Background
Background and Theoretical Assumptions
Since the beginning of the 1990ies, the concept of “diaspora” has acquired a new and challenging position in public discourse as well as in social and cultural sciences, where its range of meaning has been extended from traumatic histories of Jewish, Armenian or Black communities to various groups of migrant origin and “new diasporas”. Increasingly, groups that had defined themselves in “ethnic” terms before, are now claiming membership in transnational or global networks of diasporas. In the context of global cultural politics, the very concept of diaspora seems to have become a symbolic resource.Consequently, ethnographic studies in the last two decades have mainly focussed on questions of community formation and identity politics in diaspora. Quite contrary to the dominating discourse of many diaspora elites, diasporic identities were shown to be not just essential features that were “maintained” during time in the face of external change and dispersal, but as constructed, reconstructed and redefined according to the changing demands of circumstances and of relations of power. But while the construction of diasporic identities and the agency of elites and institutions in identity politics remain important aspects of the social organization of diaspora communities, they are not the only ones. Diasporas may differ in their historical experience as much as in their community structure, and they may be very differently embedded in the overall system of various societies.
Departing from previous studies on identity formation, the DiaspoRes research framework proposes a change of focus, aiming at a comparative view on diaspora social organisation and culture as potential resources in economic and social development. But in-depth ethnographic studies of social organisation, strategies and value systems of trader and elite diasporas are still rare. Although keeping diasporic identity formation in mind we thus propose a comparative study of diaspora success, based on ethnographic fieldwork in different European countries.
While social and political conditions provided by different countries of residence are taken into account as factors influencing the situation of diasporas, we assume that successful agency by and within diaspora communities is also based on particular value systems and specific forms of social organization. According to models of successful middleman minorities, one significant factor of diaspora success may be internal trust, provided by dense ethnic relations. On the other hand, some degree of openness and weak ties bridging cultural boundaries is also seen as a prerequisite of successful agency in diaspora. Consequently, all case studies within DiaspoRes put a special emphasis on the investigation of bridging relationships and on cultural brokers as agents of interethnic exchange.
Diaspora Success
Following Bourdieu´s notion of different forms of capital, “diaspora success” is defined heuristically as a community´s relative access to economic, social, cultural or symbolic capital including wealth, participation in economically and/or politically significant decisions and prestige. This is a preliminary working concept, which has to be refined during the course of this study. As suggested by comparative research some diasporas at some times stand out as economically or socially successful, while other cases seem to be less upwardly mobile. But we are very much aware of the fact that the attribution of “success” may be open to rapid and even dramatic, historical change. Although some of the cases to be studied here have been conventionally labelled as “elites”, this project departs from a generalized classification of diasporas as homogeneous entities. Instead, we propose that in each community there will be diverse interest groups with different and co-existing value systems, models and strategies related to “success”.This project is based on the assumption, that by virtue of internal cohesion and transnational and/or global connections some diaspora communities have special advantages. We propose that key factors enabling or hindering diaspora success may be found in the type and quality of social networks, both within the communities and linking them to the overall socio-economic system. In-depth studies of networks and their systematic comparison will therefore be one of the core issues of this research. Although on occasion, some diaspora communities may appear as corporate actors, each single community is composed of various categories of individuals with very different degrees of commitment to the diaspora, ranging from occasional participation in ritual activities to the political activism of professional “diasporists”. In this project, we propose that – despite such differences in commitment – the degree of internal cohesion within a community will be a significant factor of diaspora success.
Norms and Values
Social networks and institutions are embedded in a dense cluster of factors that we propose to call cultural knowledge. They include cognitive schemata, interpretations of history, notions of identity, value systems, norms and rules for behaviour, all guiding the actions and choices of the individual actors constituting diaspora communities. Social relations based on mutual trust have been identified as a major characteristic of ethnic communities. In periods of transformation and deteriorating state institutions, trust provided by kin or ethnic affiliation can become a particular asset as was the case with overseas Chinese merchants in Southeast Asia. Janet Tai Landa has shown that based on the Confucian code of ethics which emphasizes trust, cooperation and mutual aid among kin, fellow villagers and those speaking the same dialect, they formed a club-like, ethnically homogeneous group, providing the necessary infrastructure for successful middleman entrepreneurship.Urban Space
Globalisation and transnational migration have introduced a change of focus in the study of urban space. “Global cities” have been analysed as central nodes of global networks, in which, according to Manuel Castells, different „flows“ come together, creating a „space of flows“, in contrast to a „space of places“, which are bypassed by global networks and development. This increasing polarization characterizes not only the relation between cities. Massive social and economic transformations also leave their mark on the physical shape of the built urban environment, gentrification processes create new forms of segregation and ethnic exclusion. These processes shed a new light on the development of ethnic urban space. There is a mutual interdependence between the development of communities and transformations of urban space: actors´ choices are enabled or constrained by the space they live or work in, while different groups use space in culture-specific ways, actively shaping the urban environment. This project will investigate specific relations of diaspora and urbanity, the built environment´s impacts on diaspora formation, and diasporas shaping the urban space.Comparative Studies
For all cases, ranging from “prototypical” to “new diasporas”, fieldwork in at least two diaspora communities will account for varying political, social and economic conditions in different European countries. Besides advancing the body of ethnographic knowledge, theory will be tested by systematic comparison. Basic theoretical assumptions from social network analysis, migration studies and institutions theory, will serve as common guidelines for all ethnographic case studies to ensure comparability of results.On a general level, this project addresses the following objectives:
- General context information: historical development of diasporas; demographic data; structural and political relations of diasporas and receiving societies.
- Community social organisation: identification of relevant decision makers and diaspora elites; important diaspora instiutions and social networks and links from communities to host societies, to the homeland, and other communities.
- Diaspora economy: major economic activities and institutions, economic specialization, economic niches or ethnic entrepreneurship; economic use of social networks.
- Cultural knowledge, norms and values: culture-specific meanings of “success”, norms, values und categorizations relating to trust and to the management of social networks, and to social, symbolic and economic capital.
- Diaspora and urban space: features, activities or historical events that mark “diaspora cities”; visible traces in and culture-specific praxis and strategies in the use of urban space, including potential conflicts and effects of gentrification.
Literature
- Bonacich Edna 1973: A Theory of Middlemen Minorities. American Sociological Review 38: 583-594.
- Bourdieu, Pierre 1983: Ökonomisches Kapital, kulturelles Kapital, soziales Kapital. In: Reinhard Kreckel (ed.): Soziale Ungleichheiten. Göttingen: Soziale Welt, Sonderheft 2: 183-198.
- Erdentug, Aygen und Freek Colombijn (eds) 2002: Urban Ethnic Encounters. The spatial consequences. London, New York.
- Granovetter, Mark 1983: The Strength of Weak Ties. A Network Theory Revisited. Sociological Theory, Vol. 1: 201-233.
- Landa, Janet Tai 1994: Trust, Ethnicity and Identity. Beyond the New Institutional Economics of Ethnic Trading Networks, Contract Law and Gift Exchange. Ann Arbor.
- Tölölyan, Khachig 1996: Rethinking Diaspora(s): Stateless Power in the Transnational Moment. In: Diaspora 5 (1): 3-36.
- Van Hear, Nicholas 1998: New Diasporas. The mass exodus, dispersal and regrouping of migrant communities. London.