1.1 Situating the Research Interest
According to the multiple-modernities approach introduced by Shmuel N. Eisenstadt (1978, 2002), equality is one of the symbolic principles inherent in globalized modernity, along with freedom, solidarity, autonomy and identity. Social scientists who adopt Eisenstadtâs insightful cultural sociology perspective analyse the formation of social inequalities, such as hierarchical stratification, exclusion, social closure and exploitation, as social forms generated against a background of dominant cultural narratives: without a cultural horizon, without a vision of equality, neither scholars nor the nonacademic audience would signify precarious situations as being connected to inequality. Consequently, the examination of symbolic and cultural foundations of the social order(s) is the obvious starting point for contemporary inequality scholars (Therborn 2006).
This volume relies on this cultural sociology perspective to conceptualize the formation of unequal life opportunities that emerge in the realm of cross-border practices. With the special focus on the processes of migration and mobility, it addresses the genesis and forms of inequality in the cross-border realm. The term cross-border is used in this volume to refer to all forms of social interaction and communication that, either physically or virtually, go beyond the territorial borders of political communities (including nation states). This encompassing category covers global processes, which are characterized by a planetary reach; it also considers transnational, multilocally organized 1 practices that transcend the borders of nation states. In essence, the field of cross-border studies includes globalization approaches (see, e.g., Eriksen 2007; KrĂźcken and Drori 2010; Ritzer and Atalay 2010) and transnationalization theories (Basch et al. 1994; Faist 2000a; Khagram and Levitt 2008). Despite their conceptual differences, these two theoretical perspectives highlight the increased worldwide interdependence among social actors and, therefore, suggest that the significance of nation states be reconsidered (Meyer et al. 1997).
The thrust of this volume is to elaborate conceptual tools for analysing patterns, contexts and mechanisms of cross-border social inequalities. This conceptual toolkit is developed with a strong focus on migration, mobility and post-migration settlement, which appear to be fundamental aspects in the formation of cross-border inequality. As a way of approaching this initial focus, Part I of this volume includes four chapters that elaborate the key theoretical concepts. Complementing Part I and building on empirical research regarding European migration and mobilityâspecifically, migration between Ukraine and Germanyâthe three chapters in Part II provide specification of these theoretical concepts and present findings from two qualitative empirical studies: the first is a study of Ukrainian scientistsâ mobility between Ukraine and Germany, and the second is a study of the multilocal care commitments of Ukrainian migrant care workers who live in Germany. This rather general research interest will be described in more specific terms in the following section.
1.2 Social Scientific Narratives of Cross-Border Inequalities: Queries, Critiques and Research Objectives
Inequality analysis is a particular area of study within the field of cross-border research. At first glance, it suggests a consistent picture of cross-border stratification, which includes the transnational capitalist class (Sklair 2001) at the top, the transnational middle class (WeiĂ 2006) and transnational elites (Favell 2003) in the middle and a global precariat (Portes and Walton 1981) at the bottom. Further paragraphs briefly introduce these conceptsâ central statements to appropriately specify the research objectives of this volume.
According to Leslie Sklair (2001), the key quality of the transnational capitalist class is its superior position in the process of economic globalization. Top executives of international companies, top bureaucrats in state administrations and technical and media industry elites are the main social segments that form this group of âwinnersâ in globalized capitalism. Their dominant stance in processes of production, distribution and exchange is provided not only by ownership and control over financial capital but also by ownership and control over political, cultural and knowledge resources. 2 The major class interests of transnational capitalists are governance of economic globalization, regulation of national politics and surveillance of the everyday lives of the subordinated populations through the rhetoric of consumerism. Furthermore, Sklair emphasizes that cross-border networking is the central lifestyle asset of the top executives: these managers are spatially mobile in the context of their professional commitments. Their spatial mobility results in a specific cosmopolitan lifestyle that manifests itself in certain modes of consumption, habits of cross-border communication and routines of geographical mobility.
