25 Definitions, concepts and theoretical debates

1. INTRODUCTION

The academic use of the term ‘Diaspora’ is fairly recent. During the 70’s, when assimilation theory and other theories which had been compatible with the integration models in favour at the time demonstrated their fallibility, the notion of diaspora started being used. It referred to migrants groups maintaining their ethnic tradition, and a strong feeling of collectiveness So, it is only during the 80’s that the concept of diaspora came into frequent and prominent use (Anteby-Yemini and Berthomiere 2005: 262-63) . The field of Diaspora Studies emerged a decade or so after this. It can be tracked back to the early 1990s when it developed in fragmentary fashion,without theoretical self-consciousness. Earlier disciplines dealing with nation,ethnicity, race, migration, and postcolonialism felt the need to adjust their methods andcategories to the pressures of new transnational and global phenomena; They discovered the ancient concept of “diaspora,” to be suitable to their needs. The publicationof the first issue of Diaspora: a journal of transnational studies, in May 1991, provides aconvenient marker for the consolidation of the field.Virtually from the very start the field has been beset by several conceptual and theoretical tensions, which have engendered fierce and productive debate. (Toloyan 2007: 647). We shall be dealing with some of these later in the module.

Despite the debate and critical evaluation, the term diaspora has been part of social science vocabulary for some decades now.At present, it is a buzzword and a very energetic field of knowledge. In particular, the exponential growth of international migration in the era of globalization – in which technological advances have diminished the significance of spatially anchored communities – have catalysed several new phenomena as well as terms and concepts to comprehend them. From this fertile terrain, the present module tries to distil key terms, concepts and theoretical debates. The first section deals with definitions and concepts taken together. The second section provides brief overviews of key debates in the field, which themselves illuminate underlying theoretical approaches. Inevitably there is an overlap between the two sections.

2.  DEFINITION OF THE TERM DIASPORA

2.1 Original Meaning: Theterm Diaspora is derived from the Greek word speiro and was used specifically to refer to the scattering of the Jewish people if they were to disobey the will of God(Cohen 2008: xiv; Dufoix 2008: 4). In later Jewish tradition it came to refer to their dispersal as well as to the locations to which they were dispersed. The term retained its religious connotations until the 1950s despite efforts by some scholars to expand it beyond its Jewish and religious heritage.

One of the earliest efforts in this regard was the entry by Simon Dubnov in the 1931 edition of the American Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences which reads thus, “Diaspora is a Greek term for a nation or part of a nation separated from its own state or territory and dispersed among other nations but preserving its national culture. In a sense Magna Graecia constituted a Greek diaspora in the ancient Roman Empire, and a typical case of diaspora is presented by the Armenians, many of whom have voluntarily lived outside their small national territory for centuries. Generally, however, the term is used with reference to those parts of the Jewish people residing outside Palestine.” (Dubnov 1931 cited in Dufoix 2008: 19) Parallels began to be drawn between Jews and other groups, particularly the Africans dispersed through the slave trade, and the term began being applied to them. Gradually other groups, that did not closely resemble the Jewish model of dispersion, also began to be described using the term diaspora which called for a more loose definition of the term such as the one by Walker Connor (1988) that defines Diaspora as, “that segment of a people living outside the homeland” (Connor 1988 cited in Safran 1991: 83) This broad definition allowed scholars to accommodate many other groups under the term ‘diaspora’.

2.2 Safran’s definition:Inspiredby Connors definition and seeking to expand it further William Safran listed out 6 characteristics that were to be used as an ‘ideal type’ of diaspora. He suggested that“the concept of diaspora be applied to expatriate minority communities whose members share several of the following characteristics: 1) they, or their ancestors, have been dispersed from a specific original “center” to two or more “peripheral,” or foreign, regions; 2) they retain a collective memory, vision, or myth about their original homeland—its physical location, history, and achievements; 3) they believe that they are not—and perhaps cannot be—fully accepted by their host society and therefore feel partly alienated and insulated from it; 4) they regard their ancestral homeland as their true, ideal home and as the place to which they or their descendants would (or should) eventually return—when conditions are appropriate; 5) they believe that they should, collectively, be committed to the maintenance or restoration of their original homeland and to its safety and prosperity; and 6) they continue to relate, personally or vicariously, to that homeland in one way or another, and their ethnocommunal consciousness and solidarity are importantly defined by the existence of such a relationship.” (Safran 1991: 83-84)

2.3 Cohen’s definition:WhileCohen (2008) agreed with Safran’s strategy, recognising that no modern diaspora would satisfy all the listed criteria, he believed that it suffered some limitations. Firstly, he felt that there was an overemphasis on the diaspora’s link to the homeland. Secondly, he thought it was important to move away from the Jewish prototype to include those dispersed by colonialism and those who migrated on their own volition as well as those who sustained networks for trade and commerce. He believed that there was need to recognise the positive aspects of diaspora such as its contribution to developing a cosmopolitan consciousness and the benefits of transnational existence for its members.He therefore edited Safran’s list changing it and adding to it as follows [Cohen’s changes have been emphasised]:

   ·       They, or their ancestors, have been dispersed from an original ‘centre’ to two or more foreign regions;

·       they retain a collective memory, vision or myth about their original homeland including its location, history and achievements;

·       they believe they are not – and perhaps can never be – fully accepted in their host societies and so remain partly separate;

·       their ancestral home is idealized and it is thought that, when conditions are favourable, either they, or their descendants should return;

·       they believe all members of the diaspora should be committed to the maintenance or restoration of the original homeland and to its safety and prosperity; and

·       they continue in various ways to relate to that homeland and their ethnocommunal consciousness and solidarity are in an important way defined by the existence of such a relationship.

To the above, Cohen adds the following features:

·       diasporas include groups that disperse for colonial or voluntarist reasons

·       they display positive virtues of retaining a diasporic identity

·       they mobilize a collective identity, not only a place of settlement or only inrespect of an imagined, putative or real homeland but also in solidarity with co-ethnic members in other countries;

·       ‘diaspora’ can be used to describe transnational bonds of co-responsibility even where historically exclusive territorial claims are not strongly articulated. (Cohen 2008: 6-8)

2.4 Other Definitions: There have been several attempts to define the term ‘diaspora’ ever since it entered into the literature of the social sciences in the 1960s. Dufoix (2008) categorises these many into 3 types; open definitions, categorical definitions and oxymoronic definitions. The open definitions allow for any number of cases to be considered as they define diasporas in a “loose and nondiscriminating” way. The categorical definitionsattempt to limit the definition of the term by assigning to it certain characteristics that need to be fulfilled by any groups for them to be considered a diaspora thus allowing for further classifications and comparisons to be made. Both, Safran’s and Cohen’s definitions discussed above fall in this category. And finally, the oxymoronic definitions, that draw their influences form post-modern thought, emphasise “paradoxical identity, the noncenter, and hybridity”. (for details and examples see Dufoix 2008: 21 -25).We will be discussing the logic of changing definitions later in the section on debates.

2.5 Diversities within a diaspora:Whilediasporas tend to be constituted along the lines of nation states there also exist diversities within diasporas. Jayaram (2011) demonstrates this in the case of the Indian Diaspora. The diversities have many dimensions. They may arise from the context and nature of immigration.Whether people immigrated in the pre-colonial, colonial or post-colonial period would certainly result in differences as would their situation at the time, whether they were convicts, indentured labourers or free migrants. Diversities also reflect the soco-cultural diversities within the nation itself(Jayaram 2011: 4-9): the most obvious ones being regional and linguistic diversities followed by class, occupation, caste and religion. This plural nature of the Indian Diaspora demonstrates that though diasporas are often constituted in terms of the nation there may be diversities within them that arise out of their specific histories and contexts. Thus the notion of ‘one nation, one diaspora’simply does not hold true.

2.6 Complex Diasporas: These internal diversities that exist within diasporas do not necessarily preclude a sense of belonging to a nation. This is evident for instance in the co-existence of regional/linguistic identities with a pan-Indian identity both within India and in the diaspora. There are also similarities that are shared by diasporas coming out of certain regions that extend beyond the national borders. “In such complex diasporas the fact that the people from a particular region share a rich material culture of consumption, both high and popular, and often a dominant religion, creates public arenas and economic channels for cooperation and communal enjoyment, which cut across the national origins or religious beliefs of performers and participants” (Werbner 2010: 76). The South Asian diaspora is one example of such a complex diaspora that Werbner (2010) uses to drive the point home. This includes people from countries like India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Nepal.

2.7 Double and triple diasporas: Diasporic journeys sometimes do not end with migration away from homeland to a different destination. Due to a range of reasons, such as inimical conditions in the hostland, better opportunites elsewhere, changing geo-political alignments and the passage of time, diasporas relocate sometimes once and then again, forming what are termed ‘double’ and ‘triple’ diasporas. A striking example is that of Gujarati business and trade related migrants who went to East Africa in colonial times, relocated to UK following Idi Amin’s hostile policies in the 1960s . Later in the 1980s and 90s, they moved on to the US for better business and professional prospects. The recent relocation of indentured labour migrants from India to the Caribbean to USA, Canada and the Netherlands, due to volatile political conditions is yet another example. Such instances become significant in discussions on ‘homeland’ as relocations create multiple homelands for the younger generations.

2.8 Incipient Diasporas: Another reality that strains at the limits of the classical definitions of diaspora is “the new ethno-national groups that either are on the verge of becoming fully established, permanent diasporas or are still in the early stages of development” (Sheffer 2003: 113). These groups that are in the process of becoming or that hold the potential to become diasporas have been called ‘Incipient Diasporas’. The term has been used to refer to newer migrations, particularly labour migrations to North America, Europe and the Gulf states that bear an “illusion of impermanence” (Weiner 1986 cited in Van Hear 2010: 35). Though they share many characteristics of diasporas they are the result of voluntary rather than forced migration. Sheffer (2003: 113) notes, further, that “the number of incipient diasporas continues to increase” and goes on to cite some examples such as the Turks in Germany, Pakistanis in Britain, Denmark and other countries in Europe and the Persian Gulf, the Gypsies and other groups that have begun to organise themselves into diasporic entities.

3.  ALLIED TERMS, DEFINITIONS AND CONCEPTUAL DELINEATIONS

   3.1 Diaspora and Exile:Another term that is used to refer to people or groups forced to live outside of their homeland is Exile. Along with ‘Diaspora’ the term ‘Exile’ is also associated with the Jewish experience.While the meaning of the term diaspora broadened with its popularity and use, the word exile did not share the same fate. It is still used to refer to banishment, or forced migration. As Baumann puts it, “ ‘Exile,’ in contrast to Diaspora, is seldom associated with religious connotations and semantics. It appears that its user relates more explicitly to political persecution and forced flight caused by a nation-state than does ‘diaspora’.” (Baumann 2010:

3.2 Migration and Diaspora:The concept of diaspora shares a lot of overlap with migration or dispersion. It is very important to realise that while all diasporas result from migration, all migration does not result in the formation of diasporas. On arrival into a new location, migrants do not automatically form a diaspora, unless there already is an established diasporic community of co-ethnics which they slide into. Thecharacteristics of diasporas that distinguish them from migrants are a ‘diasporic consciousness’ or collective identity that preserves elementsof the homeland’s cultural practices, either intact or, as timepasses, in hybrid forms; secondly they espouse a vocabulary of return that, in practice, takes theform of enduring and organized efforts to maintaining relations with co-ethnicselsewhere, and with the homeland, to which theyusually do not return but retain an orientation toward through travel, remittances, culturalexchange, and political lobbying and so forth.

An ethnic community produced by migration, as for example Tamils in Sri Lanka, who migrated from India many centuries ago, have merged and mingled with the geographical locale.They assert primordial claims to the land of Sri Lanka and are different from a diasporic community. Migrants may transform themselves intodiasporas over a period of time, but not before the second or third generation. There is then sufficient emotional distance from the homeland, yet a continued cultural identification. When a significant number of individuals,especially among the cultural elite, acknowledgehow much everyone has changed, and in whatdifferent directions they have gone, then thetenor and volume of the discourse of identificationchanges and a specifically diasporic set ofdiscursive practices emerges: either old nationaltropes are refurbished or new fictions of sharedidentity are invented. The community enduresas a distinct diaspora, due to the collective work of memory andcommemoration, the performance of difference,the cultivation of ideologies of identity, and theinstitutionalization of practices of connectionto the homeland. (For a discussion on the distinction see Tololyan 2007: 650).

