MÓDULO FORMATIVO 4

Since the 1990s, migrant transnationalism, which has become a popular topic, helps to understand the process of adaptation. Roger Rouse (1995, in Vertovec, 2001:574) wrote that:

While, a decade ago, disagreements about the frames for understanding (im)migrant experience were largely contained with the dominant models of bipolar landscapes and localised identities, they now focus much more widely on the relationship between these models and the alternative images of transnational social spaces and multi-local affiliations.

As already noted in the introduction, thinking about how migrants adapt takes us back to interesting debates within migration theory, about the distinction between ‘diaspora’ and ‘transnational’ migrant groups. The next section explores these two categories, as well as the inter-related concept of globalisation. Before moving on to transnationalism, we will briefly look at the term ’diaspora’ which is still widely used in migration studies and will lead us further to explore ’transnationalism’ through first exploring ’globalisation’. These three concepts are closely intertwined. According to some researchers, diaspora and transnationalism have been considered opposites. I show below how critical reflections on ‘diaspora’ actually led to more nuanced understandings, connected to transnationalism. In reality, these terms are very vague and often unclear. This section will be used to form a clearer concept of how I will use these terms in my research.I will primarily draw on transnationalism rather than on diaspora.

Diaspora has been and still is a central term in migration studies. Conzáles (in Kearney,

2005:559) distinguishes diasporas from other patterns of migration, because diasporas include a full cross-section of community members who are dispersed to many diverse regions of the world and still retain a myth of their uniqueness and an interest in their homeland. Diaspora formation can occur by accretion, as a result of gradual, routine migration, which may be matter of choice or strategy on the part of households and communities. Alternatively, dispersal may be brought about by crisis and may involve coercion, catastrophe, expulsion or other forcible movement resulting from conflict or persecution (Van Hear 2010:2). Van Hear stresses the importance of durability in the case of diaspora, where consolidation is important (2010:5). According to Faist (2010), diaspora has become an all-purpose word with overlapping meanings. Throughout my empirical analysis I will not use the term ‘diaspora’, partly because the term is not and has not been relevant in the case of Estonians in Scotland where a ‘diaspora’ in its classic sense of the meaning has never existed (although the post-war Estonian community in Scotland can perhaps be viewed as a ‘periphery of the diaspora’ (as suggested by Raimo Raag7

). However, I will use the term ‘diasporic’ for describing such actions and features (e.g. social institutions, cultural and political activities) which are rather typical for the classical diaspora. The relevance of the term ‘diaspora’ is also questionable in that it did not emerge as it did not emerge as a central explanatory concept when I was analysing my empirical interview data.

Big changes have taken place globally leading up to the turn of the millennium – the collapse of the USSR (which led to the globalisation of postmodern capitalism), the increasing migration and dislocation of people due to wars and other disasters, increasing unemployment as well as many other huge changes. All these have had profound effects on the movements of people worldwide. Currently, more than 100 million people are living outside their traditional historical territory (Kearney, 2005:557). Undoubtedly

understanding these effects of globalisation has become paramount in the field of migration research. Anthony Giddens (1990:64; see also Inda and Rosaldo, 2002:9; Kearney, 1995:548) states that globalisation is the intensification of worldwide social relations which link distant localities in such a way that local happenings are shaped by

7

events occurring many miles away and vice versa. Giddens considers globalisation to involve a profound reorganisation of time and space in social and cultural life. Social life consists of two basic kinds of social interaction: face-to-face contact (prevailing in pre- modern societies) and remote encounters across space and time; globalisation disembeds our social relations from local context. Globalisation represents a totally new epoch in world history, where policy-making has become de-territorialised – for example UN, World Bank, IMF etc. (Lewellen, 2002:10).

Globalisation is the structural context in which transnationalism takes place. As mentioned by Glick Schiller (2007), in the academic discussion of assimilation and multiculturalism a new paradigm for migration studies was needed for immigrants who were living their lives across borders, in two or more countries. While recent processes of globalisation may have intensified transnationalism, the concept in itself is not entirely new, but has been around since early 20th century. The term ’transnationalism was first used by American Randolph Bourne in his article “Trans-national America” in 1916 (in Portes 1999 and Glick Schiller 2007). There he used the term “spiritual country” to address an immigrant’s culture of origin and claims (in contrast to the popular ‘melting-pot’ theory which was discussed earlier) that instead of assimilating into the country they lived in, the immigrants often preserved their original culture and traditions. Bourne hoped that with the help of multiple migrant communities, America would become a trans-national nation with cultural ties to many other countries. Foner (1997, in Bruneau, 2010) describes how Russian and Italian immigrants in the USA maintained family, economic, political and cultural ties with their homelands which they visited regularly and hoped to return to one day, at the same time becoming a part of the host society. While back-and-forth movements of immigrants have always existed, they have not acquired, until recently, the critical mass and complexity necessary to speak of an emergent social field. This field is composed of a growing number of persons who live dual lives: speaking two languages, having homes in two countries, and making a living through continuous regular contact across national borders (Portes et al., 1999:217). Faist (2010) has stated that the current conditions of globalisation, basically amounting to easier transport and accelerated communications, are a necessary condition, but by no means a sufficient one, for an increase in migrant transnationalism. One cannot deny that globalisation has increased the possibilities for (and given a new quality to) transnationalism, however, the phenomenon of living simultaneously across national borders and using multiple transnational social spaces was by no means unknown even in

the early 20th century. This to some extent repeats the reference to Bourne above, therefore one can argue that transnationalism, although not as well-spread as nowadays, has existed already earlier, but in a different form. In the current study, aspects of transnationalism theory might be potentially useful in exploring the experiences of post-war, as well as more recent migrants.

