This chapter examines the backlash to diaspora and thinks through the attempts to ‘write out’ diasporas of colour in the Global North through discourses of ‘anti-multiculturalism’ and ‘the left-behind’/‘traditional’ working class. Through a focus on the United Kingdom, the chapter examines how ‘anti-multiculturalism’ reached its peak at a time when social distance between groups in the United Kingdom was identified as decreasing, and that the discourse of ‘the left-behind’ as a code word for ‘white working class’ emerged as the working class is increasingly made up of migrants and people of colour. The chapter devotes significant attention to examining why these two discourses have had such purchase in wider political, media and academic debates. The chapter argues that anti-immigration sentiments in the Global North are closely bound up with, if not at times used as a proxy for, showing discomfort and resentment of settled diasporas of colour in the Global North, and most importantly against their demands for equality. Worries about new migrations are closely entangled with anxieties about existing diasporas of colour. It argues that discourses of ‘anti-multiculturalism’ and ‘the left-behind’ have become convenient codes for providing an armoury for excessive and exclusive nationalism and majoritarianism, and for doing white identity politics without the need to mention colour.
This chapter discusses the limitations of conceptualising diaspora while ignoring empire, and reproducing methodologically nationalist scholarship. It recaps how and why the book has attempted to go beyond these limitations and summarises how the book seeks to change the terms of the discussion of diaspora from one of in-betweenness, of alienation, of being stuck between home and away, and of straddling and falling through gaps. Instead of these poor yet over-used metaphors for diaspora, it is argued that we need to examine how diasporas understand, talk to and negotiate with, as well as unsettle, disrupt and decolonise, the new home and the home that is left behind. In order to study these, we need to unpack the ingenious ways in which diasporic actors translate, rewrite, represent, challenge and decolonise. As such, our discussion of diaspora can uncover how diasporas not only fought against their othering, but also made significant contributions and shaped ideas about freedom, equality and human dignity in the metropole and globally – especially on issues of race. As the chapter argues, diaspora has always been inextricably connected to the global and to the decolonial, so it is high time that diaspora studies matched this. The chapter concludes by highlighting how culture wars are revived and put to work as part and parcel of the recent backlash to diaspora in the Global North.
This chapter begins with a discussion on translation and anthropology to highlight how they have been central to the construction and translation of the Global South to the Global North. The aim of the chapter is to provoke a new thinking of diaspora by turning the tables on this, and focusing on how diasporas unsettle and trouble North-centric visions and epistemologies. It argues that how diasporas decolonise must be a central aspect of diaspora theorising. Through a focus on examples of diasporas in the Global North, but especially in the United Kingdom, it explores how diasporas should not simply be seen as mediators but as agents who speak back and challenge the worldviews in the Global North, aiding foreignisation and decolonisation. It considers them as the ‘Global South in the Global North’. Diasporas also speak back and challenge worldviews in the home left behind, aiding decolonisation of the homeland at a distance. The Bristol Bus Boycott, the strike at Imperial Typewriters, the Grunswick Dispute, the mobilisations following the Grenfell Fire, the Windrush Scandal, Black Lives Matter and many others are examples of how diasporas challenge and expand understandings of freedom, equality and dignity in the metropole and globally. The book introduces concepts such as ‘radical remembering’ and ‘radical inclusion’, and posits them against ‘social inclusion’. The chapter thus shows how we can rethink diasporas and conceive of them as agents of globalisation and of decolonisation rather than mere consequences of these, as conventionally constructed.
This chapter uses the insights of translation studies and advances a variety of useful conceptual tools and heuristic devices for investigating diaspora. It discusses why diaspora should be conceptualised as translation, demonstrating that translation is a useful metaphor for understanding the movement and struggles of diasporas, and for explaining the asymmetry, frictions, retelling and relationships inherent in diasporic dialogues. More importantly, as the chapter shows, the field of translation studies provides much insight, from which we can learn, enabling us to apply and extend our understandings in diaspora studies. Just as those whose native language is not English constantly translate themselves, diasporic groups have to translate their identity struggles and battles in order to communicate, interact and be accepted. Such translations of identities, cultures and battles brought from home can be conducted via different strategies – for example, diasporas can foreignise or domesticate, erase and rewrite. The chapter unpacks the lure of translation for diaspora, and introduces concepts such as ‘diaspora as rewriting and transformation’, ‘diaspora as erasure and exclusion’ and ‘diaspora as a tension between foreignisation and domestication’. It argues that diaspora should not be seen as a halfway house, employing the often-used and tired metaphors and imagery of diaspora as being stuck between the home and the host. It should instead be conceived of as comprising agents who translate, speak back and challenge the world-views in the Global North and the home left-behind.
This book proposes a novel way of conceptualising diaspora by examining how diasporas do translation and decolonisation. It critically engages with, and goes beyond, two dominant theorisations of diaspora, which are coined ‘diaspora as an ideal-type approach’ and ‘diaspora as hybridity approach’. If diaspora is to have analytical purchase, it should illuminate a specific angle of migration or migrancy. The aspect defended in this book is how diasporas do translation and decolonisation. The book explores such issues by conceiving of diasporas as the archetypal translators, who put new identities, perspectives and ideologies into circulation. They can domesticate, rewrite, erase and foreignise. They bring disruptions and destabilisations. The book examines such processes by advancing a variety of useful conceptual tools and heuristic devices for investigating diasporas, such as ‘diaspora as rewriting and transformation’, ‘diaspora as erasure and exclusion’, ‘diaspora as a tension between foreignisation and domestication’, ‘radical inclusion’ and ‘radical remembering’, with a specific focus on and examples of diasporas in the Global North. It also provides a detailed empirical study of Kurdish diaspora in Europe and unpacks how ethno-political translations of their identity are central for the transnational battles of Kurds, including how they undo colonisation, carrying out both foreignisations and domestications in their engagements with the Global North, and exposing links between their predicament and Europe. Additionally, the book considers the backlash to diasporas of colour in the Global North through an examination of the increasing discourses of ‘anti-multiculturalism’ and ‘the left-behind’/‘traditional’ working class.
This introductory chapter sets out the main rationale of and premise for the book. It argues that diaspora is far too often understood and examined as emerging out of ethno-political struggles within nation-states, and told from the perspective of push factors. Diaspora research has become too tightly hemmed into the history, sources and understandings of the nation-state. It is often examined as a case study without necessarily informing how the case study expands or challenges existing conceptualisations of diaspora, or without reference to wider contemporary social, political and global debates and orders. This has brought limitations to diaspora research as it has severed the links between empire and diaspora on the one hand, and the transnational dimensions of diaspora research on the other. As a consequence, the spatial and temporal dimensions of diaspora research are curtailed and the potential of diaspora as an analytical tool is not always realised. The book aims to contribute to diaspora theorising by conceptualising diaspora as translation and decolonisation. It seeks to expand diaspora conceptualisations spatially and temporally by weaving translation and decolonisation into examinations of diaspora. The chapter also summarises arguments presented in all five substantive chapters of the book, and examines how they can help to expand thinking and understanding of diaspora, making it more appropriate for our global age.
This chapter critically examines two dominant strands of diaspora theorising, one described as the ‘ideal-type approach’ and the other coined as the ‘hybridity approach’. The former focuses on the key characteristics of diaspora, that is ‘diaspora as a being’, often constructing ideal types (for example, Cohen 1996; Safran 1991). The latter examines ‘diaspora as a becoming’ and pays attention to subjectivity, fluidity and hybridity when discussing diaspora (for example, Bhabha 1990; Brah 1996; Clifford 1994; Gilroy 1993; Hall 1990). While the chapter recognises the conceptual clarifications these theories have brought, it raises various problems that they have introduced. The chapter attempts to push the boundaries of diaspora scholarship, which has can get hemmed into debates on either hybridity or the gardening tropes and ideal type definitions. The chapter advocates a discussion of diaspora that focuses less on who constitutes a diaspora or according to what criteria or conditions, and more on how diasporas translate and decolonise. It argues that diaspora overlaps with transnationalism and migration, but suggests that the distinction of diaspora and its potential as a critical concept can be revealed and enhanced through translation and decolonisation. The chapter offers a temporal and heterogeneous calibration of the concept of diaspora, yet it seeks to refrain from confining it to subjectivity. The chapter thus argues how we should develop an understanding of diaspora that reveals its capacity as a critical concept, claiming its transformative and far-reaching potential.
This chapter examines the translational activities, interventions and undoings of the Kurdish diaspora in Europe. It reveals how those in the Kurdish diaspora carries out translations of their ethno-political identity to two specific audiences: other Kurds in Europe and their non-Kurdish fellow European citizens. The chapter shows heuristically how some of the conceptualisations from previous chapters can be applied, but also how they can be extended further, including how diasporic mobilisations can be conceptualised by placing them in the Global South/Global North axis, examining their engagements with the Global North. The chapter provides an overview of Kurdish diaspora in Europe and discusses the methods employed before going on to explore in detail how translating the Kurdish identity and struggle in Europe involves strategies of rewriting, domesticating and also foreignising. It identifies similarities and differences in the how translations are offered to different audiences in Europe, reveals the futility of cravings for authenticity and shows how the translational activities of the Kurdish diaspora play a central role in transnationalising their battles, exposing links between their predicament, coloniality and the Global North. The chapter also considers how Kurdish indigenous identity is being anchored via translations and decolonisations of the Kurdish diaspora – that is, by those who initially had to dis-anchor themselves from their homeland. The chapter thus shows that we can uproot indigeneity, yet embed transnationality.
What is clear from the #MeToo moment is that the more visible sexual violation becomes, the more contested will be its meanings and implications. Now more than ever, the emotional energy (moral outrage, fear, anger) emitted by accounts of sexual attack gets appropriated for purposes far removed from the primary victims. There is more policing of what rape victims say than the rapes themselves. A dominant response to the greater visibility of victims of sexual attack worldwide is to marginalise victims’ perspectives and appropriate the issue for anti-feminist aims such as imperialist, anti-immigration, racist and xenophobic politics. This chapter focuses on the South African context where the heightened politicisation of sexual violence is most often tied to anxieties around black rule and the sovereignty of the new (nation-)state, instead of being drawn upon to further a feminist agenda of greater gender justice post-apartheid. Thus, typically, the ‘emotional capital’ or energy released by the suffering of rape victims is lifted away from them and their needs and deployed in the service of either racist or anti-racist masculinist-nationalist agendas. The chapter argues that what is needed in this context is to relentlessly centre the actual victim perspectives, of which the great majority are poorer women and children. Furthermore, it will claim that in contemporary South Africa, it is particularly pertinent for the pursuit of gender justice to include in this kind of feminist activism the voices of male prisoner victims of sexual violence.
The #EndRapeCulture campaign in 2016 in South Africa, an online movement as well as a set of direct actions, preceded the #MeToo campaign in 2017, which was never taken up in South Africa to the extent it was in other parts of the world. The campaign was characterised by topless marches of women students against practices, attitudes and perceptions that normalise sexual violence in South Africa. These were different to the more global slutwalks in that they were marked by powerful expressions of anger and rage. This chapter compares #EndRapeCulture with #MeToo, analysing similarities and differences as well as the use of online spaces and social media in both campaigns. It also looks at the backlash against cases of sexual violence that have gone to court in South Africa (such as the recent high profile Cherryl Zondi vs Pastor Omotoso case), where the secondary victimisation of due process often prevents women from speaking out. The Omotoso case is interesting for its secondary victimisation but also for technical issues that contributed to the judge recusing himself, meaning that the rape survivor now has to go through the same hearing for a second time. Lastly, the chapter asks questions about the type of feminism that allows for solidarity in #EndRapeCulture or prevents it, particularly given that white women students were reluctant to join in the topless marches.