Transnational Ruptures

Gender and Forced Migration

Catherine Nolin

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781351877879
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Gender Studies
• Index: Social Sciences

A key development in international migration in recent years has been the increasing feminization of migrant populations. Research attention now focuses not only on the growing number of women on the move but also on their changing gender roles as more female migrants participate as principal wage earners and heads of household rather than as 'dependants'. The tensions between population displacement within and beyond Guatemala and the multiple local, regional and national realities encountered and reconfigured by these refugee and migrants allow a fascinating window onto the connections and ruptures experienced in a 'global/local world'. Transnational Ruptures holds great interest and value for a wide readership, from scholars who are interested in transnational and refugee studies and international migration, to upper level university students in disciplines such as human geography, anthropology, sociology, Latin American Studies, gender studies, political science and international studies.

PART I
Community Ruptures and Transnational Migration

Chapter 1
Rupture and Renewal: Guatemala-Canada Connections

The movement of asylum seekers and (im)migrants¹ from Guatemala to Mexico, the United States, and Canada (among other countries) has a 25 year history. State violence in the late 1970s and early 1980s led to the unprecedented flight of both indigenous and non-indigenous Guatemalans within and across national borders. The displacement of hundreds of thousands of Guatemalans led to one of the most dispersed indigenous populations in the Americas and an exiled activist population. Movement to the United States has been especially strong, with approximately one million individuals settled throughout that country. The resulting diaspora also officially includes 14,095 Guatemalans legally settled in Canada according to the 2001 Canadian census (Statistics Canada 2004a), approximately 5,000 of whom are concentrated in southwestern Ontario. Additionally, almost 3,000 women and men self-identified as Mayas (Statistics Canada 2004b). Both indigenous and non-indigenous Guatemalans fled to southwestern Ontario early on and continue to arrive there as the repercussions of state terror and violence still afflict Guatemala.

Fieldwork undertaken in Ontario, Canada and in various locations in Guatemala reveals the complex personal, cultural, and geographical aspects of exile and migration in an emerging transnational refugee landscape. With more than one million Guatemalans living and working outside their country of origin as refugees, (im)migrants, and exiles – one million of an estimated population at the time of ten million, as Lovell and Lutz (1996) speculate – there is growing interest in the social spaces these people occupy and the ways in which constructions of identity, community, and citizenship change over space and time, not only for those who negotiate their passages across borders but also for family members left behind. What do these constructions mean for the future of already established communities in Guatemala, if indeed ‘communities’ may be said to exist there, and the emergence of new social spaces in Canada? With a fragile peace agreement now in place in Guatemala, I argue that the implications of transnationalism will grow ever more significant in the re-imagining of identity, ‘place making,’ and citizenship in the years ahead as Guatemalans negotiate the ruptures and renewals of transnational lives.

Research Significance

Political Violence and Gender Concerns

Part of the challenge of understanding Guatemalan refugee transnationalism of the 1970s through the 1990s is the necessity to understand the political and policy contexts that refugees and immigrants fled from and entered into upon arrival in Canada. Of central concern are issues of Guatemalan political and economic violence, Canadian foreign and immigration policies, immigration status, socioeconomic circumstances, and spatial concentration or dispersal of settlement – all of which factor into the vastly different experience and form of transnationalism than the more thoroughly documented American- and Mexican-destination scenarios encountered by researchers such as Fink (2003), Foxen (2002), Hagan (1994), Hamilton and Stoltz Chinchilla (2001), Loucky and Moors (2000), Popkin (1999), Rodman Ruiz (2004), and others. Whereas, the American- and Mexican-destination research highlights mobility and connections, the Canadian experience I encountered highlights immobility and rupture.

Therefore, I am interested in how political violence and new refugee spaces in Canada work together to create these particular social spaces – or spaces of social relations – which are constituted by a mix of ruptures, connections, yearning to return, denial of the past, new opportunities, concocted life stories, identity renegotiation, and recognition. One of my main concerns in this book is to situate political violence in Guatemala as the core feature of Guatemalan transnationalism that is in turn shaped by government policies and social action. Bringing together these key components enables an examination of the destruction, alteration, and creation of multiple social spaces that are both gendered and racialized.

