Miami: Mistress of the Americas

Chapter 7: Locals, Exiles, and Mobiles

c h a p t e r 7 Locals, Exiles, and Mobiles In the past, people’s identities were closely tied to place. The world was viewed as a ‘‘mosaic’’ of cultures and peoples, a spatial ordering where all were primarily known based on where they belonged. Migration happened, of course, but always in relatively small numbers and it was generally one-way and involved fundamental uprooting and full-fledged resettlement. The ‘‘natural’’ state of the world was seen as stable and socially coherent. In recent years this perspective has lost ground. Writings in many academic areas have put forward a more dynamic view. The focus shifted from studying more or less stable places to intensifying and ceaseless flows of people, things, money, information, and ideas. If in the past human identity was viewed as fundamentally based on place, it is now sometimes defined by spatial mobility . The result is not only something akin to a restless cultural landscape but also what has been labeled a ‘‘de-territorialization of identity.’’1 The question ‘‘Where are you from?’’ is not as revealing as it used to be—and indeed for some it may trigger existentialist ponderings. We now understand identities to be multidimensional, naturally in flux, and less tied to place. Any individual or group is likely to have plural identities that may be complementary or even compete with each other. In Walt Whitman’s poetic phrase, we { 137 } all ‘‘contain multitudes.’’ For example, one and the same Miami resident may be born in Cuba, be black, be a U.S. citizen, and have a middle-class income. How this person identifies—in Miami or elsewhere—will depend on social context and prevailing discourses .2 Globalization has strongly influenced this new dynamic. Traditional identities are constructed in a particular geographical context , but that construction tends to lose its integrity from exposure to globalization. For example, Caribbean migrants to the United States often face a redefinition of their racial identity because the meaning of race in the United States is different—more black and white, literally—from what it is in their home countries. Transnational migration has superseded the simple one-way and permanent migration of the past. The literature presents con- flicting ways of looking at transnational migrants. Often, they are described as a disadvantaged lot, their presence indicative of a global economy that requires the mobility of labor but that has resulted in insecure economic conditions both at home and in the adopted homeland. In this view, they have never quite left home nor have they really become full-fledged members of their new society. Their transnational status is born from necessity; their social status is precarious.3 Other research shows that transnational migrants are generally not the poorest in their countries of origin, or in their adopted homelands and cities.4 They are actually privileged in a sense: they had information and financial resources and were able to undertake the move. Indeed, through remittances and transnational businesses they often play a prominent economic role and enjoy prestige in their region of origin. Another view goes even further: it emphasizes the hybrid identity of transnational migrants and the substantial benefits this brings. In this view, people with hybrid identities have an unusual ability to relate to various cultures, to position themselves in one { 138 } c h a p t e r 7 or the other and to communicate between them. It is a position of cultural power with potential economic rewards. A good example, of course, concerns certain groups of Miami immigrants who can present themselves alternatively as American or Latin American and who have become successful transnational business entrepreneurs. Even in global cities, or especially in global cities, these identity shifts have not affected everybody in the same way or to the same degree. People are not equally mobile and while mobility is a choice for some, it can be a necessity for others. Global cities are the signature terrain of the ‘‘kinetic elite,’’ but they are also home to populations with much more restrained mobility. Spatial mobility has become an essential marker of social stratification and has rearranged the social fabric of global cities. Issues of race, ethnicity, and class still matter, of course—but it is the way in which they interact with spatial mobility, that is of particular interest. It is hard to think of a more intriguing...