States and international, regional and transnational actors are key actors in the governance of im/mobility.
States and international, regional and transnational actors are key actors in the governance of im/mobility.
This blog site is dedicated to the politico-historical sociology of the mobility and immobility of people in the globalized period. The blogs introduce key issues in the sociological study of migration, including migration, agency, and constraint, gender and migration, migration and inequality, migration, religion, ethnicity, nationality and “race”.
Migration occurs on a continuum ranging from unfreedom through to freedom, with migrants and non-migrants experiencing different degrees of security or precarity and different degrees of enablement or constraint. We will examine the stratification of migration and the role of migrants, states, social, economic, political and cultural contexts.
The blogs examine these issues of global (im)mobility in terms of:
Each blog will provide information and resource suggestions relating to the Global Migration lectures.
I’m Dr. Matt Merefield, a historico-political sociologist working on trans-national migration and im/mobility, drawing on historical materialist and intersectional approaches.
I’d like to start by sharing a brief transnational autobiography with you, reflecting on my situation as a subject/citizen, imbued with particular attributes of class, gender, ethnicity, nationality and “race” [video1]
This course takes a historico-political sociological and intersectional approach to understanding trans-nationalism mobility and immobility, and the relationships between the two. Thus the course uses the hyphenated term “im/mobility”.
The course is primarily concern with the im/mobility of people. We examine how im/mobility involves physical, social, and economic mobility for some, while others have their mobility restricted, are rendered immobile or, alternatively, are unable to stay (as is the case, for example, for refugees, and also for ). The course also examines contests over the desire (or ‘right’) to stay, and the conflicting relationships given to place by, for example Indigenous people and settlers, or elite and precarious residents in “global” or “world” cities such as London, Beijing and Sydney.
The course examines stratifications of im/mobility through the lens of people movements and stasis. In examining relationships between mobility an stasis we seek to understand how the mobility of some, for example, elite migrants, relates to the immobility of others such as precariously employed workers, or asylum seekers in camps and detention centres. Conversely, how does privileged stasis among elite groups related to coerced and forced mobility and ‘dis-habitation’ among precariat groups?
The course posits that the migration and stasis of people needs to be understood in relation to other kinds of im/mobilities including, for example, those of finance, economic, socio-cultural and political capital, goods and information. Accordingly our approach employs configurations of social, cultural, economic and political analysis that differ in terms of the balance between them in relation to the specific empirical matters being engaged with.
In the first semester we focus on people movements and use an intersectional approach to consider how categories such as class, gender, ethnicity, faith, nationality and “race” stratify people in terms of trans-nationalism, globalisation, mobility and migration.
In the second semester we focus on immobilities, reactions to trans-national mobilities and relationships between the two. Between the two semesters we aim to examine ways in which increasing connectedness is met with new and diverse forms of bordering and contest.
This is not a course on globalization, nor does it follow the anti-materialist approach of the “New Mobilities” school (Urry, 2004; Cresswell et al, 2006). However in this and the third lecture we’re going to start by looking at key concepts of globalization, the sociological shift from the nation-state to the international, transnational and global, and “New Mobilities” as they have operated as nascent paradigm for understanding mobilities and immobilities in recent sociology.
Keep in mind the following questions:
Let’s briefly map some of the developments in sociology that led up to the globalisation scholarship that began around the late 1980s.
Sociology early-mid 20th Century: bound to the national context
Early sociological thinkers (Marx, Weber, Durkheim, Comte, Spencer) were internationalist
Post 1945 transformations in sociology
Dependency theory Andre Gunder Frank
‘Modernization’ Talcott Parsons
‘Third World’ Peter Worsley
Thinking globally: World Systems
Through greater movement and flows of people, finance, objects, information and ideas
…. across space ….
and at a faster speed than in previous eras ….
“Compression of the world” bringing the far apart and different together” (Robertson, 1992:8)
How are the global and local connected? Held et al. distinguish between flows and networks.
Flows = movements of things, people, symbols, tokens and information across space
Networks = regularised or patterned interacts
Networks include those of communication and information technology, and interpersonal networks involving individuals and groups (Singh Grewal 2008).
The concept of globalization includes the supposition that an increasing number of social structures (e.g. states, cities, law) and social institutions (the family, religion, sport) are interconnected 21
Amin (2002: 395) argues, global networks allow innumerable business, cultural, migrant, political, criminal and other agents to ‘make space’ work for them by connecting and energizing their previously separate practices.
According to Castells (1996: 470), by the 1990s networks dependent on IT become the most dynamic and appropriate vehicles through which to deal with virtually all kinds of global activity, Cohen, Kennedy (Page 37).
Paul Ritzer (2010: 14) emphasizes the role of information technology.
Digital networks provide the technological infrastructure for the emergence of contemporary network-based social forms … enhancing the speed, flexibility, and global reach of information flows, allowing for communication at a distance in real time, … allowing communities to sustain interactions across vast distances.
People involved in networks can communicate all sorts of information to one another in various ways – telephone calls, snail-mail, e-mail, blogs, social networking sites, and so on. These networks have revolutionized and greatly expanded the global flow of information. As with all other structures, such networks can be blocked (or ‘bordered’) d in various ways (e.g. the “Great Firewall”).
The local and the global are also connected, or relayed through centrifugal nodes called “global” or “world” cities whose networks transcend and remodel that nation-state.
Global (Sassen 1991, 2013) and world cities (Derudder et al. 2012) are increasingly interconnected with one another directly rather than through the nation-states in which they happen to exist. The financial markets of the world cities of New York, London, and Tokyo are tightly linked with the result that all sorts of financial products flow among them and at lightning speed ( Ritzer and Dean, 14).
Deterritorialization, supraterritorialization, and aterritoriality
A key aspect of globalization theory in relation to im/mobilities is the idea that the nation-state and its territory are being transgressed, or ‘debordered’ by globalizing flows (including the movement of people).
In globalization theories, frameworks for understanding, action and relationships shift beyond the local and national bordered territory (Robertson, 1992:8).
Scholte (2005) originally used the term ‘deterritorialization” as the central feature of globalization. However, he came to think that the term exaggerated the extent to which the territorial (i.e., that which is bounded within the nation state) had been overcome and re-developed his concept as “supraterritorialization”.
Supraterritoriality refers to a form of (re-)spatialization in which social space
is not confined by territory, distance or time.
Supraterritorialization is more than just transplanetary connection. It involves breaks with territorialist geography.
Supraterritorial relations involve not just an intensification of links across the world but different types of global connectivity. This intensification of links across boundaries also involves the decline of those boundaries. Links transcend and detach from territory. (Martell, 8/277)
Supraterritorialial linkages are more than just Time space Compression (David Harvey 1989), the shrinking of space, and the reduction of the time required by a wide range of processes, brought about by changes in transportation and communication technologies advanced mainly by capitalist corporations (Ritzer & Dean, 2012:238).
Compression is the intensification of links and relations. Scholte argues that Supraterritorialism involves new kinds of relations that transcend the bordered territory of the nation state.
These links involve simultaneity and instantaneity. Examples include telecommunications; global media; finance; migration; the internet; ecological problems; global consciousness.
Supre/de-territorialised nation states
The deterritorialising aspects of mobility problematise static concepts of the state, sovereignty, citizenship and subjectivity. The state is thought to have had its sovereignty diminished as global economic actors became powerful enough to dictate the forms of political economy required of nation-states. Evans (2009) focuses on the ways in which neoliberal globalization has weakened state interest in and capacity to implement national social policy. Actors such as the IMF have a strong influence over national government, including the extent of the welfare state. Conversely, states are not necessarily passive recipients but have, to differing degrees, the capacity to actively position themselves in accordance with the requirements of the global economy (Dadush and Shaw: 2012) Sassen (2006)
emphasized the role that state actions played in contributing to the
development of globalization.
Qualified critique of the territorial
Scholte’s supranationalism is qualified by the acknowledgement that the territorial remains important, especially in some areas: production, governance, ecology and,
allegiance. Global liquidity and flows are not assumed to be unhindered.
Held et al make a similar qualification in their concept of globalization as aterritorial. By this they mean it make involve activities that go beyond being coterminious with territories (activities that are deterritorialising), but also involve reterritorialization, involving globalization being established in regions and subnational areas, as well as encouraging, in some instances, nationalism (Held et al, Martell 10/277).
While claiming that global supraterritoriality is new, Scholte conceded that territories and borders remain important. Sceptics argue that it is hard to see how the examples he uses are anymore more than instances of transplanetary connections, and that his examples are better described as instances of liberalisation, internationalisation and westernisation (all dynamics predating globalization).
In terms of people movements, supraterritoriality (the global transformation of bordered territoriality) doesn’t appear to be empirically valid. If it were, there should be forms of borderless travel and migration on a global scale. Instead we have contested forms of movement within regional, international and national regulation, in combination with a minor degree of elite transnationalism (i.e, financial services, investment migration).
For Neil Brenner (1999) argued, globalization, to the degree that it consists of deterritorialisation – the increase in the intensity of the trans-bordered flows of processes such as capital, information, and communication which lend themselves to immediacy – is premised upon processes of re-territorialisation that facilitate these flows, wherein space is regulated in order to enable these temporal flows.
Re and de-territorialized spatio-temporalities – for example – those of the privileging (through, for example, the transnational architecture of financial deregulation) of global cities and their concentric maps of production – also work to re-border the global process of production Subsequently, as Gidwani and Sivaramakrishnan (200) observe, the compression of spatio-temporality is matched by its expansion, ‘with the result that some cities, countries and regions have become increasingly disassociated and marginalised’.
Globalism and Cosmopolitanism
One of the key ways globalization theorists think of interconnectedness is ideational and normative. Many globalization theorists have a committment to cosmopolitanism (see, for example, Archibugi and Held, 1995; Held, 1995; Archibugi, 2004). This involves the development of what is sometimes called global consciousness. Issues are seen as affecting people globally and as needing a global response rather than national responses. Human rights, war, ecological problems, drugs, crime, economic instability, inequality are some of the issues that cosmpolitans view as requiring a global response. For this, they turn to global fora and international interventions, based on cooperation grounded by a cosmopolitan consciousness.Other globalization theorists who see global consciousness as akey element of globalization include Robertson, Water (2001), and Holton (2005).
Global consciousness is thought to be developing in relation to shared opportunities and risks and opportunities:
Age of global Opportunity
e.g. global warming, refugees, tax regulation
Age of Uncertainty: Global risks
“Global postmodernity” (Stuart Hall, 1992)
“Risk Society” (Ulrich Beck, 1992)
e.g., man-made environmental risks: carbon consumption, nuclear power, deforestation
Hyperglobalists and the supposed demise of the nation-state
Hyperglobalists argue that:
With increasing economic globalization, transnational governance organizations and corporations = increasingly important.
Hyperglobalist perspective as an approach which sees globalization as a new epoch in human history. This new epoch is characterized by the declining relevance and authority of nation-states, brought about largely through the economic logic of a global market. Economies are becoming “denationalized.”
The spread liberal democracy will extend the global reach of more universal principles of economic and political organization. A truly global civilization will become possible.
Conflicting forms of hyperglobalism
Neo-liberal versus neo-Marxist orientations
Critiques of transformationalist concepts of globalization.
The transformationalist approach doesn’t really take the concept of globalization further than the sceptics’ position. While some of the dynamic concepts such as networks and flows are empirically valid, they do not need to be anchored to the concept of globalization and its transcending of nation-state territoriality. Nation-states have been and are themselves transforming in relation to the transnational economy, but this may be better thought of in terms of the contemporary stages of capitalism. That is precsely the framework transformationalists wish to avoid, in line with their commitments to the cultural turn in sociology, and refutation of historical materialism. They therefore tie themselves in knots trying to save the concept of globalization despite agreeing with most of the criticisms of the concept raised by sceptics.
Historical materialist (“social”) transformationalists
Key migration theorists in the historical materialist tradition sometimes equate ‘globalization with neoliberalism”. Stephen Castles (2008), for example, a dominant political describes contradiction between the national principle upon which the sovereignty of states is founded, and the transnational principle of global mobility driven by neoliberal principles of a ‘small state’, privatisation of utilities and services, economic deregulation and the opening of markets (especially those of developing countries) to global competition. Defining his approach in terms of “social transformations”, Castles analyses globalization and national sovereignty as undergoing complex transformations, as do the Weberian transformationalists. However, unlike Held et al., Castles positions its complexity in terms of the working of the global political economy.
Sceptics: national, inter, multi and tranationalism, not globalization
Sceptics doubt that what is called “globalization” is anything more than internationalism. Many multinational business flows, for example, are rooted in the company’s country of origin and involve trade relations between particular countries not relations of a global reach.
They also question whether things that are described as being global in reach are not actually limited by inequality, conflict and exclusion, and therefore less than global.
Some argue that internationalism was more intense in previous eras (particularly the belle epoque 1890-1914) and that without its claim of newness based on unprecedented connectedness, the concept of globalization fails.
Skeptics have been especially critical of the idea of deterritorialization, arguing that the national context remains important and that the role of the nation state has not been superceded by forms of global governance even if it has been limited to some extent by some forms of global and regional governance, or by neoliberalism. Even then, the nation state is an active participant in international and transnational dynamics, not a passive recipient.