3.3 Diaspora and Borderlands: While diasporas involve migrations across national borders, sometimes these migrations take place between neighbouring countries across a single border that is shared by the homeland and the hostland. These migrations tend to be unique in that the opposite sides appear to be separated by arbitrary borders but joined by continuous movements of people, money, goods, and information by legal or illegal means. Though they share many overlaps with the concept of Diaspora, the term is avoided in these cases in favour of the term ‘Borderlands’ since they refer to a contiguous region divided by a specific geo-political border. The border between India and Nepal and the one between Mexico and the USA are examples of such Borderlands. Diasporas differ from Borderlands in that the former often involve crossing of multiple borders, migrants remain in the hostlands for extended durations and the return to the homeland is aspired to rather than actually undertaken. (Rouse 1991:14; Clifford 1994: 304).

3.4 Diaspora and Transnationalism:

Diaspora conveys a sense of a community of migrants fixed in the space of the hostland with memories of homeland and a desire for return. A transnational community is one whose financial, personal, familial activities and networks span more than one country.The relationship between the two has been much written about, and we give glimpses of various delineations in the quotations that follow: “……diaspora has been often used to denote religious or national groups living outside an (imagined) homeland, whereas transnationalism is often used both more narrowly – to refer to migrants’ durable ties across countries – and, more widely, to capture not only communities, but all sorts of social formations, such as transnationally active networks, groups and organisations. Moreover, while diaspora and transnationalism are sometimes used interchangeably, the two terms reflect different intellectual genealogies.” (Faist 2010: 9)“While the usages of the terms often overlap, diasporic phenomena can be conceived as a subset of transnational social formations that have broader scope. In a crucial similarity, uses of the two supple terms in the social sciences have in common an agency-oriented, processual view of crossborder social phenomena. …transnationalism in the field of migration, in particular, may link up to broader concerns of transnational studies, such as transnational organisations (e.g. multinational companies), transnational protest movements, transnational expert circuits and global macro-fields of economy, politics and wealth. In this way, diaspora and transnationalism are crucial elements for questioning and redefining essential terms of the social sciences, for example, ‘community’, ‘social space’ and ‘boundaries’.” (Faist 2010: 34)

“When actual exchanges of resources or information, or marriages or visits — take place across borders — between members of a diaspora themselves or with people in the homeland — we can say these are transnational activities; to be transnational means to belong to two or more societies at the same time. At that moment, the diaspora functions as a transnational community.When such exchanges do not take place (sometimes over many generations), but people maintain identification with the homeland and co- ethnic elsewhere, there is only a diaspora. In this way, not all diasporas aretransnational communities, but transnational communities arise withindiasporas.” (Vertovec 2005: 3-4)

“Drawing from the models of the Jewish and Armenian diasporas, I propose that there is a vital difference between the transnational and the diasporic. While many discussions of diaspora emphasize the ways in which diasporas challenge national borders and national identities through their crossing of borders, I argue that diasporas are not constituted by transnational movement. Indeed, diasporic subjectivity does not necessarily emerge from the traversing of national boundaries. The subjective experience of what Homi Bhabha calls unhoming, with all the resonances of an uncanny haunting and loss, depends less upon moving from one national space to another than it does the experience and memory of becoming unhomely.” In differentiating the diasporic from the transnational, I am thus differentiating between migration and what it means to be marked by the memory of migration. I want to reserve diaspora for the underclass, for those who must move through the world in, or are haunted by, the shadowy uncertainties of dispossession. The difference between the transnational and the diasporic lies in the difference between those whose subjectivities emerge out of the security of moving through the world with the knowledge of a return and those whose subjectivities are conditioned by the knowledge of loss. In this sense, it matters less to me whether one community might be classified as diasporic and not another than how diaspora as a rubric might help scholars to understand the conditions of dislocation.” (Cho 2007: 19 -20) J

3.4.1 The field of transnational studies: Thisnew interest in the transnational has also led to the development of a new field of study called Transitional Studies. According to Peggy Levitt (2010), this field is interested not only in studying cross-border phenomenon but rather proposes “a gaze that begins without borders, empirically examines the boundaries that emerge, and explores their relationship to unbounded arenas and processes.” (Levitt 2010: 40). To guide this new Transnational Studies, Sanjeev Khagram and Peggy Levitt (2007 cited in Levitt 2010: 40) put forth 5 intellectual foundations as follows:

1.      Empirical transnationalism that takes transnational processes rather than bounded units as the subjects under study.

