Transnationalism or Assimilation?
Multiculturalists and transnationalists have combined their analyses of the
recent structural effects of international migration with the criticism that
the classical frame of analysis in migration research, i.e. analysing of assimilation
processes, is not any more appropriate to take adequately into account recent
processes of cultural pluralisation and the emergence of transnational spaces.
This is mainly attributed to the understanding of society as a nationally closed
container seen as one of the problematic assumptions of this approach.
Little surprisingly, this is seen very different by researchers interested in
assimilation processes (and for reasons of simplification we call them from
now on assimilationists) who argue that the paradigm of assimilation research
is still the most adequate frame of analysis. They argue that it is still possible
and useful to describe as ongoing assimilation processes even the most recent
migration phenomena and the consequences linked with them. Hartmut Esser even
claims that for migrants there is no serious alternative to assimilation. Access
to the most important social resources has become increasingly dependent from
access to and success in education and the different education systems are deeply
moulded by different national traditions and languages.
Ewa Morawska has tried to take a more moderate position in this debate between
assimilationists on the one hand and transnationalists and multiculturalists
on the other. She has argued that all processes of migration are linked with
processes of assimilation as well as with the emergence of transnational structures.
In her view migration research is faced with the task of describing the various
migrations and the consequences linked with them as different combinations of
transnational and assimilative structures and to build typologies of these combinations.
In contrast to these positions in this paper it is argued that the debate between
assimilationists and transnationalists is based on a false opposition. This
is mainly due to the use of unclarified theoretical frames of analysis. The
central aim is to demonstrate that the arguments of transnationalists and assimilationists
can be systematically reconstructed as two different hypotheses about the structural
consequences of recent international migration. If the two hypotheses are formulated
within one common and coherent theoretical framework of analysis it can be shown
that assimilationism and transnationalism do not necessarily refer to different
research approaches but rather to two different and competitive hypotheses about
the effects of international migration that, as such, are open to empirical
tests.
I.
Since the Second World War, Europe has become one of the most important immigration
regions in the world. This process has been accompagnied with various socio-structural
changes that have recently been given much political and scientific attention.
Migration research has described these changes with reference to the topic of
the multicultural society and to the emergence of so-called transnational structures
or spaces. "Multiculturalism", i.e. cultural pluralisation has been
seen as a challenge to the efforts of cultural homogenisation typically undertaken
by nation states. And the stress on transnational structures underlines the
claim that migration and its effects need to be seen as part of ongoing globalisation
processes.
Multiculturalists and transnationalists share the assumption that central structural
elements of the nation state are affected by processes of erosion. On the one
hand migration processes imply a growing cultural heterogeneity of the population
living on a state territory. This kind of multiculturalism seems to challenge
the established program of the nation state, i.e. the cultural homogenisation
of the resident population (Leggewie 1990; Cohn-Bendit,
Schmidt 1992; Bade 1996; Brochmann
2003). On the other hand transnationalism refers to the emergence of social
structures that transcend state borders. These structures are seen as the result
of enduring migration streams stabilised by transnational networks and organisations.
This is accompanied by a change of migrant orientations: They start to orientate
themselves towards transnational opportunity structures; the nation state and
its classical aim of social integration loses relevance as a frame of action.
But this paper does not focus on the structural consequences of cultural pluralisation,
multiculturalism and transnationalism but rather on the scientific debate between
what is called here transnationalists and assimilationists.
- Transnationalists(1) have argued that migration research
should replace its more or less outdated research design based on a methodological
nationalism. It is argued that transnational structures render visible the constraints
of the concept of a national society which is attacked as a "container
concept" of society. In the eyes of transnationalists, assimilation research
is therefore characterised by a limited frame of analysis still conceptualising
migration and its social consequences as a problem of migrants' assimilation
to the host society, its dominant groups and the cultures linked with these.
But transnational migrants, it is claimed, do not any more orientate their modes
of life towards this type of container society but rather to the structural
contexts provided by emergent transnational spaces. These emergent structures
cannot be grasped adequately by a nation state concept of society.
At the centre of the argument is the claim that more and more migrants are becoming
so-called transmigrants. This type of migration cannot adequately be taken into
account by the classical pattern of description conceptualising migration as
a one-way move from an emigration country to an immigration country. The life
courses of migrants are more and more marked by their participation in transnational
social relations. They are leading not just one- or bi-directional, but multi-directional
lifes. The result is the emergence of pluri-local modes of life of these migrants.
In the eyes of transnationalists migration is becoming a continuous process
in time and space. Transmigration and the new pluri-local social spaces are
not just seen as the extension of the migrants' origin communities but as an
independent social structure. According to transnationalists as a result we
can observe the emergence of combined "bounded-nomadic" modes of life.
Under the conditions of globalisation and the diffusion of new technologies
of communication and transport these new types of transmigrants are gaining
more and more relevance. "This perspective on transnationalism and transmigration
and the re-conceptualisation of society, community and nation state linked with
it underlines the new importance of migration for the diagnosis of recent social
transformations by the social sciences" (Pries 2001b,
53).
