Week 12 – Transnational Migration and the Nationalization of Ethnic Identity among Japanese Brazilian Return Migrants

Even though this article is from 1999, I think it continues to have strong relevance, not only in how describing how Brazilian-Japanese communities in Japan live, work, and adapt. Tsuda explores and analyzes identity without essentialzing the concept of identity as fixed and localized as other authors on the subject have done before and after. The author also managed to dive deep through entering a community through ethnographic efforts, which developed into a thorough description and analysis of what Japanese-Brazilians experience in their daily lives in Japan.

What I found very interesting was his ability to discuss identity without necessarily having to pinpoint it. He mentions the centering and decentering process that an individual goes through whenever they move from one country to another; but this could also take place from city to city and neighbourhood to neighbourhood. I think explaining this at the outset of the article provided good insight into not necessarily looking at Japanese-Brazilians looking for some for of identity, but realizing that it is a relative thing that depends as much on time as it does on space.

The author also moves from different spaces such as the workplace, city streets, and neighbourhoods trying to explain how is it that someone that looks Japanese actually is not really considered one. And at the same time, how a person that has their whole life considered himself or herself to be Japanese deals with the refusal of those co-ethnics, and become a foreigner in their ancestral home. This begs the question as to why governments would assume that just because one has ancestors in a specific land, that they would be able to assimilate better than others that do not.

What I found interesting also was how a number of Japanese-Brazilians came to terms with being Japanese in Brazil, but not so in Japan. Usually, in articles of this kind that I read, there is a focus on the negative effects of identity formation when migration takes place. This however, need not be so; as we see there are multiple ways to deal with rejection. Coming to terms with their Brazilian-ness can be seen as a positive aspect of migration and return.

What do you guys think?

18 thoughts on “Week 12 – Transnational Migration and the Nationalization of Ethnic Identity among Japanese Brazilian Return Migrants”

  1. I found some aspects in this article, which were particularly interesting for me.
    Firstly, even Brazil and Japan developed strong communications through history, there are still such a strong impact of migration on identity. Basically, second generation doesn’t feel like belonging to any of these countries, because of “… of their Japanese ancestral origins, destructive racial appearance, cultural differences from Brazilians…”
    Secondly, I also found fascinating a part where author talk about meaning of “identity” in common. When i thought about the role of identity in migration, i would think and speak about transnational migration, but meaning of “identity” when you move from city to city or even from one neighborhood to another is pretty high. That any change of location can produce “a form of deterritorialized nationalism”, basically society would make an opinion about cultural identity about “new person in neighborhood” based on the racial appearance, or cultural difference.

  2. This week’s text by Takeyuki Tsuda on the experiences of Japanese Brazilian return migrants, and in particular the transformation of their ethnic consciousness, and the changing understanding of the migrants’ identity gave us an insight into how a migration experience that had been imagined in a more positive light but turned out to be perceived as negative can shape and alter one’s national sentiments, identity and ethnic consciousness.

    I found the author’s usage of the terms “positive minority” and “negative minority” interesting and also surprising as I was not familiar with both terms prior to reading the text. It was enthralling to learn more about the distinct experience of Japanese Brazilian return migrants and how they were “positive minorities” in Brazil, with a higher socioeconomic status than the majority of Brazilians and their positively perceived Japanese cultural differences, and how they suddenly became “negative minorities” in Japan, with a lower socioeconomic status than before in Brazil and now subject to prejudice and ethnic marginalization.

    It was also interesting to read about how, in response to their negative experiences of Japanese culture and cultural behavior, the Japanese Brazilian return migrants reconsider their Japanese identity and redefine themselves as Brazilian, with stronger national loyalties to Brazil than ever before. I think it would be interesting to find out if this deterritorialized nationalism and this change in ethnic identity and national loyalties is reversible, e.g. whether the Japanese Brazilians would return to their former Japanese identity if the sociocultural environment in Japan changed and enabled a more positive migration experience.

  3. This is a very interesting topic and the example of Japan, as the text suggests is often thought of as a homogenous society, embodies the point the author wants to make about deterritorialized nationalism.
    But the text probably refers to first and second generation return-migrants, because after a longer time period (third generation) they will continue adjusting themselves to the culture and behavior of the host society, not to mention embracing Japanese as their native-tongue. I’m sure they will maintain a part of their Brazilian customs, their connection with Brazilian kin and other connecting aspects, but the differences at that point may not seem so stark to still consider them as foreigners (Nikkeijin). However, I do understand that, for the most part, the return-migrants returned with intention to only stay for a few years, and not permanently relocate.

    I agree with Felipe, although embracing their Brazilian-ness should not be seen as a bad thing, the Brazilian-Japanese themselves associate it in negative ways, like the author pointed out: simply because Japanese recognize their differences, they jump to conclusions that they are discriminated. As with the example at the work place: if they get a hard-working job, they claim it is discriminating because they are viewed as a foreign labor force; if they get an easier-working job, they claim it is discriminating because it makes it look as if they cannot handle the more physical jobs. But even if discrimination is only imagined, it is still imagined by the majority of the Brazilian-Japanese and it must be addressed.

    Maybe specifically transnational and return migrants are prone to attaching themselves to a particular nation (as well as people, history and culture) because they feel displaced. Neither country accepts them as “their own”, in this example at least Brazil views them positively, but still foreign. I would argue this type of feeling leads one into seeking a place where they are acceptable for who they are and where they came from, to create a sense of belonging.

  4. This week’s reading concentrated on the experiences of Japanese-Brazilians who returned to Japan and how “deterritorialized nationalism”, as the author puts it, is created.
    I liked the psychological approach of the text, that it focused on the impact on the people’s identities and personal experiences.
    I also found it very interesting how Japanese-Brazilians are seen as a “positive minority” in Brazil, appreciated by the society and characterized by their Japanese heritage, which suddenly turns to discrimination, loss of status, and the lack of Japanese traits (for the society in Japan). Similarly interesting is the conflict between their internally experienced and externally ascribed ethnic identity and the shift in ethnic identity from a stronger Japanese consciousness to a stronger Brazilian consciousness.
    I also really liked the point that Tal made, that even though the discrimination might only be imagined by the Japanese-Brazilians, it does not necessarily make it less real. In the end, the reality of people or peoples is always constructed in their minds and the culture that is produced by peoples makes up the “real” environment that they live in.

  5. Although I found the text very interesting, I found it very subjective.
    it surely gave a good insight in the world of Japanese reimmigrants but it was hardly based on any empirical facts but mere witness reports. Are there any statistics that prove the discrimination of Brazilian Japanese? Is a regional difference notable?
    Are Brazilian Japanese remigrating to Brazil since it’s economically emerging?

    It seemed to me like there’s a ‘Japanese Dream’ (similar to the American one) among the Brazilian Japanese that makes them long to move to the promised land of Japan although by now they must know that it isn’t that promising to live there at all. There are several factors mentioned in the text that make living in Japan less worthy than the one in Brazil. So why move to Japan? Is it to the feeling of reuniting with family roots and the dream of a better life that can’t be disrupted by negative reports. (and seems be supported by the media in Brazil ) It’s only logical that through the dissatisfaction the Brazilian Japanese experience in Japan and a living condition that is worse than the one in Brazil that they discover that they have developed their own roots and that they’ve become more Brazilian than Japanese. Since the Japanese seem a lot less welcoming than the Brazilians , it’s no surprise that the Brazilian Japanese stick to their Brazilianess. But of course, I’m sure that there are a lot of stereotypes involved as well. And there are ‘interracial marriages’ as well.

  6. Just as Katja, I also found the concept of “positive minority” relevant and I think the “position” of Japanese-Brazilians in Brazilian society as such is very similar to that of Asian-Americans in the contemporary United States, where the term “model minority” is often used.