In a similar vein, research on the transnational middle class (e.g. Andreotti et al. 2013; WeiĂ 2006) focuses on those who are privileged in the process of economic globalization. Using the results of her empirical study, WeiĂ (2006) defines the transnational middle class as those highly skilled migrants who are able to convert their academic degrees into successful labour market positions in the various states of destination and to adapt to the requirements of global labour markets and of local employment companies in the countries where they settle. In a similar manner, Adrian Favell (2003, 2008b) examines the cross-border lifestyles of the transnational elites, with a special focus on the social-mobility trajectories of highly skilled EU migrants in three European cities: Brussels, Paris and London. According to Favell, these mobile individuals find themselves in advantageous positions in the immigration countriesâ labour markets, do not experience assimilation pressure from the domestic majority and do not face ethnic discrimination. However, Favellâs findings also suggest that many highly skilled mobile EU citizens are often unable to convert their skill resources into labour market performance because, in many cases, they do not have access to the local networks necessary for securing labour market positions. Consequently, Favell approaches access to a local knowledge as a prerequisite of successful mobility for the aspiring newcomers.
According to the research cited, members of the transnational middle class and the transnational elites do not accrue experiences of alienation, whereas those referred to as the global precariat appear to accumulate disadvantages in the process of migration. In particular, research on international migration in the context of development studies (see, e.g., Lipton 1980; Penninx 1982; Zachariah et al. 2001) centres on mobile populations that one might consider the global precariat (Standing 2011 is also partly relevant). Originating in the 1970s and 1980s, this research analyses the trajectories of geographical and social mobility of migrant workers from âperiphery countriesâ who, after emigrating, find themselves employed in unprivileged occupations in the labour markets of Western industrialized countries. The exodus of young, low-skilled populationsâalso known as the brawn drainâproduces a lost-labour effect in the countries from which they emigrate, particularly in the agricultural sector (Penninx 1982), whereas the emigration of better-educated middle-class populationsâa process usually referred to as brain drain (Lipton 1980)âreduces the number of specialists needed for the successful development of âperipheryâ economies. Most of this type of research adopts Immanuel Wallersteinâs world systems approach (see Frank 1969; Wallerstein and Hopkins 1982), in which the trajectories and volume of international migration are thought to be determined by international division of labour.
What the studies cited so far have in common is the key premise of inequality research, which defines social inequality as âa relationship between persons or sets of persons in which interaction generates greater advantages for one than anotherâ (Tilly 2000: 782). Although the quoted studies relate to spatial categories such as global and transnational, in a different manner, they clearly address the formation of unequal social positions apart from the conventional framework of the nation state. At the same time, they all consider international migration (or, more broadly speaking, various forms of geographical mobility across national borders) to be relevant for the unequal access to and distribution of valued resources. They evidently identify unequal social stances and the conditions of such stances within a cross-border realm.
However, the vision of a (more or less consistent) stratification into the trans-national capitalist class (Sklair 2001), the transnational middle class (Favell 2003; WeiĂ 2006) and the global precariat (Portes and Walton 1981) calls for critical reflection on the apparent evidence of a cross-border hierarchy. Indeed, the (over)generalized narrative of stratification introduced previously raises four theoretical questions that will prove useful in delineating the research objectives to be presented in this volume.
-
The first and most obvious criticism of the approaches described previously is their implication that âclassâ is the most dominant dimension of social inequality. Such an outlook considers the unequal distribution of economic resources, educational merits and professional positions as being crucial to the genesis of social inequality. Thus, these and similar approaches could be accused of being class-centred, because they neglect the significance of gender, race/ethnicity, age and other âaxes of differenceâ in the formation of unequal life opportunities.
Consequently, the first objective of this volume is to specify the predominant patterns of cross-border social inequalities while considering gender, race/ethnicity and other types of unequal social relations as being as significant as class in the genesis of unequal life chances. In other words, by mapping the patterns of social inequalities in a cross-border realm, scholars benefit from a view that considers multiple dimensions of social inequality and the interplay among them.
-
The second query refers to the references to spatial categories and their uses in these studiesâ analyses of inequality. It relates to two criticisms in particular. On the one hand, the studies cited tend to refer to spatial relations and practices (e.g. global, transnational) in a naturalizing manner. The diagnosis of transnational or global inequalities replaces the convention of nationally organized inequalities, but the social nature of such categorizations often (but not always) remains an open question: By what social practices are border-crossing realms generated? To avoid these naturalizing notions, a promising strategy would be to analyse how social inequalities are permanently spatialized: What narratives define them as global, local, national or transnational?
On the other hand, the studies cited previously often refer to spatial and societal relations interchangeably. Indeed, scholars in the field of cross-border studies often confound spatial and societal categories of analysis. Evidence of such accounts can be found in the previous narrative of cross-border stratification, which emphasizes the emergence of a hierarchy of social positions in an overarching societal setting. Such confusion is counterproductive because the spatial aspect is always a component of societal relations, but societal relations cannot be exclusively reduced to spatial practices.
Both these criticisms call for more specificity about the contexts of cross-border inequalities, which constitute the second research objective of this volume. This objective requires an analytical distinction between processes of spatialization, on the one hand, and societal contextualization on the other, and it calls for theories about society that do not confound the concept of society with the concept of nation state.
-
The third query refers to mechanisms and social processes in the genesis of inequality. The previous narrative of cross-border stratification suggests that economic globalization (including âunequal terms of tradeâ [Waller-stein and Hopkins 1982]), the changing structure of labour markets and the convertibility of educational and other assets be approached as key conditions for the formation of unequal cross-border stances.
However, this volume attempts to identify the inequality mechanisms by avoiding such an economic and class-reductionist perspective. Building on a multidimensionalâintersectionalâview of social inequality, this volume will attempt to identify processes in the genesis of inequality while considering the significance of gender, ethnicity/race and class (among many other dimensions) and how they interact. This focus on the mechanisms, which is the third objective of this volume, should lead to a better understanding of concrete inequality patterns and should provide a means to analyse the strategies, practices and processes that produce and stabilize unequal social relations.
-
The fourth and final query is about the constitution of patterns, contexts and mechanisms of cross-border inequalities in connection with migration and mobility, with the specific focus on Europe. The preceding overview of the dominant narratives concerning cross-border inequalities highlights international migration and various forms of mobility as being fundamental to the unequal distribution of life chances across borders. However, the concepts cited provide different accounts of the role of migration processes; they also approach migration and mobility from distinct theoretical angles.
Consequently, the fourth objective of this volume is the conceptual specification and the empirical illustration of patterns, contexts and mechanisms of cross-border inequalities in connection with migration and mobility in Europe.
The next section provides a more detailed discussion of how these research objectives will be addressed theoretically and empirically.
1.3 Transnationality, Intersectionality and Hegemonic Projects: The Contribution of Cultural and Poststructuralist Sociology to the Analysis of Cross-Border Inequalities
The main purpose of this volume is to develop a conceptual toolkit for the analysis of patterns, contexts and mechanisms of cross-border social inequalities, with a strong focus on migration, (im)mobility and post-migration settlement, processes that appear to play a fundamental role in the production of cross-border (global and transnational) inequalities. From a theoretical perspective, three different approaches to inequality analysis will be combined in the development of this toolkit: transnational theory (Faist et al. 2013; Levitt and Glick Schiller 2004), theories of intersectionality (Anthias 2001; Lutz et al. 2011) and cultural sociology (Alexander 2007). Part I of this volume conceptualizes the patterns, contexts and mechanisms of cross-border inequalities, while Part II implements the conceptual vocabulary for analysing European migration and mobility, specifically the two empirical studies on migration from Ukraine to Germany. The following sections outline, by chapter, the particular responses to the four queries concerning analyses of cross-border inequality.
1.3.1 Transnational Studies on Migration as a Paradigmatic Field for the Analysis of Cross-Border Inequalities (Chapter 2)
Because the conceptualization of cross-border inequalities is developed in this volume with a strong focus on migration, mobili...
