Everyday Geographies of the Indo-European Diaspora:
postcolonial identities, intergenerational transmissions and memory works
Julia Rosa Doornbos S2555840
j.r.doornbos@student.rug.nl
Master’s Thesis
Research Master in Spatial Sciences Faculty of Spatial Sciences
University of Groningen
Supervisor: Dr. B. van Hoven
August 2018
Word count: 32.086
De twijfel…
In je nieuwe land ben je niemand tot last.
Je kent je plaats, je bent zo aangepast.
En van je moederland wordt nooit meer iets gezegd.
Je bent zo Hollands - net echt.
De twijfel knaagt aan je bestaan.
Je wilt wel anders, maar durft het nog niet aan.
Maar je verleden dringt steeds verder aan.
Je bent de pisang - en geen banaan.
Dát is het moment…
want er komt een moment…
Wouter Müller (2007), fragment from the song De Twijfel
Abstract
The Indo-European community is the largest ethnic minority in the Netherlands; their family histories are rooted in the former Dutch East Indies, as they are of a mixed Dutch-Indonesian descent. The daily realities of the first-generation Indo-Europeans often involved brutalities of the Japanese occupation and decolonization; loss of the home country; repatriation to the Netherlands in the 1950-60s, marginalization and discrimination. These colonial histories and experiences remain bracketed within Dutch history and society. However, their influences in a postcolonial societal context should not be underestimated. Parents’ experiences re-shape children’s daily experiences and as such, colonial pasts may remain influential for future generations. By studying these colonial legacies, this research aims to contribute to the critical understanding of the colonial present and the opening up of larger debates regarding postcolonialism.
This research explores how colonial family histories have shaped everyday lives of second- and third- generation Indo-Europeans in the North-Eastern Netherlands, and how these histories are transmitted from one generation to the next. Within a biographical research approach, life stories are analysed to gain insight into how personal experiences on the micro scale are intertwined with colonial and postcolonial realities on the macro level. Within five Indo-European families, semi-structured interviews were conducted with two generations, to uncover transmissions and practices across family lines.
The findings of this research suggest that colonial histories and experiences of ancestors remain influential for Indo-Europeans in a postcolonial context, through continuous dynamics of in- betweenness and felt Indo-European identities, racial consciousness, enculturation, shared stories or secrecies within families and transgenerational hauntings. Strikingly, also the third-generation, born in the Netherlands, feels to a certain agree connected to the history of their grandparents and some also experience challenges in acceptance in Dutch society. Hence, on a larger scale, this research illustrates that migratory histories, traumatic experiences and challenges within a host society of first-generation migrants, can also affect their children and grandchildren, who are born in the host country. This research has advanced the understanding of continuing effects of migration and colonialism. As such the study advocates that the influence of the colonial past should not be neglected and underestimated in a post-colonial Dutch context.
Key words: Indischen; Dutch East Indies; (post)colonialism; identity; everyday life; intergenerational transmission; memory
List of Content
1. Introduction 6
1.1. Societal Relevance 7
1.2. Scientific Relevance 9
1.3. Research Aims and Questions 9
1.4. Thesis Outline 10
2. Critical Discussion of Historical Context 11
2.1. The Dutch East Indies and Racial Classifications 11
2.2. Bersiap and Decolonization 13
2.3. Assimilation in the Netherlands 15
3. Theoretical Framework 17
3.1. Diaspora and In-betweenness 17
3.2. Identity Negotiations of the Diasporic Self 18
Dynamics of Identities 18
Significance of Identities 19
3.3. Place and Diasporic Identities 20
Place-bound Identities and Practices 20
National Identity and Acculturation 21
Everyday Geographies and Identities 22
3.4. Parenting and Cultural Transfer 23
3.5. Engagements with Memories 25
Nostalgic Longing and Silences 25
Trauma and Transgenerational Hauntings 26
3.6. Conceptual Model 28
4. Methodology 29
4.1. Biographical Research Approach 29
4.2. Methods of Data Collection 30
Semi-structured Interviews 30
4.3. Participants and Recruitment Procedure 32
Operationalization of Generations 33
4.4. Methods of Analysis 35
Data Quality 35
Data Analysis 35
4.5. Ethical Considerations 37
Positionality 38
5. Results 39
5.1. Five Family Histories 39
Ingrid and her son Mark 39
Daphne and her daughter Lotte 40
Allan and his daughter Jill 41
Tineke and her son Robert 43
Isabel and her daughter Penny 44
5.2. Identity: Positions, Places and Practices 45
Feeling, Being and Doing Identities 46
Dynamics of Positioning 52
5.3. Intergenerational Transmissions: Parenting and Cultural Transfer 56
Practices of Enculturation 57
Transgenerational Hauntings and Authoritarian Parenting 60
5.4. Memory Works: The Idyllic Homeland and Present-Day Indonesia 63
Sharing and Suppressing Colonial Memories 64
Imagined Places and Homesteading 69
6. Conclusions and Reflections 72
7. References 77
Appendices
1. Research Information Letter and Informed Consent 2. Interview Guide
3. Codebook
4. Overview Overarching Life Themes
1. Introduction
This research aims to capture the everyday geographies of second- and third-generation Indo- Europeans to explore how colonial family histories have shaped daily lives and how these family histories are transmitted from one generation to the next1. Postcolonial theorists stress how local life stories can provide an understanding of colonialism in larger contexts, as personal experiences are shaped by broader structures of colonialism and its aftermath (Lester, 2003; Mains et al., 2013; Koh, 2015). These everyday geographies highlight “how people interact with other people in the realm of the everyday”
(Holloway & Hubbard, 2001:35) and are shaped by one’s identity, as one uses places and practices to highlight feeling a particular identity (Malhi et al., 2009). Daily lives involve taken-for-granted practices and relationships that structure our lives; by studying these ordinary spaces broader processes that shape our world can be analysed (Staeheli et al., 2012). As such, personal experiences on a micro scale can reveal how colonial and postcolonial practices are intertwined in present-day lived experiences in the larger societal context (Bhatia, 2002; Mains et al., 2013).
