What is Diaspora? Some Definitional Considerations

Judith T. Shuval

Rose Professor of Sociology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem

From its earliest stages, the notion of migration to Israel has been socially constructed in the mainstream rhetoric as a unique phenomenon. Migrants to other destinations generally leave a place they consider home to find a new home; in the Israeli case, Jews were viewed as "strangers" in their countries of origin and sought to find a new home by means of migration. (Benski, 1994; Markowitz; 1993). This view is reflected in the Law of Return passed in 1950, which established an open-door policy for Jews and extensive support benefits for immigrants who have never been considered refugees because they were seen as returning to their legitimate homeland.

Migration in Post-Industrial Societies

Until the 1980s and 1990s migration theory was based on the widespread "individual relocation" approach which emphasized push-pull factors and focused separately on rational decision-making, transitions and adaptation processes. These early theories were largely ahistorical and emphasized economic factors, social order and equilibrium and focused on the inability of countries of origin to fulfill expectations. In considering the consequences of migration they tended to concentrate almost entirely on the countries of destination and assumed unilinear processes of acculturation and assimilation. Conflict was seen as a temporary expression of dislocation in the normal ordered state of host societies. (Castles and Miller, 1992; Heisler, 1992; Zolberg, 1989)

More recent theoretical approaches to migration have taken the view that, in its broadest context, migration since the 1980s can be been viewed as a stable, international phenomenon with a structure over space and time. It is widely believed that the massive dimensions of migration will continue in future years although the origins and destinations of the streams may change in accordance with shifts in economic and social conditions.

Recent thinking has referred to "international migration systems" theory which proposes a dynamic, historically-based, globalist view in which many states are interdependent in the migration process. (Massey et al., 1993; Zolberg, 1989). Migration is driven by structural characteristics of societies and tends to generate its own dynamics. The principal structural issues that drive migration in recent years are global inequality, population pressures, poverty and human rights abuses, the refugee crisis in many parts of the world, use of cheap foreign labor and liberalization of exit from the Eastern European countries. The nation-state is a prime actor in contemporary migration theory especially with regard to its role in policy formation and control of the flow. (Massey et al., 1993; Migration News, December, 1995; O'Brien, 1992).

Migration processes are seen in the political and economic context of an expanding global economy. Migration is viewed as a response to the flow of capital, technology, institutional forms and cultural innovations in an interactive process across the globe. There is an emphasis on theories referring to the linkage of countries by flows and counter-flows of people in sets of networks which are both interdependent and independent of each other. These processes reflect the historical context of the links between origins and destinations which are based on earlier colonization, political influence, trade, investment or cultural ties - as well as the present economic, social and political contexts. The inherent social - rather than predominantly economic - quality of the process is emphasized by a focus on networks which are micro-structures viewed by some theorists as the core of the process because of their role in providing assistance at the destination in job location, financial support, practical information and a base for the migration of additional dependents. Policies of "family reunification" reinforce these networks. (Castles and Miller, 1993; Fawcett, 1989; Hammar, 1989; Heisler, 1992; Kritz and Zlotnik, 1992; Massey et al., 1993; O'Brien, 1992; Portes, 1989; Salt, 1992; Teitlelbaum and Weiner ed., 1995)

Conceptual core of diaspora migration

Migration to Israel may be viewed in the context of "diaspora" migration, a type of migration which has developed its own set of specialists as well as its own research agenda and literature (Shuval, 2000). In recent years, scholars who have been interested in migration, ethnicity and integration have joined in a relatively new international research community which is focused on diaspora migration. This affinity has come about because the term diaspora is used today to refer not only to such classic groups as Jews, Greeks and Armenians, but to much wider categories which reflect processes of uprooting and moving of populations and voluntary migration. The term has acquired a broad semantic domain and is now used to refer to a motley array of groups such as political refugees, alien residents, guest workers, immigrants, expellees, ethnic and racial minorities, overseas communities, Russians living in non-Russian states of the FSU, refugees from Kosovo, Palestinians, Blacks in America who refer to their forefathers who were forcibly removed from a variety of African countries and resettled in other countries. (Kolsto, P. 1996; Pilkington, 1996; Shevtsova, 1992; Tololian, 1991). Indeed the term diaspora has acquired metaphoric implications and is used more and more by displaced people who feel, maintain, invent or revive a connection with a prior home (Safran, 1991, p. 83).