2.      Methodological transnationalism that involves developing new methodologies to shed light on cross-border realities.

3.      Theoretical transnationalism that work with existing theoretical frameworks and accounts to arrive at new interpretations and explanations.

4.      Philosophical transnationalism that sees a transnational social world as being the reality.

  5.      Public transnationalism that creates spaces where innovative approaches to social change can be conceived and realised.

3.5 Diasporic consciousness and Diasporic Identity

Belonging to a diaspora entails a consciousness of, or emotional attachment to, commonly purported origins and cultural attributes associated with them. Such origins and attributes mayemphasize ethno-lingustic, regional, religious, national or other features.Concerns for homeland developments and the plight of co-diaspora members in other parts of the world flow from this consciousness and emotional attachment. (Vertovec 2005: 3). We can get an idea of the expression and effects of diasporic consciousness and identity in the section on Debates in the field.

3.6 Concepts framing cultural interactions

3.6.1Acculturation, Assimilation, Integration: Each of the three terms – acculturation, assimilation and integration – refer to processes that take place when different cultures interact. Though they are often used interchangeably and the differences between them are subtle, they are very significant in their implications. Acculturation is the most broad of the three and refers to the process by which one culture acquires or learns elements of another culture and makes them part of its own when the two come into contact. (Redfield, Linton and Herskovits 1936: 149 – 150) Assimilation on the other hand refers to the process by which minorities become part of the dominant culture by giving up their own culture and adopting that of the dominant culture. While the dominant culture might be influenced by the minority culture somewhat, it is expected that the minority culture will be absorbed within the majority, resulting in homogeneity within the culture. This has been referred to by the analogy of the ‘melting pot’ where none of constituent elements retains its identity. While this is what was expected, for example, from immigrants to the USA it was noticed that expected homogenisation didn’t really happen. Instead people retained their ethnic, religious, linguistic, and other aspects of their cultural identity. The ‘melting pot’ analogy was replaced by the ‘salad bowl’, which is more popular in Canada. This process which results in the formation of a new multicultural society where constituent groups retain their identity, but become part of the mainstream is referred to as Integration. (Cohen 2008: 171; Ray 2006: 24 ; Tölölyan 2012: 7)

3.6.2Creolization and HybridityThe idea of creolization centres around the cross fertilization between interacting cultures. It is actually contrary to the idea of diaspora which is more careful to preserve elements from the homeland culture without mixing. But the process of diasporization inevitably triggers some degree of creolization willy-nilly. In creolization, elements from the incoming culture are taken and creatively merged with existing elements giving rise to fresh and new forms.(Cohen 2008 :11) In this sense it is an open process, not one of conservation but one of survival and mixing. Creolization can be seen in aspects of popular culture – music, dance, theatre, language and literature. The creoles spoken in the Caribbean are noteworthy in this regard.

The concept of hybridity is close to creolization, but it has come into prominence specifically vis-a-vis diasporization in the context of hostlands. Superseding the earlier descriptors like assimilation and integration, it is a more powerful explanation of the way diasporics interact with host societies and the outcome of the cultural exchange at the moment of this interaction. It has been elaborated and theorized upon by influential authors like Paul Gilroy, Stuart Hall, James Clifford and Homi Bhabha as one of the characteristics of diasporas. Bhabha confers on it the position of a ‘third space(Hutnyk 2010:59) .

3.7 Multiculturalism and Citizenship:The concept of diaspora began to gain currency in the 1960s prior to which immigrant groups were expected to lose their identity and get assimilated into the culture of their new society. By the 1970s these theories and expectations proved to be false (Anteby-Yemini and Berthomiere 2005: 262). It is in this context that the term multiculturalism emerges . There are two aspects here that Parekh (2000: 6) distinguishes thus: “the term ‘multicultural’ refers to the fact of cultural diversity, the term ‘multiculturalism’to a normative response to that fact.”

In the 1960s and 70s in the USA, many groups, beginning with the Blacks and later extending to Puerto Ricans, Mexican Americans, native peoples, non-European immigrants and others, begun to see their culture as a marker of their unique identity and sought recognition of this along with the right to maintain their cultural identity. They therefore called for America to be seen as multicultural and supported multiculturalism. Around the same time in Australia and Canada certain groups began to be seen as ‘unassimilable’ which prompted the adoption of the term ‘multicultural’ by these societies to describe themselves and their pursuit of multiculturalism. Similar cases were observed in other societies as well such as with the Turkish immigrants in Germany. However, even in societies that were multicultural in their makeup, such as Britain and France, there was strong resistance to the term. Conservatives in Britain feared the loss of traditional culture. France goes a step further with both conservatives and liberals believing that their definition of citizenship does not allow space for any community to be considered a minority. (Parekh 2000: 5-6)

The incidents of ‘9/11’ were a blow to multiculturalism in that it many of its earlier proponents now favoured a ‘new assimilationism’. Moreover it made Muslims the centre of discourses on minorities in the west. Criticisms of Muslims have been on issues of loyalty to the state, the conditions of women and homosexuals, socio-cultural separation and secularism. The question of public display of religion was a particularly important and found expression in the debate surrounding the banning of “‘ostentatious’ religious symbols (primarily the hijab or headscarf) in public schools” (Modood 2010: 51).

From the aforementioned examples we see that multiculturalism and citizenship have often found themselves at loggerheads with each other. However, as Modood (2010: 52) points out, “the ideal of multicultural citizenship is a critique of the cultural assimilation traditionally demanded by nation-states of migrants and minorities, as well as of that liberal individualism that has no place for groups. Nevertheless it is clearly grounded in and is a development out of the ideas of individual equality and democratic citizenship”.

3.8Relationship to Home and Homeland

It is a truism that migration fromhome and homeland do not usually mean severance of all ties with them. Depending on the distance travelled, the political and socio economic conditions and the ability of the migrant to keep in touch, variedlevels of diasporic orientation to the geographical homeland do exist. However, the under the influence of the Jewish classical diasporic model, all conceptualizations and theorizations of diaspora give a central place to Homeland in the formation of diasporic consciousness and diasporic identity. Such foregrounding of the homeland came to be seen as problematic, as fresher examples of a range of diasporas began surfacing. The homeland may be an imagined community, that features prominently in the struggle to survive physically and emotionally in a new and strange location. In this sense, the desire to go back home may be cast in the form of a ‘myth of return’- not a real plan of returning, but to keep its memory alive. But there are also cases of ‘long distance nationalism’ where the diaspora plays a concrete and major role in homeland politics and political causes. More recent scholarly engagements complicate and nuance the concept of homeland without ignoring its significance, as we shall see in the next section.

4.  THEORETICAL DEBATES

In this section, three major and interrelated debates in the field have been taken up for discussion. Of course, this list is indicative and not exhaustive. In a sense, the very first debate on the concept of diaspora encompasses within itself the threads of all other debates in the field.

4.1 On whether ‘diaspora’ in its classical form, isa useful concept

The historical legacy of the Jewish model has left its imprint on the way conceptualizations of diaspora have evolved. It has given rise to the so called classical Diaspora theory with a descriptive typology, that does not allow one to go beyond accepted characteristics ,neither does it provide an analytical framework to fully understand the phenomenon of Diaspora as a social condition and societal process.(Harutyunyan 2012: 5)

The classical theoretical definitions present clear criteria for which groups can or cannot be Diasporas:traumatic dispersal, longing for and belonging to an ancestral homeland, collective knowledge of the ethnic identity, alienation from the host society and the wish to return to the lost places of the ancestors. Subsequent scholarship finds them too rigid.

At a very early stage of Diaspora Studies, scholars like Alain Medam and James Clifford expressed their disinterest in the concept because it was being used to describe a narrow range of phenomena characterized only by the dispersion of a population originated from one nation-state in several “host countries.” They called for more theorization. (Anteby-Yemini and Berthomiere 2005: 262-63).

Seminal works by Stuart Hall and Paul Gilroy have questioned the ability of the classical theory to adequately accommodate the diverse experiences of many diaspora groups into the available framework. (Harutyunyan:7). Stuart Hall (1990: 235) argues that the diaspora experience is defined, not by essence or purity, but by the recognition of a necessary heterogeneity. It is pervaded by hybridity, a conception of identity, which lives with and through, not despite, difference.

