Since this is a survey course, we will touch on a variety of geographies, issues, and mobilities. First though, we will touch on some theoretical aspects in order to get different ideas on how migration is viewed, studies, and handled.
This week’s reading(s), although the main article deals also with development, what I wanted you all to see was a few ways of how migration has been looked upon throughout different times. The one aspect, to my mind that never changes however is, regardless of time or era; migration is constantly viewed as a problem in need of management. Even with transnational approaches to migration, it is seen first as a problem.
What do you guys think?
In the article Faist talks about the stages or phases of migration since the 1950s and 60s.
Phase 1: Migration and development – remittances and return
Phase 2: Underdevelopment and migration – poverty and the brain drain
Phase 3: Migration and (co)development – the celebration of transnational circulation
Phase 1, according to Faist, took place during the 50s and 60s, where there was a substantial need for migrant labour to fill in the gaps in the employment markets of many Western countries. The idea was that people would temporarily migrate to Western countries, which would allow many to send remittance back home, and contribute to the development of each of these countries. The idea was that once the migrant returned home, he or she would not have only sent money during his/her time abroad, but would also bring home new and ‘modern’ ways of doing things, thereby helping their countries continue on the path to development.
Phase 2 according to Faist can be seen through poverty and the concept of brain drain, where developed countries were seen as poaching talented skilled and highly skilled individuals, thereby contributing to further poverty in the ‘global south’.
Phase 3 can be regarded as the transnational phase, where it is argued that migrants themselves can take action, and become agents of change rather than just looking on as to how structures around them are built, defined, and carried-out without much say in the matter. The idea here is that migrants are currently viewed as agents of change, of their own destiny, one could say, rather than just passive participants in how the world works.
Migrants are viewed this way now; but have they not always been in charge of some of their lives, just like non-migrants? Has human mobility always made people look weak, or is this just the view from outside by those who think human mobility takes peoples’ ability to make decisions?
Die
Am 23. October 2016 um 09:33 Uhr
I think that you are right in pointing out that migration is constantly viewed as a problem in need of management. However, I think it depends on who is migrating. Surely, when skilled people / academics migrate from the global South to the North, this type of migration is viewed in a more positive light, I think. As Faist points out in the description of the second phase, this results in a brain drain in the migrant’s home country. This is something we are also experiencing in Europe right now (e.g. Spanish and Italian academics migrating to Germany, the UK, the US etc.). This surely does have severe consequences not only for the economy, but for the society of the home country.
Migrants may be viewed today as Faist describes when he delineates phase 3, but I agree that this has always been the case. I think that the fact that some people had to leave due to economic hardships in their own countries, the host societies might have perceived them as “weak” since their leaving was a result external factors, not a decision they took of their own. Many migrants didn’t leave their home countries because they wanted to, but because they basically had no other choice. Dreaming of a better future, emigrating may have been the best option at that time (and still is for many people). The fact that many migrants have been forced to leave by the – at that time – current circumstances, may have induced the host societies to regard them as “weak”. However, in my opinion it takes a lot of courage to leave your home country for the unknown. Thus, I would say, that human mobility does not take away peoples’ ability to make decisions, but rather, migrants have always been in charge of (some of) their lives.
Am 23. October 2016 um 20:59 Uhr
Faist, Thomas: Diaspora and transnationalism: What kind of dance partners?
As this is the first chapter of a book with contributions on diaspora and transnationalism from various researchers from different backgrounds, it gives an interesting overview of the numerous approaches to the topic.
Curiously enough, although I am already in the 5th “Fachsemester”, I always had the impression that the terms ‘dispora’ and ‘transnational community’ were being used almost as synonyms.
Faist, however, claims that there needs to be made a difference, as they refer to overlapping but different symptoms. Transnationalism is a broader concept and includes diasporas as well as many other cases where there are ties of different forms across state borders, whereas diaspora refers to the more narrow phenomenon of often related with religious groups. Faist advocates to take both research lenses together to fight the generalisation often coming with theories and methods of globalization research.
Although I do understand his point, I also wonder why he is so convinced that the term ‘diaspora’, may it be politicised or not, is used wrongly when refering to broader social formations than the original ones, like Jewish or Armenian groups driven out of their homeland. May it not be that over time the meaning of the word changes just as the forms of migration do? However, I admit that even if that were the case, it could be useful to make the distinction in the scientific world.
