Beyond Cultural Instrumentality: Exploring the Concept of Total Diaspora Cultural Capital for Sustainability

Abstract

In this article, we critique and extend Bourdieu’s notion of cultural capital to develop the new concept of total diaspora cultural capital. We build on the limitations of cultural capital, which in the Bourdieu theory centre on materiality and class perpetuation. The article builds on an extensive review of the literature, using the PRISMA framework. We also use the findings of previous research to illustrate this argument. We differentiate between four types of organisations or groups that articulate various levels of cultural capital to build a body of evidence that establishes total diaspora cultural capital (type D groups) as a bounded collective identity creation encapsulating three main dimensions: appropriation, customisation and deployment. Total diaspora cultural capital is perceived as fitting the post-colonial global context through the acknowledgement that diasporas and hosts make the modern world, being agents who create and disseminate culture and economic sustainability through reciprocal appropriation of cultural assets. The research is the first to conceptualise the notion of total diaspora cultural capital. This research significantly extends Bourdieu’s concept of cultural capital, which fails to capture the multiple contours of evolving sustainability perspectives. Total diaspora cultural capital creates bounded cultural capital that strengthens the agility of diaspora businesses.

1. Introduction

This article is situated in the context of the integration of immigrants into a new society and their relationships with the culture of their country of origin (COO). It examines how the viability of society can be sustainable over time under the influence of multiple cultures as well as the impact of immigrant cultures on host values. We argue that these multiple influences have potency as they develop new forms of social and cultural capital for both hosts and immigrants—which we term total diaspora cultural capital—with transformative and cultural sustainability potency if well deployed and exploited. We define cultural sustainability as the renewal of culture that integrates aspects of the mosaic of cultures in a given space to avoid alienating one cultural group.

Diasporas are inherent to human existence in terms of sustainable cultures and economies. People have always moved and settled in different places [1]. This movement has created a blend of people, ethnicities and cultures. It is the historical foundation of modern globalisation and the modern debate about equality and diversity [2]. There are several definitional approaches to diversity from the literature. Some view diasporas as people who have relocated geographically to other spheres deemed to be other nations and collectivities which are distinct from their own. While geographical relocation is a significant parameter, Hack-Polay and Siwale [2] argued that the geography aspect is insufficient to understanding diasporas, particularly in the context of globalisation which seems to have blurred borders. Hack-Polay and Siwale [2] define diasporas as groups of migrants (first generations and later generations) who are out of their country of origin for a protracted period of time and maintain an economic or psychological connection with the country of origin [3]. In this context, diasporas are an integral part of the social fabric of the host nations [4]. Regardless of the motives that lead people to leave the country of origin (e.g., war, famine, poverty, work opportunities elsewhere), the migrants have an interest in the host country; thus, they devolve significant energies in attempting to bring positive contributions [5].

Diasporas play significant roles in the lives of people and sustainability in both the host countries and countries of origin [6,7,8]. Portes and Fernández-Kelly [9] contend that diasporas fuel transnationalism and represent a critical bridge between the country of residence (COR) and country of origin (COO). Thus, diasporas become key agents of modern globalisation as they transport and popularise culture, support sustainable economies and feed multiculturalism and diversity, which have been largely theorised in the past few decades and have been key foci of social science and political debate. Hack-Polay and Siwale [2] have argued that recent diasporas have made significant economic contributions to their countries of origin (COO), sending remittances that far outweigh what those countries receive in international aid. Traditionally, diasporas were often perceived as a burden on host societies, particularly during times of hardship in the receiving countries [10]. Hack-Polay [11] more specifically underscores the role played by diasporas in poverty alleviation, entrepreneurship and sustainable economies in the countries of origin in the Global South. In the countries of residence or new national affiliation countries, the contemporary literature on diasporas stresses their cultural assets, thus coining the concept of cultural capital [9]. Bourdieu’s [12] concept of cultural capital underpins this analysis to develop the conceptual framework. A more critical problem emerges from the reading of Bourdieu given the length of time that has elapsed since he published his theory, with international migration being increasingly normalised. Key questions in this study consider what is happening currently with diasporic forces and their interaction with local cultural realities, as well as what is the (real) problem that needs to be addressed and how cultural capital can add to this.

