Twenty-First-Century Migration as a Challenge to Sociology
Although this article deals specifically with Sociology, I think it is relevant to many of the related social sciences such as Anthropology and Human Geography.
The author sets out to explain 7 points, and how they have changed, shifted, or need to change in order for Sociology to stay relevant. I would argue that many of these points could be utilized in other social sciences; because with the exception of Anthropology (maybe), the majority of social sciences, for the most part still work solely with the nation-state as it only referent, and not one of the many spatial scales that we now live with under globalizations.
I would like to hear your thoughts on the article whether they are theory related or how you view global migrations, or any other way you think is relevant to the discussion.
So let’s take a look at each one:
1. How do globalization and transnationalism change the conditions and objectives
of sociological research on migration?
Castles states that international migration at its core obviously transcends borders; yet why is it that much of the study of this phenomenon does not take that into consideration?
He goes further into this within the other points, but I think one that we should note is that for many (people, organizations, governments), migration is thought of as ending and beginning at the border. It is not ‘our’ issue, problem, obligation, or what have you to view migration beyond our borders. We can study it side-by-side with other countries, but it really is of no concern till they cross our borders. Much of that can be seen today in refugee movements from the Middle East and sub-Saharan Africa towards Europe and the Central American migration towards the United States where policies, chatter, and other ideas concentrate on how to keep people out.
Although, we talk about transnational migration within the walls of academia, the world ‘out there’ still works with the view of migration as a problem to be dealt with.
2. Should migration research generally be interdisciplinary?
The issue of interdiscplinarity is an important one, especially for us since we do our work at the LAI as an interdisciplinary institution, which is great, but I think it is still one of the few institutes to consciously go this way.
I do agree with Castles that we should not blend the disciplines all into one, but rather develop ways to layer how disciplines work with migration. For example, although globalization is nothing new, we have begun to look at the world though different spatial lenses. We now view cities, regions, countries, and continents at once and at the same tie separate. Some view cities as outside the nation-state such as London, Tokyo, New York, Singapore, Hong Kong where people have more in common with each other than the country or region they may be physically located. This means that geography, as much as it is physical, is also social and cultural.
3. What are the specific topics and analytical tasks of migration sociology?
Migration through a sociological lens has been troubled with this discipline’s over focus on national societies, it s borders, cultures, and everything within this container as thought to be ‘unique’ or ‘original’ without any ‘disruptions’ from other places. This of course has never happened, but it is a discourse that is very alive when it comes to the discussions of migration and society.
Castles states that Sociology needs to address society as a whole. Does he mean global society, or again does he revert back to the society in the container that is the nation-state?
4. If the roots of sociology lie in the development of national industrial societies,
what effects has this had on the development of the sociology of migration?
Is Sociology a relevant discipline today in an ear of globalization? Is it relevant since it was designed specifically to contend with the issues of the nation-building processes on the late 19th and early 20th Centuries? If not, then how does Sociology allow for theories and methodologies developed for another time to grow, adapt, or go to the dustbin?
I’m interested in reading some of your comments on this matter. I studied Sociology in my undergrad, and am ambivalent whether the discipline continues to grow, and becomes outdated.
5. How can sociologists of migration move beyond the fixation on the nation-state to
conceptualise processes of global integration and social transformation?
How to do this with the existing tools having been created for that specific purpose, to study the nation-state?
In the age when 54% of the world’s population now currently resides in urban centres, does it make sense to concentrate solely on the nation-state? When regional blocks such as the EU exist, is the nation-state still the ultimate geography?
Well, with the Euro crisis, Brexit, and the refugee migration, the nation-state has once again been brought out and defended against ‘disruptive’ forces trying to ‘destroy’ it. This however, does not take away from the importance that cities, not just global cities, but urban centres throughout the globe that are more connected to each other than to the lands, state, or province bordering it.
Can a Sociology of Migration take into account the different scales that people are currently living in?
6. To what extent has the sociology of migration been driven by the influence of
politics and policy on the research enterprise, and the corresponding imperative of
‘policy-relevance’?
It’s no secret that in order to stay relevant, researchers need to receive grants and other forms of funds to carry-out research; and since many funding bodies are connected to national governments, the focus that they are willing to fund remains a nation-state centred approach. Of course there are exceptions, but these are limited.
I agree with Castles that policy is driven by the immediate, the temporary need for some ‘fix’ in order to get re-elected. This paces a strain on taking a look at historical accounts and narratives that can teach and contribute to contemporary debates on migration, because although the percentage of global migrants in currently 4%, it was 6% in the 1880s. Migration is nothing new, and many of the tool that are used today were in use in the 19th century.
7. What theoretical, methodological and organisational principles are needed for a
critical and socio-politically engaged sociology of migration?
Castles argues for the need to include the nation-state within a larger spatial scale, where we can move back and forth without having to be stuck on one or the other. Within this argument, I concur with him that there is no one single theory of migration, rather different theoretical approaches to be taken depending on the situation, meso-theories like Merton stated.
I hope this will bring out some other questions in you for your contributions.
Die
Am 25. October 2016 um 17:37 Uhr
First of all, I would like to say that I think sociology, as long as it does not miss developing according to the changes in human society, will never be outdated as long as humankind exists.
In Castles’ text, as well as in Faist’s, one can not only explicitly read about the very difficult question what role the nation-state should play, but you can also feel it between the lines. Of course, Castles states that sociology of migration should address society as a whole not inside the container of the nation-state. In my opinion this is the greatest challenge for sociology as a whole, not only sociology of migration. I am not saying that the country we grow up in is the only factor in building cultural identity, not at all, but as I see it, it plays a very important role. A national government makes the rules for society, doesn’t that result in creating ideas how society works? Castles himself mentions an example, when he refers to difficulties between researchers from various countries working together, because their views on theory, methodology or research results may differ greatly. I think he is right when he says that migration sociology must “overcome methodological nationalism an […] study global and transnational phenomena without losing sight of the continuing significance of national and local factors.” (Castles, 358) However, I am not so sure if this is only possible until a certain point due to every person’s own (cultural) background, which we learn in and from a specific society.
Examining the different spatial areas of migration and giving equal importance to structure and agency seems vital to me as well as never forgetting that no human is neutral, as much as they may strive to be. Therefore, participatory approaches must be the means to minimize this inevitable personal imprint in sociological research. That way scientists can use their discoursive power to give a voice to those people who really need it.
Am 30. October 2016 um 12:56 Uhr
Castlesʾ article points out that globalisation has a big influence on the current migratory process. The migratory process leads to a social transformation with the creation of multiculturalism and transnational societies. First, migration is a multilateral phenomenon and there is no general explication why people leave their origin country. But all theories accord with the fact that the migration will increase because of different reasons.
At this point the role of the state and other institutions is important. Like we’ve already seen in Faists article there is a need for structural transformation. With the globalisation and the related migratory process, it is difficult to talk about belonging to one single nation. I agree with Castles opinion that there is no return to an idea of closed-off nation-states and that we rather should talk about transnational societies.
This point leads us to the question if sociology is a relevant discipline for globalization and I think it is. Sociology deals with the interaction of people in a society. Now with the globalization there are social, cultural and economic flows which are crossing the borders all the time, so it takes place a lot of interaction with other people from other societies. Sociology is therefore a necessary discipline to observe the interaction in these transnational societies.
Am 30. October 2016 um 16:05 Uhr
I agree with the previous speaker and would definitely say that sociology will always exist and even more, in times like these when a lot of different people or cultures come together because this goes along with social and cultural change. Also the author mentions a few times that migration will extend in the next years, I think the text is already 10 years old, so he´s right with his statement and also it will extend even more for example for climate, economic or political reasons.
I also agree, that for sociology analyzing a global society instead of national societies will be a big challenge. The thinking of a global society – even if there is a progress in the last years for example in the dual-citizenships in some countries – has not arrived in all people´s thinking and if – it is not always said that this development is welcomed as we can see in the nationalist shifts in a lot of European countries. I agree with Castle´s call for more transnational democratic institutions with more transparency and trust. He mentioned the EU as an example for this but as we can see today the framework of the EU is not really stable and is led by some populists who make people lose their faith in it and poke their fear of changes. This development will not help to understand and handle further transnational migration. So the sociology could help the explain some processes and make the transition from nation to a global society more smooth and accessible to more/all people.
The question about the interdisciplinary of migration research in my opinion is to answer with yes, it should be seen interdisciplinary. As international migration fits extremely well with the logic of globalization (p. 1147) it has to be seen from very different points of view like political, religious, geographical, also climatic, economic etc. Only this way one can understand all social and cultural change, and also reasons for migrations and future development.
