The second dimension concerns identity and mobility. Diaspora approaches focus on aspects of collective identity, while transnational approaches take their cue from cross-border mobility. Although both diaspora and transnational approaches use both concepts, there are sometimes differences in emphasis. This difference is clearly borne out by the contributions by Bruneau and Dahinden in this volume. While the former starts from questions of identity and later brings in mobility, the latter contrasts diasporic and circular transnationalism. In general, concepts of diaspora deal with dispersal, whether traumatic or not, and the resulting emergence and reproduction of some sort of collective identity, with varying intensities of ties to the country of emigration and the countries of immigration. In those cases when dispersal occurred not because of persons who migrated but because of borders migrating over people (as in many parts of Eastern Europe), the focus of the term is on common identity despite dispersal (see Waterbury in this volume). Sometimes the ‘construction of shared imagination’ (Kissau & Hunger in this volume) is intricately connected to nation-building projects of socalled ‘stateless diasporas’. Issues of collective identity do also matter from a transnational perspective; for example, many analyses of cultural aspects of transnationalism build upon notions of mélange, hybridity or cultural ‘translations’ in which mobile persons are engaged. From a transnational perspective, however, these identity changes are regarded as being derived from cross-border mobility of persons, which is in itself always embedded in other flows of ideas and goods. The transnationalist concern with mobility is also reflected in the concept of network – though often more strictly applied metaphorically rather than methodologically. In this way, the transnationalism literature links up with the ‘new mobilities paradigm’ that posits geographical mobility as a ubiquitous phenomenon of general societal importance (Sheller & Urry 2006).
The second dimension concerns identity and mobility. Diaspora approaches focus on aspects of collective identity, while transnational approaches take their cue from cross-border mobility. Although both diaspora and transnational approaches use both concepts, there are sometimes differences in emphasis. This difference is clearly borne out by the contributions by Bruneau and Dahinden in this volume. While the former starts from questions of identity and later brings in mobility, the latter contrasts diasporic and circular transnationalism. In general, concepts of diaspora deal with dispersal, whether traumatic or not, and the resulting emergence and reproduction of some sort of collective identity, with varying intensities of ties to the country of emigration and the countries of immigration. In those cases when dispersal occurred not because of persons who migrated but because of borders migrating over people (as in many parts of Eastern Europe), the focus of the term is on common identity despite dispersal (see Waterbury in this volume). Sometimes the ‘construction of shared imagination’ (Kissau & Hunger in this volume) is intricately connected to nation-building projects of socalled ‘stateless diasporas’. Issues of collective identity do also matter from a transnational perspective; for example, many analyses of cultural aspects of transnationalism build upon notions of mélange, hybridity or cultural ‘translations’ in which mobile persons are engaged. From a transnational perspective, however, these identity changes are regarded as being derived from cross-border mobility of persons, which is in itself always embedded in other flows of ideas and goods. The transnationalist concern with mobility is also reflected in the concept of network – though often more strictly applied metaphorically rather than methodologically. In this way, the transnationalism literature links up with the ‘new mobilities paradigm’ that posits geographical mobility as a ubiquitous phenomenon of general societal importance (Sheller & Urry 2006).
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..
![](//thimg.ilovetranslation.com/pic/loading_3.gif?v=b9814dd30c1d7c59_8619)