Sociologist Smitha Radhakrishnan argues for the use of transnationalism as a scale of analysis (we will discuss her work later in the semester when looking at elite migration). Radhakrishnan argues that the academic concept of the global is vague, refers to multiple things, and follows Manuel Castell’s and others in seeing the concept as defining nothing more than “a realm of interaction that is counterposed with the “local”. When the concept is applied to empirical contexts, it becomes difficult to designate which practices are produced in the local and which are produced in the global because the global has been shown to always take place in the local (Burawoy et al, 2000; Hart, 2002).
Sociology, as we noted above, was traditionally bound by the nation state. Class, for example, was theorized as stratfication, division and conflict in the context of national economies and societies (Bourdieu 1984; 1995; Weber, 1978; Marx). Those nation states were often implicity theorised as unitary actors within a global political economy. Marxist system theory maintained the notion of class competition as internal to the nation state.
More recently, theorists have anaysed class divisions across rather than (just) between nation states. Aihwa Ong (1999) and Leslie Sklair (2001) examined the practices of elite business people controlling capital across national boundaries. Ong’s (1999) ‘flexible citizenship’ describes a resourcing process in which travelling or displaced subjects to respond fluidly and opportunistically to changing political-economic conditions within the cultural logic of capitalist accumulation. For Ong, it is access to resources and resourcefulness rather than mobility that is the issue (Skeggs, 51).
For Radhakrishnan, “transnationalism” can be used to examine “the connections and relationships between different places” (Levitt and Khagram 2008; Mitchell 2002; Yeoh, Willis and Fakhri 2003). The term allows us to maintain a focus on the national while examining the ways in which it is transgressed.
Useful concepts but not a paradigm
That the global is not a useful academic concept for the scale of analysis does not mean that its popular uses are not of interest, nor that its array of associated concepts are not important. The use of the global as an idea of cosmopolitanism, or the transgression of national boundaries or borders is central to many studies of mobility, including, for example Radhakhrishnan’s own study of elite Indian labour mobility.
Martell, Luke, (2017), Introduction: Concepts of Globalization, The Sociology of Globalization. Wiley.(Ch. 1-2)
Kennedy, P (2010) Local Lives and Global Transformations: Towards World Society,
Castles, S. (2008) Migration and Social Transformation, Migration Studies Unit Working Paper, No. 2008/1, LSE.
Cohen, R. and Kennedy, P. (2013) Global Sociology, 3rd Edition, Basingstoke: Macmillan, Held et al, (1999) Global Transformations: Politics, Economics and Culture (Ch. 1)
Hall, S. & Gieben, B. eds., (1992) Formations of Modernity, Cambridge, Open University Press(Ch. 6)
Beck, U. (1992) The Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity, London, Sage
Dadush, U. and W. Shaw (2012) ‘Is the Labour Market Global?’, Current History,
111 (741), 9–13.
Evans, P. (2009) ‘Is an Alternative Globalization Possible?’, Politics and Society,
36 (2), 271–305
Harvey, D (1989) The Condition of Postmodernity: An Enquiry into the Origins of Cultural Change, Oxford: Blackwell.
Scholte (2005) Globalization: A Critical Introduction, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Radhakrishnan, S. Appropriately Indian: Gender and Culture in a New Transnational Class, Duke University Press
Roudometof, V. (2016) Glocalization: A Critical Introduction, London & New York, Routledge
Sassen, S. (2006) Territory, Authority, Rights: From Medieval to Global Assemblages
(Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).
Holton, R. J. Global Networks. London, Palgrave Macmillan.
Cohen, R and Van Hear, N. (2008) Global Diasporas: An Introduction, Abingdon, Oxon. And New York, Routledge
Chua, A (2004) World on Fire: How Exporting Free-Market Democracy Breeds Ethnic Hatred and Global Instability, London, Arrow Books
Albrow, M.(1996) The Global Age, Cambridge, Polity
Robertson, R. (1992) Globalization: Social Theory and Global Culture, London, Sage.
Ritzer, G., Dean, P. Globalization: A Basic Text
Castells, M. (1996) The Rise of the Network Society, vol. 1, The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture, Oxford: Blackwell (rev. edn 2000).
Urry, J (2000) Sociology Beyond Societies: Mobilities for the Twenty-first Century, London: Routledge.
Urry, J (2003) Global Complexity, Cambridge: Polity.
Anderson, B. (2006) Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, chapter three, Verso
Cohen, S. (2011) Folk Devils and Moral Panics, Routledge, chapter 3.
Downing, J and Husband, C., (2005) Representing Race: Racisms, Ethnicity and the Media, Sage, chapter one
Hall, S. et al, (2013) Representation: Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices, Chapter four
Edward Said, (2008) Covering Islam: How the Media and the Experts Determine How We See the Rest of the World, chapter one.
Age, caste, class, disability, ethnicity, faith, nationality, “race”, sexuality
..economic inequality does not fall equally on everyone. Rather than seeing people as a homogeneous, undifferentiated mass, intersectionality provides a framework for explaining how social divisions of race, gender, age, and citizenship status, among others, positions people differently in the world, especially in relation to global social inequality. Hill Collins and Bilge, (2016:15)
.. when formulating class inequality one should have race and gender in view as well. Capital is intersectional. It always intersects with the bodies that produce the labor. Therefore, the accumulation of wealth is embedded in the racialised and engendered structures that embody it (Eisenstein, 2014, in Hill Collins and Bilge, 2016:16)
While focussing on key intersections such as gender and ‘race’, much of the scholarship employing an intersectional approach elides or neglects the category of class (Mann, 2012: 112). This is sometimes because of the way that Marxist intersectionalists reduce other aspects of oppression to the dimension of class, in line with the tendency of some traditional versions of Marxism towards an overdetermining economism and neglect of categories such as gender and ‘race’, or subordination of such dimensions as aspects of class (Bohrer, 2018: 49-50; Giminez, 2001 ;Smith and Smith, 1983:122; Alcoff, 2011; Gedalof, 2013).
Bohrer argues (2018), however, that an intersectional marxist approach is necessary to the study of inequality and oppression because of the context of capitalism and the distinctive place of ‘class’ as a dimension . Bohrer (54) follows Gimenez in arguing that “class oppression is distinctive and necessitates a different kind of treatment, politically and theoretically, than race and gender”. This differential treatment
requires a wholesale analysis of capitalism as a system and a structure of material
relations of production and reproduction, accumulation and dispossession,
which has its roots in political economy and effects in the multifaceted
realms of culture, ideology and politics (Bohrer, 54).
