Diasporic Identities – Reflections on Transnational Belonging

Diasporic Identities – Reflections on Transnational Belonging* Daniel Naujoks (2010) Abstract The question of ‘diasporic identities’ has been a field of academic study, political debate and public controversy for a long time. Among several shortcomings in much of the existing writing is a certain identity fuzziness that should be addressed at several levels. It is of paramount importance to examine the concrete entity of diasporic identification. In this regard diasporic-ethnic, -national, and -civic identifications can be distinguished, depending on whether we consider individuals in their capacity as (a) members of the ethnic community in the country of residence; (b) having bonds with the place of origin as a nation and the people living there; or (c) being part of the state of origin with rights and responsibilities towards state institutions. Further, welldefined categories of analysis have to be adopted. For transnational activities with regard to the country of origin, self-categorization and commitment deserve particular attention. Recognizing the constructed character of ethnic, national and civic identifications, the determinants of their formation and change over time have to be examined carefully. With regard to potential or actual conflicts between multiple identifications, it is essential to re-examine critically many propositions about rival loyalties and competing identifications based on the adopted categories of analysis. Keywords: diaspora, national identity, ethnic identity, migration, transnationalism, identity theory *This paper was published as Naujoks, Daniel. 2010. “Diasporic Identity. Reflections on Transnational Belonging” Diaspora Studies 3 (1), pp. 1–21. Please quote from the published version only. Diasporic Identities – Reflections on Transnational Belonging1 Daniel Naujoks (2010) Both in public discourse and in research literature, a lot has been said about people’s ‘identity’. Especially in diaspora studies and the realm of immigration research, identities of newcomers, the degree of attachment to both, country of origin and country of residence, their change over time and differences between groups, has been a field of academic study, political debate and public controversy for a long time. In recent years, a change of perspective has been brought by scholars from the field of transnationalism who combine questions of integration, assimilation, and acculturation in the receiving societies with ongoing ties and interactions with the societies of origin, leading to transnational ways of belonging and being (Levitt and Glick Schiller 2004). With regard to identity as a concept in social analysis, Amartya Sen (2006) complains about two reductionisms. The first is an identity disregard, often found in economic theory, which does not add identity related questions to the set of variables explaining decisions, behavior and interactions. Countering this reductionism, Sen states that ‘a sense of identity with others can be a very important – and rather complex – influence on one’s behavior’ (p. 23). The other reductionist pattern, according to Sen, consists in framing identities as singular affiliations, disregarding the many different and simultaneously existing identifications and belongings of any human being. To these two reductionisms, I add a critique of identity fuzziness in much of the writing on identity issues. Often analysts operate without a clear conceptualization of what identity is and how it can serve as an analytical category. Researchers, migrants and the public discourse too readily speak along standard lines of argumentation, referring to ‘identity, loyalty, and commitment’. Arguments made in this regard are rarely more than mere assumptions, anecdotes and plausible (because in conformity with established schools of thought and ideas) lines of reasoning. My aim is not to question these concepts in their totality, however, the unreflected use of certain terms and concepts is as problematic as it is widespread. If we think of ‘identity’ as an analytical tool, we have to recognize that terms can have different meanings in different contexts and that our research purpose is likely to affect the tools and terms we use. In this essay, I would like to raise selected identity issues that appear to be important from the viewpoint of home country interactions. We may want to examine changing identifications by the diaspora, their content and meaning, NAUJOKS - Diasporic Identities – Reflections on Transnational Belonging 2 the influence of homeland policies and also the concrete effects of certain identificatory and affective relationships. This discussion is based on a so called ‘weak’ diaspora concept, defining it as all groups and individuals (1) who trace their roots back to one homeland but (2) who live (permanently) outside that homeland and (3) whose ethno-cultural relation to the homeland has not vanished. A victim tradition, i.e., an expulsion or forced exodus from the place of origin, or a particular myth of return is not necessary to define a group as a diaspora. Often we take ‘identity’ as a proxy for interaction or, at least, for the potential for interaction. In this regard, notional and conceptual clarity is paramount in order to avoid the pitfalls of readymade rhetoric and fuzzy ideas. I shall provide brief clarifications on some analytical categories associated with the concept of ‘identity’ as well as their content and meaning. I will exemplify my conceptualizations with reference to the diaspora that constitutes the focus of this journal and my own research, the Indian diaspora.2 The discussed categories are, however, equally of interest for other diasporas and longdistance memberships. Individual-level Elements of ‘Identity’ There is a rich body of research literature dealing with the question of ‘national’ and ‘ethnic identity’, such as contributions in the field of sociology (Portes and Rumbaut 2001; Rumbaut and Portes 2001), social identity theory (Tajfel 1982; Tajfel and Turner 1986), anthropology and cultural studies (Vertovec 2001; Eriksen 2001; Holland 1997) as well as social and ethnic psychology (Suinn et al. 1987; 1992; Phinney 1992; 2004; Kim and Gelfand 2003; Ashmore et al. 2004). Despite the many publications on the matter, the basic concept of ‘identity’ remains a rather vague and not clearly defined term. And that is only where problems begin. Brubaker and Cooper (2000:1) argue that ‘ ‘[i]dentity’ […] tends to mean too much (when understood in a strong sense), too little (when understood in a weak sense), or nothing at all (because of its sheer ambiguity)’ which is why they conclude that it ‘is too ambiguous, too torn between “hard” and “soft” meanings, essentialist connotations and constructivist qualifiers, to serve well the demands of social analysis’ (p. 2). Apart from a lack of clarity in the concept, it is very difficult to obtain reliable and meaningful information on many aspects which are commonly associated with it. Survey questionnaires that have been developed on the matter ask respondents to agree/disagree or to rate statements such as ‘are you proud of the country, the flag, the national achievements, NAUJOKS - Diasporic Identities – Reflections on Transnational Belonging 3 etc.’3 These questionnaires might be good heuristics but, arguably, it is difficult to obtain a more significant picture of the meaning and consequences of those attitudes, as well as to the context-specific parameters. Further, analyzing interview statements, references and passages which involve ‘identity’, ‘Americanness’, ‘Indianness’, and other related motives as ‘categories of practice’ (Bourdieu), one has to take into account that the concepts are not clear to the interviewees either, making it difficult to extract the ‘real meaning’.4 In addition, outside expectations about those concepts, for example, about ideas of assimilation and integration in the immigration country discourse, or nationalist ideas of unity and ethnic boundedness in the country of origin are internalized or at least considered by interviewees. Also, interviewees might not be able to assess their own situation as well as their identification and commitment, since these concepts are fuzzy and multi-dimensional. To answer questions such as ‘Who or what am I? Am I proud of something? If yes, when and why? Do I feel a sense of belonging?’ cannot be considered easy to answer and may depend on many context-specific and notexplicated connotations and associations of the informants. And lastly, we, as analysts, have limited time to obtain the information and resources to analyze it (apart from our eventually limited interpretative abilities). All this limits our possibilities of reaching an in-depth understanding of the processes of ‘identity’ formation and related phenomena. In brief, we encounter both conceptual and practical difficulties when dealing with concepts associated with the complex of ethnic, national, and cultural ‘identity’. In this context it is important to recall that we are looking at identificatory issues through the lens of (potential) interactions with the home country. Without losing the focus of the analysis in the theoretical abyss of the concept and its psychological, philosophical and sociological ramifications, I can draw on concepts and aspects as elaborated by the different research disciplines. Based on my own empirical research and general observations, the discussed categories may be used as heuristic tools for analyzing changes in the diaspora-homeland relationship and various factors. Reviewing studies and works on identity-related issues from various research traditions, Ashmore et al. (2004) identify a number of distinct individual-level elements that the construct of ‘collective identity’ encompasses. These are: selfcategorization; evaluation (positive or negative attitudes); importance (centrality and salience of group membership in the individual’s overall self-concept); attachment (emotional involvement with the group); social embeddedness; behavioral involvement NAUJOKS - Diasporic Identities – Reflections on Transnational Belonging 4 (actions that implicate the collective identity category); and content and meaning (ideology and narrative). Phinney (2004) combines the three elements evaluation, importance, and attachment to ethnic commitment which is defined as the strength of one’s ties with a particular group. Despite the notorious fuzziness of the term, it may be observed that the term ‘identity’ still serves as a valuable short-hand or as an umbrella category, combining several elements. The aspects of self-categorization and commitment are of particular interest for the relation to the country of origin. Before I will elaborate further on these concepts, the widely neglected question of the concrete identificatory group that diasporic actors may self-identity with and feel committed to shall be addressed. Lastly, we have to understand the concrete processes of identity formation and negotiations. Ethnic, National, and Civic Group Identification It is important to explore what membership, identification and commitment mean, as we will in the following sections. But it is equally important to ask what the concrete groups are of which individuals are members and to which they feel attached. With regard to the country of origin, three distinct memberships can be discerned, which can be labeled as ethnic, national, and civic, depending on whether we consider the individual in his or her capacity as (a) a member of the ethnic community in the country of residence (diasporic-ethnic); (b) having bonds with the home society as a nation and the people living in the country of origin (diasporic-national); or (c) being a part of the state of origin with rights and responsibilities also towards the government/political/state institutions (diasporic-civic) – see Figure 1. For example, ethnic Indians in the U.S. can feel attached to other ethnic Indians in the U.S., they can feel belongingness to the people living in India and they can feel a commitment as Indian citizens and part of the Republic of India. [Somewhere here Figure 1] None of the markers used to distinguish the three different groups is unequivocal and uncontested. Referring to the diasporic community in the country of residence, here the U.S., as ethnic Indians shall not be understood along the lines of an essentialist notion of ‘ethnicity’. Ethnicity is largely socially constructed in internal and external discourse (Barth 1969; Jenkins 1994). Self-labelling processes as ‘ethnic Indians’ are partly rooted in the official U.S. terminology5 and mainstream discourse, and reflect also tendencies of the Indian state to construct a pan-Indian community. It shall not be NAUJOKS - Diasporic Identities – Reflections on Transnational Belonging 5 forgotten that in heterogeneous diasporic groups like ‘Indians’ there are many ethnic boundaries within the group. Adopting the official terminology or the category of practice as an analytical category carries the danger to overlook these differences.6 On the other hand, it cannot be denied that despite linguistic, regional, religious and other divisions diasporic groups, like diasporic Indians, perceive something like a pan-Indian community in the U.S. For certain questions it might be appropriate to examine narrower ethnic groups. On the other hand for other research purposes, despite its constructed origin the community of people who trace their roots or the roots of their ancestors to what today is their country of origin has analytical value. Alternatively or additionally, one could consider the individual being a member of the ‘global diasporic family’ as being composed of all diasporic settlements, including or excluding the mother country. Further, it is important to elaborate the difference between diasporic-national and civic entities of identification. Identifying the bonds between migrants and India as a nation, not a state, I do not want to address the controversial discussion of whether India can be considered one nation and how exactly such an entity can be defined.7 National membership is here instead understood along the lines of Anderson’s (1983/2006) concept of nations as ‘imagined communities’, that is, as ‘horizontal comradeship’ (p. 6) with the other members residing in India. For many research purposes that arise from the country of origin perspective, it suffices to examine the imagined national community of diasporic actors and people living in their country of origin for the diasporic-national perspective. Alternatively, a community feeling with all diasporic communities around the globe could be of interest. In countries of origin with heterogeneous (and possibly) federal structures like India and China one could also consider diasporic-regional identification, both in national and civic terms. It should also be stressed though that these membership categories are not independent from each other. On the contrary, it can be assumed that many of those aspects enforce each other. But what is diasporic-civic identification and commitment? I argue that this category consists of more than mere ‘flag waving patriotism’. Following country of originrelated news and day-to-day politics is one sign for a diasporic-civic relationship with the country of origin. Having the feeling that the country of origin government is, to some extent, one’s government is another aspect of this civic group membership. As a similar concept, Glick Schiller and Fouron (2001:25-6) employ the term 'trans-border citizens’ to reflect ‘the relationship that people […] have with more than one NAUJOKS - Diasporic Identities – Reflections on Transnational Belonging 6 government.’ These people are, as Glick Schiller and Fouron argue, substantive citizens of more than one state, being involved in the political processes and cultures in each state. They find that ‘[w]hen Haitians assert citizenship rights, they do so with an understanding of the state forged through their experiences with both the Haitian and U.S. political systems. Out of their combined experiences with distinct governments that have dramatically different expectations about the relationship between a state and its citizens, Haitian transborder citizens create new ways to think about and respond to the governments of both countries’ (p. 179). A certain identification with, and a sense of belonging to the state as well as openness to the government’s expectations are significant analytical categories. And it is interesting to note that for Indian migrants in the U.S., their experiences with community and state issues in the U.S. are likely to affect their readiness towards claims by India. Still, the difference to the diasporicnational group membership may be considered marginal and empirically hard to discern. In fact, for many questions it might suffice to look at the combined civicnational identification. Without making artificial boundaries, one has to recognize, however, that ethnic, national and civic identifications do not have to coincide, which is why an analytical differentiation is useful for understanding and analyzing the phenomena under scrutiny. Assessing the various identificatory groups for diasporic Indians, initially I considered including a diasporic-cultural identification, since many overseas Indians see themselves as culturally attached to Indian heritage, such as religion, tradition, music, and way of life. While cultural identification has to be considered a valuable category of belonging in its own right for many research questions, for research on transnational activities with regard to the home country it is more appropriate to conceptualize the attachment to Indian traditions, values, culture, etc. as a factor that drives identification (both self and external ascription) with (a) the ethnic Indian group and (b) India as a nation. It is not a necessary element of the diasporic-national or ethnic relationship, but it definitely helps in identifying with either of these groups and positively valuing the relationship. Thus, in this framework cultural identification is an aspect of ethnic and transnational group bonding. As examples for the different self-categorizations in group memberships, the diasporic Indians in the Caribbean, in eastern Africa and South Africa, in Fiji, Mauritius and other parts of the world can be invoked. The ancestors of ethnic Indians in these regions had migrated to these places as laborers or merchants 100-150 years ago. Nonetheless the communities display many characteristics that lead to the selfNAUJOKS - Diasporic Identities – Reflections on Transnational Belonging 7 categorization und external ascription as ‘Indian’. Indicators are wearing Indian clothes, cooking Indian food, speaking Indian languages, believing in Indian religions, adhering to old Indian customs and traditions, limiting marriages outside the group, etc.8 However, despite these characteristics, those persons of Indian origin would not consider themselves as having any kind of real relationship with India; neither to the people nor to the country (Jain 1993; Dubey 2009). These individuals identify with their Indian ethnic group in the country of residence and there is a strong attachment to Indian culture and heritage. Some might have a vague diasporic-national attachment to India as the land of their ancestors. But certainly, there is no diasporic-civic identification with the Republic of India as a state or a connection to the Indian government. Adding the label ‘diasporic’ to all four identifiers is based on the observation that the ethnic, national, and civic identification and commitment of Indians in India is likely to differ from the respective ‘diasporic identity’ of migrants and their descendants. Such differences can be explained by several factors. Faist (2000:215) reminds us that migrants’ culture cannot be seen as a baggage which can ‘be figuratively packed and unpacked, uprooted (assimilationists) and transplanted (cultural pluralists). Instead, an analytical approach looks for structures of meaning engendered by and expressed in private and public behaviours, images, institutions, languages.’ It has been observed that migrants tend to preserve and reproduce the ‘socio-cultural image’ of their country of emigration that they took along when they moved abroad. This is often referred to as time-freeze factor (Martin et al. 2006). While the culture is somewhat fossilized in the diaspora, the culture in the home country can, and indeed is likely to change over one decade, let alone a century. Further, constraints of scarcity of support structures, pressures from the host society, new power struggles in the community, the composition of the migrant community which often does not reflect the composition in the home country and the exchange with other groups of a similar origin, such as from other states, religions, castes, which would have not been in the same form in India, lead to a different conception of group memberships abroad than in India. Without exploring the meaning and content of concepts, such as identification and ‘Indianness’ in India, it can be noted that India is a very heterogeneous country with major ethnic, linguistic, and cultural differences between the various states and groups, which is why many scholars find it difficult to assess what ‘Indian national and cultural identity’ is, how it ranks in the social identities of Indians with regard to their religious, regional and other identities.9 It has also been observed that the belonging to NAUJOKS - Diasporic Identities – Reflections on Transnational Belonging 8 a country increases (or even comes into existence) only when people migrate.10 In the absence of significant immigration,11 Indians in India deal almost exclusively with fellow Indians, be they from the same or a different region and state.12 As I have argued elsewhere, internal migration in a large and diverse country like India can have similar effects and lead to similar challenges as international migration in other regions of the world (Naujoks 2009-1, idem 2010). Thus, for Indians in India, the feeling of being ‘Indian’ might not be too strong and pronounced, while regional and linguistic markers are more salient. When Indians move abroad, they are not labeled as Bengalis or Tamilians, but as Indians.13 The differences to their fellow Indians might be considered insignificant when compared to differences to Caucasian-Americans, Europeans or South-Americans. Also Naval and Hussain (2008:151) argue that only upon migration, migrants’ native value systems arise as conscious entities in their thinking. In addition, an oft-noted myth about the homeland might alter their perceptions of India and fellow Indians located both in India and abroad. Distinguishing several ways of ethnic