1

AN ANTHROPOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DIASPORA MISSIOLOGY

Dr. Steven Ybarrola

Professor of Cultural Anthropology

Asbury Theological Seminary

In 1898 my grandfather, Martín Ibarrola, left his small village located in the Pyrenees

mountains north of Pamplona and migrated to the United States. Like so many immigrants

before and after him, Martín entered the United States through Ellis Island, but soon thereafter

made his way across the country to California. After working several years for others, he

eventually settled in the north-central part of Montana where, like many other Basques, he set up

and ran a sheep ranch. In his early 40s he met and married Mary Kiwimagi (by then the name

had been shortened to Kiwi), whose family had their own story of migration from Estonia to the

Crimea, and eventually to North America.

From this seemingly simple and rather common story of migration to the United States

there arise a number of questions that have been the focus of research by anthropologists. For

example, why did Martín emigrate in the first place (i.e., what were the sociocultural factors that

affected his choice to leave his natal village)? Why did he come to the United States (i.e., what

were the factors that led him specifically to the U.S.)? What were the conditions like in the host

country when he arrived (i.e., how were immigrants viewed by the broader society at that time)?

Why did he travel to California after arriving (i.e., was there a Basque community that he

became a part of)? Why did he get involved in the sheep industry (i.e., was there an economic

niche that Basques typically filled)? Why did he end up marrying an Estonian rather than a

Basque woman (i.e., what were the sociocultural conditions that would lead to, or allow, this

type of intermarriage)? How did the experiences of subsequent generations of his family differ

from his own (i.e., to what degree did they integrate or assimilate into the broader American

2

society)? To what extent did he maintain contact with his family back in the Basque village (i.e.,

to what degree were there transnational ties)?

What the foregoing illustrates is that issues related to immigration have been, and

continue to be, the focus of much anthropological research and theorizing. In this paper I will

briefly trace the history of anthropology’s focus on immigration and migrant communities,

leading up to its current interest in migrant diasporas and transnationalism. I will then discuss a

few ways in which anthropology can assist us in researching and better understanding different

aspects of diaspora missiology. Finally, I will argue that diaspora missiology opens up a new

possibility of cooperation between anthropology and missiology, thereby lessening the historic

gap and animosity between the two disciplines.

ANTHROPOLOGY AND THE STUDY OF IMMIGRANT POPULATIONS

Franz Boas, the “father” of American anthropology, was himself a German Jewish

immigrant to the United States, which no doubt contributed to his research interest in the issue of

“race” with regard to recent immigrants to the U.S. Although Boas’ migration to the States

predated the overt racism of Germany’s Third Reich and its policy of Jewish extermination (he

took his first teaching position in the States in 1888), the context he arrived in his host society

was one of “scientific racialism”—that is, it was believed to be scientifically “proven” that race

was real, deterministic, and that a clear racial hierarchy existed, with Whites at the top and

Blacks at the bottom (see Lieberman 2003 and Hiebert Menses 2007). Boas’ research on

immigrants challenged the then dominant racialist view, and strongly argued against the

presumed racial inferiority of migrants, like my grandfather, who were coming from southern

and eastern Europe (as well as other parts of the world).

3

Although Boas had conducted cutting-edge research on immigrants to the United States,

his students showed less of an interest in this topic. Most of them either got into “salvage

anthropology” (i.e., conducting largely ethnohistorical research among Native American

groups—Boas himself had conducted such research among the Kwakiutl of the northwest coast

of North America) or were developing the field of culture and personality (e.g., Margaret Mead

and Ruth Benedict). However, beginning in the 1940s the Manchester School of social

anthropology in the U.K. took the lead in studies of immigration, urbanization, and ethnicity.

Focusing primarily on the Copperbelt of Zambia (then Northern Rhodesia), anthropologists such

as Max Gluckman, Abner Cohen, A. L. Epstein, J. Clyde Mitchell, and Edward Bruner produced

articles and manuscripts that would have a lasting impact on the study of immigration within

anthropology.

In the United States, sociologists from the University of Chicago and other nearby

universities, in what would come to be called the Chicago School, were conducting research on

various aspects of immigrant adaptation in the city of Chicago as early as the 1920s (Bulmer

1984). However, it would be the work of two other sociologists, one a future U.S. senator, that

challenged the dominant assimilationist view of immigrant adaptation, and helped usher in the

study of ethnic groups in the country. In 1963 Nathan Glazer and Patrick Moynihan published

their book Beyond the Melting Pot, which called into question that most cherished American

assimilationist metaphor. Though strictly a study of ethnicity maintenance and ethnic enclaves in

New York City, their analysis had a much broader application, and in some ways helped to

initiate the study of ethnicity maintenance among “white” ethnic groups (cf. Greeley 1969,

Novak 1973). For our purposes, Glazer and Moynihan’s study was also important because it

focused on ethnic enclaves, many of which we would today refer to as diasporas.

4

In contexts outside the United States anthropologists were growing in their awareness of

the role ethnicity played in social organization, boundary formation, and intergroup relations.

The anthropologist Clifford Geertz recognized early on the impact of ethnicity in the nation-

building process taking place in many newly independent countries following colonialism, using

the phrase “primordial sentiments” to depict the power of these ethnic allegiances (Geertz 1963).

In 1969, Fredrik Barth published his very influential book Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The

Social Organization of Cultural Difference, in which he made the astute observation that “The

critical focus of investigation…becomes the ethnic boundary that defines the group, not the

cultural stuff that it encloses” (1969, 15). In 1974 Urban Ethnicity was published with

contributions from several of the Manchester School as well as others who were doing research

on immigration, urbanization, ethnicity maintenance, and identity transformation. Thus

established as an important new focus of anthropological research and writing, the study of

ethnicity continued to grow throughout the 1970s and 1980s, producing a plethora of

anthropological, as well as other social scientific, analyses.

From Ethnic Groups to Diasporas and Transnationalism

One of the criticisms of the anthropological work on ethnicity during the 1970s and

1980s is that there was a tendency to view ethnic groups as clearly defined and well-bounded,

which led too often to studying such groups in isolation rather than in interaction with other

groups and individuals. As Steven Vertovec puts it, “…when the anthropology of ethnicity was

most thriving around the 1980s, the field was usually comprised of studies of identity and social

organization among one or another distinct ethnic group within a particular multi-ethnic (or post-

migration, ethnic majority-minority) setting…” (2007, 966). This started to change, however, in

5

the late 1980s and early 1990s when anthropologists began to study not only the broader

sociocultural context in which members of ethnic groups interacted, but also the ties that many of

these groups maintained with their home communities. During this period a focus on diasporas

and transnationalism developed within the anthropological study of ethnicity and migration that

was largely based on the processes of globalization (e.g., more advanced and accessible

communications; ease and affordability of travel; the flow of capital across borders; indeed, the

efficacy of borders themselves in controlling the flow of migration and capital) (See, for

example, Glick Schiller, Basch, and Blanc-Szanton 1992; Clifford 1994; Kearney 1995, Cohen

1996; Brettell 2002; and Horevitz 2009).

While there is no consensus within anthropology (or missiology) as to what exactly

constitutes a diaspora, or how the current focus on diasporas and transnationalism differs from

studies of ethnic groups in the past, Lewellen argues that the minimal characteristics that

differentiate diasporas from migration in general are the “…dispersion from some center to two

or more territories, an enduring but not necessarily permanent resettlement abroad, and a sense of

common cultural identity among the scattered populations.” He continues,

It is the homeland, rather than simply economic interest or kinship networks, that forms

the basis for long-term group identity, that sets this people off from other ethnic groups,

and that helps form a transnational “imagined community” among people that have never

met (2002, 162).

In the anthropological literature, diasporas and transnationalism are intimately related.

Vertovec clearly articulates this connection:

The meaning of transnationalism which has perhaps been gaining most attention among

sociologists and anthropologists has to do with a kind of social formation spanning

6

borders. Ethnic diasporas—what Kachig Tololyan (1991, p.5) has called “the exemplary

communities of the transnational moment”—have become the paradigm in this

understanding of transnationalism.

…[D]ispersed diasporas of old have become today’s “transnational communities”

sustained by a range of modes of social organization, mobility and communication

(Vertovec 1999, 449).

Reflecting the growing interest in diasporas among anthropologists, a cursory search of

the program of the 2010 American Anthropological Association’s annual meeting revealed that

approximately 150 papers, and 14 entire sessions, dealt with diasporas. Looking at the titles of

some of these papers and sessions helps us to see the variety of interest anthropologists have in

the phenomenon. Here is a small sampling:

� South Asian Indian Americans protesting the use of the image of Gandhi in a

fitness routine in the men’s magazine Maxim.

� The impact of the downturn of the U.S. economy on the flow of capital from the

Bosnian diaspora in Chicago to relatives in Bosnia Herzegovina.

� Examining the impact of social media by the diaspora on the Iranian protests

following the contested elections of 2009.

� The complex role played by hip hop music in mediating contact and mobilizing

images and ideas across different communities in Africa and the African

Diaspora, especially in the US.

� Constructing “Hmong-ness” in diaspora.

� Asian American fashion designers in China.

� Diasporic return, belonging and repatriation.

7

� Making, unmaking, and remaking of community.

� The use of media in the construction of social identities among youth in diaspora.

� The elusiveness of boundaries in our globalized and transnational world.

� My favorite: “Basque-ing in play: games and song in revitalizing Basque in the

diaspora.”

We can see that anthropologists are interested in issues of identity, language maintenance, global

impact on economic flows of capital, media, the arts, reintegration of individuals upon their

return “home”, community development and change, and the use of social media by those in

diaspora to affect change at home. The link between diasporas, social media, and revolution at

home has become much more evident in light of the recent anti-government movements in North

Africa and throughout much of the Middle East. (Reflecting this, one family in Egypt named

their daughter “Facebook.” I hope it sounds better in Arabic).

HOW ANTHROPOLOGY CAN CONTRIBUTE TO

THE STUDY OF DIASPORA MISSIOLOGY

A key contribution anthropology can make to diaspora missiology is to apply the

analytical tools it has developed through its many years of interest in the migratory movements

of people to the current manifestations of diaspora communities. In a recent article in Missiology,

the Christian anthropologist Miriam Adeney applies the anthropological concepts of liminality,

cultural identity, and power relations to the analysis of Christian diaspora communities in the

U.S. These seem to me to provide a good framework in which to discuss several key issues

related to the anthropological contribution to diaspora missiology.

8

Liminality

Liminality has to do with the sense of being in-between, of living in a “hyphenated

space” (see Thomassen 2009, van Gennep 1960, Turner 1967). While liminality may at times be

psychologically stressful and limiting (a person being neither/nor), it can also be used to develop

the ability to “make connections across borders” (both/and). In a globalized world, having

intercultural competency can be a great advantage for the furtherance of the Kingdom, and those

experiencing liminality as immigrants in a new land may have a greater opportunity to develop

this competency than those in the host society that have not experienced such in-betweenness

(Adeney 2011; see also Levitt 2009). Perhaps no one has better articulated this “theology of

marginality” than the Korean immigrant and theologian Jung Young Lee (1995). According to

Lee, the O.T. patriarchs, the Children of Israel, the disciples, and Jesus himself lived lives of

marginality, and therefore to be followers of Christ the church needs to see itself as being in a

liminal state—in-between and marginalized.

Liminality can also make people more receptive to the gospel as they have been

“uprooted” from their home culture and social structure. In the Basque Country of Spain, where I

have conducted most of my research, the evangelical churches until recently were populated

primarily with people who had migrated there from other parts of Spain, and their descendants.

In contrast, there are very few ethnic Basques in those churches (see Ybarrola 2009).

Additionally, studies of non-Christian diaspora religious communities in the United States

indicate that these communities tend to be more ecumenical than in their home context (Smart

1987). People in this liminal state are certainly affected by acts of love and kindness from those

in the host society. In this vein, the Christian anthropologist Brian Howell recently has called the

American church to reach out to these diaspora communities with “radical hospitality,

9

compassion, and justice” where the church extends “material, legal, and social support to

vulnerable members of North American society, proclaiming the gospel in a context of

relationships of mutuality and engagement” (Howell 2011, 82, referring to the work of Conroy

2010).