Transnationalists argue that the developments identified as transnational social
structures or spaces can best be grasped by research approaches which have become
prominent as network analyses, theories of cumulative causation, migration systems
theories and globalisation theories.
- These rather straightforward positions have been confronted with a whole
array of objections by American and European assimilationists: They claim that
a theoretically reflected concept of assimilation still provides the best frame
for the analyses of even the most recent immigration processes in Europe or
the US. The classical concept of assimilation as developed by Milton Gordon
certainly needs to be amended and re-conceptualised but this does not affect
the strength of the general approach. Especially Alba and Nee (1997)
and Brubaker (2001) have discussed the recent empirical
results of the American immigration research. They demonstrate that these results
can be interpreted without difficulties as providing evidence for ongoing assimilation
processes even among the most recent migrants that immigrated only after the
1960s. They argue that the majority of these migrants is looking for labour
on open labour markets and that these markets seem to be much more open than
is often assumed. These very same migrants seem to be able to gain in rather
short periods of time an amount of income that comes close to the level of income
of the resident population. Assimilationists therefore argue against an overestimation
of ethnic economies and their transnational character. Similar arguments are
put forward concerning the areas of housing, education, and language. Some of
the empirical results of research done in these fields are ambiguous but there
are strong indicators for progressive assimilation processes which seem to be
similar to those that were described for earlier immigration waves in the US.
The scholars reach the conclusion: "Assimilation still matters."
The most prominent German assimilationist Hartmut Esser (2001)
has put on top of this the claim that assimilation not only still matters
but that there is in fact no alternative to it. He argues that successful
participation in education is becoming more and more decisive for individual
competitiveness on labour markets and for any efforts to gain access to the
important resources for a decent living. Since the education systems are moulded
by national cultures there is no alternative for migrants to the necessity
to learn the national language of the country they have entered.
- Ewa Morawska (2002) has tried to take a more moderate
position in this debate between transnationalists and assimilationists. She
proposes to analyse the social consequences linked with migration as the combined
result of transnational and assimilation processes. According to Morawska
the relation between transnational and assimilative structures should be seen
as dynamic and changeable in both directions. Jointly with historians like
Bade (2000), Gerber (2000), Lucassen
(2004), and others she argues that much of what is
described by transnationalists as only recent developments is not quite that
new and was already observed for earlier migration movements. Morawska proposes
to do more comparative empirical research and to build typologies that grasp
the various combinations of transnational and assimilative structures to be
found among different migrant groups. The aim should be to develop theories
that explain the emergence and reproduction of these different types.
- Morawska's proposal is instructive. However in this paper we take a different
perspective. We agree with multiculturalists and transnationalists to a certain
extent. Indeed, processes of cultural pluralisation are one consequence of international
migration. We also assume that transnationalisation processes can be observed
in an empirical sense. Many migrants' modes of life may not be primarily orientated
towards the frame of the nation state. Migrants are more or less continuously
included in border-transcending social structures concerning family, economic,
legal, political or educational relations. But these empirical observations
do not imply what transnationalists like to suggest (on a rather unclear theoretical
basis; s. Bommes 2003a), namely the need for completely
new concepts and theories in migration research. It seems that there is rather
a need for a theoretical framework that allows us to systematise the arguments
put forward by the opponents and to clarify the systematic relation between
them.
Referring to the empirical observations just mentioned it has been argued against
classical migration research that its frame of explanation is too narrow and
still too much guided by the traditional (and seemingly somewhat outdated) problems
of integration and cultural assimilation. The frame of reference for assimilation
are reference groups and the national society. Assimilationists have refused
this critique by referring to empirical results of research which seem to support
their position. Morawska's effort to mediate between the two positions perpetuates
however the conceptual opposition between assimilation to the social structures
of the host society on the one hand and the emergence of transnational structures
on the other. Another option would be to deconstruct the seeming conceptual
oppositions and to recombine them theoretically in a different way.
In order to do this we replace a concept that understands society as a big collective/
collectivity by a concept of modern world society, i.e. a society that is functionally
differentiated in different realms (like the economy, politics, law, science,
education, health etc.) and modern organisations (Luhmann
1997). The chances of individuals to participate and to get access to social
resources are mediated by these differentiated social systems. We assume that
cultural pluralisation processes as well as national closure or transnational
opening are contextually dependent on the structural development of social systems.
And we are interested in the implications of this classical mainstream sociological
perspective - present in the work of Marx, Weber, Durkheim but also Parsons,
Habermas and Luhmann, understanding modern society as differentiated society
- for an understanding of the debate between transnationalists and assimilationists.
II.
Multiculturalists have always exaggerated. And transnationalists have followed
up this exaggeration with different means. The exaggerations are the result
of theory politics and distinction. In contrast to both positons we want to
stress however that any migration implies assimilation.
