levitt y jaworsky

8/13/2019 Levitt y Jaworsky

1/31


2/31

INTRODUCTION: THEEMERGENCE OF A

TRANSNATIONAL OPTIC

Migration scholarship has undergone a sea

change in the past two decades. Most schol-ars now recognize that many contemporary

migrants and their predecessors maintained avariety of ties to their home countries whilethey became incorporated into the countries

where they settled. Migration has never beena one-way process of assimilation into a melt-

ing pot or a multicultural salad bowl but onein which migrants, to varying degrees, are si-multaneously embedded in the multiple sites

and layers of the transnational social fields inwhich they live. More and more aspects of so-

cial life take place across borders, even as the

political and cultural salience of nation-stateboundaries remains clear.

These developments in migration schol-arship parallel debates in other fields. His-

tory has moved away from simplistic nationalcomparisons to reconceptualizing itself as thestudy of regional interactions in places such

as the Black Atlantic (Gilroy 1993) or theIndian Ocean Rim (Bose 2006). Keohane &

Nye (1971) argued decades ago that inter-national relations had to rethink its basic

conceptual categories to capture cross-borderrelations between nonstate actors and subna-tional actors.

In this article, we review the evolution ofscholarly efforts using a transnational opticto understand migration. We begin by offer-

ing a short history of theoretical and con-ceptual developments in the field. In the sec-

ond section, we focus on the ways in whicheconomic, political, social, cultural, and reli-gious life are transformed when they are en-

acted transnationally. We conclude by dis-cussing the methodological implications of

these scholarly developments and highlightthree directions for further study, unitedby the common theme of simultaneity

embeddedness and spatial arenas, variationsin the consequences of transnationalism, and

comparing internal and international migra-tion. We locate migration scholarship within

the general field of transnational studies aargue for an approach that highlights t

longue duree.

THEORETICAL

DEVELOPMENTS AND DEBATESociology has been in the service of tnation-state since its inception. In the UnitStates, some of the earliest debates concern

how to make Americans out of newcomeThese conversations continue. On the o

hand, new assimilation theory argues thover time, most migrants achieve socioecnomic parity with the native-born but th

ethnicity and race matter, and that both tnative-born as well as immigrants chan

along the way (Alba & Nee 2003, Jaco2004, Kivisto 2005). Segmented assimilatioism suggests several possible trajectories

migrants on their route to incorporation, icluding becoming part of the (white) mai

stream, remaining ethnic, or becoming pof the underclass and experiencing downwamobility (Portes & Rumbaut 2001, Por

& Zhou 1993). Both perspectives acknowedge that patterns of assimilation, accultu

ation, and integration vary depending

the country and context of departure, immgrant characteristics, immigrant enclave c

pacities, and the political, social, and ecnomic context of the sending and receivi

communities (see Waters & Jimenez 20for a summary of the latest developmeand theoretical debates concerning immigr

assimilation).During the 1990s, transnational mig

tion scholars added a third perspective these conversations. They argued that som

migrants continued to be active in thhomelands at the same time that they becampart of the countries that received them. Th

described how migrants and their descedants participate in familial, social, economreligious, political, and cultural processes th

extend across borders while they become pof the places where they settle (Basch et

1994, Faist 2000a,b, Glick Schiller et al. 19

130 Levitt Jaworsky


3/31

Grasmuck & Pessar 1991, Guarnizo 1997,

Itzigsohn et al. 1999, Jacoby 2004, Kivisto2001, Kyle 2000, Levitt 2001, Mahler 1998,Portes et al. 1999, Smith & Guarnizo 1998).

Although the first iterations of this perspec-tive broke new ground, they also suffered

from weaknesses common among innovativeapproaches. They tended to see transnationalmigration everywhere when, in fact, the

range and scope of migrants transnationalpractices vary considerably. New research

findings were celebratory, predicting thatby living transnationally, migrants couldovercome the poverty and powerlessness to

which capitalism relegated them.These weaknesses generated critiques.

Some took issue with the terminology

and ambiguity of definition, arguing thatconceptual distinctions were not clear, for

example, between global, international, andtransnational. Alternative terms, such as

translocalism (Barkan 2006), bi-localism, andtrans-state activity (Waldinger & Fitzgerald2004) were proposed in response. Lucassen

(2006) argues that transnationalism is tooeasily dichotomized as incompatible withassimilation and delineates three forms of

transnationalismbi-local, bi-national, or

pan-ethnicthat vary in their relationship tomigration assimilation. Others claimed thatmigrants had always maintained ties to theircountries of origin and that, therefore, there

was little new (Waldinger & Fitzgerald 2004).Still others, while acknowledging the salience

of transnational ties for the first generation,predicted they might rapidly decline amongtheir children (Lucassen 2006, Portes et al.

1999).A number of scholars questioned the scope

and importance of the phenomena, arguingthat too many claims were based on casestudies, particularly those of Latin American

and Caribbean migrants, who have a partic-ular social and historical relationship to the

United States (Dahinden 2005, Waldinger &Fitzgerald 2004). When surveys conductedby Portes and his colleagues (Guarnizo et al.

2003, Portes et al. 2002) found that habit-

ual transnational activism was fairly low, andthat only 10% to 15% of the Dominicans,

Salvadorans, and Mexicans they studied par-ticipated in regular and sustained transna-

tional political and economic activities, thisonly added fuel to the fire. Finally, many

believed that dismissing national borderswas premature and that, contrary to whatsome had alleged, the nation-state system

was unlikely to disappear in the near future(Waldinger 2006).

Subsequent scholarship took important

steps to rectify these weaknesses. As Yeohand colleagues (2003b, p. 208) write, such

work has begun to sketch the lineaments oftransnationality, clarifyingits shape, contours,and structure, and at the same time point-

ing to the processes and agencies that sustaintransnational trajectories and edifices. This

more recent body of work has clarified the so-cial spaces in which transnational migrationoccurs and the social structures it generates,

the variations in its dimensions and forms,the relationship between processes of incor-

poration and enduring transnational involve-ments, the ways in which contemporary itera-tions of cross-border memberships compare

to earlier incarnations, and their durability.

We discuss each in turn.

ARENAS, FORMS, NOVELTY,AND DURABILITY

Basch et al. (1994, p. 6) initially defined

transnationalism as the processes by whichimmigrants forge and sustain multi-stranded

social relations that link together their soci-eties of origin and settlement. More recentscholarship understands transnational migra-

tion as taking place within fluid social spacesthat are constantly reworked through mi-

grants simultaneous embeddedness in morethan one society (Levitt & Glick Schiller2004, Pries 2005, Smith 2005). These are-

nas are multi-layered and multi-sited, includ-ing not just the home and host countries but

other sites around the world that connect mi-grants to their conationals and coreligionists.

www.annualreviews.org Transnationalism 131


4/31

Both migrants and nonmigrants occupy them

because the flow of people, money, andsocial remittances (ideas, norms, practices,and identities) within these spaces is so dense,

thick, and widespread that nonmigrants livesare also transformed, even though they do

not move (Levitt 2001). Although the num-berswhoengageinregulartransnationalprac-tices may be fairly small, those who engage

in occasional, informal transnational activi-ties, including social, cultural, and religious

practices, in response to elections, economicdownturns, life-cycle events, and climatic dis-asters are much greater. Taken together and

over time, their combined efforts add up andcan alter the economies, values, and prac-

tices of entire regions (Kyle 2000, Levitt et al.

2003).Several scholars have attempted to delin-

eate the types of social spaces that produceand are produced by transnational migration

and examine the social structures embeddedwithin them. Morawska (2003) proposesconceptualizing migration as structuration

to capture the continuing dynamic betweenstructure and agency that extends intotransnational domains. Besserer (1999) and

Kearney (1995) refer to migration circuits.

Guarnizo (1997) and Landolt (2001) speak oftransnational social formations. Srensen &Fog Olwig (2002) prefer transnational liveli-hoods. R. Smiths (2006) term transnational

life includes those practices and relationshipsthat link migrants and their children with the

home country, where such practices have sig-nificant meaning and are regularly observed.

