• No results found

Stuck in no-man's-land : identity, home and sense of belonging of second-generation Bosnians in the Netherlands

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "Stuck in no-man's-land : identity, home and sense of belonging of second-generation Bosnians in the Netherlands"

Copied!
53
0
0

Bezig met laden.... (Bekijk nu de volledige tekst)

Hele tekst

(1)

STUCK IN NO-MAN’S-LAND

Identity, home and sense of belonging of second-generation Bosnians in the Netherlands

Amra Žerić - 12281786 Master’s thesis

Supervisor: Dr. Sonja Fransen

Second reader: Prof. Dr. Jan Willem Duyvendak Master of Science in Sociology, general track Graduate School of Social Sciences

(2)

2 Table of contents

Acknowledgements__________________________________________________________ 3 Summary__________________________________________________________________ 4 1 Introduction______________________________________________________________ 6 2 Theoretical and conceptual framework________________________________________ 9 2.1 Identity__________________________________________________________ 9 2.2 Belonging and imagined community___________________________________ 9 2.3 Identity and belonging for second-generation migrants___________________ 11 3 Background_____________________________________________________________ 13 3.1 Bosnia and Herzegovina____________________________________________ 13 3.2 The Netherlands__________________________________________________ 16 3.3 Second-generation Bosnians in the Netherlands_________________________ 17 4 Methodology____________________________________________________________ 19 4.1 Participants______________________________________________________ 19 4.2 Methods________________________________________________________ 20 4.3 Procedure_______________________________________________________ 21 4.4 Data analysis____________________________________________________ 23 5 Results_________________________________________________________________ 24 5.1 Identity_________________________________________________________ 24 5.2 Home and belonging______________________________________________ 27 5.3 Factors that influence identity and belonging___________________________ 30 5.3.1 Visiting the Balkans________________________________________ 30 5.3.2 Language________________________________________________ 30 5.3.3 Parents__________________________________________________ 31 5.3.4 Ethnicity of others_________________________________________ 32 5.3.5 Religion_________________________________________________ 33 5.3.6 Politics and media_________________________________________ 34 5.3.7 Race____________________________________________________ 36 6 Discussion______________________________________________________________ 37 7 Conclusion______________________________________________________________ 45 8 Bibliography____________________________________________________________ 46 9 Appendix_______________________________________________________________ 51

(3)

3 Acknowledgements

This Master’s thesis may have been the most challenging and most fulfilling thing I have done in my life. As a Bosnian born in the Netherlands, as a Muslim, and as a woman, I have rarely felt like I belonged anywhere. These feelings of non-belonging lead to many unanswered questions about myself. I always knew that these questions had to be answered one day and I am incredibly thankful I had the opportunity to do it this way. Therefore, I would like to thank my supervisor, Dr. Sonja Fransen, for her supervision. The guidance led me towards the right questions. I also would like to thank Prof. Dr. Jan Willem Duyvendak for the feedback and guidance. Thanks to Emily, Vivianne, Rik, Maaike, and Gizem who have helped me tremendously during the thesis seminars. Thank you all for reading my work and helping me whenever I was stuck. Next, I want to thank all the interviewees who felt safe enough to open up and share their stories. I am eternally grateful for all the conversations we have had. These conversations have changed me forever. Thank you to all my friends who have listened to me talking about my thesis for hours. All the conversations and discussions helped me more than you all can imagine. I would like to thank my brother and sister-in-law, Alen and Linda, for believing in me when I did not believe in myself. Last but not least, I could not have done this without the most intelligent people I know. Mama i babo, hvala. As mountain people from the Prijedor region, I know that resilience is in your DNA, but you have proved it with your strength to survive the war and restart life. I will remain indebted to both of you for all my life. This was a journey for all of us, I hope this is worth all your hard work.

(4)

4 Summary

This Master’s thesis examined identity and belonging in second-generation Bosnians born in the Netherlands. Currently, there is a nativist perspective prevalent in the Netherlands. This nativist perspective considers people who were ‘first there’ a native of a country. This perspective is translated in the binary used to differentiate between natives and non-natives, namely ‘autochthone’ for a person without a migrant background and ‘allochthone’ for a person with a migrant background. While it is never explicitly mentioned, natives are assumed to be white, Christian citizens without a migration background. A striking question that could follow out of this is: where does this place white migrants with a variety of religious beliefs? An example are Bosnians in the Netherlands. Bosnians are a multi-ethnic, multi-religious group, consisting of Muslim Bosniak, Catholic Bosnian Croats, and Orthodox Bosnians Serbs. During the violent war in Bosnia-Herzegovina that lasted from 1992 until 1995, many Bosnians fled the country and ended up staying in the Netherlands. Today, there is a Bosnian community in the Netherlands with a growing second-generation. While they are considered to be a successful group because of high education levels and low unemployment levels, how does this group experience the Netherlands themselves?

This thesis investigated self-reported identity, belonging, and possible factors that influence identity and belonging. This led to three research questions: How are identity and sense of belonging conceptualized in second-generation Bosnian migrants in the Netherlands? What factors influence identity and sense of belonging for second-generation Bosnian migrants? How do identity and belonging differ between the ethno-religious groups in second-generation Bosnian migrants? To answer these questions, 15 Bosnians born in the Netherlands were interviewed. Semi-structured, in-depth interviews were conducted with five Bosnian Serbs, five Bosniaks, and five Bosnian Croats. Questions asked about identity, home, sense of belonging, and possible transnational relations that impact identity and belonging. As for sense of belonging, findings showed that all second-generation Bosnians experience a feeling of being ‘in-between borders’ or in ‘no-man’s-land.’ Both countries feel like home, but neither country feels like home at the same time. As for identity, findings showed that Bosnians use different labels to identify themselves. Possibilities are Bosnian Dutch, Dutch Bosnian, (Bosnian) Serb Dutch, (Bosnian) Croat Dutch, (Bosnian) Serb, (Bosnian) Croat, and Dutch. The majority of second-generation Bosnians used a label that was a combination of a

(5)

5

Bosnian and Dutch identity. Even the people who used an identity label that contained one country, all of the interviewees expressed being a product of both countries. So, both countries matter in belonging and identity formation. However, it often is a feeling of being in-between identities and in-between countries. There are differences found between the three ethno-religious groups. Compared to the Bosnian Serbs and Bosnian Croats, Bosniaks did not use ‘Dutch’ as their identity label. Bosniaks either identified as Bosnian or Bosnian Dutch. Bosniaks also shared that religion is an essential factor to explain feelings of non-belonging in the Netherlands. Thus, while all second-generation Bosnians experience feelings of not belonging in both countries, being Muslim is a crucial factor in this feeling of non-belonging for Bosniaks in the Netherlands. Out of these findings, it can be concluded that the nativist perspective plays a role in the conceptualization of identity and belonging in second-generation Bosnians in the Netherlands. Being a white Christian Dutch citizen with a Bosnian background results in feelings of non-belonging, but this particularly seems the case for white Muslim Dutch citizens with a Bosnian background. The possible explanation for these findings is that the stigmatization and criminalization of Muslims in the Netherlands lead to being treated as a non-native Dutch citizen and therefore to feeling like a non-native Dutch citizen. So, considering Dutch citizens with a migrant background and particularly Muslim Dutch citizens with a migrant background as non-natives result in feelings of being in ‘no-man’s-land.’

(6)

6 1 Introduction

Who belongs and who does not belong? In an ever-globalizing world, one may think that this question should not matter anymore. Interestingly, there is more and more focus on maintaining national identity in European nations (Stråth, 2008). National identities are often viewed as homogenous and static identities based on a shared history, language, religion, and culture. This development is also seen in the Netherlands, where citizenship and belonging are viewed from a nativist perspective (Slootman & Duyvendak, 2015). The nativist perspective means that ‘natives’ are seen as the original inhabitants of the country as they were “first there” (p. 151). While race is not a popular concept to discuss in the Netherlands, it is implied in this nativist view of the ‘autochthonous’ Dutch citizen (Essed & Trienekens, 2008; Wekker, 2016). The native, autochthonous Dutch person is a white Christian person without a migrant background. Any other culture, ethnicity, race, and religion is often portrayed as non-native and as a threat to the Dutch nation (Slootman & Duyvendak, 2015). One may wonder how this discourse regarding citizenship impacts the identity and belonging of migrant groups. Before this can be investigated, the question that needs to be asked first is: to belong or not to belong? In other words: how are migrant identities and belonging formed and conceptualized?

Identity and belonging both are seen as static and essentialized (Hall & Gay, 2006). Even with Dutch culture, identity and belonging are considered concepts that do not change over time (Slootman & Duyvendak, 2015). However, identity and belonging are ever-changing and fluid aspects of human beings (Brah, 1996; Hall & Gay, 2006; La Barbera, 2015; Yuval-Davis, 2006). Both these concepts are subject to change due to individual, historical, social, political, and relational processes. So, both these concepts are socially formed and constructed in their contexts. Evidence of the fluid nature of identity and belonging are experiences of migrants because both origin country and destination country change the identity and sense of belonging of migrants (Brah, 1996). The experience of migrants can be translated into an ‘in-between’ category where migrants do not feel like they belong in the origin country and the destination country (La Barbera, 2015).

(7)

7

Identity and belonging are mostly discussed in regards to migration and migrant integration. Nevertheless, the children of migrants born in the destination country seem to be affected by the same questions about belonging and non-belonging as well. Both the case studies by Chams (2015) and Somerville (2008) found that transnational ties influence the sense of belonging and self-reported identity of the second generation. In the case of second-generation Lebanese migrants in Canada, the individuals reported different identities like Lebanese, Lebanese-Canadian, Muslim-Canadian, or Canadian (Chams, 2015). These identities and their sense of belonging are influenced by different transnational ties, like the ability to speak the mother language, racial and religious differences, and personal family ties (Chams, 2015; Rumbaut, 2002; Somerville, 2008). These findings fit in the model created by Jones and Krzyżanowski (2008). This model shows that attachments to a country may lead to a sense of belonging, but one has to pass a certain threshold to be considered a member of a group. The threshold in this model can be seen as inclusion or exclusion mechanisms. These mechanisms can be everyday interactions and policies that include or exclude individuals and consequently influence their sense of belonging.

An important aspect in both the study of Chams (2015) and Slootman and Duyvendak (2015) is that racial and religious differences seem to matter to the formation and conceptualization of identity and belonging. For the second-generation Lebanese in Canada, discrimination based on race or religion means that they were more likely to identify as Lebanese (Chams, 2015). Moroccans in the Netherlands experience this in a similar way (Slootman and Duyvendak, 2015). Moroccan Dutch citizens expressed that even if they see themselves as Dutch, they do not feel as such. Feeling Dutch was harder if a hijab, dark hair or other aspects of appearance do not fit in the typical expectation of a ‘native’ Dutch citizen.

Especially in the Dutch context, it is interesting to look at identity and (non-)belonging of migrants. Citizenship in the Netherlands is split into two categories: autochthones and allochthones or natives and non-natives (Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek [CBS], n.d.). Autochthones or natives are Dutch citizens of whom parents and grandparents are born in the Netherlands. Allochthones or non-natives include migrants, their children, and often their grandchildren as well. One is seen an allochthone if at least one parent is not born in the Netherlands. A third generation is a person of whom one grandparent is not born in the Netherlands. So, second-generation and third-generation migrants are seen as non-natives, regardless of their place of birth. Slootman and Duyvendak (2015) have found that this discourse regarding citizenship does affect the identity and belonging of the

(8)

second-8

generation Moroccans and Turkish migrants. This group expresses a weaker emotional attachment to the Netherlands compared to Dutch natives.

To understand the complexity of racial and religious differences in the Dutch context, a compelling group to investigate would be second-generation Bosnians in the Netherlands. This group is fascinating for multiple reasons. Firstly, the majority of Bosnians are white (Mišković, 2011), which means that Bosnian migrants do not face racial discrimination like Moroccans and Turkish migrants. Nonetheless, migrants are scrutinized and criminalized in Dutch media and politics, so this might influence identity and sense of belonging. Secondly, Bosnians are an ethnically and religiously diverse group (Halilovich, 2012). This group consists of a majority of Bosnian Muslims (also known as Bosniaks). The two other groups are Bosnian-born Croat Catholics and Bosnian-born Serb Orthodox Christians. This group shares a historical, cultural, and historical background, so this group can be used to examine the effects of their ethno-religious differences.

By examining the identity and belonging of second-generation Bosnians, this case study can contribute to the already existing knowledge on second-generation migrants as well as contribute to knowledge about experiences of white migrants. As pointed out by Essed and Trienekens (2008) and Wekker (2016), race is not a used concept in the Netherlands ever since the Second World War happened. Because race is never discussed in the Netherlands, the country portrays itself as a place where racism does not exist. Despite that, race does matter in the discourse regarding migration and integration. The national, native identity in the Netherlands is a white Christian citizen. This is considered the norm. Anyone that does not fit into this norm is seen as an allochthone. Thus, this case study will also investigate how the intersection of being white, a child of a migrant, and Muslim influence identity and belonging in the Netherlands.

Altogether, this leads to the research questions: How are identity and sense of belonging conceptualized in second-generation Bosnian migrants in the Netherlands? What factors influence identity and sense of belonging for second-generation Bosnian migrants? How do identity and belonging differ between the ethno-religious groups in second-generation Bosnian migrants? Five Bosniaks, five Bosnians Croats, and five Bosnian Serbs are interviewed to answer these research questions. Semi-structured in-depth interviews are conducted to examine identity, belonging, and the factors that influence these two concepts. The interview questions ask about transnational ties mentioned in earlier literature, like

(9)

9

language, personal family ties, religion, relation to ethnic groups in the Netherlands, parental influence, religion, media, and politics.

