Transnationalism, Elite Migrants, and the Spatiality of Superdiversity

Abstract

The geography or the spatiality of superdiversity has been only implicitly researched, primarily in ethnographic and sociolinguistic empirical studies on superdiversity. This chapter proposes a geographical conceptualization of superdiversity by analyzing sociospatial superdiversification as a process of bringing together the interconnected phenomena of the global increase of migration and the local transformation of urban spaces. By connecting the spatiality of superdiversity to the debates on the nexus of transnational migration and cities, particularly global cities, the chapter brings a broader contextualization of the diversification processes occurring in different cities on the globe. The approach of such multiscalar embeddedness of the city making and shaping processes demonstrates how the local urban transformation is connected to the global phenomenon of societal superdiversity. It calls for further analysis of the contexts of superdiversity at different scales and research on the diversifications occurring in different socioeconomic classes of transnational migration in urban contexts.

Transnational migrants and the socio-spatial superdiversification of the global city Tokyo

“…The aim of this article is to further develop the theoretical understanding of urban diversity, which encompasses literature on differential inclusion (Ye, 2016; Yeoh, 2006) but also on superdiversity (Meissner, 2015; Vertovec, 2007). By bringing together research on transnational professionals and expatriates (Beaverstock, 2013: 2917; Cranston, 2016), especially in the context of global cities (Yeoh and Chang, 2001; Yeoh and Willis, 2005), and delivering novel empirical data on an under-researched group of transnational corporate elites (at least regarding their socio-spatial patterns beyond their business roles), the article contributes both to the discussion of transnational professionals and their differential inclusion in cities and to the further contextual embedding into the debate on the ‘spatiality of superdiversity’ (Yamamura, 2022a).…”

“…The concept of ‘commonplace diversity’ (Wessendorf, 2013) describes the development of high levels of conviviality and inclusivity in urban space to a degree that ‘ethnic, religious and linguistic diversity [is] experienced as a normal part of social life and not as something particularly special’ (Wessendorf, 2013: 407). While it is suggested that ‘social spaces […] play an important role in the process of familiarisation with people who are different and in getting accustomed to communicating across difference’ (Wessendorf, 2013: 410), the urban spaces and the differential inclusion in cities remain abstract and the actual ‘spatiality of superdiversity’ (Yamamura, 2022a) under-researched.…”

“…In such globally connected cities, the dual migration of transnational migration from above and below is thought to be channelled more strongly than in other arrival cities (Sassen, 2001; see also Yeoh, 2013; Yeoh and Chang, 2001). The superdiversity approach calls for looking at the spatial diversification that results from the different transnational migration types and patterns in urban spaces (Yamamura, 2022a, 2022b), i.e. the differential inclusion in cities.…”

“…Stanley and Tai Tam) are to HongKong and Canary Wharf and South Quay are to London (Butler, 2007; Choi et al, 2020; Pow, 2017; see Figure 1). Interestingly enough, this convergence itself is already diverse in that these transnational spaces are produced by a transnational professional class which is socio-economically homogenous with its own lifestyle and culture of globalism (Yamamura, 2022a). Yet, this social group itself is increasingly diverse in its social constitution of ethnic and national backgrounds.…”

From global city makers to global city-shapers: Migration industries in the global city networks

“…The interesting aspect of these intermediaries is, in fact, that there is a clear diversification happening, which might also be the key to understanding the spatial diversification in specific arrival cities through migration industries. Indeed, while the diversification of the urban population and urban spaces themselves has been well acknowledged in migration research (Meissner and Vertovec, 2014; Yamamura, 2022a), the diversification of migration industries in accordance with the diversifying migration streams has only recently come into focus (Gammeltoft-Hansen and Sørensen, 2013; Garapich, 2008). As much as debates on migration industries stem from more migration policy related fields (cf., Gammeltoft-Hansen and Sørensen, 2013; Jones and Sha, 2020), the context to the urban space and its shaping through migration industries, however, is still an underexplored field.…”