Transnationality as a fluid social identity
Cristina Bradatana
*, Adrian Popanb
and Rachel Meltona
a
Department of Sociology, Anthropology and Social Work, Texas Tech University, Lubbock,
USA; b
Department of Sociology, University of Texas at Austin, USA
(Received 4 April 2009; final version received 31 August 2009)
How does the concept of transnationalism fit within the framework of social
identity? What is the relationship between ‘diaspora’ and ‘transnationalism’? Do
transnational migrants define themselves as such, or are they labelled by others
(researchers of simply ‘others’)? These are some of the questionswe will try to answer
in this paper by discussing the concept of ‘transnationalism’ through the lenses of
several perspectives drawn from sociology, anthropology, psychology and political
science. We want to highlight what is characteristic of ‘transnationalism’ as a concept
by integrating it within the larger perspective of social identity and by comparing and
contrasting it with nation/nationalism and diaspora. While belonging to one group
implies exclusions from other comparable groups, we see transnationalism as fitting
well within the postmodern idea of fluid identity, where defining one’s self depends
on the audiences without affecting the ‘true’ meaning of self.
Keywords: transnationalism; migration; diaspora; nationalism; social identity
Introduction
The last decade witnessed an increasing interest, from media and scholars, in
employing transnationalism in various contexts, from migration to social movements
and globalization. A Google search for ‘transnationalism’, for example, gives about
300,000hits, out of which 23,500 arescholarlydocuments. Within the migration studies
area, transnationalism stands between two other perspectives explaining immigrants’
adaptation to the host country (assimilation and diaspora) and it is most often defined
in opposition to assimilation.
In this paper we discuss the idea of ‘transnationalism’ in migration studies by
combining several perspectives from sociology, anthropology, psychologyand political
science. We will focus our studyof ‘transnationalism’ by using three main directions: 1)
the history of the concept, highlighting its changing meanings during the twentieth
century; 2) comparing and contrasting it with other concepts such as nation/
nationalism and diaspora; and 3) integrating transnationalism within the larger
perspective of social identity.
Transnationalism and the nation’s boundaries
Transnationalism is often discussed as opposed to and different from nationalism.
The question ‘what is a nation?’ received various answers over the years: while Renan
*Corresponding author. Email: cristina.bradatan@ttu.edu
ISSN 1350-4630 print/ISSN 1363-0296 online
# 2010 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/13504631003688856
http://www.informaworld.com
Social Identities
Vol. 16, No. 2, March 2010, 169Á178
(1996[1882]) defines it metaphorically as the moral conscience created by a large
group of men ‘healthy in mind and warm of heart’ (p. 53), others defined it more
precisely as a political and cultural community, sharing myths and memories, a
community that has a historically well defined homeland (Smith, 1991). Nationalism
is then the source of national identity, the adoration of nation, making people from
the same community believe they are related to each other and enforcing their
feelings of being connected and having a common destiny (Jusdanis, 2001). Nations
did not form and are not necessarily based on the same principles everywhere: while
in the Western nations the national identity is based on ‘common historical
memories, myths, symbols and traditions’, in Eastern Europe and Asia the ‘ethnic’
model of nation (nation as a ‘community of common descent’ with people being
related through birth/blood) is prevalent (Smith, 1991, p. 11). This distinction implies
that, while Western nations would eventually recognize foreigners/immigrants who
adopt the values and norms of their nations as true members of their nation, this
would be impossible or very difficult to achieve in Eastern European and Asian
countries. This might be an important idea in migration studies because these
different conceptualizations of nations have an impact on how and if an immigrant is
accepted in the host country. It implies that an immigrant or his/her descendents can
be accepted as part of a nation in various Western countries, given that s/he
incorporates the myths, symbols and values of the new homeland, yet can have little
chance to do the same in the Eastern European and Asian nations because of the
lack of necessary blood connections.
The history of transnationalism as a concept can be traced back to the end of the
nineteenth century, when a large number of immigrants of non-Anglo-Saxon (Eastern
and Southern European) origin came to the US in search of a better life. The
dimensions and ethnic structure of this new migrant group ignited a lot of concern
among various ‘native’ groups, scared that these people, poor and unable to speak
English, would have a hard time assimilating into the new society. It was precisely
during this time that the new concept of transnationalism/transnational emerged to
reflect the tensioned discussion around the new ethnic face of America. While some
argued that the country had to melt its various ethnic groups into one, big,
homogeneous pot and were worried that with the new immigrants it would be difficult
to do so, Bourne (1916) was one of the voices discussing the issue in a new, nonassimilationist
light. Immigrants, he said, socialized in different, non-American
societies, and came here with their own, unique, cultural background. It was
unrealistic to expect them to wipe that background off and replace it with an
Anglo-Saxon American one (see also Faist, 2000). The United States needed to adapt
to this reality that American nationalism ought to be qualitatively different from
European (positive and creative, not jealous and negative), based on European
modernity rather than on Middle Ages values. America, he said, as a country of
immigration, is a nation of ‘transnationals’ rather than ‘nationals’ in the European
sense, a nation where many different cultures weave into a multicultural thread rather
than into a melting pot. Immigrants should be left to bring their own, specific
contribution to the American life, and their perspectives needed to be incorporated
into a new American culture. He emphasized transnationalism as a step up from
nineteenth century European nationalism, a more modern and progressive perspective
on immigrant integration. Instead of the full assimilation demanded in the past,
corporations today are actually encouraging a transnational profile of their highly
170 C. Bradatan et al.
skilled immigrants because it helps to facilitate the transfer of knowledge, skills, the
movement and outsourcing of certain jobs, and the outflow and inflow of resources
(Faist, 2000; Vertovec, 2001; 2002).
During the Great Depression years and World War II there was not much
discussion on transnationalism, as few immigrants came into the US and foreigners
were perceived as a threat, especially after Pearl Harbor. It was in the post-1970s era
that this topic came back to life in Europe, North America and Canada, triggered by
increasing globalization and an increasingly large number of migrants moving to these
regions. Contemporary migrants (Schiller, Basch, & Blanc, 1995) are no longer
uprooted individuals forced to adapt to a new culture and society; they are able to
maintain strong connections to their homeland, while living in the new country. The
pressure to ‘integrate’ in the new society is not necessarily as high as before, because
they continue to have access to their networks of friends and family back home. They
are ‘transnational’ as they navigate between two worlds, the origin and the host
country, and they belong to both countries. Kivisto (2001) does not agree that
transnationalism is a new phenomenon, as both circulatory and return migration
occurred in the past. Portes, Guarnizo and Landolt (1999) make homeland ties a
defining part of a transnational profile by arguing that the unit of analysis in
transnational studies should be the individual together with his/her support networks.
They define transnationalism as a new ‘social phenomenon’, something that affects a
significant part of a group or community, where immigrants live and work in one
country but, at the same time, have cross-border businesses and participate in ethnic
social events, such as music festivals with singers from their origin country. However,
other studies point out (Portes, Guarnizo, & Haller, 2002) that only a minority of
migrants get involved in cross-border entrepreneurship, while most of the others have
loose contacts with their homeland. More than this, immigrants have always kept in
touch with their motherlands, even when the Internet and other modern means of
communication were not available (Thomas & Znaniecki, 1920). It should be noted
that this perspective of transnationalism, as keeping strong ties to the origin country,
brings the concept close to, and difficult to distinguish from, diaspora, defined as a
group living out of their origin country, keeping a strong attachment to a ‘homeland’
and maintaining a distinctive profile within the host country. Although theoretically
the transnationals have ties to both origin and host country, the examples offered by
the literature on transnationalism emphasizes the relationships with the origin
country, while the host country’s ties (except for living there) are not usually discussed
in much detail.
This post-1970s revival of transnationalism has a different accent from Bourne’s
(1916) concept: it argues for nation as a moribund idea, killed by the emergence of
transnational corporations and globalized society. While in Bourne’s perspective,
migrants are seen as transnationals because of their previous socialization in a
different culture; in the new perspective migrants are transnationals because, and if,
they maintain strong ties to their homeland. Transnationalism is used here not only as a
beyond nation and across state borders but also as ‘more powerful than’ national
institutions and groups. In an overview of the achievements of transnational
movements in the twentieth century, Florini and Simmons (2000), for example, use
transnationalism within the framework of transnational civil society. They use
examples such as Transparency International and NGOs outside Mexico (forcing
the Mexican government to abandon a military repression of the Zapatistas in 1994) to
Social Identities 171
show how transnational organizations are able to fight and to win against national
governments.