This study’s main research question is as follows: to what extent can the theoretical concept of cultural capital in the context of diasporas be extended by introducing the concept of the total diaspora cultural capital framework? In other terms, can ‘total’ enable a greater appreciation of the complexity of interactions between diasporas and local groups that lead to the emergence of new cultural groups? We borrow the term ‘total’ from the sociological literature [13,14] which contends that a socio-cultural reality is not a mere addition of the parts, but a complex mix and integration of the various components of the social forces at play. This complex integration is what Durkheim referred to as collective conscience (we discuss this concept later in the article). Thus, our concept of Total Diaspora Cultural Capital views cultural capital not just in terms of its economic instrumentality, which has been the main narrative of previous concepts such as the ‘business case’ [15,16,17]. Instead, it is founded on a moral and ethical rationale that supports human integration in an increasingly socio-culturally intertwined world. This centres on our key question about the extent to which diaspora groups are empowered to use and create diverse forms of cultural capital, which contribute to sustainable social, economic and cultural development in diversifying societies, such as the UK, France, the USA and many more. This argument is made relevant and strengthened by setting TDCC as a significant way to look at diasporas; this approach analyses what TDCC means and how it could offer a better understanding of contemporary societies. It is important to note that the outcomes of the interactions between diasporic forces and indigenous cultural landscapes are cultural interconnections and sustainability, leading to transformed socio-cultural spaces or hybridity across the world. Naguib [18] acknowledged the cultural dimensions of sustainability and advocated the efficacy of the collaboration between traditions for social growth. TDCC offers new perspectives on how such outcomes may benefit multiple communities involved in shared spaces, be they physical or virtual. This is one of the strengths of the paper.

Diaspora Cultural capital is an aggregation of forms to accommodate the important contributions of diaspora communities and products in multicultural countries, such as the USA, UK, Canada and France in the Western context, or Malaysia and South Africa in the Global South, etc. This can be further connected with the concept of human capital, territorial capital, etc. This builds on the assumption that the success of the diaspora is not based on the individual or a community. There are some spillovers of the success or failures of these diasporas [19]. It has been observed that in the cities where the diaspora communities entertain more active interactions, diasporas play an important role in economic growth [20]. However, this widespread assumption in the literature, in our view, represents a major misconception of diversity in multicultural areas. It ignores the dynamic capabilities of effective interactions between diaspora and host communities which engender a blended collective identity, giving rise to total diaspora cultural capital (we explain the concept further in the next section). The misconception we allude to is one that places the onus on the diaspora to foster amicable communities and does not perceive the significance of duality, i.e., that host communities have a role to play too in the emergence and sustenance of positive community relations.

This leads us to consider the notion of multiculturalism as portrayed in much of contemporary literature. Diversity appears to signify the presence of different racial and ethnic or national communities in a given space [10,13,16]. This turns into juxtaposition, rather than integration. This view of society is vehemently criticised by sociologists and many social scientists [16,21,22]. In sociological terms, the whole is not the aggregation of the elements but the integration of these elements resulting from the dynamic interactions that they entertain with one another, which creates a new singular and more sustainable entity [13]. This mirrors the idea of structuration elaborated in Giddens’ [23] sociology, where the author argues that human agency and social structure constantly interact and influence each other, causing continuous changes. This interaction has often been theorised in terms of mobility, causing what Schewel [24] terms ‘mobility bias’. The conceptual position taken by Schewel is that the drivers of migration have been over-emphasised, ignoring immobility (the factors that lead some communities not to seek to move but be immobile). This is an interesting theoretical argument because the diaspora debate itself is only meaningful in relation to the interactions between migrants and the core established non-migrant communities [18] they join and with whom they negotiate the social and physical space [25,26]; this implies that cultural capital can be sustainable and best appreciated in the dialectic context of mobility–immobility, which exemplifies the dynamic interactions and human agency alluded by many social scientists [13,23,27,28]. The next sections discuss the notion of cultural capital in relation to Bourdieu’s theorisation and present our conceptualisation of total diaspora cultural capital.

2. Methodology

This article is based on a conceptual development using systematic literature review. The proposed framework was developed following an extensive review of the literature, particularly surrounding Bourdieu’s [12] concept of cultural capital. We followed the PRISMA model in identifying and reviewing the literature as depicted in Figure 1:

Of the 75 articles that our search identified, 50 were used for further scrutiny; some articles that were rejected only duplicated others’ findings. Moving to the next level of the analysis, we applied a key elimination strategy based on use of the term ‘cultural capital–social capital–migrant integration’. Our elimination strategy led us to discard the articles whose main coverage was not centred on the elimination criteria defined, i.e., texts which did not specifically make reference to the terms ‘cultural capital’, ‘social capital’ and ‘migrant integration’ were also not included. We eliminated these texts to ensure a tightly focused discussion. Using these criteria led us to our final number of articles (43) that were included in the study.

Though this is a conceptual development using the systematic literature review approach, we included the findings of two key articles [22], using quotes from these works to substantiate our argumentation and conceptualisation.

3. Rethinking Cultural Capital

The concept of cultural capital was coined by Bourdieu [12]. In the author’s perspective, cultural capital encompasses assembling a symbolic world for a given collectivity of which one is part. Such aspects are shared with members of that collectivity to bring about a collective identity. Bourdieu [12] believes that cultural capital can help members of a group navigate their relationships with one another and with the group more successfully. As for economic capital, the more cultural capital one has, the more powerful they can be in society. However, Bourdieu’s [12] concept of cultural capital applies within a homogenous group, e.g., working class, where to be a member of that homogenous group, one needs the attributes that define that group. Bourdieu argued that cultural capital has to be embodied, objectified and institutionalised. For example, to demonstrate one’s sustainable existence in a group, they must speak like the group, espouse the lifestyle of the group and possess academic credibility prevalent in that group. The limitations of such an argument centre on its emphasis on the institutionalised formal arrangements, suggesting assimilation [29] and ignoring latent and informal learning and internalisation as well as hybridity, which can equally foster sustainability (which is increasingly and inherently discussed in relation to global groups). This argument also negates the weight of psychological factors, such as nostalgia [30] and homesickness [11], in the speed of internalisation and hybridisation of local norms.

Though some authors [31] have extended the concept of cultural capital to the wider society, its application to post-colonial globalisation, multiculturalism and the sustainability debate remains limited. For instance, authors such as Tzanakis [32], William [33] and Hall [34] see Bourdieu’s [12] cultural capital as a vehicle for reproducing class inequalities—hindering socio-economic and cultural sustainability—since cultural capital perpetuates the economic and social class position of those who possess it or can at best make most of it; this problem protects cultural capital and prevents its acquisition by outsiders. William [33] and Hall [34], vociferous critics of Bourdieu, argue that Bourdieu’s cultural capital theory is cast in materialism. In addition, Jenkins [35] postulates that cultural capital as theorised by Bourdieu reproduces determinism. Yosso [31], based on critical race theory (CRT), contends that traditional cultural capital theorisation presents “a deficit view of communities of colour as places full of cultural poverty disadvantages”; she suggests a reorientation of the argument so as to place due emphasis on “the array of cultural knowledge, skills, abilities and contacts possessed by socially marginalized groups that often go unrecognized and unacknowledged”. Though Bourdieu’s work highlighted the important role played by cultural capital in the development of social groups, the critics view the Bordieuan concept of social capital as reinforcing imperialist perspectives emanating from modernity. Such perspectives theorise that people from the colonies—the people of colour—have limited useable cultural capital, hence the need for such groups to learn from the West and deploy western values [21,31] to be civilised. This is also the central criticism of the neoclassical perspective, which views segregation as perpetuated through institutional discrimination [16] that contributes to stereotypical views of diasporas and, therefore, leads some to have limited expectations regarding their acceptance and integration in the social structures. The notion of positive cultural exchange is rather absent from Bourdieu’s cultural capital.

Our proposed concept of total diaspora cultural capital is closely associated with the community development and sustainability initiatives, where it is argued that ultimate sustainability depends on the development of all forms of capital, including natural, social, human, cultural and political capital. It is, therefore, significant to explore the elements of each type of capital to enhance the overall contribution towards societal and economic development. In this sense, we define diaspora cultural capital by connecting diaspora products and diaspora people with the wider (non-diaspora) community (Figure 2). Our notion of total diaspora cultural capital is rooted in the sociology of Durkheim, who coined the notion of collective conscience which is made up of the communal beliefs, morals and attitudes of a society. This collective conscience, which gives rise to total diaspora cultural capital, comprises the dynamic forces deriving from the meeting of various subcultures, i.e., from the host and the diaspora communities. Total diaspora cultural capital then is the result of a high level of dynamic cultural integration. This perspective also assists in the redefinition of the nature and scope of diaspora businesses and socio-economic activities in the Western context.

