Networks in Migration and Social Work
Network theory is present whenever people are present and making dynamic connections. One notable such example is migration, as people move to new locations and create new ties and connections, while also having old ones. An interesting journal piece, “The Neglect of Network Theory in Practice” by Amilia E. Martinez-Brawley and Paz M-B. Zorita at Arizona State University, explores network theory and migrants as it examines the importance of networks for migrants and the lack of utilization of network theory when it comes to social work regarding migrants. The journal piece can be roughly seen in three sections, as follows: the importance of networks for migrants in terms of destination and destination-origin relations, the history of social networks in social work, and then the interesting lack of utilizing network theory in social work regarding migrants.
The study first notes that multiple theories (economic, etc.) attempt to explain why individuals migrate. However, it focuses on the nature of the network as a leading cause, focusing on the apparent influence and importance of group networks and dynamics in migration theory as to why and if individuals to decide to migrate (whether legally or illegally). According to the piece, a study by the Pew Research Hispanic Center on the “validate[d] the notion that individuals migrate because of group [pressures] rather than individual pressures.” (124). The network relations an individual has to the place of origin, the place of destination, and the place of transfer (when migrating) are essential in leading to immigration and emigration for that individual. For example, the existence of a network connection to someone (or multiple people) at the place of destination might encourage or ease an individual to migrate to that area, and then allow them further develop their network there. A connection to someone related to border control, which may ease the immigration process (for illegal immigration) and help establish a network at the destination, could also encourage migration. Thus, in order to understand why people migrate where and in what quantities, it is crucial to consider group networks and their dynamics as the analysis unit rather than “autonomous individuals”.
There are multiple network dynamics to consider for migrants: “Migrant networks depict the connections that immigrants have with their communities of origin not only in terms of what propels them to emigrate but also in terms of their destination” (125). We have to look at how migrants are connected to their place of origin and how they are connected to their destination.
In the context of this course, one can look at how structural balance and influence of strong and weak ties, come into play in migrant networks:
The first thing one might note is the changing nature of the migrant’s network as new ties are made and ties change in terms of strength. Martinez-Brawley and Zorita reference a previous study, Portes and Rumbout (2010), which noted: “When a community of Mexican expatriates, regardless of size, settles, one of its first organizational efforts is to create ‘comites de pueblo’ or ‘club de oriundos’ that gather people of the same locality of origin in an effort to maintain contact and support its development” (126). This concept is not necessarily limited to Mexican expatriates. Thus, Martinez-Brawley and Zorita note, funds are raised, businesses in this community develop, items are bought, and in general revenue is generated, integrating immigrants into a larger community. As such, migrants establish a community with other migrants who work together, in network of positive ties (we can consider these ties positives in the context that they work together to enhance the quality of life and improve the immigrant process, as opposed to migrants fighting each other and making the migration process more difficult and less desirable). In relation to the course, the structural balance of the migrant network can be seen in the result of the connected migrants working together, in that “social and cultural capital are enhanced” (126). Of course, fissures can erupt here as well and create factions of migrant communities (perhaps as they compete antagonistically for goods or work), in line with the theory of structural balance which notes that in a triad of relations, there can be either 3 positive relations or only one. If there are two positive relations, the node (individual migrant in this case) that has only positive relations with the other two nodes must choose a side in the end.
The next component of the migrant network is the strength of the ties the migrants have. We can consider the role of strong ties in the migration process overall. As mentioned before, in a community established at the destination location, migrants form a development group and create new ties. However, migrants also retain strong ties back home, usually in the form of family and close friends. In the case of Mexican expatriates (as the piece seems to focus on), ties are maintained by constant support, as “A large amount of [the migrants’] income is sent back in the form of remittances to help those members of the network who cannot “cross” ” (127). Of course, the strength of ties can be defined in multiple ways: long-time friends, family, family friends, people from the same country with the same cultural background, etc. These strong tries, regardless, can influence where migrants choose to go. For example, if a migrant from Canada has a relative they like in Australia who enjoys being in Australia (a strong, positive tie), they may select Australia rather than another country which they have no knowledge about. The ties also influence the developing support community we talked about earlier, much in the same way we consider a network or friends and new friends (for example, in a friend recommendation system).
The piece, while not divulging much analysis on theories from network theory, examined the effects of migrant networks as well, in terms of the costs and benefits of migrating in terms of the origin and destination locations, noting the nature or remittances, the effects on children/relatives/family left behind in origin countries, the vulnerabilities lone migrants may face, and the costs (to nations) of losing migrants.
The journal publication also reviewed the history of social work, noting that social networks are essential in the lives of the clients of those involved in social work, since social work is directly related to an individual and their environment. It is inherently tied to social networks as it “historically… [attempts] to focus on the interrelated patterns of people vis-à-vis their communities” (128). The history noted the growing interest in the merits of social networks as “social support systems”. Social workers can better assist people by considering the relations of their client and optimizing needs based on positive/negative relations, communities the client is involved in, and the strong ties a client has. These all carry implications about the needs, desires, and best choices for the client.
As the final component, the paper sought to put together social work’s use of networks and the importance of networks for migrants, in asking why social networks neglect to properly utilize social networks and network theories when it comes to Latino Immigrants (to the US). I think that this is especially interesting in context of the class, as we in a sense assume the importance of networks in class–and yet, from a bureaucratic point of view it is almost considered undesirable. The article gives us various reasons, one being cultural: the pervasive notion of American individualism (the idea of picking oneself up by the bootstraps alone), which undermines the use network connections to ease transitions and become “successful”, as defined by society. American values can be seen in bureaucratic priorities of social work as they are more task-oriented and pragmatic, rather than encouraging use of immigrant networks. The study writes: “…when agencies do not invest workers’ time and energies and other resources searching for and relating to the immigrants’ networks, it is because these steps have not been deemed essential among the myriad of discrete tasks workers are supposed to do” (132). Furthermore, using networks are hard to control from a bureaucratic standpoint–they are ambiguous and reduce control of social workers. Agencies of social work can also find greater (legal or otherwise) risk in this, as the immigrant’s network is not their own, reducing control. Such agencies are looking to increase safe, optimal choices and efficiency rather than take such risks. Finally, in the case of undocumented immigrants, networks are likely to be hidden.
Overall, the study gives an interesting examination of the importance of utilizing migrant networks when aiding migrants during social work services. The piece establishes the crucial role of networks in migration and seems to encourage the slow re-introduction of using migrant networks in social work, but while considering legal and structural challenges, as it is essential to do so with new and untested methods that may contain risks. Ultimately, the study finds that network theory is an essential component of human relations in migration, from the migration process to the relations migrants form and maintain with people at their destination and their origin. While theories we learned in class for networks are not directly applied in the piece, we can see it in the creation of support systems and development of communities, the relations maintained back home, and possible scenarios of why migrants migrate. The paper is an interesting read that serves as a good example of the global nature of networks in their examination of international migrants.