Introduction: “The ‘Diaspora’ Diaspora” By Rogers Brubaker
The “Diaspora” Diaspora” by Rogers Brubaker, first appeared in Ethnic and Racial Studies in 2005, Published by Taylor & Francis, examines the proliferation and evolving conceptualization of the term “diaspora” across academic and popular contexts. Brubaker critiques the stretching of “diaspora” to include diverse and disparate phenomena, arguing that this semantic expansion risks diluting its analytical utility. The article identifies three core elements that traditionally define diasporas—spatial dispersion, orientation to a homeland, and boundary maintenance—while exploring their shifting interpretations in contemporary discourse. Brubaker advocates for understanding diaspora not as a static entity but as an idiom, stance, or claim, emphasizing its dynamic role in identity and political mobilization. This work is pivotal in both literature and literary theory, offering a critical lens on identity, migration, and globalization while addressing methodological challenges in framing diaspora within transdisciplinary studies.
Summary of “The ‘Diaspora’ Diaspora” By Rogers Brubaker
- Proliferation and Conceptual Stretch of the Term “Diaspora”:
- The term “diaspora” has experienced a significant proliferation across academic, cultural, and political domains since the late 20th century. Originally applied to paradigmatic cases like the Jewish, Armenian, and Greek diasporas, it now encompasses a broad range of dispersed populations, including labor migrants, religious groups, and linguistic communities (Brubaker, 2005, p. 1).
- This semantic expansion, referred to as the “‘diaspora’ diaspora,” risks diluting the term’s analytical utility as it increasingly overlaps with concepts like immigrant, refugee, or ethnic community (Brubaker, 2005, p. 3).
- Core Elements of Diaspora:
- Despite its conceptual dispersion, three core elements remain central to defining diaspora:
- Dispersion in Space: Includes both forced and voluntary movements across borders, though recent definitions extend to internal dispersions within nations (Brubaker, 2005, p. 5).
- Orientation to a Homeland: Early definitions emphasized strong connections to a real or imagined homeland, including myths of return and loyalty, though later interpretations de-center this criterion (Brubaker, 2005, p. 6).
- Boundary Maintenance: Diasporas are characterized by the preservation of distinct identities through social practices or external exclusion, with debates over hybridity and cultural fluidity adding complexity (Brubaker, 2005, p. 6-7).
- Despite its conceptual dispersion, three core elements remain central to defining diaspora:
- Tensions in Theorizing Diaspora:
- The article highlights tensions between the concept’s historical specificity and its contemporary generalization. Some scholars emphasize hybridity and fluidity, while others focus on boundary-maintaining practices and enduring identities (Brubaker, 2005, p. 7).
- Questions arise about the multigenerational persistence of diasporic identities, challenging the stability and durability of contemporary diasporas (Brubaker, 2005, p. 9).
- Critique of Claims About a Radical Break:
- Brubaker critiques claims that contemporary diasporas represent a radical shift from traditional migration and nation-state paradigms. Historical evidence suggests that features such as bidirectional migration, enduring homeland ties, and ethnic persistence have long existed (Brubaker, 2005, p. 9).
- He argues against overstated claims of globalization-induced border porosity and questions the portrayal of nation-states as monolithic and homogenizing forces (Brubaker, 2005, p. 10).
- Reconceptualizing Diaspora:
- The article proposes shifting from viewing diaspora as a bounded entity to understanding it as an idiom, stance, and claim. Diaspora should be analyzed as a practice and project used to articulate identities and mobilize political or cultural agendas (Brubaker, 2005, p. 12).
- This approach emphasizes the contingent and contested nature of diasporic identities, focusing on the agency of individuals and groups in framing their affiliations (Brubaker, 2005, p. 13).
- Teleological Risks in Diaspora Theories:
- Brubaker warns against teleological interpretations of diaspora that presume a fixed destiny or essentialized identity. He advocates for a more dynamic and empirical examination of how diasporic claims evolve and gain traction over time (Brubaker, 2005, p. 14).
- Conclusion:
- By de-substantializing diaspora, Brubaker encourages scholars to focus on the processes and struggles through which diasporic identities are constructed and negotiated, rather than assuming the existence of cohesive, bounded groups (Brubaker, 2005, p. 19).
Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “The ‘Diaspora’ Diaspora” By Rogers Brubaker
| Theoretical Term/Concept | Definition/Explanation | Context in Article |
| Diaspora Proliferation | The widespread and expansive use of the term “diaspora” across academic and non-academic contexts. | Describes the semantic and conceptual stretching of the term to include various dispersed populations, from labor migrants to digital communities (p. 1). |
| Classical Diasporas | Traditional diasporas centered around paradigmatic cases such as the Jewish, Armenian, and Greek diasporas. | Serves as the historical and conceptual foundation for early discussions of diaspora (p. 2). |
| Dispersion in Space | Physical movement or scattering of populations across geographical regions, whether forced or voluntary. | One of the three core criteria of diaspora, used to define populations dispersed across state or internal borders (p. 5). |
| Homeland Orientation | A connection or loyalty to a real or imagined homeland that informs identity and solidarity. | Historically central to diaspora definitions, though later interpretations de-center or challenge this criterion (p. 6). |
| Boundary Maintenance | Practices that preserve the distinct identity of a diaspora community vis-à-vis a host society. | Includes mechanisms like social exclusion, self-segregation, and endogamy; contrasted with hybridity and cultural fluidity (p. 6-7). |
| Diasporic Stance/Claim | Diaspora as a category of practice used to articulate identity, mobilize, and advocate for specific agendas. | Proposed by Brubaker as an alternative to viewing diaspora as a bounded, static entity (p. 12). |
| Hybridity and Fluidity | Emphasizes the blending, mixing, and syncretic nature of diasporic identities and cultures. | Contrasts with boundary-maintenance approaches, reflecting modern perspectives on cultural heterogeneity (p. 7). |
| Teleology of Diaspora | The assumption that diaspora identities inherently move toward a specific “destiny” or “awakening.” | Critiqued as an essentialist narrative that parallels nationalist teleologies (p. 14). |
| “Groupism” in Diaspora Studies | The tendency to treat diaspora as a cohesive, quantifiable group or community. | Critiqued for overlooking internal diversity and contested identities within diasporic populations (p. 11). |
| Diaspora as Idiom | Understanding diaspora as a flexible framework for articulating experiences and identities, rather than a fixed entity. | A key recommendation by Brubaker to better capture the fluid, contingent, and contested nature of diasporic formations (p. 12). |
| Multigenerational Diasporas | The persistence of diasporic identity across multiple generations within a community. | Explored as a marker of “classical” diasporas, with questions about whether contemporary diasporas will achieve similar longevity (p. 9). |
| Methodological Nationalism | The critique of nation-state-centered approaches that dominate earlier migration and diaspora studies. | Contrasted with newer perspectives that highlight transnational and diasporic networks (p. 7). |
| De-territorialized Identities | Identities that are not tied to a specific geographical homeland but exist across transnational and global contexts. | Associated with the cultural and political dynamics of modern diasporas in a globalized world (p. 10). |
| Symbolic Ethnicity | A form of ethnic identification that is more symbolic or superficial than deeply embedded in diasporic practices. | Used to describe the fading of active diasporic stances among second- or third-generation members of some diasporas (p. 12). |
Contribution of “The ‘Diaspora’ Diaspora” By Rogers Brubaker to Literary Theory/Theories
1. Critique of Essentialism and “Groupism”
- Contribution: Challenges the essentialist view of diasporas as static, homogeneous, and clearly bounded entities.
- Impact on Theory: Aligns with poststructuralist and postmodernist critiques of essentialized identities in literary and cultural studies.
- Reference: Brubaker critiques the “groupist” portrayal of diasporas, arguing that such approaches obscure the internal diversity and contested nature of diasporic identities (p. 11).
2. Deconstruction of Teleology in Diaspora
- Contribution: Rejects the teleological assumption that diasporas inherently progress toward specific destinies, such as cultural “awakening” or return.
- Impact on Theory: Resonates with poststructuralist theories that dismantle deterministic narratives, encouraging an understanding of diaspora as contingent and fluid.
- Reference: Brubaker critiques the “teleological language of awakening” and its parallel with nationalist movements (p. 14).
3. Emphasis on Diaspora as a “Category of Practice”
- Contribution: Proposes treating diaspora as an idiom, stance, or claim rather than as a fixed, substantive category.
- Impact on Theory: This approach is consistent with social constructivist perspectives in literary theory, which view identities as performed, negotiated, and context-dependent.
- Reference: Brubaker emphasizes analyzing diasporic stances and practices rather than assuming bounded groupness (p. 12).
4. Intersection with Postcolonial Theory
- Contribution: Engages with concepts of hybridity and cultural fluidity, central to postcolonial literary theory.
- Impact on Theory: Extends postcolonial discussions on the multiplicity of diasporic identities and the negotiation of cultural boundaries.
- Reference: Brubaker discusses Stuart Hall’s concept of hybridity, noting the interplay between “diversity” and “difference” in diasporic identities (p. 6-7).