    Another parallel I noticed is the usage of the term “dekasegi” (temporary migrant worker), implying the idea that Japanese Brazilians had initially been expected to eventually return to Brazil. I find this phenomenon very similar to the German term “GastarbeiterIn” from the 60s and 70s, referring to (mainly) Turkish migrant workers in West-Germany. The original idea of the so-called rotation principle (“Rotationsprinzip), that the Gastarbeiter (and their families) eventually return to Turkey and new ones would come, failed. This failed project has left a mark on German society today and the word “Gastarbeiter” is now history. Just as in the case discussed in the study, one can see the emergence of a “double-identity” in the German context as well. Moreover, I often hear from German friends of Turkish descent that they are seen as Turks in Germany and as Germans in Turkey, just like Japanese Brazilians “are [reportedly] considered Japanese in Brazil, but are seen as foreigners in Japan” (p. 149). As for Mexican-American, one can often hear them use the phrase, “ni de aquí, ni de allá” (neither from here, nor from there).

    Another interesting detail was that Japanese Brazilians are often surprised by the “simplicity” of the Japanese reality as opposed to the vision of the “primeiro mundo” promoted in (Brazilian) media. I believe that the media often exaggerate certain discrepancies between alleged “developed” and “developing” countries in general. From the Japanese side, this is manifested by the fact that Japanese Brazilian are “asked whether Brazil has electricity, cars, or TVs” (p. 157). This seems to be very similar to the preconceptions and prejudices Europeans tend to have vis-à-vis Africa or Latin-America (as a whole!).

  7. I found the reading of Tsuda’s article extremely interesting and enlightening, as it combined different levels of perspectives – essentially, a “micro” with a “meso” level perspective, by focussing on personal accounts and feelings (such as “subjective discrimination”) while at the same time contrasting them between each other.

    For me, one of the decisive aspects of the article was the intersection of ethnic and class categories. As Tsuda points out, class affiliations of the Japanese Brazilians shift as they move from one place to the other, leaving them to cope with a reconsideration of their ethnic identity, on the one hand, and their social status/class affiliation, on the other hand. This goes with the notion of “dis-illusionment” that Tsuda describes, as ideas about the “First World” country Japan begin to crumble once the migrating communities look closer. For example, as migrants are surprised with the precarity of Japanese buildings or factories, this struck me as probably a class or social distinction as the environments they move into shift along these “stratified” lines.

    As Aron pointed out, these (imagined and stereotyped) barriers between more and less industrialised (or perceived thus) countries exist on a global level. It is fascinating to see these images play out. Just two weeks ago, I had a very interesting conversation with a Syrian friend who expressed strong disappointment with the German/European societies “especially when compared to what people outside think”. He expressed his frustration about European media and society picturing Middle East societies as basically barbaric and terrorist, while meanwhile European society seems to be falling apart from within, while closing its borders to people in need. This led him to call German/European society “weak”, which I found very interesting and which kept me thinking for a long time (and, I admit it, it also touched me on a quite personal level).

    Similar to Europe, Japan has also been a colonial or rather imperialist power. Europe has for several centuries been selling the idea to the world (or rather, in many cases, imposing the idea at the tip of swordblades and machine guns) that European values and societal structure are superior to others – a notion that is now crumbling ever faster. Maybe this is a common trace between imperialist powers – the necessity to transmit to the world a notion of cultural, political and economical superiority which serves as a legitimizing narrative for subduing others.

    I guess, especially people who were members of social, cultural or economic elites in their home countries, and then enter a (supposedly) “superior” “First World” country and have to come to terms with a “social relocation”, face this kind of irritation and dis-illusionment Tsuda describes.

  8. I found Tsuda’s text on transnational migration and deterritorialised nationalism very interesting, in particular the idea of the creation of the ethnic counter-identity.
    It’s interesting that the author suggests, that this phenomenon also occurs among expatriates (including city-city and neighbourhood-neighbourhood movements). Expatriates decide voluntarily to move (short- or long-term) to another country, which in most cases is being triggered by certain favourism for the host countries’ cultural behaviour existing prior to migration. The adoption of the new home state’s cultural behaviour and therefore the merging of two cultures can then lead to deterritorialised nationalism. In my opinion, this sort of deterritorialised nationalism depends on the level of patriotism towards the birth country, how well integration takes place and the time frame in which new identity formation is able to take place.

    The concepts of the “nikeijin” reminded me of the concept of Latin nationals who migrate to e.g. the USA, and are being classified as ‘gringos’ when returning to Latin America. It was interesting to see that this sort of classification also happens amongst other cultures and nationalities.

  9. This writing perfectly captures what I wanted to express in one of my former comments regarding the limits of agency.
    When (scientifically) speaking about agency, I more and more get the feeling that it serves as a tool to attenuate the real problems. It is outstandingly important to recognize that each and every human being is in the same way capable of thinking/desiring, but restricted in the act of realizing because of unequal opportunities. “Finding a loophole” out of these unequal opportunities surely is possible and a sign of empowerment, but never seemed to me comparable to having better opportunities from the beginning on. So as I sometimes have my problems with agency regarding equal opportunities, so for Tsuda “transnational migration can, in some cases, consolidate and increase national loyalty among migrants, thus contributing to the state’s hegemonic objectives and nationalist agendas.” and as a consequence “individual agency results in the unintended reproduction, not the transformation, of the existing power structure.” (Tsuda, 1999: 170). In his view, the intended outcome of a certain (agency-based) behavior can and de facto is influenced by hegemonic structures.
    How far can we go with the concept of agency?

    In this sense, I think it is of special interest of how the text touches on the occurrence of discrimination and showing simultaneously that each kind of discrimination is unsubstantiated because it merely depends on the viewpoint, like the various examples of “not being Japanese enough” after a migration experience show.

  10. The idea of the text is that Japanese Brazilians develop a deterritorialised nationalism because of their inside perspective on the Japanese cultural and ethnic heritage and by the exclusion mechanics that they suffer from the Brazilian Majority. In the case of return to Japan (which occurred often during the 1980’s and 1990’s because of the Brazilian recession and the Japanese need for low skilled workers ) the Japanese Brazilian perspective on nationalism became questionable for themselves. On the one hand the Japanese society identifies the Japanese Brazilians because of their behavior and manners as foreigner (gaijin) while the Japanese Brazilians expected to be seen as Japanese because of the experience in Brazil where they are continuously identified as Japanese, thereby they recognize their Brazilian identity when they return to Japan. They are seen as Japanese in Brazil but Japan they are seen as Brazilians. Beyond that the Japanese Brazilians develop negative views on the Japanese culture (for example as cold) and therefore create an ethic-counter-identidy because of their experience of Brazilian cultural distinctiveness in Japan.
    This is a very typical phenomena for diaspora societies even though the framework is kind of special.

  11. This paper reminded me in some ways of my own experiences in Nicaragua. As various Germans migrated there over the time, there is a small group of second and third generation Germans (both ethnical and by citizenship) that are completely acculturated as Latinos/Nicaraguan, and even only speak german as second language. They had the same experience of being perceived positively with the label of being German, but coming over to Germany they were labelled as Latinos. I think the only difference between their problems and the problems of Japanese-brazilian “nikkeijin” is that Germany and especially Berlin is way more multicultural, therefore it´s not a such big problem with them here than with the Brazilians in Japan.

    Same as Sarah, at first, I was wondering where the author got the numbers from and in which way he would undermine the theme empirical, but I think the way Tsuda did it is sufficient. It must be very hard to press the emotions of people into a theoretical empirical framework, and citing some of the questioned individual persons like Tsuda did, is much more valuable for the comprehension of the paper and the idea of the author.

  12. I really appreciated the statements about identiy in this week`s text- te changing perception of persons about who they are or as what and who they feel in the context of migration and, in this text, especially of the Japanese Brazilian return migrants.
    In general the text made me think about the point that identity or the consciousness and ideas you have of what you are, as a person, individually, but also culturally and ethnically spoken, changes and is fluent depending on different contexts. Different surroundings, countries, people, your social, economic or living conditions, cultural contexts make you feel diferently, for what you will position yourself differently.

    I agree with Nico on the point that it is difficult to put the perecptions and emotions of people in theoretical categories or a theoretic framework and that it is helpful and valuable to perceive the singular persons and the insight in their subjective perceptions for a comprehension and ejemplification of such a complex thing like identity and moving between different contexts. And mabey that is the way: Knowing, Understanding and being aware of individuell perspectives of what a person feels like in a different contexts and mabey within all these different micro-meso perspectives find certain tendencies or more general propositions about the topic identiy.

