the structural culture dialectic of diasporic politics

8/11/2019 The Structural Culture Dialectic of Diasporic Politics

1/27

CommunicationTheory

340

The Structural-Cultural Dialecticof Diasporic Politics

CommunicationTheory

Twelve:Three

August2002

Pages340366

Copyright 2002 International Communication Association

In this essay, we highlight and theorize the dynamic relationship between thestructural and cultural aspects of diasporic politics and its importance for com-

munication studies. In response to the divide between structurally determinedstudies of diaspora and cultural studies of celebratory resistance, this essay ar-gues that understanding the dynamic relationship between the structural forces(for example, nation-state powers, governmental forces, global economic struc-tures) and situated cultural practices, is key in understanding the complex ar-ticulations of diasporic identity, agency, and discourses that may echo exclusivistnationalist appeals. Throughout our theory-focused discussion, we refer to twohistorically specific diasporic formationsthe Polish and Hawaiian diasporasas case studies to illustrate the ever-changing relationships among the structuralformations and cultural practices which constitute diasporic politics.

At an ever-increasing pace, significant globalizing trendsglobal eco-nomic shifts, new business alliances, adjusted trade relations, the spreadof information technology, increased airline routes to formerly inacces-sible parts of the world, changing immigration policies, and politicalchangehave both encouraged and pressured cultural groups to movefrom their homelands to new (national) sites of permanent settlement.Driven by the momentum of global capitalism and transnational flows

of culture, globalized change is taking place both as a sweeping patternacross the globe, and as a concentrated move at home or within spe-cific national boundaries. These dramatic shifts have disrupted and chal-lenged the presumed certainties of culture (Appadurai, 1990; Clifford,1997; Dirlik, 1990; Giddens, 1990; Said, 1993). Indeed,cultures havealways been characterized by intercultural connections, exchanges, andmixing. However, accelerated processes of intercultural exchanges un-der conditions of globalization have significantly altered the nature ofidentity construction among migrating groups and the ways in which

they communicate their identities and engage in communication withtheir counterparts in the homeland and in migration sites. Specifically,cultural groups whoexperience global changes, political restructurings,and migration movements, have had to ideologically and strategically

Jolanta A. DrzewieckaRona Tamiko Halualani


2/27

The Structural-Cultural Dialectic

341

redefine who they are in order to preserve and reestablish their his-torical memory, sense of belonging, and their relationship to the defin-ing homeland. In addition, such cultural identities are reforged in light

of diasporic conditions so that a groups claims of authenticity consis-tently meld and correspond with changing definitions of national terri-tories, structures, communities, and economic powers.

The notion of communication becomes key to analyzing and under-standing diasporic politics. In particular, three specific forms of commu-nication are of relevance to diasporic groups. First, in private spheres,diasporic communities continually create linkages of meanings to en-code their collective identities, and such linkages change from momentto moment. Secondly, as a public identity, these groups issue rhetorical

claims

of identification and connection to and against the homeland.Third, diasporic groups construct communication exchanges and inter-actions among the homeland government (government agencies and of-ficials), homeland community, and the interregional/cross-national net-works of diasporic counterparts.Through these communicative formsdiasporic groups invent, reinvent, and reposition themselves in relationto a changing political and economic context.

In postcolonial studies, scholars have examined diasporic politicslargely by focusing on how individuals and groups renegotiate their iden-

tities in new conditions of existence and the cultural politics that resultfrom that (see, for example, Gilroy, 1989, 1992, 1993; Hall, 1990).However, as Aiwa Ong (1999) points out, such a body of work hastypically emphasized either the overdetermining political structures ofthe nation-state and global economies (Castells, 1996; Harvey, 1989;Offe, 1985) or the resistive potential of diasporic groups (thereby dis-counting the nation-state; see Appadurai, 1990; Bhabha, 1990; Clifford,1994; Gilroy, 1989, 1992, 1993). In other words, scholars have focusedsolely on the structural or cultural dimension of diaspora and have over-looked the dynamic connections between the two (with the exception ofOng, 1999).

In communication studies, only a few scholars have focused ontransnational, postcolonial, and hybrid formations in the globalizingcultural economy (Grossberg, 1993; Hegde, 1998; Kraidy, 1999; Shome,1996; Wong, 1998). Understanding diaspora as a communicative phe-nomenon can provide great insights for communication and interdisci-plinary scholars about the construction of diasporic subjectivities awayfrom, and in memory of, a nationalist homeland as well as the politicalimplications of such identity construction. With global shifts, the read-justments of nation-states, and the fluid unpredictability of identity for-mations, the challenge for communication scholars is to explore themultilayered communication discourses of diasporic groups, the embed-


3/27

CommunicationTheory

342

ded political and structural forces that surround such diasporic groups,and the dynamic contradictions and coherencies of diasporic identity.

In this essay, we intervene in the theoretical discussions of diasporic

politics. Our goal is to emphasize the structural-cultural dialectical rela-tionship between diasporic politics, subjectivity, and communication.Accordingly, we rethink the relationship between the nation-state anddiaspora, and infuse it with the notions of situated cultural communica-tion practices and collective memory, in order to theorize how subjectsare dialectically constructed through conditions of globalization. Morespecifically, we seek to theoretically emphasizethe structural-culturaldialectic of diasporic politics, or the dynamic interplay among seem-ingly fixed structures (e.g., nation-state formations, law and governance,

local and global economies) and cultural expressions (e.g., narrativesand identity discourses, Halualani, 2000; Hegde, 1998) within shiftingdiasporic politics.We posit that both dimensionsthe structural andthe culturalalong with their dynamic and dialectical interrelationshiptogetherhelp us understand the complexities of diasporic politics.

The structural dimension refers to the nation-state/political/economicstructures and regulative bodies of power that delimit and frame theformation/dissolution of diasporic communities, their identities (andclaims to a nation),and ways in which they respond to such structures.

The cultural dimension refers to those symbolic expressions and com-munity practices, identity discourses, and narratives that a diasporiccommunity creates to unify and maintain their group. If, in the diasporiccontext, the political and economic conditions around the nation-statechange, then so too has the way in which the related diasporiccommunitys cultural practices should be read and understood.Thismakes the cultural dimension unpredictable, multilayered, and hard toread in-line with a shifting political context. For example, in many cases,the identity practices and narrative discourses of a diasporic group ap-pear as exclusivist appeals to a fixed national identity or an indigenousnativism. Such discourses cannot simply be devalued as nationalist at-tempts to exert power. In fact, they may reveal the tense negotiationbetween an ever-present nation-state and a diasporic groups need toauthenticate their identities (via appeals to the homeland) in a new anddifferent way ( la the slight and subtle reconstruction of national ethnicityand membership). This also points to the dynamic possibilities for agencyin the diasporic context, as migratory communities recycle and resignifynationalistic symbols to simultaneously: prove ethnic or national loy-alty to a home government, claim ethnic or cultural belonging in a het-erogeneous environment, and reimagine their community in a new spaceamong new groups and opportunities.

As yet another type of emerging interrelationship between structural


4/27


343

and cultural aspects of diasporic politics, the nation-state (the structural)which has historically rejected or pressured diasporic groups to return,is now turning towards and courting the diaspora in their sites of settle-

ment (the cultural).

National powers are even participating in thediasporas cultural arenas and practices as a way to reconnect and rees-tablish their political authority and garner voting and economic sup-port. For all of these reasons, examining the ever changing, mutuallydefining, dialectical relationship among the structural and cultural forcesof diasporic politics extends diaspora studies.

In what follows, we first offer a critical review of diaspora studies. Inthis section, we examine the limits of diaspora studies and emphasizethe need for a dynamic approach to the study of diasporic politics. Sec-

ond, we focus on the structural-cultural dialectic of diasporic politics bytheorizing the reemergence of the nation-state in diasporic communitiesand its implications for a contextual and dynamic understanding ofdiaspora. Our discussion is grounded with examples from our own re-search on two specific diasporic groups in very different political grounds:diasporic Hawaiian and Polish communities. Through this discussion,our goal is to offer a more complex understanding of the dynamic op-erations of the diaspora that cannot be captured by focusing only ontheir resistive potential or by emphasizing only the structural relations

of the nation-state. Rather, we suggest that diasporas must be studiedthrough an understanding of the context of their production and anexamination of how the structural-cultural dialectic informs those con-texts in different ways in different national sites.

Critical Review of Diaspora Studies

Diaspora studies have revolved around two extreme poles in conceptu-alizing culture and politics. The first pole is the celebration of an engraineddiasporic resistance in spite of larger political conditions, and the sec-ond is the overemphasis of the power of formal political structures withlittle room for resistance. In the following section, we review these twotypes of works, both of which tend to under-emphasize the other. Lastly,as a theoretical alternative, we highlight the dialectical relationship be-tween structural and cultural forces in diasporic politics.A Necessary Diasporic Resistance

Postcolonial studies have underscored the significance of diasporas inunderstanding the global power relations between colonialist regimes,conditions of modernity, and cultural and ethnic subjectivities. As its

main focus, postcolonial studies interrupt and dismantle imperialisticdiscourses that construct the West and the rest (e.g., Said, 1978,1993; Shome, 1996). Such work continually problematizes the fixed and


5/27

CommunicationTheory

344

modernist constructions of culture, ethnicity, nation, and identity vianotions of cultural hybridity and diasporic identity (Appadurai, 1990;Clifford, 1994; Dirlik, 1990; Giddens, 1990; Said, 1993; Shome, 1996).

Thus, within postcolonial studies and critical studies, scholars have un-derscored the importance of diasporic subjectivities and moving orborderland cultures in dismantling the essentialized and modernistnotion of the static nation-state (Anzalda, 1987; Appadurai, 1990; Said,1993). The argument they offer is that subjects who move and live in-between two cultures form a unique double consciousness that enablesthem to reject oppressive nationalist ideologies and recombine new con-texts with cultural traditions (Anzalda, 1987; Lavie & Swedenburg,1996). Several scholars have extended this notion further by suggesting

that diasporic subjects always, or necessarily, resist dominant structuresat home as well as in the new site of settlement (e.g., Bhabha, 1990;Lavie & Swedenburg, 1996).

Contrary to these moves, we suggest that diasporic identifications bealso articulated through interplay of fluidity and fixity. Although thedispersions of peoples lead to the fragmentation of culture and to fluidnotions of identity, diasporic identities are often built on claims to natu-ral or original identities with the homeland. These claims usuallycompete with and override conflicting rights and the history of others

in the land (Clifford, 1994, p. 308). This is accomplished through dis-courses employing and promoting exclusions and social divisions intransnational space, for example, Greeks and Macedonians (Panagakos,1998). Diasporas strategically construct their identities and positionalitiesin such a way as to gain political clout and an ability to influence politicsin both homes. Consequently, differently organized ethnic groups maycompete for the label and status of diaspora, and contest the narrativesof imagined community (King, 1998; Panossian, 1998). Diaspora dis-courses are grounded in politics of history, territory, and location, anddiasporic individuals strategically employ and mobilize cultural and ethniclabels (Lavie & Swedenburg, 1996). Such mobilizations allow them toreclaim lost connections as well as to find a mooring and a springboardfor resistance (Hall, 1990). Appeals to diaspora and the homeland pro-vide groups with a romantic allure carried by a connection to a differentplace. In fact, such appeals reify ethnicity and national culture by repre-senting them as naturally continuous with diaspora. This, in turn,promotes ethnic absolutism through the return to cultural myths, andimposes imaginary coherence on the experience of dispersal and frag-mentation (Hall, 1990, p. 224). Thus, a careful analysis of multilay-ered diasporic discourses needs to examine how diasporas utilize, rein-force, and reinterpret national symbols. In particular, it is imperative toexamine how diasporas enact structural exclusions, and how these


6/27


345

diasporic exclusions employ and differ from exclusionary discoursesback home.

In some theorizing, the agency attributed to the resistive hybrid sub-

altern subject is transferred to the diasporic subject, who is seen as op-posing capitalism and state power (Ong, 1999). Because this can lead tothe political and economic conditions surrounding culture and politicsto become destabilized and uncertain, many have taken this to meanthat such uncertainty will lead to the ultimate dismantling of dominantnation-state structures. Anthropologists Lavie and Swedenburg (1996)explain, for example, that diasporic cultures offer new frames of analysisthat resist and transcend national boundaries through their creative ar-ticulations of practices that demonstrate possible modes of corroding

the Eurocenter by actively Third-Worlding it (p. 15). Thus, the signifi-cant notion that diasporic cultures can, in certain contexts, create newpossibilities for national identity politics is overshadowed by the theo-retical leap made by many scholars that diasporas do and will lead tothe eventual overhauling of colonialist regimes and national power. Thisfocus has constituted one of the dominant trends in diaspora studiesthe romanticization of cultural resistance without serious considerationof the transnational and global mobility of political structures.The Dynamic Yet Resistant Nation-State

In this section, we review studies that seriously examine the flexible na-tion-state structures and modes of globalization in understandingdiasporic politics, however these studies do so at the expense of denyingany resistive possibilities of diasporic groups. Structuralist critics havegrown skeptical of the celebratory unraveling of cultures and the con-tinual mobility of people and capital. David Harvey (1989) explainsin The Condition of Postmodernitythat flexibility is exactly the modusoperandi of late capitalism and an adjustment on the part of global capi-tal and modern forms of governance to manage ethnic loyalties, citizen-ship, and sovereignty, as well as to reincorporate power relations. Hewarns that flexible and mobile power structures can reinstallby wayof its seemingly unbounded movementfixed and dominant politicalhegemonies that seem on the surface to be either gone, distant, or changed.These structural hegemonies, political pressures, and conditions still verymuch linger within diasporic cultures, yet, in the literature, such a focushas been replaced by a celebratory emphasis on diasporic and border-crossing agency. Thus, we raise the following questions: Where has thefocus on the political structures (e.g., nation-state and economic bodies)gone? How can we understand diasporic subjectivity and identity dis-courses without the theorizing of mobile and flexible forms of nationalpower? In this vein, Tllyan warns that theories that disarticulate thenation-state from diasporas risks the inadvertent complicity with the


7/27

CommunicationTheory

346

power of nation-based but resolutely anti-national and anti-statisttransnational capital (1996, p. 5).

Likewise, sociologists and geographers (e.g., Castells, 1996; Harvey,

1989; Offe, 1985) have studied globalization as a dominant economicrationality that moves through its own logic in the absence of socialactors. Corporations and financial markets move to the beat oftransnational capital, which in turn feeds political hegemonies. Thesescholars (Castells, 1996; Harvey, 1989; Offe, 1985) argue the oppositeof the studies reviewed in the earlier section. They discount the possibil-ity for diasporic agency to be created within the crevices of larger struc-tures. These works lack an integrated discussion of the ways in whichhuman agency is delimited by such flexible and centralizing structures

and how diasporic identity practices may be embedded within national-ist discourses and structures. For deeper insights into diasporic politics,the dynamic, contextual, and often unrecognizable relationshipbetweenthe structural and cultural forces surrounding a diaspora must be theo-rized so that the surrounding political structures are not taken for grantednor positioned as impenetrable sites. In the following section, we thusargue that examining the structural-cultural dialectic of diasporic poli-tics provides significant insights into the changing role of diaspora andformation of diasporic identities.

Moving Among the Structural-CulturalTensions of Diasporic Politics andFlexible Nation-State StructuresAs one of the oldest transnational formations, diaspora transcends theconfines of a single nation-state in multiple ways, while, at the sametime, the nation-state acts through the diaspora. The prefix trans-means across, beyond, and through, so as to change. However, theimplications of diaspora formations are both trans-national and trans-national. In most cases, diasporas are caught up with and defined against. . . the norms of nation-states (Clifford, 1994, p. 307). Diasporas actas the Other of the nation-state of both the homeland and the site ofdwelling or as an ally of both (King, 1998; Tllyan, 1996). However,nation-states often act through diasporas treating them as their interna-tional representatives and agents, or as an economic resource. Thus, therelations between nation-states and diasporas are ripe with contradictions.

