Defying marginality from the Third Space: A case study of Salvadorans in Los Angeles, California

(1)

Defying marginality from the Third Space:

A case study of Salvadorans in Los Angeles, California

Lynn Kovitch

International Migration and Ethnic Relations Bachelor Thesis 15 credits

Spring 2018: IM245L

Supervisor: Anne Sofie Roald Word count: 10428

(2)

Abstract

This study focuses on the Salvadoran diaspora, by implementing the concepts of marginality, collective action and the Third Space together with hybridity theory. Characteristics of marginality faced by the diaspora and methods used to defy them are explored, through a qualitative analysis of previously published research. The results of this study are that members of the diaspora have challenged their position of marginality, and that the methods of defiance studied are two types of collective action. I argue that is it hybridity which opens a Third Space for defiance to existing power-structures by conjuring new negotiations against marginality.

(3)

List of Abbreviations and Terminology

TPS Temporary Protected Status

DACA Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals

USCIS United States Citizenship and Immigration Services INS Immigration and National Security

ICE Immigration and Customs Enforcement L.A. Los Angeles

N.Y.C. New York City

D.C. area- Washington, District of Columbia greater metropolitan area UN United Nations

MS-13 Mara Salvatrucha 13 Gang USD United States Dollar

CISPES Committee in Solidarity with the People in El Salvador

SCITCA Southern California Interfaith Task Force for Central Americans SALEF Salvadoran American Leadership for Education Fund

ASOSAL Association of Salvadorans of Los Angeles HTA’s Home Town Associations

COMUNIDADES Communities United for Direct Aid to El Salvador

Latinx – gender neutral alternative to “Latina/o” to include non-binary, genderqueer or gender-nonconforming individuals

Hispanic - term used in U.S. Census data, and on questionnaires about ethnicity. Hispanics are considered ‘white’ in race in the U.S. and ‘non-white’ Hispanic is a term that includes those who are ethnically Hispanic/ Latinx but do not identify as white

(5)

1.0 Introduction

In the U.S. the majority of Central Americans are Salvadoran (Zong, Batalova, 2015). In L.A. they are the second largest group after Mexicans, the size and influence of the Salvadoran diaspora makes them an interesting subject for research. Salvadorans have received increased U.S. news and media coverage in recent years, mainly following the loss of protective status and President Trump’s mention of the MS-13 gang at the State of the Union address (Wick, 2018; Sviatschi, 2018).

The recent eradication of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) and debate over other deportation protections reignited my interest in the people covered by these programs (USCIS, 2018). The uncertainty of the current Presidential administration and escalation of fear tactics against immigrants in 2017 has spread to streets in the form of protest and onto front page news coverage (Wick, 2018). This intolerance for the immigrants from above has been met with grassroots protest and solidarity from below (Gonzales, 2018; Chappel, 2018).

It was this moment of political turmoil in which this study began, I wanted to understand the terms and structures used to marginalize immigrants in urban spaces, and what methods of resistance are implemented by these groups and their allies. The topic of hybridity in diasporic studies has sparked my interest since much diasporic research points to transnationalism and dual identities (Ang, 2003). I instead explore how members of a diaspora are inherently affected by their migrant experience, as well as, particularly for Salvadorans the global city and other cultures with which they coexist. The very act of migration, and incorporation into the plethora of cultures which make up the U.S. puts culture into flux as one negotiates their surroundings. Rather than seeking a transnational explanation, I ask how hybridity is represented and the Third Space enacted through defying marginality.

First, I will provide a more in depth background of the Salvadoran diaspora. Then, I will explain how I have built this case with documents, research, and statistics published about the diaspora

(6)

to later explore characteristics of their marginality. After the analysis I offer my conclusion and possible methods of expanding upon this study in the future.

2.0 Aim and Research Questions

The aim of this study is to analyze the Los Angeles Salvadoran diaspora, in terms of marginality from the perspective of the Third Space. By analyzing research and data about the Salvadoran diaspora, I aim to explore whether they are marginalized and if so, in what ways. Then, what strategies and methods they have implemented to defy this marginalization.

In what ways is the Salvadoran diaspora marginalized?

In what ways does the diaspora defy marginality from the perspective of the Third space?

2.1 IMER Relevancy

This topic is IMER relevant because diasporic research is centered around ethnic groups and their relations. By focusing on an immigrant group and the practices which constitute a new space between that of the dominant and a minority culture, this study falls within the field of ethnic relations. As Salvadorans are an ethnic minority in the U.S. made up of international migrants, the topic encompasses both fields.

3.0 Background

Today, El Salvador is often called the “most violent country not at war” and a 2015 study found it has the highest murder rate in the world, at 103 murders per 100,000 people (Crisis Group, 2017). Hundreds of thousands of migrants have fled from El Salvador since the Salvadoran Civil Car, including a significant number of unaccompanied minors. The majority of unaccompanied minors claim gang recruitment and threats as reasons for emigrating (Sviatschi, 2018; Crisis Group, 2017). El Salvador has the highest homicide rate in Latin America and the “Mano Dura” (Iron Fist) policies enforced by police and military have resulted in human rights abuses (Crisis Group, 2017).

(7)

The Salvadoran Civil War lasting from 1979-1992, backed by the U.S. military caused thousands to flee for the U.S. (Crisis Group, 2017). Though many applied for asylum they were generally denied all claims and benefits of public assistance (Chinchilla, Hamilton, 1999). This resulted in some Salvadorans obtaining temporary status under protection programs, and work visas if eligible. For many others it meant remaining undocumented (Chinchilla, Hamilton, 1999; MPI, 2014).

In 2018 it was announced by the Trump administration that TPS would be revoked in September 2019 for multiple recipient groups (USCIS, 2018). For Salvadorans, TPS was originally enacted in 1990 for those already residing in the U.S. as protection from deportation when the civil war was nearing an end, but conditions have not been safe or stable enough to return since

(Gammage, 2007). The program continued with renewal every 18 months, and in 2001 was reinstated after two natural disasters devastated El Salvador. The TPS program has continued on the grounds that there was, “substantial, but temporary, disruption of living conditions” that kept people from safe return (Menjivar, 2017; USCIS, 2001). Salvadorans are currently the largest group of TPS recipients, with over 200,000 recipients who have nearly 190,000 children with U.S. citizenship (Menjivar, 2017; Warren, Kerwin, 2017). The TPS program, with high

qualification barriers, application fees and short-term renewal periods, has offered safety but in no way a path to permanence (Batalova, Zong 2015). After twenty-eight years of temporary protective measures, Salvadorans are set to be deported next year (Warren, Kerwin, 2017).

Today, the diaspora largely consists of undocumented immigrants or temporary status recipients under programs such as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) or TPS (Batalova, Zong 2015). Nationally, TPS recipients account for 16% of the diaspora, and only 32% of the diaspora hold citizenship (Batalova, Hallock, Zong, 2018). Salvadorans have one of the lowest naturalization rates among immigrant groups in the country (MPI, 2014). The uncertainty of statistics regarding the undocumented population supports the notion that precarious status is widespread among Salvadorans in the U.S. (Batalova, Hallock, Zong, 2018).

(8)

3. 1 Defining Diaspora

A diaspora transcends national borders by crossing and re-crossing them. It renders the border imagined as opposed to real, porous as opposed to secure and celebrates emancipation from the nation-state and national identity (Ang, 2003). Though the diaspora can be conceptualized, just as borders or the nation-state, as an imagined phenomenon, the loss of territory and the identity forged by symbols informs the diaspora to be a kind of collective consciousness (Ang, 2003). This may be seen as exclusionary, as it holds insider/outsider notions. It cannot be ignored that the very identity of a diaspora, and the claims to what constitute belonging are also what exclude non-members from it (Ang, 2003). Though, I hesitate to use this term due to these inferred meanings, Salvadorans in Los Angeles fit some of the characteristics which define an ethnic group as diasporic. Some such characteristics include; being forcefully dispersed from a center or place of origin, the continuation of a collective identity made up of cultural heritage and

historical accounts, isolated historic events that act as reminders for the group of its suffering to as an incentive towards cultural preservation, or a dedication to restoring the homeland or creation of a homeland abroad (Cohen; Seyhan, 2001, p.9). Salvadorans possess these qualities, most clearly by dispersion due to the Salvadoran Civil War, as well as some community leaders and organizations that promote cultural heritage and restoration of the homeland (Chinchilla, Hamilton, 1999; Crisis Group, 2017).

El Salvador is the country of origin of the majority of Central American immigrants in the U.S. (Batalova, Zong, 2015).The number of Salvadorans residing in the U.S. grew from 94,000 in 1980 to around 1.5 million in 2018, and in total, over 2 million people in the U.S. claim

Salvadoran heritage (Batalova, Zong, 2015). The four major areas Salvadorans are concentrated are California, Texas, Maryland and the D.C. region (Batalova, Zong, 2015).

3.2 Los Angeles, California

This study will focus on the diaspora in Los Angeles (L.A.), as this city is home to the largest Salvadoran population of any metropolitan area in the U.S. (Batalova, Lesser, 2018). A study conducted to measure immigrant integration in L.A. County between 2006 and 2008, found Salvadorans to be the second- highest foreign born group represented in the population after

(9)

Mexicans, at 7.6% of the total population (Paral, 2011). According to the 2016 U.S. census, L.A. is home to roughly 4 million people, and nearly half of all residents are of Hispanic background (U.S. Census, 2016). L.A. is also the city with the second-most undocumented immigrants only after N.Y.C. (Cohn, Passel, 2017; MPI, 2014). Though it is unclear, the census estimates around 300,000 Salvadorans live in L.A. (U.S. Census, 2016).

4.0 Method

I will use a case study method, as the topic of research is a specific group. I chose only to study one ethnic group or diaspora in one city, to provide an in depth study of whether and through what means marginality effects the diaspora, and if they collectively try to overcome it. This is a single case because the subject could be another immigrant or minority ethnic group perhaps in another state. This particular case is interesting as this ethnic minority is deviant of the white demographic majority present in many places in the U.S., also represented through dominant national identity. One reason I chose Salvadorans is that they are the second largest Latinx group in a city of Latinx majority, the second largest ‘Hispanic’ ethnic group after Mexicans (U.S. Census, 2016).

Due to physical distance from L.A. and lack of a network of Salvadorans to interview, but still intending to use a qualitative method, I felt a case study was most suitable. The method will be applied to examine and understand the case through documents in a qualitative manner (Moses & Knutsen, 2012). Qualitative research seeks to study both meanings and causes, processes and outcomes; aims that are all relevant to this study (Silverman, 2006).

Some limitations as a researcher are my geographic position being located far removed from L.A., my inability to speak or read Spanish and my lack of background or work experience with Salvadorans. As I grew up in the U.S., the nation-state and culture which this study focuses on, I do have the benefit of understanding the socio-political complexities of American life and society when analyzing material.

If I had conducted interviews to ask respondents living in L.A., I would have arrived at more reliable findings on the experience of marginality. I could have compared statistics to

(10)

respondents’ answers to know how individual experience relates to statistical findings. One limitation is that statistics cannot represent lived reality and only inform a representation of data recorded on those who live there (May, 2001). As I am not gathering my own evidence through observation or interviews, the analysis is removed from the subject physically and emotionally, and my conclusions will reflect that.

4.1 Sources and reliability

The material I used are secondary sources. In terms of ethics, all of the material which I have gathered was previously published, meaning the consent was administered and it was available to the public (May, 2001, p. 61). As I am merely analyzing existing data there is less ethical

consideration, compared to observation or interviews, and more emphasis on objectivity when reading and using secondary sources (Moses, Knutsen, 2012).

In gathering different types of material, academic research on El Salvador and the diaspora in L.A., newspaper articles and information from community organization websites provide a well-rounded snapshot of the Salvadoran diaspora. Official government statistics and data provide an overview of who and where the Salvadorans are, news articles give supplementary information and academic research is foundational to my analysis.

The validity of qualitative secondary data is dependent upon the intentions of the sources used. Considering validity under research, one must not look at these documents as the whole truth, but as a piece of what makes up the whole truth (May, 2001, p.178). This also means avoiding the idea that a document can report social reality. It is more useful to analyze the document from personal cultural understanding to configure meaning from it (May, 2001, p.183). This is why I mention my background as an American, as I cannot remove myself completely from this study, but will rather use this position to better understand the material (May, 2001, p.183). For

qualitative studies reliability indicates insurance that this study is able to be replicated. This has been done by making the study transparent, through showing how it was made and what material was used.

(11)

4.2 Material and reasoning

The research on Salvadorans in southern California was written for the Social Justice Journal by Norma Chinchilla and Nora Hamilton. To compliment the evidence based research I use

newspaper articles from the Los Angeles Times, as this is a local source which has written extensively about the Salvadoran diaspora. One article used was, “L.A. Salvadoran community sees hope along a new corridor,” an account of cultural expression and representation via the erection of a community corridor in L.A. (Bermudez, 2008; Shyong, 2012). I only used articles as supplementary information regarding local current events that involved or centered on Salvadorans.

In the analysis of marginality, I use research from the articles Perspectives on Geographical

Marginality, Concepts in Social and Spatial Marginality and Precarity & Agency Through a Migration Lens to provide definitions and support of what characterizes marginalization of

immigrants (Pelc, 2017; Mehrtu et. al. 2000; Gleeson, Paret, 2016). Then, I apply the UN

University’s defined characteristics of marginality to data from “Mapping L.A”, a project started in 2009 by the L.A. Times which applies census data such as demographics and crime to chosen neighborhoods. The statistics are official and the interactive mapping tool provided a flexible and specific frame through which to view these urban areas (U.S. Census; Mapping L.A., 2018). I used data from a Kaiser Foundation study about the fear and uncertainty of immigrants; evidence from the Migration Policy Institutes publications for statistics on Salvadorans, research on precarity and agency, and USCIS-published government information to provide support for characteristics of legal marginality (USCIS, 2018; Ubri, Artiga, 2017; Turner, 2016; MPI, 2014).

5.0 Theoretical Framework

First, I will describe studies which focus on Salvadorans in the U.S., both in California and nationally. Second, I will cite research relevant to my theoretical framework, on precarity and agency of migrants and an argument for hybridity rather than transnationalism. The use of hybridity theory in terms of the third study and a separate working paper, Beyond Diaspora, Into

Hybridity by Ang, have motivated my choice of this theory (Meredith, 1998; Ang, 2003). I must

(12)

such as MS-13 and their transnational ties to El Salvador. Though, this is one of the major fields of research about Salvadorans in L.A., gangs will be further mentioned in the analysis as they too are part of the Salvadoran diaspora (Crisis Group, 2017). After the previous research, I will describe my own theoretical framework implemented in this study. My intended contribution is to add a case which explores the hybridity of diasporic collective action.

