Do I belong here? : a study on the feelings of belonging of second-generation Nigerian migrants in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom

(1)

Do I belong here?

A study on the feelings of belonging

of second-generation Nigerian migrants in

the Netherlands and the United Kingdom

University of Amsterdam

Master’s thesis in Sociology: Migration and Ethnic Studies (MSc)

Amadiora Emechete

Student ID number: 11010703

amadiora.emechete@student.uva.nl

1

st

supervisor: A. (Apostolos) Andrikopoulos, MA

2

nd

supervisor: Prof. dr. W.G.J. (Jan Willem) Duyvendak

(2)

Abstract

This thesis investigates feelings of belonging of second-generation Nigerian migrants in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom (UK). An understanding has been sought on how feelings of belonging are experienced and structured in the country of residence. By drawing on Barth’s (1969) concept of ethnic boundary-making, this research shows how different mechanisms in the society create feelings of exclusion and inclusion to different ethnic groups.

Findings are based on 22 in-depth interviews with second-generation Nigerian migrants in the UK and the Netherlands. In these interviews, the main focus has been on respondent’s experiences of self-identification, feeling familiar, interaction between different (ethnic) groups, prejudices and attitudes on different ethnic groups, discrimination, citizenship status, the formal categorization of allochthones and autochthones in the Netherlands, and the formal categorization based on ethnic groups in the UK.

Findings show how these experiences structure belonging. One can feel belonging on different levels. All respondents showed in a certain extent feelings of belonging to their country of residence which was mainly achieved through feeling familiar and knowing your way around. Within this country of residence, respondents are subject to a number of different ethnic influences. A constant negotiation between ‘the Self’ and ‘the Other’ structures how one relates to these different ethnic influences. The negotiation that respondents are involved in is mainly between being Nigerian and being Dutch or British, however, also belonging to “black” people and the Nigerian ethnic community1_{(for example}

Igbo) was relevant in respondents’ lives. Respondents showed stronger feelings of belonging to their Nigerian community which were established through feelings of inclusion based mutual understanding, having a certain “mentality” and having similar skin colour, and simultaneously because of feelings of exclusion by “white” Dutch or British people. This is exclusion is due to experiences of prejudice and discrimination, and in the Netherlands also due to the formal categorization of allochthones and autochthonous.

(5)

Preface

This thesis is the result of a 4-months fieldwork conducted in London and the region of Amsterdam for the Master’s programme Sociology: Migration and Ethnic Studies at the University of Amsterdam. It has been a process of thinking, reading, analysing, discussing and writing about second-generation Nigerian migrants, a group of which I am part of.

First, I would like to thank my supervisor Apostolos Andrikopoulos. Apostolos has previously conducted research on Nigerian migrants. The knowledge he has shared with me about this group has been much of a help in creating an understanding which has been valuable in conducting interviews and analysing them. Furthermore, at some points in writing this thesis, I was not always sure about the structure and how I should interpret the information I had gathered during the interviews and literature studies. The many e-mails we have exchanged and the meetings we have had, helped me realize that I was already going in a good direction and helped me going in an even better direction.

In listening to the intriguing stories of my respondents, I have gained valuable information for my thesis, and at the same time, I have got to know myself better as I could relate to many stories. I want to thank all my respondents for their time, openness and willingness to share their thoughts, without your voices this thesis would not be here.

Third, I would like to thank my boyfriend, Ben, he read the draft of my thesis and gave me useful feedback on it. He also supported me mentally when going through downs during this research, and celebrated the ups with me.

A fourth thanks is for my mother, Caroline, she has supported me throughout the whole research process and designed the amazingly creative cover page of this thesis.

A final thanks is for my father, Egobudike, he has also supported me throughout the whole research process and has given me valuable tips in doing research to Nigerian migrants. Without these tips, the interviews probably would not have flown so smoothly.

(6)

Chapter 1: Introduction

Growing up as a child of a Nigerian father and a Dutch mother, in the Netherlands, I had never questioned my identity and belonging. This changed a few years ago due to my growing awareness of a changing climate in the discourse on diversity in the Dutch society, in which I observe growing tensions between different ethnic groups questioning who actually is Dutch and what being Dutch means. In secondary school, I had been taught about the ‘multicultural’ society in the Netherlands in which a great number of different ethnic groups live together and tolerate each other. However, I recently started to feel that the number of people verbally speaking against this ‘multicultural’ society is increasing. The rise of right-wing populist parties who see immigrants as a treat and the heated debate about “black” Piet”2_{which is linked to the traditional Dutch celebration of Sinterklaas are just two examples in which}

the presence of ethnic “minorities” in the Netherlands is questioned. One day, I was discussing how issues like this make me wonder about my belonging and feeling ‘at home’ with my Nigerian cousin who lives in London. She reacted surprised about these issues, she told me that the UK also dealt with issues dividing different ethnicities in the UK society, but had always felt that these issues stood far away from her and did not affect her. She was surprised because she did not expect the Netherlands to have dividing issues like this due to its reputation of tolerance. She was more surprised that these issues had created doubt in my belonging in a country where I was born and had lived all my life. She stressed that I should not let issues like this affect my feelings in the society. I felt confused by her response; as I believed that my Dutch friends with a “minority” status often shared similar feelings, I assumed that this would be the same for my British-Nigerian cousin. I suddenly became aware of the fact that the question about belonging had been naturally embedded in me for years. This made me wonder if my Dutch second-generation friends felt that their belonging is questioned or if it was just something I assumed they felt. Most importantly, I wondered if I would have dealt with similar questions and issues about belonging if I grew up in the UK instead of the Netherlands and why this would be similar or different.

The primary focus of this thesis will be the feelings of belonging of second-generation Nigerian migrants in the UK and the Netherlands. I will explore how their sense of belonging is structured in an environment in which they are subject to influences from both their country of residence and their Nigerian culture of their parents. Belonging can be seen as an emotional attachment, it is about feeling ‘at home’, ‘secure’, being recognized and feeling to be understood (Cook & Hoffman, 2012). Belonging is mainly felt and expressed through experiences (Hedetoft, 2011). One can for example, experience or

2_{Black Piet is mythical figure linked to the Dutch children celebration Sinterklaas. Every November Sinterklaas,}

an elderly, arrives in the Netherlands accompanied with his black helpers, Black Piet’s, to bring the children presents. A public debate is going on is going on is going on is going on whether Black Piet is racism as some people in the society associate it with slavery.

(7)

memorize recognition by others, participation in the society, or feeling understood in the society which influence belonging. Experiences structure how ‘the Self’ relates to ‘the Other’. Feelings of belonging tend to be naturalized in daily life. When belonging is threatened, it becomes articulated and structured (Yuval-Davis, 2011). This structuring and articulation is done in the politics of belonging. Here, the question of what belonging means for a members of a society, and what requirements need to be met in order to belong come into being. Politics of belonging set, maintain and reproduce boundaries creating inclusion and exclusion, they draw boundaries between “us” and “them” by ascribing belonging to certain people in a society. The setting in which one lives in has a great influence on feelings of belonging. Focussing on a single migrant group from one country in two different countries of residence enables me to shed light on how the setting plays a role in belonging. In this thesis, I will look at how notions and experiences of self-identification, prejudice and discrimination influence belonging and how the composition of the society, interaction between different groups in the society, citizenship status and formal categorizations shape the setting in which respondents live.

Issues that have happened in the past may be of influence for certain contextual factors in the today. Colonial history is an example of this. It is repeatedly argued in the literature that influences of European colonization still can be felt in both the former colonies as in Europe (Schmelz, 2008). So exist migration from Nigeria to the UK longer due to its former colonial history with Nigeria. Additionally, more Nigerian migrants migrate to the UK than to the Netherlands. Another consequence of former colonization is that Nigerians that migrated to the UK where most likely familiar with the English language as this is also the official language of Nigeria. Nigerians migrating to the Netherlands have most likely, or are still dealing with learning the Dutch language which may influences feelings of belonging. These differences in context are just examples of how history has shaped the context of Nigerian migration today. In chapter 6, I will devote special attention to respondents’ perceptions on how the historical relationship between their country of residence and origin structures their belonging today. Yet, my aim is to shed light on the bigger picture of feelings of belonging of second-generation Nigerian migrants throughout my thesis. In guiding to create an understanding on this bigger picture, I have formulated the following research question:

How are feelings of belonging of second-generation Nigerian migrants shaped in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom?

Three sub-questions have been constructed to support the main question. The first sub-question is: In what setting and under what circumstances does the question of belonging become salient? This question is intended to discover when the question of belonging becomes relevant for respondents.

The second sub-question is: How are feelings of belonging of second-generation Nigerian migrants shaped through experiences of self-identification, familiarity, language abilities, historical relationship

(8)

between the country of residence and Nigeria, ethnic composition in the society of residence, interaction between different groups, prejudice and discrimination? This question intends to discover respondents’ perspectives on they experience these elements and mechanisms and how this influence their belonging.

The third sub-questions is: How are feelings of belonging of second-generation Nigerian migrants influenced by politics of belonging, involving citizenship and formal categorizations? This question will take into account how having or not having a citizenship status and the formal categorization of allochthones and autochthonous in the Netherlands, and ethnic group categorization in the UK structures belonging.

As most respondents in the UK have experienced living in London for the greater part of their lives, and the majority of the Dutch-Nigerian respondents have grown up in the region of Amsterdam or now live in Amsterdam, the findings will be characterized by urban aspects of belonging. Differences between the urban areas and rural areas can amongst other things be seen in the demography, resident’s perception of their area, crime rates, (un)employment rates, etcetera. It is repeatedly argued in the literature (e.g. in Bell, 1993) that whether one grew up in an urban area or rural area is an important source of identity and therefore also belonging. Because of this, feelings of belonging and self-identification for someone who does not live in an urban environment, may be very different for someone who is lives in Amsterdam or London. Simultaneously, despite the fact that Amsterdam and London are located in different countries, self-identification and belonging of people who grew up in these cities may be more similar to one another than first thought. This is because the cities may deal with more similar issues and characteristics due to their urban character.

Despite this urban relevance, this thesis is not just about how second-generation Nigerians create belonging to their city or area. Neither is just about how belonging to the country of residence is created. It rather is about how second-generation Nigerian migrants relate to different places, groups, networks, etcetera, including the ones that played a role in the past lives and the ones that respondents are longing for to play a larger (or smaller) role in their future.

Social and academic relevance

Laura Coello (2010) argues that the political framework and the public discourse in the Netherlands has led a failure of multiculturalism, while the UK’s political framework and public discourse on diversity has created a more positive public perception on multiculturalism and a higher participation of ethnic minorities on the labour market. Outcomes of multiculturalist goals can be linked acculturation strategies as it influences contact, identity, cultural maintenance, adaption by majority and minority groups, etcetera (Vijver & Phalet, 2004). Acculturation on its turn, is influenced by feelings of belonging and

(9)

identification (Geng, Zhou and Hu, 2010). This is because identification with the culture but also the (politic) system and public discourse of the residence country influences how migrants will fit into the society. In case of lack of identification and belonging, Berry (read in Geng, Zhou and Hu, 2010) points out that migrants are likely to feel conflict and stress which influences acculturation strategies and thus outcomes of multicultural objectives (Geng, Zhou and Hu, 2010). Looking at one migrant group in the UK and the Netherlands, is socially relevant as the (differences in) outcomes may contribute to an explanation on these differences multiculturalism. Furthermore, knowledge on feelings of belonging can also contribute to explanations for other differences in social issues between the UK and the Netherlands. From an academic stance, studying second-generation migrants is relevant as a focus can be seen on first-generation migrants in the literature on belonging. First-generation migrants have likely dealt with instability and a search for belonging in their new environment due to their mobility. In addition, they had to cope with shifting legal and bureaucratic requirements for social acceptance and recognition (Kryzanowski & Wadok, 2007). Second-generation migrants, on the other hand, have grown up in an environment where they have been formal citizens from the start of their life and thus have not been subject to these changes. This does not make second-generation migrants less interesting subject to study, on the contrary, second generations are more ambivalent about the choice where they belong which has, amongst other reasons, to do with the post-modernistic view of multiple identities and the possibility of enjoying the best opportunities of both countries (Roos, Cook, Auici, Gallou and Aigner, 2012). The parents of second-generation migrants are in many cases distinctive in their language, customs and appearance and sometimes also in religion and labour-market orientation. With this post-modernistic view of multiple identities, second-generation migrants may have taken over all or a part of these characteristics. Boundaries between the ethnic majority and ethnic minority influence what ethnic characteristics second-generation migrants take over and simultaneously influences outcomes of inclusion and exclusion (Alba, 2005). Alba (2005) notes that roughly seen, second-generation migrants can achieve equal status with their peers in the ethnic majority, or conversely face exclusion form the ethnic majority. With a growing number of second-generation Nigerian migrants in the UK and the Netherlands, an increasing number of people are subject to these ambivalent outcomes of belonging (Zumpe, Dormon, Jeffies, 2012; van Heelsum, 2005).

(10)

Overview of contents

This thesis will be divided into nine main chapters. Following this introductory chapter, the second will contain a theoretical framework which will guide this thesis. In this theoretical framework, I will first discuss how belonging is structured. Subsequently, I will discuss self-identification as this is closely linked to feelings of belonging. Thereafter, I will show how ethnic groups are formed according to Barth’s (1969) notion of boundary making. I will discuss here different means of boundary making. I will conclude with reviewing how colonization still may be felt in migrants lives today.

In the third chapter, I will discuss the methodology of this research. I will discuss what procedures I have followed in the attempt to investigate my research questions. This chapter will end with a reflection on my own position as researcher and ethical concerns.

In the fourth chapter, a profile on Nigerian migration to the UK and the Netherlands will be sketched. I will elaborate on the demographics of Nigerian migration, the reasons for migration and the position of Nigerian migrants in the UK and the Netherlands.

In chapter five, six, seven, and eight, I will present my findings through verbatim quotes of the interviews. The fifth chapter will demonstrate respondent’s self-identification. In chapter six, I will discuss respondents’ understanding on belonging and how being familiar influence belonging. I will conclude this chapter with a section on respondents’ perspective on the historical relation of Nigeria and how they think this influences their feeling of belonging. In the seventh chapter, I will discuss how respondent’s feelings of belonging are structured in their residence society, here I will share their perceptions on the visible group composition of the society, their experiences of interaction between different groups and other Nigerians and their experiences with prejudice, attitudes and discrimination. I will conclude this chapter with a case study of one of the respondent in which different issues discussed in this thesis are relevant. In chapter seven, I will move into the realm of the politics of belonging by discussing how citizenship status and formal categorizations influence feelings of belonging. In the final chapter, chapter nine, I will give an overview of my findings and answer my research question.

(11)

Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework

According to Gustafson (2005), we are now in an era of a new type of migration. Due to the increasing international mobility, a new understanding of migration is necessary. This is particularly due to the growing recognition on transnational migrants which shows the increasing importance of exchanges and enduring relationships between migrant’s country of residence and origin. How migrants relate themselves to their country of residence and origin is influenced by this, it raises the question of belonging. This thesis, will mainly focus on belonging to ethnic groups within the society. A link between self-identification and belonging is widely recognized in the literature (e.g. Geng, Zhou and Hu, 2010; Cabellero, 2011; Somerville, 2008; Crul & Schneider, 2010). After discussing belonging, I will shed light on self-identification. As findings will show that respondents feel belonging to and identify with different ethnic groups. Subsequently, I will discuss how ethnic groups are formed by drawing on the ethnic boundary-making perspective of Frederick Barth (1969). Thereafter, I will discuss categorization, othering, prejudice and discrimination and citizenship which can be seen as means of boundary-making. I will end this chapter by looking at the link between colonization and migrants’ feelings of belonging.

2.1. Belonging and feeling ‘at home’

According to Crowley’s (read in Gustafson, 2005), belonging is a subjective and discursive dimensions of commitment, loyalty and common purpose. It is about boundary maintenance and has inclusive as exclusive effects. Belonging is according to Pfaff-Czarnecka and Toffin (2011) beside formal citizenship and labelling about imagined and narrated we-group constructions which are related to similarities, unity and togetherness. Belonging influences social and political mobilization and is a central preoccupation in people’s lives, without belonging one will feel alienated, rootlessness, a lack of solidarity and recognition. Feeling belonging emphasises emotional investment, affective bonds and desire of attachment.

Belonging can be at different levels Birka (2012) distinguishes three different levels of belonging, belonging to the “community or group”, “place”, or “system”. Belonging on the level of “community or group” is about values and beliefs, culture, feeling recognized and welcome, and being able to identify with a group. The level of “place” refers to a physical territory, it suggests being comfortable in a surrounding, or feeling ‘at home’ (or not). Belonging to the level of the “system” is about feeling secure and feeling willingness and being able to participate. Pfaff-Czarnecka and Toffin (2011) stress that these levels of attachment provide networks of links and orientations, which enable individuals to live and engage in society. Attachments are intensified through material possessions and immaterial connections like fields and rituals.

(12)

Kryzanowsky and Wadok (2012) argue that sense of belonging is a process of becoming a member in which three modes of belonging can be distinguished. The first mode is the tentative and random attachments which can vary in strength (weak or strong attachment), character and functions. These tentative and random attachment are characterized by uncertainty and suggest the search for identities. The second mode of belonging is a range of ‘feelings’ of belonging which are developed from a set of sustained attachments. In this mode, belonging is developed regardless of membership status. It is belonging to a collective and is characterized by the influence on somebody's perception of 'home'. The third mode is the legal forms of membership in which institutional and bureaucratic thresholds are used to recognize ones right of being a member. In this mode, Kryzanowsky and Wadok argue that belonging becomes stabilized.

The three modes distinguished by Kryzonawsky and Wadok are somewhat problematic as they are presented as static modes of being without any interplay. In particular, the assumption that becoming a legal member (in the third mode) is the final grounding of one’s belonging and stabilizes someone’s belonging is problematic. Crowley argues that being a citizen, which would be the third mode of belonging, does not per se mean that one feels belonging as there is no correspondence between formal citizenship and belonging (read in Gustafson, 2005). However, on the other hand, formal citizenship is tangled with social constructions of belonging which makes it an aspect of belonging.

‘Home’ is a concept which is repeatedly linked and is by many cases seen as an integral part of belonging (e.g. in Duyvendak, 2011; Yuval-Davis, 2011; Castles and Davidson, 2000). ‘Feeling at home’ is multi-faceted and multi-scalar. Feeling ‘at home’ can be on different scales which are interrelated, for example feeling ‘at home’ in the neighbourhood or in a nation, can be interrelated to each other (Duyvendak, 2011). Duyvendak (2011) notes that usually people find it easier to identify what makes them feel not ‘at home’, rather than what does make them feel ‘at home’. Not feeling ‘at home’ is a powerful emotion, when feeling ‘at home’ is achieved, the feeling becomes passive and inactive. Duyvendak (2011) distinguishes three basic elements of the ‘home’. The first element is familiarity with place and functions as a pre-condition for the other two basic-elements. In the second element, ‘Haven’ safety, comfort, privacy and exclusiveness can be found. ‘Haven’ usually refers to the micro level of the house. The third element is ‘Heaven’, which refers to a collective place where one can be and express. In the ‘Heaven’, shared history is embodied. ‘Heaven’ is more outward oriented and is more symbolic. In practice the concept of ‘home’ functions in a more sophisticated way, however these concepts help in understanding what is meant with feeling ‘at home’.

