Immigration VS Diasopora?

I’m having difficulty identifying the exact differences between diaspora and immigration. It seems to be an interesting negotiation of concepts and ideas. In Clifford’s article Diasporas, he defines the borders of diasporas and mentions several differences that distinguish immigration and diaspora. He claims, “…diasporic populations do not come from elsewhere the way that “immigrants” do” (307). This line was particularly confusing to me. While both groups come from elsewhere, there are clearly factors that define differences. Clifford mentions the fact that while immigrants may maintain nostalgia of home they essentially assimilate into their host population, especially in the case of immigrants in the United States. Diasporic cultures however, cannot be merged into their new host culture. Their identity reaches beyond the territory of their nation-state or place of origin. Resistance may even occur to the merging of host and home cultures.

I believe Clifford’s point that diasporic cultures “… are deployed in transnational networks built from multiple attachments, and they encode practices of accommodation with, as well as resistance to, host countries and their norms” (307) is very telling. Diasporic people never exist alone the way individual immigrants may. They are always connected to groups, who shave a common connection with a shared homeland and culture, with little to no assimilation. The accommodation with and resistance to host cultures creates more of a hybridity of culture then may be present for immigrant groups. Both diasporic and immigrant groups leave a homeland for a new land. However, it still remains difficult to note which immigration groups’ count as diasporas. I think that this distinction would differ depending on whom you ask. It also seems to change throughout history. For example the Irish immigration in the United States can be seen as a diaspora depending on the time, location, or person asked. Many Irish people maintained connection with their homeland and combined their cultural heritage with their host country.

Diasporas must have homes and communities away from home. In this way they are different than immigrants. While both may leave a homeland for various economic, political and/or personal reasons, immigrants are more likely to break ties with homeland, while diasporas maintain connections. It seems to be difficult to navigate the differences between diasporas and immigrants. It’s a fine line that often becomes blurred. Perhaps in our global society there are more diasporic groups than immigration groups, as countries such as Canada do not force assimilation as much as they used to. Whatever the case, the global flow of people, and the impact it has on those people and the places they go must continue to be examined in order to determine the cultural and personal significance of diasporic groups.

To leave or stay, that is the question.

Last weeks’ class discussion about diaspora and migration/immigration really intrigued me. As mentioned in the group discussion during class my parents and I were immigrants from West Africa, coming to Canada to settle and create a better life and future. My recent trip to West Africa last summer really got me thinking of returning to my roots with the knowledge and experience I have acquired from the Western part of the world. I would return back to the home land to not only share but put to use my skills to help better the lives of those who are less fortunate. This notion of returning back was something that was thought of during the class discussion last week. It wasn’t until last week when I really started looking into the possibilities of going back to West Africa to work and contribute to that society. Currently I have been looking into a lot of CIDA internships just to get a feel for it before I actually go ahead and make the big decision. Looking at the bigger picture I am trying to see how the transition and adaptation would be. I remember during Christina’s presentation she talked about identity transition as far as establishing or identifying your nationality when going back and forth to home land country. For example when I went to West Africa last summer I kept referring to myself as a Canadian even though my entire family continued to correct my ethnical identity. When I found myself back in Canada as usual I referred to myself as a Nigerian. I am not sure what type of role this will play or how I will be accepted if I choose to go to Africa. A lot of people have gone back to settle in Africa but have exploited and taken advantage of the peoples lack of education, therefore giving people down there a reason not to trust people who are actually there to help. I believe that it is easy to help a country when you have gained their trust and the only way to do this is to identify yourself with them, but how do I do that without losing my own sense of identity?

There's No Place Like Home: Discussing Diaspora

The definition of diaspora itself seems to have evolved throughout the years, first describing the situation of those forced out of their homeland, such as the Jewish people after their exile from Babylon. The definition has broadened and as discussed, today almost anyone can have a diaspora. Feeling excluded? Diaspora. Longing for home? Diaspora. What about people who long for diaspora, do they compose a diaspora as well?

In a globalized world, where we seek the local within the global and the global within the local, it seems like no one can shake their diasporic fever. But what are the symptoms?

In my opinion, diaspora is the offspring of the tumultuous relationship between nostalgia and sentimentality, as well as the younger sibling of the imagined community. At the end of her blog post, Kait asks “can diasporas really return to what they once knew?” Is it possible to “go home again?” In short, no, because whether diasporas idealize their homeland or not, they would be unable to return to it unchanged. This is because identity is continually evolving, both personal identity and the identity of a given locale. Diasporas are part of an imagined community, and because this “community” exists intangibly, it is impossible to ensure that it will remain unchanged. While diasporas seemingly cling to notions of community that do not really “exist”, at least according to theorists like Benedict Anderson, this does not mean that their feelings are not valid. As we have learned, ideology has material consequences which manifest themselves every day. Diasporas can never “really” go home again because said “home” does not really exist, but this doesn’t negate or devalue the longing for home. The question become, what does this thirst for home really represent and can it ever be quenched?

I would like to end this post with a quote from Rod Serling, creator and writer of the science fiction television series The Twilight Zone. In an episode titled “Walking Distance”, Serling explores the “longing for home” feeling felt by all, and concludes as we must that it is not possible to go back.

“Martin Sloan, age thirty-six, vice president in charge of media. Successful in most things, but not in the one effort that all men try at some time in their lives – trying to go home again. And also like all men perhaps there’ll be an occasion – maybe a summer night sometime – when he’ll look up from what he’s doing and listen to the distant music of the calliope, and hear the voices and the laughter of his past. And perhaps across his mind there’ll flit a little errant wish, that a man might not have become old, never outgrow the parks and the merry-go-rounds of his youth. And he’ll smile then too because he’ll know it is just an errant wish, some wisp of memory not too important really, some laughing ghost that cross a man’s mind – that are part of the Twilight Zone.”

To Assimilate, or Not to Assimilate: That is the Question

This discussion is inspired by the question posed in class: when does Diaspora end and assimilation begin? I am intrigued by this question because I think in order to respond to this one must consider the various ways assimilation can be perceived. “Assimilation” occurs when a person or group of people takes on the dominant characteristics of the larger group. Since Canada’s adoption of the multiculturalism policy, multiculturalism has become “fundamental to [the] belief that all citizens are equal. Multiculturalism ensures that all citizens can keep their identities, can take pride in their ancestry, and [can] have a sense of belonging. Acceptance gives Canadians a feeling of security and self-confidence, making them more open to and accepting of diverse cultures.” Due to this dominant narrative regarding multiculturalism, assimilation in Canada is often seen to be a threat to Canada’s image as an all embracing nation where new migrants are not encouraged to adopt the characteristics of the European majority but instead maintain their culture and connection to their homeland. However, in putting so much emphasis on Canada’s multicultural identity displaces another very important issue. What about those who wish to assimilate or who come to Canada in the hopes of never having to look back?

An article that I read this weekend in the Markham Economist called, “Town’s ‘Too Asian:’ Complaint too late?” really drives this point home. The article was in response to the MacLean’s article entitled “The enrollment controversy: Worries that efforts in the U.S. to limit enrollment of Asian students in top universities may migrate to Canada,” where the author questioned whether Canadian Universities are becoming “too Asian.” Joe Li, a regional councilor, was offended by the negative stereotyping of the Asian- Canadian community. He wondered “Why the word Asian?” He noted that his children, who were born and raised in Canada, are going to be labeled “Asians for the rest of their lives. But why not [just] Canadians?”

There are many questions that can be raised with respect to the above articles. Firstly, the MacLean’s article suggests that perhaps Canada has not stayed true to its multiculturalism policy as there seems to be quite a bit of resentment towards the Chinese community. Furthermore, the reference to the Chinese population being “Asian- Canadian” points to the fact that despite the Chinese’ intentions, they are still considered to be a diaspora. The question of “when does Diaspora end and assimilation begin” becomes more complex in relation to Canada as its cultural identity is not so easily defined. In this case, when there are so many diaspora communities, to what culture would the diasporas assimilate?

Globalization from below: Diaspora’s Global Production of Kunfu Films

Many people think that global and local are opposite terms. But it is no longer true in today’s society. “Globalization from below”, proposed by Brecher et al. (1993), perfectly captures the dilemmas of those who at the same time resist and use hegemonizing technologies and communications. This “constitutive entanglement” between global and local, as Clifford (1994) argued, is “the characteristic of modern diaspora networks”.

I think Clifford is absolutely right if we look at the global productions of diasporas’ national dreams. For example, Hollywood Martial Arts films directed by Chinese Diasporas, perfectly displays the intertwinement between local and global. The most typical one that comes to my mind, is Ang Lee's martial arts melodrama Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, which thrilled audiences from Mainland China to the US.

In its visual and narrative content, the film comes across as resolutely Chinese local. Based on a Chinese novel and featuring ethnic Chinese actors, it offers sweeping vistas of mainland China and brings the Qing dynasty era to life through sumptuously detailed settings, costumes, and decor. The director, US-based diaspora Ang Lee, always cherishes a Chinese dream. Lee’s parents fled the communist revolution on the mainland in the 1940s and moved to Taiwan, where Lee was born. In 1978 he left Taiwan for the US, where he studied theater and film, started a family, and began making movies. By the time he made Crouching Tiger, Lee had lived in the US for almost as long as he had lived in Taiwan. At the same time, he maintained significant legal, economic, and cultural ties to Taiwan, including that of citizenship.

Due to his own experience, Lee’s Chinese dream is a “distinct version of modern, transnational, intercultural experience” (Clifford). He has never lived in China and did not really know China. He grew up with a sense of connection to the mainland, through “my parents, my education and those kung fu movies.” (see interview). Thus, Crouching Tiger should be seen as an evocation of an imagined China that exists in the minds of the overseas Chinese. Lee says, “I am looking for that old cultural, historical, abstract China – the big dream of China that probably never existed.”

However, that is exactly what I am worried about. For those diasporas, it is very hard to capture the pure homeland without any stigmas of globalization, because they have to experience the "selective adaptation” (Clifford) to immerse themselves to the new environments. Ang Lee earned his Bachelor and Master of Arts in the US, inevitably acquired the Hollywood ways to maximize profits and global attentions. Indeed, the Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon's production was astoundingly global. As an international co-production between companies in four regions, this film is a worldwide cinematic phenomenon: it grossed over $200 million worldwide and became the most successful foreign-language film in US history.

Following the trend lead by the Diasporas, the spread of Chinese dream goes hand in hand with popularization of Hollywood’s production mode. It more or less triggers the fad of Kunfu films produced by Chinese local directors as a means to earn global reputation (e.g. Hero, by Yimou Zhang). By this time, Kunfu film is no longer a form of self-expression to most Chinese; rather, it is only a method to cater the tastes of global audiences so as to make more money (Hero does present some Chinese elements, but only to the extent that western audiences could relate to). From my perspective, that is exactly how "globalization from below" functions in cultural industries. As we can see from the case of the Kungfu film made by diasporic dirctors, even the most national form of expression is inevitably tainted by the brush of globalization.

Glorified Karaoke All Over The World: How to set your Country apart...or make it a part of the Western World.

If indeed the faces of migration are dispersed, and individuals are seeking to find their own identities…can popular culture act as a means of identity creation or promotion? Lets consider the longevity of American Idol (based off Britain’s Pop Idol) and its infiltration (or integration?) into countries around the world. If migrants desire a real national identity specific to the country they left behind…can pop cultural artifacts fill this void if geared toward their homeland in an Americanized way? How can these specific forms of media effect us?

Hall says that we should think of identity as a “….’production’ which is never complete, always in process, and always constituted within, not outside, representation” (Hall 392) Can, then, “oneness” be considered through the eyes of nationally geared format television? If Hall believes that we ought to consider identity as not a rediscovery but a PRODUCTION then surely the 42 nations currently using the Idol format are onto something in terms of identity creation, right? What could be more of a production than lights, camera, action and karaoke? One could easily argue that Hall’s acknowledgment of “critical points of deep and significant difference, which constitute ‘what we really are’…” (Hall 394) can be seen through the different Idol formats. In many of the formats, for example, contestants sing songs culturally specific to their nation (though not always as seen here , here , and here …among others). The Idol format allows anyone to become a star (pending some sort of talent and attractive quality) by putting “average joes” on a stage representing the ideals, practices, and cultural artifacts of the nation.

The format can certainly give different cultures a “chance to speak” as Hall posits, notably seen in the 2003 “World Idol” whereby the winners of South Africa, United States, Belgium, Austrailia, Germany, Norway, Arab World, Netherlands, United Kingdom, Canada and Poland all competed on a global stage for recognition. Kurt Nilsen, of Norway, emerged as the victor which must have certainly created a sense of national pride for Norway. However, the song choices for “World Idol” were U2, Aretha Franklin, Nirvana, Aerosmith, The Doors, Louis Armstrong, “Jesus Christ Superstar,” and Elton John. Only ONE song from the entire program was an original song, “Ensani Ma Bensak” from the Arab State contestant. Interestingly, one judge commented that she was very brave for singing in a different language, to which Simon Cowell says, "Will you Win? No." Why, on a Global Stage with the entire world watching would the vast majority of the contestants choose primarily Americanized song choices? Would this not be a perfect opportunity to assert a strong individual voice and significant difference?

If you Google Image search ANY of the Idol formats around the world, you will notice quite readily that the logo is virtually unchanged among them all. There remains the same oval shape, with the same recognizable neon script thereby establishing the format as a brand moreso than a competition. Is this brand being consumed by non-western countries as a means of strengthening national identity by placing the talent of their citizens in “production” or does the Idol format break down cultural differences by the overwhelming use of American songs found within the programming?

Operation Babylift & Diaspora

This past Saturday I saw an inspirational film created in part by, and featuring the story of, my former professor and mentor, Dr. Robert Ballad (University of Waterloo). Although this screening had been on my agenda for weeks, I happened to read the diaspora collection of readings just the day before, without any idea how much the two would intersect. Bert’s film, Operation Babylift: The Lost Children of Vietnam, is an award-winning documentary released in 2009 about the adoptees and volunteers as they examine their lives and the effects of this historic mission on their lives nearly 35 years later.

For those unfamiliar with the event, it was the mass evacuation of orphaned children from South Vietnam at the end of the Vietnam War. The operation took place from April 3 – 26 1975; during those few weeks, over 3300 children were airlifted from Vietnam and adopted by families primarily in the United States. Although clichéd, words cannot describe the emotions felt by watching the film. The children (now adults) who were interviewed described their experiences growing up in America. Most explained feeling loved and growing up fairly happily in their adoptive families; however, they also documented feeling “displaced” during their childhood. After all, these children had no voice as to whether or not they should be evacuated to a different country; instead, those decisions were made for them.

I have noticed throughout our readings there is no simple definition of the term “diaspora”. Some theorists argue the homeland must be central in the model (Safran) whereas others use a variety of discourses to describe the term. Nonetheless, there exist overarching themes among the language and overlapping definitions of “diaspora”. I view the adoptees of Operation Babylift as a diaspora for a variety of reasons. Following Safran’s model (Clifford, p.304), this group would be considered a diaspora because it meets many of his criteria: this was a group of expatriate children, dispersed from an original centre, that maintained a memory/visions about their original homeland, and believe they are not fully accepted by their host country. The interviewees described growing up in racialized America where they looked different and felt different from the other kids around them.

Many of the interviewers described feeling comforted when a convention/reunion was held for the children who were part of Operation Babylift; there was a bond between them even though they had never met. Although there are varying definitions for the term diaspora, I believe the children of this mission can be considered a diaspora. For the reasons outlined above, as well as the shared connection to their prior “home” being strong enough to “resist erasure through the normalizing processes of forgetting, assimilating, and distancing” (Clifford, p.310).

Diaspora and Displacement

Stuart Hall argues that ‘Culture’ is one of the most difficult and complex words to define. Its meaning seems subjective and is constantly evolving in my opinion. I use the word “Culture” to define a person’s exposure to art, literature and cuisine in relationship to Western society; however, anthropologically Hall defines Culture in two ways. One; from the traditional model as a shared culture or collective, or a rediscovery of identity and two; the cultural model, as acknowledging deep significant difference, an identity in constant transformation. Therefore, if culture is something that is difficult to define and subject to change, then how can we characterize a group of Diasporas people? Diaspora is any group of people forced to leave their homeland. The Palestinian HipHop band DAM brought up some meaningful points about transnationalism and the way in which modern society or cultures integrate aspects of different cultures to form their own unique hybridity. For a culture to be Diasporas they must first move to a country carrying all the traditions and lifestyles that they had in their homeland. As well as successfully return to their homeland, unchanged or implicated by their host country. Clearly the intention is that Diasporas will return to their homeland, as that is one of the main defining features of a Diasporas group, however, I question whether they can enter a different country without being informed by the new culture to return to where they once lived. It is apparent that with the band DAM, citizens who are situated in their own country are influenced by Western Culture. I find it exceptionally difficult to consider that a migrating group enters North America without knowing the Western characteristics that are portrayed in Mass Media. So it appears that Migrants would enter North America assuming that they would have a better life or achieve the American Dream. Therefore with Diasporas groups, irregardless of their intention to return to their homeland would be influenced by the Western community. On the other hand, does moving to another country with the intention of returning to a homeland change their recollection of their homeland by idealizing it? Can Diasporas really return to what they once knew? How does this perpetuate displacement?

Who says modernity can’t be considered through song, dance and jazz hands?

Modernity experiences the world as composed of discrete, fragmented and separable units whereby social groups are formed based on levels of abstractions. In this, considerations of biological or real relationships are no longer seen as imperative in the formation or longevity of social groups.

HMMM! Ok, so tradition is being lost. The meaningful social groups and relationships formulated solely on the basis of sex, race, class, corporation and not our ancestors, forefathers, and all those who shaped the lives we are now privileged to be living. Is this problematic? If so, what is problematic about this loss of importance on tradition and biological relationships to something more socially constructed? A quote that may be relevant to this is from Chesterton’s book, Orthodoxy which reads “Tradition means giving a vote to the obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead”

Ah, so perhaps it is dangerous to place importance in the hands of those who are no longer physically present. However by the same token we see memberships in social groups to be both unstable and transitory. Stability comes in the form of tradition and though a mundane and somewhat frivolous example, Fiddler on the Roof exemplifies this stability.

“And how do we keep our balance? I can tell you in one word! TRADITION. Because of our traditions, we've kept our balance for many, many years. Here in Anatevka we have traditions for everything... how to eat, how to sleep, even, how to wear clothes. For instance, we always keep our heads covered and always wear a little prayer shawl... This shows our constant devotion to God. You may ask, how did this tradition start? I'll tell you - I don't know. But it's a tradition... Because of our traditions, everyone knows who he is and what God expects him to do."

The instability of social group relationship forming can be seen through the consideration of a vast array of pop cultural sites. The musical Wicked shows the abstract level of relationship forming seen through modernity when they consider the notion of being “popular.” Popularity is not based on our past, traditions or ancestry, but instead is a socially constructed ideal which is constantly transitory and ever changing.

“When I see depressing creatures/ With unprepossessing features / I remind them on their own behalf / To think of celebrated heads of state or / Specially great communicators / Did they have brains or knowledge? Don't make me laugh! / They were popular! Please - It's all about popular! / It's not about aptitude /It's the way you're viewed….”

In considering the dichotomies of the rigid and predictable structuration of tradition versus the instable and transitory notion of “modern” social relationships… which are more valuable? Should we fuse the two? Can the two ever be truly separated?

Does Slavery still exists?

Last week’s reading on Paul Gilroy’s excerpt, “the Black Atlantic as a counterculture of modernity” was very interesting to me especially being a black young woman, it allowed me to critically analyze the black progression academically, finically, socially and culturally within today’s society.

In Gilroy’s study the Black Atlantic represents the history of the movement of people of African descent and their travels from Africa to the Caribbean, Europe and America. His analysis provides a lens to view the ways that ideas about nationality and identity were formed. Gilroy also touches upon identity especially through music of which people of African descent not only confronted racially repressive social systems but also retained a sense of cultural integrity and forged common cultural memories. In today’s contemporary society this self expression art form of music that was once used as an advocated for the marginalized black people has been turned into a profitable marketing tool used to exploit and confine black people. Destroying and stripping them of their heritage and identity, leaving them with nothing.

In today’s modern society slavery still exists and that there has been little to no progression for most of those who come from African descents. In today’s modern sense I believe the term slavery boils down to economics and power and though it may seem as a race issue I believe it is more of a class issue. It has become a situation where money and power or lack thereof determines your place amongst the global society. This is not only seen in America amongst the poor black community, slums, and inner cities but as well in many countries in Africa as well.