Faist (2000a,b) argues that variations in

spatial extension and temporal stability pro-duce different transnational topographies:

(a) dispersion and assimilation (weak simulta-neous embeddedness in sending and receiv-ing countries and short-lived transnational

ties); (b) transnational exchange and reci-procity (strong simultaneous embeddedness

but rather short-lived social ties); (c) transna-tional networks (weakly embedded and long-lived); and (d) transnational communities

(strongly embedded in at least two countries

and enduring). Levitt & Glick Schiller (200describe social fields, which they define

sets of multiple interlocking networks of scial relationships through which ideas, pra

tices, and resources are unequally exchangeorganized, and transformed. Vertovec (200

p. 971) characterizes transnational migtion as involving three modes of transfomation within major domains: perceptu

or migrants orientational bi-focality the socio-cultural domain; conceptual, fecting the meaning of the analytical tria

identities-orders-borders in the political dmain; and institutional, affecting forms

financial transfer, public-private relationshand development in the economic domain

Forms of activity within these cross-bord

social spaces vary along several dimensioThere are debates concerning the appropri

parameters and levels of analysis. One eadistinction, proposed by Smith & Guarni(1998), differentiated between transnation

ism from above (global capital, media, apolitical institutions) and from below (loc

grassroots activity). Portes (2001, 2003) gued for confining the analysis to those idividuals who are formally and regula

engaged in strict transnational economic, p

litical, or sociocultural activities. Itzigsoet al. (1999) distinguish between narr(highly institutionalized and continuous ativities involving regular travel) and bro

(occasional or loosely coupled with sporaor no movement) transnationalism. Guarni

(1997, 2000) defines core transnationalismthose activities that (a) form an integral pof the individuals habitual life; (b) are u

dertaken on a regular basis; and (c) are pterned and, therefore, somewhat predictab

Expanded transnationalism, in contrast, cludes migrants who engage occasionally, example, in response to political crises or n

ural disasters in their homelands.Other scholars argue for a broader a

proach that includes both informal and fomal social, cultural, and religious practicconnecting all levels of social experience (K

2006, Levitt & Glick Schiller 2004, Mahler

132 Levitt Jaworsky


5/31

Pessar 2006, Smith 2006). Morawska (2007,

p. 153) suggests that present-day transna-tionalism encompasses a much greater di-versification of form and content and that,

[d]epending on the specific constellation offactors, it can involve single or multiple cross-

border activities. . .

regular. . .

or promptedby specific situations . . . carried by individ-uals, immigrant families or ethnic groups

through informal or institutional channels;and it can be confined to private lives of peo-

ple on both sides of the border or involvethe public sphere. Glick Schiller (2003) dif-ferentiates between ways of being, or the

actual social relations and practices that in-dividuals engage in, and ways of belong-

ing, those practices that signal or enact

an identity demonstrating a conscious con-nection to a particular group (cf. Morawska

2007).Many argue that transnational migration

is not a new phenomenon, retelling the U.S.immigrant story through a transnational lens.Chan (2006), Foner (2000), Morawska (2004),

and Gabaccia (2000), to name a few, havehighlighted the cross-border engagements of

old immigrants comingto theUnited Statesin the Industrial and Progressive eras. Many

immigrants intended their sojourns to be tem-porary and stayed tightly connected to thehomeland. Whats more, a significant propor-

tion, 30%40%, actually went back (Hatton& Williamson 1994). Further, migrants havealways sent a little something home to their

families. Between 1900 and 1906, the totalamount of money orders sent from the im-migrant colonies in America to Italy, Russia,

and Austria-Hungary was a staggering $90million (Wyman 1993). Migrants also ac-

tively engaged in transnational processes ofnation-state building and identity politics thatinfluenced countries as diverse as Greece,

Korea, China, Italy, and Hungary (Gabaccia& Ottanelli 2001, Laliotou 2004, McKeown

2001, Smith 1998). Key national leaders fromChiang Kai-shek to Garibaldi lived transna-tionally themselves and drew on globally cir-

culating ideas about nation and race in their

efforts to build strong nation-states (Blancet al. 1995, Glick Schiller & Fouron 2001).

While early transnational migration schol-ars may have overstated their claims of new-

ness,itisalsoclearthattherearerealhistoricaldifferences between earlier and more recent

incarnations. For one thing, many nonindus-trialized countries have become economicallydependent on the remittances migrants send

and have put into play a range of policies andincentives to ensure they continue. Second,although the U.S. labor market warmly wel-

comes highly skilled, fluent English speakers,it is much less hospitable to poorly educated

migrants with poor language skills. Theseindividuals are pushed into transnationallifestyles because they cannot gain a secure

economic foothold in their home country orin the United States, whereas professional mi-

grants, who have the human and cultural cap-ital to take advantage of opportunities in twosettings,voluntarily adapt transnational liveli-

hood strategies (Guarnizo 2003, Itzigsohn& Saucedo 2002, Levitt 2007). Finally, the

intensification of international economicand labor markets, the globalization of themedia, and time-space compression resulting

from the transportation and communication

revolution have made transnational back-and-forth travels and communication muchquicker, easier, and more readily available(Foner 2000, Vertovec 2004a).

Many scholars of migration now acceptthat transnational practices and attachments

have been and continue to be widespreadamong thefirst generation, butfar fewer thinkthese ties persist among subsequent genera-

tions. They cite both declining language flu-ency and survey findings indicating that the

children of immigrants have no intention ofreturningto live in theirancestralhomes (Alba& Nee 2003, Kasinitz et al. 2002, Portes &

Rumbaut 2001). Conceptualizing generationas a lineal process, involving clear boundaries

between one experience and the other, doesnot accurately capture the experience of liv-ing in a transnational field because it implies

a separation in migrants and nonmigrants



6/31

socialization and social networks that may

not exist (Eckstein 2004, Eckstein & Barberia2002, Portes & Rumbaut 2001). As Waters& Jimenez (2005, p. 107) point out, in con-

trast to prior eras of migration, there is nowan ongoing replenishment of new immigrants,

forcing us to rethink the concept of genera-tion altogether: [A]t any point in time eachgeneration is a mix of cohorts and each cohort

has a mix of generations (p. 121).Instead, socialization and social repro-

duction often occur across borders, in re-sponse to at least two social and culturalcontexts (Espiritu 2003, Leichtman 2005,

Levitt & Glick Schiller 2004, Mazzucatoet al. 2004, Purkayastha 2005, Smith 2006).

Clearly, transnational activities will not be

central to the lives of most of the second orthird generation, and they will not partici-

pate with the same frequency and intensityas their parents. But the same children who

never go back to their ancestral homes arefrequently raised in households where peo-ple, values, goods, and claims from some-

where else are present on a daily basis (Pries2004). They have the skills and social connec-tions to become transnational activists if and

when they choose to do so during a particular

life-cycle stage. Whats more, the children ofnonmigrants are also raised in social networksand settings permeated by social remittances(Fouron & Glick Schiller 2002).

Finally, scholars of transnationalism donot deny the significance or durability of na-

tional or state borders; the variations in stateeconomic, military, or political power; andthe continuing rhetorics of national loyalty

(Smith 2001, Yeoh et al. 2003a). Instead, theysee the links between citizen and state as

multiple, rather than disappearing. States re-configure themselves, dropping some func-tions and assuming new ones (Goldring 2002;

cf. M. Martinelli & J-M. LeFleur, submittedmanuscript). That migrants ability to make

political claims is enabled or constrained bythe state in various ways points to the statescontinuing importance in shaping transna-

tional practices (Koopmans & Statham 2003).

In the following section, we selectivsummarize the literature on specific d

mains of transnational practice: (a) the ecnomic realm, including different kinds

remittances, their impact on developmeclass differences in migration, and ethnic e

trepreneurship; (b) political transnationalisthe changing role of the state and the bounaries of political belonging; (c) transform

tions in social life, especially in structuresfamily and kin and in class, race, and gendrelations; (d) what happens when culture tr

els; and (e) the importance of religion as it rlates to migration.

TRANSNATIONAL MIGRATION

BY DOMAIN

Economics

Some scholars see transnational migration

a by-product of late capitalism, which reders large industrialized countries dependeon cheap labor and small, nonindustrializ

countriesdependent on the remittances woers send home (Itzigsohn 2000, Portes 200

Others relate the durability of transnationsocial fields to moments of intense econom

interconnection or high points of globization (Basch et al. 1994). The amountmoney migrants send home is quite str

ing. According to the World Bank (2006), tmoneymigrantssend home hasdoubledin tpast decade ($232 billion in 2005 alone, w

$167 billion to developing countries). Ofcial figures, however, may represent only h

the funds people actually send, making tglobal remittances market as large as $30$400 billion annually (Hussain 2005, Wo

Bank 2006). In at least 36 countries, includiAlbania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia,

Salvador, Haiti, Samoa, Yemen, and Jordremittances exceed private and official capiinflows and are the primary source of forei

currency, rendering these countries so dpendent on remittances that their econom

might collapse if they declined (Hussain 20World Bank 2006).

134 Levitt Jaworsky


7/31

These monies are used individually and

collectively. They support family memberswho stay behind. They fund small and largebusinesses (Landolt 2001, Sana & Massey

2005). They support public works and so-cial service projects in sending communi-

ties. Nearly 10% of those who send re-mittances to Latin America, for example,belong to hometown associations (HTAs)

that work cooperatively with nongovern-mental organizations (NGOs) in the home-

land (Orozco 2006). There are an estimated2000 Mexican HTAs throughout the UnitedStates that contribute up to $60 million a

year (Orozco & Lapointe 2004). Sending-country governments are quick to respond.

The Mexican government instituted a 31

program whereby migrant-generated fundsare matched by funds contributed at the lo-

cal, state, and federal government level; ElSalvador and Guatemala have similar match-

ing funds programs (Fox & Rivera-Salgado2004, Goldring 2002, Orozco 2006, Popkin2003).States also actively encourage emigrant

investment. Since the 1970s, for example, theIndian government has offered nonresidentIndians (NRIs) the opportunity to open spe-

cial high-interest bank accounts in U.S. dol-

lars or British pounds that are subject to verylow taxes. It recently floated specialized bondsthat attracted nearly $10 billion from the di-aspora (Baruah 2005).

Economic activism clearly varies by class.Hi-tech professionals living in Silicon Valley

also engage in transnational livelihoods(Morgan 2001, Saxenian 2006, Saxenianet al. 2002, Varma 2006). Transnational en-

trepreneurs range from the Nigerian suit-case entrepreneur, selling traditional African

items on the street, to the CEO of a multi-million dollar software company with fran-chises in metro-Boston, London, and Karachi

(Levitt 2007). In between is the owner of asmall Brazilian bakery in a Boston suburb,

who may be part of the lower class in theUnited States because of the racial hierarchybut is considered as important as the mayor

in a rural hometown outside of Governador

Valadares (Beserra 2003, Martes et al.2002).

