Student Question
Analyze Vijay Mishra's theory of "The Diasporic Imaginary" and his definition of diaspora.
Quick answer:
Mishra's theory of the Diasporic Imaginary states that all diasporic groups create an idea of their homeland as "ethnically pure" that is incompatible with its reality. Mishra defines diaspora as groups that have moved away from their homeland, but in the case of Indian diaspora, he identifies two types of people: the "exclusive," or older type, who transported themselves entirely into new countries and brought their spirituality with them, and the "new" type, who remain tethered to India through family ties.
Mishra argues that there are two discrete types of Indian diaspora: the "old" and the "new." The people of the older diaspora are "exclusive," in that they have moved entirely away from India, while the people of the new diaspora are "border," in that they are still connected in many ways to the homeland. Exclusivist people transplanted elements of India, particularly of their spirituality, into their new countries, creating new "little Indias," whereas border people, evidence of more recent migration, remain more fully connected to old India through family networks and continued arranged marriages.
For both, however, there is a similar issue, what Mishra calls "the diasporic imaginary." This refers to any "ethnic enclave" that defines itself as living "in displacement," or identifying with an image of what they would like to be rather than what they actually are. These diasporic groups create an imaginary idea of their homeland, or...
Unlock
This Answer NowStart your 48-hour free trial and get ahead in class. Boost your grades with access to expert answers and top-tier study guides. Thousands of students are already mastering their assignments—don't miss out. Cancel anytime.
Already a member? Log in here.
a fantasy, which they connect to the sense of loss they feel from having been wrenched from that homeland. For these groups, according to Mishra, there is actually a "joy" and pleasure in preserving the sense of loss, and many of the narratives these groups create about their homelands are in and of themselves racist.
Mishra notes, citing Amit S. Rai, that many people of diasporas find themselves in a strange dual position wherein they can be liberals in the new country they have adopted but also support "narrow sectarianism" in their homelands. This is connected to the idea of the imaginary or racist construction of the homeland: in the minds of many, the homeland must be something that does not change but is always linked to a certain center, a "racially pure ethnic enclave."
Mishra also argues that people of diasporas feel a pull wherein they are treated in racist ways in their new home countries but also have a racist idea of their homeland. It would be impossible to eradicate the discourses that have become part of diaspora lore and legend; a lot of being part of a diaspora, in Mishra's definition, involves an idea of ethnic purity that is incompatible with the realities of the homeland.
References
How does Vijay Mishra define the diaspora in his theory of the diasporic imaginary?
Vijay Mishra begins his essay "The Diasporic Imaginary and the Indian Diaspora" with an allusion to the opening line of Tolstoy's Anna Karenina, asserting:
All diasporas are unhappy, but every diaspora is unhappy in its own way.
Mishra's theory is that those who have emphasized the unhappiness and marginalization of the diaspora have overstated their case, but so too have those who celebrate the diaspora as an idealized community which has all the cultural benefits of a nation without the drawbacks of nationhood. The Indian diaspora, which is large but has not been the subject of much academic study, has produced outstanding literature. However, this is at least partly because the displacement which is part of the diasporic identity is a source of anxiety and uncertainty, conducive to the type of questions that writers write to explore. In this context, Mishra spends much of the central part of the essay exploring connections between displaced Indians and the "original" Jewish diaspora.
At the beginning of the essay, Mishra defines the diaspora in the following terms:
Diasporas refer to people who do not feel comfortable with their non-hyphenated identities as indicated on their passports. Diasporas are people who would want to explore the meaning of the hyphen, but perhaps not press the hyphen too far for fear that this would lead to massive communal schizophrenia.
Mishra therefore places uncertainty and discomfort at the center of the diasporic identity. Members of the diaspora are not assimilated to the point where they could simply describe themselves as "American" or "British," but they are conflicted about the issue of how far they identify with their countries of origin. The author also points out the ways in which diasporas create discomfiture in their host nations, by reminding those with non-hyphenated identities of their colonial past.