Nomadic modernity : cultural disjuncture and conflict among rural migrants in Ulaanbaatar's ger districts

(1)

NOMADIC MODERNITY:

CULTURAL DISJUNCTURE AND CONFLICT AMONG RURAL MIGRANTS IN

ULAANBAATAR’S GER DISTRICTS

Martina Vittoria Sottini

11240199

Thesis Supervisor: Dennis Rodgers

Second Reader: Courtney Vegelin

Research Master’s International Development Studies

2016-2018

Word count: 34,878

(2)

1 Abstract

This thesis explores the relationship between nomadic and urban ways of life in Ulaanbaatar, the capital city of Mongolia, and how their interaction has led to several forms of cultural disjuncture that have generated conflict among residents, and between residents and officials in the city. The objective of the research was to investigate the tangible and intangible forms of cultural disjuncture through the conceptual and empirical lenses of housing, infrastructure, and identity. The main research site wer e the so-called ger districts where rural migrants tend to settle down and erect either self-built houses or traditional nomadic tents (the ger). The research explicitly sought to develop a dual perspective on the way that nomadic and urban lifestyles can affect each other, analysing on the one hand the bottom-up, residents’ perspective(s), and on the other, the top-down, government and city municipality’s perspective(s). Interviews were carried out with former rural migrants, Ulaanbaatar’s “original” residents, NGO workers, international organizations, and governmental officials and program officers. The research demonstrates that the nomadic lifestyle and mentality have tangible and intangible effects on daily urban practices in Ulaanbaatar’s ger districts. The most palpable examples of this cultural disjuncture are the widespread use of the ger as housing and the continuing importance of the so-called “aimag association” for migrants’ sense of identity. Such cultural disjunctures, combined with the problematic relationship between ger districts and the city municipality, have led to the emergence of three different types of conflict, namely infrastructural, identity-related, and migratory, that are fundamentally shaping city life. This thesis concludes that Ulaanbaatar, the government of Mongolia, and other national and foreign stakeholders have failed to fully consider nomadic ideas and practices in the design and implementation processes of the city’s urban plans and policies, despite simultaneously holding up nomadic values as a core element of Mongolian national identity. The approach of the city municipality has failed due to its clear urban bias and has worsened the existing conflicts between former rural migrants and urbanites. Thus, the thesis also recommends that future urban planning for Ulaanbaatar and any other related policies need to consider and better integrate nomadic values such as independence, individualism, and self-reliance in the way that they have been made core to the notion of Mongolian national identity. Mongolian and foreign policymakers must start framing the rural or nomadic way of life not as an obstacle to urbanization and modernization but as a way of being and thinking that, once identified and understood, can be built on for more effective and just policy interventions.

Key words: Mongolia; Rural-urban Migration; Ger Districts; Cultural Disjuncture; Urban Bias; Conflict.

(3)

2 Acknowledgments

My deepest gratitude goes to Matteo Bellinelli and La mensa e il gregge. This research would not have been possible without the support, trust, and respect that you have given me since the first time we met. Your mentorship has been essential for me to successfully navigate Mongolia, a place that now feels like home. I also want to express my gratitude to my supervisor, Dennis Rodgers. You guided me before, during, and after the research project, and have always encouraged me to intellectually challenge myself. I hope one day to be a great educator and thinker like you are.

When I was in Ulaanbaatar, several amazing people gave me the chance to do research as I thought best. Thus, my gratitude goes to the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC), especially to Consul Gabriella Spirli, Andreas Weber, and Zolzaya Lkhagvasuren. Thank you for all the time and support you gave me. The Zorig Foundation, and especially executive director Tsolmon Bayaraa and programs director Maral Gankhuyag, welcomed me and helped me understand the incredible city that Ulaanbaatar is. Thank you to Ryenchin and the staff of the foundation: Badruun Gardi and Namuun from Gerhub, Batdorj Gongor from Ger Community Mapping Center (GCMC), Zolzaya Batkhuyag and the amazing staff of Women for Change, Philippe Long from the Asia Foundation, and Zayanam Okhinoo from Bayasgalant are all incredible individuals, whose hard work and innovative ideas can truly improve Ulaanbaatar and, hopefully, secure a just future for all of Mongolia. Thank you to Byamba and Chinzo, whose knowledge and understanding of the Mongolian society were essential tools for me to discover the city and its people. I want to also thank Chuka, his wife and son to have welcomed me and assisted me during my stay in UB. I am grateful for your help and care.

I have all the gratitude and respect for my family. You deal with my stubbornness every time I come up with new ideas and projects, which most parents and sisters would not be so able to accept and support the way you have. The love, pride, and respect I have for all of you is endless. Thank you for believing in me, and for telling me every single day: Vi voglio bene. My gratitude also goes to my dearest friends. Marianna, I am proud to consider you part of my family. You always made sure to be present in my life and you made me feel like home everywhere I went, even on the other side of the world. You are a spectacular human being and I look up to your strength, courage, and cheerfulness when life gets tough. Thank you, Marta, Mariateresa, Ludovica, and Maria Francesca. You are the proof that distance does not matter when friendship is true and honest. Thank you Bugi, my dear friend, who made me discover and appreciate Ulaanbaatar. Thank you Kaf for your patience and care, and for always listening to me. Finally, I wish I could personally send my gratitude to every single Mongolian I have met during fieldwork, and that has given me, a stranger, their time. I will forever be grateful for your trust. Баярлалаа.

(4)

3

Mongolia is often viewed by foreigners as the land of endless steppes and sky, of fierce nomads and of conqueror Chinggis Khan. Yet, throughout the past eight centuries, Mongolia has also been the stage of outstanding historical events, which have shaped both the East and the West. It all started with the Mongol empire, later replaced by the Manchu dynasty from China and then by Soviet Russia. Nowadays, Mongolia is a democracy, but this socio-political and economic shift has required a great transformation of not only its government and economy, but also of individuals’ lifestyles and collective identity. Indeed, after the fall of the Soviet Union, the Mongolian state needed to create and pursue a new national path, one that could sharply define the uniqueness and value of the newly independent state. To do so, China and Russia were set aside – at least in terms of the creation of a national identity narrative. Instead, the Mongolian state strategically looked back at the Mongol Empire and the Great Khan and so found in them the solution to Mongolia’s foundational problem (i.e. to be recognized as a modern independent state). The people of Mongolia began to praise again the 800-year-old Khan – and his nomadic lifestyle – thus becoming not only a matter of national pride but also the foundation of a new authentic, pure Mongolian identity. Nevertheless, the predominantly nomadic-oriented national identity narrative soon started to clash with other interests and goals of the state – that is, to become an internationally recognized modern and relevant state. On the one hand, the revival of this nomadic heritage was essential for the democratic government to reclaim its independence and uniqueness. On the other hand, the actual nomadic practices, common among herders who settle down in the capital city Ulaanbaatar, tend to delay and limit the execution of urban plans, which would ideally create the state’s much desired ‘smart city’. In fact, it is in the city where the nomadic and urban ways of life most visibly clash and coexist. Half of the three million Mongolian citizens live in Ulaanbaatar, where about 800,000 of them have settled down in either self-built houses or self-erected gers (i.e. the traditional felt tents used by nomads in the country). These areas are known as the ger districts (or ger areas), which not only are uncontrollably expanding, but also lack direct access to basic infrastructures and services. Serious social issues have also emerged from this merging of cultures, for urbanites and the city municipality frown upon rural migrants moving to the city and continuing to carry on their more traditional and individualist nomadic lifestyles.

The Research Site

Ulaanbaatar (also known as the “Red Hero” or UB) is the main research site in this study. As the capital city of Mongolia, UB hosts half of the entire Mongolian population (about three million in total). Rural-urban migration began in the socialist era when the state promoted urbanization as a tool to achieve socialist ideas and values. Nevertheless, it was only after the fall of the USSR that urban settlements began to expand even further; Mongolia’s urbanization ratio built up from 52% in 1980 to 70% in 2013 (Peilei et al., 2016:1). As far as the capital is concerned, “From 1990 to 2015 the population of Ulaanbaatar increased by more than 100 per cent. (…) Rural-urban in-migration further increased in the country twice for a different reason: at the turn of the 2000s and at the turn of the 2010s as the result of dzud2” (Breslavsky, 2016:212). Located in the north-center of the country (in a valley of the Tuul River), UB has become not only the main destination for rural migrants but also the cradle of the political evolution of Mongolia and of its economic development, especially of the mining sector (Smith R.J., 2015:161). Ulaanbaatar is also considered to be the coldest capital in the world,

1_{The Blue Sky by Galsan Tschinag, translated by Katharina Rout, originally published in Germany by Verlag, Frankfurt}

am Main in 1994.

2_{A dzud consists of an arid summer drought, followed by an extremely cold and harsh winter, often resulting in the loss}

(6)

5

due to its arid, subarctic climate, which has dramatic effects on the social and economic dynamics of Mongolian society. Indeed, limited grazing land, increasing desertification and blizzards continue to pose new challenges both in the steppe and in the city. During the extensive winters, herders in the countryside and residents in UB cannot escape the extremely cold temperatures (-40° C) and their detrimental effects on their livelihood. Moreover, the city is characterized by a highly centralized urban structure, meaning that most services and economic activities, as well as national and international organizations, are located exclusively in the city center. Public infrastructures providing water, heating, electricity, and wastewater are old, unreliable, and almost completely insufficient or even absent in the ger districts, where 60% of UB’s population resides (The Asia Foundation, 2014). Research Objectives

Having now presented both the problem statement and the research site, it can be argued that the revival of the nomadic cultural heritage has led to the simultaneous appreciation and disparagement of those practices, still implemented by former nomads living in UB. In order to tackle this problem, two main scales – that is, national and local, have been included in the research design. Starting from how the Mongolian state presents and (re)produces the nomadic culture, the thesis then moves on to the actual, local rural practices and identities of ger district residents and, ultimately, how, and why these are perceived as problematic threats to development by city officials and UB-born and raised. Therefore, the research has aimed to investigate 1) the impact of nomadic culture on daily urban practices among UB’s residents, 2) the state-led creation and implementation of a new Mongolian national identity, and finally, 3) the emergence of forms of conflict, especially in Ulaanbaatar. The first research objective concerns the concept of cultural disjuncture ‘from below’ – that is, how individuals perceive, practice, and transform the rural and nomadic way of life within an urban context, such that of the ger districts of UB. The second point stems from the same idea of cultural disjuncture but ‘from above’– that is, how the state and its institutions tackle both the countryside and the city, as well as their histories, cultures, and functions. Within the scope of this research, the first two main goals intended to dwell on dynamics, which are both distinct yet mutually influence each other. The third objective focuses on conflict – that is, the roles the bottom-up and top-down forms of cultural disjuncture have played in establishing or fostering any conflictual relationship between residents and government or among UB residents themselves. Indeed, the way the Mongolian government comments on nomadism and the countryside can impact on UB’s residents’ perspectives and opinions on rural migrants; simultaneously, the expansion of the city’s ger areas can push the government’s efforts towards new city masterplans and, consequently, incentivize a more urban-oriented (national) identity. This research also aims to address a knowledge gap concerning UB’s ger districts. During the preparation of the research proposal, thus prior to fieldwork, it had already been noticed a predominant presence of articles and studies, which exclusively tackled these semi-formal settlements in relation to their material inefficiencies. Nomadism was usually only partially mentioned – and always in relation to more material components of the ger districts issue. Thus, the adoption of an anthropological approach to Ulaanbaatar’s shortcomings; instead of analyzing the palpable consequences of rural-urban migration only, the research looks back at nomadic (and rural-urban) ideas and practices and at their forms and functions at the local and national scales, to understand (non)ger residents as well as officials’ attitudes and behaviors. Once in the field, practitioners in international organizations and other NGO workers often addressed the novelty of said approach, arguing that, indeed, previous studies had overlooked the potential influence of the nomadic way of life on the city’s social and urban (re)development.

