Metadata of the chapter that will be visualized online
Chapter Title Transnational Migration Theory
Copyright Year 2014
Copyright Holder Springer Science+Business Media New York
Corresponding Author Family Name Upegui-Hernandez
Particle
Given Name Debora
Suffix
Division/Department Psychology Department
Organization/University University of Puerto Rico – Rio Piedras
Email [email protected]
Comp. by: V.ARUNA Stage: Galleys Chapter No.: 676 Title Name: ECPDate:11/7/13 Time:08:54:04 Page Number: 1
1 T
2 Transnational Migration Theory
3 Debora Upegui-Hernandez
4Au1 Psychology Department, University of Puerto
5 Rico – Rio Piedras,
6 Introduction
7 Given the prominent role and heated debates
8 about immigration that continue to make head-
9 lines in newspapers around the world, it would be
10 hard to deny that migration continues to be an
11 issue of great social and political concern. Migra-
12 tion literatures have proliferated in an attempt to
13 understand the processes and outcomes of these
14 movements of people becoming more interdisci-
15 plinary now than ever with contributions from
16 sociologists, demographers, economists, anthro-
17 pologists, legal scholars, postcolonialists, and
18 epidemiologists (Bhatia & Ram, 2001a; Suarez-
19 Orozco, 2002). Yet psychologists have not
20 played as big a role as one would expect (Berry,
21 2001; Deaux, 2000;Mahalingam, 2006) in under-
22 standing the social and psychological effects of
23 the phenomenon of human migration. Transna-
24 tional perspectives have been advanced mostly
25 by anthropologists, sociologists, and some polit-
26 ical scientists. They build on work about
27 “diasporic communities” which are considered
28 groups of people displaced or exiled from their
29 countries of origin without the possibility of
30 return but who maintained psychological, social,
31 economic, and political ties with a common past
32and future that may or may not involve
33a nation-state or home country (Clifford, 1994).
34This entry introduces critical psychologists to
35a transnational perspective for understanding
36how human migration and changes in the dynam-
37ics of incorporation of (im)migrants and their
38children create and transform individual and col-
39lective identities, subjectivities, longings, every-
40day practices, and relationships.
41The concepts of “nation” and “nation-states”
42are usually intertwined in our minds and in social
43and psychological research. In this time and
44age, it is hard to talk about nations without talking
45about nation-states. But this is not a coincidence.
46When one considers the concept of “nations,” one
47almost immediately thinks of the governments
48and nation-states associated with them which
49reifies how successful nation-state building pro-
50jects have been in rendering those ideas as “taken
51for granted” and unquestionable. Wimmer and
52Glick-Schiller argued that the methodological
53nationalism of social sciences “assume[s] that
54countries are the natural units for comparative
55studies, equate[s] society with nation-state, and
56conflate[s] national interests with the purposes of
57social sciences” (2003, p. 578). Recent research
58on theories of transnationalism deconstructs
59these concepts within social sciences and migra-
60tion research and highlights their social and polit-
61ical construction. The concept of transnational
62social fields extends what psychology and soci-
63ology have theorized as social fields and elabo-
64rates on how globalization and transnational
65border crossings constitute new transnational
T. Teo (ed.), Encyclopedia of Critical Psychology, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4614-5583-7,# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014
Comp. by: V.ARUNA Stage: Galleys Chapter No.: 676 Title Name: ECPDate:11/7/13 Time:08:54:04 Page Number: 2
66 spaces where social relationships and lives are
67 simultaneously affected by multiple geographi-
68 cal, economic, social, and political realities.
69 Definitions
70 Transnational theory has often been criticized as
71 having a lack of clarity in defining its scope of
72 study and what it is and is not. As a relatively
73 emerging area of study, transnationalism and its
74 proponents have worked to achieve a conceptual
75 clarity as the field develops. Transnational migra-
76 tion is then defined as “a process of movement
77 and settlement across international borders in
78 which individuals maintain or build multiple
79 networks of connection to their country of origin
80 while at the same time settling in a new country”
81 (Fouron & Glick-Schiller, 2001, p. 60). One of
82 the most important implications of this definition
83 is the understanding that immigrants and their
84 families continue to have relationships with
85 their home countries despite the fact that they
86 migrated to another country. Most traditional
87 psychological research about the experiences of
88 immigrants (i.e., Berry, 1997, 2001; Deaux,
89 2000; LaFromboise, Coleman, & Gerton, 1993;
90 see also Deaux, 2006 and Suarez-Orozco, 2002
91 for a review and critique of psychological
92 research about immigrants) has denied or ignored
93 this fact of life as immigrants and has centered
94 solely on how they fair in the new contexts.
95 Although it has received less attention and
96 it less often used as a term, the proponents of
97 transnational migration called “transmigrants”
98 as those individuals who live their lives simulta-
99 neously crossing national borders, be it physi-
100 cally, socially, or politically. In other words,
101 those individuals who maintain a dual reference
102 point of sociopolitical membership by travelling
103 to visit relatives in their home country, keeping
104 up to date with home country news, participating
105 politically and economically in their home coun-
106 try by sending remittances, or investing capital at
107 the same time that they incorporate themselves in
108 their host country’s society.
109 The concept of transnational social fields was
110 introduced by Linda Basch, Nina Glick-Schiller,
111and Cristina Szanton Blanc in 1994 as a way to
112conceptualize “the domain created by the social
113relationships of persons who visit back and
114forth in their country of origin and persons who
115remain connected even if they themselves do not
116move” (as cited by Fouron & Glick-Schiller,
1172001, p. 61). Their conception of transnational
118social fields is based on the concept of a social
119field as “an unbounded terrain of interlocking
120egocentric networks” (Glick-Schiller & Fouron,
1211999, p. 344) that cross nation-state boundaries.
122By concentrating on the concept of social fields,
123they pushed beyond the scope of social networks
124which usually refers to social relationships
125among specific persons with whom one has con-
126tact within one’s immediate geographical space
127and within national borders. Transnational social
128fields encompass social spaces created by the
129existence of transnational social networks and
130affect migrants beyond specific social networks
131they may have in the country in which they have
132settled. Transnational social fields as a construct
133extends what psychology and sociology have
134theorized as social fields and elaborates on
135how globalization and transnational border cross-
136ings constitute new transnational spaces where
137social relationships and lives are simultaneously
138affected by multiple geographical, economic,
139social, and political realities. Sharing a social
140and psychological space with family members
141and friends no longer requires geographical prox-
142imity or face-to-face interaction, which has tradi-
143tionally been the focus of social networks, social
144support, and identity theorists (Vertovec, 2009).
145It also provides the basis for the formation of
146transnational social groups and diasporas by
147facilitating the perception of common character-
148istics among migrants who maintain transna-
149tional ties and relationships.
150Keywords
151Transnationalism; transnational identity; dias-
152poras; transnational social fields; social networks
T 2 Transnational Migration Theory
Comp. by: V.ARUNA Stage: Galleys Chapter No.: 676 Title Name: ECPDate:11/7/13 Time:08:54:05 Page Number: 3
153 History
154 Different disciplines in the social and behavioral
155 sciences have approached the question of how
156 immigrants are incorporated into the contexts
157 where they chose to settle upon migration differ-
158 ently. A transnational perspective of migration
159 emerged as a way to rescue methodologically
160 and analytically important aspects of immigrants’
161 lives that had not been given attention by migra-
162 tion scholars who ascribed to a view of society
163 guided by what Wimmer and Glick-Schiller
164 (2003) termed “methodological nationalism.”
165 Although the dilemmas encountered by immi-
166 grants since the late nineteenth century are still
167 alive, the perspectives under which they are
168 understood and examined have changed. Our
169 understanding of the social context within
170 which American migration occurs has gone
171 from “assimilation” (Au2 Alba & Nee, 1999) during
172 the early part of the twentieth century, through
173 definitions of “acculturation,” (Berry, 1997)
174 “melting pot,” “pluralism,” “segmented assimila-
175 tion,” (Portes & Rumbaut, 2001), and “salad
176 bowl” (Fernandez, 2000), among others
177 (see Deaux, 2006 for a detailed discussion).
178 These views rested on fixed definitions of
179 “home” and “host” countries that serve as points
180 of departure or arrival for the development of
181 identity among (im)migrants and the mainte-
182 nance of separate social spheres (Deaux;
183 Suarez-Orozco, 2002).
184 Theories of assimilation have been advanced
185 largely by sociologists and date to the beginning
186 of the twentieth century when the largest wave of
187 immigration, mostly of European origins, entered
188 the United States (M. M. Suarez-Orozco, 2002).
189 The assumption then was that immigrants would
190 eventually assimilate into American culture,
191 leaving behind their old country views and
192 attachments. Assimilation was understood as “a
193 process of change that is directional- indeed
194 unilinear-nonreversible, and continuous”
195 (Suarez-Orozco, p. 24). Suarez-Orozco outlined
196 three main assumptions in the dominant dis-
197 course about the assimilation of immigrants: the
198 “clean break,” the “homogeneity,” and the “pro-
199 gress” assumptions. The first meant that
200immigrants were expected or understood to be
201moving from their home country to a host country
202without hopes or thoughts of returning. The sec-
203ond assumed that immigrants would, over gener-
204ations, become part of mainstream American
205society. Finally, assimilation theory expected
206that later generations would do better than their
207immigrant parents and experience upward social
208mobility.
209Recent waves of immigrants have made
210evident the inadequacy of traditional assumptions
211behind assimilation theories (Kasinitz, Waters,
212Mollenkopf, & Anil, 2002; Portes & Rumbaut,
2132001; Waldinger, 2004) and shown them to be
214problematic. First, more recent immigrants con-
215tinue to arrive mainly from Asia (over 25 %) and
216Latin America (50 %) which makes it harder to
217assume that their children will be incorporated as
218“white ethnics” in the same way as third- and
219fourth-generation Irish and Italians (Suarez-
220Orozco, 2002). Second, immigrants “of color”
221are experiencing continued discrimination and
222racism which undermines the possibilities for
223later generations to be more successful than
224their immigrant parents (Farley & Alba, 2002).
225Third, more recent immigrants are maintaining
226social, economic, and political ties with
227their countries of origin with greater intensity
228and ease (Eckstein & Barberia, 2002; Hirsch,
2292000). Proponents of assimilation (i.e., Alba &
230Nee, 1999) and segmented assimilation
231(i.e., Portes & Rumbaut, 2001) theories have
232responded to critics by refining their models.
233However these refined models still center on the
234study of experiences of (im)migrants as if they
235were bounded by or restricted to their lives in
236their host countries.
237On the other hand, the acculturation
238perspective has received more attention within
239psychology (Berry, 1997; Bhatia & Ram,
2402001a; Colic-Peisker & Walker, 2003;
241LaFromboise et al., 1993). Berry used the con-
242cept of acculturation to describe the process
243whereby a cultural group experiences changes
244as it comes into contact with another cultural
245group. Berry’s model of psychological accultur-
246ation suggested four paths or outcomes for immi-
247grants: integration, assimilation, separation/
Transnational Migration Theory 3 T
Comp. by: V.ARUNA Stage: Galleys Chapter No.: 676 Title Name: ECPDate:11/7/13 Time:08:54:05 Page Number: 4
248 segregation, or marginalization. Inherent in his
249 theorizing was the assumption that integration
250 was the best possible outcome where “there is
251 some degree of cultural integrity maintained,
252 while at the same time seeking to participate as
253 an integral part of the larger social network.”
254 (Berry, p. 9) Those who find themselves in other
255 cells of the 2 � 2 matrix would experience psy-
256 chological stress to varying degrees.Au3 The empha-
257 sis on psychological stress as a result of the
258 process of acculturation and the understanding
259 that, despite individual differences and diverse
260 contexts, Berry and his colleagues assumed
261 a universalist perspective on acculturation
262 (Au4 Berry & Sam, 1997 as cited by Bhatia & Ram,
263 2001b).
