Clarification of Terms

In view of the noticeable confusion concerning the positions of ethnonational diasporas in the current global, regional, and local cultural, economic, and political arenas, there is a need to clarify some terms, to elaborate the main questions briefly outlined in the Introduction, and to present some primary hypotheses concerning the diaspora phenomenon.

As a first step in our general analysis of the ethno-national diaspora phenomenon, a step that is intended to promote an understanding of its actual and theoretical meanings and that will put special emphasis on the nature of diaspora politics, three terms should be clarified – “diaspora,” “diasporism,” and “diasporic.” In passing, here it should be noted that, as the editor of the field's journal, Diaspora, mentions in an article on the meaning and definition of the phenomenon (Tololyan 1996), the use of the plural form of “diaspora” – “diasporas” – is recent. It can be found in only a few dictionaries. In the same vein, most electronic spellers do not recognize that plural form.

Clarification of these three terms is needed especially because journalists and academics have indiscriminately applied them to a wide variety of social-political phenomena and institutions (Safran 1991; Cohen 1997). Such multiple usages of these terms have led to much confusion about their meanings. This confusion is due in part to a traditional and prevalent misunderstanding and misapplication of the term “diaspora” itself.