Awider perspective on transnationalism, seen not necessarily as a ‘trans-state’ but
as a ‘transnation’ is defined by Verdery (1994). She argues that transnationalism does
not necessarily equate with the ‘processes flowing across state borders’ (p. 3) because
nations are not necessarily confined in a single state, and a single state can include
more than one national group. Her perspective, coming from a researcher who worked
mainly on Eastern European countries, is in line with Smith’s (1991) ideas of nation as
based on community of descent rather than community of territory or citizenship (see
also Vertovec, 2001). Because the nations can be cross-border entities, there are two
different types of transnational relations: those crossing state borders, but not
necessarily involving more than one nation (trans-statal), and those going beyond
the nation understood as ethnic community, but within the same state; of course,
combinations of these two are also possible, and they do occur. Verdery (1994) argues
for a two-dimensional definition of transnationalism as statal and (ethno) national.
This perspective brings in the relationship between citizenship (as a set of rights
and duties of an individual toward a certain country) and transnationalism (as
attachment/connection to more than one country). The two concepts might be seen as
contradicting each other since citizenship requires loyalty toward a specific nation. In
an attempt to address precisely this question, Fox (2003) examines various aspects of
what he calls ‘transnational citizenship’ (p. 171). In the use of the term transnational
citizenship, there is a difference, he says, between citizenship (having rights) and
participation (demanding rights). If transnational citizenship is looked at as crossborder
participation, it can take three main forms: ‘parallel’ transnational participation
(an individual active in more than one organization, each of them having different
national identity), ‘simultaneous’ (involvement in collective actions that are transnational
themselves), and ‘integrating’ (which supposes multiple levels, thus participation
not only crosses borders, but also brings in actors from local, regional, national
and international levels) (Fox, 2003, p. 188). While other studies define transnationalism
as beyond or against nationalism and nation-state, Fox tries to use it in the
context of nation-state and shows that the two do not necessarily contradict each
other.
From other perspectives, however, transnationalism is not a particularly useful
concept precisely because it is defined in opposition to or ‘beyond’ nation. The nationstate,
some argue, as regulator of the flows of people and goods over the border, is very
much alive and there is no sign that it will disappear in the near future (Levitt &
Jaworsky, 2007). Often transnational communities are constituted from connections
between specific, and sometimes multiple, localities in the sending and receiving
countries (Levitt, 2001).
For Waldinger and Fitzgerald (2004) ‘transnationalism’ is used by migration
scholars to describe ‘highly particularistic attachments antithetical to those byproducts
of globalization denoted by the concept of ‘transnational civil society’
(Waldinger & Fitzgerald, 2004, p. 1177). The connection between immigrants and
their places of origin and destination is a local rather than national one, as most of the
immigrants come from rural areas, with little or no apprehension of the nation as a
whole. The double loyalty implied by the concept, loyalty to the origin as well as
destination country, can become a problem when the two countries are in conflict,
similar to what the Japanese experienced while living in the US during World War II.
172 C. Bradatan et al.
Social identity and transnationalism
If we think of transnationals as a subset of migrants, a question that arises is ‘what
makes these people assume a transnational identity rather than defining themselves as
diasporic (living in one country, but being part of their original national community)
or trying to get assimilated?’. Why would a person adopt and how long would s/he keep
a transnational profile? Although nation/nationalism are often discussed from a social
identity point of view, transnationalism as an assumed social identity is not employed
too often as a perspective, most likely because it is the researcher rather than the
individual deciding who is and who is not a transnational.
Social identity is part of our personality and the personality, the situation, and the
behavior form a deterministic triangle: theoretically, if there is enough knowledge
about two of these elements, the other one can be easier to predict (Funder, 2001). If we
define ‘transnational’ in terms of behavior choices, then the type of personality and the
situation (how well s/he is accepted by the host country, why s/he left the home country,
perceived benefits from keeping in touch with the origin country) could be framed and
defined.
