Wimmer and Schiller’s analysis on Methodological Nationalism provided a very interesting read, and I was interested in the role the social sciences played in developing this methodological nationalism, and the effects it had on the way migration was understood and viewed.
The differentiation between the differing periods of migration and the nation state – from 1870 all the way to the Cold War and post Cold War period were very intriguing. The way migration, and the existence of migrants in these developing ‘nation states,’ changed throughout the late 19th and early 20th century was surprising. E.G Ravenstein’s analysis on migration in the late 19th century showed that at this point many didn’t differentiate between internal and international migration. Due to there being less emphasis on the power of the nation state at this point, the movement of people into new territories was not defined by borders, but simply by movements to new areas. I feel this holds relevance to the modern day, where any form of migration is simply defined by the borderland, and less by culture. There is so much emphasis on people moving beyond ‘nation states’ – a philosophy that we ourselves created. Whilst an individual moving from London, to Shetland, would not be seen as a migrant, they would be moving into a totally different culture, yet wouldn’t be viewed as a migrant.
Moreover, it was eye opening how quickly the world forgot about the free labour systems pre–World War 1, and that the further development and entrenchment of nation states globally meant the world of free movement was quickly forgotten. Immigrants went from being valuable to cyclical employment, to perceived as a threat, in a world where suddenly everybody had to belong to ‘somewhere.’ The very cultures that had been developed by the transnationality of the past, were now threatened by it.