This becomes visible if we look at the frame of analysis that is operationally
used in empirical research. This should be distinguished from the self-understanding
employed by researchers. One weakness of classical migration research and its
mode of posing the problem of integration and assimilation was indeed the use
made of the concept of groups and the concept of the national society. Social
structures are basically seen as collective structures. Any social event is
therefore described with reference to "groups" or to "society".
Correspondingly the distinction between origin and host society is still prominent.
Concerning the host society the nation state and its program of integration
are still forming the implicit or explicit background. These conceptual weaknesses
are criticised by transnationalists referring to globalisation and the resulting
transnational social structures.
But a closer look at what assimilation researchers actually do proves that "groups"
or "the society" are not at all the frame of reference for empirical
research in operational terms. This would make no sense anyhow as will be pointed
out in two steps. If assimilation implies a process of becoming similar we need
to clarify the point of reference in relation to which that process of becoming
similar takes place. Second we will have to elaborate on the various dimensions
of that process.
Individuals migrate for different reasons. They may be looking for labour, education,
health treatment, join their family or flee political repression or ecological
decline. For all of these migrants it does not seem plausible to conceptualise
the problem of assimilation with reference to groups or society. In order to
work or study, to apply for asylum or to seek health treatment, individuals
usually cannot address either "groups" or "the society".
Access to labour, the treatment of patients, the education of pupils or students,
the taking of exams and the decision on asylum applications are not provided
by groups. The same is true for society which simply cannot be addressed as
such and which can therefore not be the reference point for any effort to become
similar (or dissimilar). Processes of assimilation emerge inside the organisations
of the important functional realms of modern society, i.e. in entreprises, hospitals,
schools, universities, and administrations. They emerge when individuals start
to work or try to get access to goods, education, rights, social welfare etc.
Every individual that intends to work or to gain access to these provisions
must fulfil the expectations that define the social preconditions for the success
of these efforts. Every individual must therefore have some knowledge of what
it means to work or how to behave as a patient, a client, a pupil, a student,
or an applicant.
If we start from these rather simple considerations and apply them to the behaviour
of different migrant categories - labour migrants, refugees, family migrants
etc. - we see immediately that all migrants do assimilate when they take roles
inside organisations and fulfil the bundles of social expectations linked with
these roles, even if they do this to a different extent. We would not be able
to understand how migrants succeed - and they obviously do - in acting inside
a variety of organisations if they did not assimilate to the expectations linked
with these roles. They not only do conform to these expectations, but they develop
corresponding expectations' expectations.
These rather obvious necessities of assimilation cannot be avoided, even not
by social networks. They may mediate and modify the indispensable necessities
of assimilation. But most migrants, like in fact most other individuals, are
dependent on the opportunities to get access to and to participate in organisations.
Seen in this way the fact of assimilation seems to be almost trivial. It belongs
to the basic conditions of the mode of individual life in modern society. The
individuals do not any more gain social belonging and social opportunities via
birth or lineage. Each individual is responsible himself for finding opportunities
of access to and inclusion into the social systems of society (Luhmann
1989). This includes the necessity to assimilate in a context-, i.e. system-specific
manner, according to the differentiated systems of modern society and their
expectations. Any individual can be included in the economy, politics, law,
education, science, health or the mass media and the related organisations if
they fulfil the specific preconditions for a competent participation in the
respective system. Otherwise they will be excluded. In order to participate
in the economy, education or the health system, individuals must have money
or should be educatable or ill. They must be responsible, competent and disciplined
in order to take over membership roles in organisations. In other words: individuals
in modern society are expected to orientate their modes of life to the conditions
of participation in the differentiated social systems and to develop corresponding
competence and willingness to participate. This is to say that all individuals
in modern society must assimilate.
Migrants declare their preparation for assimilation by the simple fact of migration
itself. Since migration in modern society means the effort to find access to
social systems at a different geographical place by means of migration (Bommes
1999).
To stress the main point again: Assimilation refers to a general condition of
existence for all individuals in modern society, i.e. the permanent expectation
to control their behaviour and action according to the structural conditions
of the differentiated social systems. Seen in this way the problem of migrant
assimilation refers to not more (and not less) than to the conditions under
which they succeed or fail to fulfil the conditions of participation in social
systems.
III.
In order to describe the conditions of participation in social systems more
precisely it is useful to distinguish different dimensions of assimilation.
Modifying Gordon's model (Gordon 1964) Hartmut Esser (1980)
has distinguished four dimensions: cognitive, structural, social and identificational
assimilation. If we understand assimilation as a process related to the expectations
valid in social systems - and not groups or societies -, it is easy to identify
the simple systematic of these distinctions.
Cognitive assimilation refers to the assimilation of structures on the side
of the individual in order to fulfil conditions of inclusion in social systems.
Individuals learn languages, skills, behavioural and situational patterns, normative
knowledge, orientations towards mobility etc.
Structural assimilation refers to a more or less successful process of taking
membership roles in organisations, the gain of income, the occupational and
legal position as well as formal education. This form of assimilation therefore
refers to the structure of migrants' empirical participation in social systems
(plural!) and to social resources like income, education, rights, health, reputation
etc. that are mediated by participation and which determine the social status
of migrants. It is obvious that the assimilation type of migration research
is centrally situated in the long tradition of the sociology of social inequality.
The main assumption here is that in modern society inequality is structured
social inequality. Assimilation research assumes that these structures also
regulate migrants' access to those social resources that are most relevant for
the range of life options that may be realised.
Social assimilation refers to migrants' social relations like friendships, marriage,
clubs and other associations or social networks. Migration research focuses
here on interethnic relations and assumes interdependencies between structural
and social assimilation.
Identificational assimilation finally refers to the claims of belonging and
identity made by migrants themselves and to the forms of identity made use of.
Research usually is interested here in migrants' intentions to return or be
naturalised, their ethnic belonging, language use and political orientations.
Based on these distinctions, assimilation research stresses two important points:
Migrants' assimilation efforts are usually confronted with social barriers.
These barriers need to be analysed with reference to the specific systems in
which they occur. They can be found in firms concerning access to work places,
in schools concerning migrant children's success, in states concerning access
to citizenship and rights, in families concerning access to education, friendships
or interethnic relations.
In the course of its history, migration research has not always had the same
understanding of assimilation. But on the whole it was generally assumed that
there is a strong relation of correspondence between the different dimensions
of assimilation that have been sketched before. And this is quite plausible
because an individual with more cognitive preconditions is more likely to be
competent to fulfil the expectations of membership roles. An individual with
a secure and more or less well paid occupational position will find both: easier
access to health, education, rights and politics, and more social recognition
and social relations. In addition individuals who live regularly in those secure
social contexts will develop corresponding cognitive structures etc.
The same holds true the other way round. It is unlikely that individuals living
in a narrow ethnic milieu will acquire the cognitive structures necessary to
fulfil the expectations of schools, to be occupationally successful or to get
access to attractive and well paid positions in organisations. The same milieu
is liable to reduce access to social networks, friendships and clubs outside
of it. This in turn is why members of this milieu will hardly have feelings
of belonging beyond its borders. Both, successful assimilation to the expectations
of social systems, and its failure seem to have a highly self-perpetuating character.
We may call these assumptions the strict coupling hypothesis of the assimilationists.
They assume a narrow or strict coupling between the different forms of assimilation
(and may disagree amongst each other which form of assimilation is of primary
importance).
IV.
We will not engage in an argument with this hypothesis but rather want to show
how the claims of the multiculturalists and the transnationalists relate to
the strict coupling hypothesis of assimilation research. Our main points will
be:
- Cultural plurality and assimilation do not contradict each other.
-
The arguments of transnationalism can be reconstructed as an effort to question
the hypothesis of a strict coupling between the different forms of assimilation
with reference to the empirical effects of globalisation. This central point
and drift of the transnationalist argument can be rendered visible if we use
the general frame of a theory of modern, i.e. differentiated society.
a) Cultural plurality and assimilation do not contradict each other. Multiculturalism
underlines processes of cultural pluralisation and describes these as major
social challenges. But modern organisations and functional realms like the economy,
politics, law, education or health have already to a large extent deregulated
the cultural life forms and this does not seem to cause major social turbulences
(Bommes 2003b). At the same time individuals must be
aware of those expectations that are valid in the realms of education, work,
law, health etc. To give an example: Schools do expect a population of pupils
that is multilingual and culturally as well as religiously heterogeneous. Schools
do not intend to repair this heterogeneity but they expect pupils to acquire
literacy, to learn the generalised language of intercourse and to develop other
formal qualifications. The aim is not to create a homogeneous school population
as a community (i.e. "assimilation" as the political program of the
nation state of the 19th and early 20th centuries; Maas 1984,
Therborn 1995) but to educate individuals in a way that
they become competent to participate in social systems. Hospitals are more and
more prepared to treat patients of different origin, language and culture. Firms
take into account the religious orientations of their staff. Politics and nation
states in (Western-) Europe no longer see cultural homogenisation as a precondition
for longterm residence, settlement and naturalisation (Joppke
2001). And the law protects individuals against discrimination for religious
or cultural reasons.
Against this background we may speak of a factual multiculturalism in Europe
which has been confronted with amazingly little resistance by the European nation
states - amazing at least if one recalls the anxieties articulated at the end
of the 1980s and the beginning 1990s. At that time multiculturalism and cultural
plurality as an effect of migration were seen as a challenge for the nation
state and its seemingly indispensable program of cultural homogenisation of
the resident population. We may think here of the prominence of Brubaker's (1992)
comparison of France and Germany.
To sum up: Multiculturalism and assimilation do not contradict each other. Modern
organisations in different realms can cope quite well with pluralised cultural
orientations - which does not mean that individuals can cope with it just as
well. They may fail in their efforts to find access and inclusion if they fail
to assimilate. The main point of reference for assimilation are differentiated
social systems: organisations and functional realms like the modern economy,
law, politics, science, education or health but not groups of (majority) societies.