Cultural Identity

Immigrant churches in North America often serve not only a religious function, but a

social one as well. It’s not unusual, for example, to find non-Christian Koreans attending church

functions as a way to socialize with their compatriots. In such an environment they can speak

their native language, experience Korean customs (such as food), and be with a people they

identify with ethnically, if not religiously. George Hunter refers to this as belonging before

believing (1992). But what of the 1.5 and 2nd

generation Koreans? These are the ones with the

hyphenated (or hybrid) identities—Korean-AMERICAN. The hyphenation reflects, once again,

their liminal status, where they may in some contexts be accepted as neither Korean nor

American, both Korean and American, not American but Korean, or not Korean but American.

Some studies have indicated that whereas Korean immigrants have been pretty successful in

passing their Protestant beliefs and practices to their children, they have been less successful in

transmitting their Korean cultural traditions to the succeeding generations (e.g., Min and Kim

2005). In her review of the book Religion and Spirituality in Korean America, Kate Bowler, of

Duke Divinity School, states, “Second-generation Korean American Christians are forging new

connections between their generational, ethnic, and religious identities. In short, they find new

ways to be all three: Koreans, Americans, Christians” (Bowler 2009).

10

But what of those Christian diasporas that migrate to be intentionally missional, what has

been referred to as “reverse mission” (or in Andrew Walls’ terminology, the Great Reverse

Migration [2008])? What will happen with the 1.5 and 2nd

generation Nigerian-American

Pentecostals in Atlanta (Udotong 2010*)? Will these individuals use their liminal status to build

bridges between their Nigerian and American communities for the furtherance of the gospel?

Will they be more widely accepted in American society than their immigrant ancestors? Or will

they succumb to the secularizing influences of the dominant American society?

The transnational character of the newer diasporas also affects cultural identity. Since

many diasporas are maintaining strong ties to their “home” communities, identity is constructed

and negotiated based on the multi-localities in which these transnationals live. Vertovec states,

However termed, the multi-local life-world presents a wider, even more complex set of

conditions that affect the construction, negotiation and reproduction of social

identities. These identities play out and position individuals in the course of

their everyday lives within and across each of their places of attachment or

perceived belonging (2001, 578).

How do these transnational ties affect the adaptation and incorporation of Christian diasporas

into the host country and community? How does it affect their contextualizing of the gospel in

their new cultural surroundings? In some ways, “reverse mission” may suffer from some of the

same problems as mission from the West—too strong of an identity with, and influence from, the

home church or mission organization, which keeps the mission effort from being more effective

as it is viewed as something foreign in the new context. Udotong’s recent study of Nigerian

Pentecostals in Atlanta seems to indicate that this is a problem those churches are facing, which

is one of the factors that has limited them thus far to serving almost exclusively Nigerians in the

11

area (2010). A challenge for Christians in diaspora, especially those who are intentionally

missional, is to maintain the vision and zeal they bring with them to evangelize the West,

something that the continual infusion and support of their home churches and communities can

facilitate, while at the same time adapting their church forms, worship styles, and even theology

to the cultural context in which they find themselves.

Power

“To the themes of liminality and cultural identity must be added the theme of power.

Multiculturalism is not a level playing field” (Adeney 2011, 13). Immigrants and diaspora

communities must understand the historical and sociocultural context they are entering, and

power dynamics are one of the keys to this understanding. All cultures have ways of categorizing

humans into different groups, and then assigning meaning to those groups. In the United States,

the ideology of race has had a profound impact on intergroup and interpersonal relations. By the

“ideology of race” I mean “a way of thinking about, speaking about, and organizing relations

among and within human groups” (Scupin 2002, 12). As Emerson and Smith put it,

In the post-Civil Rights United States, the racialized society is one in which intermarriage

rates are low, residential separation and socioeconomic inequality are the norm, our

definitions of personal identity and our choices of intimate associations reveal racial

distinctiveness, and where “we are never unaware of the race of a person with whom we

interact.” In short, and this is its unchanging essence, a racialized society is a society

wherein race matters profoundly for differences in life experiences, life opportunities,

and social relationships (2000, 7).

