejection, Relocation, 1995 or Reinvention?" Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies 2: 429-464. Bade, Klaus J. (ed.) Deutsche imAusland, Fremde inDeutschland: Migration inGeschichte und 1992 Gegenwart. Munich: C.H. Beck Verlag. Baubock, Rainer 1994 Transnational Citizenship: Membership and Rights in International Migration. Aldershot, England: Edward Elgar. (eds.) Bohning, W.R. and M.L. Schloeter-Paredes 1994 Aid in Place ofMigration. Geneva: International Labor Office. Bonacich, Edna, Lucie Cheng, Norma Chinchilla, Nora Hamilton, and Paul Ong (eds.) 1994 Global Production: The Apparel Industry in the Pacific Rim. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Bose, Christine E. and Edna Acosta-Belen (eds.) 1995 Women in the Latin American Development Process. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. This content downloaded from on Sun, 24 Aug 2014 14:09:13 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Beyond Sovereignty: Immigration Policy Making Today 19 Briggs, J. 1994 Competition and Change. The Journal of Global Business and Political Economy 1,1. Harwood Academic Publishers. Cornelius, Wayne A., Philip L. Martin, and James F. Hollifield (eds.) 1994 Controlling Immigration. A Global Perspective. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Hollifield, James F. 1992 Immigrants, Markets, and States. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. Hugo, Graeme 1995 "Indonesia's Migration Transition." Journal f?r Entwicklungspolitik 11,3: 285-309. Jonas, Susanne The Battle forGuatemala. Boulder, Colorado: Westview. 1991 Journal f?r Entwicklungspolitik 1995 Schwerpunkt: Migration. Special Issue on Migration. Vol. 11,No. 3. Frankfurt: Brandes and Apse! Verlag. Knox, Paul L. and Peter J.Taylor (eds.) 1995 World Cities in aWorld-System. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. Mahler, Sarah American Dreaming: Immigrant Life on theMargins. Princeton, N.J.: 1995 Princeton University Press. Massey, Douglas S., Joaquin Arango, Graeme Hugo, Ali Kouaouci, Adela Pellegrino, and J. Edward Taylor 1993 "Theories of International Migration: A Review and Appraisal." Population and Development Review 19,3: 431-466. Mitchell, Christopher "International Migration, International Relations 1989 International Migration Review (Fall). Mittelman, James (ed.) 1996 Reimers, David M. 1983 and Foreign Policy." Yearbook of International Political Economy. Volume Lynne Reiner Publishers. 9. Boulder, Colorado: "An Unintended Reform: The 1965 Immigration Act and Third World Immigration to theU.S." Journal of American Ethnic History 3 (Fall): 9-28. Rosen, Fred and Deidre McFadyen (eds.) Free Trade and Economic Restructuring inLatin America. A NACLA Reader. 1995 New York: Monthly Review Press. Sassen, Saskia 1997 Immigration Policy in a Global Economy. (In progress.) Under preparation for 1996a 1996b 1993 The Twentieth Century Fund. Immigrants and Refugees: A European Dilemma? Frankfurt: Fischer Verlag. On Governing theGlobal Economy. The 1995 Leonard Hastings Schoff Memorial Lectures delivered at Columbia University, to be published by Columbia University Press. "The Impact of Economic Internationalization on Migration: Comparing the U.S. and Japan." International Migration 31,1. Shank, Gregory (ed.) 1994 Japan Enters the 21st Century. A Special Issue of Social Justice. Vol. 2 (Summer). Soysal, Yasmin 1994 Limits of Citizenship. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Thranhardt, Dietrich (ed.) 1992 Europe: A New Immigration Continent. Hamburg: Lit Verlag. Weil, Patrick La France et ses etrangers. Paris: Calmann-Levy. 1991 21, No. This content downloaded from on Sun, 24 Aug 2014 14:09:13 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 20 Sassen Weiner, Myron The Global Migration Crisis. New York: Harper Collins. 1995 Zolberg, Aristide R. "The Roots of U.S. Refugee Policy." R. Tucker, Charles B. Keely, and 1990 Wrigley (eds.), Immigration and U.S. Foreign Policy. Boulder, Col.: Westview Press. ^ The HumboldtJournal of Social Relations African Americans A Special in the 1990s Issue Guest Editor: Earl Smith The Color Line and the Health of African Americans Thomas La Veist, John Wallace & Daniel Howard Introduction: African Americans inAmerican Society Today Earl Smith in African Americans Medical Professions The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy: Genetically Superior African American Athletes Earl Smith Joyce Tang Impact of Science and Technology on African Americans Cheryl Leggon The African American in the 1990s Ronald Taylor in Higher African Americans Education: An Issue of Access Beatriz Cfewell & Bernice Anderson and the Political Separation African American Experience: Martin Luther King, Jr., and Malcolm X on Social Change J. Angelo Corlett Affirmative Action and African Americans: Rhetoric and Practice Joe Feagin & Aaron Porter African American Political in the 1990s: Leadership African Americans and the Criminal Justice System Phyllis Gray-Ray, Me/vin Ray Sandra Rutland & Sharon Turner To reserve your copy, please Youth A Review Essay Vernon Johnson send $10.00, plus $2.00 shipping and handling, to: Humboldt Journal of Social Relations of Behavioral and Social Sciences College HUMBOLDTSTATE UNIVERSITY Arcata, CA 95521 For additional information, please E-Mail to: call 707-826-3716, or send inquiries via This content downloaded from on Sun, 24 Aug 2014 14:09:13 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Transnationalism: A New Analytic Framework for Understanding Migration NINA GLICK SCHILLER Department of Anthmpology Vaivewit?,of New Hampshire Durham, New Hampshire 03824 LINDA BASCH School of Arts and Sciences Manhattan Colkp Parkway Bronx, New rOvk 10471 CRISTINA BLANC-SZANTON Southem Asian Institute International A@irs Columbia Universit?, Niw rik, New Yovk 10027 Our earlier conceptions of immigrant and migrant n o longer suffice. The word immigrant evokes images of permanent rupture, of the uprooted, the abandonment of old patterns and the painful learning of a new language and culture. Now, a new kind of migrating population is emerging, composed of those whose networks, activities and patterns of life encompass both their host and home societies. Their lives cut across national boundaries and bring two societies into a single social field. In this book we argue that a new conceptualization is needed in order to come to terms with the experience and consciousness of this new migrant population. We call this new conceptualization, “transnationalism,” and describe the new type of migrants as transmigrants. We have defined transnationalism as the processes by which immigrants build social fields that link together their country of origin and their country of settlement. Immigrants who build such social fields are designated “transmigrants.” Transmigrants develop and maintain multiple relations- familial, economic, social, organizational, religious, and political that span borders. Transmigrants take actions, make decisions, and feel concerns, and develop identities within social net- 1 2 ANNALS NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES works that connect them to two or more societies simultaneously (Basch, Glick Schiller and Blanc-Szanton n.d.).’ The following vignettes based on ourobservations of migrants from Haiti, the eastern Caribbean, and the Philippines now living in New York allow a ghmpse of the complexities and intricacies of transmigrant experience and identity that, we believe, calls for a new analytical hmework. The ten men sat around a living room on Long Island. The occasion was a meeting of their regional association. Each member of the association had pledged to send $10.00 a month to support an older person living in their home town in Haiti. They came from different class backgrounds in Haiti, although all were fiirly successful in New York. But one of the members, a successful doctor, expressed dissatisfiction -although he has a lucrative practice, a comfortable life style in New York and a household in his hometown which he visits every year “no matter what.” As he stated it, “I’m making money and I am not happy. Life has no meaning.” His speech about his emotional state was a preamble to his making an ambitious proposal to his hometown association. He called on his fellow members to join him in the building of a sports complex for the youth in their hometown. H e indicated that he already had bought the land which he would donate and he would also donate $4,000-5,000 for the building and called on others to assist in the construction. H e had given no thought to maintaining the building or staffing it. The doctor was not alone in his aspirations to make a mark back home in a way that maintains or asserts status both in Haiti and among his personal networks in New York. There were more than 20 Haitian hometown associations in New York in 1988.Their memberships were composed of people who have lived in New York for many years. Many of them undertook large scale projects back “home,” projects which often are grand rather than practical. For example, an ambulance was sent to a town with no gasoline supply and no hospital. These associations differ dramatically in the activities and audience from hometown associations of earlier immigrants whose main, if not only thrust of activity was to help the newcomers fice social welfire issues in the new land. Russian Jewish immigrants in the beginning of the 20th century, for example, 1 The term “transnational” has long been used to describe corporations that have major financial operations in more than one country and a significant organizational presence in several countries simultaneously. The growth of transnational corporations has been accompanied by the relocation of populations. It therefore seems appropriate to use the term “transnational” as a descriptionfor both the sectors of migrating populations who maintain a simultaneous presence in two or more societies and for the relations these migrants establish. In 1986 the American Academy of Political and Social Science employed the term as the theme of a conference publication entitled F n m r h wwkm o settkrs?