Session 5(b): Institutions

Session 5(b): Institutions
Chair: Casandra Veney

A Diaspora of Descendents?Contemporary Caledonian Society members in Melbourne, Australia – A Case Study
Kim Sullivan
University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand

Anthropologist Paul Basu has recently reminded us of the centrality of the homeland to the concept of diaspora. As such, nineteenth century Scottish emigrants exemplified diasporic consciousness via the hundreds of Caledonian Societies they established as ‘surrogate’ Scottish homelands across the British colonial world. A remarkable number have endured into the twenty-first century, despite having evolved, like their host countries, well beyond their largely immigrant origins. One of those to do so, the Royal Caledonian Society of Melbourne (1858), therefore presents an opportunity to explore current understandings of diasporic identity within a ‘Scottish’ institution whose members are no longer exclusively Scottish.
The very act of belonging to this Society is, in itself, a declaration of Scottish diasporic sensibility on the part of its members, who currently range in status from the recent Scottish immigrant all the way to the fifth-generation Australian of Scottish great-great-great-grand parentage. Yet, the sense of identification with a distant Scottish ‘homeland’ appears no less real or legitimate for those members whose connection is purely ancestral, than it is for members who were actually born and raised in Scotland before emigrating to Australia themselves.
The Royal Caledonian Society of Melbourne thus encapsulates, in microcosm, one of the key tensions presently underscoring the term ‘diaspora’—namely whether its definitional scope is broad enough to incorporate that growing global phenomenon of roots-conscious descendants, who in fact have no personal firsthand knowledge either of life in the ‘homeland’ or of the experience of leaving it—the traditional qualifiers for a diasporic claim. Within this small institution, the dynamics between émigré and descendent are played out as each brings his or her own perception of Scotland to bear on the Society.
This paper engages directly with the Society’s current members, who provided insights into their diverse individual diasporic identities as part of a questionnaire issued to them in 2007. Their responses allow us to observe the relationship between the largely imagined ‘homeland’ of the descendent and the personally remembered ‘homeland’ of the émigré, and to ask whether, intellectually, the two experiences can ever be reconciled under the single designation ‘diasporic’—a question at the heart of the present debate.

Download Conference Paper –

Securing Justice for Economic Refugees through Unionization
Mitch Avila & Edgar M. Medina
Department of Philosophy, California State University Fullerton & International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers, USA

In this paper we argue that unions are a pragmatic and practical response to moral and economic problems posed by forced economic emigration and the resulting diaspora. From the point of view of justice, undocumented international migrant labor is unjust because of routine human rights violations, the absence of effective means of legal representation, the prevalence of dangerous and exploitive working conditions, and the absence of democratic participation. In short, while reasonable citizens extend fair terms of cooperation to all members of society, undocumented workers are normally excluded from institutional structures that secure reciprocity and fairness. From the point of view of economic efficiency, undocumented labor externalizes costs (such as job safety, health care, retirement, family support, and social safety nets) onto competing host country firms and onto the home country’s social network. We demonstrate that these concerns can be addressed in a morally defensible and economically efficient manner by (a) legally authorizing union membership for any persons, foreign or national, independent of citizenship in host country, and by (b) legally authorizing employment of any union member regardless of citizenship. Essentially, we are proposing replacing ‘labor contractors’ and ‘guest worker programs’ with ‘international unions’. Unions would provide a practical and pragmatic means of redressing the most serious problems of undocumented labor, acting as a democratic representative, providing legal protection, and securing just compensation, health care, and retirement. Union interests are also advanced insofar as membership will grow and unions prosper when they pursue social justice broadly defined (as opposed to merely the membership’s financial interests). While argued for in the context of the vast Central American diaspora in the United States and the corresponding undocumented labor market, we propose this as a useful strategy for any host country seeking to treat forced economic refugees justly.
In this paper we argue that unions are a pragmatic and practical response to moral and economic problems posed by forced economic emigration and the resulting diaspora. From the point of view of justice, undocumented international migrant labor is unjust because of routine human rights violations, the absence of effective means of legal representation, the prevalence of dangerous and exploitive working conditions, and the absence of democratic participation. In short, while reasonable citizens extend fair terms of cooperation to all members of society, undocumented workers are normally excluded from institutional structures that secure reciprocity and fairness. From the point of view of economic efficiency, undocumented labor externalizes costs (such as job safety, health care, retirement, family support, and social safety nets) onto competing host country firms and onto the home country’s social network. We demonstrate that these concerns can be addressed in a morally defensible and economically efficient manner by (a) legally authorizing union membership for any persons, foreign or national, independent of citizenship in host country, and by (b) legally authorizing employment of any union member regardless of citizenship. Essentially, we are proposing replacing ‘labor contractors’ and ‘guest worker programs’ with ‘international unions’. Unions would provide a practical and pragmatic means of redressing the most serious problems of undocumented labor, acting as a democratic representative, providing legal protection, and securing just compensation, health care, and retirement. Union interests are also advanced insofar as membership will grow and unions prosper when they pursue social justice broadly defined (as opposed to merely the membership’s financial interests). While argued for in the context of the vast Central American diaspora in the United States and the corresponding undocumented labor market, we propose this as a useful strategy for any host country seeking to treat forced economic refugees justly.

