There must be two of something to create a difference.

Recently, Yoon (2012) pointed to the necessity to analyse immigrant families’ educational experiences through the lens of ethnic identity and positioning. The notion of ‘ethnicity’ became central in anthropology and other social sciences in the late 1960s (Eriksen, 1999,

2001; Guibernau & Rex, 1999). Following the decolonization processes in Africa and Asia and the concomitant anticolonial and antiracist thoughts, the term was initially used to endorse the positive feelings of belonging to a specific cultural group (Guibernau & Rex, 1999). However, since the collapse of communism in Western Europe at the end of the twentieth century and as a result of the growing influx of immigrants coming from the former colonies and elsewhere, in everyday discourse the term has increasingly received a negative ring of armed conflict between corporate groups fighting over territory (e.g. Bosnia; Russia, Tibet, etc.) or of the institutional and day-to-day issues between immigrant groups and the cultural majority in a country (Eriksen, 1999, 2001; Guibernau & Rex, 1999).

Ethnicity in itself is a complex phenomenon. Many have made attempts at a comprehensive definition, all trying to answer the question which elements constitute an ethnic group. In the anthropology of ethnicity a distinction is made between primordial and situational ethnicity (Guibernau & Rex, 1999; Pang, 2003b). Primordial ethnicity suggests a given and inexplicable form of bonding between members of a group based upon a real or fictitious unity of descent (jus sanguinis), a narrative or myth that endorses this common origin, an ‘objective’ similarity of cultural and linguistic characteristics/customs, and often also an attachment to a clearly demarcated territory (Guibernau & Rex, 1999; Weber, 1999). According to Weber (1999), all those elements may survive in the consciousness of people even after the political institutions that represent them have disappeared, which is for example the case when people migrate. Such a definition of ethnic groups largely coincides with a common assumption that race, ethnicity, culture and language are almost synonymous to one another and that the boundary between ethnic communities is a ‘natural’ boundary. In fact, primordial ethnicity suggests that each ethnic community has developed its own culture and society in relative seclusion, corresponding to the local ecological context. This view has created a world of separate and clearly demarcated ethnic groups, each with its own culture.

The second paradigm of situational ethnicity, mostly known through Frederik Barth (1969), is in fact more valuable as it also turns the attention to social processes in the study of ethnicity. Despite of what is still commonly held in popular discourse, there is no one-to-one relationship between race, ethnicity and culture, nor do ethnic groups and identities develop in geographical or social isolation (Barth, 1969). Eriksen compares the idea of an isolated ethnic group with the sound from one hand clapping – an absurdity (1999, 2001). He demonstrates that the importance and self-consciousness of ethnic identity often becomes more important in

cases where groups share many cultural elements and have regular contact. He succinctly writes: “The more similar people become, it seems, the more they are concerned with remaining distinctive” (Eriksen, 2001, p. 262). Although Barth does not deny the association between distinct cultural characteristics and ethnic categories, he does point out that ethnicity is not determined by so-called specific and invariable cultural elements. As such he replaces the traditional emphasis on culture with a focus on interaction and social boundaries. He writes:

“The [cultural] features that are taken into account are not the sum of ‘objective differences, but only those which the actors themselves regard as significant. Not only do ecological variations mark and exaggerate differences; some cultural features are used by the actors as signals and emblems of differences, others are ignored, and in some relationships radical differences are played down and denied” (Barth, 1969, p. 14).

Barth’s perspective on ethnicity is an instrumental one, whereby ethnicity is seen as dynamic and negotiable (Christiansen, 1998; Eriksen, 2001). Ethnic identity is constructed on the basis of boundaries or opposition to other groups and therefore implies a dynamic and on- going interplay of processes of self-ascription and other-ascription (Barth, 1969; Turner & Reynolds, 2001). Throughout this process of interethnic differentiation a wide range of criteria can be deployed as markers of cultural difference: phenotype, language, attire, religion, economic activities, and certain values (Eriksen, 2001; Jenkins, 2008). For an ethnic identity to be recognized and maintained, these distinct cultural markers should be embedded in the group’s social practices, e.g. in ethnic organisations (Eriksen, 2001). In the same vein, Yoon (2012) argues against essentialist and fixed views of ethnic identity. According to her, (ethnic) identity is always a social construct, or a social mediated process and in that sense ‘identity’ and ‘positioning’ are interrelated concepts. She distinguishes between two kinds of positioning: intentional self-positioning and interactive positioning. Self-positioning is a reflexive positioning which is reflected in different discursive practices, e.g. taking responsibility for one’s actions, stated beliefs and perspectives. These individual constructions of identity guide people’s interactive approaches with others in society, including the education system. Interactive positioning, on the other hand, focuses on the power and influence of others’ positioning on individuals’ identity formation. With specific reference to the field of education, Yoon (2012) writes that teachers might (un)intentionally position minority students in more positive or negative ways through their interactions. They might

position these students as “other” without realizing that they may be limiting or enhancing the students’ opportunities to develop a positive sense of themselves as immigrants. According to Yoon (2012), depending on the perceptions of how others position them, pupils can take up a position as active or more passive learners in different contexts. In fact, several authors have shown that positive positioning by others is necessary for the wellbeing of students and impacts upon their academic and social success. Learning may change as a function of the interrelationships due to social power dynamics (Yoon, 2012).

The dual nature of ethnicity implies that one needs to distinguish between an ethnic identity claimed or felt for by the people themselves and that attributed to them by others (Guibernau & Rex, 1999). To describe these fundamental processes of ethnicity, Eidheim introduced the concepts of dichotomisation and complementarisation (1971, in Eriksen, 2001). Complementarisation refers to an ethnic relationship by which the two groups differ from each other culturally, but are structurally equivalent. Dichotomisation, on the other hand, is characterised by processes of stereotyping and stigmatisation by which one group considers the other inferior. Unfortunately, worldwide there are many examples of dichotomisation by which ethnic minorities (e.g. native communities in Canada or Australia, gypsies, etc. …) and migrant groups in different countries are being stigmatized. Individuals can either accept or reject attributed identities and not all groups react on processes of dichotomisation in the same way. There exists the possibility that the embodied ethnicity of a social group is shaped by that which is attributed to them by others (Guibernau & Rex, 1999). People might also try to overcome the stigmatising dichotomy by undercommunicating their own ethnic identity and by overcommunicating cultural elements of the dominant group in spaces and on moments where there is contact with the latter, whereas in the private domain of home they fully sense and express their ethnic identity. Or reversely, they can decide to overcommunicate their own ethnicity. Of course, these examples only present a minor part of the real range of possible reactions. The central point here is that ethnicity is relative and situational in the sense that there are differences in the degree to which ethnicity plays a significant role and is played out as such in specific situations (Eriksen, 2001). Moreover, as Guibernau and Rex (1994) have shown, the criteria used for ethnic ascription by outsiders might be different from those applied by the groups themselves for self-ascription. As argued by Barth (1969) the boundaries that are considered to define an ethnic group, are constructed boundaries. They are consciously or unconsciously constituted to serve specific purposes (Guibernau & Rex, 1999).

Examples given by Guibernau and Rex of such purposes are: the construction of transnational migrant communities and the forming of social classes and status groups.

4.2. ‘Diaspora’ and transnationalism

Within contemporary writing, the notion of diaspora has become a conventionally used mode to refer to the global dispersal of people of Chinese descent. Various authors, however, point to the contentious usage of the concept of ‘diaspora’ and caution for heavy implicit meanings embodied in the term, including uniformity, the loss of homeland, migrants as victims, a remaining desire for return, a refusal to integrate into the host society, and ‘diasporic nationalism’ (Guibernau & Rex, 1999; Leung, 2003; Ma, 2003; Skeldon, 1994, 2003). None of these classic hallmarks can automatically be applied to the Chinese Diaspora.