264 Cross-cultural psychologists have used this
265 perspective to understand what psychological
266 changes occur in the process of immigration. In
267 other words, they focus on how the individual
268 adapts to a different society and culture as they
269 migrate from one country to another.
270 LaFromboise et al. Gerton, (1993) argued that,
271 to a great extent, the acculturation approach
272 maintained assumptions similar to those held by
273 the assimilation approach with regard to adopting
274 the mainstream culture, the existence of
275 a hierarchy among the different groups coming
276 into contact, and understanding the process as
277 a unidirectional one. However, acculturation dif-
278 fers from assimilation in so far as it allows for
279 understanding that adapting to a new culture and
280 context does not require that the immigrant group
281 stop identifying with its culture and its country of
282 origin.
283 Transnational perspectives have been
284 advanced mostly by anthropologists, sociolo-
285 gists, and some political scientists. They build
286 on work about “diasporic communities.” As
287 Clifford puts it “[t]he centering of diasporas
288 around an axis of origin and return overrides the
289 specific local interactions (identifications and
290 “dis-identifications,” both constructive and
291 defensive) necessary for the maintenance of dia-
292 sporic social forms. The empowering paradox of
293 a diaspora is that dwelling here assumes
294 a solidarity and connection there. But there is
295 not necessarily a single place or an exclusivist
296nation” (1994, p. 322 emphasis added). These
297diasporic communities were usually dispersed
298among a number of different locales, i.e., the
299African diaspora, which includes people of Afri-
300can descent in the United States, the Caribbean,
301Central and South America, or the Jewish dias-
302pora and their histories are intimately tied to
303histories of colonialism and postcolonialism, of
304power, oppression, and economic dependence.
305According to Safran, what defines a diaspora is
306“a history of dispersal, myths/memories of the
307homeland, alienation in the host (bad host?)
308country, desire for eventual return, ongoing sup-
309port of the homeland, and a collective identity
310importantly defined by this relationship” (1991,
311as cited by Clifford, 1994, p. 305) which has its
312origins in Black British Cultural Studies through
313the theorizing of Stuart Hall, Paul Gilroy, and
314James Clifford and gained currency in
315postcolonial theory (Clifford).
316More recently, diasporas have come to be
317understood as one type of transnational commu-
318nity (Levitt, 2000) defined as:
319. . . rooted in particular, bounded sending- and
320receiving-country locales. Because they emerged
321from the social networks that precipitate migration,
322members tend to know one another personally or
323have family members or acquaintances in common
324during the early phases of community formation.
325They form organizations that express their identity
326as a transnational group. They exhibit some level of
327self-consciousness about belonging to
328a community spanning borders. . .Transnational329communities include both migrants and non-
330migrants, though the nature of non-migrant partic-
331ipation varies considerably. (2000, p. 461)
332[Levitt acknowledges that using the term
333“community” does not imply that all members
334have a sense of affinity or solidarity with one
335another].
336Diasporic and transnational perspectives
337acknowledge that immigrants participate both in
338their homelands/home countries while they
339incorporate into their host countries.
340The concept of “transnational social fields”
341allows us to bring together into a single field
342of analysis immigrants’ life experiences
343from different times (past, present, and future)
344and different locations (home country, host
T 4 Transnational Migration Theory
Comp. by: V.ARUNA Stage: Galleys Chapter No.: 676 Title Name: ECPDate:11/7/13 Time:08:54:05 Page Number: 5
345 country, homeland, country of residence).
346 Although, Basch and colleagues (1994) devel-
347 oped the concept of transnational social fields as
348 an elaboration of Bourdieu’s concept of social
349 fields, “social fields” as a concept has its origins
350 in psychological field theory. Ironically, once
351 social fields as a concept migrated to sociological
352 theory, its origins in psychological theory were
353 forgotten. According to several accounts (Bargal,
354 2006; Lewin, 1997 (1948, 1951); Martin, 2003),
355 Kurt Lewin introduced the concept of psycholog-
356 ical and social space/field to the repertoire of
357 social psychologists in his book Field Theory in
358 Social Science (1951). Lewin’s theorizing was
359 influenced by Gestalt theory and primarily devel-
360 oped the implications of field theory for under-
361 standing the psychological field/space of an
362 individual. In the late 1960s, field theory
363 reappeared in sociology in Pierre Bourdieu’s
364 work. According to Swartz (1997 as cited by
365 Martin), Bourdieu credited Lewin’s field theory
366 for having a major role in his sociological theo-
367 rizing of social spaces and field theory. Although
368 Bourdieu (2008) did not hold in high regard the
369 psychologists of his time, his theorizing of social
370 fields, habitus, and different domains that define
371 social spaces (such as economic, cultural, social,
372 and symbolic capital) have much in common
373 with social psychological concepts and
374 epistemologies.
375 A more qualitative and narrative inquiry line
376 of cross-cultural psychology has taken a different
377 approach to the study of multiple identities
378 among immigrants using a postcolonial studies
379 perspective and focusing on transmigration,
380 border-crossing, and diasporic identities (Bhatia,
381 2002; Bhatia & Ram, 2001a, b; Hart &
382 Lindegger, 2002; Tappan, 2005). Bathia consid-
383 ered the consequences that postcolonial relations
384 and relations of economic dependence between
385 “first” and “third” world have on migration pat-
386 terns and the subsequent formation of what he
387 calls diasporic identities within transnational
388 migration. In many ways, this line of narrative
389 dialogical analysis of immigrant’s experiences
390 acknowledges the existence and role of transna-
391 tional social spheres among immigrant commu-
392 nities. In order to carry out their analysis, Bhatia
393and Ram (2001a, b) conceived immigration as
394a dialogical process “that involves a constant
395moving back and forth between incompatible
396cultural positions” (Bhatia, p. 57). Their
397postcolonial critique of assimilation and accul-
398turation strategies revolves around the belief that
399“acculturation is not a matter of individual
400strategy . . . Rather, the formation of immigrant
401identities in diasporic communities involves
402a constant process of negotiation, intervention
403and mediation that is shaped by issues of race,
404gender, sexuality and power” (Bhatia, p. 59).
405Early research on transnationalism and trans-
406national migration dealt with the need to under-
407mine assimilation, acculturation, and
408incorporation theories’ inadequacy to study the
409phenomenon of living across borders in an
410increasingly globalized society (Levitt & Glick-
411Schiller, 2004). First, they needed to open up
412a space for their theories of transnationalism to
413be considered seriously, as offering a different
414and important contribution to immigration the-
415ory. Then, they found the need to support their
416claims with empirical research and to convince
417scholars that this was a worthwhile approach for
418mainstream migration theorists to consider
419(Levitt, DeWind, & Vertovec, 2003). Although
420transnationalism is not in itself a new phenome-
421non, its use as an analytical lens in migration
422theory dates from the 1990s. As a theoretical
423perspective, it continues to evolve and refine its
424conceptual and methodological premises as
425evidenced in the publication of special issues in
4261999 by Ethnic and Racial Studies and in 2003 by
427International Migration Review (see Levitt et al.,
4282003; see Portes, Guarnizo, & Landolt, 1999;
429Vertovec, 2009 for an extended review of criti-
430cism and debates in the field).
431Although women increasingly comprise
432a large proportion of migrants within and across
433national borders (Ghosh, 2009; Massey, Fischer,
434& Capoferro, 2006), migration research and pol-
435icy has largely focused on male migrants or has
436lacked a gender perspective. Within the frame of
437transnationalism, work that takes gender seri-
438ously as an important part of migration processes
439has begun to surface (i.e., Hondagneu-Sotelo,
4402003). Hondagneu-Sotelo argues that the
Transnational Migration Theory 5 T
Comp. by: V.ARUNA Stage: Galleys Chapter No.: 676 Title Name: ECPDate:11/7/13 Time:08:54:06 Page Number: 6
441 relationship between gender and migration
442 research has evolved in three stages. A first
443 stage focused on remedying the exclusion of
444 women in research. For example, pioneering
445 research by Saskia Sassen (1984) explored how
446 the relationship between changes in national and
447 international labor markets affected women’s
448 migration from rural areas to urban cities and
449 how this internal migration related to an increase
450 in women’s international migration. A second
451 stage was marked by efforts to move beyond
452 a Women and Migration focus to a Gender and
453 Migration framework (e.g., Grasmuck & Pessar,
454 1991; Hondagneu-Sotelo, 1994; and Kibria,
455 1993), which examines gender as a social con-
456 struct and how it operates as set of dynamics and
457 processes that reinforce gender inequalities. For
458 example, Grasmuck and Pessar’s (1991) book
459 represented an effort to understand how Domin-
460 ican migration extended beyond one single gen-
461 eration and created the conditions for circular
462 migration. In the process, they analyzed the role
463 of women in these circuits of migration. A third
464 stage embraces gender itself as a constitutive
465 element of migration and highlights the role
466 of transnational connections in the experience of
467 gendered migration (e.g., Gold, 2003; Goldring,
468 2003; Jones-Correa, 1998). For example, Sarah
469 Mahler (2001) explores Central American migra-
470 tion, more specifically Salvadorian, and portrays
471 the precarious situation in which wives of male
472 immigrant Salvadorian workers found them-
473 selves upon their husbands’ emigration. Despite
474 this research, the fact remains that studies about
475 the intersection of immigration and gender are
476 relatively scarce and continue to be done mostly
477 by women (Hondagneu-Sotelo, 2003; Pessar &
478 Mahler, 2001). Yet, psychologists remain absent
479 from the discussion of international migration
480 and its gendered character, with very few excep-
481 tions (e.g., Espin, 2006; Mahalingam, Balan, &
482 Haritatos, 2008).
483 Traditional Debates
484 From its appearance as a methodological and
485 conceptual tool in the early 1990s, transnational
486migration has raised concerns about specific
487issues which have been debated by scholars
488reaching agreement over some and not others.
489Although a transnational perspective is under-
490stood to be a novel methodological and concep-
491tual lens to approach the study of migrants’
492experiences, scholars now agree that as an expe-
493rience is it not new. Migrants have lived and
494maintain transnational ties early on in history by
495writing letters, participating in national liberation
496movements from abroad, and as expatriates long
497before the term began to be used in the social
498sciences. However transnational practices have
499increased in quantity, diversity, and extent with
500the advent of new technologies in communication
501and transportation. A transnational lens differs
502from the concept of “Global” by localizing
503migrants’ experiences in the reality of living
504among specific nation-states as they crossed
505their borders, however their claims still make
506reference to localized states and not a global
507post-national reality where boundaries do not
508exist. Boundaries and frontiers are still very real
509and a part of their experience of crossing them.
510Most transnational scholars recognize that
511migrants may, as a result of their experience of
512crossing boundaries, develop multiple identities,
513have multiple points of reference, experience
514bifocal lives, and feel attached to more than one
515nation-state or territory. While early on some
516scholars felt divided over whether bifocality and
517transnational experiences that involve sustained
518involvement with the home country were mutu-
519ally exclusive of experiences of assimilation or
520integration in the host country, contemporary
521research has shown that participation and integra-
522tion in host countries and maintenance of trans-
523national connections with the home country can
524co-occur without negatively affecting each other.
525One does not negate the other. Moreover one may
526facilitate the other. Another area of debate arises
527from the question of who is considered to be
528a transnational or transmigrant because even
529those who maintain transnational connections
530may or may not use the language of transnation-
531alism to describe their experiences of living in
532between worlds.
T 6 Transnational Migration Theory
Comp. by: V.ARUNA Stage: Galleys Chapter No.: 676 Title Name: ECPDate:11/7/13 Time:08:54:06 Page Number: 7
533 Early transnational migration research was
534 critiqued for the lack of consideration of the role
535 of gender dynamics. It was criticized, much like
536 migration research in general, for focusing on the
537 experience of male migrants as though they were
538 the only ones who migrated. Feminist scholars
539 have made great contributions that highlight not
540 only the existence and extent of female migration
541 but also how important a role they have in today’s
542 migration circuits and transnational connections
543 by supporting family and children through their
544 migrant labor. They are also uncovering the
545 diverse ways in which their experience as migrant
546 women is altering gender dynamics in host and
547 home countries as well. Scholars are also divided
548 about how permanent transnational ties were and
549 whether they would continue through time into
550 future generations which brought about
551 a methodological change to focus on second-
552 generation immigrants (or children of immi-
553 grants). Scholars were divided in their opinions
554 about whether the children would continue to
555 maintain an attachment to their parents’ home
556 country or not. Although there is no definite
557 answer, recent studies have demonstrated that
558 many children of immigrants do maintain trans-
559 national connections even though they may not
560 be as strong or often as their parents. Future
561 studies can help identify motives and conse-
562 quences of maintaining such ties. Another area
563 of contention that remains is how important are
564 transnational connections and whether extent and
565 type of connection are an important variable to
566 consider when assessing its importance as an
567 explanation variable that merits further research.
568 Critical Debates
569 The ethnicity of immigrants usually involves
570 a different categorization within their home
571 countries. Therefore we should reconsider
572 whether the concept of “ethnicity” needs to be
573 reevaluated and understood in the context of
574 transnational social fields that involve more than
575 one nation-state as their point of reference.
576 Certainly, it points to the inadequacy of ethnic
577 labels that double as national identity labels. The
578fact that immigrants identify with ethnic labels
579such as Dominican, Puerto Rican,Mexican, Peru-
580vian, and Irish does not mean that immigrants
581understand them to be ethnic identity labels.
582Overemphasized categorization of (im)migrants
583using ethno-boundaries or national labels can
584render invisible the reality of those who do not
585identify with them and instead might gather
586around issues like labor, religion, and social
587struggles (e.g., immigrants who do not identify
588with a national origin label but might instead feel
589compelled to act to denounce labor or immigra-
590tion law issues with others who are immigrant
591workers from their same national origin or not).
592Time and space are important variables to high-
593light when looking at transnational migration,
594especially because the circumstances under
595which migration occurs and the transnational
596connections that are made possible
597are intimately tied to the political, social, and
598economic circumstances dictated by the time
599and space in which they occur. There has recently
600been some work that explores how race dynamics
601and beliefs are affected and/or constructed
602through transnational migration (Upegui-
603Hernandez, 2010).
604Transnational theories have been criticized for
605overemphasizing the process as liberating, posi-
606tive, grass roots, and based on individual’s
607agency. Researchers have begun to warn against
608some of the possible negative aspects of transna-
609tionalism like the reification of elite social classes
610and political systems across borders (Smith,
6112003) and how in some cases, like Haiti, transna-
612tional nation-states discourses use hegemonic
613nationalistic discourses to “channel energy and
614resources away from struggles for social and eco-
615nomic justice” ( Au5Glick-Schiller & Fouron, 1999,
616p. 358). Despite the potential for countering and
617transgressing boundaries and exercising agency
618through their movements across national bound-
619aries, structures and social hierarchies find ways
620to reinstate themselves in the midst of transna-
621tional connections. The constitution of social
622power and privilege has not been investigated as
623much within transnational circuits. It is important
624to remember that for every push from below, one
625can expect to see a push from above. As much as
Transnational Migration Theory 7 T
Comp. by: V.ARUNA Stage: Galleys Chapter No.: 676 Title Name: ECPDate:11/7/13 Time:08:54:07 Page Number: 8
626 migrants questioned and challenged national bor-
627 ders and rules, so have sending and receiving
628 governments worked at redefining and
629 reestablishing control of physical, ideological,
630 and imaginary borders. As governments appro-
631 priate and find ways to benefit from the remit-
632 tances and sociopolitical influence that their
633 emigrants may hold in host countries, there is
634 a lot of potential for their exploitation and
635 abuse, especially by sending countries who are
636 not necessarily working to extend political and
637 social protections to emigrants but are definitely
638 finding ways to benefit from the product of their
639 labor.
640 International and Practical Relevance
641 Transnational migration and using a transnational
642 perspective is extremely relevant at the interna-
643 tional level since migration is inherently an inter-
644 national phenomenon that involves crossing
645 social, economic, and political boundaries,
646 established and validated by international laws
647 and treaties. Using a transnational lens to view
648 and study migration helps us understand that any
649 rules and policies that aim at regularizing or
650 managing migration should not be made unilat-
651 erally and should recognize the universal right to
652 free movement upheld by the United Nations.
653 Policies imposed by individual countries and
654 attempts to close frontiers have not been success-
655 ful at eliminating transnational ties and involve-
656 ment. Transnational studies have evidenced how
657 actors and individuals involved in migration
658 find ways to circumvent the effect of restricting
659 policies aimed at reinstating the rigidity of
660 nation-state borders. At the same time, many
661 emigrant-sending countries and small national
662 economies increasingly depend on fostering
663 remittances and the maintenance of transnational
664 ties among its emigrants in order to subsidize
665 their national economies. The enactment of dual
666 citizenship, laws allowing emigrants to run for
667 representation of migrants within their sending
668 countries’ political institutions, and government
669 encouragement of formal economic investments
670 of its emigrant in their home territories are a few
671examples of the relevance of transnational migra-
672tion to the arena of international affairs.