Assimilation to social systems refers to a social condition that applies in
a culture transcending manner - it is in any case not culturally specific.
b)On closer inspection transnationalism does not contradict the assimilation
thesis either. The main thesis of transnationlism is that globalisation leads
to a loose coupling of the forms of assimilation, i.e. cognitive, structural,
social and identificational assimilation. The substance of the debate between
transnationalists and assimilationists are two different and competing hypotheses
about the consequences of international migration which can be tested empirically.
The debate therefore should not primarily be taken as a debate between two theoretically
completely different approaches.
The claim that transnational relations or spaces are currently expanding empirically
refers to something different from what is asserted by multiculturalists: According
to these assertions social systems which individuals try to find access are
not constrained to the borders of nation states. This implies that individuals
lead their lives in ways that transcend state borders. This may be the case
for various realms like the family, education, health, the economy or politics.
To give an example: Migrants work in the host context in order to invest money,
to care for the family and to engage in local or national political projects
in the context of origin. Successful migrants invest money in the context of
origin in order to develop a new industry as in the case of Indian IT-specialists.
These transnational modes of life can be found in different social contexts
and in various combinations depending on migrants' different access and control
over resources. This has been shown by the research of a number of scholars
(e.g. Hunger 2000; Levitt 1998,
2001; Müller-Mahn 2000; Singhanetra-Renard
1992).
On closer inspection it again becomes evident that the arguments of transnationalists
do not contradict the assumption that there is no alternative to assimilation
in modern society. This contradiction holds only as long as the frames of analysis
are not clarified.
To state the main hypothesis again: even transnational migrants do have to assimilate
- to the expectations of those social systems in which they want to participate.
This means for them e.g. that they may have to find a balance between the expectations
of their family in the context of origin and the conditions of achievement at
the work place or in organisations of education in the immigration context.
It is important to keep this in mind since it allows us to realise what precisely
is controversial between assimilationists and transnationalists. The critique
concerning conventional migration research by transnationlists argues that this
type of research is still too much confined to "methodological nationalism"
(Wimmer, Glick-Schiller 2001). This
is seen as the reason why assimilation is conceptualised based on a container
concept of society and related to a concept of integration that still uses the
nation state as the central frame of reference.
This argument is right and wrong at the same time. It is right since assimilationists
conceptualise indeed the society as a big national collective society. It is
wrong in that something very different is the actual subject of assimilationist
empirical research, i.e. the connection between the different forms of assimilation
(cognitive, structural, social, identificational) as they have been discussed
before. Combined with this focus is a strong socio-structural hypothesis: the
assumption of a strict coupling between the different forms of assimilation.
Assimilationists assume a strong link between individual cognitive structures
as a precondition for assimilation (indicators are education and language in
particular, i.e. the existence of structures that allow the building of further
structures), structural assimilation (measured by the achieved social status),
social assimilation (access to non-ethnic networks) and identificational assimilation
(collective, especially ethnic and national identity). The main thesis implies
principally two points: 1) It can be observed that migrants enter those coupled
assimilation processes (they enter education, strive for social status, change
their social networks and forms of self-identification); this shows that the
different forms of assimilation remain relevant for migrants. 2) It can be demonstrated
that assimilation remains central for their life chances. Only then can they
reach the level of life chances of the non-migrant population. Failure to assimilate
results in e.g. the emergence of segregated ethnic milieus. There may be diversification
but ongoing assimilation processes are more likely and in the end unavoidable.
This implies a further thesis which is empirically interesting but hidden by
the ongoing use of a national concept of society and the corresponding "methodological
nationalism". The thesis can be rendered visible if we reconstruct assimilation
in the way proposed above. The implied thesis is that the nation state is still
a decisive frame for the structure of the relations of distribution and inequality
even in a globalised world society. The connections between the different forms
of assimilation remain regulated and strictly coupled because of the continuous
importance of the nation state. Even under the conditions of globalisation these
relations are still not loosely coupled and contingent. To put it differently:
It remains unlikely that especially the structural, social and identificational
forms of assimilation vary arbitrarily. Hartmut Esser has emphasised this point
by arguing that the education systems are moulded by national cultures and that
national languages preserve their continuous relevance.
For reasons of clarity we again underline that assimilation research is thus
based on the general paradigm of inequality research implying the following
core assumptions:
-
The relations of distribution in modern society are structured relations,
i.e. they produce structured social inequality linked with the emergence of
identifiable social groups which we call classes.
- The relations of distribution are still mediated by nation states. Beneath
the transcending relations of international inequality embodied in the North-South
and East-West imbalance, the structures of social inequality are essentially
nationally segmented and structured(2).
