Conceptualizing Simultaneity: A Transnational Social Field Perspective on Society
Author(s): Peggy Levitt and Nina Glick Schiller
Reviewed work(s):
Source: International Migration Review, Vol. 38, No. 3, Conceptual and Methodological
Developments in the Study of International Migration (Fall, 2004), pp. 1002-1039
Published by: The Center for Migration Studies of New York, Inc.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27645424 .
Accessed: 04/11/2011 16:04
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
The Center for Migration Studies of New York, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to International Migration Review.
http://www.jstor.org
Conceptualizing Simultaneity:
A Transnational Social Field
Perspective
on Society
Peggy Levitt
Wellesley College
and Harvard University
Nina Glick Schiller
University ofNew Hampshire andMax Planck Institute of Social Anthropology
This article explores the social theory and consequent methodology that
underpins
studies of transnational
migration. First, we
propose
a social
field approach to the study of migration and distinguish between ways
of being and ways of belonging in that field. Second, we argue that
assimilation and enduring transnational ties are neither incompatible
nor binary opposites. Third, we
highlight social processes and institu
tions that are routinely obscured by traditional migration scholarship
but that become clear when we use a transnational lens.
Finally,
we
locate our approach to migration research within a
larger intellectual
project, taken up by scholars of transnational processes inmany fields,
to rethink and reformulate the concept of society such that it is no
longer automatically equated with the boundaries of a
single nation
state.
Social scientists have long been interested in how immigrants are incorpo
rated into new countries. In
Germany and France, scholars'
expectations
that
foreigners will assimilate is a central piece of public policy. In the United
States, immigration
scholars
initially argued
that to move
up the socioeco
nomic ladder, immigrants
would have to abandon their
unique customs,
language, values, and homeland ties and identities. Even when
remaining
ethnic became more
acceptable,
most researchers assumed that the
impor
tance of homeland ties would eventually fade. To be Italian American or
Irish American would ultimately reflect ethnic pride within amulticultural
United States rather than
enduring
relations to an ancestral land.
Now scholars
increasingly recognize
that some
migrants
and their de
scendants remain strongly influenced by their continuing ties to their home
country
or
by social networks that stretch across national borders.
They
see
This is a co-authored article, jointly conceived and written by both contributors.
? 2004 by the Center for Migration Studies of New York. All rights reserved.
0197-9183/04/3803.0147
1002 IMP Volume 38 Number 3 (Fall 2004): 1002-1039
Conceptualizing Simultaneity 1003
migrants'
crossborder ties as a variable and argue that to understand con
temporary migration,
the
strength, influence, and
impact
of these ties must
be
empirically
assessed.
They
call for a transnational
perspective
on
migra
tion (Basch, Glick Schiller and Szanton Blanc, 1994). The resulting analyses,
in combination with other scholarship on transnational dynamics, are build
ing toward a new
paradigm that rejects the long-held notion that society and
the nation-state are one and the same.
This article is not intended as a
comprehensive
review of the transna
tional migration scholarship. In fact, a special volume of this journal, pub
lished in Fall 2003, does just that. Instead, we explore the social theory and
the consequent methodology
that
underpins
studies of transnational
migra
tion. We argue that central to the
project
of transnational
migration studies,
and to
scholarship
on other transnational
phenomena,
is a reformulation of
the concept of society. The lives of increasing numbers of individuals can no
longer be understood by looking only at what goes on within national
boundaries. Our analytical lensmust necessarily broaden and deepen because
migrants
are often embedded in
multi-layered,
multi-sited transnational
social fields, encompassing those who move and those who stay behind. As
a result, basic assumptions
about social institutions such as the
family,
citizenship,
and nation-states need to be revisited.
Once we rethink the boundaries of social life, it becomes clear that the
incorporation
of individuals into nation-states and the maintenance of trans
national connections are not
contradictory
social processes. Simultaneity,
or
living lives that incorporate daily activities, routines, and institutions located
both in a destination country and transnationally, is a possibility that needs
to be theorized and explored. Migrant incorporation into a new land and
transnational connections to a homeland or to dispersed networks of family,
compatriots,
or
persons who share a
religious
or ethnic identity
can occur at
the same time and reinforce one another.
Our goals in this study are fourfold. First, we propose a social field
approach to the study of migration and distinguish between ways of being
and ways of belonging in that field. Second, we argue that assimilation and
enduring
transnational ties are neither
incompatible
nor
binary opposites.
Instead, we
suggest thinking
of the transnational
migration experience
as a
kind of gauge which, while anchored, pivots between host land and trans
national connections. Third, we highlight social processes and institutions
that are routinely obscured by traditional migration scholarship but that
become clear when we use a transnational lens. Finally,
we locate our
ap
proach
to
migration
research within a
larger
intellectual project,
undertaken
1004 International Migration Review
by scholars of transnational processes in a variety of fields, to reformulate the
concept of society such that it is no
longer automatically equated with or
confined by the boundaries of a
single nation-state.
FOUNDATIONAL APPROACHES TO THIS FIELD
There have already been several waves of transnational migration scholarship
that have fine-tuned concepts and analyzed transnational relations in amuch
more nuanced manner than earlier formulations. Researchers have
explored
transnational identity formation and the economic, political, religious, and
sociocultural
practices that
propel migrant incorporation and transnational
connection at the same time {see, e.g., Basch, Glick Schiller and Szanton
Blanc, 1994; Smith and Guarnizo, 1998; Grasmuck and Pessar, 1991; La
guerre, 1998; Itzigsohn et ai, 1999; Smith, 2003; Levitt, 2001a, b; Glick
Schiller and Fouron, 2001a, b; Ebaugh and Chafetz, 2002; Kyle, 2001;
Ostergaard-Nielsen, 2003; Fitzgerald, 2003; Landolt, 2001; Goldring, 2002;
Vertovec, 2003; Gold, 2002; Koopmans and Statham, 2001; Riccio, 2001;
Van der Veer, 2001; Abelman, 2002; Morgan, 1999; Faist, 2000a, b; Schif
fauer, 1999; Sklair, 1998; Itzigsohn, 2000; Portes, Guarnizo and Landolt,
1999; Kivisto, 2001; Mahler, 1998; Duany, 2000; Morawska, 2003b, Eck
stein and Barberia, 2002). They have proposed typologies to capture varia
tions in the dimensions of transnational migration. The extent to which
transnational
migration
is a new
phenomenon
or whether it shares similari
ties with its earlier incarnations has been the subject of much debate {see
Foner, 2000; Glick Schiller, 1999; Smith, 2002; Morawska, 2003b; Weber,
1999). Several studies examine the scope of transnational
practices among
particular immigrant populations {see Portes, Haller and Guarnizo, 2002;
Guarnizo, Portes and Haller, 2003; Itzigsohn and Saucedo, 2002). Finally,
an
emerging body of research tries to explain variations in transnational
practices across groups (Levitt, 2002b; Itzigsohn and Saucedo, 2002; Portes,
Haller and Guarnizo, 2002; Guarnizo, Portes and Haller, 2003).
To develop our theory and methodology further and to address the
implications of simultaneous incorporation, we
begin with a brief synthesis
of the scholarship
on transnational migration to date upon which a new
theoretical synthesis can be built. We see four distinct traditions developing
among scholars of transnational migration: the research done by sociologists
and anthropologists in the United States; studies done by the Transnational
Community Programme based at Oxford University; a literature on trans
Conceptualizing Simultaneity 1005
national families; and an effort to reformulate notions of space and social
structure. Underlying these developments is a fundamental problem of social
theory
- how to rethink society ifwe do not take national boundaries for
granted.
Transnational migration scholarship in the United States has been
shaped by its critique of the unilinear assimilationist paradigm of classical
migration research (Glick Schiller, 1999; Basch, Glick Schiller and Szanton
Blanc, 1994; Glick Schiller, Basch and Szanton Blanc, 1995). Some studies
have focused on the kinds of networks that stretch between a
sending
com
munity and itsmigrants (Grasmuck and Pessar, 1991; Levitt, 2001a; Rouse,
1992; Smith, 1998; Kyle 2001). Others have sought to determine the con
ditions under which migrants maintained homeland ties and identities and
how
commonplace
transnational practices
were
among the
migrant popu
lation as a whole (Morawska, 2003b; Levitt, 2003b; Basch, Glick Schiller
and Szanton Blanc, 1994). These studies revealed that a small but nonethe
less significant number of migrants engage in regular economic and political
transnational practices (Portes, Haller and Guarnizo, 2002; Guarnizo, Portes
and Haller, 2003) and that many more individuals engage in occasional
transnational activities. Some studies
explore
the
relationship
between mi
gration
and
development, categorizing
transnational
migration
as a
product
of late capitalism which renders small, nonindustrialized countries incapable
of economic autonomy and makes them
dependent
on
migrant-generated
remittances (Itzigsohn, 2000; Portes, 2003; M.P. Smith and Guarnizo,
1998). The ways in which sending and receiving states continue to play
a
critical role in migrants' lives has also received a
good deal of attention
(Smith, 1998; Goldring, 2002; Levitt and de laDehesa, 2003). More recent
research on the second
generation
is in many ways
a continuation of the
debate on assimilation, with proponents of the classic
approach arguing
that
transnational
migration
is an
ephemeral first-generation phenomenon.
Meanwhile, some transnationalists speak
of new forms of transnational con
nection or
replace
the term second
generation
with transnational
generation
to encompass youth in the homeland and the new land (Levitt andWaters,
2002; Glick Schiller and Fouron, 2002).
While many U.S. researchers have focused on homeland/newland con
nections, the Oxford Transnational Communities
Programme
used a much
broader definition of transnational ties {see, e.g., Koopmans
and Statham,
2001; Riccio, 2001; Van der Veer, 2001; Abelman, 2002; Morgan, 1999;
Faist, 2000a; Schiffauer, 1999; Sklair, 1998; Castles, 1998). In this project,
1006 International Migration Review
transnational connections forged by businesses, the media, politics,
or reli
gion
were all examined under the rubric of community.
This work demon
strated that
migrants
are embedded in networks
stretching
across
multiple
states and that migrants' identities and cultural production reflect their
multiple locations. Among the important findings of the Transnational
Communities project was the need to distinguish between patterns of con
nection on the ground and the conditions that produce ideologies of con
nection and community (Gomez and Benton, 2002; Ostergaard-Neilsen,
2003).
Some of the U.S. and Oxford studies (Ballard, 2000) urge a recon
ceptualization of transnational kinship, although research in this area has
developed a trajectory of its own (Chamberlin, 2002; Bryceson and Vuorela,
2002). Studies of transnational kinship document the ways inwhich family
networks constituted across borders are marked by gendered differences in
power and status. Kin networks can be used
exploitatively,
a
process of
transnational class differentiation inwhich the more prosperous extract labor
from persons defined as kin. Kin networks maintained between people who
send remittances and those who live on them can be fraught with tension.