For Bohrer (2018), capitalism is the ‘matrix of domination’ capitalism, in which slavery, colonialism, patriarchy, white supremacy, were forms of race, class, gender and sexuality inseparable oppressions that were historically concreted in and through one another. Within this Marxist-intersectional analysis, capitalism is the synthesis of class, race, gender, sexuality, colonisation and imperialism systems of dispossession. Thus class cannot be considered the master-term of capitalist accumulation and antagonism, but merely one of the dimensions of oppression.
Class retains its distinctive analytical and historical importance in the shift from feudal social relations to wage labour Marx (1876) analysed, but is augmented by gendered and raced and postcolonial analysis.
Silvia Federici (2004), Maria Mies (1986) and many other Marxist feminists have shown the structual reliance of capitalism on what they called ‘social reproduction’ – the unwaged labour of cooking, cleaning, subsistence farming, bearing and rearing children, and multiple modes of affective and care work. This labour, undertaken primarily by women, allows the capitalist to glean the benefits of reproductive labour necessary for the waged worker to enter the formal economy without payingfor it; Mies termed it “super exploitation” and Frederici analysed it is a form of ongoing “primitive exploitation” .
Historical materialist feminists operate of form of stretching of Marxist analysis, pointing to the intersection of gender and class oppression. As we will see throughout the course, a historical materialist perspective is stretched across other forms of intersection. Anne McClintock (1995) and Maria Lugones (2003), for example, stretch Marxist analysis to include patriarchy, white supremacy, colonisation (both direct and indirect) and heterosexualism.
Within intersectional frameworks, there is no pure racism, sexism or class-discrimination. Rather, power relations of racism and sexism gain meaning in relation to one another.
Example: chattel slavery = classed, raced and gendered discrimination
The institutional, organizational level
The level of social rewards and punishments
Power transmitted through ideas and media
Power plays out in the realm of everyday interaction among people
Particular Social Contexts
A trans/ational industry?
19th-century despotic regime:
the factory overseer of the industrial revolution coerced labor from workers without any state intervention
= harshly exploitative working conditions not redressed by state regulation
20th-century hegemonic regime:
characterized by welfare policies and workplace protections.
Consent, rather than coercion, predominate…
since workers’ and capitalists’ interests are coordinated, providing a degree of worker autonomy that normalizes and obscures exploitation and dampens collective resistance. Plankey-Videla (introduction)
Let’s next have an intersectional look at one allegedly “docile” workforce in particular, drawing on Hill Collins and Bilge, Pietra Rivoli and Naila Kabeer’s 2002 chapter “Renegotiating Purdah: women workers’ labour market decisions in Dhaka”
The Rana Plaza collapse: significance of abysmal factory working conditions in Bangladesh and beyond
Garment industry = especially bad erosion of workers rights
Located in Bangladesh for cheap, abundant and seemingly obedient workers
Lax regulatory system: safety overlooked, low compliance with international labour standards
Consequentially: workers lack fair pay, job security, safety, and civil-political rights (ability to organise and protest)
Which kinds of people become workers in the garment industry?
How do managers, companies and states exploit and control workers?
What governs location of factories in particular countries?
What are the social norms that send young women into factories?
What are the consumption cultures that neglect/normalize the conditions of work/production?
Intersectional analysis: multiply-disadvantaged workers
Let’s have a look now at some of the ways that some garment workers might have exercised agency in their intersectional aspects
Garment workers motivations for and valuing of migration and work
Examples of agency in choice to/valuing of garment work
For Chinese garment workers and their “sisters in time”, factory work has provided:
Bangladeshi women choosing to work in the garment factories gained:
Karl Marx’s (1852) idea suggests a mix of freedom and constraint:
Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past. The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte. Karl Marx 1852
When individuals make decisions, they do not do so under optimum conditions that allow them to be completely rational and able to fully weigh all the possible risks and rewards surrounding their decision and choice.
Constraints might include, for example:
The women garment workers at Moctezuma knew that strike action was likely to result in loss of “race to bottom”, and therefore unemployment and poverty. Striking was not in their economic best interests?
So, why did they decide to strike?
What does this tell us, if anything, about an intersectional analysis?
Political-economic context for strike decision
Subverting Motherist culture
Workers’ framed the strike as a defense of the most vulnerable workers— single mothers.
They used beliefs around motherhood to challenge the firm’s authority as benevolent patriarch.
While still identifying as mothers, they increasingly interpreted their interests as also class-based and antithetical to management’s interests. Plankey-Videla(481-514)
Transforming identities: mothers and workers who deserved jobs with dignity and living wages
Work became more than a way to support one’s family; it transformed into a source of newfound independence, authority, self-esteem, and meaning
So: intersectionally understood: the strike
= Contests over the value of female gender and working class
+ it also led to the striking garments workers’
alliances with actors resisting other axes of exploitation including broader class and political issues
Responding to the Rana Plaza atrocity also gave rise to g/local political action against bad factory conditions
Hill Collins & Bilge, (2016:1999)argue that global anti-sweatshop movements draw on the intersectional analysis of garment industry exploitation and collaborate through global coalitions of workers right and Western consumer activists, using social media; Rana plaza led to an agreement among global and Bagladeshi unions for better working conditions and wages
Bohrer, A. (2018), “Intersectionality and Marxism: A Critical Historiography”, Historical Materialism, 26/2, 46-74.
Cohen, R. and Kennedy, P (2013), “Race, ethnicity, and Intersectionality”, Chapter 9, Global Sociology, Palgrave Macmillan.
Federici, Silvia 2004, Caliban and the Witch: Women, the Body and Primitive
Accumulation, New York: Autonomedia.
Hill Collins, P. and Bilge, S. (2016), Intersectionality, Polity.
Kabeer, N. (2002), “Renegotiating Purdah: women workers’ labour market decisions in Dhaka”, chp. 4, in The Power to Choose: Bangladeshi Women and Labour Market Decisions in London and Dhaka, London, Verso
Lugones, Maria (2003), Pilgrimages/Peregrinajes: Theorizing Coalition against Multiple Oppressions, Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Marx, Karl 1967 , Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, edited by Friedrich
Engels, New York: International Publishers.
McClintock, Anne (1995), Imperial Leather: Race, Gender, and Sexuality in the Colonial
Contest, New York: Routledge.
Mies, Maria (1986), Patriarchy and Accumulation on a World Scale: Women in the
International Division of Labour, First Edition, London: Zed Books.
Plankey-Videla, (2012), Introduction “We Are in this Dance Together”, in We Are in This Dance Together: Gender, Power, and Globalization at a Mexican Garment Firm, Rutgers University Press.
Rivoli, P. (2012), The Travels of a T-Shirt in the Global Economy: An Economist Examines the Markets, Power, and Politics of World Trade. Wiley. Chapters Six, Seven.