-i’innmahal rn&atzim and thc tmqjmcc ofa tlclp mim.9.The conference papers dwelt more on the effect on public policy of this type of migration, but did so without developing the concept of transnational migration. CLICK SCHILLER et al.: A NEW ANALYTIC FRAMEWORK 3 founded “landsman” associations to provide their members with burial funds and assist tlie poor and orphaned in the United States. In contrast, the members of Haitian hometown associations, much as the participants in similar Filipino and Grenadian and Vincentian associations, are part of a social system whose networks are based in two o r more nation states and who maintain activities, identities and statuses in several social locations. Approximately 200 well-dressed Grenadian immigrants, mostly from urban areas in Grenada and presently employed in white collar jobs in New York, gathered in a Grenadian-owned catcring hall in Brooklyn to hear the Grenadian Minister of Agriculture and Development. The Minister shared with Grenada’s ‘i-onstituency in New York,” his plans for agricultural development in Grenada and encouraged them to become part of this effort. By being addressed and acting as Grenadian nationals, these immigrants were resisting incorporation into the bottom oftlie racial order in the United States that categorizes them as “black,” much as Haitians d o when they construct hornetown associations o r meet as members of the Haitian diaspora to discuss tlie situation in Haiti. By having their views elicited by a government minister from home, the Grenadians were exercising a status as Grenadian leaders, a social status generally unavailable to them in the racially stratified environment of New York. Their perceptions of themselves as Grenadian “leaders” were further activated by tlie minister’s suggestion that these migrants have the power to convince their relatives at home that agricultural work, generally demeaned as a productive activity, is worthwhile and important. But tlie Minister was also addressing tlie migrants as Grenadian ethnics in New York when he asked them to try to assist in introducing Grenadian agricultural goods to the United States market by using their connections in New York within the fledgling Caribbean American Chamber of Commerce to which many of them belonged. And of particular significance, the organizers of this meeting, who had each been in the United States a minimum of ten years, were as involved in the local politics of New York City as in Grenada. In fact, they were able to transfer-and build on- the political capital they gained in New York to Grenada, and vice versa. Grenada’s ambassador to tlie United Nations has been a leader in the New York Caribbean community for 20 years. And so often did these political actors travel between Grenada and New York, that it became difficult for the anthropologist to recall where she had last seen them. Well-established Filipino migrants are also periodically visited by representatives of the Philippines government urging transnational activities including strong encouragement to reinvest their American earnings into Philippine agriculture. The role of tlie Philippines state in contributing to the construction of transnational migrant fields extends even further. At a desk, an employee was helping a customer close her box and complete ANNALS NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES 4 the listing of items it contains. We were in the offices ofa company in New Jersey (the only company where hoses can be delivered directly to the warehouse rather than being picked up for delivery). A regular flow of such boxes leaves every day from seven to eight major Filipino shipping companies. Anything can be sent back door-to-door and with limited taxes-appliances, electronic equipment and the like-as long as it fits the weight and size prescriptions defining a Balikbayan box. President Marcos had created the term balikbaym (literally homecomers) during a major national speech encouraging immigrants to visit their home country once a year during the holidays. H e developed economic and legal means to facilitate their return and allowed each of them to bring yearly two Balikbayan boxes duty-free. Mrs. Aquino restated her concern for the numerous silent “heroes and heroines of the Philippines.” She then enabled them to purchase gifts o f u p to $1,000 duty-free upon entering the Philippines. Contracting for overseas labor and the system of sending remittances, so very important now for the country’s economy, has been similarly institutionalized. The existence of transnational migration is thus officially sanctioned and higlihr regulated by the Philippine state. We thus see how the transnational social field is in part composed of family tics sustained through economic disbursements and gifts. At the same time this field is sustained by a system of legalized exchanges, structured and officially sanctioned by the Philippine state. As these examples show, transnational migrants arrive in their new country of residence with certain practices and concepts constructed at home. They belong to certain more or less politicized populations and hold particular class affiliations. They then engage in complex activities across national borders that create, shape and potentially transform their identities in ways that we will begin to explore in this paper and in these conference proceedings. This is not to say that this phenomenon has not been observed by others. However, an adequate framework for understanding this phenomenon or its implications has yet to be constructed. Building on our own research with transmigrants from Haiti, the English-speaking Caribbean, and the Philippines2 as well as the earlier observations of others, we seek in this paper to develop such a framework. This framework we argue allows an examination of how transmigrants use their social relationships and their varying and multiple identities generated from their simultaneous positioning in several social locations both to accommodate to and to resist the difficult circumstances and the dominant ideologies they encounter in their transnational * A fuller development of the themes in this article can be found in our book, Rethink& mrguarimt, etbnicizy, m e , and matimatism in mnsnatimulppective (Basch, Glick Schiller, and BlancSzanton, forthcoming). See also Glick Schiller and Fouron (1990)and Basch etal. (forthcoming). GLICK SCHILLER et al.: A NEW ANALYTIC FRAMEWORK 5 fields. We start our analysis by identifying and developing six premises that situate transnationalism in time, space, world systems and sociological theory. The six premises central to our conceptualization of transnationalism are the following: 1) bounded social science concepts such as tribe, ethnic group, nation, society, or culture can limit the ability of researchers to first percei\q and then analyze, the phenomenon of transnationalism; 2) the development of the transnational migrant experience is inextricably linked to the changing conditions of global capitalism, and must be analyzed within that world context; 3) transnationalism is grounded in the daily lives, activities, and social relationships of migrants; 4) transnational migrants, although predominantly workers, live a complex existence that forces them to confront, draw upon, and rework different identity constructs-national, ethnic and racial; 5) the fluid and complex existence of transnational migrants compels us to reconceptualize the categories of nationalism, ethnicity, and race, theoretical work that can contribute to reformulating our understanding of culture, class, and socictv; and 6) transmigrants deal with and confront a number of hegemonic contexts, both global and national.3 These hegemonic contexts have an impact on the transmigrant’s consciousness, but at the same time transmigrants reshape these contexts by their interactions and resistance. SOCIAL SCIENCE UNBOUND For the past several decades descriptions of migrant behavior that could be characterized as transnational have been present in the migration literature, but these descriptions have not yielded a new approach to the study of migration. Students of migration did not develop a conceptual framework to encompass the global phenomena of immigrant social, political, and economic relationships that spanned several societies. There was a certain recognition that the constant back and forth flow of people could not be captured by the categories of“permancnt migrants,” “return migrants,” “temporary migrants,” or “sojourners.” In fact, Richardson, whose own work documents Caribbean “migration as livelihood” states that “students of the movements of Pacific islanders have found human mobility there so routine that they now employ the term circulation rather than migration” (1983:176).Chaney astutely noted that there were now people who had their “feet in two societies” (1979:209). Noting that many Garifuna “today have become United States citizens, yet they think of themselves as members of two (or more) societies,” Gonzalez described migrants from Belize as forming “‘part societies’ within several countries” (1988:10). The concept of hcgemony, long embedded in Marxism but developed by Gramsci (1971). Eicilitatcs the discussion of t h e relationship between power and ideology. 