Week 3_Miguel Flores_ASA 114

Relating to the theme of diaspora and globalization, Christopher Lee’s Diaspora, Transnationalism, and Asian American Studies: Positions and Debates review the interconnected linkages of transnationalism and diaspora in the concept of Asian American Studies. Lee highlighted major key arguments that redefine diaspora as not only a connection to the homeland but also a factor in spurring nationalism and capitalism. Lee outlined several points of some scholars:  Bruce Robbins specified that to “untangle common misunderstandings about the relationship between capital and nation-state (28)” we need to study cosmopolitanism to scrutinize the meanings of power in the overall context of globalization and transnational relationship of Asia to the rest of the world. The ideologies of gender oppression by Inderpal Grewal and Caren Kaplan looks at transnationalism through the relational forms of gender oppression. Grewal and Kaplan present their research and theoretical views on the social relationships of a nation and how evolving ideologies of female subjectivity and unaccounted histories contribute to the biases and formation of a nation-state (29). Essentially Christopher Lee wants to present a discussion that “focuses on how Asian American Studies has come to conceive its object of study as transnational (24).” Through these theoretical views, Lee contextualizes the surface definition of diaspora and its larger role in stimulating economies, creating new hybrid cultures, and developing new methodologies.

As we talk about diaspora, globalization becomes embedded in the process of envisioning migrant populations. Nina Glick Shiller puts it as “part of broader transborder connections, histories, and cultural politics, and in dialogue with but differentiated from concepts of identity that are rooted in the building of territorially based nation-states (160).” Shiller challenges the notion of transnational ideologies by contesting that the cultural flows and ideas of transnational relations do not necessarily translate into identity with a homeland. A homeland can exist without identity and vice versa. The concept of homeland is not fixed nor localized; homeland can be situated within the formation of diaspora. A ruined homeland can reemerge through the lived culture and experiences of people who witnessed it. Homeland can be extended through the borders without limits. It becomes blurred when we think of homeland as a physical space versus an idea – a contestable idea that could redefine the social perception of borders and little towns here in the United States. As the current administration continues to target immigrants who’ve considered this home, it is up for debate where to define diaspora in the context of the situation. We can argue that cultural plazas and towns offer an idea of home, but is it an extension of the homeland? This is where we need to take Shiller’s approach and contextualize, through scholarly research and accounts, the true meaning of homeland.

Kingsley Aikins discusses diaspora as more than migrant populations, but the actor of change in the world. Through migrant businesses and economic relationships to the rest of the world, diaspora is more than a connection to the homeland, but a force that sustains the interconnectedness of a wide global network: 

Citations:

Christopher Lee. “Diaspora, Transnationalism, and Asian American Studies: Positions and Debates.” Displacements.

Nina Glick Schiller. “Lived Simultaneity and Discourses of Diasporic Difference.” Displacement.

TEDx Talks. “Diaspora matters: Kingsley Aikins at TEDxVilnius” YouTube. 25 February 2014. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQ_y5LgM7D0