Talking about Estonian communities abroad, Jürgenson (2011:375) introduces into the term long-distance nationalism in the discussion. It expresses the ideas and practices of identity which bind people living in different geographical locations with a particular territory which they consider their initial home. Blood ties are important as well as ties with compatriots. It has been stated in different sources (for example, Raag, 2001:180) that language was (and is) considered the basis of Estonian identity and the most important expression and symbol of it. This is why the refugees established and maintained the Estonian-language Saturday schools and other activities abroad.

Andrus Saareste, an Estonian professor, has written that for the Estonians living in exile during the Soviet occupation, the three main national duties were: to organise the political campaign for the restoration of Estonian independence, to retain the characteristics of Estonian language and culture, and to maintain and develop the ideals of the democratic republic of Estonia (Raag, 2001; Jürgenson, 2011). This indicates long-distance

nationalism. These ties with the homeland can also be imaginary, manifest for example through literature. The difference between long-distance nationalism and transnationalism, as Bock-Luna (2007:21) explains is that transnationalism is a broader category.

Transnationalism includes all social practices linking people in the homeland and abroad through their transnational actions and contacts (sending remittances and so forth), all practices that cross national borders. In contrast to this, long-distance nationalism indicates a strengthening of the perception of national borders, together with political agency, which is directed towards the home country. Long-distance nationalism exists in times of crisis or war and is specifically characterised by a discourse of historical injustice and violence. Long-distance nationalism can therefore be regarded as a political principle with

underlying political and historical claims, not just a marker of national identity. However, not everybody who feels for his or her homeland is a long-distance nationalist. Many migrants are constantly renegotiating their identity with regard to not only the homeland but also vis-à-vis the host society (Ibid.). We can here ask questions about the possibility

of transnationalism already shortly after the Second World War, as the Estonians abroad generally fit into the explanation of transnationalism given by Bock-Luna. It is also

interesting whether long-distance nationalism can be viewed as a part of other transnational practices, for example an enactment of political transnationalism amongst other such activities.

Transnationalism has meanwhile become a wide and ambivalent term, used by many disciplines and in different contexts. This PhD will hopefully advance discussion of the concept of transnationalism and deepen our understanding of it. The term transnationalism can be understood, for example: as a process – entailing the transmigrants’ everyday actions and strategies, emergence and functioning of transnational organisations, and so on. Transnational processes can be both bodily movements (migration) and non-bodily

movements (internet, capital expansion) (Smith and Guarnizo, 1998:14). The term ‘transnationalism’ can also be understood as a theory – replacing the traditional state- centred theories in politics and international relation. The term can further be thought of as a methodological framework for describing and explaining different social features, or as counter-hegemonic political spaces (Kearney, 2005, Smith and Guarnizo, 1998). What these definitions have in common is their emphasis on the linkages that bind people living in different countries (Mazzucato, 2010:206-207). In this research the term

‘transnationalism’ will be used on the personal level as a set of activities, a practice of connecting simultaneously with multiple spaces, encompassing all aspects of social interaction, and both bodily and non-bodily movement. The existence and characteristics of ‘transnational spaces’ will be further explored below.

People do not have to leave their homes to be engaged in transnational activities. Levitt and Schiller (2004:2) argue that social fields connect people and engage them in

transnational activities even when they have not left their homes, through the networks of social relations they sustain across borders. People who stay behind are connected to migrants’ social networks, get economic and social remittances or ideas, practices and identities that migrants import on a regular basis. The transnational social fields have not only multiple sites but also multiple layers. This has been called ’transnational social field’, ’transnational village’, and ’translocality’ (Vertovec 2001:578). Smith and Guarnizo (1998:26-27), on the contrary, criticise the view that transnational processes take place in an imaginary ’third space’, abstractly located ’in-between’ national territories. According

to them, the image of transmigrants as deterritorialised, free-floating people represented by the now popular academic adage ’neither here nor there’ deserves closer scrutiny.

Nina Glick Schiller (2010) has criticised social theorists that privilege the nation state as their unit of analysis when they discuss migration, and whose frameworks are built on methodological individualism. These approaches focus on nation states and do not look at global finance capital, centres of power or social processes which influence individual migrant flows, and as such, they cannot conceive of incorporation ’beyond’ the nation state. While this debate about the importance and relative decline of the nation state due to globalization is ongoing, in the context of Estonian migration to Scotland/the UK the nation-state of course has paramount continued importance. Indeed the case of Estonia is an interesting example as ‘the Estonian state’ as such officially ceased to exist during the Soviet occupation, yet even in exile it continued to exert a huge influence on the

community of Estonians, as we can see in Chapter 5.

