The theme of the 19th AASSREC Biennial General Conference, Evolving Transnationalism: Challenges and Opportunites,
held on 17-18 October 2011 appeared vaguely clear to me when I first heard it.
I must confess that I was not clear as to what the term or concept
“Transnationalism” referred to. So when
I went to the Conference on behalf of PSSM together with Prof Rahman Embong and
Dr Sity Daud (the paper writers), this time held in Manado, North Sulawesi in
Indonesia, I was eager to learn what it was all about and to listen to the
views of the speakers. Thus the title of the Conference, despite its sounding
like a ‘SWOT analysis’ topic [SWOT: Strength, Weakness, Opportunity, Threat],
beckons me to engage in the Conference.
The AASSREC Conference was
convened with the following expressed objectives, namely:
- To seek a common understanding of transnational issues across different countries as well as among different fields of social scientists and policy-makers.
- To exchange experiences and knowledge about the challenges and opportunities of transnationalism from a social science perspective, especially with regard to the Asia-Pacific
- To promote international networking and to establish an understanding of similarities and differences in the direction of transnationalism in the Asia Pacific regions.
- To provide knowledge and policy-relevant advice with the many and complex contemporary issues of transnationalism.
- Though I think that the statement of policy objectives could have done with a bit of editing, the message seems to be clear enough to me.
I have heard of
the terms “multinationalism” and “internationalism”, and am fairly sure as to
what they meant, but “transnationalism”?
It reminded me of the word “transdisciplinarity” which is now in vogue,
and which supposedly is a more progressive concept that either
“multidisciplinarity” or “inter-disciplinarity”. Could ‘transnationalism’ be like that too?
That is, a more ‘progressive’ concept in dealing with the subject of
‘nation-states’? I was not sure whether the term is used in a normative or
descriptive sense, that is whether it is used to describe a set of phenomena or
processes, or whether it is a goal which human societies should aim at. As my
curiosity (and anxiety) grew larger, I assiduously sat through the two day
Conference; listening to the presentations, taking notes, and talking to
people. My efforts did not go unrewarded as I emerged from it not only with a
better understanding of what “transnationalism” meant, but also with some
knowledge as to what is happening in the Asian region with respect to relations
of people between and across national boundaries or nation-states. The
Malaysian country paper by Prof. Rahman Embong and Dr Sity Daud which deals in some detail the contested
nature of the concept of transnationalism has been helpful in putting the
debate in perspective. I begin to see the problem or issue not only in terms of
the ‘masculine’ notions of ‘International Relations’, ‘Political Science’,
‘Migrant Labour’, ‘Diaspora Studies’ or even the so-called ‘Brain Drain’, but
more importantly, in terms of its human aspects, namely interactions across
national borders as well as identity reconfiguration. But I must confess that I
was initially jolted by the opening remarks made by Dr John Beaton, the
Secretary-General of AASSREC and an historian-archeologist by training, when he
said that ‘transnationalism is not a new phenomenon but had taken place since about
50,000 years ago’, through human migration across continents. But I was quickly re-assured by Prof Neil
Smith, when in his keynote address he made a distinction between migration and
transnationalism, and pointed out that the rise of nation-states occurred only
in the last 100 or 150 years or so. This
means, as Prof Rahman Embong whispered to me during that first day morning
session, that the phenomenon of transnationalism is of recent vintage, an
outcome and a consequence as it were of the rise of nation-states, and lately precipitated
by forces of globalization.
In his welcoming
speech the Governor of North Sulawesi, the versatile and multi-talented Dr
Sinyo H. Sarundajang (who is also the
President of the Indonesian Political Science Association) mentioned that it is
natural for human beings to have the desire to seek a better life, and to go
for greener pastures by migrating across national boundaries. We were also informed by the keynote speakers,
Prof Neil Smith and Prof. Dr Dewi Fortuna Anwar that the phenomena of the
‘nation-state’ is fairly new in human history, perhaps occurring during the
last few centuries or so. Previously, there were nations and there were states,
but no nation-states. But now, we cannot but exist as a member or citizen of a
‘nation-state’. To be ‘stateless’ is to
be legally non-existent, and hence to be deprived of one’s full humanity. This is the irony of modernity. The nation-state, as Ernest Gellner
perceptively observed, is a result of increasing rationalization of human
societies, which itself defines modernity, according to some sociologists. But even the nation-state—never mind those
highly structured industrial societies—has turned into Weber’s ‘iron cage’,
both by virtue of inclusion and exclusion.
The rationale of the nation-state, alluded to by Dewi Fortuna, is to
protect its citizens and provide for their welfare in exchange for loyalty and
contribution or service to the state.
But when states fail, or become too powerful, the social contract
between the individual and the state is thrown into question. In trying to pursue their own dreams,
individuals migrate despite the state.
But in so doing, they realize the mighty power of the nation-state, and
what it means to be stateless. Thus
structure and agency collided in the phenomena of transmigration. Agency seeks individual emancipation, but
runs against the wall of structure. But
Darwinian logic can be seen operating here too; the skilled workers with their
knowledge, skill and experience is able to benefit from the international division
of labour, that knows no boundary except expertise and meritocracy. As for the unskilled worker, migration is a
gamble in which the weak will perish.
The stories which were told during the two day Conference, involving
countries such as Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Burma, Bangladesh, Japan,
South Korea, Philippines, Japan, Taiwan, and China, made this abundantly
clear. To wish for ‘global citizenship’
is a dream in an era still dominated by the notion of the nation-state and
neoliberal globalization which enhances inequalities. Even international bodies
such as the United Nations, can only act as ‘mediating bodies’ to alleviate
human suffering caused by ‘cross-border’ problems.
The notion of
‘transnationalism’ only presents an illusion of progressiveness, when in truth
it is driven by neo-liberal capitalist economic development—a point drove home
by Neil Smith. Transnationalism, in the
form of ‘economic transnationlism’, is an outcome of the growth of
Multi-National and Transnational Corporations, whose system of production spans
the entire globe in search of lower costs and higher profits. The international movement of labour and
capital brought about by the growth of such huge companies, made economists
such as Kenichi Ohmae think that the nation-state is already an obsolete
entity, since it obstructs such free flows and impedes capitalist economic
development which is based on free trade.
Ironically, the nation-state is here seen as a bulwark against
exploitative economics. But in protecting its citizens, it takes a narrow view
of humanity and reifies or essentializes nationalistic categories. Political
pragmatism often takes precedence over universal humanism or human
idealism. But as Dewi Fortuna reminds
us, it is often in the interest of a nation to advance the economic prosperity
of its neighbours. It not only increases trade but prevents the mass migration
of people from poor to rich states en masse, which would cause problems.
The papers
presented at the Conference were written as country papers and therefore look
at the issue of transmigration from the perspective of their respective
nations. This mode of presentation is
useful in that it allows for an exchange of information, ideas and insights regarding
the situation facing each nation, which often differ from country to country.
For example, countries like Indonesia, Philippines and Bangladesh are ‘net
exporters of labour’ either in the form of maids, construction workers,
plantation workers, or others. Thus they
often highlight the problems faced by the migrant worker in host countries
which accept them only on the basis of labour, and often oblivious to their
human needs and problems. Rich countries
such as Taiwan, Japan or South Korea, look at the issue from a different
perspective since they are net importers rather than exporters of labour. Thus
they have to deal with issues of assimilation of foreign labour in the host
country, or in the case of Taiwan, of marriage between Taiwanese and
non-Taiwanese. The question of
‘identity’ often crops up in such issues since nationality has become such an
important identity-marker in the modern period, as opposed to let’s say
economic status, race or religion.
Then there are
studies on ‘diaspora’, which again look at the issue in terms of national boundaries
and identity. The Malaysian country
paper , besides highlighting the huge
inflow of at least 2.3 million unskilled foreign migrant workers into the
country, also highlights the Malaysian
diaspora, numbering some one million according to World Bank estimate. While
some of them are students pursuing their studies and many will return home, a
large number of professionals are working and taking up residence abroad,
forming part of the Malaysian diaspora, and acquiring ‘transnational
identities’. Unlike migrant workers, who
are largely on contract and will return home once their contract has expired or
no longer renewed, the diasporic population assume permanent residence
abroad. But some of them still retain ties
to their country of origin, thus raising several issues. From the perspective
of the host country, this raises the issue of loyalty to the nation. From the
perspective of the country of origin, it might raise issues of ‘brain drain’
and of how those diasporic professionals can contribute to economic growth and
social development back home. Often hard
data and figures are hard to come by, which is why the Malaysian and New
Zealand country papers resort to qualitative data such as interviews. Unfortunately, questions of methodology are
sometimes raised in connection with qualitative data. As when someone from the Philippines question
the survey methodology used by Prof. Huang from Taiwan, in which a survey
involving college students shows the stereotypical thinking even among the
educated class, on foreign workers such as Filipinos. In that survey, Filipinos
were depicted as not loyal to their spouses, among other things. Although some of these studies reported at
the Conference can be contested—as they sometimes are during the course of the Conference—they
nevertheless form a baseline or starting point for further studies on the
subject, which brings me to my next point.
This concerns
the nature and orientation of such studies.
Unlike those research in the social sciences which are purely ‘discipline-driven’,
studies on transnationalism tend to show a concern for social issues and social
causes and can perhaps be classified as ‘mission-oriented’ and ‘applied’ in
some cases. It shows the relevance of the social sciences to the solving of
human and social problems. Also, such
studies take on a multi-disciplinary character since the issues dealt with in
relation to transnationalism are often multi-dimensional, involving among other
things dimensions such as the political, the economic, the educational, legal,
social, and cultural. Governments are often at a loss in dealing with problems
such as ‘human trafficking’, ‘migrant smuggling’, ‘illegal immigration’ and a
host of other ‘transnational crimes’. In
this sense, social scientists can contribute to government efforts by
suggesting policy recommendations based on their theoretical and empirical studies,
thus facilitating evidence-based policy making on transnational issues. And
since academics and social scientists hold an obligation not only to the state
but more so to the world of knowledge and humanity at large, they are in a
better position to influence the course of events in a way which is not
‘nation-state centric’. In this regard,
we are reminded of the themes of ‘national security versus human security’
raised in the Conference. The notion of
human security is based more on the idea of justice rather than interests,
unlike the notion of national security, and hence more universal in scope and
intent. The academic, as suggested in
the exchange between Prof Rahman Embong and Prof Dr Dewi Fortuna, should try to
bring in the perspective of human security within the national approach based
on national security and interest. In fact, as proposed by Prof Rahman Embong
during the Q&A session after his
presentation, our strategy should be to push for the mainstreaming of human
security and human rights including the respect for cultural and religious beliefs
and practices of individuals including migrant workers in policy debates within
and between countries. To what extent this is realistic, remains
debatable, given that policy makers are always ‘nervous’ when confronted with
human security and human rights issues as pointed out by Prof Dewi Fortuna. But
at least it points to one thing: the scholar has a responsibility that
transcends national boundaries to speak truth to power and be guided by the
principle to serve humanity. The scholar has to take that step, and show the
way.
PROF. DR. MOHD. HAZIM SHAH
University
of Malaya
Cum
President,
Malaysian Social Science Association
19 October 2011
Manado, North Sulawesi