In the following chapters, the theoretical and conceptual framework will be discussed first. Meaning that an overview is given on the current standing in literature on identity, belonging, home, and second generations. This chapter will be followed by a chapter on background information on Bosnia-Herzegovina, the discourse regarding migrants in the Netherlands, and Bosnians in the Netherlands. After this, a chapter on methodology will clarify the participant selection, methods, procedure, and data analysis. Next, the chapter will discuss the findings from the interviews on identity, belonging, and possible factors influencing identity and belonging. Furthermore, the findings will be discussed to see if the expectations match the findings. This chapter will also focus on limitations and implications on an academic and societal level. At last, there are some concluding words.

2 Theoretical and conceptual framework 2.1 Identity

As pointed out by La Barbera (2015), identity comes from the Latin term idem, which means the same. Identity is a label or are multiple labels an individual uses to describe oneself in relation to another individual or another collective. Identity is a way to express in what collective one belongs to, the ‘us,’ and what the association is to another individual or collective, the ‘Other’ or the ‘them’ (Yuval-Davis, 2006). One form of identity is national identity. With the construction of nation-states came the idea of a national identity based on shared language, history, and religion (Stråth, 2008). More importantly, these national identities are seen as fixed and essentialized identities, which form a homogenous nation.

Similar to the fixed national identity, during the Enlightenment, identity was seen as ‘the essential center of the self’ that is autonomous (Hall & Du Gay, 2006). As Jones and Krzyżanowski (2008) point out, using the term ‘identity’ may not be the best term to describe the complexity of one individual in a complex social world. The term identity is used to describe an individual experience and not the relation to the collective. Nevertheless, the current standing in literature sees identity as a process. Identity is always changing, (re)constructed, (re)adjusted, and (re)produced because of historical, political and relational processes (Brah, 1996; Hall & Du Gay, 2006; La Barbera, 2015, Yuval-Davis, 2006). Thus,

(10)

10

identity should be understood within the social, historical, and political contexts because these contexts construct, form, and shape identity.

2.2 Belonging and imagined community

To understand the complexity of identity formation in a complex social world, Jones and Krzyżanowski (2008) propose using ‘belonging’ as an extension of the term identity. Belonging or sense of belonging is where an individual feels ‘at home’ in relation to other individuals or collectives (Brah, 1996; Jones & Krzyżanowski, 2008). The crucial difference between these two terms is that identity is an individual label, whereas belonging focuses on the relation to other individuals or collectives. So, belonging adds the social contexts and relation to others, which is needed to understand identity development. For example, a male Dutch citizen with Moroccan roots may identify himself as Dutch. However, by reducing his experiences to his identity label, one may lose crucial information. The concept of belonging adds another dimension to this identity, which is that he might feel like he belongs to the Dutch community in some situations while he experiences a sense of belonging to the Moroccan community in the Netherlands in other situations. Thus, by using the concept of belonging, one can see that reducing an individual’s experience to a label may lead to loss of information that is crucial to understand the experiences of people with a migration background.

(11)

11

Figure 1. Schematic model by Jones and Krzyżanowski (2008) that portrays belonging and its associated processes.

Moreover, both identity and belonging depend on different characteristics and their intersections: gender, race, class, culture, sexuality, nation, ethnicity, religion and occupation (Brah, 1996; La Barbera, 2015). All these different characteristics matter in different ways, depending on social, historical, and political factors that can lead to inclusion or exclusion (La Barbera, 2015; Yuval-Davis, 2006). The model created by Jones and Krzyżanowski (2008) portrays how inclusion and exclusion mechanisms work. This model, Figure 1, represents the processes related to belonging. In this model, attachments can lead to a sense of belonging to a particular group based on different characteristics of an individual, a collective, and contextual factors. One has to pass a threshold to be considered a member of a collective. This threshold can be institutional and political barriers regulated by policies. For example, one has to speak the national language to get citizenship. Additionally, a threshold can be portrayed by everyday interactions as well. An example is that a migrant has citizenship in the destination country but is not considered a member of the nation because of religion, which is shown by the growing hostility towards Muslims in the Dutch media and politics (Shadid, 2005).

(12)

12

One way to understand collective identity within a nation is an imagined community (Anderson, 1983). An imagined community is the imagined political community that is formed within a nation. It means that members of a nation have an imagined collective identity by a common understanding of what includes or excludes members. Interestingly, members of these collectives feel connected to one another, even without personally knowing all members. The membership of collective identities can be understood as being part of an imagined community (Jones & Krzyżanowski, 2006; La Barbera, 2015). Taken together, belonging to a nation and related national identity are part of an imagined community that is (re)formed and (re)constructed by individual, social, historical, and political factors.

2.3 Identity and belonging for second-generation migrants

While theories consider first-generation migrants most of the time, one may wonder what the implications are for the identity and belonging of children of migrants. While there are multiple ways to define a first and second generation, the definition by Laufer (1971) is used in this study. This definition states that generation does not refer to age cohort but to ‘intergenerational identities’ (Kebede, 2010). So, the first generation is defined as the group of (young) adults that immigrate to and settle in the destination country. The second generation is the children of the immigrants who are ‘native’-born, so they are born in the destination country of the parents.1

The current standing in the literature is that for a first-generation migrant, the conceptualization and formation of identity and belonging are complex. La Barbera (2015) described migrants as being “in transit,” which is a condition of not belonging “here” nor “there” (p. 3). Migrants seem to form an in-between category which does not seem to ‘belong’ in both nations because a migrant is changed by the old ‘home’ and new ‘home’. But where does this place the identity and belonging for second-generation migrants with less direct ties to the country of origin? Especially when one considers the current focus of politics on migrant integration and national identity, how does this affect the transnational identity and belonging of second-generation migrants?

1

Apart from the first and second generation, there also is a 1.5-generation. The 1.5-generation is the children of migrants born in the country of origin but they migrate to the destination country between the ages of four and twelve (Rumbaut, 2004).

(13)

13

For the second generation, there is not a definite standing in the literature on the transnational relationship.2 Some research predicts that the connection to the origin country is of less importance to the second generation (Rumbaut, 2002). Other research shows that identity and belonging of the second generation are shaped by transnational ties like family, language, and religion of the origin country (Chams, 2015; Somerville, 2008). The difference between these studies is that Rumbaut (2002) used surveys to analyze home and identity in the second generation, whereas both Chams (2015) and Somerville (2008) used face-to-face, in-depth interviews. The survey asked what second-generation migrants in the US consider home with closed questions and limited options. On the contrary, the interview questions focused on the factors that influence identity and belonging. The interviewing methods of Chams (2015) and Somerville (2008) fit the theory on identity and belonging because the interview questions take into consideration that identity and belonging are fluid and dependent on contextual factors.

Where both Chams (2015) and Somerville (2008) seem to agree, is that transnational ties are influencing the identity and belonging of the second generation. In the study by Chams (2015), second-generation Lebanese migrants in Canada were interviewed. The interviews of this study show that there are differences in identity: individuals identified as Lebanese, Canadian, Muslim Canadian, and Lebanese-Canadian. Similar results were found for the second generation from Karnataka, India living in Canada (Somerville, 2008). In this study, individuals identified as Indo-Canadian, Canadian, Indian, and South Indian. So, some second-generation migrants experience the similar in-between category of the first generation while others are clear about their identity.

The identity of the second generation seems to be influenced by multiple factors. Both Chams (2015) and Somerville (2008) found that identity depends on the context. For example, while one identified as Lebanese in daily life, their Canadian background was an essential part of their job as a teacher (Chams, 2015). Other important factors are the ability to speak the mother language, religion, personal family ties, institutional settings, and racial and religious marginalization. This identity, belonging and attachment to the origin country is expressed in multiple ways: wearing clothing associated with the culture of the origin country, engaging in communities, connecting with culture by music or movies, engaging with political

2

Transnationalism is “the maintenance of occupations or activities that necessarily require regular social contacts over time across national borders and or across cultures” (Portes et al., as cited in Murphy & Mahalingam, 2004).

(14)

14

developments in the country of origin, practicing religion and being close with family from the country of origin (Chams, 2015; Rumbaut, 2002; Somerville, 2008).

The model of Jones and Krzyżanowski (2008), as seen in Figure 1, fits the findings of Chams (2015) and Somerville (2008). Both these studies find that attachments to the country of origin may lead to a sense of belonging. Belonging or non-belonging to this group depends on individual, collective, and contextual factors. Examples of these factors are found to be language, work, school, personal family ties, race, and religion (Chams, 2015; Rumbaut, 2002; Somerville, 2008). To belong to this imagined community, one has to pass a threshold. These can be considered inclusion or exclusion criteria that indicate if one belongs to this imagined community of second-generation Lebanese living in Canada.

If all these concepts and their definitions are taken into consideration, Bosnians migrants are an interesting case. Although there is no similar case study done on Bosnian migrants in the Netherlands, the findings of Chams (2015) and Somerville (2008) will likely match the conceptualization of identity and belonging for second-generation Bosnians. Nevertheless, both these studies did not take into account the sociopolitical climate of the country of origin and the country of destination. As shown by Slootman and Duyvendak (2015), second-generation Turkish and Moroccan Dutch citizens may not feel Dutch because of the discourse regarding integration in the Netherlands. Thus, the sociopolitical climate matters for identity and sense of belonging. In what way can Bosnian politics and Dutch politics play a role?

3 Background

3.1 Bosnia and Herzegovina

Bosnia and Herzegovina is a small country in southeast Europe. Once part of socialist Yugoslavia as one of the six republics, Bosnia-Herzegovina used to be celebrated for its multi-ethnic and multi-religious population. The country is home to Bosniaks, Bosnian Croats, Bosnian Serbs, Romani, and Bosnian Jews. Ethnicity and religion are two identities that are associated in this country. Meaning that Bosniaks are Muslim, Bosnian Croats are Catholics, and Bosnian Serbs are Orthodox Christians. These are not only categories but someone’s ethno-religious category is often known because of differences in names and use of language between these groups. Even though all these groups used to live next to each other for years, this changed during the violent dissolution of Yugoslavia in 1992.

(15)

15

The slogan of Yugoslavia was ‘brotherhood and unity’ (‘bratsvo i jedinstvo’), which was a communist ideology of a multinational Yugoslavia that was promoted and supported by social and civic organizations (Marcon & Andreis, 2011). After Yugoslav leader Tito died in 1980, nationalism took over the stage of the communist ideology (Markusen & Mennecke, 2004). There was no strong leader that could unify the peoples of Yugoslavia. There was a rise in social and economic instability and uncertainty about the future, which made it a perfect moment for power-hungry, nationalistic leaders to take the stage (Markusen & Mennecke, 2004). In the early 1990s, three nationalistic parties emerged in Bosnia and Herzegovina (Marcon & Andreis, 2011). The three parties were HDZ (Croatian Democratic Union), SDS (Serb Democratic Party) and SDA (Party of Democratic Action). These three parties represented the three ethnic majorities in Bosnia. HDZ represented Bosnian Croats, SDS represented Bosnian Serbs, and SDA represents Bosniaks. There was no civil society apart from political parties, which eventuated in these parties having a considerable influence on media outlets, academic institutions, and religious institutions to spread a nationalistic message (Marcon & Andries, 2011). The effect of spreading this ideology was that nationalistic political parties were dominant during the first free, multi-party election in 1990 (Barutciski, 1994; Marcon & Andreis, 2011; Phuong, 2000). Most people voted for the nationalist party that matched their ethno-religious identity. A small minority voted for the only two multiethnic parties (Marcon & Andreis, 2011).

The nationalist voices and the non-emergence of a strong Yugoslav leader ended in the fall of Yugoslavia (Glenny, 1996; Markusen & Mennecke, 2004). It started with Slovenia and Croatia declaring their independence. Their independence resulted in a conflict of 10 days in Slovenia and a conflict of seven months in Croatia. Bosnia followed their lead and declared its independence after a referendum. One day after the referendum, the aggression of Serb paramilitaries started in Sarajevo (Markusen & Mennecke, 2004). This aggression was the first step towards a three-year-long war (Glenny, 1996). The inspiration for this conflict was the Second World War ideology of ultra-nationalistic Serbs to create a country for all Serb people, also known as ‘Greater Serbia’ (Glenny, 1996; Mirković, 1996; 2000). This ‘Great Serbia’ meant that all territory where non-Serbs live had to be ethnically cleansed to build a country for Serbs. Consequently, cultural monuments and mosques were destroyed. Bosniaks, Bosnian Croats, and all Serbs opposing this regime were murdered, tortured, put into detention camps, starved, and forcibly relocated (Markusen & Mennecke, 2004). Later on, Croat forces decided to form paramilitaries as well to pursue their ultra-nationalist World War

(16)

16

2 dream of a ‘Greater Croatia,’ a country for Croats (Glenny, 1996; Mirković, 1996; 2000). Both the idea of Greater Croatia and Greater Serbia were supported by Croatian and Serbian presidency members, meaning that Bosniaks were targeted by both sides (Glenny, 1996). Bosniaks formed paramilitary groups as well, with support from Iran and Afghanistan (Markusen & Mennecke, 2004). Altogether, all sides have suffered during the war and all sides have committed war crimes (Barutciski, 1994). However, Bosnian Serb paramilitaries have systematically targeted non-Serbs. Out of the 100,000 victims, 80% were Bosniaks (United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, n.d.). While international intervention was minimal, this changed the news broke about the genocide in Srebrenica (Markusen & Mennecke, 2004). After the news broke, international actors changed their course of action and decided to intervene in the conflict.

The war officially ended in November 1995 after the peace negotiations in Dayton, Ohio (Ito, 2001). The peace negotiations led to the General Framework Agreement or the Dayton Peace Agreement. While the agreement did lead to peace, the current political situation in Bosnia is far from ideal. The Dayton Peace Agreement divided Bosnia-Herzegovina into two entities: Republika Srpska and Federation Bosnia and Herzegovina (Barutciski, 1994, Ito, 2001; Phuong, 2000). Republika Srpska is the Serb entity whereas Federation BiH is the Bosniak and Croat entity. One part, Brcko, is not part of either entity. The borders are based on where Bosnian Serb paramilitaries were based. In the Dayton Peace Agreement, one annex states the right of return. While people had the right to return, most people currently reside in the entity matching their ethnicity (Toè, 2013). The agreements were meant to be temporary to help Bosnia and Herzegovina, but almost 25 years after the war ended, no new agreement has been formed.

