This article was downloaded by: [TBTAK EKUAL] On: 1 March 2011 Access details: Access Details: [subscription

number 772815468] Publisher Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 3741 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t792306870

Understanding the Anthropology of Immigration and Migration

Elizabeth Horevitza a School of Social Welfare, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, California

To cite this Article Horevitz, Elizabeth(2009) 'Understanding the Anthropology of Immigration and Migration', Journal of

Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 19: 6, 745 758 To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/10911350902910914 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10911350902910914

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 19:745758, 2009 Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1091-1359 print/1540-3556 online DOI: 10.1080/10911350902910914

Understanding the Anthropology of Immigration and Migration

ELIZABETH HOREVITZ
School of Social Welfare, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, California

Downloaded By: [TBTAK EKUAL] At: 12:53 1 March 2011

This literature review features the main theoretical frameworks from which modern anthropological immigration and migration studies have been conducted. It was not until the 1950s and 1960s that immigration/migration became a high-priority area for anthropologists when they noted the high rate of rural-tourban migration, particularly in Africa and Latin America. In featuring the processes of immigration and migration, this review highlights the major neo-classical theories related to dependency, world systems, and articulation and the transnational theories related to diaspora, border, and feminist perspectives. Anthropologists have made significant contributions to the interdisciplinary field of migration studies. The review concludes with implications for understanding human behavior and the social environment within the context of immigration and migration. KEYWORDS Anthropology, dependency theory, migration theory, modernization, theories of immigration, transnational theory

INTRODUCTION
In the past two decades, several prominent explanatory theories of immigration have emerged, among them transnational theory, modernization theory, dependency theory, and world systems theory. These theories have been shaped, molded, revised, and implemented by a multitude of disciplines in an attempt to explain the movement of people within and across borders. Utilizing these theories, sociologists, anthropologists, geographers, and political economists alike have contributed to our current theoretical understanding of immigration. Indeed, the nascent field of migration studies itself has become increasingly interdisciplinary (Foner, 2003).
Address correspondence to Elizabeth Horevitz, School of Social Welfare, University of California, Berkeley, 120 Haviland Hall, Berkeley, CA 94720. E-mail: ehorevitz@berkeley.edu 745

746

E. Horevitz

Downloaded By: [TBTAK EKUAL] At: 12:53 1 March 2011

Although anthropologists have important theoretical contributions to the study of immigration, particularly the theory of transnationalism (Glick Shiller, Basch, & Blanc-Szanton, 1992; Foner, 2003; Kivisto, 2001), migration studies need to be understood as an interdisciplinary field: The next generation of anthropological studies of immigration will be increasingly required to reckon systematically with the approaches and findings of our colleagues in allied disciplines and to continue making a case for the unique perspectives emerging from the ethnographic process (Surez-Orozco, 2003, p. 55). Despite the inter-disciplinary nature of immigration theory, it is important to explore and distinguish the lens through which anthropologists study and understand migration. Indeed, there have been several attempts to summarize anthropological theories of immigration and migration as the discipline itself has begun to own and expand its role in immigration-migration studies (Foner, 2003; Brettell & Hollifield, 2000; Kearney, 1995). Instead of simply restating these well-formulated reviews, this brief literature review synthesizes them along with new theories (e.g., Kearneys border and CLASS theory) and the critiques that have emerged subsequent to their publication. This review features the main theoretical frameworks from which modern anthropological immigration-migration studies have been conducted (after WWII and, generally, in terms of migration to the United States from outside countries). Additional attention is given to transnational theory because of its prominence within the literature.