Leaving one’s place of birth is not an easy decision and people leave a country
either because their life is in danger or in search of a better life. As studies show
(Massey, 1997; Sandu, 2001), in certain circumstances there is a circularity of
movements, with migrants going back and forth between countries. These circulatory
migrants are frequently defined as transnationals, although people involved in this
type of migration might not see themselves as being equally linked to the two places.
Some of them keep defining themselves through their place of origin and see the host
country only as a means to achieve a better economic status back home. Others define
themselves as host-country residents and use their skills (knowledge of the country-oforigin
language and customs and social capital back home) to improve their lives in the
host country (Vertovec, 2001; 2002). Even if they have a double citizenship, as Fox
(2003) argues, this is not necessarily a measure of a double national commitment, as it
often plays an instrumental role in facilitating their trade/business. For example,
countries such as Mexico and the European Union countries do not allow noncitizens/non-EU
citizens to own land. A person who owns land in one of these
countries would eventually keep their citizenship to keep their land, not necessarily
because they want to define themselves as transnationals. While the experience of
living happily in two countries might make migrants willing to identify with a double
nationality, those who left the origin country bitter might want to assimilate quickly in
the new land because they no longer want to identify with their birth place. Happy to
be accepted by the host countries, immigrants from this group would probably refuse
to teach their children their native language and hope for them to be truly assimilated
in the new country. Generally speaking, for second generation immigrants, the
‘transnational’ profile can be identified in rare cases: the parents’ origin country is at
best a place to spend the vacation or, most often, a distant place never visited. The
parents’ language might be spoken at home, but many of the children would have little
willingness to ever learn anything about that distant culture.
A social identity is created and maintained through interaction with people
belonging to the same social unit and language plays a major role in any human
interaction. Therefore, an immigrant with little knowledge of the host country
language has few chances of developing connections with the new culture, people and
Social Identities 173
society and, consequently, his national identity will experience little change. S/he will
have to remain linked to the origin community or, eventually, will establish links only
to ethnics living in the new land. A transnational identity can then develop only among
those who not only master both languages (host and origin), but also come into
contact and have the social skills to establish connections with people and
communities from both the host and origin country. An immigrant rich in human
capital rather than one who knows little or nothing about the origin and/or host
country, would have higher chances of developing a transnational identity. With the
revolutions in telecommunications and long-distance travel, creating and sustaining
relations with the country of origin has really had a huge impact on transnational
immigrants. It is easier now than ever before to be filled in on all the political and social
happenings in the home country. In the past, this information might have been difficult
or time consuming to obtain, but now the physical distance gap is closing, allowing
immigrants to feel connected to their former society when they might not otherwise
have had the ability to do so (Faist, 2000; Vertovec, 2001; 2002).
It is our natural inclination to assume a social identity by identifying ourselves in
connection to a certain group, whether it is a national, ethnic, family or work-related
social group (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). As members of one group, we define our social
identity not only by bonding with the in-group members but also in contrast with those
belonging to other groups. The transnational, as a person who participates equally in
two different national communities, has a rather peculiar type of social identity. If we
define nationalism as loyalty to one’s nation, transnationalism seems to be a ‘double
nationalism’. However, a transnational might also be seen as someone without a
homeland (Waldinger & Fitzgerald, 2004). Once the connection with the homeland
changes through migration, it is difficult to define a new relationship of the same
quality and intensity. Can nationalism be additive Á that is, can the loyalty to one
nation be extended to more than one nation without losing the very substance of
‘nationalist’ feeling?
Social identity is an outcome of group pressure on the way people perceive
themselves and often times refers to two different things: 1) the content of the identity
itself, and 2) an indication of the strength of the association with a particular social
category (Ellemers, Spears, & Doosje, 2002). For the particular case of national
identity, a person can accept and recognize his/her belonging to a certain national
group, but this does not necessarily mean s/he is also an active, committed participant
to the political and social life of that specific community. This distinction between
identification and commitment might solve the problem of transnationalism as double
nationalism. A transnational is one who recognizes a connection with at least two
different nations, but s/he is not necessarily committed to any of those. On the other
hand, if we accept Smith’s (1991) perspective on nation, the different definitions of
nation employed in Eastern European/Asian countries versus Western countries make
it easier for an immigrant to define him/herself as being a member of more than one
nation. A person born in Asia/Eastern Europe remains a member of the origin nation
because of the blood connection while s/he can become a member of a Western nation
if s/he accepts the values of the new national group. The two national identities do not
exclude but complement each other.