4. Unpacking the Total Diaspora Cultural Capital Framework

To understand the essence of total diaspora cultural capital, it is important to deconstruct the current view and practice of diversity and multiculturalism in our society. Diversity is defined as the presence of different ethnic and racial groups in a geographical space [21,36]. These groups have economic and social interactions but in essence operate in juxtaposition. They are clearly identifiable as segregated groups that come in contact only when needed (transactional contacts). Further connection of this diaspora cultural capital could be based on concepts of equality, diversity and sustainable community, etc. The idea is the physical visibility of diasporas as opposed to their actual integration in host social and organisational structures. This notion of visibility is exemplified in organisations and several policy frameworks. For instance, in many organisations, the equality and diversity policies are largely geared at establishing the proportions of ethno-racial categories represented in the organisation in view to achieve balance. Such an approach is counterproductive as it reinforces stereotypical attitudes and discrimination. Moving from the notion of equal opportunities to that of diversity has not resolved the issues in establishing total diaspora cultural capital. The equal opportunity agenda of the 1970s in both the USA and the UK sought to remedy imbalance in the employment and economic structures by advocating equal treatment; it also advocated radical approaches such as positive discrimination (in the USA) and positive action (in the UK). However, such approaches led to limited success since almost half a century later discrimination persists for many disadvantaged ethnic groups [16]. Radical initiatives and the much acclaimed diversity agenda of the 1990s have led to tokenism, where the main concern of organisations and the labour market as a whole is situated in the context of making limited visibility of difference to save face.

The total diaspora cultural capital concept seeks to establish the validity of embedded ethnic diversity in socio-economic structures in the context of today’s globalisation. Kloosterman’s [22] concept of mixed embeddedness is the closest concept to our advocated definition of total diaspora cultural capital. Kloosterman sees immigrants immersing themselves in the local culture and espousing its creative aspects as the foundation of immigrant success. However, this assumption can be refuted because it presents integration as a one-way process and blames the immigrant as opposed to considering underlying issues within the social architecture that may hinder the immigrant’s rootedness in the new community. For example, there are issues of race, disadvantage resulting from dislocation, the loss of some cultural capital and the weight of the colonial past of many immigrants to advanced societies [10,16,21]. Thus, our concept of total diaspora cultural capital transcends the economic rationality on which previous studies have focused. So far, studies and the literature—even Bourdieu—tend to always look at the economic benefits and implications of migration and diaspora, but not so much the human aspects, such as integration, etc. (though there is a long-standing tradition in research on ethnic minorities). Total diaspora cultural capital does not represent an evolutionary line but exemplifies Durkheim’s [13] idea of organic solidarity, which encapsulates a deeper acceptance of economic and socio-cultural differences. The four concurrent spheres of diaspora cultural integration as exemplified below.

Sphere A: Polycentric cultural capital—cultural diversification from diaspora products.

This view of diaspora cultural capital involves piecemeal actions on both diaspora and non-diaspora groups. This is akin to Bourdieu’s [12] theorisation of cultural capital. Polycentric cultural capital entails that a socio-economic entity is involved in some diversification, which leads them to display some diasporic products, services or cultural exhibits. This could often be in view of serving a non-diaspora population and enhancing the image of the organisation or group, as well as profiting financially from involvement with diasporic capital. Hack-Polay, Igwe and Madichie [37] found evidence of this in their research, where African entrepreneurs indulged in the exclusivity of ethnic products. They quote a participant who argues that:

“Most people buy from or engage with businesses within their own ethnicities. So, if you don’t fit or don’t have the connection, it’s hard to get customers or get contracted for anything”.

This practice is not limited to one ethnic group but is widespread within native communities and other newcomer ethnic communities. An example of this could be related to a native local corner shop that stocks and sells exclusively western products despite the high presence of minorities ethnic groups or migrants in the locality. In this perspective, Kloosterman and Rath [22] argue that there may be opportunities presented but these could be obstructed on both sides, either through cultural restrictions or institutional blockage.

Sphere B: Instrumental cultural capital—cultural diversification from diaspora populations.

This level of diaspora cultural capital articulation is set in the context where the diaspora population seeks to interact with non-diaspora capital. Such interactions are equally geared at displaying signs of openness and raising financial gains by increasing the customer base, thus commodifying cultural capital. As in Sphere A, there are unilateral attempts by various diaspora groups to engage with host socio-economic and cultural capital on a transactional basis. A potent example of this can be traced back in the work of Hack-Polay, Igwe and Madichie [37]. The authors report the experience of a participant who embraces transactional diversification to attract a diversity of customers through the doors for the sole purpose of increasing revenue. The participant argued:

“My business partners and I felt that we were at a crucial time when we had to take proactive steps to get customers to notice our presence. We took a lot of constructive suggestions from our customer which helped us diversify”.

Sphere C: Ethno-centric protectionist cultural capital—No diversification.

This sphere involves a diaspora group confining activities within the diaspora population; this trend is often more prominent in ethnic enclaves. There are no or limited attempts to embrace host cultural capital. Equally, on the host side, there are no or limited attempts to embrace the cultural capital that the diaspora harbours. The rationale is about developing their own diaspora capital independently of the host culture. It is argued by Hack-Polay, Igwe and Madichie [37] that:

“Despite awareness among migrants that the black African market is small and crowded, there was a reluctance to try out products appealing to other ethnicities because of perceived issues of race, discrimination and unchartered business territories”.

The fear of penetration of opposing or juxtaposing ethnic markets derives from the apprehension of other races and cultures that are perceived as threats rather than cohabitants of a now-shared space. The minimisation or elimination of such tension sits at the heart of our proposed concept of total diaspora cultural capital, which is the arena of Sphere D of our conceptual framework.

Sphere D: Total diaspora cultural capital—both cultural diversification and cultural capital from diaspora.

Dynamic socio-cultural forces are at play in an intertwined way. Diaspora groups and host collectivities mix in a collaborative way. Diaspora entities have a more profound involvement with host cultures, products and political life. Equally, host communities will have vested interests in diaspora capital and assist them in making such capital available to all; this leads to some diaspora products being well integrated in host collectivities, e.g., Indian curry becoming a main dish in British society. This perspective is well made in the work of Hack-Polay, Igwe and Madichie [37], whose findings articulate that:

“The extent and consequences of the institutional voids on migrant’s business decisions is significant. For example, hostile immigration laws have bearing on business development and growth among Sub-Saharan migrant communities”.

In the framework of total diaspora cultural capital, these creative and dynamic forces bring about an integrated society that ensures sustainable opportunities for all. In the domain of film and literature, in a post-colonialist context, Sanders [38] expands on the concept of adaptation and appropriation. She argues that the exercise of adaptation—making some alteration or adjustment to cultural assets—does not produce the enduring enthusiasm on both the diaspora and the host community’s sides. A more profound engagement with others’ cultural assets, leading to appropriation, which is ‘fundamental to practice’, is required. This is made clear by participants interviewed by Hack-Polay, Igwe and Madichie [37] expressing their view of what makes an integrated society:

“If we help each other to settle in this country and set-up businesses, that’ll work. Presently, those who do well won’t talk to those who are starting. If this changes, we’ll do better”.

In the same way that cultural artefacts such as food and dress items are fully appropriated and integrated into a cultural domain, aspects of literature have undergone similar processes of contextuality to be natural or semi-natural parts of new places, educational curricula, popular cultures and narratives. Shakespeare’s and Dickens’ texts are potent examples of appropriation in the field of literature. Despite the colonial struggles, both western and developing nations’ diasporas have enabled exchange in key cultural patterns that become a shared cultural domain, giving rise to dynamic social capabilities; this represents the foundation of total diaspora cultural capital. This is why Hack-Polay, Igwe and Madichie [37] found that in the social system:

“Communities that could interact with successful entrepreneurs from other cultures, they could succeed on a similar scale. Some participants felt that creating opportunities to form partnerships with the local population is essential for entrepreneurs”.