Giving Indian Men and Women a Taste of Modernity

The notion of progress is embedded in modernity where people believe that they can always improve themselves and their environment with the help of knowledge and technology. This definition of modernity reminded me of an article I read discussing outsourcing initiatives in India. Many of us have had the experience of calling our telephone or computer company to speak with a customer service representative and have our call directed to India. Outsourcing is often considered to be the epitome of globalization and in the global economy businesses are seeking to find the cheapest labour to achieve the greatest profit. Businesses are able to hire people overseas and pay them 30-50% less than they would pay North Americans to do the exact same job. In a CNN news story, an analyst in India working for an American company said that “for the first time in the knowledge industry we have globalization impacting two countries at such a large scale - India and the U.S.” While outsourcing is considered to give Indian men and women a “taste of modernity”, I can’t help but ask, to what extent?

Outsourcing in India is twofold and I think the NBC show,“Outsourced” does a good job portraying both sides of the dichotomy. The plot revolves around Todd, an American who has moved to Mumbai, India to manage a call center. He faces the challenge of learning the Indian language and culture and teaching the American culture to his Indian counterparts. In an episode where an Indian worker is trying to explain Thanksgiving to his colleague he says,

“It’s quite simple really . . . the Pilgrims came to a land that was not their own and subjugated the Indians so that the white man could run their call center . . . I mean country.”

This quote illustrates that the characters are aware that outsourcing is premised on neo-colonialism and that they are subjected to their American boss. However, it is hard to turn a blind eye to the positive effects of outsourcing. The Indian men and women seemingly get a taste of modernity as they are given the opportunity to earn money, improve their economy and get a sense of national pride as they show people around the world that they too have a powerful workforce.

What Does it Mean to Be a Latour? ‘Work of Translation’ and Modernity

I decided to take a more comprehensive approach to the Blog this week, as I struggle with Latour’s concept of what it means to be modern. I will compare Latour’s point on Actor Network Theory to his critique of modernity.

Latour introduces the article by listing off apparent modern difficulties, discoveries in sciences and decisions of what to make public. These instances lend themselves to setting the scene for Latour’s definition of modern life-or modernity. Latour is listing off daily occurances that are published in newspapers and on the News, this serves as a segue into modern living: “ if reading the daily paper is modern man’s form of prayer, then it is a very strange man indeed who is doing the praying today while reading about these mixed-up affairs” 2.

Latour suggests that analysts, journalists and thinkers compartmentalize or mix up these affairs that are meant to ‘weave our world together’ as a sort of Actor Network Theory. Latour attempts to ‘retie the Gordian Knot’ by reconnecting or recreating a network that reconnects culture and nature. Latour’s example of mixed up affairs in the news or journalist’s compartmentalization of nature and culture all help display the problematic nature of the word ‘modern’. The adjective of modern suggests that there is a ‘revolution in time’ and the word modern designates a break in the regular passage of time or a conflict between Ancient and Modern.

The confusion of the word modern is based in the idea that modern “designates two sets of entirely different practices which must remain distinct if they are to remain effective” pg. 10. ‘Work of Translation’ is a set of practices that mixes hybrids of nature and culture into new ‘beings’. This practice lends itself most to Actor Network Theory as it defines the interrelationship between nature and culture.

However, contradictorily the second practice is purification, which creates distinct zones of information like human and nonhuman. Latour suggests that the ‘Work of Purification’ best lends itself to the ‘modern man’s daily paper’ as it creates a separation between the natural world and a current society. These practices are interrelated because without both a person could not be modern. They must consider that the present world is separate from, but informed by the natural world in a network.

Who defines “better”? Modernity as a constructed progress

Truth is always constructed; freedom only belongs to those who produce truths. (Hardt & Negri, 2000)

It is not uncommon that people firmly believe that modernity is the right and only passage to the better life of human beings. However, every progress pays price; modernity is not an exception.

After reading the chapter two "Pasages of Sovereignty" of the book "Empire", I began to understand the tactics used in the expansion of imperial powers. In the name of “civilization” (or "modernization"), colonization is always “an adequate justification for imperialist conquest and domination” (Hardt & Negri, 2000, p. 175). As such, there is no difference between the past Europe imperialists and the new Empire, the United States, both with selfish agenda. Sadly enough, the colonized people were convinced by a network of power that the cultural, economic and technological modernization and the possibility of democracy were good for them. Some even extol the developments truthfully. What's worse, colonization often creates discrepancies between the past and the present; going back is impossible.

Yes, with the expansion of capitalism into every corner of the world, modernity brought about tremendous economic developments. However, “capitalism is based ideologically and materially on free labor”, which resulted in “new systems of slavery on an unprecedented scale” (Hardt & Negri, 2000). This is the real agenda behind imperialists' actions. As is stated in both "Empire" (Hardt & Negri, 2000) and “Black Atlantic” (Paul Gilroy, 1993), black people were incessantly exacted to the most extent as modernization process unfolded. Even when post-modernists are singing the “politics of difference” and embracing hybridities, black people are still suffering unequal treatments as we can see in modern society. Is this new system of slavery really different from before? Or, should I say, modernization is only a progress for certain amount of people?

However, those people who were luckily free of slavery suffered from other kinds of latent tortures. Nationalism, as the revolt of colonization, was “from the beginning set down on the road to the totalitarian overcoding of social life” (Hardt & Negri, 2000); as it does in countries such as Cuba, where freedom only belongs to the dictator. Actually, everyone is implicated by accepting modernity without question. According to Latour’s book, we have never been modern (1993), modern world is abstractly defined as discrete, fragmented and separatable units whereas it is hybrid in reality; the formation of social groups is based on abstractions rather than supposedly real or biological relationships. For one thing, the first deconstructed and then reconstructed relationships can function more productively than before; for another, people have to choose between socially constructed dichotomies, e.g. religious, race, sexual preferences, which lead to anxiety and identity crisis. (Here, media, with the ability to reorganize time-space relations, fixed the constructed reality and also placated the anxiety to some extent, as what religions did in the past.)