Appadurai (1990) and Rouse (1991) argue that cultures, ethnicities,and communities are deterritorialized because territorially defined na-tion-state boundaries can no longer contain culture, ethnicity, or a senseof community. Deterritorialized dispersed groups carry with them prac-tices and memories that mix and fuse with, or contest, new local ways oflife. When dispersed but differentiating and changing groups maintaintheir identification through established cultural, ethnic, and national


8/27


9/27

CommunicationTheory

348

circumstances, and have had different evolving relationships with thePolish homeland. The Polish diaspora, as a political space of exile(Safran,1991), was created by Poles who fled Poland

between the Polish insurrection of 1830 and the end of World War I . . . and many who

fled Poland between 1939 and 1944. . . . The diasporic dimension of the Polish nation

was illustrated in a saying that made the rounds during World War II to the effect that

Poland was the largest country in the world, its government was in London, its army

was in Italy, and its population in Siberia. (Safran, 1991, p. 85)

However, most immigrants who came to settle and work soon devel-oped a diasporic consciousness. At the end of the 19th century, when

emigrants started leaving for the U.S. searching for work in large num-bers, Poland had been progressively partitioned by Russia, Prussia, andAustria, in three stages, in 1772, 1793, and in 1795 when it effectivelyceased to exist on the political map.

In this context, Polish immigrant communities in the West becamesites of national consciousness fostered by intellectuals and political lead-ers who led the struggle to liberate and unify the divided state and Polishculture under assault from the three enemies. This process culminated intheir self-definition as Polands Fourth Partition (Jacobson, 1995, Lopata,

1994). During that time, a publication of the Polish National Alliance,Zgoda,wrote that the Pole is not free to Americanize because faith,language, and nationality in Poland itself had been powerfully torn awayby the enemies. The Pole is not free to Americanize becausewhereverhe [sic] ishe has a mission to fulfill (Jacobson, 1995, p. 35). Mostimmigrants came to settle and to work and thus, could not be consid-ered a part of ideal type diaspora (Safran, 1991, p. 84). In this structuralcontext, many immigrants became ethnically and nationally Polish onlyin the U.S. (Jacobson, 1995; Lopata, 1994). Thus, it is the political

structures and elite discourses which shaped Polish American culture.The historical mission to liberate Poland from oppressors continuedwhen Poland was subjected to Soviet domination and, in response, thepolitics of the Polish American diaspora became virulently anti-Com-munist (Blejwas, 1996; Lopata, 1994; Snyder, 1998). National conscious-ness was nourished by subsequent waves of immigrants, although manyPoles arriving to the U.S. following World War II were not strictly flee-ing any dangers. While there were those who, based on their politicaland military affiliations during WWII, had reasons to fear persecutionfrom the newly established pro-Soviet government, many displaced Poleschose to immigrate permanently out of antipathy for Communists andin protest against what they saw as a Soviet Communist take-over(Jaroszynska-Kirchmann, 1996). Many Polish immigrants to the United


10/27


349

States were readily given refugee status and political asylum in the 1970sand 1980s although most of them had come to the U.S. to improve theireconomic conditions. Thus, those who successfully obtained political

asylum were actually often economically motivated. They were seekingbetter opportunities and taking advantage of anticommunist interna-tional politics. Poor economic conditions were seen by these immigrantsas legitimate grounds for choosing freedom and seeking asylum(Jaroszynska-Kirchmann, 1996, p. 173), although they hardly consti-tuted conditions of true exile. After obtaining residency in the U.S., themajority of these immigrants were able to move back and forth betweenPoland and America. This immigration flow and diasporic identifica-tion was mobilized through international relations, and broadened the

definition of exile as claims to exile subjectivity became strategies ofgaining legal immigration status and increasing economic status (condi-tions often considered contradictory to the notion of exile; de los Ange-les Torres, 1995; Portes & Rumbaut, 1996).

Immigrants anticommunist sentiments continue to define their rela-tionship to the Polish nation-state. However, the anticommunist diasporiccause has been lost since Poland began to develop a democratic politicalsystem and free-market economy. Polands impending NATO member-ship provided an attractive, although short-term, political platform for

ethnic or diasporic institutions (for example, the Polish American Con-gress and the Polish National Alliance) which lobbied the U.S. Congressin support of Polands NATO candidacy. Since Polands easy acceptanceto NATO, these organizations have been searching for a new directionwhile sounding outdated nationalist slogans and bringing on strong pro-tests from individual Polish Americans against the institutional leader-ship. Changing structural conditions force groups to abandon old iden-tity narratives, such as anti-Communist stances, and search for new nar-ratives with which to authenticate their identities.

Polish Eastern diaspora resulted in part from WWII resettlements ofPoles by the Soviet Union, which created Polish minority settlements inKazakhstan. Additionally, post-WWII agreements moved Polish borderswestward, opening up territories which had been under Polish con-trol between roughly 1569 to 1772 and 1918 to 1945 to double(re)appropriation by, generally, Soviet Union, and specifically, Belarus,Ukraine, Lithuania, and Latvia. The postwar period was marred by re-patriation on both sides, and ethnic cleansing of territories, which hadbeen ethnically and nationally mixed for centuries (Kosman, 1998; Snyder,1998). Although these areas have a very strong place in Polish historicaland national imagination as Kresy (meaning both borderlands andlimits; Kosman, 1998; Kwasniewski, 1999), Polish Eastern diaspora wasignored by the Polish government dominated by the Soviet Union. Fol-


11/27


12/27


351

The Hawaiian DiasporaWhile the Polish diasporic case study challenges the European model ofdiasporic culture and politics, our second case studythe Hawaiian

diasporaunderscores the dynamic formation of diasporic groups withinthe post/neocolonialist U.S. nation-based model of governance, particu-larly those indigenous groups that claim sovereign belonging to landthat was later colonized by a dominant nation-state. The diasporic Ha-waiian community in the U.S. stands as a land-based cultural group thatstruggles to define itself against the still-present colonial U.S. nation state.However, identity reconstruction has proven to be difficult for diasporicHawaiians in that they have had to recreate their identities while alsoresiding on the deemed American or White continental U.S. main-

land and away from the authenticating marker of native land. Ha-waiians represent a (sub)cultural group rarely considered as moving be-tween two nations: an American one borne of U.S. colonialism, and asovereign nation, the historically remembered independent Hawaiiankingdom prior to 1893. The year 1778 marks the moment in whichWesternization dramatically altered Hawaiian culture (Ii, 1959;Kameeleihiwa, 1992; MacKenzie, 1991; Malo, 1951). Until then,Hawaii had been a self-sustaining, organized society, and an indepen-dent kingdom. After this point, struggles over political governance, sov-

ereignty, native rights, and land rights dominated the next few centuries(Ii, 1959; Kameeleihiwa, 1992; MacKenzie, 1991; Malo, 1951). Resi-dents from countries such as Britain, Russia, France, Spain, and Americasettled on the islands and demanded naturalized land rights (MacKenzie,1991). Rapidly, native belonging and residency in Hawaii lost its ethnicdistinction and began to liberally include all residents (see Halualani,1998). British and later U.S. colonial forces restructured Hawaiian soci-ety from a stratified cultural system to a capitalist market-driven societyin which land was a commodity and a natural right for all productive

citizens. This did not include Hawaiians who were still reeling and feel-ing lost from the dissolution of the Hawaiian land-based system to capi-talist-driven land-based commissions (cf. Ii, 1959; Kameeleihiwa, 1992;MacKenzie, 1991; Malo, 1951). More and more outsiders and externalbusiness interests flocked to Hawaii as U.S. colonialism overthrew theindependent Hawaiian Kingdom in 1893.

Thus, Hawaiians lost any cultural right to land they had previouslyheld. Gradually, Hawaii became the site of a burgeoning plantationeconomy, as sugar and pineapple became big business for plantation

owners who shipped large numbers of such products as exports to themainland (Hitch, 1991). Throughout World War II and after, the Ha-waiian economy refocused on two areas: the visitor industry and mili-tary defense. Large sections of land were appropriated and seized for


13/27

CommunicationTheory

352

tourist development and the construction of military bases (Hitch, 1991).Over time, then, U.S. capitalist and governmental interests displacedHawaiians from their land. Tourism also became the economic main-

stay of the islands, presenting a dilemma for Hawaiians who were pres-sured to take jobs that commodified and exoticized their culture. Trav-elers from all over the world visited Hawaii, some even buying propertyfor permanent vacation homes (Hitch, 1991). As Hawaii increasinglybecame the site of global access, belonging, and consumption, Hawai-ians, who had limited access to land and economic opportunities, lefttheir homeland and settled as far away as Europe, Japan, Mexico, andthe continental U.S.

Home for Hawaiians became a concentrated site of colonial and

globalized interests. In response to the colonization of Hawaii, therewere three waves of Hawaiian out-migration (Barman, 1995; Kauanui,1999; Wright, 1983). The first occurred when most of the Hawaiianland was reserved for U.S. military purposes and the plantation economydisintegrated. The lack of jobs led many Hawaiian men to join the U.S.military, an amount that was double the national average (Wright,1983, p. 18). Many were shipped to the mainland (and stationed in boththe Northwest and the South) and never returned to Hawaii; othersreturned but had difficulty finding jobs. In the wake of the Hawaiian

Homes Commission Act (HHCA) of 1920 (which established a 50%blood quantum requirement for Hawaiians) and the increasing chal-lenges in securing a Hawaiian homestead, it seemed economically betterfor Hawaiians to stay away from home. Hawaiian women also soughtout schooling opportunities on the mainland but their migration out-wards was much more constrained than that of their male counterparts.Hawaiians moved to British Colombia, Mexico, Europe, and the conti-nental U.S. mainland (e.g., California, Oregon, Washington, New York,Texas, Arizona, and Nevada; Office of Hawaiian Affairs, 1996).

The second wave occurred in the 1970s as multinational and foreigninvestment in the tourist industry gained momentum and the state agency,the Department of Hawaiian Homelands, failed to equitably distributehomestead lands to proven Hawaiians (many died while on the wait-ing list for land). Hawaiians continued to struggle in locating jobs andattaining homestead lands in Hawaii. In the 1990s, the third wave ofdiasporic migration by Hawaiians occurred, in response to several in-tensifying pressures, including: the soaring cost of living, the limited sup-ply of low-wage jobs, and the rising prices of homes. In addition, stateagenciesthe Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) and the Department ofHawaiian Home Lands (DHHL)had continually failed to furnishHawaiians with cultural entitlements and land rights. Homestead claimsmade by Hawaiians were denied, stalled, or not recognized. Hawaiians


14/27


353

dispersed to other spaces away from Hawaii to realize a stable, or atleast better, economic living, and to retreat from the ineffective and un-just local government and its state agencies. As of today, there are ap-

proximately 72,272 Hawaiians living off island on the continentalU.S. mainland in comparison to 138,742 Hawaiians living in Hawaii(Kauanui, 1999; Office of Hawaiian Affairs, 1996). Diasporic Hawai-ian communities have settled in northern and southern California, Wash-ington, Colorado, Florida, Arizona, Illinois, New York, Nevada, Texas,Utah, Oregon, and Virginia (Office of Hawaiian Affairs, 1996). Thesediasporic movements of Hawaiians are due in large part to the concen-tration of globalized power back at home, with the result of the dispos-session of Hawaiians. Hawaiians have reconfigured the nature of their

identity across the globe in such a way that a connection with the aina(living through the land) of Hawaii can be maintained and a claim ofindigeneity can be preserved. The Hawaiians are embroiled in a strugglefor indigenous sovereignty and find themselves imbricated in a tensediscourse that reproduces the modernist concepts of originating home-land and a return to scientific discourses of ethnicity, such as bloodpercentage (Halualani, 1998).

The Hawaiian diaspora has defined itself as against the colonial U.S.nation-state and instead in-line with the indigenous sovereign nation of

Hawaii that existed before its illegal overthrow by the U.S. in 1893. Asa displaced nation, the diasporic Hawaiian community stands in-betweena Hawaiian nationalist discourse and the racialized hierarchy of identitypositions in the U.S. As noted scholar J. Kehaulani Kaunaui (1999) states,They [diasporic Hawaiians] are off-island, but not exactly immigrants;in America but not of America and many Hawaiians refuse an Ameri-can identity. Hawaiians both on- and off-island hold U.S. citizenship,complicating the binaries between core and periphery, immigrant andindigenous (p. 685). Therein exists the primary tension of the Hawai-ian diasporic movement, which contradicts the notion of indigenouspeoples, or those who are rooted in ones ancestral land base. JamesClifford (1997) explains that

Tribal or Fourth world assertions of sovereignty and first nationhood do not feature

histories of travel and settlement, though these may be part of the indigenous historical

experience. They stress continuity of habitation, aboriginality, and often a natural

connection to the land. (p. 252)

Diasporas of indigenous peoples are framed as oppositional contra-

dictions; to be indigenous is to always be rooted in the land. To be re-moved from the land presupposes an unnatural and foreign dis-placement, or the eventual development of a Westernized (or American)


15/27

CommunicationTheory

354

identity (if the movement is to Europe or the continental U.S. main-land). How can one arguably to be of the Hawaiian nation withoutresiding on aina(land)? The tension between an at home tribal or

indigenous identity position and an away settled group, complicatesthe cultural analysis of Pacific Islander identity politics and collectivememory. Such definitional disputes and contradictions have fueled theconflicts and complex relations between on-island sovereignty move-ment groups and off-island diasporic communities. Sovereignty groupswork hard to achieve a higher number of members or citizens of a Ha-waiian nation, which is vital in pressuring the federal and local govern-ment to acknowledge their growing nation. This means that sovereigntygroups in the past were invested in upholding the fixed geographic resi-

dency definition of Hawaiians (that Hawaiians live in Hawaii) and havemarginalized diasporic members as being Americanized or haole-ified (Whitened). Diasporic Hawaiians, however, continue to appeal toa sovereign Hawaiian identity (and native rights), even though manywill never return to the land. This example illustrates that theories ofdiaspora normatively presuppose the ideal Eurocentric model of home-land and migration which presumes that (a) the nation is geographicallyseparate from diasporic sites, and (b) the politics of the diaspora is affili-ated with that of the nation. Such a model has proven to be ill equipped

in recognizing native (or land-based) diasporic groups that are geographi-cally located within the nation-state and yet seek to politically separatethemselves from the nation-state.

The Hawaiian community expresses a desire for return only if nativeland and rights are restored to Hawaiians, while also claiming that settle-ment in the continental U.S. mainland was a necessary adjustment forcultural survival in the face of colonialism and globalization at home.The notion of return takes on both symbolic and political significancefor Hawaiians who are strongly connected to a collective Hawaiianmemory of independence, pride, and land. Yet they must constantly jus-tify their migration away from Hawaii. The identity discourses fromdiasporic Hawaiians therefore seem contradictory and confusing, forthese discourses express a continuous link to Hawaii and at the sametime, a sense of permanence in their mainland homes. In fact, diasporicHawaiian communities in the West narrate a tale of Hawaiian history tothe children of the diaspora, most of whom have never been to Hawaii.This narrative includes a discussion of the early Hawaiian kingdom,with sovereign rulers, tracing to the U.S. overthrow in 1893, and thesearch for another home. Community members do not emphasizethe replacement of their homeland but instead discuss how they are newlycreating and extending it in different contexts. Home stands as a rela-tional discourse stretched across an interregional network of Hawai-


16/27


355

ians. It involves remembering the past and discursively incorporatingand making sense of the presence of diasporic Hawaiians. As manydiasporic Hawaiians state, Hawaii is not for Hawaiians anymore.

