Transnational Urbanism Revisited
Michael Peter Smith
This article revisits the research optic proposed in Transnational Urbanism to take stock
of the field. Social relations ‘from the middle’ are conceived in two distinct ways in the
field. Transnationalism ‘from in-between’ refers to actors who mediate between
transnational actors ‘from above’ and ‘from below’. ‘Middling transnationalism’ refers
to the transnational practices of middle-class social actors. Both are useful and
potentially complementary. Research on transnational urbanism is aware of the socially
situated subjectivity of human agents while also providing a way to study spatially
distanciated social relations. Research has begun to attend to the emplacement of mobile
subjects and the embodiment of their everyday practices and mobilities. Future studies
need to attend to the power-knowledge venues by which states, institutional channels and
other actors broker mobile subjects’ cross-border interconnectivity.
Keywords: Transnational Urbanism; Distanciated Social Relations; Situated Subjectivity;
Translocality; Place-Making
Researchers on transnationalism seek to analyse the social organisation and
consequences of the complex interconnectivity of cross-border networks in multiple
fields of social practice. These range from the social construction of transmigrant
networks, to the politics of transnational social movements, the proselytising
activities of organised religions, the economic connections of commodity chains
and criminal syndicates, and now, sadly, the machinations of transnational terrorist
networks. This complex interconnectivity is multidimensional, encompassing social,
economic and political relations as well as cultural and interpersonal networks and
technological linkages.
Given the emphasis in transnational studies on the empirical practices of
transnational social networks as both a medium and an outcome of human agency,
some have sought to position transnationalism research as an agency-oriented
Michael Peter Smith is Professor of Community Studies in the Department of Human and Community
Development at the University of California, Davis. Correspondence to: Prof. M.P. Smith, Department of
Human and Community Development, University of California, One Shields Avenue, Davis CA 95616, USA.
E-mail: mpsmith@ucdavis.edu
ISSN 1369-183X print/ISSN 1469-9451 online/05/020235-10 # 2005 Taylor & Francis Group Ltd
DOI: 10.1080/1369183042000339909
Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies
Vol. 31, No. 2, March 2005, pp. 235Á/244
successor to the now-tired nostrums of the globalisation discourse. But this take on
the structureÁ/agency dialectic must be carefully framed if we are to avoid
constructing yet another rigid binary between transnational cultural agency or
translocal political practices and global economic (re)structuring. Just as there is no
unitary canonical discourse in transnational studies, there is not a single globalisation
discourse. The discourses are multiple, sometimes overlapping and sometimes
competing. As Leslie Sklair (2001) has argued in The Transnational Capitalist Class,
there are global agents as well as global structures. And even a cursory review of the
leading journal of ‘transnational affairs’, Global Networks, amply demonstrates that
global as well as transnational (or more precisely, translocal) networks can be
collective agents of transnational projects. The difference is one of scale and scope
rather than character. Furthermore, the burgeoning literature on the globalisation of
culture and the renewed attention to global religions and their consequences clearly
show that globalisation and transnationalism are both multidimensional social
processes (Appadurai 1991; Loshitzky 1996; Mandaville 2001; Van der Veer 2001).
Beyond Global Flows: Emplacing the Mobile Subject
If both globalisation and transnationalism can be characterised as multidimensional
discourses about complex connectivity and network forms of social organisation,
what then differentiates the two? One way to address this question is to view the
discourse on transnational urbanism and many dimensions of the globalisation
discourse itself (which may be called ‘second-wave’ globalisation discourses) as
sharing in a common critique of ‘first-wave’ modes of thinking about globalisation.
Many early proponents of neo-liberal globalisation as well as some of its harshest
critics tended to define globalisation as an inexorable structural-economic transformation,
operating outside of thought and human practice, behind people’s backs, so
to speak, to change the world in which we live, for better or worse.
Those who welcomed this purported structural transformation saw it as a
harbinger of global modernity*/a blueprint for the spread of economic prosperity
and liberal democracy across borders to the far corners of the globe. ‘First-wave’
critics offered an inverted view of this utopian projection*/a demonic image of
globalisation in which ‘global capitalism’ as the single determining driving force in
the world today, ultimately destroys local communities, fosters ‘global consumerism’
through media manipulation, and penetrates the very inner lives of ordinary people.
In both these views ordinary people tend to be reduced to isolated units of
consciousness rather than treated, as they should be, as socially and spatially situated
subjects*/i.e. as members of families; participants in religious or locality-based
networks; occupants of classed, gendered and racialised bodies; located in particular
nationalist projects, state formations and border crossings. It is from these historically
specific social locations that people act back upon structural economic conditions
and thus, in the oft-used phrase, make their own history.
236 M. P. Smith
When writing Transnational Urbanism (2001) my interest was to understand the
actions and effects of socially and spatially situated subjects. This prompted me to
question certain elements of the first-wave globalisation discourse. In so doing,
I focused upon the following themes: 1) the political-economic agency, ideological
production, and material limitations of the neo-liberal variant of globalisation; 2) the
local, national, translocal and transnational cultural fields that mediate global
restructuring and reprocess global consumerism; 3) the politics of cross-border
counter-movements against economic globalisation and neo-liberal states; and 4) the
continuing significance of the nation-state as a repository of language, national
cultures and state-centred projects, a mediator of transnational migration and global
networks through public policies, and a maker of political alliances and regulatory
frameworks seeking to govern global trade, investment and production.
While recognising these wider contexts, I chose the optic of transnational urbanism
to focus our understanding of transnational interconnectivity because it captured a
sense of distanciated yet situated possibilities for constituting and reconstituting
social relations. The study of transnational urbanism thus underlines the socio-spatial
processes by which social actors and their networks forge the translocal connections
and create the translocalities that increasingly sustain new modes of being-in-theworld.
I further argued that transnational urbanism was an appropriate optic for
envisioning many emergent transnational practices even though some of the
particular practices discussed in my book became ‘localised’ at one pole of a
translocality*/for instance in Mexican villages, Chinese factory towns, and even in
the countryside. As I stated in Transnational Urbanism (2001: 5), this is because:
transnational social actors are materially connected to socio-economic opportunities,
political structures, or cultural practices found in cities at some point in their
transnational communication circuit, e.g. transnational cities as sources of migrant
employment, the means to deploy remittances, the acquisition of cultural and
physical capital, consumption practices, political organising networks, or life style
images; or [because] . . . they maintain transnational connections by using
advanced means of communication and travel, which because of their simultaneity,
indirectly implicate transnational actors in an orbit of cosmopolitan ideas, images,
technologies, and socio-cultural practices that have historically been associated
with the culture of cities.
In Transnational Urbanism I also sought to show the usefulness of agency-oriented
yet translocalised urban research. I cautioned, however, that researchers should not
approach the question of translocal agency with rose-coloured glasses, as has
sometimes been done in cultural studies discourses on transnational hybridity. This is
because in forming their own sense of agency people are always already-positioned
subjects, occupying multiple social locations and subject to the inner tensions and
conflicts derived from their multi-positionality. As Meagan Morris (1993: 39) has
noted, ‘there is something tinny about theories of ‘‘agency’’ . . . that enunciatively
erase a sense of the messiness of living and acting in the mediated world of today’.
In sum, this concern with the historically mediated context in which transnational
Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 237
practices take place is important because it forces us to think about the emplacement
of mobile subjects. It guards against the macro-analytic view of transnational
mobility as occurring in a hyper-mobile ‘space of flows’.
Historicising Transnational Practices
Attending to and specifying the historical context in which transnational practices
take place is important methodologically for several reasons. First, it guards against a
de-contextual ethnographic inscription of ‘transnational communities’ as timeless
cultural wholes detached from the often contested historical and geographical
contexts of their emergence. Celebratory images of ‘transnational communities’ as
transgressive, post-national, alternatives to global capitalism and the nation-state may
serve to mark the radical credentials of their purveyors. Yet such romantic yearnings
for a new revolutionary subject tend to obscure the ongoing power relations
underpinning the formation and reproduction of states, capitals, national and
transnational identities. Likewise, as already suggested, the unbridled celebration of
the ‘hybridity’ of transnational subjects serves to erase the fact that no matter how
much spatial mobility or border crossing may characterise transnational actors’
household, community and place-making practices, the actors are still classed, raced
and gendered bodies in motion in specific historical contexts, within certain political
formations and spaces (for a pointed critique of the use of hybridity in transnational
studies, see Mitchell 1997).
Historicising the practices of transnational urbanism is an important step forward
for a second reason. It helps us to differentiate between what is new about
contemporary transnationalism and earlier instances of transnational migration,
cross-border political or religious movements, trade diasporas, and the like. In a
recent epistemological essay in Global Networks, Andreas Wimmer and Nina Glick
Schiller (2002) skilfully trace the connections between nation-state building,
transnational migration, and their study in the social sciences. They show how the
discourses on immigration, the degree of transnational migration, and the character
of transnational practices have shifted over time through four distinct phases of
nation-state building from 1870 to the present time. They pay close attention to the
relationship between transnationalism and the historical development of increased
barriers to migration; the closure of relatively open citizenship regimes; the transition
from civic to national conceptions of ‘the people’; the rise of new regimes of border
policing; and the migratory effects of hot and cold wars*/which are all key
dimensions of ‘nation building’ especially since the end of World War I. In so doing,
they remove the blinkers of various types of ‘methodological nationalism’ that have
limited awareness of how ‘transnational’ the modern world has always been. They
convincingly demonstrate how historically inaccurate it is to regard transnationalism
as a recent offspring of the current round of neo-liberal globalisation rather than a
constant feature of modern life.
238 M. P. Smith
Transnationalism ‘Then’ vs ‘Now’
Having said this, it is still worth keeping in mind some salient differences between
‘then’ and ‘now’. First, the scope and complexity of transnational relations appear to
be more extensive now than in past historical periods. Greater access to the means of
maintaining contact across space is widespread geographically (i.e. is transnationalised)
and also is spread widely across national social-class structures. One result of
this diffusion of mobility is that there is now a vastly more complicated pattern of
migration and (un/re)settlement of migrants, transmigrants, immigrants and refugees
across nation-states than ever before. Contemporary transnational migration is
highly differentiated by class, gender, generation, region, religion, and political and
economic circumstance of migration within the same migrating ‘nationality’, even
within a single transnational city.
This complex differentiation has significant consequences on the ground. For
starters, it blurs the boundaries of previously hegemonic binaries like ‘first’ vs ‘third’
world. It adds class, gender and ideological differentiation to our conceptualisation of
‘immigrant enclaves’. It vastly complicates the ethnographic inscription of ‘migration
narratives’, and forces us to pay attention to the intra-ethnic dimension of urban
ethnic politics throughout the world (to say nothing of their translocal dimensions).
To illustrate concretely, on the basis of ‘nationality’ alone in major US ‘receiving’
cities, the scope of transnational migration has spread from around two dozen
nationalities in 1920 to over 150 today in cities like New York and Los Angeles. When
differences of gender, class, generation, region, religion and political/ideological
orientations within groups are added to this mix, the processes of ‘transnational
place-making’ are remarkably complex and frequently contested.
Moving beyond the place-making practices of migration networks to consider
other forms of transnational urbanism*/e.g. the translocal dynamics of long-distance
nationalism; the multi-local emplacement and effects of transnational social or
religious movements; or the socio-spatial organisation and impacts of transnational
entrepreneurialism*/the complexity of contemporary transnational urbanism is
nothing short of astounding, even within a single field site. My discussion in
Transnational Urbanism of the making of places like Koreatown in Los Angeles and
Chinatown in New York (Smith 2001: 91Á/7, 119Á/22) sought to reveal some of this
complexity and to advance a useful research strategy, namely, comparing different
transnational networks from the same country of origin in a single transnational city.
Other researchers relying on large survey research teams are now usefully extending
transnational field-work comparatively and historically by comparing the practices of
transmigrant networks across transnational cities over time (see, for example,
Guarnizo et al. 2003; Portes et al. 2002).
Another question flows from thinking about transnational urbanism ‘then’ and
‘now’. Is the much-heralded simultaneity of transnational lives ‘here’ and ‘there’ an
important difference between transnationalism ‘then’ and ‘now’? If so, what effects
does this have? In the field of cultural studies the simultaneity of communication
Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 239
flows and the speed and frequency of global travel have been deemed to be highly
salient to those who live transnational lives. Co-presence in more than one spatial
location (place/country/locality) is viewed as occurring in the postmodern ‘now’
rather than, as in earlier times, in sequenced stages of time (before/after), space
(sending/receiving), and place (here/there). In part the expectation of simultaneity is
due to the widespread (though still unequal) availability of and access to advanced
means of communication and transport, ranging from affordable air travel to
inexpensive phone cards.