- Structured inequality means that the distribution of social resources like
money, occupational position, education, health, rights and political influence
is not likely to vary arbitrarily. Social advantages tend to cumulate where
advantages can already be found, and this form of social inequality tends to
be reproductive and self-perpetuating. Individuals with good chances of participation
in social systems and access to social resources tend to build networks securing
and safeguarding these opportunities and corresponding collective identities.
At the same time they care for conditions that allow the maintenance and reproduction
of individual competences for themselves and their children which, in turn,
constitutes a precondition for access to social systems and social resources.
- To a large extent assimilation research means the application of the above
assumptions to the field of migration research. The measurement of assimilation
in the different dimensions is used as an indicator for migrants' success or
failure to penetrate existing relations of distribution. Interethnic relations
are an evidence of penetration of the relevant reproduction networks of social
inequality by migrants.
Seen against this background it is easy to identify the antithesis of transnationalism
(if we leave aside some conceptual problems and metaphors like "transnational
spaces" etc.; s.
Bommes 2003a). The central thesis
of transnationalism is that we witness a decoupling of the different forms of
assimilation. This in turn implies the more general thesis that transnational
developments are part of a general process of destructuration of social inequality
- a process that has been registered independent of migration research and the
consequences of which are the subject of an ongoing sociological debate. The
thesis of decoupling is based on the following empirical observations:
- The participation of more and more migrants in different social systems is
distributed over several locations ("plurilocal") and regularly transcends
nation state borders (it is "transnational"). It may be discussed
whether these processes are enduring and stable but this would imply that the
interconnections between the chances of participation in the different social
systems like the family, economy, law, education, politics and health could
change. In this view they tend to be less and less controlled or mediated by
the established national welfare regimes, and these regimes may themselves be
eroded by these changes.
- Participation in social systems is more and more mediated by transnational
migrant networks. These networks organise access and inclusion. Connected with
this is the assumption that social assimilation in the sense explained before
loses relevance. Assimilationists assume that the enduring existence of ethnic
milieus is mainly an indicator for the reproduction of structured inequality
restricting migrants' social options. Transnationalists emphasise instead the
potential of those networks for the mediation of social options.
- The diversification of collective identities is seen as a symptom for migrants'
reorientation to the nationally decoupled and transnationally mediated forms
of identificational assimilation.
- The emergence of transnational competences finally proves a change of the
conditions of cognitive assimilation. These assimilation processes take place
now in relation to the transnationally structured conditions of participation
in social systems.
To sum up: Compared with the position of assimilationists it becomes evident
that transnationalism puts forward a decoupling hypothesis. The forms of assimilation
are undergoing a process of decoupling under the conditions of globalisation.
Transnationalism implies that new oportunities of variation between these forms
emerge. In this sense the forms of assimilation are loosely coupled in a globalised
world and the nation state loses relevance for social integration, i.e. the
restriction of variation between these forms of assimilation.
V.
What are the consequences of this mode to reconstruct the position of assimilationists
and transnationalists? It is easy to see now that transnationalism and assimilationism
do not necessarily refer to different theoretical approaches. What is at issue
between transnationalists and assimilationists is the strict or loose coupling
of the forms of assimilation. This does not prove in itself the need for different
approaches - rather the contrary. Reconstructed in the general frame of a theory
of modern society the dispute between the positions gains transparency. The
substitution of theoretical concepts by metaphors like transnational spaces
rather hides the substance of the dispute(3). But the blind
spots that become visible by comparing the two positions with reference to the
theoretical frame used in this paper are instructive.
- The assimilationists show that transnationalists neglect the enduring mediation
of chances of social participation of migrants by nationally established relations
of social inequality and welfare states. The assumption of the diminishing
relevance of the nation state seems to be a nearly conceptual starting point.
For this reason they also fail to notice that the emergence of transnational
structures may be even a consequence of the specific modes in which national
welfare states treat migrants and include or exclude them politically. In
this sense nation states are part of and to some extent even the precondition
for the emergence of transnational structures (Koopman,
Statham 2002). Transnationalism itself is still influenced by the classical
claim of the nation state to be the head and centre of society. For that reason
transnationalism has no theoretical concept of society anymore and tends to
understand globalisation without nation states or with only a very limited
version of that institution. For the same reason transnationalists seem to
have serious difficulties in conceptualising the challenge of the empirical
phenomena they refer to in theoretically adequate concepts, i.e.
-
that the
consequence of the emergence of transnational structures and modes of living
may be the destructuration of the institutionalised forms of social inequality
so far mediated by national welfare states and
- that this precisely means
a serious challenge for assimilation research. But this may be a challenge
not because assimilation does not matter anymore, but because relations of
assimilation may become looosely coupled as an effect of the re- or destructuration
of the relations of social inequality formerly strongly mediated by the institutions
of the national welfare state. If this is the case it cannot however be conceptually
derived but needs to be demonstrated by empirical research trying to answer
questions like the following: What precisely are the transnational forms and
constellations of migrants' participation in various social systems? In which
contexts do these transnational structures emerge? What are the mechanisms
of stabilisation for these structures and under which conditions do they dissolve?