Type D organisations and groups contribute more efficiently towards employment for everyone and to the advancement of human dignity generally compared to type ABC, where the either the diaspora community feels uncomfortable or the others feel uncomfortable about diaspora products or services. We make the proposition that type D business organisations and social groups are better prepared to deal with the complexities of an increasingly globalising world where the former stranger is now a familiar face. In this perspective, we view them as more imbued with sustainability. Such groups and organisations develop more efficient and dynamic strategic and operational frameworks, ensuring lasting dynamic capabilities. Hack-Polay, Igwe and Madichie [37] interviewees expressed the view that social solidarity and intercultural learning can bring about these dynamic capabilities. As they point out:

“Entrepreneurs must learn from ethnic communities that are more established and are running successful small enterprises”.

Thus, Type D organisations and groups suggest that to achieve effective integration and harmonious community relations, it is ineluctable that a collective conversation between social actors seeking to build a satisfying community is necessary [39]. We understand such dialogue to be an empirical endeavour centring on sense-making sought by all stakeholders and actors. In the next section, we explain in further depth the significance of the concept of total diaspora capital. Without such a dialogue, Hack-Polay and Mendy [39] warn that the host country could experience and become:

“sadness and a strange place, a place of interminable conflict”.

Type D groups imply that total diaspora cultural capital has three dimensions: appropriation, customisation and deployment. Both the diaspora and the host community recognise aspects of the other culture and develop intimate affective relations with it; however, to effectively use such aspects, the appropriator has to customise them because aspects of a different culture cannot be used in their totality due to the absence of native cultural competencies and natural cultural and environmental conditions. The final dimension of total diaspora cultural capital is deployment. This concept entails that cultural intelligence and competence derives from practice; the actors of the multicultural domain must use the cultural elements appropriated and customised for these to become fully fledged parts of their cultural capital and, thus, embodied in daily social and economic lives. In the context of Amsterdam, Kloosterman [25] argues that the need to appropriate the diaspora’s creativity was understood and, thus:

“The local regulatory environment allows the starting of such [migrant] manufacturing business in the city centre”.

This notion of creativity linked to Type D organisations is further evidenced by Adger et al. [40], who found that there is a significant transformative strength in the interaction, appropriation and integration of different values brought by different diaspora groups. This argument has significant support in the literature [41,42,43,44,45,46] and is particularly interesting as the attempt to identify the attributes that make a host society desire a diaspora group; these attributes are not just in terms of contribution to the economy, but relate to the degree of “extensive mental and physical ties, solidarity and joint participation” (p. 15). This perspective is one that sits at the heart of total diaspora cultural capital. Societies that do not attain this level of integration and interdependence between communities run the risk of confining some groups within the otherness category in the long term [47,48,49,50]. Thus, such societies with a limited view of cultural acceptance and appropriation could price themselves out of cultural richness and socio-economic input.

5. Discussion: Total Diaspora Cultural Capital as Foundation of Sustainability

Although there is a growing interest in sustainability [51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59], the linkage between humanity and sustainability remains unclear from ethno-racial perspectives. The significance of the concept of total diaspora cultural capital resides in the fact that it can operate as a key foundation of wealth creation, cultural dynamism and ethno-racial integration. Building on the labour market segmentation theory, there is evidently a role for diasporas in the production process [10,16,42]. In advanced nations, such as the UK, US, Australia and much of the European Union, there are labour shortages at all levels. In the hospitality sector in the UK, for example, staffing is dominated by foreign labour due to the insufficiency of the local labour force to fill vacancies in the sizeable industry [45,60]. This level of analysis also applies to the manufacturing and farming sectors. In the creative industries (film, music and fashion, etc.), effective adaptation, as proposed by Sanders [38], can be a vain endeavour without appropriation, which includes the embedding of the diaspora in the construction and delivery of the creative product to an increasingly diverse local audience and global market. Equally, building on the business case for diversity, it is evident that different work ethics, beyond filling hard-to-fill vacancies, enrich the workforce and engender enhanced productivity [61,62]. Jonsen et al. [61] criticise the simplistic model of managing diversity that often entails employing people from various ethnic and socio-economic backgrounds to comply with regulations. The authors propose a new conceptualisation of the notion and practice of diversity to include a critical assessment of how the individual’s capital can be best reconciled with the collective good. This exercise suggests appropriation of key aspects of social and cultural capital. The importance and value of this approach centres on the fact that diaspora embeddedness is a process of reality recognition and construction over a period of time, during which the diaspora may have reflected on local realities as affecting and would have established their positioning in the new societal environment. Thus, what the diaspora contributes to society does not emerge out of the vacuum. In the case of the Netherlands, Kloosterman’s study concluded that migrant businesses, for instance:

“are evidently not started in a socio-economic vacuum but in concrete, time-and-place specific contexts (…) Amsterdam, with its particular spatial morphology and its large population of well-to-do urbanites, offers the right kind of local consumer market”

(p. 26).

What is required for a sustainable society is appropriation of the diaspora and its integration with the locality. This can enable diaspora businesses to develop bounded cultural capital or capabilities, which derive from socio-cultural collaboration. This exercise is critical because it entails conscious intellectual and moral exercise and judgement that places human oneness at the heart of all deliberations. An example of this is provided by Kloosterman, who relates the experience of a study participant:

“Cihangir took over a modest bicycle repair shop in Amsterdam. Instead of continuing along beaten tracks and become just another bicycle repair man, he sensed new opportunities and started making cargo tricycles and cargo bicycles designed to carry children through the crowded streets and small alleys”

(p. 25).

In this perspective, economic gain is not the primary outcome sought when a collectivity contemplates cultural appropriation of the diaspora, leading to total diaspora cultural capital. Jonsen et al.’s [61] perspective is in line with the refutation of economic reductionism of diversity which is central to the concept of TDCC and this paper. However, social and technological innovation that changes the lives of individuals and groups in a given receiving community is a significant asset brought by the migrant. In the case of Cihangir related by Kloosterman, the migrant has utilised their own culture centered on collectivism to innovate something that will serve the new collectivity. This exemplifies the social embeddedness of migrant enterprises [22,37].

In the starting assumptions of this paper, we set out to do more than consider economics as the only justification for the necessity of the concept of total diaspora cultural capital. Instead, we endeavoured to purely consider the concept’s social and ethical considerations. In this perspective, it is sound to draw attention to social benefits that integrated cultures bring to host communities. Other cultures enrich our own if they are allowed to express themselves and are supported by hosts. In the UK, for instance, the Afro-Caribbean festival (the Notting Hill Carnival) has become one of the most significant events in the country and the world. Notting Hill Carnival has evolved to become one of the most significant carnivals in the world, attracting millions of visitors and participants from all communities and ethnicities around the UK and worldwide. The carnival shows unity in human society and race and provides an opportunity to appreciate human talent as participating acts, as the carnival evolved, were no longer just Afro-Caribbean. This provides an opportunity for the diaspora to show the cultural capital they harbour at the same time as giving the host communities entertainment, joy and opportunities to learn from embedding communities. Hack-Polay, Igwe and Madichie [37] strongly believe that:

“The lack of intercultural cohesion, strong ethnic identity and competition among ethnicities entrenches each other’s further marginalisation from the mainstream”.

Cultural successes such as the aforementioned Notting Hill gate Carnival, set in what Moran [63] terms ‘bounded space’, would undoubtedly not be possible without collaboration and complicities between diasporas and local collectivities. We, therefore, contend that total diaspora cultural capital results from a complex process and a network of complicities between formerly juxtaposed ethnic groups. At this stage, it is worth reiterating that diaspora cultural capital transcends the often glorified concept of adaptation in the writings of significant authors, such as Schneider and Barsoux [64] and Hofstede [65]. Granovetter’s [66] notions of relational and structural embeddedness are useful in this discussion. Granovetter [66] and Shin, Seo and Lew [67] see relational embeddedness in relation to social actors’ engagement with personal relationships, while structural embeddedness is viewed from the perspective of the diaspora’s involvement with wider socio-cultural networks. However, our concept of total diaspora cultural capital transcends personal relationships and social networks to involve more dynamic exchange (what we termed cultural appropriation). In total diaspora cultural capital, we speak of collaboration and, more profoundly, of complicity. These latter terms imply deeper embrace between and within ethnic communities [67]. It is not sufficient for one to adapt to another, which will signify compromise or not genuinely recognising the value of the other cultures to coexistence and cultural productivity. Total diaspora cultural capital is not about the creation of derivative of a cultural product, which can erase authenticity and serve the purpose of commodification or materiality denoted in Bourdieu’s cultural capital. Hack-Polay, Igwe and Madichie [37] put that:

“Broadening perspectives and working with other ethnic communities could allow intercultural learning and develop solidarity within the … communities and could complement the restricted sphere of each ethnicity”.