My second main concern is to contribute to the small but growing literature which attempts to situate gender as a central organizing principle in migration and refugee research in the Americas (Fouron and Glick Schiller 2001; Goldring 2001; Lawson 1998; Mahler 1999; Mahler and Pessar 2001; Menjívar 1999; Pessar 1999; and Pessar and Mahler 2003). This regional-specific research intersects with the work of scholars such as Willis and Yeoh (2000) and Kofman and England (1997), among others, who discuss issues at a global level, as well as the Canadian-specific work of Creese and Dowling (2001), Dyck and McLaren (2004), Hyndman (1999a), Status of Women Canada (1998), the participants of the Strategic Workshop on Immigrant Women Making Place in Canadian Cities (2002), Walton-Roberts (2004), and Waters (2002). A key development in international migration in recent years has been the ‘feminization of migrant populations’ or the growing number of female (im)migrants and refugees on the move, who now often out-number their male counterparts (Martin 2001). Research attention now focuses not only on the growing number of women on the move but also on their changing gender roles as more female (im)migrants participate as principal wage earners and heads of household rather than as ‘dependants.’

In Martin’s (2001, 3) recent study of global migration trends, she suggests that, ‘[o]ne of the most significant trends has been the feminisation of migration streams that had heretofore been primarily male.’ The principal reason relates to continuing, and increasing, levels of global poverty and the desire of women to better their lives and those of their children. Migration, therefore, often occurs outside legal channels, leading to clandestine movement, heightened vulnerability, abuse, and exploitation. Yet women remain under-represented among refugee claimants accepted into Canada. Though the UNHCR (1999) notes that ‘[t]he face of refugees are overwhelmingly those of women and children, as they comprise up to 80 per cent of most refugee populations,’ yet only one third of refugee claimants accepted into Canada are women (Boyd 1994, 8; Hyndman 1999a; Macklin 1996, 120).

Global/Local or a Politics of Scale?

In his recent examination of ‘transnational spaces and everyday lives’ David Ley (2004, 155) strongly argues for the need to move beyond the now common-place dichotomy of the global and the local where the ‘global is regarded as the space of sameness, and the local with places of difference.’ Ley (2004, 155) argues that in a transnational paradigm, a ‘re-incorporation of other scales’ and ‘jumping scales’ in our analyses is a necessity, if we are interested in seeing how, for example, the home – one of the most localized of geographical scales – is both local and global at the same time. How do we grapple with the embodied experience of forced migration, with the accompanying connections and ruptures both across borders and within the household and immediate surroundings, without a multi-scaled social analysis? The challenge is to be mindful of the politics of scale when ‘the global and the local may dissolve into closely related versions of each other’ Ley (2004, 156).

Attention to who is (im)migrating and how this shapes and is shaped by changing gender roles comes at a time when geographers, in particular, are concentrating on the politics of scale and working to reveal the dynamics of migration and other processes at the scale of the home and the body (McDowell 1999; Teather 1999). Rich (1986 in Valentine 2001, 15) describes the body as ‘the geography of the closest in;’ as the ‘primary location where our personal identities are constituted and social knowledges and meanings inscribed.’ Feminist and critical geographers take seriously Rich’s statement that ‘our bodies make a difference to our experiences of place,’ and work to reveal the hidden geographies of experience which are critical to our analyses of mobility and immobility.

Rachel Silvey’s (2004, 5) survey of feminist migration research identifies the long-held concern in geography with the politics of scale as a major research theme and one which draws attention to the ‘working of power within particular scales.’ Key to this study is Silvey’s (2004, 5) point that:

Attention to the national scale as gendered and concern with the politics of scales both finer and coarser than the national scale allows for the conceptualization of relational linkages between bodies, households and the transnational sphere.

For example, in the following chapters we shall see the links between the embodied experience of political violence and terror, massive population displacement within and across borders, and attempts to maintain spatially ruptured social relations through the (im)migration process. Typically it is through qualitative, ethnographic methods that examine multi-scaled relations and processes – from the body, household, and community, to the regional, national, supra-national, and global – that the complexities of transnational lives are made known.

Why the Guatemala-Canada Concern?

Why take on this research and focus on a refugee and (im)migrant population that is less-than-numerically significant on the Canadian immigration scene? I would assert at least two good reasons. First, this is a postcolonial world – geographer Derek Gregory (2004) actually names it the ‘colonial present’ – in which it is necessary to think beyond the nation and to engage the NAFTA-influenced mindset that links Mexico, the United States, and Canada and thus, geographically, makes Central Americans our neighbors. As Stephens (2004, 2005) ably argues, Canadian (business) interests are exploding in Guatemala, particularly related to mining activity, with limited appreciation for the country’s suffering. Though relatively few in number in Canada, their voices are growing stronger as Canada’s official concerns move from issues of social justice and human rights to business and trade negotiations.

A focus on the transnational lives and place making of Guatemalan refugees and (im)migrants may illuminate the complexity of the issues facing Canada and the United States as we move towards the goal of living in healthier, more just societies in the twenty-first century. Issues of mass migration, diasporic populations, and challenges to established immigration and refugee policy from citizens of the Americas are central to contemporary political debates on the future visions of our nations. A focus on the Guatemalan population at various locations in the diaspora illuminates something of the transnational realities of many who have ventured through the difficult passage landscapes of Mexico, the United States, and Canada along with those who remained in Guatemala.