The Indo-European community is the largest ethnic minority in the Netherlands; their family histories are rooted in the former Dutch East Indies (as seen in figure 1), as they are of a mixed Dutch- Indonesian descent, often resulting from concubinage or mixed marriages in colonial times (Bosma, 2012a; Pattynama, 2000). According to colonial law, they counted as Dutch citizens, yet, due to their ambiguous position, racial consciousness and marginalization were often a part of their lives (Stoler, 1989; Captain, 2014). After decolonization, around 300.000 Indo-Europeans with a Dutch nationality left the former colonial territory for the Netherlands in the 1950s and 1960s (Captain, 2014). Upon their arrival, the Dutch government demanded complete assimilation and conformity to ‘Dutch’ standards (Captain, 2014; Goss, 2000). Hence, there was no space allowed for their mixed heritage and colonial experiences.
More than sixty years after migration, the Indo-European community has become increasingly visible in the Dutch public sphere, for example, through the Tong Tong Fair, an annual festival celebrating their heritage, the pasar malam (translated: evening market) and the Indische cuisine, which is even a registered intangible UNESCO heritage (Van Leeuwen, 2008). Yet, within the public sphere, limited attention is given to the colonial and postcolonial realities of first-generation Indo-Europeans, which often involves brutalities of the Japanese occupation and decolonization; loss of the home country; and assimilation, marginalization and discrimination in the Netherlands (Tajuddin & Stern,
1 The term Indisch, Indo or Indo-European indicates a certain belonging to the former Dutch East Indies (Stoler, 1989). These identificatory categories should be approached as social constructs and highlight various relations towards the former colony and the Netherlands. Within this thesis, the term Indo-European is used, which highlights the double consciousness of individuals of both Dutch and Indonesian ancestry. In the colonial context,
“European” and “Dutch” were used interchangeably and referred to the Dutch elite in power (Captain, 2014).
2015). These histories may also affect later generations, as parents are often unable to cope with their traumatic experiences and are passed on to later generations (Dragojlović, 2015). Therefore, the question is posed how these colonial family histories are transmitted across generations and how these histories shape the everyday lives of current generations of Indo-Europeans, living in the Netherlands.
The introduction covers the following four elements; first, the societal and scientific relevance of the research will be addressed. This will be followed by the research objectives and aims. Last, an outline of the remaining parts of the thesis will be provided.
Figure 1: The colonial territory of the Dutch East Indies in the 1930s (Burgers, 2011)
1.1. Societal Relevance
The Indo-European community can be seen as the largest ethnic minority in the Netherlands;
approximately one million out of seventeen million Dutch citizens have a family connection to the Indies (Bijl, 2013; Pattynama, 2000). While some scholars argue that Indo-European culture is “disappearing out of history” (Captain, 2014:54), others recognize a continuous influence and preoccupation with origins among later generations (Pattynama, 2000). By studying Indo-European colonial legacies at the scale of the individual, this research aims to contribute to the critical understanding of the colonial present and the opening up of larger postcolonialism debates. Empirical data of the everyday experiences, meanings and effects of the colonial past on the lives of individuals will provide more understanding of colonial legacies in postcolonial spaces.
In general, the colonial past is still a neglected and concealed part of Dutch history, often triggered by feelings of shame or guilt (Pattynama, 2000; Goss, 2000). Similarly, Bijl (2012) argues that the Dutch national history and the imperial past are framed separately. There is a tendency to focus on trade and prosperity, rather than perpetratorship, oppression and violence in narratives of the colonial past (Nimako et al., 2014). This is also illustrated in Dutch primary school history books, which often glorify and justify the colonial past and primarily focus on the rise of the Netherlands as a global economic power. As such, Dutch history education contributes to the social forgetting of the colonial past in the Netherlands (Weiner, 2014).
Thus, colonial narratives remain bracketed within the Dutch history and hence, in the public discourse, “there is no sense of continuity with the colonial past and the concepts of postcolonialism and multiculturalism are hardly connected” (Goss, 2000; Bosma, 2012b:193). Yet, the cultural and political consequences of four hundred years of imperialism on ways of being, doing and thinking in a postcolonial context should not be underestimated (Young, 2016; Wekker, 2014). The rejection of colonial histories also neglects discussions on, among others, racism, national identities and migrants’
experiences (Boehmer & Gouda, 2009; Wekker, 2014). Especially, as the ‘Dutch’ self is connected to innocence rather than any form of perpetratorship (Essed & Hoving, 2014). It is socially relevant to open the debate on the consequences of the colonial history, “to understand how inequality is re-produced, re-worked and re-imagined through national cultures by subjects in a country such as the Netherlands which prides itself on liberal values” (Jordan, 2014:202).
Next to the moral obligation to look critically at the shared past, understanding of colonial legacies in postcolonial citizenship can provide insights into contemporary integration practices (Boehmer & Gouda, 2009; Bosma, 2012b). Indo-Europeans’ colonial realities are often disregarded, as they are solely depicted as succes migranten (translated: favourable, accomplished migrants), due to their ability to assimilate and conform to ‘Dutch’ standards (Pattynama, 2000). According to Boehmer and Gouda (2009), this contradictory image neglects the continuity of the colonial past in the present and as such, the Netherlands, as an ex-colonial power, remains unproblematized and celebrated by its self-proclaimed multiculturalism. However, within contemporary integration policies, immigrants are still expected to conform to fixed Dutch notions of identity, in which cultural dismantling is central (Pattynama, 2000). As such, practices of civilizing the ‘other’ are still present in postcolonial contexts, as a value judgement of non-Western cultures is represented (Schwartz et al., 2006). Hence, colonial legacies still structure dominant notions of citizenship, membership and rights, which influences how migration is experienced in relation to difference and exclusion (Koh, 2015). More understanding of colonial legacies in postcolonial citizenship can provide insights into its consequences in current integration practices (Van Walsum et al., 2013; Bartley, 2010).
1.2. Scientific Relevance
This research aims to advance the understanding of the continuing effects of migration, by incorporating a postcolonial perspective. It offers an “analytical lens to the colonial present” and thus, grasps colonial legacies on current territories, peoples and practices (Koh, 2015:433; Young, 2016, Locher-Scholten, 2000). Within migration studies, often the movement between a distinct ‘here’ and ‘there’ is studied.
However, a postcolonial perspective on migration highlights a “shared postcolonial terrain” and assumes interconnections between spaces and places, and the past and present (Mains et al., 2013:133). This interconnection is especially relevant in this research, as Indo-European diasporic experiences should be located in interplays between race [sic], class, culture and citizenship (Tajuddin
& Stern, 2015; Bhatia, 2002; Gouda, 2008).
Within everyday spaces and practices, postcolonial migrants are a reminder of colonial pasts and highlight the necessity to understand the present from a postcolonial perspective (Mains et al., 2013).
However, in the Dutch context, the national and colonial history are often studied separately, as colonial continuities are often denied or avoided (Wekker, 2014; Boehmer & Gouda, 2008; Van Walsum et al., 2013). Consequently, understanding of the aftermath of colonialism in a Dutch postcolonial context remains under-explored. By studying Indo-Europeans in a postcolonial context, this research aims to gain insight in the consequences of colonial legacies and hence, contributes to the critical understanding of the colonial present (Bosma, 2012b; Gouda, 2008; Jordan, 2014).
Ultimately, this research addresses the postcolonial future, as it contributes to the understanding of intergenerational transmissions of colonial legacies. Nash (2002) emphasizes that continuous and ongoing critical engagement with the colonial legacies is needed. Indeed, parents’
migratory experiences may re-shape daily experiences of their children and hence, attachments to the former colonial territory and culture are mediated by the relationships to parents and grandparents (Bartley & Spoonley, 2008; Dragojlović, 2015; Falicov, 2005). However, understanding of how the colonial past is enacted across generations and how colonial memories may be linked to the formation of postcolonial representations and identities remains limited (Boehmer & Gouda, 2009; Pattynama, 2000).
1.3. Research Aims and Questions
This exploratory research connects colonial histories on the macro level to individuals’ daily experiences, identity and well-being on a micro level. It aims to capture the everyday geographies of two generations of Indo-Europeans, living in North-Eastern Netherlands. Through semi-structured interviews with second- and third-generations (of the same family), insight is gained in how colonial family histories
have shaped present-day lived experiences and how these are transmitted from one generation to the next. In order to do so, the following research question is composed:
How do colonial legacies shape the everyday geographies of two generations of Indo-Europeans in North-Eastern Netherlands and how are these legacies transmitted from one generation to the next?
The following themes and corresponding objectives are identified to answer this question:
o Identity: to identify everyday places and practices in order to examine the ‘feeling’ and ‘being’
Indische identity
o Intergenerational relations and transmissions: to examine the role of parenting and cultural transfer on identity development
o Memory works: to examine the engagement with and transmission of colonial memory, nostalgia and trauma through generations
1.4. Thesis Outline
First, a critical discussion of the historical context will be provided. Second, the theoretical framework will elaborate on key concepts and theories regarding everyday experiences in a postcolonial, diasporic context. Third, clarifications and justifications of the research methods are given. Fourth, the main findings of the research are presented. Last, conclusions, recommendations and reflections are addressed. The appendices include supporting documents, such as the interview guide, information letter, codebook of the research and an overview of life themes discussed by participants.
2. Critical Discussion of Historical Context
This chapter provides an overview of Indo-European history, divided into three parts; colonization, decolonization and repatriation to the Netherlands. Awareness of this history is essential as the lived experiences of later generations of Indo-Europeans should be seen in the larger context of colonialism and postcolonialism. The described account highlights how identity politics are intertwined in the lives of multiple generations of Indo-Europeans and how this community continuously experienced tensions between, among others, acceptance and discrimination; and pride and suppression of their identity and heritage in different political contexts (Tajuddin & Stern, 2015).
2.1. The Dutch East Indies and Racial Classifications
During the 16th century, the Dutch East India Company (Vereenigde Oostindische Compagnie or VOC) established itself on the Moluccan islands for the trade of spices and other export products (Steijlen, 2012). The VOC slowly gained ground in the area and substituted European competitors, through the establishment of trade cities, trade agreements and violence against and exploitation of the native citizens (Burgers, 2011; Luttikhuis & Moses, 2012). After two centuries, the entire VOC empire consisted of Java, the Moluccan islands and trade posts across the peninsula. Yet, around 1800, the VOC suffered from increasing expenses and competition, after which the company, its profits and debts were taken over by the Dutch state. This marked the establishment of the Dutch colonial rule in Indonesia (Burgers, 2011).
The Dutch control was characterized by brutal oppression and an active colonial policy, which, among others, included administrative and political reforms and the establishment of governmental agencies and institutions (Hoogervorst & Schulte Nordholt, 2017; Luttikhuis & Moses, 2012).
Furthermore, Dutch urban planning principles and architecture were increasingly incorporated, in which the connection to the Dutch landscape represented the Dutch domination (Kehoe, 2015; 2016). In the early 20th century, driven by a ‘civilizing mission’, the Dutch state became more engaged with the development and reforms of the colonial empire (Hoogervorst & Schulte Nordholt, 2017; Burgers, 2011). This so-called Ethical Policy served to secure the colonial rule and ‘enlighten’ the colonial empire and its citizens (Locher-Scholten, 2000; Goss, 2009; Stoler, 1992). The policy highlighted the imagined European cultural superiority and its perceived higher human value, in comparison to the natives, allowed a moral justification of the colonial rule. Whiteness was constructed as a common identity among Europeans and through this “fictive ethnicity”, the colonizers were differentiated from the colonized (Joshi, 2016; Balibar, 1991:96). Through regulation and normalization, it was determined who and what was desirable and appropriate where (Holloway & Hubbard, 2001). Similarly, Puwar (2004) argues that distinctions between ‘civil’ and ‘wild’ spaces can be demarcated on three distinct levels;
macro (countries and continents), local (cities and neighbourhoods) and micro (bodies). Unequal social power relations can be identified on all of these scales, as this demarcation of national identity and belonging excluded those who did not match or conform to moral codes and expectations (Elder et al.,1998; Holloway & Hubbard, 2001; Malkki, 1992). Hence, this ‘mythical sameness’, as characterized by Sibley (1995:110), denied difference and reproduces unequal power relations. These practices should be seen in the larger context of European colonial expansion practices; trade and economic exploitation were leading but destruction of indigenous cultures and white normativity were disruptive consequences (Young, 2016; Joshi, 2016).