METHODS
Literature for this review was identified by searching several core anthropological electronic databases: Anthropology Plus and AnthroSource and Google Scholar. The search terms included such keywords as anthropology, anthro*, and theory along with immigration, migration, immigr*, and migra*. Truncated words were used in an attempt to expand search results. Because of the interdisciplinary nature of migration studies, it proved difficult to distinguish anthropological theories of immigration from other social sciences. Search results did point to several reviews of anthropological theories of immigration (Brettell, 2000; Foner, 2003; Kearney, 1994), which were helpful not only in framing the history of anthropologys contributions to the field but in providing extensive bibliographies. These references were reviewed and ultimately led to the identification of additional relevant materials. Although the initial search focused on peer-reviewed articles, a search on Google Scholar led to the identification of several prominent books on immigration-migration research (Foner, 2003; Foner, Rumbaut, & Gold, 2003).

Anthropology of Immigration and Migration

747

Downloaded By: [TBTAK EKUAL] At: 12:53 1 March 2011

This brief literature review has several limitations: (a) immigrationmigration studies is an interdisciplinary field, (b) sociological and anthropological contributions to the field of immigration-migration studies are often inextricably linked and difficult to distinguish, (c) the limited scope of this review did not allow for a comprehensive review of ethnographic research, (d) this review is limited to those articles and books that focused primarily on theory despite the lack of distinction between the theories discussed by different social science disciplines, and (e) a brief overview of the most prominent theories of immigration-migration does not constitute a comprehensive review of all theories in the field. The theories discussed in this review were selected because of their prominence in the literature search and their being frequently cited in previous reviews (for example, modernization theory was discussed in several of the theory reviews, whereas step-wise migration theory was mentioned in only one or two and, therefore, excluded). An argument could be made for the addition of other prominent immigration-migration theories such as assimilation theory, but because it was not mentioned as a specific anthropological theory, it was excluded. This is a major limitation of trying to dissect an interdisciplinary field by discipline and should be taken into consideration when attempting to understand anthropological theories of immigration.

ANTHROPOLOGICAL THEORIES OF MIGRATION

Historically, anthropologists have focused their research abroad, conducting their fieldwork within foreign communities under the broad assumption that communities and culture were bound by place. As Brettell (2000) notes in her review of anthropologys contributions to migration theory, although anthropologists had been aware of immigration as a phenomenon, it was not until the 1950s and 1960s that immigration-migration became a high-priority area for anthropologists. During this time, in their fieldwork abroad (particularly in Africa and Latin America), anthropologists could not ignore the high rate of rural-to-urban migration. Consequently, anthropologists started looking at migration as a phenomenon that not only affected the communities they studied but comprised an integral part of their identities. The migration process represented a culture that needed to be studied in its own right. Within the general context of globalization, there have been three main areas of contention for anthropologists in their study of immigration: theory, unit of analysis, and typology (Brettel, 2000; Kearney, 1994). Though some attention is given to the changing consensus over the unit of analysis and typology with respect to migration, the primary focus is on their role within the changing and emerging theories of migration. In terms of theorizing about the movement of people, anthropology locates its analysis within the context of the forces and consequences of

748

E. Horevitz

globalization (Surez-Orozco, 2003, p. 53). Historically, anthropologists have focused their work on understanding how, why, and where people migrate and, as Brettell notes,
For anthropology, a discipline sensitive to place but also comparative in its perspective, these questions have focused less on the broad scope of migration flows than on the articulation between the place whence a migrant originates and the place or places to which he or she goes. (2000, p. 98)

One initial question related to terminology needs to be addressed: Why migration rather than immigration? According to Nancy Foner (2003), the choice of the term migration rather than immigration suggests an understanding and theoretical framework of impermanence of movement of people. That is to say, anthropologists understand immigration as a state of permanence (an immigrant is someone who moves to a host community permanently) whereas a migrant is someone who may move back and forth between his or her home community and one or more host communities (Suarez-Orozco, p. 55). However, the terms immigrant and migrant, despite their distinct epistemologies, are often used interchangeably. For example, various articles in the academic literature refer to the phenomenon of transnational migration and others to transnational immigrationboth referring to peoples who maintain strong ties with their home communities, often blurring the line between the very idea of migrant versus immigrant. As such, this review used, unless specified, the term immigrationmigration to indicate the general phenomenon around which the major theories are based. Another definitional issue related to those who immigrate-migrate is that of the sojourner in contrast to settler. According to Saurez-Orozco (2003), sojourners represent another pattern of labor flow in which temporality defines immigration. They are the many immigrants who move for well-defined periods of time, often following a seasonal cycle, and eventually return home. (p. 55). Studies of immigrants, migrants, sojourners, and refugees all appear in the literature surrounding immigration-migration; however, the majority of theories have been formulated around processes of immigration and migration.

Downloaded By: [TBTAK EKUAL] At: 12:53 1 March 2011

Old Versus New: Problematizing a Phenomenon

In general, anthropological theories of the movement of peoples across and within borders are situated in the context of capitalism and globalization, and these global phenomena are seen as the main cause of the surge of new immigrants who tend to move back and forth between borders, or to multiple locations (Foner, 2003).

Anthropology of Immigration and Migration

749

Anthropologists distinguish between the old immigration of the past (also known as the Great Transatlantic Migration), defined as from the 1890s and 1910s, and the new immigration that began to appear as a result of globalization. The 1960s and 1970s saw a rising number of trade agreements between the United States and other, mostly third-world countries and a consequential shift in the places from which people migrated and thus, heightened public and academic concern with migration in both sending and receiving areas has been the result (Kearney, 1986, p. 332). Thus, the majority of theoretical frameworks have emerged subsequent to the recognition of this new immigration as a phenomenon. In his piece on migration theory, Zolberg compares and contrasts old versus new migration as follows:
One of the sharpest contrasts between the old and new literatures is the conceptual shift from a view of ordinary international migration as the aggregate movements of individuals in response to differential opportunities, to a view of this process as a movement of workers propelled by the dynamics of the transnational capitalist economy, which simultaneously determine both the push and the pull. (Zohlberg, 1980, pp. 406407)

Downloaded By: [TBTAK EKUAL] At: 12:53 1 March 2011

Anthropologists see two general sub-groups of these new immigrantsmigrants. One group consists of highly-educated immigrants-migrants (mostly from Asia or Western Europe) who may hold doctorate degrees, and who tend to insert themselves into the tech industry. The second group consists of large numbers of poor immigrants-migrants from third world countries, in particular Latin America, with low levels of education who end up in low-paying jobs that often lack insurance and basic safeties. Unlike the lowskilled factory jobs of yesterday, the kinds of jobs usually available to lowskilled immigrants today do not hold much realistic promise for upward mobility (Portes, 1997; Suarez-Orozco, 2003). Irrespective of which group is studied, the great majority of theories point to globalization and market forces as the primary players in migration (Zohlberg, 1989).

From Neoclassical to Articulation Theory

Kearney (1994) was one of the first to summarize anthropological theories of migration by describing the history of three main phases of immigration theory: modernization theory, dependency theory, and articulation theory. Modernization theory emerged in the 1960s and was rooted in a synthesis of anthropological and sociological models of social change and neoclassical economics, all of which have exercised strong influences on migration theory (and in a) Victorian sense of history and development (Kearney, 1994, p. 333). Migration was conceptualized as rural to urban, or the folk-urban continuum, and seen as a positive phenomenon that would help the process

750

E. Horevitz

of modernization. In essence, migrants were seen as progressive types who would have a positive impact on development by bringing back to their home communities innovations and knowledge that would break down traditionalism (Kearney, 1994, p. 333). Brettell (2000) succinctly summarizes modernization theory as follows:
Modernization theory was a bipolar framework for analysis that separated and opposed sending and receiving areas, and the push factors of out migration and the pull factors of in-migration : : : anthropologists working with in a modernization theory framework have emphasized the rational and progressive economic decisions made in response to differentials in land, labor, and capital between where a migrant lives and the locale to which he or she has chosen to migrate. (p. 102)