6 ANNALS NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES In part, the recognition by social scientists that many migrants persist in their relationship to their home society, not in contradiction to but in conjunction with their settlement in the host society, did not develop beyond the descriptive level because migrant experiences in different areas of the world tended to be analyzed as discrete and separate phenomena rather than as part of a global phenomenon. For example, students of Caribbean migration noted the tendency of generations of migrants from the Caribbean to spend long periods away fi-om home, yet support their families and often family landholdings or small enterprises with the money they sent home. They identified Caribbean nations as “remittance societies” and viewed this as a Caribbean phenomenon (Wood and McCoy 1985; Rubenstein 1983). Yet remittances are now part of the economies of nations in disparate parts of the world. In all the social sciences, analyses of immigrant populations, their patterns of social relations and systems of meaning have continued to be enmeshed within theories that approached each society as a discrete and bounded entity with its own separate economy, culture, and historical trajectory. That the study of immigrant populations should have been built upon such a bounded view of society and culture is not surprising considering that all social sciences had for decades been dominated by such static models. Anthropologists, for example, were long constrained by the closed models of “structural functionalism” (Radcliffe Brown 1952) that endowed populations, variously designated as “tribes,” “peoples,” “ethnic groups,” or simply “cultures,” with given, “natural,” and group-specific properties. Each population was studied as a bounded unit, living in one place, bearing a unique and readily identifiable ~ u l t u r e Sociology, .~ meanwhile, had fastened on Parsons’ emphasis on “social system” and the development of systems theory, and political scientists created models of “traditional” versus c‘modern’’ societies (Parsons 1951). In the comparative study of “social systems,” all fields of scholarship projected an ethnographic present in which the stasis of tradition was broken apart only by 19th and 20th century European or American “contact,” resulting in migration, urbanization, and acculturation. Anthropologists may have expressed uneasiness about the consequences of the very same processes that produced the political scientists’ quintessential goal of modernization, but until the 1970s all disciplines remained constrained by their bounded categories of social analysis. For the past two decades, such views have been subject to powerful critiques generated by several different analytical paradigms. But these critiques have yet to lead to new approaches to the study of immigrant populations. In anthropology, efforts to break free fi-om bounded thinking have gone in While the concept of uniform patterns of culture (Benedict 1959) has been thoroughly critiqued by numerous anthropologists it persists in the profession and is a basic building block of most introductory texts. GLICK SCHILLER e t al.: A NEW ANALYTIC FRAMEWORK 7 two directions. Some analysts “deconstruct” culture, recognizing the artifice of the bounded unit of analysis by replacing conceptions of a single uniform “pattern” with multiple visions of individual, gendered and particularized experiences. By and large, as Marcus has noted, “ethnographers of an interpretive bent-more interested in problems of cultural meaning than in social action- have not generally represented the ways in which closely observed cultural worlds are embedded in larger, more impersonal systems” (Marcus 1986:166). The emphasis is on the formulation of the ethnographic text as a product of the interaction between the individual ethnographer and the “informant” (Rosaldo 1989). For those writers who, in their dwussion of “text construction:’ acknowledge a global context the question becomes “once the line between the local worlds of subjects and the global world of systems becomes radically blurred, . . . (h)ow, . . . is the representational space of the realist ethnography to be textually bounded and contained in the compelling recognition of the larger systems contexts of any ethnographic subjects?” (Marcus 1986:171). Others, such as Wolf(1982; 1988) and Wonley (1984),building on a Marxistinfluenced anthropology which decades earlier had expressed disquietude about the reification of the concept of “tribe,”5 have called for a global level of analysis. Sectors of sociology and political science share this global vision and look to the “world capitalist system” as a unit of analysis. Wallerstein, a sociologist, developed a “world systems theory” in which different geographic regions of the world performed different and unequal functions in a global division of labor (Wallerstein 1974; 1982). World systems theory allowed social science to move beyond the examination of the structures of individual economies and to link the penetration of capital into previously non-capitalized sectors of production to the movements of people into the labor market.6 However necessary this global perspective, it has proved to be insufficient on several counts.’ Little has been done by world systems theorists to explain the continuing significance of nation-states within these larger global processes, and world systems theorists have tended to ignore the legal, military, and ideological basis for the continuing existence of nations. In fact, the international flow of capital and distribution of labor takes place in a world that continues to be very much politically divided into nation-states that are un- The authors represented in &says on the P f 0 b . h of the tribe (Helm 1975) and Morton Fried’s (1975) insightfid work on primordial state formation and the tribe made seminal contributions to the effort to move anthropology beyond the conceptualization of cultures as tightly bounded, and discrete. 6 Important early work in a global analysis was carried out by Andr6 Gunder Frank (1966). Work to link world system theory to migration has been carried out by numerous authors including Bach (1980), Portes and Walton (1981), Pessar (1982) and Sassen (1988). For efforts to both critique and build upon a world systems framework see Smith (1984), Lozano (1984), Portes and Bach (1985). 8 ANNALS NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES equal in their power, and which serve differentially as base areas of international capital. Wallerstein has addressed the constructed nature of nationalism and has recognized the significance of nationalism in the development of states. Nevertheless, a great deal more needs to be said about the fact that nation-states, although they exist within the world capitalist system, continue to control armies and nuclear weapons. Much world system analysis has focused on the economic rather than the political aspects of the system, especially in discussions of migration.8 Another shortcoming of world systems theorists who have built upon Wallerstein has been their tendency to view migrants as essentially units of labor. While the direction has been set by authors such as Portes and Bach (1985) and Sassen (1988) who acknowledge that a global perspective must include the social, cultural, and political dimensions of migrant experiences, this work has yet to be done. Our observations suggest that the transnational context of migrants’ lives develops from the interplay of multiplex phenomenahistorical experience, structural conditions, and the ideologies of their home and host societies. In developing the concept of transnationalism we wish to provide those studying contemporary migrating populations with a framework in which global economic processes, and the continuing contradictory persistence of nation-states can be linked to migrants’ social relationships, political actions, loyalties, beliefs, and identities. At this juncture in the social sciences, it is essential that the study of migrating populations combine an emphasis on social relations, understood to be fluid and dynamic, yet culturally patterned, with an analysis of the global context. Such an approach is certainly necessary to elucidate the processes underlying the experience of those sectors of migrating populations who become transmigrants. l+ansnutionalism as a &duct of W orld Capitalinn To analyze transnationalism we must begin by recognizing that the world is currently bound together by a global capitalist system. Such a perspective allows us to examine the economic forces that structure the flows of international migration and to place the migrants’ responses to these forces and their strategies of survival, cultural practices and identities within the worldwide historical context of differential power and inequality. Because of the growing internationalization of capital, by the 1980s the structure of employment in the United States had undergone transformations often called “restructuring” or “deindustrialization” (Block 1987:136). Many stable industrial-sector jobs had been lost through the export of manufacZolberg (1983) has emphasized the political and legal structuring of international migration. GLICK SCHILLER et al.: A NEW ANALYTIC FRAMEWORK 9 turing industries and related jobs abroad, frequently to Third World countries. In many large urban areas in the United States well-paying, unionized, industrial employment was replaced by service sector and clerical employment. Sweat shops and home work proliferated. The newly created employment was characterized by low pay and little or no benefits o r security. At the same time, in the global restructuring of capital, the local economies of the Third World were disrupted by the intrusion of large scale agrobusincsses, the investment of transnational corporations in export processing industries, and tourism (Nash and Fernandez 1983). These economic shifts created a displaced, underemployed, labor force, not easily absorbed by the growing but still relatively small highly capitalized sector of the economy. The economic dislocations in both the Third World and in industrialized nations increased migration, yet made it difficult for the migrants to construct secure cultural, social or economic bases within their new settings. This vulnerability increased the likelihood that migrants would construct a transnational existence. Understanding this global context has led to new perspectives on migration, perspectives that can contribute to an understanding that current migration is a new and different phenomenon. There is, however, no consensus among analysts on the character of the new migration. There are some who point to the invention of rapid transportation and communication systems, rather than the current state of the world social and economic system, as the reason why modern-day migrants are more likely than their predecessors to maintain ongoing ties to their societies oforigin (Wakeman 1988). Others continue to view migrants within a classic “push-pull” model in which migration is seen as a product ofseparate and unrelated forces in the society of origin and the society ofsettlement (Lee 1966). Using recent historiography that has revised our picture o f l 9 t h century immigrants, one might argue that there has been n o major change in migration patterns. Apparently many earlier migrants were, in some sense, transmigrants who remained in communication with their home country and participated in its national movement (Vassady 1982). We believe that current transnationalism does mark a new type ofmigrant existence and that only by more fully developing a global perspective on the transnational life experience of migrants, will social scientists be able to understand the similarities and differences between past and present migrations. Pansnatkmalism as Cultural Flow or as Social Relations? The word transnationalism has recently become popularized in the realm of cultural studies with references made to “transnational phenomena” and “transnational research” (Wakeman 1988:85). However, this usage of transnationalism stands conceptually apart from the entire bodies of literature on migration and on the world system. Instead, those who speak of “trans- 10 ANNALS NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES national phenomena” focus on flows of meanings and material objects in an effort to describe “transnational” culture, and put the discussion of culture in a world-wide framework. Appadurai and Breckenridge seek to explain the recent development of a “public culture” in India, which they see manifested in public foods, entertainment, goods and services that largely transcend national boundaries. Such a public culture, they argue, is a response to India’s cultural interactions and exchanges with other nations (Appadurai and Breckenridge 1988). They highlight the complexities, the back-and-forth transferences, and the contradictions that characterize transnational flows of objects and cultural meanings. A similar approach to global cultural trends has been taken by Hannerz (1989).Critiquing those who see the diffusion of cultural goods and ideas only fkom powerful core nations to those on the economic periphery, Hannerz argues against notions of a “global village” or the “homogenization” of culture. Hannerz rightly emphasizes the constant tendency of people to creatively reinterpret, a process he calls “creolization.” Focusing largely on movements of cultural items and flows of media images, he also emphasizes “cultural flows.” The concurrent movement of peoples, and the activities, networks, relationships, and identities of transnational migrants have yet to be addressed. In our task of developing a transnational hmework that is of use in the analysis of migration, we can build on some ground-breaking work that has directed our attention to systems of social relations that are wider than national borders. In their 1975 description of Barbadian immigrants, Sutton and Makiesky-Barrow spoke of a “transnational sociocultural and political system” (1987).9They posited that migration provides “an important channel for the bi-directional flow of ideas such that political events at home (eg.,independence) had an impact on the migrant communities abroad while migrant experiences were relayed in the opposite direction” (1987:114). Portes and Walton s u g p t e d that migration could be “conceptualized as a process of network building” (1981:60).h u s e introduced the concept of“transnational migrant circuits’’ that encompass several societies (1988; 1989). As the work of these authors and our own research makes clear, to understand current day migrants we must not only map the circulation of goods and ideas, but understand that material goods are embedded in social relations. If someone sends home a barbecue grill to Haiti, the gnll does not stand in and of itself as an item of material culture that will change the material culture of Haiti. While it is interesting to talk about the new development of cultural forms around imported items, something else needs to be said. The grill is a statement about social success in the United States and an effort to 9 See also Sutton’s more recent discussion of “the emergence of a transnational sociocultural system” (1987). GLICK SCHILLER et al.: A NEW ANALYTIC FRAMEWORK 11 build and advance social position in Haiti. It will be used in a fashionable round of party-going in which status is defined and redeemed in the context of consumption. When someone from a small town in Haiti, St. Vincent, or the Philippines who now lives in New York sends home a cassette player, how are we to interpret this flow? The player can be used along with imported cassettes to bring the latest musical forms and themes from around the world into the most remote rural area. But on this same cassette those sitting on a mountainside in Haiti, in a rural village in the Philippines, or on a family veranda in St. Vincent send messages, warnings, information about kith and kin “at home” that influence how people behave and what they think in New York, Los Angeles, and Miami (Richman 1987). Connections are continued, a wider system of social relations is maintained, reinforced, and remains vital and growing. Whether the transnational activity is sending the barbecue to Haiti, dried fruits and fabric home to Trinidad so these goods can be prepared for a wedding in New York, or using the special tax status of Balikbayan boxes to send expensive goods from the United States to families back home in the Philippines, the constant and various flow of such goods and activities have embedded within them relationships between people. These social relations take OJI meaning within the flow and fabric of daily life, as linkages between different societies are maintained, renewed, and reconstituted in the context of families, of institutions, of economic investments, business, and finance and of political organizations and structures including nation-states. The Cmnplex Identities of l3ansnatimtal Migrants Within their complex web of social relations, transmigrants draw upon and create fluid and multiple identities grounded both in their society of origin and in the host societies. While some migrants identify more with one society than the other, the majority seem to maintain several identities that link them simultaneously to more than one nation. By maintaining many different racial, national, and ethnic identities, transmigrants are able to express their resistance to the global political and economic situations that engulf them, even as they accommodate themselves to living conditions marked by vulnerability and insecurity. These migrants express this resistance in small, everyday ways that usually do not directly challenge or even recognize the basic premises of the systems that surround them and dictate the terms of their existence. As transmigrants live in several societies simultaneously, their actions and beliefs contribute to the continuing and multiple differentiation of populations. The creolization observed by Hannerz is not only a product of intensified 12 ANNALS NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES world-wide product distribution systems, but also of this dynamic of migration and differentiation. In