connectedness, Dufoix’s (2008:62-5) classification of diaspora communities provides a useful analytical perspective. He differentiates four stylized types labeled as: centre-periphery, antagonistic, atopic and enclaved mode. Centre-periphery mode describes a scenario where the source country is the centre for the diaspora and the relationship exists mainly between the single diaspora groupings and the country of origin. Antagonistic mode represents the case of a diaspora which is hostile towards their homeland, as it can be the case for political exile diasporas. In atopic mode, the community has a strong belief in a common origin. The country of emigration, however, is not the key focus of the emigrant communities. Further there is vast exchange among the different regional collectives of the respective community. The last mode is the so called enclaved mode which is similar to the atopic mode since the historic homeland does not constitute a centre of power and interest for the community. The different collectives are, however, dispersed with little contact and exchange among each other. From the home country’s perspective, Dufoix’s atopic and enclaved mode could be named ‘disconnected or detached but culturally preserved’ and in both cases might exist a high level of diasporic-ethnic identification while there is no civic or national membership. That is how many Indian diaspora communities that are rooted in 19th Century labor migration may be described. For the source country and with regard to development contributions by diasporic actors, the centre-periphery mode is of utmost importance. Only in this case, the diaspora may generate significant benefits for the NAUJOKS - Diasporic Identities – Reflections on Transnational Belonging 9 home country’s development. Both the diasporic-national and diasporic-civic identification and commitment determine this relationship. This is confirmed by Galmen (2006:6) who assumes that the capacity of a home-state to implement diaspora engagement policies depends chiefly ‘on the imagined (or discursive) existence of a cohesive transnational community, based around a common, state-centric national identity, towards which policies can be directed’. Not just a common cultural, but state-centric identification and commitment are beneficial for engaging the diaspora in the home country’s development. Self-categorization and Self-identification According to Portes and Rumbaut (2001:151) ‘[e]thnic identification begins with the application of a label to oneself in a cognitive process of self-categorization, involving not only a claim to membership in a group or category but also a contrast of one’s group or category with other groups or categories. Such self-definitions also carry affective meaning’. From the viewpoint of the country of origin, it might be important to see how diasporic actors categorize and understand themselves in terms of groupmembership.14 There is a tendency of immigrants to merge with the mainstream and to assimilate with the mainstream culture. After two or three generations, nothing but the occasional knowledge of a certain ancestry might be left from the original belonging to the country of origin, or at best the remains of a ‘symbolic ethnicity’, defined by Gans (1979:205) as ‘a nostalgic allegiance to the culture of the immigrant generation, or that of the old country; a love for and pride in a tradition that can be felt without having to be incorporated in everyday behavior.’ Whereas this has been the aim of many countries of immigration, the country of origin has an interest in keeping the ties with the migrant community alive. If diaspora actors have a prolonged self-understanding of belonging to the country of origin which they bequeath to the following generations, this will help maintaining those ties. A persisting self-understanding not as belonging to the county of origin but as part of the diaspora group in the country of destination (diasporic-ethnic) might also lead to a stronger diaspora community, which in turn might affect the outside representation and indirect development effects. NAUJOKS - Diasporic Identities – Reflections on Transnational Belonging 10 Commitment Examining questions of ‘identity’ from the viewpoint of activities directed towards and interactions with the home country, commitment becomes even a more important category than the mere self-categorization, as it represents the normative relation to the community. Social psychology provides some useful heuristics for assessing the content of commitment and attachment. As stated above, Phinney (2004) defines ethnic commitment as the strength of one’s ties with a particular group. This involves, in particular, a positive evaluation of the group membership, importance, understood as centrality and salience of group membership in the individual’s overall self-concept and an emotional involvement with the group, known as attachment.15 Reviewing psychological research on ethnic identity, Kim and Gelfand (2003) conclude that ethnic identity is a useful construct for understanding the impact of ethnicity on individuals which is closely linked to cognitive, motivational, and affective processes. Quantitative measures for assessing the ‘ethnic identity’ of individuals combine behavioral and attitudinal scales and value judgments. Phinney’s (1992) widely used ‘Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure’ contains an affective component of affirmation, belonging, and commitment. ‘Ethnic identity commitment’ is measured with the level of agreement or disagreement with statements such as: ‘I am happy that I am a member of the group I belong to; I have a strong sense of belonging to my own ethnic group; I have a lot of pride in my ethnic group and its accomplishments; I feel a strong attachment towards my own ethnic group.’ Huddy and Khatib (2007) show the difficulties in finding consistent and convincing categories and definitions of patriotism, nationalism, national pride and national identity when trying to measure national attachment in the U.S. Drawing on social identity theory, they develop a set of questions to determine the relation of individuals and the idea of an American nation and the state USA. Adapted to the diasporic commitment, one may ask how important ‘being Indian’ is, what the migrants’ attitude towards symbols, such as the flag and the national anthem is, and what they think about criticizing India and Indian policies. In a questionnaire developed by the International Social Survey Programme, the focus is on whether individuals are proud of certain aspects, such as the way democracy works in their country, achievements in several fields, such as the economy, science and technology, arts and literature, the country's history, and social security system (Huddy and Khatib 2007). NAUJOKS - Diasporic Identities – Reflections on Transnational Belonging 11 This shows several connotations and aspects that the attachment to a country or a nation can have and which apply also to ethnic Indians in the U.S. and their relationship with India as a country and a nation. The commitment towards the people in India (diasporic-national), and towards the Indian state (diasporic-civic) indicate the extent to, and the ways in which diaspora-homeland ties can be built, strengthened, renewed and leveraged for the source country’s development. The commitment serves, thus, as a proxy for the actual or potential relationship. On the other hand, the ethnicdiasporic commitment towards the ethnic Indian community in the U.S. can be important to assess the strength and soundness of the community, which can further