A fourth group of scholars use a transnational approach to migration
to
challenge social theory. Morawska (2001a, 2003a) proposes a conceptu
alization of
migration
as structuration to
posit
the
continuing dynamic
between structure and agency that extends into a transnational domain. Faist
(2000a, b), reasoning along similar lines, strives to conceptualize
a domain
of crossborder social relations he refers to as transnational social spaces. He
privileges
social relations and institutions, defining
these spaces
as charac
terized by a
high density of interstitial ties on informal or formal, that is to
say institutional, levels (Faist, 2000b:89). Guarnizo (1997) and Landolt
(2001) refer to a transnational social formation.
Much of this work, however, views the social formations engendered
by transnational
migration
as
unique. Instead, we
propose that they
are one
indication, among many, that the nation-state container view of society does
not
capture, adequately
or
automatically,
the
complex
interconnectedness of
contemporary reality. To do so requires adopting
a transnational social field
approach to the study of social life that distinguishes between the existence
of transnational social networks and the consciousness of being embedded in
them. Such a distinction is also critical to understanding the experience of
living simultaneously within and beyond the boundaries of a nation-state
and to developing methodologies for empirically studying such experiences.
Conceptualizing Simultaneity 1007
BUILDING TOA TRANSNATIONAL SOCIAL FLELD THEORY
OF SOCIETY
To further develop transnational migration studies, we revisit the concept of
society as it has been generally deployed and put aside the methodological
nationalism that has distorted many basic social science concepts (Martins,
1974; Smith, 1983). Methodological nationalism is the tendency to accept
the nation-state and its boundaries as a
given
in social
analysis.
Wimmer and
Glick Schiller (2003) identified three variants of methodological national
ism: 1) Ignoring or
disregarding the fundamental importance of nationalism
for modern societies. This tendency often goes hand and hand with 2)
naturalization, or
taking
for
granted
that the boundaries of the nation-state
delimit and define the unit of analysis. Finally, 3) territorial limitation
confines the study of social processes to the political and geographic bound
aries of a
particular nation-state. According toWimmer and Glick Schiller
(2003:578), the three variants may intersect and mutually reinforce each
other, forming
a coherent epistemic structure, a
self-reinforcing way of
looking at and describing the social world.
Because much of social science theory equates society with the bound
aries of a
particular nation-state, researchers often take rootedness and in
corporation
in the nation-state as the norm and social identities and
practices
enacted across state boundaries as out of the ordinary.
But ifwe remove the
blinders of
methodological nationalism, we see that while nation-states are
still extremely important, social life is not confined by nation-state bound
aries. Social and religious movements, criminal and professional networks,
and governance regimes
as well as flows of
capital
also operate
across borders.
Recent developments in social theory have also challenged the nation
state container theory of society and provide insights into the nature of
transnational flows that we build upon. Sassen, for
example, reconfigured
our understanding of the geography of cities by highlighting that some
locations become global cities (Sassen, 1992). Discussing flexible capital
accumulation, Harvey (1989) explored the time-space compressions that so
revolutionize the objective qualities of space and time that we are forced to
alter, sometimes in
quite
radical ways, how we
represent the world to our
selves (p. 240). Other scholars have highlighted the interconnectedness of
societies through flows of media, capital, and people (Held et al, 1999).
However, much of this work, according toUlrich Beck (2000), continues to
envision states as the primary
unit and treats
globalization
as a
process of
interconnection between states. Such theories, Beck argues, continue "the
1008 International Migration Review
container theory of society" on which most of the sociology of the first age
of modernity is based. He calls for a new paradigm that changes not only the
relations between and beyond national states and societies, but also the inner
quality of the social and political itself which is indicated by reflexive cos
mopolitization (p. 1).
Along with Beck, Faist (2000a), Urry (2000) and a
growing number of
social theorists, we seek ways
to move
beyond
the container
theory of society.
Many of these scholars, however, tend to underplay the concept of the social
as they reconfigure the concept of society. Beck's formulation of reflexive
cosmopolitization and much of the related literature on
cosmopolitanism,
for example, largely abandons an
exploration of social relations and social
context. In Beck's (2000) cosmopolitanism, as in Luhmann's world society,
communication technologies become key. Global media flows and consum
erism lead to a new form of consciousness. Social relations and social posi
tioning fall out of the analysis; the individual and the global intersect.
Without a concept of the social, the relations of power and privilege
exer
cised by social actors based within structures and organizations cannot be
studied or analyzed. In addition, by trying to move beyond methodological
nationalism, much of this theory-building neglects the continuing power of
the nation-state. Transnational
migration studies, with their concrete
tracing
of the movement and connection of
people, provide
a useful corrective to
these oversights by highlighting the concept of social field.
We propose a view of society and social membership based on a
concept of social field that distinguishes between ways of being and ways of
belonging. The notion of social field exists in social science literature in
several different forms. We draw here on those proposed by Bourdieu and by
theManchester school of anthropology. Bourdieu used the concept of social
field to call attention to the ways inwhich social relationships are structured
by power. The boundaries of a field are fluid and the field itself is created by
the participants who are
joined in struggle for social position. Society for
Bourdieu is the intersection of various fields within a structure of politics
(Jenkins, 1992:86). According to Bourdieu, either individuals or institutions
may occupy the networks that make up the field and link social positions.
While his approach does not preclude the notion of transnational social
fields, he does not directly discuss the implications of social fields that are
not coterminous with state boundaries.
The Manchester School also informs our framework because these
scholars recognized that the migrants they studied belonged to tribal-rural
localities and colonial-industrial cities at the same time. Migrant networks
Conceptualizing Simultaneity 1009
stretching
between these two sites were viewed as
constituting
a
single
social
field created by a network of networks. By understanding society in this way,
these researchers focused on a level of social analysis beyond the study of the
individual.
Despite its importance, the term social field within transnational mi
gration research has not been well defined. Building
on Basch, Glick Schiller
and Szanton Blanc (1994), we define social field as a set of multiple inter
locking networks of social relationships through which ideas, practices, and
resources are
unequally exchanged, organized,
and transformed {see also
Glick Schiller and Fouron, 1999; Glick Schiller, 1999, 2003). Social fields
are multidimensional, encompassing structured interactions of differing
forms, depth, and breadth that are differentiated in social theory by the
terms
organization, institution, and social movement. National boundaries
are not necessarily contiguous with the boundaries of social fields. National
social fields are those that stay within national boundaries while transna
tional social fields connect actors through direct and indirect relations across
borders. Neither domain is privileged in our analysis. Ascertaining the rela
tive importance of nationally restricted and transnational social fields should
be a question of empirical analysis.
The concept of social fields is a
powerful tool for conceptualizing the
potential array of social relations linking those who move and those who stay
behind. It takes us beyond the direct experience of migration into domains
of interaction where individuals who do not move themselves maintain
social relations across borders
through
various forms of communication.
Individuals who have such direct connections with migrants may connect
with others who do not. We should not assume that those with stronger
social ties will be more
transnationally
active than those with weaker con
nections nor that the actions and identities of those with more indirect ties
are less influenced by the dynamics within the field than those with direct
transnational ties. In any given study,
the researcher must
operationalize
the
parameters of the field they are studying and the scope of the networks
embedded within it, then empirically analyze the strength and impact of
direct and indirect transnational relations.
For example, there may be one central individual who maintains high
levels of homeland contact and is the node through which information,
resources, and identities flow. While other individuals may not identify with
or take action based on those ties, the fact that they
are
part of the same
transnational social field keeps them informed and connected so that they
can act if events motivate them to do so. Recognizing that this individual is
1010 International Migration Review
embedded in a transnational social field may be a better predictor of future
transnational behavior than ifwe simply locate him or her solely within a
nationally delimited set of relationships.
The concept of social field also calls into question neat divisions of
connection into local, national, transnational, and
global.
In one sense, all
are local in that near and distant connections penetrate the daily lives of
individuals lived within a locale. But within this locale, a person may par
ticipate
in
personal
networks or receive ideas and information that connect
them to others in a nation-state, across the borders of a nation-state, or
globally, without ever
having migrated. By conceptualizing transnational
social fields as
transcending
the boundaries of nation-states, we also note that
individuals within these fields are, through their everyday activities and
relationships, influenced by multiple sets of laws and institutions. Their daily
rhythms
and activities
respond
not
only
to more than one state simulta
neously
but also to social institutions, such as
religious groups, that exist
within many states and across their borders.
A social field perspective also reveals that there is a difference between
ways of being in social fields as opposed toways of belonging (Glick Schiller,
2003; 2004).2 Ways of being refers to the actual social relations and practices
that individuals engage in rather than to the identities associated with their
actions. Social fields contain institutions, organizations,
and
experiences,
within their various levels, that generate categories
of
identity
that are as
cribed to or chosen by individuals or groups. Individuals can be embedded
in a social field but not identify with any label or cultural politics associated
with that field. They have the potential to act or identify at a particular time
because they live within the social field, but not all choose to do so.
In contrast, ways of
belonging
refers to
practices
that
signal
or enact an
identity which demonstrates a conscious connection to a
particular group.
These actions are not
symbolic but concrete, visible actions that mark be
longing such as wearing a Christian cross or Jewish star, flying
a
flag,
or
choosing
a
particular
cuisine. Ways of
belonging
combine action and an
awareness of the kind of identity that action signifies.
Individuals within transnational social fields combine ways of being
and ways of belonging differently in specific contexts. One person might
have many social contacts with people in their country of origin but not
2Some analysts, such as Thomas Faist (2000a), contrast social ties with "symbolic ties." By
emphasizing ways of being, rather than social ties, we
develop
a concept that decouples social
relationships from a notion of common interest or norms.
Conceptualizing Simultaneity 1011
identify at all as
belonging to their homeland. They are
engaged in transna
tional ways of being but not
belonging. Similarly, a person may eat certain
foods or
worship certain saints or deities because that iswhat their family has
always done. By doing so, they are not
signaling any conscious identification
with a particular ethnicity or with their ancestral homes. Here again, they are
not
expressing
a transnational way of
belonging.
On the other hand, there are
people with few or no actual social
relations with people in the sending country or transnationally but who
behave in such a
way
as to assert their identification with a
particular group.
Because these individuals have some sort of connection to a
way of
belong
ing, through memory, nostalgia
or
imagination, they
can enter the social
field when and if they choose to do so. In fact, we would hypothesize that
someone who had access to a transnational way of belonging would be likely
to act on it at some point in his or her life.
If individuals engage in social relations and practices that cross borders
as a
regular feature of everyday life, then they exhibit a transnational way of
being. When people explicitly recognize this and highlight the transnational
elements of who
they are, then
they
are also
expressing
a transnational way
of belonging. Clearly, these two experiences do not always go hand in hand.
