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.