What kind of effects do these transnational structures have on the established
relations of distribution and social inequality?
- The transnationalists show that assimilationist approaches employ the nation
state as a tacitly presupposed frame of reference not the least because of the
underlying concept of national society. The mediation of the relations of social
inequality and assimilation by national welfare states is rather a premise of
analysis in this approach than an emprical fact that needs further analysis
concerning its social and historical preconditions. As a consequence the assimilationist
approach should become more open for a discussion about the role of the nation
state and the extent to which the coupling of assimilation forms may be socially
contingent. This would open the field for empirical research of potentially
alternative developments. The main debates of migration research would be less
then concerned with the (wrong) opposition transnationalism versus assimilation
but with the description and explanation of social structures in a world society
which may or may not be combined with changing relations of assimilation.
Notations
(1) Among the numerous publications see Bauböck
1994; Glick, Schiller, Blanc-Szanton 1995; Faist
2000; Hannerz 1996; Levitt 2001;
Ong 1997; Portes 1996; Pries
1997, 2001a; Vertovec 2001;
a general reader is provided by Vertovec, Cohen 1999.
(2) This can also be seen by the fact that most research on
social inequality focusses on the description of nationally structured inequality.
In a similar way Stichweh (1998) underlines the role
of the national welfare state as a "institutionalised threshold of inequality".
(3) The continuous repetition of these metaphors and the proclamation
that this is a new theoretical approach opening up new perspectives to the various
disciplines of migration research (s. recently Gogolin, Pries 2004) continues
to hide the substance of this dispute.
References
Alba, Richard; Nee, Victor. 1997. Rethinking Assimilation
Theory for a New Era of Immigration. In: International Migration Review, Vol.
31, 826-874.
Bade, Klaus J.,
ed. 1996. Die multikulturelle Herausforderung. Menschen über Grenzen -
Grenzen über Menschen. München.
Bade, Klaus J.
2000. Europa in Bewegung. Migration vom späten 18. Jahrhundert bis zur
Gegenwart, München.
Bauböck, Rainer. 1994. Transnational Citizenship:
Membership and Rights in International Migration. Aldershot.
Bommes,
Michael. 1999. Migration und nationaler Wohlfahrtsstaat. Ein differenzierungstheoretischer
Entwurf. Wiesbaden.
Bommes,
Michael. 2003a. Der Mythos des transnationalen Raumes. Oder: Worin besteht
die Herausforderung des Transnationalismus für die Migrationsforschung?
In: Thränhardt, Dietrich; Hunger, Uwe, eds. Migration im Spannungsfeld
von Globalisierung und Nationalstaat. Leviathan Sonderheft No. 22. Wiesbaden,
90-116.
Bommes,
Michael. 2003b. The Shrinking Inclusive Capacity of the Welfare State: International
Migration and the Deregulation of Identity. In: Brochmann, Grete, ed. The Multicultural
Challenge. Comparative Social Science Vol. 22. London, Oslo, 43-67.
Brochmann, Grete, ed. 2003. The Multicultural Challenge.
Comparative Social Science Vol. 22. London, Oslo.
Brubaker, Rogers. 1992. Citizenship and Nationhood in
France and Germany. Cambridge, Mass.
Brubaker, Rogers. 2001. The Return of Assimilation?
Changing Perspectives on Immigration and its Sequels in France, Germany, and
the United States. In: Ethnic and Racial Studies, Vol. 24 (4), 531-548.
Cohn-Bendit, Daniel;
Schmidt, Thomas. 1992. Heimat Babylon. Das Wagnis der multikulturellen Demokratie.
Hamburg.
Esser,
Hartmut. 1980. Aspekte der Wanderungssoziologie. Neuwied.
Esser,
Hartmut. 2001. Kulturelle Pluralisierung und strukturelle Assimilation.
Das Problem der ethnischen Schichtung. In: Schweizerische Zeitschrift für
Politikwissenschaft, Vol. 7 (2), 97-108.
Faist,
Thomas. 2000. The Volume and Dynamics of International Migration and Transnational
Social Spaces. Oxford.
Gerber, David A. 2000. Theories and Lives: Transnationalism
and the Conceptualization of International Migrations to the United States.
In: Michael
Bommes , Hg. Transnationalismus und Kulturvergleich (IMIS-Beiträge,
H. 15). Osnabrück, 31-54.
Glick
Schiller, Nina; Basch, Linda ; Blanc-Szanton, Christina. 1995. From Immigrant
to Transmigrant: Theorizing Transnational Migration. In: Anthropological Quarterly,
Vol. 68, 48-63.
Gordon, Milton M. 1964. Assimilation in American life :
the role of race, religion, and national origins. New York.
Hannerz, Ulf. 1996. Transnational Connections: Culture,
People, Places, New York.
Hunger,
Uwe. 2000. Vom ›Brain-Drain‹ zum ›Brain-Gain‹. Migration,
Netzwerkbildung und sozio-ökonomische Entwicklung: das Beispiel der indischen
›Software-Migranten‹. In: IMIS-Beiträge, H. 16, 7-21.