After the war, the constitution stated that Bosnia-Herzegovina has three constitutive, autochthonous peoples: Bosnian Croats, Bosnian Serbs, and Bosniaks (Raković, 2005). The three peoples are represented by three different presidents, according to the annexes of the Dayton Peace Agreement. While this sounds like a promise that the country one day will move towards multi-ethnic existence, nationalism is still prevalent in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Nationalist political parties are still leading (Latal, Lakić, & Kovačević, 2018). All sides are again inciting fear and hatred towards one another (Raković, 2005). The nationalistic political discourse has an impact on Bosnians in many ways. Two examples of nationalism are shown by Raković (2005). The first example is language. In Yugoslavia, the language was known as Serbo-Croatian. After the war, the same language is divided into

(17)

17

Bosnian, Croatian, and Serbian. The differentiation of the same language is a political mean to create the idea that these are three completely different groups. The second example is war crimes. Raković (2005) points out how war criminals are often seen as war heroes. Moreover, war criminals and war crimes are often used to define the other as the enemy.

While ethno-religious differences were always present, there is a divide in politics right now. The peoples in Bosnia-Herzegovina are divided by the constitution into three different ethno-religious represented by three different presidents in two different entities. Taking the nationalistic politics and war into account, one may expect that this has an impact on Bosnians living in Bosnia-Herzegovina and living in diaspora as politics are still fueling hatred and tensions.

3.2 The Netherlands

After the recent war in Bosnia and Herzegovina, many Bosnians fled to the Netherlands. An estimated 25,000 Bosnian refugees were taken in (“Vluchtelingen uit Joegoslavië”, n.d.). The majority of this group decided to stay in the Netherlands. So what is the political discourse regarding migrants that Bosnians grow up in in the Netherlands?

Migrants have always been considered the ‘Other’ in the Netherlands (Ghorashi, 2014). The othering of migrants started with the label guest workers, which was used for the group of migrants that came to work here. They were seen as temporary migrants; therefore their cultural identity was tolerated. However, this changed. The focus on cultural differences became a popular narrative in Dutch politics. It used to be a form of cultural essentialism, meaning different cultures living side by side and tolerating each other (Schinkel, 2007). This view quickly changed into cultural fundamentalism: the notion that cultures are incompatible (Schinkel, 2007). The key moments that changed this narrative the terrorist attacks on September 11 in 2001 and the assassination of Islamophobic right-wing politician Pim Fortuyn in 2002. After these events, cultural and religious differences were seen as a threat to the Netherlands.

An intriguing part of this development is that race is a concept that is never spoken about in these debates in the Netherlands. Ever since World War II, race is not used as it is a reminder of what differentiating people based on race can do (Wekker, 2016). The Netherlands is portrayed as this post-racism nation, a country where racism does not exist because race is an undiscussed topic (Wekker, 2016). Nevertheless, the othering of migrants still happens. Where old racism discussed the biological differences, new racism discusses cultural and

(18)

18

religious differences (Bonilla-Silva, 2000). Non-western cultures and Islam are often described as a threat to the progressive values in the Netherlands. Islam and non-Western cultures are considered backward, barbaric, and anti-democratic (Essed & Trienekens, 2008; Wekker, 2016). So, culture and religion are a subtle way to differentiate migrants and non-migrants in the Netherlands.

One example of this differentiation in culture is the binary used in the Netherlands.3 This binary is based on the nativist view, which is the perspective that a citizen is seen as a native because they were “first there” (Slootman & Duyvendak, 2015: p. 151). Meaning that one and one’s family is ‘originating’ from this place. This nativist perspective is seen in the categories created for citizenship: the allochthone/autochthone binary (Wekker, 2016). An autochthone is a ‘native’ Dutch person whose parents and grandparents are born in the Netherlands. An allochthone is someone who is born somewhere else. Even the children and in some cases the grandchildren are considered allochthones, even if they are born in the Netherlands.4 Consequently, second-generation and sometimes third-generation are seen as non-natives regardless of their place of birth. Within the category allochthones, differentiation is made between western and non-western allochthones. Western means closest to western culture (Essed & Trienekens, 2008). In theory, race is not included in the allochthone and autochthone binary. Nevertheless, this is different in practice (Essed & Trienekens, 2008; Wekker, 2016). An allochthone is often anyone non-white, non-Christian, asylum seekers, and migrants with or without Dutch nationality (Ghorashi, 2006). Thus, while race is never explicitly mentioned within this binary, it is always assumed.

3.3 Second-generation Bosnians in the Netherlands

So where does this place a second-generation white migrant from Bosnia, especially a Bosnian with an Islamic background? Rapports have shown that ex-Yugoslavs in the Netherlands are ‘one of the most well-integrated migrants’ in the Netherlands (Bolwijn & De Mooij, 2015). Unemployment levels are the lowest, while education levels are the highest compared to other migrant groups. For the second generation of ex-Yugoslavs, 40% is in higher education, which is even higher than the national average. Professor Engbersen states in this publication that one of the factors that may be key to their success is that they are

3 In this study, the concepts of ‘native’, ‘allochthone’, and ‘autochthone’ are used because they are widely used

concepts to differentiate between ‘natives’ and ‘non-natives’. It is important to point out that the use of these concepts does not reflect my opinion on this differentiation.

4

The binary ‘allochtone’ and ‘autochthone’ is replaced with another binary since late 2016 (CBS, n.d.). The new binary is ‘person without migration background’ and ‘person with migration background’.

(19)

19

Europeans and white. Especially when one takes into account that most Muslims in Bosnia-Herzegovina are considered moderate or ‘liberal’ Muslims (Ašimović Akyol. 2019). A large number of Muslims in Bosnia and Herzegovina do not wear a hijab, smoke, and drink alcohol, so Bosniaks often are not ‘visible’ Muslims. Nevertheless, how do second-generation Bosnians experience the Netherlands themselves? How do they identify? Do they feel like they belong, regardless of their ‘success’?

This study will look at identity and belonging in second-generation Bosnians born in the Netherlands. As mentioned before, Bosnian migrants are an interesting case. Firstly, Bosnians are white migrants, consisting of three different ethno-religious groups: Bosnian Muslims (or Bosniaks), Croat Catholics from Bosnia and Serb Orthodox Christians from Bosnia (Mišković, 2011). One of the expectations of this study is that both the origin country and destination country influence identity and belonging. Firstly, the war and nationalistic politics in Bosnia-Herzegovina is expected to play a role. This majority of this migrant group in the Netherlands come into existence after the Bosnian War. The war was a result of the rise of extreme nationalism based on differences between the three ethno-religious groups and resulted in the ethnic cleansing of Bosniaks. The fact that this group had to flee and a group was prosecuted because of their religion may influence their identity and sense of belonging. Moreover, nationalistic narratives are still prevalent in Bosnian politics. Secondly, the integration and citizenship discourse in the Netherlands with the nativist view might impact them. Especially Bosniaks might experience the Netherlands differently since Western media stigmatizes and criminalizes Islamic groups (Shadid, 2005). Although this group passes for a Dutch citizen on face-value and are European migrants, they still fall between these categories. Being white, migrant, and Muslim seems to place one ‘in-between’ the experience of allochthonous and autochthonous Dutch citizens.

Therefore, the impact on identity, sense of belonging, and home on the second-generation Bosnians in the Netherlands is a compelling case. With the cultural, historical, and political influences taken into consideration, I expect to find that second-generation Bosnians will differ in their label of identity, with multiple options possible: Bosnian, Bosniak, (Bosnian) Croat, (Bosnian) Serb, Dutch or a combination of all these possibilities. Despite that, I expect some differences between the three groups. For the Bosnian Croat and Bosnian Serb group, I presume that they are less likely to label oneself Bosnian. The expectation is that they are more likely to label oneself as Croat, Serb, or Dutch. For the Bosniak group, my prediction is that they are more likely to identify as Bosnian or Bosniak. I suspect that they do not identify

(20)

20

as strongly with their Dutch identity because of the discourse regarding Muslims in politics. The factors that may affect their identity and belonging will be explored: migration background, religion, language, personal family ties, engaging in ethnic and religious communities, race, and politics in both countries. I predict to find a difference between Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian non-Muslims in sense of belonging because of the stigmatization of Muslims in the Netherlands. Being Muslim is highly politicized both in Bosnia and Herzegovina and in the Netherlands, so Bosniaks may experience a lower sense of belonging in the Netherlands that other Bosnians.

4 Methodology 4.1 Participants

This case study focused on the second-generation Bosnians in the Netherlands. To exclude the 1.5-generation (Rumbaut, 2004), participants were selected based on birthplace. The second generation is the children of first-generation migrants, so this is the group born and raised in the host country. As most Bosnian migrants came to the Netherlands during or after the war, the second-generation Bosnians are in their early to mid-twenties.

The participants were found via Mladi BiH, a Bosnian organization based in the Netherlands that brings young Bosnians together, and via my network of friends and family members using social media networks like Instagram, Twitter, and Facebook. Via these social network channels, posts were shared online. These posts made it possible for potential participants to contact me if they were interested in participating. The advantage of using this approach to finding participants is that the participants are motivated and willing to contribute to this study. The disadvantage is that self-selection bias may play a role (Lavrakas, 2008). This bias means that participants that decide that they are willing to contribute may not be representative for all Bosnians in the Netherlands. As I leave it up to the participants to contact me, I expect that Bosnians who already feel passionate about these topics and are willing to talk about it. Thus, it is possible that the group I found through self-selection is feeling more connected to their Bosnian roots.

Another bias that may play a role is my positionality, as I am part of the social group being explored and interviewed. My position is particularly crucial when one takes into account that I am a Bosniak. With the war tensions still present, I am aware that not every Bosnian feels welcome to approach me or share their story with me. My position can influence this study in two ways. On the one hand, being a cultural insider in this group means that one may be

(21)

21

aware of taken-for-granted knowledge (Ganga & Scott, 2006). Especially since there are still tensions between the three ethnic groups, this knowledge was useful to make sure all ethnic groups feel included and safe to share their experiences. To deal with my position and possible tensions, I used inclusive language in my social media posts. For example, I asked for ‘Serbs and Croats from Bosnia’ instead of ‘Bosnian Serbs or Croats’. It seems like a minor change, but I hoped to make them feel included as I do not deny their identity and experience. I used inclusive language during the interviews as well. When I asked them if they speak the mother tongue, I used ‘Bosnian’ for Bosniaks, ‘Croatian’ for Croats and ‘Serbian’ for Serbs. As Bosnian Serbs and Croats have family in Serbia and Croatia in some instances as well, I did not only ask about Bosnia-Herzegovina but about the other Balkan countries too. On the other hand, knowledge and beliefs about this cultural group may influence interpretation and beliefs (Greene, 2014).

During the search of participants, there was difficulty finding Bosnian Croats and Bosnian Serbs. I received war-related comments by other members of the Bosnian diaspora in the Netherlands whenever posts were shared online. Comments were mostly critiquing why I wanted to include Bosnian Croats and Bosnian Serbs “because they are war criminals.” Other comments were political comments about how using the divide of three ethnic groups is outdated because “we are all Bosnians.” Eventually, 17 interviews were conducted between early April 2019 and mid-May 2019. Two interviews had to be excluded because the interviewees were not born in the Netherlands, meaning that they were part of the 1.5-generation.

This search eventually resulted in 15 interviewees, of which five were Bosniaks, five Bosnian Croats, and five Bosnian Serbs. Half of the interviewees were of ‘mixed marriages,’ meaning the participants were not ‘full’ Bosniak, Croat, or Serb. In some cases, it was a mix of those three identities. One example is half Bosniak and half Bosnian Croat. In other cases, there were also interviewees who were half Montenegrin or half Dutch. The mean age of the interviewees is 23 years old, with 19 years as the youngest participant and 28 years old as the oldest participant. Out of the 15 participants, 11 identified as a woman and six identified as a man. The majority does not have dual citizenship as 11 participants have only Dutch citizenship. Most of their parents fled the country because of the war. Only two interviewees expressed that their parents came here because of work and better opportunities. All of the interviewees either finished or are currently enrolled in higher education, either applied university or university level.

(22)

22

4.2 Methods

The approach used in this study is a social constructionist perspective (Berger & Luckmann, 1991). As La Barbera (2015) pointed out: “Identity is the result of the negotiation of personal given conditions, social context, and relationships, and institutional frameworks.” (p. 3). Thus, identity and belonging are constructed and reconstructed in its specific social context and can be understood by the social constructionist approach. Qualitative research methods were used to investigate the social construction of identity and belonging of this group. In-depth interviews were used, as this method is well-suited to investigate the story behind experiences (Doody & Noonan, 2013). The preparation of questions was done beforehand based on concepts and theories from earlier research. The interviews were semi-structured, meaning there were planned questions, but there was room for clarification and new insights during the interviews. The advantage of using semi-structured interviews is that one can explore new concepts and issues during the interviews (Doody & Nooman, 2013).

The main concepts in the interviews were identity, the formation of identity, belonging, and home. Additionally, interviewees were asked about what influences the formation and conceptualization of identity and belonging. Examples of influences may be language, politics, media, contact with family, influences of different ethnic groups, parents, and religion. Examples of the questions posed were: “How do you identify yourself in regards to nationality or ethnicity?”, “When were you first aware of your identity?”, and “What are situations that make you feel like you (do not) belong?”. All interview questions can be found in the appendix. Altogether, these questions considered identity and belonging as social constructs.

During the interviews, my positionality and the possible tensions between the ethnic groups were taken into account. As mentioned before, I asked Bosniak interviewees if they speak the Bosnian language. The Croat interviewees were asked if they speak Croatian and Serb interviewees were asked if they speak Serbian. This was done to avoid exclusionary use of language and, as a result, make all interviewees feel included. As mentioned prior, the interviews were semi-structured in order to be open to new concepts and insights. Questions were asked in Dutch. The Bosnian language was used in some interviews as well. The quotes used for this study were translated into English by the author.

4.3 Procedure

The study started mid-March 2019 by contacting an ambassador in Mladi BiH who in turn contacted others in the organization. Secondly, a call was posted on social media network to

(23)

23

find interviewees. Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook were used to find interviewees inside and outside of my network.

I was either contacted directly by the interviewees or by someone else who knew a potential interviewee. All the interviewees were sent the same message about the interview. The message included the topics of the interview, that it would be recorded, that all data would be processed anonymously, that participation is voluntary, and that I would visit the interviewees wherever it was convenient for them. Date and place were decided together. Apart from one interview with a family member, the interviews were conducted in a public place.

During the interview, the goal and topics of the interviews were explained again. I shared again that the interview would be recorded and that all information would be analyzed and used anonymously. It was made clear that no answer is wrong or right. Before the recording started, all interviewees were asked if they had any questions. If they did, the questions were answered. If they did not, it was clarified that they could ask questions during the interview, even about my experiences. The interview started after the recording started. As mentioned, all interview questions can be found in the appendix. The first questions were about their age, gender, place of birth, place of residence, dual citizenship, education level, occupation, visits to the Balkan, reason parents came to the Netherlands, connection to family, and religion. In between these standard question, I asked about their favorite memory in Bosnia-Herzegovina or the Balkans to make the interviewees feel less nervous.

After the standard questions, the questions about identity and belonging were asked. I started by explaining what identity means in this interview. It was explained that for this interview, the focus is on nationality, ethnicity, or cultural background. The first question was: “How do you identify yourself in regards to national identity or ethnicity?”. After that question, the following questions were about what home means, where home is, why home in the Netherlands and the Balkans is different, what situations make them feel like they do (not) belong and what factors influence their identity. After that, I went more into detail about the factors mentioned in the literature. So, the participants were asked about if language, parents, visitations, autochthones Dutch people, allochthonous Dutch people, Balkan people, politics, media, and religion influence their identity and belonging. If so, how this factor influences them. The last question of the interview was if they feel like their identity expression depends on the situation, based on the findings of the study by Chams (2015). The last step was asking the interviewees if they had any questions. If not, the recording was stopped. I debriefed by asking how the participants experienced the interview. In all cases, the participants and I

(24)

24

continued conversing about being a Bosnian in the Netherlands. The shortest interview lasted for 28 minutes and the longest interview was 1 hour and 57 minutes long.

4.4 Data analysis

The data was analyzed using an abductive approach based on Timmermans and Tavory (2012). Abductive research aims to construct a theory about everyday life (Ong, 2012). To research the everyday life of the participants, one has to look at the language used by the social actors. This approach assumes that the social world is constructed and that the language used by social actors about their experiences is a reflection of this socially constructed world. Meaning that by looking at the language used these participants, one finds their interpretation of social life.

This analysis method is both inductive and deductive (Timmermans & Tavory, 2012). So, it goes back and forth between data and theory to find connections and links. As Timmermans and Tavory (2012) discuss, there are three steps to use this analysis approach. One is revisiting the phenomenon, which means that both the data and theories should be revisited and reevaluated multiple times. The second step is defamiliarization. This step is crucial to incorporate as it may counter the bias of being a cultural “insider” (Greene, 2014). By defamiliarizing, one has to reevaluate all connections and concepts to be aware of taken-for-granted knowledge and observations. Lastly, one can use alternative casing. This means that data should be cased in different ways to find the right fit with existing theories.

These steps were incorporated into the data analysis in this case study. The defamiliarization came early on in the process after meetings with the thesis supervisor and fellow students. Another way defamiliarization was important was during the conversations with the interviewees. Both interviewees, my supervisor, and my fellow students made me aware of taken-for-granted knowledge, which resulted in perspectives. All knowledge and new perspectives were written down as analytical notes and used in the analysis. The first step after interviewing was transcribing the interviews. The software Express Scribe was used for the transcription process. The transcribing stayed as true to as possible to the language used by the participants, meaning that words or sentences were not changed. During the transcribing, possible codes and connection were written down as analytic notes. After all the interviews were transcribed, the interviews were uploaded on the cloud version of Atlas.ti. All the interviews had a randomly assigned participant number so that the data in Atlas.ti is anonymous. The random participant numbers made sure that the data could be analyzed without biases. These participant numbers were assigned via Microsoft Excel, by putting 15

(25)

25

participant numbers in a row, using the randomization option in Excel and assigning these numbers them to a random interview. These participant number and all personal information were kept in an Excel file secured by a password. In Atlas.ti, the interviews were pre-coded by using the coding manual of Saldaña (2009). In Vivo Codes, Values Codes and Descriptive Codes were used during the pre-coding. After this pre-coding process, preliminary jottings and analytic notes were made with possible patterns in the findings. The next step in the process was summarizing all findings in Microsoft Excel. Per question, the answer of a participant was summarized. By using Excel, the answers were structured. The Excel file and the codes in Atlas.ti were both used to find patterns in the results. These findings were matched with the theoretical framework to revisit the phenomenon. The codes, interview answers, and analytic memos were checked again, to see if other alternative cases were possible. If new information was found or if the theory did not match the results, used literature was revised and new literature was read to find connections. By doing this, the data and theory were both revisited and cased differently to find the matching theories and possible new theoretical insights.

5 Results 5.1 Identity

The first interview question was: “how would you describe your nationality or identity?”. The interviewees used a variety of labels to describe their ethnicity or nationality: ‘Dutch,’ ‘Bosnian Dutch,’ ‘Dutch Bosnian,’ ‘(Bosnian) Croat Dutch,’ ‘(Bosnian) Serb Dutch,’ ‘Serbian,’ ‘Croatian,’ and ‘Bosnian.’ The majority expressed being a mix between a Bosnian identity (Bosnian, Serb or Croat) and Dutch. To deal with conflicting identities, two interviewees expressed that they felt like world citizens and another interviewee labeled himself a Dutch citizen with Yugoslav roots. Out of these identities, it can be concluded that some participants identify with only one country. However, all participants expressed that both countries mattered in their identity formation. One interviewee said she felt like she was ‘raised by two cultures’ and this feeling seems to resonate with all interviewees. Both countries mattered in their upbringing, even if this was not translated in their identity label. There was a difference found in the three groups. Although the majority of the interviewees had a combined label, the two interviewees who labeled themselves as ‘Dutch’ have Bosnian Croat or Bosnian Serb roots. Other Bosnian Serbs and Bosnian Croats identified as a combination of (Bosnian) Serb, (Bosnian) Croat, Bosnian, and Dutch. A small group only

(26)

26

identified as Bosnian Serb or Bosnian Croat. Bosniak interviewees either labeled themselves Bosnian or Bosnian Dutch. None of the Bosniaks only identified as Dutch.