order for us to be able even to perceive, much less analyze, the role played by migration in the continuing differentiation of the world’s population, we must add to the study of international migration an examination of the identities and aspirations of transmigrants. This perspective should accompany our understanding that such migrants compose a mobile labor force within a global economic system. This is a labor force that acts and reacts in ways that emphasize, reinforce, or create cultural differentiation and separate identities. For example, the same individual may attend a meeting of U.S. citizens of the same “ethnic group,” be called as a New Yorker to speak to the Mayor of New York about the development of “our city,” and the next week go “back home” to Haiti, St. Vincent, or the Philippines and speak as a committed nationalist about the development of “our nation.” A migrant may pray in a multi-ethnic congregation that identifies itself as a common community in Christ, attend rallies for racial empowerment that emphasize Black or Asian identities, and dance at a New Year’s Eve ball organized for members of the migrant’s “own” ethnic community. This same person may swear allegiance to his or her fellow workers at a union meeting in the United States while sending money back home to buy property and become a landlord. Through these seemingly contradictory experiences, transmigrants actively manipulate their identities and thus both accommodate to and resist their subordnation within a global capitalist system. Transnational social fields are in part shaped by the migrants’ perceptions that they must keep their options open. In the globalized economy that has developed over the past several decades, there is a sense that no one place is truly secure, although people d o have access to many places. One way migrants keep options open is to continuously translate the economic and social position gained in one political setting into political, social and economic capital in another. Sometimes the transnational field of relations extends to the leadership of nation-states. The Aquinos rallied political support among Filipinos in the United States and brought many of them back to the Philippines in Cory Aquino’s first government. Some of these people were sent back to the United States in turn to pressure American politicians with regard to key issues such as economic aid and the United States military bases in the Philippines. Social scientists are only now beginning to comprehend the significance of these developments and to develop an appropriate analytical framework. What is needed is a reconceptualization of culture and society, work that is only now begnning (Wolf 1982, 1989; Worsely 1984; Rollwagen 1986). As a first step we must rethink our notions of nationalism, ethnicity and race. GLICK SCHILLER et al.: A NEW ANALYTIC FRAMEWORK 13 RETHINKING CLASS, NATIONALISM, ETHNICITY AND RACE As we indicated above when we traced the link between transnationalism and world capitalism, transnational migrants are primarily proletarian in their placement within the host labor force if not in their class origms. At the same time each transmigrant population is class differentiated. The Chinese transmigrant population contains powerful elements of the Hong Kong capitalist class, for example, while the Indian, Caribbean and Filipino populations have important petit bourgeois and professional strata. The identity of the transmigrant population is contested terrain. Both the capitalist class forces within the dominant society and the leading class forces of the migrating population collude and compete in their interests and outlook with respect to the domination of the migrant workforce. Note those Grenadian leaders who defined the entire transmigrant population in terms that minimized class stratification, yet reinforce their class position by emphasizing Grenadian transmigrants as both citizens of the Grenadian nation and members of a U.S. Caribbean ethnic group. Thus that sector of the migrant workforce that is proletarian whether in origin or in insertion is both subjecthctor in a continuing discourse about not only how they should behave, but just as importantly about who they are. Their loyalty and sense of self, both individually and collectively, are the subjects of hegemonic constructions that emanate both from the place of settlement, such as the United States, and from their home society. Hegemony is at its root a conceptualization about the process by which a relationship is maintained between those who dominate within the state and those who are dominated (Gramsci 1971; Williams 1977; Brow 1988; Comaroff 1991). While ultimately relations of domination are maintained by force, the social order is enforced by the daily practices, habits and common sense through which the dominated live their lives, dream their dreams, and understand their world. By conceptualizing hegemony we are led to see, as Raymond Williams pointed out, that (Hegemony) is a lived system of meanings and values-constitutive and constituting-which as they are experienced as practices appear as reciprocally confirming. . . . It is . . . a culture which also has to be seen as the lived dominance and subordination of particular classes. (Williams 1977:llO). Hegemonic constructions and practices are constantly created, reenacted, and reconstituted. These conceptions and categories are in part internalized by both dominant and dominated alike and create a sense ofcommon loyalty and legitimacy for the dominant classes. In the United States, hegemonic constructions speak little of class but much more directly of race, ethnicity, and nationalism. Simultaneously these constructions serve to discipline a “classless” 14 ANNALS NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES public into capitalist subjects through practices of consumption, leisure, and work. The socially constructed nature of our entire repository of terms used to define and bound identity~‘nationality,’’ “race,” and “ethnicity’: has just recently begun to be scrutinized adequately by social scientists. And the implications of transnationalism for hegemonic constructions of identity have yet to be analyzed. The different hegemonic contexts to which these transnational migrants relate must be examined. Within both the United States and the home countries the state and the dominant classes attempt to establish and perpetuate control over their populations. They do this by elaborating systems of domination based on hegemonic constructions and practices in a process that is closely related to nation-building. These emergent formulations will speak to and build on the experiences and consciousness of the transnational migrants, directing the migrants’ incorporation into the class relations of the nation states in which they are living-both home and host. As we have seen, the activities of the transmigrants within each state and across national boundaries are influenced by, but also influence, all aspects of this hegemonic process in each nation-state. In the United States these hegemonic constructions, though not uniform, have certain basic themes. The possibility of class identities is not only negated but cross-cut by constructions of race and ethnicity. The racial categories of their new setting, in this case the United States, are imposed on those incoming populations, though this occurs in different ways and with different emphases if they are Caribbeans, Chicanos, or Asians for example. At the same time, demands are placed on those same populations to identify ethnic ally.^' The hegemonic context imposes a discipline on newcomers who develop selfidentifications, if not broader collective action, in accordance with categories and related behaviors that are not of their own making. But transnational migrants, with variation linked to their class background and racial positioning, have their own notions about categories of identity and their own conceptions of the rules of the hegemonic game. People live in and create a new social and cultural space which calls for a new awareness of who they are, a new consciousness, and new identities. However, both the actors and analyst still look around them with visions shaped by the political boundaries of nation-states. lo Nationalism has been identified as an early 19th century invention (Kedourie 1960; Kamenka 1973),resulting from the rapid replacement of existing absolute monarchies in Europe by units called nation-states and the subsequent establishment of such polities in other parts of the world. While the unifying content of nationalism varied from country to country, it was based 10 For a more complete explanation of these processes see Basch, Click &hiller and BlancSzanton, 1992; n.d. GLICK SCHILLER et al.: A NEW ANALYTIC FRAMEWORK 15 on an ideology of the commonness of origins, purposes, and goals that allowed those in power to legitimate rule over large and diverse populations. Nationalism gave heterogeneous groups a sense of a shared common interest, and carried a vision of a nation-state as a “people,” each nation making up a separate, equal, and natural unit. Intellectuals provided these new formulations with their own rationality, describing religon, ethnicities, and kinship as archaic, whereas the new nations were seen as moving towards a rational and scientific modernity-part of an unending spiral of forward-looking improvements. Nations were defined