Modelo predictivo para confirmar el diagnóstico de PE

Transnationalism as a theory has gained growing popularity during the past twenty five years and has most strongly been influenced by authors such as Nina Glick Schiller, Linda Basch, Christina Blanc-Szanton, Alejandro Portes, Thomas Faist and Steven Vertovec, The three first authors being behind the concepts debut. Glick Schiller, Basch and Blanc-Szanton (1992) argued that contemporary migration and migrants differ

31 greatly from those of in the late 19th or beginning of the 20th century. In contrast to the migrants of those periods, they argued that migrants of modern societies are “composed of those whose networks, activities, and patterns of life encompass both their host and home societies. Their lives cut across national boundaries and bring two societies into a single social field” (Glick Schiller, Basch & Blanc-Szanton, 1992: 1) shortly defined as webs of social relationships (Levitt & Glick Schiller et al., 2004: 1009). In the current study, this transnational social field could be seen encompassing Estonian and Finnish societies.

Based on the historical discussion of migration, Glick Schiller, Basch & Blanc- Szanton (1992) stated that there is a need for a new analytical framework which would take into account the changes that migration has gone through over the years. This lead them to propose transnationalism as “the process by which immigrants build social fields that link together their country of origin and their country of settlement” (Glick Schiller et al, 1992: 1), including people, communities or organizations (Vertovec, 2009). This theory ultimately challenges the nation state ideals of people belonging to only one country (Vertovec, 2009), and having social relationships only in the borders of that society. Also families have been perceived as bounded by the borders of a single state (Mazzucato & Schans, 2011: 704). By becoming ‘unbound’ to the borders of the states in the analysis of migration as was desired by Glick Schiller et al. (1992), transnationalism has highlighted “the increasing intensity and scope of circular flows of persons, goods, information and symbols triggered by international labour migration” (Caglar, 2001: 607).

Unlike Glick Schiller et al. (1992), Portes, Guarnizo and Landolt (1999), similarly to myself, acknowledged that movements of people between host and home countries have always taken place, but it was only recently when these movements gained never before seen volume and complexity. They described it as a new “emergent social field” one that is “composed of a growing number of persons who live dual lives” (Portes et al., 1999: 217). These ‘dual lives’, Portes, Guarnizo and Landolt (1999: 217) explain, are characterised by such as speaking two languages, having property which can be called home in two countries, and working in a manner that requires “regular contact across national borders”. According to the theory of transnationalism, migrants thus uphold connections with their native country, while they are at the same time trying to adapt to the society of their host country (Stanek & Hosnedlova, 2012: 63).

32 The theory of transnationalism is best suitable for the current study as due to labour migration of one parent, the family life of the families under investigation surpasses the borders of the two nation states instead of taking place inside one country. These families are no longer explained by concepts such as physical unity and co-habitation and due to geographical separation their family life also cannot be researched by focusing on what is happening in the context of one country. By explaining that transnational social fields connect with each other migrants, and the people who do not themselves move (Levitt & Glick Schiller, 2004: 1009), the theory of transnationalism implicitly suggests that with various activities the family members, who stay behind, can also be active participants in transnational social fields.

What makes transnationalism possible in a greater extent among migrants of contemporary societies are the developments in communication technology and transportation systems (Portes et al., 1999), which are nowadays easy to use, relatively affordable, and more flexible. Whereas migrants and their families in the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th _{century were highly dependent on handwritten letters, through}

new communication and transportation technology migrants have the possibility to maintain stronger relationships with family members, who reside back in the home country (Baldassar, 2008).

Nonetheless, transnational relations are not the consequence of developments in communications technology or transportation systems (Kivisto & Faist, 2010: 146), but instead these advancements have only allowed communication to take place at the same time in multiple locations of the world and in an intensified manner (Vertovec, 2009: 2- 3), while their actual usage itself depends on different social factors (Kivisto & Faist, 2010). Bryceson and Vuorela (2002), for example, consider obligation to take care of family to be one of the main incentives for engaging in transnational activities, while developments in producing new communication tools, among others, are only facilitating transnationalism. Transnationalism is thus definitely not a new phenomenon (Kivisto & Faist, 2010), but considering the vast developments, interactions have spread all over the world and thus become more apparent. According to Vertovec (2009: 2), transnationalism could, due to this, even be analysed as an expression of globalisation. Transnationalism has gone through many developments over the years leading it to be used in contexts where it does not belong (Kivisto & Faist, 2010). This was noticed also by Portes and colleagues (1999) who suggested detailed criteria which would stimulate

33 the correct usage of the theory. They proposed that for transnationalism to be applied in analysis, the number of migrants involved in whatever process under question has to be significant. Secondly, the processes the migrants take part in have to have a long-lasting quality. Lastly, it was argued that transnationalism should be used if present theoretical concepts do not capture these activities rightfully (Portes et al., 1999). Portes et al., (1999) developed the concept proposed by Glick Schiller et al. (1992) further and as a result managed to create a new and ultimately more specific definition of transnationalism, one that fits best also to the current study. In their definition, transnationalism includes “activities that require regular and sustained social contacts over time across national borders for their implementation” (Portes et al., 1999: 219). When seen in the context of families in this study, I thus see transnationalism referring to the interactions between family members residing in different countries (Ryan, 2010). Thomas Faist (2000: 13) in his theory of transnational social spaces has written that mobility of people between two, or more, nation states, leads them to take part in transnational social relations, together with the “the circulation of ideas, symbols, and material culture”, ultimately creating an overarching social space in which the relevant national states belong. As has been stated also by Vertovec (2009), transnationalism includes many different processes such as economic, political, sociocultural or environmental, and thus indeed can be applied to “overarching structural units” such as countries’ governments or global enterprises (Kivisto & Faist, 2010: 136). Portes et al., (1999), however, view transnational happening not only ‘from above’, but also ‘from below’. The latter includes migrants and their social networks and thus included in the framework are also families. Also Faist (2000) in his discussion of transnational social spaces later argues that kinship groups form one example of such spaces. These are described to be more lasting, formal and including dense ties compared to social networks consisted of such as friends. For transnational social spaces to continue existing, certain kind of ties must prevail. Faist (2000) writes that these ties between families are maintained thanks to by reciprocity. But as the discussions further in this section show, this is definitely not the only reason behind maintenance of family ties. Transnationalism ultimately not only provides an optic through which to analyse how migrants manage to stay connected with their families in the home country (Kivisto & Faist, 2010), but also vice versa. As Zontini (2004: 1114) writes: “transnationalism forces us to reconsider our understanding of households and families based on the idea

34 of co-residency and physical unity and to take into account the possibility of spatial separation’’. Placed in the context of families, transnationalism highlights that many migrants conduct actions that cross borders and which thus connect them with the family members who remain behind. Because of the connections reaching over these countries’ borders, the lives of the stay-behind family members are changed despite them not being the one moving (Vertovec, 2007).

Therefore, the transnationalism offers a theoretical framework through which to analyse the connections between the migrating parent and the one who stays behind ultimately showing how family lives are experienced over geographical space. As the current study approaches family life from the perspective of the stay-behind partners, it contributes to the development of literature of transnationalism by showing how the family members who remain behind can participate in creating transnational social fields or social spaces. However, to be better able to make sense of these families and additionally to make visible the ways they participate in creating these transnational spaces, we need to do consider the everyday life of those involved. This will be addressed in the following chapter.