5.1 Previous research

Changing Networks and Alliances in a Transnational Context: Salvadoran and Guatemalan Immigrants in Southern California, by Chinchilla and Hamilton takes into account a

transnational position on the Salvadoran and Guatemalan diasporas. The research was conducted by the authors through long term observation and studies of these two communities and a survey of 300 Salvadorans and Guatemalans in the area (Chinchilla, Hamilton, 1999). As this paper was published nearly 20 years ago, it provides a foundation to the Central American communities in the region, rather than contemporary picture. According to the theoretical framework the

researchers use, internationalization of capital is cited as a structural force which motivates international migration. They cite that though, transnational practices may not inherently defy hegemonic structures, they aim to analyze these practices to understand possibilities that may “exist for transnational counter-hegemonic projects” (Chinchilla, Hamilton, 1999, p.22).

The researchers gave in-depth background about the accumulation of the Salvadoran population, the significance of transnational ties socially and economically and the building of resistance toward issues associated with poverty and marginality by Central American activist groups (Chinchilla, Hamilton, 1999). Many of the problems stated in the research paper, such as poverty, crime, gangs and drugs were harming Central American communities in L.A., and in response local groups organized (Chinchilla, Hamilton, 1999). Community organizing, political work, and outreach networks founded by Central American groups continues today. The

Chinchilla Hamilton study has a narrow scope which is focused on Salvadorans in a specific region, providing me the most detailed information about the diaspora in L.A.

Temporary Protected Status: The Experiences of Honduran and Salvadoran Immigrants, a study

(13)

TPS recipients, of whom 92% were Salvadoran (Menjivar, 2017). The survey included questions concerning work and income, health, education, and community and civil service engagement (Menjivar, 2017). The results were that TPS has generally made a positive impact on recipients’ lives compared to before having legal status (Menjivar, 2017). Other studies have been

conducted on the diaspora as well, about TPS recipients nationwide and local studies, such as interviews with female Salvadoran workers in L.A. (Warren, Kerwin 2017; Zentgraf, 2002).

Precarity and Agency through a Migration Lens by Paret and Gleeson is an analysis evaluating

the precarity–migration–agency nexus highlighting "an industry-specific approach, a sending country/deportee approach, and a collective action approach” to immigrants overcoming precarity (Paret, Gleeson, 2016, p. 277). The researchers’ aim was to define and understand precarity, then individual agency and the collective ways migrants respond to precarious situations. This is done by providing an overview of multiple ethnographic qualitative case studies in the fields of migration, precarity and agency in the U.S. (Paret, Gleeson, 2016). They relate the concept of precarity to a diverse set of possible definitions. They build on the

neoliberal concept of economic precarity pertaining to income and livelihood, to reach more specific situations of migrant precarity, with two examples being motivations for international migration and continued vulnerability to ‘deportability’ (Paret, Gleeson 2016, p. 278- 281). The structural oppression or marginalization which lead to immigrant precarity is important, but so is their individual ability to take action; "moments of agency, whether individual or collective, help us to understand how social change happens – even for those individuals who may be defined as outsiders that are unworthy of protection and voice” (Paret, Gleeson 2016, p. 278).

Meredith’s Hybridity in the Third Space: Rethinking Bi-cultural Politics in Aotearoa/New

Zealand, gives solid definitions of both hybridity and the Third Space through examples of the

indigenous and colonial cultural relations in New Zealand. Meredith uses hybridity theory to critically analyze a project entitled ‘Laws and Institutions for a Bicultural Aotearoa/New

Zealand’ and his piece is part of a larger research project on counter-hegemonic cultural politics between Maori/ Pakeha in a postcolonial New Zealand (Meredith, 1998). The aim is for critique of bi-cultural politics, recognition of the heterogeneous population of Maori peoples and the need for an approach which moves beyond the bi-cultural binary, or a hybrid approach (Meredith, 1998).

(14)

Meredith argues beyond the ‘us/them’ binary and into ‘both/and’, conceptualizing that relationships between the minority and majority consist of “multiple subject-positions, aspirations and contrasts continually at play through ongoing interaction and exchange”

(Meredith, 1998, p.1). He highlights hybridity in a concrete sense, that the relations between the two cultures are influenced by "race, gender, generation, class, geographical locale, political and sexual orientation” which transnationalism or bi-culturalism do not sufficiently account for (Meredith, 1998, p.1). In conclusion he remarks that the post-colonial view must now be that some of ‘us’ (colonial subjects) have become ‘them’ (part of the dominant culture) and therefore we need a way to renegotiate these relationships, which he sees possible through hybridity and the Third Space (Meredith, 1998, p.4).

5.2 Theory Implemented

In order to build my theoretical framework for the study, I will discuss two concepts: marginality and the collective action approach to migrant precarity. Finally, I will explain Homi Bhabha’s hybridity theory and the concept of Third Space.

5.3 Concept of Marginality

To define marginalization more clearly, it can be seen as a “social, legal, economic, normative and political process through which subjects and groups are both disempowered and constituted as not belonging” (Turner, 2016, p. 147). Marginality then, is the recognition of these

inequalities, in which some people are denied access to the basic means for living in society (Tyler, Marciniak, 2013, p. 7-8). Dictionary definitions of marginality clarify it as a state of being marginal, with marginal meaning, “close to a limit, especially a lower limit: marginal legal ability” and “of, related to or situated at a margin or border” (Collins English Dictionary, 2018; Miriam Webster Dictionary, 2018). With this definition as a framework, marginalization can be understood as a structural and institutional problem, not relating to the culture, ethnicity or the individual in question.

An individual can be on the margins in different aspects, whether politically, socially,

economically or otherwise. The United Nations University cites the following as characteristics which make up a marginal area: "populations with little or no political influence on the decisions

(15)

affecting their lives; dispersed, heterogeneous populations of minority ethnic groups living at subsistence levels; extreme or recurrent man-made or natural hazards” (Pelc, 2017, p.17).

When conducting research on marginality in a geographic area, researchers usually limit marginality to a few characteristics (Pelc, 2017). It is also important to mention that it is not possible to measure marginality in a concrete way. Rather, it is possible to take into account what characteristics of marginality affect the population in that place, what might cause it and what consequences may result (Pelc, 2017, p. 26).

5.4 Collective Action Approach

One of the three approaches to the ‘precarity-migration-agency nexus’ in Paret and Gleeson’s analysis, is the collective action approach which underlines the agency of immigrants to build solidarity and resist precarity through collective action. Some examples noted are protests by immigrants against issues, ranging “from exploitation at work, to exclusion from public services, to criminalization and the persistent possibility of deportation and family separation” (Paret, Gleeson 2016, p. 286). The authors highlight that the labor movement and immigrant rights movement are intertwined in the U.S., and what is found to be important in this evaluation of collective action by immigrants, is their dualistic precocity of legal status and livelihood

simultaneously (Paret, Gleeson, 2016 p. 286). After protests they cite grassroots political work as combative to precarity, because it motivates individuals to become “voluntaristic, civic minded, and public- spirited social actors” (Paret, Gleeson 2016, p. 287). I will use this concept to describe its use in defying certain characteristics of marginalization.

5.5 Hybridity Theory

“[N]o idiom has yet emerged, to capture the collective interests of many groups in translocal solidarities, cross-border mobilizations, and postnational identities” (Appaduri, p. 166; Seyhan, 2012, p. 9).

According to Hall, one possible consequence of the processes of globalization is that national identities are declining, but new identities of hybridity are taking their place. He argues this is due to local spaces being impacted more by cultural and social influences from afar, posing a

(16)

challenge for certain identities to stay in-tact, that globalization has weakened national identities and strengthened local or regional ones and because new complicated relations between the global and local have formed (Hall, 1990, p. 619- 622).

Hybridity is a theory of ‘postcoloniality’ one of a group of theories that deals with and questions topics of identity, race, nationality, subjectivity under imperial rule, power and language (Edgar, Sedgewick, 1999). Bhabha’s concept of hybridity is used to explore the construction of culture within conditions of inequity under colonialism or in a space which was once colonized

(Meredith, 1998). Bhabha believes that a new hybrid or "subject-position emerges from the coloniser and the colonised, challenging the validity and authenticity of any essentialist cultural identity” (Bhabha, 1990, p. 210).

Hybridity theory is still disputed, even among postcolonial academics, and its meanings translate into different uses. Once holding a negative connotation, the concept of hybridity is no longer used as a racial categorization of mixed-race, but rather describes the position of being “in-between” (Ang; Easthope, 2004, p.8). The term hybrid has been welcomed in the academic world to mean that the lines dividing identities are blurred, leading them to instead become flexible and dynamic (Ang 2003; Easthope, 2004, p.9).

As Homi Bhaba defines hybridity, there is no static culture in society due to mixing of cultures, and culture itself is in constant flux (Bhabha, 1994). In this age of migration, being in exile as a form of the human condition is more and more common, and even if one is not physically displaced, everyone is displaced in time, from the ‘glorious national past’ (Ang, 2003). Migrants are both physically and temporally removed from the nation (Ang, 2003). With the acceptance of the loss of stable identities and communities, “the interdependency of linguistic and cultural experiences both at the local and the global level becomes self-evident” (Seyhan, 2001, p. 9) This may rob individuals of national identities, but there is compensation, as exiles become heir to all culture and can create their own identities. This definition of hybridity gives migrants far more agency than the notion that they inherently belong to one nation (Ang, 2003).

(17)

As Eliot points out that people take part of their culture with them when migrating, “the culture which develops on the new soil must therefore be bafflingly alike and different from the parent culture: it will be complicated sometimes by whatever relations are established with some native race and further by immigration from other than the original source” (Eliot, 1949 p.63; Bhaba, 1996). This exemplifies that culture does not remain intact after experiences of migration and cultural negotiation with both dominant and other cultures. In contrast to the ‘dualism’ of transnationality, of being either/or, the acceptance of hybridity would lead to a sense of belonging to both at once, or to neither separately and thus creating a new space for new meanings to take form (Bhaba, 1994).

Hybridity has more recently been used as a term to describe identity resulting from diasporic and intercultural relations, that the process of cultural hybridity leads to identities which cannot be accounted for and these new processes lead also to new negotiations of representation (Hall, 1990; Bhaba, Rutherford, 1990). Hybridity then, can be seen as embodying a new space which challenges the existing binaries of culture and power, from a place of in-between (Bhaba, 1996). A hybrid is conceived of as a force which undermines the dominant structures and institutions from within, through the creation of a mixed representation; of something new and different (Ang, 2003). Thus, it acts in opposition to essentialism entirely with the creation of a new space, a Third Space, which defies fixed and stable meanings (Meredith, 1998, p.2).

5.6 The Third Space

The concept of the Third Space works in tandem with hybridity theory as defined by Bhabha. Presented as a ‘mode of articulation’ it is a term to describe a productive space that represents new possibility, by disrupting existing boundaries, questioning and interrogating categories of culture and eliciting new forms of meaning (Meredith 1998, p.3; Bhabha, 1994). As Bhabha states, the notion of hybridity as a concept comes from the definitional root of difference and concerns cultural translation through representation and reproduction (Bhabha, Rutherford, 1990, p. 211). Through these two practices of difference and translation, he determines that all forms of culture are hybrid. He stresses that the Third space is not only traced back to which two spaces this new meaning is not, (or is seen to be derived from) but rather hybridity creates a new space that allows other positions to come forward (Bhaba, Rutherford, 1990, p. 211). This space is the

(18)

Third Space.

The Third space displaces those other spaces which create it, and makes space for new structures and initiatives to form. Bhabha refers to it as a form of identification or analogy of sorts through identifying with otherness, but that it “bears the traces of those feelings and practices which inform it... like a translation” (Bhabha, Rutherford, 1990, p. 212). What is significant is that it allows a new area of meaning, representation or negotiation to be enabled (Bhabha, Rutherford, 1990, p. 212).

6.0 Analysis

In what ways is the Salvadoran diaspora marginalized?

In the following, I will relate marginality to the diasporas spatial positioning in the city, as well as their legal position of precarity using the described conception of marginality. When

discussing marginality, I will describe that it can mean characteristics, actions or even spaces (Pelc, 2017). In the first section I will describe the spatial marginality of Salvadorans in L.A. with census and data from Mapping L.A. to support the UN University defined characteristics of marginality. In the second section I will continue from the point made in the background, that Salvadorans have significantly lower naturalization rates and status available is precarious and temporary to explore their legal marginalization. I chose only two forms to analyze based off of Pelc’s analysis, as he concludes that delving deeper into fewer forms of marginality in search of causes and consequences is more functional, as it is not possible to empirically measure

marginality (Pelc, 2017). Thus, I will clarify that legal and spatial marginality are only parts which make up a network of characteristics of marginality.

6.1 Spatial Marginality

“Many Central Americans lived in deteriorating inner-city neighborhoods, where they shared with other residents escalating problems of poverty, overcrowding, crime, gangs and drugs,

(19)

conditions that were aggravated by the recession of the early 1990’s and the cutbacks in government services oriented to these groups” (Chinchilla, Hamilton, 1999, p. 11).

Marginality, in geography studies is related to spatial positioning (Pelc, 2017). The UN

University characteristics of place in advanced marginality point to the spatial element involved and I will make connections to the following three traits: living at subsistence levels,

heterogeneous populations of minority groups, and recurrent natural or man-made hazards.

The following neighborhoods I will present data from are marginal areas that fall under the category of systemic micro-marginal areas, meaning at a metropolitan scale (Mehrtu et. al., 2000, p. 97). These areas of metropolitan marginality are mainly the consequence of dominant

hegemonies of both political and cultural order (Mehrtu et. al., 2000, p. 96). Mehrtu et. al. cite that, "Although vulnerability factors such as history, age and gender are important in systemic microspatial marginality, the most common forms are those based on ethnocultural distinctions and immigration status” and in North America these areas are most often central to the

metropolitan area (Mehrtu et. al., 2000, p. 97).

