Status Paradox of Migration
This type of status paradox describes how a migration of peoples can alter the status of these peoples, either higher or lower. It is related to economic inequality between world regions which creates incentives for transnational migrants to transfer resources earned in richer countries to poorer countries and, thereby, to gain buying power and social status.
An example is a migration of laboring migrants from poorer countries, such as Mexico, Albania or Ghana. Their ability to work is considered qualified by the standards of their home country, but is much diminished in the new country they come to. This causes their social status to drop in their new country of living, while their level of education or training held them in a higher social circle in their country of origin. This type of status inconsistency creates the paradox of the migrants being qualified for two different social classes at the same time, but they can only use each class if they are within the boundaries of where it is relevant. Because of global inequalities in terms of wealth and buying power transnational migrants to which the status paradox applies challenge local middle classes in the sending countries. In several countries of the global south names have emerged to classify these migrants, such as Burgers (Ghana), Bengiste (Côte d'Ivoire) or Modou Modou (Senegal).
Read more about this topic: Status Paradox
Famous quotes containing the words status and/or paradox:
“Anthropologists have found that around the world whatever is considered “men’s work” is almost universally given higher status than “women’s work.” If in one culture it is men who build houses and women who make baskets, then that culture will see house-building as more important. In another culture, perhaps right next door, the reverse may be true, and basket- weaving will have higher social status than house-building.”
—Mary Stewart Van Leeuwen. Excerpted from, Gender Grace: Love, Work, and Parenting in a Changing World (1990)
“The conclusion suggested by these arguments might be called the paradox of theorizing. It asserts that if the terms and the general principles of a scientific theory serve their purpose, i. e., if they establish the definite connections among observable phenomena, then they can be dispensed with since any chain of laws and interpretive statements establishing such a connection should then be replaceable by a law which directly links observational antecedents to observational consequents.”
—C.G. (Carl Gustav)