5. Analysis of Identity Formation
- Contribution: Explores identity formation as shaped by both inclusion and exclusion, resonating with psychoanalytic and cultural theories.
- Impact on Theory: Reflects on how diasporic identities are constructed through memory, myth, and relational positioning vis-à-vis “homeland” and “host societies.”
- Reference: Brubaker highlights boundary maintenance and homeland orientation as critical to diasporic identity, even as they are contested and redefined (p. 5-6).
6. Reconceptualization of Transnationalism
- Contribution: Integrates diaspora into broader discussions of transnationalism, challenging nation-state-centric models.
- Impact on Theory: Influences theories of global literature by emphasizing diasporic networks and the de-territorialization of identities.
- Reference: Brubaker critiques methodological nationalism and highlights the porosity of modern diasporas in relation to global networks (p. 7).
7. Contribution to Cultural Hybridity and Syncretism
- Contribution: Discusses the tension between boundary maintenance and cultural hybridity, reflecting the dynamic negotiation of identities.
- Impact on Theory: Supports cultural theories that prioritize syncretism and heterogeneity in diasporic experiences.
- Reference: Draws on Hall’s work to argue that diasporic identities are shaped “through, not despite, difference” (p. 7).
8. Extension of “Imagined Communities”
- Contribution: Builds on Benedict Anderson’s notion of imagined communities, positioning diasporas as transnational and culturally imagined collectives.
- Impact on Theory: Provides a framework for analyzing diasporic literature and narratives as constructions of collective identity.
- Reference: Brubaker examines diasporas as networks of lateral ties and shared imaginaries rather than fixed entities (p. 6, p. 12).
9. Reflection on Temporal Dimensions
- Contribution: Questions whether contemporary diasporas have the multigenerational staying power of “classical” diasporas.
- Impact on Theory: Contributes to theories of historical memory and temporal dynamics in cultural identity and literary representation.
- Reference: Brubaker analyzes the persistence of diasporic boundaries across generations, questioning the longevity of modern diasporas (p. 9).
Examples of Critiques Through “The ‘Diaspora’ Diaspora” By Rogers Brubaker
| Literary Work | Key Themes | Critique Through Brubaker’s Lens | Relevant Brubaker Concepts |
| Hanif Kureishi’s The Buddha of Suburbia | Identity, cultural dislocation, and hybridity | Examines the fluidity of diasporic identities. Brubaker’s critique of “boundary-maintenance vs. hybridity” enriches understanding of how characters navigate multiple cultural affiliations and resist fixed identities. | Hybridity, fluidity, and “diasporic stance” |
| Jhumpa Lahiri’s The Namesake | Immigration, assimilation, and identity | Critiques the notion of “groupism” in representing Indian-American diaspora. Brubaker’s idea of diasporas as dynamic and situational challenges static representations of diasporic identity in the novel. | Critique of essentialism, category of practice |
| Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie’s Americanah | Transnational identity and cultural negotiation | Brubaker’s emphasis on “diasporic claim-making” critiques how characters assert identities in different cultural contexts. The novel illustrates the complexity of homeland orientation and identity formation. | Transnationalism, homeland orientation |
| Toni Morrison’s Beloved | Memory, trauma, and collective identity | The novel’s portrayal of the African-American diaspora aligns with Brubaker’s critique of teleology and static group identity, emphasizing the contingent and constructed nature of diasporic memories. | Deconstruction of teleology, constructed identities |
Criticism Against “The ‘Diaspora’ Diaspora” By Rogers Brubaker
- Overemphasis on Deconstruction: Brubaker’s insistence on treating diaspora as an idiom, stance, or claim rather than a bounded entity has been criticized for deconstructing the concept to the point of rendering it analytically unrecognizable. Critics argue that this undermines the utility of “diaspora” as a distinct sociological category.
- Neglect of Emotional and Cultural Dimensions: While focusing on the analytical and theoretical dimensions, Brubaker’s framework is seen as neglecting the deeply emotional and cultural attachments that diasporic communities have to their homelands and identities, which are central to many lived experiences.
- Ambiguity in Terminology: The proliferation of terms such as “diasporicity,” “diasporism,” and “diasporization” within the article can confuse rather than clarify the discourse, as Brubaker’s critique of conceptual stretching might inadvertently contribute to the phenomenon.
- Underrepresentation of Lived Experiences: Critics have noted that the article leans heavily on theoretical analysis while underrepresenting the lived realities and narratives of diasporic communities, thus risking an overly abstract interpretation of diaspora.
