Gendered Transnationalism: Singapore

  • Caroline PlüssEmail author


This chapter researches the lives of 38 returned Chinese Singaporean transnational migrants to crystallize gender differences in their transnational (dis)embeddedness. The chapter considers that the Chinese Singaporean men, more often than the women, had moved to live in other societies in Asia, and that both mostly had lived in the West. This crystallization of the transnational (dis)embeddedness of the male and female participants—who often were repeat migrants—yields that the women, more often than the men, experienced incongruities in their transnational education contexts, preferring a western education over education in Singapore, whereas the men more frequently preferred a Singaporean education over a western one. Next, this chapters shows that the (temporarily) returned Chinese Singaporeans’ transnational work contexts were gendered, with the Chinese Singaporean women often having liked aspects of their past work contexts in the West, and with the Chinese Singaporean men frequently assessing that they had not been able to adapt well to work contexts in other societies in Asia. Furthermore, the chapter finds that the women, more often than the men, adapted to western definitions of appropriate practices of family socialities, and experienced higher dis-embeddedness in transnational family contexts. In terms of transnational friendships/lifestyle socialities, the women experienced more embeddedness than the men in these contexts.


  1. Basch, Linda, Nina Glick Schiller, and Christina Szanton Blanc. 1994. Nations Unbound: Transnational Projects, Postcolonial Predicaments and Deterritorialized Nation-States. Langhorne: Gordon and Brech.Google Scholar
  2. Beaverstock, Jonathan V., and Sarah Hall. 2012. “Competing for Talent: Global Mobility, Immigration and the City of London’s Labour Market.” Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society 5 (2): 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beck, Ulrich. 2007. The Cosmopolitan Vision. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google 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 Learning of Narrative Research, edited by Ruthellen Josselson, Amia Lieblich, and Dan P. McAdams, 79–99. Washington: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  7. Cooke, Fang Lee. 2007. “Husband’s Career First: Renegotiating Career and Family Commitment Among Migrant Academic Couples in Britain.” Work, Employment & Society 21 (1): 47–65.Google Scholar
  8. Davies, Charlotte Aull. 2008. Reflexive Ethnography: A Guide to Researching Selves and Others. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Delanty, Gerard. 2006. “The Cosmopolitan Imagination: Critical Cosmopolitanism and Social Theory.” The British Journal of Sociology 57 (1): 25–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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
  11. Francis, Becky, and Louise Archer. 2005. “British-Chinese Pupils’ and Parents’ Constructions of the Value of Education.” British Educational Research Journal 31 (1): 89–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Glick Schiller, Nina, Tsypylma Darieva, and Sandra Gruner-Domic. 2011. “Defining Cosmopolitan Sociability in a Transnational Age.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 34 (3): 399–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Goffman, Erving. 1990. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  14. Gruner-Domic, Sandra. 2011. “Transnational Lifestyles as a New Form of Cosmopolitan Social Identifications? Latin American Women in German Urban Spaces.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 34 (3): 471–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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
  16. Ho, Elaine Lynn-Ee. 2008. “‘Flexible Citizenship’ or Familial Ties That Bind? Singaporean Transmigrants in London.” International Migration 46 (4): 145–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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
  18. Kennedy, Paul. 2004. “Making Global Society: Friendship Networks Among Transnational Professionals in the Building Design Industry.” Global Networks 4 (2): 157–79.CrossRefGoogle 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. Kusek, Weronika A. 2015. “Transnational Identities and Immigrant Spaces of Polish Professionals in London, UK.” Journal of Cultural Geography 32 (1): 102–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Moore, Fiona. 2016. “City of Sojourners Versus City of Settlers: Transnationalism, Location and Identity Among Taiwanese Professionals in London and Toronto.” Global Networks 16 (3): 372–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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
  23. Nederveen Pieterse, Jan. 2004. Globalization and Culture: Global Melange. Lanham: Rowan and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  24. Onwumechili, Chucka, Ronald Nwosu, Ronald L. Jackson II, and Jacqueline James-Hughes. 2003. “In the Deep Valley with Mountains to Climb: Exploring Identity and Multiple Reacculturation.” International Journal of Intercultural Relations 27 (1): 41–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Plüss, Caroline. 2012. “Chinese-Singaporean Repeat Migrant Women: Transnational Positions and Social Inequalities.” In Living Intersections: Transnational Migrant Identifications in Asia, edited by Caroline Plüss and Kwok Bun Chan, 125–47. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  26. 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
  27. 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
  28. Ramaswami, Mahalingam, and Janxing Leu. 2005. “Culture, Essentialism, Immigration and Representation of Gender.” Theory and Psychology 15 (6): 839–60.Google Scholar
  29. Sakamoto, Izumi. 2006. “Acculturation or Negotiation? What Japanese Academic Migrants Teach Us About Family Processes and Gendered Experiences of Cultural Adaptation.” In Cultural Psychology of Immigrants, edited by Mahalingam Ramaswami, 337–64. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Google Scholar
  30. Salaff, Janet, and Arent Greve. 2013. “Social Networks and Family Relations in Return Migration.” In The International Handbook of Chinese Families, edited by Kwok Bun Chan, 77–90. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  31. Savage Mike, and Tony Bennet. 2005. “Editors’ Introduction: Cultural Capital and Social Inequality.” The British Journal of Sociology 56 (1): 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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
  33. Takenaka, Ayumi. 2015. The Life of a Multiple Migrant. Oxford: COMPAS. Accessed November 5, 2016.
  34. 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
  35. Weenick, Don. 2008. “Cosmopolitanism as a Form of Capital: Parents Preparing their Children for a Globalizing World.” Sociology 46 (6): 1089–1106.Google Scholar
  36. Zhou, Min. 2014. “Segmented Assimilation and Socio-Economic Integration of Chinese Immigrant Children in the USA.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 37 (7): 1172–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of LiverpoolSingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations