A Comprehensive Understanding of the Development of Transnational Identity among

Migrants: the Role of Context

Sills, Stephen J., PhD (University of North Carolina Greensboro)

Clapp, Joyce. MA Candidate (University of North Carolina Greensboro)
Nasser, Samra PhD Candidate (Wayne State University)

Abstract:
This paper will draw upon the lessons of four ethnographic research projects that investigated
transnational communities including: undocumented Mexican migrants in the Phoenix, AZ
(1999-2000), Filipino labor migrants in Kaohsiung, Taiwan (2003 and 2006), Yemeni
immigrants in Dearborn, MI (2006-2007), and Montagnard immigrants in Greensboro, NC
(2008). Each of these case studies presents interesting receiving locations that affect the
experiences of the immigrants. For example, the existence of co-ethnic communities from
previous waves of migration and neighboring sending countries created ethnic enclaves into
which Yemeni and Mexican migrants were received (Phoenix and Dearborn). Filipino labor
migrants found difficulties in an often hostile and xenophobic receiving location (Taiwan).
Finally, Montagnard migrants, religious and political refugees from their native Vietnam,
arrive in sufficient numbers to build the organizational structure of an enclave, but are also
found to commingle with other Vietnamese refugee populations.
Drawing from extensive interviews and observations in each of these setting the paper will
investigate the role of context on the development of a transnational identity among migrant
participant. The paper synthesizes findings on immigrant incorporation, assimilation, and
acculturation experiences comparing and contrasting the experiences of each of these groups.
It then attempts to reconcile these findings with the current literature on immigrant
incorporation. Finally, an attempt is made to draw disparate theories together into a
comprehensive understanding of the renegotiation of self that occurs as the migrant moves
from the familiar roles and statuses of the home country into the position of “other” in the
destination country. Symbolic Interaction is employed to better understand the transitions in
identity that occur at the micro-level, while Interpretive Ethnography is also used as the
method of analysis and mode of presenting the findings.
Theoretical Background

This project borrows from the language of a broad range of theoretical traditions. From 

migration theory, Cumulative Causation ­ the many economic, demographic, cultural, and 

social factors which increase migration flows over time ­ is used to explain the flow of labor 

migrants from developing nations to more industrialized countries (Massey 1988; Massey et 

al. 1993, Massey et al. 1994). Immigrant assimilation, defined here as the process by which 

an immigrant is incorporated into the host society, is borrowed from a long history of 

assimilation theories (Alba and Nee 1997; Portes and Zhou 1993; Portes and Rumbaut 1996; 

Rumbaut 1994; Waters 1994). Unlike most of those theories, this project focuses not on the 

phenomenon as it occurs over the course of generations, but on the individual migrant’s 

incorporation (or isolation) as a result of their reception by the host society. Transnationalism 

is used to identify the forces that orient the migrant toward the homeland and toward the host 

community, as well as the social space that they created while living in their new land (Portes 

1999, Faist 2000a; Faist 2000b). While assimilation sees migrant incorporations (via straight, 

bumpy, segmented lines) as the end result of the process, transnationalism (manifested as 

biculturalism, hybridization, blended cultures, etc.) is seen as an alternative to the possible 

outcomes. It is perhaps more dynamic that assimilation theories as transnationalism is much 

more dependent upon the nature of exit and reception of the migrant. 
Importantly this project is situated within the conceptual landscape of Symbolic Interaction ­ 

principally, Social Identity Theory (as reformulated by Burke and Stets) while utilizing the 

critical poststructural interpretive ethnography proposed by Denzin (1997). Symbolic 

Interaction is employed to better understand the transitions in identity that occur at the micro­

level, while Interpretive Ethnography, is the method of analysis and mode of presenting the 

findings. This perspective allows a multi­voiced narrative reflecting the experiences of 

migrants rather than the observations of the outsider.

The transition in identity discussed in this project may be explained to some extent by 

application of the Social­Psychological perspective, more precisely by the general theory of 

self as proposed by Burke and Stets. Burke and Stets (2000), in their reformulation of Henri 

Tajfel’s theory, stress that individuals define themselves in terms of their group memberships. 

They assume that the self is reflexive and involved in the process of self­construction. This 

meta­theoretical assumption is central to the methodology employed in this project, as much 

of the data comes from reflective and introspective interviews.

Thus, migration involves for the individual a complete reinterpretation of self as social place 

undergones significant change from both micro and macro forces. Firstly, one’s expected 

social role as the migrant is transformed from that experienced when living in the homeland. 