Many see their movement from home as an exercise of their politicalidentities against the U.S. nation and its arm of power, the local state.Off-island Hawaiians have therefore identified the diaspora itself asthe centralized means for preserving a cultural spirit that is suppressedat home.

In-between Diasporic Poles and Hawaiians

Taken together, these case study examples represent very different typesof diasporic politics. The Polish diaspora is defined by the Europeanmodel of nationalist politics, while the Hawaiian diaspora is definedfrom a tribal form of nationalist sovereignty that has been politicallycontained within the boundaries of U.S. governance. These different his-torical and political contexts proffer many insights about the dynamicstructures and practices of diasporic politics, including the continualpressures in forging a cultural or national identity, and relating to thehomeland or other ethnic members. However, there are also interestingsimilarities between these two cases. Diasporic Poles and Hawaiiansformed their politics and communities when their homes were colonizedby a foreign power (the relationship between the Soviet Union and Po-land has been described as colonization by diasporic communities) andmaintained the claim to the homeland from dispersed locations. DiasporicPoles continue to question political developments in sovereign Poland,which suggests that a sense of political estrangement is an importantcomponent of diasporic consciousness. Both diasporic Poles and Ha-waiians maintain nationalist and culturally fixedimages of their home-lands, although their politics of repeatedly turning back are quite differ-ent. In both cases, there are tensions between the national or land basedcommunities and diasporic imagined communities.

Our examples present a strong case for broadening the definition ofdiaspora to recognize different forms of dispersed transnational belong-ings. The changing dynamics of the Polish Western and emerging East-ern diasporas, and the Hawaiians homeland absorption by the colonialappetite of the U.S., underscore the importance of inventing a new vo-cabulary to describe relationships among dispersed and located commu-nities within their own specific conditions. Our focus on diaspora as acomplex and contradictory flow of communication across material and

symbolic borders adds an important dimension to the understanding ofdiaspora as a transnational formation. We deepen our argument as wemove to the unique structural-cultural tensions found in the flexibility


17/27

CommunicationTheory

356

of the nation-state as it enters and courts the diaspora.The statesturn towards diaspora demonstrates how the changing structural rela-tionship between the state and the diaspora influences cultural practices

and identities.The Nation Turns Towards the DiasporaTransnational and diasporic research tends to either emphasize the de-mise of the nation-state or focus on the diasporic groups identificationwith the homeland. However, we find a newly emerging type of rela-tionship between the structural and the cultural, as nation-states reachout to and court their dispersed populations. This move enables them toexpand their symbolic territory, by reaching into the countries in whichthe diasporic communities reside. Additionally, this move reinvigorates

cultural and national identifications, as the diaspora is perceived as moregenuine and loyal (Cummings, 1998; Panossian, 1998). This processsupports the state and its international political prominence. States arerepresented by their diasporic groups in other places and can interveneon behalf of their ethnic groups in the name of supporting theirminority rights.The Polish Nation-State Searches for itsForgotten DiasporaPoland has always had strong links to its Western diaspora, especially to

the U.S. Polonia that was able to provide substantial economic assis-tance to the nation. However, as the Soviet Union crumbled in 1991,Poland turned to its dispersed populations in the former Soviet repub-lics, directing funds and programs to support Polish community churchesand schools, and offering other types of financial assistance, as well asengaging in efforts to strengthen Polish culture. This new interest inPoles eastward of Polish borders was not possible before the breakup ofthe Soviet Union because it would have involved questioning post-WWIIimpositions of new borders and would have brought up critical ques-tions regarding the suppressed history of Polish and the Soviet Unionrelations. The new diasporic connections with Ukraine, Lithuania, andLatvia appeal to the lost grandeur of the Polish federation-state of the17th and 18th centuries which is nurtured in the Polish collective memory.Current acknowledgment of, and support for, Poles in Kazakhstan raisescrucial questions about the silenced history of the forcible removal ofPolish families from Eastern Poland by Soviet troops in 1944. By strate-gically reaching out to these dispersed populations, the Polish state isestablishing international relations with newly independent states of theformer Soviet republics, while at the same time asserting its indepen-dence and changing diasporic politics. Contrary to the traditional focusof diasporic politics and studies (with the exception of Israels immigra-tion politics), Poland now seeks out and acts on the behalf of its diaspora.


18/27


357

Diasporic consciousness is created jointly by the populations seekinghelp from the independent and better off-state and, in turn, by that stateseeking to strengthen its international position. The nation-state has

gained a cause on behalf of populations only recently acknowledged asPolish. This move of the Polish nation-state towards the diaspora ex-pands the geographic and historical definition of Polish national iden-tity. Interestingly, the renewed nation-state relationships with Poles inthe East found wide appeal in Polish society and were used in campaignplatforms in Poland (Snyder, 1998).

The state interests in Polish Eastern diaspora are evidenced by thecreation of a nongovernment organization, Stowarzyszenie WspolnotaPolska (the Association Wspolnota Polska, Wspolnota means common-

wealth or collectivity, hereafter AWP) financed by the Polish govern-ment in 1990. AWP has 27 regional branches throughout Poland, eachwith independent programs directed towards specific regions connectedto Poland through historic patterns of migration or physical proximity.The goal of AWP is to unite efforts in strengthening ties between Poloniaand Poles living beyond the borders of the Motherland, her languageand her culture, and bringing aid to satisfy various needs of Compatri-ots dispersed throughout the world (Stowarzyszenie Wspolnota Polska,2000). Remarkably, the activities of AWP are based on three postulates,

singleness[italics added] of Polish culture, singleness[italics added] ofeducation, and the defense of rights of our compatriots (Stelmachowski,2000, p. 2). AWP supports and facilitates repatriation, provides aid, andsponsors cultural festivals and other activities. Among other issues, AWPsupports the project Karta Polaka (Poles Card or Poles ID) that seeks toidentify those of Polish origin who for one reason or another do nothave Polish citizenship. The card would entitle its holders to the socialbenefits available to citizens and would substitute for a Polish visa whereone is necessary. This idea recognizes that historical processes involun-tarily left Poles without Polish citizenship and outside Poland, and itgrants them przywilej ojczyzniany (Fatherlands privilege;Stelmachowski, 2000, p. 8). The monthly bulletin of AWP also containsreports from diasporic locations and regional branches. Many texts ex-press sentiments that the government is not doing enough for the dis-persed Poles who have been neglected for so long. These sentiments tes-tify to the impatience of dispersed Poles who want to benefit from moreopen international relations in areas such as the recent economic boomin Poland. The politics and activities of AWP are an important exampleof the broadening definition of who is Polish, who is entitled to nation-state benefits, and where Polishness is located. The programmatic pos-tulate of single Polish culture connecting the nation-state and diasporiclocations creates a national geography that is both fragmented and cen-


19/27

CommunicationTheory

358

tralized. Nation, culture, identity, and borders no longer coincide. Yet itis Poland, in its national and geographic borders, that are reinforced asthe legitimate and authentic center of both national and cultural identity.

Poland also recently began enforcing its citizenship and passport laws,which require every Polish citizen to use a Polish passport when crossingPolish borders, even if this person is also a citizen of another country.Poland does not recognize, although does not forbid, double citizenship.Polish citizenship is based on bloodlines, thus someone born in the U.S.of parents holding Polish citizenship is considered a Polish citizen, un-less this person formally renounces Polish citizenship. The new law wasmet with outrage from U.S. Poles, who enjoy double citizenship, andmight vote in Polish elections while living permanently in the U.S., but

want the privilege of the U.S. passport when crossing borders. Underpressure, the Polish government is currently modifying its passport laws.Passports and double citizenship, not recognized but not banned by ei-ther Poland or the U.S., are powerful examples of diasporic positionalitiesand negotiations. Passports are structural elements that legalize rela-tionships between individuals and states. Those individuals who havedouble citizenship are freer in their travels to Poland, their purchase ofproperty, and their use of voting and other rights. These structural di-mensions facilitate development of stronger cultural ties. This example

demonstrates that it is necessary to analyze how nation-states defineand engage with their dispersed populations, and how they promotethe national culture. Attention should be directed at how and what spe-cific cultural practices, knowledges, myths, and memories are strategi-cally promoted by the nation-state and how they reestablish their roles.State Intrusions on the Hawaiian Diaspora

Beginning in the 1990s, both the U.S. nation-state (via pro-Hawaiianstate agencies) and the sovereignty movement collectives became moremobile and flexible, both moving into diasporic Hawaiian territory. Asmore and more Hawaiians migrated away from Hawaii, state agen-ciesthe OHA and the DHLLundergirded by federal power, attachedonto the burgeoning Hawaiian social civic clubs which were developingacross the U.S. mainland. Local State of Hawaii agency representativesattended annual festival events and membership meetings, while DHLLrepresentatives began to conduct workshops on the mainland to instructdiasporic Hawaiians and their families on how to complete the Hawai-ian homestead lease application. Such an adaptive move immediatelyfollowed the period in 1994 when Hawaiians were finally granted vot-ing rights (through the criteria of being ethnic Hawaiians) by state-spon-sored councils for the Hawaiian Sovereignty Vote, or the referendum tovote on whether or not Hawaii should be its own sovereign nation. Theestablishment of relationships between local State of Hawaii agencies


20/27


359

and mainland Hawaiian civic clubs serve as strategic and necessary meansfor tapping into a growing interregional network of Hawaiians whosenumbers, votes, and political participation officially counted and im-

pacted political decisions at home.Such a shift in the conceptualization of diasporic Hawaiians frombeing foreign outsiders to newly located insiders with a claim to all thingsHawaiian, speaks to the changing diasporic politics. The mainland civicclubs, which formerly carried a social focus, now operate within thereformist status quo structure of local Hawaii state agencies. These groupsseek to promote and assist the agendas of the state-funded OHA and theDHLL, which to date fails to award Hawaiian homestead land leases toa majority of its applicants. State agencies have even requested perma-

nent mainland branches to serve mainland Hawaiians. This type ofmobility on the part of national and state powers illustrates that thenation-state makes flexible accommodations to reconsolidate a dispersedgroup for political and economic gain. This shows that the notion ofmobility must be politically situated. In response to the mobility of thenation-state, many diasporic Hawaiians have left the civic clubs or refuseto join any mainland Hawaiian organization because of a widely sharedperception that the unjust and corrupt state influences have entered themainland as well. According to one interviewee (Halualani, in press),

the state has got its claws over here in the mainland too . . . the politicalrefuge is gone. Diasporic community mobilization has become difficultas many mainland Hawaiians withdraw and separate themselves fromformal organizations and as diasporic Hawaiians gather within privatefamily structures as opposed to public community organizations(Halualani, 1998; in press). Moreover, mainland Hawaiians face the lib-eralized abstraction of nativism that makes all state residents of HawaiiHawaiians, as well as the lingering delegitimization of diasporic Ha-waiians and the recent state encroachment upon diasporic sites. In re-sponse to these challenges, mainland Hawaiians have co-opted and madeuse of blood quantum discourses as a means to authenticate their ownidentities and to recapture the native authority long denied them by fed-eral and state governments.

Hawaiian nationalist sovereignty movement groups have also enteredthe diaspora. Throughout the 1980s and the 1990s, sovereignty groupsdistanced themselves from diasporic Hawaiians. They did so because ofthe pressure to increase the number count of on-island Hawaiians, whichcan legitimize the reality of a growing sovereign nation (a recognizedindependent nation with its own governance and one that can negotiatewith the U.S. nation).However, in the late 1990s, the Hawaiian NationInformation Group of Northern California and the Northern Council ofHui Naauao, Ka Lahui Hawaii(by far the most vocal sovereignty col-


21/27

CommunicationTheory

360

lective), created eight chapters throughout the U.S. mainland, which re-quired a major rehauling of the groups rhetoric towards diasporic Ha-waiians. The once castigated Americanized mainland Hawaiian rep-

resented instead a valuable resource for nationalist groups to increasetheir membership and political power. Mainland nationalist groups foughthard for their identities to be acknowledged by at-home nationalistbranches. Finally, in 1995, Ka Lahui Hawaii representatives passed aresolution to include diasporic Hawaiians in the elections process. Thishas changed the status of mainland Hawaiians, and the agenda of sover-eign nationalism has been expanded to include the question, Who isasking to govern whom and from what distance? (Kauanui, 1999).The Hawaiian diaspora holds several displaced nationalist communities

who debate with nationalist factions at home about the extent to whichthey can participate in the sovereignty process and actively contribute tothe larger sovereignty struggle through increasing general membership,raising funds, educating mainland Hawaiians and non-Hawaiians, andcreating strategic alliances with other native diasporic groups (Kauanui,1999). It is still unclear how these shifts will impact the sovereigntystruggle as a whole and the degree to which off-island Hawaiians willbe incorporated into the nationalist visions at home. In light of the U.S.Census 2000 results, in which Hawaiians were designated their own

ethnic category, state and sovereignty structures will continue to speakto the Hawaiian diaspora as the increasing numbers of Hawaiians acrossthe U.S. continental mainland are verified.

As political pressures mount for the Polish state and the U.S. state ofHawaii, the diaspora will continue to be the site of national mobility,political support, and economic opportunity. State structures, therefore,prove to be both geographically fixed and fully mobile, which highlightsthe power of a dynamic nation-state structure and its continually adapt-ing moves in-line with migrations, identity negotiations, and collectivememory. The state strategically renews its strength through diasporas,refusing to give in to globalizing pressures. The Hawaiian and Polishdiasporas thus face the challenge of reinventing their identities to speakto the specific political moment at hand. These two case studiesdemonstrate that diasporic communities have different responses to stateefforts to incorporate them and place different demands on their home-lands. Consequently, it is necessary to examine how diasporic subjectivitiesare rearticulated in negotiations between diasporas and state structures.

ImplicationsDiaspora theories are undergoing change to fit shifting conditions andthis essay provides some theoretical directions for future diaspora stud-ies. Our discussion of Polish and Hawaiian diasporic politics highlights


22/27


361

theoretical gaps in the larger realm of diaspora and postcolonial studies.First, as demonstrated by the complex configuration of the Hawaiiandiaspora, it is necessary to reconsider the definition of diaspora. Schol-

ars note that diasporas are no longer simply defined by their forcibleremoval from the homeland and the desire for return. Indeed, manydiasporas have become embedded in their present homes and turn totheir remembered homelands as a strategy of searching for roots andenacting specific cultural identities (Fortier, 1998; Panagakos, 1998).However, it is important not to fall into the extreme of identifying anydisplacement as a diasporic displacement, or any im/migrant group asdiasporic. The structural-cultural dialectic suggests that the structuralcondition of displacement and the structural relationship between the

displaced groups and the nation-state are the defining characteristics ofdiaspora. As the Hawaiian case suggests, diasporas may be displacedfrom the homeland by the subsuming nation-state. The Polish Easterndiaspora case suggests that the displacement may occur by the state re-treating from its borders under pressure, in this case, Yalta agreementsand the USSR. Additionally, the post-WWII Polish Western diasporasuggests that displacement may become an element of a groups con-sciousness and identity even though the political and material condi-tions no longer support it. However, that consciousness could also be

heightened by international relations, for example, the cold war. Thenotion of displacement requires further examination.Diaspora studiesstill need to consider hard-to-classify indigenous land-based groups, suchas Native Americans and Pacific Islanders whose identity claims andhistorical memories are based on principles of indigeneity and therootedness of land (Clifford, 1997). Thus, although we need to retainthe notion of displacement as a defining structural, material, and politi-cal condition in diaspora, it is also necessary to broaden the notion ofdisplacement beyond the overly restrictive notion of forced dispersion.