According to the U.S. census statistics and Mapping L.A., many Salvadorans live in three concentrated urban neighborhoods in one area of Central L.A.: Echo Park, Westlake and Pico-Union. Salvadorans have historically lived in the Westlake area of Central L.A., since they arrived in the late 1970’s and 1980’s (Chinchilla, Hamilton, 1999). These neighborhoods comprise an area that locals call Rampart (Mapping L.A., 2018). They are among the most population-dense neighborhoods in L.A., are all majority Hispanic/ Latinx residents and the three major areas with the most Salvadorans (U.S. Census, Mapping L.A., 2018). In Echo Park: 15% of population is from El Salvador in an area that is 64% Hispanic/ Latinx, in Westlake: 17% of population is from El Salvador in an area that is 73% Hispanic/ Latinx, and in

Pico Union: 24% of the population is from El Salvador in an area that is 85% Hispanic/ Latinx (U.S. Census, Mapping L.A., 2018).

In connection to ‘living at subsistence levels’ median household income in Westlake and Pic-Union is $26,000 USD per year, the majority making $20,000 USD or less (U.S. Census,

(20)

Mapping L.A., 2018). In Echo Park, median income is slightly higher at $37,000 USD per year, though still lower than the U.S. national median annual income of $59,000 USD in 2016. (U.S. Census, 2017; Mapping L.A., 2018). According to the Census, 25% of Westlake residents live below the poverty line and all three neighborhoods fall within the six lowest median annual incomes of the region, by neighborhood rank (U.S. Census, Mapping L.A., 2018). This is characteristic of marginality in the sense of economic disempowerment (Turner, 2016, p. 147). The neighborhoods are also extremely densely populated; Westlake and Pico Union are the second and fourth most dense neighborhoods, of all neighborhoods of the city (U.S. Census, Mapping L.A., 2018). Crowded areas and housing and high poverty rates are facets of marginalized areas (Pelc, 2017).

As for ‘heterogeneous populations of minority groups,’ all three areas are majority Latinx/ Hispanic with Asian and African-Americans being the two next most represented groups. In all of the areas, minority groups made up the majority and whites were not highly represented (U.S. Census, Mapping L.A., 2018).

'Recurrent natural or man-made hazards’ in this instance will be viewed as the crime rate consisting of violent crime, homicides, and theft. Pico Union, Westlake and Echo Park rank thirtieth, thirty-first and seventy-third respectively out of the two hundred neighborhoods in L.A. (U.S. Census, Mapping L.A., 2018). All three have below national and county average

educational attainment rates and high levels of crime for the county and state (U.S. Census, Mapping L.A., 2018).

Westlake is infamous as it is where the Mara Salvatrucha gang (MS-13) was established by Salvadoran immigrants in the 1980s who, when arriving to areas around MacArthur and

Lafayette Park, were met with Mexican gangs (BBC, 2017; Crisis Group, 2017). Originally MS-13 started as a social group defined by Salvadoran nationality, before becoming involved in criminal activity (BBC, 2017).

Gangs are founded, “in terms of identity politics and resistance to a wider context of exclusion” which intersects violence, in a multitude of forms be they structural, symbolic or literal within an

(21)

urban space (Winton, 2014, p. 408). The characteristics of poverty, lack of economic opportunity and low education attainment rates can also contribute to gang affiliation (Winton, 2014, p.408). This viewpoint makes looking beyond the individual criminal necessary. Structural violence such as, the inability to obtain legal status and working papers, and symbolic violence such as ethnic stigmatization, cannot be disconnected to actual violence committed by individuals (Winton, 2014, p. 408). In this view, poverty, spatial marginalization, and legal marginalization are

structural oppressions. Some individual reactions to these issues may be to turn to crime for

subsistence, and reliance on gangs for security or status in the community (Winton, 2014, p. 403). Though these relationships between gangs and the communities they operate in are complicated and variant, in “situations of institutional and social marginalization” the gang works as an institution that offers meaning and that need for meaning cannot be scrutinized seperately from the neighborhoods in which gangs exist (Winton, 2014, p. 403).

This is important to mention as gang formation is related to living conditions in which division and violence are used as strategies for self-preservation (Winton, 2014, p.408). Thus, the

marginalization which causes gang formation and continuation is at the heart of the community’s problems.Gangs can be seen as one way of resisting power structures, and as a reaction to oppressive and marginalized positioning in society (Winton, 2014 p. 403). However, in this study it is not the gangs which are the issues of interest, but the characteristics of marginality which help cause their formation (Winton, 2014, p. 408).

Lastly, I want to conclude this section with the reminder that spatial marginality is not measurable in an objective sense, but one "can state that a certain area or region is (at least partly) marginal using appropriate set of indicators that can show the presence of certain

characteristics of marginality in the area” (Pelc, 2017, p. 24). According to official statistics, the three neighborhoods reproduce characteristics such as high poverty rates, population density, low educational attainment and high crime rates, all which fit the aforementioned UN University characteristics of marginalized areas (Pelc, 2017; U.S. Census, Mapping L.A. 2018).

(22)

"Immigration status is one of the most insidious factors of vulnerability for marginalization and exploitation worldwide...Those without residency status are subject to random cruel treatment by immigration authorities and law enforcement bodies as well as those who employ them” (Mehtru et. al., 2000, p. 93).

To help define legal marginality the UN University trait of marginalization which I will make a connection to in this section is defined as a condition of ‘populations with little or no political influence on the decisions affecting their lives’ (Pelc, 2017).

According to census statistics, USCIS data and academic research on TPS recipients, I define the Salvadoran diaspora as legally marginalized. The rejection of asylum applications, limited opportunities to obtain status and low naturalization rates support this (Crisis Group 2017; U.S. Census 2016; MPI, 2014). Additionally, the limited status that is currently offered is precarious, short term, and offers no path to naturalization, point to legal marginality as well (USCIS, 2017; Paret, Gleeson, 2016). The large percentage of undocumented peoples in L.A. and

undocumented Salvadorans more specifically, means those without status or with precious status, lack legal protections and rights which are afforded to citizens (U.S. Census 2016; Paret,

Gleeson, 2016).

Up to 35,000 Salvadorans have TPS in L.A. and stand to lose that status with the announced September 2019 program revocation (McGahan, 2018; Warren, Kerwin, 2017). The Migration Policy Institute has estimated 130,000 Salvadorans are undocumented, of the nearly 300,000 Salvadorans residing in L.A. (MPI, 2014). The diaspora is marginalized through lack of access to legal rights or status, and for many, there are no pathways to attain status due to qualification barriers (Warren, Kerwin 2017; MPI, 2014). In addition to continuous presence, registration renewal during distinct application periods and payment of fees, one must meet all requirements (Warren, Kerwin, 2017). On the USCIS website regarding eligibility requirements for TPS applicants it is stated that you may not qualify for TPS if you:

“Have been convicted of any felony or two or more misdemeanors committed in the United States; Are found inadmissible as an immigrant under applicable grounds in INA

(23)

section 212(a), including non-waivable criminal and security-related grounds; Are subject to any of the mandatory bars to asylum; Fail to meet the continuous physical presence and continuous residence in the United States requirements; Fail to meet initial or late initial TPS registration requirements; or If granted TPS, you fail to re-register for TPS, as required, without good cause” (USCIS, Temporary Protected Status, 2018).

One must pay to apply initially and each eighteen months the re-application the costs can range anywhere from $85 USD to $545 USD (USCIS, TPS, 2018). These two examples support the finding of high qualification barriers and high cost.

For immigrants without citizenship, the risk of deportation is what defines ‘precarious legal status’ (Paret, Gleeson, 2016, p. 281). Immigrants with legal permanent residency, immigrants with temporary status and the undocumented make up the hierarchy of precarious targets by the ‘deportation regime’ (Paret, Gleeson, 2016, p. 281). Immigration controls are what comprise the structure which perpetuates the conditions in which employers are able to exploit workers without protections (Paret, Gleeson, 2016, p. 281).

Precarious legal status leads to uncertain precarious employment and livelihood because of lack of access to fair wages, work benefits, and worker protections means increased worker

vulnerability (Paret, Gleeson, 2016, p. 281). The lack of options for protective status, high cost and qualification barriers to apply for the existing temporary status options without path to naturalization make up legal marginalization, as well as the existence of the deportation regime and it’s ever-looming power to upend one’s life (Paret, Gleeson, 2016, p. 281). Legal

marginalization and precarious status lead to “state violence, deportation, exclusion from public services and basic state protections, insecure unemployment and exploitation, insecure

livelihood, and everyday discrimination or isolation” (Paret, Gleeson, 2016, p. 281).

Legality further affects the social lives of those who do not have status or have precarious temporary status as they worry about deportation of either themselves or family members (Ubri, Artiga, 2017). Findings from the Kaiser Family Foundation’s health survey of immigrant families concluded that immigrants with and without legal status are experiencing intensified

(24)

levels of fear and uncertainty, which has for multiple reasons impacted respondents’ daily life (Ubri, Artiga, 2017). These fears result in negative effects on immigrants and their children’s well-being as fears can manifest in many ways, both physically and mentally (Ubri, Artiga, 2017). People whose lives are ridden with fear of detention and deportation are not only marginalized by the law itself, but legal marginalization causes such intense fear as to effect overall individual and family health (Ubri, Artiga, 2017). Thus supporting that marginalization in terms of lack of access to legal status and rights, impacts the social, spatial, economic and other terms with which one navigates life.

The Salvadoran diaspora can be seen as one of many groups marginalized by the

internationalization of capitalism which motivates both emigration and strict immigration policy in receiving countries (Paret, Gleeson, 2016, p. 281; Crisis Group, 2017). Global structures that influence emigration, such as the U.S. interference in and funding of the Salvadoran Civil War, clash with policy like that of denial of asylum claims to Salvadoran war refugees (Crisis Group, 2017; Gammage, 2007). This evidence demonstrates that those members of the diaspora who do not have legal status, are regarded as not having rights. These members lack political influence on decisions that affect their lives voting rights and access to justice or workers’ rights, and lack the right to life and liberty when living in constant fear of the risk of deportation.

It becomes of interest then to examine how migrants navigate the structures of power that marginalize them, with collective efforts to affect social change such as worker organization or protest against deportation. Gleeson and Paret describe these as moments of agency. Whether they be individual or of collective effort, they are imperative to understanding how social change happens (Paret, Gleeson, 2016, p. 278). Researchers continue to debate whether migrants within the precariat have the collective capability to attain this power, if oppression poses a possibility to affect social change or whether it causes fragmentation of the working class (and the migrant-blaming rhetoric) making the precariat ‘at war with itself’ (Paret, Gleeson, 2016, p. 281).

7.0 The Third Space

(25)

What I aim to clarify in the next section is how Salvadorans defy marginalization through the perspective of the Third Space. What I argue is that collective action is being enacted from this new space, one that allows for new meanings to be created. I will describe that these new meanings manifest through political and community engagement and other examples of collective action (Paret, Gleeson, 2016).

7.1 Defying Spatial Marginalization: the physical presence of the diaspora

The presentation of Salvadoran culture is embedded in South/Central L.A. through shops, murals, food, language and music (Shyong, 2012). In 2012, after much lobbying and effort by Salvadoran groups, the city of L.A. designated several blocks of South Vermont Avenue, beside Pico-Union as the Salvadoran Community Corridor (Shyong, 2012). Some of the goals of the community corridor listed on their website are to “promote cultural customs and traditions through nostalgic products, integrate and build bridges of communications between fellow countrymen and other cultures, encourage the development of museums, cultural centers, and businesses” (El Salvador Corridor, 2016).

The Salvadoran corridor is not only Salvadoran by imagined meaning or American by geography, but a mix of the two which challenges the validity of either essential identity (Meredith, 1998; Bhabha 1994). As Eliot states, though immigrants transplant aspects of their culture when immigrating, it is also unavoidable that it will be changed and influenced by the culture which it meets (Eliot, 1949, p.63). Thus, reproduction of culture through the community corridor is not an exact copy of El Salvador, but it is a form of cultural translation, one shaped by the migrant experiences and plethora of cultures around it. The corridor is representative of how culture does not stay the same after migration and cultural negotiation, and that L.A. is inherently changed by the existence of such a large Salvadoran diaspora (Bhabha, 1994).

There are two large Salvadoran murals and a square officially named Oscar Romero Square, with a statue of the Salvadoran Catholic Archbishop, erected in 2012 (Shyong, Warner, 2012). Since 2006 there has been a Day of El Salvador celebrated in L.A. every August as well. The visibility of Salvadorans through these many expressions speaks boldly of the diasporic presence in the

(26)

physical sense (Shyong, Warner, 2012). These diasporic representations exemplify how cultural hybridity results from a process of intercultural relations; the mixing of cultures in L.A. becomes not only social or demographic, but a physical space of representation (Hall, 1990). The physical depiction of Salvadoran culture could also be seen as a ‘subject-position’ described by Meredith, which is in constant interaction and negotiation with dominant and other cultures (Meredith, 1998, p.1).

Many businesses were part of the lobbying for the corridor and naming of Oscar Romero Square, and these efforts by Salvadoran groups to dedicate physical space to their culture exemplify collective action (Warner, 2012; Paret, Gleeson, 2016). The physical presence is also an example of defiance to the hegemonic structures which spatially marginalize minorities (Paret, Gleeson, p. 281). The diaspora’s declaration of physical presence reinforces its continued presence within a national boundary which both legally and socially marginalizes them. The community corridor and other established public spaces which recognize the Salvadoran diasporic presence in L.A. give Salvadorans recognition and space in the city. This itself may not overcome the problems related to spatial marginalization, but claiming space through collective action is one way of defying a marginalized position (Turner, 2016; Paret, Gleeson, 2016).

7.2 Defying Legal Marginalization through Collective Action: protest,

community engagement and grassroots political action

“What is radical and politically transformative about these acts is that they refuse the affirmation of existing rights regimes, (and) the political identities assigned to them by the dominant

consensual order” (Turner, 2016, p. 146).

As mentioned previously in the background, thousands of people fled El Salvador in the 1980s arrived in L.A. representing many fields of work, with skills in community organizing, politics, and education (Chinchilla, Hamilton, 1999). As early as the 1980s and 1990s Salvadorans became labor organizers in fields such as janitorial and garment worker industries, often acting in solidarity with Central American immigrant workers’ rights (Chinchilla, Hamilton, 1999). Salvadorans started to fight for fair treatment and justice in California and political justice in the

(27)

homeland (Chinchilla, Hamilton, 1999). The following groups in this section have organized using collective action, through both protest and grassroots political action. How these actions defy legal marginality will be proven by examples of their work.