Harutyunyan (2012)points out that in most cases, the classical theoretical framework focuses on ethnic representations, the reasons and conditions of dispersal, traumatic pasts and connections with the homeland. It also concentrates on integration issues in host societies. These are no doubt relevant factors. But no attention is given to where and how these people lived before actual migration and, most importantly, what cultural baggage they continue to bring with them from their countries of (re-)migration to a concrete local community. She attempts to go beyond the concepts of ethnicity, unitary homeland and global Diaspora to engage with other analytical categories. For example, rather than a pure singular ethnic identity derived directly from the place of origin, she proposes categories like cultural identities (negotiated, discontinuous, etc.) emotional places (not a unitary homeland but a village, a language, a school, etc.) and local community spaces (i.e. in the larger diasporic location itself, what are the spaces the community wears its presence ; places of worship, social gatherings, etc)(ibid:6) .

So the move from rigid and narrow definitions to accommodate diversities, a legitimate demand in that early context, has led to a broadening of criteria, as we saw in the section on definitions and concepts. It began to be enlarged in 1965, when the historian George Shepperson gave a paper at a conference in Dar-es-Salaam in which he pointed out that people of African origin did in fact constitute a diaspora — their departure from their homeland was coerced, their suffering indisputable and massive, and their continuing distinctness as a community was perpetuated by racism. (Tololyan 2007: 648). This was followed by the ‘discovery’ of various diasporic communities, past and emerging which did not fit into the ideal-type and hence the latter was opened up.

But such universalization of Diaspora, paradoxically renders it meaningless. As Brubaker (2005:3) pithily puts it, if everyone is diasporic, then no one is distinctively so. Another development in reconceptualising diaspora is the emergence of a number of closely related terms each with itsown distinctiveness. The way James Clifford (1994) puts it “an unruly crowd ofdescriptive/interpretative terms now jostle and converse in an effort tocharacterise the contact zones of nations, cultures and regions.”(Anteby-Yemini and Berthomiere 2005: 264)

All this is part of a general criticism that the theoretical categories, descriptive and analytical frameworks applied to the phenomenon of diasporas have become overused, overtheorized, yet at the same time uncontested and taken for granted in the scholarly discussion.

The pendulum seems to have swung from the narrow to the over-broad. For Tololyan (2007: 648-49), this has led to an increasing collapse of the distinction between dispersion and diaspora. When ethnics, exiles, expatriates, refugees, asylum seekers, labour migrants, queer communities, domestic service workers, executivesof transnational corporations, and transnational sex workers are all labelled diasporas, the struggle to maintain distinctions is lost, only to resume in another guise. It becomes displaced into a new effort to recall how very different the communities gathered under the label diaspora remain. This then begs the question of why such diverse groups should be called ‘diasporas’ in the first place, and then differentiated. He goes on to suggest that it may be best to think of diaspora not as the name of a fixed concept and social formation but as a   process of collective identification and form of identity, marked by ever-changing differences that chart the shifting boundaries of certain communities hierarchically embedded as enclaves with porous boundaries within other, larger communities. Diasporicity manifests itself in relations of difference. The diasporic community sees itself as linked to but different from those among whom it has settled; eventually, it also comes to see itself as powerfully linked to, but in some ways different from, the people in the homeland as well.

In the overall discourse generated over the concept of diaspora, several other productive tensions prevail: between the ‘emic’ self-study of diasporas about themselves andthe ‘etic’study from the academic field; between disciplinary anchoring anda more recent supradisciplinary discourseof diaspora, between mobility and transnationalism vs sedentariness and the significance of locality. (Ibid: 648)

The need for a productive engagement with the many conceptualizations is emphasized for instance by Werbner’s (2000: 7) point that the new stress on the discursive, hybrid productions of diaspora, while revitalizing the concept, fails to take notice of the relationship between an aesthetic politics of representation and a more parochial, sentimental, nationalist, religious mobilization of diasporic aspirations. The latter has not been replaced by the former. Cosmopolitanism and parochialism not only coexist but are mutually imbricated.

