“Diasporas in Modern Societies: Myths of Homeland and Return” by William Safran: Summary and Critique

Introduction: “Diasporas in Modern Societies: Myths of Homeland and Return” by William Safran

“Diasporas in Modern Societies: Myths of Homeland and Return” by William Safran was first published in Diaspora: A Journal of Transnational Studies (Volume 1, Number 1, Spring 1991, pp. 83-99) by the University of Toronto Press. This seminal article reshaped the academic discourse on diaspora by proposing a nuanced framework to understand the concept, expanding its usage beyond its historical association with Jewish exile. Safran articulated six defining characteristics of diasporic communities, emphasizing their shared memory of a homeland, feelings of alienation in host societies, and enduring connections to their ancestral land. The work critically examined the “myth of return” as both a source of cultural cohesion and a lens to interpret diasporic identity. Safran’s analysis provided a foundation for interdisciplinary studies in literature, cultural theory, and political science by conceptualizing diasporas as dynamic entities that bridge homeland, host society, and global networks. This paper remains a cornerstone in understanding transnational identity and diaspora’s role in contemporary society and culture.

Summary of “Diasporas in Modern Societies: Myths of Homeland and Return” by William Safran

• Conceptualizing Diaspora: Safran critiques the limited scope of diaspora studies in scholarly discussions, emphasizing its expansion beyond its traditional association with Jewish exile. He proposes a framework defining diaspora through six core characteristics, including dispersion, collective memory of a homeland, alienation from host societies, and the myth of eventual return. This expanded conceptualization positions diasporas as metaphorical representations of various expatriate and minority communities (Safran, 1991, pp. 83-84).
• Key Features of Diasporic Communities: Safran outlines the criteria for identifying diasporic communities: historical displacement from a homeland, collective memory, perceptions of alienation, and commitment to homeland restoration. He argues that these features help sustain ethnic consciousness and solidarity, using examples such as the Jewish, Armenian, and Palestinian diasporas (p. 85).
• Comparison Across Diasporas: Different diasporas, such as the Jewish and Armenian, share parallels in their collective memory and cultural preservation, while others, like the Maghrebi and Turkish communities, differ due to their voluntary migration and integration challenges in host countries. The article juxtaposes the “ideal type” of diaspora with variations shaped by sociopolitical contexts (pp. 86-88).
• The Myth of Return: The myth of return is central to diaspora identity. It solidifies group consciousness despite its often eschatological nature. This myth functions as a cultural and psychological anchor rather than a practical objective. For example, Armenians and Jews maintain this myth differently based on their historical and geopolitical realities (pp. 89-90).
• Diaspora-Host-Homeland Triangular Relationship: Safran highlights a complex triangular relationship between diasporas, host societies, and homelands. Host countries may exploit diaspora identities for political ends, as seen in the Soviet Union’s manipulation of ethnic groups. Similarly, homelands may utilize diaspora support while displaying ambivalence toward their return (pp. 91-93).
• Challenges to Integration and Identity: Diasporas often test the pluralism and integration policies of host societies. Safran argues that host societies’ cultural and ideological foundations significantly influence diaspora consciousness. This dynamic is evident in the varying experiences of Jewish, Maghrebi, and Chinese communities in different countries (pp. 94-96).
• Open Questions and Research Agenda: Safran concludes by identifying critical questions for future research, including the typology of diasporas, the factors sustaining their consciousness, and their role in host-homeland relations. He emphasizes the need for interdisciplinary approaches to address the sociopolitical and cultural dimensions of diasporas (pp. 96-99).

