ABSTRACT
The terms migration and race are often mutually constitutive. The coupling of these two concepts is based upon historical events in which, especially post-World War II, migration to Western societies has effectively meant the migration of mostly non-white people from postcolonial societies, such as former British “subjects” in Pakistan, or Turkish “guest workers” moving and settling in (then) West Germany, or Algerians moving to France. The term migration has also been used by many analysts as strongly linked with the dynamics of racisms, disadvantaged status, and the representation and positioning of the “other.” While I can only scratch the surface about the multifaceted and highly complex relationship
between migration and race in this chapter (especially given all the different types of studies about migration-transnational processes, immigrant adaptation and ethnic businesses, the dynamics of sending and receiving societies, etc.), I will map out the changing relationship between migration and race, as evidenced by changing social and political developments and/or documented and theorized by various analysts. In doing so, I will broadly address the relationship between migration and race inWestern, advanced capitalist societies, such as in North America and Western Europe. Since both these terms are extremely broad, and can refer to many different bodies of literature, this overview will be necessarily schematic. And while I do not distinguish between ethnic and racial groups in this short chapter, my discussion of “race” will also tend to subsume references to ethnicity, as many groups comprise both ethnic and racial groups. Following the work of urban sociologist Robert Park and his race relations cycle, classical
theories of assimilation were emblematic of a particular understanding of migration to Western societies, in that “classical” theories (based upon the experiences of white European migrants, such as Italians or Germans, to the USA) of assimilation posited a relatively straightforward trajectory for European migrants: upon arrival, they would encounter some prejudice and various forms of social and economic barriers, but that with the rise of the second generation, who would have benefited from “native” language and schooling, and acculturation more generally, a fullblooded “structural assimilation” into a dominant culture would be virtually assured (though, of course, this is a highly simplified rendering of such an argument)—see Milton Gordon (1964). But with the large scale immigration of people into the USA from Latin America and Asia in
the post-1965 period, a considerable body of literature has argued that race and the racialized experiences of certain non-white immigrant groups could fundamentally shape their
incorporation, opportunities, and experiences (albeit in various possible ways) in their “host” society. Thus so-called “segmented assimilation” theory, pioneered by Alejandro Portes and Min Zhou (1993), among others, located “race” firmly in relation to migration. According to this way of thinking, black Haitians who settled in Miami (or Chinese who settled in New York), encountered very different experiences (and treatment) as migrants to the USA, in comparison with the German or Irish migrants who arrived earlier in the twentieth century. The significance of race and racial barriers in shaping the experiences of new immigrants to the USA, however, has been questioned by some analysts who argue that post 1965 immigrants’ experiences were not that different from white European immigrants in early twentieth century, who also suffered prejudice and a variety of social and economic barriers. Scholarship concerning the relationship between migration and race has witnessed debates,
too, about whether structural or cultural variables were more significant in explaining the differential outcomes for disparate migrant groups (see Steinberg 1989). Scholars advocating intersectionality have, importantly, and over many decades, contested what they regarded as overly rigid and uni-dimensional understandings of racial and gender disadvantage and oppression, in which class dynamics were regarded as primary in explaining most forms of subordination and oppression, including racial oppression, as exemplified by certain orthodox Marxist approaches (like that of Oliver Cox). In the last several decades, vast bodies of literature on globalization, transnationalism, and
diasporas have fundamentally shaped contemporary debates which concern the relationship between migration and race (and/or ethnicity). As denizens of an increasingly global, interconnected world, competing arguments have been made about the effects of globalization in every sphere of life, including debates about dialectical tendencies toward cultural homogenization and cultural differentiation (Hall et al. 1992). Some analysts have argued that national identities are declining, and new hybridized identities are emerging (e.g., see Appadurai 1990), while others (e.g., see Smith 1990) argue that globalization can engender emotionally laden forms of nationalisms and a return to mythic certainties. The dynamics associated with globalization, and modernity more generally, are said to
destabilize established identities. Increasingly, people’s sense of their ethnic identities and affiliations are said to be relativized and shaped by our greater consciousness of the interconnections of people and societies around the world. Although there is much debate about the concept of diaspora, it can be defined as the imagined condition of a “people” dispersed throughout the world, by force or by choice. Diasporas are transnational sociocultural formations of people who share real and/or symbolic ties to some distant “homeland” (Ang 1994). Contemporary international migration is significantly different from that of previous periods, and this is most evident in studies of transnationalism, which emphasize the economic, cultural, political, and familial networks and links between two or more locations (Gold 2000). Thus people’s sense of belonging and identity are complicated by increasingly complex
migratory trajectories and potentially multiple transnational and diasporic ties. And given the complicated trajectories of many ethnic minority groups and individuals, in terms of moving from one place to another, one’s ethnic and/or racial identity and affiliations need not be territorially bounded to one’s birthplace or any one place. However, it is not possible to generalize about the transnational ties and experiences of disparate migrant groups; nor can we assume a homogeneous experience within each group, without reference to individuals’ specific settlement histories, gender, and class locations. In fact, in some of the literature on globalization and diaspora, the postmodern emphasis on fluid identities and positionings is far too celebratory, emphasizing the freedom with which diasporic minorities are able to fashion desired and multiple positionings and identities (see Bhabha 1994).