4.2 Debate 2 On victimhood and its relationship with agency

Even though the condition of trauma and victimhood, which was part of the classic definition of diaspora, has been interrogated and other migrations – voluntary in search of better opportunity – have been included as diasporas, some scholars like Tololyan (2007: 649) maintain that the nature of cultural production and political commitment of a victim diaspora is shaped by a distinct work of memory, commemoration and mourning which is less prominent in dispersions that are a consequence of individual and chain migration motivated by economic reasons. Robin Cohen (1997) too in his book Global diasporas: an introduction suggests that the “Jewish archetype” could be a base for reflection even if it couldn’t be a transposable model.(Anteby-Yeminiand Berthomiere 2005:263).

One contemporary argument in favour of not overly distinguishing the two types of diasporas – victim and voluntary – is that the conditions of transnationalism currently prevailing enable victim diasporas also to rise out of victimhood and exhibit agency in various forms and measures. Even in the past, victimhood has never precluded agency. The simultaneity of both has been a larger issue in the social sciences. Sri Lankan Tamils in exile in Europe and North America, have in the last more than three decades transformed themselves from a traumatized refugees, escaping the violence and conflict of the homeland , into a successful transnational diaspora. Leveraging the new technology with old ethnic and political loyalties and taking advantage of the initial forcible dispersal over several countries and continents, they have made new lives for themselves. They have become spokespersons for their co-ethnics back in Srilanka, and for the Tamil cause (see for example Ganesh 2014). There are other contemporary examples of victim diasporas exerting agency that compels us to re-look at the category in all its complexity. This particular debate has larger connectors with debates in sociology on the individual, community, structure and agency.

4.3 Debate 3 On the centrality and necessity of the Homeland concept for a diaspora

The issue in the contemporary debate is not whether the concept of Homeland is part of the idea of Diaspora. Rather, it is to interrogate the excessive, overwhelming emphasis on the Homeland, as if this was the only significant factor that mattered in the constitution of diasporic identity.

In earlier scholarship dealing with migration, the expected mode of fitting in with the hosts was through assimilation. Consequently there was no talk of diaspora. However scholars began to realize that migration did not mean necessarily severing ties with country of origin (Cohen 2008:xiv and Dufoix 2008:4). Homeland was a fixed geographical territory to which migrants hoped to return eventually. This was conforming to the Jewish ideal-type, where return to a concrete homeland was the fulcrum on which identity turned. Indeed the creation of the state of Israel represented the fruition of this desire.

A little later into the field, homeland and hostland were both brought into the picture. As Mishra (2006) points out, diasporas were conceived of as being caught in the dynamic between homeland and hostland. It was as though they had no existence of their own, apart from these two forces which were pulling them. In the churning up of the concept of diaspora that we discussed in the first debate, a more complex and nuanced understanding of Homeland is emerging.

For some time scholars such as Brah (1996:16, 187) have been pointing out that ‘home’ as embodying ‘homing desire’ is part of the existential condition of all kinds of migrations and should not be confused with a speciic geographical territory whose boundaries are politically drawn. Safran (1991:89-90) makes the point that return is maintained as an ideal, with no real intention of returning. Clifford (1994: 305- 6) adds that the homeland idea is often oriented towards maintaining a sense of community in the hostland than an orientation towards any single territory. In an era of transnationalism and the sanction of dual/multiple citizenships in several countries, diasporics are increasingly comfortable about expressing dual affiliations.

As mentioned earlier in the module in the discussion on double and triple diasporas, relocations of migrants to new hostlands either due to distress or in search of new opportunities creates multiple homelands as reference points for the second and third generation diapsorics. This further complicates a simplistic understanding of homeland.

One of the characteristics of the field of diaspora studies is that it is compelled to be responsive to changing circumstances in the real world. With globalization and transnationalism happening at a previously unknown scale and intensity and as geopolitical alignments shift, understanding of homeland and diaspora relations are also transforming. To paraphrase Dufoix (2008: 2)these are only words.Like all words, they serve to denote part of reality, one that is not the same each time the words are used.

Web resources
• Migration Policy Institute, International Migrant Population by Country of Origin and Destination: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/internationalmigrant-population-country-origin-and-destination

• Intelligence2 Debate on “Europe should shut the door on immigration”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rT3gMIiwvQ

• Al Jazeera, Inside Story discussion “Has multiculturalism failed in Europe?”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mU2A9avgHmY