Pnina Werbner Analysis

In her article “Global Pathways. Working Class Cosmopolitans and the Creation of Transnational Ethnic Worlds,” Pnina Werbner critiques some of the Eurocentric ideas propagated by immigration scholars. However, in her efforts to do so, Werbner simply continues to perpetuate Eurocentric, hegemonic theories, albeit different theories than the scholars she discusses. In her discussion of the differences between cosmopolitan and transnational/migrant flows of people, Werbner falls into the pitfalls of perpetuating the Eurocentric assignments of agency and blame to certain groups. Her discussions of various migrant groups become problematic in that she fails to significantly acknowledge the aspects of social stereotypes and institutional racism which contribute to the classifications of migrants in the contemporary sphere. Instead, the author continues what appears to be a scholarly trend in the works she herself criticizes by suggesting that migrant groups choose to isolate themselves and distance themselves from the cultures of their host countries. The work of Pnina Werbner, while interesting and in many ways a valid contribution to her field, is problematic in its failure to step outside of the hegemonic narrative in regards to migrant classification.

As a point of introduction to the issue at hand, Werbner gives a short literature review describing the ways in which her colleagues had grouped and defined certain migrant groups, with the intention to then critique these classifications. She begins by discussing Ulf Hannerz, who creates three general groups: cosmopolitans; who mix culturally with others, locals; who are indicative of the more Westphalian classifications of culture and nation, transnationals; who travel frequently ...

... middle of paper ...

...h, in this case, is arguably the fact that multilingualism and multiculturalism are seen as a blessing for some, and a curse for others. It seems patently unfair and irresponsible to use this academic platform to theoretically assign migrant groups an amount of agency they have never practically achieved, and them simultaneously use this newly granted agency to place the blame for divides between the cosmopolitan and the transnational/migrant-worker upon the working-class migrants themselves. While I would by no means suggest that Werbner intentionally participates in the Eurocentric trend of academia, particularly considering her very international history and range of research, it is perhaps the broader field which has yet to move far enough away from the traditional narrative of migration to truly address the issues which face our increasingly globalizing world.