What I find hard to understand or to believe is how researchers might overcome methodological nationalism or groupism. Even the word ‘transnationalism’ tells us that the nation-state plays an important role in the matter. Also, Faist himself explains that regulations by national states have a huge impact on migration as well as transnational formations. I guess it is just about finding exactly the right balance between neglecting its importance and overrating it.
In this text there is no mention of migration itself as a problem, but, as I understand it, that of the exploitation and instrumentalisation of transnational communities. However, Faist also mentions the important role of these communities as agents for democratization.
Am 24. October 2016 um 18:42 Uhr
To answer the question if human mobility always made people look weak or it is just the view from outside, my opinion is that it is the latter. I can understand the view, that it looks weak to people from outside to see that someone can´t get along with his/her life anymore and has to leave and go find somewhere else a place to either build a new life or find a new job. But isn´t it a really strong decision, leaving everything behind to start from a new point and trying to make the best of it? Leaving your home, family and friends.
Mostly the circumstances and life conditions are reasonable for human mobility. Maybe it is just the fear speaking, that these people are weak because you would never be brave enough to do it on your own or didn´t had to have suffered like this people who maybe flew from a war or political persecution, so you just don´t understand.
“The idea here is that migrants are currently viewed as agents of change, of their own destiny, one could say, rather than just passive participants in how the world works.“
I am not sure if our society is yet so far as they could really accept migrants as agents of change – refered tot he destination-society. I am just trying to connect this thinking to the really recent occurrences in Europe. Most of the people see it like that and they are welcoming this development for economic, social or cultural reasons. But there is still a part of some societys who would like to keep migrants as passive participants. It would be interesting to hear what you think about that.
What I find interesting in the text also, is the ongoing transnational connection beetween by local migrant collectives. I think this is a good approach to the further development of human mobility
Am 25. October 2016 um 02:23 Uhr
Although migration might be seen as a problem by national and international politics and this view might be articulated in the media in many ways I think it is highly interesting to observe that this is happening despite of transnational perspectives in scientific research on migration.
Core of seeing migration as a problem or a social issue that needs management or control is a viewpoint which is situated “on the other side” of transnational communities – not within them. From a different viewpoint, migration could be seen as a strategy to increase work opportunities, improve economical situation and thus make social mobility possible, foster cultural exchange and knowledge – a strategy that works for many people in a variety of settings around the globe.
Relevant questions to tackle within investigations on migration are “how does it work?” and “what does it change?” Surely it does cause multi-layered transnational changes which do have transnational dimensions but are on the other hand very specific and bound to local structures because they adopt to local markets and social structures.
Faist makes clear how the investigation of migration changed through history and which results had the changes of paradigms on the findings. Finally, the view on development and migration is still highly Eurocentric, although migrants are seen as agents of change and development now – they are not seen as equal participants. Thinking a nexus of development and migration we have to keep in mind that at the core of the whole “problem” lies within social inequality on a global scale, so that movement can mean improvement –from a migrant perspective. A transnational perspective and its application in scientific research should not leave this fact out of sight. As Faist shows, every perspective comes with its invisibilities or blind spots.
Am 25. October 2016 um 02:48 Uhr
I think the points brought up are very interesting. Two stand out.
First, the question of Diaspora in the more contemporary sense in its use when referring to many migrant communities. I would say that a Diaspora could be any migrant group, but it also risks losing its force. For example, are international students part of a diaspora, or are expats (euphemism for rich migrants) part of a diaspora? I think maybe that’s what Faist is trying to say in that the term risks losing its meaning.
Second, the idea of weakness. I concur with the opinion that to get up and leave everything takes a lot of will power, especially when one thinks that starting over is never easy in the best of circumstances, and even more so when one is forced through violence, politics, or economics.
Am 25. October 2016 um 08:50 Uhr
Fu-Email-adress
Am 8. November 2016 um 14:56 Uhr
I think that the phase 1 is extremely taletelling of the western philosophy at that time, I mean by that the need felt by northern/western countries to enlight what they considered as under-developed countries (some kind of holy mission… probably a post-colonial obsession). For me phase 2 seems to be an inevitable consequence of the first forced migration : western countries happened to be appealing, therefore a more natural migration towards them. What was supposed to be temporary became permanent.
