Urbanities,
Vol. 3
·
No 2
·
November 2013
© 2013
Urbanities
54
maintaining ties with the country of origin (Eriksen 2007: 178). In this context, transnationalism
should be understood as the process by which migrants create social relations that link together
their countries of origin and of settlement (Glick Schiller et al. 1992: 1) According to Eriksen,
contemporary (im)migrants to Europe have four options for joining or remaining outside the
dominant society: (1) diasporic identification, whereby people consider themselves to be living in
a foreign country and know very clearly what their own country is; 2) assimilation; 3)
transnationalism, whereby the country is less important and loyalty to any particular country is
uncertain and subject to change depending on the situation; and (4) creole or individualistic
identification, whereby migrants forge their identities by mixing certain cultural aspects of their
own with elements from the new environment (Eriksen 2007: 183).
The literature on transnationalism attaches considerable importance to various aspects of
deterritorialization
. More precisely, it considers the ways in which people, politics and identities
are
uprooted
from their local origins and embedded in new contexts affected by globalisation. It
may seem that emigrants should be able to free themselves from their country of origin’s
hegemony after leaving because they are then outside the boundaries of the territorial state where
they were born and grew up. However, the situation is rather different from the perspective of
transnationalism theory. Despite staying in a new country, emigrants continue to feel as if they
still live in their nation-state. It is doubtful whether such individuals identify themselves as
transnationals, with their identities more likely to remain bound to their nation-state (Basch et al.
1994: 8). The concept of the transnational state enables us to talk about citizens who socially,
politically and economically remain part of their country of origin despite living outside it or,
more precisely, within another country’s territory (Basch et al. 1994: 8). For this reason, the
institution of citizenship is said to be undergoing all kinds of transformations and losing the
certainty it once had. Although lack of space prevents a detailed discussion of this institution, it
should be emphasised that the question of citizenship is of central importance in transnationalism
theory (Castles and Davidson 2000; Vertovec 2009). The notion of post-national citizenship has
recently gained widespread popularity (Soysal 1994). This concept is largely based on universal
human rights rather than the rights ensured by a single nation-state and the attendant
responsibilities. Other authors have discussed civil rights in the absence of formal citizenship in
the host country (denizenship), which highlights the situation of transmigrants who retain
citizenship in their country of origin but also enjoy most of their host country’s social and
economic rights and some political rights. Various theories also underscore the changed nature of
citizenship, which transcends the territory of a single nation (Faist 2007, Baubök 2006, Kaplan
1999). A number of authors have recently suggested viewing citizenship not as a collection of
formal rights and duties, but in a perspective that emphasises its social and cultural aspects
(Sharma and Gupta 2006, Glick Schiller 2009, Glick Schiller and Caglar 2008). Rainer Baubök
(2006: 27) defines transnational citizenship as presence and participation in several political
systems. Nina Glick Schiller (2005) views citizenship from the perspective of being in or
belonging to a transnational social field, which she defines as transborder citizenship. Such
