Incongruous Transnational Lives: New York

  • Caroline PlüssEmail author


This chapter analyzes the transnational lives of 22 Chinese Singaporeans who lived and were researched in New York City in 2009. These lives spanned the United States, Singapore, and possibly other western and/or asian societies. The chapter shows that unlike the participants in London, the New York participants assessed that their past transnational education contexts foremost were not hybrid, but more strongly were characterized by incongruities, stemming from experiencing high cultural differences or distance. Next, are explanations of the reasons why the New York participants’ transnational work socialities were highly diverse, and why the New York participants saw both advantages and disadvantages with working in New York (or more broadly in the West), and/or in Singapore (and possibly other places in Asia). Then, this chapter discusses the finding that the New York participants’ transnational family socialities also often were incongruous, and to a lower extent homogenous. Next, this chapter comments on the high degrees of ruptures and disjuncture in the New York participants’ transnational friendships/lifestyle socialities, and shows that these incongruities impinged upon, or intersected with incongruities in the transnational family socialities of the Chinese Singaporeans in New York.


  1. Anthias, Floya. 2001. “New Hybridities, Old Concepts: The Limits of ‘Culture’.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 24 (4): 619–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. AsiaOne. 2012. “5000 Gather in New York for Singapore Day.” AsiaOne, April 15. Accessed November 25, 2017.
  3. Beaverstock, Jonathan V. 2005. “Transnational Elites in the City: British Highly Skilled Inter-company Transferees in New York City’s Financial District.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 31 (2): 245–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Borjas, George J. 2015. “Economics of Migration.” In International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed., edited by James D. Wright, 436–39. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Accessed December 21, 2018.
  5. Calhoun, Craig. 2008. “Cosmopolitanism in the Modern Social Imaginary.” Daedalus 137 (3): 105–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chase, Susan E. 2005. “Learning to Listen: Narrative Principles in a Qualitative Research.” In Up Close and Personal: The Teaching and Leaning of Narrative Research, edited by Ruthellen Josselson, Amia Lieblich, and Dan P. McAdams, 79–99. Washington: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  7. Chua, Beng Huat. 1995. “Culture, Multiculturalism, and National Identity in Singapore” (Department of Sociology Working Papers, National University of Singapore, Singapore).Google Scholar
  8. Delanty, Gerard. 2006. “The Cosmopolitan Imagination: Critical Cosmopolitanism and Social Theory.” The British Journal of Sociology 57 (1): 25–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Falzon, Mark-Anthony. 2009. “Multi-sited Ethnography: Theory, Praxis, and Locality in Contemporary Research.” In Multi-sited Ethnography: Theory, Praxis, and Locality in Contemporary Research, edited by Mark-Anthony Falzon, 1–23. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Foner, Nancy. 2007. “How Exceptional Is New York: Migration and Multiculturalism in the Empire City.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 30 (6): 999–1023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fong, Vanessa L. 2011. Paradise Redefined: Transnational Chinese Students and the Quest for Flexible Citizenship in the Developed World. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Glick Schiller, N., et al. 2011. “Defining Cosmopolitan Sociability in a Transnational Age.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 34 (3): 399–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Held, David, ed. 2004. A Globalizing World: Culture, Economics, Politics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Hing, Ai Yun. 2013. “Children and Their Fathers in Singapore: A Generational Perspective.” In The International Handbook of the Chinese Family, edited by Kwok Bun Chan, 323–41. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  15. Kau, James B., and C. F. Sirmans. 1976. “New, Repeat, and Return Migration: A Study of Migrant Types.” Southern Economic Journal 43 (2): 1144–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kennedy, Paul. 2004. “Making Global Society: Friendship Networks Among Transnational Professionals in the Building Design Industry.” Global Networks 4 (2): 157–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Killick, David. 2012. “Seeing-Ourselves-in the-World: Developing Global Citizenship Through International Mobility and Campus Diversity.” Journal of Studies of International Education 16 (4): 372–89.Google Scholar
  18. Kim, Jongyoung. 2012. “The Birth of the Academic Subalterns: How Foreign Student Embody the Global Hegemony of American Universities?” Journal of Studies of International Education 16 (5): 455–76.Google Scholar
  19. Kloosterman, Robert, and Jan Rath. 2001. “Immigrant Entrepreneurs in Advanced Economies: Mixed Embeddedness Further Explored.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 27 (2): 189–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Krieg, Renate. 2006. “Gender in Cross-Cultural Management: Women’s Careers in Sino-German Joint Ventures.” In Conflict and Innovation: Joint Ventures in China, edited by Leo Dow and Kwok Bun Chan, 84–107. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
  21. La Ferla, Ruth. 2003. “Generation E.A.: Ethnically Ambiguous.” The New York Times, December 28. Accessed November 24, 2012.
  22. Ley, David. 2004. “Transnational Spaces and Everyday Lives.” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 29 (2): 151–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nauck, Bernard. 2001. “Intercultural Contact and Intergenerational Transmission in Immigrant Families.” Journal of Contemporary Family Studies 32 (2): 159–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nederveen Pieterse, Jan. 1997. “Globalization as Hybridization.” In Global Modernities, edited by Mike Featherstone, Scott Lash, and Roldan Robertson, 45–68. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  25. Nederveen Pieterse, Jan. 2004. Globalization and Culture: Global Melange. Lanham: Rowan and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  26. Nowicka, Magdalen. 2006. Transnational Professionals and Their Cosmopolitan Universe. Frankfurt: Campus Verlag.Google Scholar
  27. Patton, Michael Quin. 2002. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  28. Plüss, Caroline. 2013. “Chinese Migrants in New York: Explaining Inequalities with Transnational Positions and Capital Conversions in Transnational Spaces.” In Migrant Adaptation: Special Cluster of Articles, edited by Caroline Plüss. International Sociology 28 (1): 12–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Portes, Alejandro, and Julia Sensenbrenner. 1993. “Embeddedness and Immigration: Notes on the Social Determinants of Economic Action.” American Journal of Sociology 98 (6): 1320–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Portes, Alejandro, and Ruben G. Rumbaut. 2014. Immigrant America. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  31. Pritchard, Rosalind. 2011. “Re-entry-Trauma: Asian Re-integration After Study in the West.” Journal of Studies of International Education 15 (1): 93–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Prystay, Chris. 2004. “At Long Last, Gum Is Legal in Singapore, But There Are Strings.” The Wall Street Journal, June 4. Accessed September 10, 2016.
  33. Snel, Erik, Godfried Engbersen, and Arjen Leekers. 2006. “Transnational Involvement and Social Integration.” Global Networks 6 (3): 285–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sklair, Leslie. 2001. The Transnational Capitalist Class. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  35. Sussman, Nan M. 2013. “Reforming Family Among Remigrants: Hongkongers Come Home.” In International Handbook of the Chinese Family, edited by Kwok-bun Chan, 53–75. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  36. United States Census Bureau. 2016. New York City, New York. United States Census Bureau. Accessed August 3, 2017.
  37. Voon, Puah Chin, and Jason Loh. 2008. “Filial Piety and Intergenerational Co-residence: The Case of Chinese Singaporeans.” Asian Journal of Social Sciences 36 (3–4): 659–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Zhou, Min. 2009. Contemporary Chinese America: Immigration, Ethnicity, and Community Transformation. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of LiverpoolSingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations