In the article “From Immigrant to Transmigrant: Theorizing Transitional Migration”, the modern migrant is presented as having a solid foundation in the country they immigrated to, but also continues to has ties to his or her homeland. The article explores the concept of transnational migration in that migrants (trans migrants) depend on connections between numerous borders and are able to identify with more than one nation. The word “transnational” is also has an evolving meaning. For instance, in the 1960’s “transnational” meant the many political institutions and ideas that were spread among national borders. Today, “transnational” in cultural studies refers to the deterioration of national boundaries and with that the deterioration of objects, ideas, and people. The word “transmigrant” is used with “transnational” to differentiate between migrants and immigrants.
The article goes on to present reasons for transnational migration. The major points are presented for this which are: 1. A global restructuring of capital based on changing forms of capital accumulation has led to deteriorating social and economic conditions in labor sending and receiving countries, 2. Racism in both the U.S. and Europe contributes to the economic and political insecurity of newcomers and their descendants; and 3. The nation building projects of both home and host society build political loyalties among immigrants to each nation-state in which they maintain social ties. Even though many immigrant “Asians”, “Blacks”, etc. have obtained a secure position within the U.S. capitalistic system, minorities still have to deal with daily discrimination. Even though transmigrants use the word “home” to refer to their country where they migrated from they also refer to the country they migrated to as home as well ( although the country they migrated to refers to them simply as a visitor).
In Jonathan Y. Okamura’s article “Asian American Studies in the Age of Transnationalism,” he is critical of the notion of ignoring the concept of transnationalism, which jeopardizes the Asian American Studies (AAS) field as a whole. He believes that AAS is very diverse and can be followed by a variety of theoretical perspectives, especially through transnationalism. Simply focusing on the domestic (United States) perspective forfeits the opportunities to view the Asian diaspora phenomenon in a detailed, complete way. He believes that viewing AAS from a transnational perspective can still maintain an emphasis on the Asian American community and its social, economic, political status and concerns, while viewing it from a localized perspective (within the United States) limits such ability. To him, a transnational approach does not erase race as an analytic category. Instead, it provides a viable conceptual framework for situating communities transnationally in the political, economic, and cultural contexts of global capitalism.
Okamura used his work on the Filipino American and global Filipino diasporas to show how economic globalization can affect certain Asian American groups, using the transnational perspective. He also voices concerns that all Asian Americans are subject to racialization in the American society. He introduces the idea of transnational racism. Transnational racism emphasizes one’s Asian background, including cultural and political ties with their respective Asian nation, while denies their American status and therefore their civil rights, privileges and loyalties. A couple of examples would be the Japanese Americans internment camps, and the Dr. Wen Ho Lee incident, where Dr. Lee, the nuclear scientist, was charged by the U.S. government with espionage. Global capitalism also links to transnational racism, as Evelyn Hy-Dehart noted that “The smugglers and employers of cheap, docile, often female Asian migrant labor are typically Asian and Asian Americans themselves.”
“Diaspora, Transnationalism, and Asian American Studies: Positions and Debates” by Christopher Lee talks about how Asian American studies has come to realize that its object of study is transnational. The essay describes some of the important debates about diaspora and transnationalism and gives context for these discussions. Lee says that diaspora studies has been critical in understanding community and identity in the world of postmodernism and globalization. In addition, the word “diaspora” naturally sparks comparison between other communities that have experienced displacement. Although the meaning of the terms “diaspora” and “transnational” are often disputed, it is clear that many communities are more transnational than ever before due to globalization. Asian American studies cannot ignore transnational issues because they are still relevant to Asian Americans. Lee says that “to exclude these issues is to fail to adequately describe and understand the communities being studied.”
In the age of globalization, transnational processes create the framework in order for us to better understand the Asian diaspora. Through transnationalism, we see the transmigrant create and sustain multiple and hybrid identities through the multiplicity of connections that transcend nation-state territoriality. In postmodernity, we observe that transnational processes are being exchanged even more than before and these transnational identities are even stronger as a result of this. The multiplicity of these identities bring interesting questions to light, which reveals that Asian American Studies must evolve to cope with stronger transnational identities that are being formed in the face of globalization. Okamura argues that Asian Americans are not isolated from the transnational processes that connect them to Asia and vice-versa. If anything, these transnational connections reveal interesting implications as to how events of the "homeland" are instrumental in the politics of the constituent diasporas. In a world that is shrinking in the face of postmodernity, it is important to note how diasporic identities, culture, politics and ideas are shaped by deterritorialized nation-states and the connections that transcend these borders.
1. Sau Ling Wong posits that Asian American Studies must not accept Asian or Area Studies if we are to maintain the integrity of ethnic studies, is transnationalism a problematic notion for Asian American Studies in light of Sau Ling Wong's assertions?
2. In light of Japanese Internment Camps and the Case of Dr. Wen Ho Lee, does transnationalism posit a challenge to Asian American identity formations by strengthening perceptions of the "perpetual foreigner"?
3. Why do Asian Americans create and sustain transnational identities when they are supposedly settled into their host country?
4. In the absence of European/American Imperialism and neoliberal policies, would there still be transnational migrations?
5. How has postmodernity changed the relation between diasporic subjects and transnational processes?
by Edwin Leung and more.
by Edwin Leung and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment