Citation
Immigrants and Emigrants: Toward a Diasporic View of Becoming-Dutch

Material Information

Title:
Immigrants and Emigrants: Toward a Diasporic View of Becoming-Dutch
Creator:
GARCIA, ADAM ( Author, Primary )
Copyright Date:
2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Diasporas ( jstor )
Emigration ( jstor )
Ethnicity ( jstor )
Immigration ( jstor )
Multiculturalism ( jstor )
Narratives ( jstor )
Nationalism ( jstor )
Racism ( jstor )
Social discrimination ( jstor )
Trucks ( jstor )

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright Adam Garcia. Permission granted to University of Florida to digitize and display this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Embargo Date:
7/12/2007
Resource Identifier:
659806732 ( OCLC )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

garcia_a ( .pdf )

garcia_a_Page_136.txt

garcia_a_Page_238.txt

garcia_a_Page_222.txt

garcia_a_Page_022.txt

garcia_a_Page_039.txt

garcia_a_Page_108.txt

garcia_a_Page_147.txt

garcia_a_Page_081.txt

garcia_a_Page_145.txt

garcia_a_Page_026.txt

garcia_a_Page_177.txt

garcia_a_Page_058.txt

garcia_a_Page_244.txt

garcia_a_Page_086.txt

garcia_a_Page_069.txt

garcia_a_Page_165.txt

garcia_a_Page_253.txt

garcia_a_Page_035.txt

garcia_a_Page_194.txt

garcia_a_Page_168.txt

garcia_a_Page_032.txt

garcia_a_Page_267.txt

garcia_a_Page_019.txt

garcia_a_Page_087.txt

garcia_a_Page_212.txt

garcia_a_Page_176.txt

garcia_a_Page_186.txt

garcia_a_Page_133.txt

garcia_a_Page_053.txt

garcia_a_Page_093.txt

garcia_a_Page_099.txt

garcia_a_Page_259.txt

garcia_a_Page_202.txt

garcia_a_Page_137.txt

garcia_a_Page_047.txt

garcia_a_Page_046.txt

garcia_a_Page_005.txt

garcia_a_Page_067.txt

garcia_a_Page_014.txt

garcia_a_Page_184.txt

garcia_a_Page_075.txt

garcia_a_Page_115.txt

garcia_a_Page_150.txt

garcia_a_Page_140.txt

garcia_a_Page_182.txt

garcia_a_Page_051.txt

garcia_a_Page_171.txt

garcia_a_Page_023.txt

garcia_a_Page_166.txt

garcia_a_Page_031.txt

garcia_a_Page_064.txt

garcia_a_Page_175.txt

garcia_a_Page_250.txt

garcia_a_Page_188.txt

garcia_a_Page_122.txt

garcia_a_Page_079.txt

garcia_a_Page_149.txt

garcia_a_Page_195.txt

garcia_a_Page_172.txt

garcia_a_Page_134.txt

garcia_a_Page_198.txt

garcia_a_Page_211.txt

garcia_a_Page_173.txt

garcia_a_Page_092.txt

garcia_a_Page_001.txt

garcia_a_Page_193.txt

garcia_a_Page_196.txt

garcia_a_Page_220.txt

garcia_a_Page_264.txt

garcia_a_Page_141.txt

garcia_a_Page_076.txt

garcia_a_Page_174.txt

garcia_a_Page_191.txt

garcia_a_Page_224.txt

garcia_a_Page_125.txt

garcia_a_Page_144.txt

garcia_a_Page_231.txt

garcia_a_Page_179.txt

garcia_a_Page_255.txt

garcia_a_Page_226.txt

garcia_a_Page_208.txt

garcia_a_Page_162.txt

garcia_a_Page_065.txt

garcia_a_Page_057.txt

garcia_a_Page_228.txt

garcia_a_Page_070.txt

garcia_a_Page_063.txt

garcia_a_Page_020.txt

garcia_a_Page_252.txt

garcia_a_Page_083.txt

garcia_a_Page_007.txt

garcia_a_Page_139.txt

garcia_a_Page_201.txt

garcia_a_Page_102.txt

garcia_a_Page_246.txt

garcia_a_Page_036.txt

garcia_a_Page_042.txt

garcia_a_Page_013.txt

garcia_a_Page_190.txt

garcia_a_Page_044.txt

garcia_a_Page_240.txt

garcia_a_Page_214.txt

garcia_a_Page_096.txt

garcia_a_Page_030.txt

garcia_a_Page_126.txt

garcia_a_Page_233.txt

garcia_a_Page_010.txt

garcia_a_Page_206.txt

garcia_a_Page_200.txt

garcia_a_Page_060.txt

garcia_a_Page_061.txt

garcia_a_Page_027.txt

garcia_a_Page_192.txt

garcia_a_Page_265.txt

garcia_a_Page_245.txt

garcia_a_Page_158.txt

garcia_a_Page_274.txt

garcia_a_Page_261.txt

garcia_a_Page_097.txt

garcia_a_Page_251.txt

garcia_a_Page_025.txt

garcia_a_Page_249.txt

garcia_a_Page_268.txt

garcia_a_Page_256.txt

garcia_a_Page_239.txt

garcia_a_pdf.txt

garcia_a_Page_110.txt

garcia_a_Page_127.txt

garcia_a_Page_072.txt

garcia_a_Page_024.txt

garcia_a_Page_073.txt

garcia_a_Page_169.txt

garcia_a_Page_138.txt

garcia_a_Page_164.txt

garcia_a_Page_216.txt

garcia_a_Page_260.txt

garcia_a_Page_143.txt

garcia_a_Page_221.txt

garcia_a_Page_151.txt

garcia_a_Page_266.txt

garcia_a_Page_094.txt

garcia_a_Page_242.txt

garcia_a_Page_217.txt

garcia_a_Page_210.txt

garcia_a_Page_071.txt

garcia_a_Page_237.txt

garcia_a_Page_105.txt

garcia_a_Page_095.txt

garcia_a_Page_213.txt

garcia_a_Page_006.txt

garcia_a_Page_054.txt

garcia_a_Page_199.txt

garcia_a_Page_219.txt

garcia_a_Page_241.txt

garcia_a_Page_068.txt

garcia_a_Page_218.txt

garcia_a_Page_235.txt

garcia_a_Page_085.txt

garcia_a_Page_018.txt

garcia_a_Page_021.txt

garcia_a_Page_272.txt

garcia_a_Page_161.txt

garcia_a_Page_041.txt

garcia_a_Page_008.txt

garcia_a_Page_088.txt

garcia_a_Page_003.txt

garcia_a_Page_155.txt

garcia_a_Page_062.txt

garcia_a_Page_170.txt

garcia_a_Page_243.txt

garcia_a_Page_146.txt

garcia_a_Page_232.txt

garcia_a_Page_016.txt

garcia_a_Page_111.txt

garcia_a_Page_120.txt

garcia_a_Page_050.txt

garcia_a_Page_048.txt

garcia_a_Page_130.txt

garcia_a_Page_154.txt

garcia_a_Page_112.txt

garcia_a_Page_269.txt

garcia_a_Page_189.txt

garcia_a_Page_209.txt

garcia_a_Page_187.txt

garcia_a_Page_040.txt

garcia_a_Page_078.txt

garcia_a_Page_225.txt

garcia_a_Page_091.txt

garcia_a_Page_254.txt

garcia_a_Page_273.txt

garcia_a_Page_185.txt

garcia_a_Page_080.txt

garcia_a_Page_113.txt

garcia_a_Page_028.txt

garcia_a_Page_084.txt

garcia_a_Page_159.txt

garcia_a_Page_197.txt

garcia_a_Page_271.txt

garcia_a_Page_109.txt

garcia_a_Page_089.txt

garcia_a_Page_052.txt

garcia_a_Page_104.txt

garcia_a_Page_037.txt

garcia_a_Page_230.txt

garcia_a_Page_178.txt

garcia_a_Page_163.txt

garcia_a_Page_012.txt

garcia_a_Page_183.txt

garcia_a_Page_100.txt

garcia_a_Page_056.txt

garcia_a_Page_153.txt

garcia_a_Page_045.txt

garcia_a_Page_074.txt

garcia_a_Page_258.txt

garcia_a_Page_119.txt

garcia_a_Page_207.txt

garcia_a_Page_107.txt

garcia_a_Page_135.txt

garcia_a_Page_157.txt

garcia_a_Page_248.txt

garcia_a_Page_181.txt

garcia_a_Page_033.txt

garcia_a_Page_227.txt

garcia_a_Page_011.txt

garcia_a_Page_038.txt

garcia_a_Page_002.txt

garcia_a_Page_049.txt

garcia_a_Page_236.txt

garcia_a_Page_017.txt

garcia_a_Page_167.txt

garcia_a_Page_204.txt

garcia_a_Page_257.txt

garcia_a_Page_059.txt

garcia_a_Page_148.txt

garcia_a_Page_160.txt

garcia_a_Page_215.txt

garcia_a_Page_128.txt

garcia_a_Page_223.txt

garcia_a_Page_029.txt

garcia_a_Page_015.txt

garcia_a_Page_043.txt

garcia_a_Page_116.txt

garcia_a_Page_077.txt

garcia_a_Page_055.txt

garcia_a_Page_152.txt

garcia_a_Page_117.txt

garcia_a_Page_066.txt

garcia_a_Page_132.txt

garcia_a_Page_098.txt

garcia_a_Page_203.txt

garcia_a_Page_114.txt

garcia_a_Page_123.txt

garcia_a_Page_082.txt

garcia_a_Page_106.txt

garcia_a_Page_129.txt

garcia_a_Page_262.txt

garcia_a_Page_121.txt

garcia_a_Page_090.txt

garcia_a_Page_103.txt

garcia_a_Page_142.txt

garcia_a_Page_270.txt

garcia_a_Page_247.txt

garcia_a_Page_004.txt

garcia_a_Page_034.txt

garcia_a_Page_156.txt

garcia_a_Page_263.txt

garcia_a_Page_180.txt

garcia_a_Page_101.txt

garcia_a_Page_131.txt

garcia_a_Page_229.txt

garcia_a_Page_009.txt

garcia_a_Page_205.txt

garcia_a_Page_118.txt

garcia_a_Page_234.txt

garcia_a_Page_124.txt


Full Text





IMMIGRANTS AND EMIGRANTS: TOWARD A DIASPORIC VIEW OF BECOMING-
DUTCH























By

ADAM GARCIA


A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF ARTS

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2007


































2007 Adam Garcia



























For Bo Marcus Garcia and all children of diaspora









ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I could not begin to make a complete list of everyone who has contributed to this project.

However, I would like to thank my committee members, Drs. Regina Bures and Connie Shehan,

for allowing me the great freedom needed to pursue this project, as well as for their critical

engagement, support, and encouragement. I would especially like to thank my partner, Jennifer

Flight, who always listens to my ideas and provides critical feedback, and who has the unique

ability to provide insight radical enough to transcend my most cemented assumptions and

expectations so that I can move forward with a different perspective and fresh hope









TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S ..............................................................................................................4

ABSTRAC T .......................................................................... 7

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION: THE PROBLEM OF CONCEPTUALIZING (NON)IMMIGRANT
S O C IE T IE S ................................................................ ................ .. 9

2 THEORY-METHOD AND LITERATURE REVIEW.................................................... 11

T ran sn action alism ....................................................................... 12
M multiculturalism ........................... ..... .......... .......... ................................ 16
Demographic Constructions of Dutch Population/Demographics .............. ...................22
Diaspora as Theoretical Framework and Social Consciousness....................................29

3 TRACES OF A DUTCH DIASPORA.............. .. ......... ....................... 35

O perationalizing D utch D iaspora ........................................ ............................................36
U se of Internet Sources of D ata......... ............................ ............................ .....................37
Representativeness of Data and the Goal(s) of Research......................................................38
C om prison versus C contrast ............................................................................ ..............39
(Im agining) Com munities behind the Data ........................................ ........................ 40
Social Position of Researcher vis-a-vis Respondents.........................................................41
Influence of Emigration and Geography on Research Methods...........................................43
M ethod of D ata A analysis ............................................................................... .. .............44
Postscript on M ethodological Paradigm s ........................................ .......................... 48

4 PRELIMINARY SURVEY OF DATA AND SOURCES ............................................. 50

C laim ing B elonging .................................................................................... .. ............ .. 5 1
Struggles and L egal P rocedures...................................................................... ..................52

5 FURTHER EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION WITHIN A GROWING DIASPORIC
CON SCIOU SN E SS ........ .. ........ .. .............. .......................... ........ ........ 57

T ran sition al N ote ................................................................57
HetGevolg.nl Narratives ................ ............. ............................ .............. 59
S tra te g ic S ile n c e s ....................................................................................................... 5 9
Spousal Rights .......................................................................... ... .................... ................61
Facing M multiple Institutional H ostilities...................................... ........................ 62
Experiencing External Threat Inside the Border......................................................63
R turning to an E strange Past................................................ ............................ 64
Theorizing Borders ......... ...................................... .. .. ... ..... ................. 65









Bringing Immigrants and Emigrants Together......................................................66
X Pdite.net N arratives ................................................................... .. ............ 68
Im m migration E m migration ......... ................. ......................................... ............... 68
T he Joy of V isa Success ........................................................................... .............. 69
Overweighing Multiple Positive Alternatives.......................................................70
Negotiating Migration-Possibilities through Dialogue ................................................72
M migration Control as Domestic Intervention........................................ ............... 76

6 DISCU SSION ......... ........... ................................................ ... ......... ........ 81

APPENDIX

A (UNTRANSLATED) NARRATIVE DATA ............................................................. 92

B A D D ITIO N A L N O TE S.................................................................................................. 102

Reading Instructions .............. ....................................................... 103
S y n th e se s ........................................................................................................................ 1 1 1
A P personal N ote on [D utch] ........................................................................ ...................126
R research and B ecom ing ............................................................................ .....................146
Literature and Theory ..................................... .. ........... .. ............ 55
Race and Diaspora .................. ..................................... ............. ....... ...... 178
D iaspora and Am erican Racism ........................................................ ............. 185
Race/racism and Social Construction................................ ......................... ........ 187
Latour's Obligatory Points of Passage .............................................. ......... ...... 193
Dutch Racism from a U.S. (National) Perspective ................................................ 198
Dutch Racism and Discourses of National 'Fullness' ....................................... 202
R acism and Soccer ............................................ .. .. .... ........... ....... 209
T tolerance and R acism ......................... ............................ .... ......... .... ..... ...... 2 19
M methodology ................................................................. ..................... ........ 224
Some Concerns with Modeling and Data..............................................................224
From Data to Findings: conceptualizing data as representative..................................231
M methods and D ata.................. ................... ................................ .... 239
Deleuzian Assemblages as an Alternative to the Statistical Population Approach.......258
C o n c lu sio n ............................................................................................................... 2 6 4

L IST O F R E F E R E N C E S ..................................................................................... ..................268

B IO G R A PH IC A L SK E T C H ............................................................................. ....................274












6









Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts

IMMIGRANTS AND EMIGRANTS: TOWARD A DIASPORIC VIEW OF BECOMING-
DUTCH

By

Adam Garcia

May 2007

Chair: Regina Bures
Major: Sociology

The concept of globalization implies a national world, in contrast to one that is already

global(ized). In doing so it obscures the fact that nationalism, like globalism, is not a state-of-

the-world at all but an ideological orientation, performed in everyday life; one that encourages

us to imagine aspects of social life in terms of nations, nationality, birth-rights, geographical

territorialism, and ethnic exclusion instead of inclusivity and freedom of place. Terms and the

ideas they represent such as "transnationalism," "immigration," and "emigration" make reference

to a nation-centered perspective while other terms such as 'multiculturalism' and 'diaspora' are

more open but at the same time subject to nation-centered meaning-making. This thesis

problematizes the mode of conceptualizing people in relation to the bounded nation(al)-state(ic)

image of the still-globalizing world by considering the notion of a Dutch diaspora in which

immigrants as well as those born in the Netherlands are accorded equal ontological status as

emigrants. Although the thesis explores theoretical discourse of issues such as multiculturalism,

transnationalism, (e/im)migration, and diaspora; an empirical exploration of web-based

emigration narratives is also put forth. In doing so, the possibility takes shape that actors

conceived of as radically different within a nationalist perspective may share experiences that are

actually quite comparable in practice. Specifically Dutch emigrants to Australia are considered









in parallel with refugees encountering legal pressure to emigrate from the Netherlands. The paper

concludes by arguing for an expanded conceptualization of diaspora. Dutch cultural diaspora

includes immigrants as well as those accorded native status by utilizing a perspective on ethnic-

national society that avoids essentialistic definitions of exclusive membership in favor of one

that recognizes the primacy of contact and cultural exchange in constructing diasporic societies.

In doing so it allows for the possibility of envisioning a common Dutch cultural community

extending beyond the regional territory of the Netherlands and a narrow view of ethnic

Dutchness.









CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION: THE PROBLEM OF CONCEPTUALIZING (NON)IMMIGRANT
SOCIETIES

Although there is a large and diverse body of writing on immigration and immigrants, as

evidenced by journals such as the Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, we rarely enter into

discussion about what assumptions and implications are tacit in setting this mode of human life

aside categorically. At the most basic linguistic level, talking about immigration and immigrants

suggests that there is a complimentary mode of existence which does not involve immigrationn

and that some individuals are not immigrantst. Of course for many people, the idea that some

people are immigrants while others are not is simply a fact to be taken for granted. For them it

may be possible to enter into discussions about how the category of immigrant is defined or who

does or does not constitute an immigrant, but the distinction immigrant/native remains intact. I

contend that the idea of immigrationn and the category, immigrantn, are conceptual constructs

that have little if anything to do with material or behavioral differences between individuals if

and when these constructs are abandoned for more salient ones that recognize mobility as

fundamental to all life.

In this paper I take a closer look at the idea of immigration and explore, first, the reasons

why the distinction between immigrantss and non-(im)migrants is held so dear and explore how

the distinction between immigration activities and other activities is potentially confounding at

worst and schizoid at best. To contextualize this project in the topical area of European

Immigration, I have chosen as a substantive focus the European sub-population of the

Netherlands, in a sense somewhat more broadly defined than would be the case in many popular

and social scientific applications, which will be explained in more detail later. Specifically, I

want to map out the idea of a Dutch diaspora that extends beyond both the residents of the

geographical area of North-West Europe normally associated with the nation, as well as beyond









the normal genealogical boundaries created by exclusions based on legal, as well as other

informal or semiformal definitions. My reason for expanding my gaze in this way is to take

account of not only the inclusive contents of'the Dutch state' but also its excluded discontents,

recognizing that the discourses of separation between these categories exist as part of a wider

discourse which may also be identified as 'Dutch.' In this way, it is my hope that the categorical

distinctions applied to draw distinctions between various types of immigrants as well as between

immigrants and non-immigrants will give way (within the reader's perceptions), at least partially,

to a more complete image of a multi-categorical 'Dutch' population in order to overcome its

disjunctive rendering through the application of such categorical distinctions.









CHAPTER 2
THEORY-METHOD AND LITERATURE REVIEW

When undertaking research in which one is exercising a greater-than-usual mindfulness

regarding the basic analytical categories of research, it makes sense to discuss theory and method

in tandem. The reason for this is that we are not dividing the input of the project into theoretical

background literature and data-to-be-analyzed, but rather drawing on the data for theory while

also exploring the theoretical literature as an analytical object. This is a strategy aimed at

reducing the normative practice of distinguishing between academic literature and other

literature or other types of narratives in terms of the interpretive framework we employ in

reading them. To put it even more practically, the aim is to look at ideological reproduction in

language-based expressions in more or less the same terms and to engage them in the same

terms, whether they appear in a scholarly journal or a website. The assumption is that academic

writing is a form of human expression similar to others and can be regarded as such. 'Theory'

then refers to the theoretical engagement of ideological implications of texts under consideration

while 'method' suggests that approaching academic literature and/or respondent narratives in this

way is not an ungrounded exercise in intellectualization for its own sake but a tacit means of

pursuing concrete epistemological goals by engaging the publicly disseminated expressions of

social actors with a stake in the issues in question.

Although I cannot emphasize strongly enough to readers the active resistance necessary to

avoid reifying categorical distinctions employed for purposes of textual organization, I have

opted to analyze and review the scholarly literature by theme, considering first transnationalism,

then multiculturalism, and finally diaspora. Although these are different words each marked

with a unique etymology, and which become the centers of terminologically-focused discourse, I

do not regard these as describing different aspects of social life. What's more I do not regard









them as describing a form of social life, macro or micro, separate from everyday life more

generally. This may seem confusing to readers who conceptualize the world according to

national-static normativity since this perspective tends to marginalize and/or ignoring the

radically migratory and culturally-synthetic nature of all life, not thus that defined as migratory.

Nevertheless, it will be helpful to discuss them here separately for textual and etymological

reasons.

Transnationalism

Etymologically, the term 'transnationalism' emphasizes national realism in framing certain

instances of human migratory behavior as going 'thrlouigh-/itiiivi.' Although it would probably

make more sense to talk about migratory activities generally while distinguishing a special

category of migration focused on, centered around, or limited by nationalist constructions,

'transnational' implies a bias toward nationalism as a transcended natural state, similar to the way

'globalization' implies that the 'global' has yet to be achieved, and as such also represents a

transcendence of an 'established national reality.' I am mindful that readers who are

uncomfortable with or otherwise reject constructionist approaches may have difficulty with my

relativization here of nations and other nationalist constructions as one type of social institution

among others which should not be afforded any sort of privileged status. For this paper I have

chosen to engage two texts, one by Baubock (2003) and the other by Portes, Guamizo, and

Landolt (1999).

Baubock (2003) discusses transnationalism, attempting to define what it is in relation to,

for example, internationalism, and resorts primarily to the idea of autonomous national polities

as a basis for conceiving of movement 'between them.' Ironically, by drawing on the idea of a

national polity, he implicitly denies the political (as opposed to natural) basis for privileging

national polities over transnational ones, or to shift definitional foundations, he naturalizes the









idea of a polity rooted in a static geographical region over one in which the polity is

geographically dispersed, shifting, or both as well as negating the possibility that polities can

exist in virtual spaces such as those created by media. Thus, for Baubock, equal status for

transnationalist, as for nationalist, polities is rendered a priori impossible. He writes, "Instead of

constructing a contrast between national and transnational politics, we ought to be aware how the

latter depend on the former. Political activities of migrants are strongly oriented towards sending

and receiving states" (701). Although he points out how the idea, or at least the word itself,

'transnationalism,' references nations, he puts the cart before the horse in assuming that nations

are inherently the objects of transnational actors. This is like suggesting that nationalism is

primarily a regional phenomenon since it unites various regions. The basic flaw lies in raising

the notion of nation to ontological primacy when, in fact, it is only one type of institution among

others. As such it is hard to see how national borders may exist as nothing more than a

stumbling block in the activities of so-called 'transnational' actors, or that a passport does not

necessarily reflect some essential quality of its holder but is merely a document instrumental for

certain purposes, such as holding border-guards at bay. This is not to suggest that those who

engage in 'transnational' activities may not be socially committed to interests and welfare

associated with 'polities' identified as 'national' in one or more of the places they live or go. The

Catholic church, for example, facilitates various transnational activities although the reference

for (at least some of) its actors is the idea of a universal spirit or God; not national polities.

Portes et al. (1999) reflect on the potential they see in 'transnationalism' as an emergent

field of research. The strength of this article lies in its conservatism toward the prospect of

transnationalism as a new or distinct phenomenon and their recognition that transnationalism and

migration are not mutually exclusive from an empirical point of view. Their logic, however, that









"Nothing is gained, for example, by calling immigrants 'trans- migrants', when the earlier and

more familiar term is perfectly adequate to describe the subjects in question" (Portes et al. 1999

219) and that the term should be delimited because "if all or most things that immigrants do are

defined as 'transnationalism', then none is because the term becomes synonymous with the total

set of experiences of this population" (Portes et al. 1999 219) is problematic. They overlook the

influence that terminology and discourse have on researchers' (and others') subjectivity, as when

researchers constrain their theorizing according to received knowledge, previously published

writing, and/or other ideological interests. When theorizing transnationalism, it is possible to

rethink immigration and emigration away from the assumption that these are one-time migratory

processes that result in the adoption of one set of nationalist institutions and the relinquishing of

another. This does not mean that there is anything empirically different about the social

processes of changing residences, but framing such a change in terms of 'transnationalism' may

facilitate resistance to assimilation pressures in the form of normative understandings of

'immigration' in various social contexts. The claim that terms lose their significance when they

can be applied to anything without delimitation is a common logic (see for example Brubaker

2005 regarding 'diaspora') but it ignores how applying such an all-encompassing term as a lens

can produce new insight. For example, if all migration is viewed as transnational, or to

downplay the importance of nationalism 'translocal,' then we may look more clearly at the

techniques used to bring national and other localist institutions to bear on migration and question

the ethics of these in a way that is not possible when viewing such interventions as neutral social

realities. As such considering how language describes reality can be more important than

deciphering the distinctness or newness of the reality that language describes or narrates.









Before leaving Portes et al. (1999) to discuss multiculturalism, it is also useful to consider

the criteria they establish for qualifying phenomena as transnational in order to critique them.

Their first criterion is that, "the process involves a significant proportion of persons in the

relevant universe (in this case, immigrants and their home country counter- parts) (Portes et al.

1999 219). This is a logic of quantity where more cases are supposed to change the character of

each case individually. This raises the question why the same lifestyle should be defined

differently depending on whether many or few individuals live it. Increasing democratization of

transport and electronic media allow for radically unique individual configurations of residency,

work/business, travel, and so forth. Therefore we should expect to see more radically unique

social phenomena and, as a result, be prepared to conceptualize such social phenomena in their

uniqueness instead of trying to lump them together for purposes of generalization. What's more,

ignoring individualistic migration activities in favor of 'mass-migrants' risks reinforcing the

class, ethnic, and other biases that already pass relatively unquestioned in migration discourse.

The second criterion, "the activities of interest are not fleeting or exceptional, but possess certain

stability and resilience over time" (Portes et al. 1999 219) may seem useful for operationalization

purposes but it raises the issue of how to understand transnational activities when they fall short

of their goals due to constraints imposed by nationalists or others. Transnational activities that

are undertaken but subsequently abandoned may provide more insight into transnationalism than

more stable and resilient variants. It would be hasty and empirically sloppy to ignore relatively

ephemeral examples just because they do not achieve, or are prevented from achieving,

sustainability. The third criterion, that "the content of these activities is not captured by some

pre-existing concept, making the invention of a new term redundant" (Portes et al. 1999 219) is

problematic for reasons already discussed. Nevertheless, it is worth re-emphasizing that









applying redundancy in this way to automatically legitimate intellectual exclusion risks

precluding fresh insights that can open up new avenues for research and discourse.

Multiculturalism

My conceptualization of multiculturalism is very much bound up with the discourse

surrounding 'the multicultural society' and multiculturalism more generally in Dutch discourses

in the late 1990s and early 2000s ( see Shadid and van Koningsveld 1996 for example). This

critique of multiculturalism has evolved relative to a pluralistic and ethnic-essential vision in

which culture is always ethnic/national culture and always in the context a finite set (plurality) of

'mono-cultures' which are imagined to interact at best as an exception to the status-quo of

maintaining separate spheres. Ideally, multiculturalism should not refer to pluralism or ethnic-

culture specifically (although if all humans have ethnicity then what culture is not human and

therefore not ethnic?) but instead to a radically decentralized model of cultures) where

individuals negotiate cultural multiplicity in a variety of ways. 'Monoculturalism,' i.e. the

corresponding notion to multiculturalism, that there are individuals and/or groups that are devoid

of cultural multiplicity, would then be unimaginable by virtue of recognizing cultural practices as

radically fragmented rather than as integrated under the umbrella of a singularizing cultural

identity. Thus instead of speaking of 'Catholic culture,' for example, as an integrated set of

practices, beliefs, images, texts, objects, and so forth, we should view each cultural practice

separately, including the practice of defining and constructing them as 'Catholic' and/or

integrated (and how). This view of multiculturalism does not preclude the possibility of

multiethnic multiculturalism. It merely pushes us to consider the myriad ways in which cultural

practices mix and interact in empirical practice. In order to locate my perspective on

multiculturalism in relation to others', I consider literature by Joppke (2004) and Kymlicka

(2003). In addition I briefly explore the possibility of conceptualizing multiculturalism with a









more thorough approach to multiplicity by looking at Mol's (2002) work on ontology in medical

practice.

Multiculturalism, as it is formulated by Joppke (2004) and Kymlicka (2003) resonates with

issues similarly problematic to Baubock's transnationalism. The biggest problem with their idea

of multiculturalism is that it is formulated in relation/opposition to the (idea of a) liberal

monoculturall?) national civic community, or as Joppke notes, a public sphere in which cultural

differences are settled by the market accompanied by a private sphere in which individuals are

more or less free to practice whatever culture they wish (238). Joppke cites Sartori's distinction

between multiculturalism and pluralism in which pluralism is lauded because it supposedly

"requires voluntary group memberships, multiple affiliations in the context of cross-cutting

cleavages, and 'a reciprocal recognition' between conflict parties which, it is claimed, are

'systematically denied by multicultural politics (238). In at least the three versions of plural

regimes that I am familiar with, Dutch pillarization, European nationalism, and South African

apartheid, membership was naturalized or essentialized in one way or another, multiple

affiliation were frowned upon and considered suspect if not overtly punished, and reciprocal

recognition may have taken place but this is a broad and vague formulation since 'recognition'

can take place with varying degrees of (dis)respect. Kymlicka (2003) is less specific than Joppke

in explicitly defining multiculturalism other than to oppose it to assimilationist policies (esp. in

Canada). Although he mentions multiculturalism's popular acceptance and enshrinement in the

constitution in Canada, it is unclear how this exactly translates into policy, especially considering

the positive view of immigration as a means to fill jobs. Assumably he is implying that the job

market is not multicultural but rather dominantly Canadian although presumably open as to the

race and ethnicity of applicants for those jobs. While Joppke seems to misrecognize the idea of









multiculturalism as well as the problems it poses, Kymlicka recognizes these only for a portion

of society.

The problem with both authors' version of multiculturalism is that they proceed from a

vision of culture as a plurality of more-or-less bounded entities, each with its own singular

identity-reference. In their formulations, multiculturalism refers to a social landscape in which

cultures are separate-but-intermingle, with an emphasis on the state of separateness and the act

of intermingling as an intervention. In both their visions the cultural territoriality of central

institutions, such as state apparatuses for Joppke or the job-producers of the economy for

Kymlicka, are seen as culturally neutral or left out of the multiculturalismm altogether. Both

authors obscure their ontological assumptions about the substance of multiculturalism by talking

about it in abstract terms within a range of comparative concepts. In Joppke's case the

comparison is the liberal civic-community while Kymlicka uses 'citizenship' and 'immigration'

along with 'multiculturalism' as part of a 'three-legged stool' metaphor to explain the success of

immigration in the eyes of Canadians. To Kymlicka's credit, his explicit goal does not involve

establishing ontologically the meaning of 'multiculturalism,' unlike Joppke. He does imply,

however, through the 'three-legged stool' analogy, that multiculturalism is a non-existent or

irrelevant concept outside of immigrant-society contexts. It is as if the issues of multiculturalism

and/or assimilation would not apply in societies in which residents are exclusively native-born or

in which a single ethnic group was identified. The suggestion is that cultural difference only

occurs along lines of national or ethnic difference. This implicitly reifies the notion that societies

are mono-cultural when they are not multicultural.

If we contest such narrow conceptualizations of multiculturalism and recognize that

cultural differences are an issue for any given human population, the concepts of









multiculturalism and assimilation may be conceived differently. For example, if we are talking

about a community of Dutch and Turkish immigrants of Australia, whose members immigrated

from the Netherlands as acculturated residents of the Netherlands, various cultural issues of

Turkish, Dutch, and Australian life will come into play. This may include cultural issues of the

specific context in question, for example the corporate environment in which they work, which

may have its own culture apart from that of the Australian nationalist-ethos or that of the nation

with which the corporation is associated, for example Siemens or Time-Warner. In order to have

a truly inclusive concept of multiculturalism, we should be able to take such circumstances into

account instead of relying on prototypical or general visions of the social context in question.

A general problem associated with such conceptual issues as transnationalism,

multiculturalism, assimilation, a 'civic community,' and so forth lies in conceptualizing them as

situated knowledge constructs as opposed to abstract theoretical ones as the aforementioned

authors have done. This is not to say that there is no value in treating these issues in a

theoretical, or even semi-contextualized way as the authors have. It can be quite useful,

however, to recognize that discourses exist externally to the theoretical plane and that social

theorists are individual actors among others in discourse. This means that we should be aware of

a separation between the function of such concepts in discourse and the ontological realities they

are meant to represent.

Transnationalism, for example, describes human population movement or other

movements, such as that of goods and/or services, across national borders as if such movements

are qualitatively different from the same types of movements within a national territory.

Nevertheless, actual events described as transnational may bear little or no distinction from a

similar national event other than those associated with nation-state interference such as border









checks. As such it may be more distracting than useful to apply the conceptual framework

associated with the label transnationalism in studying such events. For example, commuting

across the Dutch-Belgian border for work constitutes a transnational act but it only becomes

meaningful as such when the idea of its transnational character is applied in some way, such as

when colleagues comment or joke about one's identity vis-a-vis work and residence or when tax

authorities dispute jurisdictional matters. To apply the concept prior to actions undertaken in

reference to national issues implictly asserts the essential existence of national institutions

outside of their application by social actors. Granted many social actors construct their basic

existential reality as a national (or transnational) reality, but as (social) scientists, I would argue

that it is necessary to conceive of realities (social, natural, etc.) outside of human institutions and

other constructions, such as those associated with the nation-state. Only in this way is it possible

to avoid reinforcing the naturalizing of actions associated with such institutions, including the

very language-act of talking nation-states into being. Possible alternative conceptual frames

include the notion of global cultures, including a global culture of nationalism, which actors

apply as part of their various activities, but which should not be seen as a container of those

activities.

Mol's (2002) ethnography of atherosclerosis may seem like an unlikely source for insight

into multiculturalism in a multiethnic society context, but I believe this work enacts a promising

approach to multiplicity that goes beyond the coexistence of multiple-monocultures. In her

preface, Mol explains the approach she takes to multiplicity succinctly and with reference to the

grammar of the title, "The Body Multiple," writing:

In practice the body and its diseases are more than one, but this does not mean that they are
fragmented into being many. This is difficult to think. But it is this complex state of
affairs that this book explores. I have tried to capture it in the title, in which a singular
noun comes with a pluralization adjective. (Mol 2002 viii)









Before moving further to explain the application of Mol's approach to multiculturalism as

it is being discussed in this paper, it may be helpful to further contextualize her ideas in terms of

her own writing. Explaining the multiplicity of disease in concrete examples she writes:

Attending to enactment rather than knowledge has an important effect: what we think of as
a single object may appear to be more than one. All the examples in this book concern
atherosclerosis. But a plaque cut out of an atherosclerotic artery is not the same entity as
the problem a patient with atherosclerosis talks about in the consulting room, even though
they are both called by the same name. The loss of blood pressure over a stenosis is not
the same thing as the loss of blood vessel lumen that radiologists make visible on their X-
ray pictures. (Mol 2002 vii)

Mol's aim then is to draw our attention to the way that the same entity, in this case a

disease, is enacted differently in different contexts and as such constitutes a single multiple

reality consisting of radically different objects and their enactments. In practice, Mol's approach

to multiplicity is one that undermines the application of monocultural logic, unlike the

aforementioned writers who facilitate it by organizing multiculture into plural monocultures,

each with its own designated territory.

Following Mol's logic of multiplicity, the problem of separating territories is avoided since

various medical techniques necessarily construct the same disease in the same body in different

ways. Translating this to apply to multicultural society, we can view different worldviews as

constructing the same society from different perspectives while being enacted in specific

contexts. If we refuse to privilege one perspective as the correct or dominant one, then we can

allow for intercultural negotiations at the level of material practice in specific settings without

defining the actors or their views according to a priori assumptions about norms and dominance

within a monocultural reality. Also, because Mol privileges each site of enactment as the basis

for constructing that moment of the disease in its own rite, she avoids the monoculturalist top-

down approach in which the singularity of the entity, in this case atherosclerosis, is









conceptualized in relation to a singular identity and therefore a single set of rules, practices, and

so on for doing atherosclerotic multiplicity or other aspects of the disease.

Consider this in contrast with the monocultural approaches to multiculturality in society

discussed by Joppke, Kymlicka, and Essed (1996). What Essed critiques in reference to Dutch

multiculturalism, specifically, i.e. the positioning of white Dutch as the overseers and managers

of diversity rather than another component part (Essed 1996 27-28), is also present in the

ontological approaches of the aforementioned writers' texts. The dominant culture is not situated

as one worldview among others, enacting its own version of the multicultural society which it

negotiates in specific contexts, but rather it is constructed as a container for all other acts and

processes of cultural engagement and negotiation. As such 'the state,' whether liberal or

multicultural, 'the economy/market,' or some other overarching construction is put forth without

regard for its multiplicity within the multiculturalism. Mol's approach offers the potential to

avoid this fate.

Demographic Constructions of Dutch Population/Demographics

While the authors discussed up to this point have written articles in which the categories

used to frame human action in terms of nations and (ethnic) cultures, they have done so more or

less with direct reference to the descriptors, transnationalism and multiculturalism. Now I will

move to discuss (demographic) literature in which similar conceptual (framing) categories are

used more implicitly, either simply taken for granted in descriptive and analytical accounts or

semi-explicitly, in discussions of operationalization and methodological convenience. I will

attempt to shed light on the techniques for employing/deploying such categories as well as,

specifically, the manner in which they are taken for granted ('taken' should be read here in verb,

not adjective, form).









Although I have discussed the literature up to this point using the texts themselves as

situated expressions of their authors, it is also possible to interpret texts and their writers in

contexts other than what they choose to express in their monographs. Although I recognize the

diverse levels of embodiment and situatedness of authors and their texts, I should also

acknowledge that I tend to reflexively recognize my reading of a text as the social context of the

text to which I have most direct access. In privileging my reading and thus my interpretation of

a writer's meaning from the context of interaction with the text, I have encountered some

criticism that this is not enough. While it is certainly possible to take an intertextual approach to

contextualizing writing and/or situating writers within the social contexts sociological thinking

allows us to construct, this does not exclude the possibility of interpreting a text within the

researcher's analytical framework nor should it since the context of the interaction between

researcher and researched is always part of the social context(s) that embody the situated

engagement of texts and data that make up research.

The following literature is cited from the journal, Demos, which is a "bulletin of the

Netherlands Interdisciplinary Demographic Institute (NIDI), a research institute of the Royal

Dutch Academy of Sciences, which aims at promoting knowledge and the formation of opinion

regarding population issues" (Demos website in Dutch). The English language webpage

describes the journal as follows:

DEMOS, Bulletin on Population and Society, is considered NIDI's most important popular
publication and contributes significantly to raising the Institute's identity. The bulletin has
ten issues a year and a circulation of over 5,000 copies, and is aimed at a broad, general
audience in political, policy and education circles. (Demos website, translated from
Dutch).

Although the webpages describing Demos and the NIDI are texts, and as such the potential

for confusion may arise as to how to contextualize them as such, taking an intertextual approach

may help some readers to construct a sense of context for the Demos articles that they might









otherwise feel is lacking. I should also note that I am hesitant about embarking on a journey to

differentiate whether my critiques of the literature I reviewed are critiques of demography

generally, the authors' specific application of it, Dutch population ideologies, or some

combination thereof. It is hoped that by clearly enunciating my critiques, these can be

understood as ideas in themselves without having to extrapolate the precise genealogy of the

ideas being critiqued. In this context I discuss the contributions of Nicolaas and Sprangers

(2005) and Bekke, van Dalen, and Henkens (2005) to Demos.

Nicolaas and Sprangers (2005) in their article on 'Dutch over the Border' (translated for use

in this paper), present demographic information about Dutch emigration and the number of

Dutch residing in various countries. At the end of their article they include a short postscript

entitled 'Nationaliteit' in which they give their method for distinguishing Dutch people from

other presumably non-Dutch Dutch people. They write:

A comparison between population groups must preferably occur on the basis of birth
country. A comparison grounded in the characteristic nationality is liable to create too
many limitations. A distinction on the basis of nationality has the drawback that persons
that have received the Dutch nationality would not be viewed anymore as 'allochtonous'
(originating elsewhere). In the Netherlands in the last ten years, many Turkish and
Moroccans have received the Dutch nationality. Proceeding from data on the basis of
nationality would strongly underestimate the number of Turkish and Moroccan
'allochtones' in the Netherlands. Also Antillians and Arubans cannot be distinguished on
the basis of nationality because they have the Dutch nationality. (Nicolaas and Sprangers
2005 30)

While this seems to be a methodological footnote to the analysis, based on the reference to

'comparison' as a scientific goal in and of itself, the passage at the same time makes basic

ontological claims about the 'true' categorical distinctions which should be made among groups

in the population. Although nationality is a legal status attained on the basis of various criteria

regardless of ethnic or racial identity, such as by registering a newborn at city hall within three

days after birth or naturalization, the authors are suggesting that it is only natural to further









distinguish among Dutch nationals based on their birthplace. Their logic for doing this is

circular, claiming that counting those born outside the country would confuse them with people

born inside the country. They add, without explaining why, that using nationality as an indicator

(of an underlying essence?) 'strongly underestimates' the number of Turkish and Moroccan

Dutch. Clearly these authors feel that basing their research on nationality creates problems for

what they are trying to measure, but they fail to explore what the problem would be with

researching the entire population of Dutch nationals, people in the Netherlands generally, and/or

a global Dutch population. The postscript goes on to cite another problem:

Also for specific emigration countries such as Canada and Australia, the concept
nationality has a limited meaning, because many former immigrants have by now taken the
Canadian or Australian nationality. (Nicolaas and Sprangers 2005 30)

We might ask for whom nationality has a 'limited meaning' and what the (unlimited?) meaning of

nationality is or should be. Nevertheless, this does raise the problem of how to conceive of a

diasporic population of Dutch if emigrants are discounted as Dutch at the moment they naturalize

in another country, assuming they give up their Dutch nationality. But are the authors too hasty

in their assumptions about the actual people they are trying to include and exclude from their

statistical population? After all, it may be the case that many Dutch emigrants in fact become

part of the populations of their (new) place of residence. Likewise Dutch nationals, regardless of

their ethnic identity, who were born outside the geographical territory of the Netherlands may

also have become part of the Dutch population, in an ontological or material sense as opposed to

an operationalistic one. All these issues beg the question of what population we are or should be

dealing with and why. The construction of a distinct population at the macro level has

ramification both for the operationalization of research questions and hence the findings, as well

as for ontological conceptions of the world as we imagine it prior-to/outside-of scientific study.









The position I hope to advance through this paper is one in which a population, specifically

the Dutch population in this case, can be conceptualized more broadly than in terms of simple

exclusionary criteria. Contrary to the opinion of Nicolaas and Sprangers, I argue that both

nationality, as well as birth-country, are too limiting for the purposes of recognizing (and

eventually researching) the Dutch population. Birth-country excludes a significant number of

'foreign'-born Dutch, with varying ethnic connections, while nationality confuses a legal-status as

a naturally occurring population marker. Language-use is problematic since not everyone

affiliated with the Netherlands and Dutch culture speaks Dutch. Likewise residency in the

geographical territory of the Netherlands in northern Europe excludes spaces which are under

'Dutch' control such as enclaves and corporate terrain outside the Netherlands including that of

military and civic groups. Generally, any exclusionary criterion excludes all potential candidates

that are denied recognition by its categorical boundaries. This is problematic since it ignores the

issue of what distinguishes the potentiality of candidates prior to their exclusion. This type of

distinction is reminiscent of the colonial situation in which mixed children in the colonies were

given or denied access to the 'fatherland' based on racial or parental criteria (Stoler 2002).

Additionally it facilitates misrecognition of the dividing-effects of such criteria when they are

applied to a population. It is important to recognize that a categorical separation such as that

based on nationality does not operate at a meta-level in which the 'us' of the nation is separated

from a total 'them,' i.e. the rest of the world population; but rather it denies inclusion to specific

others who have a stake in their inclusion/exclusion (as opposed to other others who have little or

no stake in the same categorical division).

Before moving on to discuss other articles, let me briefly address some other operational

assumptions in terms ofNicolaas and Sprangers, although they are certainly not specific to their









article. The graphs used to illustrate their article include emigration/immigration rates as a

function of time as well as emigration and population of emigrants by country of

emigration/residence. Besides giving the impression that all Dutch emigrants settled at their

destination rather than subsequently moving to other countries or to the Netherlands again, these

graphs (along with much of the text) take for granted that national setting is the best variable for

studying migration movement. Why not use 'distance in km from the Dutch border', for

example? Or 'number of years living abroad'? What about 'time spent in the Netherlands since

departure?' Clearly each of these would add its own specific contours to research findings as-

well-as having ontological ramifications for any cognitive-framing of the subject matter. Yet

differentiating the emigrant population in terms of nation passes with less reflection than other

categories, presumably because 'nation' occupies a special ontological status in comparison with

other variables, outside of any impetus toward value-free sociology. 'Nation' seems to escape the

sphere of critical inquiry.

Bekke, van Dalen, and Henkens (2005) write about the "Emigration of Dutch (people):

stimulated by population pressure." Rather than looking at Dutch emigrants, this article taps into

the emigration plans of residents of the Netherlands. This time, Dutch nationality is the

preferred operational basis for research with the reason that, "among other things to exclude

return-migration from the research, considering that the reason for departure often lies in the

relational sphere" (p 26). While this reasoning may appear logical at first glance it becomes

problematic under critical scrutiny. What is meant, for example, by 'the relational sphere?' Does

this mean that emigrants have family connections in the destination country, business contacts,

cultural affinities? Are Dutch nationals then devoid of such 'relational' connections, whether

based on ethnic and family connections as in the case of Surinamese or because of another









reason? Such a distinction seems to rest more on an indefinite notion about whether who is

leaving the Netherlands who 'belongs there' in the first place or not rather than on a more

sensical basis such as those who have established long-term or 'permanent' residency in the

Netherlands. Any other definition denies equal exposure to those aspects of life that would

influence the opinion variables including, "preferred destination country, opinion of life in the

Netherlands (public space, welfare state, living situation divided further), population density of

popular emigration destinations, and expectations of life in the destination country (same

contents as for in the Netherlands)." So-called denizens of the Netherlands would have similarly

informed opinions on the same topics since they are exposed to the same media and discourses.

The conclusion of this article places relatively great emphasis on the importance of

'demographic' compared to 'financial' stimulus. This conclusion is assumably based on the

relatively similar welfare and economic indications of preferred destination countries versus their

relatively divergent population density and respondents' aggregate expectations of 'nature and

space,' 'population density,' 'quiet,' and 'mentality of the population.' Interesting to note,

respondents were asked to give their evaluations of how 'negative' the multicultural society in the

Netherlands is along with their expectation of how that aspect of their destination society will be.

Fifty percent evaluated Dutch multiculturalism as 'extremely negative' and almost none expected

it to be (much) worse in the destination country (almost 60 percent expected 'the same'). Still,

the meaning of this response category is vague. What should we understand as a positive or

negative multicultural society? Should we assume the worst, that the researchers as well as the

respondents equate more multiculturalism with worse multiculturalism? Does it imply that

multicultural society works better in the other country? Does it imply that the Dutch society is

too monoculturall' and that more diverse cultures) would be better? Whether intentionally









and/or consciously or not, the approach taken by these researchers propagates an argument

resonant with some rightist discourse that Dutch society is too busy, too densely populated, and

too multicultural to entice its 'true and proper' residents not to emigrate. My interpretation is

partially reinforced by the recent popularity of 'livable-' political parties at national and regional

levels such as 'Leefbaar Nederland,' 'Leefbaar Rotterdam,' and so forth. However, this article is

still a valuable resource in my project of moving toward a more inclusive vision of a global

Dutch population/diaspora.

Diaspora as Theoretical Framework and Social Consciousness

Much of the literature discussion and critical theoretical reflection up to this point has

shown how nationalism and/or nation-oriented consciousness is embedded in and reproduced by

the writing and even the terminology used to talk about migratory life. In the critical

epistemological struggle against national consciousness, diaspora emerged for me as a way of

avoiding the national-endpoint logic of emigration and immigration without thinking through

nations in terms of transnationalism. There is much written on diaspora, with diverse meanings

attached to it, so much so that Brubaker (2005) writes of a "'diaspora' diaspora" to describe the

vast proliferation and spread of applications of this term. Although 'diaspora' has often been

used to talk about a dispersed people, with essentialist and/or racist undertones regarding the

underlying commonalities that link individuals of a particular diaspora, I find it useful to de-

essentialize diaspora by speaking of cultural diaspora. While the essentialist vision of diaspora

relies on the mythology of an original place-boundedness that stands in opposition to a people's

dispersion, I content that cultural diaspora resists essentializing a difference between place-

boundedness and place-unboundedness by looking not at dispersion of people from a place, per

se, but instead at dispersion of cultures) through networks of moving people. Strangely, and

perhaps as a result of stat(ic)ist consciousness societies are rarely conceptualized in terms of









moving people and the cultural exchanges that always take place during moments of social

contact. Instead we often think of culture as simply being there without at the same time

thinking about how it is moving around and changing as a result changing hands and/or how it is

applied in a specific context by a specific set of hands.

Framing immigrant-emigration in the Netherlands in terms of a Dutch cultural diaspora

allows us to go beyond the potentially implicit distinction between so-called 'natives' and 'non-

natives' within Dutch society. It also allows us to envision Dutch society itself not in terms of

the geographical boundaries and institutional landscape associated with the Netherlands, but as a

community of diversely identified people engaged in contact and struggle with one another and

others. I view diaspora thus not as a particular material state of society distinct from other forms

but as an ideological framework within which social activity can be conceptualized. As such this

project is an exercise in developing diasporic consciousness and, in a praxical sense, a

pedagogical exercise in disbursing and dispersing this knowledge framework. In reference to

Brubaker's (2005) claim, citing Tololyan (1996), editor of the journal Diaspora, "that diaspora 'is

in danger of becoming a promiscuously capacious category' (Brubaker 2005 4), I see danger not

in the risk of wide application of the concept and thereby cultivation of diasporic consciousness

as much as in the appropriation of the term to reinforce national-static epistemology.

In accounting for my personal intellectual genealogy regarding diaspora, I have to return to

the seeds of this paper which have grown in a variety of directions, taking them away from the

original aims to a degree. The focus on the idea of an immigrant diaspora, to move toward

relieving the ontological pressures to conceive of migration and migrants in terms of origins and

end points, is partially in response to the writing of Captain and Ghorashi (2001) on hybrid

identity and diaspora space. I quote their citation of Brah (1996) in translation from Dutch in









lieu of replacing it with the official English text out of a desire to preserve the organic context of

my contact with the text. The fact that I am currently writing in English leads me to re-present

this text in English, although this need not remove me from the Dutch version. In effect, this is a

textual enactment of the very logic of Dutch cultural diaspora (in translation) that is the theme of

the current project. Captain and Ghorashi (2001) quote Brah (1996):

The space where hybridization takes place we can call, following Brah, 'diaspora space': a
space where identities are considered as positioned constructions and not fixed according
to skin color, birth country, or affiliation/heritage. Often words like ethnicity and identity
are only assoicatated with people who (had to) leave their 'original country' or with their
Dutch born and raised offspring, who are always observed by white Dutch people as non-
Dutch. The consequence of this, as we have seen, is the unspoken assumption that white
people have no ethnicity and by definition belong in their country. Brah's definition of
diaspora-space critiques these assumptions by showing that such concepts as white and
native are just-as-much constructions: 'Diaspora-space as a conceputal category is not only
"inhabited" by those that have migrated and their offspring, but just-as-much by those that
are constructed and imagined as domestic' (Brah, 1996 181 in Captain and Ghorashi 2001
180).

They go on to describe the goals) of theorizing diaspora-space:

Within diaspora-space differences can come into bloom without excluding one another.
you can be Dutch and Muslim, or feminist and Muslim. This abstract space offers
different visions the possibility to exist side by side: in so doing it does not create an
either-or situation, a choice between we/they, but instead a both/and situation. In this
both/and situation the emphasis is as much on positions that are multiple and changing -
hybrid as on identity constructions that are situated. Within diaspora-space it becomes
possible to release people from the mandate to speak outfor or against their ethnic
background. In this new construction they can take on both positioning. (Captein and
Ghorashi 2001 180, emphasis added)

It is common to distinguish people in terms of whether they are immigrant or emigrant of a given

nation. When conceptualizing individuals, we too often fall into the trap of essentializing them

according to some original or totalizing category, such as place of birth, ethnicity, sex, etc.

When a child of Turkish parents grows up in the Netherlands and moves to Germany as an adult,

we should not fall into discussions about whether such a person is more Turkish, Dutch, or

German. In order to combat this tendency at the macro level, I am proposing the concept of an









immigrant diaspora. Diasporas are traditionally conceived of as dispersed populations of people

living in various places because of an exodus (usually forced) from their place of origin.

However, it is counter-intuitive to speak of a diaspora of immigrants since this would imply that

individuals may have multiple origins. According to either/or thinking an individual can have

only one origin and therefore, common-sensually, we assume that when an immigrant crosses the

border for the second time that s/he has renounced membership to the place s/he was. In this

way, it is helpful to have another category, in addition to native/emigrant/immigrant that

acknowledges immigrants who have emigrated as having a connection with their country of

emigration. Creating and applying such a category requires affording the same recognition for

emigrating immigrants as for emigrating 'non-immigrants.' Berger and Luckman's (1966) ideas

about secondary and tertiary socialization may be applied here as well. Ultimately, however, it is

only through repeated exercises in operationalizing empirical observations through this

alternative lens that it can be rendered (e/a)ffective at the ontological level.

The literature I surveyed relating explicitly to the topic of diaspora, including Brah's

(1996) work, represents a collage of ethnicities and approaches to studying them. Writing about

an 'Albanian diaspora-in-the-making,' Mai (2005) looks at Albanians in Italy and how the Italian

media has influenced Albanian identities. Although Mai's approach of looking at the role of

Italian media in Albanian identity construction processes, he does not go so far as to discuss this

in terms of incorporating these Albanians into an Italian cultural diaspora, or in other terms of

hybridization. While he does discuss diasporic fluidities at a theoretical level, he maintains, for

instance, that living in Italy constitutes 'physical displacement' for Albanians (Mai 344), more

resonant with a statist perspective, in which individuals are positioned vis-a-vis states, than a

diasporic one.









Georgiou (2005) considers various ethnically identified variants of 'diasporic media', a

term she uses to describe only media that "address particular ethnic, linguistic and/or religious

groups that live within broader and diverse multicultural societies" (Georgiou 2005 482). It is

not clear whether this phrasing suggests that there are media channels in multicultural societies

that are not ethnically particular, and therefore not diasporic by her definition, or if she is making

a distinction between dominant and subordinate groups using the label 'diasporic.' Due to her

description of diasporic communities as having 'imagined or real' connections and an 'imaginary

cultural existence' (Georgiou 2005 483), the implication is that the localities and nation-states in

which consumers of the diasporic media reside are more real and less imaginary media-products

than the diasporic communities and cultures. Thus, although I was interested in Georgiou's

perspective on media constructing diasporic communities, I was disappointed at her

misrecognition of the constructedness of nation-states and localities in the same sense as (any

other) diaspora. Georgiou's account then creates a sense of (less stable) diasporas inhabiting

(more stable) nation-states and local communities rather than attributing equal, or at least similar,

ontological status to states and localities as to diasporas.

Carter (2005), studying Croatian diaspora in the U.S., seems rather ambiguous toward

conflicting perspectives on diaspora, citing both writing that questions the boundedness and

mutual-exclusivity of nation-states as well as other literature that insists on viewing diaspora in

national-static terms. Much of his argument rests on demonstrating how Croatian-Americans do

not orient toward a diasporic community as much as they do toward the bounded, regional

nation-state itself. Although Carter's perspective is helpful in recognizing misrecognition of

diaspora in favor of nation-state, it is unclear whether this is intended ultimately as a critique of

statism and a plea for stronger diasporic consciousness, or as an effort to undermine and repeal









the legitimacy of diasporists citing their inability to achieve independence of statism. It is,

however, clear that Carter fails to relativize statism as a projection, either for the Croatian-

Americans he is studying, for Croatian nationals living within Croatian state boundaries, or

within his own ontology.

Findlay's et al. (2004) study of English migrants' experiences with Scottishness, although

not explicitly concerned with diaspora as such, looks at diasporic issues within an international

rather than international, transnational, or national context. Although this study portrays

Englishness and Scottishness as bounded and more or less homogenous groups in and of

themselves, without hybridization between, it also gives a sense of how diaspora and ethnic

negotiations take place within a single nation-state thus destabilizing the distinction between

national-statist populations on the one hand and diasporic migrant populations on the other. This

study is the only one reviewed for this project in which subtler nuances of identity-ontology were

recognized among the individuals under study. This occurred through the use of the categories,

"adopted Scot," "English English," "British English," and "world citizen" (Findlay et al. 2004

69). While the identity categories studied privilege the British national context and implicitly

claim an autonomous status for that context separate from British colonial connections, for

example, it is nevertheless the only one that sheds diasporic light on a 'national-static' population.









CHAPTER 3
TRACES OF A DUTCH DIASPORA

Up to this point I have looked at literature in which various aspects of population

delineation and categorization are explored, either explicitly or implicitly, in the hope of building

on them in constructing a more inclusive ontology of a Dutch population to better understand its

movements on a global scale. Now I want to shift focus slightly to observe several signs of

Dutch life outside of any definitive criteria such as birthplace or national legal status. To do this

I have selected two websites that depict extra-national movement of residents of the Netherlands,

one is devoted to emigrants to Australia and the other is devoted to refugees threatened with

deportation. Although these two websites at first glance seem to deal with two radically different

populations engaged in completely different border struggles, all of their respective constituents

are characterized by a common present, that is they are all situated in a moment of movement

between Dutch life and life outside of Dutch society proper. I argue that we can treat them as

strata of the same population, stratified according to variables both endogenous and exogenous to

their situation in Dutch society. Since I discuss narratives as data rather than as literature in the

sense of an academic literature review, my analysis will be preceded by a discussion of methods

in the spirit of the traditionalist differential approaches to literature and data I am trying to call

into question and shed critical light upon.

In terms of empirical method, coming up with an approach to this topic was no simple

matter. I began not with a question about the social world to be answered but rather with an area

of social knowledge that I have become all too familiar with: the positioning of human

individuals marginally vis-a-vis the nation-state as reified and centralized construct. Since I have

encountered, and still encounter, relentless demands to recognize the reality and central

institutional position of national-territorialism on a daily basis, researching nationalistic and









racist social-construction processes seemed neither desirable nor valuable to add to any

discourse. Instead, the empirical portion of my project began with reflection on my own lived

experience as an emigrating-immigrant becoming Dutch and critical theorizing as to what kind(s)

of conceptual approach could offer or at least facilitate (some form of) liberation from the

ideological coerciveness of nationalist discourse on immigrants and emigration. Because

immigrants are regarded as foreigners within nationalist-state ideologies, it seemed that either the

notion of 'immigrants' as such had to be re-imaged away from the inoperable foreign/domestic

(i.e. allochtonous/autochtonous) dichotomy, the national-static society had to be re-imaged as a

borderless entity (i.e. as diaspora), or both. As such I sought a method that would allow me to

'do data work' in a way that could achieve the idealist goal of re-imaging people and their society

while attending to concrete expressions of actual living social participants, as a traditional

ethnographer might.

Operationalizing Dutch Diaspora

Operationalization,' is a term whose use is too often limited to the context of translating

research questions into specified variable-relationships and hypotheses during statistical

research. I use this term to describe the initial process of finding respondents, and/or their

narrative-expressions, in order to appropriate these as data for analysis. By the time I arrived at

this phase of research, I had refined my vision of a Dutch diaspora to that of a cultural (as

opposed to racial or ethnic) diaspora that would neither distinguish essentially between so-called

immigrants and others, nor according to location in relation to geographical borders, nor would it

posit a difference between national-domestic and diasporic communities as is often done.

Resisting the positivistic urge to circumscribe an entire population and account for it in its

totality, I resolved to recognize and accept the impossibility of representing such a whole

meaningfully, even if its existence as such was humanly imaginable. Instead I decided to look









for particular iterations within the visible traces of social realities to which I had access. As

such, I found myself using the internet to search for signs of Dutch diaspora. I came across two

websites, or web-based communities depending on one's perspective (a distinction I will discuss

in more detail shortly), in which narratives were posted regarding individuals' orientation toward

emigrating the Netherlands, as a result of pressure, desire, or a combination of the two.

Use of Internet Sources of Data

Before discussing the websites selected and their relationship to the theoretical project of

operationalizing Dutch diaspora, the use of the internet as a source for (ethnographic) data will

be considered. Although web-based data can be used for sociological research (see for example

Williams 2006), there are also warnings against equating such data with any other data generated

in ethnographic work (see Markham 2005). Methodologically, my sense is that collecting and

examining data uncritically, without regard for the complexities of representational practice, is

problematic in any context, and perhaps more so when dealing with seemingly more 'traditional'

ethnographic data since such data may pass within the ethnographer's gaze with less scrutiny

than would data from a more conspicuously 'non-traditional' medium. Since I do not plan to

conduct an extensive discussion of the ontological distinctness of internet as a source/medium

for social communications, it will be up to the reader for the most part to decide whether and to

what extent to accept the findings presented in this paper. In doing so it may be useful to keep in

mind that we have no way of knowing whether and/or how well the narratives I found on line are

representative of actual people and their social lives as they experience them. Although we can

posit that it was in fact human actors, rather than an automated syntax-generator, that wrote the

texts, it may be the case that these narratives were produced as fictional expressions of the

writers' alter egos. The stories of struggle and suffering posted on HetGevolg.nl, inconceivable

as they might be from a humanistic standpoint, may have been conceived and written by









humanist writers in an attempt to affect change in the area of border control. I take the stories to

be true and/or sincere, but as a (Weberian) scientist I am aware of the inconvenientfact that I do

this out of faith rather than verification. Likewise the postings on XPdite.net could be traces of

an elaborate role-playing game conducted by computer users eager to explore their migratory

imaginations in dialogue with others. Again, however, I rely on faith (and perhaps pragmatism)

to construct these data as representative of actual social life taking place at the source of the

transmission.

Representativeness of Data and the Goal(s) of Research

Perhaps the best solution to the problem of representativeness is to do away with the

concern altogether and regard the data as data in their own right, useful perhaps as

communications between users in some contexts, but appropriated as data in the context of this

sociology project. To accept them as representations without a referent, as 'floating signifiers' to

use post-modern terminology (see Derrida 1966), we have to shift from asking "are these truly

signs of Dutch diaspora?" to "how well do these signs help us envision Dutch diaspora as it has

been constructed in the context of this project?" Such a shift is commensurate with moving from

the positivistic goal of defining, measuring, or otherwise capturing social life toward the

liberation goal of re-imaging social life in a manner that destabilizes the assumptions and

constraints that we (sub-consciously) bring to bear on what we perceive through ingrained

interpretive habits. Such destabilization as liberation praxis is discussed as a 'countersystem'

approach by Feagin and Vera (2001). Lakhoff and Johnson's (1980) work is instrumental in

formulating cognitive frameworks as metaphors we live, not just think, by. Considering the

kinds of metaphors we apply in making sense of data and consciously experimenting with

alternative metaphors can provide better understanding of the social realities we interpolate using









data by showing us how a reality changes depending on the metaphorical framing we use to

measure or make sense of it.

Comparison versus Contrast

The (internet based) sites I found to concretely embody the macro-idea of Dutch diaspora,

HetGevolg.nl and XPdite.net, appear as quite different, both in terms of the appearance and style

of the websites themselves as well as in how they construct the communities they represent.

However, my aim was not to contrast them in terms of difference but rather to compare them in

terms of similarity or, more accurately, commonality as part of an ethical analytical goal

following the sentiments of Essed (1996) that focusing on differences without emphasizing

commonalities is problematic:

Exaggerated emphasis on differences indirectly reinforces the assumption of superiority of
the dominant culture. It hardly matters whether the differences are real or perceived.
Showing that dominant and ethnic minority groups also have norms, values, goals, and
experiences in common may neutralize the fixation on difference. The rigid labels that
cultural determinism places on groups should be relaxed. We all have more identities than
just our national or ethnic ones. (Essed 1996 28)

Although I could have chosen from many aspects of everyday life in which national/ethnic

identity is irrelevant, I thought it would be more radical and challenging to do this for a moment

in which social actors themselves may be especially prone to emphasize identities of national-

belonging, i.e. the moment of orientation toward emigration. Researchers, always engaged in

participatory observation of their data to greater or lesser degrees, are prone to the same kind of

reactive processes of social construction as their respondents; in this case, to constructing

emigration with reference to the notion of a 'home' country or other sub- or super- national place.

In this cognitive mode, the prospect that emigration need not be framed in the context of

national-territoriality and/or nationally-defined populations may seem dissonant to common-

sense, an inconvenient fact in Weberian terms. Wanting to extend further Essed's ethical









prescription, however, I opted to approach emigration as first and foremost a common

experience taking place as part of everyday life in the place of departure. Although I could have

gone further to relativize the notion of place, and thus shared place, altogether since 'here' and

'there' are always context-specific terms (Goffman 9), I decided instead to appropriate the

singular nation-place as a shared place of eminent-loss for those leaving it, instead of as a place

of differential belonging in relation to national/ethnic identity. To put it simply, I wanted to

study emigration as a common experience of people living together and leaving together.

(Imagining) Communities behind the Data

After operationalizing emigrant-diapora in terms of these two web-communities, the

problem arose as to what I should do with this data, how to organize and analyze it. First,

however, I should return to the issue of what (I take) these web-based narratives (to) represent in

terms of lived communities. XPdite.net is easier to characterize as a community than

HetGevolg.nl since the explicit and practiced goal of discourse among users is to communicate

and share experiences, advice, and so forth regarding emigration to Australia. The data gathered

from this website often take the form of dialogues among users who respond to each others'

postings. HetGevolg.nl, on the other hand, is designed as a forum for posting stories, usually

written in the third-person, in which the details of an individual or family are given regarding a

variety of life-aspects such as traumatic experiences that influenced the decision to move to the

Netherlands, current housing and financial situation, visa status, emotional state with regards to

prospective extradition, and so forth. As such, the narratives on HetGevolg.nl are not posted per

se with the intention of communication among the protagonist or their narrators, as much as they

are toward reaching a larger community/readership with, presumably, the hope that raising

consciousness of the plight of those described will lead to change and new hope in their

situations. Part of my goal in studying the narratives on HetGevolg.nl and re-presenting them in









an English-language context of academic sociology is to participate in its consciousness-raising

mission, whereas I have had little interest in participating in the community of XPdite.nl users. I

should add, however, that my relationship to these represented-communities in researching them

is not disjunctive from my personal relationship to this project generally and the notions of

emigrant-immigrants and Dutch (cultural) diaspora.

Social Position of Researcher vis-a-vis Respondents

My position vis-a-vis those I am studying in this project has much to do with my identity

as an immigrant of the Netherlands. As an immigrant, I have been subject to various obstacles

and resistances put up against immigration in the Netherlands, to the extent that I have chosen to

'emigrate' outside of the practical range of such resistance. On the other hand, although I identify

as an immigrant, and emigrant-immigrant, and/or as part of Dutch diaspora, I have the precarious

privilege of being regarded as a western-foreigner (westerse allochtoon) in the context of Dutch

nationalism. As such, I have sometimes been complimented as being "better than those other

immigrants," or I have been told that I would be more likely to get a job if it weren't for

governmental preference for 'dark skin' and my unemployment naturalized as such. Likewise,

recognizing myself as an immigrant among other immigrants I was brought to consider my place

in the Netherlands as a place that could better serve the 'truly needy,' i.e. those

immigrants/refugees whose 'homelands' are too dangerous to return to. The ideological flaws in

these constructions are worth noting; especially the assumptions that the physical and or

tolerance capacity of the Netherlands is limited. Furthermore, within the logic that emigration is

considered a solution to the imagined problem of limited capacity, shouldn't everyone who can

safely emigrate do so, including those who identify as 'purely native?' My short answer is, yes,

those that believe capacity is limited should emigrate. This is another reason I view this project

as (potentially) liberatory, since a desire to reduce population combined with a desire to stay put









can lead to the (fascist) desire for the removal of others. Liberating potential fascists by

releasing them from the imagined necessity of constraints that form the preconditions for

elimination/removal actions is one way of siding with the oppressed. Such preconditions may

include various kinds of scarcity, but in this case the perceived scarcity of ethno-culturally viable

social space outside of the Netherlands' border is the factor that has to be overcome in order to

relieve the perceived necessity for ethnic/population policing.

In accounting for my choice of topic, and my position vis-a-vis other immigrants of the

Netherlands, it is important to note that my emigration is not in small part related to being put in

the position of having to subordinate to Dutch whites by acknowledging my superiority to 'those

other immigrants' while at the same time accepting that I should have less right and access to

'Dutch jobs.' Although I am conscious that emigrating only shifts inequalities from a

national/domestic to a global/international context, through this project I hope to give voice to

the potential for community-building within the Dutch diaspora outside the Netherlands. If (we)

Dutch truly want to accommodate all who want to join, yet believe this an impossible dream due

to finiteness of space, then let us form transnational communities outside the Netherlands and

let these communities de-emphasize the distinctions made between foreign and domestic

(allochtoon/autochtoon) in favor of cooperation (samenwerking) and the practice of language

and culture. This is the best gesture I can put toward those whose need for refuge reduces my

right to inhabit the Netherlands to a luxury. As such not just my writing about

emigration/diaspora, but my emigration itself, is a gesture of solidarity. More importantly it is a

practical offering to those who count immigrant-places, and who have the power to fill them, to

not just fill the place I vacated with a more deserving immigrant, but to recognize no one's right

to occupy a needed place of refuge regardless of nationality, ethnicity, or citizenship status. In









this way a global Dutch diaspora can be facilitated that will maximize people's right to join and

participate in Dutchness while minimizing the ability to monopolize the Netherlands proper or

Europe generally within the diaspora. If equality and fair are taken seriously then these values

should apply to place of residence as well as to welfare resources. In other words, let Dutch

redistributive mechanisms facilitate the circulation of places of residence outside and inside the

Netherlands, as well as the resources needed to prosper in each location. Although these are

political pleas, not methodological considerations, they merit expression in terms of the

reflexivity of my position vis-a-vis this research.

Influence of Emigration and Geography on Research Methods

Emigration and my geographical proximity to those I am studying also plays a significant

role in influencing various aspects of the research choices made for this project. For one thing,

the cost of traveling from my house in Utrecht to nearby areas to conduct face-to-face interviews

would make it more feasible to do this kind of research. Likewise, some researchers place a

premium on data generated in this way, in contrast to web-narratives or other secondary data,

although this may reflect a desire for distinction as a researcher as much as the will to better data.

From the vantage point of conducting this research as someone who has come to terms with the

reality of already-having-emigrated, I have the benefit of having come to terms with the

prospective loss (i.e. castration anxiety) of leaving that may be experienced by persons 'on the

way out.'

Having cultivated a diasporic consciousness of my own, I do not get bogged down with

issues of studying this issue from the inside or outside since diaspora renders the border more or

less inert. On the other hand, I am also somewhat less sensitive to the realities of living with and

coping with the fear of eminent departure, especially when one's life and/or livelihood is directly

threatened by returning to a previous place of residence and/or by moving to a potentially hostile









next-place. As such, this project is as much about raising consciousness of the possibility of

creating safe third communities of Dutch diaspora as it is about consciousness of the plight of

those whose residency is in jeopardy. The benefit of using web-based narratives is that rather

than extracting data from respondents in the interest of converting their stories into sociological

capital for myself, I am making use of stories posted for the purpose of reaching a wider

audience in the first place. This is not to say that respondents never or rarely participate in

research for the same purpose as posting or otherwise publishing their own information, or that

they do not enjoy other benefits from participating such as catharsis, and so on. I am merely

noting that using data posted on the internet is in many ways non-invasive although it is also a

disembodied way of studying people, like other textual data sources such as letters, diaries, or

surveys.

Method of Data Analysis

Having found the two websites, I proceeded to sample the narratives posted in a non-

systematic way. In short, I browsed and read them. It is important to note that I read them with

the background knowledge of having experienced many of the same types of concerns regarding

visas, employment, and so forth common during migration. The non-systematic nature of my

sampling is not a problem since it was not my goal to accurately represent the totality of a larger

population. This is an important part of my critical methodological stance, i.e. to break with the

tradition of imagining the actual existence of a larger population represented by a sample.

Instead I am interested in taking a situated view of research in which the 'larger population' is an

imaginary construction within the sociological imagination. This implies a break with the

assumption that there is a (macro) reality 'out there' to be discovered. My assumption, on the

other hand, is that there is no larger population; that there is only the possibility of constructing









such a population theoretically and then devising ways of operationalizing it using observable

data.

The nuances of this approach are resonant with ethnomethodological approaches to

sociology. I do not completely throw away the possibility of thinking, talking, measuring, or

otherwise 'doing' larger populations, but it is important to acknowledge the situatedness of their

construction and avoid reifying their existence as being 'out there' irrespective of the sociological

imaginations that construct them. My work, then, imagines Dutch diaspora, not as a real,

measurable, thing 'out there,' but as an imaginary concept that gives meaning to data and/or lived

experiences. Further, as public sociology, it takes responsibility for the proliferation of social

knowledge by taking the ethics of disciplinary constructs seriously.

Explaining this risks of soliciting realist reactions from readers that societies do in fact

exist, which is not the issue. Ontology addresses how, not heitheir, things are real. Macro-

societal images are real in their users' imaginations, and they influence real interactions in

everyday life. However, this does not preclude our ability to imagine alternative models, such as

diaspora, as real as well; even simultaneously so. The issue is not whether diaspora is either real

or imaginary, but how it can be an imagined reality whose constructedness we can be conscious

of without assuming that there must be some other, real reality, 'out there' instead. This requires

cognitive and affective discipline, but such discipline is in my view a quintessence of scientific

philosophizing. (For more on philosophy as embodied practice see Braidotti 2002 74-75) My

approach envisions sociology as human practice rather than a science with its own set of objects

to measure (a la Durkheim). This approach is not scientific or sociological, it just breaks with

Durkheimian realism.









My hope is that the stories I have chosen and the issues that emerge from them and from

mine and readers' interpretation and analysis of them will be resonant and shed light on

migration processes and experiences more broadly. My limitations personally and as a

researcher, as well as those of the respondents, their narratives, and the media of transmission,

necessitate that many potentially important aspects will be filtered out and left unaccounted for.

This is an inevitability of the enormous loss that comes with each degree of removal of a

representation from the reality it is taken to simulate (see Virilio's 1991 24 discussion of the

'reality effect' of representation). I do not want to distinguish between the position of lived

reality vis-a-vis the borders of the Netherlands in envisioning Dutch diaspora, since the processes

of cultural sharing can occur regardless of place-location. Nevertheless, for this research I focus

on narratives in which migrants are oriented toward international destinations, primarily because

doing so requires less effort to 'tease out' the consciousness, in respondents' narratives and in

readers, of intra-regional or intra-European migration as diasporic movement.

The goal of this research was not to answer any specific questions) nor was it to

operationalize difference and/or similarity between groups of respondents constructed a priori in

separation. Instead the goal was to explore, as an emigrant-immigrant participant in Dutch

diaspora, the narratives of others like me. This entailed critically resisting the tendency toward

separating myself from the data in terms of the researcher/researched subject-object dichotomy,

as well as that toward positioning myself on one side of the native/foreigner

(autochtoon/allochtoon) division. Resisting these distinctions is somewhat easier for me

personally as the result of the practical experiences of everyday life in a household of

emigrant/immigrant native/foreigners, but I nonetheless maintain it as a conscious aspect of my

research as well as a scientific, not just personal ethical, value. Although recognizing and









understanding how differences are constructed, emphasized, and performed in different contexts

with varying degrees of violence, symbolic and otherwise, are necessary for struggling against

oppression, recognizing commonalities can be liberatory in shifting the focus away from

categories that divide and homogenize individuals into groups. All individuals are unique and

different from all other individuals, and yet at the same time their individual cultural resources

are not isolated or devoid of similarities and shared commonalities. Since it is possible to orient

toward the recognition of differences or commonalities, it is a disciplined aspect of the

methodological gaze to consciously attend to focusing on one more than the other. From a

constructionist perspective I do not view differences or similarities as objective facts inherent in

the materiality of people and their environments, but as contextually emergent artifacts within

particular interactions. Differences and similarities are constructed, emphasized, and performed

through interaction. This may occur through face-to-face interaction or the interaction of

researcher with data, in terms of research method, and/or through scholarly discourse.

As part of this conscious attempt to avoid differentiation, I also identified a tendency in

research to construct categories and code and sort data in a way that produces a sense of 'fit'

between the data and categories, verified and reified through the technique of 'constant

comparison' (see grounded theory methodological guidelines such as those of Charmaz 2006). I

make a distinction between comparison and contrast in order to highlight the possibility of a

'comparative' method that is not oriented toward differentiation and distinction but rather toward

radical commonality with an openness for variation within shared boundaries. As such, I read,

interpreted, and analyzed the various narratives re-presented in the current research with a basic

sense of commonality among the data. At the same time I went further to recognize the unique

issues expressed in each narrative. Although some may claim that this approach is anti-









sociological in that it resists collectivizing narratives and identities into categories and then

generalizing about the categories, I contend that this kind of sociological epistemology is not the

only sociology possible. Even if we recognize the unique situations and contexts of individuals,

we can still remain open to recognizing their individual processes of collectivization, social and

internal intercourse, and other interactions that constitute their sociality.

Postscript on Methodological Paradigms

My approach to this research project combines various methodological 'schools' such as

those described by Gubrium and Holstein (1997) as well as Grounded Theory (Charmaz 2006)

and other methods I have been exposed to in sociology, cultural studies, media studies, as well as

some aspects of positivist sociology. The naturalism/ethnomethodology distinction is useful for

making sense of my approach to constructing Dutch diaspora by operationalizing it in terms of

concrete social life. The ability to recognize diasporic practice in people who may or may not

recognize their lives as diasporic, or who may not even be conscious of the notion of diaspora to

begin with, would be facilitated by ethnomethodology and positivism but eschewed by

naturalism. Positivist research traditions allow us, as a privilege of the scientist, to interpret data

in terms not recognized by its producers, at least not explicitly. Although this aspect of

positivism has been criticized (see Cuff 1998 151-152 for an example of Husserl's critique of

Galileo's philosophy), I employ it with legitimacy in my view by relativizing science as one

approach to knowing among others in everyday social life. As such, I can impose my meaning

of diaspora on my data by operationalizing them as iterations of it, while acknowledging that

doing so is a situated expression of knowledge-power within my own scientific practice.

Ethnomethodology at the same time problematizes and facilitates my projection of diaspora by

contending that diaspora can only exist insofar as it is constructed or done within the context of

social interaction. From an ethnomethodological perspective I must take care not to assume that









my respondents are necessarily constructing diaspora in their mundane interactions, although I

can recognize my own work as an attempt to do diaspora within the context of research and

discourse. From a naturalist standpoint I privilege the narratives of my respondents as

representing the concerns that are important for them to post in the context of the websites they

appropriate for achieving self-expression and recognition. My analyses demonstrate more

attentiveness to the life events they seem concerned with than my concern with diasporic

consciousness among emigrants of the Netherlands and others. Nevertheless I do not see any

conflict between selecting data in order to operationalize the research object, Dutch diaspora,

while analyzing these data in a way that reveals the unique and divergent interests of those who

embody the diaspora. Attempting to study diaspora by eliciting consciousness of it within the

expressions of respondents would not be an unimaginable project, but to suggest that doing

otherwise undermines the unity of the research project substitutes textual-aesthetic concerns for

empirically-grounded rigor.









CHAPTER 4
PRELIMINARY SURVEY OF DATA AND SOURCES

XPdite.net is a (Dutch language) website devoted to helping people emigrate to Australia.

It consists mainly of a number of BBS (bulletin boards) forums where users can post messages to

one another and respond. The bulletin boards are divided into four main categories with

subcategories: General ('introduce yourself, 'chatbox', 'kids corner', and 'the latest

developments'), General Australia (subdivided into 'news and current events' along with

subdivisions based on region), Emigration to Australia ('emigration news and tips', 'emigration

- general Australia', 'skilled visa', 'spouse/family visa', and 'temporary visa'), and finally there is a

category devoted to the website itself.

HetGevolg.nl is a (Dutch language) website devoted to publishing short biographical

descriptions of the situation of asylum-seekers who are either legally bankrupt and thus at risk of

deportation or currently engaged in legal proceedings to retain legal Dutch resident status. The

website is described as a "'community' of people who support refugees threatened with

deportation, and has the motto: 'we won't let you go'. They can find advice and exchange

knowledge with one another." Besides a short explanation of the problem that 26,000 asylum-

seekers face deportation, including the claim that the policy is neither humane nor realistic, the

website consists primarily of a 'logbook' of entries describing the situation of individuals.

The two websites are similar in that each consists of lists of entries that describe the

situations of various individuals at a unique crossroads of life circumstances, who desire to

establish residence in a particular place other than where they previously or currently live, and

who are involved in struggles with a government to attain the legal status necessary to continue

their lives productively. They differ however in form, namely in the voice of the text and

whether information is mono- or dia- logical. The XPdite postings are usually written in the









first-person tense by users describing their own situation and desires whereas HetGevolg

logbook entries are written in the third-person, describing refugees situation in a voice not their

own. XPdite offers users the opportunity to respond to postings offering advice or otherwise

responding to other users whereas HetGevolg's readers must remain anonymous since they do

not have the possibility of responding to the refugees' stories. Although I am not pretending to a

systematic analysis of the two websites or their users/entries, I will describe some examples of

the contents here and provide some basic comparisons.

Claiming Belonging

I begin by comparing two rhetorical strategies to claim belonging in the respective place of

desired residency. The first example comes from the introductory page of HetGevolg and reads:

How many people will be put on the street, after a trip via the departure center to the
deportation center? How many children that only know the Netherlands, will be sent to a
country where they have nothing? How many people have claimed to be unsafe in their
country of origin who will be proven right when it is too late?

It is notable that the reasons referenced in this text have to do with negative consequences of

failure to successfully claim belonging and the access to resources that comes with it. Life on

the street, children losing everything, being sent to an unsafe environment are all consequences

of not remaining in the Netherlands. Notice also the reference to the Netherlands as the only

place the children have ever known. The references of these claims are that humanitarian

necessity and/or always having lived in the Netherlands are legitimate reasons to stay. Compare

these reasons to those given by a couple from south Limburg for wanting to move to Australia:

We ... have been dreaming of moving to Australia for 23 years. We have never been
there but the strange thing is that we miss this country as if it was our birth country. That's
impossible we already see many of you thinking, (or maybe not?). ..

Rather than referencing the consequences of remaining in south Limburg, this couple emphasizes

that this is their 'dream' and that they 'miss' Australia 'as if it was their birth country.' The last









part is particularly interesting since the rhetorical strategy is similar to the aforementioned claim

that Dutch life is all the children have known. In both cases the idea of knowing a place since

birth seems to serve as important social capital, as well as the negative problem of missing a

place one is not allowed to be. Likewise the last line references a conflict between impossibility

and hope that motivates the sharing of stories. We are given the impression in both cases that a

conflict is going on between struggle-against-adversity and hope.

Struggles and Legal Procedures

Stories of visa-struggles and legal procedures are also common fare in both websites.

Although the visa-jargon is slightly different for the two nation-states being petitioned, the

intrigue and savvy of negotiating a complex regulatory structure is similar. The following is an

excerpt from a contribution to XPdite entitled, "How a Dutch nurse got registered in

Queensland":

Then my migration agent sent me an email in which she wrote that I was not eligible for
the visa. First, she gave my in-service education as a reason (duh! I knew that since
november!) and she says that she called the nurse-assessment agency, the Australian
Nursing Council (ANC) and that, without seeing it, they evaluated my application as not
standing a chance "because I was trained in-service and so I'm an Enrolled Nurse (EN) and
not a Registered Nurse(RN)". Grrr! Couldn't you have called the ANC earlier!?!

She continues:

I received the advice to get a Student Visa and follow a Registered Nurse Course in
Australia. "Depending on the university you may receive credit points for the
qualifications you already hold. At the end of this course, you could then apply for
permanent residency under the Graduate Skilled Onshore Visa". (original quote in English)
According to the migration agent.

Notice how the complexity and details of the power struggle with the migration agent are

proudly expounded upon, as if to demonstrate valor. Likewise technical termination about visas,

professional status, and governing agencies are deployed as if to demonstrate familiarity with

'the game.' The effect is to demonstrate that she is not an outsider but rather an insider in the









processes of negotiating within the landscape of authorities. Similar elements can be seen in

HetGevolg:

B., received a residence permit for regular indefinite stay in 2003. (In 1994) he took part
in student protests in Tehran, was jailed, and bought free by his family. He fled to the
Netherlands. His story for leaving was deemed inadequate and only after 8.5 years did he
receive a residence permit (on medical grounds and temporary). June 2005 visited family
in Iran. He did this with a (new) IRANIAN passport, because he didn't want to wait for his
Dutch passport. On arrival he was held for 16 hours and questioned while his 'criminal
record' was looked up. Released after paying money. Again jailed 3 days, again bought
free. The police are making it difficult for him. His passport has been withheld and can
only get it back after paying 6000 euros. Now going to apply to the Dutch embassy so that
it must give official recognition that a person returning to Iran (in possession of a Dutch
residence permit and therefore has no interest in misrepresenting facts) is encountering
problems.

The next paragraph continues:

B. has returned to the Netherlands in the meantime, after his family had given him the
ownership documents of their house as collateral. He reported that during his jailing the
police took his INS papers into possession (!) and his entire background was known to
them. He didn't report to the Dutch embassy in Teheran, because he naturally no longer
trusted them. He clearly recognized his INS papers by the logo on the paper and his name
that was printed on them. In the meantime we have given this information via an attorney
to the Haverkamp Commission and it has been officially registered. Despite the fact that
his family is still having problems because of his departure to the Netherlands, he is
sending money to pay off authorities and will not return to Iran. Further we have sent this
entire explanation to Amnesty International.

Although the actors named in B's story are quite different than those of the Nurse, in both those

actors are narrated primarily as regulatory government agencies. As in the Nurse's story there

are expressions of exasperation in response to chaotic sequences of events and decisions. It is

notable that in B's story, distrust between the various agencies and B are more significant than

for the nurse whose relationship involves more frustration than distrust. Although these stories

are quite dissimilar in their duration and scope, both demonstrate the complexity of the narrative

of struggle between immigrants and the institutional actors that mediate their migration

movements. Likewise, we can see that the migration struggles take place as part of daily life in

one or both of the national territories in question, but that in the total course of events both places









end up conflating into one common area of police, embassies, government agencies, and

mediated communications with absent parties.

We should take note that this is not just the case for the migrants but also for the officials,

administrators, and police working with them. In practice, the complex of actors and the social

relations that evolve among them constitute a kind of extra-national space in which migrants are

neither here nor there and yet many of their daily activities concern negotiating the interests of

settling here or there (or resisting such settling, depending on which actor we are talking about).

I put this characterization forth as a response to Baubock's (2003) claim that transnational

movements essentially take place in the political space of one or another nation. To the contrary,

transnational movements are often likely to result in the production of hybrid social-spaces due

to the competing national interests being pursued and negotiated by the various actors. At the

same time, the nations being represented begin to appear external to the processes of negotiating

them, making it difficult or impossible to experience life as taking place 1 it/hi a nation-state

since life has begun taking place i/th the presence of nation-states, and then only the arbitrary

agencies and actors that claim to represent them. Such a state of consciousness is not compatible

with the state of prolonged childhood fantasy in which the nation-state is experienced as an

extension of the safe domestic space of the home (for a recent discussion of the construction of

the US nation as domestic-family space see Hill-Collins 2006).

If we would continue to analyze such stories, I suspect that a growing body of narrative

forms and rhetorical techniques would emerge for framing the experiences of individuals in

various processes of transition and negotiation. Although we could identify the findings as

representing a certain margin of Dutch life, locating them in a subjective space closer to their

various horizons than other, more securely situated people, if they can be described as such, this









is not necessarily the case. Although visa struggles involve specific types of bureaucratic

procedures and agencies, those agencies, institutions, and the state/government actors involved

may be similar to those used by anyone else in the population. In fact many of the institutions

and actors accessible to so-called border populations may be exactly the same ones accessible to

others in the general population. In this sense we may be skeptical of accounts of immigrantss

that promote the impression that their existence is separate from that of others in society. The

perceived differences can be explained in Simmelian terms of 'forms of sociation;' namely that

social events perceived as superficially distinct are, in fact, characterized by general sociative

forms which are the same across the social field.

Both the websites, XPdite and HetGevolg, represent part of the Dutch diasporic landscape.

The narratives put forth on those websites describe lives in the process of transnational

movement which are firmly embedded in the cultural space of Dutch life. Although the refugees

described in HetGevolg are often migrants originating outside of the Netherlands, and they often

lack legal status of residency in the Netherlands or are in a process of negotiating it, clearly their

struggles are firmly rooted in Dutch life and institutions. We could no more claim that B's

migration story is a purely Iranian one than we could that the nurse's dealings with Australian

regulatory agencies were encompassed (completely) by her Dutch existence. Rather we have to

recognize the existence of hybrid social-spaces which are not 'neither-nor' but rather 'both-and.'

In other words national spaces are not mutually exclusive, separated by one dimensional borders,

but are overlapping and extensive deep into the claimed-territories of other states. At the same

time, there are no real national spaces at all since the institutionalization of space as such can

only occur at the level of individual subjectivity. Thus we are really left with only an









uncontained world of social interactions in which actors draw on various national, cultural, and

other discourses to facilitate accomplishing their goals and movements.









CHAPTER 5
FURTHER EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION WITHIN A GROWING DIASPORIC
CONSCIOUSNESS

Transitional Note

During the course of my analysis and reflection on the topic I found myself cultivating a

growing diasporic consciousness. By this I mean that as I theorized and researched this topic, I

became steadily more confident in viewing social life not against the backdrop of nation-states as

'sending' and 'receiving' centers of migrant journeys but rather as part of diasporic movement in

which nationalism and its institutionalizations play a role, but are not imagined as fundamental in

any sense. As a result of a research gaze that evolved in this way throughout the project, the

following findings resonate with a somewhat different tone than the preceding pilot narratives.

The analysis of and engagement with a larger sample of narratives reflects the shifted status of

the project between the initial analyses conducted as preliminary research and what follows.

My sense of hope for the individuals represented on HetGevolg developed in parallel to a

growing diasporic consciousness. From a statist perspective on Dutch society and the state,

refugees facing harsh legal pressure to emigrate from the Netherlands are in a tragic situation.

They have fled one place in order to find a peaceful life somewhere else and in the meantime

have run into hostile pressures from a new source in the place of refuge. Encountering hostility

in a place where one expected to find refuge from hostility is a traumatic experience. As the

popular hip-hop artist, Def Rhymz put it in his lyrics, "fleeing is no longer possible, I wouldn't

know how ... I wouldn't know where [to go]." In some ways the sense that there is no hope

beyond the Netherlands is a result of the mythology that the Netherlands is the most religiously

and politically tolerant society on Earth (see Hoving 2005 for a deep-reaching analysis of Dutch

tolerance). Of course, such fear is shared by many people living in many countries. As diasporic

consciousness develops, it becomes possible to go beyond envisioning relative intolerance in









terms of mutually exclusive societies to recognize that societies, forms of power, and ideologies

are disbursed among various individuals everywhere in different configurations. In this context

it would be difficult to imagine that Dutch society is radically different from any other society.

While a great deal of energy is invested in representing Dutch society and Dutchness along the

lines of certain aesthetics, in practice these aesthetic distinctions get elevated to an exaggerated

level of importance. Recognizing this can facilitate the view that refugees, as well as anyone

else living in the Netherlands, may just as well extend their horizons beyond the Netherlands

without diminished hope for a peaceful and prosperous life.

Perhaps more importantly than the ability to facilitate a less bounded and claustrophobic

sense of Dutch society, diasporic consciousness has also allowed me to re-envision those

represented on HetGevolg as everyday residents of the Netherlands engaged in everyday

struggles with bureaucrats, employers, neighbors, and so forth. Rather than envisioning them as

oppositionally positioned to Dutch society as agents trying to gain access, and therefore as not

yet having access/presence, the diasporic view constitutes such struggles as already taking place

within the contested space of Dutch territorialism. Reading the narratives in this way, the

camera obscura is reversed to produce the correct image, re-constructing Dutch anti-immigrant

resistance as an attack rather than as a defense, as many statists would like to maintain it.

Although these are stories of residents under attack, this is a more precarious position for them

than for Dutch residents whose legitimacy of place is not in question. Their claims of legitimate

residency, and injustice in being forced to move elsewhere, have a cautious tone, as if they

should not sound too demanding or risk forfeiting all social legitimacy. Since the narratives are

seemingly written about the respondents, instead of self-authored, this may not reflect the

attitudes of the individuals themselves but of those telling their stories.









HetGevolg.nl Narratives


Strategic Silences

One narrative, describing a 'Syrian-Christian family' problematizes the application of

coercive force to emigrate in a variety of ways.

The INS (immigration service) has, after many years, decided that the family will have the
choice to cooperate in their return or in exclusion from supplies (in other words being put
out on the street).

The man has already offered to return alone and, once safe, to let his family follow. He is
extremely fearful and convinced that he will encounter great difficulties upon returning.
He is also in part fearful that there is a Muslim family waiting to fulfill a marriage
agreement with his daughter, which was made under pressure 8 years ago.

The two young children have become completely Dutch. They speak their original
language badly.

Although this man has been given a transparently coercive ultimatum by the immigration

service, the narrative resists commenting in this indignity. Instead, the man's willingness to

cooperate is highlighted along with fear, instead of anger, frustration, or resentment which would

be legitimate responses to his treatment. The appeal regarding his children, that they have

become completely Dutch and hardly speak their original language, is especially interesting

since it is clearly meant to appeal to a sense that Dutch children would have difficulty

immigrating to Syria. From a diasporic point of view, I would challenge this view in favor of

one that recognizes the possibility of transcultural migration, but it is also important to recognize

how such logic could be appropriated as further legitimation for forced emigration.

A short account of a 21-year old single man who fled from the battle front in Sudan also

resists critiquing the man's treatment in anyway, instead focusing on his confusion and fear:

He had to flee from the front on the border of Sudan and came to the Netherlands via
Libya. The ministry has not acknowledged his anxiety problems. They have given him
two negative responses (to his asylum request)









He is currently waiting in a departure camp in Soesterberg. He is fearful and has no idea
what his future holds and his life is in danger.

This narrative describes the man as having anxiety problems and waiting fearfully without

exploring the full implications of being faced with deportation in terms of anxiety problems.

There are also no alternative avenues described besides waiting in fear for deportation. Although

this is a clearly unacceptable situation, it seems important that no mention of it is made as such.

It seems as though whatever small amount of hope is behind the publication of this man's story

refuses to risk losing potential help by including critique or an action orientation. Instead he is

presented as a helpless and fearful victim waiting and patiently enduring in near hopelessness.

The following narrative describes an even more silent respondent:

She fled in 2000 from Sierra Leone, after her mother was murdered and her brother and
two sisters disappeared. She gave birth to twins shortly after her arrival in the Netherlands
(pregnant due to rape).

After a problematic language-analysis she was refused asylum on the basis that it could not
be ascertained that she was from Sierra Leone. It was thought that she was from Nigeria.

(She) received documents from Sierra Leone regarding her identity and schooling in a
methodist school. With these she began a second asylum procedure; was refused because
the documents were dated in such a way that they could have been used in the first
procedure.

She was evicted three years ago from the refugee center with two children.

The local government is willing to pay for emergency lodging if she will sign that she
wants to return.

Amnesty International has written a letter to Minister Verdonk regarding the impossibility,
for single mothers, to survive.

She is scheduled for a hearing regarding her return shortly.

She is pregnant and is expecting her third child next spring. She currently lives with two
children in a 3 X 4 meter room.

The material circumstances of this respondent are striking. Particularly noteworthy are the

difficulties involved with establishing for her a place of origin, and the procedural difficulties









encountered based on the dates of schooling documents. The only commentary explicit in this

narrative is attributed to Amnesty International. It is as if to suggest that only a well-known

international organization can legitimately comment on such a situation as is being experienced

by this woman and her children. On the other hand, the story seems to be written in a way that

begs readers to draw their own conclusions. Still, the lack of agency-attribution to the

protagonist in this narrative is considerable.

Although it is difficult to maintain a positive outlook when reading the narratives on

HetGevolg, I believe this is a critical point of solidarity with the struggles of the respondents

being represented. Not only is the maintenance of hope ethically crucial, but in some ways just

bringing these narratives to the attention of others forms an ethical dimension of any project that

re-presents them. Thus, although HetGevolg was selected as a site/sign of Dutch diasporic

consciousness, re-presenting these narratives is as much or more important as a means of

bringing them to the attention of new readers as it is to search for signs of diaspora within them.

Spousal Rights

The following narrative regarding a 24-year old man in the Netherlands since 2001 is

noteworthy because of the man's marriage to a Dutch partner which, nonetheless, has not

prevented him from being subject to emigration pressures:

Young man from Guinea, married to a Dutch woman. Must return ...

Fled because of war, afraid for recruitment.

All legal procedures negative, including appeals.

Currently with his (Dutch) wife seeking another path.

Despite being married he is not allowed to stay. Man must return, in order to request a
visa for a temporary stay. Fearful for for reprisals at return. The young family (the wife)
does not earn enough to remedy the situation. Has this family no rights?









Although there are a number of legal requirements that have not been fulfilled and have led to

potential deportation as a result, such as the minimum income required to attain a spouse visa,

there is still a sense of entitlement based on the social contract of marriage. Nevertheless it is

also noteworthy that the claims of fearfulness of reprisals and recruitment into a war that the man

fled in the first place are a separate legal issue than his rights as a Dutch spouse. Separate legal

classifications as spouse or refugee means that claiming rights as either will be treated separately

and thus this man may be refused residency once as a refugee and then again as a spouse with no

recognition of the mutually constituting nature of the two categories in intersection. Thus, for

example, there can be no legal consideration of the problems of subjecting a Dutch spouse to

losing her partner to foreign military service, nor will the fact that this man has a Dutch spouse

be taken into account in overweighing the practical concerns of allowing him to stay as a

refugee. Instead the law excludes individuals one procedure at a time until there is no basis left

for residency claims.

Facing Multiple Institutional Hostilities

The following story is an excellent example of the way that diaspora extends one's range of

home-places in a way that produces back-and-forth-movement:

Man from Chechnya, returned from the Netherlands, since that was possible according to
the INS. He was picked up at the border, tortured, bought-free by his girlfriend who is in
NL and his mother who lives in Chechnya. Currently he has been back (in NL) for a year.
Proof is clear, residence permit still not granted.

Man and woman in separate procedures. Woman has currently received a residence
permit. Man is depressive, disinterested, and has lost the desire to live.

Although the female protagonist in this narrative is not categorized in terms of nationality, she

also seems to be involved in a legal struggle for residency. Although the man's mother is in

Chechnya and immigration authorities seemed to think it was safe for him to return, his

experience of torture and being held hostage contradict this. Although his girlfriend has









successfully received residency permission, this does not seem to have given this man hope as

the last line of the narrative suggests. Although this situation is indicative of diasporic

movement where multiple homes are maintained, this is also problematized by the hostility of

authorities on both sides. I suspect that such 'double-jeopardy' on two sides of a border leads to

confusion since in mono-centered state logic, one side of a border is usually 'the safe side.'

Experiencing External Threat Inside the Border

The following narrative is notable in that the protagonist is established within a Dutch

household but nonetheless faces emigration pressure and life-threats as a risk of returning. The

man's narrative is written by his spouse:

My husband is living here now six years. He fled Somalia because of war, his family was
lost when he fled, and he met his Dutch wife here with whom he is now married. Together
we have an 11-month old daughter. My husband's legal process has been finalized and he
must return to Somalia. Currently a departure moratorium is in place because it is unsafe.
Somalia is not safe for my husband because he belongs to a small clan. If my husband has
to leave the country there is a great chance that he will not see his wife and child again and
his survival is not certain. My husband has been here since february 1, 2000 and he has
been waiting six years already, four years with his Dutch wife. We received a letter on
May 15, 2004 that my husbands stipend and living-means would be stopped, then he has
no more living-means. Briefly still over his current living situation, I am his wife and we
live together so he is not in a center (for refugees); he has his own place.

My husband legal process is final since february 2004, we have tried to arrange many
things since then but no one listens to us. A temporary visa request is extremely difficult
to arrange because my husband is from Somalia where there are no documents attainable.
My husband has a family here and is at risk of losing his child and wife as a consequence.
My husband receives 500 euros per month to live on; we've heard that that will be stopped
shortly. Since July 1, 2005 there is a special policy for Somalian refugees, if all goes well
my husband will also fall under this policy so it's just a question of waiting.

This story is striking insofar as the man's situation is simultaneously dire and relatively secure.

He has lost his legal residency and is concerned with losing his family and possible death if he

has to return to Somalia. On the other hand he has a place to live and continues to receive a

living-stipend of 500 euros per month. Likewise the family seems hopeful for a special policy

for Somalians that will prevent this man's forced emigration. On the other hand, however, the









situation seems uncertain enough to publish their story on HetGevolg. From a diasporic

perspective, the threat of return to a dangerous region outside the Netherlands becomes re-

territorialized as an internal potentiality of (Dutch) life. In other words, although from a statist

perspective we would simply conceptualize the situations in Somalia and the Netherlands as

separate national worlds, within the diaspora connecting them, Somalia becomes a place of

banishment from the Netherlands. The Netherlands may also become a place of refuge and

transcendence from Somalia but since this project is not specifically about Somalian diaspora,

this is less of a concern here. It is clear from this narrative, however, that the writer does not

view Dutch and Somalian societies as equally accessible life-spaces from the perspective of her

marriage but that she maintain a premium on living in the Netherlands, conceptualizing Somalia

as a place of banishment for her husband.

Returning to an Estranged Past

A diasporic perspective also makes it possible to recognize how a person's Dutch life

continues albeit in an intensely affected form once living in the place-of-origin [sic]. The

following narrative describes a family who has moved to Nigeria and the confusion of having to

start a new life. I read this narrative for signs that the family's Dutchness does not simply stop at

the moment of emigration:

Fled due to participation in a protest organization and tribal wars. Her parents were
murdered.

In Leeuwarden she heard from the supervisory board of attorneys that her lawyer did not
handle her case accordingly. She did not even know that her case was being tried until she
received the letter in her mailbox that her procedure was finalized. Now she has been
deported and left in the airport in Nigeria without a cent and with two children and three
suitcases, without even a place to stay the night.

Three months later she has a modest place to stay, but no food, the children do not go to
school and they are traumatized. Returning to her village is not an option, she is hiding in
a city with a million residents. She has no money to begin (a business) so that she can
produce her own support and pay for her children's schooling.









This narrative is notable in that it suggests some promising potential for building up a new life in

the urban anonymity of Nigeria. This is a daring narrative move when there are potentially

readers who will appropriate this woman's survival as a means of absolving their own sense of

responsibility for forcing her and her children out of the Netherlands. Although from a statist

viewpoint we have the tendency to conceptualize this family's emigration to Nigeria as a return,

it is arguably more realistic to conceptualize, from a diasporic perspective, that this woman and

her children are moving to Nigeria as newcomers from the Netherlands. Although some

Nigerian cartography, i.e. knowledge gained through lived experience with Nigerianness, may be

present; especially in the form of aversion to certain aspects of Nigerian life as is evident in her

resistance to return to her home village, this family will for the most part have to build a new life

as emigrants of the Netherlands.

Theorizing Borders

For statists, borders represent the end of one world and the beginning of a radically

different one, or the end of one life and the beginning (or continuation) of another. For those

living with diaspora, borders function quite differently. While they may influence various

aspects of one's life and consciousness, they are not the radical dividers that are experienced by

those who imagine themselves as situated i/ i/hi/ instead of through them. In practice these do

approaches do not exist separately but come into contact, often with anomic and violent results.

Gloria Anzaldua is the probably the most well-known observer of this with her description of a

borderland as "a vague and undetermined place created by the emotional residue of an unnatural

boundary" (Anzaldua in Lemert 549). From my own experience, as well as in reading these

narratives, I have come to recognize how difficult it is for many to comprehend the complexity

of trans-cultural existence and even more so, to come to the realization that this complexity is not

natural but exists as a result of an overgrown nationalist/statist approach to conceptualizing even









the most minute details of life. In statist consciousness, one is always here or there and never

both. What is more, depending on the place where one is, everything else about one's life is

interpreted vis-a-vis that context. Multicontextual or transcontextual meanings are avoided as

strange and anomic, especially when the contexts are identified with opposing sides of a border.

Bringing Immigrants and Emigrants Together

An important part of this project is to move from focusing on Dutch immigrant emigration

alone toward including all types emigration to create an inclusive view of diaspora. XPdite.net

turned out to be the point of diaspora that would serve to include migrants who would otherwise

be ignored as migrants of the Netherlands. The statist perspective distinguishes immigrants from

emigrants as a function of national origin. This is a national-racist technique of knowing people

differently according to radical categorical differentiation. The resulting image of society is one

in which immigrants are seen as transients in contrast to so-called natives who are seen as stably

situated in contrast.

Including white (i.e. non-ethnically marked) Dutch migrating to Australia recognizes the

importance of including whites within a multi-ethnic vision of the statist society. I do so here by

focusing on their transience, in this case transnationally, as emigrants similar to those whose

stories are posted on HetGevolg. By including the migrants represented on XPdite, I also wanted

to proceed from Essed's suggestion to place "no emphasis on differences without recognizing

similarities first" (Essed 1996 28)

Following Essed's logic, it makes sense to focus on migrancy as an identity and, more

importantly, a frame of experience separate from national or ethnic identity. In other words, it is

important to conceptualize Dutch diaspora as a multi-national, multi-ethnic, uncontained society

which includes various types of migrants, immigrants and emigrants, living in a variety of

situations inside and outside of the Netherlands. My goal is to focus on the similarities, instead









of searching out and highlighting differences, among various migrants. Admittedly, this

(similarity-) orientation has been one of the most difficult aspects of this project, mostly or in

part due to the heavy weight of common sense categorical distinctions assumed between

immigrants as people seen as coming into a country, and emigrants as those seen to be going out.

From a radically empirical perspective it is clear that individuals' everyday lives only

contain brief moments of actual transit. In most cases, modern transportation allows travelers to

arrive at their destination in a matter of hours, although the preparations and repercussions of

changing locations usually extend further in time and space than the actual transit. As such, the

everyday life of a resident of the Netherlands preparing to move to Australia is more similar than

different to the life of another resident preparing for deportation. This is not to say that the same

mundane experiences such as meals, sleeping, and so forth will not be colored differently

because of specificities of each individual's situation. Rather, I am merely trying to realize the

fundamental similarity between various experiences of living in the Netherlands and in Dutch

society, while engaged in a struggle to transition to living in another society that is perceived as

separate and external. The transition undergone by anyone crossing a border, I contend, is

always a transition between separation and continuity since I believe it is impossible, at least at

the ontological level, to subjectively inhabit two places without experiencing them as parts of a

connected whole on some level. Someone who has always lived in the Netherlands and

perceived the nation-state as a singular space within an international plurality of different spaces

cannot maintain the same distinction once s/he has lived life on the other side of the border and

experienced it as the same life as before. Subjective experience does not become discontinuous

by crossing geographical borders.









However, since it is possible and often probable that migrants insist on focusing on

differences over similarities, it makes no sense to expect migrant narratives to reflect the

ontological continuity across borders. Although it is possible for them to do so there would be

no way, to my knowledge, nor any reason to attempt to correlate ontological continuity, another

term for diasporic consciousness, with other aspects of migrant identity or experience; except

perhaps the experience of having read about it in the writings referenced in this work or

explicitly learned about it otherwise. Still, the task remains of representing some of the migrant

narratives of XPdite in similar fashion to those of HetGevolg.

XPdite.net Narratives

Immigration / Emigration

Perhaps the best way to transition from the narratives of HetGevolg to those of XPdite is to

begin with a story positioned at the completion of movement from the Netherlands to the new

country of residence, Australia. There are problems with defining these narratives in this way,

especially from a diasporic perspective, since there is no way to assert that having successfully

'made it' to the new country has anything to do with ones sense of having migrated. This sounds

strange from a statist view since statists assume that migration is coterminous with where a body

is located physically. When one immigrates to one country, for example, statism assumes that

s/he has emigrated from another. Statism ignores the possibility that an individual may have

multiple places of residence and/or homes. From this perspective we have trouble understanding

distinctions between, for example, immigrants who do not wish to emigrate from their previous

home and emigrants who do not wish to immigrate to a new home; at least without assessing

them pathologically.

For example, the last narrative analyzed from HetGevolg that described a woman and her

family emigrating to Nigeria as a result of Dutch legal coercion may represent a different kind of









struggle than a story of someone moving to Australia who is eager to do so and faces no such

emigration pressure. Nevertheless, both narratives may involve a desire to retain a home (i.e. the

possibility of returning) in the Netherlands, i.e. to (im)migrate without emigrating. Although it

would be impossible to assess these aspects of the migrants represented here without conducting

further research beyond what is available in their web-based narratives, it is still important to

consider these aspects theoretically and maintain an awareness that such issues are more

complex in reality than statism often leads us to believe.

The Joy of Visa Success

Browsing through the messages on the section of XPdite entitled, "the latest news"

("laatste stand van zaken"), I found many with subject headings suggesting success in struggles

to achieve legal residency in Australia, and often with financial support (i.e. finding work). This

was a far cry from the vague hopes expressed on HetGevolg to maintain residency in the

Netherlands by avoiding expulsion in any way possible. Whereas 'making the move' away from

the Netherlands represents a significant loss for those on HetGevolg, both a loss of home and a

lost struggle, the move to Australia is often expressed in a celebratory fashion with all capitals

and exclamation points. Headings such as "VISA'S GRANTED!!!," "IN THE POCKET!," and

"jassian goes wallaby I'm here!" announce success to anyone browsing the website. The

contents of the messages can reveal layers of successes as in the following for "IN THE

POCKET!":

Last wednesday, March 1 2006, the letter of release finally came: request for spouse visa is
approved!!! YES, YES, YES!! I've already been in AUS more than two years, and I feel
completely at home here and it would have been a small drama if it wasn't approved. But I
don't have to worry about that anymore, at least not for the coming two years, after that we
have to do [the paperwork] all over again, but for now: TERRIBLY HAPPY!!!

for everyone who is in the process: good luck!









This person seems to have successfully started a relationship and married a spouse in Australia,

and to have migrated, while in the process of going through a visa struggle. It is interesting to

see how although this moment of achievement is part of a series of successes, it is still celebrated

at a level of intensity as if it were the primary or only success. Also, although the visa was

achieved as a result of a successful relationship (resulting in marriage), there is no tone of

expectation or demand for legal rights in regards to the visa authorities as we might expect.

What's more, the prospect of renewing the visa in two years is met with a certain degree of

irritation vis-a-vis having to do the paperwork all over again, but without any sense of indignity

or resistance to intrusion by the immigration authorities. This person seems to want to

emphasize celebration and happiness of success over the intrusion of border guards in the

relationship, which seems to be accepted as necessary. Reading this I question whether this

person would be so accepting of such intervention in a diasporic, rather than statist, climate since

a diasporic perspective allows us to view all relationships as equal without regard for national

borders. Thus from a diasporic perspective, this respondent might question why a transnational

marriage is scrutinized any more than one between partners within the same national territory;

whereas from a statist worldview, such scrutiny is considered normal/acceptable and perhaps

even welcome.

Overweighing Multiple Positive Alternatives

Another message with the subject heading, "Australia, but now still searching for where!"

("Australie, maar nu nog uitzoeken waar! "), tells the story of a couple who is 'wanted' in

Australia but still in the process of deciding where to go, etc. In classical migration-studies

terms, we might say that this couple is experiencing pull-pressures from the receiving country

unlike those on HetGevolg who are experiencing push-pressures from the Dutch government, as

well as other Dutch actors and institutions. The writer says:









We have begun with a request for a skilled independent visa for permanent residence in
Australia. My husband, Mark, has the education civil engineer and is momentarily (4
years) working as project leader in an engineering bureau in Rotterdam. He has been
working at the same bureau for 13 years.

Now it is the case that because of his experience he is 'wanted' by employers in Australia
Queensland (only by having read his CV). Through the recruitment bureau IPA it is
possible to change over to a sponsored visa 457. Currently we have a number of vacancies
at home, and we are making telephone contact with a few.

Our first impression was to settle in the neighborhood of Brisbane, Cairns, or Adelaide.
But through this offer we are getting an idea of other places which we have started looking
into so that we can make a good choice later.

It is really nice how your first ideas can be undermined and you get a very different
perspective.

This morning we had a telephone conversation with someone from IPA who told us that in
principle we would be totally accompanied. They help you with your arrival and
accompany you to your house, give tips, help with finding schools and other acculturation
issues. If you have to come to the Netherlands, you are alone [in these things]. So we
couldn't believe our ears, but it has comforted us. Later we can always change over to a
permanent visa.

This respondent regards the permanent visa not as something to achieve as fast as possible, but

as something that can be postponed until one is sure that one wishes to stay. It is interesting how

the same visa can have different meanings depending on the sense of position one has vis-a-vis

other institutions and actors. Also notice how this respondent welcomes the undermining of her

perspective by institutional actors, which would presumably be regarded less warmly in the

context of resistance to the couples migration rather than facilitation.

Such success stories construct migration as an intense process of courtship and flattery by

foreign institutions in contrast to the cold and inimical treatment afforded to less 'wanted'

migrants. Perhaps this offers some explanation as to the interest of maintaining state boundaries

within a diasporic world. A world of bounded nation-states offers some migrants the potential

for courtship and flattery as well as place-transcendental pleasures while promising to contain

other 'unwanted' migrants. This idea is reminiscent of Bataille's (1967) observations regarding









sacrifice in terms of pleasure. He noted how societies waste certain individuals' lives as a means

of intensifying the pleasure of others. State borders may act in the same way, sacrificing the

happiness and well-being of some migrants in order to facilitate intense experiences of positive

transcendence for others. The criminalization of the 'illegal immigrant' thus may be seen as

fueling the pleasure of those free to consume the scarcity of the right to border-crossing itself.

What's more, the vast array of possibilities available for this couple is presented implicitly

as a reward of hard-work and commitment, i.e. working for the same engineering bureau for 13

years, four of which as a project leader. Although it is not mentioned explicitly, there is an

implication that it is natural that others who lack such qualifications would be met with less

enthusiasm as immigrants. Ironically, there is even reference made to those who "have to come

to the Netherlands," who are not offered such assistance as in Australia, although it is unclear if

she is referring to all newcomers, or only those who come as a result of being institutionally

'wanted.' Granted this is a complex narrative, but I found it important to demonstrate how the

projected world of migrants, the "field-of-possibilities" to use Sartre's (1963) terms, can be more

important to understanding the position of migrants than their actual geographical position.

Being able to recognize the subjective mapping of places in individuals' consciousness, instead

of focusing on an abstracted definition of place in terms of objective geography is a major part of

this project, and should be for any project dealing with diaspora.

Negotiating Migration-Possibilities through Dialogue

The following narrative is less optimistic about the prospects of emigrating, and as such it

resembles more the narratives of HetGevolg with the exception that no attention is given to the

prospect of maintaining legal residence in the Netherlands, which I presume is taken-for-granted

by the protagonist. Nevertheless, this narrative offers insight into yet another niche in the Dutch









diaspora, the frustrated position of trying to emigrate to Australia without a clear social position

that constructs one as a 'wanted' immigrant. She writes:

I've done a number of assessments to see what my chances are but like always ... I am not
suitable for any visa .. a bit strange there must be some [job] I am suitable for??

Actually I was silently hoping that it would work but fine .. I hope that my girlfriend's
father knows something and do any of you have tips?

This respondent's claim that her rejection is "a bit strange," and that "there must be some [job] I

am suitable for," is the strikingly close to directly questioning immigration authority, an

approach I have rarely witnessed in such narratives. Subsequent replies to her posting reveal

more about the social construction of migration possibilities in terms of occupations legitimate

on the list of occupations considered desirable for immigrants to Australia (SOL-list). In

response to a post asking about her profession, the respondent replies, "Recently I have become a

Document Control Assistant and before that I was a receptionist.. four years long.." Another

reply attempts to help find a suitable category for her occupation:

took a quick look but receptionist is not on the list, I also did not see document control
assistant.

I did see records manager (2299-13) maybe that has something to do with your present
profession.

But then I think that you have too little work experience in your current profession.

I hope that this helps.

The respondent seems to get overwhelmed at having to assess her skills in this way and replies

with frustration writing, "record manager is a higher function.. but is certainly related to my

profession.. I just haven't been working at it so long .. I can't see the forest through the trees

anymore.. sorry that I have bothered you with this.. but I am giving up.." Although this seems

like simple confusion, I read it as a moment of breakdown in which the relatively abstract logic

of professional-status hierarchy cannot stand up to transcultural movement. Clearly 'document









control assistant' does seem to relate to 'records manager' but the difference between the two

professional descriptions brings out the vagueness of both. Rather than engaging in an inquiry

about the actual activities of each job, the conversants seem to search for a way out by

mentioning the lack of experience. The lack of experience provides a point of consensus amid

the confusion of comparing professional categories. Later replies go further in breaking down

the logic of specific qualifications and experience, for example:

This is maybe a long shot but I would certainly try it. A visa 457, this is a sponsor visa.
You have to find someone that wants to sponsor you, and it may sound strange [but] there
are stories that people get hired to stock shelves in Sydney. Of course I don't know if that
is true. I also don't know how much you have to lose but if you come on a holiday visa
and try to find work via sponsorship you won't have to leave after three months. The
annoying thing is that the application has to be done in those three months. This is
possible because we did this too only this was absolutely not the plan, but our first sponsor
left us.

In this reply we see a shift from the focus on categorizing professions to finding a sponsor, either

before traveling to Australia or while visiting. This is an important shift since it implies

suddenly that immigration is dependent on what a sponsor wants rather than the government's

list of acceptable professions for immigrants. This refers to an ideology often encountered that

immigration is generally forbidden as a means of protecting unspecialized jobs for unemployed

residents of the country in question. The mention of'shelf-stocking' as an example of unskilled,

unspecialized job, is followed up by another post which announces:

About the ghost stories about sponsorship: forjobs like shelf-stocking, people are brought
in from outside the country and many people from Asia. To put it bluntly: they earn three
dollars per day in their home country and then they get here, say, 50 dollars per day and
then they shouldn't complain. It is a little reminiscent of slavery (I find). Because those
poor people have no choice. If they disagree and stand up for themselves they lose their
sponsor visa and then they have to return to their home country.

This week there was an article about a bakery in Sydney that flew in 20 Asians. Some
found this questionable.. like: that kind of people are available here too .. makes you think..

And it also happens in the IT sector with people from India...









I have been sponsored for a year and no problems. I think that if you have a bit of a good
job in a respectable company (whatever that may be...) that it all works out.

In short: sponsorship is a good option but you first have to have something to offer that is
needed here. An employer has to show that they cannot find any Australian with your
qualities (well... short of the example above)

This reply infuses more order into the selection logic under discussion by referring to global

inequalities as well as 'respectability' of companies. This narrative puts substantial effort into

supporting the selective logic of immigration control. By bringing in the notion of a racialized

division of labor for 'Asians' [sic] and mentioning slavery, he supports his reasoning that

migrants (whom he does not name as European and/or white) can only immigrate into certain

professions. Further he explicitly makes reference to the procedure, also commonly

mythologized in European migration, that employers have to demonstrate to immigration

authorities that there are no 'natives' with the qualifications of a prospective immigrant.

Although this is a logic of selection that allows for much leeway on the part of employers and

immigration authorities to refuse or grant consideration to almost anyone, those who subscribe to

this myth seem to believe that there are truly jobs that can only be filled by immigrants and that

is the reason why the immigrants who are allowed to immigrate are accepted.

While I will not go into an in-depth examination and critique of economic logics of skills-

based firm-ecology, it is worth noting that such logics are instrumentally applied toward

legitimating the restrictive and selective criteria applied to visa applicants, whatever those

(potentially discriminatory) criteria may be in actuality. Within diaspora, movement is codified

and controlled by means of categorization and logic. If nothing else, we should understand this

exchange as an example of Foucauldian knowledge-power par excellence; in Durkheimian terms

we might call it prospective anomie. The respondent acknowledges this best in her own words,









relinquishing her struggle at the moment she can no longer maintain oversight in light of so

many details.

Migration Control as Domestic Intervention

The last narrative I will present from XPdite involves visa rejection and hostility from the

immigration service. Although the hostility experienced by this respondent is not fueled by the

kind of anti-immigrant fear and hate behind the negative treatment of those whose stories appear

on HetGevolg, he is nevertheless subject to treatment different from 'legitimate' residents of

Australia on the basis of his nationality. This narrative provides a good way to round off this

narrative analysis since it brings us back from the celebratory success stories common on XPdite

to the stories of rejection, coercion, and struggle common on HetGevolg. Rather than contrast a

number of such struggles on XPdite with those on HetGevolg, as would be consistent with a

project of constructing different groups of immigrants and differentiating them from one another

by means of group-specific differences, I have presented the XPdite narratives as yet-more

migrants living within a Dutch-diaspora. By presenting the following narrative as approaching

the narratives of institutional hostility common on HetGevolg, I am not asking readers to equate

this story of a person who has fled from imprisonment or war, but rather to re-conceptualize each

migration narrative as the story of an individual at a specific intersection of a number of

institutional pressures and other circumstances. By moving toward XPdite narratives that are

less stories of success and more stories of difficulty and struggle, I hope to show that there are

commonalities possible between categorically-differentiated classes of migrants and, thus, that

there is a potential for solidarity when we look beyond class, race, and other categorical

distinctions which are constantly reified ontologically and epistemologically.

The series of messages that constitute this last narrative began with a short message

entitled, "visa refused help!." From reading the responses, it became apparent that this related









to another story, posted elsewhere, in which this person explained how a painful breakup resulted

in his ex reporting him to the immigration authorities as a potential threat to her. As a result his

visa was refused. It was not this story that interested me so much as the 21 replies in which

various readers consoled and offered advice. I imagined these posts parallel to stories on

HetGevolg.nl, in which many of the protagonists were also refused visas. Since there was no

possibility for responding to any of the posts on HetGevolg.nl, this offered a chance to read how

readers would respond to visa rejection. What's more, since the assumption on xpdite.nl seems

to be that everyone is white, it would be particularly interesting to read responses that were not

colored by fatalistic pity for a 'refugee' who is assumed to be non-white and therefore doomed to

rejection from the outset. The first response offered a suggestion for resisting rejection and

going further in the attempt to secure a visa, asking "if it would be a good idea to send a

statement of good behavior to the embassy" and wishing the man strength.

The next email offers more consolation while at the same time foreshadowing a more

pessimistic outlook for further visa struggle. She writes:

You know, Ed ... if I was you and you were me ... then I would not concern yourself
about this AT ALL. If you do that you will keep reliving bad memories, and why would
you do that. You can discover new, positive memories and experiences everywhere, even
on a bicycle ride along the Linde. I would let it go for now, and first focus on something
very different. This is much too painful?!

The reference made to the unimportance of place seems very important, suggesting that one does

not need to escape the Netherlands for Australia in order to enjoy positive experiences; that they

can be had anywhere, even a 'bicycle ride' away. This kind of relativism of place, especially

when confronted with loss-of-place experiences when visa applicants are rejected, deserves

further study.









The next response is even more pessimistic than the others, and offers paternalistic

explanations in regards to other, more powerful social interests at work than the applicant. He

writes:

I am afraid you have very little chance of still getting a visa. Even if you only have good
intentions for coming here, you have only your word to prove that, and why would the
immigration officials believe you? Everyone with bad intentions says that they have good
intentions, of course. Now you are just getting more frustrated because you can't enter
Australia anymore and so you won't get the chance to get everything in order again. Of
course it's not the same but if I was you I would seriously consider going somewhere else,
for example New Zeeland (or Canada or something). Go backpacking, have fun and prove
to yourself in that way that you can still enjoy your life.

As if his paternalistic tone and naturalizing explanation about why the immigration officials have

no reason to respect or trust anyone whose visa is rejected, this respondent also used an

Australian flag as his personal identifying symbol on postings with the text, "in Brisbane since

december 2002" below the flag. This person seems to have experienced no such visa rejection,

yet he seems to have no trouble explaining the failure of another while speculating on his

feelings and offering coping advice. Still, the most important aspect of this post is the way the

writer identifies with the immigration service and empathizes with their distrust. We might ask

whether his positive experience with a successful selection procedure is related to such positive

identification or if this person always placed such trust in the defensive stance of immigration

officials toward their clients/applicants. This also relates to the more general question of why

some individuals often choose to take sides with institutions over individuals in instances of

discrimination, legitimate and/or illegitimate, which speaks to the relationship between

institutional discrimination and the agency of individuals as spectators of power.

The paternalism of the previous response contrasts with the solidarity expressed by this

respondent. She writes:

I agree with everyone. And I empathize with you very much. I have disastrous
relationships behind me myself in Australia, but luckily that is a long time ago. A person









can do strange things out of what he thinks is love .. indeed! I did not want to go to
Australia as long as there were still wounds and as long as I had to admit, VERY honestly
from inside, that it would affect me very much to be there ... It is very hard to get your
real motivation to the surface and to go to your feelings.

Although this respondent offers similar advice to others later in her response about traveling to

another place, her response is framed as shared experience, even if her wording makes it sound

as if she is talking about personal relationships in Australia, not immigration officials. Still it is

interesting how different this approach is from the more rationalistic responses.

While the other responses offer various combinations of consolation and advice, including

the advice to seek psychological help, it is surprising that none of the responses passed any

judgment on the immigration authorities for withholding a visa on the basis of the complaint of a

private individual, the man's ex-partner. Although this seems like an abuse of international

power regarding a domestic issue, several respondents expressed understanding that the

immigration authorities would have an interest in protecting an Australian citizens from a

'foreign assailant,' or that the man would have more luck with gaining a new visa if he could

either have his ex-partner communicate to the immigration authorities that he was not a threat, or

if he could prove by staying away for a period of time that he was no longer interested in the

relationship. Although these are private opinions, not the official policy or personal opinions of

immigration workers, their logic expresses a sense of legitimacy in the use of discriminatory

power by border authorities. It seems that the 'order' of separation produced by border control is

taken for granted as more important than fair legal treatment.

Although I have to this point in this chapter focused on re-presenting and analyzing

respondents' narratives while only providing critique and alternative perspective here and there,

taking a critical liberation approach means not shying away from critical commentary even when

this entails some paternalism and/or engaging in discussion with one's 'data.' To many it may









seem silly to enter into a discussion, within a piece of sociological writing, with respondents who

have posted their narratives on the internet in a very different social context. However, I contend

that even if no one who reads this is one of the respondents analyzed here for the purpose of

including empirical data, readers have the potential of identifying themselves and their

knowledge in relation to the viewpoints put forth here. The issue is not to reflect on who thinks

in statist terms and how, how to think in diasporic terms, and what the probability, obstacles, and

so forth are to cultivating the diasporic perspective. Instead, the goal is to practice this

perspective in the contexts at hand and imagine how individual lives can improve as people

liberate themselves from statist approaches to framing themselves and the circumstances within

which they operate.

This is a form of the counter-system approach attributed to Sjoberg by Feagin and Vera

(2001) in which liberationists think 'outside of society' to imagine alternatives to current systems

of oppression. The countersystematicity of diasporic consciousness rests on the assumption that

the statism underpinning the worldviews of various actors involved in migrating (internationally

as well as domestically) fuel the oppression of themselves as well as others whether they are

active participants in regulating the movement and welfare of migrant bodies or whether they see

themselves as involved in migration at all in the first place. While the narratives discussed here

represent only a handful of particular circumstances, they at the same time represent the potential

for other narratives to re-construct themselves vis-a-vis a diasporic perspective.









CHAPTER 6
DISCUSSION

This thesis operates on at least two major distinct levels. On the one hand it delves into

narrative expressions of social actors engaged in migration as iterations of Dutch diaspora. On

the other hand it has engaged discourse surrounding theoretical terminology associated with

migration, migrants, culture, societies, nations, diaspora, and so forth. Moving between these

two levels can seem awkward. Often, part of the magic of sociology is to find ways of doing so

without letting on that abstract theoretical discourse happens in the same social reality as the

expressions that are appropriated as data for analysis. If we briefly review the key ideas

reviewed in the literature, transnationalism, multiculturalism, and diaspora, we can note a

pattern that they refer to deviation from the ideal-normal state of an imagined (autochtonous)

national society with a hegemonic monoculture. Lenin's (1970/1995) writing regarding "the

right of nations to self-determination" provides a clear summation of this idea:

Unity of language and its unimpeded development are most important conditions for
genuinely free and extensive commercial intercourse on a scale commensurate with
modern capitalism the tendency of every national movement is towards the formation
of national states, under which these requirements of modern capitalism are best satisfied.
The profoundest economic factors drive towards this goal, and therefore, for the whole of
Western Europe, nay, for the entire civilized world, the typical, normal state for the
capitalist period is the national state self-determination of nations means the political
separation of these nations from alien national bodies, the formation of an independent
national state. (Lenin 1970 in Dahbour and Ishay 1995 208-209)

Readers familiar with the sociology of white racism (see Feagin and Vera 1995) may

recognize similarities between nationalism and white racism in the construction of a transcendent

group/body, 'the nation' or 'the white race' respectively, and the construction of corresponding

other(ed) races used as contrasts against which whiteness is conceptualized and defined. It is

significant that the others of nationalism, unlike those of white racism, are not categories of

humans but categories of social organization that emphasize key distinctions from the valued









aspects of national-statism; i.e. monoculture, political separation/independence of states, and

self-determination distinguishable from multiculturalism, trans-migration, and/or diaspora. In

reviewing selected literature on these terms, I have tried to show how they are etymologically

and/or discursively constructed in a way that naturalizes or otherwise reifies nationalism. My

interest in diaspora as a positive alternative for conceptualizing society is in part due to its lack

of nationalist implications, although I did note how the concept needs redemption from its

essentialist racial/ethnic usage in order to think it in terms of culture. The term, globalization,

acts as a general category for uniting the other others of nationalism under a single umbrella. As

such I will discuss globalization further in this discussion as a discursive object within the logic

of nationalist ideology.

The reason I shift between re-presenting concrete social actors engaged in diasporic

activities and discussion of theoretical concepts at the discursive level has much to do with my

sense that they are inseparable discourses used and lived by the same people. Globalization and

its sub-tenets; migration, multiculturalism, transnationalism, diaspora, and others; are nothing

more than ideas embodied and negotiated among individuals like those who post their stories on

the websites surveyed for this research. So why should I hesitate to move from descriptive

accounting to theoretical discourse regarding the same social life? Although sociologists often

try to move seamlessly between these two levels by gradually abstracting 'up' from 'grounded'

data or using statistical techniques to produce aggregates that facilitate generalization, I prefer to

view the two levels as equally 'grounded' discourses, situated in the everyday social lives of their

participants. 'Seamlessness' ceases to be a concern once we recognize and accept the schizoid

reality of seemingly separate discourses that are actually part of the same.









When I say that statistical techniques produce aggregates, this is related to the issue of

whether science produces the objects it studies. Statistical techniques, including logics of data

collection, mathematical techniques, and so forth that suggest the existence of social dynamics

among aggregates of actors and actions at the macro-level. This practice, like other methods that

ground theorizing in data collection, presume that the ability to engage in relatively abstract

theoretical discourse is facilitated by moving 'up' from the concrete. My counter-argument is

that such theoretical discourse is in itself concrete, situated everyday practice that can and

probably should be connected with other discursive modes; but this need not involve the

predication of one on another, per se.

Thus the discussion of the conceptual construction of terminology is not really separate

from the data it corresponds with, although it may seem formally distinctive. In order to reflect

on how the correspondence between theoretical discourse and empirical data is related to the

inter-workings of concepts at the discursive level, it will be helpful to review a bit of science-

philosophy discussed by Pollman (1999; 2000) who writes primarily for historians but whose

ideas merit the attention of social disciplines besides history as well.

Pollman (1999, 105-112; 2000) describes two types or forms of truth, which he calls

'correspondence' and 'coherence'. The first, correspondence-lil n/i, refers to truth that is

constructed through comparison between language and empirical observations. The second,

coherence-,l niti, refers to truth that is constructed when language makes reference to other

language. The difference between these two types of truth is well illustrated by the popular

painting of Rene Magritte, "Ceci n'est pas une Pipe/This is not a Pipe." In this painting a picture

of a pipe is juxtaposed with the text, "This is not a Pipe." The apparent juxtaposition of picture

and text is caused by our sense of coherence-l ii/th, which leads us to equate the word, 'pipe,' with









the picture of a pipe within the context of the painting. However, when we shift to

correspondence-ul it/, we recognize that the text is true in that the picture of a pipe is, in fact, not

an empirical pipe but rather a pictorial representation. Awareness of this distinction can sensitize

us to the problematic relationship between social science language and the social world we

experience and act on.

I transition to my concluding discussion with this bit of science-philosophy for a reason:

Although most language has the potential to function within either or both types of truth-

discourse, 'globalization,' 'transnationalism,' 'immigration,' and 'emigration' are terms whose

coherence-i tinh effects are anchored in reference to nationalism and the idea of nation-states. To

talk about 'globalization' involves instating the implication that the world is not yet 'global' and

thus, presumably still, 'national.' Globalization is often talked about in terms of loss, or

castration in Freudian terms, of national significance and sovereignty. Of course this obscures

that the project of nationalist ideology is not completed with the creation of nationalist

institutions, but is rather an ongoing ideological discourse encouraging us to act as if such

institutions, including nations and nationality themselves, were natural features of the social

world instead of an institutionalized means of territorializing and regulating it. Contrary to what

some would like to believe, nationalism is not a state of reality but a project in which the world is

imagined and framed in national terms, mostly in language but also in institutionalized behavior.

Talking about globalization generally, and resisting it as such in particular, thus operates as a

covert means of furthering the nationalist project of ideological proliferation, by framing the

global as the not-yet-complete overthrow of the 'existence' of nations. The hope is that if we

perceive that something, i.e. 'the nation,' is there of which all is not lost, then we will rally for its

preservation and further cultivation. Personally, I would prefer to identify the proverbial babies









of what good is expected to come from nationalist project, economic regulation for example, and

then throw out the bath water, which is linked to xenophobia, racism, territorialism, and so forth.

To do this, however, requires framing nationalism as an imposition on an inherently global social

world, instead of the reverse, that globalization is shifting the (more or less natural) boundaries

of a social world that is inherently divided into national territorialities.

Nationalism operates covertly, negotiating its acceptance at levels of low resistance, by

such means as involuntary early-childhood socialization and ideologically framing events in

national terms. If nationalists insist on pursuing their project, they should be responsible enough

to do so overtly, at a level in which democratic, conscious negotiation and acceptance is possible.

Tricking and/or otherwise manipulating people into national loyalty, or even national

ontology/epistemology, is unacceptable. Such manipulation occurs as the ontological level when

terms like 'transnationalism,' 'immigration,' and 'emigration' seem to correspond to actual

empirical types of behavior, people, and institutions. In fact they only make sense as descriptors

if we construct national realities as a reference point for crossing through, entering, or exiting

them, respectively. As such, all discourse, including scientific discourse, that applies these terms

unproblematically is in practice collaborating with other nationalist ideological projects by

reifying their constructs. It is with this awareness that I have pursued the current project.

The interplay between correspondence- and coherence- modes of truth-making also

involves moving between scales of analysis. Accounts that make sense at the macro-level

without reference to the micro work through coherence, yet we usually also contextualize these

narratives in reference to other more micro-scale events we hear or read about in the news or

witness or experience ourself. Although I have eschewed the efficacy of macro-scale

constructions in their own right in my own thinking, I have done this by recognizing the limits of









sensual perception, i.e. empiricism, on the one hand, and the situatedness of the macro-scale

within material contexts of human cognition on the other. As such I am able to bracket, and also

question, the existence of a macro-reality in which nations can be conceived as wholes that exist

as conglomerations of their contents. At the same time, it is useful to recognize that for

believers, nations are coherently operating at the macro level and simultaneously seem to

correspond with empirical observations in everyday (micro) reality. Constructing phenomena

theorized at the macro level, then, involves taking note of events, people, things, and so forth in

observational contexts as if they were representative of such phenomena, perhaps considering

them as direct manifestations of them. My strategy in this paper, then, has been to identify and

critique discursive aspects of the themes of my research, highlighting their (in)coherence where

possible, and then to explore corresponding empirical events, or at least narratives thereof, as

part of what might be called a counter-reification project in which the coherence of diasporic

framing is substituted for its nationalist counterpart. Although I could, and perhaps should, be

criticized for applying the same technique I expose, an important distinction is that I do so with

self-awareness and explicit transparency. A critical distinction, however, is that explicit

transparency offers the possibility of consciously realizing alternatives in a democratic mode, in

contrast with the construction of necessity without regard for consciousness in authoritarianism.

Although I view diaspora, like nation, as nothing more than a framework for subjectively

making sense of empirical realities observed as part of everyday life, I privilege it as an

alternative to nationalist-statism as a means of perceiving national institutions as impositions on,

not bearers of, an inherently migratory reality. Nationalist-statism leads us to view human social

life as by default nation-state oriented and only transcendent of nation-states as an exception.

Diasporic consciousness, on the other hand, lets us recognize how human dispersion, and









culture-disbursement, involve a variety of institutions of which nationalism and nations make up

only a part. As such I have deemed it important in approaching the empirical work of this

research to focus not on the influence of nationalist constructions on diasporic processes but on

instances of diaspora as empirical events whose narrativization will reflect the concerns of the

actors involved. Sometimes these actors pay attention to national or diasporic constructions but

perhaps at other moments not. Approaching empirical events in this way, I have broken with

sociological traditions that privilege actors' meanings and interpretations over those of scientists

and instead endowed myself the role of actively framing those actors within a demographic

model consciously selected for ethical as well as epistemological reasons. In this way, I am able

to approach these actors, their actions, and their narratives as indicative of diaspora without

seeking out their own meanings of diaspora, nation-state, and so forth. By doing so I recognize

social actors' ability to be purposive with regard to their own ends and to resist intervening in

order to make them speak to my demographic/ethnographic project. Of course, I am not

pursuing this project in a vacuum and I see the potential for my work to influence those I am

studying and others like them. Like much social science work, however, such influence is likely

to occur through reading, teaching, and conversation versus clinical intervention.

Diaspora and multiculturalism require human cognitive agency to be applied in practice.

Diaspora has taken on more meanings for me than I could express thoroughly here. It is a means

of breaking with the national-static habit of ceasing to think, or to think differently once national

borders are reached. It is a means of recognizing migration patterns as complex and unique

genealogies, rather than merely as coming-in or going-out. Diaspora can also be seen as the

means of fragmenting social-geographical territory into the kind of multiplicity that Mol (2002)

discusses, in which diverse ethnic discourses interact within specific contexts to enact various









hybridities. Diaspora should not be constructed as a bounded singularity. Diaspora can be a way

of doing society, or a way to think about societies as multiple overlapping entities. When talking

in singular terms, as in the case of Dutch (cultural) diaspora, this need not imply a definitive set

of cultural practices or practicioners that is bounded in order to exclude other people and

practices. Instead Dutch diaspora can be taken to refer to a loose set of practices and people who

share and exchange culture as a result of (social and physical) mobility and contact. As such the

emphasis is on all culture that circulates through the empirical relations that constitute and

reproduce Dutchness, not just those of 'Dutchness' itself, however that is constructed. Likewise,

the diasporic population need not separate included from excluded individuals but can instead

attend to the variety of ways in which people come into contact with each other and become

implicated in one another's discourses. In this way inclusion can be understood in terms of

contact with discourse, including the discourse of inclusion and exclusion. This may be difficult

to think, but in order to exclude someone we need knowledge of them, and to gain such

knowledge we must make some form of contact that inevitably includes them in our discourse. I

find recognition of this paradox of paramount importance for any sufficiently rigorous

conception of the dispersing and disbursing activities that make up diaspora.

Much of what is discussed in this paper is not specifically 'Dutch.' Some have questioned

why I bother talking about 'Dutch' diaspora at all if I am not going to emphasize what's Dutch

about it. First, it is true that I tend toward theoretical work that is transferable between embodied

contexts. That does not mean, however, that I am not situated in a world of empirical

specificities. Although I have an awareness of identities and ethnic specificities as more or less

arbitrary meanings brought to bear on an inherently continuous material reality, I am also aware

that I speak in generalities from points situated in various intersecting discourses. In ethnic-









national terms, my experience takes place at an intersection of Cuban, US, and Netherlandic

nation discourses. Although I am aware of other national identities, and although I am critically

aware of the problems of national identity and the ontology of nations, these are the three that

have contributed to and continue to influence my personal discourse of national-selfhood. Since

ethnic-national discourses are not the only discourses that touch me, I could also focus on other

cultural diasporas, such as gender or sexual diasporas, science diasporas, religious-spiritual

diasporas, material-economic diasporas, and so forth. Nevertheless, I have chosen to focus on

Dutch diaspora out of a personal commitment to intervening in the oppressive discourses of

exclusion that saturate Dutch discourses, and to others like myself who are engaged in

becoming-Dutch in a global context. Although I see this as part of a larger project, that of

recognizing ethnicity in terms of becoming instead of preservation and/or loss, I still situate it in

terms of my own lived experience.

In a previous version of this project I fleshed out theoretically the discriminatory aspects of

the subject matter and related it to the intersecting projects of white-racism and national-racism

This has come out less in the current iteration. This is somewhat unfortunate considering current

discussion going on about the relationship and even competitive prioritization between discourse

of a US domestic racial and ethnic context and other discourses of race and ethnicity seen as

taking place abroad and thus separately from the US context. Clearly this signals how little we

still know about the interworkings of nationalism and racism as well as the material and cultural

connectedness of what are identified as US domestic affairs with those identified as foreign to

them. The Dutch West Indies Trading Company, along with other colonial actors with diverse

national identities, such as Portuguese, Spanish, and so forth were all partners in the slave trade

that brought Africans and Europeans together in a common diaspora in the first place. To the









extent that the prosperity and culture of the Netherlands and the US are part of a common legacy

of colonial slaving practices and post-slavery societies, it is strange that nationalism leads us to

avoid thinking in terms of their continuities. Since world trade and prosperity have if anything,

increased through time it makes little sense to divorce the present from the past and separate our

vision along the lines of national histories. Concretely in terms of this project, it would be

narrow and indifferent to view the emigrants and immigrants whose stories appear here as

external to a US context. Not just governmental/state actors but also those who see themselves

as purely engaged in US domestic affairs participate in global relations that affect the realities of

those discussed here. By reproducing and failing to resist nationalist exclusionism in a US

context, nationalism is reinforced in a global context such that it becomes less than shocking that

migration activities are subordinated and subject to the kinds of repressive violence described in

these narratives. Such violence is instituted in the name of preserving the kind of ontological

domesticity that allows us to envision our lives separately from 'foreign affairs' in the first place.

Those of us who have gone beyond easily dividing the domestic from the foreign should

have no trouble recognizing the indistinguishability of the 'global' and the 'local.' The global

only ceases to be local when we dichotomize and project the global outside our reach.

Nationalism further exacerbates this process by placing the national context as an intermediate

'global' context, as out of reach and thus just as disempowering as a displaced global sphere, only

now part of the global is pushed to the frontier of a supposedly more immediate global, the

nation. To re-place us as empowered agents within an extensive local context, it is necessarily to

collapse the global-local, global-national, as well as local-national dichotomies in our

consciousness. It is not enough to look at the local as being influenced by larger, global or

national forces. The local sphere must be seen as coterminous with the larger world; but without









a separate image of what that larger world entails. In simplified terms, the local is simply

already the global in the entirety of its complexity; and what's more it is the only global that we

have access to. When we think in this way the ontological boundary between an immanent local

and the global-beyond disappears and we begin to act globally by acting locally.

I have explored this idea further methodologically, although I will not discuss those here

except to mention that the approaches I consider most promising derive from the work of

Deleuze and Guattari (1988) and from actor network theory (ANT) sociology (see for example

Law and Hassard 1999). Reminiscent of Foucault's focus on the body as the locus of surfaces on

which the various forms of social discipline are played out, approaches that focus on networking

and rhizomatics localize connectivities across space and time within the actor networks through

which they occur. In this way we can come to recognize the local presence of all those things

that we define as global or national, and thus as out of reach. Whether this is accomplished

through research methodology or in personal spiritual practice, I see it as a critical step toward

performing the ethical work needed to relieve oppression in the human diaspora.









APPENDIX A
(UNTRANSLATED) NARRATIVE DATA

LOGBOEKEN
Dit is logboeknummer: 10016

Naam/logboektitel Syrische Christenen
Land van herkomst Syrie
Geslacht/ gezinssamenstelling Gezin met kind(eren)
Aantal personen 5
Geboortejaar (oudste person) 1950
Jaar eerste asielaanvraag 1997
Stadium in procedure of Uitgeprocedeerd
uitzettingstraj ect
Huidige woon/leefsituatie In aanmeldcentrum (AC)
Deze situatie bestaat sinds (maand, jaar) 8- 1997
Casusbeschrijving:

Syrisch-Christelijk gezin is gevlucht vanwege politieke stellingname. Is meerdere malen op het
politiebureau mishandeld. Zijn bedrijf werd regelmatig door leden van de geheime politie in
burger bezocht, die bestellingen deden, die na aflevering niet werden betaald. De man liet een
bloeiend kleermakersbedrijf achter, zijn oudste dochter woont al in Nederland en is gehuwd.
Zijn gezin bestaat nu uit twee jonge kinderen en zijn tweede dochter van 21 jaar. Onlangs heeft
de IND, najaren, bepaald dat het gezin voor de keus staat mee te werken aan terugkeer of aan
uitsluiting van de voorzieningen (dus op straat gezet worden).
De man heeft al aangeboden alleen terug te keren en nadat gebleken is, dat het veilig is, zijn
gezin na te laten komen. Hij is doodsbang en ervan overtuigd dat hij na terugkeer in grote
moeilijkheden zal komen. Hij is mede bang dat een moslimgezin er op uit is, de aanspraak op
een huwelijk met zijn dochter zal effectueren, waarop 8 jaar geleden al werd aangedrongen.

De twee jonge kinderen zijn volkomen vemederlandsd. Ze spreken hun originele taal slecht. Het
gezin verblijft momenteel in het asielzoekerscentrum te Apeldoom.
Donderdag 7 juli: Een onderhoud gehad met mevrouw Bartels van advocatenkantoor
Kleerekooperte Utrecht. Zij zal adviseren over nieuwe procedures op ground van onbekendheid
van de families met de mogelijkheid bezwaar aan te tekenen tegen een afwijkende beschikking op
een z.g. schrijnend geval brief. Ook overweegt zij een procedure op basis van buiten schuld
statenloosheid. Beide plannen lijken niet kansrijk.
De laatste ontwikkeling is dat, vandaag 20 juli, het hele gezin bij de politie is ontboden en er
pasfoto's en vingerafdrukken zijn gemaakt.
Weer een stuk onrust door deze intimidate.

Wilt u alstublieft alles in het werk stellen om dit gezinssdrama te voorkomen en het gezin
eindelijk de rust te geven waar het al jaren op wacht.
De laatste gegevens zijn dat het gezin in Brussel is geweest om bij de Syrische ambassade
papieren te krijgen. Onder resultaat.
Gepoogd wordt om zonder schuld statenloos verklaard teworden.









Laatste nieuws is dat op mijn brief van 11 september aan mevrouw Verdonk heden 27 oktober,
weer een negatief antwoord is ontvangen. Onbegrijpelijk na alles wat haar nu bekend is
geworden en in de officiele procedures niet naar voren is gebracht.
De recent ontwikkeling is dat het gezin, inmiddels in Wapenveld ondergebracht, op maandag 15
februari in den Bosch door twee Syrische amtenaren zijn ondervraagd. De IND ambtenaren
hebben het gezin aan de Syriers voorgesteld en hebben toen het vertrek verlaten.
Hen werd o.a. gevraagd waarom zij Syrie hebben verlaten
De families is zeer verontrust en weigerde vele vragen te beantwoorden uit vrees daar eventueel
in Syrie nadeel van te ondervinden. Het is te hopen dat de politiek er eindelijk in slaagt deze
terreurmethoden van mevrouw Verdonk af te straffen en haar weg te zenden.

Karel Duran
Ten Passeweg 10, 8084 AN 't- Harde

Heel graag een
reactie!

LOGBOEKEN
Dit is logboeknummer: 10033
Naam/logboektitel Zeistkant.
Land van herkomst Eritrea
Geslacht/ gezinssamenstelling Man
Aantal personen 1
Geboortejaar (oudste person) 1985
Jaar eerste asielaanvraag 2002
Stadium in procedure of Anders
uitzettingstraject
Huidige woon/leefsituatie In vertrekcentrum

Deze situatie bestaat sinds (maand, jaar) 12- 2005

Casusbeschrijving:

Hij heeft moeten vluchten van het front aan de grens met Sudan en is via Libie naar Nederland
gekomen. Met zijn angst en problem is geen rekening gehouden door het Ministerie. Ze hebben
hem twee keer negative beoordeling gegeven.

Hij is uitgeprocedeerd en zit in het vertrek kamp
de Zeistkant te Soesterberg. Hij zit met angst en weet zich geen raad met zijn toekomst en zijn
leven is in gevaar.

Hij zit nu in de vertrekcentrum "Zeistkant" te Soesterberg









LOGBOEKEN
laatst gewijzigd op
Dit is logboeknummer: 10026
17-10-2005

Naam/logboektitel vrouw met 2 binnenkort 3 kinderen
Land van herkomst Sierra Leone
Geslacht/ gezinssamenstelling Vrouw
Aantal personen 3
Geboortejaar (oudste person) 1977
Jaar eerste asielaanvraag 2000
Stadium in procedure of uitzettingstraject Uitgeprocedeerd
Huidige woon/leefsituatie Altematieve opvang (kerken, etc.)
Deze situatie bestaat sinds (maand, jaar) 6- 2004
Casusbeschrijving:
Ze vlucht in 2000 uit Sierra Leone, na de moord op haar moeder en de verdwijning van haar
broer en 2 zussen. Ze bevalt van tweeling kort na haar aankomst in Nederland (zwanger na
verkrachting).
Na een twijfelachtige taalanalyse wordt haar asiel geweigert omdat ze niet aannemelijk kan
maken dat ze uit Sierra Leone komt. Men beweert dat zij uit Nigeria komt. Ontvangt
documenten uit Sierra Leone betreffende haar indentiteit en het volgen van onderwij s op een
methodisten school.
Ze start hiermee een 2e asielprocedure; wordt geweigerd omdat de documenten een dusdanige
datum hebben dat ze eventueel al in de eerste procedure konden worden ingediend.
Wordt met 2 kinderen van 3 jaar uit het AZC gezet.
De gemeente is bereid om voor noodopvang te betalen als zij tekent dat zij terug wil keren.
Amnesty International schrijft aan Mininster Verdonk een brief, over de onmogelijkheid, voor
alleenstaande misbruikte vrouwen, om te overleven.
Binnenkort krijgt ze een terugkeer gesprek.

Mevrouw is zwanger en verwacht volgend voorjaar haar 3e kind. Leeft met 2 kinderen in
een kamertje van 3 bij 4 meter.

LOGBOEKEN
Dit is logboeknummer: 10020



Naam/logboektitel Iranier met verblijfsvergunning reg. onb. tijd
Land van herkomst Iran
Geslacht/ gezinssamenstelling Man
Aantal personen 1
Geboortejaar (oudste person) 1968
Jaar eerste asielaanvraag 1994
Stadium in procedure of uitzettingstraject Zelfstandig vertrokken naar land van herkomst
Huidige woon/leefsituatie Zelfstandige woonruimte









Deze situatie bestaat sinds (maand, jaar) 6- 2005
Casusbeschrijving:

B., heeft verblijfsvergunning regulier onbepaalde tijd in 2003. Hij heeft (in 1994?)
deelgenomen aan studentenprotesten in Tehran, is gevangengenomen, vrijgekocht door
zijn families. Gevlucht naar Nederland. Zijn vluchtverhaal is afgewezen en pas na 8.5 jaar
heeft hij een verblijfsvergunning gekregen (op medische gronden en tijdsverloop). Juni
2005 op familiebezoek in Iran. Heeft dit op een (nieuw) IRAANS paspoort gedaan, omdat
hij niet wilde wachten op zijn Nederlandse paspoort. Bij aankomst 16 uur vastgehouden en
ondervraagd, "strafblad" was opgezocht. Na betaling van geld vrijgelaten. Weer 3 dagen
eel, weer vrijgekocht. De politie maakt het hem heel moeilijk. Zijn paspoort is ingenomen
en hij kan het na betaling van 6000 euro terugkrijgen. Gaat zich nu melden op de
Nederlandse ambassade zodat zij officieel kennis ervan moeten nemen dat iemand die
terugkeert naar Iran (in bezit van een Nederlandse verblijfsvergunning en derhalve geen
enkel belang bij mispresentatie van feiten) problemen ondervindt.
B. is inmiddels teruggekeerd naar Nederland, nadat zijn families de eigendomspapieren van
hun huis als onderpand had gegeven. Hij meldde dat bij gevangenname de politie zijn IND
papieren in hun bezit had (!) en zijn hele achtergrond bij hen bekend was. Hij heeft zich
niet gemeld bij de Nederlandse ambassade in Teheran, omdat hij uiteraard deze nu ook niet
meer vertrouwde. Hij herkende zijn IND papieren duidelijk door het logo op het paper en
zijn naam die daarop vermeld stond. Inmiddels hebben wij deze gegevens via een advocaat
doorgegeven aan de Commissie Haverkamp en staat dit officieel geregistreerd. Ondanks
het feit dat zijn families nog problemen ondervindt door zijn vertrek terug naar Nederland,
stuurt hij geld om de autoriteiten afte kopen en gaat niet meer terug naar Iran. Verder
hebben wij dit hele relaas ook gemeld aan Amnesty International.

Heeft Nederlandse verblijfsvergunning regulier onbepaalde tijd, is alleen op een IRAANS
paspoort gegaan (ondanks waarschuwingen van vrienden). Heeft geen enkel belang bij
misrepresentatie van feiten omdat hij al verblijfsvergunning heeft!
Is inmiddels teruggekeerd naar Nederland. Melding gemaakt van problemen bij de
Commissie Haverkamp.


LOGBOEKEN
Dit is logboeknummer: 9987

Naam/logboektitel Topscoorder
Land van herkomst Guinee
Geslacht/ gezinssamenstelling Echtpaar
Aantal personen 2
Geboortejaar (oudste person) 1982
Jaar eerste asielaanvraag 2001 (na 1 april)
Stadium in procedure of uitzettingstraject Uitgeprocedeerd
Huidige woon/leefsituatie Anders
Deze situatie bestaat sinds (maand, jaar) 12- 2004
Casusbeschrijving:









Jongeman uit Guinea, getrouwd met Nederlandse. Moet terug....
Gevlucht vanwege oorlog, bang voor rekrutering.
Alle procedures negatief, incl. hoger beroep.
Momenteel met zijn (NL) vrouw een ander heenkomen gezocht.

Ondanks dat hij getrouwd is mag hij niet blijven. Man moet terug, om mvv aan te vragen. Angst voor
represailles bij terugkeer. Het j onge gezin (de vrouw) verdient nog niet genoeg om dit te kunnen
bewerkstelligen.
Heeft dit gezin geen rechten?


LOGBOEKEN
Dit is logboeknummer: 9989

Naam/logboektitel
Land van herkomst
Geslacht/ gezinssamenstelling
Aantal personen
Geboortejaar (oudste person)
Jaar eerste asielaanvraag
Stadium in procedure of uitzettingstraject
Huidige woon/leefsituatie
Deze situatie bestaat sinds (maand, jaar)
Casusbeschrijving:


laatst gewijzigd op
14-8-2005


Terugkeren??
Tsjetsjenie
Gezin met kind(eren)
1
1970
1999
Nieuwe asielaanvraag in behandeling
In central opvang (OC, AZC, AVO)
2- 2004


Man uit Tsjetsjenie, is teruggekeerd vanuit Nederland, omdat dat volgens IND kon. Aan de grens
opgepakt, gemarteld, vrij-gekocht door zijn vriendin die in NL zat en zijn moeder die in
Tsjetsjenie woont. Is inmiddels al een jaar terug. Bewijs is duidelijk, vergunning nog niet
verstrekt.

Man en vrouw in aparte procedure. Vrouw heeft inmiddels een vergunning gekregen. Man is
depressief, lusteloos en heeft geen zin meer in het leven.


LOGBOEKEN
Dit is logboeknummer: 10012

Naam/logboektitel

Land van herkomst
Geslacht/ gezinssamenstelling
Aantal personen
Geboortejaar (oudste person)
Jaar eerste asielaanvraag
Stadium in procedure of uitzettingstraject
Huidige woon/leefsituatie
Deze situatie bestaat sinds (maand, jaar)
Casusbeschrijving:


laatst gewijzigd op
19-7-2005


Somalische jongeman met Nederlandse vrouw en
kind
Somalie
Man
1
1983
2000
Uitgeprocedeerd
In aanmeldcentrum (AC)
9- 2004









Mijn man woont hier nu 6 jaar. Hij is Somalie ontvlucht wegens oorlog, zijn families kwijtgeraakt
tijdens het vluchten, en heeft hier zijn Nederlandse vrouw ontmoet met wie hij nu getrouwd is. We
hebben samen een dochtertje van 11 maanden. Mijn man is nu uitgeprocedeerd en moet terug naar
Somalie. Op dit moment geldt er een vertrekmoratorium omdat het er onveilig is. Somalie is niet
veilig voor mijn man omdat hij tot een kleine clan behoort. Als mijn man het land moet verlaten is de
kans groot dat hij nooit meer zijn vrouw en kind zal zien en is hij zijn leven niet meer zeker. Mijn man
is hier vanaf 1 februari 2000 en wacht al 6 jaar, en sinds 4 jaar met zijn Nederlandse vrouw. We
hebben een brief gekregen op 15 mei 2004 dat mijn man zijn leefgeld en voorzieningen worden
stopgezet, dan heeft hij geen voorzieningen meer. Even nog over zijn huidige leefsituatie, ik ben zijn
vrouw en we wonen gewoon samen dus hij zit niet in een aanmeldcentrum; hij heeft zijn eigen plek.

Mijn man is sinds februari 2004 uitgeprocedeerd, we hebben sindsdien veel dingen geregeld maar
niemand luistert naar ons. Een mvv-aanvraag is erg moeilijk te regelen omdat mijn man uit Somalie
komt waar geen documenten te verkrijgen zijn. Mijn man heeft een gezin hier en dreigt van zijn kind
en vrouw verwijderd te worden met alle gevolgen van dien. Mijn man krijgt elke maand 500 Euro
leefgeld; we hebben gehoord dat dat binnenkort stopgezet word. Sind 1 juli 2005 geld er een
categoriaal beleid voor Somalische asielzoekers, als het goed is valt mijn man er ook wonder dus nu
maar afwachten.

LOGBOEKEN laatst gewijzigd op
Dit is logboeknummer: 10018 1-7-2005

Naam/logboektitel Niet altijd bescherming
Land van herkomst Nigeria
Geslacht/ gezinssamenstelling Eenoudergezin
Aantal personen 3
Geboortejaar (oudste person) 1973
Jaar eerste asielaanvraag 1998
Stadium in procedure of uitzettingstraject Uitgezet naar land van herkomst
Huidige woon/leefsituatie Kampt met veel problemen
Deze situatie bestaat sinds (maand, jaar) 2- 2005
Casusbeschrijving:
Vanwege de deelname aan een protestorganisatie en stammenoorlogen gevlucht. Haar ouders zijn
vermoord.

In Leeuwarden heeft ze voor de raad van toezicht van de orde van advocate te horen gekregen dat de
advocaat haar zaak niet naar behoren heeft behartigd. Ze wist zelfs niet dat haar zaak diende tot ze
bericht in haar brievenbus vond dat ze uitgeprocedeerd is. Nu is ze gedeporteerd en op het vliegveld in
Nigeria achter gelaten zonder een cent met 2 kinderen en 3 offers, zelfs zonder een
overnachtingsadres.

3 maanden later heeft ze een bescheiden onderdak, maar geen eten, de kinderen gaan niet naar school
en zijn zwaar getraumatiseerd. Terug naar haar dorp gaan is geen optie, ze houdt zich schuil in een
stad met miljoenen inwoners. Ze heeft geen geld om iets op te starten zodat ze in haar onderhoud kan
voorzien en de scholing voor haar kinderen kan betalen.










IN THE POCKET!
< on: 04 Mar 2006 08:46 >


Afgelopen woensdag, 1 maart 2006, kwam eindelijk de verlossende brief binnen: aanvraag voor
spouse visum is goedgekeurd!!! YES, YES, YES!! Ik zit inmiddels al meer dan twee jaar in Oz,
en voel me hier volkomen this en het zou een klein drama geweest zijn als het niet was
goedgekeurd. Maar daar hoef ik me nu nog geen zorgen meer over te maken, althans voor de
komende 2 jaar, daarna mogen we het lekker weer allemaal opnieuw doen, maar voor nu: ERG
BLIJ!!!


Voor iedereen die in het process zit: good luck!


Cya,


Vin
Australie, maar nu nog uitzoeken waar!
< on: 16 Feb 2006 19:25 >


We zijn begonnen met een aanvraag voor skilled independent visum voor een permanent verblijf
in Australie. Mijn man, Mark, heeft de opleiding civil ingenieur en is momenteel (4 jaar)
werkzaam als project leider op een ingenieurs bureau in Rotterdam. Bij ditzelfde bureau is hij al
13 jaar in dienst.


Nu is het zo dat hij door zijn ervaring blijkbaar "gewild" is bij werkgevers in Australie
Queensland.(door alleen zijn CV gelezen te hebben) Door het recruitmentbureau van IPA kan het
zo zijn dat we gaan overstappen op een gesponserd visum 457. Op dit moment hebben we een
aantal vacatures this liggen, waarmee we met een paar nog telefonisch contact krijgen.


Onze eerste indruk was om ons in de buurt van Brisbane, Cairns of Adelaide te gaan vestigen.
Maar door de aanbiedingen, krijgen we ook meer beeld van andere plaatsen, waar we ons dan in
zijn gaan verdiepen om zo straks een goede keuze te kunnen maken.
Het is wel leuk hoe je eerste gedachten dan zo onderuit gehaald kunnen worden en er een hele
andere kijk op krijgt.


Vanmorgen hadden we een telefoongesprek met iemand van IPA en die vertelde ons datje in
principle helemaal begeleid wordt. Ze helpen je met aankomst en begeleiden je naar je huis,










geven tips, helpen met scholen uitzoeken en andere inburgeringszaken. Moet je hier in
Nederland een binnen komen, sta j e er alleen voor. Dus onze oren konden we niet geloven, maar
het heeft ons wel meer gerust gesteld. Later kunnen we dan altijd nog overgaan op een
permanent visum.


Dit was het even voor nu.


Astrid


afgewezen..hoe verder?
< on: 04 Jan 2006 09:43 >


Ik heb een aantal assasments gedaan om te bekijken wat mn kansen zijn maar zoals altijd.. ben ik
niet geschikt voor wat voor visum dan ook.. beetje raar.. er moet toch iets zijn waarvoor ik wel
geschikt ben??



Had eigenlijk still hoop dat het zou gaan lukken maar goed.. ik hoop dat de vader van mn
vriendin iets weet en misschien hebbenjullie nog tips??


Groeten


Helma



marc-el
senior member

Offline

Posts: 227


We streven toch allemaal naar iets moois

Re: afgewezen
< Reply #7 on: 04 Jan 2006 13:19 >


heb vlug even gekeken maar receptionist staat er niet bij, ook heb ik document control assistant










niet gezien.


Ik heb wel records manager (2299-13)gezien misschien heeft dat iets metje huidige beroep te
maken.
Maar dan denk ik dath je nog teweinig werk ervaring hebt in je huidige beroep.


Ik hoop je hiermee geholpen te hebben.
success verder
marcel


Re: afgewezen
< Reply #8 on: 04 Jan 2006 13:21 >


Record manager is een hogere functie..maar heeft zeker met mijn beroep te maken..
Ik ben alleen nog niet zolang werkzaam hierin..


Ik zie echt door de bomen het bos niet hoor.. sorry dat ik jullie er zo mee lastig val.. maar ik kom
er niet uit..

Re: afgewezen
< Reply #11 on: 03 Feb 2006 08:10 >


Hi Helma,
Dit is misschien een long shot maar ik zou het zeker proberen.
Een visum 457, dit is een sponsor visum. Je moet dan iemand
zien te vinden die je wil sponsored, en het mag vreemd klinken
er gaan zelfs ghost stories dat er mensen worden aangenomen
om vakken te vullen in Sydney nog wel. Ik weet natuurlijk ook
niet of dit waar is. Ik weet ook niet hoeveel je te verliezen hebt
maar als je met een holiday visum zou komen en werk probeert
te zoeken via sponsorship hoefje na drie maanden niet terug.
Alleen het vervelende is dat de aanvraag in die drie maanden
tijd moet gedaan worden. Dit is mogelijk want dit hebben wij
ook gedaan alleen was dit bij ons absoluut niet de bedoeling, maar
onze eerste sponsor liet ons zitten.




Full Text

PAGE 1

1 IMMIGRANTS AND EMIGRANT S: TOWARD A DIASPORI C VIEW OF BECOMINGDUTCH By ADAM GARCIA A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2007

PAGE 2

2 2007 Adam Garcia

PAGE 3

3 For Bo Marcus Garcia and all children of diaspora

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I could not begin to make a complete list of ev eryone who has contributed to this project. However, I would like to thank my committee me mbers, Drs. Regina Bures and Connie Shehan, for allowing me the great freedom needed to pursu e this project, as well as for their critical engagement, support, and encouragement. I would especially like to thank my partner, Jennifer Flight, who always listens to my ideas and pr ovides critical feedback, and who has the unique ability to provide insight radical enough to transcend my most cemented assumptions and expectations so that I can move forward with a different perspective and fresh hope

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................4 ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... ..............7 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION: THE PROBLEM OF CONCEPTUALIZING (NON)IMMIGRANT SOCIETIES...................................................................................................................... ........9 2 THEORY-METHOD AND LITERATURE REVIEW..........................................................11 Transnationalism............................................................................................................... ......12 Multiculturalism............................................................................................................... ......16 Demographic Constructions of Dutch Population/Demographics.........................................22 Diaspora as Theoretical Framew ork and Social Consciousness.............................................29 3 TRACES OF A DUTCH DIASPORA...................................................................................35 Operationalizing Dutch Diaspora...........................................................................................36 Use of Internet Sources of Data..............................................................................................37 Representativeness of Data a nd the Goal(s) of Research.......................................................38 Comparison versus Contrast...................................................................................................39 (Imagining) Communitie s behind the Data............................................................................40 Social Position of Research er vis--vis Respondents.............................................................41 Influence of Emigration and Ge ography on Research Methods.............................................43 Method of Data Analysis........................................................................................................44 Postscript on Methodological Paradigms...............................................................................48 4 PRELIMINARY SURVEY OF DATA AND SOURCES.....................................................50 Claiming Belonging............................................................................................................. ...51 Struggles and Legal Procedures..............................................................................................52 5 FURTHER EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATI ON WITHIN A GROWING DIASPORIC CONSCIOUSNESS................................................................................................................57 Transitional Note.............................................................................................................. ......57 HetGevolg.nl Narratives........................................................................................................ .59 Strategic Silences.............................................................................................................59 Spousal Rights.................................................................................................................61 Facing Multiple Institutional Hostilities..........................................................................62 Experiencing External Th reat Inside the Border.............................................................63 Returning to an Estranged Past........................................................................................64 Theorizing Borders..........................................................................................................65

PAGE 6

6 Bringing Immigrants a nd Emigrants Together................................................................66 XPdite.net Narratives.......................................................................................................... ....68 Immigration Emigration...............................................................................................68 The Joy of Visa Success..................................................................................................69 Overweighing Multiple Positive Alternatives.................................................................70 Negotiating Migration-Possi bilities through Dialogue...................................................72 Migration Control as Do mestic Intervention...................................................................76 6 DISCUSSION..................................................................................................................... ....81 APPENDIX A (UNTRANSLATED) NARRATIVE DATA.........................................................................92 B ADDITIONAL NOTES........................................................................................................102 Reading Instructions........................................................................................................... ..103 Syntheses...................................................................................................................... ........111 A Personal Note on [Dutch].................................................................................................126 Research and Becoming.......................................................................................................146 Literature and Theory.......................................................................................................... .155 Race and Diaspora.............................................................................................................. ..178 Diaspora and American Racism....................................................................................185 Race/racism and Social Construction............................................................................187 Latours Obligatory Points of Passage..........................................................................193 Dutch Racism from a U.S. (National) Perspective........................................................198 Dutch Racism and Discourses of National Fullness...................................................202 Racism and Soccer........................................................................................................209 Tolerance and Racism...................................................................................................219 Methodology.................................................................................................................... .....224 Some Concerns with Modeling and Data......................................................................224 From Data to Findings: conceptua lizing data as representative....................................231 Methods and Data..........................................................................................................239 Deleuzian Assemblages as an Alternative to the Statistical Population Approach.......258 Conclusion.....................................................................................................................264 LIST OF REFERENCES.............................................................................................................268 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.......................................................................................................274

PAGE 7

7 Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts IMMIGRANTS AND EMIGRANT S: TOWARD A DIASPORI C VIEW OF BECOMINGDUTCH By Adam Garcia May 2007 Chair: Regina Bures Major: Sociology The concept of globalization implies a national world, in contrast to one that is already global(ized). In doing so it obscu res the fact that nationalism, lik e globalism, is not a state-ofthe-world at all but an ideological orientation, performed in everyday life; one that encourages us to imagine aspects of social life in terms of na tions, nationality, birthrights, geographical territorialism, and ethnic exclusion instead of in clusivity and freedom of place. Terms and the ideas they represent such as "t ransnationalism," "immigration," a nd "emigration" make reference to a nation-centered perspective while other terms such as 'multi culturalism' and 'diaspora' are more open but at the same time subject to nation-centered meaning-making. This thesis problematizes the mode of concep tualizing people in relation to the bounded nation(al)-state(ic) image of the still-globalizing world by consid ering the notion of a Du tch diaspora in which immigrants as well as those born in the Netherla nds are accorded equal ontological status as emigrants. Although the thesis explores theoretical discourse of issues such as multiculturalism, transnationalism, (e/im)migration, and diaspora; an empirical exploration of web-based emigration narratives is also put forth. In doi ng so, the possibility takes shape that actors conceived of as radically differe nt within a nationalist perspective may share experiences that are actually quite comparable in practice. Specifica lly Dutch emigrants to Australia are considered

PAGE 8

8 in parallel with refugees encount ering legal pressure to emigrate from the Netherlands. The paper concludes by arguing for an expanded conceptualization of diaspora. Dutch cultural diaspora includes immigrants as well as those accorded na tive status by utilizing a perspective on ethnicnational society that avoids essentialistic defini tions of exclusive membership in favor of one that recognizes the primacy of contact and cultural exchange in constructing diasporic societies. In doing so it allows for the possibility of envisioning a common Dutch cultural community extending beyond the regional territory of the Netherlands and a narrow view of ethnic Dutchness.

PAGE 9

9 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION: THE PROBLEM OF CONCEPTUALIZING (NON)IMMIGRANT SOCIETIES Although there is a large and diverse body of writing on immi gration and immigrants, as evidenced by journals such as the Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies we rarely enter into discussion about what assumptions and implications are tacit in setting th is mode of human life aside categorically. At the most basic linguistic level, talking about immigration and immigrants suggests that there is a complimentary mode of existence which does not involve (im)migration and that some individuals are not (im)migrants. Of course for many people, the idea that some people are immigrants while others are not is simply a fact to be taken for granted. For them it may be possible to enter into discussions about how the category of immigrant is defined or who does or does not constitute an immigrant, but th e distinction immigrant/na tive remains intact. I contend that the idea of (im)migration and the category, (im)migrant, are conceptual constructs that have little if anything to do with material or behavioral differences between individuals if and when these constructs are abandoned for more salient ones that recognize mobility as fundamental to all life. In this paper I take a closer look at the idea of immigration and explor e, first, the reasons why the distinction between (im)migrants and non -(im)migrants is held so dear and explore how the distinction between immigrati on activities and other activities is poten tially confounding at worst and schizoid at best. To contextualize this project in the t opical area of European Immigration, I have chosen as a substantiv e focus the European sub-population of the Netherlands, in a sense somewhat more broadly defined than w ould be the case in many popular and social scientific applications, which will be e xplained in more detail later. Specifically, I want to map out the idea of a Dutch diaspor a that extends beyond both the residents of the geographical area of North-West Europe normally associated with the nation, as well as beyond

PAGE 10

10 the normal genealogical boundaries created by ex clusions based on legal, as well as other informal or semiformal definitions. My reason for expanding my gaze in this way is to take account of not only the inclusive contents of 'the Dutch state' but also its excluded discontents, recognizing that the discourses of separation between these categor ies exist as part of a wider discourse which may also be identified as 'Dutch.' In this way, it is my hope that the categorical distinctions applied to draw dis tinctions between various types of immigrants as well as between immigrants and non-immigrants will give way (within the reader's perceptions ), at least partially, to a more complete image of a multi-categoric al 'Dutch' population in order to overcome its disjunctive rendering through th e application of such cat egorical distinctions.

PAGE 11

11 CHAPTER 2 THEORY-METHOD AND LITERATURE REVIEW When undertaking research in which one is exercising a greater-than-usual mindfulness regarding the basic analytical cate gories of research, it makes sens e to discuss theory and method in tandem. The reason for this is that we are no t dividing the input of the project into theoretical background literature and data-to-be -analyzed, but rather drawing on the data for theory while also exploring the theoretical literature as an analytical object. This is a strategy aimed at reducing the normative practice of distinguish ing between academic literature and other literature or other types of na rratives in terms of the interp retive framework we employ in reading them. To put it even more practically, the aim is to look at id eological reproduction in language-based expressions in more or less the same terms and to engage them in the same terms, whether they appear in a scholarly journa l or a website. The assumption is that academic writing is a form of human expression similar to others and can be regarded as such. 'Theory' then refers to the theoretical engagement of id eological implications of texts under consideration while 'method' suggests that approaching academic lite rature and/or respondent narratives in this way is not an ungrounded exercise in intellectuali zation for its own sake but a tacit means of pursuing concrete epistemological goals by enga ging the publicly dissemin ated expressions of social actors with a stake in the issues in question. Although I cannot emphasize strong ly enough to readers the activ e resistance necessary to avoid reifying categorical distin ctions employed for purposes of textual organization, I have opted to analyze and review the scholarly literature by theme, considering first transnationalism, then multiculturalism, and finally diaspora. Although these are different words each marked with a unique etymology, and which become the cen ters of terminologically-focused discourse, I do not regard these as describing different aspects of so cial life. What's more I do not regard

PAGE 12

12 them as describing a form of social life, macr o or micro, separate from everyday life more generally. This may seem confusing to reader s who conceptualize th e world according to national-static normativity since this perspective tends to ma rginalize and/or ignoring the radically migratory and culturally-sy nthetic nature of all life, not t hus that defined as migratory. Nevertheless, it will be helpful to discuss them here separately for textual and etymological reasons. Transnationalism Etymologically, the term 'transnationalism' em phasizes national realism in framing certain instances of human migrator y behavior as going 'throughnations .' Although it would probably make more sense to talk about migratory activ ities generally while di stinguishing a special category of migration focused on, centered ar ound, or limited by nationalist constructions, 'transnational' implies a bias toward nationalism as a transcended natural state, similar to the way 'globalization' implies that the 'global' has yet to be achieved, and as such also represents a transcendence of an 'established national real ity.' I am mindful that readers who are uncomfortable with or otherwise reject construc tionist approaches may have difficulty with my relativization here of nati ons and other nationalist constructions as one type of social institution among others which should not be afforded any sort of privileged status. For this paper I have chosen to engage two texts, one by Baubock ( 2003) and the other by Portes, Guarnizo, and Landolt (1999). Baubock (2003) discusses transnationalism, attemp ting to define what it is in relation to, for example, internationalism, and resorts primar ily to the idea of au tonomous national polities as a basis for conceiving of movement 'between them.' Ironically, by drawing on the idea of a national polity, he implicitly denies the political (as opposed to natural) basis for privileging national polities over transnational ones, or to shift definitional foundations, he naturalizes the

PAGE 13

13 idea of a polity rooted in a static geogra phical region over one in which the polity is geographically dispersed, shifting, or both as we ll as negating the possibi lity that polities can exist in virtual spaces such as those created by media. T hus, for Baubock, equal status for transnationalist, as for nationalist, polities is render ed a priori impossible. He writes, "Instead of constructing a contrast between na tional and transnational politics, we ought to be aware how the latter depend on the former. Political activities of migrants are strongly oriented towards sending and receiving states" (701). A lthough he points out how the idea, or at least the word itself, 'transnationalism,' references nations, he puts the cart before the horse in assuming that nations are inherently the objects of transnational actors This is like sugges ting that nationalism is primarily a regional phenomenon si nce it unites various regions. Th e basic flaw lies in raising the notion of nation to ontological primacy when, in fact, it is only one type of institution among others. As such it is hard to see how nati onal borders may exist as nothing more than a stumbling block in the activities of so-called 'transnational' actor s, or that a passport does not necessarily reflect some essential quality of its holder but is merely a document instrumental for certain purposes, such as holding border-guards at bay. This is not to suggest that those who engage in 'transnational' activities may not be socially committed to interests and welfare associated with 'polities' identified as 'national' in one or more of the places they live or go. The Catholic church, for example, facilitates vari ous transnational activi ties although the reference for (at least some of) its actors is the idea of a universal spirit or God; not national polities. Portes et al. (1999) reflect on the potential th ey see in 'transnationalism' as an emergent field of research. The strength of this article lies in its conservatism toward the prospect of transnationalism as a new or distinct phenomenon and their recognition that transnationalism and migration are not mutually exclusive from an empi rical point of view. Th eir logic, however, that

PAGE 14

14 "Nothing is gained, for example, by calling immigr ants transmigrants, when the earlier and more familiar term is perfectly adequate to desc ribe the subjects in qu estion" (Portes et al. 1999 219) and that the term should be delimited because "if all or most things that immigrants do are defined as transnationalism, then none is beca use the term becomes sy nonymous with the total set of experiences of this popul ation" (Portes et al. 1999 219) is problematic. They overlook the influence that terminology and discourse have on researchers' (and others') subjectivity, as when researchers constrain their theorizing accordi ng to received knowledge, previously published writing, and/or other ideological in terests. When theorizing tran snationalism, it is possible to rethink immigration and emigration away from th e assumption that these are one-time migratory processes that result in the adoption of one set of nationalist institutions and the relinquishing of another. This does not mean that there is anything empirically diffe rent about the social processes of changing residences, but framing such a change in terms of 'transnationalism' may facilitate resistance to assim ilation pressures in the form of normative understandings of 'immigration' in various social contexts. The cl aim that terms lose their significance when they can be applied to anything without delimitati on is a common logic (see for example Brubaker 2005 regarding 'diaspora') but it ignores how appl ying such an all-encompassing term as a lens can produce new insight. For example, if all mi gration is viewed as transnational, or to downplay the importance of nationalism 'translo cal,' then we may look more clearly at the techniques used to bring nationa l and other localist institutions to bear on migration and question the ethics of these in a way that is not possible when viewing such interventions as neutral social realities. As such considering how language describes reality can be more important than deciphering the distinctness or ne wness of the reality that lan guage describes or narrates.

PAGE 15

15 Before leaving Portes et al. ( 1999) to discuss multiculturalism, it is also useful to consider the criteria they establish for qualifying phenomena as transnational in order to critique them. Their first criterion is that, "the process i nvolves a significant proporti on of persons in the relevant universe (in this case, immigrants and their home country counterparts) (Portes et al. 1999 219). This is a logic of quantity where more cases are supposed to ch ange the character of each case individually. This raises the quest ion why the same lifestyle should be defined differently depending on whether many or few indivi duals live it. Increa sing democratization of transport and electronic media allow for radicall y unique individual configurations of residency, work/business, travel, and so forth. Therefore we should expect to see more radically unique social phenomena and, as a result, be prepared to conceptualize such so cial phenomena in their uniqueness instead of trying to lump them together for purposes of generalization. What's more, ignoring individualistic migration activities in favor of 'mass-mi grants' risks reinforcing the class, ethnic, and other biases that already pass relatively unque stioned in migration discourse. The second criterion, "the activities of interest are not fleeting or exceptio nal, but possess certain stability and resilience over time" (Portes et al 1999 219) may seem useful for operationalization purposes but it raises the issue of how to understa nd transnational activities when they fall short of their goals due to constraints imposed by nationa lists or others. Transnational activities that are undertaken but subsequently abandoned may provide more insight into transnationalism than more stable and resilient variants It would be hasty and empiri cally sloppy to ignore relatively ephemeral examples just because they do not achieve, or are prevented from achieving, sustainability. The third criterion, that "the cont ent of these activities is not captured by some pre-existing concept, making the invention of a new term redundant" (Portes et al. 1999 219) is problematic for reasons already discussed. Nevertheless, it is worth re-emphasizing that

PAGE 16

16 applying redundancy in this way to automati cally legitimate intellectual exclusion risks precluding fresh insights that can open up new avenues for research and discourse. Multiculturalism My conceptualization of multiculturalism is very much bound up with the discourse surrounding 'the multicultural society' and multicu lturalism more generally in Dutch discourses in the late 1990s and early 2000s ( see Shadid and van Koningsveld 1996 for example). This critique of multiculturalism has evolved relative to a pluralistic and ethnic-essential vision in which culture is always ethnic/nati onal culture and always in the c ontext a finite set (plurality) of 'mono-cultures' which are imagined to interact at best as an excepti on to the status-quo of maintaining separate spheres. Ideally, multicultu ralism should not refer to pluralism or ethnicculture specifically (alt hough if all humans have ethnicity th en what culture is not human and therefore not ethnic?) but instead to a radi cally decentralized mode l of culture(s) where individuals negotiate cultural multiplicity in a variety of ways. 'Monoculturalism,' i.e. the corresponding notion to multiculturalism, that there are individuals and/or groups that are devoid of cultural multiplicity, would then be unimaginable by virtue of r ecognizing cultural practices as radically fragmented rather than as integrated under the umbre lla of a singularizing cultural identity. Thus instead of speaking of 'Catholic culture,' for example, as an integrated set of practices, beliefs, images, texts, objects, and so forth, we should view each cultural practice separately, including the practi ce of defining and constructing them as 'Catholic' and/or integrated (and how). This view of multicul turalism does not preclude the possibility of multiethnic multiculturalism. It merely pushes us to consider the myriad ways in which cultural practices mix and interact in empirical prac tice. In order to locate my perspective on multiculturalism in relation to ot hers', I consider literature by Joppke (2004) and Kymlicka (2003). In addition I briefly explore the possibi lity of conceptualizing multiculturalism with a

PAGE 17

17 more thorough approach to multiplicity by lookin g at Mol's (2002) work on ontology in medical practice. Multiculturalism, as it is formulated by Joppke (2004) and Kymlicka (2003) resonates with issues similarly problematic to Baubock's transn ationalism. The biggest problem with their idea of multiculturalism is that it is formulated in relation/opposition to th e (idea of a) liberal (monocultural?) national civic community, or as Joppke notes, a public sphere in which cultural differences are settled by the market accompanie d by a private sphere in which individuals are more or less free to practice whatever culture th ey wish (238). Joppke ci tes Sartori's distinction between multiculturalism and pluralism in which pluralism is lauded because it supposedly "requires voluntary group memberships, multiple affiliations in the context of cross-cutting cleavages, and 'a reciprocal recognition' between conflict pa rties which, it is claimed, are 'systematically denied by multicul tural politics (238). In at leas t the three versions of plural regimes that I am familiar with, Dutch pillariz ation, European nationalism, and South African apartheid, membership was naturalized or essentialized in one way or another, multiple affiliation were frowned upon and considered susp ect if not overtly punished, and reciprocal recognition may have taken place but this is a broad and vague formulation since 'recognition' can take place with varying degree s of (dis)respect. Kymlicka ( 2003) is less specific than Joppke in explicitly defining multicultura lism other than to oppose it to a ssimilationist policies (esp. in Canada). Although he mentions multiculturalis m's popular acceptance and enshrinement in the constitution in Canada, it is unclear how this exac tly translates into polic y, especially considering the positive view of immigration as a means to fill jobs. Assuma bly he is implying that the job market is not multicultural but rather dominan tly Canadian although presumably open as to the race and ethnicity of applicants for those jobs. While Joppke seems to misrecognize the idea of

PAGE 18

18 multiculturalism as well as the problems it poses Kymlicka recognizes these only for a portion of society. The problem with both authors' version of mu lticulturalism is that they proceed from a vision of culture as a plurality of more-or-le ss bounded entities, each with its own singular identity-reference. In their formulations, multicu lturalism refers to a social landscape in which cultures are separate-but-intermi ngle, with an emphasis on the state of separateness and the act of intermingling as an interven tion. In both their visions the cu ltural territoriality of central institutions, such as state apparatuses for Joppke or the job-producers of the economy for Kymlicka, are seen as culturally neutral or left out of the (multi)culturalism altogether. Both authors obscure their ontological assumptions ab out the substance of mu lticulturalism by talking about it in abstract terms within a range of comparative concepts. In Joppke's case the comparison is the liberal civic-community while Kymlicka uses 'citizenship' and 'immigration' along with 'multiculturalism' as part of a 'thr ee-legged stool' metaphor to explain the success of immigration in the eyes of Canadians. To Kym licka's credit, his explic it goal does not involve establishing ontologically the meaning of 'multic ulturalism,' unlike Joppke. He does imply, however, through the 'three-legged stool' analogy, th at multiculturalism is a non-existent or irrelevant concept outside of immigr ant-society contexts. It is as if the issues of multiculturalism and/or assimilation would not appl y in societies in which resident s are exclusively native-born or in which a single ethnic group was identified. The suggestion is that cultural difference only occurs along lines of national or ethnic difference. This implicitly reifies the notion that societies are mono-cultural when they are not multicultural. If we contest such narrow conceptualiza tions of multiculturalis m and recognize that cultural differences are an issue for a ny given human population, the concepts of

PAGE 19

19 multiculturalism and assimilation may be conceived differently. For example, if we are talking about a community of Dutch and Turkish immigran ts of Australia, whose members immigrated from the Netherlands as acculturated residents of the Netherlands, various cultural issues of Turkish, Dutch, and Australian life will come into play. This may include cultural issues of the specific context in question, for example the corporate environment in which they work, which may have its own culture apart from that of the Australian nationalist-ethos or that of the nation with which the corporation is associated, for exam ple Siemens or Time-Warner. In order to have a truly inclusive concept of multiculturalism, we s hould be able to take such circumstances into account instead of relying on protot ypical or general visions of th e social context in question. A general problem associated with such conceptual issues as transnationalism, multiculturalism, assimilation, a 'civic community,' and so forth lies in conceptualizing them as situated knowledge constructs as opposed to abstract theoretical one s as the aforementioned authors have done. This is not to say that there is no value in treating these issues in a theoretical, or even semi-contextualized way as the authors have. It can be quite useful, however, to recognize that discourse s exist externally to the theo retical plane and that social theorists are individual actors among others in discourse. This means that we should be aware of a separation between the function of such concepts in discourse and the ontological realities they are meant to represent. Transnationalism, for example, descri bes human population movement or other movements, such as that of goods and/or servic es, across national borders as if such movements are qualitatively different from the same type s of movements within a national territory. Nevertheless, actual events desc ribed as transnational may bear little or no distinction from a similar national event other than those associated with nation-state inte rferences such as border

PAGE 20

20 checks. As such it may be more distracting th an useful to apply the conceptual framework associated with the label transnationalism in studying such events. For example, commuting across the Dutch-Belgian border for work constitutes a transnational act but it only becomes meaningful as such when the idea of its transnat ional character is applied in some way, such as when colleagues comment or joke about one's identity vis--vis work and residence or when tax authorities dispute jurisdictional matters. To apply the concept prior to actions undertaken in reference to national issues implictly asserts th e essential existence of national institutions outside of their applica tion by social actors. Granted many social actors construct their basic existential reality as a national (or transnational) reality, but as (social) scientists, I would argue that it is necessary to conceive of realities (socia l, natural, etc.) outside of human institutions and other constructions, such as those associated with the nation-state. Only in this way is it possible to avoid reinforcing the naturaliz ing of actions associated with such institutions, including the very language-act of talking nati on-states into being. Possible alternative con ceptual frames include the notion of global cultures, includi ng a global culture of nationalism, which actors apply as part of their various activities, but which should not be seen as a container of those activities. Mol's (2002) ethnography of atherosclerosis may seem like an unlikely source for insight into multiculturalism in a multiethnic society contex t, but I believe this work enacts a promising approach to multiplicity that goes beyond the coexistence of mu ltiple-monocultures. In her preface, Mol explains the approach she takes to multiplicity succinctly and with reference to the grammar of the title, The Body Multiple, writing: In practice the body and its diseas es are more than one, but this does not mean that they are fragmented into being many. This is difficult to think. But it is this complex state of affairs that this book explores. I have tried to capture it in the title, in which a singular noun comes with a pluralization adjective. (Mol 2002 viii)

PAGE 21

21 Before moving further to explain the applicati on of Mol's approach to multiculturalism as it is being discussed in this paper, it may be help ful to further contextualize her ideas in terms of her own writing. Explaining the multiplicity of disease in concrete examples she writes: Attending to enactment rather th an knowledge has an important effect: what we think of as a single object may appear to be more than one. All the examples in this book concern atherosclerosis. But a plaque cut out of an at herosclerotic artery is not the same entity as the problem a patient with atherosclerosis ta lks about in the consulting room, even though they are both called by the same name. The lo ss of blood pressure over a stenosis is not the same thing as the loss of blood vessel lume n that radiologists ma ke visible on their Xray pictures. (Mol 2002 vii) Mol's aim then is to draw our attention to the way that the same entity, in this case a disease, is enacted differently in different c ontexts and as such constitutes a single multiple reality consisting of radically different objects an d their enactments. In practice, Mol's approach to multiplicity is one that undermines the ap plication of monocultu ral logic, unlike the aforementioned writers who fac ilitate it by organizing multiculture into plural monocultures, each with its own designated territory. Following Mol's logic of multiplicity, the problem of separating territories is avoided since various medical techniques necessarily construct the same disease in the same body in different ways. Translating this to apply to multicultura l society, we can view di fferent worldviews as constructing the same society from different perspectives while being enacted in specific contexts. If we refuse to privilege one perspe ctive as the correct or dominant one, then we can allow for intercultural negotiations at the level of material practice in sp ecific settings without defining the actors or their view s according to a priori assumpti ons about norms and dominance within a monocultural reality. Also, because Mol pr ivileges each site of enactment as the basis for constructing that moment of the disease in its own rite, she avoids the monoculturalist topdown approach in which the singularity of the entity, in this case atherosclerosis, is

PAGE 22

22 conceptualized in relation to a singular identity and therefore a single set of rules, practices, and so on for doing atherosclerotic multiplicity or other aspects of the disease. Consider this in contrast with the monocultu ral approaches to multiculturality in society discussed by Joppke, Kymlicka, and Essed (1996). What Essed critiques in reference to Dutch multiculturalism, specifically, i.e. the positioning of white Dutch as the overseers and managers of diversity rather than another component part (Essed 1996 27-28), is also present in the ontological approaches of the afor ementioned writers' texts. The dom inant culture is not situated as one worldview among others, enacting its own version of the multicultural society which it negotiates in specific contexts, but rather it is constructed as a containe r for all other acts and processes of cultural engagement and negotiation. As such 'the state,' whether liberal or multicultural, 'the economy/market,' or some other overarching construction is put forth without regard for its multiplicity within the multiculturalism. Mol's approach offers the potential to avoid this fate. Demographic Constructions of Dutch Population/Demographics While the authors discussed up to this point have written articles in which the categories used to frame human action in terms of nations a nd (ethnic) cultures, they have done so more or less with direct reference to the descriptors, transnationalism and multiculturalism. Now I will move to discuss (demographic) literature in wh ich similar conceptual (framing) categories are used more implicitly, either simply taken for granted in descriptive a nd analytical accounts or semi-explicitly, in discussions of operationa lization and methodologica l convenience. I will attempt to shed light on the techniques for employing/deploying such categories as well as, specifically, the manner in which they are taken for granted ('taken' should be read here in verb, not adjective, form).

PAGE 23

23 Although I have discussed the l iterature up to this point us ing the texts themselves as situated expressions of their authors, it is also possible to interpret texts and their writers in contexts other than what they choose to expr ess in their monographs Although I recognize the diverse levels of embodiment and situatedness of authors and their texts, I should also acknowledge that I tend to reflexively recognize my r eading of a text as the social context of the text to which I have most direct access. In pr ivileging my reading and thus my interpretation of a writer's meaning from the cont ext of interaction w ith the text, I have encountered some criticism that this is no t enough. While it is certainly possible to take an intertextual approach to contextualizing writing and/or si tuating writers within the social contexts sociological thinking allows us to construct, this does not exclude th e possibility of interpreting a text within the researcher's analytical framework nor should it since the context of the interaction between researcher and researched is al ways part of the social contex t(s) that embody the situated engagement of texts and data that make up research. The following literature is cited from the jour nal, Demos, which is a "bulletin of the Netherlands Interdisciplinary Demographic Instit ute (NIDI), a research institute of the Royal Dutch Academy of Sciences, which aims at pr omoting knowledge and the formation of opinion regarding population issues" (D emos website in Dutch). The English language webpage describes the journal as follows: DEMOS, Bulletin on Population and Society, is considered NIDI's most important popular publication and contributes signif icantly to raising the Instit ute's identity. The bulletin has ten issues a year and a circ ulation of over 5,000 copies, and is aimed at a broad, general audience in political, policy and education ci rcles. (Demos website translated from Dutch). Although the webpages describing Demos and the NI DI are texts, and as such the potential for confusion may arise as to how to contextualize them as such, taking an intertextual approach may help some readers to construct a sense of context for the Demos articles that they might

PAGE 24

24 otherwise feel is lacki ng. I should also note that I am hes itant about embarking on a journey to differentiate whether my criti ques of the literature I reviewed are critiques of demography generally, the authors' specifi c application of it, Dutch popul ation ideologies, or some combination thereof. It is hoped that by cl early enunciating my critiques, these can be understood as ideas in themselves without having to extrapolate the prec ise genealogy of the ideas being critiqued. In this context I discuss the contributio ns of Nicolaas and Sprangers (2005) and Bekke, van Dalen, and Henkens (2005) to Demos. Nicolaas and Sprangers (2005) in their article on 'Dutch over the Border' (translated for use in this paper), present demographic informa tion about Dutch emigration and the number of Dutch residing in various countries At the end of their article they include a short postscript entitled 'Nationaliteit' in whic h they give their method for di stinguishing Dutch people from other presumably non-Dutch Dutch people. They write: A comparison between population groups must preferably occur on the basis of birth country. A comparison grounded in the character istic nationality is liable to create too many limitations. A distinction on the basis of nationality has the drawback that persons that have received the Dutch nationality w ould not be viewed anymore as 'allochtonous' (originating elsewhere). In the Netherlands in the last ten years, many Turkish and Moroccans have received the Dutch nationalit y. Proceeding from data on the basis of nationality would strongly underestimat e the number of Turkish and Moroccan 'allochtones' in the Netherlands. Also Antill ians and Arubans cannot be distinguished on the basis of nationality because they have the Dutch nationality. (Nicolaas and Sprangers 2005 30) While this seems to be a methodol ogical footnote to the analysis, based on the reference to 'comparison' as a scientific goa l in and of itself, the passage at the same time makes basic ontological claims about the 'true' categorical distinctions which should be made among groups in the population. Although national ity is a legal status attained on the basis of various criteria regardless of ethnic or racial iden tity, such as by registering a ne wborn at city hall within three days after birth or naturalizati on, the authors are suggesting that it is only natural to further

PAGE 25

25 distinguish among Dutch nationals based on their birthplace. Their logic for doing this is circular, claiming that counting those born outside the country w ould confuse them with people born inside the country. They a dd, without explaining why, that usi ng nationality as an indicator (of an underlying essence?) 'strongly underestimates' the number of Turkish and Moroccan Dutch. Clearly these authors feel that basing their research on nationality create s problems for what they are trying to measure, but they fa il to explore what the problem would be with researching the entire population of Dutch nationals, people in th e Netherlands generally, and/or a global Dutch population. The postscript goes on to cite another problem: Also for specific emigration countries such as Canada and Australia, the concept nationality has a limited meaning, because ma ny former immigrants have by now taken the Canadian or Australian nationali ty. (Nicolaas and Sprangers 2005 30) We might ask for whom nationality has a 'limited meaning' and what the (unlimited?) meaning of nationality is or should be. Nevertheless, this does raise the problem of how to conceive of a diasporic population of Dutch if emigrants are di scounted as Dutch at the moment they naturalize in another country, assuming they give up their Dutch nationality. But are the authors too hasty in their assumptions about the actual people th ey are trying to include and exclude from their statistical population? After all, it may be the case that many Dutch emig rants in fact become part of the populations of their (new) place of re sidence. Likewise Dutch nationals, regardless of their ethnic identity, who were born outside th e geographical territory of the Netherlands may also have become part of the Dutch population, in an ontological or materi al sense as opposed to an operationalistic one. All these issues beg the question of what population we are or should be dealing with and why. The construction of a distinct population at the macro level has ramification both for the operationalization of res earch questions and hence the findings, as well as for ontological conceptions of the world as we imagine it prio r-to/outside-of scientific study.

PAGE 26

26 The position I hope to advance through this pa per is one in which a population, specifically the Dutch population in this case, can be conceptu alized more broadly than in terms of simple exclusionary criteria. Contra ry to the opinion of Nicolaas and Sprangers, I argue that both nationality, as well as birthcountry, are too limiting for the purposes of recognizing (and eventually researching) the Dutch population. Birth-country excludes a significant number of 'foreign'-born Dutch, with varying ethnic connections, while nationality confuses a legal-status as a naturally occurring population marker. Langua ge-use is problematic since not everyone affiliated with the Netherlands and Dutch culture speaks Dutch. Likewise residency in the geographical territory of the Netherlands in northern Europe excludes spaces which are under 'Dutch' control such as enclaves and corporate terrain outside th e Netherlands including that of military and civic groups. Generally, any exclus ionary criterion excludes all potential candidates that are denied recognition by its categorical bounda ries. This is problema tic since it ignores the issue of what distinguishes the po tentiality of candidate s prior to their exclusion. This type of distinction is reminiscent of the colonial situation in which mixe d children in the colonies were given or denied access to the 'fatherland' based on racial or parental cr iteria (Stoler 2002). Additionally it facilitates misrec ognition of the dividing-effects of such criteria when they are applied to a population. It is im portant to recognize that a categor ical separation such as that based on nationality does not operate at a meta-level in which the 'us' of the nation is separated from a total 'them,' i.e. the rest of the world popul ation; but rather it deni es inclusion to specific others who have a stake in their inclusion/exclusion (as opposed to other others who have little or no stake in the same categorical division). Before moving on to discuss other articles, le t me briefly address some other operational assumptions in terms of Nicolaas and Sprangers, although they are certainly not specific to their

PAGE 27

27 article. The graphs used to illustrate their article include emigration/immigration rates as a function of time as well as emigration a nd population of emigrants by country of emigration/residence. Besides giving the impre ssion that all Dutch emigrants settled at their destination rather than subseque ntly moving to other countries or to the Netherlands again, these graphs (along with much of the text) take for gr anted that national setting is the best variable for studying migration movement. Why not use 'dis tance in km from the Dutch border', for example? Or 'number of years living abroad'? What about 'time spent in the Netherlands since departure?' Clearly each of these would add it s own specific contours to research findings aswell-as having ontological ramifications for any cognitive-framing of the subject matter. Yet differentiating the emigrant populat ion in terms of nation passes w ith less reflection than other categories, presumably because 'nation' occupies a special ontological stat us in comparison with other variables, outside of any impetus toward value-free sociology. 'Nation' seems to escape the sphere of critical inquiry. Bekke, van Dalen, and Henkens (2005) write about the "Emigration of Dutch (people): stimulated by population pressure." Rather than looking at Dutch emig rants, this article taps into the emigration plans of residents of the Nether lands. This time, Dutch nationality is the preferred operational basis for research with the reason that, "among other things to exclude return-migration from the research, considering th at the reason for departure often lies in the relational sphere" (p 26). While this reasoning may appear logi cal at first glance it becomes problematic under critical scrutiny. What is meant, for example, by 'the relational sphere?' Does this mean that emigrants have family connecti ons in the destination c ountry, business contacts, cultural affinities? Are Dutch nationals then de void of such 'relational' connections, whether based on ethnic and family connections as in the case of Surinamese or because of another

PAGE 28

28 reason? Such a distinction seems to rest more on an indefinite notion about whether who is leaving the Netherlands who 'belongs there' in the first place or not rather than on a more sensical basis such as those who have establis hed long-term or 'perma nent' residency in the Netherlands. Any other definiti on denies equal exposure to thos e aspects of life that would influence the opinion variables including, "preferr ed destination country, opinion of life in the Netherlands (public space, welfar e state, living situation divide d further), population density of popular emigration destinations, and expectations of life in the destination country (same contents as for in the Netherlands)." So-called denizens of the Netherlands would have similarly informed opinions on the same topics since they are exposed to the same media and discourses. The conclusion of this article places rela tively great emphasis on the importance of 'demographic' compared to 'financial' stimulus. This conclusion is assumably based on the relatively similar welfare and econo mic indications of preferred dest ination countries versus their relatively divergent population de nsity and respondents' aggregate expectations of 'nature and space,' 'population density,' 'quiet,' and 'menta lity of the population.' Interesting to note, respondents were asked to give th eir evaluations of how 'negative' the multicultural society in the Netherlands is along with their expe ctation of how that aspect of th eir destination society will be. Fifty percent evaluated Dutch multiculturalism as 'extremely negative' and almost none expected it to be (much) worse in the destination country (almost 60 percent expected 'the same'). Still, the meaning of this response category is vague What should we unders tand as a positive or negative multicultural society? Should we assume the worst, that the researchers as well as the respondents equate more multiculturalism with worse multiculturalism? Does it imply that multicultural society works better in the other co untry? Does it imply that the Dutch society is too 'monocultural' and that more diverse cultur e(s) would be better? Whether intentionally

PAGE 29

29 and/or consciously or not, the approach take n by these researchers propagates an argument resonant with some rightist discourse that Du tch society is too busy, too densely populated, and too multicultural to entice its 'true and proper' re sidents not to emigrate. My interpretation is partially reinforced by the recent popularity of 'liv able-' political parties at national and regional levels such as 'Leefbaar Nederland,' 'Leefbaar Rotte rdam,' and so forth. However, this article is still a valuable resource in my project of moving toward a more inclusive vision of a global Dutch population/diaspora. Diaspora as Theoretical Framework and Social Consciousness Much of the literature discussion and critical theoretical reflection up to this point has shown how nationalism and/or natio n-oriented consciousness is embedded in and reproduced by the writing and even the terminology used to ta lk about migratory life. In the critical epistemological struggle agains t national consciousness, diaspora emerged for me as a way of avoiding the national-endpoint lo gic of emigration and immigr ation without thinking through nations in terms of transnationalism. There is much written on diaspora, with diverse meanings attached to it, so much so that Brubaker (2005) writes of a "'diaspora' di aspora" to describe the vast proliferation and sp read of applications of this term Although 'diaspora' has often been used to talk about a dispersed people, with essentialist and/or racist undertones regarding the underlying commonalities that link indi viduals of a particular dias pora, I find it useful to deessentialize diaspora by speaking of cultural diaspora. While the essentialist vision of diaspora relies on the mythology of an original place-boun dedness that stands in opposition to a people's dispersion, I content that cultural diaspora resi sts essentializing a difference between placeboundedness and place-unboundedness by looking not at dispersion of people from a place, per se, but instead at dispersion of culture(s) thr ough networks of moving people. Strangely, and perhaps as a result of stat(ic) ist consciousness societies are rare ly conceptualized in terms of

PAGE 30

30 moving people and the cultural exchanges that always take place during moments of social contact. Instead we often think of culture as simply being there without at the same time thinking about how it is moving ar ound and changing as a result changing hands and/or how it is applied in a specific context by a specific set of hands. Framing immigrant-emigration in the Netherlands in terms of a Dutch cultural diaspora allows us to go beyond the potentially implicit di stinction between so-called 'natives' and 'nonnatives' within Dutch society. It also allows us to envision Dutch society itself not in terms of the geographical boundaries and institutional landscap e associated with the Netherlands, but as a community of diversely identified people engaged in contact and struggle with one another and others. I view diaspora thus not as a particular material state of society dis tinct from other forms but as an ideological framework within which social activity can be conceptu alized. As such this project is an exercise in de veloping diasporic consciousness and, in a praxical sense, a pedagogical exercise in disbursi ng and dispersing this knowledge framework. In reference to Brubaker's (2005) claim, citing Tololyan (1996), ed itor of the journal Dias pora, "that diaspora is in danger of becoming a promiscuously capacious category (Brubaker 2005 4), I see danger not in the risk of wide application of the concept and thereby cultivation of diasporic consciousness as much as in the appropriation of the te rm to reinforce national-static epistemology. In accounting for my pers onal intellectual genealogy regarding diaspora, I have to return to the seeds of this paper which have grown in a variety of directions, taking them away from the original aims to a degree. The focus on the id ea of an immigrant diaspora, to move toward relieving the ontological pressures to conceive of migration and mi grants in terms of origins and end points, is partially in re sponse to the writing of Captai n and Ghorashi (2001) on hybrid identity and diaspora space. I quote their citation of Brah (1996) in translation from Dutch in

PAGE 31

31 lieu of replacing it with the official English text out of a desire to preser ve the organic context of my contact with the text. The f act that I am currently writing in English leads me to re-present this text in English, although this need not remove me from the Dutch version. In effect, this is a textual enactment of the very logi c of Dutch cultural diaspora (in translation) that is the theme of the current project. Captain a nd Ghorashi (2001) quote Brah (1996): The space where hybridization takes place we can call, following Brah, 'diaspora space': a space where identities are considered as pos itioned constructions and not fixed according to skin color, birth country, or affiliation/heritage. Often wo rds like ethnicity and identity are only assoicatated with people who (had to) leave their 'original country' or with their Dutch born and raised offspr ing, who are always observed by white Dutch people as nonDutch. The consequence of this, as we have seen, is the unspoken assumption that white people have no ethnicity and by definition bel ong in their country. Brah's definition of diaspora-space critiques these assumptions by showing that such concepts as white and native are just-as-much constructions: 'Diaspor a-space as a conceputal category is not only "inhabited" by those that have migrated and th eir offspring, but just-a s-much by those that are constructed and imagined as domestic (Brah, 1996 181 in Captain and Ghorashi 2001 180). They go on to describe the goal(s) of theorizing diaspora-space: Within diaspora-space differences can come into bloom without excluding one another. : you can be Dutch and Muslim, or feminist and Muslim. This abstract space offers different visions the possibility to exist side by side: in so doing it does not create an either-or situation, a choice be tween we/they, but instead a bot h/and situation. In this both/and situation the emphasis is as much on positions that are multiple and changing hybrid as on identity constructions that ar e situated. Within di aspora-space it becomes possible to release people from the mandate to speak out for or against their ethnic background. In this new construction they can take on both positionings. (Captein and Ghorashi 2001 180, emphasis added) It is common to distinguish peopl e in terms of whether they are im migrant or emigrant of a given nation. When conceptualizing individuals, we too often fall into the trap of essentializing them according to some original or to talizing category, such as place of birth, ethnicity, sex, etc. When a child of Turkish parents grows up in the Netherlands and moves to Germany as an adult, we should not fall into discussions about whet her such a person is more Turkish, Dutch, or German. In order to combat this tendency at the macro level, I am pr oposing the concept of an

PAGE 32

32 immigrant diaspora. Diasporas are traditionally conceived of as disper sed populations of people living in various places because of an exodus (usually forced) from their place of origin. However, it is counter-intuitive to speak of a diaspora of immigrants since this would imply that individuals may have multiple origins. Accordi ng to either/or thinking an individual can have only one origin and therefore, common-sensually, we assume that when an immigrant crosses the border for the second time that s/he has renounced membership to the place s/he was. In this way, it is helpful to have another category, in addition to native/ emigrant/immigrant that acknowledges immigrants who have emigrated as having a connection with their country of emigration. Creating and applying such a categor y requires affording the same recognition for emigrating immigrants as for emigrating 'non-immigr ants.' Berger and Luckman's (1966) ideas about secondary and tertiary socialization may be applied here as well. Ultimately, however, it is only through repeated exercises in operati onalizing empirical observations through this alternative lens that it ca n be rendered (e/a)ffective at the ontological level. The literature I surveyed relating explicitly to the topic of diaspora, including Brah's (1996) work, represents a collage of ethnicities and approaches to studying them. Writing about an 'Albanian diaspora-in-the-making,' Mai (2005) l ooks at Albanians in Italy and how the Italian media has influenced Albanian identities. Alth ough Mai's approach of looking at the role of Italian media in Albanian identity construction processes, he does not go so far as to discuss this in terms of incorporating these Albanians into an Italian cultural diaspora, or in other terms of hybridization. While he doe s discuss diasporic fluidities at a th eoretical level, he maintains, for instance, that living in Italy constitutes 'physical displacement' for Albanians (Mai 344), more resonant with a statist perspective, in which i ndividuals are positioned vis--vis states, than a diasporic one.

PAGE 33

33 Georgiou (2005) considers various ethnically identified variants of 'diasporic media', a term she uses to describe only media that "addres s particular ethnic, lingu istic and/or religious groups that live within broader and diverse mu lticultural societies" (Georgiou 2005 482). It is not clear whether this phrasing s uggests that there are media cha nnels in multicultural societies that are not ethnically particular and therefore not diasporic by he r definition, or if she is making a distinction between dominant and subordinate gr oups using the label 'diasporic.' Due to her description of diasporic communities as having 'ima gined or real' connections and an 'imaginary cultural existence' (Georgiou 2005 483) the implication is that the localities and nation-states in which consumers of the diasporic media reside are more real and less imaginary media-products than the diasporic communities and cultures. Thus, although I was interested in Georgiou's perspective on media constructing diasporic communities, I was disappointed at her misrecognition of the constructedness of nation-st ates and localities in the same sense as (any other) diaspora. Georgiou's account then creates a sense of (less stable) diasporas inhabiting (more stable) nation-states and local communities rather than attributing equal, or at least similar, ontological status to states and localities as to diasporas. Carter (2005), studying Croatia n diaspora in the U.S., seems rather ambiguous toward conflicting perspectives on di aspora, citing both writing that questions the boundedness and mutual-exclusivity of nation-states as well as other literature that insists on viewing diaspora in national-static terms. Much of his argument rests on demonstrating how Croatian-Americans do not orient toward a diasporic community as much as they do toward the bounded, regional nation-state itself. Although Carter's perspec tive is helpful in recognizing misrecognition of diaspora in favor of nation-state, it is unclear whether this is inte nded ultimately as a critique of statism and a plea for stronger diasporic consciousn ess, or as an effort to undermine and repeal

PAGE 34

34 the legitimacy of diasporists citing their inabilit y to achieve independence of statism. It is, however, clear that Carter fails to relativize statism as a proj ection, either for the CroatianAmericans he is studying, for Croatian nationa ls living within Croa tian state boundaries, or within his own ontology. Findlay's et al. (2004) study of English migrants' experiences with Scottishness, although not explicitly concerned with diaspora as such, lo oks at diasporic issues within an innernational rather than international, tran snational, or anational contex t. Although this study portrays Englishness and Scottishness as bounded and mo re or less homogenous groups in and of themselves, without hybridizati on between, it also gives a sens e of how diaspora and ethnic negotiations take place within a single nation-st ate thus destabilizing the distinction between national-statist populations on the one hand and diasporic migrant populations on the other. This study is the only one reviewed for this project in which subtler nuances of identity-ontology were recognized among the individuals un der study. This occurred thr ough the use of the categories, "adopted Scot," "English English," "British Eng lish," and "world citizen" (Findlay et al. 2004 69). While the identity categories studied priv ilege the British national context and implicitly claim an autonomous status for that context separate from British colonial connections, for example, it is nevertheless the only one that sheds diasporic light on a 'nati onal-static' population.

PAGE 35

35 CHAPTER 3 TRACES OF A DUTCH DIASPORA Up to this point I have looked at literatu re in which various aspects of population delineation and categorization are ex plored, either explicitly or im plicitly, in the hope of building on them in constructing a more inclusive ontolog y of a Dutch population to better understand its movements on a global scale. Now I want to shif t focus slightly to observe several signs of Dutch life outside of any definitive criteria such as birthplace or national legal status. To do this I have selected two websites that depict extra-na tional movement of residents of the Netherlands, one is devoted to emigrants to Australia and the other is devoted to ref ugees threatened with deportation. Although these two website s at first glance seem to deal with two radically different populations engaged in completely different border struggles, all of their respective constituents are characterized by a common presen t, that is they are all situat ed in a moment of movement between Dutch life and life outside of Dutch societ y proper. I argue that we can treat them as strata of the same population, stratified according to variable s both endogenous and exogenous to their situation in Dutch society. Si nce I discuss narratives as data rather than as literature in the sense of an academic literature review, my analys is will be preceded by a discussion of methods in the spirit of the traditionalist differential approach es to literature and data I am trying to call into question and shed critical light upon. In terms of empirical method, coming up with an approach to this topic was no simple matter. I began not with a questi on about the social world to be an swered but rather with an area of social knowledge that I have become all too familiar with: the positioning of human individuals marginally vis--vis th e nation-state as reified and central ized construct. Since I have encountered, and still encounter relentless demands to recognize the reality and central institutional position of nationalterritorialism on a daily basis, researching nationalistic and

PAGE 36

36 racist social-construction processes seemed ne ither desirable nor valu able to add to any discourse. Instead, the empirical portion of my project began with refl ection on my own lived experience as an emigrating-immigrant becoming Dutc h and critical theorizi ng as to what kind(s) of conceptual approach could o ffer or at least facilitate (som e form of) liberation from the ideological coerciveness of nationalist disc ourse on immigrants and emigration. Because immigrants are regarded as forei gners within nationalist-state ideolo gies, it seemed that either the notion of 'immigrants' as such had to be re-ima ged away from the inoperable foreign/domestic (i.e. allochtonous/autochtonous) dich otomy, the national-static society had to be re-imaged as a borderless entity (i.e. as diaspora) or both. As such I sought a method that would allow me to 'do data work' in a way that could achieve the idealist goal of re-imaging people and their society while attending to concrete expressions of actua l living social participants, as a traditional ethnographer might. Operationalizing Dutch Diaspora Operationalization,' is a term whose use is t oo often limited to the c ontext of translating research questions into specified variable-r elationships and hypothe ses during statistical research. I use this term to describe the in itial process of finding re spondents, and/or their narrative-expressions, in order to appropriate these as data for anal ysis. By the time I arrived at this phase of research, I had re fined my vision of a Dutch dias pora to that of a cultural (as opposed to racial or ethnic) dias pora that would neither distinguish essentially between so-called immigrants and others, nor according to location in relation to geographical borders, nor would it posit a difference between national-domestic and diasporic communities as is often done. Resisting the positivistic urge to circumscribe an entire population and account for it in its totality, I resolved to recogni ze and accept the impossibility of representing such a whole meaningfully, even if its existence as such wa s humanly imaginable. Instead I decided to look

PAGE 37

37 for particular iterations within the visible traces of social rea lities to which I had access. As such, I found myself using the inte rnet to search for signs of Du tch diaspora. I came across two websites, or web-based communities depending on one's perspective (a distinction I will discuss in more detail shortly), in which narratives were posted regarding individu als' orientation toward emigrating the Netherlands, as a result of pre ssure, desire, or a combination of the two. Use of Internet Sources of Data Before discussing the websites selected and thei r relationship to the theoretical project of operationalizing Dutch diaspora, the use of the internet as a sour ce for (ethnographic) data will be considered. Although web-based data can be used for sociological re search (see for example Williams 2006), there are also warnings against e quating such data with any other data generated in ethnographic work (see Markham 2005). Met hodologically, my sense is that collecting and examining data uncritically, withou t regard for the complexities of representational practice, is problematic in any context, and perhaps more so when dealing with seemi ngly more 'traditional' ethnographic data since such data may pass with in the ethnographer's gaze with less scrutiny than would data from a more conspicuously 'nontraditional' medium. Since I do not plan to conduct an extensive discussion of the ontological distinctness of intern et as a source/medium for social communications, it will be up to the reader for the most part to decide whether and to what extent to accept the findings presented in this pa per. In doing so it may be useful to keep in mind that we have no way of knowing whether a nd/or how well the narratives I found on line are representative of actual people and their social lives as th ey experience them Although we can posit that it was in fact human actors, rather than an automated syntax-gen erator, that wrote the texts, it may be the case that these narratives were produced as fictional expressions of the writers' alter egos. The stories of struggle and suffering posted on HetGevolg.nl, inconceivable as they might be from a humanistic standpoi nt, may have been conceived and written by

PAGE 38

38 humanist writers in an attempt to affect change in the area of border control. I take the stories to be true and/or sincere, but as a (W eberian) scientist I am aware of the inconvenient fact that I do this out of faith rather than verification. Like wise the postings on XPdite.net could be traces of an elaborate role-playing game conducted by co mputer users eager to explore their migratory imaginations in dialogue with others. Again, how ever, I rely on faith (and perhaps pragmatism) to construct these data as repres entative of actual social life ta king place at the source of the transmission. Representativeness of Data and the Goal(s) of Research Perhaps the best solution to the problem of representativeness is to do away with the concern altogether and regard the data as data in their own right, useful perhaps as communications between users in some contexts, but appropriated as data in the context of this sociology project. To accept them as representations without a refere nt, as 'floating signifiers' to use post-modern terminology (see Derrida 1966), we have to shift from asking "are these truly signs of Dutch diaspora?" to "how well do these si gns help us envision Dutch diaspora as it has been constructed in the context of this project?" Such a shift is commensurate with moving from the positivistic goal of defini ng, measuring, or otherwise capt uring social life toward the liberation goal of re-imaging social life in a manner that destabilizes the assumptions and constraints that we (sub-consciously) bring to bear on what we perc eive through ingrained interpretive habits. Such destab ilization as liberation praxis is discussed as a 'countersystem' approach by Feagin and Vera (2001). Lakhoff and Johnson's (1980) work is instrumental in formulating cognitive frameworks as metaphors we live, not just think, by. Considering the kinds of metaphors we apply in making sense of data and consciously experimenting with alternative metaphors can provide better understanding of the social realitie s we interpolate using

PAGE 39

39 data by showing us how a reality changes depe nding on the metaphorical framing we use to measure or make sense of it. Comparison versus Contrast The (internet based) sites I found to concretely embody the macro-idea of Dutch diaspora, HetGevolg.nl and XPdite.net, appear as quite differe nt, both in terms of the appearance and style of the websites themselves as well as in how th ey construct the communiti es they represent. However, my aim was not to contrast them in te rms of difference but rather to compare them in terms of similarity or, more accurately, commonal ity as part of an et hical analytical goal following the sentiments of Essed (1996) that focusing on differences without emphasizing commonalities is problematic: Exaggerated emphasis on differences indirectly reinforces the assumption of superiority of the dominant culture. It hardly matters whet her the differences are real or perceived. Showing that dominant and ethnic minority gr oups also have norms, values, goals, and experiences in common may neutralize the fixa tion on difference. The rigid labels that cultural determinism places on groups should be relaxed. We all have more identities than just our national or ethnic ones. (Essed 1996 28) Although I could have chosen from many aspect s of everyday life in which national/ethnic identity is irrelevant, I thought it would be more radical and challenging to do this for a moment in which social actors themselves may be espe cially prone to emphasize identities of nationalbelonging, i.e. the moment of or ientation toward emigration. Re searchers, always engaged in participatory observation of their data to greate r or lesser degrees, are pr one to the same kind of reactive processes of so cial construction as their respondent s; in this case, to constructing emigration with reference to the not ion of a 'home' country or other subor supernational place. In this cognitive mode, the prospect that emig ration need not be framed in the context of national-territoriality and/or nationally-defined populations may seem dissonant to commonsense, an inconvenient fact in Weberian term s. Wanting to extend further Essed's ethical

PAGE 40

40 prescription, however, I opted to approach emigration as first and foremost a common experience taking place as part of everyday life in the place of departure. Although I could have gone further to relativize the notion of place, and thus shared place, altogether since 'here' and 'there' are always context-specific terms (Go ffman 9), I decided instead to appropriate the singular nation-place as a shared place of eminentloss for those leaving it, instead of as a place of differential belonging in relation to national/e thnic identity. To put it simply, I wanted to study emigration as a common experience of peop le living together and leaving together. (Imagining) Communiti es behind the Data After operationalizing emigrant-diapora in terms of these two web-communities, the problem arose as to what I should do with this data, how to organize a nd analyze it. First, however, I should return to the issue of what (I ta ke) these web-based narra tives (to) represent in terms of lived communities. XPdite.net is easier to characterize as a community than HetGevolg.nl since the explicit a nd practiced goal of discourse among users is to communicate and share experiences, advice, and so forth regarding emigration to Australia. The data gathered from this website often take the form of dialogues among users who respond to each others' postings. HetGevolg.nl, on the other hand, is desi gned as a forum for posting stories, usually written in the third-person, in which the details of an individual or family are given regarding a variety of life-aspects such as traumatic experien ces that influenced the decision to move to the Netherlands, current housing and fina ncial situation, visa status, em otional state with regards to prospective extradition, and so fo rth. As such, the narratives on HetGevolg.nl are not posted per se with the intention of communication among the prot agonist or their narrators, as much as they are toward reaching a larger community/readersh ip with, presumably, the hope that raising consciousness of the plight of those describe d will lead to change and new hope in their situations. Part of my goal in studying the narr atives on HetGevolg.nl and re-presenting them in

PAGE 41

41 an English-language context of academic sociology is to participate in its consciousness-raising mission, whereas I have had little inte rest in participating in the co mmunity of XPdite.nl users. I should add, however, that my relationship to thes e represented-communities in researching them is not disjunctive from my personal relationship to this project generally and the notions of emigrant-immigrants and Dutch (cultural) diaspora. Social Position of Resea rcher vis--vis Respondents My position vis--vis those I am studying in th is project has much to do with my identity as an immigrant of the Netherlands As an immigrant, I have b een subject to various obstacles and resistances put up against immigr ation in the Netherlands, to the extent that I have chosen to 'emigrate' outside of the practical range of such resistance. On the ot her hand, although I identify as an immigrant, and emigrant-immigrant, and/or as part of Dutch diaspora, I have the precarious privilege of being regarded as a western-foreigner (wes terse allochtoon) in the context of Dutch nationalism. As such, I have sometimes been complimented as being "better than those other immigrants," or I have been told that I woul d be more likely to get a job if it weren't for governmental preference for 'dark skin' and my unemployment naturalized as such. Likewise, recognizing myself as an immigrant among other immigrants I was brought to consider my place in the Netherlands as a place that could better serve the 'truly needy,' i.e. those immigrants/refugees whose 'homelands' are too dange rous to return to. The ideological flaws in these constructions are worth no ting; especially the assumptions that the physical and or tolerance capacity of the Netherlands is limited. Fu rthermore, within the l ogic that emigration is considered a solution to the imagined problem of limited capacity, shou ldn't everyone who can safely emigrate do so, including t hose who identify as 'purely native?' My short answer is, yes, those that believe capacit y is limited should emigrate. This is another reason I vi ew this project as (potentially) liberatory, since a desire to reduce population combin ed with a desire to stay put

PAGE 42

42 can lead to the (fascist) desire for the rem oval of others. Liberating potential fascists by releasing them from the imagined necessity of constraints that form the preconditions for elimination/removal actions is one way of si ding with the oppressed. Such preconditions may include various kinds of scarcity, but in this case the perceived scarcity of ethno-culturally viable social space outside of the Netherlands' border is the factor that has to be overcome in order to relieve the perceived necessity for ethnic/population policing. In accounting for my choice of topic, and my position vis-a-vis othe r immigrants of the Netherlands, it is important to note that my emigrati on is not in small part related to being put in the position of having to subordi nate to Dutch whites by acknowle dging my superiority to 'those other immigrants' while at the same time accepting that I should have less right and access to 'Dutch jobs.' Although I am conscious that emigrating only shifts inequalities from a national/domestic to a global/international contex t, through this project I hope to give voice to the potential for community-building within the Dutch diaspora outside the Netherlands. If (we) Dutch truly want to accommodate all who want to join, yet believe this an impossible dream due to finiteness of space, then let us form transn ational communities outside the Netherlands and let these communities de-emphasize the distinctions made between foreign and domestic (allochtoon/autochtoon) in favor of cooperation (samenwerking) and the practice of language and culture. This is the best gesture I can put toward those w hose need for refuge reduces my right to inhabit the Netherlands to a l uxury. As such not just my writing about emigration/diaspora, but my emigration itself, is a gesture of solidarity. Mo re importantly it is a practical offering to those who count immigrant-places, and who ha ve the power to fill them, to not just fill the place I vacated wi th a more deserving immigrant, but to recognize no one's right to occupy a needed place of refuge regardless of nationality, ethnicity, or citizenship status. In

PAGE 43

43 this way a global Dutch diaspora can be facilitated that will maxi mize people's right to join and participate in Dutchness while minimizing the ability to monopolize the Netherlands proper or Europe generally within the diaspor a. If equality and fair are ta ken seriously then these values should apply to place of residen ce as well as to welfare resources In other words, let Dutch redistributive mechanisms facilitate the circulati on of places of residence outside and inside the Netherlands, as well as the resources needed to prosper in each locat ion. Although these are political pleas, not methodological consideratio ns, they merit expression in terms of the reflexivity of my position vis--vis this research. Influence of Emigration and Geography on Research Methods Emigration and my geographical proximity to those I am studying also plays a significant role in influencing various aspect s of the research choices made fo r this project. For one thing, the cost of traveling from my house in Utrecht to nearby areas to conduct face-to-face interviews would make it more feasible to do this kind of research. Likewise, some researchers place a premium on data generated in this way, in contrast to web-narrat ives or other secondary data, although this may reflect a desire for distinction as a resear cher as much as the will to better data. From the vantage point of conducting this research as someone who has come to terms with the reality of already-having-emigr ated, I have the benefit of ha ving come to terms with the prospective loss (i.e. castration an xiety) of leaving that may be experienced by persons 'on the way out.' Having cultivated a diasporic consciousness of my own, I do not get bogged down with issues of studying this issue from the inside or outside since diaspora renders the border more or less inert. On the other hand, I am also somewhat less sensitive to the reali ties of living with and coping with the fear of eminent de parture, especially when one's lif e and/or livelihood is directly threatened by returning to a previous place of residence and/or by moving to a potentially hostile

PAGE 44

44 next-place. As such, this project is as much about raising consciousness of the possibility of creating safe third communities of Dutch diaspora as it is about consciousness of the plight of those whose residency is in jeopardy. The benefi t of using web-based narratives is that rather than extracting data from responde nts in the interest of converti ng their stories into sociological capital for myself, I am making use of storie s posted for the purpose of reaching a wider audience in the first place. This is not to sa y that respondents never or rarely participate in research for the same purpose as posting or othe rwise publishing their own information, or that they do not enjoy other benefits from participating such as catharsis, and so on. I am merely noting that using data posted on the internet is in many ways non-invasive although it is also a disembodied way of studying people, like other textua l data sources such as letters, diaries, or surveys. Method of Data Analysis Having found the two websites, I proceeded to sample the narratives posted in a nonsystematic way. In short, I browse d and read them. It is important to note that I read them with the background knowledge of having experienced many of the same types of concerns regarding visas, employment, and so forth common during migration. The non-systematic nature of my sampling is not a problem since it was not my goal to accurately represent the totality of a larger population. This is an important part of my critical methodological stance, i.e. to break with the tradition of imagining the actual existence of a larger population represented by a sample. Instead I am interested in taking a situated view of research in which the 'larger population' is an imaginary construction within th e sociological imagination. This implies a break with the assumption that there is a (macro) reality 'out there' to be discovered. My assumption, on the other hand, is that there is no larg er population; that there is only the possibility of constructing

PAGE 45

45 such a population theoretically a nd then devising ways of operati onalizing it using observable data. The nuances of this appro ach are resonant with ethnom ethodological approaches to sociology. I do not completely throw away the possibility of thinking, talking, measuring, or otherwise 'doing' larger populations, but it is im portant to acknowledge th e situatedness of their construction and avoid reifying their existence as be ing 'out there' irrespective of the sociological imaginations that construct them. My work, then, imagines Dutch diaspora, not as a real, measurable, thing 'out there,' but as an imaginary concept that gives meani ng to data and/or lived experiences. Further, as public sociology, it takes respons ibility for the proliferation of social knowledge by taking the ethics of disc iplinary constructs seriously. Explaining this risks of soliciti ng realist reactions from readers that societies do in fact exist, which is not the issue. Ontology addresses how not whether things are real. Macrosocietal images are real in their users' imagin ations, and they influence real interactions in everyday life. However, this does not preclude ou r ability to imagine alte rnative models, such as diaspora, as real as well; even simultaneously so. The issue is not whether diaspora is either real or imaginary, but how it can be an imagined reality whose constructedness we can be conscious of without assuming that there must be some other, real reality, 'out there' instead. This requires cognitive and affective discipline, but such discip line is in my view a qui ntessence of scientific philosophizing. (For more on philosophy as embodied practice see Braidotti 2002 74-75) My approach envisions sociology as hu man practice rather th an a science with its own set of objects to measure (a la Durkheim). This approach is not ascientific or asociological, it just breaks with Durkheimian realism.

PAGE 46

46 My hope is that the stories I have chosen and the issues that emerge from them and from mine and readers' interpretation and analysis of them will be resonant and shed light on migration processes and experiences more br oadly. My limitations personally and as a researcher, as well as those of the respondents, their narratives, and th e media of transmission, necessitate that many potentially important aspects will be filtered out and left unaccounted for. This is an inevitability of the enormous lo ss that comes with each degree of removal of a representation from the reality it is taken to simulate (see Virilio's 1991 24 discussion of the 'reality effect' of representation). I do not want to distinguish between the position of lived reality vis--vis the borders of the Netherlands in envisioning Dutch diaspora, since the processes of cultural sharing can occur rega rdless of place-location. Neverthe less, for this research I focus on narratives in which migrants are oriented towa rd international destinations, primarily because doing so requires less effort to 'tease out' the consciousness, in respondents' narratives and in readers, of intra-regional or intra-Eur opean migration as diasporic movement. The goal of this research was not to answ er any specific question(s) nor was it to operationalize difference and/or si milarity between groups of res pondents constructed a priori in separation. Instead the goal was to explore, as an emigrant-immigran t participant in Dutch diaspora, the narratives of others like me. This entailed critically resisting the tendency toward separating myself from the data in terms of th e researcher/researched subject-object dichotomy, as well as that toward positioning myself on one side of the native/foreigner (autochtoon/allochtoon) division. Resisting these distinctions is somewhat easier for me personally as the result of the practical expe riences of everyday lif e in a household of emigrant/immigrant native/foreigne rs, but I nonetheless maintain it as a conscious aspect of my research as well as a scientific, not just pers onal ethical, value. Although recognizing and

PAGE 47

47 understanding how differences are constructed, emphasized, and perf ormed in different contexts with varying degrees of violence symbolic and otherwise, are necessary for struggling against oppression, recognizing commonalities can be liber atory in shifting the focus away from categories that divide and hom ogenize individuals into groups. All individuals are unique and different from all other individuals and yet at the same time thei r individual cultural resources are not isolated or devoid of si milarities and shared commonalities. Since it is possible to orient toward the recognition of differences or common alities, it is a discip lined aspect of the methodological gaze to consciously attend to focusing on one more than the other. From a constructionist perspective I do not view differences or similarities as obj ective facts inherent in the materiality of people and their environments, but as contextually emergent artifacts within particular interactions. Differences and simila rities are constructed, em phasized, and performed through interaction. This may occur through face -to-face interaction or the interaction of researcher with data, in terms of resear ch method, and/or thro ugh scholarly discourse. As part of this conscious attempt to avoid differentiation, I also id entified a tendency in research to construct categories and code and sort data in a wa y that produces a sense of 'fit' between the data and categories, verified a nd reified through the technique of 'constant comparison' (see grounded theory methodological guidelines such as those of Charmaz 2006). I make a distinction between comparison and contra st in order to highli ght the possibility of a 'comparative' method that is not oriented toward differentiation a nd distinction but rather toward radical commonality with an openness for variati on within shared boundaries. As such, I read, interpreted, and analyzed the vari ous narratives re-presented in th e current research with a basic sense of commonality among the data. At the same time I went further to recognize the unique issues expressed in each narrative. Although so me may claim that this approach is anti-

PAGE 48

48 sociological in that it resists collectivizing na rratives and identities into categories and then generalizing about the categories, I contend that this kind of sociol ogical epistemology is not the only sociology possible. Even if we recognize th e unique situations and c ontexts of individuals, we can still remain open to rec ognizing their individual processes of collectivization, social and internal intercourse, and other interacti ons that constitute their sociality. Postscript on Methodological Paradigms My approach to this research project comb ines various methodological 'schools' such as those described by Gubrium and Holstein (1997) as well as Grounded Theory (Charmaz 2006) and other methods I have been exposed to in so ciology, cultural studies, me dia studies, as well as some aspects of positivist sociology. The natura lism/ethnomethodology distinction is useful for making sense of my approach to constructing Du tch diaspora by operationa lizing it in terms of concrete social life. The abil ity to recognize diasporic practic e in people who may or may not recognize their lives as diasporic, or who may not even be conscious of the notion of diaspora to begin with, would be faci litated by ethnomethodology and positivism but eschewed by naturalism. Positivist research traditions allow us, as a privilege of the scientist, to interpret data in terms not recognized by its producers, at le ast not explicitly. A lthough this aspect of positivism has been criticized (see Cuff 1998 151-152 for an example of Husserl's critique of Galileo's philosophy), I employ it with legitimacy in my view by relativizing science as one approach to knowing among others in everyday social life. As such, I can impose my meaning of diaspora on my data by operationalizing them as iterations of it, while acknowledging that doing so is a situated expression of knowledge-p ower within my own scientific practice. Ethnomethodology at the same time problematizes and facilitates my projection of diaspora by contending that diaspora can only ex ist insofar as it is constructed or done within the context of social interaction. From an ethnomethodological pers pective I must take car e not to assume that

PAGE 49

49 my respondents are necessarily constructing dias pora in their mundane interactions, although I can recognize my own work as an attempt to do diaspora within the context of research and discourse. From a naturalist standpoint I pr ivilege the narratives of my respondents as representing the concerns that are important for them to post in the context of the websites they appropriate for achieving self-expression and recognition. My analyses demonstrate more attentiveness to the life events they seem concerned with than my concern with diasporic consciousness among emigrants of the Netherlands and others. Nevertheless I do not see any conflict between selecting data in order to ope rationalize the research object, Dutch diaspora, while analyzing these data in a way that reveal s the unique and divergent interests of those who embody the diaspora. Attempting to study diaspora by eliciting conscious ness of it within the expressions of respondents would not be an uni maginable project, but to suggest that doing otherwise undermines the unity of the research project substitute s textual-aesthetic concerns for empirically-grounded rigor.

PAGE 50

50 CHAPTER 4 PRELIMINARY SURVEY OF DATA AND SOURCES XPdite.net is a (Dutch language) website devoted to helping people emigrate to Australia. It consists mainly of a number of BBS (bulletin boards) forums where users can post messages to one another and respond. The bulletin boards are divided into four main categories with subcategories: General ('intr oduce yourself', 'chatbox', 'kids corner', and 'the latest developments'), General Australia (subdivided into 'news and current events' along with subdivisions based on region), Emigration to Austra lia ('emigration news and tips', 'emigration general Australia', 'skilled visa', 'spouse/family visa', and 'temporary visa'), and finally there is a category devoted to the website itself. HetGevolg.nl is a (Dutch language) website devoted to publishing short biographical descriptions of the situation of asylum-seekers who are either legall y bankrupt and thus at risk of deportation or currently engaged in legal proceedings to retain legal Dutch resident status. The website is described as a "'community' of people who support refug ees threatened with deportation, and has the motto: 'we won't let you go'. They can find advice and exchange knowledge with one another." Besides a short explanation of the problem that 26,000 asylumseekers face deportation, includi ng the claim that the policy is neither humane nor realistic, the website consists primarily of a 'logbook' of entr ies describing the situation of individuals. The two websites are similar in that each consis ts of lists of entries that describe the situations of various individuals at a unique crossroads of life circumstances, who desire to establish residence in a particular place other than where they previously or currently live, and who are involved in struggles with a government to attain the legal status necessary to continue their lives productively. They differ however in form, namely in the voice of the text and whether information is monoor dialogical. The XPdite posti ngs are usually written in the

PAGE 51

51 first-person tense by users describing their own situation and desi res whereas HetGevolg logbook entries are written in the third-person, desc ribing refugees situation in a voice not their own. XPdite offers users the opportunity to respond to postings offering advice or otherwise responding to other users whereas HetGevolg's r eaders must remain anonymous since they do not have the possibility of res ponding to the refugees' stories. Although I am not pretending to a systematic analysis of the two websites or their users/entries, I will describe some examples of the contents here and provide some basic comparisons. Claiming Belonging I begin by comparing two rhetorical strategies to claim belonging in the respective place of desired residency. The first example comes from the introductory page of HetGevolg and reads: How many people will be put on the street, af ter a trip via the departure center to the deportation center? How many children that onl y know the Netherlands, will be sent to a country where they have nothing? How many people have claimed to be unsafe in their country of origin who will be pr oven right when it is too late? It is notable that the reasons referenced in this text have to do with negative consequences of failure to successfully claim bel onging and the access to resources that comes with it. Life on the street, children losing everyt hing, being sent to an unsafe e nvironment are all consequences of not remaining in the Netherlands. Notice also the reference to the Netherlands as the only place the children have ever known. The refere nces of these claims are that humanitarian necessity and/or always having lived in the Nether lands are legitimate reas ons to stay. Compare these reasons to those given by a couple from so uth Limburg for wanting to move to Australia: We . have been dreaming of moving to Au stralia for 23 years. We have never been there but the strange thing is that we miss this country as if it was our birth country. That's impossible we already see many of you thinking, (or maybe not?). . Rather than referencing the cons equences of remaining in sout h Limburg, this couple emphasizes that this is their 'dream' and that they 'miss' Australia 'as if it wa s their birth country.' The last

PAGE 52

52 part is particularly interesting since the rhetoric al strategy is similar to the aforementioned claim that Dutch life is all the children have known. In both cases the idea of knowing a place since birth seems to serve as important social capital as well as the negati ve problem of missing a place one is not allowed to be. Li kewise the last line references a conflict between impossibility and hope that motivates the sharing of stories. We are given the impression in both cases that a conflict is going on between str uggle-against-adversity and hope. Struggles and Legal Procedures Stories of visa-struggles and legal procedures are also common fare in both websites. Although the visa-jargon is slight ly different for the two nati on-states being petitioned, the intrigue and savvy of negotiating a complex regulatory structure is similar. The following is an excerpt from a contribution to XPdite entitl ed, "How a Dutch nurse got registered in Queensland": Then my migration agent sent me an email in which she wrote that I was not eligible for the visa. First, she gave my in-service e ducation as a reason (duh! I knew that since november!) and she says that she called the nurse-assessment agency, the Australian Nursing Council (ANC) and that, without seeing it, they evaluated my application as not standing a chance "because I was trained in-ser vice and so I'm an Enrolled Nurse (EN) and not a Registered Nurse(RN)". Grrr! Coul dn't you have called the ANC earlier!?! She continues: I received the advice to get a Student Visa and follow a Registered Nurse Course in Australia. "Depending on the university you may receive credit points for the qualifications you already hold. At the end of this course, you could then apply for permanent residency under the Graduate Skille d Onshore Visa". (origi nal quote in English) According to the migration agent. Notice how the complexity and details of the power struggle with th e migration agent are proudly expounded upon, as if to demonstrate valor. Likewise technical te rmination about visas, professional status, and governing agencies are deployed as if to demonstrate familiarity with 'the game.' The effect is to demonstrate that sh e is not an outsider but ra ther an insider in the

PAGE 53

53 processes of negotiating w ithin the landscape of authorities. Similar elements can be seen in HetGevolg: B., received a residence permit for regular indefi nite stay in 2003. (In 1994) he took part in student protests in Tehran, was jailed, and bought free by his family. He fled to the Netherlands. His story for leaving was deemed inadequate and only after 8.5 years did he receive a residence permit (on medical grounds and temporary). June 2005 visited family in Iran. He did this with a (new) IRANIAN pass port, because he didn't want to wait for his Dutch passport. On arrival he was held for 16 hours and questioned while his 'criminal record' was looked up. Released after payi ng money. Again jailed 3 days, again bought free. The police are making it difficult for him. His passport has been withheld and can only get it back after paying 6000 euros. Now goi ng to apply to the Dutch embassy so that it must give official recogniti on that a person returning to Iran (in possession of a Dutch residence permit and therefore has no interest in misrepresenting f acts) is encountering problems. The next paragraph continues: B. has returned to the Netherlands in the meantime, after his family had given him the ownership documents of their house as collateral He reported that during his jailing the police took his INS papers into possession (!) and his entire background was known to them. He didn't report to the Dutch embassy in Teheran, because he naturally no longer trusted them. He clearly recognized his INS papers by the logo on the paper and his name that was printed on them. In the meantime we have given this information via an attorney to the Haverkamp Commission and it has been offi cially registered. Despite the fact that his family is still having problems because of his departure to the Netherlands, he is sending money to pay off authorities and will not return to Iran. Further we have sent this entire explanation to Am nesty International. Although the actors named in B's stor y are quite different than those of the Nurse, in both those actors are narrated primarily as re gulatory government agencies. As in the Nurse's story there are expressions of exasperation in response to chao tic sequences of events and decisions. It is notable that in B's story, distru st between the various agencies and B are more significant than for the nurse whose relationship involves more fr ustration than distrust Although these stories are quite dissimilar in their durat ion and scope, both demonstrate th e complexity of the narrative of struggle between immigrants and the institu tional actors that me diate their migration movements. Likewise, we can see that the migrati on struggles take place as part of daily life in one or both of the national territories in question, but that in the tota l course of events both places

PAGE 54

54 end up conflating into one common area of po lice, embassies, government agencies, and mediated communications with absent parties. We should take note that this is not just the case for the migran ts but also for the officials, administrators, and police working with them. In practice, the co mplex of actors and the social relations that evolve among them constitute a kind of extra-national space in which migrants are neither here nor there and yet ma ny of their daily activ ities concern negotiating the interests of settling here or there (o r resisting such settling, depending on which actor we are talking about). I put this characteriza tion forth as a response to Baubock's (2003) claim that transnational movements essentially take place in the political space of one or another nation. To the contrary, transnational movements are often likely to result in the production of hybrid social-spaces due to the competing national interests being pursued and negotiated by the various actors. At the same time, the nations being represented begin to appear external to the processes of negotiating them, making it difficult or impossibl e to experience lif e as taking place within a nation-state since life has begun taking place with the presence of nation-states, and then only the arbitrary agencies and actors that claim to represent them. Such a state of consciousness is not compatible with the state of prolonged childhood fantasy in which the nation-state is experienced as an extension of the safe domestic space of the home (for a recent discussion of the construction of the US nation as domestic-family space see Hill-Collins 2006). If we would continue to anal yze such stories, I suspect that a growing body of narrative forms and rhetorical techniques would emerge fo r framing the experiences of individuals in various processes of transiti on and negotiation. Although we c ould identify the findings as representing a certain margin of Dutch life, loca ting them in a subjective space closer to their various horizons than other, more securely situated people, if they can be described as such, this

PAGE 55

55 is not necessarily the case. Although visa st ruggles involve specific types of bureaucratic procedures and agencies, those agencies, instit utions, and the state/gove rnment actors involved may be similar to those used by anyone else in the population. In fact many of the institutions and actors accessible to so-calle d border populations may be exactly the same ones accessible to others in the general population. In this sense we may be skeptical of accounts of (im)migrants that promote the impression that their existence is separate from that of others in society. The perceived differences can be explained in Simmelia n terms of 'forms of sociation;' namely that social events perceived as superf icially distinct are, in fact, characterized by general sociative forms which are the same across the social field. Both the websites, XPdite and HetGevolg, repres ent part of the Dutch diasporic landscape. The narratives put forth on those websites descri be lives in the process of transnational movement which are firmly embedded in the cult ural space of Dutch life. Although the refugees described in HetGevolg are often migrants origin ating outside of the Neth erlands, and they often lack legal status of residency in the Netherlands or are in a pro cess of negotiating it, clearly their struggles are firmly rooted in Dutch life and institutions. We could no more claim that B's migration story is a purely Iranian one than we could that the nurse's de alings with Australian regulatory agencies were encompassed (completely) by her Dutch existence. Rather we have to recognize the existen ce of hybrid social-spaces which are not 'neither-nor' but rather 'both-and.' In other words national spaces are not mutually exclusive, separated by one dimensional borders, but are overlapping and extensive de ep into the claimed-territories of other states. At the same time, there are no real national sp aces at all since the instituti onalization of space as such can only occur at the level of indi vidual subjectivity. Thus we are really left with only an

PAGE 56

56 uncontained world of social intera ctions in which actors draw on various national, cultural, and other discourses to facilitate accomplis hing their goals and movements.

PAGE 57

57 CHAPTER 5 FURTHER EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATI ON WITHIN A GROWING DIASPORIC CONSCIOUSNESS Transitional Note During the course of my analysis and reflect ion on the topic I f ound myself cultivating a growing diasporic consciousness. By this I mean th at as I theorized and re searched this topic, I became steadily more confident in viewing social life not against the backdrop of nation-states as 'sending' and 'receiving' centers of migrant journeys but rather as part of diasporic movement in which nationalism and its institutionalizations play a role, but are not imagined as fundamental in any sense. As a result of a research gaze that evolved in this way throughout the project, the following findings resonate with a somewhat differ ent tone than the prece ding pilot narratives. The analysis of and engagement w ith a larger sample of narratives reflects the shifted status of the project between the initial analyses conducte d as preliminary research and what follows. My sense of hope for the individuals represen ted on HetGevolg develo ped in parallel to a growing diasporic consciousness. From a statis t perspective on Dutch society and the state, refugees facing harsh legal pressure to emigrate from the Netherla nds are in a tragic situation. They have fled one place in order to find a p eaceful life somewhere else and in the meantime have run into hostile pressures from a new source in the place of refuge Encountering hostility in a place where one expected to find refuge fr om hostility is a traumatic experience. As the popular hip-hop artist, Def Rhymz put it in his lyri cs, "fleeing is no long er possible, I wouldn't know how . I wouldn't know where [to go]." In some ways the sense that there is no hope beyond the Netherlands is a result of the mythology that the Netherlands is the most religiously and politically tolerant society on Earth (see Hoving 2005 for a deep-reaching analysis of Dutch tolerance). Of course, such fear is shared by many people living in many countries. As diasporic consciousness develops, it becomes possible to go beyond envisioning rela tive intolerance in

PAGE 58

58 terms of mutually exclusive societies to recognize that societies, forms of power, and ideologies are disbursed among various individuals everywhere in different configurations. In this context it would be difficult to imagine that Dutch society is radically different from any other society. While a great deal of energy is invested in representing Dutch societ y and Dutchness along the lines of certain aesthetics, in pr actice these aesthetic distinctions get elevated to an exaggerated level of importance. Recognizing this can facilitate the view that refuge es, as well as anyone else living in the Netherlands, may just as we ll extend their horizons beyond the Netherlands without diminished hope for a peaceful and prosperous life. Perhaps more importantly than the ability to facilitate a less bounde d and claustrophobic sense of Dutch society, diasporic consciousness has also allowed me to re-envision those represented on HetGevolg as everyday resident s of the Netherlands engaged in everyday struggles with bureaucrats, employers, neighbors, and so forth. Rather than envisioning them as oppositionally positioned to Dutch society as agents trying to gain access, and therefore as not yet having access/presence, the diasporic view co nstitutes such struggles as already taking place within the contested space of Dutch territorialism. Reading the narratives in this way, the camera obscura is reversed to produce the correct image, re-c onstructing Dutch anti-immigrant resistance as an attack rather than as a defens e, as many statists would like to maintain it. Although these are stories of residents under attac k, this is a more preca rious position for them than for Dutch residents whose le gitimacy of place is not in question. Their claims of legitimate residency, and injustice in being forced to move elsewhere, have a cautio us tone, as if they should not sound too demanding or risk forfeiting a ll social legitimacy. Since the narratives are seemingly written about the respondents, instead of self-authored, this may not reflect the attitudes of the individuals themselves but of those telling their stories.

PAGE 59

59 HetGevolg.nl Narratives Strategic Silences One narrative, describing a S yrian-Christian family problematizes the application of coercive force to emigrate in a variety of ways. The INS (immigration service) has, after many ye ars, decided that the family will have the choice to cooperate in their re turn or in exclusion from s upplies (in other words being put out on the street). The man has already offered to return alone and, once safe, to let his family follow. He is extremely fearful and convinced that he w ill encounter great difficulties upon returning. He is also in part fearful that there is a Muslim family waiting to fulfill a marriage agreement with his daughter, which was made under pressure 8 years ago. The two young children have become complete ly Dutch. They speak their original language badly. Although this man has been given a transparen tly coercive ultimatum by the immigration service, the narrative resists commenting in this indignity. Instead, th e mans willingness to cooperate is highlighted along with fear, instead of anger, frustr ation, or resentment which would be legitimate responses to his treatment. The ap peal regarding his children, that they have become completely Dutch and hardly speak their original language, is especially interesting since it is clearly meant to appeal to a se nse that Dutch children would have difficulty immigrating to Syria. From a di asporic point of view, I would challenge this view in favor of one that recognizes the possibility of transcultural migration, but it is also important to recognize how such logic could be appropriated as further legitimation for forced emigration. A short account of a 21-year old single man who fled from the battle front in Sudan also resists critiquing the mans treatment in anyw ay, instead focusing on his confusion and fear: He had to flee from the front on the border of Sudan and came to the Netherlands via Libya. The ministry has not acknowledged his anxiety problems. They have given him two negative responses (to his asylum request)

PAGE 60

60 He is currently waiting in a departure camp in Soesterberg. He is fearful and has no idea what his future holds and his life is in danger. This narrative describes the man as having a nxiety problems and wait ing fearfully without exploring the full implications of being faced wi th deportation in terms of anxiety problems. There are also no alternative avenues described be sides waiting in fear for deportation. Although this is a clearly unacceptable situation, it seems im portant that no mention of it is made as such. It seems as though whatever small amount of hope is behind the publication of this mans story refuses to risk losing potential help by including critique or an action orientation. Instead he is presented as a helpless and fearful victim waitin g and patiently enduring in near hopelessness. The following narrative describes an even more silent respondent: She fled in 2000 from Sierra Leone, after her mother was murdered and her brother and two sisters disappeared. She gave birth to twins shortly after her arrival in the Netherlands (pregnant due to rape). After a problematic language-ana lysis she was refused asylum on the basis that it could not be ascertained that she was from Sierra Leone. It was thought that she was from Nigeria. (She) received documents from Sierra Leone regarding her identity and schooling in a methodist school. With these she began a s econd asylum procedure; was refused because the documents were dated in such a way that they could have been used in the first procedure. She was evicted three years ago from the refugee center w ith two children. The local government is willing to pay for emergency lodging if she will sign that she wants to return. Amnesty International has written a letter to Minister Verdonk regarding the impossibility, for single mothers, to survive. She is scheduled for a hearing regarding her return shortly. She is pregnant and is expecting her third ch ild next spring. She currently lives with two children in a 3 X 4 meter room. The material circumstances of this respondent are striking. Particular ly noteworthy are the difficulties involved with establishing for her a place of origin, and the procedural difficulties

PAGE 61

61 encountered based on the dates of schooling documents. The only commentary explicit in this narrative is attributed to Amnesty International. It is as if to suggest that only a well-known international organization can legitimately commen t on such a situation as is being experienced by this woman and her children. On the other hand, the story seems to be written in a way that begs readers to draw their own conclusions. Still, the lack of agency-attribution to the protagonist in this narra tive is considerable. Although it is difficult to maintain a positiv e outlook when reading the narratives on HetGevolg, I believe this is a critical point of solidarity with the str uggles of the respondents being represented. Not only is th e maintenance of hope ethically cr ucial, but in some ways just bringing these narratives to the a ttention of others forms an ethical dimension of any project that re-presents them. Thus, although HetGevolg was selected as a site/sign of Dutch diasporic consciousness, re-presen ting these narratives is as much or more important as a means of bringing them to the attention of ne w readers as it is to search for signs of diaspora within them. Spousal Rights The following narrative regarding a 24-year old man in the Netherlands since 2001 is noteworthy because of the man's marriage to a Dutch partner which, nonetheless, has not prevented him from being subj ect to emigration pressures: Young man from Guinea, married to a Dutch woman. Must return . Fled because of war, afraid for recruitment. All legal procedures nega tive, including appeals. Currently with his (Dutch) wife seeking another path. Despite being married he is not allowed to stay. Man must return, in order to request a visa for a temporary stay. Fearful for for re prisals at return. The young family (the wife) does not earn enough to remedy the situation. Has this family no rights?

PAGE 62

62 Although there are a number of lega l requirements that have not b een fulfilled and have led to potential deportation as a result, such as the mi nimum income required to attain a spouse visa, there is still a sense of entitleme nt based on the social contract of marriage. Nevertheless it is also noteworthy that the claims of fearfulness of reprisals and recruitment into a war that the man fled in the first place are a separa te legal issue than his rights as a Dutch spouse. Separate legal classifications as spouse or refugee means that clai ming rights as either w ill be treated separately and thus this man may be refused residency once as a refugee and then again as a spouse with no recognition of the mutually consti tuting nature of the two categor ies in intersection. Thus, for example, there can be no legal consideration of the problems of subjecting a Dutch spouse to losing her partner to foreign military service, no r will the fact that this man has a Dutch spouse be taken into account in overweighing the practi cal concerns of allowing him to stay as a refugee. Instead the law excludes individuals one procedure at a time until there is no basis left for residency claims. Facing Multiple Institutional Hostilities The following story is an excellent example of the way that diaspora extends one's range of home-places in a way that produces back-and-forth-movement: Man from Chechnya, returned from the Nether lands, since that was possible according to the INS. He was picked up at the border, tortured, bought-free by his girlfriend who is in NL and his mother who lives in Chechnya. Curr ently he has been back (in NL) for a year. Proof is clear, residen ce permit still not granted. Man and woman in separate procedures. Woman has currently received a residence permit. Man is depressive, disinteres ted, and has lost the desire to live. Although the female protagonist in this narrative is not categorized in terms of nationality, she also seems to be involved in a legal struggle for residency. Although the man's mother is in Chechnya and immigration authorities seemed to think it was safe for him to return, his experience of torture and being held hostage contradict this. A lthough his girlfriend has

PAGE 63

63 successfully received residency pe rmission, this does not seem to have given this man hope as the last line of the narrative suggests. A lthough this situation is indicative of diasporic movement where multiple homes are maintained, this is also problematized by the hostility of authorities on both sides. I su spect that such 'double-jeopardy' on two sides of a border leads to confusion since in mono-centered state logic, one side of a border is usually 'the safe side.' Experiencing External Threat Inside the Border The following narrative is notable in that the protagonist is established within a Dutch household but nonetheless faces emigration pressure a nd life-threats as a risk of returning. The man's narrative is written by his spouse: My husband is living here now six years. He fled Somalia because of war, his family was lost when he fled, and he met his Dutch wife here with whom he is now married. Together we have an 11-month old daughter My husband's legal proce ss has been finalized and he must return to Somalia. Current ly a departure moratorium is in place because it is unsafe. Somalia is not safe for my husband because he belongs to a small clan. If my husband has to leave the country there is a great chance that he will not see his wife and child again and his survival is not certain. My husband has been here since february 1, 2000 and he has been waiting six years already, four years w ith his Dutch wife. We received a letter on May 15, 2004 that my husbands stipend and livin g-means would be stopped, then he has no more living-means. Briefly still over his cu rrent living situation, I am his wife and we live together so he is not in a center (for refugees); he has his own place. My husband legal process is final since fe bruary 2004, we have tried to arrange many things since then but no one listens to us. A temporary visa request is extremely difficult to arrange because my husband is from Somalia where there are no documents attainable. My husband has a family here and is at risk of losing his child and wife as a consequence. My husband receives 500 euros per month to live on; we've hear d that that will be stopped shortly. Since July 1, 2005 there is a special policy for Somalian refugees, if all goes well my husband will also fall under this policy so it's just a question of waiting. This story is striking insofar as the man's situat ion is simultaneously dire and relatively secure. He has lost his legal residency and is concerned with losing his family and possible death if he has to return to Somalia. On the other hand he has a place to live and continues to receive a living-stipend of 500 euros per month. Likewise the family seems hopeful for a special policy for Somalians that will prevent this man's forced emigration. On the other hand, however, the

PAGE 64

64 situation seems uncertain enough to publish th eir story on HetGevolg. From a diasporic perspective, the threat of return to a dange rous region outside the Netherlands becomes reterritorialized as an internal pot entiality of (Dutch) life. In ot her words, although from a statist perspective we would simply c onceptualize the situations in Somalia and the Netherlands as separate national worlds, within the diaspora connecting them, Somalia becomes a place of banishment from the Netherlands. The Netherlands may also become a place of refuge and transcendence from Somalia but since this proj ect is not specifically about Somalian diaspora, this is less of a concern here. It is clear from this narrative, ho wever, that the writer does not view Dutch and Somalian societies as equally acce ssible life-spaces from the perspective of her marriage but that she maintain a premium on livi ng in the Netherlands, conceptualizing Somalia as a place of banishment for her husband. Returning to an Estranged Past A diasporic perspective also makes it possi ble to recognize how a person's Dutch life continues albeit in an intensely affected form once living in the place-of-origin [sic]. The following narrative describes a family who has m oved to Nigeria and the confusion of having to start a new life. I read this narrative for signs that the family's Dutchness does not simply stop at the moment of emigration: Fled due to participation in a protest orga nization and tribal wars. Her parents were murdered. In Leeuwarden she heard from the supervisory board of attorneys that her lawyer did not handle her case accordingly. She did not even know that her case was being tried until she received the letter in her mailbox that her procedure was finalized. Now she has been deported and left in the airpor t in Nigeria without a cent and with two children and three suitcases, without even a place to stay the night. Three months later she has a modest place to stay, but no food, the children do not go to school and they are traumatized. Returning to he r village is not an option, she is hiding in a city with a million residents. She has no m oney to begin (a business) so that she can produce her own support and pay for her children's schooling.

PAGE 65

65 This narrative is notable in that it suggests some promising potential for building up a new life in the urban anonymity of Nigeria. This is a daring narrative move when there are potentially readers who will appropriate this woman's survival as a means of absolving their own sense of responsibility for forcing her a nd her children out of the Nether lands. Although from a statist viewpoint we have the tendency to conceptualize this family's emigration to Nigeria as a return, it is arguably more realistic to conceptualize, fr om a diasporic perspective, that this woman and her children are moving to Ni geria as newcomers from the Netherlands. Although some Nigerian cartography, i.e. knowledge gained thro ugh lived experience with Nigerianness, may be present; especially in the form of aversion to certain asp ects of Nigerian life as is evident in her resistance to return to her home village, this fam ily will for the most part have to build a new life as emigrants of the Netherlands. Theorizing Borders For statists, borders represen t the end of one world and the beginning of a radically different one, or the end of one life and the begi nning (or continuation) of another. For those living with diaspora, borders function quite di fferently. While they may influence various aspects of one's life and consciousness, they are not the radical dividers that are experienced by those who imagine themselves as situated within instead of through them. In practice these do approaches do not exist separately but come into c ontact, often with anomic and violent results. Gloria Anzaldua is the probably the most well-known observer of th is with her description of a borderland as "a vague and undetermined place cr eated by the emotional re sidue of an unnatural boundary" (Anzaldua in Lemert 549). From my ow n experience, as well as in reading these narratives, I have come to recognize how difficu lt it is for many to comprehend the complexity of trans-cultural existence and even more so, to come to the realiza tion that this complexity is not natural but exists as a result of an overgrown na tionalist/statist approach to conceptualizing even

PAGE 66

66 the most minute details of life. In statist consciousness, one is always here or there and never both. What is more, depending on the place where one is, everything else about one's life is interpreted vis-a-vis that context. Multicontextu al or transcontextual m eanings are avoided as strange and anomic, especially wh en the contexts are identified with opposing sides of a border. Bringing Immigrants and Emigrants Together An important part of this pr oject is to move from focusi ng on Dutch immigrant emigration alone toward including all types emigration to create an inclusive view of diaspora. XPdite.net turned out to be the point of diaspora that would serve to incl ude migrants who would otherwise be ignored as migrants of the Netherlands. The statist perspective disti nguishes immigrants from emigrants as a function of national origin. This is a national-racist t echnique of knowing people differently according to radical categorical differentiation. The re sulting image of society is one in which immigrants are seen as transients in cont rast to so-called natives who are seen as stably situated in contrast. Including white (i.e. non-ethnically marked) Dutch migrating to Australia recognizes the importance of including whites within a multi-ethnic vision of the statist society. I do so here by focusing on their transience, in this case transn ationally, as emigrants similar to those whose stories are posted on HetGevolg. By including the migrants represented on XPdite, I also wanted to proceed from Essed's suggestion to place "no emphasis on differen ces without recognizing similarities first" (Essed 1996 28) Following Essed's logic, it makes sense to focu s on migrancy as an identity and, more importantly, a frame of experience separate from na tional or ethnic identity. In other words, it is important to conceptualize Dutch diaspora as a multi-national, multi-ethnic, uncontained society which includes various types of migrants, immi grants and emigrants, living in a variety of situations inside and ou tside of the Netherlands. My goal is to focus on the similarities, instead

PAGE 67

67 of searching out and highlighting differences among various migrants. Admittedly, this (similarity-) orientation has been one of the most difficult aspects of this project, mostly or in part due to the heavy weight of common sens e categorical distinctions assumed between immigrants as people seen as coming into a countr y, and emigrants as those seen to be going out. From a radically empirical perspective it is clear that individuals' everyday lives only contain brief moments of actual transit. In most cases, modern transportation allows travelers to arrive at their destination in a matter of hours, although the prep arations and repercussions of changing locations usually extend further in time a nd space than the actual transit. As such, the everyday life of a resident of the Netherlands prepar ing to move to Australia is more similar than different to the life of another re sident preparing for deportation. Th is is not to say that the same mundane experiences such as meals, sleeping, and so forth will not be colored differently because of specificities of each individual's situation. Rather, I am merely trying to realize the fundamental similarity between various experien ces of living in the Netherlands and in Dutch society, while engaged in a struggle to transition to living in another society that is perceived as separate and external. The transition under gone by anyone crossing a border, I contend, is always a transition between separation and continuity since I believe it is impossible, at least at the ontological level, to subjectiv ely inhabit two places without e xperiencing them as parts of a connected whole on some level. Someone w ho has always lived in the Netherlands and perceived the nation-state as a singular space within an international plurality of different spaces cannot maintain the same distinction once s/he ha s lived life on the other side of the border and experienced it as the same life as before. S ubjective experience does not become discontinuous by crossing geographical borders.

PAGE 68

68 However, since it is possible and often pr obable that migrants insist on focusing on differences over similarities, it makes no sense to expect migrant narratives to reflect the ontological continuity across borde rs. Although it is possible for them to do so there would be no way, to my knowledge, nor any reason to attempt to correlate ontological continuity, another term for diasporic consciousness, with other aspects of migrant identity or experience; except perhaps the experience of having read about it in the writings referen ced in this work or explicitly learned about it otherwis e. Still, the task remains of representing some of the migrant narratives of XPdite in similar fashion to those of HetGevolg. XPdite.net Narratives Immigration Emigration Perhaps the best way to transition from the narra tives of HetGevolg to those of XPdite is to begin with a story positioned at the completion of movement from the Netherlands to the new country of residence, Australia. There are prob lems with defining these narratives in this way, especially from a diasporic perspective, since ther e is no way to assert th at having successfully 'made it' to the new country has anything to do with ones sense of having migrated. This sounds strange from a statist view since statists assume that migration is coterminous with where a body is located physically. When one immigrates to one country, for example, statism assumes that s/he has emigrated from another. Statism ignor es the possibility that an individual may have multiple places of residence and/or homes. Fr om this perspective we have trouble understanding distinctions between, for example, immigrants who do not wish to emigrate from their previous home and emigrants who do not wish to immigr ate to a new home; at least without assessing them pathologically. For example, the last narrative analyzed fr om HetGevolg that desc ribed a woman and her family emigrating to Nigeria as a result of Dutc h legal coercion may repres ent a different kind of

PAGE 69

69 struggle than a story of someone moving to Aust ralia who is eager to do so and faces no such emigration pressure. Nevertheless, both narratives may involve a desire to retain a home (i.e. the possibility of returning) in the Netherlands, i. e. to (im)migrate without emigrating. Although it would be impossible to assess th ese aspects of the migrants re presented here without conducting further research beyond what is av ailable in their web-based narra tives, it is still important to consider these aspects theoretically and mainta in an awareness that such issues are more complex in reality than statism often leads us to believe. The Joy of Visa Success Browsing through the messages on the section of XPdite entitled, "the latest news" ("laatste stand van zaken"), I found many with subj ect headings suggesting success in struggles to achieve legal residency in Australia, and ofte n with financial support (i.e. finding work). This was a far cry from the vague hopes expressed on HetGevolg to maintain residency in the Netherlands by avoiding expulsion in any way possible. Whereas 'making the move' away from the Netherlands represents a significant loss for those on HetGevolg, both a loss of home and a lost struggle, the move to Australia is often e xpressed in a celebratory fashion with all capitals and exclamation points. Headings such as "VISA'S GRANTED!!!," "IN THE POCKET!," and "jassian goes wallaby I'm here!" announce su ccess to anyone browsing the website. The contents of the messages can reveal layers of successes as in the following for "IN THE POCKET!": Last wednesday, March 1 2006, the letter of releas e finally came: request for spouse visa is approved!!! YES, YES, YES!! I've already been in AUS more than tw o years, and I feel completely at home here and it would have been a small drama if it wasn't approved. But I don't have to worry about that anymore, at leas t not for the coming two years, after that we have to do [the paperwork] all ove r again, but for now: TERRIBLY HAPPY!!! for everyone who is in the process: good luck!

PAGE 70

70 This person seems to have successf ully started a relati onship and married a spouse in Australia, and to have migrated, while in the process of goi ng through a visa struggle. It is interesting to see how although this moment of achievement is part of a series of successe s, it is still celebrated at a level of intensity as if it were the primary or only success. Also, although the visa was achieved as a result of a succe ssful relationship (resulting in marriage), there is no tone of expectation or demand for legal rights in regards to the visa authorities as we might expect. What's more, the prospect of renewing the visa in two years is met with a certain degree of irritation vis-a-vis having to do the paperwork al l over again, but without any sense of indignity or resistance to intrusion by the immigration authorities. This person seems to want to emphasize celebration and happiness of success over the intrusion of border guards in the relationship, which seems to be accepted as ne cessary. Reading this I question whether this person would be so accepting of such intervention in a diasporic, rather than statist, climate since a diasporic perspective allows us to view all relationships as equal without regard for national borders. Thus from a diasporic perspective, th is respondent might quest ion why a transnational marriage is scrutinized any more than one betwee n partners within the same national territory; whereas from a statist worldview, such scruti ny is considered normal/acceptable and perhaps even welcome. Overweighing Multiple Positive Alternatives Another message with the subject heading, "A ustralia, but now still searching for where!" ("Australie, maar nu nog uitzoe ken waar!"), tells the story of a couple who is 'wanted' in Australia but still in the proce ss of deciding where to go, etc. In classical migration-studies terms, we might say that this couple is expe riencing pull-pressures from the receiving country unlike those on HetGevolg who ar e experiencing push-pressures fr om the Dutch government, as well as other Dutch actors and institutions. The writer says:

PAGE 71

71 We have begun with a request for a skilled i ndependent visa for permanent residence in Australia. My husband, Mark, has the educat ion civil engineer and is momentarily (4 years) working as project leader in an e ngineering bureau in Rotterdam. He has been working at the same bureau for 13 years. Now it is the case that because of his experien ce he is 'wanted' by employers in Australia Queensland (only by having read his CV). Through the recruitment bureau IPA it is possible to change over to a sponsored visa 457. Currently we have a number of vacancies at home, and we are making telephone contact with a few. Our first impression was to settle in the ne ighborhood of Brisbane, Cairns, or Adelaide. But through this offer we are getting an idea of other places which we have started looking into so that we can make a good choice later. It is really nice how your first ideas can be undermined and you get a very different perspective. This morning we had a telephone conversation w ith someone from IPA who told us that in principle we would be totally accompanie d. They help you with your arrival and accompany you to your house, give tips, help with finding schools and other acculturation issues. If you have to come to the Netherla nds, you are alone [in these things]. So we couldn't believe our ears, but it has comforted us. Later we can always change over to a permanent visa. This respondent regards the permanent visa not as something to achieve as fast as possible, but as something that can be postponed until one is sure that one wishes to stay. It is interesting how the same visa can have different meanings de pending on the sense of position one has vis--vis other institutions and actors. Also notice how this respondent welcomes the undermining of her perspective by institutio nal actors, which would presumably be regarded less warmly in the context of resistance to the couples mi gration rather than facilitation. Such success stories construct migration as an intense process of courtship and flattery by foreign institutions in contrast to the cold a nd inimical treatment afforded to less 'wanted' migrants. Perhaps this offers some explanation as to the interest of maintaining state boundaries within a diasporic world. A world of bounded nati on-states offers some migrants the potential for courtship and flattery as well as place-trans cendental pleasures whil e promising to contain other 'unwanted' migrants. This idea is remini scent of Bataille's (1967) observations regarding

PAGE 72

72 sacrifice in terms of pleasure. He noted how so cieties waste certain individuals' lives as a means of intensifying the pleasure of others. State borders may act in the same way, sacrificing the happiness and well-being of some migrants in order to facilitate intense experiences of positive transcendence for others. The criminalization of the 'illegal immigrant' thus may be seen as fueling the pleasure of those free to consume the s carcity of the right to border-crossing itself. What's more, the vast array of possibilities av ailable for this couple is presented implicitly as a reward of hard-work and commitment, i.e. working for the same engineering bureau for 13 years, four of which as a project leader. A lthough it is not mentioned explicitly, there is an implication that it is natural that others who lack such qualifications would be met with less enthusiasm as immigrants. Ironically, there is ev en reference made to those who "have to come to the Netherlands," who are not offered such assi stance as in Australia, although it is unclear if she is referring to all newcomers, or only thos e who come as a result of being institutionally 'wanted.' Granted this is a complex narrative, but I found it important to demonstrate how the projected world of migrants, the "f ield-of-possibilities" to use Sartre's (1963) terms, can be more important to understanding the position of migr ants than their actual geographical position. Being able to recognize the subjective mapping of places in individuals' consciousness, instead of focusing on an abstracted definition of place in terms of objective geography is a major part of this project, and should be for a ny project dealing with diaspora. Negotiating Migration-Possi bilities through Dialogue The following narrative is less optimistic about the prospects of emigrating, and as such it resembles more the narratives of HetGevolg with the exception that no attention is given to the prospect of maintaining legal re sidence in the Netherlands, which I presume is taken-for-granted by the protagonist. Nevertheless, this narrative offers insight into yet another niche in the Dutch

PAGE 73

73 diaspora, the frustrated position of trying to emig rate to Australia without a clear social position that constructs one as a 'wanted' immigrant. She writes: I've done a number of assessments to see what my chances are but like always . I am not suitable for any visa . a bit strange . th ere must be some [job] I am suitable for?? Actually I was silently hoping that it would wo rk but fine . I hope that my girlfriend's father knows something and do any of you have tips? This respondent's claim that her re jection is "a bit strange," and th at "there must be some [job] I am suitable for," is the strikingly close to di rectly questioning immigration authority, an approach I have rarely witnessed in such narra tives. Subsequent replies to her posting reveal more about the social construction of migration possibilities in terms of occupations legitimated on the list of occupations considered desirable for immigrants to Australia (SOL-list). In response to a post asking about her profession, th e respondent replies, "Recently I have become a Document Control Assistant and before that I was a receptionist.. four years long.." Another reply attempts to help find a suit able category for her occupation: took a quick look but receptionist is not on th e list, I also did not see document control assistant. I did see records manager (2299-13) maybe th at has something to do with your present profession. But then I think that you have too little work experience in your current profession. I hope that this helps. The respondent seems to get overwhelmed at having to assess her skills in this way and replies with frustration writing, "record manager is a higher function.. but is certainly related to my profession.. I just haven't been working at it so long .. I can't see the forest through the trees anymore.. sorry that I have bothered you with this.. but I am giving up.." Although this seems like simple confusion, I read it as a moment of breakdown in which the relatively abstract logic of professional-status hierarchy cannot stand up to transcultural movement. Clearly 'document

PAGE 74

74 control assistant' does seem to relate to 'reco rds manager' but the difference between the two professional descriptions brings out the vagueness of both. Rather than engaging in an inquiry about the actual activities of each job, the c onversants seem to search for a way out by mentioning the lack of experience. The lack of experience provides a point of consensus amid the confusion of comparing professional categor ies. Later replies go further in breaking down the logic of specific qualifications and experience, for example: This is maybe a long shot but I would certainly try it. A visa 457, this is a sponsor visa. You have to find someone that wants to s ponsor you, and it may sound strange [but] there are stories that people get hired to stock shel ves in Sydney. Of course I don't know if that is true. I also don't know how much you have to lose but if you come on a holiday visa and try to find work via sponsorship you won' t have to leave afte r three months. The annoying thing is that the appli cation has to be done in t hose three months. This is possible because we did this too only this was absolutely not the plan, but our first sponsor left us. In this reply we see a shift from the focus on cat egorizing professions to finding a sponsor, either before traveling to Australia or while visiting. This is an importan t shift since it implies suddenly that immigration is dependent on what a sponsor wants rather than the government's list of acceptable professions for immigrants. This refers to an ideology often encountered that immigration is generally forbidden as a means of protecting unspecializ ed jobs for unemployed residents of the country in question. The mention of 'shelf-stocking' as an example of unskilled, unspecialized job, is followed up by another post which announces: About the ghost stories about sponsorship: fo r jobs like shelf-stocking, people are brought in from outside the country and many people from Asia. To put it bluntly: they earn three dollars per day in their home country and th en they get here, say, 50 dollars per day and then they shouldn't complain. It is a little re miniscent of slavery (I find). Because those poor people have no choice. If they disagree and stand up for themselves they lose their sponsor visa and then they have to return to their home country. This week there was an article about a bakery in Sydney that flew in 20 Asians. Some found this questionable.. like: that kind of pe ople are available here too .. makes you think.. And it also happens in the IT sector with people from India...

PAGE 75

75 I have been sponsored for a year and no problem s. I think that if you have a bit of a good job in a respectable compa ny (whatever that may be...) that it all works out. In short: sponsorship is a good option but you firs t have to have something to offer that is needed here. An employer has to show th at they cannot find any Australian with your qualities (well... short of the example above) This reply infuses more order into the selec tion logic under discussion by referring to global inequalities as well as 'respectability' of companie s. This narrative puts substantial effort into supporting the selective logic of im migration control. By bringing in the notion of a racialized division of labor for 'Asians' [sic] and mentioning slavery, he supports his reasoning that migrants (whom he does not name as European and/or white) can only immigrate into certain professions. Further he explicitly makes reference to the procedure, also commonly mythologized in European migration, that em ployers have to demonstrate to immigration authorities that there are no 'natives' with th e qualifications of a pr ospective immigrant. Although this is a logic of selection that allows for much leeway on the part of employers and immigration authorities to refuse or grant consid eration to almost anyone, those who subscribe to this myth seem to believe that there are truly jobs that can only be filled by immigrants and that is the reason why the immigrants who ar e allowed to immigrate are accepted. While I will not go into an in-depth examina tion and critique of economic logics of skillsbased firm-ecology, it is worth noting that such logics are instrumentally applied toward legitimating the restrictive and selective criteria applied to visa appl icants, whatever those (potentially discriminatory) criteria may be in actuality. Within diaspora, movement is codified and controlled by means of cate gorization and logic. If nothi ng else, we should understand this exchange as an example of Foucauldian knowledge-power par excellence ; in Durkheimian terms we might call it prospective anomie. The respon dent acknowledges this best in her own words,

PAGE 76

76 relinquishing her struggle at the moment she can no longer main tain oversight in light of so many details. Migration Control as Domestic Intervention The last narrative I will present from XPdite involves visa rejection and hostility from the immigration service. Although the hostility expe rienced by this respondent is not fueled by the kind of anti-immigrant fear and hate behind the ne gative treatment of thos e whose stories appear on HetGevolg, he is nevertheless subject to treatment different from 'legitimate' residents of Australia on the basis of his nationality. This narrative provides a good way to round off this narrative analysis since it brings us back from the celebratory success stories common on XPdite to the stories of rejection, coercion, and struggl e common on HetGevolg. Ra ther than contrast a number of such struggles on XPd ite with those on HetGevolg, as would be consistent with a project of constructing different groups of immigrants and differe ntiating them from one another by means of group-specific differences, I have pr esented the XPdite narratives as yet-more migrants living within a Dutch-diaspora. By presenting the following na rrative as approaching the narratives of institutional hostility common on HetGevolg, I am not asking readers to equate this story of a person who has fled from imprisonm ent or war, but rather to re-conceptualize each migration narrative as the story of an individu al at a specific inters ection of a number of institutional pressures and othe r circumstances. By moving toward XPdite narratives that are less stories of success and more st ories of difficulty and struggle, I hope to show that there are commonalities possible between cate gorically-differentiated classes of migrants and, thus, that there is a potential for solidarity when we look beyond class, race, and other categorical distinctions which are cons tantly reified ontologically and epistemologically. The series of messages that constitute this last narrative began with a short message entitled, "visa refused help!." From reading the responses, it b ecame apparent that this related

PAGE 77

77 to another story, posted elsewhere, in which this person explained how a painful breakup resulted in his ex reporting him to the immi gration authorities as a potential th reat to her. As a result his visa was refused. It was not this story that interested me so much as the 21 replies in which various readers consoled and o ffered advice. I imagined thes e posts parallel to stories on HetGevolg.nl, in which many of th e protagonists were also refu sed visas. Since there was no possibility for responding to any of the posts on HetGevolg.nl, this offered a chance to read how readers would respond to visa rejection. What 's more, since the assumption on xpdite.nl seems to be that everyone is white, it w ould be particularly in teresting to read res ponses that were not colored by fatalistic pity for a 'refugee' who is assumed to be non-white and therefore doomed to rejection from the outset. The first response offered a suggestion for resisting rejection and going further in the attempt to secure a visa asking "if it would be a good idea to send a statement of good behavior to the emba ssy" and wishing the man strength. The next email offers more consolation wh ile at the same time foreshadowing a more pessimistic outlook for further visa struggle. She writes: You know, Ed . if I was you and you were me . then I would not concern yourself about this AT ALL. If you do that you w ill keep reliving bad memories, and why would you do that. You can discover new, positive me mories and experiences everywhere, even on a bicycle ride along the Linde. I would le t it go for now, and first focus on something very different. This is much too painful?! The reference made to the unimportance of place seems very important, suggesting that one does not need to escape the Netherlands for Australia in order to enjoy positive experiences; that they can be had anywhere, even a 'bicycle ride' awa y. This kind of relativism of place, especially when confronted with loss-of-pla ce experiences when visa app licants are rejected, deserves further study.

PAGE 78

78 The next response is even more pessimistic than the others, and offers paternalistic explanations in regards to other, more powerful so cial interests at work th an the applicant. He writes: I am afraid you have very little chance of s till getting a visa. Even if you only have good intentions for coming here, you have only your word to prove that, and why would the immigration officials believe you? Everyone with bad intentions says that they have good intentions, of course. Now you are just get ting more frustrated because you can't enter Australia anymore and so you won't get the ch ance to get everything in order again. Of course it's not the same but if I was you I w ould seriously consider going somewhere else, for example New Zeeland (or Canada or someth ing). Go backpacking, have fun and prove to yourself in that way that you can still enj oy your life. As if his paternalistic tone a nd naturalizing explanation about w hy the immigration officials have no reason to respect or trust a nyone whose visa is rejected, th is respondent also used an Australian flag as his personal identifying symbol on postings with the text, "in Brisbane since december 2002" below the flag. This person seems to have experienced no such visa rejection, yet he seems to have no trouble explaining the failure of another while speculating on his feelings and offering coping advice. Still, the most important asp ect of this post is the way the writer identifies with the immigration service and empathizes with their distrust. We might ask whether his positive experience with a successful se lection procedure is related to such positive identification or if this person always placed su ch trust in the defensive stance of immigration officials toward their clients/applicants. This also relates to the more general question of why some individuals often choose to take sides with institutions over indivi duals in instances of discrimination, legitimate and/or illegitimate, which speaks to the relationship between institutional discrimination and the agency of individuals as spectators of power. The paternalism of the previous response c ontrasts with the solidarity expressed by this respondent. She writes: I agree with everyone. And I empathize w ith you very much. I have disastrous relationships behind me myself in Australia, but luckily that is a long time ago. A person

PAGE 79

79 can do strange things out of what he thinks is love . indeed! I did not want to go to Australia as long as there we re still wounds and as long as I had to admit, VERY honestly from inside, that it would affect me very much to be there . It is very hard to get your real motivation to the surface and to go to your feelings. Although this respondent offers similar advice to ot hers later in her respon se about traveling to another place, her response is framed as shar ed experience, even if her wording makes it sound as if she is talking about personal relationships in Australia, not im migration officials. Still it is interesting how different this approach is from the more rationalistic responses. While the other responses offer various combin ations of consolation and advice, including the advice to seek psychologica l help, it is surprising that none of the responses passed any judgment on the immigration authorities for withhold ing a visa on the basis of the complaint of a private individual, the man's ex-partner. Alt hough this seems like an abuse of international power regarding a domestic issue, several respondents expressed understanding that the immigration authorities would have an interest in protecting an Aust ralian citizens from a 'foreign assailant,' or that the man would have mo re luck with gaining a new visa if he could either have his ex-partner comm unicate to the immigration authorities that he was not a threat, or if he could prove by staying away for a period of time that he was no longer interested in the relationship. Although these are private opinions, not the official policy or personal opinions of immigration workers, their logic expresses a sens e of legitimacy in the use of discriminatory power by border authorities. It seems that the 'order' of separation produced by border control is taken for granted as more important than fair legal treatment. Although I have to this point in this chap ter focused on re-prese nting and analyzing respondents' narratives while only providing critique and alternative perspective here and there, taking a critical liberation appr oach means not shying away from critical commentary even when this entails some paternalism and/or engaging in discussion with one's 'data.' To many it may

PAGE 80

80 seem silly to enter into a discussion, within a pie ce of sociological writing, with respondents who have posted their narratives on the internet in a ve ry different social context. However, I contend that even if no one who reads th is is one of the respondents anal yzed here for the purpose of including empirical data, readers have the pot ential of identifying themselves and their knowledge in relation to the viewpoi nts put forth here. The issue is not to reflect on who thinks in statist terms and how, how to think in diasporic terms, and wh at the probability, obstacles, and so forth are to cultivating the diasporic perspe ctive. Instead, the goal is to practice this perspective in the contexts at hand and imagine how individual lives can improve as people liberate themselves from statist approaches to framing themselves and the circumstances within which they operate. This is a form of the counter-system approach attributed to Sjoberg by Feagin and Vera (2001) in which liberationists think 'outside of society' to imagine alternatives to current systems of oppression. The countersystematicity of dias poric consciousness rests on the assumption that the statism underpinning the worldv iews of various actors involved in migrating (internationally as well as domestically) fuel the oppression of themselves as well as others whether they are active participants in regulating the movement and welfare of migr ant bodies or whether they see themselves as involved in migration at all in the first place. While the narratives discussed here represent only a handful of particular circumstances, they at the same time represent the potential for other narratives to re-c onstruct themselves vis-a-vis a diasporic perspective.

PAGE 81

81 CHAPTER 6 DISCUSSION This thesis operates on at least two major dist inct levels. On the one hand it delves into narrative expressions of social actors engaged in migration as iterations of Dutch diaspora. On the other hand it has engaged discourse surround ing theoretical terminology associated with migration, migrants, culture, societies, nations, diaspora, and so forth. Moving between these two levels can seem awkward. Often, part of th e magic of sociology is to find ways of doing so without letting on that abstract theoretical discou rse happens in the same social reality as the expressions that are appropriated as data for an alysis. If we briefly review the key ideas reviewed in the literature, transnationalism multiculturalism and diaspora we can note a pattern that they refer to deviation from the ideal-normal state of an imagined (autochtonous) national society with a hegem onic monoculture. Lenin's ( 1970/1995) writing regarding "the right of nations to self-determination" provides a clear summation of this idea: Unity of language and its unimpeded deve lopment are most important conditions for genuinely free and extensive commercial intercourse on a scale commensurate with modern capitalism . the tendency of every national movement is towards the formation of national states under which these requirements of m odern capitalism are best satisfied. The profoundest economic factors drive towards th is goal, and therefore, for the whole of Western Europe, nay, for the entire civilized world, the typical, normal state for the capitalist period is the national state . self-determination of nations means the political separation of these nations from alien nationa l bodies, the formation of an independent national state. (Lenin 1970 in Dahbour and Ishay 1995 208-209) Readers familiar with the sociology of wh ite racism (see Feagin and Vera 1995) may recognize similarities between nationalism and white racism in the construc tion of a transcendent group/body, 'the nation' or 'the white race' re spectively, and the construction of corresponding other(ed) races used as contrast s against which whiteness is concep tualized and defined. It is significant that the others of nationalism, unlike those of white racism, are not categories of humans but categories of social organization th at emphasize key distinctions from the valued

PAGE 82

82 aspects of national-statism; i. e. monoculture, political separa tion/independence of states, and self-determination distinguishable from multicultura lism, trans-migration, and/or diaspora. In reviewing selected literature on these terms, I have tried to sh ow how they are etymologically and/or discursively constructed in a way that naturalizes or ot herwise reifies na tionalism. My interest in diaspora as a positive al ternative for conceptualizing society is in part due to its lack of nationalist implications, although I did not e how the concept needs redemption from its essentialist racial/ethnic us age in order to think it in terms of culture. The term, globalization acts as a general category for uniting the other others of nationalism under a si ngle umbrella. As such I will discuss globalization further in this discussion as a discursive object within the logic of nationalist ideology. The reason I shift between re-presenting conc rete social actors e ngaged in diasporic activities and discussion of theoretical concepts at the discursi ve level has much to do with my sense that they are inseparable discourses used and lived by the same pe ople. Globalization and its sub-tenets; migration, multiculturalism, transnationalism, diaspora, and others; are nothing more than ideas embodied and negotiated among i ndividuals like those w ho post their stories on the websites surveyed for this research. So why should I hesitate to move from descriptive accounting to theoretical discourse regarding the same social life? Although sociologists often try to move seamlessly between these two levels by gradually abstracti ng 'up' from 'grounded' data or using statistical technique s to produce aggregates that facili tate generalization, I prefer to view the two levels as equally 'grounded' discourses, situated in the everyday social lives of their participants. 'Seamlessness' ceases to be a concern once we recognize and accept the schizoid reality of seemingly separate discourses that are actually part of the same.

PAGE 83

83 When I say that statistical techniques produce ag gregates, this is related to the issue of whether science produces the objects it studies. Statisti cal techniques, includi ng logics of data collection, mathematical techniques, and so forth that suggest the existence of social dynamics among aggregates of actors and actio ns at the macro-level. This practice, like other methods that ground theorizing in data collection, presume that the ability to engage in relatively abstract theoretical discourse is facilita ted by moving 'up' from the concrete. My counter-argument is that such theoretical discourse is in itself c oncrete, situated everyda y practice that can and probably should be connected with other discursive modes; but this need not involve the predication of one on another, per se. Thus the discussion of the conceptual constr uction of terminology is not really separate from the data it corresponds wit h, although it may seem formally distinctive. In order to reflect on how the correspondence between th eoretical discourse and empiri cal data is related to the inter-workings of concepts at the discursive level, it wi ll be helpful to review a bit of sciencephilosophy discussed by Pollman (1999; 2000) who writes primarily for historians but whose ideas merit the attention of social di sciplines besides history as well. Pollman (1999, 105-112; 2000) describes two type s or forms of truth, which he calls 'correspondence' and 'coherence'. The first, correspondence-truth refers to truth that is constructed through comparison between language and empirical observations. The second, coherence-truth refers to truth that is constructed when language makes reference to other language. The difference between these two type s of truth is well illu strated by the popular painting of Rene Magritte, "Ceci n'est pas une Pipe/T his is not a Pipe." In this painting a picture of a pipe is juxtaposed with the text, "This is no t a Pipe." The apparent juxtaposition of picture and text is caused by our sense of coherence-truth which leads us to equate the word, 'pipe,' with

PAGE 84

84 the picture of a pipe within the context of the painting. However, when we shift to correspondence-truth we recognize that the text is true in that the picture of a pipe is, in fact, not an empirical pipe but rather a pictorial represen tation. Awareness of this distinction can sensitize us to the problematic relationship between soci al science language a nd the social world we experience and act on. I transition to my concluding discussion with th is bit of science-philo sophy for a reason: Although most language has the pote ntial to function within eith er or both types of truthdiscourse, 'globalization,' 'transnationalism,' 'i mmigration,' and 'emigration' are terms whose coherence-truth effects are anchored in reference to nationa lism and the idea of nation-states. To talk about 'globalization' involves instating the implication that th e world is not yet 'global' and thus, presumably still, 'national.' Globalization is often talked about in terms of loss, or castration in Freudian terms, of nati onal significance and sovereignt y. Of course this obscures that the project of nationalist ideology is not completed with the creation of nationalist institutions, but is rather an ongoing ideological discourse encour aging us to act as if such institutions, including nations a nd nationality themselves, were na tural features of the social world instead of an institutionalized means of territorializing and re gulating it. Contrary to what some would like to believe, nationalism is not a st ate of reality but a project in which the world is imagined and framed in national terms, mostly in language but also in institutionalized behavior. Talking about globalization generally, and resisting it as such in particular, thus operates as a covert means of furthering the nationalist proj ect of ideological pro liferation, by framing the global as the not-yet-complete overthrow of the 'e xistence' of nations. The hope is that if we perceive that something, i.e. 'the nation,' is there of which all is not lost, then we will rally for its preservation and further cultivat ion. Personally, I would prefer to identify the proverbial babies

PAGE 85

85 of what good is expected to come from nationa list project, economic regu lation for example, and then throw out the bath water, which is linked to xenophobia, racism, territorialism, and so forth. To do this, however, requires framing nationalism as an imposition on an i nherently global social world, instead of the reverse, that globalization is shifting the (more or less natural) boundaries of a social world that is inherently divided into national territorialities. Nationalism operates covertly, negotiating its acc eptance at levels of low resistance, by such means as involuntary early-childhood social ization and ideologically framing events in national terms. If nationalists insist on pursuing their project, they should be responsible enough to do so overtly, at a level in which democratic conscious negotiation and acceptance is possible. Tricking and/or otherwise ma nipulating people into nationa l loyalty, or even national ontology/epistemology, is unacceptable. Such manipul ation occurs as the ontological level when terms like 'transnationalism,' 'immigration,' and 'emigration' seem to correspond to actual empirical types of behavior, people and institutions. In fact they only make sense as descriptors if we construct national realities as a reference point for crossing through, entering, or exiting them, respectively. As such, all discourse, includi ng scientific discourse, that applies these terms unproblematically is in practice collaborating with other natio nalist ideological projects by reifying their constructs. It is with this aw areness that I have pursued the current project. The interplay between correspondenceand coherencemodes of truth-making also involves moving between scales of analysis. Accounts that make sense at the macro-level without reference to the micro work through coherence, yet we usually also contextualize these narratives in reference to other mo re micro-scale events we hear or read about in the news or witness or experience ourself. Although I ha ve eschewed the efficacy of macro-scale constructions in their own right in my own thi nking, I have done this by recognizing the limits of

PAGE 86

86 sensual perception, i.e. empirici sm, on the one hand, and the s ituatedness of the macro-scale within material contexts of huma n cognition on the other. As such I am able to bracket, and also question, the existence of a macro-reality in which nations can be conceived as wholes that exist as conglomerations of their contents. At the same time, it is useful to recognize that for believers, nations are coherently operating at the macro level and simultaneously seem to correspond with empirical observations in everyd ay (micro) reality. Constructing phenomena theorized at the macro level, the n, involves taking note of events, people, things, and so forth in observational contexts as if they were representative of such phenomena, perhaps considering them as direct manifestations of them. My stra tegy in this paper, then, has been to identify and critique discursive aspects of the themes of my research, high lighting their (in)coherence where possible, and then to explore co rresponding empirical events, or at least narratives thereof, as part of what might be called a counter-reification project in which the coherence of diasporic framing is substituted for its nationalist counterpart. Although I could, and perhaps should, be criticized for applying the same technique I expose, an important distinction is that I do so with self-awareness and explicit transparency. A cri tical distinction, however, is that explicit transparency offers the possibility of consciously realizing alternatives in a democratic mode, in contrast with the construction of necessity without regard for c onsciousness in authoritarianism. Although I view diaspora like nation as nothing more than a framework for subjectively making sense of empirical realities observed as part of everyday life, I privilege it as an alternative to nationaliststatism as a means of perceiving nati onal institutions as impositions on, not bearers of, an inherently migr atory reality. Nationalist-statism leads us to view human social life as by default nation-state oriented and only tr anscendent of nation-stat es as an exception. Diasporic consciousness, on th e other hand, lets us recogni ze how human dispersion, and

PAGE 87

87 culture-disbursement, involve a va riety of institutions of which nationalism and nations make up only a part. As such I have deemed it important in approaching the empirical work of this research to focus not on the influence of nationa list constructions on di asporic processes but on instances of diaspora as empirical events whose narrativizati on will reflect the concerns of the actors involved. Sometimes these actors pay attention to national or diasporic constructions but perhaps at other moments not. Approaching empiri cal events in this way, I have broken with sociological traditions that privilege actors' meani ngs and interpretations over those of scientists and instead endowed myself the role of actively framing thos e actors within a demographic model consciously selected for ethical as well as epistemological reasons. In this way, I am able to approach these actors, their actions, and th eir narratives as indica tive of diaspora without seeking out their own meanings of diaspora, natio n-state, and so forth. By doing so I recognize social actors' ability to be purposive with regard to their own ends and to resist intervening in order to make them speak to my demographi c/ethnographic project. Of course, I am not pursuing this project in a vacuum and I see the potential for my work to influence those I am studying and others like them. Like much social science work, however, such influence is likely to occur through reading, teaching, and c onversation versus clinical intervention. Diaspora and multiculturalism require human cogn itive agency to be applied in practice. Diaspora has taken on more meanings for me than I could express thoroughly here. It is a means of breaking with the national-stat ic habit of ceasing to think, or to think differently once national borders are reached. It is a means of rec ognizing migration patterns as complex and unique genealogies, rather than merely as coming-in or going-out. Diaspora can also be seen as the means of fragmenting social-geographical territ ory into the kind of mu ltiplicity that Mol (2002) discusses, in which diverse ethn ic discourses interact within sp ecific contexts to enact various

PAGE 88

88 hybridities. Diaspora should not be constructed as a bounded singular ity. Diaspora can be a way of doing society, or a way to think about societies as multiple overlapping entities. When talking in singular terms, as in the case of Dutch (cultura l) diaspora, this need not imply a definitive set of cultural practices or practicioners that is bounded in order to ex clude other people and practices. Instead Dutch diaspora can be taken to refer to a loos e set of practices and people who share and exchange culture as a result of (socia l and physical) mobility and contact. As such the emphasis is on all culture that circulates through the empirical relations that constitute and reproduce Dutchness, not just those of 'Dutchness' itself, however that is constructed. Likewise, the diasporic population need not separate includ ed from excluded individuals but can instead attend to the variety of ways in which people co me into contact with each other and become implicated in one another's discourses. In th is way inclusion can be understood in terms of contact with discourse, including th e discourse of inclusion and ex clusion. This may be difficult to think, but in order to exclude someone we need knowledge of them and to gain such knowledge we must make some form of contact that inevitably includes them in our discourse. I find recognition of this paradox of paramount importance for any sufficiently rigorous conception of the dispersing and disbursi ng activities that make up diaspora. Much of what is discussed in this paper is not specifically 'Dutch.' Some have questioned why I bother talking about 'Dutch' diaspora at al l if I am not going to emphasize what's Dutch about it. First, it is tr ue that I tend toward theoretical work that is transferab le between embodied contexts. That does not mean, however, that I am not situated in a world of empirical specificities. Although I have an awareness of id entities and ethnic specific ities as more or less arbitrary meanings brought to bear on an inherently continuous ma terial reality, I am also aware that I speak in generalities fr om points situated in various in tersecting discourse s. In ethnic-

PAGE 89

89 national terms, my experience takes place at an intersection of Cuban, US, and Netherlandic nation discourses. Although I am aware of other national identities, and although I am critically aware of the problems of national identity and th e ontology of nations, these are the three that have contributed to and continue to influence my personal discourse of national-selfhood. Since ethnic-national discourses are not the only discourses that touch me, I could also focus on other cultural diasporas, such as gender or sexual dias poras, science diasporas, religious-spiritual diasporas, material-economic diasporas, and so fo rth. Nevertheless, I have chosen to focus on Dutch diaspora out of a personal commitment to intervening in the oppressive discourses of exclusion that saturate Dutch discourses, and to others like myself who are engaged in becoming-Dutch in a global context. Although I see this as part of a larger project, that of recognizing ethnicity in terms of becoming instead of preservation and/or loss, I still situate it in terms of my own lived experience. In a previous version of this project I fleshed out theoretically the discriminatory aspects of the subject matter and related it to the intersecti ng projects of white-racism and national-racism This has come out less in the current iteration. Th is is somewhat unfortunate considering current discussion going on about the relationship and even competitive prioritization between discourse of a US domestic racial and et hnic context and other discourses of race and ethnicity seen as taking place abroad and thus separa tely from the US context. Cl early this signals how little we still know about the interw orkings of nationalism and racism as well as the material and cultural connectedness of what are identified as US domes tic affairs with those identified as foreign to them. The Dutch West Indies Trading Company, along with other colonial actors with diverse national identities, such as Port uguese, Spanish, and so forth were all partners in the slave trade that brought Africans and European s together in a common diaspora in the first place. To the

PAGE 90

90 extent that the prosperity and cu lture of the Netherlands and the US are part of a common legacy of colonial slaving practices and post-slavery societies, it is strange that nationalism leads us to avoid thinking in terms of their continuities. Since world tr ade and prosperity have if anything, increased through time it makes little sense to divorce the present from the past and separate our vision along the lines of national histories. Conc retely in terms of this project, it would be narrow and indifferent to view the emigrants a nd immigrants whose stories appear here as external to a US context. Not just governmental/state actors but also those who see themselves as purely engaged in US domestic affairs participate in global relations that affect the realities of those discussed here. By reproducing and failing to resist nationalist exclusionism in a US context, nationalism is reinforced in a global cont ext such that it becomes less than shocking that migration activities are s ubordinated and subject to the kinds of repressive violence described in these narratives. Such violence is instituted in the name of preserving the kind of ontological domesticity that allows us to envisi on our lives separately from 'foreign affairs' in the first place. Those of us who have gone beyond easily dividing the domestic from the foreign should have no trouble recognizing the indi stinguishability of the 'global' and the 'local.' The global only ceases to be local when we dichotomize and project the global outside our reach. Nationalism further exacerbates this process by placing the national context as an intermediate 'global' context, as out of reach and thus just as disempowering as a displaced global sphere, only now part of the global is pushed to the frontie r of a supposedly more immediate global, the nation. To re-place us as empowered agents within an extensive local context, it is necessarily to collapse the global-local, global-national, as well as local-national dichotomies in our consciousness. It is not enough to look at the local as being infl uenced by larger, global or national forces. The local sphere must be seen as coterminous with the larger world; but without

PAGE 91

91 a separate image of what that larger world entails. In simplified terms, the local is simply already the global in the entirety of its complexity ; and what's more it is the only global that we have access to. When we think in this way the ontological boundary between an immanent local and the global-beyond disappears and we begi n to act globally by acting locally. I have explored this idea further methodologically, although I will not discuss those here except to mention that the approaches I consid er most promising deri ve from the work of Deleuze and Guattari (1988) and from actor network theory (ANT) sociology (see for example Law and Hassard 1999). Reminiscent of Foucault's focus on the body as the locus of surfaces on which the various forms of social discipline ar e played out, approaches that focus on networking and rhizomatics localize connectiv ities across space and time within the actor networks through which they occur. In this way we can come to recognize the local presence of all those things that we define as global or na tional, and thus as out of reach. Whether this is accomplished through research methodology or in pe rsonal spiritual practic e, I see it as a critical step toward performing the ethical work needed to re lieve oppression in the human diaspora.

PAGE 92

92 APPENDIX A (UNTRANSLATED) NARRATIVE DATA LOGBOEKEN Dit is logboeknummer: 10016 Naam/logboektitel Syrische Christenen Land van herkomst Syri Geslacht/ gezinssamenstelling Gezin met kind(eren) Aantal personen 5 Geboortejaar (oudste persoon) 1950 Jaar eerste asielaanvraag 1997 Stadium in procedure of uitzettingstraject Uitgeprocedeerd Huidige woon/leefsituatie In aanmeldcentrum (AC) Deze situatie bestaat sinds (maand, jaar) 81997 Casusbeschrijving: Syrisch-Christelijk gezin is gevlucht vanwege politieke stellingname. Is meerdere malen op het politiebureau mishandeld. Zijn be drijf werd regelmatig door leden van de geheime politie in burger bezocht, die bestellingen deden, die na af levering niet werden betaald. De man liet een bloeiend kleermakersbedrijf achter, zijn oudste dochter woont al in Nederland en is gehuwd. Zijn gezin bestaat nu uit twee jonge kinderen en zijn tweede dochter van 21 jaar. Onlangs heeft de IND, na jaren, bepaald dat het gezin voor de keus staat mee te werken aan terugkeer of aan uitsluiting van de voorzieningen (dus op straat gezet worden). De man heeft al aangeboden alleen terug te keren en nadat geblek en is, dat het veilig is, zijn gezin na te laten komen. Hij is doodsbang en er van overtuigd dat hij na terugkeer in grote moeilijkheden zal komen. Hij is mede bang dat een moslimgezin er op uit is, de aanspraak op een huwelijk met zijn dochter zal effectuere n, waarop 8 jaar geleden al werd aangedrongen. De twee jonge kinderen zijn volkomen vernederla ndsd. Ze spreken hun originele taal slecht. Het gezin verblijft momenteel in het asielzoekerscentrum te Apeldoorn. Donderdag 7 juli: Een onderhoud gehad me t mevrouw Bartels van advocatenkantoor Kleerekooperte Utrecht. Zij zal adviseren over nieuwe procedures op grond van onbekendheid van de familie met de mogelijkheid bezwaar aan te tekenen tegen een afwijkende beschikking op een z.g. schrijnend geval brief. Ook overweegt zij een procedure op basis van buiten schuld statenloosheid. Beide planne n lijken niet kansrijk. De laatste ontwikkeling is dat, vandaag 20 juli, het hele gezin b ij de politie is ontboden en er pasfoto's en vingerafdrukken zijn gemaakt. Weer een stuk onrust door deze intimidatie. Wilt u alstublieft alles in het werk stellen om dit gezinssdrama te voorkomen en het gezin eindelijk de rust te geven waar het al jaren op wacht. De laatste gegevens zijn dat het gezin in Bru ssel is geweest om bij de Syrische ambassade papieren te krijge n. Onder resultaat. Gepoogd wordt om zonder schuld statenloos verklaard teworden.

PAGE 93

93 Laatste nieuws is dat op mijn brief van 11 september aan mevrouw Verdonk heden 27 oktober, weer een negatief antwoord is ontvangen. Onbe grijpelijk na alles wat haar nu bekend is geworden en in de officiele proced ures niet naar voren is gebracht. De recente ontwikkeling is dat het gezin, inmi ddels in Wapenveld ondergebracht, op maandag 15 februari in den Bosch door twee Syrische am tenaren zijn ondervraagd. De IND ambtenaren hebben het gezin aan de Syrirs voorgesteld en hebben toen het vertrek verlaten. Hen werd o.a. gevraagd waarom zij Syri hebben verlaten De familie is zeer verontrust en weigerde vele vragen te beantwoorden uit vrees daar eventueel in Syri nadeel van te ondervinden. Het is te hop en dat de politiek er eindelijk in slaagt deze terreurmethoden van mevrouw Verdonk af te straffen en haar weg te zenden. Karel Duran Ten Passeweg 10, 8084 AN 'tHarde Heel graag een reactie! LOGBOEKEN Dit is logboeknummer: 10033 Naam/logboektitel Zeistkant. Land van herkomst Eritrea Geslacht/ gezinssamenstelling Man Aantal personen 1 Geboortejaar (oudste persoon) 1985 Jaar eerste asielaanvraag 2002 Stadium in procedure of uitzettingstraject Anders Huidige woon/leefsituatie In vertrekcentrum Deze situatie bestaat sinds (maand, jaar) 122005 Casusbeschrijving: Hij heeft moeten vluchten van het front aan de grens met Sudan en is via Libi naar Nederland gekomen. Met zijn angst en probleem is geen rekening gehouden door het Ministerie. Ze hebben hem twee keer negatieve beoordeling gegeven. Hij is uitgeprocedeerd en zit in het vertrek kamp de Zeistkant te Soesterberg. Hij zit met angst en w eet zich geen raad met zijn toekomst en zijn leven is in gevaar. Hij zit nu in de vertrekcentrum "Zeistkant" te Soesterberg

PAGE 94

94 LOGBOEKEN laatst gewijzigd op Dit is logboeknummer: 10026 17-10-2005 Naam/logboektitel vrouw met 2 binnenkort 3 kinderen Land van herkomst Sierra Leone Geslacht/ gezinssamenstelling Vrouw Aantal personen 3 Geboortejaar (oudste persoon) 1977 Jaar eerste asielaanvraag 2000 Stadium in procedure of uitzettingstraject Uitgeprocedeerd Huidige woon/leefsituatie Alte rnatieve opvang (kerken, etc.) Deze situatie bestaat sinds (maand, jaar) 62004 Casusbeschrijving: Ze vlucht in 2000 uit Sierra Le one, na de moord op haar moeder en de verdwijning van haar broer en 2 zussen. Ze bevalt van tweeling kort na haar aankomst in Nederland (zwanger na verkrachting). Na een twijfelachtige taalanalyse wordt haar as iel geweigert omdat ze niet aannemelijk kan maken dat ze uit Sierra Leone komt. Men be weert dat zij uit Nigeria komt. Ontvangt documenten uit Sierra Leone betreffende haar indentiteit en het volgen van onderwijs op een methodisten school. Ze start hiermee een 2e asielprocedure; word t geweigerd omdat de documenten een dusdanige datum hebben dat ze eventuee l al in de eerste procedure konden worden ingediend. Wordt met 2 kinderen van 3 jaar uit het AZC gezet. De gemeente is bereid om voor noodopvang te beta len als zij tekent da t zij terug wil keren. Amnesty International schrijft aan Mininster Verdonk een brie f, over de onmogelijkheid, voor alleenstaande misbruikte vrouwen, om te overleven. Binnenkort krijgt ze een terugkeer gesprek. Mevrouw is zwanger en verwach t volgend voorjaar haar 3e kind. Leeft met 2 kinderen in een kamertje van 3 bij 4 meter. LOGBOEKEN Dit is logboeknummer: 10020 Naam/logboektitel Iranir met verblijfsvergunning reg. onb. tijd Land van herkomst Iran Geslacht/ gezinssamenstelling Man Aantal personen 1 Geboortejaar (oudste persoon) 1968 Jaar eerste asielaanvraag 1994 Stadium in procedure of uitzettingstraject Zelfstandig vertrokken naar land van herkomst Huidige woon/leefsituatie Zelfstandige woonruimte

PAGE 95

95 Deze situatie bestaat sinds (maand, jaar) 62005 Casusbeschrijving: B., heeft verblijfsvergunning regulier onbepaal de tijd in 2003. Hij heeft (in 1994?) deelgenomen aan studentenprotesten in Tehr an, is gevangengenomen, vrijgekocht door zijn familie. Gevlucht naar Nederland. Zijn vl uchtverhaal is afgewezen en pas na 8.5 jaar heeft hij een verblijfsvergunning gekregen (op medische gronden en tijdsverloop). Juni 2005 op familiebezoek in Iran. Heeft dit op een (nieuw) IRAANS paspoort gedaan, omdat hij niet wilde wachten op zijn Nederlandse paspoort. Bij aankomst 16 uur vastgehouden en ondervraagd, "strafblad" was opgezocht. Na be taling van geld vrijgel aten. Weer 3 dagen cel, weer vrijgekocht. De politie maakt het hem heel moeilijk. Zijn paspoort is ingenomen en hij kan het na betaling van 6000 euro terugkrijgen. Gaat zich nu melden op de Nederlandse ambassade zodat zij officieel kennis ervan moeten nemen dat iemand die terugkeert naar Iran (in bezit van een Nede rlandse verblijfsvergunning en derhalve geen enkel belang bij mispresentatie van feiten) problemen ondervindt. B. is inmiddels teruggekeerd naar Nederland, nadat zijn familie de eigendomspapieren van hun huis als onderpand had gegeven. Hij meldde dat bij gevangenname de politie zijn IND papieren in hun bezit had (!) en zijn hele achtergrond bij he n bekend was. Hij heeft zich niet gemeld bij de Nederlandse ambassade in Teheran, omdat hij uiteraard deze nu ook niet meer vertrouwde. Hij herkende zijn IND papier en duidelijk door het logo op het papier en zijn naam die daarop vermeld stond. Inmiddels hebben wij deze gegevens via een advocaat doorgegeven aan de Commissie Haverkamp en st aat dit officiel geregistreerd. Ondanks het feit dat zijn familie nog problemen ondervin dt door zijn vertrek terug naar Nederland, stuurt hij geld om de autoriteiten af te kope n en gaat niet meer terug naar Iran. Verder hebben wij dit hele relaas ook geme ld aan Amnesty International. Heeft Nederlandse verblijfsver gunning regulier onbepaalde ti jd, is alleen op een IRAANS paspoort gegaan (ondanks waarschuwingen va n vrienden). Heeft geen enkel belang bij misrepresentatie van feiten omda t hij al verblijf svergunning heeft! Is inmiddels teruggekeerd naar Nederla nd. Melding gemaakt van problemen bij de Commissie Haverkamp. LOGBOEKEN Dit is logboeknummer: 9987 Naam/logboektitel Topscoorder Land van herkomst Guinee Geslacht/ gezinssamenstelling Echtpaar Aantal personen 2 Geboortejaar (oudste persoon) 1982 Jaar eerste asielaanvraag 2001 (na 1 april) Stadium in procedure of uitzettingstraject Uitgeprocedeerd Huidige woon/leefsituatie Anders Deze situatie bestaat sinds (maand, jaar) 122004 Casusbeschrijving:

PAGE 96

96 Jongeman uit Guinea, getrouwd met Nederlandse. Moet terug.... Gevlucht vanwege oorlog, bang voor rekrutering. Alle procedures negatief, incl. hoger beroep. Momenteel met zijn (NL) vrouw een ander heenkomen gezocht. Ondanks dat hij getrouwd is mag hij niet blijven. Man moet terug, om mvv aan te vragen. Angst voor represailles bij terugkeer. Het j onge gezin (de vrouw) verdient nog niet genoeg om dit te kunnen bewerkstelligen. Heeft dit gezin geen rechten? LOGBOEKEN laatst gewijzigd opDit is logboeknummer: 9989 14-8-2005 Naam/logboektitel Terugkeren?? Land van herkomst Tsjetsjeni Geslacht/ gezinssamenstelling Gezin met kind(eren) Aantal personen 1 Geboortejaar (oudste persoon) 1970 Jaar eerste asielaanvraag 1999 Stadium in procedure of uitzettingstraject N ieuwe asielaanvraag in behandeling Huidige woon/leefsituatie In centrale opvang (OC, AZC, AVO) Deze situatie bestaat sinds (maand, jaar) 22004 Casusbeschrijving: Man uit Tsjetsjeni, is teruggekeerd vanuit Ne derland, omdat dat volgens IND kon. Aan de grens opgepakt, gemarteld, vrij-gekocht door zijn vrie ndin die in NL zat en zijn moeder die in Tsjetsjeni woont. Is inmiddels al een jaar terug. Bewijs is duidelijk, vergunning nog niet verstrekt. Man en vrouw in aparte pro cedure. Vrouw heeft inmiddels een vergunning gekregen. Man is depressief, lusteloos en heeft geen zin meer in het leven. LOGBOEKEN laatst gewijzigd opDit is logboeknummer: 10012 19-7-2005 Naam/logboektitel Somalische jongeman met Nederlandse vrouw en kind Land van herkomst Somali Geslacht/ gezinssamenstelling Man Aantal personen 1 Geboortejaar (oudste persoon) 1983 Jaar eerste asielaanvraag 2000 Stadium in procedure of uitzettingstraject Uitgeprocedeerd Huidige woon/leefsituatie In aanmeldcentrum (AC) Deze situatie bestaat sinds (maand, jaar) 92004 Casusbeschrijving:

PAGE 97

97 Mijn man woont hier nu 6 jaar. Hij is Somali ontvlucht wegens oorlog, zijn familie kwijtgeraakt tijdens het vluchten, en heeft hier zijn Nederlan dse vrouw ontmoet met wie hij nu getrouwd is. We hebben samen een dochtertje van 11 maanden. Mijn ma n is nu uitgeprocedeerd en moet terug naar Somali. Op dit moment geldt er een vertrekmorat orium omdat het er onveilig is. Somali is niet veilig voor mijn man omdat hij tot een kleine clan behoort. Als m ijn man het land moet verlaten is de kans groot dat hij nooit meer zijn vrouw en kind zal zi en en is hij zijn leven niet meer zeker. Mijn man is hier vanaf 1 februari 2000 en wacht al 6 jaar en sinds 4 jaar met zijn Nederlandse vrouw. We hebben een brief gekregen op 15 mei 2004 dat mijn man zijn leefgeld en voorzieningen worden stopgezet, dan heeft hij geen voorzieningen meer. Even nog over zijn huidige leef situatie, ik ben zijn vrouw en we wonen gewoon samen dus hij zit niet in een aanmeldcentrum; hij heeft zijn eigen plek. Mijn man is sinds februari 2004 uitgeprocedeerd, we hebben sindsdien veel dingen geregeld maar niemand luistert naar ons. Een mvv-aanvraag is er g moeilijk te regelen omdat mijn man uit Somali komt waar geen documenten te verkrijgen zijn. Mijn man heeft een gezin hier en dreigt van zijn kind en vrouw verwijderd te worden met alle gevolge n van dien. Mijn man krijgt elke maand 500 Euro leefgeld; we hebben gehoord dat dat binnenkort stopgezet wor d. Sind 1 juli 2005 geld er een categoriaal beleid voor Somalisch e asielzoekers, als he t goed is valt mijn man er ook onder dus nu maar afwachten. LOGBOEKEN laatst gewijzigd opDit is logboeknummer: 10018 1-7-2005 Naam/logboektitel Niet altijd bescherming Land van herkomst Nigeria Geslacht/ gezinssamenstelling Eenoudergezin Aantal personen 3 Geboortejaar (oudste persoon) 1973 Jaar eerste asielaanvraag 1998 Stadium in procedure of uitzettingstraject Uitgezet naar land van herkomst Huidige woon/leefsituatie Kampt met veel problemen Deze situatie bestaat sinds (maand, jaar) 22005 Casusbeschrijving: Vanwege de deelname aan een protestorganisatie en stammenoorlogen gevlucht. Haar ouders zijn vermoord. In Leeuwarden heeft ze voor de raad van toezicht van de orde van a dvocaten te horen gekregen dat de advocaat haar zaak niet naar behoren heeft behartigd. Ze wist zelfs niet dat haar zaak diende tot ze bericht in haar brievenbus vond dat ze uitgeprocedeerd is. Nu is ze gede porteerd en op het vliegveld in Nigeria achter gelaten zonder een cent met 2 kinderen en 3 koffers, zelfs zonder een overnachtingsadres. 3 maanden later heeft ze een besche iden onderdak, maar geen eten, de kinderen gaan niet naar school en zijn zwaar getraumatiseerd. Terug naar haar dorp gaan is geen optie, ze houdt zich schuil in een stad met miljoenen inwoners. Ze heeft geen geld om iets op te starten zodat ze in haar onderhoud kan voorzien en de scholing voor haar kinderen kan betalen.

PAGE 98

98 IN THE POCKET! on: 04 Mar 2006 08:46 Afgelopen woensdag, 1 maart 2006, kwam eindelijk de verlossende brief binnen: aanvraag voor spouse visum is goedgekeurd!!! YES, YES, YES!! Ik zit inmiddels al meer dan twee jaar in Oz, en voel me hier volkomen thuis en het zou een klein drama geweest zijn als het niet was goedgekeurd. Maar daar hoef ik me nu nog geen zorgen meer over te maken, althans voor de komende 2 jaar, daarna mogen we het lekker weer allemaal opnieuw doen, maar voor nu: ERG BLIJ!!! Voor iedereen die in het proces zit: good luck! Cya, Vin Australi, maar nu nog uitzoeken waar! on: 16 Feb 2006 19:25 We zijn begonnen met een aanvraag voor skilled independent visum voor een permanent verblijf in Australi. Mijn man, Mark, heeft de opleiding civiel ingenieur en is momenteel (4 jaar) werkzaam als project leider op een ingenieurs bureau in Rotterdam. Bij ditzelfde bureau is hij al 13 jaar in dienst. Nu is het zo dat hij door zijn ervaring blijk baar "gewild" is bij we rkgevers in Australi Queensland.(door alleen zijn CV gelezen te hebb en) Door het recruitmentbureau van IPA kan het zo zijn dat we gaan overstappen op een ges ponserd visum 457. Op dit moment hebben we een aantal vacatures thuis liggen, w aarmee we met een paar nog te lefonisch contact krijgen. Onze eerste indruk was om ons in de buurt van Brisbane, Cairns of Adelaide te gaan vestigen. Maar door de aanbiedingen, krijge n we ook meer beeld van andere plaatsen, waar we ons dan in zijn gaan verdiepen om zo stra ks een goede keuze te kunnen maken. Het is wel leuk hoe je eerste gedachten dan zo onderuit gehaald kunnen worden en er een hele andere kijk op krijgt. Vanmorgen hadden we een telefoongesprek met iema nd van IPA en die vertelde ons dat je in principe helemaal begeleid wordt. Ze helpen je met aankomst en begeleiden je naar je huis,

PAGE 99

99 geven tips, helpen met scholen uitzoeken en andere inburgeringszake n. Moet je hier in Nederland een binnen komen, sta je er alleen voor. Dus onze oren konden we niet geloven, maar het heeft ons wel meer gerust gesteld. Later kunnen we dan altijd nog overgaan op een permanent visum. Dit was het even voor nu. Astrid afgewezen..hoe verder? on: 04 Jan 2006 09:43 Ik heb een aantal assasments gedaan om te bekijk en wat mn kansen zijn maar zoals altijd.. ben ik niet geschikt voor wat voor visum dan ook.. beetje ra ar.. er moet toch iets zijn waarvoor ik wel geschikt ben?? Had eigenlijk stille hoop dat het zou gaan lukken maar goed.. ik hoop dat de vader van mn vriendin iets weet en misschi en hebben jullie nog tips?? Groeten Helma marc-el senior member Offline Posts: 227 We streven toch allemaal naar iets moois Re: afgewezen Reply #7 on: 04 Jan 2006 13:19 heb vlug even gekeken maar receptioniste staat er niet bij, ook heb ik documnt control assistant

PAGE 100

100 niet gezien. Ik heb wel records manager (2299-13)gezien misschi en heeft dat iets met je huidige beroep te maken. Maar dan denk ik dath je nog teweinig we rk ervaring hebt in je huidige beroep. Ik hoop je hiermee geholpen te hebben. succes verder marcel Re: afgewezen Reply #8 on: 04 Jan 2006 13:21 Record manager is een hogere functie..maar heeft zeker met mijn beroep te maken.. Ik ben alleen nog niet zolang werkzaam hierin.. Ik zie echt door de bomen het bos niet hoor.. sorry da t ik jullie er zo mee lastig val.. maar ik kom er niet uit.. Re: afgewezen Reply #11 on: 03 Feb 2006 08:10 Hi Helma, Dit is misschien een long shot maar ik zou het zeker proberen. Een visum 457, dit is een sponsor visum. Je moet dan iemand zien te vinden die je wil sponsoren, en het mag vreemd klinken er gaan zelfs ghost stories dat er mensen worden aangenomen om vakken te vullen in Sydney nog wel. Ik weet natuurlijk ook niet of dit waar is. Ik weet ook ni et hoeveel je te verliezen hebt maar als je met een holiday visum zou komen en werk probeert te zoeken via sponsorship hoef je na drie maanden niet terug. Alleen het vervelende is dat de aanvraag in die drie maanden tijd moet gedaan worden. Dit is mogelijk want dit hebben wij ook gedaan alleen was dit bij ons absoluut niet de bedoeling, maar onze eerste sponsor liet ons zitten.

PAGE 101

101 Re: afgewezen Reply #14 on: 17 Feb 2006 12:57 Over die ghost verhalen over sponsoring: voo r banen als vakken vullen worden inderdaad weleens mensen uit het buitenland gehaald en da n veelal mensen uit Azi. Even heel bot: die verdienen in hun thuisland 3 dollar per dag en krijgen hier dan zeg 50 dollar per dag en dan moeten ze niet zeuren. Het neigt een beetje naar slavernij (vind ik). Want die arme mensen kunnen geen kant op. Als ze het er niet mee eens zijn en opstappen zijn ze hun sponsorvisum ook kwijt en moeten ze terug naar hun thuisland. Deze week was er een artikel over een bakkerij in Sydney die 20 Aziaten had laten overvliegen. Werden wel vragen bij gesteld... zo van: dat s oort mensen zijn hier ook wel beschikbaar... geeft je te denken... En gebeurt ook wel in IT met mensen uit India....tja... Ik wordt sinds een jaar gesponsord en geen probl emen hoor Denk dat als je een beetje modale job hebt bij een respectabel be drijf (whatever that may be...) dat het allemaal wel losloopt Kortom: sponsorship is zeker een goede optie maar je moet wel iets te bieden hebben wat ze hier nodig hebben. Een werkgever moet aan kunnen tone n dat ze geen Australiers kunnen vinden met jouw kwaliteiten (wel.... sort of getuige bovenstaande voorbeelden...)

PAGE 102

102 APPENDIX B ADDITIONAL NOTES The text that follows is material I wrote fo r this thesis which, has been included as additional notes that will be help ful to contexualize and flesh out i ssues raised in the main thesis body. Included are insights into textual, th eoretcial/methodological, as well as substantive aspects of my work.. I feel it is important to include these notes with th e hope that they may find relevance or usefulness in th e hands of some reader(s). In a sense this extra material is mother to the main thesis body. The data-driven Findings chapter of the main thesis body was bor n out of its earlier po sition inside the body of these pages. The original version of the paper that became the main thesis text was originally written as a term paper for the seminar, Eur opean Immigration, organized and led by Dr. Alin Ceobanu. Therefore he, along with the other partic ipants in that seminar, deserve credit for creating the lively and often heated debates to which this thesis is in part a response. Most of the text in the following chapters was written during the summer of 2006. The original paper was then include d as an appendix for interested readers who would prefer to navigate a shorter text (It was about 25 pages then). That pa per has since grown and evolved with the help of Dr. Regina Bures who has a sens e of textual formality and academic style that I could never have applied to my writing on my ow n. So for her patient help, willingness to understand my ideas in order to re spectfully nurture their written expression, and ability to work through communication difficulties and perspectival conflict, I am abundantly grateful. It was also her idea to allow me to reta in this material by reversing th e order of the original thesis body and appendix. In this way, the emptied-out body of the mother-text has become the yet-to-beborn contents of its once-daughter. The ghastliness of this scenario is somewhat reminiscent of Braidottis (1996) terratological studies of monstr ous births although I hope that describing the

PAGE 103

103 process in its apparent strangeness will not inspire terror but rather hope for the multiple routes that are possible for developing writing. Reading Instructions The question of style is crucial to this projec t. As readers in an intensive mode, we are transformers of intellectual energy, processors of the 'insights' that we are exchanging. These 'in'-sights are not to be thought of as pl unging us inwards, towards a mythical 'inner' reservoir of truth. On the contrary, they are better thought of as propelling us in the multiple directions of extra-textual experiences. Thinking is living at a higher degree, a faster pace, a multi--directional manner. (Braidotti 2002 9) If any one person has been inspirational fo r me in terms of the purpose, form, and organization of thought and writing, it is Rosi Braidotti. By taking Deleuze and Guattari's notions of rhizome as an organizing structure and practicing it as a fo rm of thought and writing while encouraging others to do the same. This encouragement comes with a caveat regarding oedipalization, i.e. author ity-worship, of her own or anyone else 's specific interpretation of this method, but nevertheless (or by virtue of doing so), Braidotti has made it possible to think and write in ways that would not have been possi ble had I only listened to the prohibitions of traditionalists regarding style and structure. And although I am overjoyed to be liberated from this form of intellectua l censorship, as I am to liberate t hose who would insist upon maintaining its efficacy despite a destructive potential, I still r ecognize that readers read with their own preferences, tastes, and sense of structure. Any interface between my writing and their reading will necessarily take place via nego tiation of both styles, that of writing and that of reading. As such, I have decided to write this short section entitled 'reading inst ructions,' in or der to explicate my own values of organizing writing for the benefit of readers, as well as to recognize generally that all writing and reading does not take place in the same mode. I will continue by quoting Braidotti extensively since she expresses the mixed interests of creating form and content in the most clear and elegant way I can imagine. She writes:

PAGE 104

104 I am very committed to the task of reconfi guring a theoretical style in a manner that reflects and does not contradict theoretical nomadism. To attack linearity and binary thinking in a style that remains linear and binary itself would indeed be a contradiction in terms. This is why the poststructuralist ge neration has worked so hard to innovate the form and style, as well as the content, of their philosophy. this ahs been greeted by a mixed reception in the academic community. Asse ssed as 'bad potry' at best, as an opaque and allusive muddle at worst, the quest for a new philosphical style that rejects the dulaism of content and form has clashed with the mood currently dominant in scientific discourse. In the neo-deterministic, pseudo-liberal cont ext of the dawn of the third millenium, a renewed emphasis upon 'scientific clarity' ha s accompanied the resurgence of genetic, molecular and evolutionary hard-lin ers for whom 'style' is at best a decorative notion. (p 8) Further she also speaks to a more inclusive vision of science which I prefer to identify with over more exclusionary definitions: How the despotic tendency of c ontemporary scientific discourse joined forces with antipoststructuralist positions is a phenomenon that deserves more attention than I can give it here. Suffice it to say that such reductions harm not only the 'French' philosophers, but also the implicit definiti on of 'science' that is systemati cally opposed to them. Such an aggressive approach reinstates a dogmatic vision of science that does no justice to the state of contemporary research. It is a regression all along the line. (p 9) In my experience, work labelled as 'postmodern' or 'poststructuralist' has proved insightful while at the same time being incomprehensible in many aspects. Mining literature resources for insight, by searching for useful bits amid a s oup of confusion, like social research has required resisting the impulse to label and thereby undermine altogether the relevan ce of particular texts, along with their authors and genres Often this involves translatin g/transposing ideas, explicit or implicit, in ways that render them useful. To exclude knowledge, ideas, and texts by definition from what 'counts' as science is akin to excl uding the philosophy of em piricism from science because it is not empirically testab le. Science then, for me, is a practice in which the scientific agent, or researcher, approaches all aspects of the scientific process, including literature research, reasoning, and writing with mindfulness of the ethics and values of science, such as Weber's openness for 'inconvenient facts' and other critical techniques. As such I can only hope that readers assess and appropriate my work in th e same way, not by uncritic ally subjecting it to

PAGE 105

105 criteria for undermining and dismissal but rather by mining it for (and engaging it as) expressions-of and contributions-to the cri tical practice of sc ience as process. As I have said, I view my writi ng as a hybridization of the rhiz omatic style of Braidotti and others, derived from Deleuze and Guattari, and of the (more dominant?) style of thought and writing termed 'arborescent' in Deleuze and Guattari 's language. As such I see my tone as being linear and structured in manner appealing to trad itional styles of academic reading and at the same time influenced by my openness to rhizoma tic generative techniques. If anything, this reflects my realization, during the time I was learning about rhizomatic organization, that arborescence, or the imagery of hierarchy, can be included and interspersed within a rhizome. To express this in terms of the tree metaphor, an oak tree while serving as the defining expression of arborescence par excellence can also be re-envisioned as a rhizome with multiple connections between its root and branch stru ctures, fragmented into multiple, connected machineries, and inhabited by all sorts of othe r creatures, plants, molds, and so forth. And, likewise, the arborescent im age of hierarchy, the image/interpreta tion itself, is just one fragment in the totality that constitutes the tree. As su ch I concern myself very little with cleansing my thinking and writing of either arbo rescence or rhizomatics and instead I prefer to make sure that the arborescence that does emerge within the rhizome does not take it over completely. What exactly is rhizomatic about my writing? I pose this question directly in order to answer it specifically. Rhizomatic organization of writing or othe rwise involved, or is at least open to, multiple connections between separate se gments/planes in ways that arborescence often frowns upon. The chapters of an arborescent ma nuscript should function like (functionalistically defined) organs in a body or sections of a tree. They should each have a differentiated purpose and operate as self-contained a nd hierarchically organized sub units which combine to form a

PAGE 106

106 single unified thesis. Rhizoma tic writing, on the other hand, may have chapters that resonate with one another and inform each other but do not necessarily function as mutually exclusive parts of a whole. Ideas in one chapter may speak to similar ideas in another chapter, or even another text, while being integrated into the linear narrative of the chapter where they are located. As I was writing this thesis, I found myself enunciating and applying ideas of diaspora, diasporic consciousness, statism, ethnicity, culture, racism, subject ivity, and so forth at various points in different chapters in different ways. I do not see this as disorganized or as a failure to contain ideas within their proper places but as a necessary means of distributing permutations of the central ideas of the thesis throughout the bod y of the text. Likewise, while this may seem redundant at points it is only becau se the alternative is to retreat and accept implicit assumptions of statism, mutual exclusivity, anti-mulitiplicity, and so forth. I see rhizomatic writing as a more or less in evitable consequence of rhizomatic thinking. Thinking rhizomatically means following 'lines of flight' away from one theme into another with an openness that the connections will eventually support and reinforce (or at least inform) one another. This is opposed to the avoidance of tang ents in favor of forced intensive concentration on one theme to the point of saturation. Although intensity an d saturation can and do occur during the growth of a rhizome, these need not be privileged as exclusiv ely relevant. For me, rhizomatic thinking also means that I reflect on what I am writing, e xplain, and analyze the implications as part of the text I have found that this is a mo re sincere and straight-forward method than attempting to restrict the tone to pure argumentation or e xplanation while keeping all evidence of the constructedness of thoughts and writing out of sight. Commentary on and discussion of the intentions, in terests, and conceptual limits encountered are important communicative elements between write r and reader which, if left out can lead to reification of

PAGE 107

107 the text as an ahistorical and asocial object. Thus when writing/thinking I try to be conscious of the text's position in a discourse between writer and reader, in a ddition to being an object of language in and of itself. Rhizomatic reading is perhaps the most important component of the trinity reading/thinking/writing because it operates as th e most destabilizing vis-a-vis the text. Allow me to relate an anecdote that will help dem onstrate what I mean: when Annemarie Mol's book, the Body Multiple came out I remember that there was a discussion of the book which I eagerly attended. After the discussion I remember talkin g to one of the panel discussants whom I asked in what order he read the book ( it is written in two parts; the empirical study on the top half of the pages while a parallel theoretical text is on the bottom half) to which he replied that he just read it from front to back, top first and then th e bottom. For me this was surprisingly dissenting since my impression was that the structure of th e book nearly forbid linear reading. While it is possible to read linearly, I rea lize that when I do so I still seem to produce little thought interjections and questions regarding the text, and more than likel y I will have to deal with other interferences like the phone, visi tors, or a toddler asking me to read to him. Oftentimes, however, I do not bother reading lin early at all, especially when the reading is not required, and then it is nice to be able to get something out of whatever part of a text I happen upon, which can later take on new meaning when I move to a co mpletely different part of the book. Indexes are the technology for this kind of read ing par excellence. However, ev en when there is no index, as there is not in this thesis, rhizomatic reading is still possible and my hope is that this work is as accessible as possible in this way. The final prod uct of rhizomatic reading of a text, regardless of how the text was written, is a unique, persona lized version of the text customized to the particular circumstances and intere sts of the reader at her/his moment of a pa rticular reading. I

PAGE 108

108 do not expect readers to suffer through portions of my writing that are not interesting or useful to them at a particular juncture. The most I could hope for is that a reader will see enough potential to skim over or skip pages in search of someth ing else; although I reali ze that the moment of departing the text for good is always immanent. Rhizomatic reading is the technique I recommend to anyone who tells me they can't get through a particular text which they need to read or would otherwise like to. Reading in this way can be for pleasure or survival. The process of thought and writing that went into creating this thesis proceeded along lines similar to the way various microbes grow and spread within a fertile medium as occurs in a petri dish. The first full iteration of a set of permutations related to Dutch diaspora were written as a paper for A Ceobanu's seminar on European Migrati on, and can now be found in this paper as an appendix. I included the original paper as a sh ort read that would pr oduce many of the same effects as reading the en tire thesis in whole or part, although I took a differ ent route in that paper which was not repeated in the thesis chapters ex cept as cross-germination of certain key ideas and themes. Writing the thesis chapters, then, was largely a question of meditating on the same ideas of the original paper, theorizing them more extensively, following li nes of flight to other ideas when those emanated, adding references where elicited, and basically constituting the various ideas as a readable text. Writing rhiz omatically means sacrificing linearity as an overriding structuring principle but presumes to make this up in resonance between and among the various fragments that constitute the whole. Thus, for example, when part of the chapter on 'race and diaspora' does not seem to directly rela te to the findings, or to various theoretical approaches to diaspora in the lite rature and theory section, this n eed not be problematic since the reader should be constituting her/ his own conceptions of (Dutch) diaspora from the text which will be able to draw upon what s/he has read, rega rdless of the degree of linearity extrapolated as

PAGE 109

109 a function of inherence in the text. The ideas expressed in 'race and diaspora' may only be directly relevant to theories discussed in 'literatu re and theory' to the degree that each relates to Dutch cultural diaspora as the practical and hypothetic al substance of the project. For example, racist practices involving sport metaphors describe d in 'race and diaspora' that reference cultures of exclusion in everyday Dutch life are part of the cultural diaspora whereas, in 'literature and theory,' Gordon and Vera's writing about Hollywood movies as a medium for spreading white racist ideologies reference the dispersion of a nother culture of racism which may or may not intersect with the first in pract ice depending on context. The two ideas are clearly related to one another as well as to a common theme of cultu ral diaspora and racism, although one is based on my own theorization of personal ob servations and experiences while the other comes from a text. Although not directly related in a specific argument about th e relationship between Hollywood racism and organizational discrimination practices it would be foolish not to include them both in a cursory project surveying re levant aspects and theories of (Dutch) cultural diaspora since they provide the potential for cross-germination and synthesis, either in readers' minds, or in a later project, or both. Part of the elegance of rhizomatic writing is its diminished preemptiveness with regard to the proliferation of ideas. Instead of throwi ng away ideas here and there in the name of linearity and parsimony, rhizom atic writing pays atten tion to the potentiality for indirectly-related textual fragments to become meaningful through further work. This allows for writing to be undertaken in an extensive rather th an intensive fashion, with the result that more relevant ideas can be included; in contrast with more intensive styles that limit what can be included and thereby sacrifice much that would be relevant in fa vor of compartmentalization and containment.

PAGE 110

110 The ideal level of functiona lity of a rhizomatic text is to be able to read various sections of the text, in no particular order, which would still lead to a m eaningful synthesis of ideas and stimulation of further inquiry. The text is not functioning well when it is necessary to read an entire section/chapter, or worse yet the entire text in order to make sense of one or more of the parts. Although this style is valued in some ki nds of scientific writi ng, I have heard, it renders the text useless to all but the most ideal r eaders. Maximizing the potential uselessness of scientific writing does not seem to be a value that resonates with the most basic values and ethics of science, in my opinion. Instead science s hould be as accessible as possible to allow for comparison and repetition within a community, sim ilar to the structure of the market in true liberal economics. The purpose of this is not to ensure that the text is proven or disproven as a whole by means of debate and falsif ication, but to allow scientists/r eaders to take what they want from the text and move on within their own proc esses of creation. Debate and empirical testing are not a misuse of ideas, per se, but they are more productive when undertaken with purposiveness in regards to particular projects or praxis. Thus if a particular reader hypothesizes that one or more of my claims about Dutch racism are untenable, s/he can proceed along a number of paths including underm ining a claim by discrediting th e text, designing an empirical test, or otherwise theorizing it further. While these practices can produce satisfying results, both for the reader individually and for subsequent re aders of her/his research, I contend that this would not invalidate the (grounded?) process that le d to making the claims in the first place since these constitute part of a diffe rent project with different pur poses. Nevertheless, it is a significant success when (parts of) a text make conn ections with a larger scientific apparatus in this way. Connecting with other rhizomes is ultimately the goal of any rhizomatic project.

PAGE 111

111 Syntheses The most basic social unit is a synthesis Although many will claim otherwise, naming societies, nation-states, races, cultures, citi es, families, individuals, frames, symbols, associations, or something else as the basic unit, my project begins with a synthesis, the joining of two distinct elements to form a third, new, hybr id which bears traces of both its 'parents'. The foremost example is the zygote, a hybrid synthesis of ocyte and spermatazoa, although this is just one small part in the myriad of syntheses that le ad to a human life. A better example might be the basic form of arithmetic equation taught to children, "A (+,-,x,/) B = C, in which two numbers are combined to form a third. Such combinatory logic is primal as well as fundamentally social. Within such logic, elements do not merely ex ist separately in isolation but are defined by contact which is always by definition productive and creative. Without claiming primacy for one moment of s ynthesis over another, I feel that I can safely suggest that social life can be conceived of as a sea of contacts and the syntheses that result from those contacts; contact between so cieties, nation-states, races, cultures, cities, families, individuals, frames, symbols, ideas, or other elements. In academia it is common to organize texts and ideas into areas of separa tion: paradigms, tradi tions, schools of thought, substantive areas, texts, authoria l contexts, and so forth. Nevert heless, the synthetic interaction of ideas, either from within the same text or from texts in so-called separa te paradigms is always the starting point for any project. The seed from which this projec t germinates is a synthesis of two ideas found in critical race texts. The first is the idea of syst ematic racist discrimination as Feagin and Sikes (1994) mapped it out in Living With Racism The second is the observation, commented on by many immigrant-writers living in Dutch society, about the way native (white) Dutch people systematically and rigorously pos e the question to anyone marked as different

PAGE 112

112 where they are from. More specifically as one comic said in his TV program, "where are you from? what are you doing here?" and, "when are you going back?" Explaining the significance of these two ideas for myself, personally, as well as for the sociological understanding of r acism and discrimination, generall y, is an important preface for understanding the current project. Living With Racism represents an important step in my development as a sociologist mainly because it provided a shift of focus from meta narratives explaining social phenomena, like discrimina tion, from above toward approaching them horizontally by talking with others and recognizing their accounts as valid in their own right. Having been drawn to sociology by writing such as that of Pierre Bourdieu, Feagin's approach seemed simplistic and atheoretical. How coul d sociology be simply tr anscribing respondents' accounts of their experiences and ad ding little bits of explanati on in between plus introductions and conclusions? In retrospect I can ask the same question in revers e, how it is that a theory or other sociological account of racism or discri mination can claim explanatory primacy from above and in contrast to the accounts of thos e it claims to describe? Although I do not uncritically reject all so ciological accounts of this kind, I try to always ask what the relationship is between a particular work of sociology and th e experiences of those it describes as well as what the implications are or will be fo r readers. Some would say that such textual concerns are not the stuff of sociology but I w ould argue that sociology is foremost a textual enterprise even if its primary concern lies outside of its texts. Besides neutralizing the claims of many whites who explained away claims of antiblack racism as fantasies of a bygone era conceived as a means for African Americ ans to secure special privileges, Living With Racism provided a situated understanding of discrimination in general,

PAGE 113

113 along with the compound effects it has when perpet rated in a systematic way. Feagin and Sikes describe this as follows: The cumulative impact on an individual of repeated personal encounters with racial hostility is greater than the sum of these encounte rs might appear to the casual observer. In addition discrimination is seldom just a persona l matter. A black victim frequently shares the account with family and friends, ofte n to lighten the burden, and this sharing creates a domino effect of anguish and a nger rippling across an extended group. (Feagin and Sikes 16) After reading about the repetitive, systematic qua lity of black experiences of discrimination in the many first-hand accounts given in Living With Racism I had a deeper understanding of this kind of discrimination, but the first time I expe rienced something similar myself, at least consciously, came as I began to socialize more d eeply into life in the Netherlands. Before explaining this in depth, however, I should e xpress a few caveats in re gards to using black experiences of antiblack discrimination as an inde x for other types of disc rimination. First, it is important to recognize that many whites and others who claim to face discrimination do so only from the perspective that being the target of discrimination produ ces a certain status which earns one social and material benefits in the way that losing a rela tive is met with sympathy or a lawsuit results in an award paymen t. Such persons are likely to recognize discrimination against themselves or others only insofar as it is an adve rsity to be accepted and/ or ignored. Often they view success as the reward for keeping quiet abou t racism and discrimination and, likewise, they view any discussion of discrimination as count erproductive complaining. When such persons claim understanding of discrimination in reference to black accounts, it is usually to say, "I understand what blacks have to deal with because I have faced similar adversity . but this becomes a qualification for offeri ng paternalistic advice that black s should stop 'worrying' about discrimination and comply with white standard s of thought in order to supposedly reap the benefits that others have by doing so. Such iden tification is not expressed with the intention of

PAGE 114

114 supporting and drawing support from others' experiences but only as a means of claiming the right to paternalize people wh ile invalidating their position. By using antiblack discrimination as described by Feagin and Sikes a nd others, as an index for making sense of my own and ot hers' experiences as residents of the Netherlands with extraDutch markings, it is important that I state that I am neither claiming that such discrimination is the same or even comparable to experiencing antiblack discrimination in the U.S. nor am I claiming that extra-Dutch residents of th e Netherlands are a homogenous group with standardized experiences. Ra ther, I am merely suggesting that reading about antiblack discrimination in the U.S. has helped me make sense of my own experiences in Dutch society, personally, and that as an ethically committed social scientist I see the value in looking for patterns in diverse forms and instances of racism and discrimination in order to resist it. Likewise, I am not so much claiming to unders tand the experiences of antiblack discrimination by its targets as much as I am looking at Feagin and Sikes' account of it as describing white racist technologies of power. In other words, without denying the specific hist orical relations that constitute black experiences of racism and discri mination, it is possible to envision them within a wider project of white racism that extends t o, among other things, nationalistic discrimination against those marked as extra-Dutch in Dutch society. Before going further, it may be a good mome nt to talk about terminology. Readers will probably be familiar with the distinction betwee n the terms 'African American' and 'black' as referring to a racial category and a discrimination-related identity of African Americans, respectively. I use the terms 'Dutch society' and 'the Netherlands' not interchangeably since 'Dutch society' refers to social spaces in which participants engage in di scursive negotiations of Dutchness whereas 'the Netherlands' can refe r to anything happening within the bounded

PAGE 115

115 geographic territory in northern Europe commonly known by that name I use the term 'residents of the Netherlands with extra-Dutch markings' to refer to people who are likely to be identified as either not Dutch or as 'allochtoon' Dutch by those who have been tr ained to recognize the category 'indigeonous' Dutch in contrast. 'Extra' ther efore is meant to reflect the status of being external to a so-called in-group as well as being marked as having one or more identities in addition to those that mark so-called indiginous Du tch like 'speaking Dutch,' 'living in the Netherlands,' 'familiarity with issues of everyday living' and so forth. The reason I make the jump from Feagin and Sikes' account of antiblack discrimination in the U.S. to nationalism in Dutch society is not so much out of some inhere nt, essential similarity or linkage I see between the two but simply b ecause the two are linked in my own genealogy of knowledge of racism and discrimination. Mo re specifically, it was through reading about modern racism as 'lived expe rience' (Feagin and Sikes 15) th at provided me the key for understanding my own experien ces with Dutch nationalism. Although many people I have spoken with about these topics, in cluding several sociologists, ha ve attempted to explain such phenomena as racism, sexism, and nationalism in te rms of abstract concepts that make sense logically, often it seems that they do not gr asp the radical qualita tive difference between concepts and lived experience. Although I had b een treated as mildly problematically white during my youth because of my surname and the fantasies that friends conjured up about what my far away father might be like, I never had to deal with systematic and institutionalized discrimination until I tried participating in Dutch society as a full-member, i.e. as more than a guest. Only by inserting myself in to Dutch social life as a full pa rticipant did I encounter the full hostility of nationalism. As long as one is willin g to qualify one's presence in Dutch society as being a foreign presence, direct hostility is mini mized in much the same way, I suspect, as it is

PAGE 116

116 for women, people of color, and those with sexual identities ou tside the mainstream, who honor the boundaries set for them by the dominant group. Without going into too much depth, I should ex plain that during the period in which I was coming to terms with the prospect of never being able to fully assimilate into Dutch life and 'pass' in everyday life in the way I expected would be possible for anyone living in the Netherlands who spoke Dutch, regardless of nati onal, racial, or ethnic background, I was also gaining consciousness of immigrants as a specia l class in society, with special forums for political participation, special social and cultural organizatio ns, and so forth. Likewise, autochtonous Dutch people would refer to me in terms of my immigrant status, commenting on the high quality of my Dutch, asking me about my experience in the Netherlands, and so forth while often comparing me with "those other immigrants." Some peopl e even told me that I would be more likely to succeed in building a lif e in the Netherlands if the government was not so concerned with dark-skinned immigrants. What is perhaps striking is that many white Dutch people seem to be completely comfortable with pa rticipating in an explicitly exclusive system that benefits them. However, while many su ch people are willing to reflect on and defend a system that protects their privileges, they were less likely to frame my difficulties in terms of competition with white Dutch in the same way that they would with the 'darker' immigrants. Through such experiences, it became increasing cl ear that I would acquire neither unproblematic immigrant status, if such a thing exists, nor full white privileges in Dutch society although I was recognized as an immigrant, or at least as a foreigner, and as a western (white) educated (middle class) person. The more aware I became of the way that autochtonous Dutch people frame their interactions with foreigners differently than wi th other Dutch, the more similarities I recognized

PAGE 117

117 with other kinds of racist discrimination I ha d read about. It became clear that many people would conceptualize foreigners, whether or not th ey spoke Dutch, as essentially different from so-called autochtonous members of society. Li kewise it is difficult for such people to communicate with foreigners wit hout switching to an internationa l-contact framework in which they seem to feel themselves to represent Dutc hness while they take thei r conversation partner to represent her or his respec tive national culture. The net result is interaction that proceeds as if the participants are engaged in 'r ace relations,' that is to say that they become like spokespersons for their respective 'races' of origin, relating to one another as such rather th an as individuals in a shared context1. This type of interaction may be unprobl ematic or even rewarding for tourists who enjoy playing the role of ambassador while remaining more or le ss disengaged from Dutch society. For residents of the Netherlands, how ever, whose primary society is Dutch society, being treated as an outsider, even in a friendly way, is disorienti ng, alienating, and frustrating. It is a form of misrecognition which, when recurrent in a systematic way, can have far-reaching effects in and of itself, although it can also lead to more overt excl usionary treatment as well. Of course, the phenomena I am describing here are not the findings of methodical research conducted for sociological analysis but, rath er, are my own account based on personal experiences of both integrating into Dutch soci ety, learning Dutch, and therefore gaining more access to looking-glass interactions with other Dutch sp eakers, as well as experiences of increasing class-consciou sness as an immigrant. As I have said, in no way am I trying to comp are experiences of racism and discrimination between groups and/or societies. On the other hand, I am also re sistant to those who claim that the severity of discrimination ag ainst people of color, women, a nd others should eclipse attention 1 Philomena Essed discusses this issue in Diversity (1996).

PAGE 118

118 for less severe discrimination, including that experienced by white heterosexual men, who are usually considered to belong to the most priv ileged identity group. Although, it makes sense to devote more resources, policy efforts, and so fo rth toward lessening the impact of white racism, heterosexism, and other oppressive orientations for their most di sadvantaged victims, it does not make sense, and may even be dangerous, to create a radical difference between those who benefit and those who are exploite d by systems of oppression. Doi ng so creates the illusion that people who are oppressed never rece ive privileges and that the mo st privileged people are not expected to submit to certain form s of exploitation in re turn for their privileges. From a radical intersectional point of vi ew, it makes more sense to look at th e specific interplay of various axes of domination within the specific social contexts within which th ey are negotiated. LIkewise, I suspect that part of the reas on why so many whites resist rec ognizing the experience of racism and discrimination by people of color is because they are led to believe that they are inherently incapable of understanding that experience due to their racial category. I contend that not only are those that identify with the category 'white' capable of understanding the experience of being discriminated against, but that they must beco me aware of the true na ture of the kinds of discrimination that they do face in order to stop misrecognizing racism and discrimination as is now so often the case. For example, it is not uncommon for whites to think about racism in terms of so-called reverse discrimination in which they are the vict ims of affirmative action policies designed to repair the damage done by past injustices. Some observers have noted how bizarre it is when whites go so far as to blame workers of color, seeing them as taking advantage of unfair hiring policies to the disadvantage of whites, when even if such policies were applied in a systematic way, it would not be the workers, but managers w ho are responsible for thei r application. On the

PAGE 119

119 other hand, it is uncommon for white workers to blame other, more privileged, white workers or managers, directors, shareholders or others with a stake in th e company for discrimination when they face it. It is as if there is a white masculine code of inquiry that prohibits scrutiny of those with a higher position in the hi erarchy of privilege and encour ages blaming those with less privilege. Is it any wonder that so many whites resist acknowle dging the existence of discrimination when part of their oppression in volves compulsively ignoring the privileged treatment of those above them in the hierarchy? As such we may wonder how such individuals could recognize discrimination against people of color when they are so intensely engaged in denying their own experience of being discrimina ted against in exchange for the right to themselves discriminate and protect others' right to do so with impunity. Although the eventual results of all forms of racism, prejudice, and discrimination are material and physiological, the current project is designed as an intervening response to the ideological construction of Dutch national racism. Without denying the legitimacy of interventions that focus on more material aspects of racist phenomena, I am selectively attending to the roots of racism found in ideas that underwrite the way so cial actors conceptualize the world they live in and the individuals with w hom they share it. The basic premise of this perspective is that the worldvi ews of social actors lead them to imagine the existence and presence of others in relation to external structures such as na tions, races, groups, and so forth. Thus, I propose, it is easier to understand racism and discrimina tion at the interactional level especially, but also at the institutional level, if we see how imaginary fixtures of actors' social worlds are employed and deployed to make sens e of things, both in individuals' internal discourses as well as in social interactions with others. Antib lack discrimination, for example, would take a radically different sh ape if their were no im ages of 'blacks' as a group, Africa as a

PAGE 120

120 mythological place, and so fort h. Although it still might be the case that light-skinned people who had never seen 'blacks' might be confused by slight differences in appearance, they would not necessarily immediately seek to make sense of such differences by locating them within a categorical frame of reference. This would not make any more sense than it would in an encounter with a person with extensiv e scaring or exceptional beauty. Understanding the ideological underpinnings of Dutch nationa lism/racism is similar to understanding other kinds of racism. As I al ready mentioned, a fundamental sense of the existence of races and places is a necessary cond ition for classifying individuals into different groups. For American as well as Dutch whites, th e places of race are not just 'distant foreign' continents like Africa but also ar eas of the country and city myt hologized as 'ethnic' territory. These places are signficant for whites not just fo r 'placing' people conceptually for sense-making purposes but often, literally, result in their physical (d is)placement in sepa rated environments like ghettos, prisons, ethnic neighborhoods, home c ountries (in the case of extradition), and so forth. In addition to mythologies of places constructed as foreign, the construction of domesticity is also important. This, I suspect, is a more complex set of images and logics than those associated with 'foreign' places and races, although I do not think that it would be possible to measure and compare relative complexity as su ch. It is more important to note that the construction of the domestic race/place goes furt her than simply emphasizing 'hereness' over 'theirness' or 'ourness' over 'theirness.' Rather elaborate narratives and logics are produced and reproduced to codify every aspect of the place/race in question. For example, the logic of being a member of an elite sub-race of whites who immig rated to the U.S. after the end of slavery is a recurrent facet of the logic used to justify innocence with regard to the problems faced by African Americans as a result of historical racism and disc rimination. Many whites who employ

PAGE 121

121 this logic may not be aware of the complex racist concepts necessary to even understand them in common-sense terms. First one must concede th at there is a transhistorical race of white Americans who are responsible for having built the U.S. nation and for its eventual shortcomings resulting from historical events such as slavery, jim crow and other forms of discrimination. Second, one must conceive of a boundary logic for th at race in which some immigrants are able to assimilate seamlessly within its society withou t completely merging with it as a transhistorical entity. Such notions are not ba sed on scientific st udy or lived experience but are nevertheless learned and available for making sense of the world. Regarding the mythologies of Dutch societ y, there are far too many to explicate and explain here. However, to name a few there are a slew of notions about the historical character of Dutch society all the way from pre-histor y, to pre-nationhood, to pre-WWII to post-WWII. These include ideologies of tolerance for differences, entrepreneurial spirit, attitudes toward materialism and culture, religious/ political/lifestyle valu es, and so forth. One mythology that is of particular relevance to the cu rrent project is the ideology, and obsession, with the size of the country. The notion that the Netherlands is a sma ll country is used in many ways but two of the most important for my purposes here are 1) to ju stify its protection from 'big bad' neighbors, and 2) to justify a high level of pate rnalism in planning and regulating the use of space. Remember I am not naming these ideologies to open up debate as to their legitimacy or factual basis; but rather I am trying to show how they become relevant for Dutch national racism and in orienting toward extra-Dutch persons. The first ideology or ients the place/race of Dutch society within an international environment of na tional differences. This is im portant for segmenting the world into various here/there dichotomies through wh ich cultural elements and individuals can be placed as either belonging in the Netherlands or someplace else. The logi c of mutual exclusion,

PAGE 122

122 i.e. either-or logic, is crucial for narrating the specificity of Dutchness in this way. The second ideology, justification of spatia l paternalism and planning, anchor s the Dutch sense of pride in regards to dense care-taking in many spheres of life including public space but also the internal organization of public, private, and commercial spaces, as well as more abstract applications such as personal grooming, organizing work productivity and so forth. In simple terms, proponents of this logic of intens ive, dense care give the sma ll size of a territory, whether a garden or the country as a whol e, as the reason such care is bo th possible and necessary. In informal conversations with people with a st rong and open sense of Dutch pride, I have suggested the notion that Dutch cu lture is so fantastic that it sh ould be expanded to allow more people to participate and enjoy it s fruits only to be met with reluctance. If I could generalize about a consensus on this issue, which I cannot, I would say that there is a desire to keep the Netherlands small, and even resistance to expansi on (which is not even believed to be possible) even if this means selfishly guarding the 'parad ise' against love from outside. Although my explanation of this is somewhat tangential, I ho pe it conveys the importan ce of smallness in the mythology of national culture and the way this is brought to bear on pr ospects of expansion, including the incorpora tion of 'newcomers.' Although I moved briefly in the di rection of explaining such myt hologies in a way that lets readers fully grasp their ideological power, k eep in mind that in the context of face-to-face interactions between Dutch and ex tra-Dutch individuals, such ideologies translate into reference points that participants draw upon in order to make sense of the situations and people they encounter. Likewise, the same re ference ideas serve as sources for producing legitimate speech acts for explaining oneself or commenting on others Thus, for example, a person who mentions that s/he is having trouble securing a visa or work permit could be met with the logic that there is

PAGE 123

123 only so much work to do in a small country like the Netherlands and so it is natural that authorities would not grant a work permit. Notice that discrimination is happening on many levels in this simple example alone: 1) a work permit is being refused (institutional discrimination) 2) the listener is defending th e system of institutional discrimination 3) the ideology of national smallness is being reified at the e xpense of the work permit applicant. We may cynically add to this the hypothetical response that this example is not an interaction with a person authorized to grant a work-permit and ther efore irrelevant to unde rstanding the material consequence of discrimination. Sociologies of everyday racism, however, show us how such face-to-face interactions, ev en when they are not directly rela ted to securing a work-permit or a job, can be painful and have cumulative effects on the victim's outlook. Additionally, consider how the ideology of national smallne ss reinforces the ability to disregard the struggle to attain a work-permit. Without it, one would either have to come to terms with the Dutch immigration authorities as cruel and unreasonable or invent another reason to legitimate exclusion from the work force. From this example, it should be clear how the employme nt and deployment of mythological ideologies operate w ithin the micro-interactional contexts of actors' everyday lives to produce the lived realities of discrimina tion that Feagin and Sikes talk about in Living With Racism The approach I have taken to conceptualizing the interplay between so cial actors and such mythological ideologies is re sonant with the theoretical orientation of ethnomethodology. Ethnomethodology makes it possible to bracket the trut h value of ideologies in order to examine how they function in interactive contexts. Such bracketing is an invaluable tool for avoiding the tendency to be distracted from th e negotiations of conversation part icipants in order to pursue the underlying reasoning implic it within a deployed ideology. Re turning to the example of the

PAGE 124

124 mythology of Dutch national smallness, conversation participants as well as data analysts are easily tempted to debate whether or not the Neth erlands is in fact a 'small' country. Although I am personally tempted in such situations to en gage in such debates, often taking the minority opinion, in this case that the Netherlands is anyt hing but 'small' by any definition, resisting doing so makes it possible to examine the power of ideo logies in the micro-contexts in which they become relevant. Mind that it is not per se necessary to observe actual empirical conversations in order to utilize this approach, although such st udies do yield interesting insights. It is more important, however, in my opinion to examine myt hological ideologies with the mindfulness that exist exclusively in and through the interactional contexts in which they are negotiated, and only in the forms in which they are deployed. The last point is especially importa nt since it forces us to recognize that there is no 'reser ve copy' of the total ideology th at we can reference as a 'master copy' for all the semi-skilled translations undert aken in the practical contexts of everyday interactions. This is in contrast to approaches to mythologies and ideologies that theorize their existence within a large-scale macr o-historical context, such as "a nti-semitism in nazi Germany." Although there are doubtlessly many ways to conceptualize anti-semitism in nazi Germany, including ethnomethodologically so und ones, I am resisting an approach that would reify ideology as part of a 'mass-movement,' as something out there in society at large. When I talk about mythological ideologies and macro scale images, like a 'Dutch diaspora,' I am referring to ideological capital used in small-scale interactio ns, not large-scale phenomena presumed to exist outside of the specific social contexts in which they are (re)constructed. This is probably a good moment to introduce th e concept of a Dutch diaspora society in the framework of the specific context in which it wa s conceived. I had been thinking for quite a long time about the logical possibility of conti nuity through transnationa l migration and about

PAGE 125

125 the meanings attached to the details of one's life according to one's location either inside or outside of a particular society. I had even been experimenting with envisioning 'society' as a reference point for producing meaning within subj ectivity instead of as a material fact that individuals inhabit. Likewise, I was struggling, as I still do, with the meanings and legitimacy attributed to the expression of vari ous languages depending on the society in which they are perceived as taking place. More specifically I was struggling with the social construction of growing up Dutch in the U.S. as my son is, and at the same time considering this in terms of my own experience of growing up Cuban in the U.S., a nd wondering if there is any material basis for actually theorizing such things or if it is all just a matter of interpretations, negotiations, and knowledge-power. Then, one day I received an email advertising a public discussion about a group of Turkish-Dutch who were planning to move to Turkey once it gained E.U. membership status. Although I had heard numerous stories about refugees and ot hers facing pressure to leave the Netherlands, this email was the impetus to seriously imagine a diasporic society of Dutch residents living outside the geograp hical territory of the Netherlands Of course in retrospect I recognize that I knew that count less people have migrated from the Netherlands to Dutch colonies and elsewhere and back and that there have been an enormous diversity of types of contact between Dutch society and others in the world since the ea rliest moments of capitalism. Yet it is fascinating that I s hould only truly realize the concep t of a Dutch diaspora society, defined by contact, after reading about this potential Turkish e xodus. This is a curious although probably inconsequential detail of this project's conception. If anything it speaks to the novelty of conceptualizing Dutch societ y as extensive and continuous instead of as intensive and segmented as seems to be popular.

PAGE 126

126 Although I could have chosen to design this project as an intensive explication and investigation of a list of mythological ideologies like thos e already briefly touched upon, and I believe that this would be view ed as a respectable critical ra ce project and would provide a valuable addition to understandi ng white racism, I wanted to incorporate a more creative, forward looking theme that would go beyond su rveying and analyzing the production and reproduction of ideologies in discourse. I wa nted to invent and e xplore a new ideological construct that could be potentially liberating if it became mythologized, employed, and deployed in everyday conceptions about Dutch society, or even other societies as well. Admitting this underlying desire at the r oots of this project, I am reminded of Foucault's foreword to the English edition of the Order of Things in which he writes that his readers are free to use his ideas as they wish, questioning his own right to suggest that the text should be used in one way or another. Luckily I am not Michel Foucault and so I don' t have to worry about my writing changing the whole world. Still, I can hope that for th e few individuals who do read my ideas about conceptualizing societal territori es and membership differently a nd go as far as to experiment with them as realistic conceptual capital, that th is will deliver a sense of emancipatory potential rather than coming across as ineffectual utopian fantasy. Still, I must assert my position at the same time that the ineffectuality of an idea lies at least as much in its reception and employment as in its creation and deployment. In other word s, do not expect or fantasize that ideas have a life of their own. They do not move as a resu lt of their own power. Their power comes from human engagement. A Personal Note on [Dutch] Although everyone is situated at the intersec tion of a number of diasporas/dispursions, there is a schism between the mode of interpre ting one's position in terms of those diasporas and another mode in which one views oneself in term s of a static and isolat ed category among others

PAGE 127

127 within a larger universe, al so static. The static universe I refer to is usually also a statist one, that is to say one of states and nations as well as races, classes, and so on which are viewed as bounded and mutually exclusive. Th ese categories/territories are view ed as static and thus it is assumed that elements and people either inhabit them or they do not; they do not change, shift, move, intersect, or overlap. For example one may th ink of basic territorial views of nation-states such as the Netherlands, the U.S., and Cuba. W ithout thinking in diasporic terms these nationstates are separate. One has to leave one in or der to enter another. Likewise with national belonging, when a person belongs to one s/he do es not belong to another. They are not envisioned as overlapping, either in space or with in individuals and subjectivity. Race, ethnicity, class, gender, sexuality, and so forth are viewed in the same way. These categories are not conceived in terms of contact, socialization, acculturation, indo ctrination, association, or any other social or transitive form but rather in terms of a state of be ing that is supposed to be more or less essential, permanent, a nd preferably mutually exclusiv e. Diasporic thinking is an alternative that acknowledges the migratory and tr ansformative nature of people. The variation of diaspora that I propose in this project, cultural diaspora, goes even further to suggest that individuals are not just located within a particular group or dias pora because of some essential quality of their being but rather by virtue of cu ltural techniques and e xpressions in which they share and take part. I posit th at humans become related ethnically by way of contact, not genes, birthright, or any other presumed essence. Li kewise I posit that such becomings are always partial2 and, as such, we should not vi ew individuals as having tota l ethnicities and cultures but 2Deleuze and Guattari emphasize the always-partial character of becomings which they view as taking place not linearly, from beginning to e nd, but always starting in the middle and proceeding via lines-of-flight betw een radically different planes. Here I am interpolating their idea of a becoming in terms of ethnicity. In this way ethnicity and culture are viewed as something not in-born but learned in a never-comple te process. Although pa rt of learning to be-

PAGE 128

128 rather as collages of the vari ety of mixed practices they have picked up through the many social contacts and experiences they have gone through Thus while I talk about a Dutch cultural diaspora, the descriptor, 'Dutch,' is really a short-hand for a va riety of disjunct experience which could be misleadingly assumed to be bounded and connected with one another by virtue of the singularity of the umbrella term, 'Dutch.' If we ask one individual what it means 'to be Dutch,' she will say that it is always being told to 'act normal.' Yet we discover that there is a Swede with the same experience, we assume that receiv ing the same advice in Sweden is more Swedish and less Dutch. Should we then raise our threshold in order to define a unique 'Dutchness?' On the contrary, uniqueness is not a prerequisite fo r ethnicity, I would cont end, and on the contrary, the desire to achieve ethnic di stinction by focussing on identifying traits that can be claimed as unique obscures the possibility of gain ing any real insight into ethnicity. In a cultural diaspora, defining a certain cultural practice as uniquely belonging to this or that ethnicity is less important than recogni zing how the learning of all culture takes place through contact, regardless of whether a certain cu ltural practice is defined as uniquely belonging to a specific nation or ethnic group or not. As such a cultural diaspora does not differentiate between originals and copies. When someone speaks Dutch ,English or Spanish, cultural diaspora is not concerned with whether that pers on speaks it as a first, second, third, or fourth language. Rather cultural diaspo ra is only concerned with appr opriating language capacities as a means of connecting with others as a means to communicate. The act of communication in and of itself is already the dispersion of information that constitutes diasporic ties. LIkewise cultural diaspora does not differentiate between info rmation, symbols, and knowledge and material ethnic often entails learning to claim and defend identity as something permanent and separate from other identities, I contend that this is ju st one type/part of the process(es) of becomingethnic which necessarily must al so contain the possibility of transcending imagined-permanence and (mutual-)exclusivity.

PAGE 129

129 transfers including genetic and othe r bodily materials. This stands in opposition to racial notions that privilege birth transfers over other type s but also in opposition to culturalist and constructivist ideologies that avoid theorizing bodie s, genes, and other materials. I propose that diasporas are constituent flows of all of these things, symbolic and material, cultures and bodies, genes and societies. Perhaps the best way to explor e diasporic thinking is throug h self-reflection. In fact, I contend that a given diaspora is not something that can or should be viewed from outside, for instance by saying, "the Dutch dias pora has existed for so long, or the Dutch diaspora has a population of so many." Rather one should refl ect on one's own geneal ogies, in terms of ethnicity and otherwise, with an awareness of the difference between statist and diasporic perceptions. In a statist mode I would, for example, get wrapped up in either-or questions of race and ethnicity and submit to a nationalist or othe r group-legitimated abstract definition of myself divorced from accountability for my family, life-history, and other social connections. I might think that I although th ere are 'Latinos' in the U.S., they ei ther have a skin tone darker than 'whites,' speak Spanish as their mother tongue, or both and therefore I am not Latino. Likewise I would reason then that I am no longer Cuban becaus e Cubans are all Latinos, within the logic of U.S. racism, and therefore being excluded from the category Latino means implicit exclusion from the category, Cuban; and, of course, everyone who is not marked as ethnically particular is included as 'white,' therefore I must be a pure wh ite American. So goes the strange reverse logic of American white supremacist racism. In term s of cultural socializati on or indoctrination, the statist logic would insist that indi viduals' national ethnicity is tied to their primary socialization. Therefore it is important to esta blish where a person lived as a child to determine what his or her essential ethnicity is. If someone begins social ization/indoctrinat ion into another national/ethnic

PAGE 130

130 ethos as an adult, this learning is ignored and the pers on is thought to in no way share any ethnic ties or culture in which s/he has been (further) so cialized. It is important to note that all these various statist logics always produce reductive, abstract images for the sake of exerting paternalistic violence over indi viduals in the name of groups, so cieties, races, and so on. The complexity of actual human circumstances are of ten seen/misrecognized as a threat to statist order. If I describe my own ethnic posi tion in diasporic, rather than statist terms, a more whole picture emerges and, not only is th e picture more whole, but it shoul d also be read as open-ended rather than as a closed narrative In other words, I am not clai ming that Cuba, the U.S. and the Netherlands are original societie s that cannot or should not be further dissected in terms of composite diasporas. Rather I use these as a short-hand to elicit r eader-recognition without suggesting any essential qualities of such categories. My [father's] family migrated from Cuba to the U.S. in the early 1960s. My mother's family migrated from elsewhere in the U.S. to Florida sometime earlier. I migrated to the Netherlands in the 1990s. Through the lens of diaspora, I view my famil(ies) in terms of these movements. Although I name regions or nation-states to denote the nodes through which the various actors pass, these are really just for reference, as a means of referencing a general familiarity with the non-diasporic lens through which the reader may be gazing. With each movement, it is importa nt to recognize that a corresponding shift in subjectivity and culture will have taken place; not so much in terms of changed practices, although practices do change constantly, whether as a result of migratio n or otherwise, but especially in terms of adopting a particular reference point for maki ng sense of one's life. In the case of each movement, individuals in my various families redefined themselves in terms of their new home, struggling to make sense of their pe rsonal genealogies not only for themselves, but

PAGE 131

131 also for those they came into contact with. The lack of diasporic consciousness in conceptualizing my own genealogy became evident to me as I began reflecting more accurately, critically, and self-confidently as a student of social and cultural st udies. It had never occurred to me before engaging in such reflection what it meant to come from a Cuban family living in New England, to be the son of a divor ced white anglo woman in south Florida with (divorced) Latino roots, or to be an American immigrant to th e Netherlands with little recognition for diversity among Americans in Dutch eyes. Diaspora is not just about where one lives, where s/he comes from and is going, but it also accounts for the sh ifting references to place as one moves from one place to another. Anyone who has moved/migrated in this way has experienced such shifts in placeand identityreferences. To be Cuban-Am erican as an immigrant to Dutch society is socially constructed differently than is be ing Cuban-American in New England which is constructed differently than is being Cuban-Am erican in south Florida. Likewise, Dutchness means different things in each of these places as much as it depends on the context in which its meaning is being (re)constructed. I do not mean to give the impression th at interpretations are place-bound since they are in fact context-specific and contexts may vary to the individual level or even across different contexts of the same individual. On the other hand, many individuals will make sense of such place-based references for interpretation. This is one way that individuals give order to their lives while m oving from place to place although the effects of doing so are not always positive. From what I term a statist perspective, the nua nces of such adjustments are banal facts to be taken for granted. The positions of indivi duals are interpreted in terms of a perceived landscape of identities and relations indigenous to the (so-called) culture of the regi on. From this perspective one is simply white or black (or hisp anic), native or foreign, and the intersection of

PAGE 132

132 one's various categories produce a unique singularity rather than categorical multiplicity. Hence, when my grandparents moved to the U.S. they b ecame 'hispanic' to many, regardless of how they were perceived or perceived themselves in C uba. Likewise, I became flatly 'American' (and 'foreign') having moved to the Netherlands, with the variety of meanings and implications attached to that [national] identity in a Dutc h context. Through processes of comparison and reflection on contradictions between the identities of the same people in things within different cultural spaces, one begins to real ize how naive it is to define one's social surroundings purely in terms of the categories associated with a particular place or society. Acquiring 'diasporic consciousness,' means coming to terms with th e multiplicity of perspectives, worldviews, categorical schemas, and so forth one comes in contact with through movement. This goes beyond merely coming in contact with 'different pers pectives.' It involves recognizing that such contacts involve exchange and (c ontinuing) socializati on such that we do not just 'come into contact' with others but we 'become' them. To say that there is a plurality of worldviews or 'cultures' is somewhat naive in that it fails to recognize that there is neve r any homogeneity or boundedness of culture at any level. Saying that cultures are plural is a bit like saying that th e Earth's water is plural. Yes, we name various seas, oceans, rivers, lakes, and so forth, but we know empirically that all the water is connected and that there is no more unity within a single ocean or sea than there is among the various 'isolated' bodies. Culture/subjectivity is more comp licated than water in th at each individual has her or his own unique variation of the collective cultu re. To say that this or that individual acts and thinks American, Cuban, or Dutch ignores th at none of those three cultures exist without cross-germination from the others, if it even make s sense to think of them separately at all. Diasporic consciousness entails recognizing the false distinctio ns and homogeneities created by

PAGE 133

133 segmenting the world in this way. Anyone who has a relationship with someone 'foreign' has to eventually come to terms with the fact that th ey can become more familiar with an individual from another country, race, or cu lture, than they can with the ma jority of people who 'share' the culture they consider 'their own,' who will rema in strangers to them. To think in terms of predictabilities when it comes to individuals is misleading. When people tell me that they expect to get along better with others becau se of a shared culture, identity, religion, etc. I wonder if they comprehend the power individuals' have to redefine such shared institutions to suit their personal preferences. Logically, it does not make sense that shared institutions cannot result in greater commonalities among humans but this is simply the case. Likewise, it is not particularly surprising when people get along fantastically despite differences. Such surprise is based on the same logical illusion that brings those who sh are identities together. Ultimately, diasporic consciousness leads us to understand huma n culture as individual and group culture in process ; i.e. we do not 'have' cultures but we create them whenever we habituate contact with others. Although existing cultures are br ought to bare in these pro cesses of cultural-construction, negotiating what we bring to the table always plays a greater role than the culture that is brought to the table in the first place. The project of thinking in terms of diaspora is for me a personal one not just because my various families are migrants from various places to various destinations, but because it allows me to unify the world I live in instead of trying to co me to terms with the abstract worlds in terms of the separation that have been imposed by others. I doubt that I will ever come across an article or book about Cubans who mi grate to the Netherlands via the U. S. If I did I suspect that I would not necessarily identify mo re strongly with the people I read about than those I read about in other books I like. This is a consequence of diaspora. One the one hand, we become

PAGE 134

134 conscious of the common experiences of all people albeit in different forms. On the other hand, one becomes ones own 'people.' I have given up the dream of reconciling my famil(y/ies')'s histor(y/ies) with the hi story of a larger group. Instead I say that we cannot deny any part of our mixedness in order to merge seamlessly with another group. That means accepting, regardless of what anyone may say, that my son will continue to be a Cuban 'emigre' regardless of whether he has any contact with others in that group, regard less of whether he is Dutch, American, or both, and regardless of whether he migrates someplace my wife and I are tota lly unfamiliar with and starts a family with yet a new set of ethnic and cultural practices. There are many who would plea for consolidation but such consolidation is always contextually specific. One cannot say indefinitely, 'from now on this is what I am a nd that's all!' One can only hope to be accepted regardless of one's identit(ies) here and there. Although I have chosen to write about Dutch (c ultural) diaspora, I could have chosen to focus on Cuban diaspora, or American diaspora, or even look at other, non-national/ethnic cultures in terms of diaspora. This last possibilit y is an especially intriguing one to me since it would mean going beyond nations, races, and ethnicitie s to think in terms of the other kinds of dispersions that shape people's lives. Neverthe less, I chose to focus on a Dutch diaspora for several reasons. First of all, it represents unresolved business for me personally. It is part of the acculturation process for me as a person who has mi grated to the Netherlands. It may be difficult for those who have never migrated to recognize the kinds of discour ses that one enters into when taking up residence in a place that is defined as 'foreign.' For me, living in the Netherlands has meant recognizing migration from the 'dominant' Dutch perspective. This means recognizing, for example, that the Netherlands is emphasized for its smallness and a corresponding 'inability' to accommodate immigration. Subsequently immigran ts are categorized as refugees, political or

PAGE 135

135 economic, or voluntary immigrants, and accorded st atuses of legitimacy on the basis of those categories. Rarely have I spoke n with a Dutch person who regards her/him self as native who does not feel completely comforta ble with judging whether an immi grant has a legitimate right to residence in the Netherlands based on the nature of that person's status. Economic refugees are deemed unwelcome, along with anyone else who e ither does not 'need' to be there, or who does not have the means to live comfortably without earning income. Political refugees are more often accepted but with the qualific ation that they are not permanent. Rarely do people talk about the implication of all these rejections which is that the Netherlands is being maintained as an exclusive territory rese rved for those deemed unproblematically 'autochtonous.' Reconceptualizing 'Dutchness' in terms of diaspora, simultaneously makes visible the exclusionary character of the nationalist pers pective while at the same time rendering a number of possibilities that allow people to be Dutch as well as to become Dutch. At the same time it also allows people to be(come) Dutch without ne cessarily living within the tiny chunk of North European land known as the Netherlands. While th is is a radical redefinition, I have to propose it as liberatory to all those persons who are tr apped within the exclusive confines of Dutch genetics3. To put it simply, this is a move to free people whose only reason for living in the Netherlands is to ensure the Dutchness of their offspring and thus the continuing right to remain in the Netherlands. To put it more simply, in terms of an exampl e, I spoke with a friend a few days ago about speaking Dutch with my son, to which she re sponded with surprise. "You mean you speak 3The term, 'genetics' here is not meant to refer to biological genetics in the sense of chromosomes and so forth. Instead I am using 'genetics' to refer to the discourse of reproducing ethnicity in terms that may include but are not limited to biol ogical transfers. Specifically, I am emphasizing how location/place is utilized as a means of constructing ethnic legitimacy and, thus, how placeexperience is invoked in processes of ethno-cultural genesis, i.e. genetics

PAGE 136

136 Dutch to him, not English!" I proceeded to explain to her how I wanted him to speak both languages since I had lost Spanish, and furthermor e that I did not want Dutch people to exclude him from being Dutch on the basis that he doesn't speak Dutch. She responded somewhat baffled, "but I think that is inev itable," she said, "he is not growing up in the Netherlands." For me this remark is thoughtless and callous. I do not believe that people should be faced with ethnic disavowal when they choose to take adva ntage of international opportunities and what's more, the only reason my wife and I chose to move to the U.S. in the first place was because I faced so much occupational discrimination for be ing foreign. For this (mis)treatment to be extended to my child, (whose mother is Dutch!) w ould be an outrage. Nevertheless, it is clear that in some people's consciousness, such exclus ion is simply a matter of fact, not malicious discriminatory practice. Consciously or not I believe there are many who avoid taking advantage of international opport unities the way that my wife a nd I have for the purpose of avoiding such ethnic exclusion. In practice it is as if Dutch people are afraid to move away from 'the group' for too long or deviate from certain norms out of fear of ethnic exclusion. For me it is ironic that I have only heard of a few countries requiring exit visas, Cuba one of them, and yet it may be the case that the Netherlands has such a sy stem (preventing people from living abroad) in (informal/cultural) practice albeit not in official policy. The historical image of the Dutch is one of diaspora and international contact, although this is oddly regulated by segmentation of the dias pora into separate nations. There is a simple thought-exercise that renders this visible. Simply think of the various countries of Dutch expansion and then remove the national barriers and differentiation. Suriname, Indonesia, and South Africa, are just a few of the places that coul d reasonably be considered as parts of a global Netherlands. Why we so often resort to th inking nations separatel y, as having separate

PAGE 137

137 existences and histories is re ally confounding. This is not only because it problematizes 'ownership' of historical events. For example whose is the history the voyages of Dutch West Indies company ships along the middle passage in or der to bring slaves from Africa to the new world? the Netherlands? the U.S.? Ghana? the i ndividuals whose predece ssor's participated in slaving and slavery? In fact, it makes more sense to see the separa teness of nations critically as a conceptual construction that obscures the global character of colonialism as well as the basic organic wholeness of humanity. Often the legitimation given to the maintenan ce of national (or other territorially bounded) communities is culture and/or language. Althoug h it does make sense that people who speak a certain language would want to live in close proximity with one another in order to use that language in their various daily activ ities, and/or to have access to electronic and print media that facilitate communication, it is quite another issue when speakers of a la nguage begin orienting toward other speakers in ways that produce st ratification according to accent/dialect including those of so-called 'non-native' speakers4. Language is primarily an instrument of communication and expression and therefore we may even go as fa r as to say that the use of it as a means of identification and status is path ological and that the practice of using it in this way forms an impediment to its use for communication and expr essive purposes. When we focus on language in terms of distinction in stead of as a medium, the directional ity of the logic of group-forming is reversed. Instead of looking for ways of stim ulating and promoting the use of Dutch, including 4I place the expression 'non-native' speaker in quotation marks because this is a problematic descriptor that is rarely reflected on criticall y. In fact, no one is born speaking a language so no language can be 'native.' What is more problematic is that this term is often loaded with status distinctions between native a nd non-native speakers further obsc uring the common experiences shared by both types of learners/speakers of learning and using that language in practice. Although this is nearly a taboo for many people to think about native and n on-native speakers as essentially similar rather than different, this is central to the diasporic project.