673There are several aspects of transnational
674migration that have practical relevance for the
675work of critical psychologists and should be
676explored. The definition of transnational migra-
677tion and transnational social fields begins by
678questioning our long time held assumptions
679about our definitions and conceptualizations of
680society within psychological research and prac-
681tice. Transnational migration unveils to critical
682psychologists the realities of transnational
683connections (social, physical, economic, or ideo-
684logical) which have mainly being ignored in our
685understanding and treatment of (im)migrants’
686psychological realities. Restrictive migration
687and deportation policies have psychological con-
688sequences for the well-being of migrants and
689their children (Dreby, 2012). Social networks
690represent well-documented sources of support,
691happiness, and resiliency within psychological
692research, yet negating access to such transna-
693tional social networks to immigrants and their
694families is equivalent to denying them access to
695psychological well-being and causing emotional
696and psychological harm (Upegui-Hernandez,
6972010). In addition, (im)migrants who live trans-
698national lives have access to multiple ways of
699▶ seeing, being, and understanding the world
700which can be seen as an opportunity to question
701taken-for-granted ways of doing, being, and
702seeing the world within specific nation-states
703and can help highlight possibilities for
704questioning social injustice and envisioning new
705ways to deconstruct power and privilege
706(Upegui-Hernandez, 2010).
707Future Direction
708Despite the enormous potential for understanding
709and focusing on human interaction and interper-
710sonal relationships inherent in the uses of trans-
711national social fields as a concept, many of these
712researchers have focused instead on the kinds of
713activities that transmigrants carry out such
714as remittances, trips to home country, phone and
715e-mail communication, transnational business
T 8 Transnational Migration Theory
Comp. by: V.ARUNA Stage: Galleys Chapter No.: 676 Title Name: ECPDate:11/7/13 Time:08:54:08 Page Number: 9
716 practices, and social/human capital (Guarnizo,
717 Sanchez, & Roach, 1999; Portes, 2003).
718 Researchers have studied the outcomes of these
719 behaviors on assimilation, acculturation, and/or
720 incorporation, their effects on ethnic identity, and
721 patterns of integration into the host country
722 (Portes, 1999). Others have focused on the impact
723 of transnational activities in the political and
724 economic development of sending countries
725 (Guarnizo & Dıaz, 1999; Smith, 2003).
726 [Although Smith (2003) makes an important dis-
727 cussion of how the political state through politi-
728 cal decisions has contributed to changing the
729 social representation of transmigrants, citizen-
730 ship, and migration in general, he also elaborates
731 on how these changing social representations
732 contribute to (re)shape peoples’ identities and
733 lives]. A few others have begun to question how
734 transnational ties redefine our understanding
735 of sociological constructs such as motherhood,
736 parenting, citizenship, and loyalty (Hondagneu-
737 Sotelo & Avila, 1997, 2003; Mahler, 2001).
738 While research on transnational ties is impor-
739 tant for understanding the process of migration
740 and ▶ transmigration, the psychological impor-
741 tance of transnational ties for immigrants and
742 nonimmigrants remains neglected. In addition,
743 there has been little room for discussing variation
744 by nation, language, color, gender, class, or
745 sexuality among immigrants’ experiences. In
746 a recent article, Vertovec (2004 also 2009) notes
747 social science literature on transnational mainly
748 focused on understanding the social organization,
749 specific political and economic practices, and
750 institutions of transnationalism, while questions
751 about motivations, meanings, attitudes, feelings
752 and people’s agency in these transnational pro-
753 cesses remained largely absent. Beyond that,
754 transnational “dispositions and practices have
755 substantial impact on individual and family life
756 course and strategies, individuals’ sense of self
757 and collective belonging, the ordering of personal
758 and group memories, patterns of consumption,
759 collective sociocultural practices, approaches
760 to childrearing and other modes of cultural
761 reproduction.” (Vertovec, p. 977).
762 From a psychological point of view, the con-
763 cept of immigrants’ “bifocal” orientation to life is
764perhaps the most interesting. Vertovec uses the
765term “bifocality” to refer to findings that describe
766how immigrants maintain a “dual frame of refer-
767ence” where they “constantly compare their situ-
768ation in their ‘home’ society to their situation in
769the ‘host’ society abroad” (2004, p. 974
770paraphrasing Guarnizo, 1997). This feeling of
771simultaneously being here and there, of double
772belonging, is described by Golbert (2001) as
773a “double consciousness” that develops in
774maintaining and participating in transnational
775social fields and having a transnational concep-
776tion of self. Many researchers have repeatedly
777mentioned the existence of such “bifocality”/
778“double consciousness” among immigrants.
779Bicultural competence was used to describe the
780ability of individuals to be aware of and draw
781from diverse cultural norms (LaFromboise
782et al., 1993). In an effort to understand bicultural
783individuals’ experiences, (Hong, Morris, Chiu, &
784Benet-Martinez, 2000, 2003) have more recently
785advocated for adopting a dynamic constructivist
786approach to the study of culture and social
787cognition, which they used to construct a theory
788of cultural frame switching in response to social
789and cognitive heuristic cues among bicultural
790individuals. More specifically cultural frame
791switching involves using different cultural inter-
792pretative frames to respond to diverse contexts
793and situations, which include changes in the
794meanings attached to each cultural frame
795(Pouliasi & Verkuyten, 2007).
796 Au6References
797Alba, R., & Nee, V. (1999). Rethinking assimilation the-
798ory for a new era of immigration. In C. Hirschman,
799P. Kasinitz, & J. DeWind (Eds.), The handbook of800international migration: The American experience801(pp. 137–160). New York, NY: Russell Sage
802Foundation.
803Bargal, D. (2006). Personal and intellectual influences
804leading to Lewin’s paradigm of action research:
805Towards the 60th anniversary of Lewin’s ‘action
806research and minority problems’ (1946). Action807Research, 4(4), 367–388. doi:10.1177/
8081476750306070101.
809Berry, J. W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation and adap-
810tation. Applied Psychology, 46, 5–68.