Because 40% of the worlds labor migrantsmove from one developing country to an-

other (particularly in Asia), it is importantto look at subregional contexts. Hewison &

Young (2006, p. 3) link state policies, localinstitutional and cultural contexts, and hu-man rights outcomes in their examination

of Asian transnational migration. Yeoh &Chang (2001) look instead at multiple phe-nomena within a single spacethe global city

of Singapore. They identify four categoriesof transnational labor and capital flows and

the ways in which they are interdependent:(a) a transnational business class of highlymobile, skilled professional, managerial, and

entrepreneurial elites; (b) a large number ofimmigrants filling unskilled and semiskilled

low-wage jobs in the urban service economy;(c) expressive specialists in cultural and artisticvenues; and (d) world tourists attracted by the

citys cosmopolitan ambience.The implications of simultaneous eco-

nomic incorporation are many. The smallstorefront enterprises in what appears to bean ethnic niche or enclave may actually be

situated in transnational social fields (Light

& Isralowitz 1997, Zhou 2004). Viewing eth-nic entrepreneurship transnationally, Zhou(2004) argues, brings to light several ways thatindividuals and communities can advance. Us-

ing social networks beyond national bordersand utilizing bicultural or bilingual skills may

allow migrants to circumvent structural dis-advantages in the host society. Cross-borderties imbue ethnic communities with valuable

social capital that can foster their horizon-tal and vertical integration. These effects ex-

tend far beyond the economicthe right typeof social capital can help ethnic communi-ties cut across class and spatial boundaries

and barriers and help facilitate mobility forthe second generation (Ruble 2005, Zhou

2004).Moreover, micro-level actions have

macro-level consequences. For instance,

some countries use the promise of future



8/31

remittances to demonstrate credit worthiness

and secure loans (Guarnizo 2003). Not juststates, but bilateral, regional, and globalentities (e.g., the World Bank or the Inter-

national Organization for Migration) as wellas NGOs have gotten on the remittances as

development panacea bandwagon (Kapur2005, Nyberg-Sorensen et al. 2002). More-over, ethnic entrepreneurship also changes

the receiving context. McEwen et al. (2005)argue that minority ethnic economic activity

in Birmingham, England, such as Chinesebusiness networks, ethnic food manufactur-ing, and the Bhangra music industry, have

positively affected the citys future economicdevelopment.

Politics

Migrants political transnational practices in-clude a variety of activities such as electoral

participation (either as voters or as candi-dates), membership in political associations,parties or campaigns in two different coun-

tries, lobbying the authorities of one countryto influence its policies toward another, and

nation building itself. stergaard-Nielsen(2003a) specifies three different domains of

action. The first is homeland politics, com-prised of migrant political activism in thehost country around home country issues, and

may include expatriate voting, electoral cam-paigns, and running for political office (cf.Guarnizo et al. 2003). Many researchers ex-

amine the pernicious results of long-distancenationalism and its relationship to funda-

mentalist religious movements (Blom Hansen1991, Kurien 2001), as well as the ways inwhich migrants use receiving states to pur-

sue foreign policy goals in their homeland(Layton-Henry 2002, Mahler 2000, Skrbis

1999). In Europe, theways in whichTurks andKurds in various settings are transforming thefunctions of sending states, from politics to

corporate marketing, have been the subject ofconsiderable research and theory (see Caglar

2002, stergaard-Nielsen 2003b, amongothers).

The domain of immigrant politics refto those political activities undertaken by

community to improve its social status the host country, including attempts to i

prove access to services, fight discrimintion, or heighten the groups recognition a

rights; it sometimes involves homeland rsources (Besserer2003,Fox & Rivera-Salga2004). For example, the Turkish governme

has intervened actively on behalf of its natioals in Germany (stergaard-Nielsen 2003Not all immigrant politics is transnation

although aspects of it may become so ovtime. Some groups organize across bord

by building alliances with supporters in othreceiving states who help lobby regional international institutions [e.g., Kurdish m

grants pressuring the Council of EuropeEritrean rebels who organized a referendu

for independence (Al-Ali et al. 2001, Al-AliKoser 2002, cf. Kastoryano 2000 on Muslimin Europe)].

Translocal politics differs from the othtwo domains in that it does not always i

volve host- or home-country governmeat the outset. It includes the activities mgrants undertake to support specific localit

in the home country. The many Caribbe

and Latin American HTAs that finance dvelopment projects in their homelands fit uder this rubric. These primarily economactions are transnational but they becom

political when the state intervenes to suport or control them (M. Martinelli & J-M

LeFleur, submitted manuscript). States genallysupport suchefforts because theypromodevelopment.

Simultaneity characterizes the politirealm, not only through these domains of a

tion but also through political membershand its attendant rights and responsibilitiAlthough political borders are increasin

permeable, they do not challenge territorjurisdiction; at the same time, there is a gro

ing overlap in political identities and legstatuses (Baubock 2003). Bloemraad (200found increasing reports of dual citizensh

in Canada alongside the persistence of sing

136 Levitt Jaworsky


9/31

national citizenship.Fox (2005) suggeststhree

forms of transnational citizenship: (a) paral-lel, in which individuals are active in morethan one political community, but those com-

munities do not themselves come together;(b) simultaneous, referring to collective ac-

tions that in themselves cross borders; and(c) integrated, which involves multiple lev-els and arenas, which can be parallel and/or

simultaneous, or both horizontal and verti-cal, because activity crosses levels as well as

borders. Glick Schiller & Fouron (2001) calltrans-border citizens those who participateformally in the daily life and political prac-

tices and debates of two or more nation-states,claiming rights from and responsibilities to

more than one government (see also Ong

1999, Soysal 1994, Yuval-Davis 1999). SassendescribesUnauthorizedyet Recognized mi-

grants, who have no formal status or rightsbut who practice the duties associated with

citizenship, such as raising a family, schoolingchildren, or holding a job. In contrast, Au-thorized yet Unrecognized migrant citizens

may have full legal status but are not recog-nized as political subjects because of factorssuch as discrimination and cultural stereo-

typing (Sassen 1999, pp. 8587). Migrants or

their descendants can also act as social cit-izens, enjoying a range of rights, includingaccessto stateservices, without formal citizen-ship. Many even participate in local elections

in Europe, NewZealand,anda few U.S. local-ities (Baubock 2003, Waldrauch 2003). They

become a social force, definitely constrainedby legal status, but not completely limitedby it.

Recent scholarship suggests multiplememberships can enhance rather than com-

pete with or contradict each other. Migrantsfrom countries that recognize dual nation-ality are more likely to become naturalized

U.S. citizens than are those from other coun-tries (Escobar 2004, Fox 2005, Jones-Correa

2001, Smith 2003). Navigating in transna-tional space has strengthened, rather thannegated, thecontinuing significance of thena-

tional. Frequently, the same actors engage in

homeland, new land, and international poli-tics (Escobar 2004, Levitt 2007). For exam-

ple, Snel et al. (2006) found that transnationalinvolvement in general does not impede im-

migrant integration. Migrant groups that areknown as poorly integrated into Dutch soci-

ety are not any more involved in transnationalactivities and have no stronger identificationswith countries of origin than others that are

well integrated.

The Social

Transnational migration scholarship has also

identified striking changes in social life, docu-menting transformations in kinship and fam-

ily structure and how these inform construc-

tions of class, gender, and race. Studies oftransnational kinship document the ways in

which family networks that cross bordersare characterized by gendered differences in

power and status. Because migrants need tomaintain ties so that they will have social con-tacts and support should they need to re-

turn to their homelands, kin networks can beused exploitatively, a process of transnational

class differentiation in which the more pros-perous extract labor from persons defined as

kin (Ballard 2001, Bryceson & Vuorela 2002,Chamberlain 2002). A transnational moraleconomy of kin involves putting family first,

such as strategies for collective mobility ormarrying into the right kinship network andaccumulating social capital in the host soci-

ety (Ballard 2001, Fog Olwig 2002, Gardner2006, Schmalzbauer 2004).

The boundaries of family and kinship alsochange over the life course (Espiritu 2003,Levitt & Waters 2002, Smith 2006). In many

households, living transnationally across gen-erations becomes thenorm. Butwhether indi-

viduals ultimatelyforge or maintainsome kindof transnational connection at some point intheir lives depends on theextent to which they

are reared in a transnational space (Abelman2002). Pries (2004) found that transnational

strategies were adopted over several gener-ations, depending on individuals changing



10/31

needs and desires throughout the life cycle.

At the point of marriage or childrearing, thesame individuals who showed little regard fora parental homeland and culture may activate

their connections within a transnational fieldin search of a spouse or values to teach to their

children (Espiritu & Tran 2002).Much research has focused on living ar-

rangements, finances, and generational repro-

duction in the everyday lives of transnationalfamilies. Recently, however, scholars have be-

gun looking more closely at the experiencesof parents, children, and the elderly, and athow they are gendered. This work finds that,

on the one hand, transnational motherhoodtakes a toll because care-giving at a distance

is emotionally stressful for parents and chil-

dren and also challenges prevailing Westernnorms of motherhood (Hondagneu-Sotelo &

Avila 1997, Parrenas 2005). On the otherhand, increasingly affordable communication

and travel allow parents to be actively in-volved in the everyday lives of their childreneven via long distance (Mahler 2001, Parrenas

2005). Mazzucato (2007a) shows how migra-tion changes intergenerational relations be-tween parents in Ghana and their migrant

children by affecting the ways in which el-

derly care is provided, and in some cases notprovided, by migrant children.