In this lecture we are going to discuss post-war immigration and settlement to England (a narrower focus than the UK, and introduce some of the key postcolonial perspectives that help illuminate the im/mobilities, political and media discourse and im/mobility policies that developed in this post 1945 period.
Immigration prior to WWII
Prior to the second world war, England was already a country of immigration. This was mainly due to its status as one of the nations of the United Kingdom (England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales) and its marginalisation of the Irish through a form of quasi-colonisation.
The prevailing racism of English attitudes to immigrants became evident in its response to Jewish immigration during the second world war, and afterwards.
By the 1940s, there were approx. 400,000 refugees from Nazi germany. They came despite the Aliens Act (1905) which was designed to restrict Jewish immigration (particularly the immigration of poor Eastern European Jews).The British government limit the offer of protection to the amount of refugees that Jewish organisations were prepared to fund. It refused to extend this policy to the general population (as members of the public had offered to support Jewish refugees) as the effect would have been an extension rather than limitation of support.
Between 1933 and 1948 Britain limited Jewish immigration
In 1939 only ten per cent of refugee applicants were successful. Eastern European political refugees preferred over Jewish persons
Post-war immigration (1945 +)
Need to build post-war economy after loss of world power status to US
European ‘push’ factors for post war migration
War time migration & settlement
1938-45: 70,000 into England & Wales.
1946-59: 350,000 Irish workers (net inflow)
European labour migration between 1946 -51 brought in 460,000 European migrants.
New Commonwealth migration Push & Pull factors
West Indies. Unemployment, population growth, and the cutting of alternative outlets for migration;Late 1940s + West Indians began to emigrate to escape chronic unemployment, poverty, and violent levels of socio-political unrest. West Indians migrated to the US, within the Caribbean itself, and to Canada and Britain.
Indian and ‘Pakistani’ people migrated after the partition of 1947 which caused the displacement of I5 million people; many from Sikh communities from the Punjab where they had been driven by the annexation of ‘West Pakistan’.
Job opportunities and better opportunities and prospects in Britain, opportunity to support family via remittances. Zig Layton-Henry
remittances that migrants sent home during this period rapidly became a dominant form of GNP in the Caribbean nations; i.e., second highest component for Jamaica 1948-1951.
New Commonwealth & varied immigration
Today approx. 5.5. million UK citizens live abroad
Four phases of immigration policy in the UK
Four phases of immigration policy
Restricting irregular immigration & settlement
Explanations for restrictions:
Unintended consequences: changing demography & identities
Multi-ethnic UK and Europe
Contested racialisation of immigration
“the state, employer and worker came to adhere to a common belief in British nationalism underpinned by a shared allegiance to whiteness”. Virdee, Satnam.(2016. 99).
an exponential growth in street-level racism and violence directed against blacks and Asians accompanied by the introduction of racist immigration controls by the state. Virdee, 2016. 99-100.
Anti-immigrant racism at work and in public
Consequences of discrimination Late 1940s-1960s
Race Relations Paradigm in sociology
Alibah-Brown, Yasmin, Who Do We Think We Are? Imagining the New Britain (London, 2001).
Ê. Balibar and I. Wallerstein (1991), Race, Nation, Class: Ambiguous Identities, London, Verso Books (1991)
Benedict Anderson, (2016), Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, Revised Edition, London, Verso.
Bloch, A. and L. Schuster. 2002. Asylum and Welfare: contemporary debates. Critical Social Policy. 22(3), pp.393-414.
Bleich, Erik, Race Politics in Britain and France (Cambridge, 2003).
Ann Dummett and Michael Dummett, ‘The role of government in Britain’s racial crisis’, in C. Husband, (ed.), ‘Race’ in Britain: Continuity and Change, London, Hutchinson, 1982
Fryer, Peter, Staying Power: The History of Black People in Britain (London, 1984).
Geddes, Andrew, The Politics of Immigration and Race (Manchester, 1996).
Gilroy, Paul, There Ain’t No Black in the Union Jack: The Cultural Politics of Race and Nation (London, 1987).
Goulbourne, Harry, Race Relations in Britain since 1945 (Basingstoke, 1998).
Hansen, R. ‘Migration to Europe since 1945: Its History and Its Lessons’, Political Quarterly (2003), 74, 1, pp 25–38.
Heffer, S (1998). Like the Roman: the life of Enoch Powell. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
Zig Layton-Henry, The Politics of Immigration, ‘Race’ and ‘Race’ Relations in Post-War Britain, Oxford, Blackwells, 1992
Louise London (2001) Whitehall and the Jews, 1933-1948: British Immigration Policy, Jewish Refugees and the Holocaust,Cambridge, Cambridge University Press,
Tony Kushner, Katherine Knox, (1999) Refugees in an Age of Genocide, London: Frank Cass
Tony Kushner, (2009),Anglo-Jewry Since 1066: Place, Locality and Memory, Manchester, Manchester University Press.
Miles, R. 1982. Racism and Migrant Labour. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul
Miles, Robert, Racism after Race Relations, Routledge, London, 1993
Kathleen Paul, (1997) Whitewashing Britain: Race and Citizenship in the Postwar Era, Ithica and London, Cornell University Press
T. H. Marshall (1987), Citizenship and Social Class, London, Pluto Press
Phizacklea, A. and Miles, R. 1980. Labour and Racism. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul
Rosemary Sales (2007) Understanding Immigration and Refugee Policy, Bristol: Policy Press)
Sivanadan, A, Refugees from globalism, CARF 57, August/September, 2000
Solomos, J. 2003. Race and Racism in Contemporary Britain, 3rd ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan
Satnam Virdee (2014) Racism, Class, and the Racialised Outsider, London, Palgrave Macmillan
An antidote to the far right’s poison’? ?– the battle for Cable Street’s mural’, The Guardian, September 21, 2016
According to some globalization theorists: we are living in an age of increasing mobilities, and increasing connectedness and complexity
We might add Social mobilities; movements or stasis within the social hierarchy
New Mobility Vs. Structure
Stephen Castles critiques the idea of a shift from structures to flows, and correspondingly, from academic discourse centre on migration to the new discourse of mobilities. He argued that
The postmodern utopia of a borderless world of mobility has not yet dawned, so that it still seems appropriate to focus on migration as a process based on inequality and discrimination, and controlled and limited by states (2011:1567).
Mobility, Castles (2011: 1567) suggested, invoked movements of the highly
skilled professional mobility, celebrated because they represented the badge of a modern open society, whilewhile those of the lower-skilled were condemned as unwanted migration that ‘re-awakened archaic memories of invasion and displacement’. Castles followed Bauman (1998) in arguing that “the right to be mobile is more class-specific and selective than ever”. Rather than a world of unhindered flows, structure and agency remained crucially important, partially determining the contemporary stratifications enabled free mobility amongst elite groups while restricting the mobility of the poor.
