Content uploaded by Dan Rodríguez-García
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Dan Rodríguez-García on Aug 06, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Ethnicity, Multiculturalism, and
Transnationalism
JOSÉ LUIS MOLINA AND DAN RODRÍGUEZ-GARCÍA
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Spain
In recent decades, and especially from the mid-1970s onward, as a result of the new
international division of labor, international migration, the development of transport
and communication technologies, and other globalization processes, societies have
become more interconnected and more multiethnic, multicultural, or “superdiverse”
than ever (Vertovec 2010). Now, a growing number of individuals live in transna-
tional and hybrid contexts, combining particular ethnic identications and universal
bonds. In this context, current societies face the challenge of how to manage and
accommodate simultaneous processes of globalization and localization, unity and
diversity, assimilation and multiculturalism. In this regard, the concepts “ethnicity,”
“multiculturalism,” and “transnationalism” refer to dierent manifestations and the
growing acknowledgment of cultural diversity as one of the constituent features of
societies in a globalized world.
In brief, the rst term (“ethnicity” or “ethnic identity”) refers to the awareness of
belonging to a group with particular characteristics (e.g., territorial, cultural, religious,
linguistic, customary) and the consciousness of us in relationship to them.Ethnicityisa
socially constructed and relational social fact—that is, it is produced and reproduced in
social interaction between the ingroup or self-adscription (the identity that is claimed
by the people themselves) and the outgroup adscription (the identity that is attributed
to them by others).
e second term (“multiculturalism”) refers to a philosophy or social thinking reac-
tive to cultural uniformity or assimilation and to a model of public policy in which the
state plays an active part in the defense of minority rights and cultural diversity. When
wetalkaboutmulticulturalism,then,wemeanoneofthewaysofmanagingdiver-
sity and the inclusion of immigrants and cultural and ethnic minorities in mainstream
society.
Finally, the term “transnationalism” points out the existence of a continuum of stable
personal relationships formed between migrants across borders that aects simultane-
ouslyawiderangeofphenomenainmorethanonesinglecountry—thatis,multiple
identities, the emergence of ethnic enclaves, social and economic remittances, dual
citizenship, and dispersed religious communities, among others.
Taken together the three terms cover the dierent levels of analysis that range
between the dierent identities or minorities within a given political unit, the political
management of cultural diversity, and the dynamics of multicultural personal ties
beyond the limits of the state.
e International Encyclopedia of Anthropology.EditedbyHilaryCallan.
© 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2018 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9781118924396.wbiea1924
2ETHNICITY,MULTICULTURALISM,AND TRANSNATIONALISM
Ethnicity
Brief definition
Ethnicity or ethnic identity is the awareness of belonging to a group with particular
characteristics (e.g., territorial, cultural, religious, linguistic, customary) and the con-
sciousness of us in relationship to them. To reiterate, ethnicity is a socially constructed
and relational social fact, in that it is produced and reproduced in social interaction
between the ingroup or self-adscription (the identity that is claimed by the people them-
selves) and the outgroup adscription (the identity that is attributed to them by others)
(Eriksen 1993, 4).
Origin and perspectives of analysis
e term ethnicity has its etymological root in the Greek ethnos (“a people”) and in the
adjective ethnikos, a synonym of the term “ethnic” that in English has been used since
the Middle Ages as a synonym of “gentile” (pagan or non-Christian and non-Jewish).
Moregenerally,itmeansmembershipofagroupofpeoplewithsimilarcharacteristics
or the classication of peoples in a context of self/other distinctions (Eriksen 1993).
Ethnicity can, then, in a broad way, subsume territorial, national, linguistic, or reli-
gious minority groups. But it is also a socially constructed phenomenon not necessarily
dependent on “objective” traits.
Wecanactuallydistinguishbetweentwomajorapproachestoethnicity:(1)primor-
dialist, which conceives ethnicity as a constitutive and permanent feature of human
nature—something given, essential, ascribed at birth or formed through adaptation
to environmental factors and dened by territorial boundaries and objective cultural
traits; and (2) constructivist, subjectivist, or symbolic—that is, ethnicity conceived
as a socially and psychologically constructed or subjective phenomenon (or epiphe-
nomenon) rather than something given and essential (Barth 1969). Within each
perspective there are also dierent degrees or emphasis. For instance, in his seminal
work on Pathan communities in West Pakistan, Fredrik Barth argued that ethnicity
or ethnic boundaries are fundamentally psychological and variable, the outcome of
specic kinds of intergroup relations and their perceptions of each other. In his own
words: “categorical ethnic distinctions do not depend on an absence of mobility, contact
and information, but do entail social processes of exclusion and incorporation whereby
discrete categories are maintained despite changing participation and membership in
the course of individual life histories” (Barth 1969, 9–10). Rogers Brubaker goes even
further in understanding ethnicity as a cognitive process, a product of categorization:
ethnicity,race,andnationhood“arenotthingsintheworld,butperspectivesonthe
world” (2004, 17).
Inanyevent,ratherthanchoosingbetweenone(primordialist)ortheother
(constructivist) perspective, it should be acknowledged that ethnicity is not necessarily
based on material or objective facts but is usually supported through cultural, religious,
linguistic,orterritorialpremises/boundaries.Bothapproaches,then,areusefulwhen
analyzing ethnicity. In fact, Max Weber had earlier already considered ethnic groups
ETHNICITY,MULTICULTURALISM,AND TRANSNATIONALISM 3
as “those human groups that entertain a subjective believe in their common descent
because of similarities of physical type or customs or both, or because of memories of
colonization or migration” (Weber [1922] 1968, 389).
Ethnicity, ethnic groups, and nationalism
e concept of ethnicity is closely related to that of “ethnic group” (i.e., a group of
individuals who share a culture and whose members feel united by an awareness of
uniqueness generated historically); that is, any group with shared values and practices
that recognizes itself (self-identication) as dierent and that is recognized by others as
such. us, we can speak of cultures or ethnic groups to refer to a variety of collectives,
from the Trobrianders of Papua New Guinea to the Brazilians or the Scottish.
Ethnicity is also related to nationhood and nationalism (i.e., the sense of belonging to
anationasacommunityor“apeople”)andisconnectedtothehistoryofnation-state
formation. e idea of the nation-state as a distinct and separate cultural entity was
inspired by German romanticism, importantly by Johann Gottfried Herder and his idea
of Volkg e ist (national spirit) and the notion of Kulturkreis (cultural circles) developed by
Friedrich Ratzel and Leo Frobenius. For these ideological precursors of contemporary
totalitarianism, the idea of “people” (Vo l k) was the basic institutional foundation for
the building of the nation, from the particular interest in cultural specicities (e.g., the
language) to proclaiming a culturally homogeneous unit that could only exist based on
the assumption of a divide—us vs. the other—to ensure social cohesion, a fallacy criti-
cized by anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss (1952). is ideological context implied a
rejection of rationalist ideologies of the Enlightenment in favor of the mysticism and
exaltation of nationalist myths of the Romantic era and was sought to overcome what
was perceived as “Western decadence.” It was the basis—together with the political and
economic crisis following the harsh nancial penalties imposed on Germany and its
alliesaerWorldWarIandthebeginningoftheGreatDepression—forthebuilding
during the 1920s and 1930s of National Socialism in Germany and Austria, which saw
the nation-state as a collective entity or “national community” (Volksgemeinscha), or
even as “community of race” (Völkische Gemeinscha), which no longer referred only
toanationalculturebutalsotoaracialgroupwithamysticalsenseofsharedblood.
All this leads to talk about the idea of community or nation as something invented or
imagined (Anderson 1991).
Depending on the particular nationalist ideologies to which ethnicity is attached, it
can lead to exclusion, racism, and violence (e.g., ethnic cleansing). On the other hand,
ethnicity and nationalism can also become an engine for social progress and equality.
In fact, forms of belonging to the nation can vary between conditions of ethnoracial
heritage or blood (jus sanguinis) and conditions of political history or territory (jus
solis), leading to dierent types of nationalism: namely, a more exclusivist ethnocultural
nationalism (Kulturnation, the type inspired by Herder and German romanticism)
or a more integrative political or civic nationalism (Staatsnation), such as developed
aer the French Revolution and which is more dominant nowadays. ese criteria for
belonging to the nation as citizens also dene multiculturalist or assimilationist ways
of incorporating immigrants (see the denition of multiculturalism).
4ETHNICITY,MULTICULTURALISM,AND TRANSNATIONALISM
The multiplicity of ethnicity
Ethnicity is a relational and socially constructed phenomenon, and is thus situational,
dynamic, and multiple. All individuals have multiple ethnic identities, which can be
based on dierent factors such as origin, religion, and so forth, some of which are more
salient than others depending on the particular context in time and space. is fact
has led some scholars to dierentiate between (ethnic) identity (deeper and relatively
stable) and (ethnic) identication (rather uid and contextual) (Brubaker 2004).
International migration and globalization processes in recent decades have led to
ever-increasing ethnocultural diversity and the potential for the development of mul-
tiple, mixed, hybrid, or hyphenated ethnicities, which can be advantageous and even
the catalyst for new forms of citizenship. However, adverse structural contexts, such
as a context of social discrimination, social exclusion, and marginalization, can largely
determine ethnic identity options and even lead to the formation of “reactive identities”
asaresultofsomepeople’sinabilitytogobeyondtheconnesofexternallyimposed
ethniccategories.Inthissense,weshoulddistinguishbetweenchosenorsymbolicand
forced or reactive ethnicities. An example of this is found among the descendants of
North African immigrants in the suburban areas of French cities (banlieues)wherethe
urban violence and processes of cultural radicalization (or ethnic reinforcement) that
have occurred over the decades have had less to do with ethnic, cultural, or religious
diversity per se than with a reaction against persistent socioeconomic disadvantages,
institutional discrimination, and social exclusion. In these contexts, people and situa-
tions become “ethnicized” (i.e., they are explained exclusively in cultural/ethnic terms
in a xed way).
Multiculturalism
Brief definition
Multicultural or multiculturality refers to the existence of various cultures in a society.
As noted earlier, multiculturalism refers to a philosophy or social thinking in reaction
to cultural uniformity or assimilation. It involves a model of public policy in which the
state plays an active role in the defense of minority rights and cultural diversity.
Conceptual and historical context
e term multicultural/multiculturalism derives from the term “culture”—that is, a set
of beliefs, values, norms, customs, and institutions that make up a human group. In
turn, the concept of culture is closely related to that of “ethnic group”—that is, a group
of individuals who share a culture and whose members feel united by an awareness
of uniqueness generated historically. is could be any group, with shared values and
practices, that recognizes itself (self-identication) as dierent and that is recognized
by others as such. In this sense, all societies (an aggregate of people living together)
always contain multiple cultures and are, therefore, plural and multicultural; they are
ETHNICITY,MULTICULTURALISM,AND TRANSNATIONALISM 5
constructed from its heterogeneity and continuously generate new dierences and new
groups.
Moreover, plurality or multiculturality (the quality of being multicultural) does
not imply a pluralistic or multicultural political orientation (multiculturalism).
As already noted, multiculturalism implies a model of public policy in which the
state actively defends minority rights and cultural diversity. When we talk about
multiculturalism, then, we mean one of the ways of managing diversity and the
inclusion of immigrants and cultural and ethnic minorities in mainstream society.
In brief, we can speak of two classic perspectives: on the one hand, assimilationism,
rooted in the French Republican ideology, which vilies social distinctions founded
on ethnic background and is based on the idea of the full adoption of the rules
and values of the mainstream society so that the minority group becomes culturally
indistinguishable from the dominant society. On the other hand, the model of cultural
pluralism or multiculturalism, from the Anglo-Saxon tradition, which can be found
in countries such as the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Canada, is based on
the acknowledgment and protection of cultural diversity. In practice, both of these
perspectives combine, with increased pluralist or assimilationist tendencies depending
on the country or region. For example, some analysts have referred to “neoassim-
ilationist” policies in traditionally multiculturalist countries like Denmark and the
Netherlands. In addition, other authors speak of “weak” or “strong” multiculturalism.
In the rst case, cultural diversity is primarily recognized in the private sphere
whereas in the institutional public sphere (work, education, and so forth) policies
encouraging the assimilation of immigrants and ethnic minorities predominate. In
the second case, there is recognition of ethnic–cultural dierences and communities
in the public sphere and at the institutional level, such as ocial support for the rst
languages of immigrants or legislation concerning the right to religious freedom and
worship.
In this vein, Canada was the rst country to ocially adopt multiculturalism as a
political model, with the ocial approval in 1971 of Pierre Trudeau’s multicultural
policy, reinforced later by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982) and the
Canadian Multicultural Act (1988). Precedents of this ocial multiculturalism policy
were the Quebec Act of 1774, which involved the commitment of the descendants of
British settlers (Protestants) to respect, protect, and defend the language, institutions,
and religious and civil rights of French Quebec (Catholic). In this context, realities of
multiculturalism may coincide with processes of multinationalism. is is the case for
Canada with the province of Quebec and also for Spain with the autonomous com-
munities or “historical nations,” some of which have their own ocially recognized
languages, distinct cultural traditions, and a strong sense of “national” identity, such as
CataloniaortheBasqueCountry.