Further, researchers have documented theincrease in circulating childrenand the elderly

between places of origin and settlement to re-ducethe costs of social reproduction,promote

learning of the mother culture and tongue,and, as often cited by parents, to removechildren from what is perceived as the neg-

ative and undisciplined social environment inthe United States (Menjvar 2002a, Parrenas

2001). The growing number of transnationaladoptions adds to this circulation, as adop-tiveparents withdifferent ethnic backgrounds

than their children strive to provide themwith cultural and social background infor-

mation they themselves cannot provide; inturn, adopted children transform the culturalmakeup of their educational milieu (Dorow

2006, Volkman 2005).

Micro-level family and kin connectioand practices scale-up to affect broader s

cial processes, especially with respect to geder relations (Itzigsohn & Giorguli-Sauce

2005). Carling (2005) argues that thrintrinsic asymmetries characterize relatio

between migrants and nonmigrants. Firmigrants and nonmigrants are differently psitioned in relation to transnational mora

ties. Second, migrants and nonmigrants not enjoy equal access to information the transnational social field. Third, th

is asymmetry in the distribution of diffent forms of resources between migrants a

nonmigrants. As a result, we see many cotradictions. It can be liberating when mgrant women become breadwinners and fi

themselves on more egalitarian footing wmen (Hondagneu-Sotelo 2001). The flip si

however, reveals that gender distinctions asometimes reinforced and reinvented to crate hierarchies that are more rigid and tr

ditional than in the homeland and to protwomen from what is perceived as hostile a

immoral receiving-country culture (Alum1999, Caglar 1995, Espiritu 1992). This coplex webreaches outside of familyaswom

go to their jobs (which they may nev

have had at home), join community assoations, or become active in congregatioWomen receive multiple, conflicting msages from the public and the private sphe

of both the homeland and the receiving cotext, which they must somehow reconc

(DeBiaggi 2002, Pessar & Mahler 2003, Sa2003). Moreover, state policies around wfare, child care, maternity benefits, or vo

registration, which affect men andwomen atheir ability to exercise multiple membersh

differently, also reflect the gendered natuof migration (Caglar 2002). Finally, the shenumber of women who migrate has grow

tremendously over the past two decadesspecial volume ofInternational Migration R

view focuses on the feminization of migrtion, emphasizing the need for theoretiand analytical tools that go beyond the stu

of sex roles (Donato et al. 2006).

138 Levitt Jaworsky


11/31

Along with gender, class and race are

also constituted in transnational social fields(Gardner & Grillo 2002, Mahler & Pessar2006,Willis2000).The impetusto participate

across borders and the ability to do so variesby both class and race. The differentiated na-

ture of labor migration, discussed above, af-fects more than just economic outcomes; ittranslates into differences in migrants ac-

cess to informal but crucial knowledge andnetworks for success in the mainstream. In

contrast, middle-class and professional mi-grants have sufficient social and cultural cap-ital that they can selectively assimilate ele-

ments of where they come from and wherethey settle (Levitt 2007, Pluss 2005, Raj

2003).

Further, migrants often confront an en-tirely different racial hierarchy than the one

in place in their homelands, which limits theirsocioeconomic status and how American or

British or Dutch they can become. Theirhome- and host-country mobility trajecto-ries are not always in sync. They may move

up with respect to the home and host coun-tries, move up with respect to one and downwith respect to the other, or experience down-

ward mobility in both contexts. Migrants

have to make sense of two often conflict-ing socioeconomic and status ladders, andto locate themselves somewhere along themusing measurements that reflect the multi-

ple places where they live (Levitt & GlickSchiller 2004, Raj 2003, Roth 2006, Smith

2006). Some recent work has shown how firstand second generation migrants reinvent re-ligion to help counter their marginalization

and blocked mobilityin host countries. Kamat& Mathew (2003) describe U.S. Hindus who

join fundamentalist groups, and how the mul-ticulturalist discourse in place in the UnitedStates, which reifies neglected minorities, ac-

tually encourages a Hindu-Americanness ofthis kind. Raj (2000) documents a similar

process for young Hindus in Great Britainwho, in this case, use religion to differen-tiate themselves from Muslims and other

Asians.

The Cultural

A growing number of researchers are develop-ing conceptual frameworks for thinking aboutmigration, the nation, and culture. One de-

bate concerns the extent to which global-ization creates a juggernaut of Westernized

culture that reaches even the most remotecorners of the world. A parallel debate in-volves the age-old structure versus agency

question, which, at its extremes,sees a massiveculture industry influencing powerless con-

sumers versus a view of postcolonial subjectsliberated by the expressive potential of cul-ture. Here, we focus on the different cul-

tural mixes created when people from differ-ent places come into real or imagined contact

with each other.

Decades ahead of postmodernists, folk-lorist Americo Paredes (1958) proposed

studying the borderlands as a transnationalunit, analyzing the early twentieth century

corrdos(guitar ballads) of the turbulent RioGrande area. In 1940, Cuban anthropolo-gist Fernando Ortiz (1995 [1940]) described

the transformation that occurs when for-eign material enters a new social context as

transculturation. Since then, scholars havecontinued to trace the literary and artistic ex-

pression of borderland identities within LatinAmerican frontier zones (see among othersAnzald ua1987;Aparicio2004,2006;C ordoba

2005). When multiple cultures meet, new cat-egories are created and old ones break down,such that identifying a single resulting culture

is difficult (Nurse 1999, p. 477).The migration melange, or the mixing

of cultural traits from the homeland and theculture of residence, forms a hybridity con-tinuum, [a]t one end, an assimilationist hy-

bridity that. . .

adopts the canon and mimicshegemony and, at the other . . . a destabiliz-

ing hybridity that blurs the canon, reversesthe current, subverts the centers (NederveenPieterse2004,p.73;cf.Aparicio2004).Garca

Canclini (1995) stresses thespatial dimensionsof these processes. Even as traditions become

appropriated by global culture industries or



12/31

move back and forth with transnational mi-

grants, they are deterritorialized from theirlocalities of origin and reterritorializedthatis, relocalized, mixed, and brought into jux-

taposition with modern and postmodern dis-course and practices. The result, he argues,

is tiempos y espacios mixtos y hbridicos (liter-ally, mixed and hybrid spaces and times). Thedining culture that emerges at McDonalds in

Beijing is not fast food but rather a leisurely,middle- and upper-class experience of free-

dom in the public sphere (Watson 1997).Barbie dolls in the Yucatan are not the lib-erated career woman of the North; instead,

they are recreated in the image of a tradi-tionally Mayan woman enmeshed in a solid

network of family and friends (MacDougall

2003). Caribbean carnivals, where the socialworld is (literally) turned upside down and so-

cial norms are temporarily relaxed, are nowheld in at least 20 countries where there are

Caribbean diasporas, each one slightly differ-ent from the homeland or the others (Nurse1999). Fiestas and celebrations associated with

saints days arechanged similarly as they traveltonewhomes(Burrell2005,Levitt2004).And

in turn, homelands are reinfused with culturalmaterial returned by migrants (Flores 2005,

Levitt 2001, Rodrguez 2005).Inevitably, such transformations are tied to

the politics of belonging and citizenship. The

powerof art and culture allowsmigrants to ex-press, create, remember, and recreate identity,whether individually or collectively, whether

national or hybrid. Music is one of the pri-mary arenas where this occurs (see McCann

2004onBrazil,Simonett2001onMexico,andWong 2004 on Asian Americans). Migrantsuse music to imagine their family home and

assert their place in it as well as in the hostsociety (Flores 2005, Pacini Hernandez et al.

2004). For example, bandasare an integral partof everyday life in many indigenous Mexicancommunities, accompanying rites of passage

and reinforcing alliances and networks ofreciprocity and obligation between villages.

Migrationchanges this cultural form in funda-mental wayssomenow include female musi-

cians or players from other communities, a

smallerbandas that still play traditional msic experiment with new types of music ainstruments in the United States (Simon

2001). The flip side of art and culture as socand political empowerment, some assert

the potential for cultural suicide, or complity with a dominant/colonial hegemon therases the poor and working classes (Aparic

2004, 2006). Classic examples are the comodification of rap and the creation of Wo

Music (see Aparicio & Jaquez 2003, Barr1996, Born & Hesmondhalgh 2000 for somof these debates).

The Religious

Often, religion is subsumed under the brorubricof culture, in part because theoristsp

dicted that it would become less importain modern Western nations. Despite the

predictions, however, religion is alive and win the public and private spheres. Althousocial scientists in general, and migrati

scholars in particular, have long overlookthe importance of religion in social life, mu

recent work aims to fill this lacuna [see Cad& Ecklund 2007 (this volume) for a review

religion and immigration]. Like culture, region supports and is itself transformed by aspects of themigration experiencethe jo

ney, the process of settlement, and the emegence of ethnic and transnational ties (Hag& Ebaugh 2003, Hirschman 2004, McAlis

2002, Richman 2005). Religious belongidoes not only link migrants to coreligio

ists in the home and host countries; globreligious movements unite members, whever they live, with fellow believers arou

the globe (Bowen 2004, Marquardt 2005). thesame time, thedistinction between cultu

and religion is not seamless. Religion and cture often go hand in hand, carrying and reforcing one another. It is quite difficult f

some people to sort out Mexicanness froCatholicism, Indianness from being Hind

or what it means to be Pakistani from whameans to be a Muslim, and all of these hybr

140 Levitt Jaworsky


13/31

or creolized identities are influenced by flows

across transnational social fields (Levitt 2007).Religion also links people through time by

allowing them to feel part of a chain of mem-

ory connecting the past, present, and future(Hervieu-Leger 2000, Tweed 1997). Migrants

and nonmigrants who follow particular saints,deities, or religious teachers also form imag-ined globalcommunities of connection. In ad-

dition, religious leaders and teachers meet, inactual and virtual public spheres, to work out

how to translate universal faith and values tolocal contexts (Bowen 2004).

New religious architectures create and are

created by these transnational religious com-munities. Ebaugh & Chafetz (2002) exam-

ined the relationship between network ties

among individuals, local-level corporate bod-ies, and international religious bodies and

found that ties frequently crossed betweennodes. Yang (2002) discovered three-layered

transpacific networks formed by contacts be-tween individuals, single churches, and paraChinese Christian Churches that connected

migrants in Taiwan, Hong Kong, and main-land China to their counterparts in theUnitedStates and Canada. Levitt (2007) identified

four types of architectural forms, including

transnational religious corporations, nationalreligious groups operating across borders,flexibly specialized religious networks, andtransnational supply chains. Transnational re-

ligious institutions may complement or com-pete with political entities on the world stage

(Rudolph & Piscatori 1997). Witness PopeJohn Paul II, who positioned himself as aspokesperson for all humanity, issuing en-

cyclicals and taking positions on events notjust concerning Catholics and, by so do-

ing, becoming, according to Casanova (1994,p. 130), the high priest of a new universalcivil religion of humanity and the first citizen

of a global civil society.Scholars of civil society agree that religious

networks, celebrations, rituals, and organiza-tions serve as an important way for individu-als to build social capital. They are working

to unpack how this takes place in transna-

tional contexts, by helping migrants incor-porate into the new society and stay con-

nected to their homelands at the same time(Martes et al. 2002; see also ongoing schol-

arship sponsored by the Metanexus InstituteSpiritual Capital Research Program, http://

www.metanexus.net/spiritual capital/).Re-ligious institutions certainly play an impor-tant role in socializing the first and second

generations into American politics. They arealso sites where communities access govern-

ment assistance and gain public recognition(Ebaugh & Chafetz 2000, Menjvar 2002b,Yang 2002). Children of immigrants are in-

creasingly turning to inherited religion astheir primary source of identity (Bouzar 2004,

Geisser & Finan 2002, Laurence & Vasse

2006). In general, these individuals hear theirfaith not as a call to violence but as a path

toward greater social integration.Religion also enables migrants to maintain

continued participation in homeland affairs[Carnes & Yang 2004, Freston 2004, Guest2003, Menjvar 2003, Wellmeier 1998; see

also the January 2005 special issue ofLatinAmerican Perspectivesabout transnational reli-

gion in theAmerican hemisphere (cf. V asquez& Williams 2005)]. Transnational migrants

transform religious practice in their home-lands, exporting both more moderate andmore conservativeversions of faith,often with

political and social consequences. Many, forexample, hold NRIs at least partially respon-sible for the recent rise in Hindu Funda-

mentalism in India, although, according toKapur (2003), there is little empirical evidence

to support such claims.On the other hand, others argue that

transnational religion can act as a counter-

point to extremist voices (An-Naim 2005,Levitt 2007, Lewis 2003). There is strong ev-idence, for example, that religion encourages

generousphilanthropicgiving,whether or notgiving is directed at religious causes. Further,

migrants do not funnel all their charitablegiving toward the homeland. Najam (2006),for example, found that Pakistani Americans

charitable contributions were directed about



14/31

equally to religious and issue-based causes,

which were only somewhat more likely to bebased in the homeland (60% versus 40%).

FUTURE DIRECTIONS

Although transnational dynamics do not mat-ter to all immigrants all the time, there is anemerging consensus among scholars that we

can no longer study migration solely from ahost-country perspective. There is also gen-

eral agreement that the field must move be-yond thick description, single case studies,and quantification to address a set of more

focused themes and questions. In the pre-ceding sections, we outlined several ways in

which transnational migration scholars have

addressed their critics. We now need to movetoward articulating a more coherent set of

predictive arguments about the causes andconsequences of migration, the codification

of transnational practices by different typesof individual and institutional actors, anda consideration of the relationship between

transnational practices and immigrant incor-poration in thehost society (Haller & Landolt

2005). At their core, these questions concernsimultaneityits various forms, the factors

thatproducethem, and theirconsequences foreconomic, political, and social life. In this sec-tion, we outline some fruitful developments in

methodology and three promising areas of re-search: (a) space, place, and the nature of em-beddedness; (b) the variable consequences of

transnationalism (i.e., both negative and pos-itive outcomes); and (c) comparative studies

of international migration and internal mi-gration. A continued emphasis on transfor-mations in the social construction of gender,

class, and race across borders unites all three.

Methodological Implicationsof a Transnational Optic

The new insights gleaned from studying mi-gration through a transnational lensnamely,

the need to include nonmigrants as well asmigrants, consider the multiple sites and lev-

els of transnational social fields beyond ju

the sending and receiving country, rethinksumptions about belonging, and trace the htorical continuity of theseprocessesdema

methodological shifts. Transnational migtion studies requires not just asking a differe

set of questions about different social spacbut developing new methods for doing so.

This is what Wimmer & Glick Schil

(2003) meant when they urged scholars move beyond methodological nationalism,the assumption that the nation-state is t

natural, logical category for organizing soclife. To do so, they argue, requires moving b

yond simplistic comparisons between discrnation-state containers and being willingconceptualize spaces as bounded in the wa

that the people living within them actuaperceive them. Anzald ua (1987) described t

space between the United States and Mexias a borderland, arguing that the politiborder artificially bifurcated what was rea

a unitary social and emotional space. Sass(1996) refers to such spaces as analytical bo

derlands, where the overlap and interactiof the local and global creates a frontzone that requires careful analysis of its s

cial thickness and empiricalspecificity. Sm

(2005) and Mahler & Hansing (2005) tabout a transnationalism of the middle,overcome what has become a persistencesimply categorize phenomena as simply fro

below or from above.But most existing data sets, historiogr

phies, and ethnographies make these typesanalyses difficult if not impossible. Survebased on nation-stateunits arenotdesigned

capture flows, linkages, or identities that crother spatial units or the phenomena and d

namicswithinthem (Levitt & Khagram 200In his study of 648 Mexican migrants, Pr(2004) found he could not identify comm

trajectories or patterns across the life courbecause he did not have the data that allow

him to capture adequately lives lived acrothe sending and receiving context. Withoenlarging the conceptual framework to i

clude recognition of pluri-local social spac

142 Levitt Jaworsky


15/31

we will probably lose touch with a growing

part of the reality of migration, and thus, beunable to sufficiently understand and explainit, he argues (Pries 2004, pp. 29, 31).

Social scientists have embraced suchchallenges and have begun to conceptual-

ize ways to study transnational migrationmore effectively. Many argue for multi-sited(Burawoy 2003, Fitzgerald 2006, Marcus

1995, Mazzucato 2007b) or cosmopolitan(Appadurai 1996) ethnographies that move

beyond simply studying immigrants in the re-ceiving context and instead conduct empiri-cal research at all sites of the transnational

social field. Even many studies that do lookat the homeland continue to focus predomi-

nantly on the new context and incorporate the

second country only as a sourceof backgroundinformation; such methodologies do not suc-

cessfully integrate both contexts into one so-cial field (Mazzucato 2007b). Instead, we sug-

gest the goal is a thick and empirically richmapping of how global, macro-level processesinteract with local lived experiences (V asquez

& Marquardt 2003, p. 227) that are repre-sentative of broader trends (Fitzgerald 2006,p. 19). In the same vein, Mazzucato (2007b)

studied transnational networks in which peo-

ple tied to migrants are followed along withthe migrants themselves to capture the simul-taneity of transnational flows and their effectson those who stay behind as well as those who

move.Others propose revisits to the sites of

prior ethnographies, usually done by some-one else, to capture temporal and historicalelements (Burawoy 2003, Fitzgerald 2006).

The extended case method and reflexiveethnography use (a) the observer as partic-

ipant, (b) reconstruction of theory, (c) inter-nal processes, and (d) external forces, butthe extended case concentrates on changes

in social processes, whereas the reflexiveethnography examines the dialogue between

constructivism and realism (Burawoy 2003,p. 649). Tarrow and colleagues (McAdam &Tarrow 2004, Tarrow 2005) suggest examin-

ing the scale shifts that occur within social

movements. Through the processes of diffu-sion, brokerage, attribution of similarity, and

emulation, scales can shift upwardmoving,for example, from local to national to global

or downward, as inPorto Allegre, where mo-bilization and political contention was gener-

ated at a global level, with activists then goinghome and rooting themselves into the local.

