理解全球迁移：一种社会转型视角的史蒂芬城堡
发布时间：2016-05-13 08:40
Stephen Castles 卡斯尔斯
This article aims to examine some of the difficulties of theory formation in international migration studies, and to suggest a response. The starting point is an examination of the dominant perception of ‘migration as a problem’. This is followed by a discussion of some key obstacles to theoretical advancement in migration studies. I argue that a general theory of migration is neither possible nor desirable, but that we can make significant progress by re-embedding migration research in a more general understanding of contemporary society, and linking it to broader theories of social change across a range of social scientific disciplines. A conceptual framework for migration studies should take social transformation as its central category, in order to facilitate understanding of the complexity, interconnectedness, variability, contexuality and multi-level mediations of migratory processes in the context of rapid global change. This would mean examining the links between social transformation and human mobility across a range of socio-spatial levels, while always seeking to understand how human agency can condition responses to structural factors. The argument is illustrated through the example of the changing dynamics of labour forces in highly developed countries. Keywords: Migration Theory; Social Theory; Social Transformation; Socio-Spatial Levels; Agency; Structure More than ten years ago, Massey et al. (1998: 3) argued that: The theoretical concepts now employed by social scientists to analyse and explain international migration were forged primarily in the industrial era and reflect its particular economic arrangements, social institutions, technology, demography and politics. ...The classical approach has now entered a state of crisis, challenged by new ideas, concepts, and hypotheses. Stephen Castles is Research Professor of Sociology at the University of Sydney.
Castles Although, as they pointed out, ‘these new ways of thinking have not yet cohered into a single theory’, Massey and his colleagues believed that ‘the time has come ...to reassess theories of international migration and bring them into conformity with new empirical conditions’. The ‘post-industrial, post-Cold War world’ needed a new theory of migration appropriate for ‘a brand new century’ (1998: 3). This was the programmatic statement of a very important book, which did indeedset out to present a new synthesis as a basis for a ‘single’ (and implicitly general) theory. Twelve years later, the exponential growth of social-scientific research into the international mobility of people continues: we have more researchers, university courses, students, research projects, institutes, conferences, journals and publications than ever before. Yet the quest for a generally accepted theoretical framework for migration studies remains elusive. We still lack a body of cumulative knowledge to explain why some people become mobile while most do not, and what this means for the societies concerned. Although there does seem to be agreement on some matters*the importance of migration networks for example*we do not have a common conceptual framework that could serve as the starting point for intellectual debates and the formulation of hypotheses and research questions. This article starts by examining the ‘sedentary bias’ in migration debates, and goes on to discuss why it is so difficult to develop and agree on a conceptual framework for migration studies. A key problem is the tendency to see migration as quite distinct from broader social relationships and change processes. I will argue for the need to embed migration research in a more general understanding of contemporary society. This requires forms of inquiry that start from a situation of rapid and generalised changes. I refer to these processes as social transformation, as a convenient label to facilitate discussion of the complexity, interconnectedness, variability, contextuality and multi-level mediations of global change. The article links the analysis of migration to important trends in the theory and methodology of various social scientific disciplines, and illustrates interdisciplinary social transformation research by looking at the example of labour force change in northern economies. My analysis points to rather different conclusions than Alejandro Portes’ (2010) article (in this special issue of JEMS). Portes argues that migration does not generally change the fundamental structures and institutions of developed societies. By contrast, I will argue that migration is actually one part of the process of transformation of these structures and institutions, which arises through major changes in global political, economic and social relationships.
Migration, Mobility and the ‘Sedentary Bias’
The Rocky Road Towards a ‘Single Theory’ of Migration
A Social Transformation Framework for Migration Studies
For Example: Migration and Labour Force Dynamics in the New Economy
Conclusion 总结
The central aim of this paper has been to discuss some of the difficulties of theory formation in migration studies, and to suggest a possible response. The problems include surmounting disciplinary boundaries, preventing fragmentation into isolated sub-fields, fending off political or bureaucratic cooption, overcoming a bias towards receiving-country perspectives and*most important*finding appropriate theories and methodologies to reflect the complexity, diversity and contextuality of migratory processes. The solution does not lie in seeking to formulate a single (or general) theory of migration, which would almost inevitably degenerate into banality and abstraction. But nor are answers to be found by abandoning the quest for theoretical advancement on the grounds that all migratory processes are different and unique. The suggested response is that migration researchers should seek to develop middle-range theories that can help integrate the insights of the various social sciences to understand the regularities and variations of a range of migratory processes within a given historical socio-economic constellation. Such middle-range theories can form the basis for a conceptual framework, which takes contemporary social transformation processes as a starting point, for understanding shifting patterns of human mobility. Such a conceptual framework would consist of a detailed mapping of the factors that influence migratory processes and of the connections between these factors. The examples above focused on labour-market dimensions of migration, but it is important to also include the many non-economic factors that make migration such an all-embracing human experience. A key aspect of this conceptual framework would be that it should not restrict itself to migration, but rather seek to link analysis of migratory processes to broader social
Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 1583 theory and through this to the analysis of societal change in general. The development of migration theory at this historical juncture should therefore be linked to the analysis of social transformation processes at a range of socio-spatial levels: whether a specific piece of research starts with a local phenomenon or a global one, or somewhere in-between, it needs to be based on an awareness of connectivity between localities and mediations between levels.
Acknowledgements 致谢
This is the revised version of a paper originally delivered at the conference on Theories of Migration and Social Change organised by the International Migration Institute and the Centre on Migration, Policy and Society, University of Oxford, 1 3 July 2008. I thank the participants at the conference for comments and suggestions. I also thank Hein de Haas for his detailed critique and suggestions and Han Entzinger for his helpful reviewer’s comments.
Notes
Alba, R. and Nee, V. (1997) ‘Rethinking assimilation theory for a new era of immigration’, International Migration Review, 31(4): 826 74. Albrow, M. (1996) The Global Age. Cambridge: Polity. Bakewell, O. (2007) Keeping Them in their Place: The Ambivalent Relationship between Development and Migration in Africa. Oxford: International Migration Institute, IMI Working Paper, 8. Bauman, Z. (1998) Globalization: The Human Consequences. Cambridge: Polity. Beck, U. (1997) Was ist Globalisierung? Frankfurt: Suhrkamp. Beck, U. (2007) ‘Beyond class and nation: reframing social inequalities in a globalizing world’, British Journal of Sociology, 58(4): 679 705. Bhagwati, J. (2003) ‘Borders beyond control’, Foreign Affairs, 82(1): 98 104. Bourdieu, P. and Wacquant, L. (1992) An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Boyd, M. (1989) ‘Family and personal networks in migration’, International Migration Review, 23(3): 638 70. Brettell, C.B. and Hollifield, J.F. (eds) (2007) Migration Theory: Talking Across Disciplines. New York and London: Routledge (2nd edition). Castells, M. (1996) The Rise of the Network Society. Oxford: Blackwell. Castells, M. (1997) The Power of Identity. Oxford: Blackwell. Castells, M. (1998) End of Millennium. Oxford: Blackwell. Castles, S. (2004) ‘Why migration policies fail’, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 27(2): 205 27. Castles, S. (2006) ‘Guestworkers in Europe: a resurrection?’, International Migration Review, 40(4): 741 66. Castles, S. (2007) ‘Twenty-first century migration as a challenge to sociology’, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 33(3): 351 71.
1584 S. Castles Castles, S. (2008) Development and Migration*Migration and Development: What Comes First? New York: Social Science Research Council.and Delgado Wise, R. (eds) (2008) Migration and Development: Perspectives from the South. Geneva: International Organization for Migration. Castles, S. and Miller, M.J. (2009) The Age of Migration: International Population Movements in the Modern World. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan and Guilford (4th edition). CEC (2005a) Green Paper on an EU Approach to Managing Economic Migration. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities, COM(2004)811 final. CEC (2005b) Communication from the Commission: Policy Plan on Legal Migration. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities, COM(2005)669 final. Cohen, R. (ed.) (1995) The Cambridge Survey of World Migration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cohen, R. and Kennedy, P. (2000) Global Sociology. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Collinson, S. (ed.) (2003) Power, Livelihoods and Conflict: Case Studies in Political Economy Analysis for Humanitarian Action. London: Overseas Development Institute, Humanitarian Policy Group Report 13. Collinson, S. (2009) The Political Economy of Migration Processes: An Agenda for Migration Research and Analysis. Oxford: International Migration Institute, IMI Working Paper 12. (1997) ‘Why is classical theory classical?’, American Journal of Sociology, 102(6): 1511 57. de Haas, H. (2006) Turning the Tide? Why ‘Development Instead of Migration’ Policies are Bound to Fail. Oxford: International Migration Institute, IMI Working Paper, 2. Entzinger, H. (2003) ‘The rise and fall of multiculturalism: the case of the Netherlands’, in Joppke, C. and Morawska, E. (eds) Towards Assimilation and Citizenship: Immigration in Liberal Nation-States. Basingstoke: Palgrave-Macmillan, 97 118. Faist, T. (2000) The Volume and Dynamics of International Migration and Transnational Social Spaces. Oxford: Oxford University Press. GCIM (2005) Migration in an Interconnected World: New Directions for Action: Report of the Global Commission on International Migration. Geneva: Global Commission on International Migration.(2005) ‘Migrant networks: a summary and critique of relational approaches to international migration’, in Romero, M. and Magolis, E. (eds) The Blackwell Companion to Social Inequalities. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 257 85. Guarnizo, L.E., Portes, A. and Haller, W. (2003) ‘Assimilation and transnationalism: determinants of transnational political action among contemporary migrants’, American Journal of Sociology, 108(6): 1211 48. Hatton, T.J. and Williamson, J.G. (1998) The Age of Mass Migration: Causes and Economic Effects. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. Hatton, T.J. and Williamson, J.G. (2005) Global Migration and the World Economy. Boston: MIT Press. Held, D., McGrew, A., Goldblatt, D. and Perraton, J. (1999) Global Transformations: Politics, Economics and Culture. Cambridge: Polity. Hirschman, C., Kasinitz, P. and DeWind, J. (1999) The Handbook of International Migration: The American Experience. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Hunger, U. and Thra¨nhardt, D. (2001) ‘Die Berliner Integrationspolitik im Vergleich der Bundesla¨nder’, in Gesemann, F. (ed.) Migration und Integration in Berlin. Opladen: Leske and Budrich, 109 25. Joppke, C. and Morawska, E. (eds) (2003) Towards Assimilation and Citizenship: Immigration in Liberal Nation-States. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 1585 King, R. (2002) ‘Towards a new map of European migration’, International Journal of Population Geography, 8(2): 89 106. Kuhn, T.S. (1996) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press (3rd edition). Levitt, P. and Glick Schiller, N. (2004) ‘Conceptualising simultaneity: a transnational social field perspective on society’, International Migration Review, 38(3): 1002 39. Luhmann, N. (1990) Die Wissenschaft der Gesellschaft. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Lussault, M. (2007) L’Homme Spatiale: La construction sociale de l’.etre humain. Paris: Seuil. Manuh, T. (ed.) (2005) At Home in the World? International Migration and Development in Contemporary Ghana and West Africa. Accra: Sub-Saharan Publishers. Massey, D.S., Arango, J., Hugo, G., Kouaouci, A., Pellegrino, A. and Taylor, J.E. (1998) Worlds in Motion, Understanding International Migration at the End of the Millenium. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Merton, R.K. (1957) Social Theory and Social Structure. Glencoe: Free Press. Milanovic, B. (2007) ‘Globalization and inequality’, in Held, D. and Kaya, A. (eds) Global Inequality: Patterns and Explanations. Cambridge and Malden, MA: Polity, 26 49. Mitter, S. (1986) ‘Industrial restructuring and manufacturing homework: immigrant women in the UK clothing industry’, Capital and Class, 27:37 80. Ness, I. (2005) Immigrants, Unions and the New US Labor Market. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Parsons, T. (1951) The Social System. Glencoe: Free Press. Penninx, R., Berger, M. and Kraal, K. (eds) (2006) The Dynamics of International Migration and Settlement in Europe. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Petras, J. and Veltmayer, H. (2000) ‘Globalisation or imperialism?’, Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 14(1): 1 15. Phizacklea, A. (1990) Unpacking the Fashion Industry: Gender, Racism and Class in Production. London: Routledge. Polanyi, K. (2001) The Great Transformation. Boston: Beacon Press. Portes, A. (1997) ‘Immigration theory for a new century: some problems and opportunities’, International Migration Review, 31(4): 799 825. Portes, A. and Bach, R.L. (1985) Latin Journey: Cuban and Mexican Immigrants in the United States. Berkeley: University of Calfornia Press. Portes, A. and DeWind, J. (eds) (2004a) ‘Conceptual and methodological developments in the study of international migration’, Special Issue, International Migration Review, 38(3). Portes, A. and DeWind, J. (2004b) ‘A cross-Atlantic dialogue: the progress of research and theory in the study of international migration’, International Migration Review, 38(3): 828 51. Portes, A., Escobar, C. and Radford, A.W. (2007) ‘Immigrant transnational organizations and development: a comparative study’, International Migration Review, 41(1): 242 82. Price, C. (1963) Southern Europeans in Australia. Melbourne: Oxford University Press. Ranis, G. (2009) Relationships between Migration and Development. New York: Social Science Research Council. (2002) Unravelling the Rag Trade: Immigrant Entrepreneurship in Seven World Cities. Oxford: Berg. Reyneri, E. (2003) ‘Immigration and the underground economy in new receiving South European countries: manifold negative effects, manifold deep-rooted causes’, International Review of Sociology, 13(1): 117 43. Sassen, S. (1988) The Mobility of Labour and Capital. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sassen, S. (2006) Territory, Authority, Rights: from Medieval to Global Assemblages. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Saul, J.R. (2006) The Collapse of Globalism and the Reinvention of the World. London: Atlantic Books.
1586 S. Castles Schierup, C.-U., Hansen, P. and Castles, S. (2006) Migration, Citizenship and the European Welfare State: A European Dilemma. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Schuerkens, U. (ed.) (2004) Global Forces and Local Life-Worlds: Social Transformations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Stark, O. (1991) The Migration of Labour. Oxford: Blackwell. Stiglitz, J.E. (1998) Towards a New Paradigm for Development: Strategies, Policies and Processes. Geneva: World Bank, UNCTAD 1998 Prebisch Lecture. Stiglitz, J.E. (2002) Globalization and its Discontents. London: Penguin. Taylor, J.E. (1999) ‘The new economics of labour migration and the role of remittances in the migration process’, International Migration, 37(1): 63 88. UNDESA (2005) Trends in Total Migrant Stock: The 2005 Revision. New York: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. UNDP (2009) Human Development Report 2009: Overcoming Barriers: Human Mobility and Development. New York: United Nations Development Programme. Cambridge: Polity. Vasta, E. (2007) ‘From ethnic minorities to ethnic majority policy: multiculturalism and the shift to assimilationism in the Netherlands’, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 30(5): 713 40. Vasta, E. and Vuddamalay, V. (eds) (2006) International Migration and the Social Sciences: Confronting National Experiences in Australia, France and Germany. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Vertovec, S. (2004) ‘Migrant transnationalism and modes of transformation’, International Migration Review, 38(3): 970 1001. Weiss, L. (1998) The Myth of the Powerless State: Governing the Economy in a Global Era. Cambridge: Polity Press. Wimmer, A. and Glick Schiller, N. (2003) ‘Methodological nationalism, the social sciences and the study of migration’, International Migration Review, 37(3): 576 610.
本文编号：44496
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/wenshubaike/caipu/44496.html
