essay diaspora identity

• Essential Essays, Volume 2: Identity and Diaspora

In this Book

• Stuart Hall
• Published by: Duke University Press
• Series: Stuart Hall: Selected Writings

Table of Contents

• Title, Copyright
• A Note on the Text
• pp. vii-viii
• Acknowledgments
• General Introduction
• Part I | Prologue: Class, Race, and Ethnicity
• One. Gramsci's Relevance for the Study of Race and Ethnicity [1986]
• Part II | Deconstructing Identities: The Politics of Anti-Essentialism
• Two. Old and New Identities, Old and New Ethnicities [1991]
• Three. What Is This "Black" in Black Popular Culture? [1992]
• Four. The Multicultural Question [2000]
• Part III | The Postcolonial and the Diasporic
• pp. 135-140
• Five. The West and the Rest: Discourse and Power [1992]
• pp. 141-184
• Six. The Formation of a Diasporic Intellectual: An Interview with Stuart Hall by Kuan-Hsing Chen [1996]
• pp. 185-205
• Seven. Thinking the Diaspora: Home-Thoughts from Abroad [1999]
• pp. 206-226
• Part IV | Interviews and Reflections
• pp. 227-234
• Eight. Politics, Contingency, Strategy: An Interview with David Scott [1997]
• pp. 235-262
• Nine. At Home and Not at Home: Stuart Hall in Conversation with Les Back [2008]
• pp. 263-300
• Part V | Epilogue: Caribbean and Other Perspectives
• pp. 301-302
• Ten. Through the Prism of an Intellectual Life [2007]
• pp. 303-324
• pp. 325-340
• Place of First Publication
• pp. 341-342

Additional Information

Project muse mission.

Project MUSE promotes the creation and dissemination of essential humanities and social science resources through collaboration with libraries, publishers, and scholars worldwide. Forged from a partnership between a university press and a library, Project MUSE is a trusted part of the academic and scholarly community it serves.

2715 North Charles Street Baltimore, Maryland, USA 21218

+1 (410) 516-6989 [email protected]

©2024 Project MUSE. Produced by Johns Hopkins University Press in collaboration with The Sheridan Libraries.

Now and Always, The Trusted Content Your Research Requires

Built on the Johns Hopkins University Campus

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.

• Architecture and Design
• Asian and Pacific Studies
• Business and Economics
• Classical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies
• Computer Sciences
• Cultural Studies
• Engineering
• General Interest
• Geosciences
• Industrial Chemistry
• Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies
• Jewish Studies
• Library and Information Science, Book Studies
• Life Sciences
• Linguistics and Semiotics
• Literary Studies
• Materials Sciences
• Mathematics
• Social Sciences
• Sports and Recreation
• Theology and Religion
• Publish your article
• The role of authors
• Promoting your article
• Abstracting & indexing
• Publishing Ethics
• Why publish with De Gruyter
• How to publish with De Gruyter
• Our book series
• Our subject areas
• Your digital product at De Gruyter
• Contribute to our reference works
• Product information
• Tools & resources
• Product Information
• Promotional Materials
• Orders and Inquiries
• FAQ for Library Suppliers and Book Sellers
• Repository Policy
• Free access policy
• Open Access agreements
• Database portals
• For Authors
• Customer service
• People + Culture
• Journal Management
• How to join us
• Working at De Gruyter
• Mission & Vision
• De Gruyter Foundation
• De Gruyter Ebound
• Our Responsibility
• Partner publishers

Your purchase has been completed. Your documents are now available to view.

Essential Essays, Volume 2

Identity and diaspora.

• Stuart Hall
• Edited by: David Morley
• X / Twitter

Please login or register with De Gruyter to order this product.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Duke University Press
• Copyright year: 2018
• Audience: Professional and scholarly;
• Main content: 352
• Published: December 6, 2018
• ISBN: 9781478002710

Migration, Diaspora and Identity

Cross-National Experiences

• © 2014
• Georgina Tsolidis 0

School of Education, University of Ballarat, Ballarat, Australia

You can also search for this editor in PubMed   Google Scholar

• Focuses on diasporic identification through family, work and education
• Drawn from a range of ethnic backgrounds
• Provides rich and evocative insights into the consequences of the world becoming a smaller place

Part of the book series: International Perspectives on Migration (IPMI, volume 6)

24k Accesses

18 Citations

3 Altmetric

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this book

• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Other ways to access

Licence this eBook for your library

Institutional subscriptions

Table of contents (13 chapters)

Front matter, introduction.

Georgina Tsolidis

Multiple Belongings

Living on the move.

• Enzo Colombo

Muslim Women in Western Preschooling

‘when i land in islamabad i feel home and when i land in heathrow i feel home’.

• Ulrike M. Vieten

Representing a Way of Being

Refugee women, education, and self authorship.

• Melinda McPherson

Invoking an Ivory Tower

• Stella Coram

‘Trouble in the Mall Again’

• Vikki Pollard, Georgina Tsolidis

Beyond Fear and Towards Hope

Sexualised identifications, pedagogies of the japanese diaspora.

• Julie Matthews, Yuriko Nagata

Body as Gendered and Sexualised and Recent Migration of Poles to the United Kingdom

• Bernadetta Siara

Marriage and Family

Men’s experiences and masculinity transformations.

• Francesco Della Puppa

Shifting Gender Roles and Shifting Power Relations

• Shobha Hamal Gurung

Comparing the Family Lives of Vietnamese Wives in Taiwan and the USA

• Chyong-fang Ko

Back Matter

• Cultural difference
• Diaspora and migration
• Diaspora effects on identity issues
• Ethnic background
• Family reunification
• Japanese dispora racialization and sexualization in Australia
• Living multiple belongings
• Marriage and family
• Masculinity transformations
• Multicultural Melbourne
• Multiple cultures
• Muslim women
• Negotiating indentites through family, work and education
• Racism, dislocation and alienation
• Recent migration of Poles to the United Kingdom
• Refugee women
• Remaking of the globalized world
• Rights across borders
• Self authorship
• Shifting gender roles
• Shifting power relations
• Spatial politics of beloning

About this book

Framed in relation to diaspora this collection engages with the subject of how cultural difference is lived and how complex and shifting identities shape and respond to spatial politics of belonging. Diaspora is understood in a variety of ways, which makes this an eclectic collection of papers. Authors use various theoretical frameworks to explore diverse groups of people with a variety of experiences in a wide range of settings. They are making sense of the experiences of women and men from a range of ethnic backgrounds, negotiating identities through family, work and education. The micro dynamics of the everyday offer an evocative 'bottom up' means of understanding the tensions implicit in living multiple belongings. The common thread for the collection comes from the glimpses these authors provide into the remaking of our globalized world. The aim is to shed light on racism, dislocation and alienation on the one hand, and on the other hand, to consider how the complex power relations within the everyday mediate a sense of resistance and hope. The papers are arranged around four themes;

1.      Multiple Belongings,

2.      Representing a Way of Being,

3.      Sexualised Identifications and

4.      Marriage and Family.

Editors and Affiliations

Bibliographic information.

Book Title : Migration, Diaspora and Identity

Book Subtitle : Cross-National Experiences

Editors : Georgina Tsolidis

Series Title : International Perspectives on Migration

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7211-3

Publisher : Springer Dordrecht

eBook Packages : Humanities, Social Sciences and Law , Social Sciences (R0)

Copyright Information : Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht. 2014

Hardcover ISBN : 978-94-007-7210-6 Published: 22 October 2013

Softcover ISBN : 978-94-017-7803-9 Published: 23 August 2016

eBook ISBN : 978-94-007-7211-3 Published: 07 October 2013

Series ISSN : 2214-9805

Series E-ISSN : 2214-9813

Edition Number : 1

Number of Pages : VIII, 221

Topics : Migration , Sociology, general , Cultural Studies , Cultural Management

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Diasporic Identities – Reflections on Transnational Belonging

The question of ‘diasporic identities’ has been a field of academic study, political debate and public controversy for a long time. Among several shortcomings in much of the existing writing is a certain identity fuzziness that should be addressed at several levels. It is of paramount importance to examine the concrete entity of diasporic identification. In this regard diasporic-ethnic, -national, and -civic identifications can be distinguished, depending on whether we consider individuals in their capacity as (a) members of the ethnic community in the country of residence; (b) having bonds with the place of origin as a nation and the people living there; or (c) being part of the state of origin with rights and responsibilities towards state institutions. Further, well-defined categories of analysis have to be adopted. For transnational activities with regard to the country of origin, self-categorization and commitment deserve particular attention. Recognizing the constructed character of ethnic, national and civic identifications, the determinants of their formation and change over time have to be examined carefully. With regard to potential or actual conflicts between multiple identifications, it is essential to re-examine critically many propositions about rival loyalties and competing identifications based on the adopted categories of analysis. Keywords: diaspora, national identity, ethnic identity, migration, transnationalism, identity theory

Related Papers

Diaspora. A Journal of Transnational Studies

Thomas Lacroix

This book is the latest step in the long-standing dialogue between two academic fields: transnational studies and diaspora studies. These share a common initial intent: the will to place migrants' experience at the core of migration studies, rather than on the integration of migrants into the new host society or the development of origin societies. However, the two endeavors also differ. Scholars of diaspora have focused on the processes through which migrants maintain a shared identity despite their dispersion and its consequences for integration and state politics. In contrast, transnationalists focus on micro-level practices and networks forged by migrants across state borders without necessarily presuming a shared sense of belonging. Recently, the two fields of study have followed converging paths. Works on diasporas have increasingly

floya anthias

Aulia Nastiti

Springer eBooks

Patria Roman-Velazquez

Diaspora Studies

Omri Asscher , Ofer Shiff

This paper suggests that images and stances associated with the diaspora in the homeland culture offer a unique prism through which internal tensions in homeland collective identity may be dissected and understood. We believe it is worthwhile to broaden the spectrum of inquiry of recent research on quantifiable diaspora economic and political involvement in homeland nationstates to the inherently fluid, abstract realm of cultural representation. The paper implements this research orientation by offering a preliminary discussion of homeland-construed representations and stances of the diaspora, based on the case study of Israel. Israel is a particularly useful case for our purposes because of the degree to which the diaspora serves as a ‘significant other’ for the homeland national culture. Our claim is that two main prisms, or frames of reference, which we label as ‘minority stance’ and ‘authenticity,’ designate Israeli views of its diaspora that prove fundamental to Israeli national self-definition. The degree of authenticity ascribed in Israeli culture to representations and practices associated with the diaspora is contingent on the positive or negative value attributed to them as embodying a ‘minority stance,’ that is, to the diaspora giving central importance to its environing host society in its own identity and self-understanding. Using Greek culture as a comparative point of reference, we suggest that these prisms may be but two examples of various homeland ‘filters’ on the diaspora experience – filters which pertain to the homeland society’s ongoing internal negotiations of identity and symbolic boundary work.

Fiona Adamson

Identity and Migration, Springer

MariaCaterina La Barbera

Identity has increasingly become an important keyword in contemporary human and social sciences to the point that it is nearly impossible to provide an exhaustive synopsis of the different contributions in this field. However, little attention has been devoted to the influence of migration on identity formation and transformation. This chapter introduces the present edited volume that brings together scholars from different disciplines to engage in a conversation about the issue of identity formation and transformation in contemporary multiethnic Europe. Since identity is a broad concept that has been defined differently by various disciplines, a multidisciplinary approach is a highly complex task that continuously risks to results in misunderstandings. Notwithstanding, because a single-sided perspective on identity is not able to address the multifaceted phenomena at stake, a multidisciplinary approach is an appealing challenge that this volume undertakes. This chapter provides a thematic overview of the main issues addressed in the volume: the theoretical questions related to identity in plural and multicultural societies, the effect of migration policies in marginalizing migrants, the relevance of law and rights in the processes of identity construction, the strategies of identity (re)construction through (dis)identification, the relationship of identity with center/periphery dynamics in postcolonial and globalized societies, the salience of membership and belonging, and the (re)articulation of identity through oppositional representations.

Bhalaji T N

Diaspora and transnationalism are widely used concepts in academic as well as political discourses. Although originally referring to quite different phenomena, they increasingly overlap today. such inflation of meanings goes hand in hand with a danger of essentialising collective identities. This book therefore analyses diaspora and transnationalism as research perspectives rather than as characteristics of particular social groups. Its contributions focus on conceptual uses, theoretical challenges and methodological innovations in the study of social ties that transcend nation and state boundaries. Bringing together authors from a wide range of fields and approaches in the social sciences, this volume is evidence that studying border-crossing affiliations also requires a crossing of disciplinary boundaries.

Cultural Studies↔ Critical Methodologies

RELATED PAPERS

Pandaemonium Germanicum

Claudia Dornbusch

Carlos E. Vasco

Manuela Lasagna

The POLICY Project. Research …

John Stover

IEEE transactions on bio-medical engineering

Priyanka kapoor

World Journal of Dentistry

ROCIO BOCANEGRA

Albaladejo Christophe

Journal of Macromolecular Science, Part A

Rubi Khilari

Triade Revista De Comunicacao Cultura E Midia Issn 2318 5694

Eduardo Jesus

Quaker History

Wendy Lucas

Britta Kock

Jesus Garcia

2010 10th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies

Juan Manuel Juarez Cano

International Journal of Biology and Biotechnology

Hamidiye Medical Journal

Kübra Başol

Bina Hukum Lingkungan

Muhammad Natsir

International Journal of Management Studies

Dr. Marina Bethany Marwein

Artificial intelligence & creativity: papers from the 1993 …

Mandy Haggith

Prathik Prabhakara

Social Indicators Research

Massimiliano Tani

Arquivos Brasileiros de Cardiologia

José Ignacio Díaz Barreto

Clinical Rheumatology

Abubakar Musa Yerima

arXiv (Cornell University)

Manar Alalfi

Diaspora and the detours of identity.

Citation Count

The ‘diaspora’ diaspora

Evaluating `diaspora': beyond ethnicity, new hybridities, old concepts: the limits of 'culture', the 'multi-layered citizen', privileging identity, difference, and power: the circuit of culture as a basis for public relations theory, related papers (5), the location of culture, imagined communities: reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism, the black atlantic: modernity and double-consciousness, modernity at large: cultural dimensions of globalization, cultural identity and diaspora.

Transtext(e)s Transcultures 跨文本跨文化

Journal of Global Cultural Studies

Home Numéros 4 The Diaspora of the Term Diaspora...

The Diaspora of the Term Diaspora: A Working-Paper of a Definition

The quest for a definition of diaspora seems an impossible task because of the plurality of historical experiences, trajectories and agendas. One of the first approaches into this matter (Safran’s typology 1991) tried to build a definition based on the idea of trauma, exile and nostalgia. However, it became evident that producing a definition based on the memories of one diasporic community (the Jewish experience) and thus, turning it into a paradigm, could be less fruitful than one could imagine. New approaches then, explored through a more ethnographic approach different roots/routes (Clifford, 1997) pointing not only to the variety of the histories, but also to the wider politico-economic conditions that instigate transnational movements and also, the epistemological framework that tries to comprehend the latter with the re-launching of the term diasporas. This essay will focus on ethnographic experience in the Greek communities of Georgia and how they apprehend the term diaspora and when the latter becomes relevant to their lives and why. In other words, I will argue that the question of “when is diaspora”, instead of what and why, could be a more fruitful approach in examining the wider socio-political issues that urge for the re-emergence of diasporas.

1 In 2006 the Institute of Migration Policy organized a conference in Athens entitled “Migration in Greece: Experiences, Policies and Perspectives”. The conference attracted a surprisingly large number of participants working on different aspects of migration. I myself presented a paper concerning the connection between diaspora and migration, where I tried to critically discuss the traditional definition of diaspora in relation to national perceptions and ideologies. After the completion of the presentation, one of the participants, a political scientist, criticized my approach, because it questioned the fundamental definition of diasporas as communities cut off from a certain national body.

2 I started my paper with this brief story in order to illustrate that, despite the engagement of many different disciplines with diasporas, a definition of the term could still be a complex affair. Furthermore, it shows that any similar attempt should take into consideration historical perceptions of nationhood, ideologies of belonging, and disciplinary boundaries. On the other hand, the realization of this difficulty might function as common ground among diverse experiences often described as diasporas. In this context, a straightforward definition might be a chimera, but studying the conditions that produce diasporas as socio-political and academic categories might be a more fruitful approach.

• 1  The concept became central in the work of many postmodern thinkers because of its potential emanci (...)

3 Time and space are the most important ingredients in the formation, but also the evocation of diasporas. The two dimensions shape the horizon upon which diasporas conceive themselves as communities, emerge as alternative national Others and rise in everyday discourses as part of the ways people perceive their past and future. The discussion of the latter involves expectations and memories, desires and losses. It endows places with almost sacred or utopian dimensions and it turns others to real or symbolic prisons. Taking a closer look at the construction of these fears and desires would contribute to a “from below” understanding of Diaspora and will point out to the way these hopes and desires take part in the micro-politics of the post-national and global. 1 In this paper, I will start with a discussion of certain theoretical conceptualizations of diasporas and then, I will turn to my ethnographic experience illustrating how different perceptions of past and future correlate with wider spatio-temporal frameworks involving the notion of diasporas and various expressions of utopias.

Debating Diasporas: From Typologies to Postmodern Diasporas

• 2  James Clifford, Routes: Travel and Translation in the Late Twentieth Century , Massachussets, Harva (...)

4 There is an innate opposition embedded in the etymology of the term diaspora , of Greek origin, which reflects how double-edged the concept can be: dia- (a preposition which, when used in compound words, means division and dispersion) and –spiro (literally, to sow the seeds). This suggests, on the one hand, the idea of dispersion and on the other, that of stasis and stability (sowing seed, suggesting new life and new roots). In this part of my paper, I will concentrate on the dominant theoretical frameworks that attempted to offer a conceptualization of these contradictions. I will first look at Safran’s approach, often used to describe the historical diasporas and then, I will turn to the postmodern ideas of the concept, mainly following Clifford. 2

3 K. Toloyan, “The Nation and its Others” in Diaspora , 1 (1), 1997, pp. 3-7.

5 Since the 1990s with the disintegration of the former Soviet Union and the following upheavals in world politics, diasporas have been reinvented in academia as “exemplary communities of the transnational moment”. 3 One of the first attempts to manage the proliferation of the use of the term belongs to William Safran. Based on the study of the Jewish historical experience, Safran tried to set the criteria in order to build a typology, according to which a community could be, or not, categorized as such. His criteria underlined the attachment of diasporas to an initial place of origin which through their collective memory and mythology is defined as their Homeland. At the same time, these communities grow a feeling of rejection in their host country, which increases their desire for return to the homeland. This return becomes an almost metaphysical destiny and contributes to the development of personal or more official ties with the homeland. Let’s try to test this view in the Greek communities of Georgia.

• 4 Liisa H. Malkki, “National Geographic: The rooting of peoples and the territorialization of nationa (...)

6 Safran’s argument is constructed around the notion of an original center, the homeland, which is naturalized and fixed. The etymological analysis of “diaspora” revealed an embedded dual metaphor between roots/routes. Research has pointed out that this binary opposition becomes as natural as subjective and political. 4 For instance, the communities of Pontic-Greeks I have worked with and that originate from the Black Sea coast of Turkey (known in the Greek historiography with the name of Pontos) have always presented an ethnological and linguistic diversity well documented in historiography since ancient and Byzantine times.

7  The administration system of the Ottoman Empire (millet), which was based on the religion of the infidel communities permitted, at least to a certain extent, the perpetuation of cultural diversity, as long as the communities fulfilled their tax obligations. This way, local identities often weaved around various cultural and linguistic idioms were preserved, something that was supported by the inexistence of a Greek national center until the 19 th century. The decentred character of these communities strengthened their appreciation of these local cultures expressed in their traditions, idioms and community histories. This factor makes any strict outline of the homeland as the initial center rather difficult, if not unproductive. Safran’s approach in the above ethnographic context might result in the homogenization of these diverse experiences or memories of dislocation both internally (social and cultural organization of the group) and externally (in comparison to other groups with similar historical backgrounds). Furthermore, it will naturalize the center (metropolitan Greece) which became important much later, as I will illustrate.

5 Clifford, Routes: Travel and Translation in the Late Twentieth Century .

8 In contrast, there is another intake in the definition of diasporas that tries to be anti-essentialist, in the sense of not connecting diasporic communities to a center/nation-state or the feeling of loss and return. Clifford considers diasporas as a new form of consciousness, collectivity and solidarity in a period that fragmentation and deterritorialization are praised as dominant paradigms. 5 What is essential for the definition of diasporas, here, is their comparability. In other words, what is important is to compare diasporas with national histories, indigenous ideologies, policies of assimilation in order to understand how in this context, dispersion is often stigmatized and marginalized. Against these forces of homogeneity, diasporic groups often find recourse to a discourse of nostalgia praising difference. In this way, diasporas form a reaction to the described political and cultural hegemony. On the other hand, they often construct relations to transnational movements (political, cultural, religious) that try to overcome the obstacles of national boundaries and territoriality.  

• 6  See Benedict Anderson, “The New World Disorder”, in J. Vincent, The Anthropology of Politics. A Re (...)

9 Although this approach to diasporas might seem less homogenizing, a closer look might raise questions. Clifford invests too much in the hybrid and deterritorial character of diasporas. As experience has shown diasporas - the Greek example examined here is illustrative - are not indifferent to nationalism. 6 Furthermore, the double consciousness (here and there) attributed to these communities is rather presented as a general characteristic that endows diasporas with an emancipatory force from the boundedness and other constraints of nation-states. However, double consciousness is not a common idiom of all diasporas, but a feeling of belonging to certain contexts or one of rejection from others. Furthermore, this feeling does not necessarily exclude homogeneity. For example, the Greek-Georgians in Batumi (western Georgia) compare and consider themselves “more Greeks” than other Greek communities in Georgia, based on their own linguistic competence, in comparison to the Turkish-speaking Greeks (Romioi) of Tsalka (central Georgia).

• 7 Brent Hayes Edwards, “The uses of Diaspora”, Social Text, 19: 1, 2001, pp. 45-74, and Brent Hayes E (...)

10 In this part, I examined two dominant approaches to diasporas. The former depicts diasporas as an indivisible part of national histories, whereas the latter apply the term to various communities taking into account their deterritorialization and non-essentialist identity running often the risk of succeeding the opposite. The examination of the wider social, cultural and economic context that leads to the formation or evocation of diasporas is a crucial part of the quest for a definition. Brent Hayes Edwards argues for a definition, which “forces us to articulate discourses of cultural and political linkage only through and across difference”. 7 Edwards associates diaspora with cultural and political linkages across communities that retain their differences and distinctiveness, but also, they move beyond. I think that this point on difference is crucial for the discussion of the emergence and use of diasporas since it avoids the essentialist discourses mentioned before, without though excluding the use of such discourses by the diasporic groups themselves. Difference is a constitutive element of representation and as a result it is context-bounded and empties the discourse of diasporas from risky generalizations.  

Other Places: The Greeks in Batumi

• 8 Achara comprises the following ethnic groups 93,4 % Georgians, 2.3 Armenians, 0,6 Greeks, 0,4 Abkha (...)

11 In the previous part, I tried to briefly present some dominant questions that relate to the discussion of diasporas and their examination. Here, I will turn to my ethnography in order to depict how Greek-origin Georgians discuss diaspora issues. I arrived in Batumi in May 2004 on the same day that the new Georgian president visited the city after the removal of the local governor, who had been accused of dictatorial tendencies. The new Georgian flag adorned all the public buildings and many private houses. Batumi is the capital of Achara, in south-western Georgia, which belonged to the Ottomans for almost 300 years (16 th -19 th centuries). As a result, it includes a considerable Muslim Georgian population. 8

• 9 Achara had been an Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic of Soviet Georgia since 1921 (ASSR). After (...)

12 Achara was granted autonomous status in the Soviet period; after independence the authorities saw this as the cause of many problems. 9 Tensions were intensified by the former governor of Achara, Aslan Abashidze, whose family ties to the region were particularly strong; his family played a vital role in the liberation of Achara from the Ottomans. The region, and especially Batumi, is wealthy because of the port – the biggest in Georgia – and the customs posts along the border with Turkey, which control most of the cross-border trade. I was meeting a representative of the Greek local association. Ania arrivedright on time. She was in her early forties, well-dressed in professional attire, though less elegant than the women of Tbilisi. We left the hotel to visit the community club, owned by the association in Batumi.

13  ‘You know, Achara is special in Georgia because there are so many minorities living together’, Ania told me as we are walking towards Argos. ‘Do these minorities that you mentioned still lead a good life in Achara?’ I asked. ‘We have become fewer as you can imagine. But there are still minorities, Armenians, Ukrainians, and Russians. The president of our association is also the president of the committee of all the diasporic communities in Achara and our office here is the headquarters of the entire organisation’. ‘Is there a big association?’ I asked. ‘It used to have more members, but still. Membership is not restricted to Greeks. We have Armenians, Russians, and a French person married to a Pontic-Greek in our “Greek-Georgian Friendship Club” as we call our association.’ ‘Was there any specific reason for selecting this name?’ Ania responded enthusiastically. ‘It’s because I think that expresses our mission better. With all these various peoples living together in Achara, we influence each other and in the end you get an amalgam. Like the Greek-Georgians that live in Greece. Because, you know, we are not Greeks like you. We are Greek-Georgians.”

• 10 Michel Bruneau, “Ē diaspora tou Pontiakou Ellēnismou ke I Ellēnes tēs prōēn ESSR, ē edafikē skhesē” (...)
• 11 Artemis Leontis, Topographies of Hellenism. Mapping to Hellenism, Ithaca/ London: Cornell Universit (...)

12  Eric Hobsbawm, The Age of Revolution, 1789-1848 , London: Abacus, 2002.

14 Batumi is represented in the Greek history of the Black Sea as the cradle of the most affluent Pontic communities in Georgia in the 19 th century. Families of merchants migrated to the area of Batumi between 1878 and 1881. 10 Since the 1830s though, these migrations were parallel to the foundation of the Greek state and a gradually developed program of Hellenization. The ‘Hellenic’ was constructed in the western literary imagination long before Greece came into existence as a state. As Leontis argues, for the western imagination of the 18 th century Hellas was a place that existed in reality, but at the same time it seemed to belong to the realm of myth, imagined as the space of the mythical European origin, the birthplace of European values and spirit. 11 This perception inspired almost all the educated, merchant Greek families living dispersed in the Balkans and the Black Sea region, and who started to feel more connected to each other because of the gradual opening of the market and the increasing commercial opportunities that took place in the region in the 18 th century according to Hobsbawm. 12

• 13 In the Greek historiography, the Greek diaspora is divided into three periods: 1. Late 14th century (...)
• 14  Michael Herzfeld, Anthropology Through the Looking-Glass: Critical Ethnography in the Margins of E (...)

15 In the 19 th century, with nationalism rampant throughout the West, the common goal of independence transformed these Greek groups into a ‘Greek diaspora’. 13 When Greece was founded during the 1830s, the relation with its diasporas changed because the gradually empowered national center wanted to be recognized as the only legitimate center of Greekness, something that launched the question of authenticity among the various Greek groups. 14 A Hellenization project (schools, Greek language books, centralized curriculum, Greek priests and teachers, opening of consulates in the areas where Greek diasporic communities lived) started to be applied among various diasporic communities, those in the Black Sea and the Caucasus included. Because of the social and economic background of the community in Batumi, a high number of its members either attended Greek schools in Pontos or sponsored similar ones in Georgia. The result of this fact is registered in what I have heard in Tbilisi, “If you want to see real Greeks who speak real Greek you should go to Batumi” (my emphasis) – friends in Tbilisi told me. It also illustrates how the re-education of these diasporas in the past affected their hierarchization in the present. The different linguistic or cultural traditions did not disappear, but they were politicized living traces in today’s identity politics. For example, the comparison between the Greek and Turkish-speaking Greek communities of Georgia is a case that should be taken into account.

15  Henri Lefebvre, The Production of Space , Oxford: Blackwell, 1991 [1974].

• 16 In ancient Greek, the term was used in rhetoric to refer to a stock theme or expression that could (...)

17  Lefebvre, pp. 22-23.

• 18  Arjun Appadurai, “The production of locality”, in R. Fardon [ed.], Counterworks: Migration the div (...)

16 According to Lefebvre, our perception of space reflects the dialectics between practice, conception and imagination. 15 The Greek center was constructed through western imagination, contradictory ideas and traditions about Greekness and state policies, for example among the Pontic communities and metropolitan Greece. Following once more Lefebvre, we must also consider how social spaces generate different “topoi” 16 (in plural). 17 In other words, how space is transformed in a more personalized, historicized and localized experience and how people emplace themselves in it. As a consequence, we should consider how the community in Batumi formed their own social space and identity not only in relation, but also, against or through the Greek, national history. 18

• 19  Hayden White, “The Future of Utopia in History”, in Historein. A Review of the Past and Other Stor (...)

20  White, p. 11.

17 This im-placement is tied to history according to White. 19 He considers history as “a congeries of ‘places’ (topoi)”, 20 different placements in time and place, a process which becomes distinct and meaningful by systems of control, or, as Foucault would say, regimes of power and knowledge. In the dominant paradigm of Modernity, time is depicted as linear and progressive, in the same way that space is imagined as homogenous and continuous. Nevertheless, a closer look at the Greek imagination of the pre-revolutionary period seems to underline the role of the idealized past and the role of ancient Greece stressed within the Enlightenment project. At the same time, the hellenization project focused on the concentration of these fragmented and decentred diasporic communities around the Athenian center.

• 21 Foucault was interested in the institutionalized “sites” of power, categorized “counter-sites” into (...)
• 22  Edward W. Soja, “Heterotopologies: A Remembrance of Other Spaces in the Citadel-L.A.” in Strategie (...)

23  David Harvey, Spaces of Hope , Edinburgh: University Press of Edinburgh, 2000.

24  Michel Foucault, “Of Other Spaces” in Diacritics , Spring: 1, 1986, pp. 22-28.

18 In this framework, these communities exist in reality, but they are different for this emerging center of power. They are “counter-sites” 21 real spaces that nevertheless, contest all other spaces, which lack the illusion of utopias and they can be reached only “through a different way of seeing, a different interpretive analytics”. 22 These different lenses are not unrelated to issues of power. 23 However in his discussion of the distinction between these two topoi, Foucault (1986) uses reality in order to compare utopias and heterotopias. 24 Although this division, real/unreal, in the light of postmodernism could be considered as invalid, I think that Foucault points to a different time framework. Utopias are directed towards the future, whereas heterotopias are towards the present. This interpretation could help our discussion of how both (future/present) are connected and transformed into horizons of interpretations of memories and desires.