Diaspora discourse reflects a sense of being part of an ongoing transnational network that includes dispersed people who retain a sense of their collective identity and an interest in their homeland. In referring to modern diasporas, Sheffer ( 1986, p. 3) has proposed the following definition: "Modern diasporas are ethnic minority groups of migrant origins residing … in host countries but maintaining …… sentimental and material links with their countries of origin - their homelands."

The critical components of this definition are a history of dispersal, myths/memories of the homeland, a dream or desire for eventual return - which in some cases is anchored in reality but in most cases is ambivalent or eschatological, located in the undefined future (be'achrit ha'yamim) or utopian. It is most often expressed in terms of a collective identity elements of which tie members to the homeland in a variety of modes ranging from active support to a passive interest.

Clearly Israel has been defined as the homeland of the Jewish people and its diaspora is located in a widespread array of locations with major concentrations in the U.S., Canada, France, the FSU, Argentina and other countries. Two major destinations of Jewish migration are the U.S. and Israel. The first of these is one of the major Jewish diasporic centers while the second is its historic homeland. The countries of origin to be discussed in the remainder of this volume are parts of the Jewish diaspora. In this paper I would like to discuss some of the on-going relationships that characterize the interaction of diaspora and homeland in the Jewish context.

Theoretical Themes

Diaspora research draws on a number of theoretical themes.

One of the most important of these is ethnic theory. Building on the assumption that people seek a shared identity especially in an era of large scale urbanization and weakening of localized, particularistic relations, ethnic theory addresses itself to understanding the processes involved in deriving such identities from commonalties of history, language - in some cases religion - and past achievements.

Before the 1960s immigrant groups were generally expected to shed their ethnic identity and assimilate to local norms. Beginning in the 1970s, when it became evident that assimilationist models did not work effectively, there were policy changes in some societies that permitted or even encouraged immigrants to maintain various aspects of their ethnic tradition. The resurgence of diasporas can be viewed as part of the persistence, or de novo emergence of ethnicity at a time when according to older versions of modernization theory it was to have been attenuated and tending to disappear (Kearny, 1995; Kymlicka, 1996). Adding the element of `homeland' to the criteria of ethnic identity provides an additional focus for solidarity

Diaspora theory is also linked to the theoretical discourse on transnationalism and globalization. Tololian (1991) states that "Diasporas are the exemplary communities of the transnational moment". Diaspora discourse reflects a sense of being part of an ongoing transnational network that includes a homeland. It is characterized by a sense of living in one place while simultaneously remembering and/or desiring and yearning for another place. This is because of the multiplicity of relations not only between diaspora communities and their homeland in a binary context but because of the on-going, lateral relations among diaspora communities located in different sites within nation states and in different states. In recent years this approach has led to the notion of multiple centered diasporas (Clifford 1994; Helmreich, 1992; Kearney, 1995; Schiller, et al. 1995; Tololian, 1991).

Of central importance to disapora theory is the discourse on the nation-state and its authority. Diasporas present a unique challenge to the hegemony of modern nation-states because of the feelings they engender toward groups and places located outside the borders of a given nation-state. Diaspora communities make it clear that identity with a political or geographical entity does not need to be binary - in the sense of all or nothing - but can involve loyalty to more than one such entity (Clifford, 1994; Kearney, 1995) Thus notions of assimilation and loyalty to one nation are challenged by diasporas who - in addition to relating to their host nation state - relate simultaneously to people located in other nation states. Deterritorialization of social identity challenges the meaning of the 'nation-state' and its claims for exclusive loyalty with the alternative of multiple identities and even multiple citiznships (Cohen, 1997).

Social functions of homeland and diaspora

When a diaspora group finds itself in a context of exclusion, limited opportunities for advancement, political domination or social and political discrimination, - an active diaspora culture helps to maintain a sense of community and belonging to a more rewarding and welcoming social entity. This is accomplished by selectively preserving and recovering traditions so that they create or maintain identification with far-reaching historic, cultural and political processes giving a sense of attachment elsewhere, in a different time accompanied by hopes or visions of renewal (Gilroy, 1987; Rouse, 1991)

Myths of return serve to strengthen ethnic solidarity but in many cases have little practical implications. The `return' of many diasporas is an eschatological concept used to make life easier by means of a belief in an eventual, virtual utopia.