Some of the participants were aware that labeling oneself as anything other than Dutch can be perceived as a negative thing in the Netherlands. When one takes the integration debate into account, identifying oneself as Bosnian, Serb, Croat, or any other non-Dutch label is seen as if one is not ‘integrated.’ Nonetheless, Bosnians in this group expressed that this does is not something they experience. All of them expressed the importance of both countries in their identity, which results in an identity that does not fit in both borders. Some called it being ‘in-between borders’ and one other participant called it being in ‘no-man’s-land.’ One participant expressed that one identity does not exclude the other identity, but both ethnic backgrounds complement each other:

"My Dutch identity can mean something for my other identity, you know? You get tools from one identity; you can use it for the other identity and the other way around."

This quote summarized this feeling of being a product of both countries by growing up with both cultures, norms, and values. Thus, identity for these second-generation Bosnians is a category itself that is formed by both countries and at the same time not defined by either of these countries. It is a category between borders, a so-called ‘no-man’s-land.’

When the participants were asked when they were aware of their identity, it was at a young age for the vast majority. Some participants expressed that they did not know when exactly this awareness developed, but that the awareness seemed to be always there. The reason for this is because of visits to the Balkan at an early age and the ability to speak the language. Other participants shared stories of comments by others regarding their Bosnian background and instances of discrimination. Examples of these comments are being called names by peers or being questioned about one's ethnicity by parents of peers. Examples of discrimination are not being allowed to skip a school year because teachers assumed the participant would have difficulty learning Dutch ‘because of ones’ cultural background.’ So, teachers assumed that participants could not keep up with their peers because of their ability to speak Bosnian. While interviewees were not aware of these exclusionary comments and situations at that age, they mention it as significant moments that made them aware of their cultural background at a later stage in their lives.

(27)

27

The interviewees were also asked about the stability of their identity. Out of the interviews, it can be concluded that both their Bosnian and Dutch identity is always there. However, it is context-dependent how their identity is expressed. In some situations, they might connect more with one identity or the other. One of the reasons might be that being surrounded by fellow-Balkan people results in being more likely to talk in their mother tongue and have conversations about their culture, religion, and experiences. This second-generation of Bosnians shared that they were less likely to talk about Bosnia or ‘Bosnian things’ with other groups, so interviewees expressed that they do seem to show different sides of themselves depending on the situation and the people in that situation. One interviewee shared:

“When I'm with my Dutch friends, for example, I don't talk Bosnian, I don't talk much about being in Bosnia. However, when I am at home, for example, I talk Bosnian and I talk about Bosnia and when I am in Bosnia, I talk about what is happening in Bosnia. When I'm with my Dutch friends, I also talk about Dutch things too. Not necessarily that I feel less Bosnian then, but they are very different conversations and very different topics of conversation and a very different way of talking. […] As a Bosnian Dutch person, you just have two sides. You have your Bosnian side and you have your Dutch side.”

In other situations, interviewees feel like they are expected or feel like it is socially accepted to ‘act Dutch.’ Meaning that in some formal settings, the interviewees try to speak ‘their best Dutch.’ In some cases, they even try to hide their Bosnian identity by not mentioning their last name or their Bosnian background. One reason seems to be because one may feel like there is no place for their multicultural identity:

“So everything I just said about here, exposing your cultural identity or your bicultural background. I feel that there is not always room for that. The moment you have your close circle around you, you are tolerated and they are open to it, then nothing is wrong. But the moment you have to leave your comfort zone at your job, at your education, when you do not know those people and therefore do not know who is open to where you come from and what your story is and what you carry with you, it will also become uncomfortable. The moment I notice that they do not seem open to it, then I also think, to what extent can I really practice it or carry it with me or be proud of it?”

(28)

28

In summary, identity is labeled in various ways by this interviewed group of second-generation Bosnians born in the Netherlands. Some label their identity based on two (or more) countries; others label their identity based on one country. Either way, all of the participants expressed that both countries shape them. This means that they are brought up with norms, values, language, and culture of both countries. Both countries mattered in their identity formation. Interviewees did express that one identity should and does exclude the other identity as both are a significant part of their lives. It is often expressed as an ‘in-between border’ feeling or a ‘no-man’s-land.’ What is important to point out is that the expression of these identities depends on the situation. In some situations, one switches automatically and unconsciously towards one or the other identity. In other situations, it might feel like an expectation to act ‘Dutch’ or ‘Bosnian.’

5.2 Home and belonging

When talking about home and sense of belonging, interviewees were asked first what home means to them. Many different answers were given, like ‘being comfortable,’ ‘feeling safe and secure,’ ‘family,’ ‘being surrounded by good people you can count on,’ ‘being yourself,’ and ‘having a future.’ For some interviewees, home and belonging meant situations that reminded them of Bosnia while it was situations that reminded them of the Netherlands for others. Moreover, others stated that it was a never-ending battle where both countries are home but not completely. Taken together, home can be translated into a feeling of comfort, safety, security, and belonging in both the Netherlands and the Balkans.

There was no clear answer when people were asked where home is. Similar to identity, the majority expressed that it is a feeling that cannot be based on borders. Sometimes home is both countries, meaning that both countries had something that made them feel like they belong. One example is Dutch open-mindedness towards women and minority groups. For others, belonging and home is Bosnian food, language, music, and family members. Other interviewees expressed that this made neither country ‘completely a home.’ Similar to identity, this feeling is being ‘in-between borders’ or in ‘no-man’s-land.’ Both countries had a part that made them feel like home. At the same time, both countries made them feel like they do not belong. One interviewee explained it by saying this:

“ To say it very brutally in one sentence: I don't feel 100% at home in either country. That does not mean that there is not a single part that I feel at home, you know? I do not feel completely at home in Bosnia to a large extent because I was never born there, did not grow up, did not function in that society. I grew up

Referenties

GERELATEERDE DOCUMENTEN

All three have a share of individuals who affirm to be active members of a sports club, cultural/hobby association, or religious group that is slightly above twenty percent,

accident rate per km for moped-riders on both sections of road and terminating intersections with cycle paths was high- est as regards collisions with other moped-riders,

The interviews were tran- scribed verbatim and coded according to the grounded theory approach (Charmaz, 1990, 2003). The coding process started with initial coding, meaning

24 The feasibility study incorporates the following indicators: percentages of examination passes in education, proportion of people working in an employed capacity and on

The effect of parents education only increases slightly between primary or Koran school and Higher Model 1.2 Highest degree earned explained from control variables inheritance

The third research question tested the effect of cultural identity preservation of second generation migrants on tempo aspects of fertility, where it was

Based on the literature, our hypotheses are (1) Turkish children show more externalizing behaviors than Dutch children as previous findings have shown that

In the literature inconsistent results have been reported regarding child behavior problems (e.g., externalizing behaviors) in Turkish immigrant families living in the Netherlands