Borders and Exploitation: Migrant Labor Systems in California and South Africa

Using a critique of Buraiuoy's (1976) comparison of migrant labor in South Africa and California as a point of departure, this paper develops a theory of migrant labor and the state. The central idea is the concept of a migrant labor system, a specific configuration of the state with its own logic and coherence. This theoretical framework emphasizes a close connection between the way the state constitutes and polices its borders and how it manages the relationship between migrant workers and employers. Revisiting the South Africa-California comparison, the empirical analysis reveals a parallel tra7isition in both places from a system based on exclusion through legalization (ETL) to a system based on inclusion through illegalization (ITI). The parallel shifts, however, take place at different points in time, exposing a fundamental similarity between contem porary California and Apartheid South Africa. Both are shown to be instances of ITI. The concluding discussion addresses the implications of this parallel and what it means for the future of California. Political-economy perspectives are rare in the immigration literature. Politics and economics are often treated separately, and research tends to emphasize individual outcomes and processes of assimilation rather than systemic conditions and processes of domination. Current theoriz ing of migration has moved away from the insights of an earlier wave of scholarship, which emphasized capital accumulation and the political domination of workers (e.g. Burawoy 1976; Bach 1978; Sassen-Koob 1980; Portes and Wilson 1981; Thomas 1985). This has created a gap in studies of migrant labor. Conditions such as flexibility, cheapness, and docility are not inherent to migrant labor but must be produced and reproduced. The exploitation of migrant workers thus hinges on their constitution as political subjects. Key to this process is the differentiation of sending and receiving societies through the constitution and policing of borders. One study that begins to explore these themes is Burawoy's (1976) comparison of migrant labor in California and South Africa. This study stands out because it shows in detail how the state organizes an economy 11 am grateful for the critical analysis and support of my dissertation group, whose devo tion and sharpness helped me find clarity and coherence; for the guidance and commit ment of Michael Burawoy, who continues to be an amazing mentor; and for the many conversations with Jessie Mandle that allowed the ideas presented here to come to life. Funding from the Berkeley Sociology Department and Berkeley Center for African Studies was invaluable. Please direct correspondence to Marcel Paret, Department of Sociology, University of California, Berkeley, 410 Barrows Hall, Berkeley, CA 94720, or via email to mparet@berkeley.edu. This content downloaded from 207.46.13.172 on Fri, 07 Oct 2016 06:04:14 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 58 BERKELEY JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY around migrant labor. Such an approach emphasizes the operation of migrant labor systems instead of the more common focus on individual or group processes of movement and assimilation: lhe issues are not ones of assimilation and acculturation but of enforced segregation... the flow of labor is directed by supramarket institutions beyond the control of an individual or even a group of migrants... the analysis of such systems of migrant labor requires a different perspective: one focusing on the nature of external coercive institutions and their mode of organization (1051). While this article is frequently cited, it has not been foundational in the immigration literature. The goal here is to rescue its insights and reassert their importance for immigration research. Burawoy provides an excellent foundation for theorizing migrant la bor and the state, but he does not go far enough. For Burawoy, a migrant labor system is defined by the geographic and political separation of jobs and families, and the oscillation of migrant workers between the two. This definition is too narrow and privileges the economic over the politi cal, wreaking havoc on his analysis. Burawoy's descriptions of California and South Africa both downplay important historical variation — par ticularly with respect to the role of borders that separate sending and re ceiving societies — and lead him to mischaracterize the contrast between the two places. Burawoy's analysis therefore deserves close attention, but it requires reconstruction.2 In this article 1 use a critique of Burawoy to develop the concept of a migrant labor system. A migrant labor system is a specific configuration af the state defined by three functions: the constitution and policing of borders, the use and domination of migrant labor in the process of produc tion, and the reproduction of migrant workers and their families.3 Whereas Burawoy (1976) envisioned only one type of system, I focus here on two types. The first, which I call exclusion through legalization (ETL), is based an the legal implementation of physical isolation, economic confinement, and circulating movement. The second, which I call inclusion through illegalization (ITI), is based on the constitution of migrant workers as "ille gal" subjects, social and economic diffusion, and permanent settlement.4 2 Reconstructing theory is of course a project that Burawoy himself takes very seriously and has promoted through his own research (Burawoy 2009) as well as theorizing on social science methodology (Burawoy 1990,1998). 3 In this paper I use the concept of reproduction in two different senses. The concept of the reproducing state refers to the reproduction of a migrant labor system. This is distinct from the reproduction of individuals and families, which is just one component of a migrant labor system. 4 The phrase "inclusion through illegalization" is borrowed from Nicholas De Genova (2004, 2005), whose work has greatly influenced the current study and is discussed more thoroughly below. This content downloaded from 207.46.13.172 on Fri, 07 Oct 2016 06:04:14 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms