Introduction

306
Sonja Lehmann
politics of their country of origin (193). Further influences can be discerned on an
interpersonal level because the presence of migrants with different cultural traits
can lead to “transculturation” when these differences are incorporated in the place
they inhabit (Chan and Ma 12). All of this clearly leads to changes in selfunderstanding,
which is linked to one’s social location. If the one undergoes a
drastic change, the other can hardly remain uninfluenced.
This leaves the aspects of commonality, connectedness and groupness and
with it the question of where transnational people belong. As with all of the
above, possibilities have also multiplied here. Hence, transnational migrants are
described as having “multiple attachments” (Hedetoft and Hjort xvi), “multiple
membership and multiple loyalties” (Kastoryano 134). Similarly, Wong describes
that they have “deep attachments to more than one ‘home’” (170) while others
again stress that the concept of ‘home’ is not necessarily linked to a specific place
any longer (Yeoh, Lai, Charney and Kiong 7). Rather, transmigrants have “a more
‘itinerant’ or ‘portable’ notion of ‘home’” (Yeoh, Lai, Charney and Kiong 7) just as
they “construct and utilize flexible personal and national identities” (Yeoh, Lai,
Charney and Kiong 3). Adaptability and multiplicity appear to be the general characteristics
of such belongings. Ayse Çağlar sums this up precisely by observing
that transnational migrants “weave their collective identities out of multiple affiliations
and positionings. They link their cross-cutting belongingness with complex
attachments and multiple allegiances to issues, peoples, places and traditions beyond
the boundaries of their resident nation-states” (610). Similarly, selfidentification
also becomes a more complex issue because transnational migrants
“incorporate cultural references from both the place of origin and the place of
residence” as Sarah Wayland notes (18). Levitt and Glick Schiller nevertheless
stress that such transnational activities do not hinder assimilation into the country
of immigration but can occur simultaneously (182).
Moreover, the identities may also change over time. Levitt and Glick Schiller
accordingly distinguish between “ways of being” and “ways of belonging” in/to a
transnational social field (187). They note that it is possible to be part of a social
field but to decide not to “identify with any label or cultural politics associated
with that field” (Levitt and Glick Schiller 189). One would then merely be part of
the field, but not belong to it and thus be engaged in “ways of being”. “Ways of
belonging” on the other hand imply that one acts in such a way as to show a
“conscious connection” to the field (Levitt and Glick Schiller 189). The emphasis
here is on “concrete, visible actions” that signify the belonging to that field (Levitt
and Glick Schiller 189). Ways of being and belonging can change over time and
also depend on particular situations (Levitt and Glick Schiller 189). For example, a
migrant might stay in touch with people in the home country, but not identify
with the country at all, and would thus exhibit “transnational ways of being but
not belonging” (Levitt and Glick Schiller 189-90). This person can, however, also
revert to ways of belonging when they begin to “explicitly recognize this and high-