Graduate School of Social Sciences MSc Conflict Resolution and Governance
In partial fulfilment of the requirements for MSc degree in Conflict Resolution and Governance
To belong, or not to belong, that is the question:
On the securitization of migration, the role of civil society
organisations and migrants’ feeling of belonging to Berlin, Germany
Name and student number: Helena Wittrich (11726008)
Academic year: 2017-2018
Course: Research project conflict resolution and governance
Supervisor: Dr. Anja van Heelsum
Second Reader: Dr. P.E. (Polly) Pallister-Wilkins
II Abstract
This thesis presents the result of a research project that explored how civil society organisations can influence the feeling of belonging of migrants living in Berlin. The results of interviews with fourteen migrants and the participant observations conducted in three civil society organisations in Berlin illuminate how migrants experience the feeling of belonging (or not), what determines this feeling and what role civil society organisations play in all of this. The study is based on a theoretical framework which considers security policies stemming from the securitization of migration as politics of belonging. These politics influence migrants’ feeling of belonging. . The thematic analysis of the data corpus has shown – with a limited possibility for generalisation – that civil society organisation can indirectly influence migrants’ feeling of belonging through challenging boundaries created through the politics of belonging and the creation of new places in society in which belonging is newly negotiated.
Keywords:
migration, securitization of migration, politics of belonging, feeling of belonging, civil society organizations, Germany
III “For one to be free there must be at least two. Freedom signifies a social relation, an asymmetry of social conditions: essentially it implies social difference – it presumes and implies the presence of social division. Some can be free only in so far as there is a form of dependence they can aspire to escape.” Zygmunt Bauman (1988)
“There is history of imaginary geographies which cast minorities, ‘imperfect’ people, and a list of others who are seen to pose a threat to the dominant group in society as polluting bodies or folk devils who are then located ‘elsewhere’. This ‘elsewhere’ might be nowhere, as when genocide or the moral transformation of a minority like prostitutes are advocated, or it might be some spatial periphery, like the edge of the world or the edge of the city.”
IV Acknowledgements
First of all, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to the organizations that allowed me to join their programmes and to the respondents for trusting me enough to share your stories with me. When writing on the topic of exclusion you have welcomed me with open arms. Furthermore, I would like to thank my supervisor Dr. Anja van Heelsum for her continuous support and guidance during the process of writing this thesis. Keeping me on track and within the bounds has helped me tremendously.
Lastly, I would like to thank my amazing family. My gratitude towards you goes beyond what can be said in words. I also want to thank my fellow students. Throughout the year you have been of amazing influence. The conversations we had, the struggles we shared and the support we gave each other will forever be cherished.
V Content
List of Tables ... VII List of Abbreviations ... VIII
1 Introduction ... 1
1.1 Aim and Research Question ... 3
1.2 Relevance of the Study ... 3
1.3 Outline of the Thesis ... 3
2 Concepts and Theoretical Framework on the Relationship between Securitization and the Feeling of Belonging ... 4
2.1 Securitization Theory and the Securitization of Migration ... 4
2.1.1 Securitization Theory – The Copenhagen School ... 5
2.1.2 The Securitization of Migration: A Story of Inclusion and Exclusion ... 6
2.2 Politics of Belonging and the Feeling of Belonging: How the Former Influences the Latter ... 9
2.3 Building the Bridge: Linking Securitization, Belonging and CSO’s ... 12
3 Research Design and Methods ... 15
3.1 Research Design ... 15
3.2 Semi-structured Open-ended Interviews ... 16
3.3 Participant Observation ... 16
3.4 Respondents and CSOs ... 17
3.5 Operationalisation ... 18
3.6 Research Ethics ... 18
3.7 Data Analysis ... 19
4 Results ... 21
4.1 Migrants’ Feeling of Belonging to Berlin ... 22
4.1.1 Nuances in and Expressions of the Feeling of Belonging ... 22
4.1.2 Nuances in and Expression of the Feeling not to Belong and the In-between ... 23
4.2 Determinants of the Feeling of Belonging or not Belonging ... 25
4.2.1 Speaking the German Language ... 26
4.2.2 Understanding, Adapting to and Living the ‘German Culture’ ... 27
4.2.3 Having Social Contacts: On Entering Places, Receiving Help and Empowering Yourself ... 29
VI
4.2.4 Being Yourself and Being Free in Berlin ... 32
4.2.5 Living in a Refugee Shelter ... 33
4.2.6 The Legal Residence Status ... 35
5 Moving CSOs into the Picture: On Boundaries and New Places ... 38
5.1 How CSOs Challenge and Bridge (Imaginary) Boundaries ... 38
5.2 How CSOs Create New (Imaginary) Boundaries ... 44
6 Conclusion and Discussion ... 46
6.1 Limitations, Implications and General Usefulness of the Theoretical Framework .. 48
6.2 Methods Used and the Generalizability of the Results ... 51
6.3 The General Set-up of the Study and its Implications ... 52
6.4 Problems During the Research ... 52
6.5 Extensions to the Theoretical Framework and Further Research... 53 References ... IX Annexe I: Migrants to Europe Between 1990 and 2015 ... XIII Annexe II: The Concept ‘Migrant’ ... XIV
VII List of Tables
Table 1 The six phases of thematic analysis ... 20 Table 2 Data extract, with codes applied ... 21
VIII List of Abbreviations
CS Copenhagen School
CSO Civil society organization
1 1 Introduction
In recent years, the world has witnessed an increase in migration caused by push-factors such as environmental change and degradation, persecution, a severe lack of human security as well as opportunity, and conflict. In 2015, the number of international migrants reached approximately 244 million people, which comprises 3.3 per cent of the world population (McAuliffe and Ruhs, 2017, pp. 1–2). Out of these 244 million people, over one million arrived in the European Union (EU) (European Commission, 2017)1.
Sriskandarajah (2005, p. 1) argues that among the reciprocal impacts existing between countries – such as transport, foreign investment, trade or aid – migration “has the potential to have the most significant and lasting impacts”. This argument is based on the characteristics of migration. It can transform not only the migrants who move, but also lead to changes in the societies migrants move to and from. It is precisely for this reason that “migration also has the potential to be the most politically controversial issue, especially in the societies where immigrants settle” (Sriskandarajah, 2005, p. 1).
By the end of 2015 and after the “long summer of migration” (Yurdakul et al., 2018, p. 345), Germany registered 476,649 asylum applications, which constitutes an increase of 135.0 per cent compared to 2014 (Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge, 2015, p. 9). The topic of migration has, just as laid out by Sriskandarajah (2005), developed into a controversial issue in German politics. In a discursive analysis of the parliamentary debates in the years 2014 and 2015 in Germany, Ulrich (2016) found that migration and concomitant questions are increasingly linked to a discourse on security issues. The following recently made statements by the German politicians Alice Weidel and Horst Seehofer illustrate his findings:
"Burqas, girls in headscarves, knife-wielding men on government benefits and other good-for-nothing people are not going to ensure our prosperity, our economic growth and our social welfare system. Who pays for your state pension? Your immigrated gold pieces perhaps, you can’t possibly believe that. You don’t seem to care about the general public. […] You don’t even seem to mind that you have fattened up our population with migrant criminals who have multiple identities.”
(Deutsche Welle, 2018)
1
2 „The border security for the protection of the general public is currently
necessary and will definitely remain in force in 2018. Only if the EU’s external borders are being effectively protected, may controls at our border cease.”
(Frankfurter Allgemeine, 2018)
The first statement above, made by Alice Weidel, member of the political party called “Alternative für Deutschland” (Engl.: Alternative for Germany), portrays migrants as a threat to the economic stability of the country. Furthermore, migrants are illustrated as a homogenous group of criminals infiltrating the German society, thereby putting it at risk. The second quote was made by Horst Seehofer, designated Federal Minister of the Interior and member of the “Christlich-Soziale Union” (Engl.: Christian Social Union in Bavaria). Seehofer in the same breath talks about security, video surveillance, and limited migration. Similar to Weidel, his statement presents migration as a security problem for German society. The border security then is a measure to protect society from the threat migrants pose to it. Scholars such as Huysmans (2006) claim that framing migration as a threat to security on the political level promotes inclusion and exclusion. Security policies – of which stricter border controls are just one example – classify migrants as outsiders and ultimately leads to migrants identifying themselves as such.
However, the political level was not the only part of society to react to the increase in migration. Within parts of civil society, a ‘welcoming culture’ developed which showed solidarity with and got actively engaged on behalf of migrants. Around 15.000 very diverse projects initiated by civil society organisations (CSOs), new and established, now focus on challenges arising from migration (Schiffauer et al., 2017, p. 13). These projects also can be seen as an answer to the political developments in which migration is increasingly seen as a problem for society. The motivation by one CSO called “Flüchtlinge Willkommen” below stands exemplary for this:
“Flüchtlinge Willkommen criticises state-driven housing policies that force refugees into camps where they are subject to marginalisation and invisibilisation. Flüchtlinge Willkommen supports decentralised housing solutions for refugees. Through our work, we aspire to contribute to nurturing an open society based on principles of solidarity and equality of all.”
3 1.1 Aim and Research Question
With this background in mind, this thesis aims to investigate whether migrants, who are politically constructed as a threat to security, as outsiders, can develop a feeling of belonging to the society they move into. Furthermore, the aim is to analyse if programmes initiated by CSOs to counter the structures created by security policies can influence migrants’ feeling of belonging. To address this issue, the following research question has been formulated:
To what extent are civil society organisations able to influence the feeling of belonging of migrants in Berlin?
1.2 Relevance of the Study
As pointed out by Schuilenburg (2015, p. 268), “academics seem to have forgotten that the idea of security not only refers to ‘crime’, ‘punishment’, and ‘control’ but is also determined by notions of ‘trust’, ‘care’ and ‘belonging’”. As this research sets out to unravel the influence of the securitization of migration on migrants’ feeling of belonging, the thesis hopes to contribute to filling the indicated gap in the literature. Furthermore, Schiffauer et al. (2017) argue that projects established by CSOs hold the potential to change the societal relationship towards migration, are an alternative to politics that focus on security measures in regard to migration, and constitute a chance to establish a culture of an immigrant society. However, as valid as these claims are, they only touch upon the potential these projects have for the already established society. What these programs can contribute to the experiences of migrants is not included in this discussion. This lack is also a point of critique raised by Ambrosini and van der Leun (2015, p. 104) who underline that the role of CS “with respect to service provision has not yet been adequately explored at the local level”. The relevance of this research study lies in this gap. The researcher hopes to contribute to research on CSOs by examining how their projects and services for migrants influence migrants’ feeling of belonging to Berlin.
1.3 Outline of the Thesis
The thesis is structured in six chapters. Following the introduction, Chapter 2 introduces the theoretical framework based on an interlinkage between theory on the securitization of migration and theory on the feeling of belonging. Chapter 3 moves on to discuss in more detail the qualitative research methods used in collecting and analysing the data, including the research ethics. Chapters 4 and 5 present the empirical findings. Finally, Chapter 6 discusses the research and draws conclusions.
4 2 Concepts and Theoretical Framework on the Relationship between Securitization
and the Feeling of Belonging
Although this research is concerned with projects on the local level and their influence on migrants’ feeling of belonging, larger scale processes, such as national policies, need to be considered. As pointed out by Cameron (2016, p. 398):
“The occlusion of the non-local […] has profound distorting effects. It makes it very much easier to see exclusion as a feature of people in places rather than the wider histories and geographies of a complex polity, culture and economy.”
In this chapter, the first section (2.1) outlines the theoretical concept of securitization and the effects of national security policies on migrants. The concept of securitization brought forward by the Copenhagen School (CS) is introduced within this chapter’s first sub-section (2.1.1). The general concept of securitization and its meaning within this research are discussed and clarified, including how and why the concept lends itself to the study of migration. The next sub-section (2.1.2), describes how the securitization of migration creates processes of inclusion and exclusion that directly affect migrants. Within the second section of this chapter (2.2), the concept of belonging, including the politics of belonging and the feeling of belonging, will be introduced. The last section (2.3) moves to combine the presented theoretical concepts.
2.1 Securitization Theory and the Securitization of Migration
The general concept of securitization led to a lively debate among scholars at the beginning of the 1990s and has been used within empirical studies in various research fields ever since (Buraczynski, 2015, p. 27). Within the social sciences, ‘security’ is a “basic term and a key concept […] used in intellectual traditions and schools, conceptual frameworks, and approaches” (Brauch, 2009, p. 27, emphasis in original). However, the concept is unstable and difficult (Wæver, 2009, p. 101) because it “is associated with many different meanings that refer to frameworks and dimensions, apply to individuals, issue areas, societal conventions, and changing historical conditions and circumstances” (Brauch, 2009, p. 27). Within this thesis, security will be understood based on the definition brought forward by the Copenhagen School.