Castles and Davidson (2000) argue that ‘home’ can be felt in different spaces, for example a region or country. Castles and Davidson note that in feeling ‘at home’, often an emotional connection of solidarity to the members of a ‘home’ is present. Thus, ‘home’ also has a social aspect. Similarly to belonging, ‘home’ can create inclusion and exclusion. Boundaries are created due to the idea that only the people who belong can come into someone’s ‘home’. This indicates a closure to ‘home’ in which there are insiders and outsiders. When migrating, an individual replaces its ‘home’ by someone else’s

(13)

‘home’. Because every ‘home’ has certain “rules”, migration can mean a clash between the “rules” with which the migrant was familiar with, to the “rules” in his or her new ‘home’.

How these “rules” are constructed and influence migrant’s sense of belonging is not explained by Castles and Davidson. In contrast to Castles and Davidson, Antonsich (2010) addresses five different group of factors (rather than “rules”) when explaining by what sense of belonging could be influenced. Before addressing these factors, I will first discuss Antonsich’s (2010) notion of belonging. Antonsich stresses that belonging is linked to Self-formation as it has to do with to a personal and intimate dimension which says something about ‘the Self’. Similarly to Duyvendak’s concept of ‘home’, Antonsich has an understanding of belonging as multi-layered and multi-scale. A distinction between politics of belonging (which will be discussed later) and place-belongingness (which is the same as sense of belonging discussed in this text) is made by Antonsich. The factors which influence belonging discussed by Antonsich concern place-belongingness.

The first group of factors mentioned by Antonsich (ibid.) are (1) auto-biographical factors, which relate to the past history of an individual in which personal experiences, relations and memories are present. The place where one grew up for example often remains important. (2) Relational factors refer to personal and social ties that contribute to somebody’s life in a given place. The ties can vary in strength (weak and strong ties). In order to establish a sense of belonging, the relations must be long-lasting, positive, stable and significant. It is therefore the stronger ties that play a more influential role in sense of belonging. (3) Cultural factors are factors like language, traditions and religion. Language is often seen as one of the most important elements of culture as it structures the way of conveying meaning and interpreting. (4) Economic factors are important as they contribute in creating a stable life conditions. These factors also influence future prospects for an individual. (5) Legal factors are essential in producing security and certainty.

The politics of belonging, discussed by Antonsich, exists out of two opposite poles, namely the side that claims belonging and the side that has the power of ‘granting’ belonging. Claiming belonging is usually perceived as retrieving the right to stay and work somewhere (for example by citizenship or residence permit). Similarly to Crowley, Antonsich (2011) argues that this right does not per se mean that one feels belonging. In order to feel a sense of belonging, one must be able to express its identity, be part of the community and feel recognized. If the society fails to ‘grant’ this belonging, the role political institutions is not sufficient. Thus, the interaction between these opposite sides is crucial for someone’s of belonging. Politics of belonging can involve issues like racism, citizenship and nationalism.

Similarly to Antonsich, Yuval-Davis (2011) builds on the distinction between belonging and the politics of belonging. However, Yuval-Davis’ approach on this distinction is more dynamic, and is more successful in showing how the politics of belonging and belonging are related. Belonging is perceived as an emotional attachment of feeling ‘at home’ by Yuval-Davis. This feeling of ‘home’ creates a feeling of ‘safety’. ‘Home’ does not always create positive emotions, it can also be linked to feeling unsafety

(14)

or resentment. Belonging tends to be naturalized in everyday life. When belonging is threatened, it can become articulated and formally structured, here the question of the politics of belonging arises in which power structures and relations are crucial. Politics of belonging is about the question of what belonging means for a members of a society, and what requirements need to be met in order to belong. Where it remains unclear who or what influences these requirements and boundaries in Antonsich theory, Yuval-Davis explains that these questions are answered in political projects of belonging, like citizenship, nationality or care, which are involved in the politics of belonging. Political projects aim at constructing belonging of collectivities in the society. They construct, set, maintain and reproduce boundaries creating inclusion and exclusion, which are often spatial, and which are embodied by social networks. Yuval-Davis (2011) distinguishes three interrelated levels of attachment in which belonging is constructed. The first level is social and economic locations in which someone belongs to a certain category, for example race or gender, which carries a particular weight in society. These categories are positioned along an axis of power. This level of attachment is most racialized and the least accessible for people who do not belong to the social location. For this thesis the position of “second-generation Nigerian migrant” will be in focus. The second level is individual’s identifications and emotional attachment. Here, identities can be understood as narratives about who someone is and relate to self and/or other’s perception of the meaning of being a member to a grouping or collective. A certain emotional attachment is linked to identification which becomes more central if the identity is threatened. This level of attachment is more open for ‘others’. For this thesis, different types of attachments will be focused on, for example attachment to the Netherlands, Nigeria, being “black”, or other forms of ethnicity (e.g. Igbo Nigerian). The third level is ethical and political value system in which people’s sense of belonging, identities and attachments are assessed and valued. Related to this are attitudes and ideologies about the boundaries of identities and categories. This level is most accessible for ‘others’. It is in this level that there is movement from the realm of belonging into the politics of belonging. Yuval-Davis points out that it are these different levels of attachment which construct the relation between belonging and the politics of belonging as these different levels of attachment can be reconstructed and reconfigured by political projects (ibid.). The three different levels of attachment can become requisites of belonging and create boundaries

2.2. Self-Identification

Identity is repeatedly linked to feelings of belonging in the literature. Stuart Hall’s (1996) definition of identity shows the link between belonging and identity very well. He argues that identification is constructed on the basis of recognition of common origin or shared characteristics with other individuals, groups or an idea. It has to do with solidarity and allegiance to this and is constructed through relations and negotiation with ‘the Other’. This negotiation is an ongoing process and creates

(15)

differentiation and symbolic boundaries by selectively excluding and including people. Therefore, Hall argues, that identity is tied to a sense of belonging, a feeling of being an “insider”.

Someone’s self-identification is not necessarily equal to his or hers feelings of belonging. One may identify but not feel belonging, which means that one does not feel accepted or a full member (Pfaff-Czarnecka and Toffin, 2011). Vice versa, one can feel belonging, accepted and included, but is not able to identify. Where identity is more about perceptions sameness, belonging put more emphasis on common fate, mutuality and purpose, and solidarity. According to Pfaff-Czarnecka and Toffin (2011), belonging starts from the inside and is directed to the outside as a common core.

Silvey and Lawson (1999) argue that migrant’s identities are influenced by, and simultaneously

influence the nature of the country of residence. Migrants identities are constructed due to the process of mobility in which experiences of multiple places are simultaneously blend. Lerner, Rapoport and Lomsky-Feder (2007) argue that migrants undergo the process of self-location and reconstructing their identity in relation to the culture of the country of residence society. Place-based identity for migrants cannot be reduced to the current location of residence, but is always influenced by previous places of residence (Silvey & Lawson, 1999). Brettell and Sargent (2006) build on Silvey’s and Lawson’s and argue that migrants occupy and are ascribed to multiple positions. These positions are chosen by themselves and ascribed by others. Choices about what identity fits most with ‘the Self’ are constantly in the making, they are flexible and constructed in relation to the context.