• 25  See Ernst Bloch, The Principle of Hope Vol. 3 , Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1986, for a discussion (...)

19 These interpretations, I think, are central in the study of diasporas, because they fuse space and time blending together desire, latency and expectation, necessary ingredients of the so-called nostalgia of the diasporas. 25 In this framework, diasporas could emerge, at certain times, as categories of alternative being, living and feeling challenging the dominant one. This is important, because, as I have shown, the creation of the Greek nation-state fixed a legitimate center of Hellenism, based on imaginations of the past, which cultivate desires for the future regarding these other Greek places, such as the diasporic communities, as satellites of the center. These diasporic communities started to be considered as same but different, less authentic than the Greek center, but still Greek, and thus, they needed to be re-educated. Greece, that was conceived as European heterotopias, started to produce its own.

• 26  Partly this vision supported the ideology of expansion of Greece beyond its borders in early 20th (...)

20 During this processes “nation-state” became the almost metaphysical destination of diaspora, its destiny and an evangelized utopia. 26 The focus in the production of different conceptualization of time and space forces us to re-conceptualize the center as such, as well as its mechanisms to construct otherness. This examination also gives us the opportunity to consider how these other places, such as the aforementioned diasporic communities, might have alternative perceptions of Greekness that emerge from their particular historical experience, influenced by the central utopian project of the 20 th century: the formation of the Soviet Union. In the following part, I will examine how some of these perceptions that Ania mentioned above rise as a result of the Soviet engineering.

Alternative Realities

21 In the previous part, I discussed the impact of the creation of the Greek nation-state on the formation of a Greek diaspora. I argued that the engagements of various Greek-speaking communities in the project of ethnogenesis produced a Greek diasporic consciousness. At the same time, I pointed out that the formation of the Greek state transformed these diasporic communities to topoi of dispersion from the “original” center. Experiencing Otherness as well as different historical conditions contributed to the alternative ways that Ania and their people conceive themselves. In this part, I will illustrate how the wider socio-economic relations between West/East generated, and how other ideas and imageries regarding Nation/Diasporas among the Greeks in Batumi generate.

• 27 Following Marx’s ideas about nations, Lenin considered them in his early writings, as a pathogen of (...)
• 28  Fredric Jameson, “Introduction/Prospectus: To reconsider the relationship of Marxism and Utopian T (...)

22 Ania referred to symbiosis and amalgamation. She spoke of difference as resulting from the “special character” of her region. But what is this special character? The Greeks who lived in Georgia in the 1920s were far from a homogenous group, as I have discussed. After the Revolution of 1917 and the Civil War that lasted until 1921, the reactions of the peoples of the former Russian Empire obliged Lenin to reconsider his stance on the idea of nations 27 . According to Jameson, Marxism offered two important aspects to the utopian thought of the 19 th century: presentism (the future is embedded in the present, firstly, in economic terms, for example industrialization as a way to accelerate the birth of a working class), and the social agent of change (the proletariat). 28 The history of the Soviet Union, especially in the first years was a struggle between the utopian ideas and the pragmatics of the political landscape of the country.

• 29  Eleni Sideri, “Cosmopolitanism in the Black Sea: from imperial Russia to the Stalinist deportation (...)

23 Lenin reconsidered his social engineering by stressing the instrumentality of nations as a form of creating solidarity, especially when the expression of these national feelings was oppressed by the Tsarist regime. In this framework, he shaped his project of national awareness and development launched in the 1920s in the Soviet Republics, as part of ‘ korenizatsiya ’ (rooting) in order to create a new social and political order. In this context, Greek language school started to function and a new generation of Greek language teachers was trained in Georgia. Respect to national sensitivities was eliminated after 1929 with the gradual enforcement of the Stalinist planning for the increase of the industrial production at the expense of the rural structures of the country. The political terror, that accompanied this program, was sealed for the Greeks of Western Georgia (Batumi and Sukhumi) with their deportations in 1949. 29

• 30 The Marxist tradition considers bourgeois ideology as a form of false consciousness, whereas social (...)
• 31  Fredric Jameson, I arkheologies tou mellontos. I epithymia pou legete outopia [Archaeologies of th (...)
• 32  Wallenstein, quoted from Ruth Levitas, “For Utopia: The (limits of the) utopian function in late c (...)
• 33  Susan Buck-Morris, Dreamworld and Catastrophe: The passage of mass Utopia in East and West , Cambri (...)

24 Stalinism increased the distance between the utopia and its daily bureaucratization and enforcement. Within this context, the utopian world that was evangelized in the time of the Revolution gradually became part of the Party’s rhetoric and an ideological idiom. 30 The economic and political centralization turned the initial vision of change into a nightmare, a dystopia, a term that emerged in 1950, according to Jameson 31 due to the totalitarianism of this period that strengthened the belief in the West that utopias are “breeders of illusions and therefore, inevitable, of disillusions”. 32 The post-war years are formative for the emergence of what would soon be called the other side of the Iron Gate. This period contributes to the construction of the total Other/Enemy, as Buck-Morris argued, which had an enormous impact on the coherence of the imaginary and was based, “on a politically imaginary of mutually exclusive, potentially hostile nation-states”. 33

25 Although Stalinism was traumatic for the Greek communities of western Georgia (they were deported in 1949), Ania seems to “forget” this part of her past, maybe as a way to underline her present needs and losses, as I will discuss. She chooses to shift her narrative to the idealized Soviet rhetoric regarding the co-existence of nationalities. As Khrushchev (1953-64) believed, the peoples living in the Soviet Union were destined to come closer dialectically through the blooming of their ethnic cultures until their final merging into the supranational category of the “Soviet People”. This natural, almost metaphysical merging would occur independently of the nationalities’ own will. Khrushchev failed to explain exactly what the utopian category of the Soviet People meant or to lay down a timetable for its establishment: his announcement thus expressed wishful thinking rather than a pragmatic political agenda. The various ethnic cultures did in fact flourish, but this did not lead to their gradual rapprochement. On the contrary, it strengthened the sense of living separately under an umbrella system intended to provide basic economic and social services to all, a general line that was followed with variations in rhetoric, by his successors. In this context, for Greeks like Ania, Greekness is detached from the territoriality of the Greek nation-state and becomes a political component of their “Sovietness”.

• 34  Eleni Sideri, “In quest of Eastern Europe: troubling encounters in the post-Cold War field” in Ant (...)

26 In the meanwhile, post-war Europe was about to produce another duality between Eastern/Western Europe. The Soviet Union as political space after World War II has constituted a social and political Other that acted as an important oppositional pole to ‘the West’. This role as the West’s Other became a key factor in the shaping of assumptions about ourselves and the others since the beginning of the Cold War. However, with the emergence of the latter in the case we are discussing, Nation and Diaspora are being separated in opposing ideological camps. For the official Greek state, and many Greeks without ties with these communities, the history Soviet Greeks, as they were known, was silenced for many years, until the late 1970s. During this period, diaspora seems to fall into disuse as social and political category of belonging. Many of the stereotypes regarding social regress that the Greeks from Georgia had to confront when they migrated to Greece since the 1990s, had their origin in that political division. 34

• 35  Ioanna Laliotou, “Timely Utopias: Notes on Utopian Thinking in the Twentieth Century”in Historein , (...)

27 The different experiences of this period contribute to the development of an alternative idea for the role diasporas have today. For Laliotou, the emergence of different potentialities of reality is embedded in the discussion of utopias whose return today has not been irrelevant to the political changes of the 1990s. 35 During this period, “diaspora” is been re-coined as a prominent analytical category. In this period, diaspora is seen as an important potential expression of collective identity constructed through different understandings and readings of the Nation and its history. Nevertheless, the concept of diaspora emerging in Ania’s narrative could be developed into a new vision regarding what the diaspora should be as a category of socio-political belonging.

• 36  See: Renee Hirschon, Heirs of the Greek Catastrophe. The Social life of Asia Minor Refugees in Pir (...)

28 Ania’s last statement expresses these differences about who should belong to the Greek diaspora. Ania used the hyphenated term “Greek-Georgian” to express her identity and to distinguish herself from me, trying to underline the special nature of her identity in comparison to mine. This was the only time I heard someone refer to such a designation in Georgia. Ania’s visit to Greece must have influenced her terminology. Anthropological works examining various aspects of the lives of the refugees who left Asia Minor and Pontos in 1922 and moved to Greece reveal their gradual integration into the present and past of the Greek nation-state through the creation of hyphenated identities. 36 However, Ania seems to understand this hyphenation in a different way.

29 Within these umbrella designations referring to broad areas of origin, where the refugees had lived the hyphenation does not refer to the linguistic form in Greek, but to the social value of these identities, which could be established only in relation to the dominant Greek identity. Greekness acted as the legitimate framework within which local cultures were expressed. These local identities representedthe cultural diversity and richness of Greekness, but raised no claims to political rights beyond this formal category. In this sense, political belonging to the Greek imagined community meant inclusion through subordination to a homogenous Greek identity that claimed to consist of the best of the subordinate local cultures.

30 Since the 1990s, globalization has questioned the meaning of “nation-state” and has been calling out for new, post-national forms of membership. In this framework, reimagining the past in the light of present conditions (migration from the former Soviet Union to Greece) and the future (repositioning of Greece in world politics) has become extremely important. For example, the political changes forced the Greek state to find new ways to approach old and new diasporas. The emerging vision of this global Hellenism was expressed institutionally with the creation of the Council of Greeks Abroad (SAE) in 1995. SAE is a non-governmental organization, whose mission statement emphasises:

The re-unification of the Hellenistic world and promotion of Hellenism in order to bolster lobbying power;

Economic, social and political strengthening of the Greeks abroad, especially the more vulnerable ones;

37  From the SAE official website: http://www.sae.gr/?id=12382&tag=ΣΑΕ%20Όραμα%20&%20Στόχοι.

Motivating all Greeks abroad to contribute to and participate in the SAE. 37

38 The Greek Nationality Law pays special attention to these factors.

31 Furthermore, in the revision of the Greek Constitution in 1999, article 108 clearly states: ‘The State provides for the maintenance of Hellenism Abroad and the preservation of its ties to the motherland’. It is obvious from its structure and mission statement that SAE is greatly concerned with the political agendas of the Greek state. Yet this global Hellenism is defined through the old vocabulary of the nation (common language, history, religion, culture). 38 In other words, it is global, but still to great extent centred.

• 39  William Safran, “Diasporas in modern societies: myths of homeland and return” in Diaspora , 1(1), 1 (...)

32 Once more, diaspora is considered as a subdivision of the Hellenic culture produced and defined by the national center, although this relation is seen through a transnational –but not completely decentred- organization. However this view of diasporas does not seem to remain unchallenged, as Ania’s interpretation of diaspora illustrates. Her hyphenation with the term Greek-Georgians encourages equality in her membership into two or more heritages and historical backgrounds. These contradictory considerations of the role of diaspora allude to different experiences of the past, different present needs and different aspirations for the future. Sargent suggests that the construction of national identity - and will add that of diasporic identity as well - is not unrelated to utopias of any form (heterotopias, dystopias or eutopias). 39 The study of how these specific forms are imagined and in what ways they relate to the idea of nation/diaspora might be rewarding in opening new paths to the discussion of new forms of political belonging.

The Definition as a New Quest

33 In this paper, I tried to examine the possibility of a valid definition of the term diaspora. I started with the discussion of two main approaches (Safran’s and Clifford’s) pointing out that, although both of them seem contradictory, they, nevertheless, lead to the same impasse. Then, I turned to my ethnography in Georgia (Batumi). I have shown that the polarization and politicization of Nation/Diaspora was a product of the European modernity. Then, I examined the different experiences and ideals of political membership between Greece and the Greek diasporic communities in Soviet Georgia. Finally, I drew my attention to the re-emergence of diasporas in the 1990s and the different desires from the Greek state and the Greek diasporas.

34 I argued that concentrating on the difficulty of inventing a definition regarding diaspora forces us to examine the historical context within which diaspora rises as a conceptual framework, but also how the latter is understood within and against human perceptions of time and space. Drawing from that point, I discussed the questions of topoi and I turned my attention to the conditions that generate various forms of utopias. By examining the historical factors that contributed to the creation of a Greek diaspora, I pointed to the imageries and practices that formed the context of its rise: the Enlightenment ideas, the political and economic exigencies of modernity that cultivated the European nationalisms, national state-building. However, diaspora history is not constructed only in connection, but also, in opposition to the national one. Thus, the examination of the diaspora in Batumi has shown the way that different socio-political experiences could lead to other demands and alternative visions of both past and future.

• 40 Difficulties in obtaining visas and the often traumatic experiences from migrations increased the i (...)
• 41  Antonis Liakos, "Utopian and thistorical thinking: interplays and transferences", p.47, in Histore (...)

35 Both these dimensions are encountered in the feeling of nostalgia that seeks to map new life trajectories. Ania by “forgetting” deportations focused in her narrative on the Soviet ideal of full and equal participation to civil rights. Although this remained a dream for many of the Soviet citizens, the ideal is alive for people like Ania who feel that they are deprived today from what they consider their rights. 40  In this way, Ania negotiated her community’s experiences and memories in the light of today’s problems and losses. This negotiation might generate nostalgia, but not in Safran’s sense (pain for the loss of the homeland). Instead, as Liakos puts it, nostalgia is the means to envisage “the future in a different way from what has been realized, and re-enacting the possibilities of the past in juxtaposition to the present”. 41 This re-enactment involves strategies of remembering or forgetting, claiming authenticity and superiority, disenchanting the anti-essentialism of post-modern diasporas found in Clifford’s definition.

42  Jameson, I arkheologies tou mellontos , p.20.

• 43  See Zygmunt Bauman, Life in Fragments. Essays in Postmodern Morality , Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell, (...)
• 44  Peter G. Stillman, “’Nothing is, but what is not': Utopias as Practical Political Philosophy”, p. (...)

36 Jameson argued that unsuccessful utopias might be the more effective since they leave behind a vacuum that could be satiated with desires and daydreams. 42 The fall of the Soviet Union was characterised as the end of History, which was translated as triumph of capitalism. However, hopes were soon disillusioned by the discontents of globalization. 43 In this context, the re-emergence of utopias not as systematic projects, but more as “critical impulses” or comment on the social life becomes prominent. 44 The question is how the latter could be translated into such ways both in terms of content as well as of form in order to become meaningful. In this framework, diasporas have re-emerged in socio-political and academic vocabulary trying to map new political contingencies with nation, but also move beyond, embracing the transnational prerequisites of the economic landscape. However, a fixed definition of diaspora or one resulting only in relation to the nation is hardly satisfactory. In today’s context, where the discussion for equality and more open forms of political membership is more acute than ever, diaspora re-emerges as an identity with use-value, but contradictory understandings for Ania and her people, as well as the Greek foreign policy. However, as Edwards postulated, the examination of the meaning of diaspora becomes meaningful only “though and across difference”. In this way, the embedded contradictions and ambiguities could be revealing wider meanings, potentialities and expectations expressed through the concept in different periods, and this may help us comprehend the dialectics of desire and power.

1  The concept became central in the work of many postmodern thinkers because of its potential emancipatory force against the social-political structures of capitalism and inspired the agenda of micro-politics, see Gilles Deleuze, Anti-Oedipus , Minneapolis, University of Minessota Press, 1983 and Jean-François Lyotard, The P ostmodern C ondition , Minneapolis, University of Minessota Press, 1984. However, the abstractness and the appraisal of the deterritorialized individual, which are embedded in these approaches, have rather weakened this project from its social and political force.

2  James Clifford, Routes: Travel and Translation in the Late Twentieth Century , Massachussets, Harvard University Press, 1997. William Safran, “Diasporas in modern societies: myths of homeland and return” in Diaspora , 1 (1), 1997, pp. 83-99. Here, I present only two works in order to sketch how different approaches tried to define the human experience labeled as diaspora because of their influence and almost exemplary status. There are, of course, many other that criticize the aforementioned models and tried to move beyond.

4 Liisa H. Malkki, “National Geographic: The rooting of peoples and the territorialization of national identity among scholars and refugee” in Cultural Anthropology, 7 (1), 1992, pp. 24-44.

6  See Benedict Anderson, “The New World Disorder”, in J. Vincent, The Anthropology of Politics. A Reader in Ethnography, Theory and Critique , Oxford: Blackwell, 2002, pp. 261-270.

7 Brent Hayes Edwards, “The uses of Diaspora”, Social Text, 19: 1, 2001, pp. 45-74, and Brent Hayes Edwards, The P ractice of Diaspora: Literature, Transition and the Rise of Black Internationalism , Cambridge Massachusetts, Harvard University Press, 2003, p. 13.

8 Achara comprises the following ethnic groups 93,4 % Georgians, 2.3 Armenians, 0,6 Greeks, 0,4 Abkhazians, 0,2 Ukrainians, 0,2 others (Wikipedia, 2002) . See also T. Sakhokia, Mogzaurobani. Guria, Achara, Samur Zaqano, Apkhazeti [Travel writings. Guria, Achara, Samur Zaqano, Aphazi],Batumi: Sabch’ot‘a Ach’ara, 1998.

9 Achara had been an Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic of Soviet Georgia since 1921 (ASSR). After Georgia’s independence, it kept its autonomy.

10 Michel Bruneau, “Ē diaspora tou Pontiakou Ellēnismou ke I Ellēnes tēs prōēn ESSR, ē edafikē skhesē” [The diaspora of the Pontic Hellenism and the Greeks of the former USSR, the territorial realtion] in Michel Bruneau [ed.], I diaspora tou Pontiakou Ellinismou , Thessaloniki: Herodotos, 2001.

11 Artemis Leontis, Topographies of Hellenism. Mapping to Hellenism, Ithaca/ London: Cornell University Press, 1995.

13 In the Greek historiography, the Greek diaspora is divided into three periods: 1. Late 14th century-19th century, featuring migration of the Greek population from the Byzantine center – Constantinople – to the West, 2. 1830s (foundation of the Greek state) to World War II, featuring migration from Greece to southern Russia, the Caucasus and North and South America and 3. Mid-1940s to 1970s, featuring migration from Greece to the Americas, Australia and Western Europe (West Germany). The temporal and geographical span shows the complexity and diversity of the communities labelled and homogenised as Greek Diaspora. See Iannis K. Hassiotis, Episkopisē tēs istorias tēs neoellēnikēs diasporas [Review of the history of the modern Greek diaspora] , Athens: Vanias, 1993; and Michel Bruneau, “Ē diaspora tou Pontiakou Ellēnismou ke I Ellēnes tēs prōēn ESSR, ē edafikē skhesē” [The diaspora of the Pontic Hellenism and the Greeks of the former USSR, the territorial realtion] in Michel Bruneau [ed.], I diaspora tou Pontiakou Ellinismou , Thessaloniki: Herodotos, 2001.

14  Michael Herzfeld, Anthropology Through the Looking-Glass: Critical Ethnography in the Margins of Europe , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987.

16 In ancient Greek, the term was used in rhetoric to refer to a stock theme or expression that could impress the audience. In Modern Greek it means “place”. This double meaning illustrates Lefebvre’s point that space is “used” and “written”.

18  Arjun Appadurai, “The production of locality”, in R. Fardon [ed.], Counterworks: Migration the diversity of Knoweledge, London: Routledge, 1995, pp. 204-225.

19  Hayden White, “The Future of Utopia in History”, in Historein. A Review of the Past and Other Stories , vol. 7, 2007, pp. 11-20.

21 Foucault was interested in the institutionalized “sites” of power, categorized “counter-sites” into six major functional categories that ultimately risk being overly general and restrictive. However, as Harvey underlines, Foucault’s attempt to turn our attention to the heterogeneity of perceptions of discourse remained uncompleted since the French philosopher does not proceed to the construction of an alternative reading that could result to various forms of emancipation and resistance avoiding essentialism.

22  Edward W. Soja, “Heterotopologies: A Remembrance of Other Spaces in the Citadel-L.A.” in Strategies 3, 1990, pp. 6-39, p. 8.

25  See Ernst Bloch, The Principle of Hope Vol. 3 , Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1986, for a discussion of various cultural forms permeated with hope of organizing life in the West.

26  Partly this vision supported the ideology of expansion of Greece beyond its borders in early 20th century.

27 Following Marx’s ideas about nations, Lenin considered them in his early writings, as a pathogen of the bourgeois societies used to control the means of production and obstruct the working class alliances. In 1913, Stalin in his “Marxism and the National Question” ( Works, Vol. 4, 1917-1920 , Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1953, pp.300-382), expressed the official Bolshevik line on the issue arguing that the nation was a historical formation whose existence should not be denied but which was far less important than class.

28  Fredric Jameson, “Introduction/Prospectus: To reconsider the relationship of Marxism and Utopian Thought”, pp. 362-363, in Michael Hardt and Kathi Weeks, The Jameson Reader , Oxford: Blackwell, 2004, pp. 361-368.

29  Eleni Sideri, “Cosmopolitanism in the Black Sea: from imperial Russia to the Stalinist deportations and the post-Soviet diasporas”, Association of Social Anthropologists (ASA)-UK, 6, 2006, pp. 10-14.

30 The Marxist tradition considers bourgeois ideology as a form of false consciousness, whereas socialist ideology might hide emancipatory and revolutionary possibilities. Bloch, however, believes that there are deceptive and emancipatory qualities in both ideologies and utopias (Ernst Bloch, The Principle of Hope Vol. 3 ).

31  Fredric Jameson, I arkheologies tou mellontos. I epithymia pou legete outopia [Archaeologies of the future. The desire called utopia and other science fictions.], Vol. 1 , Athens: Topos, 2008.

32  Wallenstein, quoted from Ruth Levitas, “For Utopia: The (limits of the) utopian function in late capitalism society” in B. Goodwirn [ed.], The Philosophy of Utopia , London: Franc Cass, 2001, pp. 21-44

33  Susan Buck-Morris, Dreamworld and Catastrophe: The passage of mass Utopia in East and West , Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2000, p. 13.

34  Eleni Sideri, “In quest of Eastern Europe: troubling encounters in the post-Cold War field” in Anthropology Matters , 8:1, 2006. Available online at: http://www.anthropologymatters.com/journal/2006-1/ sideri_2006_inuest.pdf.

35  Ioanna Laliotou, “Timely Utopias: Notes on Utopian Thinking in the Twentieth Century”in Historein , 7, 2007, pp. 58-71.

36  See: Renee Hirschon, Heirs of the Greek Catastrophe. The Social life of Asia Minor Refugees in Pireus , New York/Oxford: Bergham Books, 1989; Patricia Fann, “The Pontic Myth of Homeland: Cultural Expressions of Nationalism and Ethnicism in Pontos and Greece 1870-1990”, Journal of Refugee Studies , 1991, Vol. 4(4), pp. 340-357; Maria Vergeti, Apo ton Ponto stēn Ellada. Diadikasies diamorfōssēs mias ethnotopikis taftotētas [From Pontos to Greece. Processes of formation of an ethno-regional identity] , Thessaloniki: Afi Kyriakidi, 1994; Anastasia N. Karakasidou, Fields of wheat, hills of blood: Passage to nationhood in Greek-Macedonia 1870-1900 , Chicago: Chicago University Press, 2000.

39  William Safran, “Diasporas in modern societies: myths of homeland and return” in Diaspora , 1(1), 1991 pp. 83-99.

40 Difficulties in obtaining visas and the often traumatic experiences from migrations increased the intensity of this feeling.  

41  Antonis Liakos, "Utopian and thistorical thinking: interplays and transferences", p.47, in Historein , 7, 2007, pp. 20-58.

43  See Zygmunt Bauman, Life in Fragments. Essays in Postmodern Morality , Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell, 1995, and Postmodernity and its Discontents , New York: New York University Press, 1997.

44  Peter G. Stillman, “’Nothing is, but what is not': Utopias as Practical Political Philosophy”, p. 19, in B. Goodwin [ed.], The Philosophy of Utopia , London: Frank Cass, pp. 9-25.

Bibliographical reference

Eleni Sideri , “The Diaspora of the Term Diaspora: A Working-Paper of a Definition” ,  Transtext(e)s Transcultures 跨文本跨文化 , 4 | 2008, 32-47.

Electronic reference

Eleni Sideri , “The Diaspora of the Term Diaspora: A Working-Paper of a Definition” ,  Transtext(e)s Transcultures 跨文本跨文化 [Online], 4 | 2008, Online since 14 October 2009 , connection on 04 May 2024 . URL : http://journals.openedition.org/transtexts/247; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/transtexts.247

About the author

Eleni sideri.

Associate Professor, School of Oriental and African Studies (London)

The text and other elements (illustrations, imported files) are “All rights reserved”, unless otherwise stated.

Full text issues

• 17 | 2022 Cinematic Im/mobilities in the Planetary Now
• 16 | 2021 Academic Freedom in a Global Context
• 15 | 2020 Censorship in Postcolonial Cultural Productions
• 14 | 2019 Re-thinking Latin America: Challenges and Possibilities
• 13 | 2018 Representing Nature in the Age of the Anthropocene
• 12 | 2017 The Other’s Imagined Diseases. Transcultural Representations of Health
• 11 | 2016 Le genre de la maladie : pratiques, discours, textes et représentations
• 10 | 2015 Manger, Représenter: Approches transculturelles des pratiques alimentaires
• 9 | 2014 Géopolitique de la connaissance et transferts culturels
• 8 | 2013 Gender and kinship: practices and representations
• 7 | 2012 Transcultural Identity and Circulation of Imaginaries
• 6 | 2011 Debating China
• 5 | 2009
• 4 | 2008 Cultures in Transit
• Hors série | 2008 Poetry and Insularity
• 3 | 2007 Global Cities
• 2 | 2007
• 1 | 2006
• Presentation
• Editorial Board
• Instructions for Authors

Informations

• Publishing policies

Newsletters

• OpenEdition Newsletter

In collaboration with

Electronic ISSN 2105-2549

Read detailed presentation  

Site map  – Syndication

Privacy Policy  – About Cookies  – Report a problem

OpenEdition member  – Published with Lodel  – Administration only

You will be redirected to OpenEdition Search

Cultural Identity and Diaspora [1990]

• Published: April 2021
• Standard View
• Open the Chapter PDF for in another window
• Permissions
• Cite Icon Cite

2021. "Cultural Identity and Diaspora [1990]", Selected Writings on Race and Difference, Stuart Hall, Paul Gilroy, Ruth Wilson Gilmore

Download citation file:

• Reference Manager

Figures & Tables

Selected Writings on Race and Difference

Stuart Hall (1932–2014) was one of the most prominent and influential scholars and public intellectuals of his generation. Hall taught at the University of Birmingham and the Open University, was the founding editor of New Left Review , and was the author of Cultural Studies 1983: A Theoretical History , Familiar Stranger: A Life Between Two Islands , and other books also published by Duke University Press.

Paul Gilroy is Professor of the Humanities, Institute of Advanced Studies at University College London.

Ruth Wilson Gilmore is Professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences and of American Studies at the Graduate Center, City University of New York.

• ‹ Prev
• Next ›

Advertisement

Email alerts

Related book chapters, related topics, related articles.

• Copyright © 2024
• Duke University Press
• 905 W. Main St. Ste. 18-B
• Durham, NC 27701
• (888) 651-0122
• International
• +1 (919) 688-5134
• Information For
• Advertisers
• Book Authors
• Booksellers/Media
• Journal Authors/Editors
• Journal Subscribers
• Prospective Journals
• Licensing and Subsidiary Rights
• View Open Positions
• email Join our Mailing List
• catalog Current Catalog
• Accessibility
• Get Adobe Reader

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

What It Means To Be Asian in America

The lived experiences and perspectives of asian americans in their own words.

Asians are the fastest growing racial and ethnic group in the United States. More than 24 million Americans in the U.S. trace their roots to more than 20 countries in East and Southeast Asia and the Indian subcontinent.

The majority of Asian Americans are immigrants, coming to understand what they left behind and building their lives in the United States. At the same time, there is a fast growing, U.S.-born generation of Asian Americans who are navigating their own connections to familial heritage and their own experiences growing up in the U.S.

In a new Pew Research Center analysis based on dozens of focus groups, Asian American participants described the challenges of navigating their own identity in a nation where the label “Asian” brings expectations about their origins, behavior and physical self. Read on to see, in their own words, what it means to be Asian in America.

• Introduction

Table of Contents

This is how i view my identity, this is how others see and treat me, this is what it means to be home in america, about this project, methodological note, acknowledgments.

No single experience defines what it means to be Asian in the United States today. Instead, Asian Americans’ lived experiences are in part shaped by where they were born, how connected they are to their family’s ethnic origins, and how others – both Asians and non-Asians – see and engage with them in their daily lives. Yet despite diverse experiences, backgrounds and origins, shared experiences and common themes emerged when we asked: “What does it mean to be Asian in America?”

In the fall of 2021, Pew Research Center undertook the largest focus group study it had ever conducted – 66 focus groups with 264 total participants – to hear Asian Americans talk about their lived experiences in America. The focus groups were organized into 18 distinct Asian ethnic origin groups, fielded in 18 languages and moderated by members of their own ethnic groups. Because of the pandemic, the focus groups were conducted virtually, allowing us to recruit participants from all parts of the United States. This approach allowed us to hear a diverse set of voices – especially from less populous Asian ethnic groups whose views, attitudes and opinions are seldom presented in traditional polling. The approach also allowed us to explore the reasons behind people’s opinions and choices about what it means to belong in America, beyond the preset response options of a traditional survey.

The terms “Asian,” “Asians living in the United States” and “Asian American” are used interchangeably throughout this essay to refer to U.S. adults who self-identify as Asian, either alone or in combination with other races or Hispanic identity.

“The United States” and “the U.S.” are used interchangeably with “America” for variations in the writing.

Multiracial participants are those who indicate they are of two or more racial backgrounds (one of which is Asian). Multiethnic participants are those who indicate they are of two or more ethnicities, including those identified as Asian with Hispanic background.

U.S. born refers to people born in the 50 U.S. states or the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, or other U.S. territories.

Immigrant refers to people who were not U.S. citizens at birth – in other words, those born outside the U.S., Puerto Rico or other U.S. territories to parents who were not U.S. citizens. The terms “immigrant,” “first generation” and “foreign born” are used interchangeably in this report.  

Second generation refers to people born in the 50 states or the District of Columbia with at least one first-generation, or immigrant, parent.