Among the first local organization started by Salvadorans in L.A. was the Central American Resource Center (CARECEN) in Westlake, which is now one of the largest Central American rights activist groups in the U.S. (Chinchilla, Hamilton, 1999). On their website they state, “The Central American Resource Center, a nonprofit organization, was founded in 1983 by

Salvadoran refugees determined to secure legal status for the thousands of Central Americans fleeing civil war” and for the past three decades they have provided “low-cost immigration legal services, policy advocacy in immigration, education reform and workers' rights, and organizing know-how for parents, youth and workers” (CARECEN, 2017). Their main branches of work are in legal services, education and organizing of the community campaigns (CARECEN,

2017). They have a Day Labor Center, a community space to help immigrant workers with labor rights, offering workshops and information about services and benefits available (CARECEN, 2017).They coordinate several simultaneous campaigns such as “ICE out of L.A.” which works against the collaboration of federal officers and local law enforcement, as it threatens those without legal status and forces non-citizens further into the shadows, causing fear of reporting crimes or cooperating with investigations (CARECEN, 2017). Another campaign is to promote the advancement of TPS status to Legal Permanent Residence for Central Americans, stating that those abiding to TPS qualifications show qualities of permanence and deserve an end to the uncertainty and ‘legal limbo’ of temporary status (CARECEN, 2017).

The focus areas and work of CARECEN all represent examples of collective action (Paret, Gleeson, 2016). The ICE and TPS campaigns are combative to legal precarity by challenging the culture of fear to risk of deportation, advocating for rights’ education and extension of temporary statuses to residency. These areas of work exemplify the resistance to legal marginality. The multiple methods of grassroots political work also increase community engagement and inspire civic mindedness in individuals (Paret, Gleeson, 2016, p. 287).

(28)

Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of L.A. (CHIRLA) and El Rescate were cited as

organizations in the region working to improve youth oriented outreach programs to reach at-risk populations and develop immigrant empowerment initiatives (Chinchilla, Hamilton, 1999). They aid immigrants in applying for legal status and citizenship, and promote engagement in the political process, both examples of collective action used to defy existing power-structures and legal precarity.

Another group called Homies Unidos (HU) is a transnational organization aimed at ending gang violence and offers assistance to incarcerated Salvadoran gang members in L.A. and affected communities (Homies Unidos, 2017). The group also helps those who face deportation by providing re-integration and job training programs in El Salvador. In L.A. they offer a 12-week life skills program, wellness workshops and grassroots political advocacy (Homies Unidos, 2017). They are part of the Peace Process Network, whose mission is to end gang violence and gang deportations from the U.S. (Homies Unidos, 2017). Since 1999 there has been a HU group in L.A. which meets weekly, along with a high school dropout prevention program in

collaboration with California State University (Chinchilla, Hamilton, 1999).

A second notable local group oriented towards youth is Salvadoran American Leadership for Education Fund (SALEF) which awards yearly scholarships to Central American students, leads community service projects and leadership programs aimed at engaging youth in their

communities (SALEF, 2014). HU and SALEF exemplify the Third Space as their work

challenges those existing power structures and aim to fight lack of educational attainment (Ang, 2003). Though their existence may derive from these existing structures, through creation of new negotiation they displace structural power (Bhabha, Rutherford, 1990, p.212). For example, HU opens up a new space between Central American and American cultures, between criminal past and educational attainment through community engagement, reform and education. HU defies marginality by no longer submitting to the existing power structures which have historically resulted in crime and incarceration (Homies Unidos, 2017).

Groups such as El Rescate, Clinica Oscar Romero and Association of Salvadorans of Los Angeles (ASOSAL) are dedicated to helping Salvadorans apply for status, and gain access to

(29)

health, housing and social services (Chinchilla, Hamilton 1999). Importantly, they have become outlets for awareness surrounding the conflict in El Salvador, voicing human rights abuses, inviting speakers from El Salvador and sponsoring groups of lawyers and government

representatives from the U.S. on trips to El Salvador (Chinchilla, Hamilton 1999). This political engagement is representative of collective action taken to improve their home country and of their hybrid identity: of being in-between, of being ‘both/and’, meaning they belong to both cultures and spaces (Easthope, 2004, p. 9).

Home Town Associations (HTA’s) have existed since the 1980s, in which diaspora members join together in an area to raise money to send back for development and humanitarian aid to El Salvador (El Rescate 2017; Chinchilla, Hamilton, 1999). In 1992, Salvadorans in southern California began a project, now nationwide, known as Communities United for Direct Aid to El Salvador (COMUNIDADES). In 2001, mayors in El Salvador invited HTA leaders from L.A. to participate in the National Congress of Municipalities (El Rescate, 2017). This led to the

establishment of a program by the Salvadoran Government which raises millions each year in partnership with HTA’s (El Rescate, 2017).

All of the aforementioned examples demonstrate collective action, with the aim to defy aspects of marginalization and its consequences by challenging their current position in society. These groups combat legal precarity by directly confronting their precarious status and non-existent path to naturalization. They do this by supporting their community in solidarity against immigration controls, such as ICE raids, unjust laws and facets of marginality such as low education attainment, high crime and gang affiliation. This is also exemplified by defiance to aspects of marginality which lead to job insecurity, fear of deportation, barriers to status or paths to residency and even educational barriers (Paret, Gleeson, 2016; Chinchilla, Hamilton, 1999). As described in the collective action approach, these examples of action against the legal

precarity of Salvadorans highlight the diaspora’s resistance and solidarity in defying this position (Paret, Gleeson, 2016).

One well-known example of defiance was the 1982 Orantes case, filed by Salvadorans against the INS for not informing Salvadoran arrestees of their right to a lawyer and right to apply for asylum (National Immigration Law Center, 2011). The case became a permanent nationwide

(30)

injunction in 1988 which,

“

mandates that the INS provide Salvadorans placed in immigration custody with a written notice about their rights, ensure Salvadorans access to telephones, counsel, and legal materials in detention, and refrain from coercing Salvadorans into signing voluntary departure agreements” (National Immigration Law Center, 2011).

This case challenged the same power structure which was detaining immigrants, fast-tracking deportation and withholding information. As it was filed and won by a group of non-citizens, this strategy of winning protections defies their legally marginalized position because claimants challenged their “exclusion from public services and criminalization” (Paret, Gleeson 2016, p.286). Importantly, the case demanded that non-citizen voices be heard and documented by the judicial system, thus using the very system which excludes and marginalizes them to seek justice for non-citizens. This is a permanent national legal victory won by a group of Salvadoran

immigrants taking collective action.

While it is these methods of marginalization and disempowerment which provide the conditions for collective action, it is the disruption of existing power-structures that shows defiance and enacts the Third Space (Meredith, 1998, p.3; Bhabha, 1994). From this viewpoint, methods which defy marginalization such as collective action, can provide alternatives for new or other ways of living (Turner, 2016). For example, in reaction to forms of exclusion from society one may turn to gang membership or, one may alternatively take direct action of opposition to their marginalized position by protesting or trying to improve the conditions for their community (Winton, 2014; Turner, 2016; Paret, Gleeson, 2016).

8.0 Discussion

"The political ‘acts’ which emerge from marginal spaces and experiences are never determined but always work through the historical and social conditions which they equally contest” (Turner, 2016, p. 146).