Transnational Migration Theory 9 T
Comp. by: V.ARUNA Stage: Galleys Chapter No.: 676 Title Name: ECPDate:11/7/13 Time:08:54:08 Page Number: 10
811 Berry, J. W. (2001). A psychology of immigration.
812 Journal of Social Issues, 57(3), 615–631.813 Bhatia, S., & Ram, A. (2001a). Rethinking ‘acculturation’
814 in relation to diasporic cultures and postcolonial iden-
815 tities. Human Development, 44, 1–17.816 Bhatia, S., & Ram, A. (2001b). Locating the dialogical self
817 in the age of transnational migrations, border crossings
818 and diasporas. Culture & Psychology, 7, 297–309.819 Bhatia, S. (2002). Acculturation, dialogical voices and the
820 construction of the diasporic self. Theory & Psychol-821 ogy, 12(1), 55–77.822 Clifford, J. (1994). Diasporas. Cultural Anthropology,823 9(3), 302–338.824 Colic-Peisker, V., & Walker, I. (2003). Human capital,
825 acculturation and social identity: Bosnian refugees in
826 Australia. Journal of Community & Applied Social827 Psychology, 13, 337–360.828 Deaux, K. (2000). Surveying the landscape of immigra-
829 tion: Social psychological perspectives. Journal of830 Community & Applied Social Psychology, 10,831 421–431.
832 Deaux, K. (2006). To be an immigrant. New York, NY:
833 Russell Sage Foundation.
834 Dreby, J. (2012). The burden of deportation on children in
835 Mexican immigrant families. Journal of Marriage and836 the Family, 74, 829–845. doi:10.1111/j.1741-
837 3737.2012.00989.x.
838 Eckstein, S., & Barberia, L. (2002). Grounding immigrant
839 generations in history: Cuban Americans and their
840 transnational ties. International Migration Review,841 36(3), 799–837.842 Espin, O. (2006). Gender, sexuality, language and migra-
843 tion. In R. Mahalingam (Ed.), Cultural psychology of844 immigrants (pp. 241–258). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
845 Erlbaum Associates.
846 Farley, R., & Alba, R. (2002). The new second generation
847 in the United States. International Migration Review,848 36(3), 669–701.849 Fernandez, R. (2000). America’s banquet of cultures:850 Harnessing ethnicity, race, and immigration in the851 twenty-first century. Westport, CT: Praeger.
852 Fouron, G. E., &Glick-Schiller, N. (2001). The generation
853 of identity: Redefining the second generation within
854 a transnational social field. In H. Cordero-Guzman,
855 R. C. Smith, & R. Grosfoguel (Eds.), Migration,856 transnationalization & race in a changing New York857 (pp. 58–86). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University
858 Press.
859 Ghosh, J. (2009). Migration and gender empowerment:860 Recent trends and emerging issues. Human develop-
861 ment research article 2009/4. Washington, DC: United
862 Nations Development Program. Accessed April 2010,
863 from http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr2009/
864 articles/HDRP_2009_04.pdf
865 Glick-Schiller, N., & Fouron, G. E. (1999). Terrains of
866 blood and nation: Haitian transnational social fields.
867 Ethnic and Racial Studies, 22(2), 341–366.868 Gold, S. (2003). Israeli and Russian Jews: Gendered per-
869 spectives on settlement and return migration.
870In P. Hondagneu-Sotelo (Ed.), Gender and U.S. immi-871gration: Contemporary trends (pp. 127–150). Berke-872ley, CA: University of California Press.
873Golbert, R. (2001). Transnational orientations from home:
874Constructions of Israel and transnational space among
875Ukrainian Jewish youth. Journal of Ethnic and Migra-876tion Studies, 27(4), 713–731.877Goldring, L. (2003). Gender status and the state of trans-
878national spaces: The gendering of political participa-
879tion and Mexican hometown associations. In
880P. Hondagneu-Sotelo (Ed.),Gender and U.S. immigra-881tion: Contemporary trends (pp. 341–358). Berkeley,
882CA: University of California Press.
883Grasmuck, S., & Pessar, P. (1991). Between two islands:884Dominican international migration. Berkeley, CA:
885University of California Press.
886Guarnizo, L. E., & Dıaz, L. M. (1999). Transnational
887migration: A view from Colombia. Ethnic and Racial888Studies, 22(2), 397–421.889Guarnizo, L. E., Sanchez, A. I., & Roach, E. M. (1999).
890Mistrust, fragmented solidarity and transnational
891migration: Colombians in New York City and Los
892Angeles. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 22(2), 367–396.893Hirsch, J. S. (2000). En el norte la mujer manda: Gender,
894generation, and geography in a Mexican transnational
895community. In N. Foner, R. G. Rumbaut, & S. J. Gold
896(Eds.), Immigration research for a new century897(pp. 53–70). New York: Russell Sage Foundation
898Publications.
899Hondagneu-Sotelo, P. (1994).Gendered transitions: Mex-900ican experiences of immigration. Berkeley, CA:
901University of California Press.
902Hondagneu-Sotelo, P. (2003). Gender and U.S. immigra-903tion: Contemporary trends. Berkeley, CA: University904of California Press.
905Hondagneu-Sotelo, P., & Avila, E. (1997). “I’m here, but
906I’m there”. The meanings of Latina transnational
907motherhood. Gender and Society, 11(5), 548–571.908Hong, Y., Morris, M. W., Chiu, C., & Benet-Martinez, V.
909(2000). Multicultural minds: A dynamic constructivist
910approach to culture and cognition. American Psychol-911ogist, 55(7), 709–720.912Jones-Correa, M. (1998). Between two nations: The polit-913ical predicament of Latinos in New York City. Ithaca,914NY: Cornell Press University.
915Kasinitz, P., Waters, M. C., Mollenkopf, J. H., & Anil, M.
916(2002). Transnationalism and the children of immi-
917grants in contemporary New York. In P. Levitt &
918M. C. Waters (Eds.), The changing face of home the919transnational lives of the second generation920(pp. 96–122). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
921Kibria, N. (1993). Family tightrope: The changing lives of922Vietnamese Americans. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
923University Press.
924LaFromboise, T., Coleman, H. L. K., & Gerton, J. (1993).
925Psychological impact of biculturalism: Evidence and
926theory. Psychological Bulletin, 114(3), 395–412.927Levitt, P. (2000). Migrants participate across borders:
928Towards an understanding of forms and consequences.
