Reimagined Communities

In the beginning of Part I of The Transnational Villagers, Peggy Levitt describes how Dominican national identity developed as an “anti-identity” in the nineteenth century (34). Locals strived to prevent history from repeating itself, aiming to resist occupation from foreign powers at all cost (35). However, as she later demonstrates, the mass migration of Dominicans to the United States in the twentieth century rendered their national identity much more malleable. The successful permeation of social remittances transported or communicated back to the Dominican Republic demonstrate the extent to which Dominicans self-identity entirely changed over the course of a few short decades.

One would think that the strained ethnical relations in the United States would remind Dominicans of the oppression they suffered under Haitian rule. The Dominicans in the United States clearly form a unique community in the Boston suburbs, a city that remains incredibly segregated residentially (50). And, according to Peggy Levitt, Dominicans are the one of the most residentially concentrated groups in America (49). Perhaps the way in which migrants to the United States live in such intimate proximity to other migrants form the Dominican Republic prevents the recurrence of oppressive behaviors by other foreign groups so despised by the Dominicans.

However, those still living in Miraflorenos complain that family and friends returning from the United States do not participate in the community as often as they did before their migration (54). Peggy Levitt remarks how some migrants experience a decline in social capital upon their return to the Dominican Republic, because they no longer participate and help other community members as actively in the town (63). This appears ironic since, as aforementioned, in the United States Dominican migrants live in such close living quarters to one another. Although Levitt does comment that many migrants in the United States spend more time inside rather than outside as they did back home (62). Perhaps this sense of isolation, even though experienced in highly concentrated neighborhoods, creates this cultural disconnect.

Now, I must admit, Gramsci came to mind repeatedly while reading Part I and Part Ii of Levitt’s book. The idea of an ordinary person acting as the carrier of social remittances to another culture (64), sparking a new fascination or even political or religions hegemony, reflected Gramsci’s philosophy of hegemonic movements rising from the bottom to the top in society. In fact, Levitt’s ideas towards cross-cultural communication between Dominicans in the United States and back home resonated with this grassroots ideal.

Yet the account of transnationalism made in this book, once again, is riddled with ironies. After all, as much as the Dominicans resisted direct physical and military oppression from outsiders, they quickly succumbed to an alternative form of economic oppression to the United States (as seen in the first chapter). Yet once Dominicans migrate to America, relationships become even more dependent with their separation. Meanwhile, migrants in the United States get a whiff of that good ole’ American individualism and several Dominican migrants no longer want everything to do with their family members back home. While this seems to appear as an opposite trend in oppression, in which the individuals with more economic power want increasingly less to do with those in the Dominican Republic, the experience of transnationalism seems quite the contrary. This evolution of an anti-identity, an open embrace of new customs and trends contrary to the traditional established mode, reflects the very premise upon which Dominicans first formed their identity in the nineteenth century.

In her book The Transnational Villagers, Levitt makes a concerted effort to neither portray transnational communities as “good” nor “bad”. Since these ‘sending’ and ‘receiving’ cultures undergo such a wide variety of social, political, and economic changes across vast amounts of space, it is understandable that both positive and negative outcomes result. On the one hand, Dominican migrants living in Jamaica Plain have greatly increased access to jobs and also the respect of those they left back home and for whom they provide. However, drawbacks such as low standards of living and sometimes being taken for granted back home counterbalance the glories of migrating. On the other hand, non-migrant Miraflorenos suffer a limited job market and lack many of the luxuries that Americans take for granted, but they are also the beneficiaries of “financial aid” from their migrant counterparts especially in the context of a global economy. While there are many benefits to migrating both for the individual and his/her family, there are also a myriad of drawbacks that both the sending and receiving communities experience.
Levitt also asserts that, contrary to traditional views regarding immigration in the United States, assimilation is not necessarily the rule but rather one of various possible outcomes of migration. She argues that transnational communities can take many shapes, and that even in the context of a single community, various individuals “assimilate” to very different degrees depending on age, sex, attitude, language fluency, plans for the future, relationships with non-migrants, exposure to the host society, and financial position. In general, Levitt proposes that transnational communities are, by definition, a synthesis of home- and host-country values, traditions, and norms, and that their respective degrees of impact on each other vary depending on size, homogeneity, and distance apart. For example, since the Dominican Republic is very close to the US compared to emigrating European states, ties between migrant and non-migrant Dominican communities are generally very close. Then again, a number of factors determine the ultimate relationship between any two transnational societies.
There are several transnational dichotomies that Levitt points out that I think are very insightful. The first and most obvious distinction is between the benefits of remittances and family sacrifices, such as the inability to raise ones own children having left them behind in Miraflores. For the most part, non-migrant children are understandably lonely and confused regarding their paternal situation, especially when migrant parents return to visit. On the surface, such visits usually seem like Christmas time with presents rather than family reunions, and many children report their relationships with their real (migrant) parents to be awkward. Another less obvious contrast that Levitt points to is the distinction between the benefits of remittances and the social costs of materialism. For example, many non-migrant schoolchildren benefit greatly from their migrant parents in the form of supplies that contribute to effective learning. However, even simple school supplies are divisive elements within the school environment as a “haves-and-have-nots” paradigm develops between migrant and non-migrant school children. There are other more abstract dichotomies to be found in the book, but I’ll save those for class discussion.
Overall, I found Levitt’s book insightful and enlightening. After reading the first 40-50 pages, I thought I already knew what transnational life was like and that I wasn’t going to learn anything new. After all, I’ve had personal experiences both at home and abroad interacting with individuals from various transnational communities. However, the author’s detailed analysis of transnational elements such as “social capital” and “instrumental adapters” – along with the personal accounts she included from individuals on both sides of the migration continuum – really opened my eyes to just how complex and impactful the practice of migration can be, and how mutually influential transnational communities really are in the context of globalization.

