Although there is abundant statistical and research evidence on the complex nature of the cultural and linguistic attributes of African diasporas (Ndhlovu, 2009a, 2010, 2011; Borland and Mphande, 2006, 2009; Bradshaw, Deumert and Burridge, 2008), very little is known (beyond a range of stereotypes) about what these people do in everyday life with their multiple language resources. Like most emerging migrant communities in Australia, African diasporas are often described using strand-based and deficit-led approaches, which emphasize the lack of (or having limited) English language proficiency skills and how this supposedly diminishes social networking opportunities within and across communities. Such a view overlooks the different cultural, linguistic and experiential capabilities of African diaspora communities that enable them to get by and make sense of their lives in the new immigrant environments. The prior linguistic experiences and capabilities of migrant communities are rarely considered from a strength-based perspective, focusing on how multiple language resources are deployed as social capital in identity formation processes and in creating social spaces leading to positive settlement experiences in Australia.

In this chapter I introduce the book, outlining its theoretical and empirical contributions. The chapter starts by laying out the unique conceptual and methodological approaches of the book with emphasis on how its approach to languages, language ideologies, culture and diaspora identities sets it apart from similar previous studies. Also discussed in this chapter are two theoretical frameworks that have informed previous and current perspectives on migration and diaspora identities, namely, the multiculturalism paradigm and the superdiversity approach. Multiculturalism was at the forefront of social policy agendas and guided the philosophy of identitarian debates from the 1960s to the late 1990s. This part of the chapter traces the surge in the mainstreaming of multiculturalism as the underpinning definitional trope in cultural narratives and identity discourses. It also shows how, by the late 1990s and early 2000s, a turn in discourses against multiculturalism began to emerge, giving rise to incipient calls for the need to rethink the usefulness of its principles in addressing fundamental questions of identity, culture, social justice and equality in a world that has become increasingly more complex. After discussing the limitations of multiculturalism the chapter turns to a critique of superdiversity and the claims made for its relevance to our understanding of migration-driven diversity, diaspora cultures and identities. Unlike multiculturalism, superdiversity is a more recent theoretical approach developed by Steven Vertovec in 2006 to describe the complexity of issues relating to migration in the 21st century, particularly in Britain and across the European Union. While superdiversity was devised as a framework that would lead to a better understanding of the complex nature of cultural and linguistic diversity, surpassing the traditional strand-based multiculturalism approaches, the critique in this section exposes some of the limitations of this approach.

As the book searches for alternative ways to understand diaspora identities in a manner that is sensitive to unique individual and group experiences, this chapter also provides a critical appraisal of decoloniality as an alternative epistemological approach. The key contours of decoloniality are fleshed out with particular emphasis on how this framework from the Global South promises to shed some positive theoretical and empirical insights relevant to our engagement with diaspora cultures and identities. This critique is followed by a detailed discussion on the genealogy of diaspora identities. The chapter closes with a section outlining the organizational framework of the entire book and giving brief descriptions of what is covered in each of the subsequent chapters.

First, the book raises the issue of informal social networks and interactions between groups, neighbours and friends as important components in understanding identity formation processes in diaspora communities. This contribution is set against the backdrop of failures of multicultural policies in Australia and internationally that seem to have overlooked the potential benefits of immigrants’ prior multilingual practices as social capital for building individual and group identities within and across different communities. The book, therefore, addresses an issue of international significance as it explores various options for the recognition of multiple language practices as foundational blocks for identity formation processes among migrant and refugee communities.

Second, the book draws on data from on-site observable language practices of African diasporas to introduce the new theory of language nesting that advances the scholarly knowledge base in social science research on migration and identity in Australia and internationally. The book, thus, contributes to both basic research (by generating new information of intrinsic sociolinguistic interest) and applied research (by seeking to understand and inform issues of diaspora cultural identities and how they can be incorporated into national and international policy frameworks). Although there are numerous brilliant studies on migrant and diaspora community languages and identities in Australia (see for example, Clyne, 1982, 1991, 2005; Fernandez, Pauwels and Clyne, 1995; Kipp, Clyne and Pauwels, 1995), none of them has considered the sociolinguistic phenomenon of language nesting developed in this book and its potential contribution to a more nuanced understanding of individual and group identities among diaspora communities. The empirical chapters of this book mark a major advance in our knowledge of the discursive practices, identity narratives and sensibilities as well as the symbolic language behaviours of African diaspora communities. Overall, the book provides compelling evidence to support the argument that the convergences of local and global identitarian discourses are implicated in the dynamic nature of migrant cultures around the world.