Every change by nature has two sides. Modernity, as the "progressive" passage in human evolution, is shown to the world its desirable side. But questions are: whose desire it is? Is it not merely a constructed truism and seduction?

Past, Present, Future, Modern

Latour sates that we have never been modern, indicating that neither a pre-modern, post-modern or modern exists. This is one of the main points that struck me when reading his chapter about the crisis of modernity. We seem to be stuck somewhere between a fear of reverting to the difficulties presented in the past, and a longing for the future, when things will be better than they are now. Both of these fears seem to include romanticized notions. In the past we see a simpler time, and in the future we see a better world for our children and ourselves (renditions of a post-apocalyptic future not included). This negotiation of the past and the future leaves us somewhere in the middle, but in each case, not a “modern” era. While I generally agree with Latour’s argument, in that we fear the past, look to the future but never see the present, I think there are certain aspects of humanity that are overlooked in this broad generalization. Possibly I am missing the point of his explanation, but it seems to me that it has been human nature to always strive for something better. Maybe I am the one romanticizing the ideas of humanity, but this has been a fundamental aspect to moving human civilization forward. While we may never be able to call ourselves modern, or place a label on where we are in the grand scheme of civilization, this might not be that important. What is important is to strive to better ourselves and others. Perhaps the only way to accomplish this is to romanticize both the notions of the past and present. We look at the past and think about how simple it was, but also how hard it was, and for such reasons are glad to have moved beyond such difficulties as disease, physical labour, and the complications of basic engineering. But we always want to move further than we are now, so we romanticize the idea of the future, and how much better it will be than what we have now. In both these senses we are not modern, just moving through the grand scheme of humanity. Maybe the point is not to be modern, but to negotiate the ideas of past and future as best as we can. Perhaps I have looked too narrowly at a single aspect of his argument, but this particular idea of modernity stuck with me. Any thoughts?

Po-Mo and the American Dream

In discussing the difference between modernism and postmodernism I was reminded of a Simpson’s episode wherein Moe describes Postmodernism. Moe’s comment of postmodernism being “weird for the sake of weird” may not be too far off. For many the ideals of postmodernism, the notion that our entire culture is the product of social construction, can be unsettling. If everything is constructed by the culture around us, do we really have the capability to achieve something like the American Dream?

While researching postmodernism, I came across the novel, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1971), by Hunter S. Thompson. The novel’s journalistic and reflexive nature is a great example of a literary commentary on modernist thought. A quote that I find most fitting to our discussion on modernism is spoken by Raoul Duke, the character personifying Hunter S. Thompson which says:

“But our trip was different. It was to be a classic affirmation of everything right and true in the national character. A gross physical salute to the fantastic possibilities of life in this country. But only for those with true grit”.

If you have not had the opportunity to read this novel, I would definitely recommend that you skim through the first few chapters. If anything the film, featuring Johnny Depp, will be well worth your time. The vulgarity and realness of modernism which Thompson describes is without question continuing today. The war may be different and the circumstances more technologically-driven, but behind these actions is the belief that anything is possible. The problem with this belief is recognized by Gilroy in his writing on the Black Atlantic. Oftentimes that which is made possible for some, causes others to be subjected to less. The quest for the American Dream therefore excluded and continues to exclude many of the people living in America, including women and racial minorities.

The ideas presented by Bruno Latour in his book, We Have Never Been Modern (1993), can be used to critique the American Dream. Although first appearing in the 1930’s, the 'dream' that success and wealth can be attained through hard work is something most Western nations have adopted. I would agree with Latour that we have never been modern, just like we have never been post modern or post human for that matter. Whereas modernism can be defined as rational, hierarchical, centered and having a definite belief in progress. postmodernism is defined as irrational, anarchical, and dispersed and holds a belief that no progress is possible.

I believe it is fair to say that both modernism and postmodernism establish criteria that are unattainable to achieve. We may have striven to be modern, just as some of us are currently striving to be postmodern, but to say that we have been one or the other is hard for me to accept. The reality for these two competing camps is best summed up by Latour: while the moderns will remain standing in “a break in the regular passage of time” (10) the postmoderns will continue to “remain suspended in belief and doubt, waiting for the end of the millennium” (9).

Ambiguous Terms & Their Implications

Of the assigned readings this week, Gilroy’s excerpt, “The Black Atlantic as a Counterculture of Modernity” left me asking the most questions. Although there are a variety of concepts I would like to discuss, I will focus my post on the term African-American and its connection to ethnicity, diaspora, and nationalism. Before I begin, I want to list a few definitions from the Merriam-Webster site.

African-American: an American of African and especially of black African descent

Diaspora: the movement, migration, or scattering of a people away from an established or ancestral homeland

Ethnic: of or relating to large groups of people classed according to common racial, national, tribal, religious, linguistic, or cultural origin or background

After reading Gilroy’s excerpt, the term African-American really struck me. I want to say it took on a whole different meaning but it actually did the opposite; it brought to light the plethora of meanings I had already associated with the term but had never really thought about. I have been trying to formulate my thoughts, but even as I continually revise, they become more difficult to logically and coherently explain – please bear with me!