PAGE 138

138 the indoctrination a nd inclusion of new speakers in a variet y of contexts, Dutch becomes used as a means of producing distinction for existing speake rs. Likewise, this institutionalized exclusion is mythologized in any number of cultural-logi cs, from the notion that Dutch is harder to learn/speak than other languages (a nd therefore Dutch people are na turally more apt to adapt to another society than vice versa) to the idea that the Netherlands is an 'old' society that has lost its dominance on the world stage and therefore must focus its remaining energy on preserving what remains5. Also, regionalism and factionalism are strongl y advocated in Dutch life to the point of appearing as natural laws. Just as the myth goes that there is no European that is not first and foremost a national, there is a similar ideol ogy that no one can live as an individual in the Netherlands without subscribi ng to some sub-culture. Therefore many people reject ABN (standardized Dutch) as being 'vague' and 'artif icial' whereas they embrace regional dialects as more 'organic' and 'unique.' In fact this is a double-deception (from the instrumentality of language) since ABN implies a need to standardi ze Dutch in the first pl ace, either to erase markings of regional-ethnic difference or to render communication possible between people who would otherwise be unable to comprehend one anothe r. More than likely speakers of different dialects, as well as speakers of Dutch and Afrik aans, could understand each other fairly well if they would just listen carefully and maintain an attitude of openness toward making themselves clear to the other speaker; much the same way it is usually quite easy to understand and make ourselves clear to people with di fferent accents in English if we are open and interested in the conversation. Thinking in terms of a Dutch cultural diaspora means shifting focus from the plurality of regional and indivi dual variations of culture a nd language toward communicating and interacting in ways that render such differe nces unimportant. This does not mean erasing 5Essed writes about this in Diversity (1996).

PAGE 139

139 differences or denying similarities but rather moving beyond emphasizing either differences or similarities in order to achieve interaction with others, regardless of th eir status/identity. The idea of a cultural diaspora is not someth ing that is specifically suited to Dutch societ(ies) and/or culture(s). Rather cultural di aspora is a concept that I have focussed on as a means of dispelling the associati on between (a) culture and a partic ular people or society. It is far too common for social scientists and others to talk about cultures interchangeably with peoples/races instead of recognizing that the way that people associ ate themselves with others in groups/races/peoples is just one part of cultu re. Whether we build our house out of wood, stones, or clay has less to do with what group we belong to than with our tastes, habits, and the means available. However, it is the cas e that specific cultural practices are disseminated through social networks, and such dissemination usuall y involves human movement and contact. As such, the concept of a cultural diaspora refers to such processes of dissemination along with those humans/agents within the networks th rough which such dissemination takes place6. A cultural diaspora has no criteria for membership ot her than contact and part icipation in the flows of knowledges and practices that constitute it. Obviously the contact th at takes place between parents and children is an intens e example of connection within cu ltural diaspora but there is no reason to set a threshold of r ecognition below which other kinds of contact are deemed too insignificant to constitute contingency within th e diaspora. The argument that Dutch colonialism did too little for its colonial othe rs to be legitimately termed an empire is an example of such a claim to sub-significance of cultu ral contact. How can we imag ine that contact and exchange could take place on an industrial scale without signi ficant effects for all involved? It is not a question of significance of cont act but of its character. What practices and knowledge, not to 6This idea of cultural dispersion th rough social networking is infl uenced in part by ANT (Actor Network Theory). See Law and Hassard (1999).

PAGE 140

140 mention materials and bodies, were exchange d through contact between individuals? How were/are knowledges, practices, a nd identities modified or reifie d through their distribution and reproduction in each new social context/setting? Th ese are the kind of issues I consider central to cultural diaspora; more important than the population movements of an exclusively defined people or race. Although I frame these issues in generalized la nguage, they in fact arise out of specific historical experiences of Dutc h immigration culture. Specifi cally I am referring to my own position in Utrecht circa the year 2000 at the intersection of popul ar media and informal social discourse while living with and interacting wi th various members of my local community. Members of the community had varying degrees of local territorial establishedness including tourists, refugees, immigrants from establ ished immigrant groups, immigrants from less established immigrant groups, as well as so-calle d autochtonous Dutch with varying degrees of regional establishedness. To say that I speak from the position of an immigrant living in Lombok, a so-called multicultural or ethnically diverse neighborhood of Utrecht, does not acknowledge that I also lived as a student. To say that I lived as a student, on the other hand, does not acknowledge that I lived as an immigrant but also as an 'honorary' white Dutchman. On the other hand the status and cont acts I enjoyed by virtue of be ing white and American does not acknowledge the subtle sexism I experienced for having male-spouse status as my (weak) claim to legitimate participation in Dutch life. These are some aspects of the social positioning from which I write in regard to Dutchness. As such, I am aware that my writi ng will be limited to the specific character of my experi ences along with the texts I have read and discourses I have participated in. No one can claim to make claims beyond such limitations of experience and vantage point, and I am no exception.

PAGE 141

141 Since the birth of my child, I also write with the future in mind. What will his position in the Dutch cultural diaspora be(come) ? What will it mean for him to be seen as white while still carrying the name and cultural traditions of his C uban family whose name he continues to bear? What will his location and his history of location(s) mean for him in terms of status and ethnic inclusion/exclusion? What will they mean for him in terms of shaping his cultural indoctrination and socialization? To what extent will he be ab le to express his individual collection of human resources while still maintaining the right to be accepted as a legitimate member of the various ethnic (and other) groups to which he is entitled to membership ? When he encounters other Cubans, or hispanics/Latinos in this world, will he be able to participate in their society? When he encounters other Americans, will he be able to escape their projections of (in)difference? When he encounters other Dutch, will he be able to escape exclusionary classification? Will such groups still be envisioned as separate and different from one a nother? Of course I want him to have access to free association within any ethnic group or society that he chooses to join/participate in, but I name these three national groups as the ones he should be able to claim under the same logic of birthright as anyone else who claims memb ership by virtue of heritage. Of course I wish him as much and hopefully more th an just this in terms of inter-group and interindividual social capital but I refuse to deny him the right to deny exclusion from any of his ethnic diasporas. For me, living as a so-called 'mixed' pers on has required enormous amounts of sensemaking that seem to appear superfluous to mo st people with whom the subject comes up. To them, ethnicity usually seems unproblematic as does race. They see clearly defined groups/identities while people who problematize the distinctions ar e seen as being purposefully difficult. They would never imagine that the re verse is actually the case; that people who toss

PAGE 142

142 around simplistic ethnic, racial, na tional, sexual, and other labe ls are the ones making things difficult for everyone. Perhaps somewhere in their programming, subconscious mind, or elsewhere is buried the knowledge that constructing the world in terms of mutually exclusive categories puts themselves at an advantage by problematizing hybridity, wh ich they neither take part in nor take responsibility for. If this know ledge is there, however, it is just that, buried, subject to denial, ignorance, or di sbelief when they are confronted with it. Often people tell me what an advantage I have by virtue of my light skin, European features, unmarked American English accent, male gender, heterosexual status a nd so forth. These assets are truly privileges in many of the most significant social contexts. Still, I am often left wondering whether these people have reflected on their own categorical positioning. Do they think about who they really are in relation to the iden tities that others attribute to them? Do they think about what it means to accept race as a label, even critically so, and wh at it means to 'belong' to one or more races? Do they think about the relationship between na tionality and ethnicity? Do they know what it means to identify a person according to the language they speak or the accent attributed to them? Do they reflect on the interests and consequences that are tacit in the knowledge they deploy? "How is it that you have blond hair and your na me is Smith?" I would sometimes like to ask someone identifying unproblematically with the do minant group in order to problematize her/his non-mixedness. "How did you get to speak such good Dutch?" I might ask, "You must have had very rigorous language-disciplin e from a very young age!" "You mu st be terrified to make one pronunciation mistake?!?" These kinds of ques tions would be considered aggressive and threatening (or perhaps just confusing) by member s of the dominant groups they target, and yet they are the same kinds of questions that su ch people pose to so-called 'mixed' people on a regular basis. Few people woul d consciously and/or explicitly condemn 'mixed' people today,

PAGE 143

143 yet it is doubtful that they would be very comfortable with carryi ng that label/identity themselves; never mind how many would react if it were suggest ed that the roles could be reversed! Of course it is a ll too common for members of the dominant group who claim to hold no animosity toward those categorized as different from themselves to still become flustered when confronted with the prospect of trading pl aces. The avoidance of inhabiting hybridity is only one example. The problematization of hybridity is, of course inseparable from the intensive reliance on categorical distinctions above a ny critical assessment of how such categories are separate from the empirical reality they claim to seamlessly repr esent. In Dutch logic, diasporic thinking is problematized by the distinction be tween the inside (binnenland) a nd the outside (buitenland) of the country. This distinction is compounded by the extension of the term for foreigners (buitenlanders). One might expect there to be a corresponding term (binnenlanders) for natives/residents but only the proper name (Nederlanders) is used instead nationalizing/racializing th e distinction. A conversational expe riment that I used to conduct on a regular basis was to ask people whether Germa ny (Duitsland) was called such because it was inhabited by Germans (Duitsers) or if the reve rse was true, that Germans were people who come from the land/country, Germany. I have rece ived different answers which are always problematic since the notion that the people are autochtonous (i.e not immigrants at no time in history) conflicts with the notion that they ma ster and name the land. Once someone answered me according to the rules of c itizenship-acquisition in Germany, i.e. that, sadly, the people are German and their 'blood,' not the soil, bestows Germanness on new citizens and, therefore, the land is the property of the pe ople and not the reverse.

PAGE 144

144 In this sense it is ironic that so much weight is attributed to geographical positioning in the logic of ethnic inclusion/exclusion, although it make s more sense in light of the large numbers of Dutch people who have migrated to Canada, Au stralia, and elsewhere. Although such people may be considered unproblematical ly Dutch themselves or have been born to one or more Dutch parents, the label 'foreign' (i.e. buitenlander) ma y be more easily applied to them as to Dutch living consistently 'inside' the border. Clear ly this is an overexcited schema for ethnic distinction. Likewise, when pe ople who consider themselves unpr oblematically ethnically Dutch are subject to such inclusion c onstraints, it is less than surp rising that so much repressive pressure is put on others who have entered into the cultural diaspora. Often discussions of the rights of 'immigrants' are framed in terms of comparison with the threats and pressures experienced by natives, as if it would be problematic for a foreigner to be liberated from socialexclusionary pressure before a so-called native. In large part I suspect that resistance for taking responsibility for the conceptual sc hema that naturalizes so much ex clusionary pressure is rooted in the assumption of many people that the co nceptual schema itself, along with logical conclusions formed by its application, is seen as having a refined degree of accuracy vis-a-vis the facts it is presumed to represent. In ot her words, many Dutch people are unwaveringly convinced that such distinctions as buitenland/binnenland, and all the logical extrapolations that are founded on them, are true by virtue of the essen tial efficacy of such a distinction in the first place. For them it is simply unimaginable to thi nk about a world that is not essentially different outside the national border than it is inside. At the same time, of course, an enormous amount of energy is devoted to describing, mapping, and othe rwise 'knowing' as much as possible about the world down to the most minute detail in Dutch te rms; and thereby incorporating the world into Dutch ethnocentrism.

PAGE 145

145 Projecting ethnocentric knowledge onto every encounterable arti fact and experience of the humanly accessible universe is hardly a uniquely Dutch strategy for facilitating social power. Foucault and others write extensiv ely about the relationship of knowle dge and power in this way. The question in diasporic thinking is whether su ch knowledge can be liberated, i.e. detached, from the management of a border that divides a na tional inside from a foreign outside. Part of being able to think this way is letting go of the conception of nations or other kinds of societies as mutually exclusive. It is not an extraordinarily ra dical transnationalist notion to recognize that all sorts of people inhabit multiple societies all the time everywhere. Military workers living abroad know as do migrant workers what it means to live and work in one place while at the same time living and working for another. I am hesitant abou t making this distinction between living 'in' and 'for' since, clearly, it would be impossible to ever not live for the place in which one is living. Likewise it would be silly to im ply that in a modern economy it is possible to live and work exclusively for the place one lives and works. Trade and travel are not norms or exceptions; they are omnipresent. There is no life that does not involve movement and therefore there can be no position that is not multiple. Di asporic thinking involves accepting such inherent multiplicity and therefore makes it unproblemat ic to recognize the im possibility of an inside/outside (binnenland/buitenland) that do not constantly overlap and define each other by intersecting. Ultimately I believe that there is also the possibility of going further and thinking without these categories at all, in terms of a global society of contingent diasporas; and, what's more, that such a framework does not have to be leveling or reductive as some would contend. It simply involves shifting the reference for ethnicit y, culture, knowledge, and so forth from places, territories, things, and so on to subjects, subjecti vity, and materiality at the most basic level.

PAGE 146

146 Research and Becoming The issue of whether research of a particular group is better studied by a member of that group or a stranger is one that has been d ealt with extensively by anthropologists and sociologists. While some say that familiarity le ads to neglect of many aspects of life that are taken for granted by 'natives,' others disagree cl aiming that familiarity can be a useful aid to research endeavors. Whatever position we take on this issue, there is th e problem of establishing what the researcher's identity is in the first pl ace and what her/his relationship to the group in question is before this other question can even be asked. In many ways this is an issue directly addressed by cultural diaspora since whether someone is strange or familiar within a particular context has much to do with the social c ontact they have had with others and the knowledge/culture that has been exchanged. Although it is difficult to see past one's own practices of categorization and id entification, seeing cultur al practices as such requires a critical recognition that such categorizati on and identification processes are the result of specific cultural practices themselves. From a culturalist persp ective we could speak of various cultures of categorization and identification, not meaning that each group has its own such cultures but that categorization and identification are actually complexes of a vari ety of knowledge practices that include how one approaches a certain categoric al schema, how one views that schema with reference to other categorical schemas, how one's experience of particular social contexts influences one's feeling toward the categories in question, how one learns to relate to others on the basis of identification or otherwise, and so forth. When we recognize that many different approaches to each of these facets of categorizati on and identity are available and recognize that the categories and identities we are dealing with are not simply there but rather that we are doing them then understanding these as cultura l practices makes more sense.

PAGE 147

147 Let us take a specific exampl e, albeit somewhat hypothetical regarding Dutch cultural diaspora in which a Canadian to urist might enter into conversation with a Dutch tourist in a coastal town in Zeeland. Assuming that these two are well-socialized nationalists, they will recognize each other's identities acco rding to the logic of national di fference. In other words, the Dutch person will recognize himself as Dutch and not Canadian while noting that the Canadian is Canadian and not Dutch and the Canadian wi ll recognize the same but the other way around. In such an interaction where national difference is mutually recognized it makes more sense to speak of a common culture of national differentia tion than it does to ta lk about a meeting of different cultures. Although it may be the case th at the Canadian is operating with many cultural practices that are in many ways different from the Dutch person, this does not preclude their ability to share in a common cultu re of differentiation. In the ne gotiations of meaning that take place between these two, there may be many comm on approaches to identity and categorization even where the specific identities in question ar e understood differently a nd/or the categorical schemas of each person are not familiar to the other in many ways. To understand the cultural differences and sameness at play, a cultural diaspo ra approach suggests that we make sense of these two people and their interactions in terms of overall identities, wh ether ethnic, political, sexual or otherwise, but rather that we conceive of their cultural practices in terms of the various separate discourses and/or flows of knowledge that led them to be have as they did. For example, the Canadian's understanding of Canadianness may have been learned in a radically different discourse than the Dutch person's understanding of Canadianness in which case we are dealing with separate cultural diasporas in that sense. However, it may also be that the Canadian's technique of showing respect for the Dutch person 's sense of national pr ide, by avoiding talking about certain political issues for example, is a product of the same discourse as the Dutch

PAGE 148

148 person's who applies the same technique when rela ting to people perceived as foreign nationals. Thus while these two people are engaged in mutu al recognition of cultural differences, this does not preclude their ability to participate in a common culture of constructing and emphasizing the uniqueness or mutual exclusivity of their respective national identities. In fact, in many such cases I believe close empirical investigation woul d reveal that social c onstruction of mutually recognized national differences is of ten a result of more or less coer cive interaction. That is to say, one or more conversation partic ipants will resist the other if s/ he begins to suggest or claim that the national differences betwee n them are either unimportant or worse, nonexistent. In such cases, it makes sense to look at the overla pping of various agreed-upon meanings and disagreements along with the various cultural tec hniques and practices that are brought to bear on the conflict. It is simply not enough to attribute such interactions to simple identity differences or monolithic ideological conflicts. Conceiving of the complexity of culture in this way adds extra dimensionality to the issue of researcher identity and (my) relationship to Du tchness. Certainly there will be, as there have been, critics who find it a simple matter to establis h my relationship to my research object as a determinant of simple identity re lations, i.e. they will say that I am not studying Dutchness as an insider because I am simply not Dutch in their op inion, which they perceive is strongly rooted in some kind of natural law of identities and their social recognition. I am quite hesitant about negotiating such meaning with critics such as this not because we disagree but because for them there falls little to negotiate except my coming to terms with a truth they have decided is irrefutable. On the contrary, however, it is not difficult for me to claim to study Dutchness from a Dutch perspective since I have no reason to exclude myself fr om recognition for the processes of socialization and acculturation I have undert aken and undergone. Although I have discussed

PAGE 149

149 at various moments the differences and similarities between primar y and secondary socialization, I find that the matter of establishi ng a hierarchical status differential among types of socialization in order to legitimate or delegitimate members of group less relevant th an recognizing in what ways socialization, albeit in various forms, produces certain feelings and connections among individuals and between indivi duals and institutions Although there is a conflict between recognizing oneself as Dutch and internalizing the Dutch prerogative of disavowing anyone who wasn't "born Dutch" as Dutch, this conflict is de-problematized for me by virtue of the inalienable power of individuals to disagree with sentiments claimed as group-sentiments for the group they identify with. In other words, only fr om a Dutch perspective could I or anyone else authoritatively recognize myself as Dutch or not, and thus I choose to recognize my Dutchness. There is, to my knowledge, no other way to r ecognize individuals' processes of acculturation without acknowledging that all ac hievement however partial or extensive results in new subjectivity and that such subjectivity is no less real than any other part of that person/subject. For me the best way to understand the relations hip between the research er and (my) object of study involves the Deleuzian notion of 'becomings ,' since it describes movement that is not defined vis-a-vis 'being' as its refe rent. Deleuze and Guattari write: A line of becoming is not defined by points th at it connects, or by points that compose it; on the contrary, it passes between points . A point is always a point of origin. But a line of becoming has neither beginning nor end, departure nor arrival, origin nor destination; to speak of the absence of an origin, to make the absence of an origin the origin, is a bad play on words. A line of becoming has only a middle. (Deleuze and Guattari 293) This way of thinking about the re lationship between researcher and researched is useful because it lets us move beyond the necessary subject/ object dichotomy implied in separating the researcher from the researched. Likewise it also moves beyond conceptu alizing ethnicity in terms of an inand an outgroup which is also useful since inclusion a nd exclusion by means of status-attribution is just one part of the cultural practices that constitute ethnicity. To understand

PAGE 150

150 ethnicity, in this case Dutchness, in this way means abandoning the urge to define ethnicity in terms of membership based on an origin, a thre shold, social recognition by others in the group, and so forth. Trying to 'measure' ethnicity in this way is senseless be cause it always leaves a partial variant that cannot be counted and nevert heless contains particles of the substance. Rather than excluding partial becomings from re cognition, the Deleuzian fo rmulation inverts the threshold logic of being to accoun t for all being as partial, as becoming. Thus in terms of nationality-ethnicit y, I resist the formulation that I was (being) an American becoming Dutch, thereby falling into the dichotomy between bei ng and becoming based on th e ranking of origins in temporal sequence. Instead, the Deleuzian definition allows me to view becoming-Dutch, becoming-American, becoming-Cuban, or otherwis e becoming-national/ethnic as processes and practices that overlap and influe nce one another in various ways. There is no Dutch-, American-, or Cubanness which is more so because it lack s (is purified of) other ethnic becomings. Instead ethnicity should be seen in term s of the additive processes that create and sustain it and make sense of oneself and others in terms of it, not as mutually excluding categories. At what point does the researcher begin knowi ng the object of research? Answering this question always involves looking be fore the beginning of research since one has to already know of the object in order to approach it for research. To start at a point of ignorance and move forward through time to the point of first knowledge also makes little sens e since doing so would entail conceptualizing such a moment in terms of the future moment that is at stake in the first place. In other words, the Deleuzian approach is a radical means of taking responsibility for ones research by acknowledging becoming it either as a result of or parallel to the research process. This view of the rela tionship between researcher and re searched is reminiscent of the Weberian verstehen as a form of deep familiarity with th e Other who is the object of sociological

PAGE 151

151 understanding. In Deleuze's term s we might say that Weber was particularly interested in 'becoming' the people he studied by understand ing the subjective cont ext in which they experienced their life-worlds and framed thei r actions and decisions. Although I would not claim that all connections forged between research er and researched are e qually intense, I cannot imagine a distance of separation between resear cher and researched, no matter how many filters the data has passed through, that can produce a totally clean sepa ration between the two. Every research process is always necessarily a forging or rather intensificati on of the contact between researcher and researched. To claim that there was a point before my becoming Dutch I would have to search for a moment prior to the existence of an already-fo rged path to Dutchness in my life-world. As it turns out there was perhaps never no path between America, in its western-territorialized form, and the Netherlands, except maybe before Colum bus and even then it certainly existed as a potentiality. In the genealogy of the route I, personally, followed th ere were of course those who maintained the academic connections between U.S. and Dutch universities, airlines, and so forth that preceded me and opened my path. Using my individual subjectivity as a reference point, I could search for various moments of self-consciousness in regard s to the existence of Dutchness and my position in it, although it would be difficult if not impossible to do so with accuracy in regards to alterity since a sense of alterity is always necessarily rela ted to the disavowal of something internalized and can be therefore only pa rt of the story. What makes the most sense to me is to account for my positionality with rega rd to Dutchness, Dutch culture(s), and Dutch ethnicit(ies) and, in turn, for th e relationship between researcher and researched, in terms of the various processes of contact and becoming that c onstitute my connectivity with this sphere of Dutchness, for lack a better term. Materially thus, my position within Dutchness is evident;

PAGE 152

152 whereas in terms of identity, it is a product of my refusal to disavow the connection in naming myself in relation to this por tion of my ethnic development. Developing ethnicity and ethnic identity is a tr icky process, especially when one has been socialized into a culture of impossibility where ac hievement is concerned in regards to ethnicity. I can easily sum up this culture of fixation on inherent identities as racism although many people would contend that sexism, nationalism, heterose xism, and so forth are fundamentally different phenomena than racism. I use the term racism as an umbrella for these other forms in the sense that they are means for isolating individuals with in fixed identities and se ts of expectations. I realize that by using the term, 'racism' in this way I am essentializing it as a deterministic concept par excellence and by doing so eschewing the possibility of imagining races of people based on non-essential qualities or even not on 'qualities' at all but on agency. Perhaps 'nationalism' would be a better umbrella term than 'racism' since it refe rs to nativity, to birth or in-born qualities. However, since the term 'nationality' has been modified to be able to extend to naturalized citizens whereas, at least in common use, 'race' is thought of as something in-born, I prefer the term 'racism' to refer to cultures of recognizing in-born qualities over other (a ttainable) aspects of individuals. Although terms lik e 'gender' and 'ethnicity' were invented to talk about issues previously attributed to 'sex' and 'r ace' in cultural, rather than inborn, terms, it takes little critical reflection to realize that in pract ice these terms are ofte n used with an irresponsible, or perhaps merely unconscious, neglect for the distinction between culture and natu re/inherence they are meant to take advantage of. Ethnicity is by defi nition learned, as is gender, and likewise the assumption is that, not withstandi ng power relations, ethnicity and gender describe practices that are not necessarily linked to one's race or sex, in sofar as we regard these as necessary socialconstructions. As is so hotly debated, or at leas t alluded to, on a daily ba sis in social scientific

PAGE 153

153 discussions, the social constructi on of ethnicity, as with gender a nd sexuality, does not take place through totally conscious, overt, or voluntary ag ency. In fact, so many practices of social construction seem so compulsory and compulsive that many of my colleagues become angry at the use of the term 'social construction' altoge ther since they feel that the term implies voluntarism of agency. I resist equating social co nstruction with voluntarism as I resist equating voluntarism with agency because doing so would obs cure the possibility of recognizing instances where agency is involuntary (i.e. compulsory, com pulsive, coerced, manipulat ed, and so forth) as where social construction takes plac e in situations where social act ors accept labels and beliefs as fundamentally true as part of the construction process. Although some critics would say that viewing people's fundamental beliefs as socially constructed does not respect the primacy of those beliefs, as people ourselves, I believe (we) social scientists also have a responsibility to respect the primacy of our ability to recognize processes of social construction. What's more it is a naive constructionist who juxtaposes the possibi lity of fundamental faith in the constructions with the ability to acknowledge that they are also in fact socially constructed. So if 'ethnicity' refers to cultural practice rather than inherent/in -born identity, then it should not be difficult to recognize the ways that individuals learn mate rial and ideological techniques that make up the subs tance of their ethnicity7. What's more focussing on the 7 Although I waivered between using the plural 'ethnicities' instead of the singular 'ethnicity' here in reference to the inherently multiethnic nature of culture, I decided to keep the singular with emphasis on its possibility of referring to a collec tive substance (as with terms like 'liquid' that can refer to diverse quantit ies or mixtures of different 'liquids') Thus 'ethnicity' does not refer to one's ethnicity as a categorical label but to ethnicity as various practices and techniques used and/or known by an individual that are learned th rough contact with other individuals or through contacts/participation in group life, potentially within different groups at different moments. While this may sound like a view of ethnicity resonant with the noti on of shopping for identity in a superficial way (see Halter 2000), it is somewh at broader in the sense that I am not limiting my view of ethnic acquisition to consumption or market activities nor to aesthetic aspects of cultural/identity practices. Although I am not de nying the possibility for the market to provide

PAGE 154

154 substance of ethnicity, cultural pract ices that is rather than identi ty struggles, should allow us to move beyond simple dichotomous logics as to w ho and what is Dutch or not. The research project represented in this thesis, then, is Dutch as well as American, as well as CubanAmerican, insofar as we choose to identify cult ural projects along the lines of national/ethnic identities. I refuse to disavow these three cultura l identities, at least, as long as nationality is brought to bear on the meanings gi ven to researcher and researche d. To those critics who would challenge this claiming that I am no longer C uban-American, I say then that I am no longer American as a Dutch immigrant. To those w ho would say that I cannot become Dutch, I say then that I have yet to become American. Alt hough I wrote this section in regard to becoming ones research topic (and researching ones becomings ), I find that I am concluding with a shift toward a more important becoming than the ethnic/national one. Becoming diasporic is the result of coming to terms with the limits of the st atist facade. From the statist perspective we are led to believe all sorts of resear ch that defines immigrants in terms of generation (first, second, third, etc.), measuring their beco mings in terms of state centers which they are presumed to be drifting away from and toward. Through the statis t lens I look just at my own child and see a person who is third generation American on his father's side as a Cuban-American, first generation Dutch as the son of an immigrant to the Netherlands, but also first generation American as the son of an immigrant to the U.S. At the same time he is also the next generation of people who could claim along with so many sta tists that they are no t immigrants at all but rather original residents of the nations they id entify as their own. As such, more so than opportunities to learn ethnic practices, on the co ntrary it is a major medium for transmitting knowledge and experience, but I contend that ethnic ity is something more than symbolic capital, that it is the result of pr actice and achievement.

PAGE 155

155 becoming Dutch as a means and result of resear ching Dutchness, this project represents becoming diasporic as a means of transcending ethnic-national exclusivity and ethnocentrism. Literature and Theory Although 'literature' and 'theory' traditionally denote separate undert akings in a research project, many social scientists will concede that these are becoming increasingly interwoven. Whether this is because doing theory through literature is seen as a trend to which many unthinkingly conform, or because of the looming threat that any primary theorizing that is done by the author will be immediately attacked from all sides unless it cites for itself an established precedent, or whether there is a tota l lack of hope left that original thinking is even possible, I am not sure. What remains conducive to the possi bility of original langu age, however, is the necessity of translation. The most obvious type of translation that results in original writing is the literal translation that takes place to make text written in one language intelligible in another. Other types of translation include translating data into finding s and findings into conclusions, translating/transposing1 ideas from one field, discipline, or th eory into another, or translating the ideas of others into new ideas of our own cr eation through synthesis. Clearly the issue of originality is problematic in tr anslations but there is undeniably a high degree of creativity required to produce the new form of the translat ed work(s). Processes of translation are especially relevant for the curren t project, if for no other reason th an that I am traversing divided terrain by pursuing 1) the idea of Dutch societ y while writing in English in an American university 2) an approach which draws upon various approaches to diverse ethnicities in order to approach 'Dutchness' as a specific and at the sa me time general templet of ethnic experience; and more theoretically 3) the traditionally positivist-objectivist theme of society/diaspora, a macro form, while emphasizing a subjectivist orientation toward the social. Although more of

PAGE 156

156 my work is rooted in processes of translation and synthesis of other id eas, I cannot claim to be able to cite them all since many are not even text -based. To speak pre-emptively to criticisms of this kind of thinking, I will briefly cite the inevitabili ty of this in a discipline such as (qualitative) sociology in which we listen to our data so carefu lly and with so much re spect that their speech and ideas often become equally or more meaningf ul than the academic voices we are trained to privilege over others. For me, at least, this ha s led not to relativism but to a radical collapse of the asymmetry between theory and data. No, all voices are not the same, but any voice can offer fresh insight, regardless of the status or label through which we filter it. Related to the problem of collapsing literature and theory into a singl e step is the problem of how to use literature. It is unfortunately often assume d that in order for a particular scientific project to be relevant it must be positioned among other currently validated approaches to a similar and/or related theme. Literature review s are often undertaken wi th this project in mind, the idea being that if one's project conforms closely enough to similar projects in the field without repeating them unnecessari ly, it will automatically be a good project or at least no one will be able to challenge its relevance. This is based on an approach to science that emphasizes submission to rules and collective images over the creative application of ideas and approaches. I eschew submitting to a mechanistic view of scientific relevance in this way, preferring a more ground-up approach to literature, theory, methods, interpretation, and so fo rth that allows for more researcher-agency in the production of knowledge8, Diaspora is a tricky topic if we try to position research among other current studies for several reasons. First there is the issue of whether to focus on the diaspora as a general topic, avoiding studi es oriented toward particular diasporas. Since I take the view that each study of a particular diaspora is simultaneously a study 8HetGevolg.nl and XPdite.nl are websites from wh ich data was drawn for the empirical portion of this project. For more detail see the methods and/or findings section of the current piece.

PAGE 157

157 of diaspora as a general con cept, there is no reason to naturally exclude studies based on their specific focus. Instead I should be open to examining anything written on any diaspora for knowledge relevant to studying dias pora at the general theoretical level as well as to cultural diaspora and Dutch diaspora specifically. Howeve r impractical it may seem to widen one's field of vision in this way, it is a necessary step to ward acknowledging the breadth of a field that is beyond oversight. Second, should I cat egorize diasporic studies in a way that lets me order them into more and less relevant to studying Dutch cu ltural diaspora? For example, I could identify the Netherlands as a western-European country and on that basis select a narrowed sample of diasporic studies that focus on western as opposed to (less western?) countries, peoples, and cultures. Aside from being a somewhat racist crit erion in my eyes, this a pproach also ignores the multicultural aspects of Dutch culture. Should I then look for studies of diaspora which treat it as an ideology rather than as a material state of populations? While th is is a somewhat better criterion, it assumes that approach es to diaspora as a material rather than ideological social phenomenon say nothing about ideology, which is not the case. Next there is the issue to what extent my study should include writing about Du tchness and Dutch society in general, whether this relates directly to diasporic themes or not While I can once again not categorically exclude any such writing from potential relevance, it would be impossible to account for all such literature. Finally, since I am interested in dias pora from a critical race/ethnic perspective, I must give consideration to producing linkage between studies of race and racism and my approach to Dutch diaspora. With an awareness of the largely insurmountable complexities I have mentioned, I have opted for an approach that sa crifices the pretense to cover everything in a particularly defined field in favor of a more bricolage-orie nted approach in which literature is 'mixed and matched' in a way that informs and sheds light on the research themes in diverse

PAGE 158

158 ways. In addition much of my appro ach to this topic is the result of grounded-syntheses of ideas derived from literature, empirical work, and experi ence. While I cannot claim to always be able to dissect the independent building-blocks of such syntheses in order to account for their every detail, I can hope to apply them in ways that are relevant and insightful for the goals of research and interpretation, and as such I hope for some leeway from readers in this regard. The literature I surveyed related explicitly to the topic of diaspora, in addition to Brah's work which I mention repeatedly in various pa rts of this project, re presents a collage of ethnicities and approaches to studying them. Writing about an 'Albanian diaspora-in-themaking,' Mai (2005) looks at Al banians in Italy and how the Italian media has influenced Albanian identities. Although Mai's approach of l ooking at the role of Italian media in Albanian identity construction processes, he does not go so far as to discuss this in terms of incorporating these Albanians into an Italian cultural diaspora, or in other terms of hybridization. While he does discuss diasporic fluidities at a theoretical level, he maintain s, for instance, that living in Italy constitutes 'physical displacement' for Alba nians (Mai 344), more resonant with a statist perspective, in which individuals are positioned vi s-a-vis states, than a diasporic one. Georgiou (2005) considers various et hnically identified variants of 'diasporic media', a term she uses to describe only media that "address particular ethnic, linguistic a nd/or religious groups that live within broader and diverse multicultural societies" (482). It is not clear whether this phrasing suggests that there are media channels in multicultu ral societies that are not ethnically particular, and therefore not diasporic by her definition, or if she is making a distinction between dominant and subordinate groups using the label 'diaspor ic.' Due to her description of diasporic communities as having 'imagined or real' connections and an 'imaginary cultural existence' (483), the implication is that the localities and nation-st ates in which consumers of the diasporic media

PAGE 159

159 reside are more real and less imaginary medi a-products than the diasporic communities and cultures. Thus, although I wa s interested in Georgiou's pe rspective on media constructing diasporic communities, I was disappointed at her misrecognition of the constructedness of nation-states and localities in the same sense as (any other) diaspora. Georgiou's account then creates a sense of (less stable) diasporas inhabiting (more stable) nation-states and local communities rather than attributing equal, or at least similar, ontological status to states and localities as to diasporas. Ca rter (2005), studying Cr oatian diaspora in the U.S., seems rather ambiguous toward conflicting perspectives on di aspora, citing both writing that questions the boundedness and mutual-exclusivity of nation-states as well as ot her literature that insists on viewing diaspora in national-static terms. Mu ch of his argument rests on demonstrating how Croatian-Americans do not orient toward a diaspo ric community as much as they do toward the bounded, regional nation-state itself Although Carter's perspectiv e is helpful in recognizing misrecognition of diaspora in favor of nation-stat e, it is unclear whether this is intended ultimately as a critique of statism and a plea for stronger diasporic consciousness, or as an effort to undermine and repeal the legitimacy of di asporists citing their inability to achieve independence of statism. It is however, clear that Carter fail s to relativize statism as a projection, either for the Croatian-Americans he is studying, for Croatian nationals living within Croatian state boundaries, or within his own ontol ogy. Findlay's et al. (2004) study of English migrants' experiences with Scottishness, although not explicitly concerned with diaspora as such, looks at diasporic issues within an innernational rather than international, transnational, or anational context. Although this study portrays Englishness and Scottishness in a more or less reified manner, as bounded and more or less homogenous groups in and of themselves, outside of any hybridization between it also gives a sense of how di aspora and ethnic negotiations take

PAGE 160

160 place within a single nation-state thus destabili zing the distinction between national-statist populations on the one hand and diasporic migrant populations on the other. This study is the only one I reviewed in which subtler nuances of identity-ontology were recognized among the individuals under study, using th e categories, "adopted Scot," "English English," "British English," and "world citizen" (69) While the identity categories studied privileges the British national context and implicitly claimed an automous status for that context separate from British colonial connections, for example, it is neverthe less the only one that shed diasporic light on a 'national-static' population. While I have looked at several studies regardi ng diaspora, rather than starting an approach to theorizing Dutch society by trying to posit ion it among other accounts, either explicit accounts found in history books or other na rrations of the Dutch culture a nd people, I find it more useful to begin as an ethnomethodogist from the lived experience of 'Dutch society' as a social phenomenon. But what does it mean to talk abou t (a) society as a (sub jective) phenomenon? Rather than assuming uncritically the existence of societies as the material and social backdrop against which people live their lives, I use th e ethnomethodological techni que of bracketing to conceive of society as a theme constructed in conversations and discour ses. To use a thought experiment that can render this idea more conc rete, which may seem abstract to those unfamiliar with bracketing, imagine taking a tr ip to a conference or another bi g event such as the Olympics together with everyone you interact with in your daily life. Th en imagine bringing with you all the materials you need with you to your destination. In effect you have transplanted your society with you to your new destination; yet you still ha ve the idea or the sense that you have moved outside of your society. This sense along with the corresponding ideas about the referent [society], in brackets, thus becomes the phenomenon/object of study.

PAGE 161

161 The notion that the social world is subjectiv e is neither new nor revolutionary, really, although it may seem to be to t hose who ignore subjectivity in or der to simplify their work. Even Durkheim, whose ideas about social facts as obligatory and external to individuals are considered foundational to work that regards society as objective, talked in terms of subjectivity when describing the interface betw een humans and the social fact s/institutions/structures they live with. Just the claim that su ch facts are obligatory, for exampl e, already suggests that social facts are not purely external since obligations can not exist outside of hum an subjectivity, or at least outside of the in tersubjective pressuring of conscious or semi-conscious individuals. LIkewise Durkheim references experience as providing the knowledge that one has gone against the grain of a particular social fact. Therefore even though Durkhe im was insistent in his claims about the externality and objectiv ity of his social facts as a means of securing scientific legitimacy for the emergent field of sociology, he was well aware that subjectivity played a prominent role in their existence and functioning. The main problem with conceiving of society as an objective structure or set of structures is that there is no way to account for the role that subjectivity plays al ongside actual objective structures. Vera's (1983) study "on Dutch Windows" is quite useful for understanding this. Rather than studying a Dutch cultur e of everyday surveillance as a 'social fact' of Dutch society in the Durkheimian sense, Vera went a step furt her, with help from Goffman, to look at actual material objects as social structures that channe l subjectivity and influenc e behavior. To those who do not concern themselves with the intr icacies of sociology, this idea that actual, physical/material structures form the architecture of human lif e may sound self-evident but structural sociologists rarely pr ivilege actual physical structures to a greater or even the same degree as invisible social structures in their so ciology. Maybe this is because these seem banal

PAGE 162

162 or maybe it is because there is more glamour in discovering invisible structures but either way, it can be quite helpful to regard material things as social things instea d of the other way around. What Vera discovered was that social control is not only an important institutionalized practice in Dutch society but that such social control was facilitated by, and literally built into, the architecture of the cities and neighborhoods. Since I am intere sted in diasporic aspects of society, such as the transplantati on and translation of people and inst itutions into 'other' societies, it is important to theorize the various aspects of society in fr agmentation, rather than as an integrated whole. Having been trained in scie ntific thought, thinking in this way is really the norm more than it is exceptional, but for some r eason sociologists never seem to tamper with the notion of society-as-a-whole as one fragme nt among the others. Although structuralfunctionalists talk about various institutions in terms of mainta ining the harmonious integration of society as well as about the values shared by individuals for maintaini ng that/(their?) society, the issue of how individuals get the idea of society in the first place and how they negotiate and maintain it in the face of the ch anges they perceive occurring in their environment and in their lives generally sounds like something more suite d for symbolic sociolog ists than structuralfunctionalists. Regardless of what branch of so ciology is responsible for these issues, the point remains that people and things move around and when they do they transplant the subjective, as well as some of the objective and intersubjective institutions of thei r society with them. However, what is even more important than that is the problem that even when people do transplant so much of their environments with them and translate new elements they apprehend into their existing frames of reference, they st ill make a point of refe rencing a notion of the society-as-a-whole in which they are living. This means that while the material facts of diaspora and migration are that people's liv es only partially change as a re sult of movement, they often

PAGE 163

163 interpret this in terms of total change in reference to the idea or rather their sense that they have moved to a different society. This happens because of an abstract notion that societies are stable, bounded entities which are mutually exclusive of one another; and it obscures the fact that societies are essentially diaspor ic and therefore not stable an d bounded at all but rather in motion, spreading and overlapping one another according to the acti ons of their agents. Although I want to devote more attention to co nceptualizing subjectivity generally as part of a more complete vision of the social worl d, let me first go into more detail regarding the importance of the notion of diaspora for conceptu alizing (a) society(ies) The reason I mix the singular and plural when writing of society/ies here is to emphasize the ambiguity of the distinction between singularity and plurality when we conceive of diasporic societies. Simply put, how can we talk about a single society when th e essential nature of di aspora is that societies flow across one another's boundaries creati ng overlaps in which hybridity and boundarynegotiation are the rule, rather than the exception? To take the concept even further, how can we even persist in defining diasporic, hybrid comm unities in relation to a non-hybrid, singular society when the latter is certainly a fantasy of the past if it ever existed in the first place. Technically, the very definition of the origins of society as a human constr uct, at least according to the structuralist perspective of Levi Strauss and other structur al linguists, is diasporic since societies are thought to originate at the moment that the incest taboo pr esses the men of the family to exchange its [sic] women with other families in a way that creates an interfamilial social bond. But to return to th e level of simply talking about diasporic societies, should we conceive of territories of mulitiplicity, in other words a single society in which other societies mix? Or should we resist this and simply talk about multiple societies that overlap? There are pitfalls in both perspectives. In the first we have to create/imagine a boundary somewhere

PAGE 164

164 between the territory where the diasporas overl ap and other places and people of the same diasporas. In the second we conceive of dias poras as themselves societies but by doing so we open up the possibility of creati ng an exclusionary singularity in which agents of the diaspora refuse to accept simultaneity of time and space with other diasporas. The perfect solution, in my opinion, is to throw out the idea of society alto gether and think purely in terms of interacting social elements (individuals, families, physical st ructures, animals, things, and so forth) without regard to the territory or space they are presumed to inhabit. However, since the technique of defining a space or territory as such is omnipresen tly available for individual agents to apply in all sorts of social contexts, it ma kes more sense to put forth an a lternative vision than to expect people to simply stop thinking in terms of territo ry (although it would be nice if they would at least make an attempt to limit it). The notion that society is diasporic, sp reading through contact, reduces a great deal of exclus ionary treatment simply by allo wing us to understand that our societies have no limits, they pre cede us wherever we go. They ar e us and we are them. At the same time, however, this does not imply that an individual is isolated fr om contact with other societies once we recognize that they overlap and spr ead through contact. As such we are all ultimately engaged in the simultaneou s reproduction of multiple diasporas. While I may sound quite liberal in my applicatio n of the idea of dias pora, it should also be recognized that there are inequalities and limita tions within the concep t that do not disappear when everyone is viewed through its lens. Av tar Brah (1996), a diaspora writer whom I learned of through the writing of Esther Captain and Halleh Gorashi (2001), writes the following about the limits of what should be counted as diasporic movement: At the heart of the notion of diaspora is the im age of a journey. Yet not every journey can be understood as diaspora. Diasporas are cl early not the same as casual travel. Nor do they normatively refer to temporary sojour ns. Paradoxically, diasporic journeys are essentially about settling down, about put ting roots 'elsewhere'. (Brah 1996 182)

PAGE 165

165 Since I want to avoid the application of the term diaspora as a status, positive or negative, I tend to disagree with excluding casua l travel or temporary sojourns If such movements are not diaporic then what are they? Granted, traveler s may not always be engaged in 'settling down' permanently at their destinations, but if we privil ege the temporary character of their visit, are we not simply giving credence to the ideology of pe rmanent, stable, non-diasporic societies? For me, the issue of diaspora goes further than largescale migratory trends th at span generations. Diaspora goes to the roots of the way people con ceptualize their existence in terms of place and belonging. My hypothesis is that many people who resist envisioning all societies as diasporas and all movements as nomadic do so out of fear that they lack the power to return home once they leave. Somehow, they think (or just sense) that by defining their destination as an Other, they will naturally flow back in the direction they identify as their origin. This does not even begin to theorize all the other interests that are available for attaching people to a particular place. On the other hand, the ability of people to conceive of travel as casual, of a sojourn as temporary, or otherwise resist establishing new roots at their destinations or underway, is something that we can acknowledge as facilitatin g movement in many cases. Still, it makes more sense empirically to recognize all moveme nts as rooting movement s in varying degrees, although saying so requires that we recognize a wide spectrum of distin ctions among different kinds of territorializing contacts. Such contacts can range fr om claiming a tourist destination as merely something one has seen and experienced to claiming a never-experienced homeland as the place of one's ancestors, to claiming knowledg e of a place that one finds interesting but would never actually visit, to es tablishing residency and primary consciousness in a new place. What is most important is recognizing that ev eryone has the ability to imagine and desire

PAGE 166

166 displacement as well as placement and that this as pect of subjectivity is where any understanding of diaspora should begin. Brah also discusses the importance of rec ognizing inequalities within the space of diaspora. She asks: What regimes of power inscribe the formation of a specific diaspora? In other words, it is necessary to analyze what makes one diasporic formation similar to or different from another; whether, for instance, the diaspor a in question was constituted through conquest and colonization as has been the case with se veral European diasporas. Or it might have resulted from the capture or removal of a group through slavery or systems of indentured labour, as for example, in the formation resp ectively of African and Asian diasporas in the Caribbean. Alternatively, people may have had to desert thei r home as a result of expulsion and persecution, as has been the fate of a number of Jewish groups at various points in history. Or they may have been for ced to flee in the wake of political strife, as has been the experience of many contemporary gr oups of refugees such as the Sri Lankans, Somalis and Bosnian Muslims. Perhaps the di spersion occurred as a re sult of conflict and war, resulting in the creation of a new nati on state on the territory previously occupied by another, as has been the experience of Palestin ians since the formation of Israel. On the other hand, a population movement could have b een induced as part of global flows of labour, the trajectory of many, for example Afri can-Carribeans, Asians, Cypriots, or Irish people in Britain. (Brah 1996 182) Certainly, it is important to ac knowledge, as Brah has done, that diasporic movement is infused with power and resistance. However, by emphasi zing differences in power and the moment of dispersion of various diasporic wa ves, the possibility is created that we imagine diasporas in terms of segmentation and ignore common bonds, Take, for example, the migrants I have referenced for study in the present research proj ect. Those whose stories appear on HetGevolg.nl (1) have, for the most part, more than one declared home. Even if they do not choose to call their place of residency in the Ne therlands their 'home,' they have found solace there or else they would not be struggling to re sist deportation. Those who communicate about migration to Australia on XPdite.net, may only consider their home in the Neth erlands truly 'home' but they are clearly trying to establish some kind of roots in Australia by securing documents, employment, and so forth. In terms of a Dutch diaspora, the important commonality is that both

PAGE 167

167 'types' of emigrants share the common situation th at they are currently living in the Netherlands, in Dutch society, and that they are facing the hori zon/frontier of that society from its inside, for lack of phrasing that is not metaphorical. Likewi se, if these people would come into contact with one another at a future moment, they would sh are collective memories and experiences of the society they currently share. Common-sensically we expect as much for the so-called native Dutch people moving to Australia, but for thos e on HetGevolg.nl, who are in the process of losing their legal right to continue living in the Netherlands, the pe rmanent (ontological) status of 'having-been-Dutch' is called into question along w ith their legal privileges. This speaks to a larger issue of the role of state-apparati as the definitive authority in re gards to everything that exists in its jurisdiction or as just one actor among ot hers in an essentiall y authority-less social universe. Empirically it would be difficult to establish that the stat e, a church, or other institution is has absolute power /sovereignity within a territory without proving the existence and will of God(s) and even from a faith perspective, at least my own, it is awfully presumptuous to grant any human institution ultimate author ity with reference to a higher power. Brah also indicates the importance of links across the various waves of immigration, or moments of diaspora, writing: What enables us to mobilize the word diaspora as a conceptual category in analyzing these composite formations, as opposed to using it simply as a description of different migrations, is that the concept of diaspora sp ecifies a matrix of ec onomic, political and cultural inter-relationships which constr uct the commonalty between the various components of a dispersed group. The concept of diaspora delineates a field of identifications where 'imagined communities' are forged within and out of a confluence of narratives from annals of collectiv e memory and re-memory. (Brah 1996 196) The various components of a dispersed group' imp lies that we can make reference to sub-groups as joined-by-diaspora although they may appear as disjunct segments from the perspective of nativist or otherwise esse ntialist thinking. This is basically the route that I am taking except that I am cautious about actually subgrouping the segments of the dias pora. The reason for this is

PAGE 168

168 that I think we should conceive of diaspora not in terms of groups and group membership, at least not as fundamental or definitive, but rather in terms of their conti ngencies with one another and shared institutions. This is not to say the group identity and membership disappear but that we see them in terms of the agency and applicat ion of those that employ and deploy them, rather than using them as definitive categories of pe ople's being. In other words, no one is Dutch, black, white, Catholic, socialist, muslim, female, et cetera but people are nationalized, racialized, ethnicized, politicized, sexualized, an d so forth differently in diffe rent contexts. Yes, a person must use a/her female body to have a baby just as s/he must pass as Dutch to apply for a Dutch passport or other social services, and these statuses are reproduced in numerous other contexts of varying degrees of in/formality. Nonetheless, it is critical to maintain that individuals are not essentially the same as their identities, if they are essentially any (one) thing at all. Thinking in terms of diaspora, it then makes se nse to conceptualize individuals in terms of their relationship to the diaspora and only secondarily in terms of the other identitie s and statuses that are brought to bear on their existence within a particular context. Co nsider the example of a situation in which two data points, one from HetGevolg and the other from XPdite, would be applying for the same temporary position while wa iting for the paperwork to be processed to allow for their respective migratory moves. Although the two individuals may have similar qualifications, and they are both in a transitional phase of prepar ing for an international move, the person with a 'native' Dutch identity would prob ably be viewed in very different terms than the other candidate who would more than likely be questioned about his state of residence in the Netherlands. Whereas the first person would pr esumably avoid mentioning the subject with the hope that the prospective empl oyer would overlook the possibility of bringing it up, the second could use her/his status to obscure the imagined possibility of emigration in the first place. In

PAGE 169

169 terms of race, we would talk about such an ex ample in terms of white privilege and 'passing' since the 'native' Dutch person is hoping to pass as a stable, long term resi dent to gain favor in the employer's eyes. The inequality between th e two job candidates is made possible by the common-sense distinction between stable, perman ent (even 'native') members of Dutch society and others who are seen as temporary or as 'guests' who are being hosted by Dutch society 'proper.' If we can envision the same situation in which the concept of diaspora is substituted for (native) society, the employer mi ght still be concerned with finding an employee who is as reliable as possible, only now s/he would not automatically priv ilege one over the other in terms of perceived (native) stability. Instead s/he might open a dialogue with each candidate about their longer-term plans in the field, and be open in both cases to the prosp ect that people come and go within a particular locality and that hiring/training either can didate is an investment in the field generally for the benefit of similar organiza tions throughout the realm of the diaspora. This is not such a far sought possibility since it is co mmon to think is this way in regards to national economies or academic disciplines, for example. I should return to the issue of contigency/contact as both the means by which the diaspora spreads as well as the factor that defines 'members hip within it' if we want to conceptualize it in this way. The reason I am cautious about empl oying the metaphor of membership within an in/out group is that it tends to lead to discourses of inclusion a nd exclusion as the most important issue of a society. Such membership issues tend to emphasize center-periphery distributional aspects of a group, either hegemonic or econom ic resources, and de-emphasize cooperative contact and de-centered or multi-centered patterns of distribution. Taking contact as the defining factor of diaspora allows us to recognize a la rge number of personal and economic relationships that extend beyond numerous borders including that of Dutch societ y proper (at it is presently

PAGE 170

170 defined), the geographic territory of the Netherlands, the limits for categorizing people as having Dutch ethnicity, the limits of membership with in the group of speakers of the Dutch language, the limits of families, regions, or other sub-ethnic categories, the limits of which workers are thought of as contributing to (re)producing Dutc h society (or not) and so forth. Thinking in terms of contact instead of membership is not only more inclus ive, it is also more representative of the extensive materiality of group existence. While the idea of a diaspora suggests an objectorientation similar to the way we generally imagine 'society,' I would like to go beyond th e object/subject division toward thinking about subjectivity and agency as inte gral components of the diaspora /society. Arguably, thinking in terms of diaspora as dispersive society, we can look to theories of delegated-agency and mediated-subjectivity to radicalize the idea of disp ersion as processes that occur not just at the material level of bodies and material objects, nor just at the psychological level of how we conceive of the social world, but also at the level of envisioni ng subjectivity and agency as a substance in the social-material world that is co-p resent and co-extensive with the material infrastructure. I have already given the exampl e of Vera's work 'On Dutch Windows' that moves in this direction but there are other writers w hose work is also usef ul for conceptualizing subjectivity and agency in this way. The first is the that of B Latour and other Actor Network (ANT) Theorists who have written on various exte nsions of agency (delegations) from humans to the non-humans and the reverse, from non-humans to humans9. This theory makes it possible to break away from the dichotomous treatment of determination and voluntarism in social life by 9 Ground-up approaches to science are far from new or challenging, although they may be considered radical by definition. Grounded-Theory (see Charm az 2006 for example), for instance, prescribes an empirically grounded approach to researching and theorizing social life. Much of my exposure to reader/researcher centered appro aches to hermeneutics/knowledge, however, can be traced to various Cultural Studies works and to reader-grounded semiotics traceable to Barthes' well-known essay regarding the death of the author and birth of the reader (Barthes 1977).

PAGE 171

171 opening up the possibility that agents, sometimes human sometimes not, use their power to (try to) determine other agents' actions. This is reso nant with a Foucauldian perspective on power in which power is always exercised as micro-poli tics, and power is alwa ys co-present with resistance; in other words, there are no passive actors since power and re sistance are found in all facets of life. Therefore while no action is simply determined by a structural force, there is no atomic individualism of volunt ary movements since actors are always engaged in power struggles to manipulate their environments and be manipulated by them as well as to resist such manipulation. In ANT as well as in Foucault's writing, the power flows involved with delegating agency among agents should not be seen as unidi rectional, as authoritari an regimes in which a sovereign exerts its influence over subordinate s to produce a concerted network of actions. Instead the work of delegation should be seen as referring to the work of employing other agents to accomplish goals as well as to the work of employing oneself as a delegate of some other agent. In this way power extends from an actor in the direction of others but it also extends to an actor from others. It may sound like I am talkin g about the same thing backwards and forwards but actually it refers to the dist inction between the se t of power relations required to delegate actions to others and an entirely different se t involved with receiving or resisting delegated actions from outside, i.e. determinant forces. Although one actor's determinant may be (the result of) another's agency, it w ould not make sense to reduce them to the same action since determined actions are conceptually quite differe nt from voluntary ones, even those that are seduced or compulsive. The wo rk of Latour and ANT make it possible to think of these processes in terms of netw orks of extended agency. Theories of mediated-subjectivity are similar to those of delegatedagency except for they have been undertaken as media studies and they refer to subjec tivity which is quite different

PAGE 172

172 from agency, although there may be some overlap ping between the two concepts. While agency refers to actions, the capacity to manipulate, or perhaps better said 'steer,' oneself and one's environment, subjectivity refers to the inner expe rience of (usually) humans and their ability to sense, perceive, reflect, think, desire and so forth. Although agency is clearly related to subjectivity for living beings, Latour's writi ng on non-human actors shows how agency can be detached from subjectivity, assuming that non-hum an, or at least non-livin g things are devoid of subjectivity, at least in the sens e of inner life or experience. Some theorists of media have argued that electronic transmissions, for example, are a form, or rather a state, of subjectivity albeit outside a living neural netw ork. Regardless of whether we grant or refuse the definition of such transmissions as subjectivity, the sa lient notion remains that media networks extend the subjectivity of their users by linking inputs with interfaces. The earpiece of a telephone is essentially an extension of the mouthpiece of anot her it is connected with in effect transplanting the listener's auditory field to the field audibl e to the microphone of the connected mouthpiece. The same is true for television although it is perhaps more striking with the advent of the capacity to transmit locally-based broadcasts outs ide the traditional channels of reception. While there are few TV broadcasts that are experienced as a 'live' connection with the studio in which they are being 'shot,' this sens e of connection is greater when one is able to watch the same broadcasts in one part of the world that othe rs far away are also watching at the same time10. While on the subject of subjectiv ity, there are several other wr iters/theories that should be added to the list for their relevan ce to diaspora thinking. First of all, no theory of diaspora and subjectivity could be complete (n ot that the current one will in any way be complete) without including W.E.B. du Bois' ideas about double-co nsciousness. Although du Bois' theorizing was 10See Law and Hassard (1999) for discussions of ANT.

PAGE 173

173 highly historically situated/addr essed to his own expe riences, and by extension, the experiences of African-Americans generally, the whole notio n of double-consciousness was a revolutionary insight into the 'souls' or subjectivity of all oppressed peoples, and even broader perhaps, all societies that have not represse d all differences into oblivion. Du Bois was writing at a time when slavery was on both the horizon of the recent past as well as the eminent future, in the form of curtailed freedoms. As such, he wrote with an unromantic sense of th e end of slavery and the mixed hope of the economic restructuring of its af termath. In a sense, du Bois was writing at a moment of historical transiti on between a forced diaspora of Africans to America and a new diaspora resulting from the dispersion of free people from slavery. Most notably in the symbolism of universal suffrage, but in other ways as well, African America was waking up to subjectivity that it had been denied under slavery, and du Bois tappe d into this. By doing so, his work is arguably the earliest that regards subjectivity in terms of overlapping diasporas by observing in concrete terms what it meant to be an American and black at the same time. He makes reference, for example, to his own shifting c onsciousness of himself fr ee at play as a child with other children when one of his friends refuses to trade cards with him which is when he describes his first experience of living behind a 'veil.' Although it would be difficult to say whether such a 'veil' is the inevitable result of multiple diasporas in society or whether it represents a specific type of coping mechanism in a specific co ntext of intersecting dominance and subordination, it is a clear adva nce beyond theories that presume individuals to have a single dominant 'mono-consciousness' with relation to a single social-cultural cen ter, even when they live in multi-ethnic social spaces. As such du Bois' double-consciousness is a useful basis for conceptualizing subjectivity in any diaspora, including a Dutch one.

PAGE 174

174 Another approach to diasporic subjectivity that should be mentioned along with du Bois' is found in Vera and Gordon's studies of sincere fictions of the white self Although I have already mentioned theories of media as extending subj ectivity, Vera and Gordon's work specifically focusses on the spread of white racist ideol ogy through film, and speci fically popular Hollywood films. Their approach is particul arly salient for several reasons. The first is the observation that Hollywood films are so successful at conveying id eology because the fictions they portray are sincere and experienced as sincere. Whereas most or all of the films analyzed in this work showcase white characters who are heroes or buddies to people of color, th ey at the same time embed the characters in a racial hierarchy which these films fail to challenge. As such, we see how the ideology of progress in 'race-relations' is spread simultaneously with the norms of racial domination and subordination, in e ffect constructing the latter as natural, unconscious, and occurring outside of and despite the good-naturedness of whites. The second aspect so relevant to conceptualizing diaspora is that they are not only analyzing white racist subjectivity in films, but they are analyzing the medium film, and specifically Hollywood films11 since these are one of the primary hegemonic forms of contem porary 'American' society. The reason I place 'American' in quotation marks is to denote how these films, on the one hand, are distributed throughout the world, not just within the borders of the U.S.A., but are also used as a reference for so-called 'American' culture, similarly to other well-known corpor ate cultural icons like McDonalds and Coca-Cola. In other words, wh ile such films are produ ced by a small group of people, who identify with various nationalities, they are widely perceived, by people both outside and inside the 'sphere' of Amer ican identity, as representing 'American' life and culture more 11A particularly interesting study of developments related to media simultaneity and ethnic/state networking in Nazi Germany can be found in Uricch io (1998) where the role and promise of various media technologies to unite and synchronize the subjectivity of distant individuals into a single audience/public.

PAGE 175

175 broadly. As such Hollywood films themselves create their own diaspora while constructing themselves in reference to a [semi-] diasporic Am erican society. So when such films convey the conflicting messages of the agency and structure of white racism they are doing so within a conflicting nexus of material distribution and (A merican) societal-identity reference. To extrapolate this specifically to the Dutch dias pora, at least in the Netherlands, it would be difficult to argue that the intersection with the diaspora of Hollywood subjectivity is insignificant; although Hollywood is positioned differe ntly in relationship to Dutch identity since it is conceived of as separate from American identity. If nothing else it is important to understand that discourses of Dutch identity/cultu re and those of Hollyw ood intersect to produce synthetic identity/cultural practices within the Dutch cultural diaspora. The last theorist of subjectivity I want to present within the framework of diaspora is Rosi Braidotti. Braidotti's writing is quite relevant to diasporic thinking since she is one of the most thorough and reflective philosophers in regards to her own move ment through various local and subjective 'planes' of existence. Her writing on nomadic subjectivity carefu lly avoids privileging either her migratory movements through continents national spheres, universities, languages, etc. or their subjective counter parts, texts, theories, episte mological frameworks, various audiences, and so on. While she pr oclaims herself to be radically materialistic in one sense, as an embodied subject embedded in the material lo cations of the various localities through which she passes on the one hand, and on the other hand she also takes the ph ilosophy of Deleuze and Guattari, along with Irigaray, Ci coux, and others who view texts, in the broadest sense of the word, along with other planes of subjective existence as points of passage on a nomadic journey. Braidotti thus more often writes about material/subjective 'becomings' such as 'becoming woman,' 'becoming animal,' or 'becoming machin e,' than about cultural becomings organized

PAGE 176

176 around national or other et hnic group identity totems This is in my view striking since she could certainly from her own experience write a bout 'becoming Australian,' 'becoming French,' 'becoming Italian,' 'becoming Dutch,' or the many other cultures of nationality she has encountered in her travels. Her dedication to avoiding placing what might be termed 'macro scale' structures above other form s of subjectivity in a hierarchical order is perhaps her strongest asset when it comes to conceptualizing diaspora. In a sense this is nothin g more than privileging 'personal genealogy' in the Foucauldian sense ov er other, less-persona l genealogies, such as intergenerational, macro-historic al, national histories, and so on. Still taking the history of the becomings of a radically unique subject seriously instead of treating it in a reductive way in order to create coherent and manag eable collectivities for study is an admirable position to take. By doing so, Braidotti makes it possible to understa nd diaspora(s) in terms of overlapping layers within the personal genealogies of its/their nomad ic subjects. Although I will not go into depth here as to her specific ideas and their releva nce to conceptualizing nomads within diasporic space, theorizing the intersection of diaspora and subjectivity woul d not be complete without her theory. Although there are certainly other writers and th eories that could be mentioned in regards to diaspora and approaches that take account of the importance of subjectivity in producing the experience of location and ethni c positioning, the writers/theorie s I have mentioned here are generally relevant and worth including at this time. What I would argue is generally needed to shift consciousness from a static vision of bounde d national societies to th at of fluid diasporas overlapping and intersecting in myriad local material and subjective spaces, are theories of social life and collective interactions th at are capable of capturing the i nherently unstable, mobile, and

PAGE 177

177 transformative dimensions of all social actors, not just those typically thought of as migrants12. This means moving away from studying national popul ations or sub-groups as such, giving the impression that their constituents are more or le ss stably contained within the larger group, toward approaching them as internally as well as transversally nomadic. Rather than conceptualizing (im)migrants in terms of differe nces that specify them as transient, as a reification of the difference between them and th e so-called autochtonous residents of the areas they inhabit, it makes more se nse to think of all people in terms of their autochtonous experiences as well as those of being autochtonous. Without doing so, we risk differentiating peoples experiences almost to the point of racia lizing them when, for example, we suggest that a family traveling within the internal borders of its nation to visit distan t family or friends, is qualitatively different than a fa mily crossing a national border for essentially the same reasons. Yes, nationalism like racism, is an eminent featur e of inequality creating radical differences in the experiences of people depending on their codifi cation according to institutionalized identities and territorializing techniques of power. I am not arguing for diminished attention for these aspects of diasporic life. Rath er I am claiming that there is a fine line between acknowledging and criticizing the unequal treatment of people ba sed on national and other ethnic identities, and reifying and reproducing the distin ctions between them at the ontological level by dividing the world into essentially different types of people: those that stay put and those that move around. In contrast, my goal is to produce a vision in whic h (everyone's) social life can be conceptualized as involving both migratory experiences as well as experiences of historic al linearity. I do not 12I cannot take full credit for the desire I express here of collapsing the categorical distinction between the so-called white native inhabitants of a society and thos e defined in relation to the white native norm. This view comes from Captein and Ghorashi's (2001) citati on of Brah (1996) who writes that, "Diaspora-space as a conceputal category is not only "inhabited" by tho se that have migrated and their offspring, but justas-much by those that are constructed and imagin ed as domestic" (Brah, 1996 p. 181 in Captein and Ghorashi's 2001 180)

PAGE 178

178 see this as an exercise in leveling or turning a blind eye toward inequalities but as a means of more lucidly recognizing mobility, multiplicity, a nd tranformativity as experiences common to everyone, not just migrants, while at the same time being sensitive to the love-of and longing-for belonging, stability, cohesion, linearity and so fo rth which are essentialized for so-called nonmigrants and conceived of as natural, inevitable facts of their existence, and thus experiences. Let us look at individuals in term s of the specific contexts in wh ich they experience both types of existence rather than engaging in purification exercises in which certain people are always theorized through one lens or the other. Race and Diaspora In the introduction to Cartographies of Diaspora Avtar Brah (1996) describes a number of contact situations with institutions in the U.S. that show how confusing ideas of race, in this case in a U.S. context, can be. I re-present her origin al text here rather than attempt to sum up Brah's narratives and end up with a more difficult seco ndary narrative. Describing a scholarship interview, she writes the following: Candidates were interviewed by an all-male panel that included representatives from various universities in the USA. "Do you see yourself as African or Indian? asked an American member of the panel. . He had used the term 'Indian' in the general sense that it was often used in East Africa to refer to all pe ople of South Asian descent. . At first this question struck me as somewhat absurd. Coul d he not see that I wa s both? Uganda was my home. I held a Uganda passport. This is where I had spent all but the first five years of my life. . (Brah 2) Brah demonstrates how interrogations regarding one 's race often work. One is asked to identify oneself in terms of a single racial or ethnic category and when this is confusing, one often resorts to divulging, or at least eliciting internally, lots of contingent info rmation in an attempt to satisfy the logic of the questioner while remaining faith ful to one's own self-image. She continues: I am a Ugandan of Indian descent,' I had repl ied. He seemed satisfied by my answer. . But, of course, he could not s ee that I could be both. The bo dy in front of him was already inscribed within the gendered social relations of the colonial sandw ich. I could not just

PAGE 179

179 'be'. I had to name an identity. no matter that this naming rendered invisible all the other identities of gender, caste, religion, linguistic gro up, generation . The discourse of the interview was not concerned with these. No r would my interlocutor have asked this question of someone who had 'looked African'. But, dear Goddess, what is an 'African look' or an 'Asian look'? Why could 'my look' not be a signifier of 'African-ness' in Uganda? After all, the white man from th e USA was asking me about my identity and, surely, this could not be re duced to 'looks'? (p 3) Brah raises an important issue here that is too often passed over in regard to racial thinking: the conflicting logics of 'looks' and descent. The lo gic of race, however we dislike it and wish it away, is multidimensional, including categories and their meanings distributed within the present as well as notions of group membership (within a race of people) as well as the extension of this idea of a group through generations since 'race' is supposed to be passed genetically from parents to children. Within this logic, individuals' r ace is seen as nothing more than their 'looks,' i.e. their potential for inscription within a part icular race according to a system of racist classificatory knowledge. Such logic has made the inclusion of so-called 'honorary whites' possible, while potentially relegating to 'blackne ss' those who belonged to the same group but did not meet the standards for passing as white. Simila rly, such logic facilitates relegating so-called 'brown-skinned' people to the category Latino, despite ethnic affiliations that have nothing to do with Latinos or Latin Americans. Thus, on the one hand we imagine 'races' as ahistorical categories of the present, used to classify individuals, in the best case, in order to prevent or remedy racist discrimination, without making any claims about the underlying basis for so-called racial differences (Morning 2005). On the other ha nd, if we use the logic of race as a group, it is easier to imagine that individuals belong to a certain race despite visible marks or personal characteristics. Although this logic of race make s more sense in terms of the definition of the word itself, it also is problematic in the sens e that races are not bounded and distinct since they can and have mixed to create hybrid individuals th at belong to both 'races.' While it is important to acknowledge these logics of r ace since without doing so it become s much harder to talk about

PAGE 180

180 other forms of groupism such as nationalism, se xism, heterosexism, and so forth, it is also important to mention how the macr o-logic of race is responsible for some of racism's most stinging effects. To speak of a 'race,' a 'people,' 'a sex,' or otherwise talk about humans as singular aggregates is often tolerated as a linguistic convention without reflec ting on the consequences this has for relationships between individuals. To say that a person is 'of mixed race' euphemizes this by implying that race is a quality of an indi vidual, not a group to which s/he belongs. What it euphemizes, however, is much graver which is th at 'races' are seen as having relative integrity as groups and as sharing certain group interests above those of the individuals 'constituting the race.' This same logic is used in other groupist notions such as sexist and nationalist ones; the idea being that members of a certain group should 'stick together.' Many people are even proud of this when it comes to nationalism, saying for example that a war is good in the sense that it produces solidarity among members of the nation. Although it is possible that individuals will act in positive ways to some other individuals wh en their group consciousn ess is heightened, this is just as likely to result in negative regard of individuals vi s-a-vis ideals of the group-identity, for example in the case of conflict among group members over relative authenticity13. It is wiser to recognize that viewing individuals as pawns in macro-relations betw een races, nations, or other groups always has negative effects for individuals and individuality. Although it is somewhat less dangerous to talk about race in te rms of ethnicity, especially when ethnicity is seen as neither essential, inborn, or singular and all-encompasi ng, there is still the potential to easily slip into thinking in terms of groupistic macro-relations by talking about relations between groups/races or group/race characteristics. 13 See Jackson 2005 for an interesting discussi on regarding authenticity and (black) ethnic identity.

PAGE 181

181 When studying race and racism in Sociology, we rarely think about ra ce and nationality in the same terms. Often we think in terms of U. S. racism or Dutch raci sm but usually we talk about them as if they are national phenomena. On the other hand, we rarely talk about nations as having national races when, in fact, this is how many people think about thei r nations in practice. One of the more difficult facets of racism that cr itical race scholars have worked so hard to bring to light is the invisibility bestowed on whitene ss in contemporary racist thinking. Most of the time people will talk about race in terms of the ta rgets of racism without explicating the position of whites as the 'non-race.' As such whites are constructed as radically categorically different from people thought to 'have race' or 'be ethnic,' which in practice results in white privilege as the privilege of 'just being nor mal.' In fact this practice aids racist differentiation and discrimination by allowing whites to view them selves as transcending the complexities of marked otherness. However, part of the invi sibility, or unspokenness, of whiteness is that no one, whites included, have any idea about what the notion of a white race entails or if there is just one or multiple white races, and so forth. I suspect that many Dutch people would be able, when pressed, to recognize that the dominant idea of Dutchness is a racist notion. That is to say, there is a view that 'the Dutch' are a group of people who are not co-terminous with the group of citizens of the Netherlands. Some people may clai m that this notion of Dutchness has more to do with ethnicity than race but it will more than likel y be difficult for them to imagine such a thing as 'learned Dutchness.' Instead th ey hold the view that culture is something genetic, although not chromosomal. In other words, they view culture as something that is not biologically essential and yet exclusively passed-on through intensive intergenerational transf ers between parents and children. Dutch youth may be sent abroad for e xposure to foreign cultures, travel extensively throughout Europe and/or the world, be educat ed in international schools, consume large

PAGE 182

182 amounts of foreign media, and yet they will sti ll be considered more Dutch than so-called foreigners who grow up and/or ar e socialized in the Netherlands. I know of no better way to sum up this mentality than as a semi-cons cious conception of a 'Dutch race.' Talking in terms of a 'Dutch ra ce' is problematic if for no other reason than that the word 'race' has been relegated in Dutch to describe breeds of dogs or other livestock. It is not considered legitimate to describe humans using the term. However, I suspect that racism has simply been 'hired out' so-to-sp eak to nationalism and culturalism14. By over-emphasizing national-cultural distinc tions with other European nations, the idea is established that the various nations of Europe are more-or-less autonom ous populations; and by extension that they interbreed at best as an exception. Thus, while one (white) Dutch individual may recognize that she is mixed Dutch and French, she will in all likelihood imagine this as an exception to the majority of people in each popul ation, French and Dutch. Although it is possible to talk about European nations as being purely culturally based, we would then expect a dominant view in which individuals are seen as belonging to a single European, or even human, population in which various cultures and ethnicities are availabl e for participation by al l individuals. While this is the view we should have of cultures and populations I believe that there are many individuals who would reject such a view while maintaining that they are deeply opposed to racism. Additionally, Dutch citizens come in ma ny colors and speak various languages, and so forth, however, the notion of colonial ethnicity is imagined in natio n-centered terms. That is to say, there is a view that the Netherlands is at the center of a number of colonial/immigrant satellite countries, specifical ly Suriname, the Dutch Antilles, Indonesia, Morocco, Turkey, as well as a larger group of countries from which sm all numbers of refugees and other immigrants 14 See El Manouzi in Ed van Thijn et al. (2000).

PAGE 183

183 have come. These non-western national-Others are viewed through a different lens than the Others of western nations, however. For one, ma ny Dutch view themselves (i.e. their nation) as having an obligation to help such 'less-fortunate' pe ople, a sort of 'white man's burden.' Such an obligation is not felt toward the Others of ot her western/European nations, who are seen as unwanted only insofar as they fail to fall in line w ith Dutch interests. Of course it could be as easily said that non-western Others are equally 'unwanted when th ey fail to fall in line with Dutch interests,' but in that case there is less faith that these others are capable of doing so in the first place. In terms of race and nationalism, the point is that while western and non-western 'foreigners' are seen as different it is unclear how differences am ong the white national-races of western/European countries are conceptualized in comparison to the differences between whites and non-whites generally, white Dutch and non-wh ite Dutch, white Dutch and foreign people of color, and so forth. To simplify things a bit, I propose that it makes more sense to look at specific cases and identify the inte rsectional identities br ought to bear on interactions rather than try to come up with a comprehensive a nd logical cartography of Dutch racism. Returning to Brah's text, I will conclude this discussion of the function of 'looks' versus groupism in 'doing race,' by including her response to her own question about how identity could be reduced to looks. She writes: Yet I know now and knew then that 'looks' ma ttered a great deal w ithin the colonial regimes of power. Looks mattered because of the history of the racialisation of 'looks'; they mattered because discourses about the body were crucial to the constitution of racisms. And racialised power operated in and through bodies. Moreover, racialised power configured into hierar chies, not simply between the dominant and subordinat categories of people, but also among them; that is, between the 'Indian' and the 'African' in this instance. (Brah 3) Thus Brah brings together somewhat the di scourses of 'looks' and racialization which she acknowledges work off of one another. Alt hough this seems obvious in some ways, it is important to acknowledge that 'looks' form the ba sis for racialization discourses in many ways,

PAGE 184

184 and yet that the groupistic (macr o) logics of races and natio nal-ethnic groups extend these discourses beyond 'looks.' Although there are enough examples of how racial logics become hyperextended and intensified with murderous c onsequences, we must also acknowledge that they continue to be employed in everyday life wi th varying degrees of violence and subjugation. What's more I propose going further with a enhanced empirical sensitivity fo r the specificities of racist ideology and discourses in a globalized media infrastructure. As Vera and Gordon have observed, Hollywood movies are a major medium fo r teaching white racism to their viewers. However, we can go further to look at how the ra cist ideology learned through movies is applied in the everyday lives of people who do not necessa rily recognize the worl d they live in as the same world that is portrayed on th e screen. Certainly it would be difficult to argue that the social relationships portrayed in Ho llywood movies cannot be comprehended and reproduced across cultural barriers15. In a Dutch context the question becomes how Hollywood racism is applied, including how it intersects with more traditiona l/indigeonous Dutch/European racist discourses such as that of the second world war, post WWII migrations, national positioning in an international world, and so forth. Most importan tly, I stress that the Dutch capacity to bracket Americans as a group/culture separate from th e Dutch problematizes our understanding of the transfer of racist knowledge from Hollywood movi es in many ways. This is not to say that Individuals who view the Dutch culture/race as char acteristically and esse ntially distinct from 'America' do not slip up and identify with char acters in movies in some cases as similar to themselves in the context in which they live. In f act, it is precisely this ability to identify with characters and a story despite the conscious re jection that Hollywood portrays the Dutch world 15 Kurzman (2005) has noted how, for example, Palestinian rappers id entify with African American blackness in an Israeli context.

PAGE 185

185 that facilitates racist identifica tion and learning. Further it is be yond the scope of this project to delve into the details of identifications at this level. Nevertheless, it would be unwise to fail to acknowledge the becoming-racism available to Dutch viewers of Hollywood movies. Diaspora and American Racism American ethnocentrism and monoculturalism, in short Americanism, ensures that many readers will be confused by my discussion of race and racism outside of the confines of American white racism (AWR). For this reas on, but also because AWR studies influences my understanding of rac(ism) to a great extent, and because a large part of this project is to speak to students and researchers of AWR, I will discuss it di rectly; although I should emphasize that much of what I write about Dutchness or racism mo re generally is relevant to the study of AWR without referencing it directly. Although I will not ma ke it my project here to repeat in detail the writings of people like Feagin and Vera and Omi and Wanant, I will discuss several aspects I consider particularly relevant to the study of diaspora and culture. To begin, one of the most salient observations of Feagin and Vera is the cultural basis of AWR. Race, in its biological-essential defini tion(s) is no longer recognized as being a valid scientific concept ( see Morning 2005). Racism, or more specifically AWR, on the other hand continues to influence the lives of all Ameri cans as well as everyone in contact with the American cultural diaspora. 'Race,' the system of classifying and naming individuals in terms of belonging to different races, as it were, is only a part of the institutionali zation of AWR. It does not make sense to say that it is the only one or even the primary one anym ore since the shift from overt to covert racism and disc rimination around the time of the second world war. To explain the relationship of race to racism as just one institutional mechanism for reproducing its effects, it is useful to evoke Durkheim's definition of social facts, or institutions to use a more

PAGE 186

186 contemporary term, which are "ways of thinking, feeling, and acting external to individuals"16. In Durkheim's terms, thus, racism can be seen as various ways of thinking, feeling, and acting that create distinctions among pe ople that are related to the soci al construct, race, even when individuals' race is not explicitly or consciously referenced in doing so. While historically race was produced by raciologists17 as a/various system/s of classi fication that could be discovered by studying in detail subjectively perceived differences among humans, this was only one (large) part of the enactment of racism as a set of cultural practices. I st ress this not only because of the ability for racism to distinguish between i ndividuals in the absen ce of explicit racial classification, i.e. color-blind r acism, but also because I believe that we need to understand the impetus and success of producing and disseminating AWR ideologies and notions of race generally as part of the larg er project of (European) projec ts of nation-building, and even volk/people-building prior to the invention of na tionalism, in which indivi duals were classified, recognized, and organized according to perceived me mbership in larger groups. As such, the division of Americans into racial categories, a practice which in fact preceded th e invention of the U.S. or any of the other American regions as nations, can be understood as a (particularly vicious) extension of the same groupist logic used to create the idea of other large groups and identify individuals with (or against) them. In one sense, AWR has had the positive effect of bringing groupism one step in the direction of a more inclusive human-racism. To be caucasian, African-American, or Latin, sugge sts that there is something common across the ethnic divides within these racial group s. In this sense, American racism at least in theory, is a powerful ideology in a diasporic space where many ethnicities come together to interact in a new cultural 16 Although I disagree with Durkheim 's characterization of instituti ons as external to individuals, the first part of his definition succinctly descri bes in short hand what cultural institutions are. 17 See Gilroy (2000).

PAGE 187

187 space, using a pidgeon language18 to negotiate new meanings, c ooperate in material production, and so forth. On the other hand, even if such categories have the pot ential to override other ethnic divisions, the problem remains as to whethe r this actually happens in practice. In the worse case, racism simply adds the potential for new divisions and animosities without doing anything to remove the old ones. This is not di ssimilar to the way that humanism has been used to create new categories of otherness on the ba sis of presumed uniquely human qualities that transcend and are superior to thos e of animals or other 'sub-humans' 19. Although humanism may make us feel good to be human, it does not prevent the attributi on of sub-humanness to others, including human others, and as such is less rigorously inclusive than it is yet another dimension of exclusion, whose elements can eas ily be combined and synthesized with other forms of exclusion based on race, ethnicity, sex, gender, sexuality, class, and so forth. Race/racism and Social Construction Although the issue of socially-constructed race has been politicized in many contexts, this is often based on a misplaced conflation of the id ea of social-constructedn ess with the idea of something 'not being real.' To say that race is socially constructed and therefore is not real makes no sense since the very idea of social-constr uctionism is that things are real precisely and only because they are socially constructed as such. Reality is a status given to a subset of existence. Thus while we would say that imagin ary things such as the tooth fairy or races do exist in the minds of many people, they are usually de nied the status of reality in the sense that 18 I use the term 'pidgeon' loosely here to de scribe the (second) langua ge that people use to communicate with each other in a new (immig rant) community. Although there may be technical differences between us ing a non-pidgeon language as a pi dgeon I use this term as a way of acknowledging the necessity of communi cating with others in a situation where previously spoken languages are not sufficient). For an explanation of various aspects of language contact see Thomason (2001). 19 See Rabinow (1984) for Foucault's explanati on of the detrimental aspects of humanism.

PAGE 188

188 they are regarded as unreal fantasies, which nevertheless affect our lives. Nevertheless to give the same status of unreality to racism, the cultur al practices that constr uct race in various ways and forms, as we do to race is like claiming that movie theaters are not real because the films they show are fictional. As such I agree w ith Vera and Gordon's proposition that one should not 'wish away' racism, even as a strategy for ma king it go away (Vera and Gordon 2005). Rather, it makes more sense to demystify th e natural and essential distinc tions taken-for-granted among the 'races' and gain awareness of the racist knowledge, practices, and instituti ons that continue to produce the consequences of racism, even when 'race' is nowhere to be found. The practice of becoming aware of violence, in th is case racism, and then taking re sponsibility for it in order to reduce it is the strategy of ahimsa written about by Ghandi and read by M.L. King. To recognize that race is socially constructed means to rec ognize racism as the process(es) that socially construct it. It is also possible to say that racism is also social ly constructed, since it is, as well as re-presented in various discour ses, including social science di scourse. However, we should be aware that there is no reason to think that the social construction of ra cism, or at least its representation as such, is causa lly related to the production of race and its consequences. In other words, those that think that avoiding talking about race and racism will result in the demise of this form of inequality and oppression shoul d not think that simply by rendering transparent the processes through which racism is made visible and recognized that the world will automatically change for the better. Seeing ra cism cannot take the pl ace of changed practices when it comes to promoting integration and in clusive access in various spaces, organizations, and institutions. Seeing exclusion in Dutch organizations is often difficult because of the organizational logic used to explain their constitution in the fi rst place. This is part of the reason why it took

PAGE 189

189 me a long time to see that almost all of the stude nts I came in contact with in Dutch universities were white, and likewise that almost all of the Am erican students, as well other 'foreign' students from other countries, were white. From the pe rspective of logical c hoices of places to study abroad, it made sense to me, as an undergra duate, that most Amer icans studying in the Netherlands would be white si nce I associated studying abro ad with learning about one's 'origins.' So for example, I thought that Afri can Americans studied abroad in Africa while whites/anglos went to England or elsewhere in Europe. I had thought about going abroad to Spain, for example, 'in search of my roots' a lthough I never thought about the role that racism played in my (or others') thinking about place-se lection in this way. Likewise it never occurred to me that class or racial barriers played a role in limiting the ability to study abroad for many students even prior to place-selec tion. I just assumed that everyone had the right and ability to study abroad as part of their university experien ce and that choosing a place based on racial or ethnic affinity was normal and had nothing to do with racism. Once I had begun migrating to the Netherlands, the issue of AWR seemed even more difficult to recognize. After all, the norm of cultural relativism emphasizes the notion that ju risdiction shifts according to one's place. In other words, as long as I was an American am ong Americans (and others ) abroad, the issue of racial under-representati on seemed like it could be an issue; but once I began acculturating and shifting-centers so-to-speak, it seemed as though Dutch authority in regards to such matters would be the only authority that should, or could, apply. It is worth taking apart the (racist) assumptions I operated under when studying abro ad, however, in order to put AWR together with Dutch white racism. I ha ve already noted the issue of under-representation within study abroad programs but a more general issue is the way that American racism racializes/ethnicizes foreign nations and even continents. As suc h, European countries such as the Netherlands,

PAGE 190

190 England, Germany, France, etc. are seen as mono racial, monocultural plac es lacking the ethnic and racial diversity of the U.S. Africa is th e only place associated with African-Americans and there is little or no awareness of the pres ence of whites and ot hers as a result of (post)colonialism. In short there is no sens e that almost everyone moved around everywhere for centuries rendering all places 'mixed and instead there is a tendency to view places in terms of cultural essences. This might be called a bilateral international image insofar as the U.S. is viewed as a single individual nati on among other individual nations. This resonates with what I am calling a statist vision that more or less contra dicts diasporic consciousness. From the statist perspective, the Netherlands is a macro-indivi dual, like the U.S., Germany, or South Africa, without regard for the colonial relationships amon g the countries. From a diasporic perspective, the U.S. would be seen in connection with the va rious colonial powers that shaped it such as G.B., France, Germany, the Netherlands, as well as the various African nations/peoples whose people were brought as slaves. In another exam ple, the U.S., England, Australia, Canada, South Africa, and India are all part of an English colonial diaspora, among others. Likewise, the Netherlands, Suriname, Indonesia, South Africa, Belgium, are sim ilarly related. I hope not to give the impression that the links between such groups of countries are more or less important than other kinds of political and economic links between countries not regarded as ethnically related, such as the U.S. and China for example. I only use the example of ethnic identity to demonstrate one way of viewing countries as mo re than simple, isolated, individuals. As I mentioned there are also ways to racially group countries, by saying for example that North America, Europe and Australia are 'caucasian' whereas Africa is 'negroid,' and Asia is 'mongoloid' according to biological racial classifications from th e past, but I would argue that such distinctions are predicated purely with clas sification in mind without regard for or interest

PAGE 191

191 in the actual (historical) conn ection between individuals wher eas good diasporic visions should be. Beyond the ideological components of racist classification, the organizational elements of Dutch segregation practices are also important to recognize. In Dutc h universities and other organizations, much like in the U.S. and other pla ces as well I suspect, the most basic forms of institutional discrimination are the mechanisms promoted as legitimate for determining who should legitimately be included and excluded fr om the club, as well t hose designed to produce the qualifications used to legitimate them. Thus pieces of paper such as diplomas and visas continue to exist as instrument s for discriminating among individuals that are viewed as totally legitimate by many. Thus when th e university refuses to accept a student because s/he has not attained the legitimate pre-requisite diploma(s), or when the border authorities refuse entry to a person because s/he does not have the proper visa or passport, su ch acts of exclusion are often viewed as unquestionably legitimate in contra st to discrimination th at is perceived as illegitimate20. In fact, in the few informal conversations I have engaged in on this topic, those I spoke with said that most people do not even rega rd such exclusion as 'discrimination,' instead reserving this term purely for the illegitimate variant. In my opinion, it makes more sense, at least sociologically, to understand discrimination to refer to all discriminatory acts whether they are perceived as legitimate or not, and then move on to theorize their legitimacy. Viewing discrimination in this way allows us to look at th e consequences of forms of selection that might otherwise be ignored with regard to their legitimacy. Moreover, legitimate forms of discrimination/exclusion serve as the means for tr anslating less legitimate acts of discrimination from overt into covert form. Thus, for example, I recently read that Ayaan Hirsi Ali's Dutch 20 This is related to Max Weber's notion of legitimate domination.

PAGE 192

192 citizenship was revoked on the basis that she lied about her name on her application (it has since been reinstated on the basis that the name sh e used was legitimate for her to claim with subsequent dissolution of the parlia ment as one of the reprocussions ). Ali's response was that the Dutch goverment had known about this for a long time, since she had been open about the matter, but only decided to act on this knowledge for political reasons. This highly publicized instance of covert discrimination demonstrates clearly how a legitimate, legal policy can be applied in order to discriminate. Such tactic s are often quite easy to legitimate since many people feel that no legitimate clai m of discrimination can exist wh ere legitimate discrimination is taking place. In other words it is simply di fficult for many to imagine that both types of discrimination can take place simultaneously. It is important to recognize, however, that even when certain forms of discrimination are legiti mated, this should not automatically extend the power of authorities to di scriminate illegitimately. The example I used of under-representation among foreign students in the Netherlands brings up an important issue of international respons ibility. Although students from American Universities studying abroad in the Netherlands w ill have undergone a selection process at their sending university, does this relieve the Dutch universities from any responsibility where representation is concerned? My sense is that it does not sin ce denying responsibility seems to be a misuse of national separation as a means of shirking responsibility. Rather, I would argue that from a diasporic perpective we should not vi ew universities as divi ded into national groups, i.e. American universities and Du tch universities, but rather univ ersities, 'the academy', should be seen as a field in and of itself similar to th e way catholicism is viewed as a global religious institution. As such, Dutch uni versities would have no less res ponsibility for the diversity of exchange students than would th e sending institutions. Of course ignoring the jurisdictionalism

PAGE 193

193 commonly used to create monopolies of responsib ility has the potential of opening a pandora's box. Looking at the transatlantic slave trade, for example, it raises the issue of Dutch responsibility in the (for ced) migration of Africans to America and in that way extends issues of post-slavery restitutions to the Dutch. In addition we could take a fresh look at Dutch immigration to the U.S. throughout history from th e perspective of implicating Dutch institutions in the effects such migrations have had on re producing and maintaining a white supremacist economic structure in the U.S.. Since I am not an expert regarding any of these (historical) themes, I do not know what the results of studying them in this way would be, but I suspect that national-separatist vision has influe nced existing knowledge in many ways. Latours Obligatory Points of Passage Sociologists of technology, and Bruno Latour in particular, ha ve developed extensively the concept of 'obligatory points of passage' as a way of making sense of power in technological systems. Latour notes that this is by origin a military concept, that obligatory points of passage should be created through which the enemy must pass which can therefor e be the sites where powers of resistance can be concentrated. The co ncept was re-configured to make sense of the practices of 19th century hygienists and doctors who would isolate certain tissues in the body, such as the eyes, as obligatory points of passage for pathogens in order to focus antiseptic procedures that would prevent th e onset and/or spread of dise ase further into the body. This concept, I propose, is quite usef ul toward making sense of racism and discrimination as well as creating strategies for countering it. First of all, since the origin s of racism lie in the real or imagined original separation of people who have come into contact, race usually contains an element of spacial/territo rial ideology. Such ideology is not only used to explain and justify racial divisions but also to multiply differen ces infinitely as well as produce spaces of homogeneity, more comparative than actual, away from the Other. Thus, for example, in U.S.

PAGE 194

194 racism, there is not only the my th of differences between places of migratory origin such as Europe and Africa, but there is also a focus on differentiating the life-spaces of whites and people of color. This can happe n in terms of interior/private spaces, as well as public spaces such as neighborhoods, parks, businesses, and so on. There are then, for example, immigrant neighborhoods, black areas of the c ity, white schools and universities21 and so on. Understanding the maintenance of spatial sepa ration requires understand ing the creation and management of specific obligatory points of pa ssage through which people of color must pass in order to (fully) integrate into (w hite) society as equal participants Feagin and others research such sites extensively which include loan c ounseling sessions, real es tate negotiations, job interviews, educational settings, occupational assessments, and so forth. Sites like these represent social interactions in which the reso urces are exchanged that allow excluded people to attain access to exclusive areas of society. As su ch they act as obligatory points of passage for people to navigate their way out of social and spatial separation. Since civil rights actions re ndered illegal much of the explicit, mandatory spatial segregation that constituted a saliently remembered part of the overt discrimination of the past, it follows that much of that discrimination has b een translated into more covert forms that, nevertheless, still operate using obligatory points of passage. I would like to suggest that many, if not all, forms of covert discrimination can be understood in terms of such obligatory points. What's more, such discrimination has to make us e of legitimate forms of discrimination as a means of securing race separation. As such, ensuring that a student is unable to attain a diploma or that a bank client is unable to secure a loan may be used as points of passage into prosperity 21 White areas are rarely described as 'white' but rather are understood in contrast to other, explicitly racialized areas. 'H istorically black universities,' for example, which are presumably subject to the same racial integration policies as 'white' schools, are still explicitly made sense of in (mono)racial terms

PAGE 195

195 where access can be denied for legitimate reas ons, which may be used to camoflauge other less legitimate, and often unconscious, illegitimate reasons. The debate about affirmative action strikes me as one of the major fronts of the battle to maintain the power to maintain control over such points. The struggle against affirmativ e action, as such, may easily be understood as a struggle to maintain the power to discriminate covert ly. This is not to say that this battle is not being fought elsewhere such as in legal contests in which individuals' righ ts to redress against organizations and individuals are curtailed. Ul timately, for those opposed to affirmative action, winning this battle would mean the total eradicat ion of all means of claiming legitimate access to an organization, service, etc. in favor of organizations that are fully autonomous in deciding who receives what kind of access when and for what reason. This would be the total triumph of the property rights of owners over individuals' power to negotiate access on other bases than ownership. On the other hand, such obligatory points of pa ssage also represent th e spaces that are by definition spaces of negotiation and therefore cannot ever really be completely ideologically dominated. Individuals will always have a le gitimate claim to negotiating passage simply because the negotiation of passage is the pur pose for which such points are invented and maintained. Therefore even if color-blind raci sm continues to gain ground, as some have forecast22, there should still be mechanisms through wh ich individuals will be able to contest discrimination on whatever basis. For the last few years in the Netherlands, the learning of Dutch has been developed as a major obligatory poi nt of passage held up against anyone wanting to establish her/himself in Dutch society. Th e argument that indivi duals must know good Dutch in order to live and function in the Netherla nds has been strongly propagated through many 22 See Bonia-Silva (2004).

PAGE 196

196 media channels and discourses and has manifest ed itself in numerous access policies including the right to live within the national border, the right to enter into an educational institution, the right to marry a Dutch citizen, and so on. What is important to recognize is that by focussing attention on the positive aspects that good know ledge of Dutch has on one's ability to live successfully in Dutch society, atte ntion is diverted from the more relevant issue of how people are treated who have learned and do know Dutch. Clearly the assumption is that for such people, whether they are foreign or domestic, discrimina tion only happens for legitimate reasons and that it would be silly to think that anyone would discri minate against anyone else for illegitimate or irrational reasons if that person speaks Dutch. This might be a fine ideology if there were sufficient means of recognizing and combatting cl ass, race, gender, nationality, sexuality, and other types of discrimination. Ho wever, the high level of educa tion/information disseminated to help people recognize such discrimi nation (presumably in order to av oid or combat it) also works to train people how to avoid detection/recognition when practicing dis tinction and socialselection along such lines. In my opinion the best way to recognize this is to examine the positive values regarding Dutchness, which are ofte n as covert in Dutch life as discrimination, and then strategize about how these positive values are related to separation from certain types of others and how such separation mi ght be achieved and/or disabled. One very good example of such positive valu es are those of Dutch nationalism or the Dutch self-image. This is an image of a peopl e/culture that maintains strict boundaries as to what is Dutch and what is 'unDutch.' In many cases, the things that are explicitly 'unDutch' are things associated with capitalism in general and the Dutch image of America in particular, although I do not want to suggest that the U.S. is in any way singled out for this purpose since almost any national group could be used as a so urce for negative/contrast images for Dutchness,

PAGE 197

197 especially when the national gr oup in question is seen as a co mpetitor or source of relative inferiority for the Dutch. Although this sounds st range that a group seen as relatively superior can be appropriated as an Other whose identity can serve as a source of references for avoidance in the Dutch character, this has to do with a strategy of maintaining uniqueness through differentiation. In simpler terms, to be Dutc h means to be happy with what you have despite your jealousy for the Other you view as superior. There may then even be resentment for the arrogance of the 'superior' Other th at is actually rooted in the pr ide of being able to live without those aspects of the Other that are the object of jealousy. I will not go into listing all such cultural differences that are produced as a means of differentiating the Dutch from other national groups since these can range anywhere from simple cultural practices such as food and material life to complex institutional and policy arrangements or abstract characteristics of an imagined national/ethnic behavior. The point is that all such differences are used as points of reference for separating the Dutch from other people. This st rikes me as fitting the description of BonillaSilva and others as producing a raci sm without racists. This is not to say that there is no agency involved in propagating such racism since many Dutch people are constantly engaged in the survey-of and differentiation-from all types of others Similarity, or rather membership in the ingroup, is then signaled by relaxing such surveillan ce and differentiation activ ities, in other words as rest. Essed takes note of this in her ethnography of the experience of social workers incorporating a woman of color into their ranks who, she found, ha d the experience of only being able to relax and be themselves once they could retreat into an ethnically homogeneous environment23. I suspect that the physical discomfort of excitement and the inability to relax forms the visceral basis for the kind of ethnic policing that I have described. 23 See Essed's (2006) ethnographic study of ethnicization in the social services.

PAGE 198

198 On the other hand, there is also a great degr ee of emphasis on the goodness of things that are seen as uniquely, or 'typically,' Dutch such as foods (cheese, certain pastries and breads and so forth), institutionalized social patterns (bir thday parties, holiday traditions), and personal values and behavior (tolerance, explicitness regardi ng everyday events, cautiousness, sobriety) and so on. Many such things are expressed comp lexly as negative which are nevertheless valued or tolerated as being one's own. This relate s somewhat to the inferiority I have already described. So, for example, deliberating endl essly about something in the political sphere without taking action is regarded in a somewh at negative light but nonetheless revered as typically Dutch, albeit quietly. Therefore for individuals to act in accordance with such a value, they have to concordantly regard such a prac tice in a negative light while tolerating it as an essential part of their (collective) Dutch self. My use of the term, 'Dutch self,' can be somewhat misleading here since it would be more accurate to say that individuals are expected to resonate with such qualities in order to be accepted as Dutch, not that individuals view themselves as having a 'Dutch self' in addition to any other selves they might have. Although this would be a significantly more health y approach to (ethnic) selfhood, it w ould pose a threat to the prerogative of controlling access to membership in the group by exclusion. In other words, to be Dutch many Dutch feel that they must be exclusively Dutch, or worse ye t, that they are unable to be anything other than exclusively Dutch. Con ceiving of Dutch selfhood in this way makes it possible to render any personal quality of an indivi dual an obligatory point of passage for ethnic exclusion. This would at least partially be remedied by a more diasporic vision of Dutchness. Dutch Racism from a U.S. (National) Perspective One problem with understanding Dutch racism from the perspective of U.S. national racism scholars such as Feagin a nd Bonilla Silva is that in a Dutc h context, race is much more embedded in a system of international relations. Whether this is due to the peculiarity of the

PAGE 199

199 long U.S. history of domestic racism or due to the peculiarity of th e long Dutch history of strategic international relations that separate th e Dutch (nation) from th e nations of Others is unimportant. What is important is to recognize that to understand one of these racisms in terms of the other it is necessary to shif t or translate the national point of view into an international one or vice versa. In the U.S. case, race and raci sm are taken for granted as internal national phenomena. Even anti-immigrant racism is appro ached as a domestic issue and rarely thought of in the same terms as international relations betw een the U.S. and other na tions, let alone from a super-national or denationalized global persp ective. Dutch racism, on the other hand, must almost always be understood in terms of internati onal relations, mainly because of the relegation of colonial others to separate national/territorial spaces. So, fo r example, rather than talking about 'black-Dutch' or 'African-Dutch' as would be the case in U.S. race-language, in Dutch one speaks of 'Surinamese,' 'Antilleans,' 'Turks,' or 'Moroccans,' in reference to Other places where people with these labels are pres umed to originate and belong, as opposed to in the Netherlands. By constructing racism and nationalism co-terminous ly, that is to say by talking about people in terms of national races, peoples, or cultures, di scrimination is simplified at the knowledge level to producing simple associations between et hnicity and places of belonging outside the Netherlands. Cynically one might say that Dutch racism works quite elegantly in this way since it almost automatically implies national segrega tion along ethnic lines just by virtue of peopleplace associations that can be broug ht to bear on individuals. Wh at is more, the application of the logic of nationalism and national belonging can be quite easily carried out under the mum of positive interest in different cultures. Asking some one where s/he is from and then continuing to hold a conversation about the culture of that (exo tic foreign) place or comparing the culture of the Netherlands to that of another place easily re-produce and emphasize differences and

PAGE 200

200 boundaries between Dutch people and Others. Dutch racism does not need to resort to negative imagery and, in fact, the ideology of tolerance suggests that negative racism would be less effective at managing the presence of foreigne rs in the Netherlands than would expressing interest in otherness, accom odating people as (temporary) gues ts, and then politely expecting them to allow the Dutch to get on with their ow n (exclusive) national in-g roup society. Because such racism is covert and because the national system of exclusion is largely legitimated by people everywhere, often even those who claim to be against racism, Dutch racism is hard to recognize and criticize. One of the reasons that I believe the idea of a Dutch diaspora to promise so much in terms of liberation relates to the internationalist approach to race within Dutch racism. This is because I suspect that strongly differe ntiating between the ethnic spac e of the Netherlands and other ethnic spaces both provides the foundation for groundi ng logics of racial/cultural difference as well as serving as a means for placing people out side the Netherlands in everyday talk. The notion that life is quintessentially different in th e Netherlands than it is in other places allows many individuals to racialize lifespaces without racializing the indi viduals they come in contact with per se. Of course it is a logical consequence of racializin g a space or society that the people who are seen as being of there will be associated with the image of inferiority given to the place in question; however, in many cases it would be seen as impolite to explicate this logical connection. Still many people would make this logical c onnection and believe in its meaningfulness without regard for the basic disr espect such thinking c onfers on people and their environments. Recognizing cult ural diaspora defuses the id eology of spatial difference somewhat by positing that the radical separation of spaces into territorial wholes defined by their ethnicity is inherently flawed. Because cult ure spreads and is embodied in various ways

PAGE 201

201 throughout a cultural diaspora, it makes little se nse to think of it in terms of bounded spaces. There is no reason why various cultural manifesta tions cannot co-exist in the same space or in close proximity and, in practice, such co-existen ce is the rule rather th an the exception. Of course, we could side-step this basic fact of multicultural existence by claiming that all imports and immigrants become subsumed under the umbr ella culture of a given space upon entering it. For example, we could say that Hollywood movi es become appropriated as Dutch media by way of their re-presentation on a Dutch broadcaster su ch as RTL (which is actually from Luxemburg by the way), infused with Dutch commercials, c onsumed by Dutch minds that make sense of it using Dutch meanings, etc. This is similar to the conversation one encounters occasionally in which it is claimed that various ethn ic foods are specifically tailored to the tastes of the society to whom they cater. Looking through a diasporic le ns renders such debates silly, in my opinion, since it becomes clear that there is no such thin g as a pure monocultural space/territory as a point of comparison. Rather all spaces are hybridized and intersectional venues in which all types of culture and human practices come together and intersect. So to claim that a Dutch family watching a Hollywood movie in their living room in Utrecht on RTL TV is more engaged in Dutch life than American or Luxe mburgian life makes less sense than to recognize that such an event exists as an extension of each of these cu ltural diasporas in a certain way; as a Dutch leisure activity, as a Luxemburgi an broadcast audience, and as a Hollywood audience. We can hardly claim with legitimacy that this is less of a Hollywood audience because the people watching the movie are not American, nor can we say that this is not a Luxemburgian audience because broadcasters in Luxemburg are tailored to foreign viewers. Likewise, it makes little sense to differentiate in degrees of Dutchness be tween a Dutch family watching this movie and a Turkish family watching the same movie a bloc k away. Although the Turkish family may apply

PAGE 202

202 certain Turkish meaning to making sense of the film, the Dutch family might apply the same meanings, just as the Turkish family may be a pplying Dutch meanings. Once we recognize that spaces and people are socially (re)constructed on a moment-by-moment basis according to the specific people, meanings, technologies, and so forth brought to bear on interactions, there is little point in insisting on a monocultural umbrella to subsume everything going on within a single ethnic/national context al though as social scientists we have to acknowledge that individuals do tend to do this much of the time in order to simplify and give order to their experiences. Nevertheless, it is crucial to rec ognize that culture is radi cally intersectional and overlapping in this way if we want to move beyond (Dutch) territorial racism toward a more diasporic view of space. Dutch Racism and Discourses of National Fullness One of the most taboo and at the same time most convincing discour ses directed against 'foreigners' in the Netherlands i nvolves the logic that the Netherlands is a small country with a very high population density, in s hort that the country is 'full.' The political expression of the right-wing, "vol is vol" ("full is full") is endowed with power by virt ue of its simple and circular common sense logic as well as by the taboo status it has been give n in popular discourse as an 'extreme' right-wing expression. So-called moderates are then able to discuss extensively what is proper and legitimate for expressing the 'fullness' of the 'little' country by talking about it being 'busy,' for example, that is to say too busy to accommodate newcomers. The simplicity of the idea of fullness also adds to its power since it does not take much imagination to conceptualize a container that does not have room for any more contents. In a political climate that prizes humanism, altruism, sharing, equality, and so fo rth, the view that the country is full is a convenient way of directing feel ings that refugees and other migrants should be accommodated to other 'larger' countries who are presumed to have the space, lacked by the Netherlands, to

PAGE 203

203 accommodate people. Thus a country such as th e U.S. can be criticized as a 'traditional' immigration land that unfairly resists immigra tion while other (mostly E.U.) countries can be exempted from similar criticism for reasons that involve cultural preservation, no tradition of immigration, being too small and/or poor, and so forth. Ultimately what is left unspoken is an ideology of total autonomy for European nations to maintain their traditio nal societies and ethnic homogeneity/superiority while also maintaining international econom ic relations that facilitate such autonomy without integrati ng the societies/peoples who act as trading pa rtners into western society. In many informal conversations I have explor ed the ideology of national-smallness and fullness with people in different ways. Althoug h I did not keep systematic records of these conversations, my sense is that a trend emerge d in which many people share the sentiment that the Netherlands is a small country and this is desirable. Although many I spoke with had ideas about how a large and powerful country such as the U.S. could better use its power to solve global problems, the same persons often expressed reservation when I asked how they would feel about (peacefully) expanding the Netherlands as a means of accommodating people who wanted to partake in that society and as a means of incr easing the power of the Netherlands in relation to the U.S. for solving global pr oblems. To my recollection I have never encountered someone who favored the prospect of expanding the Netherla nds, either in size or power. From such conversations I began to draw the conclusion that although such people had 'big ideas' about how to manage large-scale political power, they ha d strong reservations a bout living in a society where such large-scale power could be produced and exercised. What's more, the same people who were strongly convinced of superiority of th e welfare and culture avai lable to residents of the Netherlands were strongly resistant to the id ea of expanding such a society to include more

PAGE 204

204 people24. Since Dutch-discourse is often quite inte rested in processes of internal expansion, development, education, and so forth, it is no t so far-sought to imagine expanding Dutch society into other geographical regions. This would be an especially logical and democratic prospect for the people who would like to inte grate into Dutch society but are prevented from doing so by immigration restrictions. Of course, I am not th e first or only person who has thought of this. There has been a discussion about using the reso urces of the Dutch welfare state to aid the development of other countries, although as one comedian pointed out, an emphasis emerged of helping people "in their own countries," in other words the discourse was appropriated for expressing anti-immigration sentiments. The ensu ing issue then becomes what the implications are of helping people who want to move to your society when the ultimate goal is to live separately from them. Such an ideology is not fa r from the 'separate-butequal' ideology of precivil rights U.S. racial segrega tion. More importantly, however, it is necessary to understand the complexity and fragmentedness of this fullness-ideology by recognizing the value placed on smallness in Dutchness-discourse and the wa y that this provides a foundation for a corresponding notion of fullness. More simply put, although the ideology claims that the size and density of the Netherlands is a natural barrier to accommodating immigration, this is a reversal that obscures that many people want the Netherlands to be small and full as a means of rationalizing the exclusion of immigration and immigrants. I should add that negative sentiments toward immigration is not an undeveloped ideology in Dutch discourse. Rather it should be not ed that there are welldeveloped logics why 24 I considered saying 'immigrants' instead of 'p eople' since the same people who resist extending Dutch society to immigrants favor extending it to the children of so-called native-Dutch. However, since I have heard some people rationaliz e this in terms of balancing birth and death rates in order to produce a stab le or decreasing population dens ity on the same land-area, I use the term 'more people' to mean and expandi ng population without sp ecifying the means of expanding it.

PAGE 205

205 immigration in any society causes problems. Of course, the corres ponding claim is that rootedness and resistance to migration and change prevent social problems. In many ways this is nothing more than conservatism translated into geographical terms; the key notion being that there is a radical distin ction between staying-put and migrating from place to place. Since I have worked at decontructing this distinction at ot her points in my writing, I will just remind readers here of the problems that arise with this dis tinction when it is extended to making sense of everyday life in its details. We are simply all migrants in so many ways as a necessary function of human existence and subjectiv ity. Nevertheless, it is possibl e to imagine, as many Dutch do, that a society or even a world free of immigratio n is not only achievable (since migration is only the result of poor welfare at home, good welf are means people would never want to move somewhere else) but also ideal since this woul d result in accountability, social control, and cultural harmony in the absence of cultural differe nces that are presumed to be the essential cause of conflicts. In many ways this is resonant with the Eur opeanist approach to creating and maintaining separate and relatively autonomous states/regions ; i.e. plural monocultu ral national territorial hegemony. It is also similar to the system of pillarization thought to prevent ethnic-religious conflict in the Netherlands prior to the 1960s or so, as well as to the system of ethnic homelands in apartheid South Africa, although I am certain I could run into lots of criticism for equating these systems since South Africa was arguably less democratic than the pillarized Netherlands. On the other hand, I am not mentioning these vari ous political systems/strategies to evoke a detailed comparison of them but to note that the utopian logics used to legitimate them are the same, that is "separate people into homogenous groups and problems will go away or at least lessen." It is also worth noting that people with an autochtonous self-image of their ethnic-group

PAGE 206

206 stand to benefit the most from such an ideol ogy because it implies that the good society, i.e. the ethnically homogeneous one free of immigration, is and always has been their society whereas other societies plagued and po lluted by migration ar e the ones that need to change. Another way that national-fullness ideology is related to Dutch racism is related to the post-modernization of Dutch society following the second world war. Rosi Braidotti has recently described post-modern as referring to "s pecific historical situation of post-industrial societies after the decl ine of modernist hopes and tropes" (B raidotti undated). Without engaging in a detailed critical analysis of what this co uld, does, or should mean, I equate this meaning of post-modern with an attitude that the Nether lands has passed its (mode rn) period of (colonial) expansion and has moved into a (post-modern) historical moment in which expansion and colonization are or should be forfeited in favor of something else, presumably maintenance of the status-quo or, more progressively, the phasi ng out (gradual death) of Dutch society and culture altogether. Such a vision of post-m odernity is resonant with Philomena Essed's observation that racism has shifted from a more paternalistic form prior to WWII to a more competitive form in the period after (Essed 1996). Essed suggests that whereas European (whites) felt a 'white man's burden' to help the 'less-developed natives' of the colonies during the period of colonial expansion, that once colonial ism was abandoned racism shifted to regarding the colonial others as a threat. In short, whereas it was once thought that colonial racial Others needed to be helped out of thei r ignorance to be able to do what westerners do in the first place, now they are seen as a threat precisely because they will take over industries and jobs from which they were previously excluded. Again, I wish to note that such competitive racism is solidly anchored in the post-modernist vision of a society that has reached its limits in terms of production, expansion, resources, and so forth. Of course, such a post-modernist vision ignores

PAGE 207

207 the many areas of development in society, tech nologically as well as expanding out-sourcing of labor and raw-materials, and so forth. In many ways, Dutch society is modernizing and expanding, only without an explicit outlook to ward expanding into other regions and populations. Should the Netherlands expand? The ethics of expansion an d colonization are discussed constantly on many levels. I wi ll just briefly express my opini on on this question. Expansion is usually criticized with the assumption that ther e is a zero-sum exchange going-on. For colonists to expand into new regions, it is thought that the necessary result wi ll be eradication of indigenous (or at least currently present) people and cultures. There are too many examples of this being the case to deny that su ch eradication is possible or even the most expected result. However, rarely do we look at population moveme nts and migration in the same way that we look at colonization. At the macro-level these are very different phenomena of course. Colonization is when a political body expands to take over land, people, and/or resources not previously under its reign. It is an expanding perimeter with no change in center. Migration, on the other hand, is usually thought of in terms of individuals who leave their existing political body to enter into a new one, usua lly without the goal of (covertly) colonizing the destinationplace. Of course, ideologists of propaganda love to play with th ese two macro-concepts, suggesting that migrants are in fact colonists, as a way of creating anti -immigrant sentiments. This play of meanings works precisely because there is no difference at the micro-level between colonization and other forms of migration. Indi viduals simply move to a new place and begin living there. On the other hand, if we proceed from a multi-cultu ral and/or diasporic point of view, there are many ways of imagining migra tion that are neither colonization nor ethniccultural submission to the destination society. Clear ly there are certain forms of disrespect that

PAGE 208

208 we are familiar with from colonial history/my thology such as killing, raping, and stealing from people encountered. Likewise, co lonists either have the inten tion of exploiti ng the colonized territory and people, taking their resources for the 'motherland' and then returning there to prosper as a result of colonial exploits; or th ey have the intention of establishing permanent residence in the new region without regard fo r the people already liv ing in that region. Immigrants, on the other ha nd, are imagined as people who submit to the current residents/society of the region th ey enter. In American 'me lting pot' ideology, immigrants are thought to enhance American culture as a whole by bringing 'a little' of their home culture while doing their best to join and integrate into thei r new society. There is an extreme polarization between these two ideological images: dom inate/conquer/colonize, on the one hand, or submit/join/immigrate on the other. Moving beyond the polarization of domination and submission, however, we can see that it is possibl e for individuals to move through regions and live among various people without either conquering them in the name of a foreign sovereign or relegating themselves to total submission to a ne w sovereign. This involves recognizing not only the possibility of multiple cultures in the same space/individuals but also the possibility of peaceful respect, negotiation, and change of ex isting cultural practices and democratic institutions. Thinking in this wa y it is possible to imagine an e xpansionist (Dutch) society that respects and co-exists with other societies. Li kewise, it is possible to imagine a diaspora in which Dutch nationality/ethnicity is no longer used as a means of limiting access to northernEurope; where the Netherlands is as integrated outs ide of its present regional territoriality as its multi-ethnicity is integrated within it. In other words, such a expansionary vision could respect the right of people not to be conquered while at the same time deconstructing the premium placed on living in an autochtonous region as opposed to anywhere in the diaspora. I suspect

PAGE 209

209 that if such a Netherlands were to become reality (to the extent that it is not already) that there would be problems of covert nativism and preference for living in the traditional Netherlands over other parts of the diaspora, ju st as there is a preference for living in older cities such as Amsterdam or Utrecht over more recently constr ucted cities in Flevoland. On the other hand, one could also imagine strong policy-actions gear ed toward democratizing the distribution of places within Dutch society, for example by moving industries and companies to places devalued in terms of cultural-capital. Doing so would reduce anti-immigrant sentiments as so-called autochtonous Dutch integrated into the multicultural society. Although I am optimistic regarding such visions I also re alize that such ideas are probl ematized on many levels by those who vehemently resist Dutch multi-culturalism and integration. Nevertheless with a growing E.U. and European integration as well as the onslaught of globalization, by means of improved telecommunication technologies and otherwise, it seems that diasporic issues will have to be approached with posit ive results somehow. Racism and Soccer Recently the Netherlands played against Port ugal in the 2006 FIFA Wo rld Cup tournament in Berlin. Although I am seldom engaged by a soccer game, I started paying attention to this one when one of the Portuguese play ers head-butted one of the Du tch players while the referee wasn't looking; this while Portugal was ahead 10! I asked my partne r if the Dutch team would retaliate, since she has more experience watching this kind of soccer than I do, and she told me that they most certainly would but that they w ould do so at an unexpected moment, and also so that the referee would not see. As the game c ontinued brawls seemed to be constantly brewing between players of the two teams. Before the Dutch team could take revenge for the head-butt one of the Portuguese players faked an injury earning the Dutch team a card. The unfairness of this was nearly unbearable! How could a team that was winning the game violently assault a

PAGE 210

210 player from the other team while avoiding justice and then go on to feign injury in a way that would solicit false-justice from the same re feree who was evaded when they were the perpetrators? Soon after one of the Dutch play ers elbowed a Portuguese player in the face, seemingly as retribution for the head-butt, and received a card which nevertheless seemed to be given unfairly when the replay showed the elbow -to-the-face to be (app arantly) accidental, the result of the Portuguese player running too close behind him. S till, I wondered, what are the chances that this was not an extremely clever means of taking revenge for the head-butt with impunity? Needless to say, I was sorry I had begun paying attention to this soccer match in the first place. Although soccer, as with other spectator sports is experienced as primarily a symbolic conflict by most people, the vica rious experience of it translat es for these people into real strategies of conflict, learned for the purpose of making sense of and participating in real conflicts. Although it would be silly to claim th at the Netherlands-Portugal soccer match just described represents a real conflict between the Netherlands and Portugal, in many ways it translates into real nationalist attitudes and a sense of group-orie nted conflict among spectators, not to mention the players. The most basic nati onalizing force of international soccer is that spectators should support their country's team. This logic insist s that individuals identify with a nation/team and support it (or otherwise orient toward it) as one's own throughout the tournament. In short these are supposed to be more than a select group of players who happens to be wearing national co lors; they are supposed to represen t the presumed-organic group of the nation-race. Players must hold a passport for the country of the t eam for which they are playing in such tournaments. What was particularly di sturbing in the most recent World Cup tournament was the mysterious absence of players of color in the selection of the Dutch team.

PAGE 211

211 What is perhaps more problematic about socce r than its use as a medium of nationalist identification and confli ct is the kinds of strategies of conflict it employs, teaches, and normalizes for those who watch it. What is more, I contend, is that many individuals discriminate in meaningful real life situations using the soccer-conflict model. This amounts to a form of racism as teamism where individuals view themselves as part of a national (economic) team who should defend against i mmigrants/foreigners whose presen ce in their country is seen as the presence of an opposing soccer player trying to score a goal by getting a job or, worse yet [sic] receiving social benefits. In the Netherland s, as in many other countries I suspect although I do not have experience in those cases, social benefits and the distri bution of employment are seen as integrated aspects of political regulation and, because of the ideological construction of the economy in this way, jobs are viewed as almo st equally important or equally important to protect as social benefits, depe nding on the sector, job, etc. In such an ideological climate of national protectionism, it makes se nse that individuals can feel legitimate in discriminating against people perceived as immigrants and/or foreign. This is a strong claim, that individuals systematically and consciously perpetrate racist discrimination against Others they attribute membership in an opposing team. Nonetheless, I be lieve that this is not only the case for many Dutch, but that the notion that this is not a legitimate mean s of producing prosperity would confuse such people. For them, racist discri mination can only be spoken of in cases where powerful and blatantly aggressive national groups apply murderous genocidal force. A small and relatively powerless [sic] group of people like the Dutch cannot be seen as perpetrating racist discrimination simply by trying to prevent 'outsiders from gaining access to jobs, social benefits, housing, and other social resource s. For people who think in th is way, discrimination can not

PAGE 212

212 only be practiced with imagined legitimacy but, I argue, follows much of the logic of soccerviolence described above. The benefits [sic] of this model for discrimi nating are the following. First, inclusion and exclusion from 'the team' are not viewed as nego tiable. Membership on the team is seen as something determined long before the game and w ith unambiguous clarity as to who is part of the team and who is part of the opposition. This means that for one to discriminate, it is not necessary to pay any attention to the claims or sentiments of an individual defined as an opposing player. In fact, anything such an indivi dual says may be considered suspect since one expects him or her to use any m eans possible to 'score a point' in the Dutch economy/society. Thus if an immigrant claims to want to 'join the Dutch team,' this could be interpreted as a covert means of gaining access to 'the goal' in order to score more easily. Put simply, this approach produces total distrust for those defined as opponents. Second, discri mination, like the headbutting maneuvre described above, are seen as illegi timate, i.e. 'dirty,' insofar as they do not constitute fair and good play, but nevertheless are consider ed legitimate, or at least necessary and therefore tolerable, as a means of winning th e game. Therefore they can be legitimately perpetrated with the conscious goal of avoiding 'getting caught' (by the referee) and thereby receiving punishment (i.e. a card). What is disturbing about this model is that perpetrators of discrimination may be able to recognize the cruelty and unfairness of their actions and perpetrate them nevertheless. Thus, although such actions ma y be covert in the sense that they are done with the intention of avoiding detection and punishment, they ar e not unconscious, indirect, or institutionalized the way we think of much c ontemporary racist discri mination. The kinds of actions taken are limited only by the creativity of their perpetrators. A Dutch worker, manager, or another role could strategize ways of creatin g problems for individuals defined as 'unwanted'

PAGE 213

213 in Dutch society and this would be experienced as systematic difficulty encountered by the target of such discrimination. Since perpetrators are taking care to protect th eir own liability for the actions they take, there is little or no means of proving that such discrimination is taking place, although it may be quite obvious that the target's life and experien ces in Dutch society are quite different from those recognized as part of the home team.' Third, such racism/discrimination has the zero-sum logic that is associated with so ccer. The only true goals are to maintain the integrity of the team, win, and enjoy the spoils as an exclusive group. In soccer this amounts to the kinds of violent assaults I have described but also to all sorts of time-wasting maneuvres when one's team is ahead that prevent the opposing team from even having the chance to compete and catch-up. Although even many conserva tive proponents of racial justice often think about inequality in terms of helping disadvant aged groups to 'catch up' to the dominant group, within the logic of national ec onomy-protection, allowing opponents to have a fair chance, let alone 'catch up,' is seen as threatening the possibi lity of losing a point to the opponents. In other words, any measure taken to ensure equal access to resources will be seen be such individuals as a threat to Dutch dominance in Dutch society. Put simply, this is 'give them and inch and they take a mile' logic that can result in disproporti onate resistance to even the smallest achievements of individuals associated with oppos ition to the 'Dutch team.' As if all this game-logic was not enough, 'tea m work,' 'team-building,' 'team-players,' and so forth are common terms used within Dutch organizations to motivate, discipline, and ideologically manipulate managers and workers. It is notable that these terms are preserved in the English form in which they were presumably discovered. The significa nce of this is worth theorizing explicitly, especially considering that there is a wider tre nd of retaining imported

PAGE 214

214 language artifacts in their source-language25. Does maintaining such 'team' language in English facilitate a sense of alterity in applying aggressive organi zational techniques? Do Dutch practitioners of such team-logics maintain a vi ew of themselves as peaceful Dutch humanists while at the same time telling themselves that 'to survive in a capitalist world dominated by America I must use such Anglo/American met hods, even when I don't necessarily agree with them ethically"? The problems with such a fo rmulation are many. Firs t, it entails defining American capitalism as an unwanted Other that is nonetheless dominant in world culture and accepting it pragmatically as such. As if cons tructing an Other along m onocultural national lines like this were not enough, it goes on to pragmati cally accept the 'devious' organizational culture as an alter-ego which is then applied with indiffe rence, or at least with the emotional restraint necessary to carry out behavior one disagrees wi th in ethical principle. Although, my reading here is my own, if such an attitude/approach is at all common among the Dutch or others who define themselves in opposition to culture they pe rceive as Anglo/American, then there is reason for concern. This is not to suggest that te am-logic and competition is not something that underwrites much of Dutch life outside of organi zational life in which such English-terms are used. The popularity of soccer is not experienced as alterity and neither is the sense of legitimacy in having an exclusivel y Dutch-ethnic territorial nationstate. As such the team-form of discrimination discussed above is not limited to the kind of Dutch organizational-alterity suggested by the application of English team-terms I am speculating about here. Besides the practice of imagining those legitim ately belonging to the Dutch welfare society as members of a team, the term teamism may also be used to refer to the actual practices of inclusion and exclusion w ithin organization applying these terms, metaphors, and the logics that 25 See Kuitenbrouwer (1987) voor popular examples.

PAGE 215

215 accompany them. In Dutch organizational talk it is not uncommon to hear of inclusion and exclusion of particular individuals legitimated based on whether a person 'fits' well with the team. Those deemed a poor 'fit' can be sent on th eir way to find a better 'fit' in another team elsewhere. This logic is accepted by many Du tch as a legitimate method of creating a goodfunctioning work environment. Assessing this practice criticall y, it becomes clear that with it comes a logic of invisibility a nd impunity, a logic of whiteness to use the corresponding racist term, in which those seen as belonging to the existing 'team' are shielded from critical assessment. This occurs due to the logical assumption that the existing team members have already proven their 'good fit' with in the team and, as fully integr ated members of that collective, can only be viewed as contributing to its goodfunctioning, assuming that its functioning is in fact good. In other words, established workers of 'the team' are granted the privilege of being generally assessed according to the team as a wh ole, whereas newcomers in the organization are assessed as individuals who may or may not 'fit' within the good-functioning team This is not to say that established workers are exempt from assessment and cannot be similarly evaluated visa-vis the 'good-funtioning of the team.' Rather, it is merely important to note that submission to such team-submission logic is disproportiona tely born by newcomers than those more established. Part of the importa nce of submission to such team-logic is anti-individualistic. Individuals should not thi nk that their contribution as an indi vidual contributes directly to the success of the team. Instead i ndividuals are expected to reco gnize that team-dynamics occur by virtue of social effects that are not attributable to si ngle individuals, and ther efore that it is not the individuals that are responsible for the overa ll success of the team but rather the social dynamics inherent in its inter-wor kings. Although as a social th inker I, personally, can recognize valuable elements in viewing an organization in this way, I also find it im portant to consider the

PAGE 216

216 shortcomings of such a view and the consequenc es this can have for the various individuals implicated. Managers and other workers viewed as having a partic ularly strong social role in motivating, organizing, or otherw ise contributing to the team-dynamic are viewed as more essential to the good-functioning of the team than other individuals, for example. Also, because 'fit' ('passen' in Dutch) is the term used to assess the value of individuals in the organization/team, there is a sense of one possess ing qualities that contribute to or impair the functioning of a specific team. What's more, becau se the dynamics of a particular team are as unique if not more so than the specific configuration of indivi duals that compose it, along with the specific social dynamics they engender w ithin the specific cont ext(s) of the work environment, assessing how and whether a particul ar individual's qualities will work within the team-dynamic is quite open. Certainly there ar e at least as many possi bilities for justifying a person's good-functioning within a team as there would be to assess a poor 'fit,' yet because the team is viewed as a whole, qua lities expected to impair team-f unctioning, as a reason to exclude (not to hire) can be elevated in importance a bove good qualities expected to contribute to the functioning of the team or not to upset the current good social dynamic. This last issue, reluctance to upset a good social dynamic within a team is a particular point of vulnerability where (perceived) differences are concerned since recognizability and predictability are traits seen as having a low disturbance-potential for the team, whereas individuals who are expected to be singled-out according to various markings of difference by other workers would be seen as more potentially disturbing for the team. What th is amounts to in practic e is that established workers' responses to a new team-member can be attributed to the new-comer's presence rather than to the inability of established worker s to respond to and approach the new person appropriately, i.e. in a positive, productive way. Instead, established team members are granted

PAGE 217

217 relative impunity to respond to the new person however they want with the knowledge that greater impairment of team-functioning as a result of their behavior will increase the likelihood that the newcomer will not be offered a longterm contract. Although this logic/method for including/excluding workers from an organization is not directly re lated to racial/ethnic/national, sexual/gender, or other diffe rences per se, it is in form racist in the sense that it constructs the organization as a social group (t eam) that is defined and unders tood in terms of the overall group. The 'goodness of fit' approach to assessing individuals is then a way of marking them as different, i.e. unable to assimilate, or the same (or at least similar enough) to fit into the group without disturbing its functioning. Since I am too often left with a sense of crit ique without alternative when reading critiques such as the one I have just writte n, I will briefly note the possibility of alternatives to this kind of team-fit approach to the inclusion of individuals in organizations. First of all, individuals should not be assessed vis-a-vis a team dynamic but rather in terms of their specif ic contributions to the goals of the organization. If a good 'social dyna mic' or 'atmosphere' is something that the organization desires to create an d/or maintain, all individuals should be assessed according to their contributions to the atmosphere. It should not be assumed that ther e are 'natural laws' of good social dynamics, such as relative homogeneity among workers, a climate of autonomy for individual workers, etc. but such qualities should be seen in terms of the specific roles that they play in the empirical events of the workpl ace. For example, when homogeneity or commonalities among workers are thought to cont ribute to a good work-environment, the specific commonalities should be looked at in term s of how they are brought to bear on social interactions at particular mome nts. Questions can then be asked such as why one type of commonality was emphasized among workers at a particular time while others were ignored.

PAGE 218

218 Similarly, when individuals pe rceive their group in terms of homogeneity, what happens to existing differences among indivi duals? How do individuals expr ess and orient to the idea of homogeneity and to their individual/unique quali ties? By assessing group-functioning in this way, all individuals can be held responsible fo r the continuing good (social) functioning of the group and such functioning can be seen as a result of individual actions a nd contributions rather than individual and group identities and qualities that are simply present or absent. Also when an organization is viewed in terms of its produ ction (not 'productivity') goal, i.e. what the organization is trying to produce, at tention can shift away from social dynamics of the workers. Often consciousness of production within an organizat ion is obscured as a result of tayloristic traditions of keeping workers in the dark as to the larger production process to which they are contributing. Under taylorism, and still toda y in many ways, it was thought that focussing on one's specific work territory with disregard for everything outside of it was a good means of increasing worker and organizational productivity. It is questionable, however, to what extent it is favorable to maintain this practice. In stead, I argue that worker and organizational productivity would be improved if workers are aware of their role in a larger pr oduction process and the various ways in which th eir activities are related to othe r aspects of the organization as well as to their lives as consumers, citizens, and so forth. As such an individual's suitability to work within an organization need not be determined by a notion of 'social fit' within a team, but can be conceived of in terms of her/his desi re and ability to part icipate in the production process(es) of the organization. Th is is not to suggest that social dynamics be relegated to total unimportance, but at least they can be viewed in terms of their specific contributions to production instead of as to tal criteria for access to the work environment.

PAGE 219

219 Tolerance and Racism Although the political strategy of tolerance has been criticized (Essed 1996), it continues to be employed as a seemingly neutral peace-keeping strategy within Dutch racism. Tolerance is often cited as the reason why a Dutch society 'pill arized' into different political-religious factions never exploded into a (physical ) battleground, often compared to Northern Ireland, and as such continues to be heralded as a promising strategy for mainta ining peace, both within the Netherlands and in international relations. At first sight, the id ea of 'tolerance' can seem like a positive alternative for the kinds of violent confli cts that are often produced from ethnic, class, religious, gender, sexuality, and other di fferences. If individuals could just tolerate Others whom they perceive as different from themselv es, wouldn't the world be a much better place? When we frame tolerance in this way, we often fail to think of the down-side, which is that tolerance usually implies a lack of acceptance for a difference which becomes reified. Thus, when a person claims tolerance, either on his/he r own part or on behalf of a society for which s/he stands in as representative par excellence s/he is at the same time saying that the thing s/he is tolerating is negative and that s/ he would not have to put up with it if she chose not to (tolerate it). As such the implication with tolerance of et hnic differences is that one (or one's group) has the power to refuse to tolerate, i.e. to be into lerant of, Others who are assumed to be defined by differences that are assumed to be negative. Tolerance has, thus, a negativity element as well as a superiority element. It is a means for white Dutch to maintain the position of judge over Others instead of taking a position where one asks to be tolerated or accepted on the basis of others' judgement. What's more is that when a pplied in ethnic terms, tolerance always reifies individuals into groups so that one group tolerates another group and resists envisioning other ways of negotiating differences and shared aspects at the individual level.

PAGE 220

220 The result of effective tolerance is the sepa ration of individuals into relatively isolated factions. If we look at tolera nce as a defense strategy for ma intaining group integrity against 'foreign' intrusions, it is not di fficult to see how this can work as a very effective strategy of control. Instead of 'lowering oneself' to engage in conflicts with Othe rs, which would lead to diminished superiority and composure, one is able to maintain a dominant position where difference, as dissent, is tolerate d until it subsides. What is commonly referred to as 'limits of tolerance' in fact describes the point at which th e tolerating agent loses patience with the Other. When this limit is reached the results are intens e because they are not on ly a result of initial resistance to the object of tolerance, but they are at the same time propor tional to the amount of effort put into the patience, calmness, and so fort h that are the mundane e xpressions of toleration. Reaching the 'limits of tolerance' is associated with rationalizations such as that things have become 'intolerable.' Rarely would we expect a tolerating agent to take responsibility for the choice to move from tolerance to intolerance, hence the rationalizatio ns. The high degree of externalization in the toleration pr ocess is part of its strategy fo r being effective. Instead of taking an active-self approach wh ere the Other is approached with intolerance based on personal reasons, which would be a relatively transparent st rategy to deal with, to lerance takes a passiveexternalized approach where agency is projected onto the Other, resistance to which is justified on the basis of externalized, i.e. de-personalized, reasons. Thus th e effectiveness of tolerance as a defense lies exactly in its ability to construct itself as a defense rather than as an attack, which it then defends/justifies by appealing to an externalized authority. In tolerance we see the linkage to other form s of tolerance policies (gedoogbeleid) such as those applied to the drug and sex trade industries. The explicit goal of such tolerance policies in these cases is control. Marcuse wrote about this use of tolerance as 'repressive tolerance' as a

PAGE 221

221 strategy of defusing unwanted expressions in modern societies which is likened to "drawing the teeth" of challengers (Cuff 193). Although Marc use was speaking generally about all sorts of 'freedoms' heralded in modern societies such as the freedom of expression, his observation applies to the Dutch strategy of ethnic tolerance. The idea woul d then be to grant ethnic minorities various freedoms and privileges which would nevertheless serve to contrast them with the 'non-ethnic' (i.e. white Dutch). Agents of to lerance would then be able to claim that they 'give so much' where ethnic difference is concerne d, and as such can claim to be the victims of ethnic pluralism rather than ta king responsibility for playing a dominant/managerial role vis-avis ethnic Others. A white (i.e. non-ethnic) position as the position of superiority par excellence is an unspoken result of the st rategy of ethnic tolerance. The best alternative to tolerance I know of is linked to Ghandi's strategy of ahimsa, which he applied most notably, in my opinion, through his participation in the Boer war in South Africa. Himsa is the violent dest ruction of life inherent in life, whereas ahimsa is the strategy of resisting himsa to as great a degree possible in light of its inherent necessity among living beings. Ghandi claimed that he had chosen to fight with the British army during the Boer war despite his own issues with the colonial power as a means of resisting th e violence he would be required to commit. Ghandi writ es that he had three choices: I could declare open resistance to the war a nd, in accordance with th e law of Satyagraha, boycott the Empire until it changed its military policy; or I could seek imprisonment by civil disobedience of such of its laws as were fit to be disobeyed; or I could participate in the war on the side of the Empire and thereby acquire the capacity a nd fitness for resisting the violence of war. I lacked this capacity and fitness, so I thought there was nothing for it but to serve in the war. (Ghandi in Lemert 262) One could say that the strategy Gh andi chose was actually one of intolerance in so far as participation in a war on the side of a colonial repressor in a coordina ted act of intolerance constitutes the intolerance of one of its individual participants. By engaging in intolerance in this

PAGE 222

222 way, Ghandi thought that he could at the same tim e participate in resist ing the violence of war insofar as he became an agent of it. In the same way, agents of tolerance ha ve the choice to take responsibility for the intolerance th at is necessarily at the roots/lim its of tolerance and then resist the violence of intolerance by means of comp assion, understanding, and acceptance. The move from tolerance to intolerance in this strategy is cr ucial since it is only in the mode of intolerance that it becomes possible to reflect on the violence that one is actively participating in. This does not have to mean physical violen ce, but can also refer to symbo lic or even subjective (inner) violence. To use subjectivity as an example, sin ce it is the most accessible to all readers, when a subject is engaged in tolerance, it denies its own ( potential for) violence by understanding itself only in terms of superiority ("I will not be intolera nt") and denial of violen ce ("I am tolerant; I do not attack"). When the subject switches to the intole rant mode it becomes responsible for the intolerance and aggression that are denied in the tolerant mode. At that point the subject is able to reflect on its intolerance and aggression and can begin to nego tiate the meanings that support it. Without negotiating these meanings, the subject is trapped in its own sense of superiority to Others and is thus condemned to tolerating them. It is ironic that avoidi ng this vicious circle requires shifting to a responsible mode of intolerance. However, this prescription of critical intole rance leaves untouched the issue of whether there is ever legitimacy in taking an approach of intolerance toward the identity or ethnicity of another. It is important to note th at in order to be intolerant, as well as to tolerate, an Other, the Other must be objectified as an element within a territory belonging to the tolerating agent. To approach the Other in this way necessarily enta ils denying her/him the same territoriality taken for granted for oneself. Instead of constructing the Other as citizen, re sident of a neighborhood, colleague, or some other shared identity, ap proaching her/him on the basis of a difference

PAGE 223

223 automatically precludes extending territorial agency to her/him. What is more, to be tolerated or approached intolerantly without respect for one's basic right to judge and decide for oneself as the primary agent of ones own existence is ethica lly problematic. The full recognition of society as multiethnic/multicultural is then a necessary pr erequisite for the recognition of the possibility of choosing for oneself regardless of intolerance. This also means that intolerant agents must recognize their own intolerance as limited to their own capacity for judgement, rather than appealing to a monoethnic authority that is suppo sed to subsume the Other under its reign. This brings up the issue of pan-ethnic universality as an ethnically sp ecific authority, namely that of white masculinity. I am undecided as to whethe r I agree that all universality necessarily excludes ethnic Others or if ther e is a universal that transcends ethno-cultural specificity. The safest route to dealing with this issue, however, is to r ecognize all claims to universals as situated and specific to the subject/speaker. In this wa y individuals can make uni versal claims without the expectation that there exists an ultimately true universal somewhere 'out there,' external to the specific genealogy of the subject's own particular conception of that universal. Bringing this back to ethnic intolerance, the point is that on e cannot legitimately be intolerant of an Other but instead can only act intolerantly toward expressions of an accepted Other. It may be the case that one feels intolerance toward the Other as an object, and although th is is illegitimate it may be necessary for this intoleran ce to be expressed with the corresponding self-reflection that approaching any Other in this way is inherently problematic. Put simply, no one should have to deal with (in)tolerant regard fo r ones being, in part or as a wh ole. On the other hand, to be confronted with intolerance for ones actions by an agent that regards itself as limited and situated may be a necessary cost of living with difference; just as confe ssing to(living with an awareness of) ones intolerance and acting on it responsibly and ethically w ith respect and compassion for

PAGE 224

224 the Other may be an inevitable burden. Still, mo st important is the re cognition of the Other's right to live without subordinati on to the judgement, tolerant or in tolerant, of an ethnic superior. Methodology Some Concerns with Modeling and Data If I would translate this project into positivis tic terms, I would need to speak of theory, hypotheses, data collection, data analysis, and findings. Although I am neither dealing with testable questions nor with measurable data, this does not preclude the possibility of framing the issues in the language of positivism in order to aid the understanding of readers. Elsewhere I have discussed extensively the theories of di aspora as a lens through which we can view/model the macro-level of society if we choose to do so. These are not testable theories in the sense that we can prove once and for all that human dispersi on is the rule and stasis or settlement the exception. This would be no more possible than proving that the world is essentially composed of nation-states within which and through whic h humans move but which are nevertheless the fundamental static foundations of human life and culture. It would be equally silly to put this question to democratic or other political decision makers. Although such agents could 'test' the 'fit' of a particular vision or lens using some calculus of popular will/c onsciousness, this would not settle the question at the empi rical level. In fact, the only thing that can be said accurately about the empirical basis for descri bing societies as static or diaspor ic is that both are ideologies constructed by humans, and both not ions are ultimately rooted in subjectivity and not the object world. Still, diaspora is the theore tical foundation for this project. This theory is extended/applied to migrants in the process of moving to a new destination. Framing diasporic theory in terms of specific hyp otheses is difficult since doing so requires that we view so-called 'native' Dutch anticipating em igration in the same light as migrants whose legitimacy from the perspective of Dutch immigra tion policy puts them in a similar position of

PAGE 225

225 anticipating immigration. Although there are cl ear differences between individuals, mostly white, migrating to Australia more or less volun tarily and others, mostly excluded from white Dutchness, who are awaiting involuntary migrati on outside of the Netherlands, there are many similarities which I choose to make the objec t of my analysis. C hoosing to study disparate groups in terms of similarities in stead of differences, to compare ra ther than contrast (or even to refuse to compare out of resistance to constr ucting the divide necessary for comparison in the first place), is controversial. Although it re sonates with P Essed's (1996) call to focus on similarities and commonalities be fore differences, many sociologist s would say that doing so is simply bad science. Let me take a moment to addr ess this topic since I believe it is in the back of many sociologists minds. Sociologists tend to focu s on groups as a means of producing reliable findings. They use the logic that although there ar e variations within a group, that these can be controlled for by using large samples of indivi duals and that the indi vidual differences among individuals within a properly de fined group are relatively insignifi cant as long as they cannot be seen to form a pattern which suggests a furthe r sub-grouping that manda tes further splitting the group. It is assumed that when groups are pr operly divided and established as more-or-less homogenous, they can be compared and contrasted as well as analyzed in terms of intergroup relationships. In the logic of so ciological science it is counterin tuitive to combine two seemingly disparate groups into one if for no reason other than losing the ability to isolate characteristics as unique to each group separately. Th e main criticism I have of th is logic is that it is more interested in the producti on of visibility through good dissection pr actices than it is in reflecting on the kinds of results that will be produced and the purpose of ge tting those results in the first place. It may seem intuitively more accurate to separate 'native' Dutch emigrants of the Netherlands from similar emigrants who are Dutch by immigration and then compare these

PAGE 226

226 groups according to their differences, but we should also reflect critically on what is obscured by approaching the study in this way. First of a ll, commonalities between the groups are relegated to relative irrelevance. An i ndividual from one group may live in the same city, shop at the same supermarket, take the same train to visit in-l aws, watch the same TV programs, have childhood memories of the same amusement parks, and so on, yet all of these commonalities will be ignored in order to focus on the 'more interesting' differences that result in one being pressured to emigrate 'out' while the other sees emigration as an opportunity for expansion. I would argue that when sociologists focus unc ritically on difference in this wa y, they are no better than any other reactive public thin ker. Looking at public discourse the popular discussion about Dutch society as a 'multicultural society' could have potentially deflated some of the emphasis on differences, both among social scientists and memb ers of the public generally, but it was viewed as something 'new,' in contrast with the 'nor mal' monocultural (read monoethnic or monoracial) society. In fact, Dutch society could have perhaps better been characterized as monocultural, where the single culture in question was one th at included people and customs exchanged with many societies. In a sense this discourse exists in terms of a history of trade, but it tends to centralize white Dutch as the trad ers with other people and cultures as the 'traded.' In any case, for my data analysis I conscious ly chose to approach the migran ts segregated into different categories and websites as member s of a single group, i.e. individua ls living in Dutch life in a process of emigrating out of the Netherlands. The creating of hypotheses from theory is us ually done for the purpose of have testable mini-statements to measure. Another technique of hypothesis-building, I would argue, that is more relevant for qualitative analysis is to focus in on specific aspects of the migration activities in question. The themes for such hypotheses may emerge from 'reading' the data. This is a

PAGE 227

227 technique emphasized by so-called grounded-theorists. The kinds of questi ons that emerge from reading migration stories are thi ngs like, "how do indi viduals view their anticipated destination and their current place of residence?" "how do they experience the pressure, need, or desire to leave one place and move to another?" "how do they construct the differences between places and how do they conceptualize the relationship be tween those places?" "what kinds of struggles are they engaged in, such as the attainment of visas and other papers, employment opportunities, and so forth, and how do these struggles faci litate or problematize their integration and normalization in daily life?" "what do migrants ask for when publishing their stories in a public medium like a website?" These are some examples of the questions that 'emerge' while reading the data. The fact that such hypothetical questio ns are emergent from a grounded reading is not so much a claim to legitimacy in itself as it is a convenient means of traversing the data in a way that is less hostile toward unanticipated discoveri es than would be a rigidly pre-defined set of questions; although I am not claiming that it is possi ble to read the data without pre-conceptions. Perhaps the most important aspect of data and methods that should be discussed are the routes of representation and translation th rough which the empirical being studied is conceptualized in the first pl ace. Representation is an of ten overlooked component of the research process. Take survey research as an example: sociologists represent themselves to respondents by writing and distributing surveys, respondents represent themselves for study using the surveys produced by the so ciologists, the data collected ar e translated using statistical techniques to represent a larger population, and the larger population/society is represented in the publications that come out of research. At all these moments of information transfer and transformation, representational issues are critical and yet they are often overlooked as transparent in the research process. This is th e equivalent of ignoring is sues of lubrication in