The ultimate issue is not who moves or is fixed, but who has control – not only over their mobility and connectivity, but also over their capacity to withdraw and disconnect. The point is that the poor have to put up with that from which others can move. (Skeggs, 50; Graham and Morley, 1998)
Bauman (1998:86) described the stratifications of postmodern consumer society in terms of freedom, or lack of freedom of mobility. The de-bordered (de-territorialised) freedom of mobility belongs to the realms of the world’s ‘tourists’, while the world’s vagabonds suffer stasis and forced or ‘unfree’ mobilities. He later differentiated between individualized and deracinated Western consumers and the ‘wasted lives’ of the rest who suffer forms of stasis (Bauman, 2004). Agency over mobility is dichotomised betweenthose who ‘cannot at will leave their place’ are the ‘ruled’, and those ‘rulers’ able to ‘be elsewhere’ (Bauman 2001: 120).
Aihwa Ong (1999) and Leslie Sklair (2001) examined the practices of elite business people controlling capital across national boundaries. Ong’s (1999) ‘flexible citizenship’ describes a resourcing process in which travelling or displaced subjects to respond fluidly and opportunistically to changing political-economic conditions within the cultural logic of capitalist accumulation. For Ong, it is access to resources and resourcefulness rather than mobility that is the issue (Skeggs, 51).
Duval and Jordan similar describe a class of elite migrant able to transgress national boundaries. Such actors are grounded in national ties and state practices, yet able to mobilize (capital, labour, selves) across national boundaries. Within the neo-liberal paradigm the right to free movement and the punishment of stasis depends upon the individual’s ability to ‘make the required contribution’, and those migrants that represent a cost to the members of the (Northern) political communities ‘surrender their moral autonomy as well as their democratic sovereignty’ (Duvell and Jordan, 2005:97).Duvell and Jordan, similarly, write of the new channels of mobility that globalization demands for the ‘global nomads’ consisting of ‘financial, managerial and technical elites, and a range of highly skilled workers’ (Duvell and Jordan, 2005:60).
Morley (2000) argues immobility increasingly acquires the connotation of defeat, of failure and of being left behind, of being fixed in place. Yet for some people, fixed places may also be symbolic habitats, a performative way of life and of doing things, in which one makes the most of the cultural resources to hand.
Bourdieu, Pierre, 1984. Distinction: A Social Critique of Judgement and Taste, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Burawoy, Michael; Blum, J.A; Sheba, G, Gille, S; Gowan, L.H; Klawiter, M; Lopez, S.H; O Riain; Thayer, M (2000) Global Ethnography: Forces, Connections, and Imaginations in a Postmodern World, Berkeley, University of California Press.
Castells, M. (1996) The Rise of the Network Society, vol. 1, The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture, Oxford: Blackwell (rev. edn 2000).
Cohen, R. and Kennedy, P. (2013) Global Sociology, 3rd Edition, Basingstoke: Macmillan
Hart, G.P, (2002) Disabling Globalization: Places of Power in Post-Apartheid South Africa, Berkeley, University of California Press.
Moore, Henrietta L. (2004) Global Anxieties: Concept Metaphors and Pre-Theoretical Commitments in Anthropology, Anthropological Theory, 4 (1) 72-88.
Radhakrishnan, S. Appropriately Indian: Gender and Culture in a New Transnational Class, Duke University Press
Urry, J. (2000) Sociology Beyond Societies: Mobilities for the Twenty-first Century, London: Routledge.
Urry, J. (2003) Global Complexity, Cambridge: Polity.
Urry, J. (2007) Mobilities. Cambridge: Polity
Wallerstein, I. (1974) The Modern World-system I: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-economy in the Sixteenth Century, New York, Academic Press
King, R (2012) “Theories and Typologies of Migration: An Overview and Primer”
Ritzer, George; Dean, Paul. Globalization: A Basic Text (p. 264).Tthe UN estimates there are 232 million international migrants, or about 3.2% of the world’s population (UN 2013b).
The Immobility Paradox
Why don’t they?
Malmerg, G 1997
Is it because they do not want to, or cannot? “It is one of the ironies of globalisation that whilst goods, capital, knowledge, entrepreneurship and the media are free to flow across borders, labour, that other crucial factor of production, is not. In fact, on the whole people are less free to migrate now than they were a hundred years ago”
King, R 5-6.
Push factors operating from the region or country of origin
Pull factors operating from the place or country of destination:
Neoclassical approach neglects:
Causes of international migration; historically formed macro-structural forces, exploitative + inequitable global capitalism (Morawska 2012: 55).
Marxist interpretation of capitalism, (under) development, and the structuring of the world economy; dual and segmented labour markets, dependency theory, and world systems theory.
Dual Labour Market
Migrants are pulled (not pushed): international labour migration primarily driven by demand for cheap and flexible labour in advanced industrialised countries (Piore M. J. 1979)
Dual labour market (advanced industrialised countries):
primary labour market = secure, well-paid jobs for native workers; secondary labour market = low-skill, low-wage, insecure and generally unpleasant jobs in factories and the service sector, filled mainly by migrant workers because such jobs are shunned by local workers.
The very presence of migrant workers reinforces the undesirability of these secondary-sector jobs for the local labour force, which in turn enables employers to drive down wages and working conditions even more.
Segmented labour market; creation of these jobs precedes the migrants who fill them (Samers 2010: 65). UK, post war transport, health; 1990s-2000s… agriculture, service, food prep, construction, ….
Why do Foreign workers accept these poor positions?
a)Lack of bargaining power (especially if they are undocumented)
b)poor wages and jobs preferable to poverty/unemployment
World Systems Theory
Global market economy + ‘new international division of labour’ NIDL (Froebel et al. 1980) asymmetric ties of trade, capital penetration and migration
Wallerstein, 1974, 1979
Criticisms of the historical-structural model
Migrants ‘passive pawns in the play of great powers and world processes presided over by the logic of capital accumulation’ (Arango 2004: 27).
Millions of migrants exploited “but others make progress, succeed, and prosper” (King, R, 2012)
Sisters in Time ….
Political economy models
Labour-demand + state or supra-state [EU]) make immigration policies – quota and admission systems, regulations of entry, duration of stay, work permits, citizenship rights etc. – shape the volume, dynamics and geography of international migration.
Hegemonic stability model
Global economic system; political + military power of dominant nations regulates global trade, finance, and international migration.
Hegemonic (neoliberal) receiver-states regulate global trade, finance, and international migration. (Morawska. 2007:4).