Clifford notes that the language of diaspora is increasingly used by people who feel displaced and who maintain, revive or invent a connection with a prior home. Groups that did not have diasporic consciousness in the past are reclaiming diasporic origins and affiliations. The sense of being a `people with historic roots' outside the time/space of a host nation provides a sense of power and legitimacy to claims of oppression or disadvantage. (Clifford).

Discourse on 'ingathering of exiles', 'aliya', 'yerida'

The rhetoric used with regard to such concepts as the 'ingathering of exiles', 'aliya', 'yerida' expresses the nature of the relationship between Israel as a homeland and its diaspora in the context of Israeli discourse. Immigration is an ideologically charged concept which is reflected in the on-going rhetoric: immigration is "aliya" (going up) while emigration is "yerida" (going down). The former is socially defined as a positive act worthy of support and approbation while the latter was viewed for many years with derision or hostility. The discourse on this topic has systematically utilized the value-ladened terminology and has avoided the more neutral term "migration" (hagira) which appears only rarely in the widespread discourse on this subject in both public and private spheres. Such rhetoric has reinforced a sense of difference between processes of migration to Israel and migration to other destinations. This ideology and its supportive rhetoric have their roots in the pre-state period and have created a supportive mythology which has persisted to the present although "yerida" is presently accompanied by less derision than in the past.

In his analysis of immigration to Israel during the 1990s, DellaPergola (1998) notes that the ideology of "ingathering of the exiles" and its centrality as an existential tenet of the society, are relatively unimportant in motivating immigration. Contrary to the canonical axioms of much of the discourse regarding immigration, he has demonstrated that economic and political conditions in the disapora and in Israel are what stimulate or discourage immigration and emigration - rather than ideologies. These forces determine the pace of immigration as a function of political, economic and cultural trends which operate in a global context and within each of the countries of origin.

With regard to emigration, a subject that has been surrounded for many years by emotionally loaded rhetoric, Israel is not very different from other migration countries. Variation in the annual rates of emigration , which show frequent short-term ups and downs, is broadly parallel to fluctuations in the business cycles. This is the leading explanation for emigration from other developed countries where it is generally a function of socio-economic and labor market indicators. (DellaPergola, 1998)

Where does on feel 'at home'? in a homeland? in the diaspora?

The definitions and distinctions between notions of diaspora and homeland are historically conditioned, fluid, and multidirectional. As Clifford has noted (1994), the essence of diaspora is anchored in affective-expressive attributes which are themselves dynamic. The essence of diaspora is a social construct founded on feeling, consciousness, memory, mythology, history, meaningful narratives, group identity, longings, dreams, allegories some of them virtual. In the poetic, frequently quoted words of Walter Benjamin (1968), "effaced stories are recovered, different futures are imagined....".

Time is an essential element in understanding diaspora consciousness. The feelings associated with diaspora are characterized by shifting periods of latency and activism. A sense of diaspora can be immediate: a response to the trauma of exile or flight. It can also occur or re-occur after several generations when group members are themselves no longer immigrants even though their predecessors were. What distinguishes diaspora is an on-going or re-awakened attachment and loyalty to an earlier culture and specifically to a space defined as a homeland which has been left (Kearney, 1995).

On the affective level, the notion of 'homeland' is expressed in at least two types of feeling. The first concerns a sense of connectedness anchored in tradition and history which defines a link to a geographical space.This type of connectedness is associated with personal exile or earlier exile of kin or persons with whom one identifies. The other notion of 'homeland' refers to a sense of 'at homeness' that is based on feelings of familiarity, comfort and belonging in a specific place.

These two meanings are not necessarily related. Thus one may or may not feel 'at home' in one's historic homeland; one may feel more 'at home' outside one's historic homeland, i.e. in the diaspora, in a geographic space which has been transformed into a 'home'. In addition, even if one feels 'at home' outside of one's historic homeland, one may believe that one would feel more 'at home' in the historic homeland. In the most general sense, it would seem that a person can feel 'at home' in more than one place.

When a host society is less than welcoming to immigrants, there are difficulties in developing feelings of 'at homeness' and memories of an historic 'homeland' may remain strong and meaningful. But when the social context of a host society is welcoming, a new sense of 'at homeness' is likely to develop over time and cause a reconstruction of the symbolic meaning of the historic homeland. Nostalgia for the former 'homeland' raises questions about which is which.

External constraints and conditions play a role in these definitional issues. With changes in conditions in a historic homeland, roots which have been struck in a new setting causing a sense of 'at homeness', may be abandoned for return to the historic home. Thus processes of democratization, increase in standard of living or job opportunities in a homeland which has been left, can arouse people who have made themselves a new 'home' in exile, to respond to deeply felt ties to their 'original' homeland. On the other hand newly established or re-established homelands may have internal conflicts, ambiguous and differentiated cultural sub groups, political unrest which make them unattractive to diaspora communities.

For some well-established diaspora communities such as the Jewish community in the U.S., the duality of the twin notions 'homeland' and 'diaspora' has sometimes aroused a measure of discomfort or even resentment. This is based on the ostensible centrality of the homeland and the consequent implied non-centrality of the diaspora communities. This approach reflects what Andre Levy has referred to as the "star model" in which the homeland is perceived as the center and various diasporas are seen to circle around it. In this model there is an invidious assumption of the predominance of one way influences: from the homeland to the diaspora. Elements of cultural identity are assumed to flow from the homeland to be adopted by the diaspora communities.

However, in an era of multiple centers and erosion in the authority of traditional leaders, new diasporic centers may challenge the centrality of the traditional homeland. In the extreme case, there may be an inversion process in which communities thought at one time to be in exile, are re-invented as 'homelands'. The need to survive culturally in a diaspora setting provides strong incentives for creative, innovative efforts toward independent cultural development. Local pride and indigenous needs encourage diaspora groups to develop their own expressions of cultural identity rather than importing traditional forms from what may appear to some as an outdated, inappropriate or overly traditional homeland culture.

Thus Jews in the U.S. and other democratic countries have developed innovative religious and cultural patterns which are related to traditions but which also draw on the cultural resources of the local setting. When diaspora communities develop an active, creative community life of their own, they may feel that their own contribution to the overall group's cultural life is equal to or even superior to that of the traditional homeland. This phenomenon has introduced elements of conflict in the on-going relationship of Israel's Jewish community with groups in its U.S. diaspora

Russian immigrants in Israel: activation of ethnic identity

Russian immigrants of the 1970s together with those of the 1990's comprise over a million people and 20% of the Jewish population of Israel. Remmenick (2002) notes that they are characterized by active efforts to preserve their ethnic culture and transmit it to their children through a variety of cultural institutions. These include on-going use of the Russian language in over twenty newspapers and magazines, theatre, classical and rock music groups, radio programs and a network of extra-curricular schools specializing in math and physicics but also in Russian language and literature ("Mofet"). Most families view TV programs beamed in from the FSU which, according to Remmenick, provide a simultaneous sense of presence in the former homeland and in Israel. The sheer size of the Russian-speaking community and their geographical proximity reinforces these processes.

Undoubtedly this phenomenon reflects a measure of dissatisfaction and alienation but also efforts at "additive" acculturation in which Russian culture is seen to be an additional element to mainstream Israeli culture which is viewed with some disfavor.

In the past, Israeli society has looked askance at active efforts toward the maintenance of ethnic identities beyond the folkloric, culinary or time-limited use of languages other than Hebrew. Mainstream pressures in Israeli society supported by the "nation-building" ethic, have discouraged such preservation on more than a ritual basis. The retention of ethnic traditions and idiosyncratic behavior of immigrants has been seen as a threat to the newly emerging culture which demanded both acculturation and assimilation. This policy took its toll among wide segments of the immigrants from North Africa and the Middle East whose resentment of these elitist policies and their implications has persisted into the second or third generation. As in other societies these feelings of deprivation have been transformed periodically into political action (Shuval and Leshem, 1998).

The large size and active maintenance of its cultural identity by the Russian community has raised raises numerous questions as to the form of the newly emerging pluralism, its apparent separatism, and its effects on the overall solidarity of the society (Remmenick, 2002 Shuval, 1988).