PAGE 228

228 mechanical engineering. To avoid this oversight, I will talk briefly about the data I am using for this project along with its production and use. Although we like to imagine that we are studyin g people and societies, the truth is that sociologists study models and data for the most part Yes, we interact in social life in various ways, including by doing sociology, but we cannot cl aim to study social life directly. When I began searching for web-based representations of Dutch migrants, I did so with the knowledge that I would in all likel ihood not come in contact with any of the individuals whose stories I would read, nor with those involved in collecti ng and publishing those stories. On the other hand, I was also aware of my own experience as a migrant and my knowledge of friends and acquaintances and their experiences with migrancy. Still, although it is nearly automatically and unconsciously that I synthesize what I read on the internet with the first and second hand experiences with migration gained in pers on, I must acknowledge that the medium through which this data has been produced is quite diffe rent from the face-toface interactions and personal experiences regarding migration that I was accustomed to before. Although my wife and I once shared our story of dealing with th e Dutch immigration authorities with a local newspaper, whose editors published our story, this does not allow me to completely relate to publishing one's migration story on a website th e way my 'respondents' have. Verstehen, in Weberian terms, I interpret to mean that in studying people one needs to approximate their subjective experience of being invo lved in certain representational processes in addition to being involved in the social situations being represente d. In this case, this means trying to understand the social situation of publishing one's migrati on story, often in despera tion, in a medium like a website. Although I cannot discuss all the issues of perceived a udiences here, we can simply acknowledge that a story publishe d on a website delivers a rather different perceived audience

PAGE 229

229 than that of a newspaper. A newspaper is loca lly distributed and more materially embedded in daily life than is a website, and therefore one's se nse is that more people read and relate to a newspaper story than one that is web-based. If noth ing else this is due to a lag in the ability to feel 'global' instead of 'local.' This is of cour se completely irrational si nce the same story can be published in a newspaper as on a we bsite. Nevertheless, I believe that the medium of publication played a role in the way my responde nts experienced telling their stories. Another representational issue intersects with the more traditional soci ological problem of sampling. As I already mentioned, sampling is itself a form of representation based on theoretical logic and statis tical technique. For this project, I have to address the issue of whether I think that the stories I encount ered on the websites I looked at are representative of a larger population of migrants. The most immediate answer to that question is that I do not necessarily believe that there is a larger populat ion of migrants at all and, if I do, it is because of the logic of sampling and a belief in the possibility of overseeing a macro-scale population. Being empirically mindful means, for me, recognizi ng that although many people, some of them sociologists, deal in macro-scale images of so cial life, that these ar e just that, dealings, negotiations, of macro-scale images undertaken at the micro-level of empirical social life. Do I choose to participate in such image-exchanges? Sometimes. Is it the most accurate claim to say that I can theoretically or othe rwise attribute aspects of the mi grant stories I read to other migrants whose stories I have not (yet) come in contact with? The answer to that is that while I cannot, I do out of a basic human ability to project knowledge of what is known onto the imagined existence of what is not (yet) known. To posit the same question at the level of specifics, we might ask if we can extrapolate a ge neral experience with visas from the stories of some migrants who have had to struggle with attain ing a visa or work permit. The answer to that

PAGE 230

230 is that I suspect that experience s with visa struggles are unique to individuals as well as to the specific circumstances in which such a struggle ta kes place. Does it feel different to wait weeks or months in anticipation of a letter and then to open that letter only to discover that one's application was rejected dependi ng on whether one is single or involved in a relationship, heterosexual or homosexual, migrating for school, work, or family? I suspect that it does; however does this mean that there are unifo rm similarities or differences among various categories of migrants? I cannot say. More important than answering such questions of measurement and comparison, I believe, are to open oneself to the Weberian questions of deepunderstanding and identification of various experi ences of migration, in part by shattering or moving beyond the reliance on categor ies to define social experi ence when such categories are really just one influence on that experiences. Proceeding from such a Weberian standpoint, we can approach sampling as the actual subjectiv e processes of represen ting the data and the individuals those data represent within our own experience, inst ead of as a means of feeding numbers into the statistical machinery. Reflecting on the relationship between the sampling mechanism and the social life we are trying to get at is a complex unde rtaking. To illustrate the enor mity of the problem, we have only to look at the gap between the data we re ceive in our offices and the social world we imagine produced that data. Yes, I can read th e story of a certain migrant and guess that s/he told the parts of her/his story that s/he consider s most important for the public to know. These are usually things like where the person is living, what source of money/resources are available, what their legal status is and wh ere they are in the legal proce ss they are engaged in, what the circumstances were in fleeing from their previous home and what kind of treatment they expect if they go their again. Here I am referring more to the stories of migrants and refugees who have

PAGE 231

231 previously immigrated to the Netherlands. Those pe ople that are migrating to Australia often tell less about their present circumstances. More ofte n they talk about prospe ctive work they will do at their destination. Although they are also often focussed on legal processes for migrating successfully, these usually only involve the place of destination and leave out the role of the Dutch authorities in their current situation. Still, soci ologically I should try to be aware of the large amount of information left out in these acco unts such as aspects of these people's daily life that are linked to the migration processes they are involved in but which are not reported in the stories they tell for publication. This could includ e activities such as shop ping in preparation of a potential move, packing, undergoi ng transitions in their relations hips with friends, neighbors, colleagues, acquaintances, and so forth. In short, I imagine that these migrants' lives are being transformed in any number of ways that they find no need to report on the internet, even if they do consciously attend to them, which I suspect they often do not. What I suspect that many sociologists do is simply proceed as if they begi n with a blank slate. By beginning in that way, sampling seems like a good way to collect the data necessary to put together a picture of the social life under study. However, it is more r ealistic to explore the relationship between the samples we get and the world we imagine they represent. Only in this way can we be fully accountable to the representa tional aspects of sampling. From Data to Findings: conceptualizing data as representative Although I am writing about diaspora, it should not mislead readers that this term refers to a macro-level phenomenon when, in fact, I am focu ssed on micro-level social interactions in my research and analysis. It is true that diaspora is a term similar to 'society,' 'race,' 'economy,' 'nation,' and so forth which already refers to the macro-level before any qualifying statements can be made about the researchers position on the ontological status s/he gives to these phenomena as well as macro-level analysis in gene ral. From my perspect ive, the issue of the

PAGE 232

232 relationship between the micro a nd macro levels in empirical obs ervation, theorizing, analysis, and findings is not something that can simp ly be left to convention or other unspoken assumptions. Although macro-level analysis and writing may seem very natural to many writers, there is really nothing natural a bout it. Visualizing phenomena at the macro level requires an act of translation from the (micro)perspective in which empirical observatio ns and other forms of data collection take place to a (macro) perspective in which larg e aggregates of data, along with the individuals and events they represent can be made intelligibl e within a human imagination. Likewise macro-level knowle dge requires translation into practical understanding and application at the micro-level. To say that one is simply a macro-leve l research an alyst sidesteps the problem of the researcher's life world. To say that one is only interested in the microlevel ignores the references langu age and concepts often have rega rding an implied macro-level. One thing is certain; in order to do empirically valid social science, one has to recognize the reliance of macro-level understand ings on language, concepts, and a process of synthesis through which (micro level) empirical observations are made sense of. My research relies on the assumption that macr o-level concepts such as a diaspora, society, or race can only be conceived as directly-empir ically-observable by consid ering them within the context of structuring interactions at the micro leve l. This view is most directly related to the base assumptions of ethnomethodology in which references made within conversation/interaction are bracketed in order to focus on their construction within and through social interaction. To appropria te and clarify my own constructiv ist position, I will say that I am not claiming that 'everything is socially-constructe d' since that would imply that it is impossible for anything to exist outside of social construc tion processes. On the other hand, I am claiming that in order for sociologists or anyone else to be aware of thi ngs, or put simply to perceive,

PAGE 233

233 social construction processes have to take place. Additionally, I claim that there is a difference between directly-empirically-obser vable things and events and othe rs that are more synthetic and abstract. Thus I would claim that while, for ex ample, a building, person, article of clothing, or furniture can be directly empi rically observed, a nation, societ y, race, or diaspora cannot. Instead it is necessary to acquire these concepts socially and then apply/synthesize them with direct-empirical-observations, or even simply negotiate them soci ally with others, in order to realize them. It is imaginable that one could observe the social intera ctions in which such conceptual-things are exchanged and negotiated, how ever, just as it may be possible using autoethnography to observe the inner-experiential co ntext(s) in which th ey are synthesized. However, I stress that to go beyond theorizing/observ ing such things in this way in order to talk about them as if they are actual th ings 'out there' in macro-reality is less than accurate. This is not to say that I will tota lly refrain from talking about, for exampl e, diaspora, as if it is something really 'out there,' but when I do so it is with th e consciousness that neith er I nor any other human has direct access to such a rea lity. As such I focus on diaspora as conceptual capital negotiated through social interaction rather than as a (group of) thing(s) th at exist independently of the social interactions within which they are enacted. Taking this kind of micro-interactional appr oach has consequences for the way such macro-things are approached conceptually and st udied. For example, researchers often equate the idea of a society with a population, us ually defined nationally although regional societies/populations may be used at the sub-national level or multinational trade zones supernationally. Unfortunately, I cannot think of examples in whic h a society is conceptualized or studied without regard to na tional institutionalization. This just goes to show how addicted we are to nationalism and macroconceptions of society. My vi sion of society from a micro-

PAGE 234

234 perspective is that we should approach it as a co mplex ideological image or series of images and ideologies that are distributed among individual s and applied within vari ous social settings in order to exercise power. As such my sociology involves looking at the so cial interactions and individual actions (often internal ) that constitute macro-images of societies, races, economies, diasporas, etc. and then go beyond focussing on th eir construction and re ification as things toward looking at their uses/app lications in social life among indi viduals. I emphasize that I am not focussed on the social construction of these th ings as processes in themselves because this strategy of constructionist anal ysis is usually geared toward deconstructing the things themselves. While I have no problems with deconstr uction as an analytical strategy in general, I want to stress that it is not the only possible use of a cons tructionist viewpoint and, more importantly, that focussing on the in/efficacy of so cially constructions can easily divert from the more important questions of how such social cons tructions are distributed, negotiated, and used among individual humans. Thus although the current project is focussed on Dutch cultural diaspora as a social construction, it is not in order to determin e the extent to which diaspora exists either as a material fact or as a subjective element of (Dutch ) consciousness. Instead it is a concept that I have arrived at fr om a critical liberation perspective; an alternative image for a Dutch society detached from ge ographical territory, r acist genetics, and ethnic membership. Although one could speak of a Dutch ethnic diaspora to describe the distribution of inclusion within an imagined group of pe ople who 'qualify' as Dutch; or of a Dutch racial diaspora to describe an imagined group of people who carry genetic material associated with Dutch people26; I have chosen the notion of a cultural diaspora as more inclusive than the first two. 26 I should note, to avoid offending readers or my own sense of decency, that I am not implying any kind of distinctness of 'Dutch genetic material' from any other kind of genetic material, human or otherwise. Rather I am using this term simply to describe genetic material in the same

PAGE 235

235 Culture of course contains the ethnic and racial definitions mentioned above but it explains them in terms of a culture of ethnicity or a culture of race In other words rather than looking at ethnicity as a true aspect of i ndividuals, it is seen as a (learned) (set of) practices of seeing and knowing (and distinguishing). Likewise, rather th an viewing race as actually distinct biological aspects of Dutch bodies, it is viewed in terms of racialization and markers of belonging that extend beyond ethnicity, for example in the case of subsequent generations of Dutch emigrants who no longer feel or desire any connection wi th Dutchness but nonethele ss carry a Dutch name, or also in the case of Afrika ners or Surinamese who have an autonomous national/cultural identity but who speak (a variation of) Dutch a nd carry Dutch genetic material as a result of colonialism. While a cultural diasporic perspective therefor e recognizes racialization and ethnicization as the result of cultural practices (without necessarily immediately legitimating or denouncing them as such), it also makes it possibl e to recognize other forms of cultural sharing that take place that lead to connections among people, places, and things that are excluded in many identification schemas, including those of ethnicization and raciali zation. In short, I employ cultural diaspora as a means of recognizi ng those excluded from the Dutch race and/or ethnicity, as well as other ex tra-bodily identifiers such as geographical location, spoken language(s), self-identity, lifes tyle practices, and so forth. Cultural diaspora, for me, is a radically empirically rigorous method of ac knowledging all forms of contact, exchange, and knowledge practices, incl uding those of disavowal27. terms as any other material distributed through co ntact and trade, not for the purpose of reducing human procreative relationships to an economic ex change, since we all know that it is much more than that, but to acknowledge that there are numerous 'offspring' of individuals with Dutch ethnicity, and thus carry their genetic material, who are denied recognition within the current vision of Dutch ethnicity held by many. 27 Disavowal is a particularly pr oblematic category since it represen ts the direct conflict between knowledge and denial. To disavow oneself or an-other as Dutch requires oneself having

PAGE 236

236 The question is worth explicating whether a ny form of Dutch diaspora, or any other diaspora, cultural or otherwise, is worth accounting for in its tota lity. First let me refer back to my comments about macro-level analysis in wh ich I explained my view of how the macro can only be truly understood in light of the micro-level social interactions in and through which it is constituted. Beyond that, however, the issue remains that in the micro-level social interaction in which I am engaged at this moment (with my computer and an imagined/potential audience of readers), whether, how, and to what extent I should engage in projecting efficacious macroimages of Dutch society and its diasporic aspects. As far as I am concerned such projection is far from necessary from a critical liberation pe rspective. From a liberation perspective I am more interested in raising cons ciousness about the repressive a nd exclusive effects of defining Dutchness and Dutch society in certain ways and, more importantly, proposing a critical alternative, cultural dias pora, that is potentially more incl usive by counteracting disavowal on the basis of circumscribed definitions of ethnicity, race, geographical territory, and so forth. Any evidence I would use to prove that the idea of Dutch cultural diaspora is more efficacious than other more circumscribed notions of Dutchne ss or Dutch society would move beyond simply offering the possibility of liberation to those caugh t up in the web of Dutch exclusionism to insist on such liberation. On the other hand, I must adm it that I find it rather ethically problematic to validate the freedom to participate in exclusion and repression and as such I find it quite difficult to advocate liberation from the call to liberate. While it may be legitimate and even healthy for knowledge of what 'Dutchness' means. In othe r words one must know the identity category in order to produce exclusion from it. As such, to say "I am not Dutch" claims to know Dutchness and, therefore we should recognize that, empirically, one must in ternalize a certain amount of knowledge about Dutchness in order to make such a claim. Therefore, empirically at least, disavowal of Dutchness (or any other identity or other knowledge for that matter) always marks participation in the discourse. Of course, one could remain completely silent or deny recognition as a stronger strategy of disa vowal but the issue is not proving connection or legitimacy of disavowal but simply of creating the possibility for total accountability of cultural contact.

PAGE 237

237 individuals to participate in so me controlled forms of self-repr ession and/or social domination games, these should ultimately be engaged in vol untarily and not as a result of coercive power. Still, you may ask then why all the fuss I am maki ng about empirical efficacy since this serves as a means of undermining the legitimacy of disc ourses that posit the existence of (macro) forms that are not directly observable in fa vor of social interactions that are28. Although I find it important to reflect and apply the values of liberation in my work, part of this task involves refraining from the denial that I engage in pr actices of power (truth-power in Foucaultian lanaguage) and that I do so consciously in many cases but I also suspect that in many other cases this occurs w ithout my awareness. When I insist on the legitimacy and efficacy of a diasporic vision of Dutchness ove r one dependent on geographical territory and other limitations, I am consciously and explicit ly rejecting more excl usive definitions of Dutchness and Dutch society. I do not only do this with a liberation ethic without regard for the use of evidence-based claims for legitimating one ontological vision of society over another. I 28 A note on empiricism and subjectivity: Since I repeatedly make reference to the empirical status of macro-level phenomena thoughout my writing, one may ask about my position on the empirical status of subjectivity. The empiri cal existence of macro-level phenomena is unquestionably only directly observa ble within human subjectivity. In order to 'observe' such phenomenon 'out there' in the material world, one has to engage in subjective practices of synthesis and abstraction. On the other hand, I argue, it is po ssible to directly observe the practices of subjectivity that allow one to translate empirica l observations into macro-level findings and, the reverse, project macro-leve l ideas onto observed even ts as well as to incorporate these ideas into actions and interact ions. The trouble with positing the empirical efficacy of subjective events is that only individu al subjects themselves can be witness to events taking place within their own subjectivity and ofte ntimes they are not completely conscious of them themselves. Although there are many strategies designed to gain acce ss to the subjectivity of a respondent, I emphasize that these all involve processes of interac tion and translation and therefore there is no getting around th e fact that it is ultimately onl y individual subjects that have access to their own subjectivity. However, the capacity to communicate and compare observations allows people to sh are and negotiate what they ob serve empirically which forms a basis for gaining secondary access to subjectiv ity which is, neverthe less, more directly empirically valid than findings deri ved from synthetic approaches to observed data. In short it is possible to witness ones own thought s or feelings whereas it is impossible to witness a nation, economy, society, diaspora directly as an external reality in and of itself.

PAGE 238

238 also choose to at times make reference to claims that support the ontolo gical status of diaspora over that of a static, bounded society. For example, colonial and post-coloni al migrations as well as trade provide some routes for making patterns of Dutch cultural contact and expansion visible. Likewise, one might look at the movements of indivi duals, either to settle or to travel, as an avenue through which cultural contact occurs. Looking at the movement of individuals and organizations within the territori al boundaries of the Netherlands is another means of envisioning diaspora. Although it is common for individuals to disavow th eir own migratory character by referring to transnational migr ation, moving from place to place is in fact quite important in Dutch life. Understanding movement and nomadic subjectivity (footnote Br aidotti) as radically present aspects of life provide a basis for understanding diaspora as a societal-form and/or wayof-life. Although it may seem contradictory to claim, on the one hand, a micro-oriented focus on the macro, and then talk about diaspora as someth ing that happens 'out there,' this only seems the case because we are used to treating academic wr iting as a transparent reference to something else instead of as a discursive engagement. From my perspect ive it is both and has to be approached as such, which means writing in reference to what is being researched as well as writing directly to readers' subjectivity. The latter may involve making claims to syntheses on the macro level, for example, when I refer to movement within the Netherlands as a basis for envisioning diaspora. I do this not because I trul y believe that there is in fact a macro-level reality in which it can be proven whether Dutch so ciety is geographically ro oted or diasporic in nature, but rather in order to make reference to those techniques of subj ectivity that allow people to envision Dutch society as a geographically bounded group of relative ly static, i.e. nonmigratory, people, or as a group of people engaged in all sorts of movement that lead to dispersion of bodies, materials, a nd cultural practices in all direct ions, producing diaspora. This

PAGE 239

239 is based in the radical awareness of the episte mology that allows one person to disavow someone else's Dutchness based on her/his location, parent age, linguistic ability, or other reasons while another person may be able to see how someone living outside of Europe who participates in another society and speaks other languages than Dutch most of the time, who potentially does not 'look Dutch,' and may not even identify with the Dutch ethnicity (e ven disavowing it), can still be part of a Dutch cultural diaspora by virt ue of shared language, culture, family ties, or other results of contact. Of course this is dependent on a radically multicultural epistemology and resistance to applying mu tual-exclusionary logic. Methods and Data For as long as I have been contemplating wr iting a master's thesis, I have dreaded the prospect of conducting research. This might sound like a strange utterance coming from a person whose career goal is to become a professional social scientist but it is really not as strange as it sounds. First of all, focusing on research objects produces inequality w ithin the sociological apparatus by enacting the asymme try between members of the sc ientific community, who read findings, and those who allow themselves to be observed, questioned, and experimented on. The research objects are essentially the same kind of people as the researchers but by the time the data is collected, processed, and translated into findings and pub lished as discourse, they have been reduced to sociological capital. LIkewise they have been pacified as well. Once agents of their own expression, after coopera ting with researchers they ha ve given up their story to someone else's writing, their meanings to someone else's discourse. Worse than the consequences of research on its objects are perhaps those for the researchers themselves. Since I cannot speak fo r other researchers, I will speak for myself and leave it up to readers to decide if they share my experience. For me, doing research involves getting involved with the social life the data represent and, more than likely, the people who

PAGE 240

240 produced it. When engaging in research, a peculiar type of double-consciousness begins to take place in which my presence/consciousness within the social world I am researching becomes increasingly permeated by the pros pective discursive arenas in wh ich the data are going to be represented once they have been extracted from thei r original context and tr anslated into a form that is palatable and easy to consume in the comf ort of a study, office, or library. Thus, as my research goals become increasingly important, my concern tends to shift away from interacting with the people who have become my research objects, from participating in the research context, to collecting data and planning its organi zation. Instead of attend ing to the social life I have deemed important enough to study, I begin atte nding to the social life of sociologists and academics. Then I wonder why I feel embarrassed wh en I am confronted with the criticism that sociologists are not really concer ned with the people they study. Of course it is not the case that one cannot use sociology as a tool to facilitate change but, for some reason, the lived experience of doing research has, for me at least, too of ten brought with it the sh ift of concern I have described. Really it is strange that there is such an emphasis on doing empirical research. Mills writes about the usefulness and necessity of such research in his essay 'On Intell ectual Craftsmanship.' The passage is rich and intere sting enough to be quoted here fu lly, in my opinion, especially since it is so candid with regards to the peripheral importance of empirical work to the work of sociology generally. He writes: Now I do not like to do empirical work if I can possibly avoid it. If one has no staff it is a great deal of trouble; if one does employ a staff, then the staff is often even more trouble. In the intellectual condi tion of the social sciences today, there is so much to do by way of initial 'structuring' (let the word stand for th e kind of work I am describing) that much 'empirical research' is bound to be thin and uni nteresting. Much of it, in fact, is a formal exercise for beginning students, and sometimes a useful pursuit for those who are not able to handle the more difficult subs tantive problems of social science. There is no more virtue in empirical inquiry as such than in reading as su ch. The purpose of empirical

PAGE 241

241 inquiry is to settle disagreements and doubts a bout facts, and thus to make arguments more fruitful by basing all sides more substantively. Facts discipline reas on; but reason is the advance guard in any field of learning. (Mills 205) Mills is quite critical of empirical research for the sake of doing research, as well as the popular notion that sociology is irreleva nt when it is not directly en gaged in empirical research. According to him empirical inquiry should be viewed as an exerci se, albeit an important one, but whose relevance to sociological work is not necessarily related to its findings. If this orientation sounds odd it is because we are so often inundate d with the contrasting notion that empiricism and investigation of data are pr ocesses whose only relevance lies in the findings they deliver. The possibility is eclipsed that the discipline of sociology consis ts of many types of processes and actions that are relevant to the social wo rld, not just for surveying, measuring, describing, explaining, and so forth. We end up accepting th at the purpose of empirical inquiry is the production of accurate data and valid findings, and thereby legitimating any research that meets these standards. Rarely do we demand or even pursue attention for issues like the specific intentions and eventual uses and ap plications of sociological work, either empirical or otherwise. Achieving the status of relevance becomes more important than the pur suit of actual goals. The pursuit of relevance as a so cial status is too often a chr onic condition in the spheres of knowledge production, in sociology and elsewhere. To use Marxist terms it is a form of labor alienation. The workers, scientists in this case, are more concerned with their own status and the status that their work will achieve than with its use-value. Many find sola ce in the prospect that their work has a use-value based on its ability to secure funding, attract p ublic attention, inform policy makers, and so forth but this is often littl e more than a semblance that produces credibility by externalizing judgment from academicians to politicians, funding agencies, and so forth. What guarantee do we have that when a particular funding agency is intere sted in our research that it will be applied in a rele vant way any more than when anyone else shows interest? Are we

PAGE 242

242 willing to set other standards of relevance than getting paid? Are we willing to apply the same standards of criticism to actors outside academia that we apply to academicians and, perhaps more importantly, are we willing to a pply the same standards to them that they apply to academicians? To put it bluntly, when inte lligent people outside of academia critique its relevance, they often site 'arm-chair' philosophical concerns with issues ir relevant to society as the enemy; but rarely are such people open to investigating whether the authority figures they revere are engaged in equally ine ffectual philosophical discourses. In other words, who says that policy makers are not arm-chair philosophers as well, just with a status that makes them appear relevant? More often people are just seeking shelte r from criticism in general and they have little energy left to pursue productive ends, let alone k nowledge as to what is truly relevant or not. Nevertheless, I find it important to stress that there are al ways instrumental goals and effects of any kind of scientific work including empirical inqu iry, whether these are recognized and acknowledged or not, and being aware of and e xplicating those goals and effects, along with intentions, should form an importa nt part of that work. For th is reason, I intend to devote ample discussion not only to the specific methods I use to examine a particular social phenomenon but also to the goals I have in doing so, the effects of the research on the pe ople involved including the researcher, and to th e intentions of resear ching this area and produc ing knowledge of and for it. When I wrote the first version of this pape r on Dutch diaspora society, I incorporated a cursory empirical investigation of some storie s of both Dutch and extra-Dutch people with the intention of demonstrating how narrative data ab out superficially different people could be used to find commonalities in their stories. This pr oduced an appearance contrary to the image produced by much sociological work that obscu res such commonalities by sorting individuals

PAGE 243

243 into separate categories or even separate substantive areas. Just think of the separation within sociology between studies of tour ism as leisure and studies of immigration, labor migration, or between military wars and international business ventures, and so forth. Not only are the people under study being conceptually divided into sepa rate populations but they are subsequently theorized and conceived of in ra dically different terms and with radically different interests in mind. If you think that this is a sociological problem and not a social problem, think about the schizophrenia of common-sense conceptions of va rious types of migratio n and the consequences this has for social status and life chances. Consider the following types of migrants who escape 'migrant' status: Internal migra tion within a country is rarely t hought of or studied as migration, migration for work is normalized if it only invo lves daily commuting or stays are limited in their duration, leisure migration is normalized, inte rnational migration by rich westerners is normalized, migration of military personnel to crea te a temporary or permanent foreign presence is overlooked, long term migrant settlements are normalized since this would include everyone on Earth. I will return to this i ssue but I just wanted to briefl y point out how common it is to isolate certain kinds of migrants in studying immigration as a critical target of the present project and my methodology. Returning to Mills, I want to cite the rest of the aforementioned passage which expresses the importance of research design to the primarily theoretical pr oject of sociology. He writes: Although you will never be able to get the money with which to do many of the empirical studies you design, it is necessary that you c ontinue designing them. For once you lay out an empirical study, even if you do not follow it through, it leads you to a new search for data, which often turns out to have unsuspected relevance to your problems. Just as it is foolish to design a field study if the answer can be found in a library, it is foolish to think you have exhausted the books before you have tr anslated them into appropriate empirical studies, which merely means into questions of fact (Mills 205) I interpret the last sentence in terms of its em phasis on translating theo ry into questions of fact rather than focusing on the caveat against pur suing empirical research that has already been

PAGE 244

244 published. The importance of understanding reading as part of a process of translation in an effort to make sense of empirical questions of fact is perhaps the most important meaning of empiricism in my opinion. Research design a nd the cultivation of an empirically grounded sociological imagination are key to moving between thinking about the social world in terms of abstract generalities and thinki ng about it in terms of concrete specificities. Although scientific knowledge is, by virtue of its na ture as knowledge, abstract, em piricism allows us to apply critical standards of observabili ty to claims made regarding th e social world. Whereas not all empirical observation is practically feasible or even possible, the conceivability of using it as a tool to potentially veri fy, or at least recognize, what is be ing talked about in theory in an empirical context should be an inhe rent part of sociolog ical work. On the other hand, the a priori invalidation of work that is not based on actual empirical data is a stifling revers al of cart and horse since, as mentioned, actual re search is often too difficult, cos tly, or otherwise prohibitive to facilitate the project. Since I am generally skeptical of the pursuit of empirical investigation into people's lives for ethical and other reasons already mentioned, the first methodological i ssue of this project I will discuss is the intentions behind doing empiri cal research in conjunction with the overall goals of the project. Normally, the most impor tant methodological issues for a sociology project are the representativeness of the sample of the specific population or group under study, the generalizability of the findings to that population, and the validity a nd reliability of the results of analysis. In this study, these four issues, re presentativeness, generalizability, validity, and reliability are problematic in their relevance. Each makes reference to an un-named, preordained homogeneity that is no t typically subject to critical scrutiny. Who should the data be representative of? If I am studying narratives of emigrants to Australia should they be

PAGE 245

245 representative of all immigrants of Australia or only those emigrating fr om the Netherlands to Australia. Or should they be representative of anyone emigrating from the Netherlands to anywhere else? Likewise, should data on emigra nts with an establishe d legal status in the Netherlands, or another state, be representative of all emigrants, regardle ss of legal status? These are questions that can only be answered theo retically but which have a drastic effect on the population defined for study and the issue of re presentativeness of sa mples/data for that population. The question of generali zability is another one which can easily be easily applied. Should we limit the scope of generalizability of our results. In the case of the present study, should I caution readers that th e theoretical perspectives on diaspora and so forth being developed are only relevant for a Dutch diaspora? Or should science entail the encouragement of transposing ideas from one empi rical arena to another? My sens e is that transpositions are an inherent part of science and that we cannot hope to simply deny this by placing limits on generalizability. On th e other hand, transposing and translat ing ideas to new applications is neither without the necessity of re-working them to fit a new context nor is it an innocent extension of ideas that are alrea dy-out-there. As such I would argue that generalizability should not be seen as something inheren tly possible or limited based on th e qualities of the context(s) of application but is something that is achieved by us ers of a given work. In other words, whether the work in this project is rele vant and applicable, i.e. generali zable, within readers' spheres of application depends not just on an objective re lationship between instan ces of Dutch cultural diaspora and other instances of diaspora, but more so on the imagination of readers and their ability to reconstitute their data in new framewor ks and in ways that make them compatible to the application of new concepts. Crucially, I must emphasize that it is one of the main goals of this project that diverse spheres can be generali zed in terms of a single concept, Dutch cultural

PAGE 246

246 diaspora, and that generalizing them in this way is not just a scientific or ontological issue but that it also has political ramification for the lib eration of humans from difference and categorical exclusion and ellusion. This relate s to Durkheim's concept of anomie which is the most adequate for describing the condition of persons connected within a given cultura l diaspora who are then misrecognized as such. To refuse to include immigrants in our gene ralizations, then, is an ethical as well as an ontological problem. Validity is an issue that is bound up with rigor which I will discuss more later. First, however, I want to di rect attention to the ideas behind sampling and the corresponding implications about po pulations tacit in them in orde r to explicate how the project of defining a (diaspora) population is rela ted to general sociol ogical concerns about populations/societies. Sampling is a means to study a population efficiently by selecting a small enough subgroup of its members that it b ecomes feasible to i nvestigate them thoroughly. Before this process can begin, however, a population must be de fined. As far as I know there are few or no rules as to how a population should be defined othe r than the whim of the researcher or, more likely, the anticipated approval of projected readers. Although th ere is no scientific reason for doing so, national or regional societ ies are often chosen as the populat ion of interest. Rather than dabbling in conspiracy theorizing and saying that it is a conscious concerted effort to reproduce the image of nations and thereby the ideology of nationalism, I would suggest that it fits well with the prerogative of sovereigns to limit their responsibility to their constituents of their polity or the territory for which they are responsible. If these sovereigns want knowledge about other populations or a super-population th at subsumes their own territory, it will probably be in order to compare them with thei r own population. Although it is possible to do so, it is counterintuitive to choose a population for study that is comprised of several disjunctive

PAGE 247

247 populations within different societies. For exam ple one would not expect to see a study of the combined population of New York city and the Dominican Republic, although for people who regularly commute between these places, they constitute a single population in many ways. Likewise, by virtue of their shared economy the U.S. and China technica lly constitute a single multinational society, although many people would fi nd it counterintuitive to think of them as such. Such counterintuitive examples of pot ential populations are usef ul for exploring the conventions and ramificati ons for social research. Since this project is concerne d with critically theorizing the population of the Netherlands and Dutch society, while putting forth the alterna tive construction of a Du tch diaspora society, it makes sense to talk about the potential conflicts between the interests of statistical analysis and those of imagining inclusive societies. Gene rally, statisticians favor mutually exclusive categories because they produce data that add up to 100%. However, statistical logics are popular and addictive. To give an example, it took me many years and large doses of critical social theory, philosophy, and women's studies l iterature to finally ge t beyond conceiving of my own (and others') mixed heritage in terms of pr oportions. Actually, Maayke Botman deserves the credit for this for havi ng published an article in Lover a Dutch feminist journal, in which she described herself as 100% Dutch and 100% Suriname se (Botman and Jones 2003/4). This is just one example of a conflict that can arise between st atistical logic and the logics individuals want to imagine their worlds by. In general statisticians will tell you that it is better to separate a large population into relatively homogenous sub-popula tions and then perform co mparisons between the subpopulations than it is to com pound populations into a single s uper-population and then extract statistics to generalize for all it s members. The latter is seen as reducing accuracy. On the other

PAGE 248

248 hand there is no opposite push to separate a populati on as much as possible into sub-populations according to the same logic although this woul d presumably make comparisons even more accurate. I suspect that the most important factor used to de cide on whether to use a single population or compare multiple ones is a concern as to how the results will look to the intended reader. Does s/he want to compare the educatio nal attainment of various income brackets in a single multiethnic society, for example, or would s/ he rather compare the educational attainment of separate ethnic groups controlling for income ? In Dutch media, statistical comparisons between the Dutch and other countr ies are quite popular whereas st udies that compile Dutch data with other national data are less common. In my critical inquiries into processes of population definitions and selection, I have sometimes found it productive to introduce the U.S. and the E.U. as counterfacts for one another. I am not fond of doing th is often since I believe that it facilitates reification of the image of differences between and similarities within the two regions, which obscures lucid consideration of each on its own term s. Still, the argument that there are cultural differences among states, cities, and segments of the population in the U.S. that are at least as salient as those of Europe is a valid one, even if it runs contrary to what many would like to believe about the relative inclinations toward 'cul tural-leveling' on the two continents. Yet it is more common to see European st atistics comparing, for example, the Netherlands, England, and Germany, than it is to see American statistics comparing, say, Florida, Louisiana, and Texas and even more unlikely to see such comparisons be tween territories within a multinational region like the caribbean or, for example, Florida, Cuba, and Puerto Ri co. Although there are usually statistical and other methodologi cal reasons given for choices about what populations to study and how, political and aesthetic considerations are more likely to be the decisive influences in research design than statistics or methodology.

PAGE 249

249 The politics of how a population is defined fo r statistical study is very much interwoven with the presumed/imagined possibility of genera lization across all individuals or elements that constitute that population. Thus various arguments are put fort h to suggest that general findings about a population are not applicable to a partic ular sub-population and, th erefore, that the subpopulation in question requires sepa rate study. This may be claimed by the Dutch in regards to a European-scale study or by a sub-regional populati on of the Netherlands, such as Friesland, in regards to a study at the national level. Likewise, if a group of people living in Friesland, new immigrants for example, deem themselves unrepre sented in studies of the Fries population, they may feel alienated when the results are generalized for the whole population. However, misrepresentation when a study generalizes for a population without taki ng account of minority sub-populations is only one issue. Another is the problem of including such people in the sample in order to ensure that they are represented by the sample. This is the issue which is of more concern in regards to the goal of th eorizing a Dutch diaspora society. Consider operationalizing the population of the Netherlands, or any other regional population for that matter, only in terms of its pe rmanent, or at least semi-permanent, residents (assuming that either category is valid). A st udy of this population might exclude people who have resided in the Netherlands for less than thre e months. This would exclude everyone in the Netherlands with a tourist visa since these are usually only valid for a maximum stay of three months. You may say that it is useful to exclude these people si nce they are permanent or semipermanent members of other popula tions and would, therefore skew statistics of the permanent population. While this argument is somewhat valid, it ignores th e issue of what tourists are doing during their stay(s). Are they living separate from society or are they participating in it? Although the quick answer might be to claim that tourists for the most part limit themselves to

PAGE 250

250 touristic activities and, therefore, should not be counted as particip ating in the core of society, I contend that on close inspection th ere is no real difference between tourist activities and those of permanent residents. They consume the same resources, occupy similar spaces, use the same transportation services, and so on. One major differe nce, however, is that their income originates outside the so-called Dutch economy and therefor e all the money they spend counts as exports for the national economy. Again, though, this skew s the nature of what is going on by rendering the same activity, going to the movies for exampl e, different according to whether the consumer is a tourist or permanent resident. A greater prob lem is that a relevant pa rt of Dutch life, export interactions, are conceived in isolation from the import interactions that are actually the same interactions. If we give credence to this adm ittedly confusing logic, it follows that we either have to conceive of the populati on of permanent residents as if they had a society that did not include tourists, or we can accept more realistically that the popul ation includes its transients and then flinch at the demographics of counting tour ists who only exist as pa rt of the population for short periods of time. Instead of getting caught up in such defin itions, I will simply acknowledge the kinds of problems they elicit and move on to discuss the ki nd of data used for the empirical portion of the current project and discuss how it relates to the object of rese arch. Since identifying what constitutes a society, diasporic or otherwise, is foremost a subjectiv e matter, that is to say it is a question of oneself perceiving and convincing others to perceive of a certain range of places and experiences as linked together as a singular whol e; collecting and analyzing data in order to study the Dutch diaspora has less to do with crea ting an accurate and thorough survey of what constitutes that diaspora and more to do with assembling data and conceptual tools that are capable of shedding light on the various mundane e xpressions that constitute data in a way that

PAGE 251

251 help us to (re)think them in terms of a soci ety that does not differentiate between migrants (immigrants and emigrants) and non-migrants, no r between places of resi dence/expression of its inhabitants, at least not in a way that essentializes their cen trality/marginality within the diaspora. This goes beyond merely the meanings and statuses attributed to various places and persons on the basis of their positioning vis-a-vis central(ized) geographical and cultural 'points.' It also means bracketing such statuses in order to look more lucidly at what in Marxist terms would be called the material reality underlying the identity and categorical colors that reality is endowed with. For example, when emigrants to Australia are compared with refugees being 'returned' to their countries of origin, a great degree of conceptual discipli ne is required to envision all the individuals in question in terms of their comm on orientation toward a new life perceived as external to Dutch society. Likewise, if we were looking at struggles of Dutch emigrants to return from Australia, Canada, or elsewhere, we would envision them in the same terms as anyone else engaged in moving from an external position relative to Dutch society to an internal one. If Friesland suddenly became an i ndependent state and some individuals decided to move to the Netherlands, this would be the same t ype of movement. This is not to suggest that all such movements are viewed equally under the law or by other agencies and individuals since differentiation among these various positions/places is the cornerstone of population-structuring power. What it does mean is that I am making a conscious ef fort to view individual and collective movements at a material level that brack ets the place-identity ideologies that inform our everyday understanding of them. Although I have chosen to look at emigrati on to Australia and emigration to other countries as a result of state-le gal-coercian, this shoul d not suggest that I c ould not have just as well looked at internationa l moves within the E.U. or within th e state-borders of the Netherlands.

PAGE 252

252 All of these constitute movements within a cu ltural diaspora in which individuals move and transform their lives in ways that bring them in contact with others wi th whom they exchange culture. Defining the myriad of cultural exchange s as Dutch is problematic in some ways. What is meant by Dutch culture anyway ? Taking fragmentation as the starting point instead of an integrated view of culture as a totality, almost any kind of culture acquire d as a result of contact and exchange with Dutch individu als, institutions, architecture, and so forth cannot be excluded from the definition. This is not the same as using 'Dutch culture' only to refer to cultural practices that are uniquely Dutc h and ignoring culture that is shared (in common) with other cultural diasporas. Since all human cultures have been in contact with each other in various ways throughout and before hist ory, making reference to one cu ltural diaspora as opposed to another is always relative, anywa y, and is really more a question of specific material genealogies and how far they are traced to present than it is one of establishing a permanent delineation of what is part of one culture as opposed to anot her. By taking a colorb lind approach to these emigrants, it is possible to view them all as agents of movement within a Dutch diaspora and proceed with analyzing their stories from that assumption. The purpose of doing empirical re search in this way may seem problematic since the goal is not to answer some specific que stion per se, but to flesh out, so to speak, in concrete details what it means to be involved in migratory movement within the Dutch diaspora. What does it mean to simultaneously be invested in the ki nds of rights-discourses and other regimes of knowledge and self-knowledge that are the product of engagement in Dutch discourse while at the same time having to juggle thes e with other regimes that are of ten perceived quite separately (depending on who is doing the per ceiving) to the Dutch one(s). At the theoretical level the kinds of questions that are evoked involve the im petus for migrating as well as the construction,

PAGE 253

253 at the most basic ontological level, of the se paration perceived between places. Why do migrants feel different about moving from Utrecht to de Bilt than they do about moving from Utrecht to Amsterdam or to Maastricht. What about moving from Amsterdam to Istanbul or Perth? What kinds of pressures do indivi duals feel (similar to push' and 'pull' factors but with greater respect for individual subjective experience)? Do migrants feel dissatisfied yet safe in the Netherlands, in their city or small town? Do they imagin e a border beyond which Dutchness, as an external social force, cannot reach them? Such questions go on and on. With regards to the specific data available from the websites used as empirical so urces for this project, however, there are limits to what they provide. On the one hand, the websites that are the source of data, HetGevolg.nl and XPdite.net (and eventually that of the S NOB Dutch education abroad), offer only a small and limited glimpse of what is going on th e lives of migrants within th e Dutch diaspora. The websites contain written expressions tail ored to specific purposes and specific readers. The stories published on HetGevolg.nl are published for thos e concerned with the human rights of persons facing deportation as a result of le gal coercion. The issues describe d in these stories are usually focused on describing the inhumane conditions faced and the efforts being undertaken to achieve emancipation from various governmental and non-gove rnmental pressures. Although this is not so different from the posts on XPdite.net, messa ges on that website are usually posted with the purpose of soliciting advice or recognition of a shar ed experience. On XPdite.net there is often also the sense that posts will l ead to successful developments whereas those on HetGevolg seem more oriented toward survival and peace in one way or another. The stories on both websites contain elements of struggle with the authorities and cultures of the country of emigration. However, when a visa is refused or there are other negative experien ces with Australia, it is often

PAGE 254

254 assumed that migrants can unproblematically remain in the Netherlands, whereas among the refugees of HetGevolg there is unrelenting pressu re to remain oriented toward leaving. Since this is not the place to discuss findings, these are ju st examples of the kinds of interpretations that are available from the data. More importantly than what the data can suggest, is that they are extremely limited in regards to being able to explore with any kind of extensiveness the vast range of experiences shared by the various migr ants. Ideally, I would like to produce a study in which it becomes evident how the lives of migran ts are not dominated by experiences of their migratory undertakings, as their consciousness often is, but rath er I would show how everyday life is nearly the same for those attending to their migrancy as for those in ignorance of it, i.e. for non-migrants to reify the dis tinction. This would involve vastly detailed ethnographic and interview methods that tap into the most minute experiences of wo rk and leisure, self-care and care for others, eating, media consumption, trav eling from one's home to others' homes and shopping centers, and so forth. Studying people in this way creates an awareness of them as multi-dimensional individuals with more commona lities than differences. On the other hand, however, should it be necessary to subject people to this degree of surveillance and interrogation to demonstrate something that should be obvious to begin with? The benefit of using the kind of data provided on these webs ites is that it is relatively unintrusive and that the respondents expressed th emselves as a response to their own interests instead of to those of (a) social scientist(s). The ethical value of this is substantial. The drawback is that I have little control over wh at respondents choose to th ink and write about, and I cannot probe them in order to elicit further reflection regarding the things they concern themselves with. Further this raises the question of what it is exactly that I am trying to get at in my research? the lives of the respondents themselves? their experiences and ideologies only?

PAGE 255

255 material and subjective aspects of their lives rela ted to migration? Or should I be content to research the specific expressions they have given me (the public) by posting them on the web and leave it at that? Gloria Wekker once told me that we only have access to representations and never to the reality from which they emanate or to which they refer; but I should acknowledge that I read-in an underlying reality to the data being represented which I assume/project behind the online narratives, even while I try to take care to separate my in terpretations from the representations I am interpreting. I say this knowing that reader s do the same and as such we should keep in mind that having access to represen tations, to the data, is already a substantial resource even when it is not interactive. In fact it is hardly necessary to intrude in to the lives of the respondents for this project since there is not really a question to be answered in the first place. Just by virtue of their selfrepresentation as migratory agents between Du tch society and elsewhere, they embody Dutch diaspora. Beyond that, the problem is for us, the so cial scientists, to envision them in terms that reflect an awareness of an esse ntial material commonality among a ll agents of the same cultural diaspora. Once this has been established as the basis for any other sociol ogical consideration, we can move on to survey, ethnographize, analyze, a nd so forth. If we are faithful to our basic paradigmatic ontology then our work will prolifer ate that ontology. If, on the other hand, we continue to explain away the rela tionship between the various type s of actors and their diasporic ties by applying static categorical labels such as (native)-Dutch and immigrant, or emigrant and stable resident, it will remain diff icult to see the whole picture. Still, although the point is fleshing out the Dutch cultural diaspora, as I have mentioned elsewhere, the problem remains of what to do w ith the actual data. How should I dissect these websites in a way that makes it worthwhile to ex tract and translate data (from Dutch to English

PAGE 256

256 as well as from lived form to sociological repr esentation). Which stor ies have sociological relevance? How should I analyze and interpret them to support a diasporic vision? The simplest answer is that the empirical porti on of this project as well as the analyses and interpretations that follow from it are mostly illustrative. They are th ere simply as a way for readers to get an idea of what web-based expressions of migrants with in a Dutch diaspora sound like. Another answer is that I should include narratives that are of interest although they may lack direct relevance to the topic of diaspora in order to be faithful to th e data as opposed to my own sociological gaze. For example, some posts on XPdite.net regard English language acquisition for children moving to Australia. Although this is a concern that is no t directly related to one's positioning vis-a-vis perceived borders and moving outsi de of those borders, it is impor tant to those posting on this topic to discuss this issue as it relates to thei r personal experience. Ultimately, what makes the most sense is to acknowledge the radical importa nce of all posts on the various websites to the respondents and simply browse through them for particularly meaningful exchanges. Although this method does not sound very rigorous, it is no less rigorous than th e technique through which the data was generated in the first place. Fortun ately, the efficacy of this project does not rest on the efficacy of the data. Once again I should refe r to the words of C Wright Mills cited at the beginning of this chapter to remind readers of th e importance of empirical data work despite its limitations and relative unimportance. Rigor is a strange concept. Although it is often used to talk about issues of representativeness between data and the empirical world it is expected to accurately represent, rigor can also refer to the clarity with which we relate to our data, our methods, the kinds of questions we ask, the kind of theory we use, a nd ourselves as researchers generally. In this sense, a rigorous approach to understanding the data and how it relates to the project is a

PAGE 257

257 sufficient substitute for the rigorous collection a nd analysis of data as a means of producing thorough and relatively absolute answers to ones rese arch questions. In th e case of this project, theorizing and reflection have b een more rigorous undertakings th an the generati on and analysis of the empirical data. What this means, howev er, is that we can move beyond the expectation that the data speak for themselves toward a more self-reflective and self -critical understanding of the data within the larger sociological project into which it has been appropriated. To let the data speak for themselves would mean that we, th e sociologists, leave be hind our sociology and engage the data on its own terms, as migration advi ce or as cries for help in some cases. In many ways I do, on a personal level, relate to the va rious migrant stories as a migrant, on my own terms but identifying with the respondents nonetheless. I r ecognize, however, that leaving behind my sociological gaze brings with it a sense of anger and relative powerlessness in the face of how migration is pathologi zed and manhandled by paternalis tic state-centered actors. Subjecting oneself to identification with the data on this level, Weberian verstehen in the deepest sense, leads to relative silence in my experience, however. For th is reason, I advoc ate the ability to shift between personally identifying and re lating to the data and achieving a sociological position from which it can be reflected upon with so me de-sensitization. This movement is yet another type of rigor, and it is again worth questioning what th e ethics of moving between the invested and divested relationshi p to ones object of research ar e. Is this a technique of knowledge-power with a positive po tential for liberating oneself a nd others, or is it merely an intensification of the kind of exploitative knowledge-power th at has been criticized by philosophers of science? I procee d with the assumption that it hol ds liberating potential but I am aware that such potential does not precl ude the possibility for exploitation.

PAGE 258

258 Deleuzian Assemblages as an Alternativ e to the Statistical Population Approach As I have already described, there are problems with statistical approaches to sociology in which a population is assumed, a priori, and then measured without re gard for the reifying effects this has for the original assumption. In addition to this problem of defining a population, there is also the more radical problem of the re lationship between the macro and the micro scales of analysis. Although it is usually assumed th at the relationship between data and findings analyzed at the macro level and interpreted at th e micro level is relative ly unproblematic, and as such does not require much or any theoretical re flection, this is hardly the case. Although there are many possible approaches to theorizing the relationship between micro and macro, I will not explore those here. Instead, I wi ll propose a single approach in which the macro is relinquished completely as an empirical/factu al sphere of its own accord in favor of a view that recognizes macro-constructions as images that circulate with in the myriad of microsocial interactions of everyday life. Somewhat resona nt with ethnomethodological appr oaches that posit structuring activity as taking place at the interactive level, this view requires not just bracketing the macro but re-conceptualizing it as an in tersubjective and/or textual social phenomenon. Thus, when I speak of cultural diaspora, Dutch society, and ot her macroscopic forms, I am referring to these, on the one hand, as (inter)subjectiv e and/or textual artifacts that are negotiated by individuals in order to make sense of their world. On the ot her hand, I will propose another approach to the prospective empirical world which we have access to outside of intersubjective and textual/media arenas that does justice to the i nherent limits of perceiving the macro from the vantage point of everyday (micro-social) life. The philisophical work of Deleuze and Gu attari (1977, 1987) provides several concepts which I consider useful for capturing with some verisimilitude the limitedness of the actual empirical access to the (social) world av ailable to human perception. These are rhizome

PAGE 259

259 assemblage and (de/re)territorialization A rhizome is a natural form of plants and other organisms like grass that grows horizontally rather than vertic ally, and as such provide an alternative metaphor for envisioning social organization. 'Rhizoma tic' structures are contrasted with 'arborescent' (tree-like) ones, or those that conceptualize social orga nizations as relatively isolated, stand-alone, entities that are hierarchically organized. The aspects of rhizomes that I am emphasizing here is their horizontality, which represents a continuity of micro (everyday) social contexts interwoven with one another, and the relatively uncircumscribable character of the (grass) field, since this implies that we ha ve no way of defining a population in order to measure it in terms of percentages of a whole a nd so forth. Using this approach to social configuration, we can recognize that societies are always in motion and changing, not only because of the objective/material work individuals engage in to modify their environments, but also because of the subject work involved with individuals continuously tr ansforming their fields of vision, and the result s of both kinds of transformation that produce constantly shifting boundaries, new divisions, and diss olve old ones. Deleuze and Guattari call this kind of boundary-modification work territorializations The most instructive metaphor for territorialization in their writing regards the enga gement between wasp and orchid. They write: How could movements of deterr itorialization and processes of reterritorialization not be relative, always connected, caught up in one another? The orchid deterritorializes by forming an image, a tracing of a wasp; but the wasp reterritorializes on the image. The wasp is nevertheless deterri torialized, becoming a piece in the orchid's reproductive apparatus. But it reterritorial izes the orchid by transporting its pollen. Wasp and orchid, as heterogeneous elements, form a rhizome. It could be said that the orchid imitates the wasp, reproducing its image in a signifying fa shion (mimesis, mimicry, lure, etc.). (p 10) When we translate this concepts into the so ciological macro-imaginary, the same kinds of processes can be seen to apply to the images of groups and societ ies held by individuals actors. An individual who has always lived in one regi on of the country may hold a certain image of what society means that will shift when s/he travels to a new region of the same country

PAGE 260

260 (national society). The same individual, when tr aveling to what s/he pe rceives as a different society from the one s/he is used to, may undergo similar experiences as when traveling interregionally, but may also experi ence deterritorializations and re territorializati ons of various aspects of her culture(s) as well. It is importa nt to recognize that the national society is not a reality but an imaginary projection that allows the individual to make sense of a variety of experiences. In this way it is transforme d by interregional travel, exposure to national ideology/propaganda/history/etc., and so forth. In tersubjectively it is negotiated in political discussions, trade negotiations, and other cooperative activ ities of (re)production. As individuals move through various social contexts, they constantly e ngage in such processes of (de/re)territorializati on. Applying this concept sociolog ically means recognizing and giving credence to the complexity, fragmentedness, and multiplicity, of territoriality inherent in the interplay of various subjects as they interact in social life. Rather than simplify things by creating our own definition of 'society' and buttre ssing and reifying it as th e definitive one based on a presumed sociological authority, this met hod reflects the many conflicting nuances of each individual's unique set of soci al/institutional connections and the subsequent fact that any collective forms will necessarily be the result of syntheses of heterogeneous individual(ized) configurations. As such rhizomatic social orga nization does not actually refer to a single field but the interplay of numerous fields in thei r interconnection without fixity of definition. The term assemblage is really just another way of re ferring to a group of interconnections among heterogeneous elements. It sociological usef ulness lies in its ability to capture the social connectedness of the assembled elements, as we ll as the continually sh ifting nature of any assemblage as a result of its cons isting of a variety of elements th at are not per se related to one another as parts of a functional whole. Relatively independent individuals, for example, may

PAGE 261

261 come together, along with other components, to form a social assemblage that constantly evolves and transforms as some components are picked up or left behind, or when the assemblage splits into two opposing factions, breaks up into multiple sub-variants of the larger assemblage, and so forth. Assemblage is also a useful means of envisioning the interconnec tions between subjects and the macro-images they negotiate and apply. For example, a child learning about the national history in school enters into a particular assemblage of teache r(s), fellow students, textbooks, flag rituals, and so forth that (re)pro duce a certain form of nation-knowledge and (anti)nationalism. The same child may leave th is assemblage and enter into a new one that includes her family, employees of a airline, a jumbo jet, border guards, and so forth that produce a sense of crossing national geographical bound aries. As she moves through the different assemblages, she will act as an agent in the reproduction of nati onalist ideologies, translating them into a form that makes sense in the new context(s). Later she may take an anthropology class at her university in whic h a new assemblage is formed where anthropological ideas of cultural contact are brought to bear on her experiences of internati onal travel reinforcing her selfknowledge vis-a-vis her knowledge of anthropology, or bringing them into conf lict. At that time she may accept or reject the article she reads on diaspora based on her experiences, her desire to maintain a nationalistic worldview, her fear of foreigners, or so me synthetic configuration of such subjective experiences. Doing empirical research into such assemb lages would be relatively complicated and necessarily limited according to the subjectivity of the researchers, the respondents, and the intersubjective dynamics of their interaction in the rese arch process. Nevertheless I can envision the possibility of getting at, however partially, the observable aspects of such assemblages. The method I would employ would involve combini ng ethnographic observation and interviewing in

PAGE 262

262 an active setting. Because assemblages take pla ce as combinations of heterogeneous elements including but not limited to individuals, ideas, institutions, machines, architecture, and so on, it would be necessary to try and capture a myriad of elements simultaneously. Since we are dealing with individuals movi ng through social contexts and among interactants, as well as engaged in their own internal dialogues of meaning-making, ethnographic observation would be needed to capture environmental aspects of th e assemblage(s) and individual is engaged in, especially those that s/he is unaware of or finds too uni mportant to reflect upon, while interviewing would be needed to get at the subjective meanings, memories, and so forth that are brought to bear on the assemblage. It may even be necessary to interview multiple individuals at the same time and/or conduct multiple ethnographies focused on different actors or environmental components of the assemblage. Clear ly such research woul d be rather intensive and, arguably, a waste of resources to accurately account for a relatively small and ephemeral moment of social life. Neverthele ss, I believe it is important to at least envision what an accurate empirical investigation into such assemblages woul d entail in order to do justice to them when theorizing. Only in this way is it possible to re main accountable to the co mplexity of all that goes into forming and transforming them. Although focusing on the microsocia l actualities of an assemblage precludes any recognitio n at the macro level, except in sofar as that macro exists in the micro, it does not preclude us from moving fr om assemblage to assemblage as participant observers, and as such, we can make claims draw n from our observations and experiences within such assemblages as long as we maintain an awareness of first, our position and connectivity within our assemblage(s) and, seco nd, that there is no position external to the assemblages from which we can reflect/write about the social without having engage d with yet another assemblage (i.e. that of a particular sociologi cal discourse or di scussion forum).

PAGE 263

263 As I mentioned statistical m easurement would be impossible in a rhizomatic field of assemblages. In one sense this is an impossibl e claim since clearly the social-technical apparati that produce statistical knowledge are also embe dded within various assemblages. As such, it must be possible both to produ ce statistical information/knowledge by connecting within such a statistical assemblage as well as to otherwise co nnect with such an assemblage in a way that makes it possible to gain access to the statistics being produced. Wh at is not possible from this point of view, however, is to claim that such stat istics exist in reference to an actual population 'out there.' Instead we recognize that the 'popul ation-out-there' exists purely as a projection of the statistical assemblage that produced it. This is also not to claim that all statistics, or qualitative macro-projections for th at matter, are equally likely to pa ss as realistic. Rather, it is precisely because statistical knowle dge and other macro-images are su bjected to the discipline of realism within their reception contexts that they tend toward a certain aest hetic of the social, for example the tendency to view societies in te rms of bounded geographical regions and usually with reference to national borders. The more re levant and interesting que stion with regards to the circulation of macro-images within the rhizome is how a part icular image is used within a particular context and how it becomes translated into another context with completely different results. For example, a child can participate in a flag ritual in which the nation is celebrated among compatriots in one assemblage and later th e same child may enter into an assemblage with foreign students where she feels anger toward them for ruining the possibility of fully enjoying national solidarity. In the one assemblage nationalism is experienced as patriotism with no actual exclusionary sentiments attached to it, and in the second it is ex perienced as a loss of commonality or solidarity, which is projected onto those associated with that loss, and as such becomes a source of negative sentiments. Peopl e often ask me if nationalism is good or bad

PAGE 264

264 expecting that it is one or the other but, in f act, the truth is that it depends on the particular context and assemblage in which it is being expressed and how. In principle, the potential effect of articulat ing the macro-image of Dutch cultural diaspora within any assemblage in which Dutchness is bei ng reproduced or otherwis e applied is to reduce or negate the possibility of re/producing statist conceptions and applying them in terms of differences between natives and fo reigners, life inside and outside the nation-state and so forth. As such, I propose this method of framing social life not just as a means of gaining more accurate empirical sensitivity to social life as a study object, but also as technology for political action at the epistemological as we ll as ontological level. By refusing to legitimate differencemaking language and practices in a variety of disc ourses, and re-conceptualizing social events in radically diasporic terms of contact -based inclusion, a significant step is taken in the direction of destabilizing the assumptions on which much discriminati on and domination are based. Conclusion In the first chapter of this thesis, entitiled Reading Instructions, I discussed rhizomatic textuality as an alternative st yle of reading and/or writing to the strict mode of linearity proceeding straight from beginning to end. If r eaders follow my instructions, or perhaps better said, if they accept my suggestion, many will in a ll liklihood end up here, at the conclusion, early in their journey. As such, I am faced with th e challenge of deciding how to write a concluding chapter in a way that it can suitably function as a more preliminary chapter. My approach to this is to end where I began, with readin g instructions that explicate rhizomatic textuality as a form of textual organization in which the reader plays as strong or stronge r a role in producing the livedtext as the writer does/did when (I) put in on paper in the first place. Since there is no index to guide readers to particular themes, I can only sugg est that they begin with the table of contents and/or reading instructions and proceed by sear ching for meaningful sections and subsections,

PAGE 265

265 reading or scanning for useful passages. Read ing in this way, readers will produce their own conclusions, not just based on what they have read in this text, but as a synthesis of their own and others ideas they carry with them from other sources. Alt hough the main goal of this thesis generally is to put forth and e xplore the notion of cultural diaspor a and Dutch cultural diaspora in particular, there is no reason to think that some w ill use the text in a way that further reinforces statist constructions of reality. Nevertheless, it is my hope that however this text may be used that it also can provide insights th at facilliate critical thought and the ethics, practice, and joy of liberation from oppression. Those readers who have read th e text linearly may have been surprised to move between seemly disconnected themes, analyses, and arguments. Their potential critique, that the text is not organized as a centralized na rrative dedicated to answering a single question, is valid insofar as their expectations in terfered with the ability of the text to provi de insight. Although I intended from the earliest stages of planning this proj ect to include empirical material produced by agents of the Dutch diaspora e nvisioned within the project, I chos e to define this a theoretical project to avoid the impulse to minimize the idea s and voice behind the resear ch in favor of more directly displaying the empir ical narratives. Had I limited my writing to support and explanation of empirical observa tions, a great deal of theoreti cal reflection on the topic would have had to be left out. Also, since much or all of the theorizi ng undertaken for this project has been in the context of my own lived-experience and practice of diaspora generally as an ontological mode or technique for making sense of my own particular genealogy of knowledge and experiences; and of Dutch diaspora specificall y, I view the theoretical portion of this project as part and parcel of the dias pora I am researching. As such the theoretical and empirical

PAGE 266

266 portions of this thesis are unified under the common theme of empirical, or grounded, expressions of cultural diaspora. Although the various trajectories laid out in the text are uni fied in terms of a common theme, they are also fragmented and disjunctive in many ways. This can best be understood in light of the distinction between iden tity and practice. I did not set out to write a thesis that would (necessarily) present a unified identity despit e great underlying fragmentation. Instead I approached the creative process as a whole endeavor of mediation and empirical approach to the topic. In this way I could freely pursue met hodological issues where t hose arose, as well as explore related theoretical questions and themes that are related only or primarily because of their emergence within my own lived experience of Dutchness and exploration of Dutch society in the diasporic mode. Although my admitted empl oyment of such relatively free techniques to link issues could be used against me as an undermining criticism, the values I regard as scientific convince me to maintain that the approach I have taken is ultimately too potentially useful to discard in favor of one that is less risky in terms of a possibl e reception. Nevertheless it is important to acknowledge that the te xt is a product of situated pr actice instead of pretending that it is a transparent artifact of standardized sociol ogical aesthetics. Stil l I propose that what the text is should be less the meas ure of its validity than what it may potentially become through reading and application. This meas ure of validity resonates with a vision of scholarship in which texts and other research practices are not desi gned to be consumed as objects in and of themselves but rather as media for going further with social practice. At the roots of the meaning of diaspora, for me, is the ethos of movement and change. Seeing diaspora(s) involves allowing oneself to recognize at the most radical level how social life is the process and product of such movement and change. Although we may only be

PAGE 267

267 conscious of this in particular contexts at particular moment s, perhaps only recognizing our thoughts or spirit as wa ndering at one juncture, or when we see others moving about while we feel trapped in a sedimented mindset, I believe that any recognition of movement can work as a basis or model for further cultivating diasporic consciousness. Although I have written about Dutchness here, this should not suggest a sear ch for boundaries or separation between the many diasporas. Instead I hope to have written about Du tch diaspora in a way that opens up the very notions of separation and mutual exclusion in an d among societies. Further I hope to have put forth a vision of the social that recognizes th e radical power of subjec tivity, and even individual subjects, to interpretively cons truct their worlds along with the conditions of their construction. By critically engaging knowle dge and experience and understa nding their relationship to the bonds of oppression, it becomes possible to imagine and work toward a better life for ourselves and others.

PAGE 268

268 LIST OF REFERENCES Alva, J. Jorge Klor de. 1997. "The Invention of Ethnic Origins and th e Negotiation of Latino Identity, 1969-1981" Romero, Mary et al. eds. Challenging Fronteras: structuring Latina and Latino lives in the U.S. New York: Routledge. Barthes, Roland (1977) Image Music Text translated by Steven Heath. Hill and Wang. Bataille, George. 1991. The Accursed Share: an Essay on General Economy. (Robert Hurley trans.). New York: Zone Books. (Original work published 1967) Baubck, Rainer. 2003. "Towards a Political Th eory of Migrant Transnationalism." International Migration Review 37(3):700-23. Bekke, Susanter, H.P. van Dalen & K. Henkens. 2005. "Emigratie van Nederlanders; geprikkeld door bevolkingsdruk." Demos, bulletin over bevolking en samenleving 21(4): 25-28. Berger, Peter and Thomas Luckmann. 1966. The social construction of reality: a treatise in the sociology of knowledge. New York: Doubleday. Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo. 2004. "From bi -racial to tri-racial: Towa rds a new system of racial stratification in the USA" Ethnic and Racial Studies Routledge. 27(6). Botman, Maayke and Guno Jones.2003/4. "Hibride identiteit: Een beetje van 'jullie' zit ook in 'ons" LOVER: tijdschrift over femi nisme, cultuur en wetenschap Jaargang 30. Amsterdam: IIAV. Brah, Avtar. 1996. Cartographies of Diaspora London: Routledge. Braidotti, Rosi. 1994. Nomadic subj ects : embodiment and sexua l difference in contemporary feminist theory. Columbia University Press. Braidotti, Rosi. 1996. Signs of Wonder and Tr aces of Doubt: On Teratology and Embodied Differences. Lykke, Nina and Rosi Braidotti eds Between Monsters Goddesses and Cyborgs London: Zed Books. Braidotti, Rosi. 2002. Metamorphoses: Towards a Materialist Theory of Becoming Cambridge: Polity. Braidotti, Rosi. 2006. Transpositions: On Nomadic Ethics Malden, MA: Polity. Braidotti, Rosi (undated online text) Cyberfeminism with a Difference http://www.let.uu.nl/womens_studies/rosi/cyberfem.htm

PAGE 269

269 Captein, Esther and Halleh Ghorashi. 2001. "Toward maintaining my identity. Identity formation within the zmv-women's movement (my translation) "Tot behoud van mijn identiteit. Identiteitsvorming bi nnen de zmv-vrouwenbeweging" in Caleidoscopische visies: de zwarte, migrantenen vluc htelingenvrouwenbeweging in Nederland Amsterdam: KIT press. Carter, Sean. 2005. "The geopolitics of diaspora" Area 37(1): 54-63. Charmaz, Kathy. 2006. Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Cuff, E.C. et al. 1998. Perspectives in Sociology London: Routledge. Deleuze, Gilles. 1995. Negotiations (Martin Joughin trans.) New York: Columbia University press. (Original work published 1990) Deleuze, Gilles and Felix Guattari. 1983. Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia (Hurley, R. et al. trans.) Minneapolis : University of Minnesota Pr ess. (Original work published 1972) Deleuze, Gilles and Felix Guattari. 1987. A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia (Brian Massumi trans.). London: Athlone press. (O riginal work published 1980) Derrida, Jacques. 1966. "Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences" Writing and Difference (Alan Bass trans.) Londo n: Routledge. pp 278-294. DuBois, W.E.B. 1903. The Souls of Black Folk. Bantam Books. Durkheim, Emile. 1938. The Rules of Sociologica l Method: Eighth edition Solovay, Sarah and John Mueller trans; Catlin, George ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Essed, Philomena. 1996. Diversity: Gender, Color, and Culture Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press. Feagin, Joe and Hernan Vera. 1995. White Racism: the basics New York: Routledge. Feagin, Joe. 2000. Racist America New York: Routledge. Feagin, Joe and Hernan Vera. 2001. Liberation Sociology Boulder: Westview Press. Feagin, Joe and Melvin P. Sikes. 1994. Living with Racism : the Black Middle-Class Experience Boston: Beacon Press, Featherstone, Mike and Roger Burrows eds. 1995. Cyberspace, Cyberbodies, Cyberpunk: Cultures of Technological Embodiment. London: Sage. Findlay, A., C. Hoy and A. Stockdale. 2004. "In what sense English? An e xploration of English Immigrant Identities and Identification" Journal of Ethnic an d Migration Studies. 30(1): 59.

PAGE 270

270 Fiske, John. 1987. Television Culture London: Routledge. Foucault, Michel. 1994. The Order of Things: an Archaeology of the Human Sciences (publisher trans.) New York: Vintage. (Original work published 1966) Foucault, Michel. 1995. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison (Alan Sheridan trans.) New York: Vintage. (Original work published 1975) Froschauer, Christina. 2005. "Fro m This Native Land: Towards a New Understanding of Brian Jungen's Nike Masks and the Cultural Implications of Bricolage" in Concordia Undergraduate Journal of Art History http://arthistory.concordia.ca/c ujah/Froschauer.htm Gans, Herbert J. 2005. "Race as Class" Contexts: understanding people in their social worlds American Sociological Association. 4(4). Georgiou, Myria. 2005. "Diasporic Media Acro ss Europe: Multicultural Societies and the Universalism-Particularism Continuum" Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies Routledge. 31(3). Georgiou, Myria. 2005. "Diasporic Media Acro ss Europe: Multicultural Societies and the Universalism-Particularism Continuum" Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies Routledge. 31(3): 481-498. Ghandi, Mohandas K. 1927. An Autobiography or The Story of My Experiments with Truth Navahivan Publishing House. Gilroy, Paul. 2000. Against Race: imagining political culture beyond the color line Boston: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Goffman, Erving.1961. Frame Analysis Northeastern University Press. Guarnizo, Luis E. 1997. "Los Domicanyorks: the making of a binational society" in Challenging Fronteras: structuring Latina and Latino lives in the U.S. (Romero, Mary et al. eds.) New York: Routledge. Gubrium, Jaber F. and James A. Holstein. 1997. The New Language of Qualitative Method New York: Oxford Press. Guglielmo, Jennifer and Salvatore Salerno. 2003. Are Italians White? : How Race is Made in America New York: Routledge. Halter, Marilyn. 2000. Shopping for Identity: The Marketing of Ethnicity New York: Schocken Books.

PAGE 271

271 Harraway, Donna. 1991. "A Cyborg Manifesto: Scie nce, Technology, and Socialist-Feminism in the Late Twentieth Century," in Simians, Cyborgs and Women: The Reinvention of Nature New York: Routledge, 1991. pp.149-181. http://www.stanford.edu/dept/HPS/ Haraway/CyborgManifesto.html HetGevolg.nl: we won't let them go (my translation) (an initiativ e of refugee-organizations NL) http://www.hetgevolg.nl/over/over.asp Hill Collins, Patricia. 2006. From Black Power to Hip Hop : Racism, Nationalism, and Feminism. Philadelphia : Temple University Press. Hoving, Isabel. 2005. "Circumventing Openne ss: Creating New Senses of Dutchness" Transit: Migration, Culture, and the Nation-State 1(1): 1-11. Hugo, Graeme. 2006. "An Australian Diaspora" International Migration Blackwell Publishing. 44(1). Jackson, John L. 2005. "Race and the Science of Sincerity" in Contexts: understanding people in their social worlds American Sociologica l Association. 4(4). Joppke, Christian. 2004. "The retreat of multiculturalism in the liberal state: theory and policy" The British Journal of Sociology. 55(2): 237-257. King, Martin L. 1958. Stride Toward Freedom Harper and Brothers. Kuitenbrouwer, Jan. 1987. Turbo-Taal: van socio-babble tot yuppie-speak Amsterdam: Aramith Uitgevers. Kurzman, Charles. 2005. "Da Arabian MC's" Contexts: understanding peopl e in their social worlds American Sociologica l Association. 4(4). Kymlicka, Will. 2003. "Immigration, Citizenshi p, Multiculturalism: Exploring the Links" Political Quarterly Special Issue 74(4):195-208. Lakhoff, George and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Latour Bruno under pseudonym Jim Johnson 1988a. "Mixing Humans and Nonhumans Together: The Sociology of a Door-Closer" in Social Problems University of California Press. 35(3). Latour, Bruno. 1988b. The Pasteurization of France (Sheridan, Alan and John Law trans.). Boston: Harvard University Press. Law, John and John Hassard eds. 1999. Actor Network Theory and After Malden, MA: Blackwell.

PAGE 272

272 Lemert, Charles ed. 2004. Social Theory: the multicultural and classic readings 3rd edition Boulder: Westview Press. Lenin, Vladimir I. 1970. "The Right of Nati ons to Self-Determination" Dahbour, Omar and Micheline R. Ishay eds. 1995. The Nationalism Reader New Jersey: Humanities Press. Mai, Nicola. 2005. "The Albanian Diaspora-in -the-Making: Media, Migration and Social Exclusion" in Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies Routledge. 31(3). Markham, Annette N. 2005. "The Methods, Politi cs, and Ethics of Representation in Online Ethnography" The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research Third Edition (Denzin, Norman K. and Yvonna S. Lincoln eds.) Th ousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Mills, C. Wright. 1959. The Sociological Imagination London: Oxford University press. Mol, Annemarie. 2002. The Body Multiple: Ontology in Medical Practice Durham. Duke University Press. Morning, Ann. 2005. "Keywords: Race" Contexts: understanding people in their social worlds American Sociological Association. 4(4). Nicolaas, Han and Arno Sprangers. 2005. "Nederlanders over de Grens" in Demos bulletin over bevolking en samenleving 21(4): 28-30. Omi, Michael and Howard Winant 1994. Racial Formation in the United States Routledge. Pells, Richard H. 1997. Not like us : how Europeans have loved, hated, and transformed American culture since World War II New York: Basic Books. Phoenix, Ann. 1995. "Young People: Nationa lism, Racism and Gender" in Crossfires: nationalism, racism and gender in Europe ed. Lutz, Helma et al. London: Pluto Press. Pollman, Thijs 1999 De letteren als wetenschap: een inleiding Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Pollman, Thijs. 2000. "Coherence and Ambiguity in History" History and Theory 39(2): 167180. Portes, Guarnizo, and Landolt. 1999. "The Study of Tr ansnationalism: Pitfalls and Promise of an Emergent Research Field Ethnic and Racial Studies 22(2): 217-237. Rabinow, Paul ed. 1984. The Foucault Reader New York: Pantheon books. Sartre, Jean Paul. 1963. Search for a Method (Hazel E. Barnes trans.) New York: Knopf. Schwalbe, Michael. 2005. The Sociologically Examined Life : Pieces of the Conversation New York: McGraw Hill.

PAGE 273

273 Shadid, Wasif and Sjoerd van Koningsveld. 1996. "Dutch Political Views on the Multicultural Society" Muslims in the Margin. Political Re sponses to the Presence of Islam in Western Europe. Kampen: Kok Pharos. 93-113. Smith, Dorothy E. 1990. The Conceptual Practices of Po wer: a Feminist Sociology of Knowledge Chicago: Northeastern University Press. Stoler, Ann. 2002. Carnal Knowledge and Imperial Power : Race and the Intimate in Colonial Rule. Berkeley : University of California Press. Thijn, Ed van et al. 2000. Racisme in Nederland Amsterdam: Uitgeverij de Balie. Thomason, Sarah G. 2001. Language Contact Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Turner, Jonathan H. et al. 1995. The Emergence of Sociologi cal Theory third edition Wadsworth Publishing Company. Uricchio, William. 1998. "Television, Film and the Struggle for Media Identity" in Film History John Libbey & Company. 10(2). Vera, Hernan. 1989. "On Dutch Windows" Qualitative Sociology. 12(2) Vera, Hernan and Andrew M. Gordon. 2003. Screen Saviors : Hollywood Fictions of Whiteness Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Vera, Hernan and Andrew M. Gordon. 2005. "On How to Dissolve Racial Taboos" in Contexts: understanding people in their social worlds American Sociologica l Association. 4(4). Virilio, Paul. 1991. "The Lost Dimension" (Daniel Moshenberg trans.) New York: Semiotext(e). Weber, Max. 1914. "Basic Sociological Terms" in Economy and Society Wekker, Gloria. 1995. "'After the Last Sky, Wh ere do the Birds Fly?' What Can European Women learn from Anti-Racist Struggles in the United States" in Crossfires: Nationalism, Racism and Gender in Europe ed. Lutz, Helma et al. London: Pluto Press. Williams, J. Patrick. 2006. Authentic Identities : Straightedge Subculture, Music, and the Internet, Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 35(2): 173-200. XPdite.net: everything about emigrating to Australia http://www.xpdite.net/forum/

PAGE 274

274 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Adam Garcia received his bach elors degree in sociology from the University of Florida. His work is multidisciplinary and is influenced by cultural studies, feminist theory, and diverse approaches to sociology.