be of importance to the country of origin regardless of direct economic contributions. In the discourse on defining and demarcating ‘diaspora groups’ Brubaker (2005:6-7) stresses the necessity of an element of ‘boundary maintenance’ as a resistance to assimilation. He makes mention of endogamy or other forms of segregation, be they self-enforced or a consequence of social exclusion, as possible causes for the persistence of boundaries. Although not sufficient by itself, the diasporic-ethnic selfunderstanding as Indian and a certain commitment, including the positive evaluation of such a status, is an important basis for any boundary-making. Guarnizo et al. (2003:1214) assume an effect of a membership status policy on something like ‘loyalty’, speculating that home country policies, especially citizenship policies, are designed ‘to maintain the loyalty of their expatriates and keep their remittances, investments, and political contributions flowing’. Itzigsohn (2000:1143) describes the attempts of countries of origin to tap into the loyalty of the diaspora community in order to access their economic resources. For the success of such efforts, loyalty or commitment is necessary which can be directed either towards the people in India (national) or towards the state’s institutions (civic). This is, however, not only true for the country’s attempts to tap into the existing attachment, but is, rather, the basis for the many ways of meaningful interaction between the diaspora and the source country. Identity Formation and Negotiation After these deliberations on self-categorization and commitment, I can proceed further to attempt to understand how identifications come into existence and change over time. In order to do this, we have to consider the process of identity-formation. There is consensus that ethnic and national self-understanding is constructed through a dialectic of internal self-identification and socially-influenced external ascription (Jenkins 1994; NAUJOKS - Diasporic Identities – Reflections on Transnational Belonging 12 Vertovec 2001; Haller and Landolt 2005). At any given time, each individual has a wide range of multiple social identities that are perpetually being constructed in a process of identity negotiation by interacting with those who are affected by the role in question (Barth 1969; Jenkins 1997).16 Thus, identities change and are formed in a process of the individual interacting with others (Stryker 1968; Tajfel 1982; Tajfel and Turner 1986; Ting-Toomey 2009). Apart from the inter-individual level, identity negotiations take place in the public space. As Sanchez-Mazas and Klein (2003:5) observe from the viewpoint of social psychology: ‘Identities are not self-evident consequences of particular social contexts but they are constructed and contested through debate in the public sphere.’17 Not with regard to the individual but to the general national identity, Hall (2004:112) remarks that ‘[n]otions of national belonging and, in turn, national identities and citizenship statuses are continually redefined, negotiated, and debated as they come to be articulated within different forms of nationalist discourse.’ However, Portes and Rumbaut (2001:161) draw attention to the fact that although social identities may be socially and politically constructed, one has to consider that they are commonly expressed as natural. This in turn limits the freedom to deliberately choose or change categories of belongingness. This implies a category identified by Pullen and Linstead (2005) who distinguish between three interconnected areas of identity formation, namely identity capital, identity formation and identity performance. While the latter two refer to distinct modes of subjective identity formation and identity events, such as narratives, masks and politics, identity capital is understood as the material, socio-economic, symbolic and discursive context and resources. Pullen and Linstead argue that the constant process of identity formation is grounded in ontological insecurity, rather than certainty, which is why individuals use certain resources as identity capital in order construct, defend and validate their identity both for themselves and in response to particular others. The actual processes, the interplay of public discourse, homeland policies, intra- and intergroup contingencies, changes in identity capital for diasporic actors and the shape of the arenas of identity negotiations should be taken into account when analyzing the genesis, retention, and change over time of certain identifications. NAUJOKS - Diasporic Identities – Reflections on Transnational Belonging 13 Multiple Identifications and Conflict of Group Memberships At any given point in time, individuals can and will be members of more than one collective and be committed and attached to multiple groups. In the tradition of identity research, it is commonly acknowledged that individuals have not one single, coherent identity but rather several ‘identities’ which vary according to the social context the individual is at any given point in time (Padilla and Perez 2003; Sen 2006; Naval and Hussain 2008).18 As sociologist Tomas Hammar (1985:449) observes, national identity is not a zero-sum game, which means that individuals do not have a limited number of ‘identification units’ that they have to divide between different groups and that, therefore, the increase in identification with one country proportionately reduces ties to the other. In transnational studies, this concept is described as ‘hybrid identities’ (Joseph 1999; Faist 2000; Levitt and Jaworsky 2007) or ‘hyphenated identities’19 (Glazer and Moynihan 1964; Itzigsohn and Dore-Cabral 2000; Rose Ty and Goellnicht 2004).20 Both terms mean that migrants have mixed ‘identities’, absorbing new elements from the culture of residence and preserving old elements from their culture of origin.21 Distinguishing between the several elements contained in ‘identity issues’, Ashmore et al. (2004) draw attention to the level of importance and centrality a group membership may take in the individual’s overall self-concept. This concept draws strongly on the idea of one (personal) identity which is split into several parts. Although this might be a useful analytical lens for some questions, it appears more important to ask whether several group memberships are nested within each other or if they compete, if they are compatible or conflicting, simultaneously present or only in some specific contexts. If group memberships and commitments are in conflict, is the conflict actual or potential, permanent or time-specific? And one is inclined to ask under what circumstances a dual group membership can lead to negative consequences for the diasporic actors or the country of origin. And to what extent does the acceptance and rhetoric in the receiving context play a role? In this regard, it is frequently noted that immigrants in the U.S. perceive a widespread acceptance of multiple cultural identities and ‘hyphenated’ Americanism in the private sphere (Bloemraad 2006),22 whereas this has been regarded differently in Germany until recently (Thränhardt 1989; idem 1995; Naujoks 2009-2; Thränhardt and Bommes 2010). NAUJOKS - Diasporic Identities – Reflections on Transnational Belonging 14 Summary and Concluding Remarks While leaving more sophisticated analyses of the concepts of national, civic and ethnic identifications to further sociological, psychological, anthropological and transnationalism research, I have tried to draw attention to some shortcomings in writings about identity and on several aspects that should explicitly be included in any analysis of the subject. At the first level, analysts have to elaborate individual categories of analysis that are most suitable for our purpose of research, making it clear if we are examining identification, commitment, or other aspects in the context of identity questions. It is of utmost importance to introduce contingency in the identity framework, examining the determinants of identity formation and their change over time. Here, the individual level on the one hand, and the group and public level on the other, may be subjected to analysis in a different way. A conceptualization rarely found in the analysis of diasporic identities is the concrete entity of their identification and attachment. I argue here that it is of paramount importance to sharpen our view and nomenclature with regard to diasporic-ethnic, national, and -civic identifications, depending on whether we consider the individual in his or her capacity as (a) a member of the ethnic community in the country of residence (diasporic-ethnic); (b) having bonds with the place of origin as a nation and the people living there (diasporic-national); or (c) being a part of the state of origin with rights and responsibilities also towards the government, political, and state institutions (diasporic-civic). Much of our debate about whether a person is, for example, ‘Indian’ might depend on our contextualization and categorization. I presented some heuristics on the extent, content and meaning of diasporic selfidentification and commitment which are meant as a first entry point into the complex field of belonging and identity. Further, with regard to potential or actual conflicts between identifications, it bears repetition to stress that it is crucial to make clear distinctions between theoretical and actual conflicts and that empirical research should re-examine critically many propositions about rival loyalties and competing identifications. I have offered some guiding questions in this regard. Issues I have not discussed here that deserve much scholarly attention include not only the definitions, conceptualization and determinants of identity aspects but also the effects and consequences of certain identifications and commitments. In how far and in what direction are decisions, behavior and actual interactions altered by existing and changing identifications.23 NAUJOKS - Diasporic Identities – Reflections on Transnational Belonging 15 In immigration countries, opposition against dual citizenship often is grounded on the assumption that ‘dual loyalties’ are conflicting and ‘hybrid identities’ detrimental to migrants’ incorporation in the social and political mainstream (Bauböck 2005; Thränhardt 2008; Naujoks 2008; idem 2009-2).24 Contrary to those notions of conflicting attachments, Levitt and Jaworsky (2007) find that recent scholarship suggests that multiple memberships can enhance each other and social incorporation rather than compete with or contradict each other. Both, for research from the immigration and the country of origin perspective, there is an observable trend to overcome old dichotomies of ‘here or there’ and of being ‘this or that’ in favor of a more realistic conception of migrants, their lives and attachments and the interaction with the receiving society, fellow migrants, and their homelands. Questions of identities and belongings that often carry strong value judgments, common expectations and misunderstandings, should be addressed more in the line of this new paradigm and with clearer conceptual clarity, which in turn will facilitate rational discussion and debate. References Adams, Kathleen M. 1998. ‘More than an Ethnic Marker: Toraja Art as Identity Negotiator’, American Ethnologist 25 (3), pp. 327-51. Anderson, Benedict. 1983. Imagined Communities. Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso (reprint 2006). Ashmore, Richard D., Kay Deaux, and Tracy McLaughlin-Volpe. 2004. ‘An organizing framework for collective identity: Articulation and significance of multidimensionality’, Psychological Bulletin 130, 80-114. Baker, Carolyn. 2004. Membership Categorization and Interview Accounts. In: David Silverman , ed., Qualitative Research. Theory, Method and Practice. Second Edition. London: Goldsmiths College, University of London, pp. 162-76. Barth, Fredrik. 1969. Ethnic Groups and Boundaries. Boston: Little, Brown. Basch, Linda, Nina Glick Schiller, and Cristina Szanton Blanc. 1994. Nations Unbound. Transnational Projects, Postcolonial Predicaments and Deterritorialized Nation-States. Amsterdam: Gordon and Breach. Bloemraad, Irene. 2006. ‘Becoming a Citizen in the United States and Canada: Structured Mobilization and Immigrant Political Incorporation’, Social Forces 85 (2), pp. 667-95. Böcker, Anita, and Dietrich Thränhardt. 2006. ‚Einbürgerung und Mehrstaatigkeit in Deutschland und den Niederlanden’, in Dietrich Thränhardt and Uwe Hunger, eds., Migration im Spannungsfeld von Globalisierung und Nationalstaat, Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag, pp. 117-34. Brubaker, Rogers, and Frederick Cooper. 2000. ‘ Beyond 'Identity' ’, Theory and Society 29 (1), pp. 1-47. Brubaker, Rogers. 2005. ‘The ‘diaspora’ diaspora’, Ethnic and Racial Studies 28 (1), pp. 1-19. NAUJOKS - Diasporic Identities – Reflections on Transnational Belonging 16 Dubey, Ajay , ed. 2003. Indian Diaspora: Global Identity. New Delhi: Kalinga Publications. ed. 2009. Indian Diaspora in Africa: A Comparative Perspective. New Delhi: Organisation for Diaspora Initiatives and MD House. Eriksen, Thomas Hylland. 2001. ‘Ethnic identity, national identity and intergroup conflict: The significance of personal experiences’, in Richard D. Ashmore, Lee J. Jussim, and David Wilder, eds., Social identity, intergroup conflict, and conflict reduction, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 42-70. Faist, Thomas. 2000. ‘Transnationalization in international migration: implications for the study of citizenship and culture’, Ethnic and Racial Studies 23 (2), pp. 189–222. Gabaccia, Donna R. 2000. Italy’s Many Diasporas. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Gamlen, Alan. 2006. Diaspora Engagement Policies: What are they, and what kinds of states use them? Working Paper No. 32, Centre on Migration, Policy and Society (COMPAS), University of Oxford. Gans, Herbert. 1979. ‘Symbolic ethnicity: The future of ethnic groups and cultures in America’, Ethnic and Racial Studies 2, pp. 1-20. Glazer, Nathan, and Daniel P. Moynihan. 1964. Beyond the Melting Pot. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Glick Schiller, Nina, and Georges E. Fouron. 2001. Georges Woke Up Laughing: LongDistance Nationalism and the Search for Home. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press. Guarnizo, Luis Eduardo, Alejandro Portes, and William Haller. 2003. ‘Assimilation and Transnationalism: Determinants of Transnational Political Action among Contemporary Migrants’, The American Journal of Sociology, 108 (6), pp. 1211-48. Hall, Kathleen D. 2004. ‘The Ethnography of Imagined Communities: The Cultural Production of Sikh Ethnicity in Britain’, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 595, pp. 108-21. Haller, William, and Patricia Landolt. 2005. ‘The transnational dimensions of identity formation: Adult children of immigrants in Miami’, Ethnic and Racial Studies 28 (6), pp. 1182-1214. Hammar, Tomas. 1985. ‘Dual Citizenship and Political Integration’, International Migration Review 19 (3), pp. 438-50. Holland, Dorothy. 1997. ‘Selves as cultured: As told by an anthropologist who lacks a soul’, in Richard D. Ashmore, Lee J. Jussim , eds., Self and identity Fundamental issues, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 160-90. Huddy, Leonie, and Nadia Khatib. 