Sustracción de reservas forestales de la Ley 2

Th e study of the diaspora phenomenon in general, and of specifi c diasporas, in-cluding the Jewish Diaspora, in particular, is needed and useful for a number of closely intertwined reasons. (For a comprehensive discussion of this and other re-lated issues, see Sheff er 2006.) Among the more pertinent reasons for studying the phenomenon and its usefulness are the following: fi rst, the ongoing growth of the number and size of such entities; second, the almost mind-boggling capability of these inherently endangered entities to overcome tremendous hardships; third, the historical and current impressive cultural, social, political, and economic signifi -cance and contributions of these entities to homelands, host lands, and the inter-national system; fourth, the great complexity of this human phenomenon, the comprehension of which can contribute to a better understanding of past and cur-rent intricate experiences of large groups of “others”; fi fth, the growing impact of diasporas on both peaceful and turbulent processes, including terrorism, all over the world; and sixth, the contribution a better understanding of the diasporic phe-nomenon might make to the prevention of holocausts and disasters that again may be infl icted on such entities, on the one hand, and to the greater appreciation of these entities, on the other hand.

Until the late 20th century, wherever possible, and particularly whenever their physical appearance, mores, habits, and linguistic profi ciency permitted, many members of such entities did not identify as belonging to diasporas. Th ey tried hard to minimize the importance of their contacts with their countries of origin/

homelands, and they did not publicize their membership in organizations serving these entities and homelands. Such patterns of behavior were related to a wide-spread prevalent desire among members of these groups to assimilate, acculturate, or fully integrate into their host societies.

At the same time, whether deliberately or not, both democratic and non-democratic host societies and governments largely ignored most of these diasporas.

In certain cases, such host societies and governments doubted the endurance ca-pability of diasporas in general and of the diasporic entities that resided within their boundaries in particular. Th ese societies and governments minimized the cul-tural, social, political, and economic vitality, endurance, and signifi cance of the diasporas. Similarly, they ignored the various roles these diasporas played in host societies and their contributions to the host societies. Th e host societies, again either consciously or unconsciously, also overlooked the wider domestic, regional, and global political implications of the existence of such diasporas in their midst. Yet, although various host societies and governments viewed ethnonational diasporas

as a marginal and temporary phenomenon, they regarded them as actually and potentially menacing and therefore undesirable. Consequently, host societies and governments applied social, political, and economic pressures on immigrants who were allowed to permanently settle in these countries. The purposes of those pres-sures were to drive immigrants to assimilate; to fully accept all prevailing social, political, and economic norms; to completely integrate into these host societies; or to leave.

Not only did host societies and governments hold such diminutive views about the endurance of diasporas and demonstrate such rancorous attitudes toward them, but homeland societies and governments also demonstrated either indifferent or ambiguous attitudes toward “their” diasporas. Because social and political research usually follows “real world” developments, it was not entirely surprising that until the 1970s many academics also ignored the diasporic phenomenon, with the excep-tion of a few focused studies, mainly on the identity of specific diasporas, lobbying on behalf of their homelands and on their successful or failed attempts at assimila-tion and integraassimila-tion in host countries .

Most observers were inclined to equate ethnic diasporism only with the Jewish dispersal and, in line with Jewish tradition, saw it as a state of exile. In this vein, they regarded the Jewish Diaspora either as sui generis, that is, a marginal and a disap-pearing social phenomenon, or as a model for all other diasporas. These views were so common that they were reflected in the diaspora entries in most important dic-tionaries, encyclopedias, and scholarly works in this field. Consequently, until the late 1980s, only scant attention was given to the fact that dispersed ethnonational communities constitute an indubitable reality. In fact, like other issues pertaining to ethnicity and ethnic groups, ethnonational diasporism was regarded unworthy of serious consideration and in-depth study (Armstrong 1976). Moreover, certain analyses of the phenomenon were predicated on normative assumptions based on nationalist, liberal, socialist, and Marxist ideologies. The result was that some ob-servers not only predicted the unavoidable gradual disappearance of such groups but also went as far as prescribing either the assimilation of their members or the return to their homelands. Basing themselves on the results of purportedly sound theoretical, analytical, and empirical grounds, other scholars considered the issue of ethnonational diasporism as uninteresting.

