• Aucun résultat trouvé

Governmentality as understood in its more specific sense as a historical form of power has been applied to a myriad of different fields and different cases.39 This has taken place since the beginning of the 1990s when two widely cited collections on governmentality (cf. Burchell et al. 1991; Rose et al. 1996) as well as an influential article by Rose and Miller (1992) were published. But it is astonishing – at least in the beginnings of governmentality studies – to observe a tendency within this governmental corpus of literature to concentrate on “national” cases although an interest in “globalisation” has emerged more or less at the same time, i.e. at the beginning of the 1990s. This “schizophrenia” or “puzzle” seems having changed however, as some collections begun to explore “global governmentalities”, i.e. how

“the global” has been imagined and been enacted (Larner and Walters 2004e, 2004a;

Ong and Collier 2003; Ong and Collier 2005).40 One form to imagine and enact such

39 Without pretending to be exhaustive, there are several studies employing an analytics of government perspective that can be mentioned here. These range over several fields: accounting (Radcliffe 1999), political participation (Purvis and Hunt 1999; Tully 1999), labour movements (Manning 1999), education (Beck 1999), emotion and police studies (Watson 1999), empire (Akhil Gupta 1998; Malpas and Wickham 1997; D. Scott 1999), environment (Bennett 1999; Brosius 1999; Akhil Gupta 1998), globalisation (Dalby 1999; Larner and Walters 2004e, 2004a), health (Hughes and Griffiths 1999;

Scambler and Higgs 1998; Stern 1999), journalism (Eide and Knight 1999), library studies (Joyce 1999), television (Ouellette 2008) or tourism (Hollinshead 1999). These studies furthermore concentrate on several cases, yet turn mainly around “domestic” ones: Canada (Blake 1999; Braun 2000), France (Donzelot 1991), the United States (Graham 1997), New Zealand (Larner 1997, 1998, 2007), but also “non-Western” cases such as China (Ng and Tang 1999; Ong 2000, 2006), India (Akhil Gupta 1998), Mexico (Kunz 2010, 2011; McDonald 1999; Stern 1999), South Africa (Durrheim and Foster 1999) or Sri Lanka (D. Scott 1999).

40 One could also mention other studies which are more specific in their endeavour of „global governmentalities“: Studies on colonial governmentality for instance are interested in the power mechanisms of “global” colonial empires (Kalpagam 2000; Mitchell 1988; Rabinow 1989; D. Scott 1995), studies on development governmentality at how “Western” norms came to dominate globally (Crush 1995; Escobar 1995), studies on economic governmentality at how discourses and practices imagine and enact a “global economy” (Hindess 1998; Thrift 2001) or studies on security in the context

115

“globalities” or “transnationalities” are diaspora practices, i.e. the object or unit of analysis of the present study. But such practices have rarely been addressed from an analytics of government perspective as employed throughout the present study. Rarely does not mean never, so that this study can fortunately build upon insights of previous studies of diaspora practices using the governmentality perspective: Thomas’ study on

“African” diasporas could be mentioned for instance (2009) as well as Fikes’ essay on diasporic practices within the Black Atlantic context (2008), the collection edited by Heath and Mathur on the South Asian diaspora (2010), Ong’s studies on Chinese emigration practices (1999, 2000, 2006), Kunz’s study on Mexican diaspora practices (2010, 2011), Larner’s study on New Zealand diaspora strategies (2007), Ragazzi’s studies on Croatian emigration practices (2009a; 2009; 2010, 2013) or Mullings’

studies on Jamaican diaspora practices (2011a, 2012).

But what is strangely missing in most of these studies – with the possible exceptions of Ong’s and Mulling’s studies – is the aspect of post-colonial governmentality, i.e.

the mentalities of rule that had and possibly still have to draw upon colonial mentalities – be it in continuity or discontinuity to these latter ones. It is even more astonishing, since diaspora practices have initially been approached in the literature with a focus on developing countries where colonial structures are still in place. One of the present study’s aim is to fill this gap by examining two cases of diaspora practices where the post-colonial context seems to be an important criterion for

of the European Union at how a transnational security field has emerged (Bigo 2008). One finally could mention the more theoretically-oriented studies of “international political theory” aiming at uncovering assumptions through which “world orders” came and come into being (Dillon 1995;

Hindess 2000b, 2000a, 2002).

116 present governmentalities, i.e. diaspora practices in the Indian and the Jamaican contexts respectively. The selection of these two cases is thereby motivated by a number of crucial analogies, while not losing out of sight their divergences.

First of all and most importantly is the fact that both the Indian and Jamaican states are situated in a context of post-colonialism, i.e. a context where a large part of the formal government was assumed by a colonial power, i.e. the colonial rule of the British empire. While India gained independence in 1947, Jamaica declared its moment of independence from the British crown in 1962. Both post-colonial states had therefore to deal with remnants of British rule, including the realm of emigration.

It seems thus interesting to explore governmental rationalities, especially neo-liberal ones, in contexts outside North Atlantic situations, such as post-colonial contexts:

“[…] there is a need to disaggregate and historicise how modern forms of governance have proliferated throughout the world. Too many analyses remain based on the assumption that neoliberal globalisation is an Anglo-American project, born in the Thatcherite-Reaganite years, then diffused into the remainder of the world via the activities of the international organisations, think tanks and the like […]. But the trajectories of particular neoliberal techniques should not be taken for granted”

(Larner 2007: 343). The selection of two post-colonial cases is thus an attempt to analyse genealogically how governmental rationalities operate in such contexts, while keeping in mind that the seemingly most recent governmentality, neo-liberalism, has mainly been addressed as a rationality within the “heartlands” of neoliberalism, i.e.

the United States or the United Kingdom.

But similarities between these two cases go further than just with regard to the colonial power. Both were confronted in fact with a similar type of emigrants –

117 although in different historical periods. Jamaican and Indian emigrants left their

“home” country in their majority for economic reasons, more precisely to search for employment possibilities elsewhere than in Jamaica or India respectively. Whether this move was favoured or not by the colonial British empire or by the post-colonial Indian or Jamaican state respectively is not relevant for the purposes here. The fact that both had to deal with a similar type of emigration to engage with is central here.

Linked to the similar type of emigrants is another striking parallel. It concerns the type of emigration policies of both states which is very similar once again. While Ragazzi classifies India under the category of a global nation-state and Jamaica as managed labour state, it still remains that both follow very similar diasporic practices (cf. Ragazzi 2014). Both states use diverse diaspora practices, such as symbolic, bureaucratic, socio-economic and citizenship practices while educational policies are reduced to language and cultural programs. They both have developed special ministries to deal with emigration issues. Gamlen notes similarities between both the Jamaican and Indian diaspora engagement policies, too – although India clearly exposes more developed policies (cf. Gamlen 2006). Both organise diaspora conferences, offer dual nationality and have developed specific knowledge transfer programs – as will be seen in more detail in the analytical chapters of the present study. Both states have thus developed similar diasporic practices, especially since the beginning of the 1980s.

One finally should mention the assumption of the present study that both cases can provide many insights in how transnational subjectivities, identities and hybrid subjects are treated and managed. Both diasporas seem having seen discourses of hybridity as central to the respective political cultures of the “homelands” (cf. for

118 instance Puri 2007: 4). Regarding for instance the Caribbean space more generally speaking, many of its emigrants have had to negotiate their identities in relation to several other actors, both in geographical and ideological terms (cf. also Hall 1996;

Hall and Du Gay 1996): Geographically to actors such as Native America, Africa and Asia (from where most of its inhabitants came), Europe (from where the colonisers came) and the United States of America (the imperial neighbour); Ideologically to the New World, the Third World, the socialist bloc, and one another. On the other hand, the Caribbean diaspora might serve as a potential special case to other diasporic subjectivities, as suggested by discourses of mestizaje, creolisation, douglarisation, jiharismo, and the like. It might therefore suggest that one should be wary of any generalisation about diasporic subjectivity. But one obviously should be aware of some risks associated with the Caribbean diaspora. The Caribbean cannot simply be considered as a geographical region, “[…] but also a region of the imagination and lived cultural experiences: if its inner core sits within and surrounds the Caribbean Sea, its cultural contours spread outwards […]” (Goulbourne and Solomos 2004).

Such similarities should, however, not hide the fact that differences – sometimes even important ones – exist between these two cases.

An important one is for instance the coming into being (or at least the rendering visible) of the Indian and Jamaican emigrants or “diasporas” respectively. Whereas the Indian diaspora is said to exist since a very long time, the Jamaican diaspora can be said to be of much more recent origin.

But it is not just with regard to the time periods that the respective diasporas have existed – or rather come into being –, which differs the two cases, but also with regard

119 to the complexity and the sheer number of the two respective diasporas. While the Indian diaspora is spread all over the world, Jamaican emigrants are largely found in North America (USA and Canada) and the United Kingdom. Numerically speaking, the Indian diaspora is believed to be around twenty-five millions spread all over the world (Chaturvedi 2005; Govinden 2011; Mishra 2005)._ Especially with regard to the USA, the Indian community is said to have earned impressive credentials (Chaturvedi 2005), such as nearly the double median income of American families, around sixty per cent having a higher education, making Indians the largest group of foreign students in the country (Amit Gupta 2004). The socio-economic aspect therefore certainly plays a role, which cannot be neglected when analysing their diasporic subjectivation. The Jamaican diaspora on the other hand is believed to count “just”

about two millions spread mostly in the USA, the UK and Canada._

Still on a quantitative level is the emigration rate, which is calculated in comparison to the total population. While India with its huge population of over one billion has only around one percentage of Indian emigrants, Jamaica with an already relatively small population of nearly three millions has more than one third of its population emigrating, i.e. around 36 per cent. Crucial is the emigration rate of the highly skilled parts of the respective populations, with only around four per cent in the Indian case, but impressive 85 per cent in the Jamaican case (World Bank 2010: 46,138). So, even if both states are confronted with the same economic type of emigration, the profile of the emigrating population differs in important ways. Indian emigrants are in their majority low-skilled (concentrated mainly in the Gulf states), while Jamaican emigrants are largely high-skilled.