2007. ‘American Patriotism, National Identity, and Political Involvement’, American Journal of Political Science 51 (1), pp. 63-77. Itzigsohn, Jose, and Carlos Dore-Cabral. 2000. ‘Competing Identities? Race, Ethnicity and Panethnicity among Dominicans in the United States’, Sociological Forum 15 (2), pp. 225-47. Itzigsohn, Jose. 2000. ‘Immigration and the Boundaries of Citizenship: The Institutions of Immigrants' Political Transnationalism’, International Migration Review 43 (4):1126-54. Jain, Ravindra K. 1993. Indian Communities Abroad: Themes and Literature. New Delhi: Manohar Publishers & Distributors. James, William. 1890. The principles of psychology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Jenkins, Richard. 1997. Rethinking Ethnicity. Arguments and Explorations. London et. al: Sage Publications. NAUJOKS - Diasporic Identities – Reflections on Transnational Belonging 17 Joseph, May. 1999. Nomadic Identities: The Performance of Citizenship. Minneapolis and London: University of Minnesota Press. Kaplan, Seth. 2009. ‘Identity in Fragile States: Social cohesion and state building’, Development 52, pp. 466-72. Kim, Sandra S., and Michele J. Gelfand. 2003. ‘The influence of ethnic identity on perceptions of organizational recruitment’, Journal of Vocational Behavior 63, 396–416. Levitt, Peggy, and B. Nadya Jaworsky. 2007. ‘Transnational migration studies: Past Developments and Future Trends’, Annual Review of Sociology 33, pp. 129-56. Levitt, Peggy, and Nina Glick Schiller. 2004. ‘Conceptualizing Simultaneity: A Transnational Social Field Perspective’, International Migration Review 38 (145), pp. 595-629. Martin, Philip L., Susan Martin, and Patrick Weil. 2006. Managing Migration. The Promise of Cooperation, Oxford: Lexington Books. Naujoks, Daniel. 2008. ’Macht und Identität. Eine Diskursanalyse zur doppelten Staatsbürgerschaft’, Zeitschrift für Politik 55 (4), pp. 387-412. 2009-1. Emigration, Immigration, and Diaspora Relations in India. Washington DC: Migration Policy Institute. www.migrationinformation.org/Profiles/display.cfm?id=745, assessed on 1 July 2010. 2009-2. Dual citizenship. The discourse on ethnic and political boundary-making in Germany. Focus Migration Policy Brief, Migration in Europa e.V. and the German Federal Agency for Civic Education. www.focusmigration.de/typo3_upload/groups/3/focus_Migration_Publikationen/Kurzdossiers/PB_1 4_Dual_Cititzen.pdf 2010. ‘India and its Diaspora. Changing Research and Policy Paradigms’, in Dietrich Thränhardt and Michael Bommes , eds., National Paradigms of Migration Research. Göttingen: V&R Unipress, pp. 269-300. Naval, Uday C., and Soofia K. Hussain. 2008. Striped Zebra: The Immigrant Psyche. New Delhi: Rupa and Co. Oakes, Penelope. 2002. ‘Psychological groups and political psychology: A response to Huddy’s ‘Critical examination of Social Identity Theory’ ‘, Political Psychology 23, pp. 809-24. Padilla, Amado M., and William Perez. 2003. ‘Acculturation, Social Identity, and Social Cognition: A New Perspective’, Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences 25 (1), pp. 3555. Phinney, Jean S. 1992. ‘The multigroup ethnic identity measure: A new scale for use with diverse groups’, Journal of Adolescent Research (7), pp. 156-76. 2004. Ethnic Identity: Developmental and Contextual Perspectives. http://www.nd.edu/~mri/ccd/2004/abstract/phinney.pdf (last accessed 1.02.2010). Portes, Alejandro, and Ruben G. Rumbaut. 2001. Legacies: The story of the immigrant second generation. Berkeley: University of California Press. Pullen, Alison, and Stephen Linstead. 2005. Identity and organization. London: Routledge. Renshon, Stanley A. 2001. Dual Citizenship and American National Identity. Washigton DC: Center for Immigration Studies. http://www.cis.org/node/51 (21.03.2010). Rose Ty, Eleanor, and Donald C. Goellnicht, eds. 2004. Asian North American identities: Beyond the hyphen. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Rumbaut, Ruben G., and Alejandro Portes, eds. 2001. Ethnicities: Children of immigrants in America. Berkeley: University of California Press. NAUJOKS - Diasporic Identities – Reflections on Transnational Belonging 18 Sanchez-Mazas, Margarita, and Olivier Klein. 2003. ‘Social Identity and Citizenship: Introduction to the Special Issue’, Psychologica Belgica 43 (1/2), pp. 1-8. Sen, Amartya. 2006. Identity and Violence. The Illusion of Destiny. London: Penguin Books. Stryker, Sheldon. 1968. ‘Identity Salience and Role Performance’, Journal of Marriage and the Family 4, pp. 558-64. Suinn, Richard M., Ahuna, Carol, and Gillian Khoo. 1992. ‘The Suinn-Lew Asian SelfIdentity Acculturation Scale: Concurrent and factorial validation’, Educational and Psychological Measurement 52, pp. 1041-46. Suinn, Richard M., Kathryn Rickard-Figueroa, Sandra Lew, and Patricia Vigil. 1987. ‘The Suinn-Lew Asian Self-Identity Acculturation Scale: An initial report’, Educational and Psychological Measurement 47 (2), pp. 401-7. Tajfel, Henri, and John C. Turner. 1986. ‘The social identity theory of inter-group behavior’, in Stephen Worchel and William G. Austin , eds., Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Chigago: Nelson-Hall, pp. 7-24. Tajfel, Henri. 1982. Social Identity and Intergroup Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Thränhardt, Dietrich, and Michael Bommes, eds. 2010. National Paradigms of Migration Research. Göttingen: V&R Unipress. Thränhardt, Dietrich. 1989. ‘Patterns of Organization among Different Ethnic Minorities’, New German Critique 46, pp. 10-26 1995. ‘The Political Uses of Xenophobia in England, France, and Germany’, Party Politics 1 (3), pp. 323-45. 2008. Einbürgerung. Rahmenbedingungen, Motive und Perspektiven des Erwerbs der deutschen Staatsangehörigkeit. Bonn: Friedrich Ebert Foundation. Ting-Toomey, Stella. 2009. ‘Identity Theories’, in Stephen Littlejohn, and Karen Foss, eds., Encyclopedia of Communication Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 492-6. Vertovec, Stephen. 2001. ‘Transnationalism and identity’, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 27 (4), pp. 573-82. Waters, Mary C. 1990. Ethnic options: choosing identities in America. Berkeley: University of California Press. Wiessner, Siegfried. 1989. Die Funktion der Staatsangehörigkeit. Tübingen: Tübingen University Press. Yadav, R. K. 1974. ‘Problems of National Identity in Indian Education’, Comparative Education, 10 (3), pp. 201-09. Zagefka, Hanna. 2009. ‘The concept of ethnicity in social psychological research: Definitional issues’, International Journal of Intercultural Relations 33, pp. 228-41. NAUJOKS - Diasporic Identities – Reflections on Transnational Belonging 19 Figure 1: Identificatory groups of diasporic identification Ethnic Identification with co-ethnics - in the host country - around the world National Identification with the people living in the home country (all or subgroups) Individual Civic Identification with the home state - central state - regional * This paper was published as Naujoks, Daniel. 2010. “Diasporic Identity. Reflections on Transnational Belonging” Diaspora Studies 3 (1), pp. 1–21. Please quote from the published version only. 1 I thank Dietrich Thränhardt and Rohit Jain for valuable comments on an earlier draft of this essay and thought provoking discussions on questions of identification and belonging. 2 For an introduction to the various Indian diaspora groups and communities, their dispersion and composition see Dubey 2003 and Naujoks 2009-1. 