. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N OT E S
introduction
1. For a critical discussion of the role of nation-states in migration as well as in
studies of migration, see Wimmer and Schiller 2003.
2. Further issues that have received relatively little attention are thus the unequal
power relationships these networks often involve and the conflicts to which they may
give rise. It is also important to examine the creating of new ties, and the resultant
reconfiguring of individuals’ networks (cf. Levitt and Glick Schiller 2004; Menjívar
2000: 23–36).
3. The cultural construction of place has been an important topic of interest in
anthropology since the late 1980s, when several works began to critically appraise the
ways in which notions of place have informed theory and method within the disci-
pline (see, e.g., Appadurai 1988; Augé (1995 [1992]); Fardon 1990; Gupta and Fer-
guson 1992, 1997; Olwig and Hastrup 1997; Rosaldo 1988). This created an awareness
of the importance of distinguishing between the ethnographic sites of investigation
and analysis that emerged in anthropological research and the notions of place nour-
ished and sustained by the subjects of anthropological investigation. See, for example,
Steven Feld’s and Keith Basso’s edited volume of ethnographic studies of ‘‘native
constructions of particular localities’’ that analyze how people in di√erent parts of the
world perceive and experience place (Feld and Basso 1996: 6).
4. In a critical reexamination of the concept of community, Vered Amit (2002a: 3)
argues that a shift has occurred in the meaning of the term. Whereas formerly the
notion of community was used to designate concrete contexts of social relations,
today it is employed mainly to refer to collective identities believed to be associated
with categories of people. As a result, ‘‘community is read as peoplehood and people-
Previous Page Next Page