Within a context of increasing international mobility and global processes of eth-
nocultural mixing, one may say “we are all multiculturalists now” (see Kivisto 2012).
However, multiculturalism has experienced a backlash in recent years.
6ETHNICITY,MULTICULTURALISM,AND TRANSNATIONALISM
The backlash against multiculturalism and the interculturalist shift
In the past few years, both multiculturalism and assimilationism have been seriously
questioned. Following the polarizing hijab debate in France throughout the 1990s, the
ensuing controversial French law in 2004 to ban Islamic headscarves from schools, and
the violent disturbances in certain French banlieues in 2005, some observers claimed
that the French model, a highly assimilationist approach, had failed and that France
wouldhavetoacknowledgemulticulturalism.econversecritiquewasmadeofthe
multicultural model following events such as the Rushdie Aair of 1989, the summer
2001 riots in northern towns of the United Kingdom, the September 11, 2001, terror-
ist attacks on the United States, the 2004 murder of lmmaker eo van Gogh in the
Netherlands, the 2005 London bombings, and the 2015 shooting at the satirical weekly
newspaper Charlie Hebdo in Paris, among others, all of which have produced a rise of
Islamophobia globally.
Certainly, on the one hand, the assimilationist perspective (the total abolition of cul-
tural diversity beyond the private sphere) implies a failure to acknowledge that cultural
minority rights and practices may be compatible with mainstreamsociety. On the other
hand, the “cultural mosaic” or an uncritical defense of the idea of cultural dierence can
foster processes of cultural essentialism and segregation or “balkanization” (creation of
parallel societies) to the detriment of fundamental principles of equality, thereby limit-
ing social cohesion. Particularly in European countries, multiculturalism has oen been
connotedwithitsmostnegativeandradicalmanifestationsandhasbeenmisinterpreted
as an ideology that somehow grants license to “illiberal” practices, social polarization,
and ghettoization. It is now oen viewed as a defunct option for managing immigration
and diversity.
ebacklashagainstmulticulturalism,bothatthelevelofpolicyandpublic
discourse, departs, however, from an idea of multiculturalism that suers from many
distortions. First, there is a xed and homogeneous notion of “culture” that leads to
the reductionist equivalence between multiculturalism and outcomes of segregation or
ghettoization and to talk of a “clash of civilizations” discourse. Besides, in the criticism
of multiculturalism there is oen an underlying fallacy according to which civic equality
and social cohesion require cultural homogeneity. “Bonding” (i.e., the forming of ties
among people who are alike, which fosters homogenity) and “bridging” (i.e., the form-
ing of ties between people who are dissimilar in some important ways, which fosters
diversity) are not necessarily contradictory processes. For example, religion, an attach-
ment that has traditionally been associated exclusively with locality and particularism,
can also be a path to civic engagement, progressive activism, and cosmopolitanism. e
reasons for the claimed failure of the social incorporation of certain immigrant groups
are largely because of persistent socioeconomic disadvantage, social exclusion, and
institutional discrimination rather than because of cultural dierences per se. Finally,
multiculturalism not only refers to the defense of cultural diversity and minority rights
but also to battling ethnocultural discrimination and promoting social cohesion. In
fact, since its rst formulation by Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau in 1971, multicul-
turalism policy has been labeled part of the Canadian success story, importantly by
implementing specic policies to promote civic equality/assimilation (i.e., enabling the
ETHNICITY,MULTICULTURALISM,AND TRANSNATIONALISM 7
establishment nondiscriminatory conditions in the labor market, full participation in
Canadianinstitutions,acknowledgmentofociallanguages,andsoforth).
In any event, the reassessment of both assimilationism and multiculturalism in
recent years has led to the proposal of a third way or model in the management
of cultural diversity: “interculturalism.” is is the interactive process of living
together in diversity, involving adaptation, bidirectional or mutual accommodation
between minorities and majority, with the full participation and civic engagement
of, and social exchange between, all members of society beyond that of mere recog-
nition and coexistence, in turn forming a cohesive and plural civic community. An
interculturalist model, or “interactive multiculturalism” or “civic multiculturalism,”
invites the possibility of mutual criticism between groups and mutual learning
across dierence and focuses on the interaction, negotiation, and conict-resolution
processes between the minorities and the majority rather than concentrating solely on
dening the problem. is approach, therefore, goes beyond the notion of recognition
and open dialogue in that it oers the possibility of actual structural change in the
society.