Third, at a theoretical level, this book enriches theories of migration and diaspora studies with new inter-disciplinary insights leading to a refined understanding of how local social networking processes, mediated by multiple linguistic usage, interact with migrants’ meanings and ideas about being and becoming transnational citizens. Such a focus is significant in that it extends the applied interests of the discipline of linguistics to illuminate the coping mechanisms and identity (re)negotiation strategies of diaspora communities both in regional and metropolitan settings. These theoretical contributions promise to inform national and international social policy development and public debate in regard to the well-being of diaspora communities. Therefore, although there are some recent studies on discourses and debates around cultural identities in diasporic contexts (for example, Jaramani, 2012 and Block, 2008), they lack the conceptual and empirical innovations of this book, namely, the new language nesting model and how this framework constitutes an additional explanatory paradigm for a more nuanced understanding of linkages between temporal linguistic/cultural experiences and diaspora identity formation processes. The unique advantage of this book is that it surpasses single-strand approaches to the analysis and description of diaspora identities. From this perspective, the book hopes to be a pioneering and ground breaking study in this area by providing a combination of strong new theorization and empirical interventions on the subject of cultural identities in contemporary societies.

Notwithstanding their positive intentions, multiculturalism policies also have a darker side in the persistence of racial hierarchies, inequalities and the social stigmatization of indigenous and immigrant minorities. Multiculturalism has failed to address the underlying sources of these issues, which are still alive and kicking under its watchful eye. Indeed, as Bryn Turner and Habibul Khondker point out in their recent book Globalization: East West, ‘multiculturalism as an idea of political cultural accommodation or as a policy option remains embroiled in complex controversies’ (Turner and Khondker, 2010: 175). Multiculturalism and its associated policy ideals have, in fact, been criticized for unintentionally contributing to the further isolation, negative stereotyping and marginalization of immigrants and other ethnic minorities (Kymlicka, 2012). These limits of the ideological assumptions of multiculturalism, coupled with its blind spots, have led to incipient calls for alternative paradigms. Such calls have been inspired further by the increasingly multi-formed, multi-dimensional and convoluted nature of identities that require us to rethink our understandings of cultural and identity politics.

The critique of multiculturalism undertaken in this section, therefore, aims to address two theoretical and empirical questions that have been raised by other scholars of race, migration and identity studies: (a) Is the logic of multiculturalism celebrated among many Western liberal democracies sufficiently able to articulate those transnational frames needed to comprehend the cultural identities of diasporas? (b) In what ways do discourses of multiculturalism in nations of the Global North (that pride themselves on being multicultural democracies) end up being alibis for exceptionalism in relation to migrant cultural identities from the Global South? In addition to these questions, there are five strands of criticism that have been levelled against multiculturalism, both as a policy agenda and as a philosophy for understanding identitarian discourses. First, some critics and commentators in academia, politics and the media have pointed to the ways in which multiculturalism contributes to the marginalization of minorities by keeping them off serious policy agendas (Vertovec, 2010). The logic of multiculturalism is thus seen as being used to reinforce the neo-liberal modes of government in which the values of minorities are imprisoned and sacrificed at the altar of the hegemonic ambitions of the nation-state with its unfettered desire to govern and control. Second, others have suggested multiculturalism comprises a divide and rule strategy of governments in relation to indigenous and immigrant ethnic minorities, wrought by ethnic minority associations’ competition for funding or political influence. Third, multicultural ideology has been criticized for being loaded with a misleading, tokenist and reifying view of communities as never-changing, socially bounded entities. The fourth criticism is of multiculturalism’s overemphasis on the maintenance of culture while paying less policy attention to socio-economic imperatives and other non-cultural aspirations of groups and individuals. Fifth, multiculturalism has been criticized for often being an official and institutional tool producing inequality instead of functioning as a framework for inclusion (Vertovec, 2010; Shome, 2012). This criticism stems from the realization that multiculturalism seems to have facilitated the cultural and linguistic profiling of different groups of people leading to the emergence of social hierarchies, which are often easily justified on grounds of cultural difference. The consequence of the reification of these social structures, sustained by the rosy promises of multiculturalism, is to inadvertently provide fodder for many forms of inequality; including the entrenchment of bigotry, discrimination and colour blind racism (Please refer to Chapter 5 for a detailed discussion on the key components of colour blind racism).

These reservations about the usefulness of multiculturalism are particularly prompted by the persistence of discrimination and racism against ethnic and immigrant minorities in countries such as Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, Germany and in most of the European Union where multiculturalism policies have previously been embraced and successfully brought into the mainstream of the public sphere. The theory and practice of multiculturalism have recently come under intense scrutiny from political leaders of leading Western liberal democracies, particularly in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the United States of America, the Bali bombings of 2002 and the July 2005 bombings in London. For example, in 2010 German Chancellor Ange...