The pan-ethnic term “Asian American” describes the population of about 22 million people living in the United States who trace their roots to more than 20 countries in East and Southeast Asia and the Indian subcontinent. The term was popularized by U.S. student activists in the 1960s and was eventually adopted by the U.S. Census Bureau. However, the “Asian” label masks the diverse demographics and wide economic disparities across the largest national origin groups (such as Chinese, Indian, Filipino) and the less populous ones (such as Bhutanese, Hmong and Nepalese) living in America. It also hides the varied circumstances of groups immigrated to the U.S. and how they started their lives there. The population’s diversity often presents challenges . Conventional survey methods typically reflect the voices of larger groups without fully capturing the broad range of views, attitudes, life starting points and perspectives experienced by Asian Americans. They can also limit understanding of the shared experiences across this diverse population.

Across all focus groups, some common findings emerged. Participants highlighted how the pan-ethnic “Asian” label used in the U.S. represented only one part of how they think of themselves. For example, recently arrived Asian immigrant participants told us they are drawn more to their ethnic identity than to the more general, U.S.-created pan-ethnic Asian American identity. Meanwhile, U.S.-born Asian participants shared how they identified, at times, as Asian but also, at other times, by their ethnic origin and as Americans.

Another common finding among focus group participants is the disconnect they noted between how they see themselves and how others view them. Sometimes this led to maltreatment of them or their families, especially at heightened moments in American history such as during Japanese incarceration during World War II, the aftermath of 9/11 and, more recently, the COVID-19 pandemic. Beyond these specific moments, many in the focus groups offered their own experiences that had revealed other people’s assumptions or misconceptions about their identity.

Another shared finding is the multiple ways in which participants take and express pride in their cultural and ethnic backgrounds while also feeling at home in America, celebrating and blending their unique cultural traditions and practices with those of other Americans.

This focus group project is part of a broader research agenda about Asians living in the United States. The findings presented here offer a small glimpse of what participants told us, in their own words, about how they identify themselves, how others see and treat them, and more generally, what it means to be Asian in America.

Illustrations by Jing Li

Publications from the Being Asian in America project

• Read the data essay: What It Means to Be Asian in America
• Watch the documentary: Being Asian in America
• Explore the interactive: In Their Own Words: The Diverse Perspectives of Being Asian in America
• View expanded interviews: Extended Interviews: Being Asian in America
• About this research project: More on the Being Asian in America project
• Q&A: Why and how Pew Research Center conducted 66 focus groups with Asian Americans

One of the topics covered in each focus group was how participants viewed their own racial or ethnic identity. Moderators asked them how they viewed themselves, and what experiences informed their views about their identity. These discussions not only highlighted differences in how participants thought about their own racial or ethnic background, but they also revealed how different settings can influence how they would choose to identify themselves. Across all focus groups, the general theme emerged that being Asian was only one part of how participants viewed themselves.

The pan-ethnic label ‘Asian’ is often used more in formal settings

“I think when I think of the Asian Americans, I think that we’re all unique and different. We come from different cultures and backgrounds. We come from unique stories, not just as a group, but just as individual humans.” Mali , documentary participant

Many participants described a complicated relationship with the pan-ethnic labels “Asian” or “Asian American.” For some, using the term was less of an active choice and more of an imposed one, with participants discussing the disconnect between how they would like to identify themselves and the available choices often found in formal settings. For example, an immigrant Pakistani woman remarked how she typically sees “Asian American” on forms, but not more specific options. Similarly, an immigrant Burmese woman described her experience of applying for jobs and having to identify as “Asian,” as opposed to identifying by her ethnic background, because no other options were available. These experiences highlight the challenges organizations like government agencies and employers have in developing surveys or forms that ask respondents about their identity. A common sentiment is one like this:

“I guess … I feel like I just kind of check off ‘Asian’ [for] an application or the test forms. That’s the only time I would identify as Asian. But Asian is too broad. Asia is a big continent. Yeah, I feel like it’s just too broad. To specify things, you’re Taiwanese American, that’s exactly where you came from.”

–U.S.-born woman of Taiwanese origin in early 20s

Smaller ethnic groups default to ‘Asian’ since their groups are less recognizable

Other participants shared how their experiences in explaining the geographic location and culture of their origin country led them to prefer “Asian” when talking about themselves with others. This theme was especially prominent among those belonging to smaller origin groups such as Bangladeshis and Bhutanese. A Lao participant remarked she would initially say “Asian American” because people might not be familiar with “Lao.”

“​​[When I fill out] forms, I select ‘Asian American,’ and that’s why I consider myself as an Asian American. [It is difficult to identify as] Nepali American [since] there are no such options in forms. That’s why, Asian American is fine to me.”

–Immigrant woman of Nepalese origin in late 20s

“Coming to a big country like [the United States], when people ask where we are from … there are some people who have no idea about Bhutan, so we end up introducing ourselves as being Asian.”

–Immigrant woman of Bhutanese origin in late 40s

But for many, ‘Asian’ as a label or identity just doesn’t fit

Many participants felt that neither “Asian” nor “Asian American” truly captures how they view themselves and their identity. They argue that these labels are too broad or too ambiguous, as there are so many different groups included within these labels. For example, a U.S.-born Pakistani man remarked on how “Asian” lumps many groups together – that the term is not limited to South Asian groups such as Indian and Pakistani, but also includes East Asian groups. Similarly, an immigrant Nepalese man described how “Asian” often means Chinese for many Americans. A Filipino woman summed it up this way:

“Now I consider myself to be both Filipino and Asian American, but growing up in [Southern California] … I didn’t start to identify as Asian American until college because in [the Los Angeles suburb where I lived], it’s a big mix of everything – Black, Latino, Pacific Islander and Asian … when I would go into spaces where there were a lot of other Asians, especially East Asians, I didn’t feel like I belonged. … In media, right, like people still associate Asian with being East Asian.”

–U.S.-born woman of Filipino origin in mid-20s

Participants also noted they have encountered confusion or the tendency for others to view Asian Americans as people from mostly East Asian countries, such as China, Japan and Korea. For some, this confusion even extends to interactions with other Asian American groups. A Pakistani man remarked on how he rarely finds Pakistani or Indian brands when he visits Asian stores. Instead, he recalled mostly finding Vietnamese, Korean and Chinese items.

Among participants of South Asian descent, some identified with the label “South Asian” more than just “Asian.” There were other nuances, too, when it comes to the labels people choose. Some Indian participants, for example, said people sometimes group them with Native Americans who are also referred to as Indians in the United States. This Indian woman shared her experience at school:

“I love South Asian or ‘Desi’ only because up until recently … it’s fairly new to say South Asian. I’ve always said ‘Desi’ because growing up … I’ve had to say I’m the red dot Indian, not the feather Indian. So annoying, you know? … Always a distinction that I’ve had to make.”

–U.S.-born woman of Indian origin in late 20s

Participants with multiethnic or multiracial backgrounds described their own unique experiences with their identity. Rather than choosing one racial or ethnic group over the other, some participants described identifying with both groups, since this more accurately describes how they see themselves. In some cases, this choice reflected the history of the Asian diaspora. For example, an immigrant Cambodian man described being both Khmer/Cambodian and Chinese, since his grandparents came from China. Some other participants recalled going through an “identity crisis” as they navigated between multiple identities. As one woman explained:

“I would say I went through an identity crisis. … It’s because of being multicultural. … There’s also French in the mix within my family, too. Because I don’t identify, speak or understand the language, I really can’t connect to the French roots … I’m in between like Cambodian and Thai, and then Chinese and then French … I finally lumped it up. I’m just an Asian American and proud of all my roots.”

–U.S.-born woman of Cambodian origin in mid-30s

In other cases, the choice reflected U.S. patterns of intermarriage. Asian newlyweds have the highest intermarriage rate of any racial or ethnic group in the country. One Japanese-origin man with Hispanic roots noted:

“So I would like to see myself as a Hispanic Asian American. I want to say Hispanic first because I have more of my mom’s culture in me than my dad’s culture. In fact, I actually have more American culture than my dad’s culture for what I do normally. So I guess, Hispanic American Asian.”

–U.S.-born man of Hispanic and Japanese origin in early 40s

Other identities beyond race or ethnicity are also important

Focus group participants also talked about their identity beyond the racial or ethnic dimension. For example, one Chinese woman noted that the best term to describe her would be “immigrant.” Faith and religious ties were also important to some. One immigrant participant talked about his love of Pakistani values and how religion is intermingled into Pakistani culture. Another woman explained:

“[Japanese language and culture] are very important to me and ingrained in me because they were always part of my life, and I felt them when I was growing up. Even the word itadakimasu reflects Japanese culture or the tradition. Shinto religion is a part of the culture. They are part of my identity, and they are very important to me.”

–Immigrant woman of Japanese origin in mid-30s

For some, gender is another important aspect of identity. One Korean participant emphasized that being a woman is an important part of her identity. For others, sexual orientation is an essential part of their overall identity. One U.S.-born Filipino participant described herself as “queer Asian American.” Another participant put it this way:

“I belong to the [LGBTQ] community … before, what we only know is gay and lesbian. We don’t know about being queer, nonbinary. [Here], my horizon of knowing what genders and gender roles is also expanded … in the Philippines, if you’ll be with same sex, you’re considered gay or lesbian. But here … what’s happening is so broad, on how you identify yourself.”

–Immigrant woman of Filipino origin in early 20s

Immigrant identity is tied to their ethnic heritage

Participants born outside the United States tended to link their identity with their ethnic heritage. Some felt strongly connected with their ethnic ties due to their citizenship status. For others, the lack of permanent residency or citizenship meant they have stronger ties to their ethnicity and birthplace. And in some cases, participants said they held on to their ethnic identity even after they became U.S. citizens. One woman emphasized that she will always be Taiwanese because she was born there, despite now living in the U.S.

For other participants, family origin played a central role in their identity, regardless of their status in the U.S. According to some of them, this attitude was heavily influenced by their memories and experiences in early childhood when they were still living in their countries of origin. These influences are so profound that even after decades of living in the U.S., some still feel the strong connection to their ethnic roots. And those with U.S.-born children talked about sending their kids to special educational programs in the U.S. to learn about their ethnic heritage.

“Yes, as for me, I hold that I am Khmer because our nationality cannot be deleted, our identity is Khmer as I hold that I am Khmer … so I try, even [with] my children today, I try to learn Khmer through Zoom through the so-called Khmer Parent Association.”

–Immigrant man of Cambodian origin in late 50s

Navigating life in America is an adjustment

Many participants pointed to cultural differences they have noticed between their ethnic culture and U.S. culture. One of the most distinct differences is in food. For some participants, their strong attachment to the unique dishes of their families and their countries of origin helps them maintain strong ties to their ethnic identity. One Sri Lankan participant shared that her roots are still in Sri Lanka, since she still follows Sri Lankan traditions in the U.S. such as preparing kiribath (rice with coconut milk) and celebrating Ramadan.

For other participants, interactions in social settings with those outside their own ethnic group circles highlighted cultural differences. One Bangladeshi woman talked about how Bengalis share personal stories and challenges with each other, while others in the U.S. like to have “small talk” about TV series or clothes.

Many immigrants in the focus groups have found it is easier to socialize when they are around others belonging to their ethnicity. When interacting with others who don’t share the same ethnicity, participants noted they must be more self-aware about cultural differences to avoid making mistakes in social interactions. Here, participants described the importance of learning to “fit in,” to avoid feeling left out or excluded. One Korean woman said:

“Every time I go to a party, I feel unwelcome. … In Korea, when I invite guests to my house and one person sits without talking, I come over and talk and treat them as a host. But in the United States, I have to go and mingle. I hate mingling so much. I have to talk and keep going through unimportant stories. In Korea, I am assigned to a dinner or gathering. I have a party with a sense of security. In America, I have nowhere to sit, and I don’t know where to go and who to talk to.”

–Immigrant woman of Korean origin in mid-40s

And a Bhutanese immigrant explained:

“In my case, I am not an American. I consider myself a Bhutanese. … I am a Bhutanese because I do not know American culture to consider myself as an American. It is very difficult to understand the sense of humor in America. So, we are pure Bhutanese in America.”

–Immigrant man of Bhutanese origin in early 40s

Language was also a key aspect of identity for the participants. Many immigrants in the focus groups said they speak a language other than English at home and in their daily lives. One Vietnamese man considered himself Vietnamese since his Vietnamese is better than his English. Others emphasized their English skills. A Bangladeshi participant felt that she was more accepted in the workplace when she does more “American” things and speaks fluent English, rather than sharing things from Bangladeshi culture. She felt that others in her workplace correlate her English fluency with her ability to do her job. For others born in the U.S., the language they speak at home influences their connection to their ethnic roots.

“Now if I go to my work and do show my Bengali culture and Asian culture, they are not going to take anything out of it. So, basically, I have to show something that they are interested in. I have to show that I am American, [that] I can speak English fluently. I can do whatever you give me as a responsibility. So, in those cases I can’t show anything about my culture.”

–Immigrant woman of Bangladeshi origin in late 20s

“Being bi-ethnic and tri-cultural creates so many unique dynamics, and … one of the dynamics has to do with … what it is to be Americanized. … One of the things that played a role into how I associate the identity is language. Now, my father never spoke Spanish to me … because he wanted me to develop a fluency in English, because for him, he struggled with English. What happened was three out of the four people that raised me were Khmer … they spoke to me in Khmer. We’d eat breakfast, lunch and dinner speaking Khmer. We’d go to the temple in Khmer with the language and we’d also watch videos and movies in Khmer. … Looking into why I strongly identify with the heritage, one of the reasons is [that] speaking that language connects to the home I used to have [as my families have passed away].”

–U.S.-born man of Cambodian origin in early 30s

Balancing between individualistic and collective thinking

For some immigrant participants, the main differences between themselves and others who are seen as “truly American” were less about cultural differences, or how people behave, and more about differences in “mindset,” or how people think . Those who identified strongly with their ethnicity discussed how their way of thinking is different from a “typical American.” To some, the “American mentality” is more individualistic, with less judgment on what one should do or how they should act . One immigrant Japanese man, for example, talked about how other Japanese-origin co-workers in the U.S. would work without taking breaks because it’s culturally inconsiderate to take a break while others continued working. However, he would speak up for himself and other workers when they are not taking any work breaks. He attributed this to his “American” way of thinking, which encourages people to stand up for themselves.

Some U.S.-born participants who grew up in an immigrant family described the cultural clashes that happened between themselves and their immigrant parents. Participants talked about how the second generation (children of immigrant parents) struggles to pursue their own dreams while still living up to the traditional expectations of their immigrant parents.

“I feel like one of the biggest things I’ve seen, just like [my] Asian American friends overall, is the kind of family-individualistic clash … like wanting to do your own thing is like, is kind of instilled in you as an American, like go and … follow your dream. But then you just grow up with such a sense of like also wanting to be there for your family and to live up to those expectations, and I feel like that’s something that’s very pronounced in Asian cultures.”

–U.S.-born man of Indian origin in mid-20s

Discussions also highlighted differences about gender roles between growing up in America compared with elsewhere.

“As a woman or being a girl, because of your gender, you have to keep your mouth shut [and] wait so that they call on you for you to speak up. … I do respect our elders and I do respect hearing their guidance but I also want them to learn to hear from the younger person … because we have things to share that they might not know and that [are] important … so I like to challenge gender roles or traditional roles because it is something that [because] I was born and raised here [in America], I learn that we all have the equal rights to be able to speak and share our thoughts and ideas.”

U.S. born have mixed ties to their family’s heritage

“I think being Hmong is somewhat of being free, but being free of others’ perceptions of you or of others’ attempts to assimilate you or attempts to put pressure on you. I feel like being Hmong is to resist, really.” Pa Houa , documentary participant

How U.S.-born participants identify themselves depends on their familiarity with their own heritage, whom they are talking with, where they are when asked about their identity and what the answer is used for. Some mentioned that they have stronger ethnic ties because they are very familiar with their family’s ethnic heritage. Others talked about how their eating habits and preferred dishes made them feel closer to their ethnic identity. For example, one Korean participant shared his journey of getting closer to his Korean heritage because of Korean food and customs. When some participants shared their reasons for feeling closer to their ethnic identity, they also expressed a strong sense of pride with their unique cultural and ethnic heritage.

“I definitely consider myself Japanese American. I mean I’m Japanese and American. Really, ever since I’ve grown up, I’ve really admired Japanese culture. I grew up watching a lot of anime and Japanese black and white films. Just learning about [it], I would hear about Japanese stuff from my grandparents … myself, and my family having blended Japanese culture and American culture together.”

–U.S.-born man of Japanese origin in late 20s

Meanwhile, participants who were not familiar with their family’s heritage showed less connection with their ethnic ties. One U.S.-born woman said she has a hard time calling herself Cambodian, as she is “not close to the Cambodian community.” Participants with stronger ethnic ties talked about relating to their specific ethnic group more than the broader Asian group. Another woman noted that being Vietnamese is “more specific and unique than just being Asian” and said that she didn’t feel she belonged with other Asians. Some participants also disliked being seen as or called “Asian,” in part because they want to distinguish themselves from other Asian groups. For example, one Taiwanese woman introduces herself as Taiwanese when she can, because she had frequently been seen as Chinese.

Some in the focus groups described how their views of their own identities shifted as they grew older. For example, some U.S.-born and immigrant participants who came to the U.S. at younger ages described how their experiences in high school and the need to “fit in” were important in shaping their own identities. A Chinese woman put it this way:

“So basically, all I know is that I was born in the United States. Again, when I came back, I didn’t feel any barrier with my other friends who are White or Black. … Then I got a little confused in high school when I had trouble self-identifying if I am Asian, Chinese American, like who am I. … Should I completely immerse myself in the American culture? Should I also keep my Chinese identity and stuff like that? So yeah, that was like the middle of that mist. Now, I’m pretty clear about myself. I think I am Chinese American, Asian American, whatever people want.”

–U.S.-born woman of Chinese origin in early 20s

Identity is influenced by birthplace

“I identified myself first and foremost as American. Even on the forms that you fill out that says, you know, ‘Asian’ or ‘Chinese’ or ‘other,’ I would check the ‘other’ box, and I would put ‘American Chinese’ instead of ‘Chinese American.’” Brent , documentary participant

When talking about what it means to be “American,” participants offered their own definitions. For some, “American” is associated with acquiring a distinct identity alongside their ethnic or racial backgrounds, rather than replacing them. One Indian participant put it this way:

“I would also say [that I am] Indian American just because I find myself always bouncing between the two … it’s not even like dual identity, it just is one whole identity for me, like there’s not this separation. … I’m doing [both] Indian things [and] American things. … They use that term like ABCD … ‘American Born Confused Desi’ … I don’t feel that way anymore, although there are those moments … but I would say [that I am] Indian American for sure.”

–U.S.-born woman of Indian origin in early 30s

Meanwhile, some U.S.-born participants view being American as central to their identity while also valuing the culture of their family’s heritage.

Many immigrant participants associated the term “American” with immigration status or citizenship. One Taiwanese woman said she can’t call herself American since she doesn’t have a U.S. passport. Notably, U.S. citizenship is an important milestone for many immigrant participants, giving them a stronger sense of belonging and ultimately calling themselves American. A Bangladeshi participant shared that she hasn’t received U.S. citizenship yet, and she would call herself American after she receives her U.S. passport.

Other participants gave an even narrower definition, saying only those born and raised in the United States are truly American. One Taiwanese woman mentioned that her son would be American since he was born, raised and educated in the U.S. She added that while she has U.S. citizenship, she didn’t consider herself American since she didn’t grow up in the U.S. This narrower definition has implications for belonging. Some immigrants in the groups said they could never become truly American since the way they express themselves is so different from those who were born and raised in the U.S. A Japanese woman pointed out that Japanese people “are still very intimidated by authorities,” while those born and raised in America give their opinions without hesitation.

“As soon as I arrived, I called myself a Burmese immigrant. I had a green card, but I still wasn’t an American citizen. … Now I have become a U.S. citizen, so now I am a Burmese American.”

–Immigrant man of Burmese origin in mid-30s

“Since I was born … and raised here, I kind of always view myself as American first who just happened to be Asian or Chinese. So I actually don’t like the term Chinese American or Asian American. I’m American Asian or American Chinese. I view myself as American first.”

–U.S.-born man of Chinese origin in early 60s

“[I used to think of myself as] Filipino, but recently I started saying ‘Filipino American’ because I got [U.S.] citizenship. And it just sounds weird to say Filipino American, but I’m trying to … I want to accept it. I feel like it’s now marry-able to my identity.”

–Immigrant woman of Filipino origin in early 30s

For others, American identity is about the process of ‘becoming’ culturally American

Immigrant participants also emphasized how their experiences and time living in America inform their views of being an “American.” As a result, some started to see themselves as Americans after spending more than a decade in the U.S. One Taiwanese man considered himself an American since he knows more about the U.S. than Taiwan after living in the U.S. for over 52 years.

But for other immigrant participants, the process of “becoming” American is not about how long they have lived in the U.S., but rather how familiar they are with American culture and their ability to speak English with little to no accent. This is especially true for those whose first language is not English, as learning and speaking it without an accent can be a big challenge for some. One Bangladeshi participant shared that his pronunciation of “hot water” was very different from American English, resulting in confusions in communication. By contrast, those who were more confident in their English skills felt they can better understand American culture and values as a result, leading them to a stronger connection with an American identity.

“[My friends and family tease me for being Americanized when I go back to Japan.] I think I seem a little different to people who live in Japan. I don’t think they mean anything bad, and they [were] just joking, because I already know that I seem a little different to people who live in Japan.”

–Immigrant man of Japanese origin in mid-40s

“I value my Hmong culture, and language, and ethnicity, but I also do acknowledge, again, that I was born here in America and I’m grateful that I was born here, and I was given opportunities that my parents weren’t given opportunities for.”

–U.S.-born woman of Hmong origin in early 30s

During the focus group discussions about identity, a recurring theme emerged about the difference between how participants saw themselves and how others see them. When asked to elaborate on their experiences and their points of view, some participants shared experiences they had with people misidentifying their race or ethnicity. Others talked about their frustration with being labeled the “model minority.” In all these discussions, participants shed light on the negative impacts that mistaken assumptions and labels had on their lives.

All people see is ‘Asian’

For many, interactions with others (non-Asians and Asians alike) often required explaining their backgrounds, reacting to stereotypes, and for those from smaller origin groups in particular, correcting the misconception that being “Asian” means you come from one of the larger Asian ethnic groups. Several participants remarked that in their own experiences, when others think about Asians, they tend to think of someone who is Chinese. As one immigrant Filipino woman put it, “Interacting with [non-Asians in the U.S.], it’s hard. … Well, first, I look Spanish. I mean, I don’t look Asian, so would you guess – it’s like they have a vision of what an Asian [should] look like.” Similarly, an immigrant Indonesian man remarked how Americans tended to see Asians primarily through their physical features, which not all Asian groups share.

Several participants also described how the tendency to view Asians as a monolithic group can be even more common in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.

“The first [thing people think of me as] is just Chinese. ‘You guys are just Chinese.’ I’m not the only one who felt [this] after the COVID-19 outbreak. ‘Whether you’re Japanese, Korean, or Southeast Asian, you’re just Chinese [to Americans]. I should avoid you.’ I’ve felt this way before, but I think I’ve felt it a bit more after the COVID-19 outbreak.”

–Immigrant woman of Korean origin in early 30s

At the same time, other participants described their own experiences trying to convince others that they are Asian or Asian American. This was a common experience among Southeast Asian participants.

“I have to convince people I’m Asian, not Middle Eastern. … If you type in Asian or you say Asian, most people associate it with Chinese food, Japanese food, karate, and like all these things but then they don’t associate it with you.”

–U.S.-born man of Pakistani origin in early 30s

The model minority myth and its impact

“I’ve never really done the best academically, compared to all my other Asian peers too. I never really excelled. I wasn’t in honors. … Those stereotypes, I think really [have] taken a toll on my self-esteem.” Diane , documentary participant

Across focus groups, immigrant and U.S.-born participants described the challenges of the seemingly positive stereotypes of Asians as intelligent, gifted in technical roles and hardworking. Participants often referred to this as the “model minority myth.”

The label “model minority” was coined in the 1960s and has been used to characterize Asian Americans as financially and educationally successful and hardworking when compared with other groups. However, for many Asians living in the United States, these characterizations do not align with their lived experiences or reflect their socioeconomic backgrounds. Indeed, among Asian origin groups in the U.S., there are wide differences in economic and social experiences. 

Academic research on the model minority myth has pointed to its impact beyond Asian Americans and towards other racial and ethnic groups, especially Black Americans, in the U.S. Some argue that the model minority myth has been used to justify policies that overlook the historical circumstances and impacts of colonialism, slavery, discrimination and segregation on other non-White racial and ethnic groups.

Many participants noted ways in which the model minority myth has been harmful. For some, expectations based on the myth didn’t match their own experiences of coming from impoverished communities. Some also recalled experiences at school when they struggled to meet their teachers’ expectations in math and science.

“As an Asian person, I feel like there’s that stereotype that Asian students are high achievers academically. They’re good at math and science. … I was a pretty mediocre student, and math and science were actually my weakest subjects, so I feel like it’s either way you lose. Teachers expect you to fit a certain stereotype and if you’re not, then you’re a disappointment, but at the same time, even if you are good at math and science, that just means that you’re fitting a stereotype. It’s [actually] your own achievement, but your teachers might think, ‘Oh, it’s because they’re Asian,’ and that diminishes your achievement.”

–U.S.-born woman of Korean origin in late 20s

Some participants felt that even when being Asian worked in their favor in the job market, they encountered stereotypes that “Asians can do quality work with less compensation” or that “Asians would not complain about anything at work.”

“There is a joke from foreigners and even Asian Americans that says, ‘No matter what you do, Asians always do the best.’ You need to get A, not just B-plus. Otherwise, you’ll be a disgrace to the family. … Even Silicon Valley hires Asian because [an] Asian’s wage is cheaper but [they] can work better. When [work] visa overflow happens, they hire Asians like Chinese and Indian to work in IT fields because we are good at this and do not complain about anything.”

–Immigrant man of Thai origin in early 40s

Others expressed frustration that people were placing them in the model minority box. One Indian woman put it this way:

“Indian people and Asian people, like … our parents or grandparents are the ones who immigrated here … against all odds. … A lot of Indian and Asian people have succeeded and have done really well for themselves because they’ve worked themselves to the bone. So now the expectations [of] the newer generations who were born here are incredibly unrealistic and high. And you get that not only from your family and the Indian community, but you’re also getting it from all of the American people around you, expecting you to be … insanely good at math, play an instrument, you know how to do this, you know how to do that, but it’s not true. And it’s just living with those expectations, it’s difficult.”

–U.S.-born woman of Indian origin in early 20s

Whether U.S. born or immigrants, Asians are often seen by others as foreigners

“Being only not quite 10 years old, it was kind of exciting to ride on a bus to go someplace. But when we went to Pomona, the assembly center, we were stuck in one of the stalls they used for the animals.” Tokiko , documentary participant

Across all focus groups, participants highlighted a common question they are asked in America when meeting people for the first time: “Where are you really from?” For participants, this question implied that people think they are “foreigners,” even though they may be longtime residents or citizens of the United States or were born in the country. One man of Vietnamese origin shared his experience with strangers who assumed that he and his friends are North Korean. Perhaps even more hurtful, participants mentioned that this meant people had a preconceived notion of what an “American” is supposed to look like, sound like or act like. One Chinese woman said that White Americans treated people like herself as outsiders based on her skin color and appearance, even though she was raised in the U.S.

Many focus group participants also acknowledged the common stereotype of treating Asians as “forever foreigners.” Some immigrant participants said they felt exhausted from constantly being asked this question by people even when they speak perfect English with no accent. During the discussion, a Korean immigrant man recalled that someone had said to him, “You speak English well, but where are you from?” One Filipino participant shared her experience during the first six months in the U.S.:

“You know, I spoke English fine. But there were certain things that, you know, people constantly questioning you like, oh, where are you from? When did you come here? You know, just asking about your experience to the point where … you become fed up with it after a while.”

–Immigrant woman of Filipino origin in mid-30s

U.S.-born participants also talked about experiences when others asked where they are from. Many shared that they would not talk about their ethnic origin right away when answering such a question because it often led to misunderstandings and assumptions that they are immigrants.

“I always get that question of, you know, ‘Where are you from?’ and I’m like, ‘I’m from America.’ And then they’re like, ‘No. Where are you from-from ?’ and I’m like, ‘Yeah, my family is from Pakistan,’ so it’s like I always had like that dual identity even though it’s never attached to me because I am like, of Pakistani descent.”

–U.S.-born man of Pakistani origin in early 20s

One Korean woman born in the U.S. said that once people know she is Korean, they ask even more offensive questions such as “Are you from North or South Korea?” or “Do you still eat dogs?”

In a similar situation, this U.S.-born Indian woman shared her responses:

“I find that there’s a, ‘So but where are you from?’ Like even in professional settings when they feel comfortable enough to ask you. ‘So – so where are you from?’ ‘Oh, I was born in [names city], Colorado. Like at [the hospital], down the street.’ ‘No, but like where are you from?’ ‘My mother’s womb?’”

–U.S.-born woman of Indian origin in early 40s

Ignorance and misinformation about Asian identity can lead to contentious encounters

“I have dealt with kids who just gave up on their Sikh identity, cut their hair and groomed their beard and everything. They just wanted to fit in and not have to deal with it, especially [those] who are victim or bullied in any incident.” Surinder , documentary participant

In some cases, ignorance and misinformation about Asians in the U.S. lead to inappropriate comments or questions and uncomfortable or dangerous situations. Participants shared their frustration when others asked about their country of origin, and they then had to explain their identity or correct misunderstandings or stereotypes about their background. At other times, some participants faced ignorant comments about their ethnicity, which sometimes led to more contentious encounters. For example, some Indian or Pakistani participants talked about the attacks or verbal abuse they experienced from others blaming them for the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Others discussed the racial slurs directed toward them since the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Some Japanese participants recalled their families losing everything and being incarcerated during World War II and the long-term effect it had on their lives.

“I think like right now with the coronavirus, I think we’re just Chinese, Chinese American, well, just Asian American or Asians in general, you’re just going through the same struggles right now. Like everyone is just blaming whoever looks Asian about the virus. You don’t feel safe.”

–U.S.-born man of Chinese origin in early 30s

“At the beginning of the pandemic, a friend and I went to celebrate her birthday at a club and like these guys just kept calling us COVID.”

–U.S.-born woman of Korean origin in early 20s

“There [were] a lot of instances after 9/11. One day, somebody put a poster about 9/11 [in front of] my business. He was wearing a gun. … On the poster, it was written ‘you Arabs, go back to your country.’ And then someone came inside. He pointed his gun at me and said ‘Go back to your country.’”

–Immigrant man of Pakistani origin in mid-60s

“[My parents went through the] internment camps during World War II. And my dad, he was in high school, so he was – they were building the camps and then he was put into the Santa Anita horse track place, the stables there. And then they were sent – all the Japanese Americans were sent to different camps, right, during World War II and – in California. Yeah, and they lost everything, yeah.”

–U.S.-born woman of Japanese origin in mid-60s

As focus group participants contemplated their identity during the discussions, many talked about their sense of belonging in America. Although some felt frustrated with people misunderstanding their ethnic heritage, they didn’t take a negative view of life in America. Instead, many participants – both immigrant and U.S. born – took pride in their unique cultural and ethnic backgrounds. In these discussions, people gave their own definitions of America as a place with a diverse set of cultures, with their ethnic heritage being a part of it.

Taking pride in their unique cultures

“Being a Pakistani American, I’m proud. … Because I work hard, and I make true my dreams from here.” Shahid , documentary participant

Despite the challenges of adapting to life in America for immigrant participants or of navigating their dual cultural identity for U.S.-born ones, focus group participants called America their home. And while participants talked about their identities in different ways – ethnic identity, racial (Asian) identity, and being American – they take pride in their unique cultures. Many also expressed a strong sense of responsibility to give back or support their community, sharing their cultural heritage with others on their own terms.

“Right now it has been a little difficult. I think it has been for all Asians because of the COVID issue … but I’m glad that we’re all here [in America]. I think we should be proud to be here. I’m glad that our families have traveled here, and we can help make life better for communities, our families and ourselves. I think that’s really a wonderful thing. We can be those role models for a lot of the future, the younger folks. I hope that something I did in the last years will have impacted either my family, friends or students that I taught in other community things that I’ve done. So you hope that it helps someplace along the line.”

“I am very proud of my culture. … There is not a single Bengali at my workplace, but people know the name of my country. Maybe many years [later] – educated people know all about the country. So, I don’t have to explain that there is a small country next to India and Nepal. It’s beyond saying. People after all know Bangladesh. And there are so many Bengali present here as well. So, I am very proud to be a Bangladeshi.”

Where home is

When asked about the definition of home, some immigrant participants said home is where their families are located. Immigrants in the focus groups came to the United States by various paths, whether through work opportunities, reuniting with family or seeking a safe haven as refugees. Along their journey, some received support from family members, their local community or other individuals, while others overcame challenges by themselves. Either way, they take pride in establishing their home in America and can feel hurt when someone tells them to “go back to your country.” In response, one Laotian woman in her mid-40s said, “This is my home. My country. Go away.”

“If you ask me personally, I view my home as my house … then I would say my house is with my family because wherever I go, I cannot marry if I do not have my family so that is how I would answer.”

–Immigrant man of Hmong origin in late 30s

“[If somebody yelled at me ‘go back to your country’] I’d feel angry because this is my country! I live here. America is my country. I grew up here and worked here … I’d say, ‘This is my country! You go back to your country! … I will not go anywhere. This is my home. I will live here.’ That’s what I’d say.”

–Immigrant woman of Laotian origin in early 50s

‘American’ means to blend their unique cultural and ethnic heritage with that in the U.S.

“I want to teach my children two traditions – one American and one Vietnamese – so they can compare and choose for themselves the best route in life.” Helen , documentary participant (translated from Vietnamese)

Both U.S.-born and immigrant participants in the focus groups shared their experiences of navigating a dual cultural environment between their ethnic heritage and American culture. A common thread that emerged was that being Asian in America is a process of blending two or more identities as one.

“Yeah, I want to say that’s how I feel – because like thinking about it, I would call my dad Lao but I would call myself Laotian American because I think I’m a little more integrated in the American society and I’ve also been a little more Americanized, compared to my dad. So that’s how I would see it.”

–U.S.-born man of Laotian origin in late 20s

“I mean, Bangladeshi Americans who are here, we are carrying Bangladeshi culture, religion, food. I am also trying to be Americanized like the Americans. Regarding language, eating habits.”

–Immigrant man of Bangladeshi origin in mid-50s

“Just like there is Chinese American, Mexican American, Japanese American, Italian American, so there is Indian American. I don’t want to give up Indianness. I am American by nationality, but I am Indian by birth. So whenever I talk, I try to show both the flags as well, both Indian and American flags. Just because you make new relatives but don’t forget the old relatives.”

–Immigrant man of Indian origin in late 40s

Pew Research Center designed these focus groups to better understand how members of an ethnically diverse Asian population think about their place in America and life here. By including participants of different languages, immigration or refugee experiences, educational backgrounds, and income levels, this focus group study aimed to capture in people’s own words what it means to be Asian in America. The discussions in these groups may or may not resonate with all Asians living in the United States. Browse excerpts from our focus groups with the interactive quote sorter below, view a video documentary focused on the topics discussed in the focus groups, or tell us your story of belonging in America via social media. The focus group project is part of a broader research project studying the diverse experiences of Asians living in the U.S.

Read sortable quotes from our focus groups

Browse excerpts in the interactive quote sorter from focus group participants in response to the question “What does it mean to be [Vietnamese, Thai, Sri Lankan, Hmong, etc.] like yourself in America?” This interactive allows you to sort quotes from focus group participants by ethnic origin, nativity (U.S. born or born in another country), gender and age.

Video documentary

Videos throughout the data essay illustrate what focus group participants discussed. Those recorded in these videos did not participate in the focus groups but were sampled to have similar demographic characteristics and thematically relevant stories.

Watch the full video documentary and watch additional shorter video clips related to the themes of this data essay.

Share the story of your family and your identity

Did the voices in this data essay resonate? Share your story of what it means to be Asian in America with @pewresearch. Tell us your story by using the hashtag #BeingAsianInAmerica and @pewidentity on Twitter, as well as #BeingAsianInAmerica and @pewresearch on Instagram.

This cross-ethnic, comparative qualitative research project explores the identity, economic mobility, representation, and experiences of immigration and discrimination among the Asian population in the United States. The analysis is based on 66 focus groups we conducted virtually in the fall of 2021 and included 264 participants from across the U.S. More information about the groups and analysis can be found in this appendix .

Pew Research Center is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts, its primary funder. This data essay was funded by The Pew Charitable Trusts, with generous support from the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative DAF, an advised fund of the Silicon Valley Community Foundation; the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation; the Henry Luce Foundation; The Wallace H. Coulter Foundation; The Dirk and Charlene Kabcenell Foundation; The Long Family Foundation; Lu-Hebert Fund; Gee Family Foundation; Joseph Cotchett; the Julian Abdey and Sabrina Moyle Charitable Fund; and Nanci Nishimura.

The accompanying video clips and video documentary were made possible by The Pew Charitable Trusts, with generous support from The Sobrato Family Foundation and The Long Family Foundation.

We would also like to thank the Leaders Forum for its thought leadership and valuable assistance in helping make this study possible. This is a collaborative effort based on the input and analysis of a number of individuals and experts at Pew Research Center and outside experts.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Age & Generations
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Economy & Work
• Family & Relationships
• Gender & LGBTQ
• Immigration & Migration
• International Affairs
• Internet & Technology
• Methodological Research
• News Habits & Media
• Non-U.S. Governments
• Other Topics
• Politics & Policy
• Race & Ethnicity
• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Copyright 2024 Pew Research Center

Terms & Conditions

Privacy Policy

Cookie Settings

Reprints, Permissions & Use Policy

Diaspora Identity in “Dilwale Dulhaniya Le Jayenge” Film Essay

Introduction, dilwale dulhaniya le jayenge (ddlj) and diaspora identity, importance of diaspora identity, works cited.

While India attempts to set its own pace of industrialization, renowned movies have seen significant transformations. The expansion of the Indian middle class and its relocation to the West indicated that Bollywood productions were no longer generated for the country’s necessities but also to suit the expectations of its worldwide population (Singh and Singh 90). The particular strain of viewership necessitated the invention of an entirely new category – the diasporic variety, which appealed to the demands and desires of NRIs (Non-Resident Indians).

These movies portrayed a typical Indian expatriate, so establishing a new mixed civilization of east and West in which international issues are addressed through Indian ideas, beliefs, and sanskaars. Therefore, this distinctive style aided India in defining its cultural identity, establishing its personality in the eyes of both its residents and the outside community. This paper analyzes how Chopra’s international breakthrough Dilwale Dulhaniya Le Jayenge (DDLJ) portrays India’s cultural image in global circumstances. Additionally, the essay compares DDLJ and other related Indian films that show diaspora identity among overseas viewers.

DDLJ is generally acknowledged as one of the most popular movies in Indian cinema. It was produced by Aditya Chopra and debuted in 1995 (Dilwale Dulhaniya Le Jayenge). Shah Rukh Khan and Kajol played essential parts in the making of the film. It required multiple conceptual modifications, from portraying an immigrant as a warrior to emphasizing specific individuals of the diaspora’s intention to return to the nation to visibly demonstrating an inherent commitment to Indian ideals abroad.

The film, a love story, is fundamentally conservative, as it is predicated on the restoration of cultural and ethical order (Dilwale Dulhaniya Le Jayenge). The film focuses on an elderly diaspora member’s wish to return to his homeland. The film’s opening scene depicts a depressed Amreesh Puri feeding dove in London while yearning for his homeland.

The prominence of diasporic movies exploded in the 1990s for a variety of reasons. In 1991, India’s financial emancipation allowed the Indian middle class to establish the face of this age. Due to the commercialization struggles and civilization shock that many young Indian men and women are experiencing, the NRI has become a symbol of those struggles (Sengupta 61). For the Indian diaspora, the films served as a source of pride and a reminder of their cultural heritage.

As Aditya Chopra himself put it, Indian movies teach differently: they communicate social norms and a feeling of obligation (Sengupta 61). To bring Indians living in India together with those living in other countries, diasporic films helped create an Indian “Intra and inter” connectedness network (Sengupta 61). Writers with a strong interest in internationalization theory and cultural anthropology have bolstered the appeal of the diasporic category.

Since the diasporic viewers provided a new demographic that was prosperous enough to increase productivity and profitability; film directors were intrigued. For India’s economic globalization, diasporic films were a way for India to proclaim its globalized identity and a method for India to glorify commercialization (Mazumdar 371). In addition, the films gave people a sense of familiarity by depicting faraway locations as they had envisioned them to be. Even though the diasporic films situated Indians in the Western culture, they represented America according to the Indian vision of America rather than America itself (Mazumdar 371). For both Indian citizens and Indian expats, the films portrayed how a guy may go to the pardes and still adhere to their genuine Indian sanskaars.

Nationalist sentiment and a yearning for the homeland are evident in the persistent melancholy and enormous passion with which Indian expats reference India: ‘hamare desh ki mitti,’ our country’s soil. Dilwale Dulhaniya Le Jayenge (DDLJ) perfectly illustrates this, with the parent, Choudhry Baldev Singh, performed by Amrish Puri, repeatedly referring to India and Punjab as ‘Apna desh’ and ‘Apna Punjab,’ respectively (Mazumdar 372). At the same time, the storylines alternate between Punjab’s yellow mustard domains and London’s renowned Trafalgar Square, comparing and contrasting the two locations in the show (Mazumdar 372). Furthermore, Baldev’s dress is a fusion of western and Indian influences, reflecting his lifestyle in London for so long.

Thus, this way of life has been bequeathed to his family – his two daughters speak excellent Hindi, dress in salwaar kameez and other Indian attire, and exhibit perfect Indian mannerisms for second-generation NRI progeny (Mazumdar 371). Baldev’s national identification crisis is further demonstrated by his attempts to reconcile with India by organizing his older daughter Simran to marry his best friend’s son in Punjab. Thus, while Baldev’s family depicted the past before migration when Indians had to fight to prosper in local enterprises, the narrator’s family symbolizes a contemporary era of industrious NRIs who have found greatness working in IT.

Compared to Baldev, a traditional father who wishes his children to be real Indians, Shah Rukh Khan’s Raj Malhotra is a freewheeling wealthy child raised in a diverse neighborhood. While he is shown with beautiful cars and a disregard for money, Raj subsequently demonstrates his appreciation for his Indian ancestors by conversing with Simran- the script’s heroine (Mazumdar 373). With a protagonist named Raj, one of the most famous names in 1990s India, the film suggests how an average Indian could embrace the NRI life. The essential idea of a comedy like Dilwale Dulhaniya Le Jayenge is that, despite their western dress and behaviors, the NRI protagonist and heroine retain their Indian principles and sanskaars (Dilwale Dulhaniya Le Jayenge). As such, this is demonstrated when Simran awakens dressed as Raj and concludes they expended a drunken night together.

Simran becomes enraged due to her orthodox Indian sexual morals, to which Raj responds that he was aware of how they feel about him. They believed he was a scumbag and responded to Simran by suggesting that he was not but somewhat of Hindustani ancestry (Mazumdar 371). Moreover, Raj is much aware of what honor entails for a Hindustani woman. Not only does this demonstrate that Raj and Simran, although being second-generation NRIs, retain their Indian customs, but it also demonstrates that they are aware of their Indian heritage, Teo.

This sequence establishes Raj and Simran’s genuine Indian personalities, Sathian, because both actors are conscious of the conventional Indian standards of ethics before engagement. While Raj does not defy Baldev by eloping with Simran, his Hindustani morals can be observed in his determination to endure Baldev’s fury with the goal of correcting his wrong perception (Singh and Sweta 89). His ethical standards make it possible for him to seek Simran for her permission to marry, following Indian culture. There are later sequences where Raj makes a home in Simran’s matrimonial house for the sole purpose of seeking Baldev’s approval while being near Simran.

Because he is a Sanskaari boy upholding traditional Indian beliefs, Raj, the NRI born and raised in a foreign place but had no family ties, fits right in at the Punjabi marriage home (Singh and Sweta 89). Consequently, he participated in and even led cultural ceremonies and performances. As a result, DDLJ portrays the Indian diaspora as a group of Indians capable of upholding and appreciating Indian sanskaars despite the influence of the West.

Conversely, Karan Johar’s Kabhi Khushi Kabhi Gham demonstrates that when one embraces one’s genuine cultural heritage, one becomes a better individual who is more appreciated in the community. As such, this is seen in Kareena Kapoor’s personality and Pooja’s transformation. Pooja, the eventual NRI whiner, is motivated by the hero of the Hollywood blockbuster Clueless, who has wholly incorporated British culture – to the point of streamlining her indigenous Indian title of Pooja to ‘Poo.’ Thus, while residing in London, he puts on skimpy non-Indian clothing, being audible and adventurous, and affiliates with other NRI ingrates who share the same way of life.

Once Rohan, the film’s iconic agent of change, joins the other Raichand family, Pooja rediscovers her Indian morality when he draws her into their shared cultural realm and teaches her the value of her culture. Poo instantly begins dressing more Indian, develops a new love for traditional Hindu customs, and attempts to demonstrate her patriotic feelings by teaching the Indian patriotic song to her nephew’s school musical. Everyone, notably Rahul and Anjali, who plays her caregivers in the film, is thrilled that Pooja eventually comes to her traditional senses. Thus, this demonstrates that if an individual fully recognizes their Indian ancestry, they are recognized as a stronger person in all spheres of society.

Furthermore, Anjali portrays the Indian vessel in the Indian film. She embodies India to the NRI viewing public with all her traditional ways of life and fervent nationalism, as evidenced by how she handles her ‘Indian matrilineal society, insisting on adhering to Indian traditions.