From this point of view, a diasporic migrant is one that not only identifies him/
herself as a member of the home nation, but s/he is also strongly committed to that
community, while living as a passive citizen in a different country. Diasporic
174 C. Bradatan et al.
immigrants live with their soul at home and their body abroad. Their emotional life is
connected to the origin country Á that is their ‘home’ Á and they are merely refugees in
the new society. They have no interests in interacting with the social life of the new
land, as they look forward to the moment of return.
Being considered ‘one of us’ usually means ‘not being one of them’ and national
identity may lead ultimately to social inclusion or exclusion (McCrone, 2008, p. 1245).
In terms of national identity, who we are depends on how well our claims are regarded
by those around us. Some psychologists argue that one’s identification with a group is
stronger when the group allows for competition and social change and it is weaker if
the group has permeable boundaries or the inclusion in the group seems illegitimate
(Ellemers, Spears, & Doosje, 2002). If anybody can become part of that group, without
any well-defined requirements, belonging to that group does not add much to one’s
identity.
As a study of Portuguese immigrants in the Netherlands reveals (Ellemers, Spears,
& Doosje, 2002), sometimes people might define themselves as ‘transnationals’ in
order to emphasize some personal uniqueness or to avoid being looked upon as part of
a marginal/inferior group. The Portuguese immigrants in the case cited above felt their
status was higher by claiming a transnational profile (a community linked to both
Portugal and Netherlands) than by defining themselves as a minority in the
Netherlands. Being part of a stigmatized group is a challenge, and people from that
group (in our case, immigrants) can fight against the stigma either by disassociating
themselves from that community, by trying to get quickly assimilated into the majority,
or trying to change the status of their group, by emphasizing their belonging to the
origin country national group, as in the example above. The case of the Caribbean
immigrants in the US is relevant for this situation as well (Waters, 1999) as they
attempt to instill in their children a strong Caribbean identity as a way to escape from
being identified as African Americans, perceived as a low status ethnic group.
Transnational identification depends not only on the group, host country and
historical period but also on the combinations between these three elements. A French
immigrant living nowadays in the UK has a lot of choices: s/he can define himself/
herself as French, British or transnational. However, a German national who lived in
the UK during World War II would probably have had a hard time in declaring his/her
devotion to Germany while the German bombswere flying over London. As any social
identity, being transnational is not fixed forever; it varies over time as people change
through interaction: living in one country for a long time usually increases the
immigrant’s connectionswith the host country and cuts the emotional ties to the origin
community. As studies on ‘place identity’ show (Cuba & Hummon, 1993) people tend
to base their national identities on their sense of being at home in a particular place.
From this perspective, second generation immigrants would have a hard time
identifying with their parents’ communities, because for them ‘home’ was always the
host country. The relationship between transnational and ethnic identity is an
interesting and rather understudied field, but probably these two can be connected
as social phenomena affecting different generations. A child of a US.-Mexican
immigrant, for example, would probably adopt an ethnic identity as a MexicanAmerican
rather than keeping a transnational profile, precisely because ‘home’ is no
longer Mexico, but the US. His/her relationship with the parents’ country of origin is
superficial and even if the knowledge of language is preserved, the connection with
that distant culture is often weak or non-existent.
Social Identities 175
Because of the plurality of national identifications, a transnational identity brings
up the problem of authenticity, as the answer to the question ‘who am I?’ (in terms of
belonging to a certain national group) is not an easy one for somebody who is part of
two or more national communities. A possible response to this is that ‘being true’
changes in the postmodern world: it is no longer required to be true to self in the same
way in all situations, ‘but rather of being true to self in context or self in relationship’
(Howard, 2000, p. 387). A transnational would interact in one way with the fellows
from his/her origin country while s/he would use a different set of rules and behaviors
when interacting with the host country’s natives, as a way to respond to different
expectations. Language and gestures need to adapt to different contexts, and, together
with them, the identity and the person would feel as comfortable in one context as in
the other without seeing him/herself as schizoid. Dolby and Cornbleth (2001) make a
similar point, when they talk about identity as being fluid rather than rigid. This
fluidity of identity is not limited to the case of a transnational: Brubaker et al. (2006)
discuss the relationship between citizenship (nation-ness) and ethnicity in a similar
way. Ethnicity and nationness are not seen as grounded and salient, categories, rather
they happen ‘in the moment-to-moment unfolding of interaction’ (Brubaker et al.,
2006, p. 362). In other words, one’s nationality is not always conspicuous; rather, it
pops up in certain interactional situations, making it discontinuous in one’s everyday
experience. Through this lens, being ‘transnational’ makes more sense, as one can
experience two different national identities in various interactional settings.
Conclusions
In this paper we used research perspectives borrowed from different disciplines to
highlight various aspects of the concept of transnationalism as a concept in migration
studies. Our study followed three directions: we overviewed various definitions given
to the concept over the past century, we compared and contrasted transnationalism
with nationalism, assimilation and diaspora, and we dedicated most of the third part
to the understanding of transnationalism within the frame of social identity. Although
assimilation and transnationalism are most often defined as opposite outcomes of
migration (in the first case, the migrant blends into the adopted country; in the second
case, s/he keeps in touch with both his/her origin country and the receiving country)
new theories show that keeping a transnational profile can sometime be beneficial for a
successful assimilation (as in the case of segmented assimilation). From a life course
perspective, on the other hand, it makes more sense to define transnationalism and
assimilation as complementary or successive stages in a migrant’s life, with migrants
tending to have a transnational profile immediately after they leave, by keeping in
touch with their origin country, and becoming more assimilated later in life. The
second generation, on the other hand, has few chances of ever developing a
transnational profile, as their knowledge of their parents’ origin country is usually
superficial and even speaking the language is often problematic.
While ‘transnational’ is sometimes used as a synonym for ‘diaspora’, in this paper
we tried to determine what distinguishes one from another. Although the diasporic
and transnational migrants might have some common features such as keeping in
touch with the origin country, they also differ in terms of their attachment to the host
country. While transnationals are firmly rooted in the host country and are involved in
the social life of the host community, the diasporic peoples’ lives have little or no
176 C. Bradatan et al.
mixing with their country of adoption as they live there due to the inability to go back
home. They do not function; they survive in the new environment, while caring for
their distant homeland.
The third direction Á transnationalism as an assumed social identity Á is one on
which we emphasized more, in an attempt to connect the literature on social identity
with transnational studies. Social identity is created and maintained through social
contacts, so only those with a good knowledge of two or more languages, cultures and
societies would be able to claim a transnational identity. While the definition of social
identity implies the existence of both an in-group Á with whom the individual identifies
Á and an out-group Á from whom the individual distances him/herself Á the
transnational identity implies the concomitant identification with two different
national groups. This is not impossible, however, as in some cases national identity
is given by common ancestors, while in others it is given by accepting and respecting a
certain set of rules and values. Defining social identity as a fluid rather than rigid
characteristic brings up the idea of a fluctuating national identity depending on the
contexts and relationships with other social actors. Different contexts require different
sets of actions and behaviors and the one who knows both sets of rules well can feel
comfortable and can function well in various situations. If national identity can be seen
as a role, a transnational would be one that plays different roles in front of different
audiences, a flexible social actor that internalized the rules and constraints of different
social contexts. In this perspective, we can say that the self is on a continuum of
transnationality. Of course, a conflict between the two different audiences would force
him/her to give up one role or would put him/her in the dangerous situation of being
perceived by both groups as an ‘enemy’ ally, but as long as the two countries are at
peace, s/he can move back and forth and feels comfortable in multiple settings.
Acknowledgements
This paper was supported by the Texas Tech Research Enrichment Grant 11B027 B53404 200,
2008Á2009.
References
Bourne, R.S. (1916). Trans-national America. The Atlantic Monthly, 118, 86Á97.