Download Draft Conference Paper –

Diasporic Kinship vs. Civic Identity. How Institutions Mobilize Ethnic Minorities in Post-Soviet Central Asia
Olivier Ferrando
Sciences Po Paris, Department of Political Sociology, Paris, France

In 1991, the collapse of the Soviet Union turned former boundaries into international frontiers between newly sovereign states. The stranding of millions of Russians outside of their homeland received a significant scholar attention. In Central Asia, the indigenous population experienced a more anonymous ‘diasporization’, not by past migrations, but by the movement of borders across settlements. This state of fact was the result in the 20s of the territorial division of Central Asia into five full-fledged national republics, which led to major mismatches between borders and peoples. When these republics gained their independence, a reported five million indigenous people remained on the wrong side of the border. Rather than being part of their kin-state, they became diasporic communities in neighbouring host-states.
This paper addresses the issue of three such diasporas, namely the Uzbeks, the Tajiks and the Kyrgyz. It examines how their identities are subject to an institutionalization process, at different levels:

• From a state policy perspective, the paper investigates the attitude of both the kin-state (where the majority of co-ethnics reside) and the host-state (where the diaspora currently lives). It shows that Uzbekistan emphasises territoriality and statehood rather than ethnicity, and therefore ignores its diasporic Uzbeks. On the flip side, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan adopted a supportive approach towards their co-ethnics abroad, in particular through the creation of World Federations intending to embrace their respective diaspora.
• From a community approach, the paper analyzes how activists and leaders intend to frame diasporic issues to mobilize their community and claim for their rights, as a response to their nationalizing host-state. Various diasporic organizations (cultural centres, ethnic media, political parties) play a major role in the promotion of a collective membership within the diaspora, by maintaining common traditions and language practices. A special attention will be paid to the activists’ rhetoric, in the way they use purposefully the word diaspora when designating their group, but minority when claiming specific rights.
• From a grass-root level, the paper seeks to understand how individuals, either adhere to the ethnic/diasporic call, embodied by their kin-state and their community leaders, or develop a civic consciousness to better integrate their host-state. It shows that individuals make a clear distinction between, on the one hand, the private sphere, where their diasporic identity prevails, and on the other hand, the public sphere, where other social dynamics are fostered to contribute actively to the society they are living in.

The paper is based on a 3-year stay in Central Asia, where interviews were conducted with state policy-makers, diasporic leaders and numerous members of the Uzbeks, Kyrgyz and Tajik diasporas.

Download Conference Paper (pdf)

Wrestling for Self-Definition in Transnational Space: A Case Study of the Identity Construction of Alevis in Turkey and Germany
Mehmet Demiray & Turgut Kerem Tuncel
Tria International and Consultancy, Istanbul, Turkey and Department of International Relations, Istanbul Bilgi University, Istanbul, Turkey

Consistent with the global trends, Turkey entered an era of “identity politics” in post-1990s. Within this era, though not heard as loud as the Islamists and the Kurds, various Alevi actors, both in Turkey and in different European countries, espousing competing narratives, established the “Alevi movement” by engaging in heated public debates on the definition of Alevism. Such search for a universalized definition of Alevism, a heterodox Islamic sect, which can hardly be classified within dominant Islamic tradition in Turkey, unveiled formerly underestimated controversies among Alevis.
The main purpose of this paper is to analyze this process with a special emphasis on the widely neglected effect of the immigrant Alevi community in Germany, which will reveal the significance of transnational networks. Three key events in this process of self-definition; the Declaration of Alevism (1990), the Constitutions of the Alevi-Bektashi Representative Council (1994), and the establishment of the Peace Party (1995), will be investigated. This investigation will demonstrate that by utilizing the transnational social space constructed between Turkey and Germany, Alevi community in Germany established itself as the dominant actor determining the discourse defining Alevism and “Alevi demands”, which Alevis in Turkey also articulated in. Within this process, Alevi movement established itself as a transnational actor by communicating directly with international actors, such as EU.
The analysis of Alevi movement enables us to reach three main conclusions. Firstly, the level of analysis in social sciences should be complimented with transnational level, rather than being limited by national/local level; i.e. any social scientific endeavor must take the transnational dimension and contribution of immigrant communities under consideration. Secondly, economic, political and symbolic capital of groups both in the homeland and host country should be accorded unbiased theoretical weight without privileging one over other. Thirdly, global context beside local contexts in home and host countries, should be scrutinized, which is effective in shaping the development of social/political movements.

Download Draft Confernce Paper –