  13. This text, which was written by Takeyuki Tsuda and published in 1999, analyzes the transformation of the ethnic identity of Japanese Brazilians after their return to Japan. The largest group of nikkeijin (Japanese migrants) in the world are Japanese Brazilians, who began to move back to Japan in the eighties (during the Brazilian economic crisis) with the intention of returning soon to Brazil.
    From all the texts we had to read, this is my favorite one. I especially enjoyed the socio- psychological approach the author chose for his research: I found it fascinating how the Brazilian nikkeijin develop an ethnic counter identity when they move to Japan. In fact, they defined themselves even stronger as Japanese in Brazil because it was perceived positively by the local population. However, once they moved to Japan, they became part of a “negative minority” (is it also because, as we saw it in former texts, the Japanese society negatively perceives migrating?). As a reaction, the Japanese Brazilians developed a stronger sense of belonging to Brazil, and even came to organize typical Brazilian events such as samba parades (which they never did before moving to Japan), or parties such as “Matar a saudade do Brasil”. As stated in the essay: “the Japanese Brazilians respond to their ethnic exclusion in Japan, […] by discarding their previously stronger Japanese identity and affirming their Brazilian cultural distinctiveness”. To describe this phenomenon, the author speaks of a deterritorialization of the nation-state.
    What I also appreciated in this text is that Tsuda doesn’t forget to balance the results of his one hundred interviews. Since they are based on subjective perceptions of their reality, it is, for example, hard to know what discrimination is objectively linked to their Brazilian origin. Tsuda differentiates subjective and objective discriminations, and underlines the fact that there might be many reasons for ethnic separations.
    Having both German and French nationalities, yet having grown up in France, I personally relate to the question of “ethnic” identity. Before moving to Germany, I considered myself as half French and half German from a cultural point of view. Now that I’ve been studying in Berlin for one year however, I feel more French than I ever have in my life. Contrary to the text, I don’t feel discriminated in any way, but everyday small things remind me that I don’t totally fit into the German culture. Of course, I’m not the best German-speaking student in the class anymore, but I also don’t get all of the private jokes my German friends make. After one year studying in the Freie Universität I still don’t understand fully how it works, and, above all, my German friends consider me as their “French friend”.

  14. What I found interesting in this article were the different variants of nationalism and their origins.
    A critique I have is that of the notion of the “creation of (…) “deterritorialized nation-states” with the development of common identities among members of different nations.” Although many definitions of nation, the State and therefore nation-states exist, I am not satisfied with the one used here. Nation-states are, in my opinion, not formed solely through imagination, but through historical and political processes. Examples for “deterritorialized nation-states” would be Kurdistan, Wallmapu, and maybe to some extent Palestine and Armenia, just to name a few examples. The logical definition would be nation states that lost territories.
    If we arbitrarily define transnational communities as nation-states, the definition and characterization of the State will be completely useless. Furthermore, it would be a complete relativization of displacement and exodus. This is why I find this choice of words purely idealistic and ahistorical.

  15. This text educates us on the the impact of migration on identity, taking the example of Japanese Brazilians’ return migration to Japan. In fact, this type of migration can cause a nationalization of ethnic consciousness. Indeed, although in Brazil Japanese Brazilians are considered (and consider themselves) as Japanese and are an isolated community, in Japan they are excluded because they don’t have the same cultural habits (language, clothes, openness…). The author evaluates the currently Brasilian nikkeikin population to represent 220 000 people.
    The author first emphasizes their difference of social status: in Brazil, they belong to the middle-class and are admired for their economic success, whereas in Japan they are considered poor. Indeed, they work in factories, taking advantage of the wage differential between Japan and Brazil.
    Their disappointment when they arrive in Japan and observe the contrast between the very modern country they imagined (“First World”) and the Japanese poor and/or rural areas or the Japanese factories in which there is no robot. That also applies to the contrary: the representation of Brazil in the Japanese heads very often chagrin Japanese Brazilians since their birth country is thought to be rural, indigent and only inhabited by “Indianos”. Those caricatures/prejudice/clichés create a form of misunderstanding between Japanese Brazilians and Japanese about the diverse realities in the other country. This leads Japanese Brazilians to defend their country. Indeed, being excluded and rejected by the Japanese because of their different cultural habits, their ethnic Brazilian self-consciousness (and sometimes patriotism or even nationalism) is strengthened.

    This leads to a greater identification with the Brazilian customs and characteristics: people, warmth, agriculture, food, sports… By contradiction, they also learn to consider Brazilian values that are negatively connoted in Japan positive.
    They also report to suffer from discrimination for instance at work for several reasons: they don’t speak/understand Japanese (or very little) and therefore can’t understand what is said about them. Being spotted by Japanese very quickly and easily because they don’t speak Japanese very well, but also discriminated and excluded, they take distance from the majority of Japanese. Besides, since they are descendants of poor Japanese, they are thought to be uneducated and only a few Japanese know/realize that they are from the middle-class.
    The author also explores the state-dimension: the migration of the Japanese Brazilians is not encouraged by Japan because it is considered to be a threat to the national identity. At the same time, Japanese Brazilians are not totally included in Brazil because of their former refusal to assimilate and because of their ethnic exclusivity. This creates a “contradiction between practice and identity” and a “transnational consciousness” that is linked to globalization and common to several transnational communities. These communities don’t belong to one country or another one.
    The conclusion of Takeyuki Tsuda is that: “the increasing globalization of ethnoscapes (distributions of people and ethnic groups around the world) does not necessarily have to be accompanied by a simultaneous globalization of ideoscapes (images that serve as ideologies to consolidate state power)”
    I liked this text very much because it gave us an overview of the identity struggles of the transnational communities that can’t totally identify to one national community/identity. Personally, I also feel much more attached to my birth country since I arrived in Germany.

  16. This article is interesting and very relatable for me in many ways. This case study on Japanese Brazilians engaging in return migration to Japan epitomizes the idea of “the grass is always greener on the other side”; when in Brazil, these migrants strongly identify themselves by their Japanese roots as they see Japanese qualities as superior to Brazilians. However, upon migrating back to Japan, they realize that Brazilians have unique qualities that they appreciate and choose to identify themselves as Brazilian Japanese in Japan. I generally agree wit his discussion that migration need not lead to a more globalized identity but instead leads the migrant to be more attached to one type of identity. However, I disagree with the author’s conclusion about how this proves that the state is not always in jeopardy in terms of migration. In the case of Brazil, Japanese migrants are moving back to japan in search of more employment opportunities. Even though their Brazilian identity is strengthened, the relocation of these migrants’ leads to brain drain that does not help Brazil recover from its economic woes. This puts the Brazilian state in jeopardy.

  17. This text is really interesting, especially because I don’t think many people are aware of this return migration taking place from Brazil to Japan. I couldn’t think of more different, if not opposite, cultures than this two. I also regard it as interesting from a personal view, since I’m a German-Chilean immigrant in Germany, whose “German roots” as defined by Chilean culture influenced powerfully her/my “sense of self”. This identity is challenged when confronted with the German culture itself, in Germany, while behaving culturally as a Chilean. Then, it becomes easier to think of the homeland only in positive terms, overlooking material and formal inequalities prevalent in it and creating a sort of “imagined community”, as coined by Anderson. It’s a similar phenomenon to that of Diasporas in that experiences of exclusion fuel the construction of an identity in contrast to mainstream culture as an alternative to assimilation. In the case of a Diaspora, this identity relates often to a territory/nation-state, as well, especially when migration was motivated by some horrible catastrophe or ethnic persecution. Finally, it makes sense to talk about deterritorialized migrant nationalism when considering this aspects and the concept of “imagined communities”, as means of resistance, which can nevertheless act as a fuel for political conflicts.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Captcha
Refresh
Hilfe
Hinweis / Hint
Das Captcha kann Kleinbuchstaben, Ziffern und die Sonderzeichzeichen »?!#%&« enthalten.
The captcha could contain lower case, numeric characters and special characters as »!#%&«.