ATTENTION: The software behind KU ScholarWorks is being upgraded to a new version. Starting July 15th, users will not be able to log in to the system, add items, nor make any changes until the new version is in place at the end of July. Searching for articles and opening files will continue to work while the system is being updated. If you have any questions, please contact Marianne Reed at mreed@ku.edu .

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorLee, Hsiang-Chieh
dc.date.accessioned2010-01-13T16:03:19Z
dc.date.available2010-01-13T16:03:19Z
dc.date.issued2008-01-01
dc.identifier.citationSocial Thought and Research, Volume 29 (2008), pp. 49-73 http://dx.doi.org/10.17161/STR.1808.5691
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1808/5691
dc.description.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.
dc.language.isoen_US
dc.publisherDepartment of Sociology, University of Kansas
dc.titleFlexible Acculturation
dc.typeArticle
dc.identifier.doi10.17161/STR.1808.5691
dc.rights.accessrightsopenAccess


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record