1998 Smith y Guarnizo - The Locations of Trananationalism
1998 Smith y Guarnizo - The Locations of Trananationalism
1998 Smith y Guarnizo - The Locations of Trananationalism
Editorial Board
Janet Abu-Lughod Joe R. Feagin Chris Pickvance
New School for Social University of Florida University of Kent
Research
Thomas Bender John Friedmann Adolph Reed, Jr.
New York University University of California Northwestern University
Los Angeles
Marshall Berman Luis E. Guarnizo Richard Sennett
City University of University of California New York University
New York Davis
Sophie-Body-Gendrot Peter Hall Carol Smith
Université Paris, University College, University of California
Sorbonne London Davis
Mike Davis Ira Katznelson Edward Soja
Southern California Columbia University University of California
Institute of Architecture Los Angeles
Mike Douglass Peter Marcuse John Walton
University of Hawaii Columbia University University of California
Davis
Rosalyn Deutsch David C. Perry Sharon Zukin
The Cooper Union, State University of City University of
New York New York at Buffalo New York
I. Theorizing Transnationalism
1. The Locations of Transnationalism......................................3
Luis Eduardo Guarnizo and Michael Peter Smith
2. The Fetishism of Global Civil Society: Global Governance,
Transnational Urbanism and Sustainable Capitalism in the
World Economy.............................................................35
André C. Drainville
3. Theoretical and Empirical Contributions Toward a
Research Agenda for Transnationalism................................64
Sarah J. Mahler
Theorizing Transnationalism
The Locations of Transnationalism 3
Grounding Transnationalism
which transnational actions take place is not just local, but also
“trans-local” (i.e., local to local). Luin Goldring and Robert Smith
call these contexts “translocalities.” In these social fields (see
Glick Schiller et al. 1992) transnational practices are vested with
particular meanings. Translocal relations are constituted within
historically and geographically specific points of origin and
migration established by transmigrants. Such relations are dynamic,
mutable, and dialectical. They form a triadic connection that links
transmigrants, the localities to which they migrate, and their
locality of origin. The locality of migration provides a specific
context of opportunities and constraints (e.g., labor market
conditions, popular and official perceptions of the migrant group,
the presence or absence of other co-nationals) into which migrants
enter. The fit between specific kinds of migrants and specific local
and national contexts abroad shapes not only the likelihood of
generating, maintaining or forsaking transnational ties, but also the
very nature of the ties that migrants can forge with their place of
origin. While transnational practices extend beyond two or more
national territories, they are built within the confines of specific
social, economic, and political relations which are bound together
by perceived shared interests and meanings. Without such social
closure, without a basic sense of shared meanings and a sense of
predictability of results bounding together the actors involved
(i.e., social control), it would be unthinkable for any person to try
to establish any kind of relations across national territories,
whether a transnational migrant network, economic project, or
political movement.
The diverse effects of this triadic translocal relation are clearly
illustrated in Ninna Sørensen’s article comparing the disparate ex-
periences of Dominican migrants in New York and Madrid. While
in both situations transmigrants have built transnational relations
with their native land, the type, scale, and scope of these relations
differ. The differences stem not only from the contextual differ-
ences abroad, but also from a selective social and regional com-
position of transmigrants in both locations. Those going to Madrid
tend to be drawn from among those who could not afford to mi-
grate to New York—because of their regional or class origin,
14 Transnationalism from Below
for example, has become a fact of life for many Mexican localities
where thousands of migrants to the United States have originated.
However historically resilient, the actual process of migration is
not reproduced exclusively by kinship networks. Migrants from the
same family often do emigrate North generation after generation.
Yet, because of the locality-based character of circular migration
from Mexico, many families, whose members had not ever emi-
grated before may join the process at any particular time (Massey
et. al. 1987). In other words, the reproduction of migration is so-
cial, not just familial.
This is what Robert Smith and Luin Goldring (this volume)
mean by the concept of “transnational communities.” Smith, for
example, appropriates Alarcon’s (1994) depiction of such locality-
based structures of reproduction as “rural Mexican communities
that specialize in the production and reproduction of international
migrant workers.” Such transnational social structures are sustained
by social networks in migration and their attendant modes of social
organization—home town associations, economic remittances,
social clubs, celebrations and other bi-national social processes as
well as by more indirect technological means of transportation and
communication now available to facilitate the reproduction of
transnational social fields such as jet airplanes, sattelite dishes,
telephones, faxes, and e-mail.
The examples provided in all of our case studies of trans-
migration well illustrate the interaction of global economic restruc-
turing, the technological revolution, and the microdynamics of mi-
grant social practices in reproducing transnational social fields.
Global restructuring has created contextual conditions in the form
of labor demand and labor market conditions in both rural agricul-
ture (Zabin 1995) and in manufacturing and services in global cities
like New York (Sassen-Koob 1984) favorable to transnational
migration. The technological revolution in transportation and
communications has facilitated the simultaneous maintenance of
bi-national connections by migrating members of the new
transnational working class. But it is the everyday practices of mi-
grants that provide a structure of meaning to the acts of crossing
borders, living in bi-national households, and reproducing
The Locations of Transnationalism 19
Notes
1. We wish to thank Alexis Ohran for her able editorial support at all stages of
our work on this volume, John Dale for his editorial scrutiny of the final
manuscript, and Anita LaViolette for her expert assistance in preparing the
final manuscript for publication. We are indebted to the insightful work of
each of the authors contributing to this volume as well as to the anonymous
reviewers who assisted us in the difficult task of selecting articles from
among the many fine manuscripts submitted in response to our call for
papers for Volume 6.
2. With respect to class structuration, the queuing of migrants into particular
socioeconomic positions abroad is maintained not only by such contextual
forces as labor market conditions and employers’ recruitment patterns, but
also by the inertia of social networks. Ethnic labor niche formation, based
on social networking, has been widely documented by migration scholars
(Waldinger 1994, 1996; Model 1993; Portes and Borocsz 1989; Lieberson
1980). However, aggregate data tend to overlook the effects of regionalism
and ethnic stratification among people coming from the same country, with
all the inequalities they imply. For example, the subordination of and dis-
crimination against indigeneous peoples in countries of origin are repro-
duced upon immigration, as in the case of Mexican Mixtecs in California
(See Zabin 1995).
3. This approach is greatly facilitated by contemporary means of transporta-
tion and communication. However, emergent patterns of transnational
mobility place significant limitations on this research approach.
Transmigrants from the same country of origin are now leaving from more
regions and are following a more diverse and more diasporic migratory path
than in the past. For example, in addition to the United States, significant
and increasing numbers of Caribbean, Latin American and Asian
populations are also migrating within their own regions and to Europe and
Japan. More often than not these migrants are moving to more than one
location in the countries of destination making their geographical
dispersion more intense and more difficult to track by lone researchers. To
counter these limitations, the ethno-centric and sometimes even
imperialistic approach traditionally used by scholars from core countries
should be revised and transnational, collaborative projects with scholars in
countries of origin should be explored.
References
Alarcon, Rafael. (1994). “Labor Migration from Mexico and Free Trade: Lessons
from a Transnational Commuity,” Berkeley: Chicano/Latino Policy Project
Working Paper 1: 1.
Anderson, Benedict. (1983). Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Growth
and Spread of Nationalism. New York and London: Verso. Reprinted 1991.
Appadurai, Arjun. (1990). “Disjuncture and Difference in the Global Culture
Economy.” Theory,Culture and Society 7: 295-310.
The Locations of Transnationalism 31