Interaction between diasporas and homeland

The last twenty years have witnessed a dramatic proliferation in communication media which have created an increasingly interconnected world. These processes have been gaining in momentum and in sophistication and are likely to continue in this direction in future years. The modes of communication include written and oral media, electronic media including the internet and the World Wide Web, as well as relatively cheap means of transportation to all corners of the globe.

Globalization is expressed in worldwide financial, economic, technological and ecological interdependence in which goods, capital, knowledge, crime, culture, drugs and fashions flow across territorial boundaries. Global culture of the 1990s is sustained by advanced communication technologies which provide for the accelerated dispersal of information and images across boundaries and cultures. Open borders, mobile job markets, international division of labor, and increased accessibility of modern means of transportation make possible on-going communication and contact of immigrants with their countries of origin and with significant others there. At the same time counter forces of nationalism, ethnicity, religious fundamentalism, racism, sexism and other forms of exclusion are growing simultaneously (Portes, 1989).

Separation between diasporas and homelands has become less incisive and less permanent as a result of technology and media development and especially their cheapness and accessibility. This is expressed in trips "back home" as well as on-going telephone and email communication. Roots in a given locus are not necessarily permanent or exclusive: they can be re-planted, re-found, re-nurtured, put down or pulled up. Metaphorically, one can be in more than one place at the same time or in contiguous times. Such processes of on going communication contribute to the ambiguity of the distinction between homeland and diaspora.

Remmenick (2002) has pointed to the active, on-going cultural links of Russian immigrants in Israel with their former homeland. She has viewed this phenomenon as a form of trans-nationalism which is part of broader processes of globalization which characterizes the post-Communist Russian diaspora, spread not only in Israel but in the U.S., Canada, Germany and other countries. She has studied the Israeli Russian community and pointed to regular personal communication and travel between Israel and the FSU as well as patterns of deliberate, active retention of cultural traditions in Israel. Many Russian immigrants in Israel have relatives and friends in America and Europe to which they travel for vacations and business contacts thus creating a network of fellow Russians across borders. 15% of Russian immigrants in Israel visit their former homeland every year and 40% do so once every 2-4 years. 20% maintain business contacts in the FSU or work in Israel with Russian entrepreneurs in joint business enterprises. (Russian immigrants of the 1970s together with those of the 1990's comprise over a million people and 20% of the Jewish population )

In his work on Ethiopian immigrants to Israel, Beneliezer (2002) has pointed to a somewhat similar re-assertion of on-going contact with a former homeland. This has occurred among young people from Ethiopia who feel discrimination and rejection of Blacks in mainstream Israeli society: one response has been has been to turn to a celebration of their traditional Ethiopian culture and to re-establish contact with the previous homeland by visits and contact with family and friends there. (Beneliezer, 2002 - this volume)

Conclusion

This effort at definition, has led me to highlight the diffuse, ambiguous and dynamic qualities of diasporas which make it difficult to categorize them in a structured typology (Shuval, 2000). Thus I have referred to patterns of multiple meanings of basic concepts such as home, homeland, 'at homeness'; the changing salience of diaspora consciousness over time; multidirectionality of contact between homelands and diasporas as well as among geographically dispersed diaspora settlements.

In the Israeli context, diaspora rhetoric has been geared to highlight the differences between migration to and from Israel and streams of migration to and from other destinations. Indeed Israel's alleged uniqueness stems from its definition of itself as the Jewish homeland and its Law of Return which openly asserts its special relation to its diaspora.