5 2.1.1 Securitization Theory – The Copenhagen School
The Copenhagen School (CS) understands security as socially constructed – the outcome of a social process. Within this process, declaring a social phenomenon to be an existential threat constructs it as one (Buraczynski, 2015, p. 35). In the words of Buzan et al. (1998, p. 26):
“The process of securitization is what in language theory is called a speech act. It is not interesting as a sign referring to something more real; it is the utterance itself that is the act. By saying the words, something is done.”
This definition of security follows a “linguistic conception of security” (Huysmans, 2011, p. 371) that, as a basic premise, rejects the classical, neo-realistic understanding of security as an objective condition (Buraczynski, 2015, p. 35).
Within the thinking of the CS, an ‘existential threat’ is not solely conceived as a threat to human life. Instead, as Buzan et al. (1998, p. 21) argue, it is regarded “in relation to the particular character of the [threatened entity], in question”. Given this conceptual understanding of a threat, nearly every social phenomenon has the potential to be declared as a security issue (Buraczynski, 2015, p. 36). Hence, the issue of migration and questions related to it lend themselves to be analysed using the concept of securitization. At this point, it is also important to clarify that a small number of actors do not achieve the securitization of migration. Instead, it is a structural effect created by a variety of actors and practices (Huysmans, 2000, p. 758).
Regarding migration as an issue of public concern allows approaching migration in distinct forms and on diverging levels – varying from being unpoliticized, politicised or securitized. Unlike issues that are unpoliticized, politicised topics are placed on the agenda and become issues of public debate and decision-making (Buzan et al., 1998, p. 23). In contrast, securitized issues are depicted as an existential threat and therefore require to be addressed with emergency measures. This depiction of the issue as an existential threat then justifies actions which fall outside the bounds of normal political procedure (Buzan et al., 1998, pp. 23–24). Buzan et al. (1998, pp. 24–26) put forward four criteria which determine whether an issue is securitized. First, the actor aspiring to securitize an issue needs to apply the rhetoric of an existential threat, which lifts the issue out of the realm of normal politics into the realm of emergency politics. Second, the issue needs to be presented as one of highest priority, claiming that it requires being dealt with by the employment of extraordinary measures. Third, through the prioritisation of the issue, procedures or rules that would apply
6 under normal circumstances no longer bind the securitizing actor. Lastly, this detachment needs to be accepted by the audience the securitizing actor is addressing.
In brief, “securitizing […] means calling something a security problem, and, through this, triggering the political measures to deal with it” (Banai and Kreide, 2017, p. 906).
2.1.2 The Securitization of Migration: A Story of Inclusion and Exclusion
As Huysmans (2000, p. 770) underlines, migration has developed to be a “meta-issue in the political spectacle” in Europe today. Furthermore, migration serves as a powerful subject matter to connect and translate policy problems which are functionally differentiated. Most important in light of this thesis is Huysmans (2006) argumentation in regard to the consequences of the securitization of migration. He points out that classifying migration as a cause of existential danger represents an “act of political ordering” (Huysmans, 2006, p. 50) which, in turn, leads to the administration of inclusion and exclusion (Huysmans, 2006, p. 55). The following section will further outline this argumentation.
Everyday conversations, academic debates, political discussions, and media reporting tend to depict migrants2 as a disturbance to the “normal ways of life”. As such, they are depicted as an endangerment to a “collective way of life that defines a community of people” (Huysmans, 2006, pp. 45–46). Huysmans (2006) argues that identity, loyalty and political trust are constructed within the process of securitizing migration. Moreover, securitizing migration creates a centrum-periphery structure in which the “political community of the established” (Huysmans, 2006, p. 47) is placed in the centre and aims to secure its identity and unity. This spatial structure is created through credible claims that migrants, who are placed in the periphery, constitute an entity endangering this central political unit and its survival. Different topics are used as a basis to achieve this. Along with arguments based on the characteristics of migrants or the cultural differences between them and the established political community, the reference to the numbers of migrants entering a country is a common theme. The often-used argument is that the significant influx of migrants will entail a destabilisation of the labour market. As a result of this destabilisation, the unemployment rate will raise which, in turn, will cause popular unrest and a governmental legitimacy problem. What happens within this and similar arguments is that migrants entering a country are ultimately linked to an
2 Huysmans (2000, p. 752) uses the term migrant to describe a general category which includes “immigrants, asylum-seekers, and refugees”. This thesis follows this approach. A further discussion on the terminology regarding migrants can be found in Annexe II: The Concept ‘Migrant’.
7 “existentially dangerous situation” for the established political community (Huysmans, 2006, pp. 47–48).
This argument creates fear not only of a potential collapse of the political unity, but also fear of a negative impact on the values and the way of life of the established political community. Migration introduces new values and practices which affect the everyday life of the established society and migrants. A potential effect of such is that both entities act more protective and articulate about what they perceive as their life patterns and traditional values. These dynamics, such as the increased protection of values, produce unease and thereby contribute to the construction of migration of a security problem on the political level. They are, however, not the “kernel of the securitization process” (Huysmans, 2006, p. 48) and do not lead to migration being “tied in with an existential discourse that foregrounds the survival of the political community” (Huysmans, 2006, p. 48).
Of importance in the securitization of migration is not the mere physical existence of the established political community, it is rather its “autonomy […] as a political unity” (Huysmans, 2006, p. 49). Autonomy and unity as such do not present a problem, but the flow of migrants who can potentially threaten them does. This depiction characterises the unity of the established political community as complete and harmonious, which can only be disrupted by external factors such as migrants. Through this, migrants as an external factor are shifted into the centre of attention, while the established political community remains unquestioned. Within this process, two things are happening: On the one hand, migrants are defined as an existential danger “to the identity and integration of a political community and the everyday life that takes place in it” (Huysmans, 2006, p. 49). On the other hand, this process reproduces and reaffirms the unity of the political community. Securitization of migration in that sense is not only a way to protect a political unit’s autonomy or life within this unit. Rather it is a way to carve out “a place as one’s own and identifying its unity in a plural world” (Huysmans, 2006, p. 49). This procedure constitutes a circular process. The unity of the political community at stake is “born out of the very presence of the threat” (Huysmans, 2006, p. 50). Within such a process of framing migrants as a security issue, a centre-periphery respectively inside-outside structure is created. However, and although this structuring is problematic by itself, the method establishing this structure is of importance within a security practice.
The process of securitizing migrants places the political unity of the already established society in an existentially hostile environment, from which it needs to be freed at the same
8 time. Within this process, the focus is not on the substance or structure of the unity, but on classifying what endangers the unity as such. Within the securitization tale, migrants are identified and managed as an endangerment to the independent identity and functional integrity of the political unit (Huysmans, 2006, p. 50). At the same time, the unity and autonomy of the established society is pronounced based on the representation of a hostile environment. In the eyes of Huysmans (2006, p. 51) this process can be interpreted as an act of political ordering in which the securitization of migration “produces and reproduces a political community of insecurity”.