As a self-proclaimed multicultural nation, I understand there are people living in Canada who have “descended” from other countries around the world (in fact, technically all of us have). Though these people sometimes describe themselves with hyphenated terms that signal what their family background is, such as “Irish-Canadian”, we do not associate these terms with race; these terms simply indicate origin – where someone came from.

However, when I think of the term African-American, and I do not believe I am the only person to whom this assumption applies, the first definition that enters my mind is colour – not someone from African descent. I tried to think of other terms (i.e. Irish-Canadian) that also had a double meaning of origin and race, but could not think of any as readily as I thought of African-American (and even then, it was not origin that first related itself in my mind to the term, rather race).

After wrestling with this conundrum, I decided to look up the definition of “African-American” online. It was fascinating that within the simple ten-word definition, the colour black was explicitly stated. Moreover, no other abbreviated term relating to origin made an overt reference to skin colour. I still do not know how to interpret this…

Additionally, the terms diaspora and ethnicity revealed interesting definitions (as listed earlier) as well. It was particularly interesting to note the synonyms for ethnicity, which include nationality and race, support Gilroy’s assertion of the symbiotic relationship between nationalism and ethnicity.

To process all of this, I had to create a mind map, which took me from African-American as having a double meaning of origin and race, to diaspora meaning a group of people moving from their homeland, to ethnicity meaning a group of related people, to nationalism and its relation to ethnicity. After trying to tie everything together, I came up with this question: if an ethnic diaspora of African-Americans crossed borders and settled into a new nation, then how can a multicultural nation like Canada have any sense/definition of nationalism if it is simply comprised of multiple diasporas that simply coexist and do not share much in common other than living within the same territorial boundaries? I know this sounds pessimistic, but it is a thought I am still trying to figure out…

"If we're going to build a time machine, why not do it with some style?": Modernity and Going "Back to the Future"

Bruno Latour argues that we have never been modern – “modernity” is nothing more than a story that we tell ourselves. As the story goes, modernity presents: a discontinuity with the past, a neat and tidy separation between science and nature, faith in technology and progress. As Latour goes on to explain, modernity is characterized by contradictions, for example denying its own hybridity. I would like to expand on another of modernity’s inconsistencies, that being how moderns seemingly negotiate the passage of time.

For moderns, the past represents a time when technology wasn’t as strong, and therefore when things weren’t as great as they are today. Improvements in technology bring moderns closer and closer to greatness, which lies in the future. Moderns are different, are better, than the past thanks to progress. Just as moderns deny the hybridity that surrounds them, so too do they conceal their true obsession with the past.

In our society there is, and always has been, a strong desire to return to the past, to “the good ol’ days”, as they say. Nostalgia permeates our lives. It’s the reason why our parents took photos and diligently filled up family albums, it’s the reason why television networks like Deja View feature the shows from years past, it’s the reason why Disney World has perfect Main Street USA streets. If moderns are too good for the past, then why do they continually evoke it, romanticize it and long for it?

On the same note, moderns have an obsession with the future and the promise it holds, as evident through the popularity of sci-fi films, for example. And while moderns do long for the simpler times of the past, they obsessively continue to move forward in attempts to reach what I can only assume is some sort of "ultimate modernity", but what is really an endless journey.

The films that best characterize the point that I am trying to make is my own personal childhood favourite (nostalgic moment!) – The "Back to the Future" Series. In Back to the Future Part 1, teenager Marty and his kooky scientist friend Dr. Brown are of the “modern 80s”, so modern in fact that the Doc has invented a time machine - a pimped out Delorean . Dr. Brown’s mission, like all moderns, is to travel into the future, but when things don’t go as planned, he and Marty end up in 1955. While the viewers – and Marty – are certainly presented a picture perfect view of the squeaky clean 50s, most of the film is spent trying to get back to the future, therefore there is a strong rejection of the past. In Back to the Future Part 2, Marty and Doc make it to the future – 2015, a world of flying cars, holograms and hover boards (4 more years you guys, it’s gonna be awesome!!). Unfortunately, the future – while technologically advanced - is equally as alienating to Marty as the past (1955). Back to the Future Part 3 is most interesting as Marty and Doc travel even further into the past, the 1800s aka – the Wild West (or Wild Wild West, if you’re a Will Smith fan…). The Wild West of course, is perhaps the ultimate romanticization of the American past. Doc Brown becomes so caught up in this simple life that he opts to stay there, sending Marty back to the future alone.

What Marty and more specifically Doc prove is that modernity is characterized by a simultaneous obsession with and estrangement from the past and the future. Until Doc decides to settle down in the Old West (interesting, how it is his technological achievements and his own belief in progress that allow for him to live in the past, where these things do not “exist”), Marty and the Doc prove that as “moderns”, they are extremely uncomfortable with the present. Even when the past and the future become their new present, they long to return to the future (or the past) only to depart once again into a different decade.

In response to Latour’s question “What does it mean to be modern?” – it means to be unhappy and uncomfortable with the present, and to depend on the past or the future to feel at home.