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Diasporas in Modern Societies: Myths of Homeland and Return” by William Safran

Term/Concept	Definition/Explanation	Relevance/Context
Diaspora	Communities dispersed from their original homeland who maintain connections through collective memory, myths, and aspirations.	Expanded beyond Jewish exile to include other ethnic and expatriate communities.
Homeland Myth	The belief in an ancestral homeland as the true ideal home, often accompanied by the hope or myth of eventual return.	Strengthens collective identity and solidarity within diaspora communities, even when return is impractical or symbolic.
Dispersion	The historical or forced movement of a population from a central homeland to two or more peripheral regions.	A key characteristic distinguishing diasporas from other migrant or minority groups.
Collective Memory	Shared historical memories about the homeland, including its physical, cultural, and political attributes.	Critical for maintaining identity and continuity across generations within the diaspora.
Alienation	A sense of being unaccepted or marginalized by the host society, resulting in feelings of partial insulation and detachment.	Often fuels a diasporic identity and solidarity against perceived exclusion by the host society.
Triangular Relationship	The complex interactions between diaspora communities, host societies, and their homelands.	Highlights how host countries and homelands may manipulate diaspora identities for political or cultural objectives.
Ideal Type	A conceptual model, like the Jewish diaspora, used to define the prototypical characteristics of a diaspora.	Used as a benchmark to analyze similarities and differences among various diasporas.
Ethnocommunal Consciousness	A collective identity shaped by historical, cultural, and emotional ties to the homeland.	Essential for preserving cultural identity and resistance to assimilation.
Host Society	The country or region where a diaspora community resides, often facing challenges of integration and acceptance.	Influences the development and persistence of diaspora consciousness and identity.
Middleman Function	A socio-economic role in which diaspora communities act as intermediaries in trade, commerce, and cultural exchange.	Observed in Jewish, Armenian, and Chinese diasporas, often associated with both opportunity and vulnerability.
Assimilationism vs. Ethnopolitical Mobilization	The spectrum of identity maintenance, ranging from full assimilation into the host culture to active political efforts to preserve and promote diaspora identity.	Illustrates the diversity of responses within and among diasporas to host-country dynamics and homeland connections.
Diaspora Consciousness	An intellectual and emotional awareness of a shared identity and relationship with the homeland.	Central to the persistence and cohesion of diaspora communities over time.
Expatriate Community	Groups of individuals living outside their homeland who may or may not share the characteristics of a diaspora.	Differentiated from diaspora by the lack of enduring myths and collective identity centered on a homeland.

Contribution of “Diasporas in Modern Societies: Myths of Homeland and Return” by William Safran to Literary Theory/Theories

---

1. Postcolonial Theory

• Contribution: Safran’s work enhances the understanding of displacement, alienation, and the persistence of colonial legacies in the formation of diasporic identities.
• Key Insights from the Article: The collective memory of oppression, the alienation from host societies, and the myth of return resonate with postcolonial critiques of marginalization and cultural hybridity (Safran, 1991, pp. 83-85).
• Relevance to Theory: Postcolonial theorists like Edward Said (Orientalism) and Homi Bhabha (The Location of Culture) discuss similar concepts of cultural displacement and the construction of hybrid identities within diasporic contexts.

---

2. Cultural Memory Studies

• Contribution: Safran emphasizes the role of shared memory in maintaining diaspora identities, which intersects with the study of cultural memory in literature.
• Key Insights from the Article: The retention of historical memories about the homeland—its achievements and traumas—creates a framework for analyzing how literature reconstructs and preserves these memories (p. 84).
• Relevance to Theory: Scholars like Jan Assmann (Cultural Memory and Early Civilization) highlight how collective memory influences cultural narratives, aligning with Safran’s analysis of diaspora’s reliance on myth and memory.

---

3. Identity and Subjectivity in Literary Studies

• Contribution: The article provides a model for understanding the fractured and multifaceted identities of diasporic subjects.
• Key Insights from the Article: Diasporas are shaped by a continuum of identity from assimilation to ethnopolitical mobilization, offering a lens to analyze characters navigating multiple allegiances in literature (p. 85-86).
• Relevance to Theory: Judith Butler’s exploration of performative identities in Gender Trouble complements Safran’s discussion on how diasporic identities are negotiated within cultural and political constraints.

---

4. Nationalism and Transnationalism in Literature

• Contribution: Safran’s discussion of diasporas as transnational communities critiques the nation-state model and its limitations in encompassing dispersed identities.
• Key Insights from the Article: The triangular relationship between diaspora, homeland, and host society challenges nationalist discourses and explores the diasporic subject as inherently transnational (pp. 91-93).
• Relevance to Theory: Benedict Anderson’s Imagined Communities and Gayatri Spivak’s work on global capitalism and subaltern identities echo Safran’s critiques of nationalism and highlight literature’s role in negotiating these tensions.

---

5. Trauma Studies

• Contribution: Safran’s focus on the diasporic experience of displacement and the myth of return intersects with the analysis of trauma in literature.
• Key Insights from the Article: The article illustrates how diasporas’ collective myths and memories are rooted in historical trauma, such as the Armenian genocide and Jewish persecution (pp. 86-87).
• Relevance to Theory: Cathy Caruth’s Unclaimed Experience and Dominick LaCapra’s Writing History, Writing Trauma provide frameworks for understanding how diasporic literature engages with unresolved historical and cultural trauma.

---

6. Hybrid and Diasporic Identities in Postmodern Literature

• Contribution: Safran’s work on diaspora consciousness aligns with postmodern theories of fragmented and hybrid identities.
• Key Insights from the Article: The article suggests that diaspora consciousness emerges from the interplay of alienation, cultural memory, and myth, creating a space for hybrid identities (pp. 84-85).
• Relevance to Theory: Theories by Stuart Hall and Paul Gilroy on diasporic hybridity and the “Black Atlantic” echo Safran’s emphasis on the fluid, relational nature of diasporic identity in literature.

---

7. Migration and Mobility Studies

• Contribution: Safran’s article provides a foundational lens for exploring themes of mobility and displacement in literary narratives.
• Key Insights from the Article: The dynamics of migration and settlement inform the sociocultural and political dimensions of diasporic narratives (pp. 86-88).
• Relevance to Theory: John Urry’s Mobilities and literary studies on migration by Salman Rushdie and Jhumpa Lahiri further exemplify the intersection of mobility and identity, grounded in Safran’s analysis.

Examples of Critiques Through “Diasporas in Modern Societies: Myths of Homeland and Return” by William Safran

Work and Author	Application of Safran’s Concepts	Specific Critiques
The Namesake by Jhumpa Lahiri	Explores alienation, cultural memory, and identity struggles in the Indian-American diaspora.	Safran’s idea of collective memory (p. 84) critiques Gogol’s detachment from his ancestral culture, highlighting the generational conflict over cultural preservation.
Season of Migration to the North by Tayeb Salih	Examines postcolonial displacement and the triangular relationship between homeland, host society, and self.	Safran’s triangular relationship (p. 91) critiques Mustafa’s conflicting ties to Sudan and England, emphasizing his alienation in both settings.
Americanah by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie	Highlights migration, identity, and the challenges of returning to a homeland after diaspora experience.	Safran’s “myth of return” (p. 85) critiques Ifemelu’s mixed feelings about returning to Nigeria, emphasizing its role in reshaping diaspora consciousness.
White Teeth by Zadie Smith	Investigates intergenerational identity and the myth of return in the British-Jamaican and Bangladeshi diasporas.	Safran’s notion of the “myth of return” (p. 85) critiques characters’ attempts to reconcile their ancestral traditions with the pressures of modern assimilation.

Criticism Against “Diasporas in Modern Societies: Myths of Homeland and Return” by William Safran

• Overgeneralization of Diaspora Characteristics
  Safran’s framework has been critiqued for its reliance on a rigid set of criteria, such as collective memory and the myth of return. Critics argue that many diasporas, particularly modern or hybridized ones, may not fit neatly into these categories, leading to exclusion or oversimplification.
• Limited Focus on Postmodern Diasporas
  The article primarily examines historical and traditional diasporas, such as Jewish and Armenian communities, while offering limited exploration of contemporary, fluid, and transnational diaspora identities that challenge fixed notions of homeland and return.
• Neglect of Host Society Dynamics
  Critics suggest that Safran places disproportionate emphasis on the homeland and diaspora relationship while neglecting the evolving role of host societies in shaping diasporic identities, particularly in multicultural or globalized contexts.
• Static Conception of Identity
  Safran’s approach has been critiqued for implying that diaspora identities are static, rooted in collective memory and myths. Critics argue that diasporic identities are dynamic and continuously negotiated through interactions with both host and homeland cultures.
• Western-Centric Perspective
  The framework has been criticized for predominantly using examples from Eurocentric or Western-dominated diasporas while offering less insight into diasporas originating from non-Western or indigenous contexts.
• Insufficient Exploration of Intersectionality
  Critics point out that Safran’s model does not adequately address the intersection of race, gender, class, and religion in shaping diasporic experiences, thereby oversimplifying complex identity negotiations.
• Overemphasis on Homeland Attachment
  The focus on the myth of return has been critiqued as overly romanticized and not reflective of the lived realities of many diasporas, where attachment to the homeland may weaken or transform into a symbolic rather than practical connection.
• Limited Agency of Diasporic Communities
  Safran’s work has been critiqued for portraying diasporas as reactive entities defined by host or homeland conditions, rather than active agents reshaping their environments and identities.

