Multiple Belonging and the Challenges to Biographic Navigation.
Multiple Belonging and the Challenges to Biographic Navigation.
复制标题
多重归属和传记导航的挑战。
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2013
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Joanna Pfaff
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Joanna Pfaff
关注移民住宿揭示了一个主要的群体取向。1公众和学术界关于移民的辩论在集体化的概括比比皆是时，谈到“种族群体”，“平行社会”，“移民”，或“移民背景的人”。单一的“种族或宗教群体”、“穆斯林妇女”或“土耳其青年男子”往往被视为调查的整齐单位。这种倾向最近成为了一个明显的批评对象，质疑社会科学中无所不在的集体化先验假设（Brubaker，2002）。学者们还批判性地讨论了观察的单位和层次问题，特别是对方法论民族主义和方法论民族化的批评（维默和格里克·席勒，2002;格里克·席勒，2007;盖尔纳，2012）。“种族边界划分”（维默，2013）的概念取代了传统的方法，它帮助我们不要把有界的集体单位视为理所当然，而是承认它们的位置和动态性质。寻求选择适当的调查单位通知社会科学研究的新途径。在这种情况下，网络分析关注的是相互关系，而不是任何有界单元。“欢乐”辩论的各个方面（Gilroy，2006）对跨越集体边界线创造团结的方式感兴趣，并提出了新的观察视角，包括标量考虑（Glick Schiller和Caglar，2011）。“超多样性”概念（Vertovec，2010年）集中于不同性质和规模的社会空间的混合范围，例如在国家社会、市场或社区内。新的方法工具，如交叉分析（Anthias，2006），指出集体形成中的“内部”差异。然而，这种旨在克服群体主义的新转变往往忽视了移民社会性的一个重要方面。当前拒绝群体主义的研究视角倾向于采用中观视角，优先考虑集体过程，并在集体模式中寻找动态，如社会边界的关闭，或边界模糊或转移（Zolberg和Woon，1999;维默，2013）。在这条道路上，很少有人关注个体移民的“自我政治”（鲍曼，2011年），在集体动力学的背景下进行研究。可以肯定的是，对个人生活道路的看法至关重要。但是，虽然传记方法在移民研究中比比皆是（见Rosenthal和Bogner，2009年的重要贡献），他们对个人选择，承诺，实践，追求，希望，欲望之间的相互作用的观察，一方面，集体进程，另一方面，集中在人的位置移动，而大多数情况下，集体星座仅仅是背景。大多数传记分析缺乏对个人和集体维度的归属感以及集体如何对个人行动作出反应的前景化（例如，
Preoccupations with migrant accommodation reveal a predominantly groupist orientation.1 The public and also the academic debates on migration abound in collectivising generalisations when speaking of ‘ethnic groups’, of ‘parallel societies’, of ‘migrants’, or ‘people of migrant background’. Single ‘ethnic or religious groups’, ‘Muslim women’, or ‘Turkish young men’ are often taken as neat units of inquiry. This tendency has recently been the object of a pronounced critique that questions the collectivising a priori assumptions so omnipresent in social science (Brubaker, 2002). Scholars also critically address the issue of units and levels of observation see especially the critique of methodological nationalism as well as methodological ethnicisation (Wimmer and Glick Schiller, 2002; Glick Schiller, 2007; Gellner, 2012). Proposed in the place of conventional approaches is the concept of ‘ethnic boundary making’ (Wimmer, 2013) that helps us not to take bounded collective units for granted, but rather to acknowledge their situated and dynamic nature. The quest to select appropriate units of inquiry informs new avenues of social science research. In this vein, network analysis focuses upon interrelations rather than on any bounded units. The various strands of the ‘conviviality’ debate (Gilroy, 2006) are interested in the modalities of creating togetherness across collective boundary-lines and suggest new perspectives of observation, including scalar considerations (Glick Schiller and Caglar, 2011). The concept of ‘superdiversity’ (Vertovec, 2010) concentrates on the scope of inter-mixing in social spaces of different nature and magnitude, for instance within national societies, market places or neighbourhoods. New methodological tools, such as intersectional analysis (Anthias, 2006), point to ‘internal’ diversities within collective formations. This new shift aimed at overcoming groupism tends to neglect one important dimension of migrant sociability though. Current research perspectives rejecting groupism tend to adopt meso-perspectives, prioritising collective processes and searching for dynamics in collective patterns such as the closure of social boundaries, or boundary-blurring or shifting (Zolberg and Woon, 1999; Wimmer, 2013). When following this path, there is little attention to the individual migrants’ ‘politics of the self ’ (Bauman, 2011), studied against the backdrop of collective dynamics. Perspectives on individual pathways of life are vital, to be sure. But while biographical approaches abound in migration research (see Rosenthal and Bogner, 2009 for an important contribution), their observation of the interplay between individual choices, commitments, practices, quests, hopes, desires, on one hand, and collective processes, on the other, concentrates upon positional movements of persons, while mostly taking collective constellations merely as context. Most biographical analyses lack of foregrounding what belonging in its individual and collective dimensions entails and how collectivities readjust responding to individual action (for instance,