Joppke, Christian. 2001. Multicultural Citizenship. A Critique.
In: Archives Européennes de Sociologie, Vol. 42, 431-447.
Koopmans, Ruud; Statham,
Paul. 2002. How national citizenship shapes transnationalism. A comparative
analysis of migrant and minority claims-making in Germany, Great Britain and
the Netherlands. In: Morawska, Ewa; Joppke, Christian, eds. Toward Assimilation
and Citizenship in Liberal Nation-States. London, 195-238.
Kritz, Mary M.; Lim, Lin Lean; Zlotnik, Hania, eds. 1992.
International Migration Systems. A Global Approach. Oxford.
Leggewie, Claus.
1990. Multi Kulti - Spielregeln für die Vielvölkerrepublik. Berlin.
Levitt,
Peggy. 1998. Local Level Global Religion: The Case of U.S.-Dominican Migration.
In: Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Vol. 37, 74-89.
Levitt,
Peggy. 2001. The Transnational Villagers. Berkeley.
Lucassen, Leo. 2004. Assimilation in Westeuropa seit
der Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts. Historische und historiographische Erfahrungen.
In: Bade, Klaus J.; Bommes,
Michael; Münz, Rainer, eds.
Migrationsreport 2004. Fakten - Analysen - Perspektiven. Frankfurt am Main,
New York, 43-66.
Luhmann,
Niklas. 1989. Individuum, Individualität, Individualismus. In: Luhmann,
Niklas. Gesellschaftsstruktur und Semantik, Bd. 3. Frankfurt am Main, 149-258.
Luhmann,
Niklas. 1997. Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft. Frankfurt am Main.
Maas, Utz. 1984. Als der Geist der Gemeinschaft eine Sprache
fand. Sprache im Nationalsozialismus. Opladen.
Morawska, Ewa. 2002. Immigrant Transnationalism and
Assimilation: A Variety of Combinations and the Analytic Strategy it Suggests.
In: Morawska, Ewa; Joppke, Christian, eds. Toward Assimilation and Citizenship
in Liberal Nation-States. London, 133-176.
Morawska, Ewa; Joppke, Christian. Eds. 2002. Toward
Assimilation and Citizenship in Liberal Nation-States. London.
Müller-Mahn,
Detlef. 2000. Ein ägyptisches Dorf in Paris. Eine empirische Studie
zur Süd-Nord-Migration am Beispiel ägyptischer ›Sans-papiers‹
in Frankreich. In: Bommes,
Michael, Hg. Transnationalismus und Kulturvergleich (IMIS-Beiträge,
H. 15). Osnabrück, 79-110.
Ong, Aihwa. Ed. 1997. Ungrounded Empires: The Cultural Politics
of Modern Chinese Transnationalism. New York.
Portes, Alejandro.
1996. Transnational Communities: Their Emergence and Significance in the Contemporary
World-System. In: Korzniewidcz, Roberto Patricio; Smith, William C., eds. Latin
America in the World Economy. Westport, CT.
Pries,
Ludger, Hg. 1997. Transnationale Migration. Soziale Welt, Sonderband 12.
Baden-Baden.
Pries,
Ludger. 2001a. The Disruption of Social and Geographic Space. Mexican-US
Migration and the Emergence of Transnational Social Spaces. In: International
Sociology, Vol. 16, 55-74.
Pries,
Ludger. 2001b. Internationale Migration. Einführung in Klassische Theorien
und neue Ansätze. Bielefeld.
Singhanetra-Renard, Anch'alee. 1992. The Mobilization
of Labour Migrants in Thailand: Personal Links and Facilitating Networks. In:
Kritz, Mary M.; Lim, Lin Lean; Zlotnik, Hania, eds. International Migration
Systems. A Global Approach. Oxford, 190-204.
Stichweh,
Rudolf. 1998. Migration, nationale Wohlfahrtsstaaten und die Entstehung
der Weltgesellschaft. In: Bommes,
Michael; Halfmann,
Jost, eds. Migration in nationalen Wohlfahrtsstaaten. Theoretische und vergleichende
Untersuchungen. Osnabrück, 49-61.
Therborn, Göran. 1995. European Modernity and Beyond:
the Trajectory of European Societies, 1945-2000. London u.a.
Vertovec, Steven. 2001. Transnational Social Formations:
Towards Conceptual Cross-Fertilization. Paper presented at the Workshop on ›Transnational
Migration: Comparative Perspectives‹. Princeton.
Vertovec, Steven; Cohen, Robin, eds. 1999. Migration,
Diasporas and Transnationalism. Cheltenham, Northhampton, MA.
Wimmer, Andreas; Glick-Schiller,
Nina. 2001. Methodological Nationalism and Beyond. Nation-State Building,
Migration and the Social Sciences. Paper presented at the Workshop on ›Transnational
Migration: Comparative Perspectives‹. Princeton.