And a point that bothers me is the hypocrisy coming from the western world about migrants, now they are regarded as lower genre and a bigger “problem” than ever, even though they truly are “agents of change” themselves and active participants of the world’s engine! I was thinking that maybe it has smth to do with the fact that they (migrants) cannot be controled anymore (cf. as they used to be when exploited as cheap labour) and so it contributes somehow to the general fear of powerlessness that northern countries may encounter with the rise of developing countries : fear of being overthrown, losing power, struggling to find a new status aside developing countries.
Am 9. December 2016 um 13:35 Uhr
In “Migrants as Transnational Development Agents: An Inquiry into the Newest Round of the Migration-Development Nexus.” Faist interrogates the potential of migration for development ? Indeed migration is usually seen as a problem in terms of management for the states, including in those times of globalisation. Faist speaks about a “nexus” that links both migration and development through different times emphasising 3 phases. He shows how migrants are agents of development that enable reorganizing macro structural economies, that implement new techniques and help entering the age of globalisation for the receiving countries. Migrants are gradually active and become actors of change (phase 3) from a transnational perspective.
The difference between “transnational communities” and “diaspora” is emphasise in the 2nd text : “Diaspora and Transnationalism, what kind of dance partner ?”
A “diaspora” refers to the dispersal of a group of people, that implies the idea of a connection between an homeland and a destination and that arises the problematic of integration or incorporation.
“Transnationalism” refers to the everyday practices of the migrants, the networks and ties beyond and across borders of sovereign states.
Those definitions are keys to understand the debate around the gain or disadvantage of the migration for the national states. Indeed from one part “diaspora” emphasises the connections while “transnationalism” is linked to a deterritorialised status. Those texts show that attributing a “groupness”, mobilising identities are compulsory to incorporation and to form a political body group eligible for projects. Both “diaspora” and “transnational communities” create difficulties in terms of nation building because of an already existed identity from one part (in case of the diasporas) and the absence of roots from the other parts (in case of transnationalism).
Whereas migrants are obviously an economic advantage for northern countries they implement some political questions that in worst cases are only answered by the “rise of the -ism” (racism, nationalism..). Both texts enable to go further the question of the (dis)advantage of the migration to show that today the debate is no longer valid because migration is essential to a global development. From agents to actors migrants are now taking part in the global process and their visibility seem to be the only key to their sovereignty in terms of decisions making.
Am 19. December 2016 um 16:06 Uhr
In my opinion migrants always have been in charge of their lives, but I agree with Faist when he underlines that it is especially with the beginning of the globalization and transnationalisation that migrants assumed a central role and became active agents, sometimes operating also as social collectives.
I think that the result of migratory processes is strictly related to the background that migrants have and to the ages in which they are living in. For instance, if we think about Europeans’ mobility during the 1990s and 2000s, this process is viewed as a development and a good strategy for especially young people in order to find better life’s conditions (especially regarding work-perspectives) and it represents a good gain for the country where they immigrate in, so there is a “win-win” situation for both sides of the migratory process. I’m thinking about immigrants from the South to the North of Europe, like Italians, Spaniards or Greeks to northern countries like Germany or England. In this case, like Faist says, we can speak about a “brain gain” instead of a “brain drain”. Nevertheless, when we speak about immigrants with Arabic backgrounds, their migration unfortunately is not viewed as a resource for both emigration and immigration countries but as a real problem to fight as soon as possible. Nowadays the process of excluding some people is like in the early 1970s: some countries are keeping gates open only for selected categories of immigrants.
Also the idea of weakness in my opinion is related to the background of the immigrants. Immigrants from developed countries don’t provoke the same feeling as the ones that come from countries with bad life conditions. People that are escaping from terrible war situations are viewed for sure as week agents, also because they emigrate in order to survive and they’re seeking for help and a warm welcome. That’s why to the idea of weakness that migrants could evoke, I would also add the feeling of fear that some immigrants provoke in a lots of countries and that sometimes ends up in radical political decisions (speaking of Europe, France’s, Austria’s or Hungary’s policy in the last years could be an example).