12

As immigrants arrive in the United States, and as diaspora communities form, they will be

defined through this racial lens, which will impact their opportunities in the country both on the

macro and micro levels.

Although as a country we are all affected by this racialization, different segments of the

population will interpret immigrant communities in different ways. Elsewhere I have written

about the influence of social ideologies in interpreting the immigrant “Other” (Ybarrola 2009,

2011). These ideologies, as I use the term, are “schematic images of the social order” that are

“most distinctly, maps of problematic social reality and matrices for the creation of collective

conscience” (Geertz 1973, 218, 220). In the United States, the two dominant social ideologies

that affect the way we “see” the immigrant Other are the melting pot and multiculturalism. The

former is assimilationist in nature, and therefore is concerned whenever immigrants come in

large numbers as they may not be able to assimilate and will overwhelm “American” society and

culture. The latter tends to see America as a mosaic of many cultures, and therefore immigrants

are not a threat, but rather contribute to, and even reinforce, American values. As Adeney puts it,

injecting a theological argument reflecting this second ideology, “Like a mosaic, like the design

of a kaleidoscope, the whole spectrum of cultures enriches God’s world. They also enrich our

nation” (2011, 11). Immigrants and diasporas in the United States today should be cognizant of

these different ideologies (overly simplified here) as they will affect the way different segments

of the society view them, as well as social policies concerning them.

Transnationalism also has an impact on power dynamics. For example, to what extent are

diaspora Christian churches, especially those practicing “reverse mission”, still governed and

directed by the churches or organizations back “home”? How might this impact their

effectiveness on the local level? How might it provide encouragement and support to these

13

communities as they negotiate their position in our racialized society? What are the networks

within the United States in which these Christian communities participate? How is power

distributed in such networks, and how much autonomy do the local congregations have? What

are the goods and services that flow back and forth between “home” and the diaspora

communities, as well as between different nodes of the network within the host country? So, in

examining power dynamics we must look both at the external relationship between the diaspora

and the host society as well as the internal one between the local congregation and its

home/networks.

Another area to explore regarding power dynamics is the impact Christian diaspora

communities have on the already established local churches. Here I’ll use the situation in the

Basque Country of Spain to illustrate this point. As I indicated earlier, traditionally the small

evangelical churches in the Basque Country were made up primarily of people who had migrated

to the Basque Country from other parts of Spain, and their descendants (see Ybarrola 2009). On

a visit there in 2001 I began noticing a few Latin Americans in the congregations (as well as in

the general society). In 2004, the number was larger, but they still represented a minority in the

churches. When I returned in 2009 I was amazed at the impact these Latin Americans were

having on these local congregations. For example, the church we attend while there, located in

the provincial capital of Donostia (San Sebastián), is one of the larger churches in the region.

When I attended their worship service in 2009, at least 90 percent of the congregation was made

up of Latin Americans (primarily from Colombia and Ecuador). However, not only had Latin

Americans entered the church, but the indigenous population had left (to where, I don’t yet

know). The leadership in the church is still indigenous, but the immigrants are taking on more

responsibility.

14

The Latin Americans also bring different forms of Christianity with them. Most are from

Pentecostal backgrounds, but the churches in the Basque Country are not primarily Pentecostal;

the church we attend is based on the Brethren style of worship. The pastor of the church has had

to give a series of lectures to the Latin Americans about how they should comport themselves

during the worship service—e.g., only one person should pray at a time, and the others can pray

along in their heads, but not verbally, as was the custom of many of the immigrants. A

missionary there told me that he overheard one of the Latin American’s say to another that they

were just biding their time until they could take over the church.

The Latin Americans are also beginning to form their own diaspora churches. So far this

has mainly been limited to the Brazilians, who have had pastors/missionaries come from Brazil

to start what are essentially (at least at this point) diaspora congregations. A pastor from another

church in the Basque Country told me that when one of these pastors/missionaries arrived his

church lost 20 of its Brazilian members who left to become part of the Brazilian diaspora church.

When I spoke with one of these Brazilian pastors/missionaries, he told me that he was not there

just to minister to the Brazilians in diaspora, but also to reach out to the broader society.

