Abstracts of Participants of the 2006 International Symposium on Diaspora Politics

Dr. Thomas Abraham

Chairman

Global Organization of People of Indian Origin (GOPIO), Inc.

People of Indian Origin as Global Citizans

People of Indian origin (PIO) constitute a global community of over 22 million people. It is bigger than many countries of Europe. It has been estimated that, PIOs living outside India has a combined yearly economic output of about $200 billion, about one third of the GDP of India. Whether they come from Africa, Asia, the Americas, Australia, the Caribbean or Europe, they are Indians in body and spirit. Almost all of them maintain their Indian cultural traditions and values. They seem to have meaningfully integrated in their countries without losing their ethnic identity.

The presentation looks at the Indian Diaspora in different countries, its compositions, organized mobilization efforts through organizations such as Global Organization of People of Indian Origin (GOPIO), how they are helping India and the countries they come from, their role in providing help at time of crisis to their communities around the world, campaigning on PIO’s human rights violations as well as civil and political rights, political campaigns in the countries with large population, pooling professional and financial resources for common goal, and Indian Diaspora’s role in development, global peace and justice.

Dr. Kim Butler

Rutgers University

The African Meta-Diaspora and Multi-Layered Politics:

Negotiating Diaspora Strategies in the Digital Age

Narratives of diaspora once focused on oppression and displacement; today they focus on diaspora as a potential strategy of empowerment. The ability to harness that potential varies greatly from one diaspora to the next, and these differences are evident between different branches of single diasporas as well. Using the case of the African diaspora as an example, this paper explores the usage of diaspora as a political strategy in multiple contexts. A multi-layered diaspora, the African example illuminates the vast difference in political options for recent emigrants from nation-states versus the slave-era dispersals from a generic continental homeland. To what extent is it possible to coordinate multiple types of strategies towards a collective transnational political agenda? Do these disparities in political realities mitigate against a shared diaspora consciousness, especially when the type of diasporization is markedly different?

The paper argues that many modern diasporas are composites of diasporas formed in different eras that necessarily interact and cross-pollinate each other. The African diaspora is a meta diaspora that consists of many constituent diasporas (i.e., Ghanaian, Garifuna, Indian Ocean, Caribbean). Just as individuals hold multiple layers of identity, so also do diasporas exist at the meta and micro levels simultaneously. This suggests that the overall landscape of diaspora politics is an interaction between differently bounded diaspora communities.

This paper examines instances of diaspora mobilization in a variety of contexts within the African diaspora. It suggests that today’s political and technological climate favors different types of diaspora politics (and forms of identity consciousness) than those prevalent in the past. It closes by considering how the salience of discrete diaspora’s politics will affect the possibilities for pan-diaspora politics in the future.

Dr. Nergis Canefe

Centre for Refugee Studies and Department of Political Science

York University, Canada

Religion in the 'New World': Critical Issues of Belonging and Acceptance among Muslim Migrant Communities in Canada

Liberal democratic citizenship has become the commonplace motto in every Western political system in the twenty first century. Among other things, it is meant to symbolize respect for difference, institutionalized tolerance for disagreement, and, legal protection of freedoms of expression and choice. Canada constitutes no exception in terms of the formal embrace of this rendition of citizenship. In effect, many believe that compared to its southern neighbor with its current conservative and xenophobic presidential regime, or, equally xenophobic and anti-immigration reflexes of European governments, Canada is apt to become the home-guard for such a conception. Meanwhile, from within Canada, the picture looks somewhat different. More and more Canadians who either recently acquired citizenship or assumed landed immigrant status are finding themselves at a crossroads: they may have skills to offer, they may have a significant range of legal membership rights, and yet they seem to be not on an even keel with others who have become ‘Canadians’ before they did, or, who belong to the Northern European and/or Francophone backbone of traditional Canadian society. This paper argues that indeed there are enough indicators to suggest that there exists a threshold that separates those who can in principle have it all and those who are kept back--via delay, caution and interrogation--from full and acknowledged participation in Canadian social, political and economic life. Furthermore, contrary to the Marxist adage that long dominated discussions on ‘structural exclusion’, what troubles the new immigrant does not appear to be strictly a class issue. Private businesses, the surviving parts of the legendary activist Canadian state, pressure groups, many organs of the Canadian civil society, and, even the Canadian intellectual and political elite all prove to be partners in this crime of omission that somewhat defies definition. The prominent members of the society are often all too keen to act as if in the post-Charter Canadian universe, all is now in order. Accordingly, if there remains unequal access or differential utilization of our clearly spelled-out rights, it must be just a lag in the political culture of the larger society in terms of catching up with our state-of-art legal-institutional framework. In short, legal liberalism—hand in hand with the entrenched belief in the possibility of the realization of liberal democratic citizenship--runs deep and strong in the Canadian psyche as the ‘be and end of it all’ solution to racism, sexism, xenophobia, Islamophobia, anti-Semitism, and any other, new forms of exclusion in the offing.