Glick Schiller et al. (2006) write, however,

that much of this work continues to clingstubbornly to nationally defined categoriesthat obscure transnational and translocal pro-

cesses. It does not address what gender, race,and class actually mean when they are con-

structed transnationally. These authors pro-pose focusing on incorporation, defined asthe processes of building or maintaining net-

works of social relations through which anindividual or organized group of individuals

becomes linked to an institution recognizedby one or more nation-states (Glick Schilleret al. 2006, p. 614). Migrants do not simply

become integrated into new settings througha single, exclusive pathany one (or more)

modes of incorporation can each follow mul-tiple pathways (cf. Werbner 2000). By not as-suming a priori that migrants follow a partic-

ular pathway, the researcher focuses instead

on how salient categories are actually con-structed across time and space. Further, na-tional migration and citizenship regimes, themanagement of racial, ethnic, and religious di-

versity, and the relationship between churchand state all tip the balance between host-

country incorporation and enduring transna-tional involvements (Levitt 2007).

The Nature of Embeddedness

and the Spatial Arenas in Which ItTakes Place

Much exciting recent work calls attention tothe centrality of space in shaping the mi-gration experience (Brettell 2006). Migra-

tion researchers in Europe, in particular, havenoted the relationship between the size and

significance of particular cities and patternsof incorporation and settlement (Bommes



16/31

& Radtke 1996; see also articles in Rex

1996). Brenner (1999), Smith (1993), andSwyngedouw (1997), among others, buildingon initial formulations by Lefebvre (1991),

have developedand theorized theterm scaleas a way to assess the differential positioning

of cities within hierarchies of power. An at-tention to urban scale, coupled with a com-parison of immigration policy in different

national contexts, illuminates why the experi-enceof constructing transnational social fields

in global cities can be so similar (Eade 1997,Glick Schiller et al. 2006, Sassen 2001). Pries(2005) broadly conceptualizes spaces as abso-

lutist (exclusive geographies like the nation-state) or relativist (dense, durable, and cross-

ing borders), calling for care in specifying the

societal and geographical configurations ofsuch spaces and articulating two intersecting

analytical dimensionsscale and domain.In other words, place-specific contexts

matterspaces become actual places whenparticular global flows convergebe theyma-terial or ideational. The nature of embed-

dedness, as well as modes of migrant in-corporation, therefore, depends on previousculture and history. Just as underlying geo-

logical strata affect the shape and form of sub-

sequent layers, so existing social patterns anddynamics influence successive arrangements.Migrants place-making ability, and how theygo about it, is shaped by prior cultural inter-

sections in any given place and how they arearticulated over time. It is important, then,

not just to sort out how simultaneity is shapedby different configurations of space, but alsoto pay attention to how the historical prece-

dents and overlays in a particular place shapemigrants experiences and actions. In addi-

tion, the hierarchically ranked status of send-ing nations is often reflected in the statusof its diaspora (Patterson 2006). A countrys

rank within the worlds geopolitical order canstrongly influence how its emigrants are re-

ceived. At the same time, doing well in thehost country can favorably affect the statusof transnational communities within both the

receiving society and the broader global sys-

tem (Glick Schiller & Levitt 2006, Patters2006).

Taken together, spatial scales, the culturhistorical particularity of places, and t

global nature of what flows through theproduce different kinds of transnational s

cial fields, or arenas with different clusteof transnational activities. The people, orgnizations, and networks that constitute a

are constituted by these fields are embeded in them in different ways, which, turn, produces different iterations of transn

tional involvements. Roth (2006), for exaple, found that the Dominicans and Puer

Ricans she studied embraced different racand ethnic identities because the social fiein which they were embedded varied with r

spect to the nature of transnational contathe level of institutional and cultural supp

for the identity messages being transmittand how long such messages were commucated. Levitt (2003, 2007) found that diffe

ent cultural practices, such as the abilityinvent kinship ties or membership in a cl

or caste group, produced different patternstransnational involvement. A major researtask, then, is to specify the types and dime

sions of different kinds of social fields a

their effects on migrant trajectories. A secoand related task is to delineate how variokinds of social fields intersect with class, ranationality, and gender. Migrants vary co

siderably, and broad, taken-for-granted cagories such as ethnicity, nationality, or re

gion mask the diversity within what can extremely heterogeneous groups.

The Good, the Bad, and the Global

Variable Consequences ofTransnationalism

A second set of questions explores the conquences of transnational migration. Thougrowing more nuanced in their approa

transnational migration studies still tendbe more positive than negative. Future wo

needs to take a hard look at what the deteminants of positive and negative outcomes a

144 Levitt Jaworsky


17/31

and to explore the relationship between them.

Some work already addresses these questionswith respect to economics, citing transna-tional migrations benefits and costs. Eckstein

& Barberia (2002) argue, for example, that re-mittances have led to increased inequality in

Cuba. Others worry that sending states be-come dependent on migrants, devising devel-opment strategies based on migrants future

contributions and looking to them to solvetheproblems the state has been unable to solve

(Levitt & Nyberg Srensen 2004, Mahler2000). Relations between migrant organiza-tions and civil society in the home country

are not always balanced, which can reinforceor exacerbate gender and power hierarchies

(Goldring 2002).Such organizations are often

undemocratic, reproducing clientistic prac-tices within families and communities (Fox &

Rivera-Salgado 2004). Receiving country mi-gration policies can also negatively affect the

ability of migrants to send remittances homeand to invest in their home country (Martin2001). Finally, some argue that remittance be-

havior impedes sending mobility in the hostcountry and may make it more difficult formigrants to achieve sufficient capital to re-

turn home (Levitt & Nyberg Srensen 2004,

Martin 2001).Although this scholarship acknowledges

that migration entails trade-offs, not enoughis known about what determines whythe cards

fallastheydo.Wedonotseeksimpleeither/oranswers, but rather answers that specify under

what conditions and in what contexts transna-tional migration has positive and/or negativeconsequences, in what combinations, and for

whom? The political, economic, and culturalstructures of powerthat span socialfieldsmust

be taken seriously. State policies, philosophiesof integration, citizenship regimes, and cul-tural context matter. Caglar (2006), for ex-

ample, proposes a framework for exploringthe differential growth and success of HTAs

in the context of changing state-space rela-tions under neoliberalism. Kurien (2002) con-ducted a comparative ethnography of three

communities in Kerala, India that sent large

numbers of temporary workers to the MiddleEast. She found differential outcomes in mi-

gration patterns and migration-induced socialchange.

The answer is not as simple as looking atdiscrete outcomes, however. Policies such as

dual citizenship, expatriate voting, and invest-ment incentives that attract emigrants long-term, long-distance membership raise several

questions about the migration-developmentnexus. On a macroeconomic level, Orozco(2005) characterizes the development impact

of migration with 5 Tstransfers, transport,tourism,telecommunication, and trade. Some

believe that migration affects these sectors ineconomically beneficial ways. Migrants con-tribute financially to home country devel-

opment not only through economic remit-tances but also by generating a demand for

local goods and services and imbuing those athome with more purchasing power (Guarnizo2003). But what is the effect on household-

level dynamics and decision makingare re-mittances spent productively or merely used

for consumption? Although much researchsuggests the latter, focusing on appliance,home-improvement, and clothing purchases,

recent studies have found that remittances

also finance education that benefits sub-sequent generations and that they oftenfunction as quasi-pensions (Nyberg-Sorensenet al. 2002, Srensen & Van Hear 2003).

A higher percentage has also been allocatedtoward improvements in health care and

agriculture (Andrade-Ekhoff & Silva-Avalos2003). A long-term perspective is required asthe first generation invests in the health and

education of their children in the hopes oflater returns.

Another set of questions concerns the roleof collective resources. At the same time thatHTAs are praised as powerful development

engines, most groups have demonstrated lim-ited capacity to oversee and manage such

projects, underscoring the need for trainingandtechnicalassistancebeforemorechalleng-ing and ambitious activities are undertaken

(Orozco & Lapointe 2004). Governments



18/31

may be able to play a positive role in build-

ing skills and capacities as well as attractinginvolvement from the private sector. Hereagain, the answers depend on taking into ac-

count the local, national, regional, and globalfactors at work within transnational fields

(Levitt & Nyberg Srensen 2004). One wayto untangle the effects of these factors is tocompare internal migration and transnational

migration. What difference does it make forsocioeconomic mobility, gender, or develop-

ment outcomes, to name a few, when migrantscross a national border rather than movingfrom a rural to an urban context within their

own country?

CONCLUSION:TRANSNATIONAL MIGRATIONSCHOLARSHIP AND THELONGUE DUR EE

We argue here for an approach to transna-tional migration that highlights the longue

dureeand sees contemporary globalization

as a stage in ongoing historical processes (cf.Nederveen Pieterse2004).Thefrequencyand

intensity of migrant transnational practicesebb and flow in response to the intensifica-

tion or slackening of globalization. Historical

precedents, cultural resonance, and instit

tional models also strongly influence thimpact and scope. Even at their minimuhowever, multiple memberships and hyb

identities are increasingly the norm raththan the exception.

Transnational migration scholarship is opiece of the emerging field of transnationstudies. In light of contemporary globaliz

tion, scholars acknowledge that the sanctof borders and boundaries is a very rece

development, both in human history andsocial scientific theory. They also recognthat humans continually create and recrea

boundaries, moving, trading, and communcating across them, thereby making fluidand change a part of all human social form

tions and processes. Although scholars froa number of different disciplines work

cross-border processes, they rarely see theselves as participants in the same convertion. Transnational studies represents a co

certed effort to take a systematic and synthelook at how governance, social movemen

income-earning, and religious life chanwhen they are enacted across borders ahow we must rethink identity, belonging, a

democracy in response (Levitt & Khagra

2008).

