The spaces of diaspora’s revitalization: Transregions, infrastructure and urbanism

Abstract

This paper assesses the concept of diaspora with the aim of revitalizing its geographical and spatial complexity. It examines contributions made by geographers and scholars in critical area and racial/ethnic studies. It highlights three spatial formations of diaspora: (1) transregional spaces that challenge state territoriality and the boundaries of national community; (2) the infrastructures that shape diaspora through paths of connection and difference; and (3) diaspora urbanism in which new political solidarities in and across cities have emerged. It is argued that these spatial formations conceptually revitalize diaspora by providing a critique of sociospatial borders.

Geographies of migration I: Platform migration

“…Firstly, migration infrastructure is not limited to those actors, institutions and technologies that are focused explicitly on migration. Air transportation, for example, must be examined not only as a background characteristic but as an active platform for and generator of migration opportunities (Ashutosh, 2020;Hirsh, 2017) while also being entangled in border securitisation as part of 'deportation infrastructures' (Walters, 2018). Likewise, communication technologies -smart phones and social media especiallyare pivotal to the circulation of information about migration destinations, the establishment of social networks and the increased propensity for migration (Boas, 2017;Dekker et al, 2016).…”

Entangled histories of place and reconfigurations of diasporic home: Al‐Andalus history and the Moroccan diaspora in Granada, Spain

“…The notion of home has been a central focus of empirical analysis and theoretical debate in the field of diaspora studies (e.g. Ashutosh, 2019; Blunt, 2005, 2007; Brah, 1996; Cohen, 1997, 2009; Safran, 1991; Tolia‐Kelly, 2018). This has resulted in varied conceptualisations of how home takes shape in the diaspora condition, ranging from more fluid postmodern conceptualisations (Brah, 1996; Clifford, 1997; Hall, 1993) to more traditional categorical conceptualisations (Cohen, 1997; Safran, 1991).…”

“…For instance, home is the lived experience of the locality where one dwells, but there is also an orientation to a homeland space, which Avtar Brah (1996) calls a “homing desire.” This multiplicity in diaspora offers a reworking of normative notions of home and challenges spatially bounded notions of culture and belonging (Thompson & Finlay, 2021). Despite this reconfiguration of home, diaspora is still frequently predicated on a subtext of a singular notion of the “authentic” home (Ashutosh, 2019); a space of “origin” where the “roots” of a diaspora began to grow. Therefore, diaspora often remains, albeit resistantly, more orientated towards “roots” rather than “routes,” especially when it is referencing the homeland.…”

“…In particular, the formation of diasporas can be based around the exclusionary logics of the nation‐state and nationalism, and this can result in a rigid singular homeland gaze (Carter, 2005). This led Ashutosh to argue that theorisations of diaspora, even those with radical tendencies, have favoured “a linear routing back to the homeland” (2019, p. 898).…”

“…For instance, research that focuses on geographies of diasporic connections, routes, and circulations (e.g. Gilroy, 1993; Ho, 2006; Mavroudi & Christou, 2015), or what Ashutosh (2019) calls “diaspora transregions.” These are the regions that are “shaped by histories of dispersal and connections across land and sea,” illuminating “new terrains of belonging” and “multiple lines of connection” (Ashutosh, 2019, pp. 2, 5).…”