Indeed, the Dutch colonial racial policy, as part of the Ethical Policy, underlined clear distinctions within the colonial empire, as an instrument of European nationalism, colonial power and authority (Stoler, 1992; Locher-Scholten, 2000). “Colonial distinctions of difference” were prevalent in nationalist rhetorics, characterized by hierarchical categories and boundaries of both territory and population (Calhoun, 1997; Stoler, 1989:636). Consequently, binary oppositions and clear boundaries between the colonizers and the colonized, the “native” and the “white” and “subject” and “citizen” were drawn (Stoler, 1989:635). According to Locher-Scholten (2000), Dutch colonial law recognized three distinct legal groups: ‘Europeans’, ‘Foreign Orientals’ and ‘Natives’. Hence, racial hierarchies and distinct legal categories of what constitutes European and ‘other’ were drawn. In this, the assumption of a “racial essence” was central, in which physical features and traits of mind and personality separated the native from the European (Stoler, 1992:536; Sharp, 2009). Whiteness and modernity in colonial citizenship coincided with privilege, political right and citizenship, while the colonized were marked as mere subjects (Joshi, 2016; Locher-Scholten, 2000; Mamdani, 2012).
However, these boundaries were not as distinct as law suggested; in reality, various sub-groups could be identified, for instance, individuals born in the Netherlands who were ‘nativized’ or Europeans born in the Indies (referred to as totoks) (Locher-Scholten, 2000; Stoler, 1992). Furthermore, interracial unions, for instance through concubinage or formal marriages, resulted in a large group of children of mixed origins (Tajuddin & Stern, 2015). In the early period of colonization, the Dutch population in the Indies mostly consisted of European (military) men and concubinage with native women was a common and institutionalized practice (Imhoff & Beets, 2004). For example, native women, referred to as nyai (translated: young woman), cohabitated with European men in private houses or military barracks, in which they were servants, domestic slaves and concubines (Ming, 1983; Hellwig, 2001).
In the 1900s, almost three-fourths of all legally designated as European were of mixed descent, occupying both high and low socio-economic classes (Stoler, 1992). These Indo-Europeans or Indischen were ambiguously positioned between the colonizers and the colonized (Pattynama, 2000; Stoler, 1989). According to Mamdani (1996:19), such groups were “neither subjected to (traditional) customs nor exalted as right-bearings citizens, (thus) they languished in juridical limbo”. This mixing threatened
the colonial divides and undermined the Dutch national identity, as it blurred the distinct legal category of Europeanness and the distinctions between the ruler and the ruled (Stoler, 1992). The “mixed- bloods” were seen as a threat to white prestige, as Dutch colonizers deemed it “impossible for persons raised and educated in the Indies to be bearers of Western culture and civilization” (Stoler, 1992:537).
According to Stoler (1992:536), this highlights a “tension between a belief in the immutability and fixity of racial essence and a discomforting awareness that these racial categories are porous and protean at the same time”. These hybrid communities were often reconfigured through their social status and through hiding their non-European roots (Tajuddin & Stern, 2015; Pattynama, 2000). Indeed, physical appearances and an orientation towards the Netherlands were important markers of power within the colonial society (Captain, 2014). For instance, Indo-Europeans with a lighter skin, who spoke Dutch correctly and who wore modern clothing had more opportunities on a governmental, financial and political level.
A distinct Indische legal category could be a potential political danger and threat to the Europeans, as they were the majority of the European population in the Dutch East Indies (Stoler, 1992;
Knight, 2001a). Therefore, in the early 20th century, as part of the Ethical Policy, further developments of the identity politics, to strengthen the imperial divides within the imagined nation were undertaken.
The aim of the Dutch government was to weaken the Indo-European community and advance the hegemony of all Dutch colonial communities in the Indies, through re-affirmation of European values and practices (Knight, 2001a). Especially, to counter the assumed “physical, moral and cultural degeneracy” of the Europeans residing in the tropics (Stoler, 1989:646). Calhoun refers to this as
“symbolic violence”, the ways of disciplining citizens and social and cultural reproduction through education (1997:67). While in the 1900s, around 70 percent of the classified Europeans knew little of the Dutch language, the adapted colonial educational systems focused on the Dutch language, modernity and assurance of moral upbringing and unity (Schulte Nordholt, 2011; Stoler, 1989; 1992). A strong link to the Dutch fatherland could be identified, as a lifestyle based on European cultural standards needed to be assured. Knowledge of the fatherland, such as railway stations and traffic were regarded as essential but also gender roles, clothing and hygiene were addressed (Schulte Nordholt, 2011). Despite this colonial education and attempts to be ‘as European as possible’, in practice, the Indo-Europeans remained socially marginalized due to their ambiguous racial membership between the Europeans and natives (Knight, 2001a; Stoler, 1989).