Second, we can also no longer frame the nation-state and its diasporicsettlements through the commonly reproduced center-margins mantra.Indeed, the homeland is no longer simply a nation-state. Nor can weassume that the nation-state, which proved to be quite vibrant in differ-ent mobile forms in both the Polish and Hawaiian diasporas, is dead orinsignificant.As nation-states struggle to cope with undermining pres-sures of globalization, they reassert themselves by courting and claimingsometimes forgotten, and sometimes strategically ignored, dispersedgroups. Such groups become an important resource as nation-states canact on their behalf in their international politics. These connections arereinvented through specific strategies that reestablish the presence of,for example, Polish culture in Belarus. In this context, the state interestschange the symbolic means and cultural practices through which identi-


23/27

CommunicationTheory

362

ties are expressed. Libraries, schools, and museums are funded and es-tablished, and children are invited to summer camps in the homeland.These relationships are developed in specific economic conditions. For

example, in case of Polish Eastern diaspora, the impoverished Polishcommunities in former Soviet republics not only welcome state inter-ests, they seek them out and demand more. The examination and theo-rization of diasporas necessitates consideration of how economic condi-tions shape the negotiations between nation-states and dispersed groups.Thus, the changing structural conditionsglobalization and reassertionof the nation-stateinfluence cultural practices by recentering the na-tion-state or homeland as the locus of authentic culture and identity.

Our Hawaiian case study presents a different problematic for diaspora

studies. Hawaiian diasporic communities are growing increasingly sus-picious of the encroaching presence of the state in their public commu-nity forums. As such, they have withdrawn from diasporic public out-lets and, instead, retreated into private networks of diasporic Hawaiianfamilies. The intrusion of the nation-state in the Hawaiian diaspora posesa challenge for the continued mobilization and unification of the diasporicHawaiian community, since many diasporic Hawaiians continue to sepa-rate themselves from any public Hawaiian activity or group on the main-land. Will diasporic Hawaiians sever all ties from their counterparts at

home for fear that the state has contaminated all aspects of collectivememory and community life? What does this mean for diasporic com-munity relations with the homeland and the process of constructing theircultural, ethnic, and national identity? Such state flexibility and mobil-ity problematize diasporic community formation and identity.

Consequently, diaspora theories need to rigorously account for thepractice of nationalism, and the role of the nation in diasporic identifi-cation. In addition, such theories should analyze the role of the nation invarious transnational practices, new forms of citizenship, and appeals totransnational rights. It is imperative to examine how diasporic groupsredefine the nature of national communities by resorting totransnationally legitimated rights, for example, acting on double citi-zenship, employing national myths, and utilizing their economic statusto exert influence over governments at home. Conversely, while we shouldbe careful not to overestimate and assume a priori the fundamental roleof the nation in diasporic identification, it is necessary to interrogaterhetorical and discursive strategies used by the nation-state to recreateconnections with its diasporic groups. We need to ask what purposessuch reconnections serve on the international-level and what politicalrole they play in the proliferation of ethnic identities for the diasporiccommunity and the nation-state. Conceptualizing the diasporic identi-ties of groups and their political relations with the homeland in terms of


24/27


363

the dialectic of structural and cultural tensions therefore necessitates thecontinual development of a broader, yet structurally focused, theoreticalframework informed by critical case studies of diverse contexts.

Third, diasporic identity and politics have to be analyzed by address-ing both sides of the structural-cultural dialectic. Communication schol-ars have tended to either focus on textual aspects of identity formation,or have overlooked the complex processes through which identities arecreated by using predetermined categories. This essay has argued that itis necessary to develop theoretical concepts and methods to address thesymbolic and creative aspects of identity narratives and cultural prac-tices, and to situate them within enabling and constraining structuraldimensions such as the nation-state. Discourses emanating from a par-

ticular diasporic group have to be analyzed in the context of: (a) dis-courses produced by the political organs of the defining nation-state, (b)the specific political situation of that nation-state in its relationship tothe current site of settlement as well as other states, and (c) economicconditions. The structural-cultural dialectic turns our attention to thedeep interplay between material and political structures which imposelimitations and parameters on human agency and subjectivity, on theone hand, and the active way of negotiating meaning and positionalitywithin those structures, on the other. This requires that we take seri-

ously Deetzs (1992) call to examine communication within social, po-litical, and importantly, economic and legal structures.Fourth, it is necessary to tease out specific strategies that groups use

to establish their identities without collapsing them as being essentialistor romantically celebrating fluidity and hybridity. This objectiverequires a careful longitudinal understanding of the nation-state anddiaspora processes in order to gain insight into national(istic) system ofrepresentation, and the particular investments that are made in the na-tional symbols. The construction of subjectivity within the forces of glo-balization, flexible capital, mobile or accommodating governmental struc-tures or national powers, and the migration of cultural groups to mul-tiple settlement sites proves to be uncertain, unstable, and blurred. Thus,diaspora studies, critical, and rhetorical studies can explore further therhetorical discourses surrounding diasporic groups in relation to nation-based governmental entities and the differential and contested forma-tions of nation and community. Groups reinvent their identity by collec-tively reconstructing their past and carrying cultural memories. Exami-nations of diasporic identities and relations require that communicationscholars attend to conflicted, contested, and multiple histories whichstruggle for meaning within selective remembering and forgetting (Hasian& Frank, 1999). Thus, scholars need to continually rethink relation-ships between cultures, ethnicities, borders, and forms of belonging. The


25/27

CommunicationTheory

364

content of being Polish or Hawaiian is heterogeneous and frac-tured between its different locations, and subject to rhetorical appeals,with some being based on dominant (exclusionary) modernist claims of

ethnic nationalism. As groups move and migrate across and betweenborders, nations, and varied political terrain, they substantially recon-stitute and reorganize their cultural and communication practices byrenewing and restructuring traditional cultural practices to fit new cir-cumstances and needs. Moreover, dynamic global and political condi-tions increase the heterogeneity and internal tensions in settled groupsand communities. This also generates additional levels and circuits ofcommunication within homelands as well as other communities.

Lastly, our discussion also has implications for communication stud-

ies, namely intercultural communication. Understanding group identi-ties through the structural-cultural dialectic enables us to move beyondthe predominant conceptualization within intercultural communicationthat cultural identity is firmly fastened to a specific geographic place ornation. Moreover, analyzing diasporic politics impels intercultural com-munication researchers to reenter studies on identity and immigration.Diasporic politics provide an important perspective on the dynamic ex-periences and identities of im/migrants which is different from the theo-retical focus on cross-cultural adaptation and immigrant models, or the

process of modernizing adaptation and adjustment among migrantsin host countries (see for example Kim, 1977; Kim & Gudykunst, 1988).Specifically, diasporic members may invoke their new homeland envi-ronment through their specific cultural framework and a preserved collec-tive memory, rather than discarding their original culture and assimi-lating. The challenge now is to explore how culture and culturalidentity have incorporated globalized change and become a shiftingdynamic field that refuses geographic specificity yet remembers a cul-tural past while also addressing the nation. This also points to the dy-namic possibilities for agency and identity in the diasporic context. In apowerful fashion, migratory communities recycle and resignify nation-alistic symbols and terms to simultaneously prove ethnic or nationalloyalty to a homeland government and reimagine their community in anew context.

Jolanta A. Drzewiecka (Ph.D., Arizona State University) is an assistant professor of communicationstudies in the Edward R. Murrow School of Communication at Washington State University. Hermain interests revolve around immigrant identity, intergroup relations, transnational studies, anddiasporic politics. Rona Tamiko Halualani (Ph.D., Arizona State University) is an assistant profes-

sor of language, culture, ethnography, and intercultural communication in the CommunicationStudies Department at San Jose State University. Her main interests involve cultural studies, eth-nography, culture, identity, and speaking practices, as well as Pacific Studies, Asian Pacific Ameri-can Studies, globalization, diaspora, and transnational studies. We would like to express thanks toRaka Shome and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.