I have taken into account what characteristics of marginality might affect the Salvadoran population in place, what may cause such marginality and what it’s consequences are (Pelc, 2017). I conclude that from the material and statistics analyzed that the Salvadoran diaspora is legally marginalized in terms of denial to asylum claim, lack of access to rights, high

(31)

qualification barriers to status and frequently costly application fees (USCIS, 2018; Menjivar, 2017, Warren, Kerwin 2017; MPI, 2014). It is also notable to mention the looming end of TPS, the program of which Salvadorans are the largest recipient group to date (USCIS, 2018). This and the current presidential administration only add to legal precarity, and the underlying fear of the risk of deportation further affects immigrants’ social lives and health (Ubri, Artiga, 2017).

Although a truly objective analysis of spatial marginalization is not possible, characteristics of marginality are present in the three neighborhoods which were analyzed (Pelc, 2017; Warren, Kerwin 2017). Through evaluating U.S. Census statistics, it is clear that some of the UN University’s definitions of a marginalized area do apply: the neighborhoods’ history of gang formation, high crime rates, high poverty rates, low educational attainment and dense population, point to characteristics of spatial marginalization (USCIS, 2018; Mapping L.A.; Pelc 2017).

This is not to discount the fact that many Salvadorans live in other neighborhoods in the city and potentially may not face aspects that come along with marginalized areas such as crime,

overcrowding or living at subsistence levels. One cannot generalize that all of the Salvadoran diaspora in L.A. experience these characteristics of marginality. Despite this, through legal marginalization the majority of the diaspora likely face other forms simultaneously, be that lack of access to health care, job opportunities or higher education (Paret, Gleeson, 2016; Ubri, Artiga, 2017).

Based on the material, I argue that the Salvadoran diaspora is not merely transnational, as it changed through not only the act of migration but also proximity to other cultures in L.A. The negotiations between majority and minority culture, as well as other cultures like that of Mexican residents in L.A. make the culture of the diaspora move beyond that of dual or transnational substance (Bhabha, 1996). Through examples of cultural translation and reproduction practices, like the community corridor and organizations, the diaspora can be seen as hybrid (Bhabha, Rutherford, 1990). Between Salvadoran and American cultures lies the diaspora belonging fully to neither imaginatively to one and psychically, but not legally, to the other (Ang, 2003).

Deriving from the two, the diaspora embodies a new space, one which seeks to defy the existing structures which marginalize it (Ang, 2003; Bhabha, 1996).

(32)

The Third Space is enacted by the diaspora’s activism. These activists and organizations are not just Salvadoran and American, but affected by their migrant experience and cultures around them (Bhabha, 1996). The collective action taken by community organizations to combat local issues special to immigrants in the area, and improvement in El Salvador, derives from a hybrid

experience (Paret, Gleeson, 2016; Bhabha, 1996). This is exemplified through both improvement of the homeland through donations and aid, as well as improvement of conditions in L.A.

through space claiming, activism and organizing (Chinchilla, Hamilton, 1999). Between these two causes, through collective action and representation, the Third Space is enacted (Paret, Gleeson, 2016). It is from this place of in-between that a new space takes shape, which defies existing binaries of culture and structural power (Bhabha, 1996).

The effects of living under precarious conditions whterh in spatially marginalized areas or facing adverse situations such as legal marginalization, can unite people and inspire collective action (Paret, Gleeson, 2016). The collective action taken by the Salvadoran diaspora is hybrid because it is affected by other cultures in L.A. as well; for example, the “ICE out of L.A.”, campaign benefits all immigrant groups targeted by ICE and represents solidarity with other undocumented peoples (CARECEN, 2017). Other examples are scholarships offered by SALEF described in the analysis going to Latinx youth, not just Salvadorans, and though some organizations begun as solely Salvadoran, they have widened their scope to address local issues that affect other groups in L.A. (Homies Unidos, CARECEN, SALEF, 2017).

In the Orantes case, immigrant activists challenged the hegemonic power-structures of the justice system. Hybridity is visible by the in-between-ness of being legally precarious in the U.S. yet fighting for legal, worker, and educational rights (Bhaba, Rutherford, 1990). Filing a lawsuit against the INS, embodies the diaspora’s drive to challenge their societal positioning and improve their living conditions. This is an example of a force which undermines dominant structures and institutions from within, characteristic of the Third Space (Paret, Gleeson, 2016; Ang, 2003).

The creation of their own space in Los Angeles physically with the community corridor, public statues, art and murals, points to the kind of identity formation which compels the nation-state to

(33)

“confront the extent to which their boundaries are porous and their ostensible homogeneity a

multicultural heterogeneity” (Tololyan, 1991, p. 5). Diasporic visibility by physical presence of Salvadoran culture is not an exact ‘reproduction’ of El Salvador, but rather defines their cultural differences from the dominant American and Mexican cultures, yet represents their negotiation and flux with the two (Bhabha, Rutherford, 1990, p.211). The corridor exists in L.A., alongside many other cultures, and only after the experience of migration to the U.S. was it created. Thus, it is a product of hybridity, a translation which bears traces of that which informs it (Bhabha, Rutherford, 1990, p.212).

8.1 Conclusion

From the experiences of legal and spatial marginalization, may come many setbacks such as lack of access to rights, education, stable income or livelihood and proximity to crime or violence (Ubri, Artiga, 2017; Paret, Gleeson, 2016; MPI 2014). However, from this same space, as exemplified throughout this study, comes defiance to this position of marginality (Paret, Gleeson, 2016). Definace may come in many forms, but I have highlighted two positive forms. The efforts to claim space with art, murals and the community corridor by physically asserting presence, combined with the collective action to organize, protest, and change living conditions, both derive from this position of marginality (Paret, Gleeson, 2016; Turner, 2016; Bhabha, 1990). Especially now, under the current presidential administration the increased threat posed by ICE, grassroots activism and solidarity have risen despite the climate of fear (Ubri, Artiga, 2017; Gonzales, 2018).

The Third Space is enacted by not belonging fully to either the dominant American or Mexican spaces, or to El Salvador itself: but from being in-between, in creating meaning and solidarity within a local community. The collective actions against legal precarity, through rights claims and protests, are in defiance to their position of marginality. The collective claiming of physical space and representation are in defense of their belonging within this space. These examples of collective action are representative of diaspora members moving beyond the 'us/them' binary, into the concept of 'both/and’ via the fight for rights, inclusion and better conditions in the U.S. and improvement of conditions in the homeland. From the principles of hybridity theory, it can

(34)

be seen that diasporic hybridity and embodiment of the Third Space through varying methods of collective action is in direct defiance of these positions of marginality.

8.2 Future Research

One way to continue this research could be an ethnographic study of this diaspora. If research on Salvadorans in L.A. were continued, a study of the local area would be beneficial to come closer to the subject of investigation. This could be done by observing their neighborhoods and

investigating their everyday lives, helping to relate this study’s findings to individual real-life experiences. Other possible aims may come in an exploration of other characteristics of marginality not discussed in this study or related questions to precarity, agency or structural oppressions. Using another method to delve deeper into individuals’ experiences and observing aspects of cultural hybridity could also carry these findings forward.

Defying marginality from the Third Space: A case study of Salvadorans in Los Angeles, California