De l'État-nation au monde transnational. Du sens et de l'utilité du concept de diaspora

Abstract

From the Nation-State to the Transnational World. Meaning and Usage of the Concept of Diaspora. Dominique Schnapper. The dispersion of peoples who retain a feeling of unity despite their geographic fragmentation is not phenomenon of modernity. But the birth of nationalist movements and the construction of modern nations have given it a new significance that is essentially pejorative in nature. Today, in the opposite sense, the weakening of the Nation-state's power and of national patriotism has provided a positive perception of the behaviors and identifications related to the existence of diasporas. The concept has, as such, always been marked by the spirit of the times. To render it operational, let us reserve it for the populations that maintain institutional, objective or symbolic ties beyond the borders of Nation-states. Its utilization permits, then, questioning of a number of modern phenomena : the weakening of Nation-states, the increased transnationality from all natures of exchanges, the elaboration of new forms of political organization, the amplified dissociation between political and economic orders, and the identifications to the historic collectivities that are not organized in the form of the State. But are we capable of using it in a neutral manner in order to make it a useful instrument of knowledge ? Can we, more so than others, resist the current approach to diasporas ?

Is the classic diaspora transnational and hybrid? The case of the Ukrainian Canadian Congress

“…This stands in stark contrast to the pejorative interpretation of the behaviour and identifications of people in a diaspora during the period of the emergence of nationalist movements and the formation of modern nations, within which real and symbolic belonging and allegiance to another nation was considered treason (Schnapper et al. : 11). Transnationalists of diaspora studies also stress the recombinant, fluid nature of people living in a diaspora.…”

“…The history of the UCC also reminds us of another essential characteristic of diaspora, on which Isajiw (), Tölölyan (), and Schnapper et al. () insist: the conscious maintenance over time of a distinctive collective identity by undertaking collective practices that underscore the difference from those outside the diaspora and the similarity with those within it. Without this self‐consciousness there is only an ethnic minority, a dispersion of people living outside the country of their origin, as was the case of Ukrainians at the beginning of their massive immigration to Canada.…”

Governing Diasporas

“…Economic models are based on “national space,” and high tariff barriers. All these projects are destined at reducing mobility, avoiding territorial dispersion and creating and maintaining a clearly bounded and homogeneous “inside” and “outside.” While diasporic connections continue, in this setting usually common to dictatorships, protectionist developmental states or autarchic political ventures, they are judged as negatively, suspicious, and are forced into the private sphere (Schnapper 2001:13).…”

“…The first level is that of symbolic politics. Groups abroad previously categorized separately as “immigrants,”“refugees,”“political exiles,” and “guestworkers” are now being re‐labeled as “diasporas” or “global nations” or “nations abroad,” and sending states have actively participated in these symbolic politics (Schnapper 2001; Smith 2003a:728; Brubaker 2005). The terms “diaspora” and “global nation” imply a remapping of the boundaries of belonging, and constitute a new dichotomy between the “included” and the “excluded” which is independent of territorial considerations.…”

En suivant les réseaux de Kaboul à New York

“…En effet, les réfugiés ne sont pas de simples victimes d'un sort qui les dépasse ; ils savent utiliser leurs ressources culturelles pour s'adapter à des circonstances dramatiques ; ils développent un certain nombre de stratégies sociales 2. Pour citer quelques anthropologues et sociologues : Amselle (2000) ; Appadurai (1991Appadurai ( , 1999 ; Basch et al (1994) ; Centlivres (2000) ; Clifford (1992Clifford ( , 1994Clifford ( , 1997 ; Cohen (1997) ;Friedman (1994Friedman ( , 2000 ; Glick Schiller et al (1995) ; Gupta et Ferguson (1992, 1997 ; Hannerz (1986Hannerz ( , 1992 ; Kearney (1986Kearney ( , 1995 ; Malkki (1992Malkki ( , 1995 ; Marx (1990) ;Schnapper (2001) ;Tölölyan (1996). Voir Monsutti (2004 : 27-54) (Droz et Sottas 1997 : 70).…”