LITERATURE CITED

Abelman N. 2002. Mobilizing Korean family ties: cultural conversations across the border. Wo

Pap. 0211. Transnatl. Communities Progr., Oxford Univ., Oxford, UK

Al-Ali N, Black R, Koser K. 2001. The limits to transnationalism: Bosnian and Eritrerefugees in Europe as emerging transnational communities.Ethn. Racial Stud.24:5796

Al-Ali NS, Koser K. 2002. New Approaches to Migration? Transnational Communities and Transformation of Home. London/New York: Routledge

Alba R, Nee V. 2003.Remaking the American Mainstream: Assimilation and Contemporary Immgration. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press

Alumkal AW. 1999. Preserving patriarchy: assimilation, gender norms, and second-generati

Korean American evangelicals.Qual. Sociol.22:12740

An-Naim AA. 2005. The interdependence of religion, secularism, and human rights: prospefor Islamic societies.Common Knowl.11:5680

Andrade-Ekhoff K, Silva-Avalos CM. 2003. Globalization of the Periphery: The Challenges

Transnational Migration for Local Development in Central America. El Salvador: Lat. ASch. Soc. Sci. (FLASCO)

146 Levitt Jaworsky


19/31

Anzald ua G. 1987.Borderlands: The New Mestiza = La Frontera. San Francisco: Spinsters/Aunt

LuteAparicio FR. 2004. U.S. Latino expressive cultures. InThe Columbia History of Latinos in the

United States Since 1960, ed. DG Gutierrez, pp. 35590. New York: Columbia Univ. PressAparicio FR. 2006. Writing migrations: transnational readings of Rosario Ferre and Victor

Hernandez Cruz.Lat. Stud.4:7995

Aparicio FR, J aquez CF, eds. 2003.Musical Migrations: Transnationalism and Cultural Hybridityin Latin/o America. New York: Palgrave Macmillan

Appadurai A. 1996.Modernity at Large: Dimensions of Globalization. Minneapolis: Univ. Minn.Press

Ballard R. 2001.The impact of kinship on the economic dynamics of transnational networks: reflec-

tions on some South Asian developments.Work. Pap. 0114. Transnatl. Communities Progr.,

Oxford Univ., Oxford, UKBarkan ER. 2006. Introduction: immigration, incorporation, assimilation, and the limits of

transnationalism.J. Am. Ethn. Hist.25:732Barrett J. 1996. World music, nation and postcolonialism.Cult. Stud.10:23747Baruah N. 2005. Remittances to least developed countries (LDCs): issues, impacts, policies, practices

and enhancing development impact.Rep. Int. Organ. Migr. Geneva: Labor Migr. Serv.

Basch L, Glick Schiller N, Blanc-Szanton C, eds. 1994.Nations Unbound: Transnational Projects,Postcolonial Predicaments, and Deterritorialized Nation-States. London: Gordon & Breach

Baubock R. 2003.Towards a politicaltheory of migrant transnationalism.Int. Migr. Rev. 37:70023

Beserra B. 2003.Brazilian Immigrants in the United States: Cultural Imperialism and Social Class.New York: LFB Sch.

Besserer F. 1999. Estudios transnacionales y ciudadana transnacional. InFronteras Fragmen-tadas, ed. G Mummert, pp. 21538. Zamora, Mex.: El Col. Michoac an Cent. Investig.Desarrollo Estado Michoacan

Besserer F. 2003. Contesting community: cultural struggles of a Mixtec transnational community.PhD thesis. Stanford Univ., Stanford, CA

Blanc CS, Basch L, Schiller NG. 1995. Transnationalism, nation-states, and culture. Curr.Anthropol.36:68386

BloemraadI. 2004.Who claims dual citizenship? The limits of postnationalism, the possibilitiesof transnationalism, and the persistence of traditional citizenship. Int. Migr. Rev.38:389

426Blom Hansen T. 1991. The Saffron Wave: Democracy and Hindu Nationalism in Modern India.

Delhi: Oxford Univ. PressBommes M, Radtke FO. 1996. Migration into big cities and small towns: an uneven process

with limited need for multiculturalism.Innovation9:7586Born G, Hesmondhalgh D. 2000. Western Music and Its Others: Difference, Representation, and

Appropriation in Music. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press

Bose S. 2006.A Hundred Horizons: The Indian Ocean in the Age of Global Empire . Cambridge,MA: Harvard Univ. Press

BouzarD.2004. MonsieurIslam Nexiste Pas: Pour uneDesislamisation des Debats. Paris: HachetteBowen J. 2004. Beyond migration: Islam as a transnational public space. J. Ethn. Migr. Stud.

30:87994Brenner N. 1999. Beyond state-centrism? Space, territoriality and geographical scale in glob-

alization studies.Theory Soc.28:3978Brettell CB. 2006. Introduction: global spaces/local places: transnationalism, diaspora, and the

meaning of home.Identities13:32734



20/31

Bryceson DF, Vuorela U. 2002.The Transnational Family: New European Frontiers and Glo

Networks. Oxford/New York: BergBurawoy M. 2003. Revisits: an outline of a theory of reflexive ethnography. Am. Sociol. R

68:64579

Burrell JL. 2005. Migration and the transnationalization of fiesta customs in Todos SantCuchumat an, Guatemala.Lat. Am. Perspect.32:1232

Cadge W, Ecklund EH. 2007. Immigration and religion.Annu. Rev. Sociol.33:35979Caglar A. 1995. German Turks in Berlin: social exclusion and strategies for social mobili

New Community21:30923

Caglar A. 2002. Encountering the state in migration-driven social fields: Turkish immigrantsEurope: Habilitationsschrift (Postdoc. thesis). Free Univ., Berlin

Caglar A. 2006. Hometown associations, the rescaling of state spatiality and migrant grassrotransnationalism.Global Netw.6:1

Carling J. 2005.The human dynamics of transnationalism: asymmetries of solidarity and frustratiPresented at SSRC Workshop Migr. Dev., New York, Nov 1719

Carnes T, Yang F. 2004. Asian American Religions: The Making and Remaking of Borders a

Boundaries. New York: N.Y. Univ. Press

Casanova J. 1994.Public Religions in the Modern World. Chicago: Univ. Chicago PressChamberlain M. 2002. Small worlds: childhood and empire. J. Family Hist.27:186200

Chan S. 2006.Chinese American Transnationalism: The Flow of People, Resources, and Ideas BetwChina and America during the Exclusion Era. Philadelphia: Temple Univ. Press

C ordoba MST. 2005. Sketches of identities from the MexicoUS border (or the other waround).Comp. Am. Stud.3:495513

Dahinden J. 2005. Contesting transnationalism? Lessons from the study of Albanian migrati

networks from former Yugoslavia.Global Netw.5:191208DeBiaggi SDD. 2002. Changing Gender Roles: Brazilian Immigrant Families in the U.S. N

York: LFB Sch.Donato KM, Gabaccia D, Holdaway J, Manalansan M, Pessar PR. 2006. A glass half fu

Gender in migration studies.Int. Migr. Rev.40:326Dorow SK. 2006.Transnational Adoption: A Cultural Economy of Race, Gender, and Kinship. N

York: N.Y. Univ. Press

Eade J. 1997.Living the Global City: Globalization as a Local Process. London: RoutledgeEbaugh HR, Chafetz JS. 2000.Religion and the New Immigrants: Continuities and Adaptations

Immigrant Congregations. New York: AltaMira

Ebaugh HR, Chafetz JS. 2002. Religion Across Borders: Transnational Immigrant NetworWalnut Creek, CA: AltaMira

Eckstein S. 2004. On deconstructing immigrant generations: cohorts and the Cuban emigre experienWork. Pap., Cent. Comp. Immigr. Stud., Univ. Calif., San Diego

Eckstein S, Barberia L. 2002. Grounding immigrant generations in history: Cuban America

and their transnational ties.Int. Migr. Rev.36:799837Escobar C. 2004. Dual citizenship and political participation: migrants in the interplay

United States and Colombian politics.Lat. Stud.2:4569

Espiritu YL. 1992.Asian American Panethnicity: Bridging Institutions and Identities. PhiladelphTemple Univ. Press

Espiritu YL. 2003. Home Bound Filipino Lives Across Cultures, Communities, and CountriBerkeley: Univ. Calif. Press

Espiritu YL, Tran T. 2002. Viet Nam, Nu oc Toi (Vietnam, My Country): VietnameAmericans and transnationalism. See Levitt & Waters 2002, pp. 36798

148 Levitt Jaworsky


21/31

Faist T. 2000a. Transnationalization in international migration: implications for the study of

citizenship and culture.Ethn. Racial Stud.23:189222Faist T. 2000b. The Volume and Dynamics of International Migration and Transnational Social

Spaces. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press

Fitzgerald D. 2006. Towards a theoretical ethnography of migration.Qual. Soc.29:124Flores J. 2005. The diaspora strikes back: reflections on cultural remittances.NACLA Rep. Am.

