Robin Cohen, born in South Africa is a social scientist, an Emeritus Professor in the fields of globalisation, migration and diaspora studies and a former Director of the International Migration Institute, University of Oxford. He has published several books and essays emphasising on the various categories of diaspora, into which each country falls under accordingly. In his essay, “Diasporas and the State: From Victims to Challengers” published in International Affairs in 1996, he points out the fact that the term diaspora which is found in the Greek translation of the Bible denotes more of a positive expression. Though there was some displacement of the ancient Greeks to Asia Minor due to poverty, over population and inter-state war, the term “‘diaspora’ essentially had a positive connotation. Expansion through plunder, military conquest, colonization and migration were the predominant features of the Greek diaspora.” (1).
While mentioning William Safran’s views Cohen, in his second edition of the book Global Diaspora: An Introduction, states that “In allowing such cases (and many others) to shelter under the increasingly broader circumference of the diasporic umbrella, we need both to draw generalised inferences from the Jewish tradition and to be sensitive to the inevitable dilutions, changes and expansions of the meaning of the term diaspora as it comes to be more widely applied” (5). He lets out four important tools, led by social scientists, to help out this task namely distinguishing between emic and ethic claims (the participant’s view verses the observer’s view); have a time dimension to look at how a putative social formation, its development in various countries of settlement and in its response to events in host plans in host lands and home lands; listing out the most important features applying to diaspora that are considered a part of the phenomenon that are being investigated and creating typology classifying phenomenon, and their sub types using the measures of consistency, objectivity, pattern recognition and dimensionality to evolve an agreed and controlled vocabulary.
Relating to the recent changes and application regarding ‘diaspora’ Cohen has categorised the different types of diaspora with each one following various traits: 1. Victim diaspora – Jews, Armenians, Africans, Irish, Palestinians; 2. Labour diaspora – Indentured Indians, Chinese and Japanese. 3. Imperial diaspora – British, colonial powers other than British (Russia); 4. Trade diaspora- Lebanese, Chinese, Venetians, business and professional Indians; 5. De-territorialized diaspora – Caribbean, Sindhies, Parsies, Muslims and other religious diasporas (18).
Furthermore, Cohen has emphasised on using a tool with consolidated list of common features of diasporas with William Safran’s list and his own views. He also opines that not all the features will necessarily constitute any diaspora, but only some of the traits stated below formulate a diaspora, such as:
Dispersal from an original homeland, often traumatically, to two or more foreign regions; Alternatively or additionally, the expansion from a homeland in search of work, in pursuit of trade or to further colonial ambitions; A collective memory and myth about the homeland, including its location, history, suffering and achievements; An idealization of the real or imagined ancestral home and a collective commitment to its maintenance, restoration, safety and prosperity, even to its creation; The frequent development of a return movement to the homeland that gains collective approbation even if many in the group are satisfied with only a vicarious relationship or intermittent visits to the homeland; A strong ethnic group consciousness sustained over a long time and based on a sense of distinctiveness, a common history, the transmission of a common cultural and religious heritage and the belief in a common fate; A troubled relationship with host societies, suggesting a lack of acceptance or the possibility that another calamity might befall the group; A sense of empathy and co-responsibility with co-ethnic members in other countries of settlement even where home has become more vestigial; and The possibility of a distinctive creative, enriching life in host countries with a tolerance for pluralism.” (17)