2.2. Bersiap and Decolonization
The colonial rule in the Dutch Indies came to an end in the 1940s, after the Japanese occupation during the Second World War and the subsequent nationalist revolution (Knight, 2001b). In contrast to earlier colonial categorizations, the Japanese did articulate clear racial distinctions between Europeans and
Indo-Europeans during their reign (1942-1945). While the majority of the European population was placed in internment or work camps, the Indo-Europeans initially remained outside the camps. In order to remain outside the camps, Indo-Europeans were forced to declare their Indonesian status and obtain a desirable degree of Indonesian background (De Mul, 2010; Dragojlović, 2015). Yet, individuals who were reluctant to do so or who had a high socioeconomic status were also forced into internment camps (Tajuddin & Stern, 2015).
Ultimately, almost the entire European population, including Indo-Europeans, women and children, were interned for some period of time in civilian camps (Van Imhoff & Beets, 2004).
Furthermore, large groups of men were forced into labour camps across Indonesian islands or shipped to Thailand and Burma, to work on the construction of the Burma Railway (De Mul, 2010). Both the Indonesian and European population suffered during the Japanese occupation, as living conditions were harsh both in and outside the camps (Dragojlović, 2011). It is estimated that during the Japanese occupation, around 120.000 Europeans and Indo-Europeans were subject to internments, of which around 15.000 were killed by the harsh living conditions, forced labour, torture and systematic executions (Van Imhoff & Beets, 2004; Tajuddin & Stern, 2015).
After the Japanese capitulation, nationalist leaders Soekarno and Hatta proclaimed the independence of Indonesia on August 17, 1945, in a power vacuum (Raben, 2012). The following period, leading to the official independence in December 1949, can be characterized by mass violence between Indonesian nationalists and Dutch military forces, who attempted to ‘restore order’ (Luttikhuis & Moses, 2012). This period of police actions and turmoil leading to decolonization is known as Bersiap (August 1945 - December 1946), which translates as “get ready, get prepared” (Dragojlović, 2011:331). Both the Indonesian and Dutch population experienced extreme brutalities during this period, as not only the military but also civilians were targeted (Raben, 2012). Indonesian nationalist structurally targeted thousands of Europeans and Indo-Europeans and committed large-scale murders or “ethnic cleansing”
of those who remained loyal to the Dutch (Raben, 2012; Tajuddin & Stern, 2015:357). Among Indo- European families, this Bersiap period remains “a zone of unspeakability”, due to the extreme brutalities during which they were treated as enemies by the Indonesians, despite their shared ancestry (Dragojlović, 2011:330).
The Dutch military forces attempted to regain control of the empire, yet, the international community supported the nationalist movement as they became convinced that the Dutch could not control the former colony and could not counter increasing communist influences. Especially, the United States threatened to withdraw their aid through the Marshall Plan, after which the Netherlands accepted the Indonesian sovereignty (Captain, 2014; De Mul, 2010). As part of the transfer of sovereignty, an agreement between the Dutch and Indonesians needed to be reached on the nationality of the former colonial citizens. The Indonesian citizenship was automatically assigned to the ‘native’
population and those legally designated as European received the Dutch nationality. Yet, the Indo- Europeans could choose their citizenship based on the degree of personal attachment to either of the two nations (Jones, 2007). The Indonesian citizenship was obtained by around 31.000 Indo-Europeans, however, a large group reversed this decision and also followed to the Netherlands (in Dutch:
spijtoptanten). Beets et al. (2002) estimate that the amount of those who remained in Indonesia is around 6.000. Hence, most opted to leave the former colony, as the Indonesian population considered them as part of the colonizers and traitors to the Indonesian nationalism (Pattynama, 2000).
Furthermore, their decisions were influenced by the colonial connection and a perceived familiarity with Dutch culture and language. Notably, two-thirds of all individuals who moved to the Netherlands had never set foot on the fatherland (De Mul, 2010).
2.3. Assimilation in the Netherlands
During the period from 1945 to 1963, around 300.000 Indischen settled in the Netherlands but also other countries, such as Australia, the United States, Canada and Spain were popular (Captain, 2014).
The last 20.000 Indo-Europeans left in 1962 from West Papua New Guinea, which the Netherlands had kept after the Indonesian independence as a last Dutch settlers colony and possible homeland for the Indo-European community (Bosma, 2009). After the Second World War, the repatriates from the Dutch Indies were the first large group of settlers in the Netherlands. Yet, these migratory patterns should be seen as part of larger trends of arrivals of postcolonial migrants in the Netherlands, such as migrants from the former Surinamese and Antillean colonies after 1954 (Trappenburg, 2003).
In the political discourses of the 1950s, a continuation of racial distinctions and inferiority of the Indische community can be identified (Goss, 2000). The Dutch government argued that Indo-Europeans were “rooted in the East Indies” and would be incapable of assimilation (Captain, 2014:57). They were often discouraged or Dutch authorities would not provide the needed documents to travel to the Netherlands. Yet, no totoks who were also born and rooted in the colony experienced similar restrictions. To emphasize, the Indo-European community was often not fully accepted as citizens of the Dutch society but seen as “second-class Dutch” (Captain, 2014; van Amersfoort & van Niekerk, 2006:326). Their hybrid identities were solely seen as a ‘non-European’ identity and as such, they were treated as a foreign migrant community (Tajuddin & Stern, 2015).