In essence, the principle unit of analysis was the individual. Migration was seen as a process elected by individuals who wished to move away from the traditional backward countryside and move to the modern city with its improved labor market (Kearney, 1994). Ultimately, the influence of neoclassical economic theory saw international migration as a result of a cost-benefit decision on the part of the individual migrant (Massey, Arango, Kouaouci, & Taylor, 1994). This movement would result in a more equitable balance between resources and population pressure and the ultimate elimination of differences between rural-agrarian and urban-industrial areas (Brettell, 2000, p. 103). In the 1970s, Latin American anthropologists and economists began to recognize that development had not proceeded as predicted by modernization theory, or for that matter, the Communist Manifesto (Kearney, 1994, p. 338). The response was a shift away from the individual level of analysis to a macro-focus located in a neo-Marxist framework that is also known as dependency theory. In opposition to modernization theory, which viewed history from the perspective of developed urban life, dependency theory came : : : from the other end of the folk-urban continuum and called attention not to development but to the development of underdevelopment which : : : was the result of the colonial encounter (Kearney, 1994, p. 338). Dependency theory grew out of Latin America studies and looked at the extraction of surplus from the periphery. Instead of a bipolar approach to understanding migration, it pointed to the world capitalist system and the imbalance within the international division of labor to explain the inequities between laborexporting, low-wage countries and labor-importing, high wage countries (Brettell, 2000, p. 103). In the late 1970s, anthropology shifted away from dependency theory because of the difficulty in operationalizing the framework in terms of horizontal economic, social, and political relationships at the local level (where) anthropologists are most concerned (Kearney, 1994, p. 339). That is to

Downloaded By: [TBTAK EKUAL] At: 12:53 1 March 2011

Anthropology of Immigration and Migration

751

say, many anthropologists found it too macro and thus began to frame immigration-migration starting at the community level. According to Kearney (1994), two main post-dependency theories have emerged:; world systems theory and articulation theory. World systems theory, generally attributed to Immanuel Wallerstein, is a hybrid offspring of dependency theory (Kearney, p. 340). It is housed within the Marxist political economy perspective and views migration in the context of a global market system. It conceptualizes inequalities resulting from the internationalization of the proletariat (Brettell, 2000, p. 103). World systems theory has been used to understand movements of people and products across borders, particularly in the context of movement from under-developed countries to developed countries. It is understood to be less of a willing choice on the part of the individual and more of a forced extraction by the global capitalist market system. Similar to dependency theory, world systems theory views immigrationmigration as a transfer of surplus from the periphery to the core (lessdeveloped countries or areas to more-developed countries or spaces): In the twentieth century, migrant labor also flows in the same direction, while investment capital flows contrary to it. This most recent trend in macrodevelopmental theory represents the farthest departure from the neoclassical, push-pull model of migration (Kearney, 1994, p. 340). World systems theory differs from dependency theory in its ability to conceptualize migrant labor within the complex problematic circuits of capital and commodities (Kearney, 1994, p. 340). That is to say, unlike dependency theory, which focused only on the effects of migration on the receiving community (the core), world systems theory captured the effects not only on the receiving community but on the sending community and thereby helped anthropologists to focus more locally. In the 1980s, articulation theory emerged as an alternative to both dependency and world systems theories. Once again, the main unit of analysis shifted, this time to the household. Articulation theory rejects the notion of a single world capitalist system. Instead, it argues that communities also reproduce their distinctive forms in accord with their own structural imperatives which, although shaped by relationships with colonial and imperialist forces, are different (Kearney, 1994, p. 342). In essence, articulation theory focuses more on the communities (and, more specifically, households) from which labor is extracted. Anthropologists saw articulation theory as more relevant to the field of anthropology by allowing them to return to community level fieldwork, but in a way that overcomes the former liabilities of conceptualizing it either as a socioeconomic and cultural isolate or as a dependent tail wagged by the capitalist dog (Kearney, 1994, p. 344). Critics of articulation theory, many of whom ultimately turned to transnational theory as an alternative, reject the notion that migrants are passive pre-capitalists who are inevitably (and

Downloaded By: [TBTAK EKUAL] At: 12:53 1 March 2011

752

E. Horevitz

passively) extracted from their communities by market forces (Bretell, 2000; Gupta and Ferguson, 1992). Critics of these theories also argue that they are too narrowly focused and do not take into account other aspects of immigration including the historical-structural and politico-economic. One major critic (during the rise of feminist anthropology in the 1980s) questioned the validity of theoretical frameworks that ignored the role of women (Brettell, 2000).

Theories of Gender and Migration

In a summary of anthropological migration theory, Brettell (2000) discusses several additional theories: transnational theory, diaspora theory, and feminist theory. Kearney (1994) also refers to the feminization of labor as a key issue arising in the debate over the appropriate unit of analysis in migration studies as discussed in the anthropology of women (p. 348). The phenomenon of female migration has increased with the feminization of labor in both the domestic and broader labor market. The household unit of analysis is preferred by anthropologists who focus on the role of women in immigration-migration. Women are often the mediators between the individuals in the household and the outside world through their dual roles in reproduction and production (Brettel, 2000; Pessar, 1999). In the 1980s, with the growth of feminist anthropology, many feminist anthropologists took issue with the fact that many anthropological studies of immigration-migration had ignored the prominent role of women. As Pessar states in her 1999 work regarding gender and migration studies, Most scholars were influenced by neoclassical theory, and according to one popular variant, those individuals with the ability to project themselves into the role of Western man headed off to the cities where the benefits of modern life could be attained (p. 578). Pessar and her contemporaries criticized this male-focused tendency, highlighting womens contributions to economic, political, and social life. As women join the labor force, they greatly impact not only the economic success of their families but the political economy of the household (Pessar, 1999, 2003). In general, women immigrants who participate in the labor force are breaking a traditional gender barrier by moving beyond their traditional domain in the home. This gender role shift has been the subject of many studies (traditionally housed within the transnational framework) that explore the impact of this change on both familial dynamics and women themselves. Does this change result in emancipation from traditional patriarchal gender roles or are women further subjugated by it? (Pessar, 1999; Brettell, 2000). Moving beyond this simplified line of inquiry, newer feminist immigration studies incorporate transnational understanding of immigration-migration and have created new frameworks to understand the complexity of gender

Downloaded By: [TBTAK EKUAL] At: 12:53 1 March 2011

Anthropology of Immigration and Migration

753

(Mahler & Pessar, 2001). These newer studies, in particular Mahler and Pessars model of the gendered geography of power, focus on the role of gender in multiple spatial, social, and cultural scales (e.g., the body, the family, the state, gender hegemonies, and counter-hegemonies) across national and transnational terrains (Pessar, 2003, p. 94). The role of gender within the study of migration continues to be a contentious issue, especially when feminist anthropologists argue for the inclusion of gender into theoretical frameworks in addition to race, class, education level, nationality, and culture in the immigration-migrant experience.

New Migration: Transnationalism as a Theory

Undoubtedly, transnationalism is the most prominent immigration-migration theory to emerge from the field of anthropology. Several other conceptual frameworks such as diaspora theory and border theory can be included within the broad context of transnationalism and are also discussed here. Transnationalism emerged in the late 1980s as an alternative to dependency and world systems theories. It includes the cross-border relationships of many migrants, enabling researchers to see that migration can be a transnational process (Glick Schiller, 2003, p. 100). This new paradigm for understanding immigration-migration, developed by anthropologists Glick Schiller, Basch, and Blanc-Szanton in the early 1990s, is based on the notion that globalization makes borders obsolete. Unlike its predecessors, transnational theory encompasses more than politico-economic processes as central to the immigrant-migrant experience. It places social, cultural, and identity processes within the new immigrantmigrant experience of transcending borders (Kearney, 1995). It grew out of the recognition that migrants maintain strong, enduring ties to their homelands even as they are incorporated into countries of resettlement [and] calls into question conventional assumptions about the direction and impacts of international migration (Levitt, DeWind, & Vertovec, 2003, p. 565). As such, a concrete sense of time and space is no less relevant, as new technology and emotional, fiscal, and other ties to sending communities allow immigrantsmigrants to pass in and out of intellectual and political borders as never before (Kearney, 1995, p. 549). Transnational theory grew out of the post-1950s new immigration that included high percentages of undocumented persons, refugees, and women coming from non-Western nations. This new migration, which has reconfigured urban anthropology, makes it reasonable to speak, for example, of the Caribbeanization of Latin America (Kearney, 1995, p. 554). The notion of the imagined community also became part of the anthropological discourse on transnational immigration-migration. The imagined community conceptualizes a persons processes of place making, of how

Downloaded By: [TBTAK EKUAL] At: 12:53 1 March 2011

754

E. Horevitz

feelings of belonging to an imagined community bind identity to spatial location (Gupta, 1992, p. 62). Imagined community becomes important when we take into account the blending of spaces and impermanence of borders, as reflected in the concepts of transnationalism.

Questions of Validity: Critiques of Transnationalism

The critics of transnationalism note that immigrants-migrants have maintained ties with their homelands for centuries and therefore nothing much is new about the so-called new immigration-migration, other than perhaps an increased ability to communicate with and travel to ones homeland (Kivisto, 2001). Others question the significance of transnational activity among immigrant-migrant communities and suggest that such activity will not last beyond the first generation of immigrants-migrants (Levitt et al., 2003; Esser, 2004). Scholars in the growing field of refugee studies, housed within migration studies, have criticized the transnational paradigm for ignoring the role of refugees and/or forced migration (Black, 2001). Though it is questionable as to whether refugee theory actually exists in its own right, the phenomenon of forced migration has generally been neglected in the discourse on transnationalism. Despite its critics, the transnational paradigm seems to have created a permanent space for itself in the academic discourse along with gender, diaspora, and border theories. Gender theorists have found a home in the paradigm of transnationalism, understanding that women immigrantsmigrants may maintain more than one gender role, inhabiting multiple spaces at a time (Pessar, 2003). Diaspora theory is similar to transnational theory as it refers to the phenomenon of immigrant-migrant or ethnic group maintaining ties with their homeland. As Brubaker (2005) notes:
Some emigrant groups, characterized as long-distance nationalists by Anderson (1998), have been construed as diasporas because of their continued involvement in homeland politics, sometimes involving the support of terrorist or ultra-nationalist movements (Sheffer 1986, 2003; Angoustures and Pascal 1996; Bhatt and Mukta 2000): : : : In a further extension, the term has come to embrace labour migrants who maintain (to some degree) emotional and social ties with a homeland. (Brubaker, 2005, p. 2)

Downloaded By: [TBTAK EKUAL] At: 12:53 1 March 2011

Despite the proliferation of references to diaspora and diasporic communities (Brubaker, 2005), the fluidity of borders in an ever-increasing transnational world continues to be a large part of the anthropological discourse on immigration-migration. For example, the conflicts surrounding the United StatesMexico border seem to guarantee that border studies will become an area of scholarship in its own right (Kearney, 2004). Borders

Anthropology of Immigration and Migration

755

Downloaded By: [TBTAK EKUAL] At: 12:53 1 March 2011

are understood in the anthropological discourse as more than a geographic marker but as a composite geographic, legal, institutional, and sociocultural structure and process (Kearney, 2004, p. 131). Borders are conceptualized as powerful markers of value and enforcers of stratification (Cunningham, 2003; Kearney, 2004). Kearney refers to this process as the value-filtering mission of borders (2004) and the idea that the value of a person or product on one side of a border may increase or decrease on the other side. This has broader implications for identity (both symbolic and real). This phenomenon is housed in a Marxist view of the exploitation of labor and makes reference to the specific case of accumulation of surplus value from workers by capitalists in the production process and the idea of surplus value as a process and a CLASS relationship to other forms of value and to borders as constructors and demarcations of classes and as mechanisms for uneven CLASS distribution of value (Kearney, 2004, p. 138). The term CLASS as opposed to class was formulated by Kearney to refer not only to socioeconomic status but to ethnicity, nationality, sex, gender, and race. Thus, the value transfer across borders refers to the change in identity of CLASS relationships of the immigrant-migrant and the filtering of value of one or more of these identities (Kearney, 2004). Such a concept is useful in understanding third-world to first-world immigration-migration. Cunningham refers to the significance of border crossing as moments in which differences can be powerfully reinforced and opportunities for transnationality systematically denied (2004, p. 329). Although border theory is housed within the paradigm of transnationalism, it calls into question the validity of the transnational conceptualization of borders as fluid and permeable.

CONCLUSION
Anthropologists have made significant contributions to the interdisciplinary field of migration studies. Despite its roots in narrowly focused attention on communities within defined spaces, cultural anthropology has become a prominent source of immigration-migration theory and, reciprocally, immigration-migration studies have become an inextricable part of cultural anthropology. As noted in Figure 1, Anthropology has made the transition from the old immigration theories to the new immigrations theories that have emerged as a result of globalization. However, the old theories are still part of a comprehensive approach to understanding immigration and migration. There remain, nonetheless, contentious issues within the field regarding old and new migration theories. For example, is the phenomenon of maintaining ties to ones homeland really new? Are borders more permeable or fluid than previously, or is it simply that new technology makes the facilitation of this process easier or more prominent? Or, perhaps, is the

756

E. Horevitz

Downloaded By: [TBTAK EKUAL] At: 12:53 1 March 2011

FIGURE 1 Anthropological theories of immigration.

issue simply that anthropologists paid insufficient attention to the culture of immigration-migration before globalization became a popular notion and subject of academic discourse? Although older theories of immigration-migration related to dependency and world systems theory have fallen out of favor, transnationalism is still being shaped and debated in such sub-fields as gender studies, diaspora studies, refugee studies, and border studies. In addition, the increasing number of Mexican immigrants to the United States and the increasingly heated debate over the United StatesMexico border will most likely play a role in the application of transnational theory to MexicoUnited States immigration-migration by anthropologists. The field of immigration-migration studies is growing and continues to include a wide variety of social science frameworks. There are many implications that can be drawn from this review of anthropological theories that relate to expanding our understanding of human behavior and the social environment. For example, the old theories feature the human behaviors of individuals as they experience the pull

Anthropology of Immigration and Migration

757

Downloaded By: [TBTAK EKUAL] At: 12:53 1 March 2011

toward economic opportunity and push away from poverty in their home country. These individual dynamics can now be understood more widely using a social environment perspective that features the inequities resulting from capitalism and the dependency of developing nations upon developed nations. The interaction between human behavior and the social environment can be seen in the active flow of migrant labor across borders whereby families from a particular community relocate some of its members in communities of other countries. Families are defined in terms of both men and women in this cross-border flow of immigrant labor. The complexities of these issues are captured in the concept of imagined communities wherein individuals struggle with their identities when residing in different countries. It is these complexities that provide important perspectives for practitioners engaged in providing services to immigrant populations. The anthropological theories of transnationalism related to gender, borders, and living in the diaspora away from their homeland illustrate the importance of theory to inform practice. It is clear from this analysis of anthropological theories that the human behaviors of immigrants are significantly impacted by the social environment of the migration process.

REFERENCES
Black, R. (2001). Fifty years of refugee studies: From theory to policy. International Migration Review, 35(1), 5778. Brettell, C. (2000). Theorizing migration in anthropology: The social construction of networks, identities, communities and globalscapes. In C. Brettell & J. Hollifield (Eds.), Migration theory: Talking across disciplines (pp. 97136). New York: Routledge. Brettell, C., & Hollifield, J. F. (2000). Migration theory: Talking across disciplines. New York: Routledge. Brubaker, R. (2005). The diaspora Diaspora. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 28(1), 1 19. Cunningham, H. (2003). Nations rebound? Crossing borders in a gated globe. Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power, 11(3), 329350. Esser, H. (2004). Does the new immigration require a new theory of intergenerational integration? International Migration Review, 38(3), 11261159. Foner, N. (2003). American arrivals: Anthropology engages the new immigration. Santa Fe: School of American Research Press. Foner, N., Rumbaut, G., & Gold, S. (2003). Immigration research for a new century: Multidisciplinary perspectives. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Glick Schiller, N. (2003). The centrality of ethnography in the study of transnational migration: Seeing the wetlands instead of the swamp. In N. Foner (Ed.), American arrivals: Anthropology engages the new immigration (pp. 99128). Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press.

758

E. Horevitz

Glick Schiller, N. (2005). Transnational social fields and imperialism: Bringing a theory of power to transnational studies. Anthropological Theory, 5(4), 43961. Glick Schiller, N. G., Basch, L., & BlancSzanton, C. (1992). Towards a transnational perspective on migration: Race, class, ethnicity, and nationalism reconsidered. In Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences: Vol. 645 (pp. 124). New York: New York Academy of Sciences. Gupta, A. (1992). The song of the nonaligned world: Transnational identities and reinscription of space in late capitalism. Cultural Anthropology, 7(1), 6379. Gupta, A., & Ferguson, J. (1992). Beyond culture: Space, identity, and the politics of difference. Cultural Anthropology, 7(1), 623. Kearney, M. (1994). From the invisible hand to visible feet: Anthropological studies of migration and development. Annual Review of Anthropology, 15, 331361. Kearney, M. (1995). The local and the global: The anthropology of globalization and transnationalism. Annual Review of Anthropology. 24, 547565. Kearney, M. (2004). The classifying and value-filtering missions of borders. Anthropological Theory, 4(2), 131156. Kivisto, P. (2001). Theorizing transnational immigration: A critical review of current efforts. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 24(4), 549577. Levitt, P., DeWind, J., & Vertovec, S. (2003). International perspectives on transnational migration: An introduction. International Migration Review, 37(3), 565 575. Massey, D. S., Arango, J., Kouaouci, A., & Taylor, J. E. (1994). Evaluation of international migration theory: The North American case. Population and Development Review, 20(4), 699751. Mahler, S., & Pessar, P. (2001). Gendered geographies of power: Analyzing gender across transnational spaces. Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power, 7(4), 442459. Pessar, P. R. (1999). Engendering migration studies: The case of new immigrants in the United States. American Behavioral Scientist, 42(4), 577600. Pessar, P. R. (2003). Anthropology and the engendering of migration studies. In N. Foner (Ed.), American arrivals: Anthropology engages the new immigrants (pp. 7598). Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press. Portes, A. (1997). Immigration theory for a new century: Some problems and opportunities. International Migration Review, 31(4), 799825. Suarez-Orozco, M. (2003). Right moves? Immigration, globalization, utopia, and dystopia. In P. Pessar (Ed.), American arrivals: Anthropology engages the new immigration (pp. 4574). Santa Fe: School of American Research Press. Zolberg, A. R. (1989). The next waves: Migration theory for a changing world. International Migration Review, 23(3), 403430.

Downloaded By: [TBTAK EKUAL] At: 12:53 1 March 2011