However, like many of the “reverse mission” churches in the U.S., so far the church has not had

much of a local impact beyond the Brazilians.

As the Basque case illustrates, Christian diaspora communities can have a profound

impact on local congregations, especially in a context where those churches are relatively small

to begin with. In the Basque Country, the power may still be in the hands of the indigenous

leaders for the time being, but if the Latin Americans end up staying for a longer period of time,

it is likely that they will eventually move into leadership positions in these churches, and/or, as

has already begun to happen, form their own diaspora congregations. Ironically, although none

15

of the churches in the Basque Country have a worship service in the Basque language (reflecting

their “Spanish” cultural identity), because of the influx of immigrants from Ecuador there is now

a Monday evening service in the Donostia church in Quechua!

A NEW PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN ANTHROPOLOGY AND MISSIOLOGY

Christian anthropologists and missiologists have long seen in the sub-discipline of

applied anthropology an important link between anthropology and missiology (see Luzbetak

1961 for an early connection between the two). I believe the study of diaspora missiology

provides us with another field in which we can see a potential partnership between the two

disciplines. Part of this can be attributed to the relatively recent, and growing, field of the

anthropology of Christianity (Haynes and Robbins 2008), which has produced some very good

ethnographic works on various aspects of the relationship between Christianity and

culture/society. In some ways it was inevitable that this focus of anthropological research would

develop given the unprecedented growth of Christianity in the Majority World, which could no

longer be explained away as simply the vestige of Western colonialism.

Recent years have witnessed an increased interest and attention being paid by

anthropologists to religious diaspora communities, and especially those that are Christian.

Indeed, two of the leading figures in the anthropological study of diasporas and transnationalism,

Nina Glick Schiller and Peggy Levitt, have both recently published articles that study

Christianity among diasporic and transnational communities. Glick Schiller’s article examines

“born again Christianity as a means of migrant incorporation locally and transnationally” in two

communities—one in the United States and the other in Germany (Glick Schiller, Caglar, and

Guldbrandsen 2006, 612). Levitt’s article “redefines the boundaries of belonging” by examining

16

the transnational nature of religious institutional ties, using Catholics and Protestants, among

others, as case studies (Levitt 2004; see also Levitt 2007).

At the last American Anthropological Association’s annual meeting (November 2010)

papers were given on such topics as transnationalism and national politics among Lebanese

Christians in Senegal; Iraqi Christian culture makers in the United States; multilingualism,

translation, and authority among the Coptic Orthodox diaspora; and how religious identity,

including Catholicism and Charismatic Christianity, becomes transformed in the Maya diaspora.

At the same meetings the year before I attended several sessions where papers were given on

Christianity among diaspora populations, including those who were being intentionally

missional. Upon leaving those meetings, as well as after conversations with some of the

presenters, I was struck with the fact that many of our students at Asbury Seminary could have

presented papers that would have fit quite easily into these sessions, and been received very well.

Reflecting this convergence of interest between anthropology and missiology, two of the

leading journals representing each of these disciplines, Ethnic and Racial Studies (March 2011)

and Missiology (January 2011), dedicated their latest issues to the topic of diasporas and

transnationalism. Hopefully a new partnership is in the making.

CONCLUSION

As we have seen, anthropology has a long history with the study of migration,

urbanization, ethnicity, and identity that has, in more recent years, developed into the study of

diasporas and transnationalism. As a result, there is a great deal the discipline has to offer to the

even more recent field of diaspora missiology. In this presentation I have used the three

anthropological concepts employed by Adeney in her analysis of Christian diasporas—

17

liminality, cultural identity, and power relations—but many more anthropological concepts and

theories could be utilized to better study and understand the various issues associated with

diaspora missiology.