Huysmans (2006) argues that to free the established society from the hostile environment and the threats within it, the strategies of continually regulating and countering it with the ultimate aim to eliminate the threat, are picked up. How these security practices and their instrumentality produce layers in social relations and how security practices foster inclusion and exclusion are central to his analysis.
As pointed out by Buzan (1991, p. 112), there are two strategy concepts to govern existential fear. The first category consists of inwardly directed national security measures which seek to minimize a state’s vulnerabilities. However, the second category consisting of outwardly directed national security practices, which aim to address the sources of the external threat directly, are more critical for the objective of this study. These practices fall into different categories: strategies that aim to (i) create a distance towards the source, (ii) control the source, or (iii) to eliminate the source.
The implementation of border controls with the aim to hinder the influx of migrants is an example of a distance creating strategy. Another prominent example is the accommodation of migrants who are in the process of applying for asylum in refugee shelters. Huysmans (2006, p. 55) argues that these kinds of measures aimed to administer distance produce a “dynamic of inclusion and exclusion”. He explains this using food vouchers as an everyday example having an impact on social relations. Although these vouchers provide migrants with the means to purchase provisions and can, therefore, be seen as a way to include migrants in a political community, food vouchers also identify migrants as outsiders. Furthermore, measures like this not only identify migrants as outsiders, they simultaneously result in the
9 reinforcement of migrants identifying themselves as unwanted outsiders3. Additionally, the securitization of migration and concomitant security policies directed towards migrants not only “unify the host community against existential threats” but at the same time lead to a unification of migrants as a “collective dangerous force” (Huysmans, 2006, p. 56).
As aforementioned, there are three different strategies for security policies. The third, to eliminate the threat, uses the integration of migrants as a means to achieve its objective. Integration aims to reduce the divergences between natives and foreigners. When looking at integration from the angle of security, it can be seen as a means to minimize migrants’ disturbing or dangerous qualities such as moral or cultural characteristics (Huysmans, 2006, p. 56).
To frame migration as an existential threat entails a process, in which fostering exclusion is instituted. Although this section has focused on the political level in regard to the securitization of migration until now, “the governance of exclusion by security framing”, as Huysmans (2006, p. 57) points out, is not only achieved on this level. To maintain these exclusionary processes, “everyday stigmatisation practices, infrastructural policies […], and administrative instruments and procedures such as [the discussed] vouchers” (Huysmans, 2006, p. 57), are as important as practices on the political level.
Furthermore, the political integration of individuals as well as the criteria of their membership are conserved and transformed through these policies. A community’s social and political identification, as well as its way of life develop in response to the existential threat constructed through the security practice. Based on this argumentation, Huysmans (2000, p. 757) argues that security policies constitute a “policy of mediating belonging”.
2.2 Politics of Belonging and the Feeling of Belonging: How the Former Influences the Latter
The term ‘belonging’, as pointed out by Wright (2014, p. 391), is puzzling since it can refer to diverging things and yet it is of utmost importance to the lives of people:
“Feeling a sense of belonging (or not), being legally, morally or socially recognized as belonging (or not), truly has the power to change lives, to make
3 Buonfino (2004, p. 24) account at this point is also interesting. She argues that the described processes of creating an in-group and an out-group through securitization not only leads to an identification and self-identification of migrants as outsiders but actually endangers the livelihoods of migrants since “issues of solidarity, ethics and human rights become secondary to issues of security”.
10 communities and collectives, to bring together and to separate in the most
intimate, loving, accepting, exclusionary or violent ways”.
Within the literature authors often treat the term ‘belonging’ as being self-explanatory. In these cases, the term is missing a precise definition (Antonsich, 2010, p. 644) as well as a rigorous theorisation (Wright, 2014, p. 391). However, within the literature addressing belonging, the concept is commonly understood as being “processual, dynamic and situational” (Kassaye et al., 2016, p. 775).
As emphasised by Kassaye et al. (2016, p. 776), research on the concept of belonging is frequently concerned with experiences by migrants, since “these show how it is possible to belong in different ways and on different scales”. Furthermore, analysing the scale of belonging of migrants constitutes a valuable parameter of their integration (Kassaye et al., 2016, p. 775).
The thesis mainly follows the framework developed by Antonsich (2010), who argues that “‘belonging’ consisted of the interplay of a personal dimension of feeling ‘at home’ somewhere [, which he terms ‘place-belongingness’] and a structural dimension of discourse and power relations, which he calls ‘politics of belonging’” (Slootman and Duyvendak, 2016, p. 62). This distinction is common in the literature on belonging. Yuval-Davis (2006), also distinguishes between the ‘politics of belonging’ and the ‘feeling of belonging’. The subsequent section will begin with a short section on the understanding of the ‘politics of belonging’ before giving an insight into how this practice influences the ‘feeling of belonging’ and ‘place-belongingness’ for individuals.
Politics of belonging are seen in political projects intended to construct “belonging in particular ways to particular collectivities that are, at the same time, themselves being constructed by these projects” (Yuval-Davis, 2006, p. 197). These political projects and the inherent construction of a particular collective, contribute to ‘othering’; an imaginary boundary line separates the in-group from the out-group. This separation is fundamental in politics of belonging (Antonsich, 2010, p. 649; Yuval-Davis, 2006, p. 204) and the reason why Crowley (1999, p. 30) defines politics of belonging as “the dirty work of boundary maintenance”. It is important to acknowledge that neither the in-group as such is assumed as being homogeneous, nor is the out-group or the way in which the in-group should relate to it (Yuval-Davis, 2006, pp. 204–205).
11 In addition to boundary maintenance, politics of belonging also involves the contestation of the boundaries by other political actors. While doing so, actors do not only struggle to encourage their specific project but also to “promote their own power position within and outside the collectivity” (Yuval-Davis, 2006, p. 205).
These politics of belonging do not operate in a vacuum, but have, as Antonsich (2010) argues, an influence on the feeling of belonging. The author understands the feeling of belonging as an emotional feeling of being attached to a specific place. Within his understanding, “this place is [then] felt as ‘home’” (Antonsich, 2010, p. 646). It is important to underline that ‘home’ is not equated with the physical domestic space but refers to the “symbolic space of familiarity, comfort, security, and emotional attachments” (Antonsich, 2010, p. 646).
Anthias (2008, p. 8) also provides valuable insights into the concept of belonging by arguing: “Belonging is […] about the formal and informal experiences of being part of the social fabric and the ways in which social bonds and ties are manifested in practices, experiences and emotions of inclusion.”
She underlines that a significant aspect of the notion of belonging becomes apparent within the “notions of exclusion and inclusion, access and participation” (Anthias, 2008, p. 8). Hence, questions on belonging are most likely to emerge in situations in which individuals have the feeling of being able to enter, engage in or become part of different “spaces, places, locales and identities4” (Anthias, 2008, p. 8). Imaginings of belonging construct collective places, which can be understood as “socially produced, situational and contextual relations” (Anthias, 2008, p. 8). Therefore, collective places will not only be understood as physical but also as relational – the outcome of social interaction.5 Within these places, internal borders or absences are disguised, and develop to be “taken for granted, absolute and fixed structures of social and personal life” (Anthias, 2008, p. 8). As a result, imaginings of belonging create a community of individuals which is seen as natural, while at the same time operating as “exclusionary borders of otherness” (Anthias, 2008, p. 8).
One dimension of feeling belonging is how individuals “feel about their location in the social world” (Anthias, 2008, p. 8). Experiences of exclusion create this feeling respectively this
4At this point it is important to distinguish between the concept of identity and the concept of belonging. Although both concepts are intertwined, each has its own emphasis. Anthias (2008, p. 8) suggests that identity covers “individual and collective narratives of self and other [as well as] presentation and labelling”, belonging in contrast finds its key aspect in the “experience of being part of the social fabric and the way in which social bonds and ties are manifested in practice, experiences and emotions of exclusion”.
5With this understanding of place in mind, the concepts centre and periphery should also not exclusively be understood as merely physical but also relational.
12 notion of belonging. In this sense, “formal and informal experiences of belonging” (Anthias, 2008, p. 8, emphasis in original) inform the feeling of belonging. This goes to show that belonging as a feeling of individuals is neither exclusively determined by “membership, rights, and duties, as in the case of citizenship”, nor by identifying with a certain group. It is, above all, also about the forms of membership and identification that construct social places as mentioned above. Moreover, it is about the ways in which these constructed social places echo back on the “stability of the self, on the feelings of being part of a larger whole and the emotional and social bonds that are related to such places” (Anthias, 2008, p. 8).
2.3 Building the Bridge: Linking Securitization, Belonging and CSO’s
This section links the concepts securitization of migration and belonging by arguing that the security policies inherent in the securitization of migration represent a form of politics of belonging, which, as argued before, has an impact on the feeling of belonging of migrants. Furthermore, this section introduces CSOs and their role in contesting politics of belonging in the form of security policies.
Huysmans (2000, p. 757) touches upon the understanding of security policies legitimated by the process of securitization as politics of belonging when he says that “security policy is a specific policy of mediating belonging.” Through security policy and the identification of an existential threat, he argues, political integration and criteria for membership in the in-group are transformed. Further support for the argument that security policies within the context of securitization are a form of politics of belonging is the fact that both construct a particular collective through a circular argument.
In regard to politics of belonging, the feeling of belonging to a particular collective (and the not-belonging to a collective) is constructed by the same politics intended to create belonging. Securitization as such also creates an in-group6 and out-group based on already existing categories. Furthermore, security policies, which aim to create a distance from the existential threat also create a dynamic of inclusion and exclusion.
At this point, it is important to touch upon the relationship of boundaries and exclusion as well as inclusion. As argued by Anthias (2008, p. 8), experiences of exclusion create the notion of belonging. Hence, belonging (or not) cannot be treated synonymously with
6 Within the following, if not stated differently, the already established society is understood as the in-group whereas the out-group refers to migrants. The terms in-group and already established society will be used interchangeably.
13 exclusion and inclusion, since only an experience of exclusion implies a notion of belonging. However, and as pointed out by Garbutt (2009, p. 86, emphasis in original), “belonging is directly connected to the distributional and relational aspects of social inclusion”.
Coming back to securitization, the implicit security policies are not solely a way to protect political unity or the life within it. It is also a way to carve out a place as one’s own. Conversely, this means that this particular place is shut off for the side one is protecting the unity from – migrants.
Antonsich (2010) underlined that politics of belonging do not operate in a vacuum but influence the feeling of those they target. Understanding security politics as politics of belonging leads to another dynamic: Security policies then also influence the feeling of belonging of those they target – migrants. If the already established society carves out a place as its own while shutting it off for migrants, one can assume that migrants are limited, if not hindered, to develop a feeling of belonging to the same place. These places are unlikely to develop into a “symbolic space of familiarity, comfort, security and emotional attachments” (Antonsich, 2010, p. 646) for them. Anthias (2008) touches upon this when saying that if migrants are not able to enter a specific place, the question of belonging emerges. Not being able to enter a specific place becomes apparent in Huysmans’ (2006) example of how food vouchers, as a security policy, identify them as outsiders which results in migrants identifying themselves as outsiders as well.
If social places are constructed through security policies that influence migrants’ identification in a way that they are not able to identify as being a part of society, to not belong, securitization and especially the inherent security policies, hinder the development of a feeling of belonging for migrants.
As aforementioned, the politics of belonging are not only about the construction of boundaries but also about the contestation about the same by other political actors, CSOs7 enter into focus at this point. Ambrosini and van der Leun (2015) argue that in most parts of the global North, “immigration issues have gained salience at political agendas of governments and in public discourse” (Ambrosini and van der Leun, 2015, p. 103). Furthermore, migration policies put forward at the state level have developed to be increasingly restrictive and aim at protecting “the labour market, fencing-off publicly funded social provisions and expelling unwanted
7 Within this thesis, CSOs will be understood based on Ambrosini and van der Leun (2015, p. 104) as organisations which are not “created by the state, or by its articulations, and are not directly controlled by it. At the same time they are not profit oriented and do not operate in the economic market”.
14 persons” (Ambrosini and van der Leun, 2015, p. 103) as discussed. However, civil society has acted partially in answer to this development and is addressing the presence and needs of immigrants. Civil society becomes an agent who can change, integrate or even challenge public policies (Ambrosini and van der Leun, 2015, p. 105).
The motivation behind the establishment of CSOs and their projects should not be conceived as being based in compassion or solely humanitarian but as mainly political. Yuval-Davis (2006, p. 205) seems to depart from a rather narrow concept of ‘the political’, which seems to include it under the concept of power:
“Such political agents struggle both for the promotion of their specific projects in the construction of their collectivity and its boundaries and, at the same time, use these ideologies and projects in order to promote their own power positions within and outside the collectivity.”
