Redefining “Diaspora”
| DOI | 10.1177/002070200806300102 |
| Date | 01 March 2008 |
| Published date | 01 March 2008 |
| Author | Rima Berns-McGown |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Rima Berns-McGown
Redefining
“diaspora”
The challenge of connection and inclusion
| International Journal | Winter 2007-08 | 3 |
Current definitions of “diaspora”—definitions used by the academy and
policymakers alike—contribute to the marginalization of immigrant,
minority, and ethnic communities, in terms of both societal inclusion and
inclusion in the foreign policy process. They therefore serve to undermine
the stated goals of the Canadian multicultural project and to skew foreign-
policymaking as policymakers seek to protect it from the “special pleading”
of ethnic minorities.
A new definition of diaspora is needed—one that takes into account
current political environments and that encompasses all peoples who find
themselves in diasporic situations. As borders have become more porous
and increasing numbers of people have moved into the diaspora, ways of
understanding the diasporic condition—including questions of who is dias-
poric and the nature of the diasporic populations’ relationship to the wider
society—need to shift in order to take into account critical factors of global-
ization, new understandings of citizenship, a changed international envi-
ronment, and the unique challenge of the Canadian multicultural project.
Rima Berns-McGown teaches diaspora studies at the University of Toronto. She is
grateful to David G. Haglund and Ato Quayson for their helpful comments.
| Rima Berns-McGown |
| 4 | International Journal | Winter 2007-08 |
William Safran, Robin Cohen, and others have defined diaspora in
ways that made sense for particular frameworks, and while they have been
valuable, national and international politics have changed. “Diaspora” is an
apt word, but its use and our collective understanding of it need to change
to keep pace with the kinds of conversations diasporic-receiving countries
are having.
THE CLASSIC DEFINITIONS
William Safran’s 1991 definition of a diasporic people suggests that they
have been dispersed from a “specific ‘centre’” to two or more places; con-
tinue to hold a “collective memory, vision, or myth” about the original
homeland; continue to believe that the original homeland is their “ideal,
true” home and dream of returning; believe that they should remain com-
mitted to the maintenance or restoration of the original homeland; sustain
a strong ethnocommunal bond based on that ongoing relationship with the
homeland; and maintain a troubled relationship with the wider society,
believing that they can never be fully accepted and causing them to remain
“partly alienated and insulated” from it.1
Robin Cohen’s 1997
Global Diasporas
distinguishes between victim,
labour, imperial, and trade diasporas. He agrees with Safran’s criteria, but
suggests that, in addition to the foregoing, the dispersal may have been an
“expansion” in search of trade or economic opportunities. Moreover, he
argues, diasporic communities continue to hold “a sense of empathy and
solidarity with co-ethnic members in other countries of settlement” and
“the possibility of a distinctive creative, enriching life in host countries with
a tolerance for pluralism.”2
Michele Reis distinguishes between classical (Jewish and Armenian,
among others), modern (slave and colonial), and contemporary diasporas.
Contemporary diasporas, she argues, are the product of a postcolonial,
globalized world, characterized by “fragmentation and dislocation,” ongo-
ing transnational communication, and an implication that “dispersal to
overseas territories need not imply a decisive break with the homeland nor
is the uprooting of the diasporic group considered permanent.”3
1 William Safran, “Diasporas in modern societies: Myths of homeland and return,”
Diaspora
1, no. 1 (spring 1991): 83-84.
2 Robin Cohen,
Global Diasporas: An Introduction
(Seattle: University of Washington
Press, 1997), 26.
3 Michele Reis, “Theorizing diaspora: Perspectives of ‘classical’ and ‘contemporary’
diaspora,”
International Migration
42, no. 2 (2004): 47.
To continue reading
Request your trial