Peggy Levitt details the ways in which communications improvements have improved the lives of transnational migrants. However, in doing so, she demonstrates ways in which communications have become obscured and even falsified between Mirafloreños and their Boston counterparts.

In the introduction, Levitt states that “new communication and transportation technologies permit easier and more intimate connections. These heighten the immediacy and frequency of migrants’ contact with their sending communities and allow them to be actively involved in everyday life there in fundamentally different ways than in the past” (22). She describes shared telenovelas, home videos, cable networks, long-distance service, and airplane travel. These things help to shrink the gap between Mirafloreños and Bostonians (and those in between), but they create their own sets of problems.

Parenting issues alone take up dozens of pages—the relationships between parent and child are strained and redefined. However, the issue that interested me the most was summed up neatly in a quotation on page 89:

“Those who have never migrated are unrealistic about what it takes to send home so much money and bring home so many gifts. Many migrants have not told them what their lives in Boston are really like. They have never described how they save every dime or how they live in windowless basement rooms so they can save on rent. Once their full suitcases became commonplace and expected, it was too late to fill in the blanks.”

I feel that this passage (and its conclusion, which states that migrants work to maintain their “hero status,” and in so doing “reinforce nonmigrants’ skewed understanding of U.S. life and perpetuate their unrealistic expectations of migration’s rewards”) really gets at the deeper issue surrounding transnationalism: that of the actual lack of “real” communications and of skewed perspectives regarding life in the new country.

When I read the descriptions of what the Mirafloreños imagined life in Boston to be, I was shocked—surely that couldn’t be the case, judging from what I know from my experiences of migrants both in urban and rural settings in the various places in which I’ve lived. I wondered if possibly these migrants were different than others I’ve encountered, because I know full well that the experiences of immigrants vary widely by place of origin, destination, and class. However, this paragraph confirmed my suspicions—the people “back home” don’t understand how hard migrant Mirafloreños have to work in Boston to send home the money that allows them not to work.

This to me seems to be a very flawed system in need of correction. How can communications be improved and the “truth” be revealed without seriously harming the reputation of the Bostonians, the “hens who laid the golden egg,” according to one migrant? It seems that it would have to be a gradual process. Possibly as views change (as detailed by Levitt in the last chapter we read), this truth can emerge. But, is it too late?

I’m very interested to hear your thoughts.

What struck me most about Levitt’s work are the fluid identities of transnational villagers. Challenging preconceived notions that immigrants “must” renounce ties to their home countries, Dominican immigrants in Boston continue to maintain social and economic ties with their home town, Miraflores. Similarly, even though some Miraflorenos may not migrate at all, they seem to consider themselves as an extension of the migrant community in Boston: they not only receive their relatives’ remittances, but also participate in other social exchanges like caring for migrants’ children. Yet Levitt’s main focus on the social and economic exchanges between the two communities leads me to wonder if the notion of “transnational villages” further obscures the largely marginalized status of immigrants (especially “non-white” and non-English speaking ones) in American society. In other words, despite allowing Dominican migrants to negotiate norms in relation to their home communities, are transnational villages reinforcing American institutions and views that continue to exclude such immigrants?

On one hand, Dominican migrants seem to be more autonomous and “empowered,” especially in their personal lives. Transnational relations, for example, have significantly impacted gender relations: whereas back home Dominican women were largely restricted to the domestic sphere, in Boston they had to work, but they also derived a greater sense of their own independence. As one woman remarks: “I felt that I could count on myself. One sees things, one works, one manages one’s own money and isn’t dependent on anyone” (Levitt 102). Furthermore, the fact that more women worked encouraged more egalitarian relationships between husbands and wives; some husbands even did their share of the housework.

However, transnational villages seem problematic because they do not seem to challenge economic, racial, and gender hierarchies in the U.S., in which non-white, non-English speaking immigrants mainly occupy the lower tiers. In my opinion, Levitt largely overlooks the limited social, economic, and educational opportunities of Dominic migrants, which is an important aspect of their experience because they are members of the non-white, working class in Boston. She does hint at the extent of their alienation through their strong desire to return “home.” To achieve a measure of agency and independence, Dominican migrants come to the conclusion that they have to return to Miraflores; they will “never be” considered as full-fledged Americans. One issue where this becomes clear is their attitudes on race. Despite being perceived as “white” or at least “light-skinned,” many Dominican migrants were shocked at being treated like blacks. Consequently, they continue being members of Miraflores because, as one migrant puts it: “In Miraflores, I will always belong. I will always be accepted” (Levitt 111). Such transnational relations, then, seem to reinforce their marginalized status in the U.S., because migrants believe that “returning home” is always an option. If such migrants are always oriented toward their home countries, whether by their own choice or by economic necessity, they seem to limit their own capacity to engage and challenge the status quo in the U.S.