This understanding of ‘the political’ as the attempt to build up a counterweight to the established power structures seems to fall short when looking at the new CSOs and their aims. Within these organisations, Arendt’s (1993) understanding of ‘the political’ applies. Arendt understands ‘the political’ as the opportunity to construct a polis, a political community. The creation of a polity consisting of initial strangers who mutually recognise each other lies at the heart of understanding ‘the political’ as a polis (Schiffauer et al., 2017, p. 15). CSOs and their project in this sense address and question practices and constructions of politics of belonging and hence “challenge established and […] coherent senses of belonging” (Garbutt, 2009, p. 85). Their projects bring individuals from the in-group and out-group together, which has the potential to mitigate “effects of disadvantage or social exclusion” (Garbutt, 2009, p. 86). To sum up, security policies resolving from the securitization of migration are understood as politics of belonging directed at migrants. These politics hinder migrants’ access to social places, and thereby also hinder migrants in developing a feeling of belonging to a place. The question is whether CSOs and their projects, developed by members of the hegemonic centre of the already established society, can have an impact on the feeling of belonging of migrants, taking into account that they, as political actors themselves, aim to construct a polis which challenges the created boundaries that keep migrants out of social places.
As already outlined, the objective of this study is to examine whether – and if so, how – the participation of migrants in programmes organized by CSOs can influence their feeling of belonging to Berlin. Based on the preceding theoretical discourse on the feeling of belonging
15 influenced by the securitization of migration, the following sub-questions have been formulated:
(1) Do migrants feel that they belong to Berlin and if so, what does it entail? (2) What determines the feeling of belonging or not belonging to Berlin?
a. Do migrants have to adapt to the culture of the already established community to be able to develop a feeling of belonging?
b. Does living in Berlin influence the development of a feeling of belonging by migrants?
(3) Are CSOs able to question practices and constructions of politics of belonging?
3 Research Design and Methods
This chapter begins by introducing the research design (3.1). From there it moves to introduce the qualitative methods used, namely: Semi-structured open-ended interviews (3.2) and participant observation (3.3). It will provide information on the respondents of the study (3.4) and on how the researcher has operationalised the pursued aim of the study (3.5). From here the researcher moves to discuss the ethics of this research (3.6) and finally outlines the used method to analyse the collected data (3.7).
3.1 Research Design
Trow (1957, p. 33) has argued that “different kinds of information about [individuals] and society are gathered most fully and economically in different ways, and that the problem under investigation properly dictates the methods of investigation”. As this research is focusing on understanding the experiences and feelings of migrants, qualitative research methods were chosen due to their in-depth focus on small-scale and information-rich cases (Patton, 1990, p. 169).
Berlin was chosen as a research site for several reasons. First of all, Germany is a central actor in regard to shaping guidelines addressing migrant management in the EU. Furthermore, it constitutes a destination of migrants in the EU and migration has been a constant topic on the agenda of political parties since 2015. Second, Berlin is politically unique since it is not only the capital city of Germany but also an independent state. Especially after the end of World War II, the face of the city has always been shaped to a great extent by migration. Berlin has a long-standing history regarding the implementation and debate of measures to integrate
16 migrants after Germany signed recruitment agreements with Turkey and further south European countries to meet the labour supply needs during its economic boom (Castañeda, 2007, 2007, pp. 45–46; Hoesch, 2018, pp. 224–227, 2018). Additionally, Berlin likes to represent itself as home to a “worldly population that celebrates its diversity in street festivals, ethnic restaurants, and demonstrations for minority rights” (New York Times, 2006). It is with this in mind that the researcher assumes that living in Berlin positively influences migrants’ feeling of belonging.
3.2 Semi-structured Open-ended Interviews
Using interviews, as Holstein and Gubrium (2002, p. 112) simply put it, is a “way of generating empirical data about the social world by asking people to talk about their lives”. Semi-structured open-ended interviews were deemed suitable to capture migrants’ subjective experiences and emotions because the method allows a balance between discussing prepared questions and following up on questions and themes resulting from the interview situation (Bortz and Döring, 2006, p. 314).
Questions within the interviews were aimed to explore whether and to what extent migrants’ feeling of belonging changed over the course of their participation in programmes offered by CSOs. Furthermore, the researcher sought to understand how this change has made itself visible to them. By using semi-structured open-ended interviews, the researcher aimed to find and explore divergent as well as reoccurring themes and patterns in migrants’ experiences. The interviews were selected by availability sampling and included migrants “regardless of their characteristics, until the required sample size has been achieved” (Tansey, 2007, p. 769). The interviews were conducted in German or English, depending on the preference of the respondents. The researcher translated the interviews conducted in German as fully and accurately as possible into English.
3.3 Participant Observation
The method of participant observation complemented the interviews during the research. Engaging in participant observation in the form of volunteering at CSOs allowed the researcher to get in contact with migrants who wanted to be part of the interviews. On her first day at a CSO the researcher introduced herself to the participants of the programmes and explained the content as well as purpose of her study. Volunteering allowed the researcher to gain knowledge and understanding of the culture and subculture of the interviewed migrants (Hammersley and Atkinson, 2007, p. 8) as well as the meanings of the words that were used
17 during the interviews (Becker and Geer, 2004, p. 247). This understanding and knowledge have proven to be helpful in the process of analysing the collected data. Furthermore, participant observation was chosen because the interviewed migrants might not tell the researcher everything they know during the interview (Becker and Geer, 2004, p. 247). This is not to say that information was purposely left out but rather because it was perceived as being irrelevant for this study.
3.4 Respondents and CSOs
To gain insight into migrants’ feeling of belonging, the researcher conducted a total of 14 interviews with four women and ten men participating in programmes by six different CSOs across Berlin. The majority of the respondents are from Syria and Pakistan, while single participants are from Turkey, Egypt, Kazakhstan, the Gambia and Nigeria. One interview was conducted at a youth club, seven were carried out at a language course which is organised in the context of a church community, and one interview was conducted with a person who has been participating in a programme that brings migrants together with flat shares in Berlin. Three migrants who were interviewed were participants in a project to stop deportation; one interview was conducted at a weekly language café which is organised by a neighbourhood house. Finally, one interview took place at a Ladies’ Café which provides a meeting place for women to share their experiences and stories over breakfast.
Participant observations were conducted in three out of the six CSOs based within a period of four weeks in Berlin. The researcher spent three weeks volunteering at a CSO that overhauls donated bicycles. These bicycles are then donated to migrants. In addition to helping out in the garage during opening hours, the researcher joined a cycling trip that the CSO organised for migrants who received bicycles, members of the CSO, and friends. Additionally, the researcher participated three weeks in a weekly language café organized by a neighbourhood house. The researcher had the opportunity to engage in informal conversations with migrants, receiving a direct insight into daily problems such as filling out applications for authorities in German. A daily language course organised in the context of a church community represents the third CSO in which the researcher was able to engage in. The researcher spent one week observing at this CSO. Furthermore, on a one-time basis, the researcher went to a Ladies’ Café that organizes breakfast with and for migrants and a cricket match arranged by migrants in a public park. The observations made during the researcher’s participation were transformed into field notes and constituted an essential addition to the interviews.
18 3.5 Operationalisation
To operationalise the theoretical framework and to accomplish the researcher’s aim to analyse migrants’ feeling of belonging and the influence of CSOs on them, the following fourteen questions on the two content areas of this study (own feeling of belonging, the influence of CSOs on this feeling) formed the basis of this study8:
(1) How long have you been in Berlin?
(2) Did you feel at home when you first came to Berlin? (3) Since when are you participating in this programme? (4) Why are you coming to this CSO?
(5) How did you get in contact with this CSO?
(6) Are there any groups or places which you would say you belong to in general? (7) Are there any groups or places which you would say you belong to in Berlin? (8) Would you say that you belong to Berlin?
a. What role do social contacts play for you?
b. What role does social contact to Germans play for you? c. What role does speaking German play for you?
(9) What do you understand under the term ‘belonging’? What does it mean for you? (10) How does the feeling of belonging express itself to you?
(11) Would you say that participating in this programme changed your feeling of belonging?
(12) How and when did you realise that something has changed? (13) Has this change impacted your daily life? And if so, how?
(14) Would you say that developing a feeling of belonging is connected to yourself slowly customising to, for example, cultural habits in Berlin?
3.6 Research Ethics
The researcher is aware of her responsibilities towards the migrants she is studying, towards associates and collaborates in Berlin and towards the general scientific community as laid out in the ‘Tapp Report’ (1974). This section will focus on the responsibilities towards the migrants who participated in the study.
First, researching migrants does not constitute a morally neutral endeavour since it can be used by advocates and opposers alike to inform policies. Hence, research can have a direct
8
19 influence on those that are being studied (Birman, 2005, p. 155). It is doubtful that the outcomes of the study are of such importance that it will be used for policy development. However, this does not eliminate the issue and the research was mindful of this issue.
Second, “cultural differences and power differential between the [researcher] and research participants” are issues of importance when conducting research with or on migrants (Birman, 2005, p. 170). By having the interviewees approach the researcher during her volunteer work, rather than the researcher approaching them, power was given to the interviewees.
Furthermore, the gained insights are treated confidentially and any personal information that could be used to identify the participants was anonymised. The researcher worked with considerably small CSOs with a small number of participants. To afford the anonymity of the respondents the researcher decided to also anonymise the CSOs she has worked with.
Furthermore, it is ensured that no individual took part in the research unwillingly or answered questions they did not want to answer. To assure this, the researcher began the interviews with explicitly repeating the central concern of the interview; informing the respondents that they have the right to decline to answer any question and to end the interview at any time; and asking participants for their consent to be interviewed and to be recorded. Additionally, the researcher sought the permission to use extracts of the interviews for this research.
Third, the story of their flights is not part of the proposed study. However, the researcher kept any potential traumatic experiences which migrants lived through in mind and questions were, in general, asked mindfully.
3.7 Data Analysis
Thematic analysis as laid out by Braun and Clarke (2006) is used as a method to qualitatively analyse the collected data through “identifying, analysing and reporting patterns (themes) within [the] data” (Braun and Clarke, 2006, p. 79). This method was chosen for its clear and structured procedure. Furthermore, it allows for a structured report of migrants’ experiences based on empirical and theoretical classification criteria.
An inductive and data-driven approach was used to identify themes or patterns. Meaning, the data was not coded to “fit into a pre-existing coding frame, or the researcher’s analytical preconceptions” (Braun and Clarke, 2006, p. 83). Rather, the themes and patterns are derived from the data corpus consisting of the conducted interviews and the participant observation. The use of this inductive approach aims to assure, as far as possible, a naturalistic and
object-20 oriented depiction of the material (Mayring, 2015, pp. 85–87). The theory-driven analytical interest in migrants’ feeling of belonging and how their participation in programmes organised by CSOs can potentially influence this feeling provided the framework for the questions, but the responses themselves were used to build the categories of themes. The data set excludes insignificant and divergent information, including only instances where interviewees and participant observations refer to this specific analytical interest. Within this established dataset, themes were identified. These themes are not exclusively selected based on the level of reoccurrence or prevalence across the data set but also whether they “capture something important in relation to the overall research question” (Braun and Clarke, 2006, p. 80).
The conducted thematic analysis adheres to the six-step guide put forward by Braun and Clarke (2006). A respective overview can be found in Table 1.
Phase Description of the process
1. Familiarizing with the data Transcribing data […], reading and re-reading the data, noting down initial ideas.
2. Generating initial codes Coding interesting features of the data in a systematic fashion across the entire data set, collating data relevant to each code. 3. Searching for themes Collating codes into potential themes, gathering all data
relevant to each potential theme.
4. Reviewing themes
Checking if the themes work in relation to the coded extracts (Level 1) and the entire data set (Level 2), generating a thematic ‘map’ of the analysis.
5. Defining and naming themes
Ongoing analysis to refine the specifics of each theme, and the overall story the analysis tells, generating clear definitions and names for each theme.
6. Producing the report
The final opportunity for analysis. Selection of vivid, compelling extract examples, the final analysis of selected extracts, relating back to the analysis to the research question and literature, producing a scholarly report of the analysis. Table 1 The six phases of thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2006, p. 87)
The first phase of the analysis involved transcribing the conducted interviews and putting the participant observations from the bicycle repair garage, the language café and language school into writing. Furthermore, first ideas about what could be found in the data and their relevance
21 were created. The following phase concentrated on generating codes, “which identify a feature of the data […] that appears interesting” and which constitute the “most basic segment, or element, of the raw data or information that can be assessed in a meaningful way regarding the phenomenon” (Boyatzis, 1998, p. 63). See Table 2 below for an example of how a segment was translated into codes.
Data extract Coded for
Yeah if you don’t speak the language, you’re absolutely slave of your non-capacity of speaking. You are hidden and people cannot see you, they don’t know who you are, how you behave, you are just in silence, it is a very frustrating thing. Sometimes you understand what they say, but you cannot comment. You want to make a comment, but you stay in silence, and they don't get to know you and don’t get to know what you think.