Globalisation has exposed the flaws of post-colonial imperialism and ideological colonialism. The emergence of the formerly dominated countries to global power attests to the fact that there is capital out there which often arrives on our shores [39]. The relative stability of traditional societies is now challenged by increasing migratory movements for both individual and economic reasons [23]. Globalising worlds also present opportunities for socio-economic transformation and socio-cultural renewal through the deployment of new productive forces. Receiving societies could draw multiple advantages if the creative capital of those in the Global South who relocate to us are valued, deployed and developed. The discourse characterising the former colonised as inferior [21] and the Global South as distant and sometimes uncivilised, thus, no longer holds true in post-colonial post-modernism. The persistence of such a discourse is a significant impediment to social, cultural and economic sustainability.

6. Conclusions

The discussion has shown that the concept of total diaspora cultural capital (TDCC) encapsulates three key dimensions that foster sustainability: appropriation, customisation and deployment. For cultural capital harboured by the diaspora to be deployed as an identity building tool and a socio-cultural engineering instrument, it is essential that stakeholders or social actors embrace it (i.e., own it) and shape it to suit the context and its usage. In this perspective, as we argued earlier, total diaspora cultural capital transcends the notion of integration. For diasporas to succeed in a new cultural domain and for that host cultural domain to grow, the dynamic forces within the social architecture have to be identified and used in socio-cultural identity construction; it is only then that the new creative force or identity will effectively support the production process (be it social, economic, political or cultural). Total diaspora cultural capital, thus, removes (or at least seriously minimises) institutionalised barriers that hinder the social, economic and cultural contributions of communities to release the dynamic capabilities necessary for sustainable society and communities. In socio-cultural terms, the whole community has access to different domains of reality and a greater understanding of the global context; in economic terms, members of the communities have access to wider markets; and in political terms, society achieves a greater democratic participation of its various social strata. Total diaspora cultural capital, in summary, reconciles multiple identities. TDCC is collective identity creation through acknowledgement and appropriation and this, in our perspective, is suited to post-colonial globalisation as it creates ‘bounded space’. TDCC extends the concept of cultural capital whose limitations have been established in terms of its linkages with class protectionism, class perpetuation and determinism. In TDCC, Granovetter’s [66] notions of relational embeddedness and structural embeddedness must not only work in harmony, but also draw on the notion of cultural appropriation that we debated in this article. Cultural appropriation is the sine qua non glue that binds together newcomers’ and hosts’ perspectives to create a shared new social reality. In debating the concept of total diaspora cultural capital, the criticality of critical race theory (CRT) should underpin our endeavours because the CRT approach entails obligation to engender modern global communities that recognise the benefits that all diasporas bring to the global village as a negotiated cultural space [42,44]; knowledge transferred by the diaspora will be powerful in helping SMEs in the developing world to compete in the increasingly inevitable global world [44,46].

This framework could also apply within the general societal context, even within a national collectivity with limited presence of transnational diasporas—in which case we can simply refer to the concept aa total cultural capital. This is because the notion of cultural diversity is not inextricably linked to migration and transnational communities. Total diaspora cultural capital is a specific application of total cultural capital. Total diaspora cultural capital can, therefore, be viewed as a necessary ingredient of sustainability discourse in the context of globalisation, while total cultural capital would be a more suitable framework for collectivities with less diasporic influence. The concept encourages learning and exchange in knowledge and culture, extending Bourdieu’s original concept of cultural capital.

The authors acknowledge some limitations to the paper. Firstly, the paper could draw on a wider body of literature to reinforce the case for total diaspora cultural capital. This would enable wider contrasting evidence, though the two key studies used are significant because they were researched in different geo-cultural areas. It would also be of benefit to collect new primary data using quantitative and qualitative tools to contrast with the extant literature on migrants and diasporas in new cultural domains. These limitations can be situated in the context of future research. Our framework has been theoretically established and future research could seek to empirically test our theoretical construction with a view to ameliorate or critique it. Such future empirical research will require large sample sizes and cross-national data.