At the same time it would seem that the notion of Israel's uniqueness with regard to immigration is less and less appropriate at the start of the second millenium. Increasingly the society is characterized by many of the same attributes that typify other Western countries which admit large numbers of migrants, refugees, asylum seekers, foreign workers - both legal and illegal - and persons seeking family unification, such as the United States, U.K, France, Canada, Australia, Germany and others. With a per capita GDP of approximately $18,648 in 1999 (Israel Central Bureau of Statistics, 2001, p. 28-10), Israel shows many social and economic characteristics which make it attractive to immigrants. In 2002, it was estimated that there were 400,000 foreign workers in Israel, about half of them illegal. In fact issues surrounding foreign workers and illegal entrants plague many societies (Baldwin-Edwards, M. and M.A. Schain, 1994; Carmon, 1996; Massey, et. al. 1993; O'Brien, 1992; Portes, 1989; Teitelbaum and Weiner, ed. 1995; Zolberg, 1989)

Emigration patterns from Israel resemble re-migration from other societies which have admitted large numbers of immigrants (Dellapergola, 1998). And with regard to its ethnic diversity, Israel is also becoming more like other societies which are struggling with problems of economic, cultural and social integration. In different societies, policies regarding ethnic integration range from efforts to attain rapid conformity to the dominant language and cultural patterns, to policies which accept the on-going use of ethnic languages and practice of traditions. Large enclaves of immigrants, as well as inexpensive transportation and on-going communication between geographically distant locations, make it easier for immigrants in many countries to maintain their traditional languages and cultural patterns in the face of homogenizing pressures.

There is widespread agreement that the notion of a single "melting pot" no longer seems useful since it does not reflect social reality; as an ideology seeking to attain homogeneity, it conflicts with democratic ideologies which advocate mutual tolerance and acceptance of differences. Research indicates that it can result in dysfunctional and damaging effects in the long run (Shuval and Leshem, 1998). Nevertheless, significant vestiges of the melting pot approach remain in various societies and, despite lip service to a pluralistic approach, are evident in Israel among policy makers and persons involved in day to day work with immigrants. At the same time there is uncertainty and ambivalence with regard to the policies to follow in order to attain successful integration of widely different groups. (Castles, 1992; Castles and Miller, 1993; Heisler, 1992; Martin, 1994)

The large migration to Israel from the FSU and has brought many benefits to the society - in the economic, political, cultural and social spheres. One of the less evident but sociologically important benefits has been the need to rethink and re-evaluate traditional concepts regarding the meaning and implications of ethnic solidarity as well as the meaning of pluralism in a multi ethnic society. Furthermore the transnational behavior we have described raises questions surrounding the overlapping, tenuous boundaries between homeland and diaspora in contemporary societies and their implications for social solidarity.

References
Baldwin-Edwards, M. and M.A. Schain. 1994. "The Politics of Immigration", West European Politics 17:1-16.

Benjamin, Walter. 1968. "Theses on the Philosophy of History". in Hannah Arendt, ed. Harry Zorn, translator. Illuminations. New York: Schocken Books. p. 253-265.

Beneliezer, U. 2003. "Being a Black Jew in Israel: Identity Politics in Post-Hegemonic Israel" (published in the present volume)

Benski, Tova 1994. "Ethnic convergence processes under conditions of persisting socioeconomic-decreasing cultural differences: The case of Israeli society." International Migration Review 28(2):256-280.

Carmon, N. editor, 1996. Immigration and Integration in Post Industrial Societies. Houndmills, Basingstoke: MacMillan.

Castles, Stephen. 1992. "The Australian Model of Immigration and Multiculturalism: Is It Applicable to Europe?" International Review of Migration, 26: 549-567.

Castles, Stephen and M.J. Miller. 1993. The Age of Migration. New York: Guilford Press.

Clifford, James. 1994. "Diasporas". Cultural Anthropology. 9 (3):302-338

Cohen, Robin, 1997. Global Diasporas: An Introduction, London: UCL Press. (University College London)

DellaPergola, Sergio, 1998. "The Global Context of Migration to Israel." In: J.T. Shuval and E. Leshem, eds., Immigration to Israel: Sociological Perspectives. New Brunswick (U.S.A.) and Oxford (U.K.): Transaction Publishers

Fawcett, J.T. 1989. "Networks, Linkages and Migration Systems", International Migration Review 23: 671-680.

Gilroy, P. 1987. There Ain't No Black in the Union Jack: The Cultural Politics of Race and Nation. London: Hutchinson.

Hammar, T. 1989. "Comparing European and North American Immigration", International Migration Review, 23: 631-637.

Heisler, B.S. 1992. "The Future of Immigrant Incorporation: Which Models? Which Concepts?" International Migration Review 26: 623-645.