Corporations as Empire

I liked the way Marie connected concepts of Empire with the idea of McDonalds to illustrate aspects of globalization. I think that such large, globally recognized corporate chains might come to stand in for any previous imperialist state. While imperialism may be over, corporations remain to exploit third world nations and rule the lives of people around the globe. This is why I believe the concept of Empire is represented in trans-national corporations. Empire is a form of global sovereignty, “decentered and deterritorializeing apparatus of rule that progressively incorporates the entire global realm within its open, expanding frontiers” (xii). If global sovereignty is Empire, it is easy to see that the most predominant global sovereignty is that of corporations. Corporations such as McDonalds use brand identity to unite people in a global society. As previous distinctions of cultures and peoples (such as language, customs, or national pride) disappear, global brand identities remain.

Hardt and Negri use four characteristics of Empire in their introduction that apply particularly well to the idea of corporations as a metaphor for Empire. I will stick with Marie’s example of the McDonalds Corporation to demonstrate the idea. First, Empire has no territorial boundaries. Corporations exemplify the processes of globalization. With various stages of production located around the world, no one country can be self-dependent. McDonalds will establish a chain in any location around the globe, no matter what the culture, customs, etc., and produces products in various locations around the globe. Second Empire presents itself as outside of history or at the end of history. This one is a bit trickier but McDonalds is seen as an inevitable chain of fast food restaurants. It is just assumed there will be one, wherever you go, and that it will always be there or has been there for a very long time. Third, Empire creates its world, seeking to “directly rule over human nature” (xv). Some might argue that McDonalds tries to “rule over human nature” by the addictiveness of their food, and by the promise of comfort and familiarity when traveling abroad. The brand recognition creates patterns of behaviours. Fourth Empire always tries to maintain peace, even when it may be bathed in blood. Often the means of producing any product within a global society are not carefully examined. The production of beef for McDonalds takes a great environmental toll on nature and humans. We often do not see the deaths that happen because of actions taken along the line of production. This can often have devastating effects on the people living in the areas where production is taking place. Thus in my opinion, corporations can be seen as an excellent representation of what Hardt and Negri term Empire.

What is "Just war"?

What I found most intriguing in the Hardt and Negri “Empire” reading was the discourse surrounding the traditional concept of “just war” and I tried to relate this concept within today’s society. According to Saint Augustine, in order for there to be “just war” the fight must be fought for the right reasons and it must be waged under rightful authority, the war is waged in order to establish peace.


In the reading it says, “These two traditional characters have reappeared in our postmodern world on the one hand war is reduced to the status of police action and on the other hand the new power that can legitimately exercise ethical functions through war is sacralised." I found this to be really insightful as I reflected on past political world events that have used the act of “just war” in justification for their action. In many cases today “just war” is no longer used as an act of defence or for battle to create peace, rather it is used to exercise and establish authority and power over another country. An example of this is when the United States felt there was need for “just war” in Iraq after 911 attacks on the Twin Towers. Iraq didn’t attack nor did they take any peace away from the United States. The president at the time said the reason for the invasion and attack against Iraq was because the country had amassed weapons of mass destruction, but many other unfriendly nations have weapons of mass destruction and there was no attack on them.


Americas “just war” was unjust and immoral for many reasons because the intention was to satisfy the business-related or political appetites of politicians and was not to restore peace but rather to harm, revenge and to dominate.

In search of culture In Europe

What is the Empire if not the accumulation and assimilation of cultural distinctions coalescing to form a unitary whole? Hardt and Negri hold that the Empire is a manifestation of the globalization process. Geographical boundaries become irrelevant in the power quest of the corporation and international governance alike. Capitalism is imbedded or sought after by all nations-states. Adept countries relinquish their ‘nationness’ for a capitalist statehood. What formerly united people within the confines of distinct geographic borders, nationality, has been blurred and with it cultural traditions are lost. A way of life is lost. People are lost.

As the Dutch author Geert Mak writes in his novel, In Europe, Eastern European nations eagerly await their admission into the European Union without much awareness of the implications this will have on their cultures and societies. Specifically, Mak presents the Hungarian village, Vasarosbec: a village where tradition is as lively as national identity. The Empire of Hardt and Negri and adherence to it, requires immense sacrifices, as Mak explains, some that lead to an economic descent – poverty being a necessary part of the reintegration, as well as to community and personal loss.

“'And what's more, you're going to lose some very precious things: friendship, the ability to get by without a lot of money, the skills to repair things that are broken, the freedom to raise your own pigs and slaughter them as you see fit, the freedom to burn as much timber as you like... any number of other things.'

‘What?’ they asked him. ‘No more slaughtering our own pigs? No more burning wood?’ They looked at him in disbelief. At that time they did not know that, before long, they wouldn’t be allowed to smoke in the cafe either. ‘The bell-ringer walked out during my story,’ my friend wrote to us. ‘I can hear him ringing the church bell right now, to mark the setting sun. There are some things that go on unchanged’. (Geert Mak, XV)”

A shift in cultural norms and an adventure down the imperial reconstruction of Europe. It makes one wonder why the need for such assimilation? Is there no room for pig cutters and wood burners in this frame? Is this form of continental or global assimilation a necessary component in the creation of global order? Mak also supports that there is a shift from prior held values, and national unities; world order is – just as stated by Hardt and Negri, invisible if ever present at all: “[t]he world order of the twentieth century - insofar as one can speak of 'order' at all - seems to be gone for good. (Geert Mak, XVI)”

A new global order is born indeed, but is the global citizenry approving? Are members of the world community satisfied with a process that requires a loss of self? Is interconnectedness and global unity an enabler of the formation of the global nation, or is it merely widening the gap between the wealthy and poor?