Kathleen Hall (2002) argues that the ascriptions that migrants deal with are characterized by different “minority” statuses which are defined in classifications like race, ethnicity, linguistics, religions, etcetera. This can create a situation in which the migrant is in-between cultures. Bhabha (read in Kathleen Hall, 2002) developed a concept of “third space” to describe the construction of culture and identity marginalized groups within a postcolonial context. This concept of the “third space” lends itself very well in explaining how migrant’s identity is negotiated. The “third space” must be seen as a space between different cultures. In Bhabha’s theory, the “third space” is in-between the culture of the colonizer and the marginalized group and is used for cultural translation of the marginalized in order to adopt to the colonizer. In this thesis, the “third space” would be the space in-between the culture of the country of residence and origin. In the “third space” cultural orientations and identities are through everyday translation constantly negotiated and reproduced. Also power relations are translated in the “third space”, affecting inclusion and exclusion and thus feelings of belonging.

2.3. Ethnic group formation

As previously noted, belonging can be on the level of place, group or community and system (Birka, 2012). Findings will show, that within the country of residence, especially the question of belonging on the level of the (ethnic) group or community is relevant for the respondents. In this section, I will discuss

(16)

how different ethnic groups are structured through ethnic boundary making. According to Barth (1969), an ethnic group is:

“A group which is largely biologically self-perpetuating, which shares fundamental cultural values, realized in overt unity in cultural forms, makes up a field of communication and interaction, has a membership which identifies itself, and is identified by others, as constituting a category distinguishable from other categories of the same order”. (Barth, 1969, p. 11)

Wimmer (2008) notes that being a member of an ethnic group involves feeling sense of belonging which is based on beliefs of shared culture and common ancestry. For a long time, the notion has existed that ethnic groups are based on the culture of these ethnic groups. According to Barth (1969) this idea is wrong, he argues that ethnic groups are processed on the boundary. These ethnic boundaries are maintained through negotiation between groups of people. Contact between different ethnic groups implies signals for identification between the two ethnic groups, and at the same time allows the endurance of cultural difference as social contact involves the process of inclusion and exclusion whereby social categories are maintained. Ascriptions and self-ascriptions are crucial in forming these ethnic groups. The negotiation of ethnic boundaries forms a complex organization of behaviour and social relations. Within ethnic boundaries, there exist the assumption that other members of that ethnic group ‘play the same game’ which create a potential for social relations with these members. Non-members of the ethnic group are seen as strangers, involving the idea of limited shared understanding, differences in criteria for value and performance, and a restriction or mutual interest (ibid.). Members of an ethnic group take a certain ethnic identity in which shared value orientations are evaluated. Barth (1969) stresses that ethnic group identification is characterized by having certain behaviour and thoughts which fit in the ethnic groups, it means to be judged, and judge oneself if one meets certain standards which are characterized by the ethnic identity. This means that people may accentuate their identity more in certain situations. Individuals may change their ethnic identity, however this would not undermine the existence of the ethnic group. Despite this, ethic identification is often stable as circumstances, categorizations and value orientations have a self-fulfilling character which means that members aim to maintain identifications which fit in the situation. Ethnic identification is only altered or revised when it is seen as untrue or when this identification is seen as unrewarding. Therefore individual’s ethnic identity is influenced by their personal, economic and political interests, considering what is most beneficial for them (ibid.).

(17)

2.4. Different means of boundary making

Wimmer (2013) stresses that there are different means in making boundaries consequential. In this section I will discuss how categorization, prejudice, othering, discrimination and citizenship status make ethnic boundaries relevant.

Categorization

The process of group-categorization depends on the process of self-identification. As I have previously noted, there is a constant negotiation between the ‘the Self’ and ‘the Other’ in constructing identity. When one defines ‘the Self’, one also defines and positions ‘the Other’ in which categorizations come into being (Jenkins, 2000). Categories arise in practices of social analyses or power and knowledge and may not be recognized by the people who are ascribed as member to this category (ibid.). In defining or categorizing groups and determining or identifying who belongs to which group, discursive symbolic means are used to increase the importance of ethnic boundaries (Wimmer, 2013). Ethnic and racial categories are often organized along hierarchical lines and stigmatized. In creating categories, institutions can make ethnic distinctions relevant and acknowledged and culturally legitimate through rituals, sharing history, defining enemies, census, and statistics which define the society as existing out of certain ethnic and national groups. Categorization strategies are effective if it is used in public discourse. Categories come in all forms; besides the categorization of allochthones and autochthonous and ethnic groups which will be relevant in this thessis, categories like “black” and “white”, or “migrant” and “non-migrant” draw boundaries. In these categorization both subordinate and dominant groups can use or invent symbolic markers that allow identification with a group. Symbolic markers can regard certain behaviour that is typical for a group, visible cues like skin-colour, dress patterns which may be voluntarily displayed or imposed (e.g. Star of David in Nazi Germany) or official documents that record membership in ethnic categories, for example on a birth certificate.

Othering, prejudice and discrimination

Othering, prejudice and discrimination is based on categorization as it requires a definition and location of ‘the Other’. Othering can be seen as a way to maintain rules and boundaries between people (Wernsejö, 2014). In othering categorization as “immigrant” and “refugees” can be used to draw a line between the “us” who are seen to belong to the imagined community of the country of residence, and “them” who are seen as not belonging to the imagined community. Terms that involve othering are often seen as neutral at first instance, however, they are socially constructed as a marker of difference. The construction of ‘the Other’ is simultaneously linked to the construction of the ‘the Same’ in which ‘the Same’ has a greater power and status than ‘the Other’ (Özbilgin & Woodward, 2004).

(18)

According to Taguieff (2001) racial prejudices are social attitudes expressed by the exploiting class (or category) which leads to stigmatization of a group as inferior. This stigmatization creates a feeling of justification of exploitation of a group itself or the resources of that group. Racial prejudices are often linked to ethnic stereotypes and presented as “opinions” and “beliefs”. Blumer (1958) stresses that people who are racially prejudiced often think of themselves as belonging to this racial group. Racially prejudiced individuals often fail to see that these prejudices are existing.