39:2126Fog Olwig K. 2002. A wedding in the family: home making in a global kin network. Global

Netw.2:20518

Foner N. 2000.From Ellis Island to JFK: New Yorks Two Great Waves of Immigration. New Haven,CT: Yale Univ. Press

FouronG, Glick Schiller N. 2002. Thegeneration of identity: redefiningthesecond generationwithin a transnational social field. See Levitt & Waters 2002, pp. 168208

Fox J. 2005. Unpacking transnational citizenship.Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci.8:171201

Fox J, Rivera-Salgado G, eds. 2004.Indigenous Mexican Migrants in the United States. La Jolla,CA: UCSD/Cent. Comp. Immigr. Stud. Cent. US-Mex. Stud.

Freston P. 2004. Evangelicals and Politics in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Cambridge, UK:

Cambridge Univ. PressGabaccia DR. 2000.Italys Many Diasporas. Seattle: Univ. Wash. Press

Gabaccia DR,Ottanelli FM. 2001.Italian Workers of the World: Labor Migration and the Formationof Multiethnic States. Urbana: Univ. Ill. Press

Garca Canclini N. 1995.Hybrid Cultures: Strategies for Entering and Leaving Modernity. Transl.CL Chiappari, SL L opez. Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. Press

Gardner K. 2006. The transnational work of kinship and caring: Bengali-British marriages in

historical perspective.Global Netw.6:37387Gardner K, Grillo R. 2002. Transnational households and ritual: an overview. Global Netw.

2:17990Geisser V, Finan K. 2002.LIslam a l Ecole. Paris: Inst. Natl. Hautes Etudes Secur.

Gilroy P. 1993. The Black Atlantic: Modernity and Double Consciousness. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniv. Press

Glick Schiller N. 2003. The centrality of ethnography in the study of transnational migration.

InAmerican Arrivals: Anthropology Engages the New Immigration, ed. N Foner, pp. 99128.Santa Fe, NM: Sch. Am. Res. Press

Glick Schiller N, Basch LG, Blanc-Szanton C. 1992. Towards a Transnational Perspective onMigration: Race, Class, Ethnicity, and Nationalism Reconsidered. New York: NY Acad. Sci.

Glick Schiller N, Caglar A, Guldbrandsen TC. 2006. Beyond the ethnic lens: locality, globality,

and born-again incorporation.Am. Ethnol.33:61233Glick Schiller N, Fouron GE. 2001.Georges Woke Up Laughing: Long-Distance Nationalism and

the Search for Home. Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press

Glick Schiller N, Levitt P. 2006. Havent we heard this somewhere before? A substantive reviewof transnational migration studies by way of a reply to Waldinger and Fitzgerald. Work. Pap.

0601. Cent. Migr. Dev., Princeton Univ.Goldring L. 2002. The Mexican state and transmigrant organizations: negotiating the bound-

aries of membership and participation.Lat. Am. Res. Rev. 37:5599

Grasmuck S, Pessar PR. 1991. Between Two Islands: Dominican International Migration. Berkeley:Univ. Calif. Press

Guarnizo LE. 1997. The emergence of a transnational social formation and the mirage ofreturn migration among Dominican transmigrants.Identities4:281322



22/31

Guarnizo LE. 2000. Notes on transnationalism. Presented at Transnatl. Migr. Comp. Theo

Res. Perspect., Oxford, UK, JuneGuarnizo LE. 2003. The economics of transnational living.Int. Migr. Rev.37:66699Guarnizo LE, Portes A, Haller W. 2003. Assimilation and transnationalism: determinants

transnational political action among contemporary migrants.Am. J. Sociol.108:12114Guest KJ. 2003. God in Chinatown: Religion and Survival in New Yorks Evolving Immigra

Community. New York: N.Y. Univ. PressHagan J, Ebaugh HR. 2003. Calling upon the sacred: migrants use of religion in the migratiprocess.Int. Migr. Rev.37:114562

Haller W, Landolt P. 2005. The transnational dimensions of identity formation: adult childr

of immigrants in Miami.Ethn. Racial Stud.28:11821214Hatton TJ, Williamson JG. 1994. Migration and the International Labor Market, 1850193

New York: RoutledgeHervieu-L eger D. 2000.Religion as a Chain of Memory. Cambridge, UK: PolityHewison K, Young K. 2006.Transnational Migration and Work in Asia. London: RoutledgeHirschman C. 2004. The role of religion in the origins and adaptation of immigrant groups

the United States.Int. Migr. Rev.38:120633Hondagneu-Sotelo P. 2001.Domestica: Immigrant Workers Cleaning and Caring in the Shado

of Affluence. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. PressHondagneu-Sotelo P, Avila E. 1997. Im here but Im there: the meanings of Latina transn

tional motherhood.Gender Soc.11:548Hussain M. 2005.Measuring migrant remittances: from the perspective of the European Commissi

Presented at World Bank Int. Tech. Meet. Meas. Migr. Remit., Jan. 2425, WashingtoDC

Itzigsohn J. 2000.Immigration and theboundaries of citizenship:theinstitutionsof immigran

political transnationalism.Int. Migr. Rev.34:112654Itzigsohn J, Cabral CD, Medina EH, Vazquez O. 1999. Mapping Dominican transnationalis

narrow and broad transnational practices.Ethn. Racial Stud.22:31639Itzigsohn J, Giorguli-Saucedo S. 2005. Incorporation, transnationalism, and gender: imm

grant incorporation and transnational participation as gendered processes.Int. Migr. R39:895920

Itzigsohn J, Saucedo SG. 2002. Immigrant incorporation and sociocultural transnationalis

Int. Migr. Rev.36:76698Jacoby T, ed. 2004.Reinventing the Melting Pot: The New Immigrants and What It Means to

American. New York: Basic BooksJones-Correa M. 2001. Under two flags: dual nationality in Latin America and its consequen

for naturalization in the United States.Int. Migr. Rev.35:9971029Joppke C, Morawska ET, eds. 2003.Towards Assimilation and Citizenship: Immigrants in Libe

Nation-States.Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave MacmillanKamat S, Mathew B. 2003. Mapping political violence in a globalized world: the case of Hin

nationalism.Soc. Justice30:417Kapur D. 2003. Indian diasporic philanthropy: some observations. Presented at Global Equ

Initiatives Workshop Diaspora Philanthr. China & India, Harvard Univ., MayKapur D. 2005. Remittances: the new development mantra? InRemittances: Development Imp

and Future Prospects, ed. SM Maimbo, D Ratha, pp.33161. Washington, DC:World BaKasinitz P, Waters M, Mollenkopf J, Anil M. 2002. Transnationalism and the children

immigrants in contemporary New York. See Levitt & Waters 2002, pp. 96122Kastoryano R. 2000. Settlement, transnational communities and citizenship. Int. Soc. Sci.

52:30712

150 Levitt Jaworsky


23/31


24/31

Lewis P. 2003. Christians and Muslims in the West: from isolation to shared citizenship? I

J. Study Christ. Church3:77100Light IH, Isralowitz R. 1997. Immigrant Entrepreneurs and Immigrant Absorption in the Uni

States and Israel. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate

Lucassen LACJ. 2006. Is transnationalism compatible with assimilation? Examples froWestern Europe since 1850.IMIS-Beitrage 29:1536. http://www.imis.uni-osnabruec

de/pdffiles/imis29.pdfMacDougall JP. 2003. Transnational commodities as local cultural icons: Barbie dolls

Mexico.J. Popul. Cult.37:25775

Mahler SJ. 1998. Theoretical and empirical contributionstoward a research agenda for transntionalism. See Smith & Guarnizo 1998, pp. 64100

Mahler SJ. 2000. Constructing international relations: the role of transnational migrants aother non-state actors.Identities7:197232

Mahler SJ. 2001. Transnational relationships: the struggle to communicate across borde

Identities7:583619Mahler SJ, Hansing K. 2005. Toward a transnationalism of the middle: how transnatio

religious practices help bridge the divides between Cuba and Miami. Lat. Am. Persp

32:12146Mahler SJ, Pessar PR. 2006. Gender matters: ethnographers bring gender from the periphe

toward the core of migration studies.Int. Migr. Rev.40:2763Marcus GE. 1995. Ethnography in/of the world system: the emergence of multi-sited ethno

raphy.Annu. Rev. Anthropol.24:95117Marquardt MF. 2005. From shame to confidence: gender, religious conversion, and civic e

gagement of Mexicans in the U.S. South. Lat. Am. Perspect.32:2756

Martes AM, Braga C, Rodriguez C. 2002. Church membership, social capital, and etrepreneurship in Brazilian communities in the U.S. In Ethnic Entrepreneurship: Structu

and Process, ed. CH Stiles, CS Galbraith, pp. 16999. Oxford: Elsevier Sci.

Martin S. 2001. Remittance flows and impact. Presented at Reg. Conf. Remit. Dev. Tool, org

by Multilateral Investment Fund/Inter-Am. Dev. Bank, Washington, DC. http://usinstate.gov/journals/ites/0901/ijee/martin.htm

Mazzucato V. 2007a. Inter-generational reciprocity in a transnational context: Ghanaian mgrants in the Netherlands and the care of their parents back home. In Generations in AfriConnections and Contrasts, ed. E Alber, S van der Geest, W Geissler, SR Whyte. MunstLIT Verlag. In press

Mazzucato V. 2007b. Simultaneity and networks in transnational migration: lessons learnfrom a simultaneous matched sample methodology. InMigration and Development With

and Across Borders, ed. J DeWind, J Holdaway. Geneva: Int. Organ. Migr. In press

Mazzucato V, van Dijk R, Horst C, de Vries P. 2004. Transcending the nation: explorationstransnationalism as a concept and

levitt y jaworsky

Documents