Despite the fact that many state authorities and majority groups in the West tend to attribute homogeneity and cohesion rather than diversity to ethnic minority groups, including the Chinese (Benton & Gomez, 2014), the Chinese diaspora is far from homogeneous. Ethnic Chinese are segmented into rich and poor in skills and resources, and by cleavages of distinct migration periods, provenance, destination areas, generation, length of residence, sub- ethnicity and so on (Benton & Gomez, 2014; Ma, 2003). Although some Chinese have been “expelled” from their homeland due to socio-political turmoil, many others can be classified as “willing exiles” or “dynamic, entrepreneurial people”, to use Skeldon’s later phrasing (2003: p.51), who moved to take advantage of available opportunities. It is thus impossible to speak of one Chinese diaspora. Throughout the literature four major terms tend to crop up to define Chinese immigrants, apart from ‘Chinese diasporans’: Huaqiao, Huaren, Huayi, and

Yimin. Although there exists some debate about the concepts’ exact definitions, many scholars

appear to agree with the following interpretations, as given by Li (1999). Huaren denotes Chinese settlers abroad who have obtained foreign citizenship, while Huayi generally refers to “Chinese descendants who were born and have grown up outside of China”. The term Yimin includes the connotation of compulsory migration due to Chinese official policies. Finally,

Huaqiao refers to those Chinese who “have the permanent right to reside in their adopted

country but retain their Chinese citizenship”. However, according to Li, various Chinese associations in the Netherlands currently use the term Huaqiao in naming their organization, thereby publicly proclaiming Chinese patriotism. “Nevertheless”, she writes, “their patriotic

complex is nothing more than an imaginary sense that, in Anderson’s words, is just ‘a politics without responsibility or accountability’ or ‘long-distance nationalism’. In effect, it is important to recognize the potential meaning of this phenomenon: they want to gain social elevation in the Netherlands from the strength and prosperity of China.” Appadurai (1996) writes that in order to understand the recent migrations and the movement of people, ideas, objects, capital (social, cultural and economic) and identities, we need to realise that people are deterritorialised and are subject to what he calls ‘the social imaginary’. By asking the question to what the nature of a locality is as a lived experience in a globalised, deterritorialised world, he makes a very crucial link between the imagination of people and social life.

Lau-Clayton (2014) points to the connection between diaspora and the notions of ‘translocalism’ and ‘transnationalism’. Following Vertovec (1999), she believes that the diasporic communities are becoming today’s transnational communities, which are being installed and sustained through a range of social organisation, mobility and communication. The term ‘transnationalism’ was adopted in the 1990s to refer to the connections between migrants in places of settlement and origin and among diasporans in an era of instant communication and easy travel (Benton & Gregor, 2014). Clearly, Chinese immigrants in Europe form part of wider transnational networks, in symbolic or more concrete ways and at different levels. Chinese networks are physically created and (re)negotiated across transnational boundaries through modern transportation, but also psychically and imaginary through new means of mass communication, such as television and the Internet. This makes it possible for many Chinese immigrants to be in contact with other Chinese in different parts of the world. Many Chinese immigrants are members of Chinese organisations or associations with a local or international character. Some family members even reside halftime in China, Hong Kong or other Western countries4. Others don’t actually move physically to other places, but form part of a broader social ‘Chinese ethnoscape’ within which they share a certain cultural and social identity, in the literature often designated as ‘Chineseness’. According to Nyíri and Saveliev there is a “changing nature of Chinese sojourn and trade and a shift from immigration to a certain country to continuing sojourn within the limits of a wider region, where national boundaries are not seen as serious obstacles” (Nyíri & Saveliev, 2002, p. 2). They denote this phenomenon as “the globalising of Chinese migration”. Various

studies class transnationalism as a post or supranational identity, just like internationalism or cosmopolitism, which is in clear contrast with the classic idea of migration that entails a lasting rupture with the homeland (Benton & Gregor, 2014). According to Cohen (1997, p. ix) all definitions of diasporic communities have one thing in common.