Growing connectivity between migration, globalisation, + ‘social transformation’ – ‘major shifts in dominant [global] power relationships’ (Castles + Miller 2009:54)
Challenge to hegemony through transnational societies (Castles and Miller, 2009:12)
…. information lowers the costs and risks of migration (Massey et al. 1998: 42-43).
Three main types of migrant networks:
all networks gendered; women often active in developing and sustaining personal networks (Boyd and Nowak 2012: 83-86).
Samers (2010: 87-93) argues that smuggling and trafficking networks, are halfway between social networks and (criminal) business networks transporting migrants across borders, and subsequently (in the case of trafficking) exploiting them by holding them in a bonded and indebted state, notably sex-work. However, as we will discuss in the lecture on trafficking, others argue that sex work migration is generally made of up informal networks such as friends, family and colleagues supporting migration and work.
Migration networks theory:
New Economics of Labour Migration (NELM)
Criticisms of the NELM model.
migrant activities ‘that take place on a recurrent basis across national borders and that require a regular and significant commitment of time by participants… These activities are not limited to economic enterprises [such as sending and receiving remittances, or setting up a business ‘back home’], but include political, cultural and religious activities as well’ (Portes, 1999).
Three ‘core groups’ temporary labour migrants, settler migrants and refugees have dominated the study of migration
Human trafficking and people smuggling are two forms of (often) labour migration
Sales (2007: 47) theoretical distinction between refugee migration and ‘voluntary’ economic migration neglects conflicts producing economic devastation which forces people to leave who do not satisfy the requirement of a well-founded fear of persecution under the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees
Some theorists argue that new types of migration and international mobility form important elements of the increasingly complex global map of population movements (King 2002; King et al. 2010; Martiniello and Rath 2012). Post-fordism, space-time compression, and the embeddedness of migration and mobility in the forces of globalisation and the New World Order have introduced new mobility forms where none existed before. This may not, however, actually represent a discontinuity with colonial era migration.
People in the US similarly overestimate the proportion of Muslims in the population, thinking it is 15% when it is actually 1%. They believe 56% are Christian when the true figure identifying themselves as such is 78%.Britons also underestimate the proportion of Christians, believing it is 39% when the correct figure is 59%.
IPSO MORI cited in The Guardian, Today’s Key Fact: you are probably wrong about almost everything, 29 October, 2014
London 1,012,823 (12.4%); Birmingham 234,411 (21.8%);Bradford 129,041 (24.7%)
Leicester (19%); Manchester 79,496 (15.8%) ONS (2011)
Amsterdam (14%); Antwerp (17%); Brussels (15+%); Cologne (12%); Copenhagen (10%); Malmo (20%); Marseille (20%); Moscow (12%); Paris (10+%)
e.g. after the January 2015 Paris attack 26 mosques attacked (firebombs, gunfire, pig heads, and grenades) (Stone, 2016).
Muslims tend to be ghettoized, living in often run-down Muslim banlieues, isolated from mainstream society
French policy: racism, ethno-religious discrimination
Article 1. France shall be an indivisible, secular, democratic and social Republic. It shall ensure the equality of all citizens before the law, without distinction of origin, race or religion. It shall respect all beliefs. Constitution of France (1958)
… the proclaimed universalism of republican values, and in particular laïcité, can very quickly resemble the ‘civilizing mission’ of colonialism. … if Muslims want to be ‘French’, they must learn to be citizens of the Republic first and Muslims second; for many this is an impossible task. Hussey, 2014, 9.
Muslims viewed as Non-assimilating
Our former immigrants were Europeans; these are not. Arab girls who insist on wearing chuddars (chador, veil or covering) in our schools are not French and don’t want to be…Europe’s past was white and Judaeo Christian. The future is not. I doubt that our very old institutions and structures will be able to stand the pressure (Dominique Moisi, in Judith Miller, 1991, p.86)
Banning Islamic Female Dress
‘Conspicuous’ religious items may not be worn in schools. Forbidden items include: the Muslim headscarf, Sikh turbans, Jewish skullcaps and large Christian crucifixes.
Burqa and Niqab banned in public 2011
April, France bans public wearing of the burqa, a full body covering that covers the lower face and has a meshed cloth over the eyes, and the niqab, which is identical except that a veil covers the lower face and the eyes are uncovered (fines of 150 euros).
Burkini Bans 2016
30 French mayors ban the use of Burkini; municipal police can stop and fine any women in full-body swimsuits at the beach
More than 20 mayors have defied the state council ruling that the burkini bans are a “serious and manifestly illegal violation of fundamental freedoms”.
Laïcité and the bans; “protecting” the secular nature of the state.
French colonialism & the Hijab
English policy: racism, ethno-religious discrimination
Race Relations Paradigm
Recognising religious discrimination
The Rushdie Affair
‘from the point of view of community relations, the fatwa was a disaster for the Muslims in Britain’ (Ruthven, 1991)
No one paused to inquire if book burning had the same meaning and significance in Islamic traditions, or whether the Bradford incident was largely symbolic, an expression of impatience rather than intolerance, and the result of misguided advice rather than hatred…all Muslims were implicated in the book burning (Parekh, 1990: 122).
‘The nature of the media coverage surrounding the ‘Rushdie Affair’ transformed the dominant view towards Muslims in Britain from Asians to Muslims.’ (Vertovec, 2002: 23)
Assimilationist and liberal British views
Disloyalty: greater respect for Khomeini than British law
Lack of patriotism; neglecting British reputation & feelings of fellow citizens
Fatwa support shows multiculturalism has failed
Violation of liberal values; free speech, respect for law, tolerance, democracy, secularism (Parekh, 1999, 18)
From Racism to Islamophobia
Islamophobic views of Islam
Islam seen as a single monolithic bloc, static and unresponsive to new realities.
seen as separate and other – (a) not having any aims or values in common with other cultures (b) not affected by them (c) not influencing them.
Islam seen as inferior to the West – barbaric, irrational, primitive, sexist.
Islam seen as violent, aggressive, threatening, supportive of terrorism, engaged in ‘a clash of civilisations’.
Islam seen as a political ideology, used for political or military advantage.
Criticisms made by Islam of ‘the West’ rejected out of hand
Discrimination defended Hostility towards Islam used to justify discriminatory practices towards Muslims and exclusion of Muslims from mainstream society.
Anti-Muslim hostility accepted as natural and ‘normal’.