Indeed, the political climate in the 1950s was mostly focused on reconstruction after the war and the newcomers were subject to racialized assimilation policies (Dragojlović, 2015). The Indischen were perceived as a burden and reminder of the colonial past, which the Dutch were eager to forget (Pattynama, 2000; Goss, 2000). Therefore, the Indischen were expected to assimilate as quickly and smoothly as possible (Trappenburg, 2003). The policy of assimilation implied that they needed “to become as Dutch as possible in order to be part of Dutch society” (Captain, 2014:57). The Indischen
were dispersed across the country to counter clustering and needed education and ‘civilization’. For instance, eating potatoes rather than rice was an imperative marker of integration (Captain, 2014). This highlights the policy’s normative character, in which there was no space allowed for the colonial past and heritage (Dragojlović, 2015).
The colonial values and heritage needed to be forgotten in order to conform to Dutch standards but also to counter marginalization, colonial stereotypes and discriminatory practices (Captain, 2014;
Goss, 2000). For example, Indo-Europeans faced discrimination in search of jobs and housing and were often referred to as ‘people from the jungle’. Others complained about the food they prepared or the social assistance they received, even though these were loans rather than donations (Tajuddin & Stern, 2015). From an Indo-European perspective, it was important to continuously emphasize that they counted as Dutch citizens (Captain, 2014). Often masquerading strategies were employed to enable integration and acceptance in the Dutch society (Pattynama, 2000). Thus, they negotiated their identity through performance and masquerade, in response to certain contexts. For example, the ‘true’ or
‘authentic’ self was silent or only enacted in private spheres. Due to this pressure to adapt and assimilate, the colonial heritage was often an avoided subject within Indo-European families (Goss, 2000).
The continuous assimilation strategies have remained deeply rooted and enabled pervasive
“whitewashing” effects on multiple generations (Pattynama, 2000:292). Furthermore, these masquerading practices in order to assimilate have shaped the ways Indo-Europeans have engaged with the past in the present, which are mostly surrounded by silences (Goss, 2000). Captain (2014) argues that assimilation claims are so deeply embedded that they are also passed on to second-generation Indo-Europeans, born in the Netherlands. This generation experienced feelings of difference in their daily lives but was expected to adhere to their parents’ and society’s demands to be as Dutch as possible.
From the 1980s, the second-generation Indo-Europeans began to resist the denial of their families’
roots, yet, continued to experience an in-between position in daily life (Pattynama, 2012; Bhatia, 2002).
According to Captain (2014), the third-generation may experience more freedom and acceptance to identify as Indo-European without the racial consciousness of the earlier generations.
3. Theoretical Framework
This chapter presents a theoretical framework that positions the research in current academic debates and critically discusses relevant concepts and theories regarding everyday experiences in a postcolonial, diasporic context. First, the notion of diaspora, of which the Indo-European community is an example, will be discussed. Second, the process of identity negotiations and the significance of this identity in a diasporic context will be discussed. Third, the role of place in identity formations and the relating everyday geographies are explored. It is argued that everyday geographies and identity are interlinked;
self-perceptions shape daily practices and interactions, however, these activities can also strengthen or reinforce one’s identity. Fourth, current literature on parenting and intergenerational transmissions will be discussed, as parents’ migratory experiences and parental styles may influence identity development. Fifth, the role of memory and trauma will be related to present day experiences.
Especially in diasporic experiences, connections to the former homeland, through imagination and memories, influences self-perceptions. Last, the theoretical framework will be conceptualized in a model, which highlights the links between the themes and concepts.
3.1 Diaspora and In-betweenness
Postcolonial studies have increasingly emphasized the complex and ongoing identity formations of diasporic communities. Bhatia (2002) argues that hyphenated, diasporic identities are constantly negotiated through voices of history, race [sic], gender and power. Especially, in a postcolonial context the self should be understood in relation to colonial histories and thus, (post)colonial practices are related to present-day diasporic experiences.