This paper presents the case that is grossly overlooked in this grand scheme of institutional reform and political optimism is that changes to what is often cited as the ‘citizenship contract’ in any given society have always been made within the context of existing norms of socio-political membership. In other words, they take place with direct reference to already-determined criteria for qualifications regarding full membership, the legal process of naturalization being the tip of the iceberg. Thus, one can argue that there is a starting line in each society-cum-political community regarding the minimums of acceptance for full participation with protected rights, and by default, regarding the agreed upon principles of exclusion. It is those base lines that are the hardest to change, or even to question. Such changes have been observed, for instance, in cases whereby the ethnically based and/or monist understanding of citizenship were undone to accommodate multi-ethnic, multi-religious, or multi-racial dimensions. However, more often than not, integration or assimilation--depending on the steepness of the citizenship regime’s expectations for the ordinance of full and formal membership—forces immigrants into conforming to ‘national stereotypes’ developed to depict the core characteristics of ‘those who are one of us’.

This paper is dedicated to the discussion of a group of cases whereby the effects of such lingering of the past are most pronounced. These indicate that at this latest stage of the history of ‘Canadian society’, religion—especially when combined with ethnicity, race and class--constitutes a key component of the aforementioned silent barrier that separates those who categorically qualify for becoming a ‘true Canadian’ and those who, at best, can approximate Canadianness.. In the end, it is fair to suggest that all the rhetoric of liberal democratic citizenship does not suffice to carry the weight of religious difference: the ‘veil of ignorance’ that was to bring us the promised land of equality in difference cannot be fully donned due to fear, prejudice, and mistrust.

Dr. Robin Cohen

ESRC Professorial Research Fellow and Professor of Sociology

Department of Sociology

University of Warwick

Coventry

At first sight, creolization and diaspora are divergent forms of cultural politics, with different sensibilities and different trajectories. As discussions of creolization may be less familiar to members of a conference centred on diaspora, I concentrate on an exposition and provide some comparative and historical examples of Creoles and creolization. The core of the concept centres on the cross-fertilization that takes place between different cultures when they interact. When creolizing, participants select particular elements from incoming or inherited cultures, endow these with meanings different from those they possessed in the original culture and then creatively merge these to create totally new varieties that supersede the prior forms. Creolization is a ‘here and now’ sensibility that erodes the old roots and stresses the new growth in a new place of identification. A diasporic consciousness, by contrast, reflects a degree of unease with the here and now and the current location. ‘Home’ or homeland is reconstructed and revalorized through fabulation, historical memory, and social organization. It provides a continuing pole of attraction and identification. By contrasting these two forms of cultural politics, I hope to illuminate both. Perhaps unexpectedly there are also some possibilities and examples of convergence which I explore briefly before concluding the paper.

Dr. William A. Douglass

Emeritus Professor

Center for Basque Studies

University of Nevada, Reno

IN SEARCH OF THE BASQUE-AMERICAN DIASPORA

To census is to first classify and then count. It is the essential, even quintessential, administrative tool of the modern state – informing and facilitating taxation, military conscription, social programs, and planning. While various entities (NGOs, churches, voluntary associations, etc.) may effect population and membership counts, comprehensive censuses are initiated only by states – the sole entities with the self-appointed authority to conduct them. Nevertheless, they are never undertaken either lightly or too frequently, since censusing is complicated, costly, and frequently controversial.

For the diaspora scholar there are several implications. Since the official censuses of constituted states seek critical (and not benign or merely interesting) information about the populace, the focus is upon the citizen qua citizen. There tends, then, to be only partial (if any) data elicited by the state as either the sending homeland of departed emigrants or the receiving host country of arrived immigrants. Regarding the latter, the obfuscation is magnified by the issue of the legal status of the “undocumented aliens,” a population for whom eluding the censustaker may be a matter of survival.

This paper will consider how Basque-Americans went from being counted as “Spanish,” “French” and other nationals by the U.S. census, to being one of the best documented ethnic groups in America, certification as a minority for affirmative action purposes and then decertification. Throughout the entire process Basque-Americans were largely a passive pawn within the activist agency of external forces.

The Basque-American experience in microcosm underscores fundamental dilemmas within Diaspora Studies, including who configures and counts our very subject matter? What are the underlying assumptions and presumptions? How comprehensive and reliable are the results? How relevant and useful are they for our purposes?

Dr. Michel Laguerre

Director, Berkeley Center for Globalization and Information Technology

Berkeley

Abstract not yet received

Dr. Razmik Panossian

Rights and Democracy

Montreal, Canada

Do Diasporas Really Matter? Civil Society Organisations, Policy Makers, and Ethnic Community Organisations

Diasporan organisations are increasingly seen as “non-state” actors in international relations. Whether as lobbyists, as players in and financiers of political (and even military) activism in their homelands, as economic investors, or as “special issue” voters, diasporans play a role in the political processes of both their “hostlands” and their “homelands.” But what impact does this activism really have on the policy makers?

This paper examines the specific case of “policy activism” by certain diasporan organisations in Montreal and Ottawa in the field of international human rights and democratic development promotion. It analyses two sets of issues: First, how do actual policy makers – be they civil servants or non-governmental civil society organisations – take diasporan views into account? Do they consult specific groups? Do they systematically solicit opinions? How do they decide who to listen to? In what ways do they incorporate these views into their policy briefs (if at all)? The focus is on the professional policy makers within the civil service and human rights organisations, not politicians.

The second set of issues relates to the diasporan organisations. As these organisations lobby or try to influence policy making, how do they approach the policy makers and civil society organisations? Do they feel that they have access to the drafters of policy? Diasporans often act as information “brokers” on issues relating to their homelands. But do they succeed in conveying the relevant information to the right people?

The research for this papers will be based on a series of interviews with the relevant actors, including “off the record” discussions with Canadian civil servants, NGOs working in the field of human rights and democratic development internationally, research organisations studying this topic, and diasporan activists.

Dr. William Safran

Department of Political Science

University of Colorado at Boulder

“DEMOCRACY, PLURALISM, AND DIASPORA IDENTITY: AN AMBIGUOUS RELATIONSHIP” This paper examines the relationship between the political context of host countries and the persistence of diaspora identity. It explores the question whether a democratic system is more conducive to that persistence than a non-democratic one. It attempts to distinguish between centralized and etatist states committed to cultural homogenization, and polyarchic regimes committed to multiculturalism and an autonomous civil society. It is argued that the former impedes the survival of ethnic minorities as such, whereas the latter creates opportunity structures for the perpetuation of diasporic identities and institutions.

The depth and continuity of diasporic identity are strongly affected by the policies of the hostland, such as naturalization, integration, and the legitimation of immigrant particularisms. An authoritarian regime may create constraints against the articulation of diaspora identity so that it gradually dissipates; conversely, it may be so oppressive that the (actual or imagined) homeland becomes more attractive and diaspora identity is sharpened. In contrast, a democratic regime that permits the free expression of ethnic minority culture and links between the minority community and its kin in the homeland facilitates the maintenance diaspora. But democracy may also have the opposite effect. A democratic regime is a responsive one, often manifested in a welfare state that may coopt ethnic minorities and attenuate a diasporic consciousness based on perceptions of relative deprivation. If such a state promotes genuinely redistributive policies, ethnic minorities are less dependent on their own communal resources and less likely to retain diaspora identities.

An important change in context is produced by globalization. It has made national boundaries more permeable, facilitated transpolitical relations, and engendered a rethinking of the concept of citizenship, thereby obscuring the distinction between indigenous and diaspora status. Dual citizenship has been supplemented by urban, economic and other kinds of “postnational” citizenship. Since many of the points made in this paper are subject to debate, questions are raised about the way in which arguments concerning the relationship between political context and diaspora identity might be substantiated or falsified by systematic comparative analysis.