However, we must proceed with the study of diasporas with caution. As I previously

mentioned, the concept of diaspora is not well-defined in anthropology or missiology, and this is

both a weakness and a strength. The weakness is that it becomes too broadly defined, thereby

losing some of its analytical power. In this regard, what Vertovec (2001, 576) observed

concerning transnationalism applies as well to the study of diasporas; it is “a notion that has

become over-used to describe too wide a range of phenomena.” But the answer to this criticism

is not to try and narrowly define diasporas, nor to make such a definition too complex. As

Rynkiewich has noted, citing the work of Dufoix (2008), “some definitions are too broad,

including all migration and settlement as examples of the phenomenon. Some definitions are

complex and, perhaps, include too much, thus eliminating some cases that we might want to

consider with the Diaspora model” (Rynkiewich 2011, npn). There is work to be done here, but

whatever definition or typologies we settle on, we must avoid trying to put too firm a boundary

around diaspora communities (i.e., essentializing their identities), seeing them rather as dynamic

and changing communities interacting in complex sociocultural contexts in the host society as

well as back home.

Let me end by returning to the immigration of my grandfather. At the turn of the 20th

century he left a tiny village in the Pyrenees mountains and made his way to the United States,

arriving first in New York, then traveling to California, where he joined the Basque diaspora

there. In many cities in California, as well as Nevada and Idaho, Basques established diaspora

enclaves, with their own hotels, boarding houses, and restaurants. In my grandfather’s later years

18

my father would drop him off downtown where he would spend the day speaking Basque, eating

Basque food, and playing Basque card games. Like so many then as well as today, the diaspora

provided him with a home away from home.

19

REFERENCES

Adeney, Miriam

2011 “Colorful Initiatives: North American Diasporas in Mission.” Missiology,

XXXIX(1):5-23.

Barth, Fredrik

1969 “Introduction.” In Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organization of

Culture Difference, ed. Fredrik Barth, 9-38. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.

Bowler, Kate

2009 “Generation K: Korean American Evangelicals.” Books and Culture, May/June.

Retrieved February 27, 2011 online:

http://www.booksandculture.com/articles/2009/mayjun/generationk.html.

Brettell, Caroline

2002 “Migrants and Transmigrants, Borders and Identity: Anthropology and the New

Immigration.” Reviews in Anthropology, 31: 277-289.

Bulmer, Martin

1984 The Chicago School of Sociology: Institutionalization, Diversity, and the Rise of

Sociological Research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Clifford, James

1994 “Diasporas.” Cultural Anthropology, 9(3): 302-338.

Cohen, Abner, ed.

1974 Urban Ethnicity. New York: Tavistock Publications.

Cohen, Robin

1996 “Diasporas and the Nation-State: From Victims to Challengers.” International

Affairs, 72(3): 507-520.

Conroy, Phillip

2010 “A Biblical Missiology for North American People Groups.” Retrieved February

27, 2011 online: http://staging.namb.net/nambpb.aspx?pageid=8589967111.

Dufoix, Stephane

2008 Diasporas. University of California Press.

Emerson, Michael, and Christian Smith

2000 Divided by Faith: Evangelical Religion and the Problem of Race in America. New

York: Oxford University Press.

20

Geertz, Clifford

1963 “The Integrative Revolution: Primordial Sentiments and Civil Politics in the New

States.” In, Old Societies and New States: The Quest for Modernity in Asia and

Africa, 105-57. New York: The Free Press.

_____

1973 “Ideology As a Cultural System.” In The Interpretation of Cultures, 193-233. New

York: Basic Books.

Greeley, Andrew

1969 Why Can't They Be Like Us? New York: Institute of Human Relations Press.

Glick Schiller, Nina, Linda Basch and Christina Blanc-Szanton

1992 “Transnationalism: A New Analytic Framework for Understanding Migration.”

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 645: 1-24.

Glick Schiller, Nina, Ayse Caglar, and Thaddeus Guldbrandsen

2006 “Beyond the Ethnic Lens: Locality, Globality, and Born-Again Incorporation.”

American Ethnologist, 33(4): 612-633.

Haynes, Naomi, and Joel Robbins

2008 “The Anthropology of Christianity.” Religion Compass, 2(6): 1139-1158.

Hiebert Menses, Eloise

2007 “Science and the Myth of Biological Race.” In, This Side of Heaven: Race,

Ethnicity, and the Christian Faith, eds. Robert Priest and Alvaro Nieves, 33-46.

New York: Oxford University Press.