Helmreich, S. 1992. "Kinship, Nation, and Paul Gilroy's Concept of Diaspora". Diaspora, 2:2 p.243-9.

Israel Central Bureau of Statistics, 2001. Statistical Abstract of Israel, No. 52, p. 28-10. Jerusalem: Central Bureau of Statistics.

Kearney, M., 1995 "The Local and the Global: The Anthropology of Globalization and Transnationalism". Annual Review of Anthropology. 24: 257-65.

Kritz, M.M. and Zlotnik. H. 1992. "Global Interactions: Migration Systems, Processes, and Policies", in M.M. Kritz, C. B. Keely, and S.M. Tomasi (Eds) International Migration Systems: A Global Approach, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 231-258.

Kymlicka, Will, 1996. :Social Unity in a Liberal State", Social Philosophy and Policy. 13, 1, p.105-136.

Kolsto, P. 1996. "The New Russian Diaspora - An Identity of its Own: Possible Identity Trajectories for Russians in the Former Soviet Republics". Ethnic and Racial Studies. 19. 3. p.609-639.

Markowitz, Fran 1993. "Israelis with a Russian accent." Jewish Journal of Sociology 35(2):97-114.

Martin, P.L. 1994. "Germany: Reluctant Land of Immigration." Pp. 189-236 in Controlling Immigration: A Global Perspective, edited by W.A. Cornelius, P.L. Martin and J.F. Hollifield. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.

Massey, D.S., Arango, J., Hugo, G., Kouaouci, A., Pellegrino, A. and Taylor, J.E. 1993. "Theories of International Migration: A Review and Appraisal" , Population and Development Review, 19: 431-466.

O'Brien, P. 1992. "German-Polish Migration: The Elusive Search for a German Nation-State", International Migration Review 26( 2): 373-387.

Pilkington, H.A. 1996 "The Implications of Forced Migration for National Identity Formation in Post-Soviet Russia." Unpublished paper presented at ERCOMER Conference, Utrecht, 18-20 April, 1996.

Portes, A. 1989. "Contemporary Immigration: Theoretical Perspectives on its Determinants and Modes of Incorporation." International Migration Review. 3: 606-630

Remmenick, L. 2002. "Transnational Community in the Making: Russian-Jewish Immigrants of the 1990s in Israel". Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, forthcoming.

Rouse, R. 1991. "Mexican Migration and the Social Space of Postmodernism", Diaspora, vol. 1, 1, p. 8-23.

Salt, J. 1992. "Migration Processes Among the Highly Skilled in Europe", International Migration Review, 26: 484-505.

Schiller, N.G., Basch, L. and Blanc, C.S., 1995. "From Immigrant to Transmigrant - Theorizing Transnational Migration", Anthropological Quarterly, Vol. 68, 1, p. 48-63.

Shevtsova, L. 1992. "Post-Soviet Emigration Today and Tomorrow." International Migration Review 26:241-257.

Safran, William. 1991. "Diasporas in Modern Societies: Myths of Homeland and Return". Diaspora, Vol 1, 1: p. 83-93.

Sheffer, Gabriel, (ed.), 1986. Modern Diasporas in International Politics, London and Sydney: Croom Helm.

Shuval, J. 1988. "The Structure and Dilemmas of Israeli Pluralism" in B. Kimmerling (Ed) The Israeli State and Society: Boundaries and Frontiers, Albany: SUNY Press, pp. 216-236.

Shuval, J. T. and Leshem, E. 1998. "The Sociology of Migration in Israel - A Critical View". P. 3-50 in E. Leshem and J.T. Shuval (Eds) Immigration to Israel: Sociological Perspectives. New Brunswick:Transaction Publishers.

Shuval, J.T., 2000. "Diaspora Migration: Definitional Ambiguities and a Theoretical Paradigm", International Migration, Vol 38, (5), p.41-57.

Teitelbaum, M.S. and Weiner, M. (Eds) 1995. Threatened Peoples, Threatened Borders, New York: W.W. Norton Company.

Tololian, K., 1991. "The Nation State and its Others: In Lieu of a Preface", Diaspora, Vol. 1, 1, p. 3-7.

Zolberg, A.R. 1989. "The Next Waves: Migration Theory for a Changing
World." International Migration Review 23: 403-430.