120 In short, the Indian and Jamaican cases present many striking parallels, such as similar post-colonial settings with British rule, similar type of emigration, similar emigration policies or similar discourses of “hybrid” subjects. But these cannot hide that important differences exist between the two cases, such as the timing of the process of rendering the respective diasporas visible and the complexities as well as the emigration rates and emigration profiles of the respective emigrant populations. It is in part from this desire to study the immense diversity of existing diasporic practices that both the Indian and the Jamaican cases have been chosen to make them the sites of the present study’s case studies.

The comparative research design41 seems thereby perfectly suited to explore post-colonial governmentalities in more detail, as also implicit in the quotation from Rivett above. It thus will use the case studies to draw parallels or analogies as well as

41 The research design „is a plan for collecting and analysing evidence that will make it possible for the investigator to answer whatever questions he or she has posed. The design of an investigation touches almost all aspects of the research, from the minute details of data collection to the selection of the techniques of data analysis” (Ragin 2010: 191). The most classical difference in social research designs is generally effectuated when opposing quantitative (positivist) to qualitative (interpretivist) methodologies (cf. for instance Corbetta 2003; Creswell 1994), although such an opposition might seem misleading rather than productive. Manuals having gained the status of classics, such as the one produced by Brady and Collier (2010) or King, Keohane and Verba (G. King et al. 1994, 1995) attest to such a conclusion, too. Non-quantitative data and methods are seen as potentially supplementary to positivist research, while quantitative techniques with sophisticated computer software is nowadays used also by interpretivists. Mahoney and Goertz make another distinction between designs assessing causes-of-effects, i.e. estimating the average effect of one or more causes, and designs assessing effects-of-causes, i.e. explaining or understanding in depth how particular effects are produced (Mahoney and Goertz 2006: 230). Ferejohn uses the distinction between externalist and internalist designs to refer to a similar difference: „Externalists explain action by pointing to its causes; internalists explain action by showing it as justified or best from an agent’s perspective. Externalist explanations are positivist and predictive; internalist explanations are normative or hermeneutic. Externalists tend to call themselves political scientists; internalists, political theorists“ (Ferejohn 2004: 146). With an interpretivist epistemology, the present study is situated in research designs termed qualitative, effects-of-causes or internalist (cf. also Pizzorno 2008).

121 differences with regard to the way that different governmental rationalities are observed. It is more precisely with interpretive case studies (cf. Vennesson 2008) that we will proceed.42 Such studies use theoretical frameworks to provide an explanation of particular cases, i.e. the theoretical framework of governmentality to understand the constitution of diasporic practices:

“Case  studies  are  accordingly  chosen  with  an  eye  on  potential   analogies,   parallels   or   points   of   equivalence   that   can   be   drawn,  with  the  aim  of  illuminating  similarities  or  differences,   or   raising   new   questions   that   do   not   offer   themselves   in   isolated  studies.  Critically,  identifying  variables  and  criteria  for   comparison  between  cases  drawn  from  preordained  outcome   can  lead  to  entrenchment  of  teleological  assumptions  into  the   analysis,   in   spite   of   careful   rationales   and   explanations   for   specific  choices.  It  is  in  order  to  account  for  specific,  historical   experiences  that  case  studies  are  chosen”  (Rivett  2014:  6).  

Jamaican and Indian Diaspora Practices

Having seen both the reasons of investigating Indian and Jamaican diaspora practices and the comparative research design to deal with them, what has the literature produced so far on these two cases?

The literature on these cases differs both in quantitative as well as qualitative terms.

42 The study can therefore be said to be situated in the Weberian logic of social sciences – as opposed to the Durkheimian logic (cf. Ragin and Zaret 1983). While the Durkheimian logic would aim at generalising theory in order to single out “external” causes, the Weberian logic would rather aim at reaching concrete knowledge about historical divergence and specific processes by constructing so-called ideal-types as heuristic devices: „[An ideal-type] is no „hypothesis“ but it offers guidance to the construction of hypotheses. It is not a description of the reality but it aims to give unambiguous means of expression to such a description; […] it is an idea, a unified ideal construct, abstracted out of certain features and keeping the essential features“ (Weber 1949 [1904]: 90-2). It is precisely on such a basis of ideal-types of governmental rationalities – as presented in the theoretical chapter –, that this study is moving forward.