Authors


26/27


365

Anzalda, G. (1987). Borderlands/la frontera: The new mestiza.San Francisco: Spinsters/Aunt Lute.Appadurai, A. (1990). Disjuncture and difference in the global cultural economy. Public Culture, 2,124.Barman, J. (1995). New land, new lives: Hawaiian settlement in British Colombia. The Hawaiian

Journal of History, 29,132.Bhabha, H. K. (1990). The location of culture.New York: Routledge.Blejwas, S. A. (1996). Polska Ludowa i Polonia amerykanska, 19441956 [Polish Peoples Repub-

lic and American Polonia]. Przeglad Polonijny, 22,942.Castells, M. (1996). The rise of the network society.Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.Clifford, J. (1994). Diasporas. Cultural Anthropology, 9,302338.Clifford, J. (1997). Diasporas. In J. C. Clifford (Ed.), Routes: Travel and translation in the late

twentieth century(pp. 244278). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Cummings, S. N. (1998). The Kazakhs: Demographics, diasporas, and return. In C. King & J.

Melvin (Eds.), Nations abroad: Diaspora politics and international relations in the former So-viet Union(pp. 133152). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

de los Angeles Torres, M. (1995). Encuentros y encontronazos: Homeland politics and the identityof Cuban diaspora. Diaspora, 4,21138.

Deetz, S. A. (1992). Democracy in an age of corporate colonization: Developments in communica-

tion and the politics of everyday life.Albany: State University of New York Press.Dirlik, A. (1990). Culturalism as hegemonic ideology and liberating practice. In A. J. Mohammed& D. Lloyd (Eds.), The nature and context of minority discourse(pp. 394431). New York:Oxford University Press.

Fortier, A. (1998). The politics of Italians abroad: Nation, diaspora, and new geographies ofidentity. Diaspora, 7,197224.

Giddens, A. (1990). The consequences of modernity.Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Gilroy, P. (1989). There aint no Black in the Union Jack.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Gilroy, P. (1992). The Black Atlantic: Modernity and double consciousness.Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.Gilroy, P. (1993). Small acts: Thoughts on the politics of Black cultures.London: Serpents Tail.Grossberg, L. (1993). Cultural studies and/in new worlds. Critical Studies in Mass Communica-

tion, 10,122.

Hall, S. (1990). Cultural identity and diaspora. In J. Rutherford (Ed.), Identity: Community, cul-ture, difference(pp. 222237). London: Lawrence and Wishart.

Halualani, R. T. (1998). Communicatively signifying identity positions by, for, and in the nameof Hawaiians: A cultural studies project.Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Arizona StateUniversity, Phoenix.

Halualani, R. T. (2000). Rethinking ethnicity as structural-cultural project(s): Notes on the inter-face between cultural studies and intercultural communication. International Journal of Inter-cultural Relations, 24,579602.

Halualani, R. T. (in press). In the name of Hawaiians: Native identities and cultural politics.Min-neapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Harvey, D. (1989). The condition of postmodernity.Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.Hasian, M., Jr., & Frank, R. E. (1999). Rhetoric, history, and collective memory: Decoding the

Goldhagen debates. Western Journal of Communication, 63,95114.Hegde, R. S. (1998). A view from elsewhere: Locating difference and the politics of representation

from a transnational feminist perspective. Communication Theory, 8,271297.Hitch, T. (1991). Islands in transition: The past, present, and future of Hawaiis economy.Hono-

lulu, HI: First Hawaiian Bank.Ii, J. P. (1959). Fragments of Hawaiian history. (M. K. Pukui, Trans.). Honolulu, HI: Bishop

Museum Press.Jacobson, M. F. (1995). Special sorrows: The diasporic imagination of Irish, Polish, and Jewish

immigrants in the United States.Cambridge, MA: Harvard Universtiy Press.Jaroszynska-Kirchmann, A. D. (1996). Displaced persons, migrs, refugees, and other Polish immi-

grants: World War II through the solidarity era. In J. J. Bukowczyk (Ed.), Polish Americans and theirhistory: Community, culture and politics(pp. 152179). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Kameeleihiwa, L. (1992). Native land and foreign desires: Pehea la e pono ai? Honolulu, HI:

Bishop Museum Press.Kauanui, J. K. (1999). Off-island Hawaiians making ourselves at home: A [gendered] contradic-

tion in terms? Womens Studies International Forum, 21,681693.Kim, Y. (1977). Communication patterns of foreign immigrants in the process of acculturation.

Human Communication Research, 4,6677.

References


27/27

CommunicationTheory

Kim, Y., & Gudykunst, W. (Eds.). (1988). Cross-cultural adaptation: Current theory and research.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

King, C. (1998). Introduction: Nationalism, transnationalism, and postcommunism. In C. King &N. J. Melvin (Eds.), Nations abroad: Diaspora politics and international relations in the formerSoviet Union(pp. 126). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Kosman, M. (1998). Refleksje nad wschodnia granica Polski [Reflections on the Polish easternborder]. Przeglad Zachodni, 2,127.

Kraidy, M. M. (1999). The global, the local, the hybrid: A native ethnography of globalization.Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 16,456476.

Kukalewska, N. (2000). Polacy na Lotwie [Poles in Latvia]. Przeglad Zachodni, 4,171180.Kwasniewski, K. (1999). Polskie kresy wschodnie [Polish eastern borderlands]. Przeglad

Zachodni, 3,128.Lavie, S., & Swedenburg, T. (1996). Introduction: Displacement, diaspora, and geographies of

identity. In S. Lavie & T. Swedenburg (Eds.), Displacement, diaspora, and geographies of iden-tity(pp. 125). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Lopata, H. Z. (1994). Polish Americans.New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.MacKenzie, M. A. (1991). Native Hawaiian rights handbook.Honolulu, HI: Native Hawaiian

Legal Corporation and Office of Hawaiian Affairs.Malo, D. (1951). Hawaiian antiquities.(N. B. Emerson, Trans.). Honolulu, HI: Bishop MuseumPress.(Original work published 1898)

Offe, C. (1985). Disorganized capitalism.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Office of Hawaiian Affairs. (1996). Native Hawaiian data book.Honolulu, HI: Office of Hawai-

ian Affairs Research Study.Ong, A. (1999). Flexible citizenship: The cultural logics of transnationality. Durham, NC: Duke

University Press.Panagakos, A. N. (1998). Citizens of the trans-nation: Political mobilization, multiculturalism, and

nationalism in the Greek diaspora. Diaspora, 7,5373.Panossian, R. (1998). The Armenians: Conflicting identities and the politics of division. In C. King

& N. J. Melvin (Eds.), Nations abroad: Diaspora politics and international relations in theformer Soviet Union(pp. 79102). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Portes, A., & Rumbaut, R. G. (1996). Immigrant America: A portrait(2nd ed.). Berkeley: Univer-sity of California Press.

Rouse, R. (1991). Mexican migration and the social space of postmodernism. Diaspora, 1,823.Safran, W. (1991). Diasporas in modern societies: Myths of homeland and return. Diaspora, 1, 8399.Said, E. (1978). Orientalism. New York: Random House.Said, E. (1993). Culture and imperialism. New York: Alfred Knopf.Shome, R. (1996). Postcolonial interventions in the rhetorical canon: An other view. Communi-

cation Theory, 6, 4059.Snyder, T. (1998). The Poles: Western aspirations, eastern minorities. In C. King & N. J. Melvin

(Eds.), Nations abroad: Diaspora politics and international relations in the former Soviet Union(pp. 179208). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Stelmachowski, A. (2000). 10 lat Wspolnoty Polskiej. Biuletyn Stowarzyszenia WspolnotaPolska, 10,112.

Stowarzyszenie Wspolnota Polska. Retrieved October 1, 2000, from: http://www.wspolnota-polska.org

Tllyan, K. (1996). Rethinking diaspora(s): Stateless power in the transnational moment.Diaspora, 5, 336.

Wong, K. (1998). Migration across generations: Whose identity is authentic? In J. N. Martin, T. K.Nakayama, & L. A. Flores (Eds.), Readings in cultural contexts(pp. 127134). Mountain View,CA: Mayfield.

Wright, P. (1983). Ethnic difference in the outmigration of local born residents from Hawaii. SocialProcesses in Hawaii, 30,731750.

the structural culture dialectic of diasporic politics

Documents