Anthropological Perspectives

Author: Marta Makuchowska

If you ever study social or cultural sciences, there is a lot of chance that you notice one popular word: diaspora. But what diaspora means precisely and what is the analytical power of this concept? Thanks to Martin Sokefeld and his paper “Mobilizing in transnational space: a social movement approach to the formation of diaspora” we know about it a little more.

            In 1997 Steven Vertovec distinguished three categories of the meaning of diaspora: as a social form, a type of consciousness, and a mode of cultural production. And social form is the most popular definition of it. But Sokefeld argues that it’s hard to separate this form from the second one – the type of consciousness.

            It all starts with dislocation – a significant number of people move from one place to another, but common ethnicity does not mean that in a new place, these people will create a diaspora. Homesickness and a sense of belonging are important parts of the diaspora definition, but not essential. According to Sokefeld, there’s a need to develop a new imagination of a community. There’s a need for a common identity which is a matter of consciousness, and it is not a key issue, but very important in the formation of the diaspora.

           Diaspora as an imagined community is a possibility, not a necessity resulting from migration movements. What needs to happen for people to form a diaspora? According to the author, to answer this question, we need to see how social movements are formed, and what motivates people to action? Social mobilization is governed by three issues: political opportunities, mobilizing structures and practices, and framing. When a group of people has the same claims and political/social opportunities, they create mobilization structures. Opportunities include media, transport, and institutional frameworks, so in every country situation is different. Beside structures, diaspora requires mobilizing practices like demonstrations and various community conventions.

            The author, analyzing the concept of diaspora, reveals several key questions. What specific events diaspora responds to? who produces and disseminates a discourse of transnational community? What critical events, strategies, and practices are important and meaningful? what are the internal social and political dynamics of mobilization? And my question is why only „negative” events and why only claims and not joy can lead to mobilization?

One of the examples that the author gives in the text is the Kashmiri diaspora. This group is evidence that the diaspora did not form directly as a consequence of migration, but as a result of later events. The migration of Kashmiris to Great Britain has been observed for several decades. The event that made them identify themselves in this way – as Kashmiris, not as Punjabis or Pakistanis, happened in 1989. There was a rise of a militant, anti-Indian insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir. Self-identification as Kashmiris became the result of this political and military event. The sense of solidarity that had not existed before began to be observed, and the Kashmiris diaspora is imagined as a nation distinguished from Asian, Muslim, and Pakistani.