T 10 Transnational Migration Theory
Comp. by: V.ARUNA Stage: Galleys Chapter No.: 676 Title Name: ECPDate:11/7/13 Time:08:54:10 Page Number: 11
929 In N. Foner & R. G. Rumbaut (Eds.), Immigration930 research for a new century (pp. 459–479). New
931 York: Russell Sage Foundation.
932 Levitt, P., & Glick-Schiller, N. (2004). Conceptualizing
933 simultaneity: A transnational social field perspective
934 on society. International Migration Review, 38(3),935 1002–1039.
936 Levitt, P., DeWind, J., & Vertovec, S. (2003). Interna-
937 tional perspectives on transnational migration: An
938 introduction. International Migration Review, 37(3),939 565–575.
940Au7 Lewin, K. (1997) Resolving social conflicts and field the-941 ory in social science (G. W. Lewin, Ed.). American
942 Psychological Association.
943 Mahalingam, R. (2006). Cultural psychology of immi-
944 grants: An introduction. In R. Mahalingam (Ed.),
945 Cultural psychology of immigrants (pp. 1–12).
946 Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
947 Publishers.
948 Mahalingam, R., Balan, S., & Haritatos, J. (2008). Engen-
949 dering immigrant psychology: An intersectionality
950 perspective. Sex Roles, 59(5), 326–336.951 Mahler, S. (2001). Suburban transnational migrants: Long
952 Island’s Salvadorians. In H. R. Cordero-Guzman,
953 R. C. Smith, & R. Grosfoguel (Eds.), Migration,954 transnationalization & race in a changing New York955 (pp. 109–130). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University
956 Press.
957 Martin, J. L. (2003). What s field theory? The American958 Journal of Sociology, 109(1), 1–49. doi:10.1086/
959 375201.
960 Massey, D., Fischer, M., & Capoferro, C. (2006). Interna-
961 tional migration and gender in Latin America:
962 A comparative analysis. International Migration,963 44(5), 63–91.964Au8 Pessar, P. R., & Mahler, S. (2001). Gender and transna-965 tional migration. Article presented at transnational
966 migration: Comparative perspectives conference at
967 Princeton University: Princeton, NJ.
968 Portes, A. (1999). Conclusion: Towards a new world- the
969 origins and effects of transnational activities. Ethnic970 and Racial Studies, 22(2), 463–477.971 Portes, A., & Rumbaut, R. G. (2001). Legacies the story of972 the immigrant second generation. Berkeley, CA:
973 University of California Press.
974 Portes, A., Guarnizo, L. E., & Landolt, P. (1999). The
975 study of transnationalism: Pitfalls and promise of an
976 emergent research field. Ethnic and Racial Studies,977 22(2), 217–237.978 Pouliasi, K., & Verkuyten, M. (2007). Networks of mean-
979 ing and the bicultural mind: A structural equation
980modeling approach. Journal of Experimental Social981Psychology, 43(6), 955–963.982Sassen, S. (1984). Notes on the incorporation of third
983world women into wage-labor through immigration
984and off-shore production. International Migration985Review – Special Issue on Women in Migration,98618(4), 1144–1167.987Sorensen, N. N. (1998). Narrating identity across Domin-
988ican worlds. In M. P. Smith & L. E. Guarnizo (Eds.),
989Transnationalism from below (pp. 241–269). New
990Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
991Suarez-Orozco, M. M. (2002). Everything you ever
992wanted to know about assimilation but were afraid to
993ask. In R. A. Shweder, M. Minow, & H. R. Markus
994(Eds.), Engaging cultural differences: The multicul-995tural challenge in liberal democracies (pp. 19–42).
996New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
997Upegui-Hernandez, D. (2010). Because I’m neither998Gringa nor Latina, because I am not any one thing:999Children of Colombian and Dominican immigrants1000negotiating identities within (trans)national social1001fields. Dissertation. New York: City University of
1002New York. http://gradworks.umi.com/3426937.pdf.
1003Vertovec, S. (2004). Migrant transnationalism and modes
1004of transformation. International Migration Review,100538(3), 970–999.1006Vertovec, S. (2009). Transnationalism. New York:
1007Routledge.
1008Waldinger, R. (2004). Will the second generation experi-
1009ence ‘downward assimilation’? Segmented assimila-
1010tion re-assessed. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 27(2),1011376–402.
1012Wimmer, A., &Glick-Schiller, N. (2003). Methodological
1013nationalism, the social sciences, and the study
1014of migration: An essay on historical epistemology.
1015International Migration Review, 37(Fall), 576–610.
1016Online Resources1017Transnational Communities Programme. http://www.
1018transcomm.ox.ac.uk/
1019The Centre on Migration, Policy and Society (COMPAS).
1020http://www.compas.ox.ac.uk/
1021Migration Policy Institute. http://www.migrationpolicy.
1022org/
1023Center for Comparative Immigration Studies. http://www.
1024ccis-ucsd.org/
1025Transnational Studies Initiative. http://www.peggylevitt.
1026org/the-transnational-studies-initiative.php
Transnational Migration Theory 11 T
Comp. by: V.ARUNA Stage: Galleys Chapter No.: 676 Title Name: ECPDate:11/7/13 Time:08:54:10 Page Number: 12
Author Query Form
Encyclopedia of Critical Psychology
Chapter No: 676
___________________________________________________________________
Query Refs. Details Required Author’s response
AU1 Please provide city and country for author DeboraUpegui-Hernandez.
AU2 The citation Alba and Nee (2003) has beenchanged to Alba and Nee (1999) as per referencelist. Please check if okay.
AU3 Please check sentence starting “The emphasison. . .” for completeness.
AU4 Please provide details of Berry and Sam (1997),Basch and colleagues (1994), Bourdieu (2008),Hart and Lindegger (2002), Tappan (2005), Smith(2003), Portes (2003), Hondagneu-Sotelo and Avila(2003), Guarnizo (1997), Hong et al. (2003) in thereference list.
AU5 The citation Glick-Schiller and Fouron (1998) hasbeen changed to Glick-Schiller and Fouron (1999).Please check if okay.
AU6 Please cite Sorensen (1998) in text.
AU7 Please provide Publisher location for referenceLewin (1997).
AU8 Please provide publisher name for this reference.
