Introduction

296
Sonja Lehmann
inhabits. As the possibility of return was ignored, the physical separation from a
nation-state necessarily meant that the existing connection just stopped. Even
though research on migrant diasporas showed that connections to the homeland
often remained, they were nevertheless accentuated by feelings of loss and unbelonging.
James Clifford thus characterizes diasporas as marked by “a history of
dispersal, myths/memories of the homeland, alienation in the host (bad host?)
country, desire for eventual return, ongoing support of the homeland, and a collective
identity importantly defined by this relationship” (305). 15 Even though
Clifford stresses that not all of these criteria have to apply at the same time (306),
it is nevertheless obvious that the relationship to the country left behind is still
very important for the diaspora’s members and that they feel both non-belonging
in their new country and disconnected from the old one to which they wish to
return. In Clifford’s words, “diaspora communities are ‘not-here’ to stay” and
exist in a state of “living here and remembering/desiring another place” (311).
This closely resembles postcolonial critics’ view with their emphasis on imaginary
homelands which replace the real home country after migration. Yet,as shown
above this phantasm proved equally futile and lead to disillusionment on migrants’
return. Confronted with these alternatives it is no wonder that migrants were
thought to only have the option of either assimilating to their new location or of
feeling deterritorialized and alienated.
However, research done in the social sciences since the 1990s shows that this
view of migration and its effects upon migrants was not entirely correct. Some of
the earliest scholars who noted this were the cultural anthropologists Nina Glick
Schiller, Linda Basch and Cristina Blanc-Szanton. Studying the lives of “migrants
from Haiti, the eastern Caribbean, and the Philippines” who had migrated to New
York, Glick Schiller, Basch and Blanc-Szanton observed that many of these migrants
were still – and often to a great extent – involved in the affairs of the countries
they had left (“Transnationalism” 2). These continuing ties were manifested
in diverse actions such as sending back money to their families, owning property
in the sending country, investing money in community building projects or taking
part in politics there (Glick Schiller, Basch and Blanc-Szanton, “Transnationalism“
2). In addition, they frequently travelled back and forth between the two countries
(Glick Schiller, Basch and Blanc-Szanton, “Transnationalism 3). They were wellestablished
in their lives in New York and took part in local politics there as well
as in the country they had migrated from (Glick Schiller, Basch and Blanc-
Szanton, “Transnationalism” 3). In such a case one can no longer speak of migrants
as exiles who do not fit in with both the sending and the receiving coun-
15 Robert Smith points out that lately the term ‘diaspora’ has been applied differently “to describe
the state of dispersal and connectedness between migrants and their homelands” with no further
regard for Clifford’s other points (190).