Delanty, Jones and Wadok (2008) stress that othering and prejudices are closely linked to discrimination and xenophobia. Wimmer (2013) defines discrimination as an act in which individuals make a boundary relevant by withholding access to goods, positions, spaces or relationships. Discrimination facilitates social closure along ethnic lines, because of this, the division of the social world based on ethnic groups appear natural and self-evident. How discrimination works out differs per country, however Delanty, Jones and Wadok (2008) observe a trend in Europe in which racism and hostility towards migrants who are seen as ‘the Other’ is on the rise. Racism is getting more prevalent, diffuse forms, and frequent. Contradictory in this, is that it is getting more denied and passive which makes it harder to detect (ibid.). Hurtado and Carter (1997) argue that discrimination can cause feelings of alienation. A study by Nora and Cabrera (1996) on ethnic minorities in college show that experiences of discrimination influences integration. This may be linked to Rosenthal’s (2009) view that discrimination, oppression and persecution based on ethnicity, creates a stronger and more important sense of belonging to a we-group. In case of discrimination towards ethnic belonging, a common reaction on discrimination is the search of support within the ethnic group.

Citizenship and belonging

Bhabha (2002) argues that citizenship is becoming more important due to the growing restrictions in rights which are linked to not having a citizenship. According to Yuval-Davis (2011) citizenship can be seen as a formal identification of people to a nationality or state citizenship which creates a formal belonging to collectivities. People are often identified by their citizenship, especially when they travel to other countries. Yuval-Davis (2011) stresses that citizenship is important for the politics of belonging as it linked to certain entitlements and rights, and duties and responsibilities, influencing belonging. In addition to the influence of these rights and entitlements on belonging, also certain ‘rules’ expectations and assumptions on how one should be committed to society are linked to citizenship status. An example of how this works out can be seen in what Duyvendak (2011) calls the culturalization of citizenship, which he argues is occurring in the Netherlands. This culturalization of citizenship is characterised by a protecting attitude towards ‘traditional’ cultural heritage. According to Duyvendak (2011) it can be seen that a growing number of politicians belief that some people are more entitled to reside in the ‘nation’ than others. These political beliefs are based on the idea that places are owned by ‘native’ groups and therefore enjoy specific rights. New ‘rules’ and assumptions on how citizenship

(19)

should be felt and expressed have therefore become a requirement of citizenships. Phenomena like this possibly create the discrepancy in which citizens, who formally belong to a country, informally do not feel a sense of belonging. As has mentioned before, this is because a correspondence between formal belonging and informal belonging is not necessary.

2.5. Colonization and belonging

In Europe, a debate can be observed on the meaning of the colonial past on the present national discourse in the society. It is argued by Schmelz (2008) that the influences of European colonization still can be felt in both the former colonies as in Europe. Recently, a book by Gloria Wekker (2016) came out about how these colonial times influence self-formation of “white” Dutch people and perceptions on racial discrimination today, which, as I have shown in the previous section influence migrants belonging. This book indicates that colonial times influence both former-colonizers and former-colonized today. These influences can be observed in the positioning and self-representation of different ethnic groups, the use of language and discourses on race, racism and diversity.

Castles and Davidson (2009) argue that there is likely a difference in the identity of post-colonial migrants and regular migrants as post-colonial migrants have a (partial) shared history with their country of residence. Due to this, the culture of migrants from former colonies may partially mirror that of their new country of residence. However, due to a possible still existing (passive) differentiation between the exploiter and the exploited, the experiences of this shared history of the migrant may be very different from the experiences of the ‘native’ borns. Due to the experiences and memories which can be so distinct, it is argued in Schmelz (2008) that these differences should be recognized in order to build a common future. However, until now memories of the former colonizer are over presented in this, leaving aside the memories of the former colonized (ibid.). Voices of migrants on colonialism and an understanding how this influences their belonging is therefore extremely interesting from an academic and social perspective.

(20)

Chapter 3: Methodology

This thesis is based on qualitative research methods. This method is highly suitable in identifying phenomena through the perceptions of respondents, in this case, the phenomena of being second-generation Nigerian migrant in the UK and the Netherlands. As can be observed in the theoretical framework, feelings of belonging are very complicated and are structured through an interplay between ‘the Self’ and one’s environment. The chosen research methods have enabled me to look at a comprehensive picture of the respondents’ feelings of belonging.

3.1. Respondents

The initial aim of the sample was to include second-generation Nigerian migrants living in the UK and the Netherlands. Some of the respondents came as first-generation to the UK or the Netherlands at a very young age (oldest was 11 years). Rumbaut (2004) refers to this group as 1.75 generation and argues that their experiences are closer to second-generation children, which made their participation in this research suitable. In total, 22 respondents have been interviewed for the data collection, of which ten in the Netherlands and twelve in the UK. The age of the respondents ranged from 18 to 42, however, a majority of the respondents where in their 20s. The interviews with the Dutch-Nigerian respondents were held in Dutch and the interviews with the British-Nigerian respondents in English. All the quotes of the interviews with the Dutch-Nigerian respondents that have been used in this research have been translated to English.

Eight of the interviews in the Netherlands where held with Nigerians born in the Netherlands, two interviews where held with Nigerians who migrated to the Netherlands at the age of two and four (Cynthia and Fiona). These two respondents stay in the Netherlands on basis of a residence permit. One of the respondents in the Netherlands is half Dutch and half Nigerian (Mirelva). One interview in the Netherlands was held with a UK-born Nigerian who has been residing in the Netherlands for a year (Paul). Ten of the interviews held in the UK where with respondents born in the UK. One of the British-Nigerian respondents migrated from Nigeria to the UK at the age of 11 (Seyi). Another (Funké) has moved between the Netherlands and Nigeria between the age of 2 and 7 and resides since the age of 16 in the UK. All respondents, except for Ayo, lived in an urban area at the time that the interviews were conducted. In total, ten men and twelve women have been interviewed and who are approximately equal disturbed over the Netherlands and the UK (For an overview of all respondents, see table 1).

The principle of saturation has been followed to determine the number of interviews. This means that I have stopped conducting new interviews when the collected data began to repeat itself. Access to the sample was retrieved through ‘gatekeepers’ who brought me in contact with second-generation Nigerians. Especially in the Netherlands, advertisements on my own Facebook wall have brought me in

(21)

contact with a number of second-generation Nigerian. These contacts where indirectly made through my Facebook “friends” who suggested second-generation Nigerian migrants that they knew. I also have sent a personal Facebook message to an African student organization based in Amsterdam which successfully brought me in contact with one of my respondents. In addition, snowball sampling has been a very effective way in gaining access in both the Netherlands and the UK. By using multiple recruitment strategies, I have strived to recruit a diverse as possible sample with a variation of opinions and experiences. This has enabled me to highlight in-group differences and a wider range of perspectives.

Table 1: Overview respondents

Name Age Gender Place of

birth

Grown up in country Country of birth

parents

Dutch-Nigerian respondents

1 Cynthia 26 Female Lagos The Netherlands (non-urban area)

Mother: Nigeria Father: Nigeria

2 Fifi 21 Female Almere The Netherlands (urban area) Mother: Nigeria Father: Suriname

3 Fiona 24 Female Lagos The Netherlands (non-urban area)

4 Funké 19 Female Lagos Nigeria (urban area)

The Netherlands (urban area) (from age of 2)

Nigeria (urban area) (from age of 4)

The Netherlands (urban area) ((from age of 7)

The United Kingdom (urban area) (from age of 16).

5 Idi 22 Male Groningen The Netherlands (non-urban area)

6 Kemi 26 Male Amsterdam Nigeria (urban area

7 Kingsley 26 Male Lagos Nigeria (urban area)

The United Kingdom (urban area) (from age of 3)

(22)

8 Miguel 22 Male Harderwijk The Netherlands (urban area) Mother: Nigeria Father: Nigeria

9 Miranda 41 Female Amsterdam The Netherlands (urban area) Mother: Nigeria Father: Nigeria

10 Mirelva 19 Female Amsterdam The Netherlands (urban area) Mother: Netherlands (Dutch descent) Father: Nigeria

11 Peter 27 Male Sittard The Netherlands (urban area) Mother: Nigeria Father: Nigeria

British-Nigerian respondents

12 Abeni 24 Female London The United Kingdom (urban area)

13 Amy 18 Female London The United Kingdom (urban area)

14 Ayo 20 Male London The United Kingdom (urban area)

Mother: UK (Nigerian descent) Father: Nigeria

15 Jennifer 20 Female London The United Kingdom (urban area)

16 Paul 21 Male London The United Kingdom (urban area)

(resides in the Netherlands since age of 20)

17 Seyi 29 Female Lagos Nigeria (urban area)

The United Kingdom (urban area) (from age of 11)

18 Shola 20 Female London The United Kingdom (urban area)

19 Tyler 23 Male London The United Kingdom (urban area)

Mother: UK (Nigerian descent) Father: Nigeria

20 William 34 Male London The United Kingdom (urban area)

(23)

21 Wurraola 32 Female London The United Kingdom (urban area)

22 Matthew 34 Male London The United Kingdom (urban area)

3.2. Data collection method

Interviews lasted between 30 and 90 minutes and have been recorded with a phone. The purpose of the interviews was to capture narratives about the respondents’ lives and the context in which they live. In doing this, I have amongst other things asked about respondent’s auto-biography, their relationship ties, cultural practices and experiences and views on certain issues in the society (for example discrimination). See appendix 1 the interview guide with example probes which I have used during the interviews. This guide has been pilot-tested after which required changes were made. This interview guide has not functioned as a set questionnaire. I have aimed to be as flexible as possible by leading my questions by the shared information by the respondents.

3.3. Data analyses

Interviews were transcribed verbatim using software Express Scribe Transcription Software. Characteristics of the interviewee have been made irreducible to ensure anonymity of the interviewee. Shortly after all the interviews had been conducted and transcribed, I have analysed the transcripts using software ATLAS.ti. Focused coding is used as this allows to create and try out categories (Carmaz, 2001, p. 344). The codes were created using inductive and deductive methods. Concepts as “home”, “identification” and “acceptation” were used as a starting point in the deductive codes.

During open coding, codes like “feeling different”, “class”, “feeling at home with Nigerians”, “relating to being minority” and “feeling an outsider” emerged. These codes had been raised to families of which “being British”, being “Nigerian” and “being Dutch” where crucial ones. In addition to coding, also memo’s where made.

3.4. Ethical issues

Ethical issues are crucial in this research as it concerns personal stories. My aim was to remain harmless to the research population. Anonymity of respondents is therefore ensured by changing retrievable characteristics or the respondents and by using pseudonyms in the transcript and report. Data which might the respondents put in a bad light or can be used against the respondents is not revealed. During

(24)

the interviews, questions that possibly trigger traumatic stress have been avoided. Respondents have been given a chocolate bar after the interview as a sign of gratitude.

3.5. Researcher’s positioning and perspective

The issue of belonging stands very close to me as I am second-generation Nigerian myself, I find it important to share my own perspective and position in this research. Being aware of my own position as researcher enabled me to remain neutral in this research. This is crucial as interviewers themselves influence the way respondents respond on question (Lawrence and Huffmon, 2010). Most respondents where known with my Nigerian background (due to my Nigerian name and appearance) which may have influenced establishing rapport. Lawrence and Huffmon (2010) argue that respondents are more forthcoming towards interviewers with a similar social and ethnic background. In this research, respondents might have had the feeling that they could be more open because of similar experiences. From my point of view, I felt more comfortable during the interviews as I could sense which questions where culturally appropriate and which were not because of the similar ethnic background. In the next section, I will share how I have structured belonging throughout my life.

Researcher’s perspective and experiences of belonging

As previously mentioned, I am of Dutch and Nigerian descent. My father was born in Nigeria and migrated to the Netherlands around his 20s, my mother was born in the Netherlands. From the age of four, I have lived with my mother in Amsterdam South-East. I visited my father on a weekly basis. I went to predominantly “white” primary school. Due to this, I felt more of an association and understanding to my Dutch identity. This was most likely because I was not in touch with my Nigerian side on a daily basis. My mother and I moved to another city near Amsterdam when I went to secondary school. There were only seven children who could be classified as ethnic minority at this school, the majority was “white” Dutch. Despite my different skin colour, I did not feel different, this was amongst other reasons because classmates noted that I was a “bounty”, intending that I was “black” from the outside, but “white” and similar to them from the inside. Today, I would classify these remarks as micro-aggression, but at the time it made me feel more included and part of my classmates who had a different appearance. When I turned 14, I switched schools because of education-related reasons. My new secondary school was more diverse and was also more characterized by a differentiation between ethnic minorities and the ethnic majority. I found myself being more surrounded with the ethnic minorities. Despite this, I felt different and not completely part of the ethnic minorities as I sometimes got remarks that I talked and acted “white”. As these remarks where negatively meant and I did not want to feel “different” from the ethnic minorities, I tried to embrace my Nigerian and “black” side more, mainly by

(25)

listening to Nigerian music and trying to speak less with a Dutch accent. This ethnic identification felt somewhat forced and functioned as a strategy to not feel like an outsider. After secondary school, my ethnic identity started to play a different role as I did not feel anymore that I had to force to be a “certain way” to be accepted by a “certain group”. This is probably because after secondary school, I was not in an environment anymore in which I felt a high social pressure to “be something” and “be popular”. I feel that my friends I have today, who all have different ethnicities (“white” Dutch, Surinamese, Nigerians and Moroccans for example), accept me the way I am. My identification is now a more natural mix of the Dutch and Nigerian influences I have had throughout my life.

