SOCIAL mobility, seen as the inter-generational movement between social class locations, embodies ideas of inequality, and has been studied among the diaspora.¹ These patterns of social mobility are one indicator of the opportunities available to, or barriers faced by, immigrants relative to the general population, and relative to each other.²

Ideas of mobility as related to the diaspora are of interest, since not only do these individuals or groups experience spatial or geographic mobility, tied to this movement is the possibility of social mobility. In fact, migration is at times driven by aspirations for social mobility, which may or may not be met. However, not all immigrant stories are one of upward social mobility. Violence and suffering have at times been deeply embedded in this spatial movement.

In this paper we propose an agenda for research on mobilities that connects social mobility with migration and diaspora.³ Since the histories of a diaspora are in some cases embedded in histories of violence and suffering, we are interested in proposing a connection between social mobility, suffering and victimhood among the diaspora. What implications will an attention to the politics of victimhood have on understanding the relationship between social mobility and diaspora?

The concept of diaspora itself as pointed out by writers, emerges out of the history of the Jewish communities’ experiences and consequently questions of anti-Semitism, and other forms of persecution and exclusion that may persist.⁴ This is also reflected in work by scholars who have theorized on others, such as the Armenian people, whose histories of migration are largely shaped by violence and displacement.⁵

One point at which there is a similarity of sorts between social mobility and diaspora studies is the emphasis on movement between origins and destinations. Social mobility, in the sociological literature, is often measured by the movement between class origins (usually parental social class) and class destinations (class of the respondent), and it is the task of the researcher to map that movement.⁶ Those who inherit their social class position are inter-generationally stable, and those who leave their class of origin are either upwardly, downwardly or horizontally (movement between classes at the same level) mobile.

 

Similarly, some scholars who have studied migration, regardless of their disciplines, have taken an approach where movement takes place between place of origin and a place of destination. This relationship initially affected studies of diasporas and popular narratives – i.e. diasporas were seen as people from ‘somewhere else’. Later scholars have critiqued this sense of ‘Homeland’ or place of origin.^7,8 The critique arises from a misplaced sense of seeing people as rooted in particular territories.⁹ Rather, critics argue that diasporas are constituted across different locations and contexts. They are formed in a tension between movement and emplacement.

There are different ways in locating the politics of victimhood in relation to spatial and social mobility. One of the ways is by looking at the discourses and practices of community formation for some diasporas, where suffering and violence have been significant. Thus, the question of victimhood as located in larger discussions of violence and suffering can be raised for some diasporic collectives. As Axel discusses in his work among the Sikh Diaspora in the West, violence and suffering is indeed integral for defining what a diaspora is or can be.

 

During the 1980s, the state of Punjab in India was severely affected by conflict between militants fighting for Khalistan, as an expression of Sikh nationalism, distinct from Indian political formations, and the Indian state. Alongside other events such as the pogrom against Sikhs in different parts of India in 1984, this period saw incidents of intense violence for Sikhs in India and elsewhere. Axel traces how discourses and stories of violence, narratives of suffering and injustice and accounts of those who were martyred, became a crucial part of community mobilization for Sikhs in the West.

A similar project was seen by Jeganathan¹⁰ with Sri Lankan Tamils in the United Kingdom, some of whom were refugees while others were immigrants, who were defined by a connection to an idea of eelam (homeland) that was cut off from them in some form. This process, seen for different populations affected by violence and conflict such as Palestinians, Syrians and Somalis, shows how a shared experience of violence and suffering helps constitute community life, and enables them to respond to other forms of marginalization they may face for being racial and ethnic minorities in their current locations. One could complicate these experiences by layering it with social mobility. Within these diasporas those who have been socially more mobile may have a different way (and more avenues) to articulate their sense of victimhood and suffering.

Further, victimhood can be seen in other forms as well, for instance when a direct conflict is not definitive of a community. This might be the case for migrants who may demonstrate some element of upward social mobility enabled by migration but may remain marginalized in unexpected ways. Apart from the risk of becoming minorities of some form, forms of discrimination which speak to structural violence may persist, as seen in the case of Dalits who may have migrated within India or to places outside India, who may achieve economic improvement, but remain discriminated on the basis of caste identity. This is especially intriguing for the case of Dalits migrating to Europe and North America, who may broadly face some discrimination as ‘immigrants’ like any other but may be unable to escape caste based violence and discrimination and other kinds of structural violence from other South Asian immigrants.¹¹

 

One of the other features of a diaspora emerges from a sense of distinctiveness. Diasporas exist in numerous forms and varying histories, often located in different ways in relation to dominant populations and to each other. Studies and representations of South Asian diasporas in North America and Europe presume experiences of social mobility. While differences in terms of socio-economic standing and class position may vary, there is a larger sense of having achieved upward mobility outside the homeland. In some cases, this is especially complicated by the notion of the ‘model minority’ which often accompanies sections of the South Asian diaspora, who in economic terms occupy lives that are on par with bourgeois sections of national majorities.

While much may be made out of Indians who have built successful careers as engineers, doctors and entrepreneurs, such stories hide the suffering in the form of racial marginalization and the difficulty in affirming to national majorities. Different writers have explored some of these dilemmas for Indian Americans, looking at existential struggles of identity as well as locating their relations to other marginalized racial groups such as African Americans and Hispanic populations who they are pitted against on terms set by a white majority. What becomes interesting and contradictory is when different South Asian populations, for example in the United States or the UK, develop attitudes to other non-white groups that remain racist and discriminatory.¹²

 

Interestingly, some sections of the upwardly mobile diasporas are increasingly influencing events in their home as well as in their destination countries. Events such as ‘Howdy Modi’ for example saw two things: first, a support of ideologies that may lead to exclusion of some sections of the populations in the home country, along with a sense of self-affirmation of having achieved some social and political recognition. Second, though the US President participated in the event for possible electoral gain, his anti-immigration stand can be a threat to them.¹³ What emerges in such situations is a connection between diaspora and nationalist politics in the age of populism, especially when populism is predicated on a sense of vulnerability and victimhood.

Another way to approach mobilities and the diaspora is through the idea of ‘stuckedness’.¹⁴ This stucked-ness is embodied by the absence of any kind of mobility. Discussions of the diaspora can provide another perspective on so-called ‘native populations’. Hage’s discussion focuses on the mobility envy expressed by white Australians towards immigrants who appear to see an improvement in their lives, whereas theirs remains stuck. The point is that even though white Australians may still be better located socio-economically, any class mobility (even if limited) of the immigrant is bound to be perceived with envy. This may have contributed to the populist wave seen across certain western countries, which is premised on the suffering of the dominant majority whose victimization is attributed to the large presence of immigrants.

 

How does one then recognize diaspora and spatial mobility in ways that intersect with socio-economic mobility? Perhaps what is needed is a new language or methodology for a research agenda to bring together work within spatial and social mobility studies, which also recognizes some experiences of violence and marginalization, but complicates the diaspora’s participation in those forces. In other words, how does victimhood influence experiences of social and spatial mobility for certain populations like diasporas especially when victimhood is a double-headed resource speaking to real experiences of violence and exclusion, and to ideologies? This is perhaps a field that needs to be further explored.

 

Footnotes:

1. For example, see the work on ethnic minrities in Britain by Yaojun Li, ‘Integration Journey: The Social Mobility Trajectory of Ethnic Minority Groups in Britain’, Social Inclusion 6(3), August 2018, pp. 270-281.

2. Class is simply one form of stratification through which this social mobility could be studied (for instance, caste could be another) and we use class here for convenience as a shorthand for all such forms of mobility.

3. Diasporas here are considered distinct from short-term migrants.

4. For example, William Safran, ‘Diasporas in Modern Societies: Myths of Homeland and Return’, Diaspora: A Journal of Trans-national Studies 1(1), 1991, pp. 83-99.

5. See James Clifford, ‘Diasporas’, Cultural Anthropology 9(3), 1994, pp. 302-338.

6. Y. Li, op. cit., 2018; Anthony Heath, Social Mobility. Fontana Press, London, 1981.

7. Brian Keith Axel, ‘The Context of Diaspora’, Cultural Anthropology 19(1), February 2004, pp. 26-60.

8. Brian Keith Axel, ‘The Diasporic Imaginary’, Public Culture 14(2), Spring 2002, pp. 411-428.

9. Liisa Malkki, ‘National Geographic: The Rooting of Peoples and the Territorialization of National Identity among Scholars and Refugees’, Cultural Anthropology 7(1), February 1992, pp. 24-44.

10. Pradeep Jeganathan, ‘eelam.com: Place, Nation, and Imagi-Nation in Cyberspace’, Public Culture 10(3), Spring 1998, pp. 515-528.

11. Vivek Kumar, ‘Understanding Dalit Diaspora’, Economic and Political Weekly 39(1), 3 January 2004, pp.114-116.

12. See Vijay Prashad, The Karma of Brown Folk. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 2000.

13, The Wire Analysis, ‘The What, Why and How of "Howdy, Modi"’, 21 September 2019.thewire.in/diplomacy/explainer-the-what-why-and-how-of-howdy-modi (accessed February 2020).

14. Ghassan Hage, ‘Waiting Out the Crisis: On Stuckedness and Governmentality’, in Ghassan Hage (ed.), Waiting. Melbourne University Press, Victoria, 2009, pp. 97-106.