Brubaker, R., Fox, J., Feischmidt, M., & Grancea, L. (2006). Nationalist politics and everyday
ethnicity in a Transylvanian town. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Cuba, L., & Hummon, D. (1993). A place to call home: Identification with dwelling,
community and region. Sociological Quarterly, 34(1), 111Á131.
Dolby, N., & Cornbleth, C. (2001). Social identities in transnational times. Discourse: Studies
in the Cultural Politics of Education, 22, 293Á296.
Ellemers, N., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (2002). Self and social identity. Annual Review of
Psychology, 53, 161Á186.
Faist, T. (2000). Transnationalization in international migration: Implications for the study of
citizenship and culture. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 23(2), 189Á222.
Florini, A.M., & Simmons, P.J. (2000). What the world needs now? In A.M. Fiorini (Ed.), The
third force. The rise of the transnational civil society (pp. 1Á15). Washington, DC: Carnegie
Endowment for International Peace, Japan Centre for International Exchange, Tokyo.
Fox, J. (2003). Unpacking ‘transnational citizenship’. Annual Review of Political Sciences, 8,
171Á201.
Funder, D. (2001). Personality. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 197Á221.
Howard, J. (2000). Social psychology of identities. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 367Á393.
Jusdanis, G. (2001). The necessary nation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Social Identities 177
Kivisto, P. (2001). Theorizing transnational immigration: A critical review of current efforts.
Ethnic and Racial Studies, 24(4), 549Á577.
Levitt, P. (2001). Transnational migration: Taking stock and future direction. Global Networks,
1, 195Á216.
Levitt, P., & Jaworsky, B.N. (2007). Transnational migration studies: Past developments and
future trends. Annual Review of Sociology, 33, 129Á156.
Massey, D., & Espinosa, K.E. (1997). What’s driving MexicoÁU.S. migration? A theoretical,
empirical, and policy analysis. American Journal of Sociology, 102, 939Á999.
McCrone, D. (2008). National identity and social inclusion. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 31(7),
1245Á1266.
Portes, A., Guarnizo, L.E., & Haller, W.J. (2002). Transnational entrepreneurs: An alternative
form of immigrant economic adaptation. American Sociological Review, 67, 278Á298.
Portes, A., Guarnizo, L.E., & Landolt, P. (1999). The study of transnationalism: Pitfalls and
promise of an emergent research field. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 22(2), 217Á237.
Renan, E. (1996[1882]). What is a nation? In G. Eley & R.G. Suny (Eds.), Becoming national:
A reader (pp. 41Á55). New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sandu, D. (2001). Migratia Transnationala a Romanilor din Perspectiva unui Recensamant
Comunitar [International migration of Romanians from a community census perspective].
Sociologie Romaneasca, 3Á4, 5Á52.
Schiller, N.G., Basch, L., & Blanc, C.S. (1995). From immigrant to transmigrant: Theorizing
transnational migration. Anthropological Quarterly, 68(1), 48Á63.
Smith, A.D. (1991). National identity. Reno: University of Nevada Press.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J.C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S.
Worchel & W.G. Austin (Eds.), The psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7Á24). Chicago:
Nelson-Hall.
Thomas, W., & Znaniecki, F. (1920). The Polish peasant in Europe and America. Boston: The
Gorham Press.
Verdery, K. (1994). Beyond the nation in Eastern Europe. Social Text, 38, 1Á19.
Vertovec, S. (2001, JuneÁJuly). Transnational social formations: Towards conceptual crossfertilization.
Paper presented at the workshop on Transnational Migration: Comparative
Perspectives, Princeton University.
Vertovec, S. (2002, February). Transnational networks and skilled labour migration. Paper
presented at the conference of Ladenburger Diskurs ‘Migration’ Gottlieb Daimley-und
Karl Benz-Stiftung, Ladenburg.
Waldinger, R., & Fizgerald, D. (2004). Transnationalism in question. American Journal of
Sociology, 109(5), 1177Á1195.
Waters, M. (1999). Black identities: West Indian immigrant dreams and American realities.
Cambridge, MA: The Russell Sage Foundation and Harvard University Press.
178 C. Bradatan et al.
Copyright of Social Identities is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to
multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users
may print, download, or email articles for individual use.