- Critique of “Groupism” Too Broad: Brubaker’s rejection of “groupism” has been critiqued for being too sweeping, as it dismisses the possibility that some diasporic groups do maintain coherent, meaningful collective identities that are vital for political and social mobilization.
- Insufficient Engagement with Diaspora Politics: The article’s focus on conceptual and theoretical critiques leaves little room for an in-depth analysis of the political implications of diasporic mobilization, which is a key concern in contemporary global studies.
- Dismissal of Classical Definitions: Brubaker’s critique of classical diaspora definitions as overly rigid has been criticized for dismissing their historical significance, particularly in framing diasporas like the Jewish, Armenian, or African diasporas, which remain vital for understanding enduring diasporic struggles.
- Tension Between Analytical and Practical Use: The proposed shift to treating diaspora as a category of practice rather than analysis is criticized for potentially limiting the term’s broader applicability in empirical research, where bounded categories often serve practical purposes.
Representative Quotations from “The ‘Diaspora’ Diaspora” By Rogers Brubaker with Explanation
| Quotation | Explanation |
| “The term that once described Jewish, Greek and Armenian dispersion now shares meanings with a larger semantic domain that includes words like immigrant, expatriate, refugee, guest-worker, exile community, overseas community, ethnic community.” | Highlights how the term “diaspora” has expanded beyond its original meaning to encompass a broad spectrum of displaced populations, risking conceptual overstretch. |
| “The universalization of diaspora, paradoxically, means the disappearance of diaspora.” | Critiques the overuse and dilution of the term “diaspora,” suggesting that its distinctiveness as a concept is undermined by its excessive application to diverse groups. |
| “Diaspora is often seen as destiny — a destiny to which previously dormant members are now ‘awakening’.” | Discusses the teleological assumptions embedded in some diaspora discourses, where diasporas are framed as inevitable or natural, potentially oversimplifying complex historical processes. |
| “We should think of diaspora not in substantialist terms as a bounded entity, but rather as an idiom, a stance, a claim.” | Proposes a shift from viewing diaspora as a fixed category to understanding it as a dynamic practice or framework through which identities and loyalties are expressed. |
| “Boundary-maintenance is an indispensable criterion of diaspora.” | Emphasizes the importance of maintaining distinct cultural or social identities across generations for the continuation of diasporic communities. |
| “There is thus a tension in the literature between boundary-maintenance and boundary-erosion.” | Points to a key contradiction in diaspora studies: while some emphasize preserving distinct identities, others highlight hybridity and cultural blending. |
| “Diaspora does not so much describe the world as seek to remake it.” | Suggests that diaspora is often used as a normative category to advocate for political or cultural projects, rather than merely as an analytical concept. |
| “Like nation, ethnic group or minority, diaspora is often characterized in substantialist terms as an ‘entity.’” | Critiques the tendency to essentialize diasporas as static and unitary groups, ignoring internal diversity and fluid identities. |
| “Diaspora can be seen as an alternative to the essentialization of belonging, but it can also represent a non-territorial form of essentialized belonging.” | Highlights how diaspora simultaneously challenges and perpetuates essentialist notions of identity, complicating its theoretical application. |
| “As the term has proliferated, its meaning has been stretched to accommodate the various intellectual, cultural and political agendas in the service of which it has been enlisted.” | Reflects on how the conceptual expansion of “diaspora” serves diverse academic and political purposes but risks undermining its analytical precision. |
Suggested Readings: “The ‘Diaspora’ Diaspora” By Rogers Brubaker
- BRUBAKER, ROGERS. “The ‘Diaspora’ Diaspora.” Grounds for Difference, Harvard University Press, 2015, pp. 119–30. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvjsf5dw.9. Accessed 1 Dec. 2024.
- Brubaker, Rogers. “Ethnicity, Race, and Nationalism.” Annual Review of Sociology, vol. 35, 2009, pp. 21–42. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/27800067. Accessed 1 Dec. 2024.
- DELANEY, ENDA. “THE IRISH DIASPORA.” Irish Economic and Social History, vol. 33, 2006, pp. 35–45. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/24338531. Accessed 1 Dec. 2024.
- Bilby, Kenneth. “Editor’s Introduction.” Black Music Research Journal, vol. 32, no. 2, 2012, pp. v–xii. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.5406/blacmusiresej.32.2.v. Accessed 1 Dec. 2024.
- Ray, Jonathan. “New Approaches to the Jewish Diaspora: The Sephardim as a Sub-Ethnic Group.” Jewish Social Studies, vol. 15, no. 1, 2008, pp. 10–31. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40207032. Accessed 1 Dec. 2024.