Epistemological and Ontological Position

As explained earlier, the research has aimed to investigate two different ways of life, each characterized by diverse and variegated ideas and practices, as well as their mutual impact on each other and the resulting forms of conflict. Before moving to the literature review, it is necessary to first explain the adopted epistemological and ontological positions vis-à-vis the research topic and context. First, it is important to mention the fact that the two main characteristics of nomadic culture are

(7)

6

individualism and independence. Originated and reproduced in the Mongolian steppes, these socio-cultural traits have indeed led to serious consequences in Ulaanbaatar. In fact, after moving to the city, former Mongolian herders have given a different meaning to the socially-constructed experience of nomadism; the latter has been shaped by the urban setting and the new urban ideas, incentives, and practices (Sayer, 2006) – as well as by anti-Chinese feelings, the lingering Soviet past, the transition to democracy, market-based economy, and climate change. Therefore, within a relativist framework, an interpretivist approach is needed to analyze the daily ‘ru-urban’ practices within the ger districts and, ultimately, understand how nomadic and urban cultures – and their corresponding attitudes and mindsets – have impacted (and have been impacted by) the city (Ritchie & Lewis, 2003:16-17). As rural-urban migration has been triggered by shifting beliefs and pressing incentives, new ideas and practices are indeed now playing a fundamental role in the daily dynamics of Ulaanbaatar. Poverty, pollution, corruption, inequality, search for identity and recognition are the products of the new Mongolian urban reality. Yet, the underlying pursuit and implications of a new authentic national identity have produced a determined framework in which individuals seem to continue to be playing specific roles according to the norms and beliefs they have inherited. The reproduction of certain behaviors is further fostered by space, which can be defined both as a social construction (e.g. former herders living in “hot” spaces, like the ger areas, which are often socially stigmatized and labeled as backward) and as a social relation (i.e. social structures are reproduced by the people within a place according to existing structural relations of power). It follows that given places, especially geographically bounded neighborhoods, have socially significant attributes attached to them that transcend the individual attributes of their residents (Fox Gotham, 2003). In order to tackle such a complex scenario, a structure-oriented approach has consequently been adopted (Ortner, 2006). The rationale for this decision is that the expansion of ger districts and their related urban practices have resulted from the combination of the aforementioned factors (e.g. Chinese and Russian dominance, the transition to a market-based democracy, and climate change) and the marginalization or re-adoption of nomadic cultural heritage. Indeed, it can be argued that the choice of former herders (now UB residents) to rely on past Mongolian practices has been strongly influenced by the parallelism between the evolution of the newly democratic Mongolian state and its nomadic cultural heritage. It follows that an agency-oriented approach would most likely overlook the relevance and great impact of past and present overarching power dynamics, while assemblage theory would dwell too much on these dynamics, thus shifting the attention from the residents’ point of view and their importance as the affected marginalized actors to the events that have led to the Mongolian status quo. Nevertheless, this research will also focus on residents’ agency, to a certain degree (i.e. how individuals translate underlying dynamics and narratives into their daily lives and the resulting effects of such decisions at the city level).

A Ger Always Faces South – A Visual Essay

In order to introduce the countryside-centered single story of Mongolia and thus highlight UB’s rural-urban conflict of cultures, a visual essay has been created using material collected during fieldwork. The rationale for this visual essay is twofold. On the one hand, it is meant to display instances of life in the Mongolian countryside, around its Buddhist sites and Ulaanbaatar’s city center and ger areas. In this way, a general understanding of what Mongolia looks like is provided. On the other hand, the structure and content of the essay aim to address and underline the various forms of cultural disjuncture within the Mongolian state itself. In fact, the visual essay begins with photographs taken in the steppes – the vast plains commonly used to portray Mongolia – followed by photo of nomads, then of permanent Buddhist temples, and finally, the city and Ulaanbaatar’s ger districts. Yet, even in the capital, the nomadic lingers, for it is neither fully forgotten nor predominant, but rather mixed and matched with its urban counterpart. Indeed, while the visual material is greatly diverse in relation to the historical, cultural, and aesthetic meanings and representations of Mongolianness, the essay’s red thread is the ger – the symbolical and material nomadic element par excellence, in all its ever-evolving meanings and surroundings. Moreover, brief descriptions and observations of the photographs are provided to contextualize and explain the visual content. A final reflection concludes the essay.

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13)

(14)

(15)

(16)

(17)

(18)

17

In the beginning, the rationale of the visual essay was described as twofold. One the one hand, it shows instances of life in Mongolia and, on the other, it addresses the various forms of cultural disjuncture coexisting across the country. Nevertheless, it can be argued that the two objectives often overlap, since everyday Mongolian life is inextricably interconnected with both its rural and urban past and present. The point is that the history of Mongolia is significantly complex in that several power shifts occurred, thus leading to profound transformations of not only the state’s structure and organization but of the social, cultural, religious, economic, and political fabric too. Indeed, the Mongolian case is characterized by the deeply contrasting transformations that it has experienced, each leaving something behind. Chinggis Khan, the great and charismatic leader, created the Mongol empire; the Manchu dynasty introduced Buddhism and the first urban settlements; Socialism strived for urbanization and collectivization as tools for equality; the market-based economy and democracy have allowed individuals new comforts and broadened their opportunities. Almost impatiently and hectically, each phase has attempted to set Mongolia on a new path, pulling it as far away as possible from the previous ones – both ideologically and materially.

Several issues constitute the current status quo – that is, the result of the evolution the country has undergone. The forms of cultural disjuncture that are discussed in this thesis originated from the dynamic encounters between the diverse and distinct historical phases. The re-introduction of Buddhism from the Manchu times and the presence of ger districts (also typical under Socialism) were shown in the visual essay as evidence of how Mongolia has been rediscovering and reusing its past to create a new present. It follows that the turbulent history of Mongolia, together with what has been left behind, exceed the simple and almost trivial single story of endless steppes and intrepid nomads. Past and future expectations chase each other, muddling the present for both the state and its citizens –in which nomadic cultural heritage is both a stronghold and an obstacle of Mongolianness, religion is a tool of both unity and superstition, and urbanization is an objective to be both achieved and limited.

***

The thesis will continue as follows. The first chapter “Literature Review – Spaces, Identity, and Conflict” comprises the theoretical framework. The literature review focuses on the already existing literature on the rural and urban ways of life, rural-urban migration, national identity narratives, and (civic) conflict and engagement. Before examining the case of Mongolia in detail, the research questions, the concepts, the epistemological and ontological position and, finally, the methods and ethics are presented and explained in chapter two.

Chapter three, “Real and Imagined Spaces of Mongolianness,” dwells on some of the same themes discussed in the first chapter – that is, the rural, the urban, national identity narratives, and conflict, specifically in the Mongolian case. This chapter is divided into two main sections. The first examines the identity discourses attached to the countryside and the city, and how these two spaces have been shaped, described, and interpreted from the Socialist period to the present. This part tackles the top-down, “imagined” side of Mongolianness and examines other identity- and conflict-related dynamics (e.g. anti-Chinese and rural migrants feelings). The second section presents the countryside and the city of Ulaanbaatar through an evidence-based approach to provide a more objective description of rural and urban daily practices in Mongolia. The rationale behind separating the “imagined” and “real” sides of Mongolianness is 1) to highlight the similarities and differences between the actual countryside and the capital city and the way(s) the State has depicted them and 2) to provide initial insights and evidences of cultural disjuncture occurring in or encouraged by the Mongolian state. Chapter four, “Still Nomads: Cultural Disjuncture in Ulaanbaatar’s Ger Districts,” further delves into forms of cultural disjuncture in today’s Mongolian society. Building upon the observations and inferences from the previous chapters, this chapter zooms in on and examines the case of Ulaanbaatar’s ger districts. The real/imagined (or tangible/intangible) and the top-down/bottom-up separations are also present in this chapter. Therefore, the first part presents and analyzes the tangible ger-related infrastructural issues in UB’s districts. The second section discusses identities among ger residents,

(19)

18

ranging from religions to ethnicities to homeland association. These two parts constitute the bottom-up analysis of tangible and intangible forms of cultural disjuncture. The final section tackles a specific instance of top-down cultural disjuncture. Chapter four specifically focuses on Ulaanbaatar’s ger districts; this section of the thesis analyzes the impact of the 2020 (2030) Ulaanbaatar City Masterplan, as well as other ger districts-based re-planning projects and prospects from the Asian Development Bank (ADB), the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) and the Government of Mongolia. Chapter five, “Engaging with the City: Conflict, Agency, and the ‘Mongolian Mentality,’” expands on the previous chapter’s inferences on cultural disjuncture in Ulaanbaatar’s ger districts. If chapter four argues that nomadic and urban cultures have led to diverse bottom-up and top-down causes of cultural disjuncture, chapter five examines their other effects and implications. In the original research proposal, it was hypothesized that civic conflict would have originated from the daily identity and infrastructure-related issues most present in said areas of UB. This chapter further investigates, on the one hand, the role of Mongolian mentality vis-à-vis civil society’s efforts towards community building and engagement and, on the other, a more common form of migration-originated conflict (e.g. that between “oldcomers” and “newcomers”) and the lack of specific State policies in relation to migration and its implications.

The conclusion provides a summary of the findings presented and examined throughout the thesis. Final remarks and considerations regarding the relationship between the nomadic and the urban, the urban bias, and the resulting conflict within the city are thereby made and discussed.

(20)

19

Chapter One, “Literature Review – Spaces, Identity, and Conflict”

The current status quo in Mongolia – that is, one where the pursuit of both nomadism and modernity has intertwined these concepts and caused constant clashing, calls for a rural/urban-oriented theoretical framework. The dichotomy between the “rural” and the “urban” has ancient origins and has developed and taken on different meanings throughout the centuries. For instance, in ancient Greece, the city (or πόλις) was both the space and symbol of democratic values; the nature of man, exemplified by Aristotle’s ζῷον πολιτικόν, was inevitably connected to the life of the city, i.e. the space of society. Whatever was left – that is, the rural, was consequently secondary. Yet, ancient Rome reversed the roles. The countryside was a locus amoenus, a place of virtuous individual thinking and living, distant from the indolence of the frenetic life of the civitas. However, the evolution of the rural and urban, and of their representations continued. In medieval times, urban settlements were hubs of socio-political and economic dynamics of power because the local lord and the guilds resided there. Once again, the tables turned (Dymitrow & Stenseke, 2016: 1-3). The Chicago School described the city, as well as its way of life, as deviant and inherently the cause and effect of violence, exclusion, and inequality (Wirth, 1938). This position was soon criticized, adopted, and rejected during the 1970s and 1990s, but in its own way, it did leave a mark on the rural-urban debate.

From this excursus, it is possible to understand how the rural-urban binary has always been perceived and tackled “as a battle of discourses” (Dymitrow & Stenseke, 2016:3). Such a problematic approach has led to the cementation of the power structures linked to these concepts, thus constantly re-affirming specific ideas on what rurality and urbanity are, should and will be. Yet, there is the risk of turning the rural and the urban into stereotypes and, ultimately, into conceptual filters “that divert attention from self-identified problems” (ibid., 4). It follows that, however deeply rooted this dichotomy is in the way the world is understood, its related social constructs need to take into account the material world and the related human perceptions and practices. Moreover, it is necessary to point out that these settings vary greatly from one country to another. In a developed country, cities provide several services and infrastructure, while poorer cities are characterized by marginalization, a lack of resources, and degradation. Likewise, rural areas in the developed world still enjoy relatively reliable public communication and service infrastructures, whereas in developing countries the countryside is perceived as remote, thus lacking basic services (Requena, 2015). Therefore, it is essential to further analyze how the rural and the urban contexts are described in both theory and practice in the existing literature.

Moreover, this chapter introduces topics such as rural-urban migration, national identity narratives, (post-)socialism, and conflict and civic engagement. If the rural and the urban vary according to the context in which they are being analyzed, it is, consequently, necessary to frame them in relation to migration too. The latter constitutes the psychological, cultural, and physical replacement of one (the rural) with the other (the urban); it follows that it is essential to address city-driven population flows to further identify and understand the diverse nuances that make up the rural and the urban. National identity narratives from both the socialist and democratic periods are similar presented and discussed. Socialism was rooted in the desire for equality and collectivization, industrialization, and urbanization, thus explicitly prioritizing city life and the progress the latter was meant to represent and reproduce. With the fall of communism, urbanization and modernity continued to be pivotal objectives, yet to be achieved through the market economy whilst simultaneously pursuing a national identity based on the re-invention of a not-so-distant past. Following discourses on migration and collective identity dynamics, the rural and the urban are important elements in the explanation of causes and implications of conflict and civic engagement, too. Being a rural migrant or an urban resident does have an impact on individuals’ perceptions of each other and, thus, on their (un)willingness to collectively participate in the life of the neighborhood. Using Mongolian history for guidance, the literature review delves into these variegated themes, interconnected between each other through the diverse and often contrasting ways of representing and reproducing the countryside and the city. Keeping the Mongolian case in consideration, the term “ru-urban” is used throughout the thesis to address the ideas and

(21)

20

practices, implemented in semi-urban settlements that have originated from the encounter, mixing and problematic coexistence of the rural and urban ways of life.

The Rural and Urban Ways of Life

Before the beginning of urbanized life, individuals lived in so-called folk societies. Robert Redfield (1947) constructed an ideal and imagined type of entity whose features are guidelines to more broadly understand what these societies consisted of. A folk society is small and isolated, thus a place where its people know each other well and live according to shared customs or culture, i.e. “an organization or integration of conventional understanding” (ibid., 298). Habits and traditions are, therefore, conventionalized, and interrelated; individuals conform to one way of living, which is never impersonal. In fact, in folk societies, a strong sense of solidarity is present not only among kin but also among neighbors, with whom modes of productions are shared, meaning that there is also no stark division of labor. This imagined construction is a useful device in the analysis of rural communities, but at the same time, it has a few problematic implications. For instance, if homogeneity is a fundamental aspect of the ideal type of folk societies, one may wonder whether it is possible to investigate the presence or absence and development of confrontations and conflicts within these societies. Indeed, if heterogeneity is considered as a rather exogenous factor, it seems that progress is produced exclusively by the members of the community and only in formalized ways, which is a relatively constraining take on studies concerning societies and conflict. Therefore, it can be argued that the folk society is represented as a frozen primordial society which is greatly separated and different from the urban. Moreover, its constraining theoretical boundaries and features make a folk society somewhat secondary to the city, for it is in the city where heterogeneity, progress, and confrontation seem to rise and spread.

More recent literature does not dwell as much on folk societies as Redfield did, but rather they often describe the rural context in regard to its instrumentality vis-à-vis urban areas. The countryside is presented as the place of natural resources – that is, where to find renewable energy and actual, physical space for small and medium-sized enterprises. From this point of view, rural territories have become “essential spaces to establish new economic activities and to accommodate eventual pressure from urbanization,” thus providing amenities, such as air quality, green fields, biodiversity, for urban residents (OECD, 2013:36).

Moving on, Bell et al. (2010) not only acknowledge the rather widespread academic trend that states “that the rural is declining in consequence” due to countryside-based conflicts and backwardness (ibid., 205) but also challenge it. The authors argue in favor of a new theoretical approach – that is, “an active understanding of the many powers of the rural with all its materiality, symbolism and relations,” thus to create a practice-based account of the countryside, whose “activeness” may be spatial, but not spatially limited (ibid., 206). Two initial implications can be drawn from the adoption of this position. From a material point of view, it is acknowledged that the world has become a hybrid between rural and urban ways of life. From a theoretical stance, the statement that “change happens to the rural; the rural does not create change” is called into question, together with most academic views which persistently portray the rural as passive (ibid., 209). Although motion rather than stability is often viewed as the source of change and activeness, the rural can and does have an active voice too. On the one hand, the way the rural is imagined and idealized has a material impact on people’s lifestyles (ibid., 215-216); on the other hand, rural residents can use their material location to mobilize or stabilize power over the countryside. In addition, it can be argued that the activeness of the rural demonstrates how the rural way of life is, indeed, never impersonal; the “ru-urban” originates from former rural migrants’ personal take on the urban space of the city. It follows that both the rural and the urban are modes of activeness and power, “by moving as by not budging, as much by creating persistence as by creating motion” (ibid., 221). From the folk society to the activeness of the rural, the numerous discourses on the countryside show the problematic nature of a concept so easily pinned down by collective imagination.

(22)

21

The urban is also not immune to the material and theoretical complexity of its nature. According to Fischer (1984 [1976]), the word “city” can be defined in four ways: demographically (vis-à-vis population size and density, meaning that cities are places with a large number of residents), institutionally (cities have their own political and economic institutions), culturally (cities present cultural features, e.g. the presence of literate people), and behaviorally (i.e. distinctive behavioral lifestyles, e.g. impersonal social relationships) (ibid., 51-52). Moving on from the definitions of what a city is, three main theories have been developed. First, the determinist theory, best represented by Wirth and the Chicago School’s work, argues that cities are large and dense settlements where socially heterogeneous individuals permanently reside. Given these circumstances, social and personal disorder and disorganization are inevitable; residents differ so greatly from one another (in terms of employment, education, and lifestyles) that they “are left unsupported to suffer their difficulties alone” (ibid., 56). The result is best exemplified by Durkheim’s concept of anomie, which is a social condition where rules and norms of proper behavior are feeble and no longer conventionalized (exactly the opposite of the folk society). A second theory, the compositional one, argues that size, density, and heterogeneity (i.e. ecological factors) do not have any direct negative effects on urban residents’ social lives; “the dynamics of social life depend largely on the nonecological factors of social class, ethnicity, and stage in the life-cycle” (ibid., 56). Consequently, said theory does agree on the emergence of rural-urban psychological differences, but, contrary to previous schools of thought, it does not attribute its origins to urbanism. Finally, the subcultural theory states that urbanism does not limit or disrupt social interactions but rather increases and strengthens them. Indeed, more individuals come into contact with one another, thus leading to the formation of several, diverse social worlds, which ultimately, lead to social disorganization by stressing their uniqueness and intensifying their differences (ibid., 57-58).

According to Redfield and Singer (1954), a society based on a system of collectively conventionalized understandings cannot be achieved in the city, for the latter is the result of the deep changes occurred in folk societies. From a theoretical point of view, such urban-oriented transformation follows either two patterns of urbanization. Primary urbanization consists of the shift from folk society to peasant and related urban centers; the pre-civilized, folk culture is maintained in the sense that folk people’s “Little Tradition” is turned into a “Great Tradition” – that is, a reflective and systematic expansion of previous cultural norms by the literati. Secondary urbanization has a much different result, which is “the weakening or supersession of the local and traditional cultures by states of mind that are incongruent with those local cultures,” thus leading to a technical social order which is mainly self-interested-oriented (ibid., 60-61). The second pattern of urbanization resonates with Wirthian theory on urbanism (and its implications), but also primary urbanization has somewhat negative effects on society. For instance, the emergence of a group of literati and the creation of a Great Tradition inherently leads to a cognitive gap between ordinary villagers and urban residents or to re-imagined rural culture and history to be presented and used in the newly formed urban environment. For instance, the rural or nomadic practices of Mongolia have been re-imagined, transformed, and connected to a Great(er) Tradition (that of Chinggis Khan), thus creating a cognitive gap between what is rural in actuality and how the rural is imagined. Thus, the “ru-urban” constitutes an evident example of the material (and symbolical) consequences of said cognitive gap.

Migration and Population Flows

Alongside urbanization, developing countries strive for modernization, which has often materialized itself in the form of “rapid industrialization at the expense of agriculture;” peasants are viewed “as politically reactionary, economically unresponsive to incentives, and reluctant to innovate” (Lipton, 1977:65). The poor living conditions in rural areas of underdeveloped countries, together with a widespread urban bias and the relevance of industrialization, consequently encourage peasants and farmers to abandon the countryside in the pursuit of economic stability and reliable public services (ibid.).

(23)

22

Within the neo-classical economic framework, economic factors are the primary drivers of voluntary migration; the equilibrium model views “population movements as the geographical mobility of workers who are responding to imbalances in the spatial distribution of land, labour, capital and natural resources” (Swain, 1996:963). From this point of view, it follows that push and pull factors are equally significant in the decision-making process prior to migration (ibid., 966). Another economic model that needs to be mentioned is the Harris-Todaro model. Tackling migration and unemployment, this two-sector internal model actively addresses the effects and implications of migration on rural and urban welfare, outputs, and incomes. Indeed, it comprises several premises and implications, but there is an assumption at the core of the model. That is, agricultural goods are the specialization of the rural sector, which these inhabitants can either a) produce and eventually trade, or b) partially use labor for production purposes (in its own sector) and allow the remaining labor to migrate into the urban sector in exchange for wages paid through manufactured goods, i.e. the urban sector’s specialization (Harris and Todaro, 1970). It follows that, “rural-urban migration will continue so long as the “expected” urban real income (the wage times the probability of finding a job) exceeds real agricultural income at the margin – that is, potential rural migrants behave as maximizers of expected utility” (Todaro, 1976:374). The strong point of the model is demonstrating that the perception of a higher level of employment in cities and, thus, of higher income possibilities (compared to those in the countryside), are at the basis of rural migrants’ decision to leave the countryside. In addition, the Harris-Todaro model not only explains the origins of internal migration, but it also examines the related implications, such as the relationship between urban labor surplus and induced rural labor leading to further urban unemployment. The model also argues that policies to increase urban employment or to restrict migration flows, given these circumstances, can only have negative consequences (i.e. more unemployment in the urban sector, on the one hand and, on the other, worsened social welfare in the countryside) (ibid., 372-373).

Given the circumstances, the way rural migrants “cope with urban life is affected by the resources that they bring to the cities – the educational skills, the financial and material capital or access to a network of friends and kin who provide lodgings and information about jobs” (Roberts, 1978:88-89). Rural villages are, therefore, deprived of said skills and resources, since migrants and their families direct their economic surplus towards migrating to urban settlements, where their way of life is transformed. It follows that cultural disjuncture also results from rural-urban migration. Migration is intended as a form of mobility of both individuals and their ideas, which not only challenges the reproduction and place-making of culture, but also entails de-territorialization. Therefore, it could be argued that with cultural internal flows of people, one culture (the rural or folk way of life) is consequently transformed or replaced by another (the urban or city way of life) (Heyman & Campbell, 2009:134-137). This phenomenon is also known as reterritorialization and it implies that culture is never static but rather “a constitutive social process creating specific and different ways of life,” as explained by R. Williams (Bottomley, 1992:10-11). Migration can be considered a creative process that entails not only the connection to a place of origin as well as the material change in location, but also the subsequent creation of new connections to place. Throughout this phenomenon, although one culture may prevail over another, “the homeland is not abandoned but brought to the new country,” thus playing a fundamental role in shaping the new environment as well as human relations to reflect (or even fully match), images and values from the home country (Jürgenson, 2015:116-118). Indeed, being deeply rooted in cultural norms and practices, which can also be affected by the newly transformed local context, “identity involves an identification with particular places” (…), which “take on a symbolic significance. (…) They are not merely places where like-minded people congregate, but symbolic centers around which the value and practices associated with an identity position are performed” (Hetherington, 1998:105-6). It follows that social and cultural norms and practices are intertwined with the space in which they exist and with the representations of identity they create (ibid.,132). Once again, the concept of ru-urban proves to be helpful in identifying and highlighting the material and symbolic effects that have resulted from the creative process of rural-urban migration.

(24)

23 National Identity Narratives in Post-Socialist Countries

After having discussed the functions of rural and urban culture within migration discourse, it is necessary to further delve into the relationship between space, identity, and culture, thus tackling the concepts of collective identity and nation. First, MacCormick (1984) argues that the latter is derived from popular consciousness, consisting of both common past and culture, which, given their being collectively shared, are expected to lead to a continuity of said sense of belonging. Yet, these shared feelings, practices and ways of living are not static but dynamic and ever-evolving within the specific cultural and historical framework of traditions and territory. It is within and through this collective dimension that people can see and perceive themselves as social individuals. However, popular consciousness and feelings of belonging to a nation are rather intersubjective and imagined, as argued by Anderson (1991). According to the author, nationalism is the result of an often State-led rhetoric based on the interrelation between psychology and culture, which are shared by individuals who, however, will never know or meet the other members of the community (or nation) they feel deeply attached to.

Given the research focus is on nomadic and urban cultures in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia, it is also fundamental to further expand on national identity narratives and, thus, discuss the case of post-Socialist countries. As argued above, the formation of identity is a complex process, which comprises not only technical changes (e.g. through political and economic policies at the macro level), but also “the re-definition of almost the entire fabric of everyday life” (Young and Light, 2001:942). It follows that culture, traditions, and history are not the only essential elements in this transformation; space also plays an important role in the processes of de- and re-territorialization; a new identity requires a new representation of the place where it is being introduced to become legitimate and valid (ibid.). As far as Socialist states were concerned, their overarching objective was to redefine every aspect of identity (e.g. gender, religion, nation, and the “other”) so as to push society towards the full acceptance and adoption of Socialist ideas and values. The Marxist-Leninist ideology required the homogenization of society as both a starting point and catalyst of socialist equality. If a new identity was to be created within an already existing state or space, the country’s past had to be re-invented – that is, through the discrediting of pre-socialist historical trajectories and the subsequent presentation of the historical inevitability and success of state socialism. Within the USSR and throughout the Communist period, every Soviet state did acknowledge and design policies to match their different histories, thus creating systems that recognized such diversity. However, it can also be argued that, although socialist policies varied across time and place, a key component of such identity formation was to also create a sense of “self” and “other” – the latter constructed and intended as an enemy determined to hinder the foundations and achievements of (international) socialism (ibid., 943-946).

The fall of the USSR was followed by another wave of profound changes, which entailed much more than the mere introduction of the market economy and democracy. “In almost all cases, the making of post-socialist national identities has been based on a noisy rejection of the socialist past and a search for new models (…) accompanied by (yet another) process of historical revisionism (…) to overturn the ‘distortion’ of history during the socialist period” (ibid., 946-947). States’ social, economic, and political structures had to be dismantled and, consequently, civilians’ lives re-ordered according to a new set of meanings and identities. From banknotes to tourism to cities, culture and history were revisited as tools to distance the new state (and nation) from a past that was no longer acceptable. Those who had a say either through direct action or influence in the decision-making processes became the new elites. It was consequently time for said political groups to play an active role in shaping institutions, social identification, and lifestyles, so as “to construct, reconstruct or deconstruct collective identities” (Lane, 2011:926). Consent and guidance were securely in the hands of the elites of the post-socialist era, where capitalism and polyarchy were considered and introduced as priorities. Nevertheless, this socio-political and economic shift did not happen in a vacuum but rather fell into the larger phenomenon of globalization. It follows that there were not only domestic actors at play but also exogenous elites dominating the international arena and, thus, influencing the development of the newly established countries. Trade, financial interests, media, and technological advancements – all

(25)

24

of these factors and more entailed a greater degree of interdependence between countries while simultaneously constituting incentives for the creation of a certain type of national identity that could fit and comply with such international actors. Central and Eastern Europe, as well as the former Soviet Union, saw in the USA the source of a new, irresistible ideology and in the European Union a sense of shared history; neoliberalism was the key component of policies designed by the IMF and the World Bank (ibid., 927-928).

Contrasting ideologies and elites dominated the formation of (post)Socialist identities through policy-making and culture-oriented technical changes, but as so far discussed, space too continued to be both a source and expression of power and identity. Cities have been a pivotal asset, so much that “overt “nationalization” of urban space is one of the most striking features of the post-socialist urban milieu” (Diener and Hagen, 2013:489). Indeed, the making and re-making of space can be considered a political act (not only cultural or material), with the objective of integrating and prioritizing certain ideologies and narratives over others. For instance, socialist urbanism used to assert the economic equality and efficiency of the state in terms of access to basic services, such as housing, goods, and other comforts. The physical manifestation of such intent often took the form of the so-called microrayoni – large housing districts comprising apartment complexes with their own schools, parks, recreational areas, and public transport. Therefore, the landscape was shaped and organized in such a way that class segregation and the subsequent unequal access to infrastructures and services – a rather common feature of modern cities – were abolished. Thus, the organization of space reflected the ideological and cultural ideas and values of the Socialist state. Another effect of industrialization and urbanization was the erosion of ethnic difference, which was meant to be achieved through the integration of more remote Soviet regions. However, challenges were inevitable in the establishment of the idealized “Soviet-scape,” “since the layout, aesthetics, and functions of socialist urbanism fluctuated over time and place reflecting changes in leadership, shifting state priorities, and practical economic realities, as well as limitations imposed by pre-existing urban landscapes” (ibid., 493). If Stalin prioritized a sense of monumentality in or of cities’ centers, Khrushchev abandoned this stance and rather focused on providing broader housing blocks and districts though maintaining a sense of grandiosity only in luxury and elite complexes. In the State’s attempt to present a more modern form of a socialist state, governmental and historical spaces were given less attention, which inescapably resulted in a monotonous and unappealing urban scene (ibid., 492-496).

As discussed earlier, each nation-state developed and implemented their own national identity narrative before-during-after the Socialist era. Even though post-socialist urbanism varied across time and place as much as its previous socialist counterpart, it nonetheless revolved around three main themes. First, active remembering and forgetting of history were essential in the re-negotiation and construction of the national identity, sovereignty, and sense of belonging. Socialist landmarks and sites were either preserved as they were or re-created to serve as testimony to the country’s past (the latter was also revived through the re-negotiation of religious spaces, too) (ibid., 497-499). Second, post-socialist foundations were ambiguous in practice, as they were the product of an uneasy reconciliation with and overlap of a variety of widespread daily practices and identities. Indeed, socialist-centered monuments were removed, whereas socialist spaces were imbued with new meanings. Yet, “tangible and symbolic reminders of the socialist experiences permeate[d] the urban landscape complicating efforts to solidify new official narratives.” With the passing of time, they lost their meanings amid the banality of everyday life and identity (ibid., 501-503). Finally, cultural hybridity3 was further fostered by the process of globalization, leading to conflictual attempts to simultaneously construct and strengthen national homogeneity and projecting an image of modernity and progress through and within urban spaces (ibid., 504).

3_{Cultural hybridity, that was begun in the socialist period, has continued and evolved in the case of Mongolia; the}

(26)

25

Civic Engagement, Migration, and Conflict

Rapid urbanization impacts not only on residents’ lifestyles and perception of the city but also space of the city itself. When urban settlements grow so rapidly, “housing shortages and many other social, economic, and environmental problems” grow with them (Tas & Lightfoot, 2005:267). Given the circumstances, the city may appear devoid of its charm and sense of modernity to newcomers. An interesting instance is that of Turkish cities, which in the last 70 years have seen the rise and expansion of the so-called gecekondu. Literally meaning “built overnight,” gecekondu are a form of legally recognized informal settlements present in the outskirts of cities. First constructed as shacks with no services or infrastructure, they are later turned into permanent houses (ibid., 265-266). Consequently, it can be pointed out that “finding shelter is a problem that requires considerable energy and that helping hand of kin or friends” (Roberts, 1978:146). Given the scarce financial resources of new urban residents, affordable housing is either to be found on the periphery of the city or in squatter settlements, where services and infrastructure are less reliable and social stigmatization common. As discussed earlier, identity is deeply rooted in cultural norms and practices, which are, as a result, potentially conditioned by the developing local context. Indeed, “identity involves an identification with particular places (…)”, which “take on a symbolic significance. (…) They are not merely places where like-minded people congregate, but symbolic centres around which the value and practices associated with an identity position are performed” (Hetherington, 1998:105-6). It follows that social and cultural norms and practices are intertwined with the space in which they exist, as well as with the representations of identity they create (ibid.,132).

