Beyond Statist Paradigms: Sociospatial Positionality and Diaspora Mobilization in International Relations

Abstract

This article presents a new positional perspective for the analysis of diaspora mobilization in international relations (IR), seeking to shift debates beyond realist, liberalist, and constructivist thinking, and speaking to a cluster of sociopositional theories in IR. It provides a conceptual discussion and empirical illustrations of diaspora positionality-the power diaspora activists derive from their sociospatial positions in particular contexts-and its utility to account for different mobilization trajectories. Positionality as a sociospatial concept offers opportunities to analyze diaspora politics beyond statist paradigms, dominated by analyses of triadic relationships between diasporas, host states (immigration states), and home states (sending states). Diasporas have links to many contexts beyond host states and original home states. Such linkages structure their relationships globally. If diaspora entrepreneurs perceive themselves as deriving strong powers to achieve homeland-oriented goals from a particular sociospatial context, they are more likely to pursue claims through institutional politics and moderate means. If they perceive themselves as deriving weak powers from a context, they are more likely to engage with activist networks and pursue claims in transgressive ways. The conceptual discussion engages aspects of diaspora positionality in juxtaposition with other spatial concepts such as geographical proximity/distance and position in a social network. The empirical discussion brings patterns of mobilization trajectories from the Armenian diaspora mobilization for genocide recognition and the Palestinian diaspora mobilization for statehood, informed by a rich multisited fieldwork.

Diaspora mobilisation for conflict and post-conflict reconstruction: contextual and comparative dimensions

“…Yet in recent years they are becoming an important level of analysis in International Relations, plagued by the inability of grand theories (realism, liberalism, constructivism, Marxism) to account for the decentralised aspects of international affairs (Mearsheimer and Walt 2013). I have also argued elsewhere that mid-range generalisations are best suited when studying diasporas in context, especially when considering sociospatial dynamics in International Relations (Koinova 2017b). Hence, comparisons of empirical evidence derived from different parts of the world, as in this volume, provide valuable conclusions about the not-yet-theorised aspects of the world we live in.…”

“…Pioneering among them was the Uppsala Conflict Data Program. As valuable as such studies have been to understand clustering of conflicts in specific geographic regions, analysing them by using only distances measured by longitude and latitude have not been sufficient to understand the ways diasporas mobilise (Koinova 2017b). More recently, an innovative edited volume by Björkdahl and Buckley-Zistel (2016) has shown interesting ways in which peace and conflict can be 'spatialised' in qualitative accounts as well.…”

“…Spatial contexts could be territorial states, in line with Weber (1919) classic definition of the state, providing the legitimate use of force within a given territory (Carment and Calleja 2018). They can be also sub-state contexts, such as cities or regions (Horst and Nur 2016;Karabegovic 2018;Koinova 2017b) or multi-sited contexts (Godin 2018;Horst 2018;Karabegovic 2018;Koinova 2017bKoinova , 2018Mavroudi 2018). Contexts can also be sociospatial, as diaspora entrepreneurs are embedded in relationships with others, and often function in transnational social spaces (Faist 1998;Pries 2001) or transnational social fields (Levitt and Glick-Schiller 2004).…”

“…In the accounts of this special issue, translocal networks, in which diasporas often mobilise extensively, link one territorial location in the homeland to many others abroad (Godin 2018;Karabegovic 2018;Koinova and Karabegovic 2017). Depending on other linkages between diasporas and ethnic brethren in the homeland, events and processes in one part of the world affect diaspora entrepreneurs in another unevenly (Carment and Calleja 2018;Godwin 2018;Koinova 2017bKoinova , 2018, not least due to different positionalities derived from a variety of contexts and their interstitial spaces (Koinova 2017b). Linkages across borders can also require different framings (Godin 2018;Mavroudi 2018) to make feasible claims and lobby for homeland-oriented goals.…”

Hybridising diasporic resistance to homeland peacebuilding: a case study of UK Sudanese activists and Sudanese peace

“…In exploring when diasporas enact resistance, Koinova (2011b) has shown that diasporas tend to promote radical politics when (a) human rights violations occur in the homeland and (b) when local elites begin to lose credibility. Furthermore, through this work, it is clear that the use of moderate or radical claim-making is dependent upon the extent to which diaspora activists perceive their own positionality as empowered or disempowered (Godwin 2018;Koinova 2017).…”