Smith and Guarnizo (1998:8) state that the less developed countries are officially incorporating their nationals residing abroad into their newly configured trans-territorial nation-state. It has been noted that more and more states allow their citizens dual

citizenship and that migrant transnationalism plays a significant role in this growth (Vertovec, 2004:980). “By granting them dual citizenship, these states are encouraging transmigrants’ instrumental accommodation to ‘receiving’ societies, while simultaneously inhibiting their cultural assimilation and thereby promoting the preservation of their own national culture. It suggests the prevailing postmodernist metaphors of ‘de-

territorialisation’ and ‘unboundedness’”. (Smith and Guarnizo, 1998:10) In the case of Estonia, dual citizenship amongst the descendants of Estonian wartime refugees is

becoming more and more common. At the same time, if recent migrants from Estonia take the citizenship of the receiving state, Estonia allows them to keep their Estonian

citizenship. As Bruneau (2010) states, dual nationality and migratory circulation within the framework of a transnational region like the EU favour the emergence of new trans-border communities differing from the long-term diasporas.

As we can see, both diaspora and transnationalism concern sustained cross-border ties including regions of origin and destination. Diaspora approaches usually focus on the relationship between homelands and dispersed people and emphasises the cultural distinctiveness while transnationalism looks more into migrant incorporation and

transnational practices. (Faist, 2010:20) According to Faist (Ibid.) transnationalism is a broader term than diaspora in two respects: diaspora relates most often to religious, ethnic and national groups and communities, whereas transnational approaches connect to all sorts of social formations, including the ones already mentioned, as well as to phenomena such as networks of businesspersons and social movements. Basch et al (1994) mention that the concept of diaspora is closely related to that of a ‘nation’ which envisions a people with a common past and a biological bond of solidarity who may or may not have their own state. In counter-distinction is the deterritorialized nationstate, in which the nation’s people may live anywhere in the world and still not live outside the state. By this logic, there is no longer a diaspora because where the people go, their state goes too. This already leads us to transnationalism. Many peoples’ transnational networks are grounded upon the perception that they share some form of common identity, often based upon a place of origin and the cultural and linguistic traits associated with it (Vertovec 2001:573). However, according to Bruneau´s study (2010), unlike people of the diaspora,

transmigrants do not seek to establish a social network destined to last, or a transnational social group based on the richness of a symbolic capital and a memory transmitted from one generation to the next. Therefore, transnational communities encompass diaspora, but not all transnational communities are diasporas. Diaspora scholars often refer to multi- generational patterns, while transnational analysts deal with recent migration flows. (Faist, 2010:22) This is also one reason why the term diaspora was not considered relevant to this research.

Bruneau (2010:43) draws the typical characteristics of a transnational community as follows: they exist in developed Western countries, are based on specific migration

expertise and link the global to a whole range of different local networking places, without hierarchy between these hubs. These migrants come from a nation state where they have lived for a long time, they are returning periodically, they are investing part of their income in the place of their origin. There is no strong desire to return as transmigrants actually never leave their place of origin in a complete sense, as they retain close ties that are greatly simplified thanks to the growth, regularity and safety of communications. Glick Schiller and Fouron (2001) stated that for transmigrants, homeland is not just a site of nostalgia but a location of ongoing experience. On the other hand, O’Connor (2010:76, 82) criticizes the fact that the impact of geographical distance between homeland and

She states that her informants’ experiences of homesickness unsettle the notion of

’deterriotorialised’ space and the borderless world. The possibility of keeping in touch with family and friends, and the ease of travel and increased global communication may

logically make one assume that migrants would find it easier to adapt to life in a foreign country. However, as we can see from the empirical chapters that follow, nowadays people still experience homesickness (which in some cases may be even caused by online

communication) and continue to encounter difficulties in adaptation. Perhaps the stronger ties and communication with people back home that modern technology enables might even make it harder for people to feel at home, precisely because they do not have to make the effort to create new friends and connections.

There have been polemics around the term transnationalism. According to some

researchers (e.g. Bauböck, 2010), in most uses of this term the unit which is transcended by institutions, actions discourses or flows is not the nation but indeed the state. In this sense the Estonian term for ‘transnationalism’, hargmaisus (refers to hargnema = to

divide; maa = land, country) is more precise because it is referring to land or country rather than a state or a nation. Some researchers have expressed their opinion that the ‘–ism’ in transnationalism refers to an ideology rather than to a feature or tool. For example,

Dahinden (2010) uses the term ‘transnationality’ instead. Transnationalism can be present at both the state, organisational and individual level. This thesis will very briefly look at the Estonians’ organisations abroad and in the UK and the ‘transnationalism from top- down’ actions of Estonian state, but will deal more closely with transnationalism at the individual everyday level.