Theorizing Diaspora: Perspectives on “Classical” and “Contemporary” Diaspora

Abstract

AbstractCohen (1997) employed the term “classical” diaspora in reference to the Jews. Indeed, a vast corpus of work recognizes the Jewish people as examples of quintessential diasporic groups. However, a broader conceptualization of the term diaspora allows for the inclusion of immigrant communities that would be otherwise sidelined in the conventional literature on diaspora.This study is therefore a departure from the traditional diasporic literature, which tends to use the Jewish Diaspora as the archetype. It favours, rather, the classification of three principal broad historical waves in which the Jewish Diaspora can be interpreted as part of a classical period. The historicizing of diasporization for the purpose of this paper is achieved by an empirical discussion of the three major historical waves that influenced the diasporic process throughout the world: the Classical Period, the Modern Period, and the Contemporary or Late‐modern Period.The paper discusses these three critical phases in the following manner: first, reference is made to the Classical Period, which is associated primarily with ancient diaspora and ancient Greece. The second historical phase analyses diaspora in relation to the Modern Period, which can be interpreted as a central historical fact of slavery and colonization. This section can be further subdivided into three large phases: (1) the expansion of European capital (1500–1814), (2) the Industrial Revolution (1815–1914), and (3) the Interwar Period (1914–1945). The final major period of diasporization can be considered a Contemporary or Late‐modern phenomenon. It refers to the period immediately after World War II to the present day, specifying the case of the Hispanics in the United States as one key example. The paper outlines some aspects of the impact of the Latin American diaspora on the United States, from a socio‐economic and politico‐cultural point of view.While the Modern and Late‐modern periods are undoubtedly the most critical for an understanding of diaspora in a modern, globalized context, for the purpose of this paper, more emphasis is placed on the latter period, which illustrates the progressive effect of globalization on the phenomenon of diasporization. The second period, the Modern Phase is not examined in this paper, as the focus is on a comparative analysis of the early Classical Period and the Contemporary or Late‐modern Period.The incorporation of diaspora as a unit of analysis in the field of international relations has been largely neglected by both recent and critical scholarship on the subject matter. While a growing number of studies focus on the increasing phenomenon of diasporic communities, from the vantage of social sciences, the issue of diaspora appears to be inadequately addressed or ignored altogether. Certain key factors present themselves as limitations to the understanding of the concept, as well as its relevance to the field of international relations and the social sciences as a whole.This paper is meant to clarify some aspects of the definition of diaspora by critiquing the theories in the conventional literature, exposing the lacunae in terms of interpretation of diaspora and in the final analysis, establishing a historiography that may be useful in comparing certain features of “classical” diaspora and “contemporary” diaspora. The latter part of the paper is intended to provide illustrations of a contemporary diasporic community, using the example of Hispanics in the United States.