“Anti-Muslimism” (Fred Halliday, 2006)
Relating to: terrorism, nuclear weapons, Oil; Arising from Western views of foreign Muslim societies
Relating to: Immigration, Assimilation, Cultural practices (veiling); Arising from the presence of Muslims within Western society
Anti-Muslimist Imagined Communities (Benedict Anderson)
Europe/West defined as “civilised”, “modern”, “tolerant”, “equitable” (feminist), lawful & peaceful
in relation to
Islam/East defined as “barbaric”, “backwards”, “intolerant”, “inequitable” (“sexist”), illegal & violent
Orientalism (Edward Said)
Colonial period: the dominant “orientalist discourse”
Al-Azmeh, Aziz, (1996)
Leiken, R S (2005) ‘Europe’s Angry Muslims’ in Foreign Affairs 84 (4) 120-135
Husband, C. and Alam, Y. (2011) Social Cohesion and Counter Terrorism: A Policy Contradiction? Bristol, Policy Press, (Ch. 4)
Al-Azmeh, Aziz, (1996), Islams and Modernities (Verso)
Barker, M (1981) The New Racism, London, Junction Books
Cherribi, Sam (2010). In the House of War: Dutch Islam observed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fekete, Liz, 2009, A Suitable Enemy, Racism, Migration and Islamophobia in Europe (Pluto).
Field, D. (2007) ‘Islamophobia in contemporary Britain: the evidence of the pinion polls, 1988-2006’, Islam and Christian Relations, Vol. 18, No. 4, 447-77.
Halliday, F (1996) Islam and the Myth of Confrontation, London, I.B. Taurus.
Holloway, Lester, Islamophobia – 20 years on, still a challenge for us all, Runnymede Trust, online, 13 April, 2016
Huntingdon, S (1996) The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Hussey, Andrew (2014). The French Intifada. London, Granta Publications
Meer, Nasar, and Tariq Modood, 2012, “For ‘Jewish’ read ‘Muslim’? Islamophobia as a Form of Racialisation of Ethno-Religious Groups in Britain Today”, Islamophobia Studies, volume 1, issue 1 (spring).
Miller, Judith, (1991) “Strangers at the Gate: Europe’s Immigration Crisis,” New York Times Magazine, September 15
Tariq Modood, (ed.,) (2005), Muslim Britain: Communities under Pressure, London, Zed Books
Modood T, and Salt, J. (2011) (eds.), Global Migration, Ethnicity and Britishness, London & New York, Palgrave MacMillan
Nachmani, Amikam (2010). Europe and its Muslim minorities: aspects of conflict, attempts at accord. Brighton: Sussex Academic.
Kastoryano, Riva. “Religion and Incorporation: Islam in France and Germany”, International Migration Review, Vol. 38, No. 3, Conceptual and Methodological Developments in the Study of International Migration (2004), pp 1234-1255.
Kastoryano, R (2006) ‘French secularism and Islam: France’s headscarf affair’ in Modood, T. Trianafyllidou, A., and Zapata-Barrero, R. Multiculturalism, Muslims and Citizenship, London, Routledge, 57-69.
Kundnani, Arun, 2014, The Muslims Are Coming! Islamophobia, Extremism, and the Domestic War on Terror, Verso.
Plenel, E (2016) For the Muslims: Islamophobia in France, Brooklyn NY. Verso.
Runnymede Trust, Islamophobia, A Challenge for Us All, 1997
Said, E, (2003) Orientalism, Penguin, London
Soysal, Y. N. (1997), ‘Changing Parameters of Citizenship and Claims-making: Organized Islam in European public spheres’, Theory and Society, 26, 509-527.
The ancestors of modern Native Americans may have first entered the continent from Asia between 13,000 and 16,000 years ago via a thin land bridge that once ran across the Bering Sea, connecting Siberia and Alaska. Another possibility is that these early migrants may have voyaged down the Pacific coast by boat, and then moved into the continent’s interior.
Ancestors of the Native Americans gradually spread not only across North America, but also into Central and South America.
They divided into distinct tribes with unique cultural practices, religious beliefs, and methods of survival. These tribes had North America to themselves until the opening years of the seventeenth century (Hillstrom, 7).
The popular idea of America:
the ‘Land of the Free
‘Land of the Free’ a refrain from the US national anthem (Start Spangled Banner)
Immigration and emancipation (freeing the slaves) part of the founding myth of America
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”
Imagined community: US as a land of freedom, a nation of immigrants
Ideas about the nation are socially constructed
Migration to the US: industrialisation, urbanisation
20th-21st century globalisation, new industrial revolutions
Migration to US (2014)
Undocumented migrants in US
Total undocumented population 2010-2014
States with highest numbers
(Kennedy, 2010, 83)
America accepted 84,995 refugees in 2015-16.
Muslim citizens and refugees
Muslim 46% Christian 44% refugees
(Pew Research Center, 2016)
Trump and Mexican migration
Trump committed to building a wall between Mexico and the US
He committed to deporting undocumented migrants (to sending them back to Mexico and elsewhere)
He committed to removing birthright citizenship (where the children of migrants resident in the US are granted citizenship)
“When Mexico sends it people, they’re not sending their best. … They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people” (Trump, 2016).
Crowds at his political rallies chanted “build the wall”
Before the election Trump said there should be a complete ban on Muslim immigration
Trump, Terrorism, Muslims
Since the 1980s, many companies sourced labour in the countries experiencing the new industrial revolution, like China, India …
Often the same areas producing migration to the US
US Unemployment: who/what is to blame?
Terrorism: who/what is to blame?
Trump’s Protectionism: “Making America Great Again
Undocumented, Mexican, Muslim, refugee migrants, terrorists
Cobb, C. and Stuek, S. eds., (2005) Globalization and the American South, Athens, University of Georgia Press (Ch. 1)
Wacquant, L. (2009), Punishing the Poor: The Neoliberal Government of Social Insecurity, Durham & London, Duke University Press (Ch. 2)
Wacquant, L. (2008), Urban Outcasts: A Comparative Sociology of Advanced Marginality, Cambridge, Polity Press (Ch. 8)
Schueller, M.J. (2009) Locating Race: Global Sites of Post-Colonial Citizenship, Albany, State University of New York.
Bourguignon, F (2015) The Globalization of Inequality, New Jersey, Princeton University Press (Ch. 2).
Desmond, M. (2016) Evicted: Poverty and Profit in the American City, London, Penguin.
Peterson, R.D. and Krivo, L.J. (2010) Divergent Worlds: Neighbourhood Crime and the Spatial-Racial Divide, New York, Russell Sage Foundation, (Ch. 2).
Kalleberg, A. (2011) Good Jobs, Bad Jobs: The Rise of Polarized and Precarious Employment Systems in the United States, 1970s-2000s, New York, Russell Sage Foundation.
Sassen, S. (2013) ‘Expulsions: Brutality and Complexity in the Global Economy’, (Ch. 1) Cambridge, Massachusetts, and London, UK, Belknap Press, Harvard University.