MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4205892137 · doi:10.1525/phr.2022.91.1.150

Review: <i>Giving Back: Filipino America and the Politics of Diaspora Giving</i>, by L. Joyce Zapanta Mariano

2022· article· en· W4205892137 sur OpenAlexaff
Glenda Tibe Bonifacio

Notice bibliographique

RevuePacific Historical Review · 2022
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueMigration, Ethnicity, and Economy
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Lethbridge
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésDiasporaGender studiesPoliticsEmpireSociologyIdentity (music)GlobalizationImmigrationPolitical scienceLawAesthetics

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Giving Back is a compelling ethnography about the politics of diaspora giving, tying the personal, the family, the community, the state, and the global in a critical stroke of brilliance, empathy, and alternative visions of philanthropy and volunteerism in the lives of Filipinos in America. It presents the “simultaneities of unity and hierarchy, discourse and practice, the global and deeply personal, mobility and rootedness, home and abroad” (p. 22). Mariano elucidates the intersections of race, class, and empire in two phenotypes of Filipinos—overseas Filipino workers (OFW) and immigrants—and their expectations toward the Philippines. Giving Back examines how and why the notion of ‘giving back’ is connected to U.S. and Philippine historic ties, Philippine labor export policy, globalization, and neoliberalism.The introduction positions ‘giving back’ as a “prominent feature of Filipino American identity and communities, [that] is central to the moral economies of Filipino migration, immigration, and diasporic return” (p. 1). With “diaspora giving,” Filipinos in America are “implicated in a complex web of power relationships and conflicting identities” (p. 4). This section concerns the origin of official development programs and how the “imposition of charity was inseparable from empire as a racial project” (p. 12).Chapter 1 demonstrates the relationship between “doing good” and Filipino migration. Using critical perspectives and interviews with Filipino Americans, Mariano questions the “stakes of nationalist and identarian forms of collective identity” (p. 32) between the “ideological positioning” of the Filipino American and the OFW. “Doing good,” Mariano argues, “is channeled by the material, affective, and cultural forces that bring about its conditions” (p. 34). Philanthropy and remittances are attached to differing Filipino overseas phenotypes: the Filipino immigrant and the OFW. Mariano writes that “these forms of doing good correspond to moral valuations of giving that endow Filipino American immigrants with partnership in national economic development, but overseas Filipino labor migrants with obligatory economic duty” (pp. 44–45). The Filipino immigrant is oriented towards volunteerism and doing good to benefit those in the Philippines, while the OFW is under state control with compulsory routes of defining contributions for the good of the Philippines and the global economy.Chapter 2 examines the politics of diaspora giving, the “role of neoliberal privatization of social welfare,” and homeland orientations of Filipino Americans since the 1970s (p. 67). Dominant homeland orientations create varying immigrant subjectivities, as when Filipino Americans participate in philanthropy and social development without concern for transnational injustices. Divesting politics from homeland orientations reduces diaspora giving to a “declaration of love to the homeland” (p. 69). This chapter “counters dominant diasporic temporalities and spatialities,” including “imperial forms and forces in migration” (p. 78).Chapter 3 is a contestation of corporate social responsibility (CSR), examining one of the largest Philippine conglomerates and its influence in diaspora philanthropy. The network of foundations and associations shapes the “collective responsibility to what it means to be Filipino in diaspora” (p. 85), as well as “sites of struggle where dominant discourses of poverty and responsibility can be either secured or contested” (p. 86). Mariano critiques CSR and global capital in diaspora formation. Filipino America is the target of CSR’s “dual commitment to profit and the market” that “limits the nature of giving relationship” (p. 100) by positioning Filipino America as “making a difference in the Philippines” from a personal, apolitical stance. Mariano claims that the “marketization of Filipino America reduces diaspora giving to monetary exchange” (p. 102), noting that the “intermediary foundation that actively isolates society from history and political economy” fosters “global hierarchies that position and construct the Philippines as a premier labor exporter for the world” (p. 104).Chapter 4 shows how diaspora giving “can challenge the hierarchies of power at the intersection of neocolonialism, global capitalism, and developmentalism” (p. 114), for example, how the failed legal challenge by a transnational Filipino American organization to compel the U.S. military to clean up the environmental mess at former military bases led “to solidarity with Filipinos in the Philippines through issues that stem from the Philippine subordinate position in the global order” (pp. 114–15). Subsequent activities and programs created a “more critical Filipino American diaspora giving politics” (p. 127). Mariano argues that “transformative diasporic politics is formed through an identification as Filipino American mediated by critical associations of responsibility, accountability, and mutuality” (p. 129). This chapter provides examples of new articulations of diaspora-giving “connected to relevant issues and related struggles in other spaces” (pp. 128–29).Mariano’s critical examination of the politics of diaspora giving is a must-read for Filipinos and anyone participating in transnational philanthropy. I am and I do. Giving back is more than personal acts of charity, it is intrinsically connected to national and global politics of subject making.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,016
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,997

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0040,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,020
Tête enseignante GPT0,267
Écart entre enseignants0,247 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2022
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuePacific Historical ReviewMême sujetMigration, Ethnicity, and EconomyTravaux en français237 207