While it is certainly plausible that simultaneity marks an important difference
between older and newer modes of transnationalism, just what difference it makes in
the lived experience of translocal subjects is an empirical question. Case studies of
contemporary transnational urbanism are still temporally sequenced forms of
narrative story-telling. Can stories otherwise be told? Do instantaneous communication
by telephone and e-mail, and more frequent back and forth movements across
space and place trans-locally, make a difference in the everyday lives of transnational
migrants? If so, what differences do they make and for whom do they matter*/those
subject to mobility, the ‘stayers’ connected to or affected by translocal mobility, or all
together? Does the experience of simultaneity produce disorientation or flexible
subjectivity, and, if so, for whom does it produce either? Put more precisely, for
which socially situated subjects does it have what effects, where? Considered
systemically, does simultaneity promote ‘transnational culture’ or rather does it
foster the reproduction of multiple localisms? What power relations mediate the
politics of simultaneity?
A third potentially salient difference between ‘then’ and ‘now’ concerns the
presence of social actors and roles mediating or brokering the process of
transnational interconnectivity. Has this brokerage been a constant feature of
transnational ties in the modern world or has something changed in the current
epoch of mass-mediated interconnectivity? My answer to this question is mixed.
While marriage brokers across borders have a very long history, the practice of
supplying mail-order brides through Internet match-making services is a new
variation on this old theme. Likewise, human smugglers (coyotes) and courier
services to facilitate remittances have been around for a long time but globally
organised human smuggling syndicates (Kyle and Koslowski 2001) and transnational
banks channelling remittances through automated teller machine (ATM) services are
of more recent vintage. What Louisa Schein (1998) has called the ‘transnational
cultural broker’ has been an important element of urban racial and ethnic formation
for a very long time. So too has been the role of political actors from putatively
‘sending’ states in promoting translocal and transnational connections among ‘their’
migrant population to (re)capture remittances and loyalties (see the historical studies
cited in Wimmer and Glick Schiller 2002: 315). Yet certain forms of ethno-cultural
brokerage such as the rise of indigenous media, ethno-cultural video businesses, and
cultural/ethnic tourism are new variations on an old theme. As these examples
suggest, whether old or new, the identification of key historical actors and their roles
240 M. P. Smith
in facilitating or brokering migrant transnationalism and the tracing out of their
genesis and effects are worthy future research enterprises in the emergent field of
transnational urbanism.
When we think of ‘then’ and ‘now’ over time we necessarily think about temporal
continuities and discontinuities. We think in terms of periodising experiences that
can be located ‘in the middle’ of current moments and earlier historical periods.
Thus, for instance, some traditional migration studies have positioned the migrant
generation temporally as a kind of ‘lost generation’ caught ‘in the middle’ between
the requirements, opportunities and constraints of their ‘old culture’ and the ‘new’
cultural experiences of their children, a presumably qualitatively different ‘second
generation’.
Some of the most heated debates in the field of transnational migration studies
have occurred over the question of the intergenerational continuity of the
transnational practices of those currently living transnational lives and creating
transnational networks of social capital (see Guarnizo and Smith 1998: 16Á/17; Levitt
and Waters 2002). These debates centre on whether households or sending
communities are the appropriate unit of analysis. Whichever of these units of
analysis is chosen, the question of the social reproduction of translocal ties is likely to
be resolved empirically over time. Whatever the empirical answer, theoretically there
is no way to avoid thinking about the dynamics of reproduction and change in
patterns of transnational urbanism ‘in the middle term’ as well as ‘the short run’ and
the ‘long run’.
Transnationalism From ‘The Middle’
In the penultimate part of this essay I wish to address an important difference
between two distinct ways that researchers have conceptualised social relations from
‘the middle’ in transnational studies. These are the view of transnationalism as a
power relation ‘from in-between’ as discussed in Transnational Urbanism (Smith
2001) and ‘The locations of transnationalism’ (Guarnizo and Smith 1998) and
‘middling transnationalism’ as the class or status position of transnational migrants
in their places of origin, as conceptualised by David Conradson and Alan Latham in
this special issue.
The former is a relational term referring to the mediation of social relations of
power-domination-accommodation-resistance between transnational actors ‘from
above’ and ‘from below’. An example of transnationalism as a mediated power
relation may be drawn from my own recent empirical research. In my paper
‘Transnationalism, the state, and the extraterritorial citizen’ (Smith 2003), I analyse
the politically mediating role played by regional sending-state officials from
Guanajuato, Mexico (‘from in-between’) seeking to channel remittances provided
by local migrant groups in California (‘from below’) into state-sponsored economic
development projects located in the migrants’ communities of origin but designed
Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 241
by the elites of a Mexican political party (‘from above’) to win votes and develop
their state.