These analyses, predictions, and prescriptions notwithstanding, as already noted, over the past two decades the total number of established diasporas and their members have increased conspicuously. Moreover, individuals and families belonging to these ethnonational entities have altered their previous assimilation-ist, full integrationassimilation-ist, or acculturationist proclivities. Increasingly, Palestinians, Kurds, Turks, Moroccans, Croats, Poles, and many others who permanently reside outside their homelands do not conceal their ethnonational origins and affilia-tions. And because of their growing self-confidence and assertiveness, many dia-sporans, not only first, second, and third generations, proudly maintain their ethnonational identity, uphold their homeland citizenship, openly identify as mem-bers of diasporic organizations, and are far from being reluctant to publicly act on behalf of their homelands and dispersed kinsmen.

Again, not entirely surprisingly in view of these developments, more intel-lectuals, writers, journalists, and politicians have also become aware of the phe-nomenon and acknowledge the permanency of diasporic phephe-nomenon. Some observers even admit the positive cultural and economic contributions diasporas make to host societies. In any case, these new dispositions further enhance pro-cesses whereby analysts of such developments are becoming more aware of the enormous ethnic pluralism and of the existence of diasporas. In short, diasporas are increasingly included in the pluralist or multicultural conceptual analytical frameworks intended to deal with this phenomenon and its various implications. It is important to note that to an extent diaspora members contribute to these new trends.

The newly found confidence and assertiveness among members of diasporas, on the one hand, and greater recognition of the phenomenon and tolerance toward diaspora members on the part of host governments and society, on the other, have generated animated discussions among politicians, laypeople, and, particularly, academics. These debates have been conducted in the context of the general delib-erations about transnationalism, nationalism, and ethnicity, or in the context of specific diasporism and diasporas.

Thus, as previously mentioned, although until the mid-1980s only a few analyti-cal and theoretianalyti-cal publications focused on the diasporic phenomenon, since then, the study of ethnic diasporism and diasporas has spectacularly proliferated. Now books, articles, and studies on this and related issues are abundant. The numerous references to “diasporism” and “diasporas” in recent publications on ethnography, anthropology, ethnicity, sociology, political theory, comparative politics, interna-tional relations, globalization, and transnainterna-tionalism, as well as the numerous sem-inars, conferences, study groups, and grants offered by governments, municipalities, universities, and research institutes, all attest to the fact that the interest in these groups is growing.

Nevertheless, despite the current increased attention given to ethnonational diasporas, the study of these groups is still in its early stages. In this vein, the dra-matic growth of diasporas and the intensity of their activities within the context of the current chaotic world order—which has been partly attributed to ethnic and diasporic unrest (Brown 1996; Gurr 2000)—warrants additional theoretical and comparative investigation as well as explication, clarification, and explanation.

The need for further in-depth studies of diasporism and diasporas is also un-derlined by the attitudinal and practical change toward diaspora politics. This is coupled by new perspectives on certain interrelated issues that substantially affect diasporas. Among these are the simultaneous processes of globalization, regional-ization, localregional-ization, dissipation of nationalism, the weakening of both the “nation-state” and the “state,” increasing international migration, migration cycles, and the role of religion and religious fundamentalism in the survival and revival of ethnic minorities and diasporas (Smith 1999).

These new trends have resulted in the recognized need for a strong emphasis on the study of the anthropological, cultural, social, and economic aspects of ethnic-ity in general and diasporas in particular. However, as noted, there is a noticeable

deficit of in-depth and comprehensive theoretical and comparative studies and discussion of various dimensions of the diasporic phenomenon.

The fact that ethnonational diasporas exist and function in highly intricate environments raises multiple questions, some of which are discussed in the rele-vant literature: Is the ethnonational diasporic phenomenon perennial or modern?