1. Language 2. Hidden
3. Being part of society 4. Not being heard 5. Frustration 6. Exclusion
Table 2 Data extract, with codes applied
In phase three, the developed codes are sorted “into potential themes and collating all the relevant coded data extracts within the identified themes” (Braun and Clarke, 2006, p. 89). Furthermore, the relationship of the codes and themes is established as well as the relationship between overarching themes and sub-themes. Once a list of candidate themes has been established, these are reviewed in phase four in order to establish whether they are coherent, can stand alone or need to be dissected into separate themes (Level 1). Furthermore, the themes are analysed regarding their validity in relation to the set of data and whether the themes “‘accurately’ reflect the meanings evident in the data set as a whole” (Braun and Clarke, 2006, p. 91) (Level 2). Before producing the actual report, phase five is dedicated to finalising each theme by “identifying the ‘essence’ of what each theme is about […], and determining what aspects of the data each theme captures” (Braun and Clarke, 2006, p. 92).
4 Results
In this section, the researcher aims to contribute to the theoretical understanding outlined in Chapter 2. To review, this study is based on the theoretical assumption that the securitization of migration and accompanying security policies can be understood as a form of politics of belonging. These, in turn, hinder migrants’ development of a feeling of belonging. The main
22 objective of this study is to analyse how far CSOs can influence migrants’ feeling of belonging. The analysis of the experiences and feelings which were expressed in interviews and informal talks with migrants in Berlin, as well as the insights gained during the participant observation, aim to contribute and provide an answer to this research question. The earlier formulated sub-questions will guide the following analysis.
4.1 Migrants’ Feeling of Belonging to Berlin
Within this first sub-section the researcher will consider the study’s outcome about the first sub-question, namely: Do migrants feel that they belong to Berlin and if so, what does it entail?
In the answers given by the migrants, the researcher identified three categories in regard to migrants’ feeling of belonging to Berlin: Those who affirmed they feel they belong to Berlin, those who did not feel they belong to Berlin, and those who described their feeling as an in-between, something that is developing. The latter two expressions were analysed together. 4.1.1 Nuances in and Expressions of the Feeling of Belonging
More than half of the study participants fall within the first category. Although they share this feeling of belonging, there are differences in the way they feel they belong. The researcher asked two participants if they feel they belong to Berlin, to which they independently answered:
“For myself, I see myself as a Berliner now, and I feel at ease.”
(male, 26, from Syria) “Yeah I can say, I have so many proud of myself, I am Berliner.”
(male, 25, from Pakistan)
These statements show the connection between the feeling of belonging and the self-identification with the city the questioned migrants are living in. However, another respondent drew a fine line between feeling he belongs to Berlin and identifying with the city:
“I cannot say I am a Berliner because honestly, I am a foreigner.”
(male, 33, from Turkey)
The comparison of the preceding statements indicates that there are nuances in the feeling of belonging which are, as the statements show, partially connected to the self-perception of the migrants. Furthermore, most of the participants expressed a feeling of belonging only to
23 Berlin, while they did not feel to belong to Germany or cities they had lived in before. For one man the feeling of belonging to Berlin is rather connected to a specific district called Kreuzberg than the whole of Berlin. When participants were asked how this feeling of belonging to Berlin expresses itself or how it has expressed itself for the first time, participants gave accounts of everyday examples. The answers by two participants underline this:
“I was at a book launch of a friends’ book and there I met someone. He wanted to have small talk with me. And then I talked to him, and he talked to me as if he knew that I was gay. At this moment in time, I haven’t told anyone that I was gay. And I thought oh god how does he know? And I continued talking about my feelings, about my sexuality in a relaxed and open manner. And this, I found this moment so amazing, that it is normal.”
(male, 26, from Syria) “I cannot say that I kind of feel patriarchalism but yes I can, well, it is really hard to describe. It kind of, yeah, when something happens like kinds of events, like marathon running, yeah I wanna join them. I am living here, and I wanna be part of this event, and I will go there. […] When you feel that you can do something, you can be part of any event, or you have a feeling about it, you can feel the belong[ing] to society.”
(male, 33, from Turkey)
The above statements illustrate Anthias (2008) account on the feeling of belonging as outlined before. The everyday which both respondents referred to – going to a book launch and talking freely about oneself or one’s participation in a marathon – are representations of “informal experiences of being part of the social fabric” (Anthias, 2008, p. 8). The given accounts refer to migrants’ feeling of being able to participate and access social places which in turn informs their feeling of belonging to the society in Berlin.
Although there is the tendency among the interviewees to feel they belong, are a part of the social fabric, most of those that feel they belong to Berlin denied that this feeling was there from the point of arrival in Berlin.
4.1.2 Nuances in and Expression of the Feeling not to Belong and the In-between
The researcher found nuances in the feeling of not belonging to Berlin. While some respondents found that they do not belong to Berlin, they would still call it their home; others would also call it their home but felt that the feeling of belonging was at an in-between state
24 and is still developing. The connection between the feeling of belonging and the self-identification of migrants also became apparent among those that did not feel they belong. A statement by one of the respondents that feels like he is home in Berlin underlines this:
“I am not belonging to Berlin and in my age, it is difficult to cut root and say I am a Deutsch man.”
(male, 51, from Egypt)
Among the respondents that did not feel they belong to Berlin, there was one that would also neglect to call Berlin her home:
“No, I am not feeling as a home here because now in my mind, I am thinking that police take us like a football. Shoot us here one day, but we have nothing to say why are shooting us from here to there.”
(female, 19, from Afghanistan)
From her accounts, the question arises if she feels to belong to any other place – Afghanistan the country where she was born, and from where she and her family fled when she was a child? How does she feel about Pakistan the country they fled to from Afghanistan and now left again for Europe?
“We have no place now that Europe has also rejected us. Afghanistan is not safe for Hazara people, and Pakistan is also not.”
(female, 19, from Afghanistan)
Her feeling of not belonging to Berlin expresses itself in the feeling of being limited in what she can do. She described this in the following way:
“Now we are in Europe and there is nothing here. You are not allowed to do this, not allowed to go to [an]other country […]. In my class they are going to London on a [school trip], but I [am] not allowed to go [there]. Because I have no pass. […] Now, I am thinking we are in Europe like one of the jail.”
(female, 19, from Afghanistan)
As the assumption was made earlier, security policies stemming from the securitization of migration create collective places – places, from which migrants are excluded. These exclusionary processes then hinder migrants to develop a feeling of belonging to the society they are living in. Her account of this exclusion in the form of not being able to take part in the school trip because of her formal status preventing her from leaving Berlin affirms the
