Uncertain Citizenship. Megan Ryburn

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ demands on the state.”³³ Throughout the 1990s and into the 2000s, this change has gone hand in hand with a shift toward “multiculturalism” in many Latin American countries, resulting in what has been critically referred to as “neoliberal multiculturalism.”³⁴ Under the policies of such a framework there may be official recognition of cultural differences, for example, through celebration of the more “folkloric” elements of indigenous culture. This is not, however, accompanied by serious attempts to redress the severe social, political, and economic disadvantages faced by indigenous peoples and other historically oppressed groups. While falling within the paradigm of “neoliberal multiculturalism,” as Richards argues, Chile has been a “particularly reticent” case with respect to enacting both policies of cultural recognition and policies that would have substantive impacts on indigenous populations.³⁵ Around 9 percent of the Chilean population self-identifies as belonging to one of Chile’s nine officially recognized indigenous peoples, 84 percent of whom self-identify as Mapuche.³⁶ They continue to suffer serious discrimination.³⁷

      Until the election of Evo Morales in 2005, Bolivia was also considered a clear, if different, example of neoliberal multiculturalism.³⁸ This changed, however, following Morales’s extraordinary victory after several years of turmoil and unrest. Protests had centered on indigenous rights and access to natural resources, and they reached a crisis point in conflicts that came to be known as the Guerra del Agua (Water War) in Cochabamba in 2000 and the Guerra del Gas (Gas War) in El Alto in 2003. Morales’s rise to power during this period was greeted with jubilation by those on the left in Bolivia, and globally, and was hailed as opening up new “postmulticultural” possibilities for citizenship.³⁹ The reality has been somewhat different. As Nancy Postero outlines, there have been significant changes under the Morales government.⁴⁰ In Bolivia, 40 to 60 percent of the population self-identifies as belonging to one of thirty-six indigenous peoples—Quechua, Aymara, Chiquitano, and Guaraní are the largest groups—and indigenous peoples have suffered centuries of oppression.⁴¹ The symbolic importance of having an indigenous president has therefore been huge, as has that of the 2009 constitution, which proclaims Bolivia to be a plurinational, communitarian state and establishes particular rights for indigenous peoples. Nevertheless, as Postero indicates, “the emancipatory language about indigenous rights in the constitution obscures the more important results of the constitution: the overarching power of the central state in the new model” and the restrictions placed on indigenous autonomy.⁴² Moreover, the continued pursuit of hydrocarbon extraction as a strategy for economic growth has been strongly criticized, as have other projects (such as the road to be built through the TIPNIS national park and protected area) that have serious environmental consequences and negatively affect certain indigenous groups.⁴³

      Bryan Roberts’s astute assessment of the evolution of citizenship in Latin America as uneven and complex continues to ring true, at least in the cases of Chile and Bolivia. Ongoing struggles over its meanings and contents abound. This is increasingly reflected in a rich and growing body of work—such as that by Teresa Caldeira, Daniel Goldstein, James Holston, Sian Lazar, and Patricia Richards—that examines how traditionally marginalized groups seek to express an alternative vision of citizenship and/or demand the substantive rights that are so often denied them, in spite of their nominal formal citizenship status.⁴⁴ This scholarship explores how nonstate actors may play a crucial part in shaping and pushing the boundaries of citizenship in a process that is, as Étienne Balibar notes, always “imparfaite.”⁴⁵ Nevertheless, it also considers the ways in which the top-down ideas—or “regimes”—of citizenship prevalent in each nation-state also have a fundamental role in this process, as do the actions of state actors, who will interpret these “regimes” in different, nonmonolithic ways.⁴⁶

      Both this work on the anthropology and sociology of citizenship in Latin America and the synthesis of the two traditions of citizenship from a feminist perspective that comes from within political theory have influenced how I think about citizenship in this book. Citizenship is a process that is constantly under construction. It is built in part “from below” through the everyday practices of ordinary people who, irrespective of their uniform possession of formal citizenship status, have differentiated access—contingent on their social identities—to the substantive rights of citizenship. Their practices may either support or contest the hegemonic narrative of citizenship promoted by the state; this is a narrative that will vary according to history and location, as will the practices in which ordinary people may engage. Already complex, the ways in which citizenship is lived and constructed in the everyday are further complicated by the movement of people across nation-state borders.

      MIGRATION

      I understand migration across nation-state borders from a transnational perspective. That is, I take the view that, in the words of Linda Basch, Nina Glick-Schiller, and Cristina Szanton-Blanc, “immigrants forge and sustain multi-stranded social relations that link together their societies of origin and settlement.”⁴⁷ This now widely accepted approach to the study of migration emerged in the late 1980s and early 1990s to counter prior understandings of migration as entailing a definitive cutting of ties with the country of origin.

      As migration increased in the late nineteenth century, the process experienced by migrants upon arriving in a different nation-state was predominantly understood as one of assimilation. The “melting pot” analogy was used to indicate how the majority group would remain largely unchanged by the absorption of the new migrant minority group, and the minority group would only retain some limited features of “ethnic” identification.⁴⁸ Heralded particularly by Nathan Glazer and Daniel Moynihan’s 1970 publication Beyond the Melting Pot, it was gradually recognized, however, that not all migrants were assimilating.⁴⁹ Many were, in fact, retaining features of the cultures of their countries of origin. One reaction to this was the emergence of multiculturalism as an approach to migration in academia and the policy arena. Approaching migration from the perspective of multiculturalism, difference is recognized and acknowledged, and migrants are encouraged to maintain cultural practices from their countries of origin. However, they are encouraged to do this from a position that is embedded within the “settlement country,” thus forming a “cultural mosaic” or “tapestry” as opposed to a “melting pot.”⁵⁰

      While purporting to be very different, in a certain sense assimilation and multiculturalism are two sides of the same coin.⁵¹ They are both based on the notion of the nation-state and society as being one and the same.⁵² From both perspectives, migration is understood as a discrete event, a decisive break in the life of migrants as they move from one nation-state to another. Migrants renounce their ties to their countries of origin and enter into some form of integration process in the settlement country. It is not possible to remain part of more than one geographically bounded society. In the case of assimilation, migrants adapt completely to a new way of life. In the case of multiculturalism, they retain aspects of their cultural heritage but nonetheless focus on doing so within the context of the settlement country, and as mentioned above with respect to indigenous peoples, the focus is usually on the retention of the “folkloric” aspects of their culture.

      By contrast, a transnational approach suggests that migrants maintain a thick web of networks that connect them to both countries. These connections play a vital role in their daily lives. It has become increasingly common to think about migrants’ experiences of moving and “settling” from this viewpoint. Nevertheless, the concept of transnationalism has not been without its critics. The extent to which migrants really do maintain transnational ties has been debated, with some suggesting that it has been exaggerated.⁵³

      This is because transnationalism has sometimes been understood in terms of the practices in which individual migrants engage, such as visiting their countries of origin.⁵⁴ This certainly does lead to a fairly limited definition of what constitutes engagement in transnationalism; there may, for example, be extended periods during which individual migrants do not visit their countries of origin.⁵⁵ But that is not to say that СКАЧАТЬ