migration and ethnicity

     This weeks reading evolve around the issue of migration and ethnicity, providing three different views. Let me start with briefly outlining the authors’ main arguments. Sirkeci, writing about – bluntly put – the reasons for migration, argues for the inclusion of ethnicity ‘among explanatory variables in future analyses of Turkish international migratory regimes’ (Sirkeci 2003: 204). Although it may not be the most important variable it can still add to the “environment of insecurity”.

     Soysal, then, criticizes the notions of “second generation” and “in-betweenness” as it locates migrant youth neither in the everyday life of Germany where s/he was born, but outside or on the peripheries; nor is s/he ‘longer inside Turkishness, since [s/he] was born in Germany (Soysal 2002: 125). Further, Soysal argues that stories of integration, which come along with notions such as second generation, ‘rely on taken-for-granted conceptions of identity that singularly take “national” as the defining parameter of identity and belonging’ (ibid.: 133). Consequently, Soysal argues in favor of situating migrant youth in an institutional setting, ‘in the social and cultural spaces within which they realize their life stories, make and have cultures, and converse and cooperate with their peers’  (ibid.: 123). Soysal’s approach results in a move away from generational and ethnic categories.

     In a similar vein, Glick Schiller argues against “methodological nationalism”, which takes the nation-state as containing social and historical processes, as “naturally” constituting borders, separating different homogeneous identities. The author calls instead for the ‘examination of non-ethnic forms of incorporation and transnational connection’ (Glick Schiller 2008: 1). Taking ethnicity as an analytical unit in the study of migration is likely to leave un-researched and under-theorized possible non-ethnic forms of settlement and transnational connection, and the significance of locality of the city in a migrant settlement. Further, a unit of analysis based on ethnicity homogenizes the community, which is actually highly heterogeneous as it bears divisions of class, gender, generations, region of origin or politics.

     The movie Kebab Connection (2004) written amongst others by Fatih Akin helps to understand especially Soysal’s and Glick-Schiller’s arguments. On the one hand we see how the migrant youth (Ibo and Valid) cannot be regarded as somewhere in between. By running a restaurant and through the making of movies Valid and Ibo constitute an active part of the city they inhabit and contribute to the art and culture of it. On the other hand, we also see connections across ethnic groups, although at the beginning especially among the youth. This also supports the argument that ethnic groups are heterogeneous and that through an approach of ethnic unit, this heterogeneity would be undermined and overshadowed. Taking for example Ibos family as a and other Turkish migrants as a unit of analysis would not reflect social reality, especially in the case of Ibo, who engages with the son of a Greek migrant and has a German girlfriend.

     This turn away from ethnicity as Soysal and Glick-Schiller propagate it is not in contradiction to Sirkeci’s claim to include ethnicity into the explanatory variables of migration as they focus on different phases of the migratory process. Sirkeci does not call for taking ethnicity as a unit of analysis, but rather for it’s inclusion in the analytical process, as ethnicity can contribute to the reasons for migration. In relation to Soysal’s article the question arises of who “qualifies” as migrant youth? What is necessary to “count” as migrant youth, when does someone stop to be part of migrant youth (not so much in terms of age but of the “migrant”). And then, what is the difference of utilizing the term “migrant youth” (or “migratory background”/Migrationshintergrund which seems like the German equivalent) to using “second generation”? Do not both equally contain notions of not being completely in the ‘everyday life’ of the country of residence (using migrant as part of the term), but neither being inside the …-ness of the parent’s country (using youth in the term)?

References:

• Fatih Akın, Kebab Connection (2004)
• Sirkeci, Ibrahim. "Migration from Turkey to Germany: An Ethnic Approach." New Perspectives on Turkey 28-29  (2003): 189-207.
• Glick Schiller, Nina. Beyond Methdological Ethnicity: Local and Transnational Pathways of Immigrant Incorporation ). Malmo: Malmo University, 2008.
• Soysal, Levent. "Beyond the 'second generation': Rethinking the Place of Migrant Youth Culture in Berlin." Challenging Ethnic Citizenship: German and Israeli Perspectives on Immigration. New York: Berghahn Books, 2002. 121-36.