The cultures she demonstrates include: completing everyday religious activities, singing loud Indian patriotic music early in the morning, dressing in Indian garments, and talking in Hindi, supplying her family with the Indian meal of Rotis regularly. Moreover, she possesses a compulsive desire to assist any Indian, even if they are peculiar. The only justification Rohan was permitted to stay at Rahul’s house was because Anjali fought for his cause as a refugee from Bharat. As the Indian representative, she aims to introduce India’s authentic culture directly into London’s venues rather than attempting to change it to fit the host country’s regulations.

As with other international corporations, Diasporas enjoy a prominent place in that they can assert control as an activist organization in both the motherland and the host country. Therefore, this frequently affects the native land due to its impact on the host country. In any case, Diasporas, like interested parties, may use whatever leverage they have to promote their causes. Again, as with other interest groups, they make use of their monetary backing, all the more so because representatives of Diasporas are typically wealthier than their homeland equivalents. Thus, this is demonstrated consciously because all lead characters in the film are depicted as prosperous and thriving while living abroad, which increases their influence and respectability at home.

The NRI ceases to be a guiding light as they have turned to be India’s society’s standardized figures on the huge screen and have been thoroughly incorporated into the popular consciousness of India. Thus, this might be considered one of Bollywood’s contributions; highlighting NRIs and exotic destinations on the big screen has enabled Indians to extend their perspective, thereby decreasing the world (Sengupta 75). Moreover, Manmohan Singh highlighted that India’s soft power might be an effective foreign policy tool in certain circumstances (Sengupta 75). Therefore, the films play an integral part in ensuring that the NRI’s cultural identity is maintained regardless of whichever part of the world they reside in.

In conclusion, the Dilwale Dulhaniya Le Jayenge movie offers its foreign Indian viewers an opportunity to reconnect with their motherland’s heritage and relive living in India. This movie, which was created specifically to satisfy the sentimentality necessity of NRI, is the icon of Bollywood’s diasporic narrative, from which other Indian diasporic motion pictures emerged. Films such as Salaam Namaste, Kabhi Alvida Naa Kehna, Love Aaj Kal, and Swadesh produced excessive earnings internationally due to the growing number of Indian diasporic listeners.

From the beginning the 1990s to the present, these films primarily transformed the NRI impression of someone who originally disrespected their nation and relocated to the West to pursue employment. The change is from someone supporting the totality of India in a multicultural land to the contemporary symbol that we now know. Additionally, the movies present NRIs surviving the elegant international way of life while maintaining Indian ethics and sanskaars while earning money at the box office.

“Dilwale Dulhaniya Le Jayenge.” YouTube, Uploaded by YouTube Movies. 2021. Web.

Mazumdar, Ranjani. “Repetition with a Difference: A Response to Arjun Appadurai.” Cambridge Journal of Postcolonial Literary Inquiry vol. 6, no. 3, 2019, pp. 371-376.

Sengupta, Roshni. “From Nationalism to Hindutva: Bollywood and the makings of the Hindu diasporic woman.” Shifting Transnational Bonding in Indian Diaspora , edited by Roshni Sengupta, Routledge India, 2020, pp. 58-77.

Singh, Ravi S., and Sweta Singh. “Landscape, Culture and Cinema: A Study in Film Geography.” Indian Journal of Landscape Systems and Ecological Studies vol. 42, no. 2, 2019, pp. 89-101.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2022, December 2). Diaspora Identity in “Dilwale Dulhaniya Le Jayenge” Film. https://ivypanda.com/essays/diaspora-identity-in-dilwale-dulhaniya-le-jayenge-film/

"Diaspora Identity in “Dilwale Dulhaniya Le Jayenge” Film." IvyPanda , 2 Dec. 2022, ivypanda.com/essays/diaspora-identity-in-dilwale-dulhaniya-le-jayenge-film/.

IvyPanda . (2022) 'Diaspora Identity in “Dilwale Dulhaniya Le Jayenge” Film'. 2 December.

IvyPanda . 2022. "Diaspora Identity in “Dilwale Dulhaniya Le Jayenge” Film." December 2, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/diaspora-identity-in-dilwale-dulhaniya-le-jayenge-film/.

1. IvyPanda . "Diaspora Identity in “Dilwale Dulhaniya Le Jayenge” Film." December 2, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/diaspora-identity-in-dilwale-dulhaniya-le-jayenge-film/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Diaspora Identity in “Dilwale Dulhaniya Le Jayenge” Film." December 2, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/diaspora-identity-in-dilwale-dulhaniya-le-jayenge-film/.

• Power Abuse in Rohit Chopra's Case
• “The Return of Merlin” by Deepak Chopra
• Priyanka Chopra in Hollywood: Discussion
• Bollywood Movies: History and the ‘Bollywood Movement’
• “Awaara” Film by Raj Kapoor: Personal Response
• Diaspora and Diasporic Imaginary
• Diasporic Cultural Institution and Identification of a Community
• Bollywood Film Industry
• Raj Rajnaratnam and Evidence of the Prosecution
• Bollywood Film Industry Specifics
• Film Noir and Black Humor in “The Missing Gun”
• Decision-Making Process in “Twelve Angry Men”
• Prehistoric Cave Art: “Civilizations: The Second Moment of Creation”
• Film “In the Mood for Love” (“Corridor Glance”)
• Sigmund Freud and Psychoanalysis of “Saw II”Movie

Jump to navigation

Austin Clarke, Black Studies and Black Diasporic Memory

“ Austin Clarke, Black Studies and Black Diasporic Memory”

Conference Dates: September 26 - 27, 2024,

Deadline for abstracts: July 15, 2024

Notification of decisions by: August 15, 2024

Co-organizers: Ronald Cummings (McMaster University), Darcy Ballantyne (Toronto Metropolitan University), 

Keynote Speaker: Rinaldo Walcott, 

Professor and Chair in Africana and American Studies, University at Buffalo

Between 1968 and 1974, Austin Clarke was a visiting professor at a number of US universities, including Yale, Duke and University of Texas, Austin. In a letter from his compatriot and fellow writer Andrew Salkey (dated 8. 4. 1969), on the occasion of his appointment at Yale, Salkey commended Clarke stating that: 

First of all, I must congratulate you on your Visiting Professorship at Yale, ol’ man: 

nice piece o’ work that…I am very proud Austin, boy, and I know that, at last, some 

serious work will be done…the sort o’ work that not a soul thinking o’ doing, either 

in the West Indies or over here so [in England]. I congratulate you, again, Brother and 

I know that things going look different at Yale after you done with them.

During these years in the US, Clarke helped in setting up Black Studies programs at Yale and also Harvard. However, despite Salkey’s enthusiasm about the significance of Clarke’s presence in the US academy at the time, the memory of Clarke’s work and his contributions to founding Black studies is today largely forgotten. This conference recalls this time in order to think about the various transnational contexts of Austin Clarke’s work (Salkey maps this across Canada, the US, England and the Caribbean) as well as his foundational place in Black diasporic creative and intellectual life. 

We also ask: What does it mean to remember and engage this history at a time when we see the push towards institutionalizing Black studies in Canada? What does it also mean that a prominent Canadian writer was part of these foundational moments of Black Studies in the US, yet in Canada we are only, in the post George Floyd moment, seeing the establishment of Black Studies programs and Black faculty cohort hires at various Canadian universities? What does Clarke’s presence in these moments tell us about the complex links between diaspora, movement and Black thought? How might we situate the history and present of Black intellectual life in Canada within the global and transnational currents of Black Studies?

This two-day gathering will take place at McMaster University (Day 1) and Toronto Metropolitan University (Day 2) on September 26 - 27, 2024.  As part of the gathering, conference attendees will also engage with the Austin Clarke archives at McMaster University. A tour of the archives will open the conference. 

Possible topics for conference presentations include: 

Austin Clarke and institutionalizing Black Studies 

Remembering histories of Black Studies

Documenting local histories and transnational formations of Black Studies

Forgotten histories and stories of Black Studies in Canada

Institutionalizing Black Studies: prospects and perils

Austin Clarke's writings and reflections on colonial and postcolonial education 

Austin Clarke and Black Diaspora circuits of correspondence 

Austin Clarke as public intellectual 

Black Activism and Austin Clarke's writing 

Clarke as Journalist 

Clarke as Mentor

Clarke and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC)

Clarke and the essay tradition 

Clarke and the question of national literatures

Clarke's interviews and speeches

Key critical concepts and terms in Austin Clarke’s work

Barbados, Austin Clarke and the unfinished work of decolonization

Black Studies and Caribbean Studies: relational and contested histories

Remembering Austin Clarke today

The deadline for submissions is July 15, 2024.  Please submit abstracts and panel proposals to  [email protected] .  We welcome abstracts (no more than 300 words) and panel proposals (no more than 600 words). Please also include a brief biographical note (80-100 words).

You can also contact us at  [email protected]  if you have any questions about submissions or about the conference. 

• International edition
• Australia edition
• Europe edition

The Cass review of gender identity services marks a return to reason and evidence – it must be defended

Its author has had to fend off criticism and misinformation, but the report offers hope for a realistic conversation

A s the dust settles around Hilary Cass’s report – the most extensive and thoroughgoing evidence-based review of treatment for children experiencing gender distress ever undertaken – it is clear her findings support the grave concerns I and many others have raised. Central here was the lack of an evidential base of good quality that could back claims for the effectiveness of young people being prescribed puberty blockers or proceeding on a medical pathway to transition. I and many other clinicians were concerned about the risks of long-term damaging consequences of early medical intervention. Cass has already had to speak out against misinformation being spread about her review, and a Labour MP has admitted she “may have misled” Parliament when referring to it. The review should be defended from misrepresentation.

The policy of “affirmation” – that is, speedily agreeing with a child that they are of the wrong gender – was an inappropriate clinical stance brought about by influential activist groups and some senior gender identity development service (Gids) staff, resulting in a distortion of the clinical domain. Studies indicate that a majority of children in the absence of medical intervention will desist – that is, change their minds.

The many complex problems that affect these young people were left unaddressed once they were viewed simplistically through the prism of gender. Cass helpfully calls this “diagnostic overshadowing”. Thus children suffered thrice over: through not having all their problems properly addressed; by being put on a pathway for which there is not adequate evidence and for which there is considerable risk of harm; and lastly because children not unreasonably believed that all their problems would disappear once they transitioned. It is, I think, not possible for a child in acute states of torment to be able to think through consequences of a future medical transition. Children struggle to even imagine themselves in an adult sexual body.

Some claim that low numbers of puberty blockers were prescribed. Cass quotes figures showing around 30% of Gids patients in England discharged between April 2018 and 31 December 2022 were referred to the endocrinology service, of whom around 80% were prescribed puberty blockers; the proportion was higher for older children. But these numbers are likely to be an underestimate, as 70% of children were transferred to adult services once they were 17, and their data lost, as very regrettably they were not followed up. This is one of the most serious governance problems of Gids – also specifically addressed by the judges in Keira Bell v Tavistock . Six adult gender clinics refused to cooperate and provide data to Cass. However, having come under considerable pressure, they have now relented .

It is often claimed that puberty blockers were not experimental, as there is a long history of their use. They had been used in precocious puberty (for example where a child, sometimes because of a pituitary abnormality, develops secondary sexual characteristics before the age of eight) and in the treatment of prostate cancer. But they had not been prescribed by Gids to children experiencing gender dysphoria before 2011 . The lack of long-term evidence underlies the decision of the NHS to put an end to their routine prescription for children as a treatment for gender dysphoria – that is, for those whose bodies were physically healthy.

The attempts of Gids clinicians to raise concerns about safeguarding and the medical approach were ignored or worse . The then medical director heard concerns but did not act; ditto the Speak up Guardian and the Tavistock and Portman NHS foundation trust management. I was a senior consultant psychiatrist, and it was in my role as staff representative on the trust council of governors that a large number of the Gids clinicians approached me with their grave concerns. This formed the basis of the report submitted to the board in 2018. The trust then conducted a “review” of Gids, based only on interviewing staff. The CEO stated that the review did not identify any “failings in the overall approach taken by the service in responding to the needs of the young people and families who access its support”. I was threatened with disciplinary action . When the child safeguarding lead, Sonia Appleby, raised her concerns before the trust’s review, the trust threatened her with an investigation; and its response, as an employment tribunal later confirmed, damaged her professional reputation and stood in the way of her safeguarding work.

Characterising a child as “being transgender” is harmful as it forecloses the situation and also implies that this is a unitary condition for which there is unitary “treatment”. It is much more helpful to use a description: that the child suffers from distress in relation to gender/sexuality, and this needs to be carefully explored in terms of the narrative of their lives, the presence of other difficulties such as autism, depression, histories of abuse and trauma, and confusion about sexuality. As the Cass report notes, studies suggest that a high proportion of these children are same-sex attracted, and many suffer from homophobia. Concerned gay and lesbian clinicians have said they experienced homophobia in the service, and that staff worked in a “climate of fear”.

It is misleading to suggest that I and others who have raised these concerns are hostile to transgender people – we believe they should be able to live their lives free of discrimination, and we want them to have safe, evidence-based holistic healthcare. What we have opposed is the precipitate placing of children on a potentially damaging medical pathway for which there is considerable evidence of risk of harm. We emphasised the need, before taking such steps, to spend considerable time exploring this complex and multifaceted clinical presentation. Young people and clinicians routinely refer to “top surgery” and “bottom surgery”, terms that serve to seriously underplay these major surgical procedures, ie double mastectomy, removal of pelvic organs and fashioning of constructed penis or vagina. These procedures carry very serious risks such as urinary incontinence, vaginal atrophy, cardiovascular complications and many others we are only beginning to learn about. There is a very serious risk of sexual dysfunction and sterility.

There are no reliable studies (for children or adults) that could support claims of low levels of regret. The studies often quoted (eg Bustos et al 2021) have been criticised for using inadequate and erroneous data . The critical issue here is the fact that children and young people who were put on a medical pathway were not followed up. Studies suggest that the majority of detransitioners, a growing population, who are having to deal with the consequences of having been put on a medical pathway, do not return to the clinics as they are very fearful of the consequences. The fact that there are no dedicated NHS services for detransitioners is symptomatic of the NHS’s lack of concern for this group. Many live very lonely and isolated lives.

Those who say a child has been “born in the wrong body”, and who have sidelined child safeguarding, bear a very heavy responsibility. Parents have been asked “Do you want a happy little girl or a dead little boy?” Cass notes that rates of suicidality are similar to rates among non-trans identified youth referred to child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS). Indeed, the NHS lead for suicide prevention, Prof Sir Louis Appleby, has said “invoking suicide in this debate is mistaken and potentially harmful”.

It has been suggested that the Cass report sought to “appease” various interests, with the implication that those who have promoted these potentially damaging treatments have been sidelined. But in reality, it is those of us who have raised these concerns who have been silenced by trans rights activists who have had considerable success in closing down debate, including preventing conferences going ahead. Doctors and scientists have said that they have been deterred from conducting studies in this area by a climate of fear, and faced great personal costs for speaking out, ranging from harassment to professional risks and even, as Cass has experienced, safety concerns in public.

The pendulum is already swinging towards a reassertion of rationality. Cass’s achievement is to give that pendulum a hugely increased momentum. In years to come we will look back at the damage done to children with incredulity and horror.

David Bell is a retired psychiatrist and former president of the British Psychoanalytic Society

Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here .

• Transgender
• Young people

Most viewed