Representative Quotations from “Diasporas in Modern Societies: Myths of Homeland and Return” by William Safran with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“Diaspora communities are expatriate minority communities whose members share several of the following characteristics.”	Introduces the core framework for defining diasporas, emphasizing shared traits among dispersed communities.
“They retain a collective memory, vision, or myth about their original homeland—its physical location, history, and achievements.”	Highlights the importance of cultural and historical memory in sustaining diasporic identity and cohesion.
“Diaspora consciousness is maintained by the belief that they are not—and perhaps cannot be—fully accepted by their host society.”	Explains the psychological and sociological underpinnings of diasporic solidarity rooted in a sense of alienation.
“The myth of return becomes a mechanism to sustain ethnic consciousness when other cohesive factors weaken.”	Discusses how the idea of return to a homeland preserves identity even when ties to religion, language, or community decline.
“Diasporas are shaped by a triangular relationship between the homeland, the diaspora, and the host society.”	Identifies the interaction among these three entities as central to the dynamics of diasporic existence.
“The Armenian diaspora shares similarities with the Jewish diaspora, including memories of persecution, dispersion, and a middleman role in host societies.”	Draws historical and social parallels between these two prominent diasporas, emphasizing shared experiences.
“The myth of return often serves more as a symbolic or eschatological concept than a literal objective for many diasporas.”	Points to the symbolic role of the idea of returning to a homeland, questioning its practicality in contemporary diasporic contexts.
“The host society may emphasize diaspora sentiments for its own purposes, such as encouraging or suppressing cultural or political expressions.”	Discusses how host societies manipulate diaspora identities for political or social reasons, complicating assimilation or cultural maintenance.
“Homelands often view their diasporas with mixed feelings, appreciating their support but disdaining their cultural transformations.”	Examines the tension between homeland and diaspora communities regarding cultural authenticity and modernization.
“The concept of diaspora extends beyond ethnicity to include religious, ideological, and economic forms of dispersion.”	Expands the understanding of diaspora to encompass varied forms of community and identity beyond ethnic frameworks.

Suggested Readings: “Diasporas in Modern Societies: Myths of Homeland and Return” by William Safran

1. Safran, William. “The Jewish Diaspora in a Comparative and Theoretical Perspective.” Israel Studies, vol. 10, no. 1, 2005, pp. 36–60. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/30245753. Accessed 22 Nov. 2024.
2. Clifford, James. “Diasporas.” Cultural Anthropology, vol. 9, no. 3, 1994, pp. 302–38. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/656365. Accessed 22 Nov. 2024.
3. Baser, Bahar, and Ashok Swain. “DIASPORAS AS PEACEMAKERS: THIRD PARTY MEDIATION IN HOMELAND CONFLICTS.” International Journal on World Peace, vol. 25, no. 3, 2008, pp. 7–28. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20752844. Accessed 22 Nov. 2024.
4. Oonk, Gijsbert. “Global Indian Diasporas: Exploring Trajectories of Migration and Theory.” Global Indian Diasporas: Exploring Trajectories of Migration and Theory, edited by Gijsbert Oonk, Amsterdam University Press, 2007, pp. 9–28. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt46n1bq.4. Accessed 22 Nov. 2024.