Week 3: Processes- Transnationalism

1. “From Immigrant to Transmigrant: Theorizing Transnational Migration,” by Nina Glick Schiller, Linda Basch, and Cristina Szanton Blanc

The article discusses the topic of transnational migration, which Schiller describes as “immigrants whose daily lives depend on multiple and constant interconnections across international borders and whose public identities are configured in relationship to more than one nation-state” (48). This puts on a debate on immigration in the U.S. In the 1960’s, “transnational” was referred to as the establishment of corporate structures with established organizational based in more than one state, but now transnational processes have become part of a broader phenomenon of globalization.

Schiller then states that there are three main focuses for immigrants to live transnational lives: a global restructuring of capital based, racism in both the U.S. and Europe that contributes to the economic and political insecurity, and 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 (50). However, immigrants still face situations of economic opportunity insecurities along with racial discrimination.

In the past, immigrants were forced to forget about where they came from, because the U.S. demanded that citizens, both native and naturalized identify the U.S. as “home”. In contemporary times, immigrants who permanently settled in a new country still maintained their ties to their “homelands”. For example, immigrants who have moved away to settle in the U.S. for better job opportunities, then sending money or any other necessities back to their family.

2. “Asian American Studies in the Age of Transnationalism: Diaspora, Race,Community”

by Jonathan Y. Okamura

In Jonathan Okamura’s “Asian American Studies in the Age of Transnationalism: Diaspora, Race,Community,” he argues that it is vital for AAS to “retain a primary concern with the community by situating it transnationally in the larger context of global economic and political forces and processes”(172). By embracing transnationalism as well, he believes Asian American communities become more “densely connected to Asia than before”(193).

The Asian American Studies department gained much popularity amongst students.

Individuals gained understanding of their community through theoretical developments such as poststructuralism, postmodernism, cultural studies, and transnationalism.

An example Okamura uses for transnationalism was Filipinos in diaspora who maintained cultural practices including: returning back to the homeland sending gifts, and communicating via telephone and email.

Even though Okamura provides readers with a sense of why transnationalism gave a strong framework for Asian Americans, there are also examples of how global forces, including Asian foreign investors, may negatively impact the daily lives of residents. Unfortunately in the past decades, San Francisco’s Filipino American community was demolished due to the global economy’s need for commercial and residential real estate. In this case, Okamura refers to other Asian American groups such as Chinese Americans and Asian Indians as “transnationalist capitalists, entrepreneurs, and highly-paid immigrant officials”(192). In his opinion, there are disadvantaged ethnic minorities that are still unable to resist the global economic forces of the New Economy.

Ultimately, Okamura urges the need for the community to “seek social and economic justice and local empowerment” for those who still continue to struggle in order for AAS to continue to advance.

3. Christopher Lee--"Diaspora, Transnationalism, and Asian American Studies: Positions and Debates"

The development of Asian American Studies as a discipline occurred as a result of a combination of historical, political and cultural demands. Because of burgeoning inequalities along race and ethnic lines in the United States during the 1960's, the civil rights movement took place; spawned Ethnic Studies and Asian American Studies.

There is no doubt that transnationalism and diasporas are inherently part of Asian American history. However, Lee argues that the discipline has become "overly domestic in its research focus" (32). Lee is calling for a re-injection of transnational and diasporic centered thought for Asian American studies. This incorporation of both transnational and diasporic ideas has already been studied by many feminist and queer theory scholars (Lee, 29). The necessity for Asian American studies to refocus on transnational and disaporic thought is because the current focus is more so focused on the American side of Asian American dialogue. Lee's stance on "rethinking transnational/diasporic processes" in Asian American Studies, he argues that it is both "promising" and could potentially be "totalizing or illuminating" (30).

As we have mentioned and revisited every lecture so far, definitions of Diasporas are ever changing with every definition as a working definition. Transnationalism would also likely have an ever changing definition. Lee strongly suggests that the previous two concepts should be reintegrated back into Asian American Studies. Adding a diasporic approach for Asian American Studies would take into consideration a more intersectional; rather than a "U.S.-centric view" (32). On a final note, Lee reminds the reader that without a reinsertion of transnationalism back into Asian American studies, then the field may be inaccurately studying some of the communities which form its foundation (32).

Ho Chi Minh City December '09. 

(Photo credits Eldo Chan)

Questions:
1. Why does the hegemonic political ethic of the U.S. want its migrant citizens to forget about their ties to their homeland?

2. In your opinion, are the drawbacks of transnationalism(racism,exploitation,displacement) worth it? Or is it better to accept denationalization?

3. Even though transnationalism has been made easier through technology,has transnational racism decreased? Or is the stereotype of the perpetual foreigner still imminent in society?

4. If definitions of diasporas and transnational ideas are ever changing, how will academia (for Asian American Studies) decide what the "proper" baseline is for these two concepts?

5. When and if Asian American Studies incorporates more diasporic and transnational concepts, will this revive (or dilute) the stagnant state of the discipline?

Written by: Adrian, Nicole and Eldo