In contrast, ‘middling transnationalism’ focuses on the transnational practices of
social actors occupying more or less middle class or status positions in the national
class structures of their countries of origin, like skilled workers or working holidaymakers
who spend extended periods abroad living transnational everyday lives. In my
view both of these approaches are useful and potentially complementary ways of
moving the study of transnational urbanism forward, adding greater nuance,
differentiation and complexity to the picture. Yet they are different ways forward
and that difference must be explicitly theorised if they are to be used as
complementary research strategies.
One of the key themes deployed in my earlier work on ‘The locations of
transnationalism’ (Guarnizo and Smith 1998) was the relational quality of transnational
social action. In that essay Luis Guarnizo and I cautioned that in investigating
the ‘above’ and the ‘below’ of transnational action, one must guard against the
common mistake of equating ‘above’ exclusively with global structures or agents and
below exclusively with ‘local’ social fields or actors. Categorising transnational action
as coming ‘from above’ or ‘from below’ aims to capture the dynamics of power
relations in the transnational arena. By definition, these categories are contextual and
relational rather than essential or immutable (see Smith 2001: 110Á/13). Thus, for
example, the Hmong cultural brokers studied by Louisa Schein (1998) can be
envisaged as acting ‘from below’ vis-a`-vis the United States and Chinese states whose
borders they transgress, while simultaneously acting ‘from above’ vis-a`-vis the ethnic
Miao objects of their tourist gaze, and also ‘from in-between’ in terms of the power
relations they broker between Hmong social networks in the US and, respectively,
US and Chinese state structures and policies. To think about transnational cities as
spaces pregnant with these sorts of power relations*/i.e. social relations of
domination-accommodation-resistance (see Smith 2001: 127Á/42)*/the crucial role
played by power brokers from ‘in-between’ must be kept carefully in mind.
In focusing our attention upon ‘middling transnationalism’ Conradson and
Latham, in their editorial introduction to this themed issue, call for greater attention
to the ‘everyday’ practices and mobilities of transnational urbanism. They usefully
theorise ‘middling transnationalism’ in terms of the everyday practices of transnational
friendship and nationality-based networks of people of ‘middling’ social and
economic status in their countries of origin. They argue that too much attention in
transnational studies has heretofore been paid to the power of transnational technical
and managerial elites or to the village-based social networks forged by economically
marginal social strata to generate transnational social capital. Methodologically, they
advocate careful qualitative studies of the everyday resources and strategies through
which ‘middling’ transnational actors create and maintain networks of association
both transnationally and within the cities in which they currently are living. The
substantive studies which follow ably demonstrate the fruitfulness of this methodological
turn to the everyday.
242 M. P. Smith
Some of the studies of everyday transnational urbanism assembled in this special
issue also underline the importance of mediated power relations, relations fraught
with the discourses and practices of diverse power brokers other than the
transmigrants themselves. This suggests that researchers of transnational urbanism,
when inscribing everyday contemporary ethnographies of transmigrants (whether
elite, middling or marginal), need to develop historically contextualised research
strategies for investigating the role played by power brokers (whether political,
religious, cultural or economic agents) in shaping the social spaces in which
transmigrants operate.
The Politics of Translocality
Earlier studies of transnational business and village-based networks (see, for instance,
the studies in Pries 2001; Smith and Guarnizo 1998) have shown that transmigration
(even from the same country) is formed by heterogeneous rather than unitary social
networks, possessing distinct personal and social resources, having differential human
and social capital, migrating under disparate circumstances, and expressing
significant local, regional, political, cultural and religious differences. This differentiation,
in turn, results in disparate rates of access to opportunities in the ‘receiving’
cities that are grounded sites of the translocal interconnectivity constituting
transnational urbanism. This, in part, explains why not all migrants are able to
maintain active translocal ties and why the practices of those who do maintain them
differ.
In this same vein, the local sites of translocal practices*/whether cities, suburbs, or
communities of origin*/are not mere empty containers of translocal articulations.
The local sites of translocal processes matter. Different ‘sending’ and ‘receiving’
localities offer migrants dissimilar contexts of exit and reception, and thus dissimilar
political and economic opportunities and constraints. It is these opportunities and
constraints and what transmigrants do with them that will (and should) occupy the
field of transnational urban studies in the decades ahead.
In this essay I have sought to revisit the research optic I first proposed in
Transnational Urbanism (2001) and to take stock of the work that has been done in
this genre since then. In so doing, I reiterated our need to carefully frame the stories
we tell about the everyday agents of transnational urbanism. This is because people
are unavoidably socially- and spatially-situated subjects, both in terms of the
political-economic circumstances of their transnational mobility and the classed,
gendered and racialised formations through which their bodies move.
By examining research done in the name of transnational urbanism I have
concluded that this research optic has allowed us to remain aware of this social
situatedness while also providing an empirical way forward in studying the
constitution of distanciated social relations. I think that much progress has been
made by grounding the discourse of the ‘transnational’ in the place-making practices
of the ‘translocal’. As this special issue clearly shows, research on transnational
Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 243
urbanism is well advanced in attending to the emplacement of mobile subjects and
the embodiment of their everyday practices and mobilities. In future studies of
transnational urbanism we need to devote equal attention to the effects of the powerknowledge
venues by which states, institutional channels and other powerful actors
broker or otherwise affect our mobile subjects’ translocal interconnectivity.
References
Appadurai, A. (1991) ‘Global ethnoscapes: notes and queries for a transnational anthropology’, in
Fox, R.G. (ed.) Reconfiguring Anthropology: Working in the Present. Santa Fe, NM: School of
American Research Press, 191Á/210.
Guarnizo, L.E. and Smith, M.P. (1998) ‘The locations of transnationalism’, in Smith, M.P. and
Guarnizo, L.E. (eds) Transnationalism From Below. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers,
3Á/34.
Guarnizo, L.E., Portes, A. and Haller, W. (2003) ‘Assimilation and transnationalism: determinants
of transnational political action among contemporary migrants’, American Journal of
Sociology, 108(6): 1211Á/48.
Kyle, D. and Koslowski, R. (eds) (2001) Global Human Smuggling: Comparative Perspectives.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Levitt, P. and Waters, M.C. (eds) (2002) The Changing Face of Home: The Transnational Lives of the
Second Generation. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Loshitzky, Y. (1996) ‘Travelling culture/travelling television’, Screen, 37(4): 323Á/35.
Mandaville, P. (2001) Transnational Muslim Politics: Re-Imagining the Umma. London and New
York: Routledge.
Mitchell, K. (1997) ‘Different diasporas and the hype of hybridity’, Environment and Planning
D: Society and Space, 15(5): 533Á/53.
Morris, M. (1993) ‘Future fear’, in Bird, J., Curtis, B., Putnam, T., Robertson, G. and Tickner, L.
(eds) Mapping the Futures. New York and London: Routledge, 30Á/46.
Portes, A., Haller, W. and Guarnizo, L.E. (2002) ‘Transnational entrepreneurs: an alternative form of
immigrant economic adaptation’, American Sociological Review, 67(2): 278Á/98.
Pries, L. (ed.) (2001) New Transnational Social Spaces: International Migration and Transnational
Companies in the Early Twenty-First Century. London and New York: Routledge.
Schein, L. (1998) ‘Forged transnationality and oppositional cosmopolitanism’, in Smith, M.P. and
Guarnizo, L.E. (eds) Transnationalism From Below. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers,
291Á/313.
Sklair, L. (2001) The Transnational Capitalist Class. Oxford: Blackwell.
Smith, M.P. (2001) Transnational Urbanism: Locating Globalisation. Oxford: Blackwell.
Smith, M.P. (2003) ‘Transnationalism, the state, and the extraterritorial citizen’, Politics & Society,
31(4): 467Á/502.
Smith, M.P. and Guarnizo, L.E. (eds) (1998) Transnationalism From Below. New Brunswick:
Transaction Publishers.
Van der Veer, P. (2001) ‘Religious nationalism in India and global fundamentalism’, in Guidry, J.A.,
Kennedy, M.D. and Zald, M.N. (eds) Globalisations and Social Movements. Ann Arbor: The
University of Michigan Press, 315Á/39.
Wimmer, A. and Glick Schiller, N. (2002) ‘Methodological nationalism and beyond: nation-state
building, migration and the social sciences’, Global Networks, 2(4): 301Á/34.
244 M. P. Smith