Diaspora-Homeland Relations as a Framework to Examine Nation-Building Processes

Abstract

This article examines diasporization practices – practices through which homeland and diaspora communities engage each other – as a prism through which to explore the process of nationbuilding and the formation of national belonging. Instead of treating ‘nation’ or ‘diaspora’ as bounded entities, it explores the various ways through which members of diaspora communities negotiate their position vis-a `-vis national homeland movements on the one hand and host societies on the other. Specifically, it examines practices of fundraising, diasporic lobbying, the extension of citizenship to members of diaspora communities, and the consumption of images through communication technologies. Through these ongoing, negotiated encounters, ‘homeland’ as well as ‘diaspora’ are produced. Close examination of these practices may offer fresh insights regarding the process of nation-building in the diaspora that has a heuristic value beyond this particular setting. The concept of ‘diaspora,’ which during the 1990 signaled the emergence of a postnational era, is no longer the darling of constructivist social scientists. In recent years, a slew of scholars suggested that counter to earlier suggestions, diaspora groups actually harbor essentialist tendencies (Anderson 1998; Mishra 1996). Furthermore, critics note that scholars of diaspora communities often fail to take account of the heterogeneity within diasporas and in effect reinforce essentialist perspectives (Anthias 1998; Brubaker 2005; Mitchell 1997; Soysal 2002; Weingrod and Levi 2006). While these critiques are in place, this article suggests that abandoning the concept of diaspora is unwarranted. If handled properly, the encounter between homeland and diaspora communities offers a strategic research site for exploring the process of nationbuilding. The unique analytical value of these encounters stems from the ambiguous and distanced position of diaspora communities vis-a `-vis the nation-state (both the country or origin and destination of settlement). The social and geographic distance that separates homeland and diaspora communities gives rise to controversies that center on the question of where they belong. In addition, this distanced position poses a practical challenge for national movements that seek to mobilize supporters abroad. These controversies and practical difficulties render the efforts to incorporate diaspora communities particularly visible. Close examination of the practices developed to streamline the relationship between homeland and diaspora communities, which are often marked by strong tensions and disagreement, can therefore serve as a prism through which one can better understand how belonging to a place or a group is manufactured. Instead of positing that diaspora communities are a harbinger of a post-national era or that they play a role in advancing multiculturalism in the ‘host’ society, this article suggests exploring the various practices developed by diaspora communities and national move