Horevitz, Elizabeth

2009 “Understanding the Anthropology of Immigration and Migration.” Journal of

Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 19: 745-758.

Howell, Brian

2011 “Multiculturalism, Immigration and the North American Church: Rethinking

Contextualization.” Missiology, XXXIX(1):79-85.

Hunter, George G.

1992 How to Reach Secular People. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press.

Kearney, Michael

1995 “The Local and the Global: The Anthropology of Globalization and

Transnationalism.” Annual Review of Anthropology, 24: 547-565.

Lee, Jung Young

1995 Marginality: The Key To Multicultural Theology. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

21

Levitt, Peggy

2004 “Redefining the Boundaries of Belonging: The Institutional Character of

Transnational Religious Life.” Sociology of Religion, 65(1): 1-18.

_____

2007 God Needs No Passport: How Immigrants are Changing the American

Religious Landscape. New York: The New Press.

_____

2009 “Roots and Routes: Understanding the Lives of the Second Generation

Transnationally.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 35(7): 125-1242.

Lewellen, Ted

2002 The Anthropology of Globalization: Cultural Anthropology Enters the 21st Century.

Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.

Lieberman, Leonard

2003 “A History of ‘Scientific’ Racialism.” In, Race and Ethnicity: An Anthropological

Focus on the United States and the World, ed. Raymond Scupin, 36-66. New York:

Prentice Hall.

Luzbetak, Louis

1961 “Toward an Applied Missionary Anthropology.” Anthropological Quarterly, 34(4).

Min, Pyong Gap, and Dae Young Kim,

2005 “Intergenerational Transmission of Religion and Culture: Korean Protestants in the

U.S. Sociology of Religion, 66(3): 263-282.

Novak, Michael

1973 The Rise of the Unmeltable Ethnics. New York: MacMillan.

Rynkiewich, Michael

nd “Afterword: Pacific Islands Diaspora Studies.”

Scupin, Raymond

2003 “The Anthropology of Race and Ethnicity.” In, Race and Ethnicity: An

Anthropological Focus on the United States and the World, ed. Raymond Scupin, 1-

9. New York: Prentice Hall.

Smart, Ninian

1987 “The Importance of Diasporas.” In Gilgul: Essays on Transformation, Revolution

and Permanence in the History of Religions, eds. S. Shaked, D. Shulman, and G.G.

Stroumsa, 288-297. Leiden: E.J. Brill.

22

Thomassen, B.

2009 “The Uses and Meanings of Liminality.” International Political Anthropology, 2(1):

5-27.

Tololyan, Kachig

1991 “The Nation-State and Its Others: In Lieu of a Preface.” Diaspora, 1: 3-7.

Turner, Victor

1967 “Betwixt and Between: The Liminal Period in Rites de Passage.” In The Forest of

Symbols, 93-111. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Udotong, William

2010 Transnational Migration and the Reverse Mission of Nigerian-Led Pentecostal

Churches in the U.S.A: A Case Study of Selected Churches in Metro Atlanta.

Dissertation, Asbury Theological Seminary.

van Gennep, Arnold.

1960 The Rites of Passage. Chicago: University of Chicago.

Vertovec, Steven

1999 “Conceiving and Researching Transnationalism.” Ethnic and Racial Studies, 22(2):

447-462.

_____

2001 “Transnationalism and Identity.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 27(4):

573-582.

_____

2007 “Introduction: New Directions in the Anthropology of Migration and

Multiculturalism.” Ethnic and Racial Studies, 30(6): 961-978.

Walls, Andrew

2008 “Afterword: Christian Mission in a Five-Hundred-Year Context.” In Mission in the

21st Century: Exploring the Five Marks of Global Mission, eds. Andrew Walls and

Cathy Ross. 193-204. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.

Ybarrola, Steven

2009 “Identity Matters: Christianity and Ethnic Identity in the Peninsular Basque

Country.” In Power and Identity in the Global Church: Six Contemporary Cases,

eds. Brian Howell and Edwin Zehner, Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library.

_____

2011 Enemies and Allies, Strangers and Friends: Immigration and Identity in the

Peninsular Basque Country, currently being reviewed by the Center for Basque

Studies, University of Nevada, Reno.