As the “foreigner,” the “outsider,” and the “other,” in the receiving context, the individual is 

forced, even in very similar cultural settings, to reconsider her reference groups. 
 HOMELAND SOCIETY

Understanding of Social Role

CULTURAL
& clear idea of Group
INFLUENCE
Membership
CONCEPT OF SELF

Change in social space =

RECEIVING SOCIETY Change in expected social
roles and reference groups

NEW CULTURAL Reinterpretation of Social

INFLUENCE Role & Group

REVISED SELF CONCEPT

Figure 1 The Mechanisms of the Migration Experience and Revised Self

Concept

The way in which a social space welcomes or rejects a particular migrant or migrant

group may be seen, at least for heuristic purposes, as a continuum from greater receptivity to

greater rejection. Along this line, individual migrants must contend with expected roles (such

as stereotypical occupations, abilities, access to resources, etc.) and out-group definitions

(often pejorative) imposed on them by the receiving society. If that reception is more

inclusive, assimilation and acculturation of the migrant self to the majority culture may be

expected. The eventual self-concept that develops among those who are most similar in

social characteristics and culture to the receiving population, and therefore the most

welcomed, will be logically most like that of the host citizens. For evidence we may look to

early 20th century European migrants (Irish, Italians, and European Jews) in America who in

a little less than a generation were incorporated into mainstream society and today identify
themselves as Americans.1 Conversely, those who are least welcome maintain a sense of

otherness” that is pervades their concept of self both in their expected social role and their

group membership. This exclusion and rejection may lead to return migration, onward (step)

migration, or the formation of an ethnic enclave. It may also lead the migrant to develop a

negative self-concept and an eventual rejection of the homeland culture in favor of an attempt

at assimilation. This idea is explained in original Tajfel’s theory:

Under certain circumstances it may be impossible for members of a group to

find a positive basis upon which to compare their group with other groups.
This might occur for instance in groups that had low status in society. Under
these circumstances, [Tajfel] envisaged that group members would do one of
three things. Firstly, they might seek new bases for comparison which would
give a more favourable outcome, such as emphasizing the beauty of traditional
clothing or the liveliness of the group’s language, an option that he termed
social creativity. Secondly, they might leave the group and join another with
more positive qualities, an option which he termed social mobility.
Individualistic cultures with their emphasis on equal opportunity and freedom
of association may provide more opportunities and support for such an option!
Thirdly, they might seek to change the attributes of their group so that it
would command more favorable evaluations in the future, an option that he
termed social change. (Tajfel 1981 as cited in Smith and Bond 1998)

For example, Rosa a middle-aged woman who has lived in the US since she was a teen and

married a non-Hispanic white man, says she has purposively discarded many of her cultural

practices in an attempt to integrate more easily: She explains, “I am Mexican. Firstly, I was

born in Mexico and have family and ancestors in Mexico. My blood is Mexican…my

language, more than anything my language…is I have tried to get rid of Mexican traditions a

little. If I compare myself with my mother and my sisters [in Mexico] I am completely

different.” (Sills 2000). Between these poles of acceptance and

1
One may also look to “invisible” migrants such as Mainland Chinese in Taiwan,
Canadians in the US, etc.
 NATURE OF RECEPTION

GREATER GREATER
INCLUSION EXCLUSION

Assimilation & Segmented Assimilation & Return Migration, on-ward

Amalgamation Transnationalism (Including orthogonal migration, & Enclave
biculturalism, blending of cultures, (limited possibility of
hybridization, and creation of ‘new’ mobility)
cultures)

Figure 2 The Nature of Reception and Possible Identities

rejection lies a social space that includes such possibilities as segmented assimilation or

transnationalism. As previously discussed, transnationalism may include various patterns like

biculturalism, blended or hybridized cultures, or even the formation of new cultural

identities. In these cases, the migrant may have various ‘situated’ selves that are dependent

upon the social place that she occupies. When among co-nationals she may have one sense of

identity, while among the majority population she may present another entirely separate self.

This situational nature of identity is very apparent in an interview with one Mexican migrant

in which he says, “I believe I have no real identification... I am able to adapt, from Latino to

Hispanic to Mexican-American, depending on the situation and who the people are that I am

talking to. Actually, I have been able to take on all of those identities” (Sills 2000).
Figure 3 Identity Outcomes by Mode of Reception