As I have mentioned in the introduction, I have become more aware on how different groups interact with each other in the society and about issues involving discrimination and ethnic boundary making. This is amongst other reasons because of my study in which societal issues are much debated by lecturers and students. I believe that a differentiation between ethnic minorities and the ethnic majority is growing in which there are more prejudices based on skin colour. In public debates on issues like “Black Piet”, I feel that I am increasingly being forced to “pick” a side between the ethnic majority and ethnic minorities. I always try to observe issues like this from both a Dutch and Nigerian or ethnic minority perspective in structuring my opinion. However, I sometimes find myself “picking” the side of ethnic minorities prior to considering all the arguments and counter arguments of the different groups. This is because I sometimes feel that the ethnic majority would not accept me regardless my opinion on these issues because of my darker skin colour.

Generally, different cultural influences can be seen in my life. Throughout my life the composition of different ethnic groups in my environment have influenced my identification. I have been subject to means of boundary making like micro-aggression. Still today, my feelings of belonging are negotiated through public debates and issues within the society and will also be so in the future.

(26)

Chapter 4: Profile of Nigerians and Nigerian migration

Nigeria is located in West-Africa and

exists out about 158 million citizens which makes it Africa’s most populous country. The country is characterized by a very high population growth of 2,6% per year, which will double the population by 2050. The Nigerian population exists out about 250 different ethnic communities. The biggest ethnic communities are Hausa and Fulani (29%), Yoruba (21%) and Igbo (18%) (van Heelsum & Hessel, 2006). Due to the former colonial ties to the UK, English is the official language.

4.1. Nigerians in the UK

Nigeria is known for its large migration movement out of the country. In the period around independence from the UK (in the 60s), mainly the emerging elites from Nigeria migrated to the UK for educational reasons. This migration was possible due to former colonial ties. The majority of these migrants returned. In the 1970s and 1980s this picture of Nigerian migration changed. The economy in Nigerian was stagnating and more Nigerians decided to migrate. This migration was mainly to the UK and the US. An increasing number of migrants stayed for a longer duration or did not return at all (Mberu and Pongou, 2010).

In 2011, 191.183 Nigerians resided in England and Wales, of which 114.718 in London (Office for National Statistics, 2012). The UK is in the top three of countries Nigerians emigrate to. Nigerians migrate to the UK on terms of a work-permit, or as students, refugees and asylum seekers. Nigerians migrating to the UK are relatively high educated compared to Nigerians migrating to other countries. This is amongst other reasons because of certain policies in the UK which makes migration for highly skilled Nigerians more attractive. Therefore, it can be seen that the UK (together with the US) is the most preferred final destinations for educated Nigerian (ibid.). Due to the high number of Nigerian migrants in the UK, they are likely to have other Nigerians as social contacts. Nigerians who migrate to

Figure 1: Distribution of different ethnic communities in Nigeria, retrieved from http://www.learnnc.org/lp/media/uploads/2008/07/nigeria_linguistic_1979.jpg

(27)

the UK are usually not subject to learning a new language as the national language for Nigeria is English which might influence integration of Nigerian migrants.

4.2. Nigerians in the Netherlands

In the Netherlands, the first Nigerian migrants arrived in 1987, however, larger scale migration only started in the 2000s when the Nigerian economy continued to stagnate. The number of Nigerians in the Netherlands is much smaller than in the United Kingdom, in 2015 12.036 Nigerians resided in the Netherlands (CBS, 2015), of which in 2010 1126 in Amsterdam (DPG/O+S, 2010). The majority of Nigerian migrants in the Netherlands is between the age of 30 and 40 (30%) and 60% is man. Mainly the people from the Southern part of Nigerian and of Christian faith migrate to the Netherlands. According to Mberu and Pongou (2010) the recent migration is characterized by a majority of less-educated youth working in formal and informal sector which is in different from Nigerian migration to the UK which is, as I have noted before, characterized by higher skilled workers. Van Heelsum and Hessel (2006) note the contrary and stress that it is rather the middle “class” that migrates to the Netherlands. Compared to other African groups that migrate to the Netherlands, the number of Nigerian migrants that come to the Netherlands as an asylum seeker is relatively low and the number of migrants that come for study or work is relatively high. Most Nigerians migrate to the Netherlands because of family reunification, family formation and economic reasons (van Heelsum & Hessel, 2006).

Unlike Nigerian migrants in the United Kingdom, Nigerians in the Netherlands are most likely to have dealt, or are still dealing with living in an environment in which they are not familiar with or do not understand the national language. Van Heelsum and Hessel (2006) note that due to colonial ties with England and the English language, there is a lot of Nigerian traffic between the UK and the Netherlands. This traffic is characterized by Nigerians residing in the Netherlands that temporary or permanently migrate to the UK.

(28)

Chapter 5: Self-Identification

As previously mentioned in the theoretical framework, self-identification is closely linked to belonging. Someone’s self-identification can function as an indicator on where he or she feels belonging to. It gives an idea to how respondents relate to different (ethnic) groups. Before discussing respondents belonging, I find it important to first discuss their self-identification to shed light on the context in which respondents structure belonging.

5.1. Situational and multiple identities

Interviews showed that most respondents identified themselves being both Nigerian and British or Dutch. In addition, some respondents also identified with their Nigerian ethnic community. Respondents show that their self-identification is highly situational. Idi, a 22 year old Dutch-Nigerian respondent, explains why this is for him:

“I think that identity is very situationally dependent, you are formed by everything around you. I cannot say that I am Nigerian or Dutch, it depends on the situation. I need to know why they want to know about my identity, I find it important to know that so that I can give an answer which provides the best result.”

For Idi, self-identification is functional as it functions as a strategy to benefit the most. Paul, 21 year old British-Nigerian who had previously indicated during the interview that he feels more British than Nigerian also notes that his identification is situationally dependent, he says:

“I do not want to benefit the UK, but benefit myself as Nigerian […]. When I started working at [company name] I was proud of myself because I was “black” Nigerian, not “black” British […].You kinda wanna show them, even second-generation who are born in Britain, they know where they are coming from and know kinda like the struggle. All my successes have to go back home because I feel like they need it more.”

This quote shows that the “struggle” (probably the struggle to be successful) that Nigerians have gone through makes him identify himself being Nigerian in his successes, even though he previously mentioned during the interview that he felt detached to his Nigerian identity. Self-identification for him is situational because he wants to show the competences “black” people have which are sometimes undermined in the society.