122 In the Jamaican context, only a very limited number of studies has analysed diaspora practices. Although some limited research has been conducted on the Jamaican diaspora, their history and their profile (Cooper 1985; Glennie and Chappell 2010;

Insanally and Clifford 2011; Office for National Statistics 2011; Statistics Canada 2006; E. M. Thomas-Hope 1999; U.S. Census Bureau 2011; World Bank 2010), the governmental practices with regard to it has received even less attention. Most relevant seems research conducted by Thomas-Hope (1992, 1999; 2009; 2012), Sives (2012) and Mullings (2011a, 2012). Thomas-Hope for instance is most interested in the return migration of Jamaican emigrants and its impact on [economic] development in Jamaica. She thereby uses mainly an orthodox migration and development approach, as spelled out above, and has therefore little utility, as wider political rationalities or contexts play a secondary role in her accounts. Sives is more useful for the purposes of the present study, since she explores the institutionalisation of the relations between the Jamaican state and its diaspora through a focus on the first diaspora conference in 2004. But her approach – albeit intended to be critical – remains quite superficial, since she employs an institution-centred analysis around the structures set up by the Jamaican government. She is unable to spell out to what extent such structures are part of, or co-constitutive, of wider political rationalities. It is in this context that the studies effectuated by Mullings are most useful. She takes a more critical stance towards the recent Jamaican development strategy turning around diasporas. By using the a priori same theoretical lens as the present study, i.e.

governmentality, she is able to highlight some implications of the current “diaspora option” for development purposes, especially to emphasise the elite nature of Jamaica’s diaspora strategy. She thereby comes close to the understanding of the

123 diaspora practices the present study uses by emphasising the “neoliberal regime of practices”. She focuses on some ways that the Jamaican case spreads and entrenches neoliberalism. But we intend to go a step further than she has done to the extent that we are not simply interested in neo-liberal rationalities, but also in other rationalities’

work within Jamaican diaspora practices. Her approach based exclusively on economic development seems furthermore to hamper a deeper analysis. It is also in these respects that the present study innovates.

Regarding the Indian context, the literature on diaspora practices is much broader than in the Jamaican context. But it rarely offers a critical inquiry into Indian diaspora practices as effectuated for instance by Mullings in the Jamaican context – with the notable exception of Varadarajan (cf. especially2010) and, to a lesser degree, Dickinson and Bailey (2007).

Research on the Indian diaspora, its historical and geographical settlement patterns and its profile are quite well documented, with two waves of Indian emigration corresponding to the pre-independence and post-independence periods respectively (Chanda and Sreenivasan 2006; K. Davis 1951; M. A. Desai et al. 2009; Giri 2001; B.

Khadria et al. 2008; Binod Khadria 2009; MOIA 2010; Singhvi et al. 2001; Vezzoli and Lacroix 2010). While the “old diaspora” of the pre-independence era emigrated mainly to other southern countries, the “new diaspora” after 1947 went – at least for the skilled members among the Indian emigrants – to North America, the United Kingdom and Australia. But the majority of Indian emigrants, i.e. around 80%, were still unskilled or low-skilled labourers going to the Gulf, West and Southeast Asia.

124 Regarding more specifically research on Indian diaspora practices, it is equally existent, although not as numerous as literature on the Indian diaspora. Studies by Castles (2008), Sinha-Kerkhoff and Bal (2003), Lall (2001, 2003), Hercog and Siegel (2010), Dickinson and Bailey (2007) and Varadarajan (2005; 2008, 2010) should be mentioned in this regard. But with the exceptions of Lall, Dickinson and Bailey and Varadarajan’s accounts, these investigations are either of descriptive or of prescriptive nature. They rarely question the practices themselves in a critical way. Hercog and Siegel for instance simply list the different state institutions involved in the management of the Indian diaspora (2010), while Sinha-Kerkhoff and Bal do the

124 Regarding more specifically research on Indian diaspora practices, it is equally existent, although not as numerous as literature on the Indian diaspora. Studies by Castles (2008), Sinha-Kerkhoff and Bal (2003), Lall (2001, 2003), Hercog and Siegel (2010), Dickinson and Bailey (2007) and Varadarajan (2005; 2008, 2010) should be mentioned in this regard. But with the exceptions of Lall, Dickinson and Bailey and Varadarajan’s accounts, these investigations are either of descriptive or of prescriptive nature. They rarely question the practices themselves in a critical way. Hercog and Siegel for instance simply list the different state institutions involved in the management of the Indian diaspora (2010), while Sinha-Kerkhoff and Bal do the

Documents relatifs