3 From the viewpoint of social psychology, Zagefka (2009:235) criticizes many quantitative approaches since they provide too few possibilities to add belongings to other groups and in-between-identities or categories. 4 Some scholars argue that, in any case, the analysis of interviews and talk does not reveal the real attitudes and preferences but rather the speakers’ methods of using categories and activities and thus the ‘cultural knowledge and logic in use’ (Baker 2004). Methodologically more promising are multi-sited ethnographic accounts that observe and examine the process of identity negotiations in various contexts (Hall 2004). The disadvantage of those studies is, however, that they are time-consuming and that their findings have a limited range and degree of generalizability. 5 Most importantly, the U.S. census and American Community Surveys are organized around ‘ethnic’ categories, such as ethnic Asian Indians. 6 Also Wimmer and Glick Schiller (2003:598) remark critically that “[m]uch of transnational studies overstates the internal homogeneity and boundedness of transnational communities, overestimates the binding power for individual action, overlooks the importance of cross-community interactions as well as the internal divisions of class, gender, region and politics, and is conceptually blind for those cases where no transnational communities form among migrants or where existing ones cease to be meaningful for individuals. […] In short, approaching migrant transnational social fields and networks as communities tends to reify and essentialize these communities in a similar way that previous approaches reified national or peasant communities.” 7 Although it is often acknowledged that there cannot be an exhaustive definition of nation, several criteria are often cited as its characteristics, such as a certain cultural unity, race, common language, beliefs of history and the wish for political self-determination, cf. Wiessner (1989:57-9). Glick Schiller and Fouron (2001:18) and Wimmer and Glick Schiller (2003:582) define a nation as ‘people who share common origins and history as indicated by their shared culture, language, and identity.’ 8 For a detailed account of the cultural heritage and customs in the Indian diaspora, see Jain (1993). 9 Kaplan (2009:466) remarks that in India, a sense of region and nation exist in parallel, forming a dual identity. Yadav (1974) describes the difficulties in finding elements and factors for creating national integration and the feeling for ‘Indianness’ in India’s first two and a half decades after Independence. He, too, stresses that the wars against Pakistan in 1965 and China in 1967 were very important in creating a vision and feeling of a common destiny and country. For discourses, narratives and politics of identity in India with regard to religion, language, regional background, caste and class, see Jodhka (2001). 10 Based on social identity theory, Huddy and Khatib (2007:75) predict that ‘national identity’ intensifies when individuals are in the minority. Itzigsohn and Dore-Cabral (2000) confirm this tendency for Latinos in the U.S., whose ‘Hispanic identity’ and unity as a group is fostered by discrimination by the NAUJOKS - Diasporic Identities – Reflections on Transnational Belonging 20 mainstream U.S. society and Glick Schiller and Fouron (1998) observe a similar tendency for second generation Haitians in the U.S. Also Padilla and Perez (2003:47) theorize from the viewpoint of social psychology that perceived discrimination may be the fuel that triggers the search for greater affinity to a heritage culture among later generation ethnics. 11 As I have shown elsewhere, apart from irregular immigration from Bangladesh, the level of immigration to India is insignificantly low (Naujoks 2009-1). 12 India is a Union of States comprising 28 states and seven Union Territories (Art.1 Indian Constitution and First Schedule to the Constitution). 13 Glick Schiller (1996:754) quotes Robert Park, as having noted in 1925 that ‘as a first step of Americanization the immigrant does not become in the least American. He simply ceases to be a provincial foreigner. Wurtemburgers and Westphalians become in America first of all Germans; Sicilians and Neapolitans become Italians and Jews become Zionists.’ (1974 [1925]:157). This is confirmed from a historic perspective for Italians in the U.S. by Gabaccia (2000). 14 Brubaker and Cooper (2000:17) suggest the term self-understanding as an alternative to ‘identity’ designating ‘what might be called “situated subjectivity”: one’s sense of who one is, of one's social location, and of how (given the first two) one is prepared to act.’ 15 For discussion of these elements, see Ashmore et al. 2004. 16 Adams (1998:239) exemplifies that ‘identity negotiation’ are the ‘social processes whereby identities are articulated, asserted, challenged, suppressed, realigned, and co-opted in both verbal and nonverbal arenas.’ 17 In social psychology, self-categorization theory theorizes that categorization in (ethnic) groups is a consequence of an interaction between characteristics of the individual and the context (Oakes 2002). 18 As early as in 1890, William James wrote in ‘The principles of psychology’ that ‘a man has as many social selves as there are individuals who recognize him and carry an image of him in their mind’ (p. 293). This is also expressed in Amartya Sen’s (2006:23-8) critique of social analysis conceptualizing individuals as having a singular affiliation. 19 That means, people are not Americans and they are not Indians but they are Indian-Americans with an own (mixed) identity. 20 Basch et al. (1994:1-2) state that ‘Transmigrants develop and maintain multiple relations – familial, economic, social, organizational, religious, and political that span borders. Transmigrants take actions, make decisions, feel concerns, and develop identities within social networks that connect them to two or more societies simultaneously.’ 21 On the other hand, Renshon (2001:10-11) calls the concept of ‘unlimited identities’ a ‘narcissistic conceit’. He argues that though we all have different facets of our personal and social identity, these have not the same weight. He writes: ‘Before we can talk sensibly about whether it is truly possible to have two or more divergent core national identities, we had better be clear about what it takes to develop and maintain one that is coherent and integrated. And we had better be clear about how personal and national identities function to support the cultural and political arrangements that underlie this fabulous experiment, America.’ 22 Waters (1990) finds a strong resilient sense of ethnicity among descendants of European immigrants who could reasonably label themselves simply ‘American’. She argues that the displayed symbolic ethnicity of ethnic white immigrant descendants is a quintessential American phenomenon. It is observed though that immigrant-centered claims have limited political salience in the public arena (Bloemraad 2006:678) It is important to note that for U.S. mainstream culture, there might be a difference between recognizing a hybrid identification as ‘American Irish’ and one as ‘Indian American’. 23 In my forthcoming study on Indian immigrants in the U.S., I examine the consequences of diasporic ethnic, national and civic identification and commitment on investment, remittances, philanthropic activities, political lobbying, return migration and other factors. 24 As I have shown elsewhere for Germany, these amorphous and vague concepts often hide exclusionist arguments and tendencies (Naujoks 2008; 2009-2). NAUJOKS - Diasporic Identities – Reflections on Transnational Belonging 21