Am 30. October 2016 um 17:53 Uhr
One aspect that I consider to be interesting is that, although mobility of people is – as Castles (364) rightly points out – a “crucial form of globalisation”, only little attention is paid to it. Why is this aspect basically being “ignored”, despite the fact that it is crucial? Is it because of the fact that the available “tools” of analysis are obsolete?
In my opinion, sociology will always play an important role, however, it needs to adapt to the new realities we are faced with. I agree with Castles (364) that the “real challenge is to develop a sociology of migration that is both critical and engaged with social reality, both empirical and grounded in theory”. You cannot analyse modern phenomena using the tools that have been used at least one century ago. The dynamics have changed, and as Castles points out, so have migration processes. Applying an interdisciplinary perspective may be the first step in the right direction. Migration processes and social reality are way too complex to be explained through the lens of only one discipline. A new approach is needed, and Castles’ delineation of what this approach may look like sounds promising.
The nation-state, however, will always have to be part of the analysis, I think. As has been mentioned before, the concept of the nation-state is gaining momentum in Europe nowadays. The protection of the integrity of the nation-state is part of populist discourses. Therefore, “old” discourses are being brought up again. With regards to sociology, I think that the nation-state has to be taken into consideration, however, I agree with Castles (358) when he says that methodological nationalism has to be overcome. His suggestion concerning the cooperation between researches from all over the world could be helpful in overcoming it. Surely, the problems Castles mentions (e.g. the barrier that language often constitutes), would have to be addressed and solved first. This would be an important step, since research is not a neutral activity (Castles 368). Thus, the knowledge non-Western researchers would share with Western researchers, could help dismantling the methodological nationalism. Values and insights could be exchanged.
I would also say there isn’t a single theory of migration. As with the example with the researchers from three different countries, you must take into account the differences in the processes of migration. A single theory would not be able to explain all the different aspects of migration.
Am 3. November 2016 um 21:07 Uhr
These are very interesting points that you all bring out. I wanted to ask you then, what do you think of the recent rise in different forms of nationalism and its ‘fight’ against globalization?
The rise of Trump, LePen, Wilders, etc. are they a direct response to globalization gone awry? or are they exploiting what the rise of automation, which inevitable results in winners and losers…this however happened in other technological revolutions.
Am 8. November 2016 um 16:00 Uhr
I totally agree with the previous comments about the atemporal feature of sociology, no matter the criticisms it will always be relevant if (and that’s the only condition to me) reinvented by its authors and partisans and .
I also wanted to get back quickly to the autonomy of scholars/researchers: it seems to me that most of them are out of touch with reality and unconsciously trying to satisfy their patron’s guidelines. So I was wondering, could it be the easy way out to study migrations through a pro-nation-state lens? Is the contrary even possible to achieve?
For what concerns the rise of populist politicians, they appear to go against globalization in the way that they don’t want to deal with its negative effects. The thing is they are fully taking part in it, politically and economicaly speaking (their campaign fundings for example). In my opinion they just want to avoid the problems triggered by globalization such as the refugee crisis but want to benefit from its advantages such as worldwide trade or expanded capitalism.But when tackling globalization one should be aware of the two sides of the coin.
Am 22. December 2016 um 10:42 Uhr
I do think that sociology is a very important discipline to understand the globalization phenomenon through people’s interaction and communication to each other, but in my opinion should change the nation-state centered approach and extend the concept of the nation-state to something wider, like regional blocks, urban centers etc. Sociology should take into account the different realities and ways where people are actually living in.
Speaking about global migrations and globalization, one very interesting phenomenon is the beginning of a real multicultural and transnational society all around the world. This leads to a transformation of some cities in the world like New York, London, Tokyo and in my opinion also Berlin as a cultural center and a sort of meeting point for lots of people around the world. That’s also why we and sociology itself should change the approach and think more about a transnational societies. It seems like we accept to live in a transnational reality but we don’t want or better say we find it difficult to change our theory, our way of thinking, that I think that is “old” and not really focused on the reality we are living. That also leads to the rise of populist politicians and policy, that on one hand want to take the positive gain that globalization is giving (especially economically speaking) but on the other hand seems to want to avoid other consequences that the process brings, like huge global migration processes etc. Also Castles states that “policymakers have often seen migration as something that could be turned on and off like a tap in response to national interests”.