A visible or invisible dividing line, the border is usually perceived in terms of separation and rupture, but it is also a principle of organization of international relations. It is therefore a site of tension with regard to identity construction and assertion; the border is often at the very origin of contestations, negotiations, and other conflicting patterns of inclusion/exclusion of subjectivities. Exclusion and separation usually result from historical narratives whose complex contents deserve as much attention as their outcomes. While the political dimension is evident, it is often accompanied with multiple approaches that should also be explored. The sociological approach teaches us that “where we may find borders is not necessarily where we expect them to be, and that the right appreciation of the situation of the borders supposes the consideration of many other parameters than the sole voluntary and brutal limitation of the crossing of an imaginary line drawn on the ground” (Lévy 2010).1 It is precisely these alternative parameters facilitating the movement beyond linear patterns and normative representations of the border that this scholarly book sets out to look into. In its material and symbolic dimensions, the border is associated with territory and migration, two very influential factors in the reconfiguration of space. Far from being limited to strictly structural and institutional transformations, the notion of reconfiguration is a process of multidimensional recomposition which is anchored in the very meanings engendered by social actors.
Transhipment of Identities
The exploration of space as conceived in this book integrates the symbolic dimensions and is not limited to the sole Caribbean basin. Beyond the traditional island and continental geography that allows to circumscribe the Greater Caribbean, it now appears fundamental to integrate new territories which were born out of the fact that a growing number of Caribbean people have settled in the major cities of North America and Western Europe. Defining the Caribbean as a space of migration bears two major meanings. First, it recalls the colonial history of its settlement after the Amerindian genocide and the establishment of European and African populations within the framework of a slave system. This traumatic history has profoundly marked Caribbean societies and may explain the choice made by some researchers to place coloniality at the center of all research on migration (Cervantes-Rodriguez et al. 2009). These first demographic waves occur within the violent conditions of the plantation system and are followed by the arrival of indentured servants from India after the abolitions. The region later sees the settling of a number of Levantines, many of whom have fled conflicts and wars in the Middle East.
Defining the Caribbean as a space of migration also means the mass exodus of local populations, especially after the Second World War, for economic reasons mainly. This diaspora, who lives and works in American and European capitals, strongly contributes through substantial remittances, to the improvement of material living conditions of relatives who have stayed in the country. This dual migratory movement leads us to reconsider any given relations with the territory and with the border as such (Hudson and Réno 2000).
The Creole universe that emerges from this meeting of populations cannot possibly be reduced to its cultural components. If the Amerindian, European, African, Asian, and Levantine contributions are visible, they exist only in a maelstrom that goes beyond them and reveal an original Creole culture. The Caribbean is probably one of the first regions in the world to have experienced this evolution and arguably one of the richest areas of cultural hybridization. The product of colonization and slavery, hybridity also marks the political culture of the region (Puri 2004). “Caribbean histories and cultural processes are multidirectional, making for complex postcolonial creolization processes. Creole citizens in the Caribbean have always negotiated and maneuvered within intertwined histories of diverse but linked places constituting the world economy/society, and they have done so often from their local transnational vantage point” (Crichlow and Northover 2009: 2).
This “raceless” culture limits ethnic claims and transcends borders. It allows any inhabitant of any Caribbean country to share with any inhabitant from any neighboring country a genuine sense of relation that defies root identities (Glissant 1990). The concept of creolization as conceived by Glissant on a Caribbean scale is considered as the foreshadowing of the world of the future. The contemporary world experience is that of an accelerated circulation of people and cultures that favors encounter and miscegenation. One can therefore consider this movement as facilitating transnationalization insofar as through its conception, Creole culture is itself symbolically cross-border and meta-national.
Borders embrace a variety of meanings; depending on contexts and perspectives, they can be separating territories and regions but can also constitute actual contact zones which unify cultural spaces beyond geographic division. Water spaces, oceans, seas, and rivers, come to complexify the definition of the border which is often not static but fluid and even volatile to some extent. Crossing the border thus allows connection and disconnection, stability and movement, inclusion and exclusion, as well as the construction and deconstruction of cultural, socioeconomic, and political realities.
The Caribbean experience provides a stimulating heuristic framework to capture a renewed reality of territories in a transnationalized global context. This is the idea that Cédric Audebert develops through the study of the Haitian diaspora. Borders are now being shaped by new territories, transnational and reticular in which new social solidarities can take place. The dynamism of the diaspora in the host countries and its influence on the social activity of the native country contribute to the reconfiguration of spaces. For instance, cultural spaces are constantly enriched by the transshipment of cultures and the reconfiguration of Creole identities. Music and cultural practices repeatedly emerge from revisited traditions. Examples of popular music such as Salsa and Zouk are interesting from this point of view. While the former has its deep roots in Cuba and the latter in the French Caribbean, their development takes place in New York and Paris with musicians of various origins.
In other words, migration is bound to take its own autonomy in relation to the country of origin. So for example, the Caribbean immigrant associations in France rarely defined themselves using Guadeloupe or Martinique only), but more often called themselves “West Indian” or “Caribbean” at a time when, in each of these islands, nationalism is on the increase (Giraud 2000: 68). However, despite these characteristics, creolization does not always translate into the transnational solidarity practices that one might expect. Nationality still remains the framework of the relationship that elites and populations tend to opt for. Creole cultural cosmopolitanism runs up against national resistance and socioeconomic realities. More specifically, the national sentiment remains particularly vivid. It resists cultural affiliations that would unfold outside the legally circumscribed framework of nationality. There has been a Creole political discourse aiming to transcend ethnic boundaries and build Caribbean nations (Hintzen 2002). It however requires a meta-national approach to creolization to go beyond borders (Morin 1990). This is one of the conclusions of Fred Reno’s chapter. These remarks are expressed in his analysis of ...