Transnationalism
Brief definition
Transnationalism refers to the continuum of stable personal relationships between
migrants across borders that aects simultaneously a wide range of phenomena in
more than one single country. e original denition describes transnationalism
as “the process by which transmigrants, through their daily activities, forge and
sustain multi-stranded social, economic, and political relations that link together
their societies of origin and settlement, and through which they create transnational
social elds that cross national borders” (Basch, Glick Schiller, and Szanton Blanc
1994, 7).
In addition, following Alejandro Portes (2001), it is useful to distinguished between
three dierent levels of cross-border activities: those carried out by nation-states (which
can be called international), those conducted by rms or institutional actors located in
several countries (which can be identied as multinational), and, nally, those main-
tained “from below” by individuals or grassroots organizations (dubbed as transna-
tional).
Origins and development
Although the concept of “transnationalism” was used by several authors in the course of
the last century for signaling the importance of nonstate actors in a context of growing
interdependence of the nation-states, transnational theory actually originated within
the eld of migration studies in the 1990s through a group of anthropologists as a
reaction to the mainstream assimilationist theory, which tended to result in migrants
progressively being incorporated into the mainstream culture of the reception country
8ETHNICITY,MULTICULTURALISM,AND TRANSNATIONALISM
and correspondingly abandoning former ties. In this vein, transnational theory
emphasizedthelimitationofconceivingthenation-stateasthenaturalunitofanalysis
(the so-called methodological nationalism; see Wimmer and Glick Schiller 2002) and
proclaimedtheexistenceof“transmigrants”wholivedintransnationaleldswithina
globalized world. is novel perspective shed light on migrants’ engagements, in both
the sending and receiving countries, within ethnic businesses, political organizations,
and kinship networks, among other activities, as they live transnational lives and
sometimes develop a new identity (Levitt and Glick Schiller 2001).
Despite the criticism that transnationalism was in fact nothing new, and that modern
information technologies and means of transportation just had the eect of accelerat-
ing existing historical processes of communication among migrants and their home
countries, the term gained a quick acceptance in the eld of migration studies and con-
tributedtothedevelopmentofaresearchagendafocusedontransnationalpracticesand
social formations. International research soon made clear the point that just a minority
of migrants were regularly involved in transnational practices (Portes 2001) but also
discovered that those transnational migrants enjoyed a comparatively better legal sta-
tus and economic position, which opened the avenue for theoretical renements as the
distinctions between, among others:
narrow—institutionalized and continuous activities; and broad transnationalism—
occasional linkages (Itzigsohn et al. 1999); …linear—basedonaectivetiestoothers
in a place of origin; resource-dependent—opportunities and constraints surrounding
labour market position …;andreactive transnationalism—especially based on dis-
crimination and loss of status in the receiving context (Itzigsohn and Giorguli-Saucido
2002, 2005); broad—including both regular and occasional activities; and strict
transnationalism—regular participation only (Portes 2003); core—patterned and pre-
dictable around one area of social life; and expanded transnational activity—occasional
practices in a wider array of spheres (Levitt 2001). (Vertovec 2010, 17; emphasis added)
In addition, the study of other categories of transnational people, dierent from the
unskilled labor migrants, enlarged the understanding of the transnational phenomenon
as including highly-skilled workers, scientists pursuing their academic careers in cen-
ters scattered all over the world, return and/or retirement migrants, religious specialists
moving along the migration chains, and refugees. More recently studies have focused
on transnational families and the transnational organization of care and social support.
Dimensions of transnationalism
e more apparent dimension of transnationalism is the economic impact on send-
ing countries through remittances sent by migrants, a trend marked by a continuous
growth since the beginning of the twenty-rst century. In this respect, the World Bank
estimated that there were more than 250 million international migrants in 2015, and the
remittances they sent totaled $583 billion during 2014, almost 10 percent more than in
2012. Remittances are important for both large countries such as China or India as well
assmallonessuchasthePhilippinesorMoldova.However,thesmallercountriesare
oen more dependent on them. Typically, remittances are used primarily for supporting
family needs (education, housing, food), with occasional “conspicuous” consumption
ETHNICITY,MULTICULTURALISM,AND TRANSNATIONALISM 9
or investments in businesses (Vertovec 2010). Despite the undeniable benets of remit-
tances in all levels of analysis (individual, community, and national), their eects span
many aspects of society and culture, not just the welfare of recipients, including gen-
der relations, local labor and housing markets (sometimes having negative inationary
eects), local/national politics, and religious practices. In this latter regard, Levitt and
Glick Schiller (2001) have used the concept of “social remittances” for changes in behav-
ior and values motivated by transnational experiences or transnational connections.
