Stephen Castles 卡斯尔斯
This article aims to examine some of the difficulties of theory formation in international migration studies, and to suggest a response. The starting point is an examination of the dominant perception of ‘migration as a problem’. This is followed by a discussion of some key obstacles to theoretical advancement in migration studies. I argue that a general theory of migration is neither possible nor desirable, but that we can make significant progress by re-embedding migration research in a more general understanding of contemporary society, and linking it to broader theories of social change across a range of social scientific disciplines. A conceptual framework for migration studies should take social transformation as its central category, in order to facilitate understanding of the complexity, interconnectedness, variability, contexuality and multi-level mediations of migratory processes in the context of rapid global change. This would mean examining the links between social transformation and human mobility across a range of socio-spatial levels, while always seeking to understand how human agency can condition responses to structural factors. The argument is illustrated through the example of the changing dynamics of labour forces in highly developed countries. Keywords: Migration Theory; Social Theory; Social Transformation; Socio-Spatial Levels; Agency; Structure More than ten years ago, Massey et al. (1998: 3) argued that: The theoretical concepts now employed by social scientists to analyse and explain international migration were forged primarily in the industrial era and reflect its particular economic arrangements, social institutions, technology, demography and politics. ...The classical approach has now entered a state of crisis, challenged by new ideas, concepts, and hypotheses. Stephen Castles is Research Professor of Sociology at the University of Sydney.
Castles Although, as they pointed out, ‘these new ways of thinking have not yet cohered into a single theory’, Massey and his colleagues believed that ‘the time has come ...to reassess theories of international migration and bring them into conformity with new empirical conditions’. The ‘post-industrial, post-Cold War world’ needed a new theory of migration appropriate for ‘a brand new century’ (1998: 3). This was the programmatic statement of a very important book, which did indeed set out to present a new synthesis as a basis for a ‘single’ (and implicitly general) theory. Twelve years later, the exponential growth of social-scientific research into the international mobility of people continues: we have more researchers, university courses, students, research projects, institutes, conferences, journals and publications than ever before. Yet the quest for a generally accepted theoretical framework for migration studies remains elusive. We still lack a body of cumulative knowledge to explain why some people become mobile while most do not, and what this means for the societies concerned. Although there does seem to be agreement on some matters*the importance of migration networks for example*we do not have a common conceptual framework that could serve as the starting point for intellectual debates and the formulation of hypotheses and research questions. This article starts by examining the ‘sedentary bias’ in migration debates, and goes on to discuss why it is so difficult to develop and agree on a conceptual framework for migration studies. A key problem is the tendency to see migrati