Finally, locating migrants within transnational social fields makes clear
that
incorporation
in a new state and
enduring
transnational attachments are
not binary opposites (Morawska, 2003b; Levitt, 2003b). Instead, it ismore
useful to think of the migrant experience as a kind of gauge which, while
anchored, pivots
between a new land and a transnational
incorporation.
Movement and attachment is not linear or
sequential
but
capable
of
rotating
back and forth and changing direction over time. The median point on this
gauge is not full incorporation but rather simultaneity of connection. Per
sons
change
and
swing
one way
or the other
depending
on the context, thus
moving
our
expectation away from either full assimilation or transnational
connection but some combination of both. The
challenge, then, is to
explain
the variation in the way that
migrants manage that
pivot
and how host
country incorporation
and homeland or other transnational ties
mutually
influence each other. For example, Portes and his colleagues found that
transnational entrepreneurs
were more
likely
to be U.S. citizens, suggesting
that by becoming full members of their new land, it became easier for them
to run successful businesses involving their homeland. Similarly, some La
tino communities use the same
organizations
to
promote political integra
tion in the United States that they
use to mobilize around
sending-country
issues.
1012 International Migration Review
In this vein, Glick Schiller, Calgar and Karagiannis (2003) have pro
posed a useful distinction between mere connection and the kinds of con
nections that engage individuals institutionally
in more than one nation
state. One can have friends, colleagues,
or
co-religionists
with whom one
communicates and
exchanges
information or
objects
across borders without
ever
coming
into contact with the state or other institutions. But if one
belongs
to a church, receives a
pension,
or has investments in another land,
one must necessarily negotiate his or her way through
a set of public and
private
institutions that
grounds
those connections more
firmly.
His or her
"pivot"
is rooted in two or more
legal
and
regulatory systems, encouraging
a greater sense of embeddedness in the transnational social field and making
the connections within it more
likely
to endure.
METHODOLOGY
Methodology and theory have an intimate relationship. To develop
a trans
national framework for the study of migration, we need a
methodology that
allows us tomove beyond the binaries, such as homeland/new land, citizen/
noncitizen, migrant/nonmigrant,
and acculturation/cultural persistence,
that
have typified migration research in the past. On the other hand, a framework
that
privileges
transborder processes rather than
incorporation-oriented
ac
tivity may not
capture the
interrelationship
between transnational connec
tion and social
relationships
within a
single
nation-state.
Using
a transnational framework implies several methodological shifts.
First, we need to focus on the intersection between the networks of those
who have migrated and those who have stayed in place, whether in the new
land, homeland, or some other diasporic location. This focus allows for
comparisons between the
experiences
of
migrants
and those who are
only
indirectly influenced by ideas, objects, and information flowing across bor
ders. Although multi-sited research is ideal for studying these two different
experiences, the impact of transnational relations can be observed by asking
individuals about the transnational aspects of their lives, and those they
are
connected to, in a
single setting.
Second, we need tools that capture migrants'
simultaneous engagement
in and orientation toward their home and host countries. And these dynam
ics cannot just be studied at one point in time. Transnational migration is
a
process rather than an event. Transnational
practices
ebb and flow in
response
to
particular
incidents or crises. A one-time
snapshot
misses the
many ways inwhich migrants periodically engage with their home countries
Conceptualizing Simultaneity 1013
during
election
cycles, family
or ritual events, or climatic
catastrophes
?
their
attention and energies shifting in response to a particular goal
or
challenge.
Studying migrant practices longitudinally reveals that inmoments of crisis or
opportunity, even those who have never identified or
participated transna
tionally, but who are embedded in transnational social fields, may become
mobilized into action. Such a research strategy would help explain the tran
sition from a way of belonging such as a diasporic identity
-
Armenian,
Jewish,
or Croatian
to
direct engagement
in transnational practices.
Each of the research methodologies used to study transnational migra
tion has particular strengths. We believe that ethnography is particularly
suited for studying the creation and durability of transnational social fields.
Participant
observation and
ethnographic interviewing
allow researchers to
document how persons simultaneously
maintain and shed cultural reper
toires and identities, interact within a location and across its boundaries, and
act in ways that are in concert with or contradict their values over time. The
effects of strong and weak indirect ties within a transnational social field can
be observed, and those connections, whether they
take the form of institu
tional or individual actors, can be studied. Like surveys, ethnographic
re
search can also begin with a random sample of persons who migrate and who
have no intention of
returning
home.
POWER
When people belong
to multiple settings, they come into contact with the
regulatory powers and the
hegemonic
culture of more than one state. These
states
regulate
economic interactions, political processes and
performances,
and also have discrete nation-state building projects. Individuals are, there
fore, embedded in multiple legal and political institutions that determine
access and action and organize
and
legitimate gender,
race, and class status.
Foucault (1980) wrote that the experience of power goes beyond mere
contact with the law or the
police. Rather, power pervades
and permeates all
social relations because what is legitimate, appropriate, and possible is
strongly influenced by the state. People living in transnational social fields
experience multiple loci and layers of power and are shaped by them, but
they
can also act back upon them.
Most
migrants
move from a
place
where the state has
relatively
little
power within the
global
interstate system
to a more
powerful
state. At the
same time, many migrants gain
more social power, in terms of
leverage
over
people, property, and locality, with respect to their homeland than they did
1014 International Migration Review
before migrating. It is this complex intersection between personal losses and
gains
that any analysis of power within transnational social fields must
grapple with. Furthermore, migration often opens up the possibility for
transnational migrants to contribute, both positively and negatively,
to
changes in the global economic and political system. For example, long
distance nationalist movements have long influenced nation building and
national transformation. Lithuania would not have become Lithuania with
out immigrants in the United States first imaging its emergence and then
mobilizing
to make it a reality (Glazer, 1954). Former Iraqi exiles are now
playing
a critical role in rebuilding the Iraqi state. Transnational migrants
can also
strengthen, alter, or thwart
global religious
movements like Islamic
fundamentalism, Christian fundamentalism, or Hindu nationalism.
Not only can
migrants potentially shift the position of states within the
world economic order, they
can also influence the internal functions of states
as well. They may be forces for privatization because they want telephone
systems that work and private schools and hospitals where their family
members will be well attended. They may pressure states to institute con
servative legislation that preserves traditional values. Acting within their
transnational social fields, migrants may also fuel movements for rights,
social
justice,
and
anti-imperialist struggles.
Transnational migrants also shift power by redefining the functions of
the host state. There are
many instances, such as in the Cuban, Israeli, and
Irish communities, inwhich migrants have successfully mobilized host coun
try legislatures to support their homeland projects. The Mexican state and
Mexican transnational migrants living in the United States have altered the
ways inwhich some U.S. institutions categorize and process individuals. The
Mexican state's
issuing
of the matricula consular, a consular ID card, to
legal
and unauthorized Mexican migrants in the United States has enabled mi
grants
to
pressure banks, motor vehicle bureaus, and car insurance compa
nies to be more
responsive
to them.
Using
a transnational social field perspective allows for a more
system
atic study of the social processes and institutions that have been routinely
obscured by traditional migration scholarship and even by some studies of
transnational
migration.
New
perspectives emerge
on a number of issues,
including the effect of migration
on
gender hierarchies and racialized iden
tities; family dynamics; the significance of nation-states, membership and
citizenship; and the role of religion. In the following section, we discuss each
in turn.
Conceptualizing Simultaneity 1015
HOW CLASS, RACE, AND GENDER AREMUTUALLY
CONSTITUTED WITHIN TRANSNATIONAL SOCIAL FIELDS
Scholars have tended to
study class, race, and
gender
as discrete realms of
experience. Here we build on feminist theory by recognizing that since these
social locations are
mutually constituted, we must discuss them
together.
We
approach all three as hierarchical positions that entail differential social
power. Data on these
varying
statuses illustrate the
analytical
limits of meth
odological
nationalism. Social scientists often use national income statistics
to assess the socioeconomic status of
migrants
without
considering
the other
statuses that they occupy. But when society differs from polity and ismade
up of sets of social relationships in intersecting and overlapping national and
transnational social fields, individuals occupy different gender, racial, and
class positions within different states at the same time. Recognizing that
migrant behavior is the product of these simultaneous multiple statuses of
race, class, and
gender
makes certain social processes
more understandable.
For
example,
a transnational
perspective
can
help explain contradictory
data on the
political
attitudes and actions of
immigrants.
In some cases,
immigrant women, who find themselves racialized in their new homes,
appear to be quite conservative with respect to
struggles for rights and
recognition. Poor migrants of color in the United States, for example, often
strive to differentiate themselves from African Americans rather than join
efforts to advance minority group civil rights (Waters, 1999). They may
re-enforce or even reinvent
gender
distinctions and hierarchies that are more
rigid and traditional than those in their ancestral homes (Espiritu, 1997;
Lessinger, 1995; Caglar, 1995). They accept low-status jobs in their new
home, tolerate employment discrimination, and resist political projects or
labor protests that would redress these wrongs. Ironically, this heightened
gender
stratification often occurs in households where
immigrant
women
have entered the workforce and men have begun
to share the responsibility
for childrearing and housekeeping, thereby redefining other aspects of gen
der dynamics
in more
egalitarian
terms.
Consideration of migrants' multiple positions within transnational so
cial fields helps explain this seemingly conservative and contradictory be
havior (Pessar and Mahler, 2003). When individuals elaborate markers of
gender
after they migrate, they may be
preserving
or
creating
status in other
locations within the transnational social field. Conservative positions of
women and men in
relationship
to
struggles
for
rights
or
"family values" may
be linked to the class position of migrants in the homeland. Migrants who
1016 International Migration Review
are laborers, home health aides, or domestic workers in countries of immi
gration may also be educated and middle-class homeowners or business
people
in their homelands. Men who may have
higher
status than women at
home are
generally
more interested inmaintaining political homeland con
nections and identities (Grasmuck and Pessar, 1991). In contrast, women
migrants may
use income
they
earn abroad to
improve
their social standing
at home. Transnational
religious systems, such as Islam or Charismatic
Christianity,
also
provide
venues for
asserting
one's enhanced status and for
acquiring social capital and resources (Peterson and V?squez, 2001).
TRANSNATIONAL FAMILIES
Much work on
globalization
and transnational
phenomena
focuses on
pro
duction. But
reproduction
also takes
place
across borders and is an
impor
tant, if understudied, aspect of the
migration experience. Just
as transna
tional migration studies prompt us to rethink the terrain in which social
processes take
place, they
also
challenge
our
understanding
of social repro
duction.
Numerous studies illustrate the ways inwhich the boundaries of family
life change
over the life cycle. Members of the second and third generations
in Europe and the United States continue to return to theMiddle East and
South Asia to find marriage partners (Hooghiemstra, 2001; Lesthaeghe,
2002; Levitt, 2002b). Increasing numbers of women have joined the ranks
of men who head transnational families (Parrenas, 2001; Hondagneu-Sotelo
and Avila, 2003). Transnational family life entails renegotiating communi
cation between spouses, the distribution of work tasks, and who will migrate
and who will stay behind via long distance (Pessar and Mahler, 2001).
Nonmigrants also imagine the gendered lives of their migrant peers and
change
their ideas about successful
marriages
and suitable marital partners.
Levitt (2001a) found that the young women in the Dominican village she
studied only wanted to marry men who had migrated because they were
considered the ideal breadwinner and life partner.
While adults make family decisions, children are the central axis of
family migration and often a critical reason why families move back and
forth and sustain transnational ties (Orellana et al, 2001; Zhou, 1998).
Adult-centered studies obscure the ways in which child raising actively
shapes
families' journeys, the spaces they
move in, and their
experiences
within those social fields. This is particularly true as children mature into
young adults. Kandel and Massey (2002), for example, found a culture of
Conceptualizing Simultaneity 1017
migration
so
deeply embedded in the Mexican communities they studied
that transnational
migration
became the norm.
Young men, in
particular,
came to see
migration
as an
expected
rite of passage and as the way to achieve
economically what they could not attain inMexico.
The studies we describe attest to the fact that in migrant households
that are constituted transnationally and across
generations, living
transna
tionally often becomes the norm
(Nyberg Sorenson and Fog Olwig, 2002).
How must we rethink conventional wisdom about the family in response?
First, using
a transnational lens reveals the
changing
nature of the
family
as
a socioeconomic
strategic
unit and how
family
ties are worked and reworked
over time and space. Deborah Bryceson and Ulla Vuorela (2002) use the
term relativizing to refer to the ways inwhich individuals establish, maintain,
or curtail ties to specific family members. Within transnational social fields,
individuals actively pursue or
neglect blood ties and fictitious kinship. Based
on their particular needs, individuals strategically choose which connections
to emphasize and which to let slide. Second, inmany cases, socialization and
social
reproduction
occur
transnationally
in response
to at least two social
and cultural contexts. Even children who never return to their
parent's
ancestral homes are
brought up in households where people, values, goods
and claims from somewhere else are present on a daily basis. Similarly, the
children of nonmigrants are raised in social networks and settings entirely
permeated by people, resources, and what Levitt (1999) has called social remit
tances from the host country. For these individuals, the
generational experience
is not territorially bounded. It is based on actual and imagined experiences that
are shared across borders
regardless
of where someone was born or now lives.
Locating migrants and their families squarely within transnational so
cial fields requires rethinking the notion of generation and the term second
generation (Glick Schiller and Fouron, 2002). Conceptualizing generation
as
a lineal process, involving
clear boundaries between one
experience
and the
other, does not
accurately capture the
experience
of
living
in a transnational
field because it implies a separation in migrants' and nonmigrants' social
ization and social networks that may
not exist. It also fails to take into
account that
generational experiences
are
shaped by
common
experiences
during youth that create a shared worldview or frame of reference which
influences subsequent social and political activism (Mannheim, 1952; Eck
stein, 2002).
While many researchers now
acknowledge
the salience of transnational
ties for the immigrant generation, many predict
these ties will weaken among
their children. In the United States, these researchers find that the transna
1018 International Migration Review
tional activities of the second generation are confined primarily to certain
groups who are, by and large, physically and emotionally rooted in the
United States and lack the language, cultural skills, or desire to live in their
ancestral homes. Since these individuals are
only
occasional transnational
activists, and their activities are confined to very specific arenas of social life,
they are likely to have minimal long-term consequences (Rumbaut, 2002;
Kasinitz et al, 2002).
But whether or not individuals forge
or maintain some kind of trans
national connection may depend on the extent to which they are reared in
a transnational space. Clearly, transnational activities will not be central to
the lives of most of the second generation, and those who engage in them
will not do so with the same frequency and intensity as their parents. But
surveys concluding that transnational practices will be inconsequential may
be short sighted. They may overlook the effect of the many periodic, selec
tive transnational activities that some individuals engage in at different stages
of their lives (Levitt, 2002b; Glick Schiller and Fouron, 2002; Smith, 2002).
They may also fail to differentiate between ways of being and possible ways
of belonging
? that the desire and ability to engage in transnational practices
will ebb and flow at different phases of the lifecycle and in different contexts.
At the point of marriage
or child rearing, the same individuals who showed
little
regard
for a
parental homeland and culture may activate their connec
tions within a transnational field in search of spouses or values to teach to
their children (Espiritu and Tham, 2002). The children of Gujaratis who go
back to India to find marriage partners, the second generation Pakistanis
who begin to study Islam and Pakistani values when they have children, or
the Chinese American business school students who specialize in Asian
banking
are
doing just that.
THE NA TION-STA TE: THE POLITICAL LIMITS AND
EXTENSIONSOF TRANSNATIONALSOCIALFIELDS
The use of a transnational social field perspective and the concept of simul
taneity also draws attention to the
changing
nature of
political
activism and
the nation-state and how these are
shaped
and
shape
the transnational social
fields inwhich they are embedded. Both migrants and refugees continue to
engage in a variety of cross-border political practices directed at their home
and host countries. Some of the
early work on transnational
migration
predicted that these activities would weaken or, in some cases, bring
about
the decline of the nation-state. Instead, what we see is a reformulation of the
Conceptualizing Simultaneity 1019
state as it assumes new functions, abdicates
responsibilities
for others, and
redefines who its members are. Future research needs to
explore why
some
states
change
in response
to their
increasingly
transnational constituencies
and others do not. We also need to ask which functions states abandon,
under what conditions, and what new roles
they
assume.
Finally,
we need to
identify the new kinds of organizations and collectivities that step in to fill
the gap left by the changing state.
It iswithin sending states that we find the greatest changes in laws,
state policy, and migrant practices on both the national and local levels. The
vulnerable geopolitical position of many peripheral sending states, increasing
poverty in the wake of structural adjustment policies, and the racial barriers
migrants
encounter
explain
recent trends toward
extending
the boundaries
of citizenship (Basch, Glick Schiller and Szanton Blanc, 1994; Guarnizo,
2003; Itzigsohn, 2000). The governments of many states, even within West
ern Europe, see the utility of having
access to populations settled elsewhere.
Ireland, Greece, Italy and Portugal have recently developed both policies and
rhetoric that embrace their communities abroad.
States have developed a range of policies that reflect who they are
redefining
as their membership. Some states pursue homelands policies that
encourage
state contact with temporary migrants
to facilitate their return.
Other states develop global nations' policies that encourage enduring links to
permanent settlers abroad to ensure their continued national
membership
and loyalty rather than their return (Goldring, 2002; Smith, 1998). But not
all sending
states are the same. They vary with respect to how willing and
able they
are to
encourage transnational activism and how
willing they
are to
give emigrants and their descendants political rights, including the right to
vote while living abroad. We suggest the following categorization to capture
the variation in
possible
arenas and types of state
responses toward emi
grants. States vary with respect
to law or the
degree
to which they extend
political rights. They vary with respect to rhetoric or the kind of ideology of
nationhood that is promulgated. And they vary with respect to public policy
or the kinds of programs and policies that they pursue.
The Extension of Political Rights
The extension of rights ismandated by law. Some states distinguish between
two categories of membership
?
citizenship and nationality. Citizenship
delineates the character of a member's
rights
and duties within the national
polity. Nationality legally delineates a category of belonging without grant
ing full citizenship rights.
1020 International Migration Review
Sending states have promulgated
a range of legal distinctions to delin
eate categories of citizenship and nationality: 1) the denial of dual citizenship
or any form of dual access to rights
- countries such as Haiti and Germany
allow no dual sets of rights;3 2) dual nationality with the granting of some
legal privileges to emigrants and their descendants but not full dual citizen
ship
? Mexico and India have taken this position, legally recognizing
na
tionals in some way; 3) dual citizenship in which emigrants and their de
scendants are accorded full
rights,
when they
return to the homeland, even
if they also hold the passport of another country
- states as
disparate as
France, Ireland, Greece, the Dominican Republic, Brazil, Italy, and Portugal
follow this policy; and dual citizenship with rights while abroad -
people
living abroad, from countries such as Colombia, have the right to elect
representatives
to the
home-country legislature.
The expansion of dual nationality or
citizenship, in their different
forms, means that even
persons who are not active
participants
in transna
tional politics
or even situated in transnational social fields, have access to
those memberships if they want to claim them. As an identity strategy, an
investment strategy,
or even an exit
strategy, multiple memberships
endow
the individual with several potential positions with respect to the state.
Ideology ofNationhood
States like China, Ireland, Portugal, and Haiti propose a national self
concept based on blood ties linking residents around the world to their
respective homelands (Glick Schiller, forthcoming). They have redefined
their territories to include those living outside them. They may do this, as in
the Haitian case, without granting dual citizenship
or
nationality. For this
reason, it is useful to
distinguish legal connections from ideologies of long
distance nationalism. Building
on Anderson's original concept, Glick
Schiller and Fouron (2001a) define long-distance nationalism as a set of
ideas about belonging that link together people living in various geographic
locations and motivate or
justify
their
taking
action in relation to an anees
3However, Germany allows dual citizenship for Ausiedler, Jews, and persons whose countries
do not allow the repudiation of citizenship; and Haiti, without altering citizenship laws,
considers its diaspora
as a part of the Haitian nation.
4The number of countries permitting
some form of dual belonging
is
increasing rapidly. In
Latin America alone, ten countries allowed some form of dual nationality
or
citizenship in
2000 while only four countries had such provisions prior to 1991 (Jones-Correa, 2002).
Other countries recognize dual membership selectively, with specific signatories.
Conceptualizing Simultaneity 1021
tral territory and its government. As in other versions of nationalism, the
concept of a territorial homeland governed by a state that represents the
nation remains salient, but national borders are not
thought
to delimit
membership in the nation. Citizens residing within the territorial homeland
view
emigrants
and their descendants as
part of the nation, whatever
legal
citizenship the ?migr?s may have.
These ideologies of nationhood shift over time, at different periods of
nation building (Glick Schiller, forthcoming). Globally, before World War
I, science endorsed the concept of nation as based on race. In the middle of
the twentieth century, when the rhetoric of blood and race was discredited
and the populations of nation-states became viewed as only those who lived
within national territories, states tended not to make claims on their emi
grant populations. Dictators such as Salazar of Portugal
or Duvalier of Haiti
denounced expatriates,
who often
organized
in
opposition
to their
regimes.
Since the 1970s, during the current period of globalization,
a
language of
blood has once
again emerged and isdeployed by a variety of states. Malaysia
uses descent to differentiate populations considered native Malaysians with
full citizenship rights from other populations such as persons of Chinese and
Indian ancestry (Ong, 1999; Bunnell, 2003). Portugal has reclaimed its
emigrant populations, allowing dual citizenship and organizing councils of
Portuguese
abroad. In
promoting
its case for entrance into the
European
Union, Portugal argued itwould bring special access to countries like Brazil
as well as a special relation to Lusophonic populations inAfrica (Feldman
Bianco, 2002).
Changing Functions of the State
States
adopt
some tasks and abandon others in response
to transnational
migration. In Levitt and de laDehesa's (2003) review of transnational mi
gration and redefinitions of the state, they found that Latin American gov
ernments instituted several different programs and policies toward emi
grants. They reformed ministerial and consular services to be more
respon
sive to emigrant needs. They put into place investment policies designed
to
attract and channel economic remittances. They granted dual citizenship or
nationality, the right to vote from abroad, or the right to run for public
office. They extended state
protections
or services to nationals
living
abroad
that went beyond traditional consular services. Finally, they implemented
symbolic policies designed
to reinforce
emigrants'
sense of
enduring
mem
bership.
1022 International Migration Review
Sending
states institute these policies for a
variety of reasons. For one
thing, remittances far exceed the funds received for official development
assistance or
foreign portfolio investment inmany less-developed countries
(Nairn, 2002). According to the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB),
"in 2002, remittances to Latin America alone rose
by 18 percent to $32
billion from 2001 levels, or 32 percent of the $103 billion worldwide esti
mated to be remitted to
developing countries" (University of California,
Davis, 2003). But
sending
nations' economic motivations to sustain strong
ties to migrants go beyond remittances. Immigrants trade with their home
countries and bring in large quantities of tourist dollars. Successful entre
preneurs from countries as diverse as India, Israel, China, Brazil, Taiwan,
Mexico and Pakistan not
only contribute money but
entrepreneurial
and
technological energy and skills. Brain drain can become brain circulation or
brain gain (Saxenian, 2002). Finally, states court emigrant loyalties because
they see them as a potential political force in the host country that can
advance their economic and foreign policy interests (Mahler, 2000; Levitt,
2001a). Some states even promote host-country political integration
so that
emigrants are better situated to act on their behalf.
States are not the only political actors that define their constituencies
transnationally
or that carry
out activities across borders. Political
parties
may operate abroad, especially if emigrants have settled in sizeable numbers
and with sufficient ties to influence elections in the homeland. Mexican,
Dominican, and Haitian politicians campaign in the United States on a
regular basis. Each of the three principal Dominican political parties has a
U.S.-based
organization trying
to
capture support among Dominicans
along
the eastern seaboard. In the Turkish case, parties with dominant religious
and nationalist agendas, like the nationalist Milli Hareket Partisi or the
religious Saadet Partisi, frequently send leaders to northern Europe to rally
support (Ostergaard-Nielsen, 2003).
Regions of large countries, such as Brazil or India, may also begin to act
as transnational agents, regardless
of the national
government's
stance. This
is
especially
true in situations where the
majority of
emigrants
leave from a
few
regions
or
provinces. Substate
policies
are different from the transna
tional activities of national governments in that regional governments do not
control immigration and formal citizenship and their transnational activities
are driven by efforts to promote extraterritorial regional or local loyalties
rather than nation-building (Baubock, 2003). In the Brazilian case, the
municipal government of Governador Valadares and the state
government of
Minas Gerais created investment funds and business promotion schemes
Conceptualizing Simultaneity 1023
designed to build on
migrants' localized loyalties. The money raised was used
to support projects directed at
municipal development. Likewise in India,
the Gujarat State government has instituted a number of initiatives to en
courage long-distance economic projects, including offering tax breaks and
bureaucratic support
to
potential investors, that are
separate from any efforts
by the national government or political parties to stimulate Non-Resident
Indian (NRI) involvement (Levitt, 2002b).
Even units as small as towns may define themselves
transnational^ and
engage in
development-oriented activities. In such cases, the actors are usu
ally emigrants living
abroad who
organize hometown associations. For ex
ample, Mexican, Salvadoran, and Dominican hometown associations now
fund and implement numerous community development projects that were
previously the purview of the state
(Goldring, 2002; Landolt, 2001). They
assume this role in an age of neoliberalism in which states
increasingly
eschew roles they were rarely able to fulfill in countries beyond the capitalist
core.
Based on their stances towards
emigrants
with
regard
to law, rhetoric,
and public policy, we identify several broad categories of migrant-sending
states.
Some states have become Transnational Nation-States in that
they
treat their
emigrants
as
long-term, long-distance members. Consular officials
and other government representatives
are still seen as
partially responsible
for
emigrants' protection
and
representation. These states also grant emigrants
dual citizenship or nationality. Often these are states, or
specific regions within
them, that have become so
dependent
on remittances that transnational mi
grants' contributions and participation have become an
integral part of national
policy (Guarnizo, Portes and Haller, 2003). States such as El Salvador, Mexico,
Portugal, the Dominican Republic, and Brazil fall into this category.
More common are
Strategically
Selective States that encourage
some
forms of
long-distance
economic and
political nationalism but want to se
lectively and strategically manage what immigrants can and cannot do. Like
transnational nation-states, these states also
recognize
the enormous
political
and economic influence migrants wield, on which they have come to de
pend.
On the one hand, they
want to ensure the continued home country
involvement of
emigrants,
whom
they recognize
are
unlikely
to return. On
the other hand, they
want to maintain some level of control over
emigrants'
home ties, lest
migrant
interests conflict with those of the state. Such states
offer partial and changing packages of tax
privileges and services to emi
grants, encourage long-distance membership,
but never
grant the
legal rights
1024 International Migration Review
of citizenship
or nationality or the franchise. They walk a fine line between
providing enough incentives to reinforce long distance membership while
not
over-serving migrants
and
making nonmigrants
resentful. India, Barba
dos, Ireland, the Philippines, Haiti, and Turkey have all tried, at various
times, to obtain support from populations abroad without granting full
participation in their internal political activities.
These arrangements
are
by
no means static.
Diasporic agitation
for
dual citizenship led the Filipino government to pass legislation in 2003 that
allows dual citizenship and restores Filipino citizenship to those people who
previously lost their citizenship by becoming citizens of other countries. The
Senate President remarked when the Citizenship Retention Bill was
signed,
"It is our affirmation to the
age-old adage
that 'once a
Filipino, always
a
Filipino'" (Javellana-Santos, 2003). The same year, India granted persons
four
generations
removed from
migration
and citizens of
specific
countries
such as the United States and Great Britain dual citizenship (Khanna, 2004).
A third type of state is the Disinterested and Denouncing State. States
adopting this stance treat migrants as if they no
longer belong to their
homeland.
Any
overtures
migrants
make vis a vis their ancestral home are
viewed as
suspect because
migrants
are seen as
having
abandoned the home
land or even as traitors to its cause. This stance was more common
prior
to
the current
period
of
globalization.
Even
today, however, when governments
face vocal and powerful political opposition abroad, they may try to discredit
emigrants' influence. Cuba's relationship to Cubans in the United States
provides one such example that is particularly interesting since remittances
factor so importantly in Cuba's economic life (Cervantes-Rodriguez, 2003;
Eckstein and Barberia, 2002). Slovakia kept populations abroad at arm's
length following the Cold War, allowing them no representation within the
new political system (Skrbi, 1999).
MEMBERSHIP AND CITIZENSHIP
Understanding migration from a transnational social field perspective also
entails
revisiting
the
meaning
of nation-state
membership (Yuval-Davis,
1997; Delgado and Stefanicic, 2003). While states grant membership
through laws that accord legal citizenship and nationality, people also make
demands of states
regardless of their legal status. Therefore, persons without
full citizenship may act as substantive or social citizens, claiming rights
or
assuming privileges that are, in principle, accorded to citizens (Flores and
Benmayor, 2000). This is the case when immigrants without citizenship
Conceptualizing Simultaneity 1025
fight and die as members of a host country's military, protest in the streets
about
public policies, and access various social programs and services without
being
citizens. Individuals connected
through
social networks to a transna
tional social field make claims, take actions, and may even see themselves as
members of a country inwhich they have not lived.
Substantive citizenship as exercised within transnational social fields
differs from findings of proponents of post-national citizenship (Soysal,
1994). These scholars put aside the domain of nation-states and look to
global rights regimes to protect and represent individuals living outside their
homelands. Persons in transnational social fields who are
refugees
or reli
gious or racial minorities may draw on plural legal systems in their quest for
rights. But the international rights regime, as has often been noted, is still
very much dependent on individual states for enforcement (Foblets, 2002;
Woodman, 2002)
Persons living within transnational social fields may not make claims
on states as
legal
or substantive citizens until a
particular
event or crisis
occurs.
They may engage
in
lobbying, demonstrating, organizing
or cam
paigns of public information to influence either the government of the state
inwhich they now reside, their homeland, or some other state towhich they
are connected. Simply focusing
on
legal rights and formal membership
overlooks this broader set of
people who, to
varying degrees,
act like mem
bers of a society while not formally belonging to it. By so doing, they
influence and are influenced by the state. Glick Schiller and Fouron (2001a)
propose the term "transborder citizens" to reflect those who may
or
may
not
be citizens of both their sending and receiving polities but who express some
level of social citizenship in one or both.
Partial membership in two polities challenges
core aspects of gover
nance in at least two ways. First, dual
belonging
calls into
question the very
notion of governance because it is not readily obvious which state is ulti
mately responsible for which aspects of transnational migrants' lives.Where
should those who live across borders get health care, pay taxes, or serve in the
army?Which state assumes the primary responsibility for migrants' protec
tion and representation?
What
happens
when
migrants
are sentenced to the
death penalty in their host country while the death sentence is prohibited in
their country of origin?
Furthermore, transborder citizens'
multiple experiences of governmen
tality and political socialization do not occur in isolation from one another.
Persons in transnational social fields are exposed to different ideas of citizen
1026 International Migration Review
rights and responsibilities and different histories of political practice. As a
result, they enter the political domain with a broader repertoire of rights and
responsibilities than citizens who live only within one state. The fact that
migrants may also have direct experience with international rights regimes
provides them with grist to reconceptualize their relationship to the state
(Pessar, 2001; Levitt andWagner, 2003). Migrants bring ideas about gov
ernance with them that transform host-country politics, they reformulate
their ideas and
practices
in response
to their
experiences
with host states, and
they communicate these social remittances back to those in their homelands
or members of their networks settled in other states. The kind of political
culture that emerges and the kinds of claims made of states vary
as a result.
Haitian migrants, for example, infused the U.S. political system with calls for
aHaitian government that was more responsible to its people (Glick Schiller
and Fouron, 2001a). Shared experiences of democratic incorporation in the
receiving state may feed back into transnational activities that lead to more
transparent politics at home (Shain, 1999).
RELIGION: FIELDS OF BEING AND BELONGING WITHIN
AND BEYONDTHESTATE
While most scholars
acknowledge
the salience of
migrants'
transnational
economic, political, and sociocultural practices, they have only recently be
gun
to
pay attention to the
relationship
between transnational
migration
and
religion.
In contrast to the other sections of this article, where we focus on
the implications of research findings to date, our
goal in this section is to
summarize the emergent literature on
religion and suggest directions for
further work.
Religion as an
ideology
or as a set of practices is not coincident with
the borders of nation-states. Its very lack of fit might partially explain why
social scientists have largely ignored religion. Grand sociological theory in its
various unilinear forms posited an evolution of society from religion to
reason.
Immigration theorists expected immigrants to
develop religious in
stitutions in the new land as part of the process of incorporation, but these
institutions were
expected
to lose their force over several
generations.
Religious
cross-border connections are not all linked to
migration;
however, migrating populations may identify as
religious diasporas rather
than
cling
to a nation-state
identity
or use
religious
arenas to
express
mem
bership in two polities. Conceptualizing society as
intersecting transnational
social fields that exist within and across the borders of states provides us with
powerful tools for mapping and researching religious domains. Perhaps the
Conceptualizing Simultaneity 1027
most productive distinction to be made is between religious ties that connect
people to a homeland state and religious ties that form transnational net
works of connections that are not state based, such as charismatic Chris
tianity. A fairly large body of work charts the course of Christian, Hindu,
and Muslim beliefs and institutions that cross national borders and link
various populations (Beyer, 2001; Robertson, 1991; Vertovec and Peach,
1997). Global religious institutions shape migrants' transnational experi
ences, while migrants chip away at and recreate global religions by making
them local. Migrant institutions are also sites where globally diffused models
of social organization and individuals' local responses converge and produce
new mixes of religious beliefs and practices. The study of transnational
migration and religion, therefore, provides an empirical window into ways of
being and belonging that cannot be encompassed by a nation-state (Levitt,
2003a). At the same time, these practices and ideas can be mobilized for
specific state projects by transnational migrant populations,
as in the case of
support for Hindu nationalist politics on the part of Indian migrants who are
fully incorporated into the United States.
Research on transnational
migrants' religious practices
has addressed a
set of common themes and
questions.
Some of these studies are concerned
with the kinds of religious institutional connections produced by transna
tional migration (Ebaugh and Chafetz, 2002; Yang, 2002; Levitt, 2004).
Other studies ask how
religion encourages
or
impedes
transnational mem
bership (Wellmeier, 1998; Menjivar, 1999; Peterson and V?squez, 2001;
Kastoryano, 2000). A third set of questions focuses on the relationship
between religion and politics and how it changes when actors are
engaged
transnationally. Such questions touch on ways of belonging, whether to two
or more states or to a transborder
religious community, asking
whether
access to the power of God or Gods is away of gaining protection from the
power of states (Peterson and V?squez, 2001; Menjivar, 2002). Migrants
denied citizenship and excluded from mainstream economic institutions
often look to their religious communities as sites for establishing alternative
identities (Guest, 2002) .Transnational migrants often use
religion
to create
alternative geographies that may fall within national boundaries, transcend
but coexist with them, or create new
spaces that, for some individuals, are
more meaningful and inspire stronger loyalties than politically-defined ter
rains (Levitt, 2003a). By doing so, they extend the boundaries of their
spiritual practices and superinscribe them onto the actual physical landscape
where they settle (McAlister, 2002). By building and conducting rituals at a
shrine to their national patron saint, Cuban exiles in Miami created what
1028 International Migration Review
Tweed (1999) calls transtemporal and translocative space. The rituals en
acted within it enable migrants
to recover a past when they lived inCuba and
to
imagine
a future when they
will return.
EXPANDING THE CONVERSATION
Clearly, migration is only one of a range of social processes that transcends
national boundaries. Numerous social movements, businesses, media, epi
stemic communities, and various forms of governance
are also
organized
across boundaries. Persons living in transnational social fields can engage in
multiple
transnational processes
at the same time. The transnational iden
tities and institutions that emerge in response
to these other processes
are not
well understood. Although they are the subject of an increasing body of
scholarship,
more often than not this research treats transnational economic,
political, and social processes as if they were not connected to each other. We
must explore how transnational practices and processes in different domains
relate to and inform one another to understand how these
developments
are
defining the boundaries of social life.
Migration scholars can begin this conversation by systematically
ex
amining the forms and consequences of different kinds of transnational
activities and collectivities, analyzing
how they
relate to one another, and
exploring how they define and redefine our world (Khagram and Levitt,
2004). How do migrant cross-border activities compare to those engaged in
by indigenous rights proponents and religious group members? How do
organizing strategies, diffusion of ideas, and cultural negotiations compare in
transnational social movements to those undertaken in transnational
profes
sional groups or production networks? Inwhat ways do these different kinds
of transnational
memberships complement
or subvert one another? What are
the rights and responsibilities that actors and institutions associate with
transnational belonging?
New methodological and conceptual tools are needed to understand
these processes. Because the social sciences
originated
in the nineteenth and
twentieth centuries as
part of the
project
of
creating
modern nation-states,
terms like government, organization,
and
citizenship carry with them em
bedded nationalist assumptions that impair our capacity to see and under
stand transnational processes. Our
conceptual categories implicitly
take as
given
that the nation-state is the natural default category of social
organi
zation. The best that social science
generally
does is compare corporations,
migrants,
or institutions across national contexts rather than focus on firms
Conceptualizing Simultaneity 1029
and markets as
parts of transnational fields of investment, production,
dis
tribution, and
exchange.
Persons can
engage simultaneously
in more than
one nation-state and a nation-state does not delimit the boundaries of mean
ingful social relations. We need new analytical lenses that can
bring
to light
the
myriad
social processes that cross boundaries. We need new
conceptual
categories
that no
longer
blind us to these emergent social forms or
prevent
us from reconceptualizing the boundaries of social life.
REFERENCES
Abelman, N.
2002 "Mobilizing Korean Family Ties: Cultural Conversations across the Border." Working
Paper, Transnational Communities Programme, WPTC
? 0?11.
Ballard, R.
2000 "The South Asian Presence in Britain and Its Transnational Connections." Paper
presented
at the International Workshop
on Transnational Research, sponsored by the
Social Science Research Council and the Economic and Social Research Council
(U.K.), Oxford University.
Basch, L., N. Glick Schiller and C. Szanton Blanc, eds.
1994 Nations Unbound: Transnational Projects, Postcolonial Predicaments, and Deterritorial
ized Nation-States. Langhorne,
PA: Gordon and Breach.
Baubock, R.
2003 "Towards a Political Economy of Migrant Transnationalism," International Migration
Review, 37(3):700-723.
Beck, U.
2000 "The Cosmopolitan Perspective: Sociology in the Second Age of Modernity," British
Journal of Sociology, 5(1):79?107.
Beyer, P.
2001 "Introduction." In Religion
in the Process of Globalization. Ed. P. Beyer. Wurzburg,
Germany: Ergon Verlag. Pp. I-XLIV.
Bryceson, D. F. and U. Vuorela
2002 The Transnational Family: New European Frontiers and Global Networks. Oxford and
New York: Berg.
Bunnell, T.
2003 "Repositioning Malaysia: High-tech Networks and the Multicultural Rescripting of
National Identity," Political Geography, 21:105-124.
Caglar, A.
1995 "German Turks in Berlin: Social Exclusion and Strategies for Social Mobility," New
Community, 21(3):309?323.
Castells, M.
1996 The Rise ofNetwork Society. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Castles, S.
1998 "New Migrations, Ethnicity, and Nationalism in Southeast and East Asia." Paper
delivered to the Transnational Communities Programme Seminar Series at Oxford
University. June 12.
1030 International Migration Review
Cervantes-Rodr?guez, M.
2003 "Exile, Identities, and Cuba's Nation-building Project
a Century Later." Unpublished
paper.
Chamberlin, M.
2002 "Language, Identity and Caribbean Families: Transnational Perspectives." Paper pre
sented at the Conference Caribbean Migration inMetropolitan Countries: Identity,
Citizenship and Models of Integration, Maison de Sciences de l'Homme, Paris.
Delgado, R. and J. Stefanicic, eds.
2003 Critical Race Theory: The Cutting Edge. Second Edition. Philadelphia: Temple Uni
versity Press.
Duany, J.
2000 "Nation on the Move: The Construction of Cultural Identities in Puerto Rico and the
Diaspora," American Ethnologist, 27(1):5?30.
Ebaugh, H. R. and J. Chafetz
2002 Religion
across Borders: Transnational Religious Networks. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira
Press.
Eckstein, S.
2002 "On Deconstructing and Reconstructing the Meaning of Immigrant Generations." In
The Changing Face ofHome: The Transnational Lives of the Second Generation. Ed. P.
Levitt and M. Waters. New York: Russell Sage Publications. Pp. 367-399.
Eckstein, S. and L. Barberia
2002
"Grounding Immigrant Generations in History: Cuban Americans and Their Trans
national Ties," International Migration Review, 36(3):799-838.
Espiritu, Y.
1997 Asian Women and Men: Labor, Laws, and Love. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Espiritu, Y. and T. Tran
2002 "Viet Nam, Nuoc Toi (Vietnam, My Country): Vietnamese Americans and Transna
tionalism." In The Changing Face of Home: The Transnational Lives of the Second
Generation. Ed. P. Levitt and M. Waters. New York: Russell Sage Publication. Pp.
367-399.
Faist, T.
2000a The Volume and Dynamics of International Migration. New York: Oxford University
Press.
2000b "Transnationalization in International Migration: Implications for the Study of Citi
zenship and Culture," Ethnic and Racial Studies, 23(2): 189-222.
Feldman-Bianco, B.
2002 "Brazilians in Portugal, Portuguese in Brazil: Constructions of Sameness and Differ
ence." In Colonial Continuities: The Portuguese Experience. Special Issue Identities:
Global Studies in Culture and Power, 8(4).
Fitzgerald, D.
2003 "Beyond 'Transnationalism': Mexican Hometown Politics at an American Labor
Union," Ethnic and Racial Studies, 27(2):228-247.
Flores, W. V. and R. Benmayor, eds.
2000 Latino Cultural Citizenship: Claiming Identity, Space, and Rights. Tempe, AZ: Bilingual
Review Press.
Conceptualizing Simultaneity 1031
Foblets, M. C.
2002 "Muslims, aNew Transnational Minority in Europe? Cultural Pluralism, Fundamen
tal Liberties and Inconsistencies in the Law." Paper delivered at the conference Mobile
People, Mobile Law: Expanding Legal Relations in a
Contracting World. Max Planck
Institute for Social Anthropology, Halle, Germany. November 7?9.
Foner, N.
2000 From Ellis Island to JFK: New York's Two Great Waves of Immigration. New Haven:
Yale University Press.
Foucault, M.
1980 Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972-1977. New York: Pan
theon.
Gabaccia, D. and F. Iacovetta, eds.
2002 Women, Gender, and Transnational Lives: Italian Workers of the World. Toronto: Uni
versity of Toronto Press.
Glazer, N.
1954 "Ethnic Groups in America: From National Culture to
Ideology." In Freedom and
Control inModern Society. Ed. M. Berger, T. Abel and C. Page. New York: Van
Nostrand.
Glick Schiller, N.
Forthcoming "Transborder Citizenship: Legal Pluralism within aTransnational Social
Field." InMobile People, Mobile Law: Expanding Legal Relations in a
Contracting
World. Ed. F. Bender Beckman and K. Bender Beckman. London: Ashgate.
Forthcoming "Long Distance Nationalism." In Encyclopedia of Diasporas: Immigrant
and Refugee Cultures Around the World. Vol. 10. Ed. M. Ember, C. R. Ember and I.
Skoggard. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
Forthcoming "Blood and Belonging: Long-Distance Nationalism and theWorld Be
yond." In Complexities: Beyond Nature and Nurture. Ed. S. McKinnon and S. Silver
man.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
2004 "Transnational Theory and Beyond." In A Companion
to the Anthropology of Politics.
Ed. D. Nugent and J. Vincent. Maiden, MA: Blackwell.
2003 "The Centrality of Ethnography in the Study of Transnational Migration: Seeing the
Wetland Instead of the Swamp." In American Arrivals. Ed. N. Foner. Santa Fe, NM:
School of American Research.
2003 "Transmigrants and Nation-States: Something Old and Something New in the U.S.
Immigrant Experience." In The Handbook of International Migration. Ed. C. Hirsh
man, P. Kasinitz and J. DeWind. New York: The Russell Sage Foundation.
Glick Schiller, N., L. Basch and C. Blanc-Szanton
1995 "From Immigrant
to
Transmigrant: Theorizing Transnational Migration," Anthropol
ogy Quarterly, 68(l):48-63.
Glick Schiller, N., A. Calgar, and E. Karagiannis
2003 "Simultaneous Incorporation of Migrants." Paper delivered at the Max Planck Insti
tute of Social Anthropology, Halle, Germany. July 17, 2003.
1032 International Migration Review
Glick Schiller, N. and G. Fouron
2003 "Killing Me Softly: Violence, Globalization, and the Apparent State." In Globalization,
the State and Violence. Ed. J. Friedman. Oxford: Altamira.
2002 "The Generation of Identity: Redefining the Second Generation within a Transna
tional Social Field." In The Changing Face of Home: The Transnational Lives of the
Second Generation. Ed. P. Levitt and M. Waters. New York: Russell Sage Publications.
2001a Georges Woke Up Laughing: Long Distance Nationalism and the Search for Home.
Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
2001b "I am Not a Problem without a Solution: Poverty, Transnational Migration, and
Struggle." InNew Poverty Studies: The Ethnography of Politics, Policy and Impoverished
People in the U.S. Ed. J. Good and J. Maskovsky. New York: New York University
Press.
1999 "Terrains of Blood and Nation: Haitian Transnational Social Fields," Ethnic and
Racial Studies, 22(2):340-366.
Gold, S.
2002 The Israeli Diaspora. Seattle: University of
Washington
Press.
Goldring, L.
2003 "Gender Status and the State in Transnational Spaces: The Gendering of Political
Participation inMexican Hometown Associations." In Gender and U.S. Immigration.
Ed. P. Hondagneu-Sotelo. Berkeley: University of California Press.
2002 "The Mexican State and Transmigrant Organizations: Negotiating the Boundaries of
Membership and Participation," Latin American Research Review, 37(3):55?99.
Gomez, E. T. and G. Benton
2002 "Transnationalism and the Essentializing of Capitalism: Chinese Enterprise, the State,
and Identity in Britain, Australia, and Southeast Asia." Paper delivered at Transna
tional Communities Final Conference, Keeble College, Oxford. July 2.
Grasmuck, S. and P. Pessar
1991 Between Two Islands: Dominican International Migration. Berkeley: University of Cali
fornia Press.
Guarnizo, L. E.
2003 "The Economics of Transnational Living," International Migration Review, 37(3):666
699.
1997 "The Emergence of a Transnational Social Formation and the Mirage of Return
Migration among Dominican Transmigrants," Identities: Global Studies in Culture and
Power, 4(2):281-322.
Guarnizo, L. E., A. Portes and W. Haller
2003 "Assimilation and Transnationalism: Determinants of Transnational Political Action
among Contemporary Migrants," American Journal of Sociology, 108(6): 121-148.
Guest, K.
2002 "Transnational Religious Networks among New York's Fuzhou Immigrants." In Re
Conceptualizing Simultaneity 1033
ligion
across Borders. Ed. H. R.
Ebaugh and J. Chafetz. Walnut Creek: Altamira Press.
Pp. 149-165.
Harvey, D.
1989 The Condition of Postmodernity: An Enquiry into the Conditions of Cultural Change.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Held, D., A. McGrew, D. Goldblatt and J. Perraton
1999 Global Transformations. Cambridge: Polity.
Hondagneu-Sotelo, P. and E. Avila
2003 "I'm Here but I'm There: The Meaning of Latina Transnational Motherhood." In
Gender and U.S. Immigration. Ed. P. Hondagneu-Sotelo. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Hooghiemstra, E.
2001 "Migrants, Partner Selection, and Integration: Crossing Borders?" Journal of Compara
tive Family Studies, 32(4):601-628.
Itzigsohn, J.
2000 Immigration and the Boundaries of Citizenship: The Institutions of Immigrants'
Political Transnationalism, International Migration Review, 34(4): 1126-1155.
Itzigsohn, J., C. Dore Cabrai, E. Hern?ndez Medina and O. V?zquez
1999 "Mapping Dominican Transnationalism: Narrow and Broad Transnational Practices,"
Ethnic and Racial Studies, 22(2):217-237.
Itzigsohn, J. and S. Giorguli Saucedo
2002 "Immigrant Incorporation and Sociocultural Transnationalism," International Migra
tion Review, 36(3):7'66-7'99.
Javellana-Santos, J.
2003 "Citizenship Retention Act signed into Law," Philippine News Online. Accessed at:
<http://www.philippinenews.com/news/view
article.html?article
?d+70769de28b7244b86a587d6490538b>.
Jenkins, R.
1992 Pierre Bourdieu. London: Routledge.
Jones-Correa, M.
2002 "Under Two Flags: Dual Nationality in Latin America and Its Consequences for the
United States," International Migration Review, 35(4):34-67.
Kandel, W. and D. Massey
2002 "The Culture of Mexican Migration: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis," Social
Forces, 80(3):981-1004.
Kasinitz, P., M. C. Waters, J. H. Mollenkopf and M. Anil
2002 "Transnationalism and the Children of Immigrants in Contemporary New York." In
The Changing Face ofHome: The Transnational Lives of the Second Generation. Ed. P.
Levitt and M. Waters. New York: Russell Sage Publication. Pp. 96-122.
Kastoryano, R.
2000 "Settlement, Transnational Communities, and Citizenship," ISSJ, 165:307-312.
Khagram, S. and P. Levitt
2004 "Conceptualizing Transnational Studies." H?user Center Working Paper No. 24.
Harvard University.
Khanna, R.
2004 "Indian Parliament Approves Dual Citizenship." Accessed at:
<http://www.
immigration.com/newsletterl/dualpio.html>.
1034 International Migration Review
Kivisto, P.
2001 "Theorizing Transnational Immigration: A Critical Review of Current Efforts," Ethnic
and Racial Studies, 24(4):549-578.
Koopmans, R. and P. Statham
2001 "How National Citizenship Shapes Transnationalism: A Comparative Analysis of
Migrant Claims-making in Germany, Great Britain, and the Netherlands." Working
Paper Transnational Communities Programme, WPTC-01?10.
Kyle, D.
2001 Transnational Peasants. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Laguerre,
M.
1998 Diasporic Citizenship. New York: St. Martin's Press.
Lamont, M.
2002 "Ordinary Cosmopolitans: Strategies for Bridging Boundaries among Non-College
Educated Workers." Working Paper Transnational Communities Programme,
WPTC-2k-03.
Landolt, P.
2001 "Salvadoran Economic Transnationalism: Embedded Strategies for Household Main
tenance, Immigrant Incorporation, and Entrepreneurial Expansion," Global Networks,
1:217-242.
Laslett, B. and J. Brenner
1992 "Feminism and the Family: Two Decades of Thought." In Rethinking the Family: Some
Feminist Questions. Ed. B. Thorne and M. Yalom. Boston: Northeastern University
Press. Pp. 3-30.
Lesthaeghe, R.
2002 Turks and Moroccans in Belgium: A Comparison. Seminar presented
at the Center for
Population and Development Studies, Harvard University.
Lessinger, J.
1995 From the Ganges
to theHudson. New York: Allyn and Bacon.
Levitt, P.
2004 "Redefining the Boundaries of Belonging: The Institutional Character of Transna
tional Religious Life," Sociology of Religion, 35(1): 174-196.
2003a
"
'You Know, Abraham Really Was the First Immigrant': Religion and Transnational
Migration," International Migration Review, 37(3):847-873.
2003b "Keeping Feet in Both Worlds: Transnational Practices and Immigrant Incorpora
tion." In Integrating Immigrants in Liberal Nation-States: From Post-Nationals to Tran
snational. Ed. C. Joppke and E. Morawska. London: Macmillan-Palgrave.
2002a "The Ties that Change: Relations to the Ancestral Home over the Life Cycle." In The
Changing Face ofHome: The Transnational Lives of the Second Generation. Ed. P. Levitt
and M. Waters. New York: Russell Sage Publication. Pp. 123-144.
2002b "Why Should IRetire to Florida When ICan Go To Lahore?: Defining and Explain
ing Variations in Transnational Migration." Paper presented
at the Emerging Archi
Conceptualizing Simultaneity 1035
tectures of Transnational Governance Conference, Harvard University. December
2002.
2001a The Transnational Villagers. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
2001b "Transnational Migration: Taking Stock and Future Directions," Global Networks,
1(3):195-216.
1999 "Social Remittances: A Local-Level, Migration-Driven Form of Cultural Diffusion,"
International Migration Review, 32(4):926-949.
Levitt, P. and R. de la Dehesa
2002 "Transnational Migration and a Redefinition of the State: Variations and Explana
tions," Ethnic and Racial Studies, 26(4):587-6ll.
Levitt, P. and S.Wagner
2003 "Refugee Rights and Wrongs: Global Cultural Diffusion among the Congolese in
South Africa." Working Paper #23, Inter-University Committee on International
Migration Rosemarie Rogers Working Paper Series. September.
Levitt, P. and M. Waters
2002 The Changing Face ofHome: The Transnational Lives of the Second Generation. New
York: Russell Sage Publications.
Mahler, S.
2000 "Constructing International Relations: The Role of Transnational Migrants and Other
Non-State Actors," Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power, 7:197?232.
1998 "Theoretical and Empirical Contributions toward a Research Agenda
for Transna
tionalism." In Transnationalism from Below: Comparative Urban and Community Re
search. Vol. 6. Ed. M. P. Smith and L. Guarnizo. New Brunswick and London:
Transaction Publishers.
Mannheim, K.
1952 "The Problem of Generations." In Essays
on the Sociology ofKnowledge. Ed. P. Keck
sckemeti. New York: Oxford University Press.
Marshall, T. H.
1964 Class, Citizenship, and Social Class: Essays by T. H. Marshall. Garden City, NY: Double
day and Co.
Martins, H.
1974 "Time and Theory in Sociology." In
Approaches
to
Sociology: An Introduction to the
Major Trends in Sociology. Ed. J. Rex. London and Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Pp. 246-294.
McAlister, E.
2002 Rara! Vadou, Power, and Performance
in Haiti and its Diaspora. Los Angeles and
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Menjivar, C.
2002 "Living in Two Worlds? Guatemalan-Origin Children in the United States and
Emerging Transnationalism
"
Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 28(3):531?552.
1999 Religious Institutions and Transnationalism: A Case Study of Catholic and Evangelical
1036 International Migration Review
Salvadoran Immigrants," International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society, 12(4):
589-611.
Morawska, E.
2003a "Disciplinary Agendas and Analytic Strategies of Research on
Immigration and Tran
snationalism: Challenges of Interdisciplinary Knowledge," International Migration Re
view, 37(3):611-640.
2003b "Immigrant Transnationalism and Assimilation: A Variety of Combinations and the
Analytic Strategy It Suggest." In Toward Assimilation and Citizenship: Immigrants in
Liberal Nation-States. Ed. C. Joppke and E. Morawska. Hampshire, UK: Palgrave
Macmillan. Pp. 133-176.
2001a "Structuring Migration: The Case of Polish Income-Seeking Travelers to theWest,"
Theory and Society, 3:47-80.
1989 "Labor Migrations of Poles in the Atlantic World Economy, 1880-1914," Compara
tive Study of Society and History, 31(2):237-270.
1987 "Sociological Ambivalence: The Case of Eastern European Peasant-Immigrant Work
ers in America, 1880s-1930s," Qualitative Sociology, 10(3):225-250.
Morgan, G.
1999 "Transnational Communities and Business Systems." WPTC-99-14.
Nairn, M.
2002 "The New Diaspora: New Links between Emigr?s and Their Home Countries Can
Become a Powerful Force for Economic Development," Foreign Policy, 131:96-99.
Nyberg Sorenson, N. and K. Fog Olwig, eds.
2002 Work and Migration: Life and Livelihoods in a
Globalizing World (Transnationalism).
London: Routledge.
Ong, A.
1999 Flexible Citizenship: The Cultural Logics of Transnationality. Durham, NC: Duke Uni
versity Press.
Orellana, M. F., B. Thorne, A. Chee and W. S. E. Lam
2001 "Transnational Childhoods: The Participation of Children in Processes of Family
Migration," Social Problems, 48(4):572-592.
Ostergaard-Nielsen, E.
2003 "The Politics of Migrants' Transnational Political Practices," International Migration
Review, 37(3) :760-786.
Parrenas, R. S.
2001
"Mothering From a Distance: Emotions, Gender, and Intergenerational Relations in
Filipino Transnational Families," Feminist Studies, 27(2):361-391.
Pessar, P.
2003 "Anthropology and the Engendering of Migration Studies." In American Arrivals:
Anthropology Engages theNew Immigrants. Ed. N. Foner, Sante Fe, NM: School of
American Research.
2001 "Women's Political Consciousness and Empowerment in Local, National, and Trans
Conceptualizing Simultaneity 1037
national Contexts: Guatemalan Refugees and Returnees." In Gendering Transnational
Spaces. Ed. S. Mahler and P. Pessar. Special Issue. Identities: Global Studies in Culture
and Power, 7(4):46l-500.
Pessar, P. and S. Mahler
2003 "Transnational Migration: Bringing Gender In," International Migration Review,
37(3):812-843.
2001 "Gendered Geographies of Power:
Analyzing Gender across Transnational Spaces." In
Gendering Transnational Spaces. Ed. S. Mahler and P. Pessar. Special Issue. Identities:
Global Studies in Culture and Power, 7(4):44l-460.
Peterson, A. L. and M. V?squez
2001 "Upwards: Never Down: The Catholic Charismatic Renewal in Transnational Per
spective." In Christianity, Social Change, and Globalization in the Americas. Ed. A.
Peterson, P.Williams and M. V?squez. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Portes, A.
2003 "Conclusion: Theoretical Convergencies and Empirical Evidence in the Study of
Immigrant Transnationalism," International Migration Review, 37(3):874-892.
Portes, A., L. Guarnizo and P. Landolt
1999 "Introduction: Pitfalls and Promise of an
Emergent Research Field," Ethnic and Racial
Studies, 22:463-478.
Portes, A., W. Haller and L. Guarnizo
2002 "Transnational Entrepreneurs: The Emergence and Determinants of an Alternative
Form of Immigrant Economic Adaptation," American Sociological Review, (67):278?
298.
Riccio, B.
2001 "Disaggregating the Transnational Community: Senegalese Migrants
on the Coast of
Emilia-Romagna." Working Paper, Transnational Communities Programme, WPTC
01-11.
Robertson, R.
1991 "The Globalization Paradigm: Thinking Globally." In New Developments
in
Theory
and Research: Religion and the Social Order Volume I. Ed. D. G. Bromley. Greenwich,
CT: JAI Press. Pp. 204-224.
Rouse, R.
1992 "Making Sense of Settlement: Class Transformation, Cultural Struggle, and Transna
tionalism among Mexican Migrants in the United States." In Towards a Transnational
Perspective
on
Migration: Race, Class Ethnicity and Nationalism Reconsidered. Ed. N. G.
Glick Schiller, L. Basch and C. Blanc Szanton. New York: New York Academy of
Sciences.
Rumbaut, R.
2002 "Severed or Sustained Attachments? Language, Identity, and Imagined Communities
in the Post-Immigrant Generation." In The Changing Face ofHome: The Transnational
Lives of the Second Generation. Ed. P. Levitt and M. Waters. New York: Russell Sage
Publication. Pp. 43-95.
Sassen, S.
1992 Global Cities. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Saxenian, A. L.
2002 "Local and Global Networks of Immigrant Professionals in Silicon Valley." Public
Policy Institute of California.
1038 International Migration Review
Schiffauer, W.
1999 "Islamism in the Diaspora: The Fascination of Political Islam among Second Genera
tion German Turks." Working Paper Transnational Communities Programme,
WPTC 99-06.
Shain, Y.
1999 Exporting the American Creed Abroad. New York: Oxford University Press.
Sklair, L.
1998 "Transnational Practices and the Analysis of the Global System." Paper delivered at the
Transnational Communities Programme Seminar Series. May.
Skrbis, Z.
1999 Long Distance Nationalism: Diasporas, Homelands and Identities. Aldershot, England:
Ashgate.
Smith, A. D.
1983 "Nationalism and Social Theory," British Journal of Sociology, 34(1): 19?38.
Smith, M. P. and L. Guarnizo, eds.
1998 Transnationalism from below: Comparative Urban and Community Research. Volume 6.
New Brunswick and London: Transaction Publishers.
Smith, R.
1998 "Transnational Localities: Community, Technology, and the Politics of Membership
with the Context of Mexico-U.S. Migration."
In Transnationalism from Below: Com
parative Urban and Community Research, Volume 6. Ed. M. P. Smith and L. Guarnizo.
New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
Smith, R. C.
2003 "Diasporic Memberships in Historical Perspective: Comparative Insights from the
Mexican, Italian and Polish Cases," International Migration Review, 37{3):724-759.
2002 "Life Course, Generation and Social Location as Factors Shaping Second-Generation
Transnational Life." In The Changing Face ofHome: The Transnational Lives of the
Second Generation. Ed. P. Levitt and M. Waters. New York: Russell Sage Publication.
Pp. 145-168.
Soysal, Y.
1994 Limits of Citizenship: Migrants and Postnational Membership Europe. Chicago and
London: University of Chicago Press.
Stichweh, P.
2000 "Systems Theory
as an Alternative to Action Theory? The Rise of'Communication' as
a Theoretical Option," Acta Sociol?gica, 43:(l):5-l4.
Tweed, T.
1999 Our Lady of Exile. New York: Oxford University Press. University of California.
University of California, Davis
2003 Latin America, Remittances, Migration News, 10(2), Accessed at
<http://
migration.ucdavis.edu/mn/more entireissue.php?idate=2003 04& number=2>.
Urry.J.
2000 "The Global Media and Cosmopolitanism." Paper presented
at Transnational America
Conference, Bavarian American Academy, Munich, June 2000, published by the
Department of Sociology, Lancaster University
at
<http://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/
sociology/soc056ju.html>.
Conceptualizing Simultaneity 1039
Van der Veer, P.
2001 "Transnational Religion." Working Paper Transnational Communities Programme,
WPTC-01-08.
Vertovec, S.
2003 "Migration and Other Modes of Transnationalism: Towards Conceptual Cross
Fertilization," International Migration Review, 37(3):64l?665.
Vertovec, S. and C. Peach
1997 Islam in Europe: The Politics of Religion and Community. London: Macmillan Press,
Ltd.
Waters, M. C.
1999 Black Identities: West Indian Immigrant Dreams and American Realities. New York and
Cambridge, MA: Russell Sage Foundation.
Weber, D.
1999 "Historical Perspectives
on Mexican Transnationalism: With Notes from Angumacu
tiro," Social Justice, 26(3): 1043-1578.
Wellmeier, N. J.
1998 "Santa Eulalia's People in Exile: Maya Religion, Culture, and Identity in Los Angeles."
In Gatherings in Diaspora: Religious Communities and theNew Immigration. Ed. R. S.
Warner and J.Wittner. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Pp. 97-123.
Wimmer, A. and N. Glick Schiller
2003 "Methodological Nationalism, the Social Sciences and the Study of Migration: An
Essay in Historical Epistemology," International Migration Review, 37(3):576?610.
Woodman, G. R.
2002 "Customary Laws of Ethnic Minorities in the U.K." Paper delivered at the conference
Mobile People, Mobile Law: Expanding Legal Relations in a
Contracting World. Max
Planck Institute for Social Anthropology, Halle, Germany. November 7-9.
Yang, F.
2002 "Chinese Christian Transnationalism: Diverse Networks of a Houston Church." In
Religions
across Borders: Transnational Religious Networks. Ed. H. R. Ebaugh and J.
Chafetz. Lanham, MD: Altamira Press. Pp. 17'5-204.
Yuval-Davis, N.
1997 Gender and Nation. London and Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Zhou, M.
1998 "Parachute Kids in Southern California: The Educational Experience of Chinese Chil
dren in Transnational Families," Educational Policy, 12(6):682?704.