e second dimension of transnationalism is, onthe one hand, about migrants’ polit-
ical involvement in the sending country (what is oen called “homeland politics”),
either with national electoral ends or just for local development interests, and, on the
other, the policies launched by national states in order to extend their inuence beyond
their borders (these have been called “diaspora policies”). ese latter policies consider
expatriates as “nationals” living abroad and oen request their allegiance in support-
ing national interests. In this context, a growing tolerance toward “dual citizenship” has
been observed in many countries (Faist 2007) as a tacit acknowledgment of the chang-
ing nature of politics in a transnational world.
Finally, dierent transnational social formations have been identied by the litera-
ture: transnational elds/spaces/communities and diasporic communities, among oth-
ers. Transnational elds refer to the web of ties among individuals connecting dierent
places in dierent countries; transnational spaces refer to the set of links that connect at
least two dierent countries and that can contain transnational communities or groups
of migrants bonded by a shared identication. e term “diaspora” is used for referring
to people scattered in dierent countries who have a common ethnic/religious origin
and a lasting identity maintained through generations.
SEE ALSO: Bonl Batalla, Guillermo (1935–91); Cardoso de Oliveira, Roberto
(1928–2006); Clash of Civilizations, e, Anthropology and; Cosmopolitanism;
Cultural Politics; Cultural Relativism; Diaspora; Ethiopia, Anthropology in; Ethnicity
in Anthropology; Ethnocentrism; Ethnoeconomics; Gender and Migration; Globaliza-
tion; Hybridity; Identity in Anthropology; Immigration; Indigeneity in Anthropology;
Interculturality; Intergroup Cognition; Language and Identity; Latin American
Association of Anthropology / Asociación Latinoamericana de Antropología (ALA);
Migrant Laborers; Migration; Multiculturalism; Nationalism; Politics of Recognition;
Sweden, Anthropology in; Transnationalism; Urbanism
REFERENCES AND FURTHER READING
Anderson, Benedict. 1991. Imagined Communities: Reections on the Origins and Spread of
Nationalism. 2nd ed. London: Verso.
Barth, Fredrik. 1969. Ethnic Groups and Boundaries.Boston:Little,Brown.
Basch, Linda G., Nina Glick Schiller, and Cristina Szanton Blanc. 1994. Nations Unbound:
Transnational Projects, Postcolonial Predicaments, and Deterritorialized Nation-States.
Langhorne, PA: Gordon & Breach.
Brubaker, Rogers. 2004. Ethnicity Without Groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
10 ETHNICITY,MULTICULTURALISM,AND TRANSNATIONALISM
Eriksen, omas H. 1993. Ethnicity and Nationalism: Anthropological Perspectives.London:Pluto
Press.
Faist, omas. 2007. “Introduction: e Shiing Boundaries of the Political.” In Dual Citizenship
in Global Perspective: From Unitary to Multiple Citizenship, edited by omas Faist and Peter
Kivisto, 1–23. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Glick Schiller, Nina, Linda Basch, and Cristina Szanton Blanc, eds. 1992. Toward s a Tr a n sn at i onal
Perspective on Migration: Race, Class, Ethnicity, and Nationalism Reconsidered.NewYork:New
York Academy of Sciences.
Kivisto, Peter. 2012. “We Really Are All Multiculturalists Now.” e Sociological Quarterly 53 (1):
1–24.
Lévi-Strauss, Claude. 1952. Race et Histoire [Race and History]. Paris: UNESCO.
Levitt, Peggy, and Nina Glick Schiller. 2001. “A Transnational Simultaneity: Social Field on Soci-
ety.” International Migration Review 38 (3): 1002–39.
Portes, Alejandro. 2001. “Introduction: e Debates and Signicance of Immigrant Transnation-
alism.” Global Networks 1 (3): 181–94.
Vertovec, Steven. 2010. Transnationalism. London: Routledge.
Waldinger, Roger. 2015. e Cross-Border Connection: Immigrants, Emigrants, and eir Home-
lands.Cambridge,MA:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Weber, Max. [1922] 1968. Economy and Society. Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Wimmer, Andreas, and Nina Glick Schiller. 2002. “Methodological Nationalism and beyond:
Nation-State Building, Migration and the Social Sciences.” Global Networks 2 (4): 301–34.
