In general terms, the term “transnationalism” can be addressed from three different perspectives: as a notion, as an analytical framework and as a process or set of processes. In my research, the working definition of the term starts with the notion of “being here and there at the same time.”

Immigrants can be here (in the United States) and there (Mexico or Central America) at the same time through their family, their remittances, their religion or through political organization and mobilization, for example. The process of transnationalism becomes evident through a set of consecutive actions that take place “here and there” by an immigrant group in a host society. From a political perspective, a clear example is when the immigrant group increases its mobilization capabilities and organizational skills through a series of events or actions in both sides of the border that directly affect the interests and political reality of the group.

From a theoretical perspective, these actions, which are developed within the notion of “being here and there at the same time,” can be framed from an analytical standpoint within different disciplines in the social sciences: anthropology, sociology, economics, international law, political science, etc. The development of transnationalism as a concept is influenced by the methodological and theoretical background of each discipline.

Then we have the “particulars” within the reality of each immigrant group and host society that makes the field study of transnationalism a joyful and challenging experience across time and space: what if the group is or is not the major ethnic minority in the host society? What if the locals and the immigrants speak or not the same language?  What if the laws of the receiving country facilitate or block the assimilation of the immigrants? What if the receiving society has a history of racial conflicts and the skin color of the immigrant does not match with the locals? What if the economy of the receiving society is in a boom or deeply embedded in a once-in-a-century crisis? What if the level of education of the immigrant is high or low in comparison to local standards? Are immigrants and locals religion-compatible? What if the “local” society is not monolith, culturally speaking? What if there are high levels of acceptance of the receiving society in terms of marrying and immigrant and have mixed, bicultural kids? What if the borders of the receiving country only deal with a couple of countries in comparison to those countries that share borders with five or more countries? Is it really possible to track transnationalism beyond the second generation? Is it true that transnationalism is not capable of explaining a single thing in a multicultural, global, immigrant-open society?

From a theoretical perspective, the study of transnationalism gets even more enjoyable: What is the common ground between (1) a sociologist or an anthropologist who study the “transcultural” aspects of the family relations of an individual or group of immigrants in both, the sending and the receiving societies; and (2) the political scientist and the historian who try to explain what on earth is "state transnationalism;" or (3) the international law scholar who insists that transnational crime is evolving at an incredible speed in a global society?  To what extent the methodology and the theoretical assumptions that are used in the field research of each discipline will produce very different results when addressing exactly the same issue from two or three different disciplinary perspectives? What if most disciplines in the social sciences interact all the time around the concept in the field of immigration studies? Is transnationalism really the flavor of the month after more than 25 years on scene? Does it make any sense to read a great work that criticizes transnationalism from a sociological perspective and then deduce that transnationalism as a whole makes no sense? What is wrong with transnationalism becoming an internationally, scholarly accepted framework to analyze the historical and current reality of the immigrant in a host society?

Certainly, time will tell… Each discipline has its own timing when adopting and adapting substantive changes to its analytical framework. It took 25 years for the American Political Science Association to officially acknowledge the contributions to the discipline of the European ethologist Frans de Waal… So, here we are, hundreds of scholars in the Social Sciences around the world doing research on transnationalism, one day (and sometimes one topic) at the time.

Regarding the study of transnationalism, I have written two related pieces: “Organizing Immigrant Communities in American Cities: Is This Transnationalism or What?” (2004) and “The Mexico-North Report on Transnationalism” (2005). In a third piece, "Web Research on Transnationalism: Surfing at Sea or Surfing at the Swimming Pool?" (2006) I realized that practically all the Chicano and Mexican-American Studies programs in the U.S. include no studies on transnationalism at all. In my syllabus on Transnationalism (2007) I implicitly expose what I consider the basic works in the field. I am currently working on an extension of the first Mexico-North Report. 

© 2009 Gustavo Cano