Has the nature of ethnonational diasporas changed over the last two centuries? Is the identity of diaspora members of an essentialist, instrumental, or constructed nature? What are the roles of collectives, individuals, and environmental factors in the formation, persistence, and behavior of diasporas? What are the main charac-teristics of contemporary ethnonational diasporas? Are all diasporas of the same type? Are these stable and homogenous or unsteady and hybrid formations?

What are the organizational structures of diasporas, and what strategies and tac-tics do they use? What are the functions of these organizations and their contribu-tions to homelands, host countries, and the emerging global society? Can diasporas inflict substantial damages on their hosts and homelands? And finally, are these groups precursors of postmodern, postnational, and transstate social and political systems?

Some authors have argued that short definitions are not sufficient (Cohen 1997;

Vertovec 1997; Safran 1999; Braziel and Mannur 2003) and some writers agree about the need for profiles of diasporas. The main elements of such a profile, which would provide some answers to the aforementioned questions, are specified here. Ethno-national diasporism and diasporas do not constitute a recent modern phenome-non. Rather, as the Jewish, Indian, Chinese, and Armenian diasporas demonstrate, diasporism is a perennial phenomenon. An essential aspect of this phenomenon is the endless cultural, social, economic, and especially political struggles of these dis-persed ethnic groups and connections with their homelands and other disdis-persed groups of the same nation. Though there is an ongoing debate about the nature of these entities, partly because of recent developments in the study of the socio-biological origins of ethnic groups, there is a renewed awareness and understand-ing that these are neither purely imagined nor utterly constructed communities.

This is due to the fact that their identities are intricate combinations of primordial, psychological/mythical, and instrumental elements. It is a fact that over time the cultural and social identities of these entities undergo certain adaptations to chang-ing circumstances in both their host lands and homelands, but basic elements in their ethnonational identity remain intact. Diasporas struggle to survive while they do their utmost to feel at home in their host countries, which in many instances demonstrate hostility toward them. And in fact, they survive despite an inherent ambiguity shown toward them by their homelands, also. To survive, diasporas must organize and conduct activities on a number of levels. Such organization raises questions about their loyalties, especially vis-à-vis their homeland.

Taking all these characteristics together, it seems that ethnonational diasporas, including the Jewish Diaspora, which fits the profile, are indeed the precursors of postmodern transstate and transnational social and political entities. In this re-spect, though they use advanced modes of communications, they are far from being virtual transnational communities. Any attempt to portray them as such is missing

the point. Ethnonational diasporas are bona fide entities, as viable as other ethnic minorities.

However, because ethnonational diasporas find themselves living under social and political conditions that are more hostile and difficult than those faced by some other ethnic minorities, theoretically, they represent the extreme cases of the entire ethnic phenomenon. Hence, their systematic study can and should provide answers to some vexing general questions, such as whether ethnicity is an invented or authentic phenomenon, whether ethnic identity is inherent or conditional on environmental factors, whether or not it is a permanent feature of postmodern life, and whether or not adequate strategies exist that could reduce the tensions and conflicts associated with these groups.

To provide even more insightful answers to both the analytical and practical questions regarding the future of diasporism and diasporas, some additional issues must be studied. These studies should be conducted within the clusters set forth as follows.

The first cluster of future studies should begin by reexamining the explanatory power of the basic distinctions between the various types of diasporas, that is, transnational and transstate (Miles and Sheffer 1998); stateless and state-linked;

and historical, modern, and incipient. Because the number of diasporas is still growing, and because they develop gradually, special attention should be given to incipient diasporas. Monitoring the development of these groups systematically may produce significant information about ethnicity in general.

The second cluster should focus on the contradictory demographic trends—

that is, on the growing size and numbers of diasporas on the one hand, and assimi-lation and integration trends on the other hand. In this context, there is a need not only for studies of specific ethnic diasporas but also for further comparative stud-ies. This is because the comparative study of the phenomenon is still in its initial phase. As in other fields of academic studies, without the development of such a perspective it will be hard to construct a sound theory of diasporic existence.

It should be added that the definitional borderline between, on the one hand, individuals and groups of tourists, international migrants, guest workers, asylum seekers, and refugees who reside in host countries for long periods and, on the other hand, permanent diasporas, is still blurred. This ambiguity should be clari-fied for the sake of comparative studies of diaspora formation. When this is done it should be remembered that, for profound emotional, political, and legal reasons, the duration that transient individuals and groups can and wish to remain in host countries before they finally make a choice about their future, or are actually al-lowed to settle down, is variable and depends on both the host governments and the migrants.

The third cluster of future research should tackle the question of the point at which migrants form new diasporas or join existing ones. Again, the main reason for the ambiguity in this respect is connected to other sensitive issues pertaining to the migration and settlement of ethnic groups. The need to clarify this aspect has not only major theoretical but also practical implications—conceptual and empiri-cal work in this direction will generate a better understanding, especially, of the

motivations of individuals and groups to undertake the heavy burdens of diasporic existence. Such studies are also necessary to facilitate assessments of the potential for further ongoing development of diasporas. But, rather than using legal defini-tions, such as the date of application for or attainment of citizenship, or using psy-chological tests, one should apply individual and collective choice models to this crucial issue in the life cycle of every migrant, as well as in the development and survival of diaspora communities.

More particularly, this is needed because in the debate over the origins and na-ture of ethnicity in general, and of ethnonational diasporas in particular, the ele-ment of autonomous choice by individuals, families, and groups has largely been overlooked. It is suggested that the working hypothesis here should be that, while in certain pluralist societies it is relatively easy to defect from ethnonational dias-poras, to integrate, and sometimes to assimilate, it is almost impossible for outsid-ers to fully assimilate into such societies, especially when these diasporans maintain special physical markers and behavioral patterns.

The fourth cluster of research and studies should deal with the main theoreti-cal issue that still requires further exploration. The question is why—despite indi-vidual and collective hardships, multiple crosscutting and frequently contradictory forces, such as culturally assimilationist versus tolerant-pluralist, socially absorp-tive versus xenophobic, politically conflictual versus accommodationist, economi-cally equalizing versus discriminatory, as well as the effects of modernization, mass communication, demographic inferiority, and territorial concentration or disper-sal, which are at work in the international arena as well as in host countries’ do-mestic affairs—members of ethnic diasporas maintain their identity, connections with their homelands, patterns of organization, and determination to maintain a certain degree of freedom of collective action?

Here, the applicability of available theoretical explanations about the elusive issue of ethnogenesis and the revival of ethnic minorities, namely, the primordial-ist, cultural/ideological conflict, economic modernization, rational choice, conflict migration, migration orders and crises, and imagined communities, all should be reconsidered and reevaluated. For it seems that none of such explanations per se are sufficient to unravel the vexing riddles of the revival of historical diasporas, the reorganization of modern diasporas, the awakening of dormant diasporas, and the establishment of new diasporas. It appears that the most promising avenue toward a theory is to combine the cultural-symbolic and personal and collective choice ap-proaches with a focus on elite/grassroots interactive behavior.

The fifth cluster should include further analyses of the fundamental reasons for the adoption of and changes in the main strategies diaspora communities pursue in their host countries to ensure their continued existence. These can be arranged on a spectrum that includes assimilation, integration, communalism, corporatism, autonomism, separation, and irredentism. A better understanding of the reasons for their adoption is significant because the type of strategy adopted by a diaspora indicates how it perceives its environments and, in turn, its relations not only with host society and government but also with homeland and other dispersed seg-ments of the same nation. In this context, it should be ascertained if indeed the

strategy of full assimilation into their respective host societies has become less fashionable among both older and newer diasporas. A reexamination of this factor should begin with the working hypothesis that the motivations and reasons for mi-grating out of the homeland are not decisive in determining the nature of the com-munity that is later established in the host country. It should also be considered

strategy of full assimilation into their respective host societies has become less fashionable among both older and newer diasporas. A reexamination of this factor should begin with the working hypothesis that the motivations and reasons for mi-grating out of the homeland are not decisive in determining the nature of the com-munity that is later established in the host country. It should also be considered