Second, as Guatemala moves through the implementation of the Peace Accords that brought a formal end to 36 years of internal armed conflict, the refugee and (im)migrant population in the United States and Canada may demand a greater role in shaping the future of Guatemala during the difficult years ahead. For example, in the early months of 2005, Guatemalan organizations in the United States are actively negotiating with the Guatemalan government in order to allow out-of-country voting in future elections (Vásquez and Escobar 2005; Vásquez and Rodríguez 2005). As well, Orozco (2003), the Inter-American Dialogue Task Force on Remittances (2004), Robinson (2004), and the International Organization for Migration – IOM (2004), among others, argue that the foreign remittances and transnational linkages cultivated and maintained throughout the years of violence will be increasingly depended upon for economic, social, and cultural sustainability in Guatemala. Economic connections may be one way in which those physically displaced from their homeland may find it possible to reclaim a place in the Guatemalan nation. Therefore, we need an understanding of the meanings and significance of communication networks and remittances in the Canadian context.²

Transnational Ruptures

Transnationalism is a complex process that involves, as Guarnizo and Smith (1998, 29) argue, macro- and micro- dynamics. A main concern of this book is to examine political violence in Guatemala as the core feature of Guatemalan transnationalism that is in turn shaped by government policies and social action. A triangulation of these key components enables an examination of the destruction, alteration, and creation of multiple social spaces and the ensuing reinscriptions or renegotiations of identity. But how do we begin to deal with the complexity of political violence, refugee displacement, government policies, media imagery, and new refugee spaces and identities? For geographer Michael Watts (1992a, 126), addressing such questions means manoeuvring through ‘material spatial practices, perceptions, and representations [with] a geographic sensibility, the interpretive flair of the humanist and literary theorist, and the ethnographic turn of the anthropologist and social historian.’ Watts, indeed, realizes that ‘this is a tall order.’ Like him, I do not pretend to fit this bill, but in the following chapters I take up his challenge in order to come to grips with the transnational outcomes of political violence, and the many ruptures and sutures of identity that constitute the transnational social spaces forged out of the ashes of shattered communities, whether we define those as physical entities or communities of association.

What I attempt in this book is an interrogation of notions of ‘transnationalism,’ ‘community,’ and ‘identity’ in the context of social disintegration in Guatemala and subsequent forced migration, displacement, and resettlement in Canada. By examining the burgeoning concept of transnationalism in relation to political violence, I set out to establish the usefulness of the concept of ‘refugee transnationalism’ through grounded transnational fieldwork in Guatemala and Canada. By stressing the disjuncture, ruptures, and fear that accompany the more obvious connections, points of attachment, and security offered in refuge, I want to add some complexity to the mix and differentiate a ‘refugee transnationalism’ from an ‘(im)migrant transnationalism’ and to reinforce the need to see these processes through a gendered lens.

Is it appropriate, though, to distinguish a refugee transnationalism from other forms of transnationality? Seteney Shami (1996, 8) suggests that researchers such as Liisa Malkki (1997) argue against states, organizations, and scholars that ‘constitute refugees differently from other kinds of deterritorialization.’ Others, such as Allen White (1999), see this differentiation as central to an understanding of ‘how power realizes itself through the dislocation of people in different ways.’ In an era of globalization driven by neoliberalism accompanied by gendered and racialized exploitation (c.f., Nurse 2003; Watts 1997, 2004), knowledge of home country social conditions are critical to progressive understandings of new refugee and (im)migrant spaces in Canada. Social spaces are connected and ruptured by processes that hold the potential for peace, justice, and social reconstruction. Therefore, I agree with Shami that there is analytical purpose and ethical imperative to the disentanglement of the categories of all those on the move. The ‘actuality of inequality, dislocation, and suffering’ (Shami 1996, 8) must be inserted into an analysis in order to write against oppression, political violence, and repression.

Contradictions and Connections

As with Sarah Mahler’s (1995) book American Dreaming: Immigrant Life on the Margins, this is not the story about which I set out to write. After steeping myself in the literature of transnationalism and migration, I came out with a wholly USA-centric notion that often celebrates the ‘freedom’ of transnationalism, the economic benefits to the migrants’ home country (and community and family) through remittance-sending, and the ever-growing (positive) impacts of new technologies and cyber-space. Mahler found that such versions of transnationalism, so prominent in early- to mid-1990s migration literature, did not fit her research participants either, an assortment of undocumented Central American (im)migrants living ‘on the margins’ of Long Island. The benefits of b...