“all diasporic communities settled outside their natal (or imagined natal) territories, acknowledge that the ‘old country’ […] always has some claim on their loyalty and emotions. That claim may be strong or weak, or boldly or meekly articulated in a given circumstance or historical period, but a member’s adherence to a diasporic community is demonstrated by an acceptance of an inescapable link with their past migration history and a sense of co-ethnicity with others of a similar background.”

The level of this claim and the ways in which it is articulated strongly depend on conditions playing at different localities within the diaspora. Not all Chinese diasporans equally yearn to return to the country of origin (Leung, 2003). Skeldon (1994) argues that in contrast to the diaspora Jews who have always looked to Israel, in the Chinese case it has mainly been the Chinese state that has had strong feelings for the overseas Chinese. Benton & Gomez (2014) explain that ever since the late nineteenth century, the Chinese state has striven to make Chinese diasporans and their descendants “a tool of foreign policy and a source of investment” (p. 1163) by propagating the idea that overseas Chinese belong to China and thus share a common ethnic identity. Although various transnational theories have also emphasized the relationship of diasporan Chinese with China and claimed that foreign-born Chinese are being induced to reclaim their ‘Chineseness’, many of these studies fail to account for shifts and flexibility in identity and in claims to citizenship among Chinese diasporic communities (Benton & Gomez, 2014). Ma (2003) writes that within our understanding of diaspora ‘place’ should always be understood as “a social construct and a site at which power arises from the convergence of global, national and regional forces interacting with the local physical, historical, cultural, political and socioeconomic factors” (2003, p. 25). Place can thus produce considerable differences in the features of localities and in the ways communities construct their identities. A so thought-of diasporic community is always characterised by diversity and power hierarchies creating fluctuating social boundaries and diasporic cultures that are dynamic and fluid (Leung, 2003; Ma, 2003). “The identities of an imagined diasporic community no longer (if they ever did) conform the traditional, neatly trimmed, and often timeless Orientalist images […] as a diasporic group comprises

communities of different identities and interests” (Leung, 2003, p. 240). Therefore, the inherent assumption with the term ‘diaspora’ of the Chinese as ‘sojourners’5 that are clung to a fixed identity and resist assimilation (Skeldon, 2003) should be treated with much caution.

As recently argued by Lau-Clayton (2014), as a social construct, in fact the term ‘diaspora’ has shifted its meaning and coverage over time. Currently the concept tends to carry an array of definitions with more positive connotations (Leung, 2003; Ma, 2003). Guibernau and Rex, for example, suggest using the term “more loosely to refer to any internationally dispersed ethnic group, whether or not it has nationalist aspirations” (1999, p. 8). Leung (2003) and Ma (2003) mainly use the term to denote the compression of space and time, the mobility and the transnational flows of people, commodities, images, and information, which is an interpretation that coincides with Castells’ definition of diaspora as a “space of flows” (Castells, 1996, cited in Ma, 2003). The latter concept transcends the mere movement across geographical space, but instead also encloses people’s journeys or “long- term processes undergone, interactively, with the social environments in identity (re)construction, (re)interpretation of positions in the host society and on-going negotiation in defining the meanings of ‘home’” (Leung, 2003, p. 238). In line with this school of thought, Lau-Clayton (2014) likewise uses the notion of diaspora to challenge fixed and essentialist conceptions of culture and cultural identity. She relates the concept of diaspora to the notion of hybridity, which according to her should be seen as “the process of cultural amalgamation, ‘where the diasporic arrivals adopt aspects of the host culture and rework, reform and reconfigure this in production of a new hybrid culture or hybrid identities’ (Chambers 1994:50)” (Lau-Clayton, 2014, p. 20). As such, the concepts of diaspora, hybridity, translocalism and transnationalism lead us to question then what and who determines the categories of ‘Chinese’ or ‘Chineseness’.