Reimagined Communities

From Val:

(I am a main blogger this week, but am still out of town and haven’t been able to figure out how to sign into that page to post a main blog as I am not on my computer….Anyway, please know this is NOT a comment to Ryan’s post, but is a separate post titled “Migrants and non-Migrants: Are they really so Different?”)

After reading Part III of Levitt’s book, I am even more convinced than before that life is really not so different for the Miraflorenos than others living in the United States in particular communities. First, I found the chapter on domestic and transnational politics very interesting. The split of interest by the Miraflorenos in politics is the same for the United States on the whole, I believe. Levitt argued that the majority of the migrants distrusted politicians and were not very active in politics. But, some lived and breathed politics and saw it as an avenue to a better life. But, if Miraflorenos were involved in politics, it is on a purely familial level in that they voted for the candidate their family was most likely to support, or were members of the party their ancestors/parents/loved ones were a part of. This shows the importance of those transnational actors and their influence over molding people’s opinions on who to vote for etc. But is this really so different than the everyday American’s experience and love/hate relationship with politics???? Doubtful. I see many parallels. Most people that are active in politics in the US have motivations for why they care-hoping to influence a certain issue through law that would affect that person’s everyday life. Also, it is known that one of the most common indicators of how people vote is their family’s influence. But, a difference is the level of corruption seen in Dominican Republic politics. Levitt points to how many Miraflorenos look to the Church for help in state matters and NOT to elected officials or law enforcement officials. An example she pointed to was the Bishop’s involvement in closing an “exotic dance” establishment, rather than involving politicians. I’ve never heard anything like that, and it just shows how much improvement must be made in the political sphere before Miraflorenos feel their rights and needs are being fairly represented by elected officials.
One positive aspect of religion I saw in the reading in terms of gender relations was the involvement and empowerment of women through their religious leadership. More women than men were involved, and they felt they could become leaders without competition from men. It also changed the self-esteem and hope for many women by having a support system that was composed of strong women.
Basically, at the end of the book, I felt that Levitt had just expanded on what one could generally state about transnational migrant communities. Their identities are complex and hard to define, as their loyalties must lie in one place more so than another, in my opinion. Their experiences vary based on the income level they begin with-according to Levitt, and many times their lives don’t change even after coming back to the Dominican Republic from Boston. Because of the nature of their lives and work in a dual world, it makes sense that one cannot make sweeping generalizations about their identity or make strong conclusions about the Miraflorenos. Levitt ends the book with questions about the relationships between migrants and non-migrants and the globalized world, saying there is much work to be done. But, truly, I think the Miraflorenos example can be expanded to those communities in the United States (such as Native Americans, hispanic communities, African American communities etc) that although born in the US, still have two separate identities: one within their smaller community and one in the larger United States and world. Often, these communities have their own traditions and culture, centered around religion and family.

The Transnational Villager provided great insight to the social networks and effects of these networks in two local communities. I am not sure if Levitt made the conscious choice of using the label “migrant” instead of “immigrant”. Perhaps when I think of immigrants, assimilation and naturalization automatically come to mind. Being an immigrant myself, I have never felt Miraflorenos’ strong connection to home. At least I would have never imagined myself eventually moving back to my home country. But however different my personal experience was compared to the Dominican migrants, I was prompted to raise a few points about Levitt’s book.
Two things bothered me the most about Levitt’s book. I don’t see how such transnational networks can last more than one generation. For first generation migrants, there is a desire stay connected with home. Most Miraflorenos envisioned themselves returning home after spending fifteen years in the U.S. But it troubles me to feel that the fifteen years they spent in the U.S. did not weaken their desire to return. This strong connection with the sending country is also perpetuated by living in a closed Latino community in the receiving country. But how many migrants are able to restrict their lifestyles within such closed communities? This aspect would limit Levitt’s study to villages with high migration rates and cities with have high concentrated minority communities. I don’t see how these small, isolated villages would have too much impact on large nations (at least nations larger than Dominican Republic). Is this transnational network really a global phenomenon, or could it be just some isolated cases?
In general, Levitt’s book gave me a perception that most migrants were well off, wealthy, successful people. I would imagine these migrants were people who could afford to live comfortably in the U.S. and have some extra money to send home to support their families in Miraflores. It is quite easy to forget that many of these migrants live near the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder in the U.S. The image they display to their family at Miraflores and their lives in Boston are sometimes contradictory. With that in mind, it would explain why so many migrants wish to return to Miraflores after living so many miserable years in Boston. It provided a very gloomy view on migrants’ lives in the U.S. I also hate to see migrants working sixty hours a week so they can have money to send home in exchange for some vain glory (excuse my word choice). How many migrants actually come to the United States hoping that one day they will return home with suitcases loaded with money? I would rather believe that people came to the U.S. with the hope of integrating with the larger society and succeeding in this nation.