Dr. Gabriel (Gabi) Sheffer

Department of Political Science

Hebrew University of Jerusalem

Jerusalem

"The Diaspora Phenomenon in the 21st Century: Ideational, Organizational and Behavioral Challenges"

Both transstate and transnational diasporas (which I will characterize), whose numbers and size are increasing, and who on the whole are not facing tremendous pressures from hostlands' governments and societies to assimilate or fully integrate, face major ideational, organizational and behavioral challenges. In my presentation I will deal only with the most critical challenges facing these two types of diasporas. These are: first, the need of their core and peripheral members to clarify their individual and collective identity and identification. The greater difficulty in this respect is facing existing transnational and incipient transstate diasporas. However, in view of various current systemic temptations (which I will specify), also members of historic and modern transstate diasporas must work hard at maintaining the non-essentialist primordial elements of their identity. The second major challenge is that connected to the need to define the actual and virtual boundaries of these entities, which now are very blurred and porous. The third significant issue facing these entities concerns the need to define and recognize the actual or virtual location of a diaspora's center, and closely interconnected is the need to clarify the relations between the diasporas' actual or perceived centers on the one hand, and the diasporas' dispersed members and organizations, on the other hand. The fourth basic dilemma is that of loyalty to either their imagined center or actual homeland, on the one hand, or to their host countries, on the other hand. The fifth challenge that I will discuss is that of the strategic and tactical policies and activities (including violence and terrorism) that are intended to accomplish the interests of the various types of diasporas. I will mention examples of various diasporas facing each of these challenges.

Dr. Ninna Nyberg Sørenson

Danish Institute for International Studies

Copenhagen

Diaspora and Development

Here I am particularly interested in how global inequality affects the aspirations of young women and men in the homelands: How are such aspirations played out among young people, especially in countries with well established migration cultures? To which extent does blocked physical mobility translate into withdrawal from local development concerns? And if so, what are the broader consequences for contemporary migration and development policy agendas?

Diaspora politics and gender

Here I am interested in the gendered nature of (homeland) state outreach politics and the apparent exclusion of women migrating for domestic and sex work. What happens to the relation between state-led 'transnationalism from above' and migrant-led transnational political practices 'from below' when a majority of the migrants are making a living in domestic service and sex work?

To what extent does the occupation and sexual identity of particular parts of the diaspora influence source country efforts to incorporate these migrants as 'national heroes' or extra-territorial ambassadors of 'la patria'?

Dr. Kachig Tölölyan

Chair, Department of English

Wesleyan University

Editor of Diaspora: A Journal of Transnational Studies

Abstract not yet received

Dr. Gloria Totoricagüena

Director, Center for Basque Studies

University of Nevada, Reno

The perseverance of non-state actors in foreign policy is not a new phenomenon; however, their pursuits are now greatly facilitated by transformations in the power of the state, telecommunications, the global economy, and the emergence of global culture. In contemporary world affairs, diplomacy is unambiguously multi-layered, and paradiplomacy -as a postmodern deconstruction of state diplomacy- has increased influence in international relations. Though the relations of regional governments and diaspora communities remain clearly inferior in the statecraft of ‘high’ and ‘low’ politics, I indicate that culture and identity politics are no longer singularly dominated by state-centric networks and are moving into the realm of interest and ethnic alliances such as homeland-diaspora transnational relations.

Although the primary unit of analysis in foreign affairs has been the state, for centuries non-central government actors have simultaneously engaged in transborder activities. Using quantitative and qualitative examples from the case of the government of the Basque Autonomous Community and the nearly two hundred Basque diaspora organizations in twenty-two different countries, this article aims to discuss the localization of international relations and the significance of non-central governments in homeland-diaspora relations. I will analyze global activities of non-central governments that promote a separatist or independentist message onto programs and projects with entities in other countries. Are Basque homeland institutions utilizing their trade/cultural missions abroad as protoembassies or protoconsulates of a potentially sovereign state? What is the opportunity structure presently in place for diasporas to act in foreign policy, and, do diasporas have the capacity for independent political action? Though I would not argue that state-centric arenas of the international system no longer prevail, I do argue that the roles of non-central governments are increasing in influence and that diasporas are emerging as viable constituencies for their homeland leaders.

Contact Information:

Center for Basque Studies/322

University of Nevada, Reno

Reno, NV 89557

1-775-784-4854

basque@unr.edu