Flexible Acculturation

Abstract

“Flexibility” has become an important concept in studies of globalization and transnationalism. Most academic discussions fall into the literature of global capitalist restructuring: e.g., Piore and Sabel’s (1984) notion of flexible specialization and David Harvey’s concept (1991) of flexible accumulation. These discussions are centered on economic production and market logics. Theoretical discussions of flexibility about other regimes of power — such as cultural reproduction, the nation-state and family — are relatively insufficient. In this paper, I explore the concept of “flexible acculturation,” first proposed by Jan Nederveen-Pieterse (2007), to show a cultural aspect of transnational flexibility. I situate my discussion in the literature of transmigration studies and define flexible acculturation as having four important virtues: (1) it has diverse social players, rather than just political and economic elites; (2) it refers to interactions, not just differences; (3) it involves multiple processes; and (4) it is not just about agency but also about social regulations. These definitions help to explain why flexible acculturation is different from other concepts that have been proposed. I further argue that definitions of important social actors are contingent on a specific set of flexible acculturation processes. Social actors discussed in this paper include governments, the public, transmigrants, and women.