The shift from a rural way of life to that of the city leads to cultural disjuncture (e.g. in terms of housing and identity) and to socio-political confrontations. Two specific instances have been taken into consideration. First, confrontations between residents and migrants are a common phenomenon, when rural-urban migration is discussed side-to-side with urbanization. Generally speaking, “the rapid influx of rural-urban migrants tends not to be accommodated by public or private sectors” (Østby, 2016:493), thus increasing relative deprivation of newcomers. These newcomers face numerous challenges, such as 1) adjusting their lifestyles and behaviors to meet what is considered to be socially acceptable in the city; 2) engaging in higher levels of social communication, so as to compete with urbanites for the access to employments and services; and 3) engaging with the heterogeneous social, cultural, ethnical, and religious backgrounds that constitute the fabric of the city (ibid., 493-494). Indeed, “although migration might improve the socioeconomic situation of the migrants relative to their region of origin, it may create a new set of unequal relations and mechanism in the recipient cities” (ibid., 496). In addition, urbanites (or oldcomers) may play a role in increasing urban-based inequality against migrants (or newcomers), thus strengthening the social segregation and isolation experienced by the latter, who may feel frustrated and discriminated against. In addition, given such conflict-related implications of migration, it is also essential to point out that these implications may be further accentuated in post-socialist states, where the “self-other” (or “us-them”) separation is a cultural trait that has persisted in most of these countries. Moving on, the city can be the stage of yet another form of confrontation, one which is not centered on the conflictual relationship between newcomers and oldcomers but between residents and the government. As explained by Roberts (1978), “For the mass of the urban population, the neighborhood has become the main basis on which their grievances and deprivations are articulated” (ibid., 152). Therefore, it is in this urban space that citizens react to the effects of rapid urbanization, housing shortages, and the lack of basic infrastructure and services. This phenomenon can be defined as civic conflict – that is, the expression of urban citizens’ grievances vis-à-vis the failures of the state in meeting their basic needs (Beall et al., 2013). Despite its usual violent nature, civic conflict is hereby intended as the confrontation between the city or national authorities and the urban residents through formalized means, where residents’ objective is to reclaim their basic rights.

Nevertheless, the urban should not directly – or inevitably, be associated with the idea of conflict and violence; urban residents can use their spatial proximity to access services as well as sources and representations of power (as theorized by Fischer, i.e. the subcultural theory discussed at the beginning

(27)

26

of the chapter). Starting from this assumption, civic engagement has also been investigated (although not initially conceptualized in the research proposal). According to Barrett and Brunton-Smith (2014), civic engagement is a term constructed in psychological terms rather than behavioral, thus not referring to the actions of citizens (i.e. civic participation), but to their “interest in, paying attention to, or having knowledge, beliefs, opinions, attitudes, or feelings about (…) civic matters” (i.e. the public or community good) (ibid., 2). It follows that civic engagement can take up diverse forms, from following the news to holding an opinion on political or civic affairs to understanding political or civic values and ideas. On a similar note, Levine (2011) argues that civic engagement comprises activities expressing the citizens’ emotional connection to not only the values and ideals but also the institutions of public life. Given this definition, it follows that the objective of citizens’ engagement is to ultimately influence policy-making and the government by promoting social cohesion, thus increasing the commitment to public good (rather than to individuals’ private ends) (Levine, 2011:3). It can be argued that civic engagement, regardless of how it is described and understood, aims to correct “a flaw in social institutions and social interaction” (ibid., 7). Said flaw is viewed as either an institution’s failure to secure connections and trust (thus emphasizing integration as a key aspect of social life) or as an institution’s failure to empower citizens (thus highlighting conflict as a fundamental trait of social life). Nevertheless, several factors can potentially impact on or encourage civic engagement, as individuals select or ignore information and consequently form opinions from those same political and civic beliefs. These influences comprise both macro contextual factors (e.g. demographics, family and peers, mass media, and institutions) and psychological factors (e.g. a sense of adequacy and competency in engaging with and for the public good; a belief in collective action; social identification or a sense of belonging to a group) (Barrett and Brunton-Smith, 2014:4;11).

***

The starting point of the literature review and of the research is the rural-urban debate. On the one hand, there exists the countryside – an ideal space where individuals’ ideas and practices are homogeneous (Redfield, 1947). On the other hand, the city is viewed as a place of both opportunities and confrontation (Fischer, 1984 [1976]). Attracted by the urban bias, rural migrants leave their homelands in hopes of becoming financially stable (Todaro, 1976). In the existing literature, the rural and the urban are, therefore, presented and discussed as opposing realities – two ways of life, both with their qualities and inescapable flaws (e.g. the countryside is a much healthier place to live, but there is no infrastructure; the city is economically vibrant and has services, but it is also polluted and isolating). The concept of cultural disjuncture has stemmed from this excursus – that is, the rural (or nomadic, in the case of the research site) and the urban consist of greatly differing ideas and practices, which have come together in the space of the city through rural-urban migration and that have originated, as a result, a new complex and problematic way of life in-between the rural and the urban. The research site – that is, Ulaanbaatar, the Mongolian capital city – is a remarkably relevant example of the problematic encounter of such contrasting cultures. Former herders move to the city to become financially stable, but unfortunately, they end up unemployed and secluded in the ger districts (i.e. urban settlements made up of nomadic traditional tents). Nevertheless, ideas and practices do not exist in a vacuum, for they are associated with certain places, which consequently acquire specific, symbolic significances (Hetherington, 1998). The relationship between space and culture is especially true in the case of post-socialist countries, where identity processes consist of choosing and creating a new narrative, a new, shared history, in a given setting (Young and Light, 2001; Diener and Hagen, 2013). Considering the research site, it follows that the relation between space and identity is particularly relevant. Nomadic and urban ideas and practices coexist and clash in a post-socialist country, where they acquire further meanings and expectations (in relation to globalization too) (Lane, 2011). In order to research the dynamics of cultural disjuncture at both the level of the residents and the city or government, two issues have been identified – housing and infrastructure, to investigate the palpable and clearly visible transformations in the landscape of Ulaanbaatar, and identity, to investigate the intangible identity discourses among the diverse UB residents and officials. Throughout this thesis, the specific term ru-urban is used to describe the numerous and variegated forms and origins of the

(28)

27

ideas and practices stemming from said conflictual cultural encounters of cultures. Indeed, conflict and engagement have become essential features of the research as well. Rural migrants are rarely warmly welcomed to the city because, on the one hand, urbanites fear they will be deprived of their services, and on the other hand, the government fears migrants will jeopardize the planned urban and technological development of the city (Østby, 2016). Thus, conflict and engagement have been conceived as both outcomes and (potential) solution to cultural disjuncture; the space of the city (the neighborhood) can become the cradle of collective action as residents articulate their grievances against the city’s shortcomings (Roberts, 1978) and, thus, ideally gather to challenge the status quo. In the following chapter on the research methodology, the relation between the concepts is further explained in relation to the research questions and the implemented methods too.

Nomadic modernity : cultural disjuncture and conflict among rural migrants in Ulaanbaatar's ger districts