as the necessary outcome of commercialism, scientific culture, and industrial progress occurring in Europe. By the 20th century the concept of nation-state embodied a series of ideological constructions including scientific rationality, the economic role of the State, the institutionalization of economic calculations, and modernism. Only recently have intellectuals begun to approach the study of nationalism more critically, and a number of authors have conceptualized nationalism as a historically specific construction in which the country’s leaders and populations play an active role (Anderson 1983; Worsely 1984; Chatterjee 1986; Kapferer 1988; Fox 1990). Some writers link the construction of nationalism to the colonial venture. This work has provided the social sciences with an analysis of nationalism that highlights its construction, through shared symbolism, of an imaginary common interest that may occasionally galvanize rebellion to existing authority or more often allow such authorities to control their national populations most effectively. Despite the internationalization of capital and the transnationalization of populations, nation-states and nationalism persist and must be the topic of hrther analysis. For our purposes, it is important to recognize that transnational migrants exist, interact, are given and assert their identities, and seek or exercise legal and social rights within national structures that monopolize power and foster ideologies of identity. At the same time, it is clear that the identity, field of action, ideology, or even legal rights of citizenship of transnational migrants are not confined within the boundaries of any one single polity. The development of transnationalism challenges our current formulations about nationalist projects. We must ask whether transmigrants will continue to participate in nationalist constructions that contribute to the hegemony of the dominant classes in each nation state as they live lives that span national borders (Basch, Glick Schiller and Blanc-Szanton 1992). As with nationalism, the constructed, manipulated, variable, flexible nature of ethnicity is only now becoming clear. Ethniczty first emerged as a key concept in social science in the United States during the late 1960s. Until that time, despite the multitude of indicators that sectors of populations of immigrant descent continued to maintain or even develop separate identifications, often including some ties to their country or region of origin, social 16 ANNALS NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES science maintained that the appropriate mode of analysis for the study of immigrant populations was “assimilation.” The assimilationist framework that envisioned the melting of the prior national identities of immigrants into a single new American nationality has been shown to be a construction reflecting and contributing both to a myth of social mobility (Omi and Winant 1986) and to the construction of American nationalism. The assimilationist framework and its concomitant popularization as an ideology, with America cast as a “melting pot,” promoted a consistent message: a universal promise of mobility and success based on individual motivation and effort in a society in which there were no class barriers. The assimilationist model had little to say about race. Often AfricanAmericans were seen as a recently arriving immigrant group in the North, even though a section of this population had helped construct and then continued to live in these cities.” However, in the 1960s, as demands for civil rights and full assimilation changed to demands for Black Power, the entire nature of ethnicity in America was re-examined by social scientists. The result was the creation of new theoretical models. First, Glazer and Moynihan’s (1963)effort to look “beyond the melting pot” took up and popularized pluralist ideology first articulated in the 1920s (Kallen 1956). The enthusiastic reception of the notion of cultural pluralism several years later by media, academics, and white “ethnics” (Greeley 1971; Novack 1974) seems linked to the development of minority demands for empowerment. A structuralist approach which emphasized the role of the larger society in fostering ethnic difference developed soon after as a critique (Alba 1985; Yetman 1985). Neither approach provided insights into racial divisions in the United States, however. Both were products of and contributed to the continuation of paradigms that conceptualize populations as divided into discrete, tightly bounded groups, and explain persisting identities as products of forces contained within separate nation-states. In the United States, the cultural pluralists focus attention on cultural differentiation which they maintain divides the populace into separate, but equivalent, “ethnic groups,” each with its own history, culture, and political interests. Central to the entire paradigm of cultural pluralism is the fact of persisting cultural differentiation traced by some pluralists to primordial sentiments described as virtually a “tribal” instinct (Isaacs 1975). Pluralists have paid scant attention to differences within the populations labeled as ethnic. Jews and Italians, for example, are categorized as single I i Classic assimilationist works are those of Wirth (1928) and Park (1950). This framework was extended to African-Americans in the work of Myrdal 1962 (1944) and E. Franklin Frazier (1957). Critiques of this approach have been made by numerous authors. For writers who specifically compare the experiences of immigrants and African-Americans see Stanley Lieberson (1980) and Omi and Winant (1986). GLICK SCHILLER e t al.: A NEW ANALYTIC FRAMEWORK 17 ethnic groups, whereas in both cases they in fact originated from different classes, regions, or countries, arrived with profound internal cultural differences, and in the course of settlement, developed new internal differentiations ofclass, region, and outlook (di Leonardi 1984; Gorelick 1974). National loyalties that link incoming populations to ancestral homes may be acknowledged by pluralists, but such relations are believed to fade over time. The structuralists focus more on the economic and social forces within the polity that foster divisions between ethnic populations and thus the persistence of ethnic groups (Alba 1988; Glick 1975). They pay more attention to the constructed and manipulated nature of ethnic boundaries and ethnic differentiation. The term “ethnogcnesis” is sometimes used to distinguish a process of cultural differentiation that develops from forces found within the larger society (Gonzalez 1988). In its extreme, all cultural differentiation is seen as not just “invented” but imagined, so that n o actual cultural differences separate populations conceived to be culturally distinct. Bentley (1987) has labeled this the “empty vessel” approach to the study of culture to highlight the tendency of structuralist analysis to discount the role of the members of ethnically defined populations to actively employ ongoing cultural repertoires. The current critique of pluralist and structuralist arguments has called for an analysis of ethnicity that leaves room both for “cultural practice” and human agency. There is an understanding that ethnicity is a product of the dialectic between continuities of cultural behavior and social constructions that are defined or reinforced by a particular nation-state (Blanc-Szanton 1985a,b; Basch 1985). However, a growing tendency in writing on ethnicity to focus on individual choice reduces rather than expands our analytical horizons (Cohen 1978). With the eniergence of transnationalism the individual migrant is now embedded in a wider social field that spans two o r more nations. A transnational perspective on ethnicity must be developed that includes an examination of culture and agency within this expanded social field. Race is also a social construction but one with a different history and a different relationship to the growth of the global system. I t is useful to recall that until recently race and nation often were used interchangeably, as in the construction “the British race,” in order to make clear that race is n o more a product of genetics than nationality or ethnicity. l2 Over time, however, in places like the United States, the set character of race was imposed by the insistence that biology rather than culture is to be determinative of differentiation. In other national settings, ethnic divides may be used as race is-in this sense both are social constructions used to order social and economic relations. 12 Park (1950), whose writings contributed to the assimilationist framework, spoke of the “race-relations cycle” and used the terms “nationality” and “race” interchangeably, thereby sidestepping the historic separation in the United States between people of color and white America. 18 ANNALS NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES At the same time, the historical construction of race is so firmly entrenched within the structure of global capitalism, and in the structures of inequality of particular societies, that some argue that social organization on the basis of race is best described as a “racial order” (Greenberg 1980), besides which ethnic categories seem ephemeral and fluid. Eric Wolf has stressed the historical difference between the operation of ethnic and racial categories in the development of capitalism. “Racial designations, such as “Indian” or “Negro” are the outcome of the subjugation of populations in the course of European mercantile expansion’’ (1982:380). Formulations of cultural difference do not apply to race-as we saw in the 1990 census-when one could only be black, not African-American, West Indian, or Haitian. While ethnic or national terms stress cultural difference, Wolf makes it clear that racial terms disregard “cultural and physical differences within each of the two large categories, denying any constituent group political, economic, or ideological identity of their own.” The analytical mandate here is urgent and complex. Because race permeates all aspects of the transnational migrant’s experience, it is important to analyze its several components. First of all, migrant identity and experience are shaped by the position of their country within the global racial order just as they are affected by the social location of their racial group within the nation state. Secondly internal class differentiation exists within the racial group to which transmigrants are assigned. For example, all those designated black in the United States can hardly be said to share the same class position. Moreover, the population designated as black in the United States is culturally differentiated (Basch 1987; Bryce-Laporte 1972, 1980; Foner 1983; Fouron 1983; Charles 1989; Glick Schiller and Fouron 1990). Migrants coming fi-om the Caribbean, for example, confiont an African-American population that shares several centuries of historical experience. At the same time the global construction of race provides the basis for affinity and communality. Yet all of these fictors do not encompass the complexity of the racial identity of migrants who are transnationals. An analysis of the conceptions of race of transnational migrants also must examine the constructions of race that persist “back home.” Tallring about “back home” emphasizes the necessity of examining how the several nation-states within which transmigrants reside influence constructions of identity that draw on race, ethnicity and nationalism and the manner in which transmigrating populations, with their own internal differences, process these constructions within their daily lives. CONCLUSION We have emphasized the constructed nature of the identities of nationality, ethnicity, and race, and stressed the necessity of looking beyond the GLICK SCHILLER et al.: A NEW ANALYTIC FRAMEWORK 19 boundaries of existing analytical categories of social science. To conceptualize transnationalism we must bring to the study of migration a global perspective. Only a view of the world as a single social and economic system allows us to comprehend the implications of the similar descriptions of new patterns of migrant experience that have been emerging from different parts of the globe. At the very same time, it is in terms of these bounded identity constructs that migrants frame their individual and collective strategies of adaptation. In forging a framework of analysis capable of comprehending the life experiences of transnational migrants, social scientists cannot merely dismiss categories of identity as artificial and reified constructions that mask more global processes. A focus on transnationalism as a new field of social relations will allow us to explore transnational fields of action and meaning as operating within and between continuing nation-states and as a reaction to the conditions and terms nation-states impose on their populations. Migrants will be viewed as culturally creative but as actors in an arena that they d o not control. Transnational flows of material objects and ideas will be analyzed in relation to their social location and utilization-in relation to the people involved with them. This approach will enable us to observe the migrant experience in process, analyze its origins, monitor changes within it, and see how it affects both country of origin and countries of residence. Such a perspective will serve as a necessary building block for the reformulation of such key social science concepts as society and culture. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This article was co-written, but it is based on research carried out by the individual authors. We gratefully acknowledge the material and intellectual support we have received. We also wish to thank Iching Wu for his assistance and support. Glick Schiller’s work was funded first by a doctoral fellowship from the National Institute of Mental Health Doctoral and then by a grant to Josh DeWind and Nina Glick Schiller from the National Institute for Child Health and Human Development (Grant H D 18140-02).This latter research was conducted jointly by a team of researchers which included Marie Lucie Brutus, Carolle Charles, George Fouron, and Luis Antoine Thomas. Basch’s early research on the Caribbean was supported by a doctoral dissertation grant from the National Institute of Mental Health. Her subsequent research, conducted together with b s i n a Wiltshire, Winston Wiltshire, and Joyce Toney, and with the assistance of Isa Soto, Margaret Souza, and Colin Robinson, was funded by grants from the International Development Research Centre of Ottawa, Canada and the United Nations Institute for Training and Research the United Nations Fund for Population and Activities. Blanc-Szanton’s initial research in the Philippines was funded by a grant from a joint Penn State- 20 ANNALS NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES Ateneo de Manila University research project. Her subsequent work was carried out while living and working for many years in the Philippines and Thailand and most recently in the process of carrying out a research project for the Ford Foundation in the region. Additional hnding was received from Columbia University and the New York Council for the Humanities. REFERENCES CITED Alba, Richard, Ed. 1985 Ethnicity and m e in the U.S.A. Toward the t w e n t y j h century. New York: Routledge. American Academy of Political and Social Science 1986 From foreign workers to settlers?-Transnational migration and the emergence of new minority. The Annah of the Ammian &&my of Political and Social Science 485 (May):9-166. Appadurai, A j u n and Carol Breckenridge 1988 Why public culture. Public Culture 1(1):5-9. Anderson, Benedict 1983 Im@ned communities: Re@ctirms on the @ins and spread of natianalinn. London: Verso. Bach, Robert 1980 On the holism of a world system perspective. In Processes of the wwld-system, edited by Terrace Hopkins and I. Immanuel Wallerstein. Beverly Hills: Sage. Pp. 289-310. Basch, Linda 1985 Wmkin'fi the Enkee hlhr: The impxt of a tmnsnationalpetvoleurn company on Caribbean c h s and ethni rehtions. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, New York University, 1978. 1987 The politics of Caribbeanization: Vincentians and Grenadians in New York. In Caribbean lzj2 in New Ymk City, edited by C. Sutton and E. Chaney. New York: Center for Migration Studies. Pp. 160-181. Basch, Linda, Nina Glick Schiller, and Cristina Blanc-Szanton 1992 Transnationalism and the construction of the deterritorialized nation: An outline for a theory of post-national practice. Paper delivered at the annual meetings of the American Anthropological Association. Chicago. Rethinking m@tion, ethnuity) me)and nattimulkm in hansnationalpspecttve. n.d. New York: Gordon and Breach. Forthcoming. Basch, Linda, Rosina Wiltshire-Brodber, Winston Wiltshire, and Joyce Toney Caribbean regional and international migration: Transnational dimensions. n.d. In &ribbean inbmational m@& and labor mopemertts, edited and published by the International Development Research Centre, Ottawa. Forthcoming. Benedict, Ruth 1959 [1934] Patterns of culture. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Bentley, G. C. 1987 Ethnicity and practice. Compmtive studbs of society and histmy 24:24-55. Blanc-Szanton, Cristina 1985a Thai and Sino-Thai in small town Thailand: Changing patterns of interethnic relations. In The Chinese in Sozctheast Asia, 'valume 11: Identiq, culture CLICK SCHILLER et al.: A NEW ANALYTIC FRAMEWORK 21 and politics, edited by Peter Gosling and Linda Lim. Singapore: Maruzen Press. Pp. 99-125. 1985b Ethnic identities and aspects of class in contemporary central Thailand. Paper presented at the symposium on Changing Identities of the Southeast Asian Chinese since World War 11, Canberra, Australia. Block, Fred 1987 Revising state themy: Essays in politics and postindustrialization. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Brow, James 1988 In pursuit of hegemony. American Ethnolagirt 15(2):311-327. Bryce-Laporte, Roy, Ed. 1972 Black immigrants: The experience of invisibility and inequality. Journal of B h k Studks 3129-56. 1980 Souwebook on the new imm@nn. New Brunswick: Transaction Books. Chaney, Elsa 1979 The world economy and contemporary migration. International M@& Reviav 13~204-212. Charles, Carolle 1989 Dialectics of m e , class, and ethnuity among Haitian imrntgvants: A case s t d y of Haitian leaden. Ph.D. dissertation, SUNY, Binghamton. Chatterjee, Partha 1986 Nationalist thought and the colonial world: A derivative discourse. London: Zed Books. Cohen, Ronald 1978 Ethnicity: Problem and focus in anthropology. Annual Review of Anthropohgy 7 379-403. di Leonardi, Michaela 1984 The varieties of ethnic e x p i e m e : Kinsh+, class, and g & amqg Gltjhia Italian-Americans. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Foner, Nancy 1983 Jamaican migrants: Comparative analysis of the New York and London experience. New York Research Program in Inter-American Affairs. Occasional P a p No. 36. New York. Fouron, Georges 1983 The black immigrant dilemma in the United States: The Haitian experience. Jozrmal of Gribbean Studks 3(3):242-65. Fox, Richard 1990 Nationalist ideologies and the production of national cultures. Washington, DC: American Anthropological Association. Frank, Andri Gunder 1966 The development of underdevelopment. Monthly Beview 18:17-31. in Latin America: Hismnial studks of Chih 1969 Capitalism and u - w n t and Bmzil. New York: Modern Reader Paperbacks. Frazier, E. Franklin 1957 The Negro in the United States. New York: MacMillan. (revised edition) Fried, Morton 1975 The notion ofmk Menlo Park, CA: Cummings Publications. Glazer, Nathan and P. Moynihan 1963 Btyond the melting pot. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Glick, Nina ofa Haitian ethnicpup. Ph.D. dissertion. Colombia University. 1975 The+& 22 ANNALS NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES Glick Schiller, Nina and George Fouron 1990 ‘Everywhere we go we are in danger’: Ti manno and the emergence of a Haitian transnational identity. American Ethnologcst 17(2):329-347. Gonzalez, Nancie 1988 Sojourners of the Caribbean: Ethnogenesis and ethnohistory of the Garifuna. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Gorelick, Shirley 1974 City Gdkge and the Jewish F. New York: Schocken. Gramsci, Antonio 1971 Pt.ison note600ks: selections, translated by Quinton Hoare and Geoffrey Smith. New York: International Publishers. Greeley, Andrew 1971 The rediscovery of cultural pluralism. The AntMch Revim 31:343-367. Greenberg, Stanley 1980 Race and state in capitalkt devclopmmt: Compamtive perspectives. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Hall, Stuart 1988 The toad in the garden: Thatcherism among the theorists. In M a ~ x and h the intmphcirm ofcuhw. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Pp. 35-57. Hannerz, Ulf 1989 Scenarios for peripheral cultures. Paper presented at the symposium on Culture, Globalization and the World System, University of Stockholm, Sweden. Helm, June 1975 [1968] &says on the pvoblem ofthe t&e. St. Louis: Washington University Press. Isaacs, Harold 1975 Basic group identity: The idols of the tribe. In Ethnicity: Themy and m p i m e , edited by Nathan Glazer and Daniel Moynihan. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Pp. 29-52. Kallen, Horace 1956 [ 19241 Cultuml plumlim and the American idea: An essay in social phihopby. Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press. Kamenka, Eugene 1973 Political nationalism: The evolution of the idea. In NatMnalh: The mtuw and mlucirm of an &a, edited by E. Kamenka. Canberra: Australia National University Press. Pp. 2-20. Kapferer, Bruce 1988 Lcgenrls o f p p l e , mythos ofstate: V w k , intulerrmce,andpolitrizzl cultuw in Sri Lanka and A.umulh. Washington, D.C. : Smithsonian Institution Press. Kedourie, Eli 1960 NacMnalrjm. New York: Praeger. Lee, Everett 1966 A theory of migrarion. D e q p p h y 3:47-57. Lozano, Beverly 1984 The Andalucia-Hawaii-Californiamigration: A study in macrostructure and microhistory. Gwnpamtive studies in society and hirtmy 26(2):305-324. Lieberson, Stanley 1980 A plete ofthe pie: Blrtcks and white imm@nts since 1880. Berkeley: University of California Press. Lerner, David 1958 The pwiy o f t 7 n d i h a l sockty. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. GLICK SCHILLER et al.: A NEW ANALYTIC FRAMEWORK 23 Marcus, George 1986 Contemporary problems of ethnography in the modern world system. In Witingcuhre, edited by James Clifford and George Marcus. Berkeley: University of California Press. Pp. 165-193. Myrdal, Gunnar 1962 [1944] A n American dilemma: The N e p p m b h and modem dmwcracy. New York: Harper and Row. Nash, June and Maria Patricia Fernandez 1983 Women,men and the intematMnal diPtiion ofhbm Albany: State University of New York Press. Novack, Michael 1974 The Seventies: Decade of the ethnics. In Race and ethnicity in modem America, edited by R. Meister. Lexington, KY: D.C. Heath. Omi, Michael and Howard Winant 1986 RacialfimnatMn in the United States. New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Park, Robert 1950 Race and culture. New York: Free Press. Parsons, Talcott 1951 The social system. Glencoe, IL: Free Press of Glencoe. Pessar, Patricia 1982 The role of household in international migration and the case of U.S. bound Review migration from the Dominican Republic. Internatha1 M@& 16(2):341-364. Portes, Alejandro and Robert Bach 1985 Latin jwrnq: Cuban and Mexican irnm@na in the Unitzd States. Berkeley: University of California Press. Portes, Alejandro and John Walton 1981 Labm, chs, and the intemarional rystem. New York: Academic Press. Radcliffe Brown, A. R. 1952 Structure andfunchm in primicipe society. London: Cohen. Richman, Karen 1987 They will remember me in the house: The song-pwen of Haitian cassettediscourse. Paper delivered at the meetings of the American AnthFopological Association, Chicago, IL. Rollwagen, Jack 1986 Reconsidering basic assumptions: A call for a reassessment of the g e n e d concept of culture in anthropology. Urban Anthropology 15:97-133. bsaldo, Renaldo 1989 Culture and truth: The remaking ofsocial analysr;r. Boston: Beacon. Rouse, Roger and the social space of’pstmuahk. Center for US. Mexi1988 M e x k n m@& can Studies. University of California, San Diego. 1989 M m k n m@& to the Unitpcl States; &mi& relations in the h - t ofa tnwmuthal m@nt civcuit. Ph. D. dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford, CA. Rubenstein, Hymie 1983 Remittances and r u d underdevelopment in the English speaking Caribbean. Human Oppnization 42(4):306. Sassen, Saskia 1988 The mobility of hbor and m.tul: A study in intwnacional investment and hbw jZm. New York: Cambridge University Press. 24 ANNALS NEW YORJS ACADEMY OF SCIENCES Smith, Carol 1984 Local history in global context: Social and economic transitions in western Guatemala. Comparative Study ofSociety and Htsimy 26(2):193-227. Sutton, Constance 1987 The Caribbeanization of New York City and the emergence of a transnational socio-cultural system. In Caribbean lt? in New Ymk City: Sociocultumldimenswns, edited by Constance Sutton and Elsa Chaney. New York: Center for Migration Studies. Pp. 25-29. Sutton, Constance and Susan Makiesky-Barrow 1987 [1975] Migration and West Indian racial and ethnic consciousness. In Caribbean life in New Ymk City: Sociocultuml dimensions, edited by Constance Sutton and Elsa Chaney. New York: Center for Migration Studies. Pp. 92-116. Vassady, Bella 1982 ‘The homeland cause‘ as a stimulant to ethnic unity: The Hungarian American response to Karolyi’s 1914 tour. Journal ofAmerican Ethnic History 2(1): 39-64. Wakeman, Frederic, Jr. 1988 Transnational and comparative research. Item 42(4):85-88. Wdlerstein, Immanuel 1974 The modem wmld ystmz. New York: Academic Press. 1982 The rise and future demise of the world capitalist system: Concepts for comparative analysis. In Intduction to the s o c w l o ~of ‘hloptqg societies’, edited by Hamza Alavi and Teodor Shanin. New York: Monthly Review Press. Pp. 29-53. Williams, Raymond 1977 Marxim and l i m t u m . Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wirth, Louis 1928 The&ei?a. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Wolf, Eric 1982 E u w and the people without histmy. Berkeley: University of California Press. 1988 Inventing society. American Ethnolopit 15:752. Wood, Charles and Terrance McCoy 1985 Migration, remittances and development: A study of Caribbean cane cutters in Florida. Internutiom1 M b t i o n Review 19(9):251-277. Worsely, Peter 1984 The thme wurMs. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Yetman, Norman 1985 Introduction: Definitions and perspectives. In Majm‘tyand r n i m ‘ y , the a)namics of race and ethnicity in Awrian @, edited by Norman Yetman. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Pp. 1-20. Zolberg, Aristide 1983 International migrations in political perspective. In Global trendr in m&zt h , edited by Mary Kritz, Charles Keely, and Silvano Tomasi. New York: Center for Migration Studies. Pp. 3-27.

Tutor Answer

School: New York University

Good luck in your study and if you need any further help in your assignments, please let me know. Always invite me to answer your questions.Goodbye.

Immigration and the Global Economy
Institution Affiliation
Instructor’s Name
Student’s Name
Course Code

Immigration and the Global Economy
How do the readings this week help us to understand "the world as a single social and economic
system?" (Schiller et al., 19)

flag Report DMCA

Awesome! Exactly what I wanted.

Similar Questions
Hot Questions
Related Tags

Brown University

1271 Tutors

California Institute of Technology

2131 Tutors

Carnegie Mellon University

982 Tutors

Columbia University

1256 Tutors

Dartmouth University

2113 Tutors

Emory University

2279 Tutors

Harvard University

599 Tutors

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

2319 Tutors

New York University

1645 Tutors

Notre Dam University

1911 Tutors

Oklahoma University

2122 Tutors

Pennsylvania State University

932 Tutors

Princeton University

1211 Tutors

Stanford University

983 Tutors

University of California

1282 Tutors

Oxford University

123 Tutors

Yale University

2325 Tutors