Diasporic communities and their identities are not fixed but shaped by cultural, political and economic factors of both the host- and homeland (Hua, 2005; Bhatia, 2002; Hall, 1990). As such, diaspora needs to be understood as embedded within a “multi-axial understanding of power” (Hua, 2005:194). Tajuddin and Stern (2015:374) argue that “the intense interplays between race [sic], class, culture, and citizenship under different political economic environments have furnished the different contexts within which the Indo was identified; these, in turn, impacted the way the Indos saw themselves in relation to others in society”. The Indo-European community was subject to various levels of acceptance and discrimination due to the extent of ‘lightness or darkness’ of their skin tone (see also chapter 2). To illustrate, in a colonial, Eurocentric discourse, they experienced a lack of ‘whiteness’, while during the Japanese occupation and Bersiap, their ‘Dutch’ origins were asserted. Hence, Indo- European identity constantly shifts through racial and ethnic markers, with varying degrees of acceptance, exclusion and discrimination. Accordingly, while studying diaspora, it should be located in these historical and cultural specificities (Hua, 2006; Tajuddin & Stern, 2015).
Cohen (1993, in Anthias, 1998:562) identifies seven characteristics of diasporic communities:
dispersal and scattering; collective trauma; cultural flowering; troubled relationship with the majority;
a sense of community transcending national frontiers; and promoting a return movement. Hall (1995) argues that diaspora can refer to individuals who remain links with their country of origin and who are seeking to eventually return to the land from which they were separated. However, it can also refer to displaced individuals who will never be able to return to their homeland (Hall, 1995). The latter can be applied to the Indo-European community, as their heritage is less affiliated with a specific territory but rather with a lost era (Tajuddin & Stern, 2015). The current Indo-European community is scattered but shares forms of longing, memory and identification (Bhatia, 2002:57; Hua, 2006).
Diaspora should be seen as a dynamic process, in which trans-national and trans-ethnic mixing is central (Anthias, 1998). According to Hua (2006:192), “diasporic communities live out a mediated tension: the experiences of separation and entanglement, of living here and remembering/desiring another place”. Their often hyphenated or in-between identities should be seen as a result of ‘mixing and moving’, as individuals draw from more than one cultural repertoire and negotiate their own identities, traditions, rituals and histories (Bhatia, 2002; Hua, 2006; Hall, 1995). They negotiate and translate between cultures and are able to be “both the same as and at the same time different from the others amongst whom they live” (Hall, 1995:273). Diaspora reshapes perceived single links between nations and identity and recognizes diversity and heterogeneity (Hall, 1995; Anthias, 1998). However, this sense of transnationalism and dual loyalty can undermine assimilation practices in the host country and may encompass a sense of alienation or ‘in-betweenness’ between seemingly incompatible worlds (Hua, 2006; Bhatia, 2002). As such, the diasporic self may experience “feeling simultaneously assimilated, separated and marginalized” (Bhatia, 2002:55).
3.2. Identity Negotiations of the Diasporic Self Dynamics of Identities
Brubaker and Cooper (2000) highlight the complexity and ambiguity surrounding the concept of identity; due to its dynamic and ambiguous nature, it is often used to represent anything associated with the self. Based on the work of developmental psychologist Erik Erikson, Schwartz et al. (2006:5) regard identity as “the organization of self-understandings that define one’s ‘place in the world’ “. This self-understanding is formed in a dynamic interplay between the individual and its context (Markus, 2010). Identities are enacted in particular spaces and involve a mix of personal characteristics, social roles, activities, preferences, past and present, hopes and fears (Valentine et al., 2009; Markus, 2010).
Similarly, Escobar (2007) argues that identity involves active engagement with the environment and is constructed from available cultural resources in a particular historical context. Apart from self- identification, identity is also shaped by the perception of others, which comes together in a “meeting
place” between the self and society (Markus, 2010:362). As such, identity can also be imposed or rejected by others (Malhi et al., 2009; Joshi, 2016).
Individuals dynamically and actively construct and position their identities for specific purposes in specific social contexts (Malhi et al., 2009). Within these ‘subject positions’, identity is fluid, context- dependent, intersectional and relational to an audience or other positions. As such, the “I” is dynamic and moves from one position to another, with fluctuations in time and space (Zock, 2013; Bhatia, 2002).
Within this dialogical understanding of identity, both the relationships between individuals, groups and cultures and the positions within a self are incorporated (Hermans & Hermans-Konopka, 2010). Within a “society of mind”, tensions, conflicts, and contradictions occur between different I-positions in an internal dialogue, in close connection with external dialogues (Hermans & Hermans-Konopka, 2010:320).
Thus, identity negotiations are a constant process of positioning and counter-positioning in which distinctions between the self and others are constructed (Holloway & Hubbard, 2001; Fuchs, 2007). Social boundaries and hierarchies play an integral role in how identities are particularly framed (Prins, 2006). Similarly, Brah et al. (1999:4) argue that identities are formed through “a set of narratives of self-production that are dispersed through a multiplicity of power relations”. Therefore, identity can be analysed from an intersectional frame, as individuals are positioned through differences in, for instance, gender, class, age, ethnicity and national belonging (Davis, 2014; Prins, 2006; Anthias, 2008).
Anthias (2008:13) infers that “intersectionality argues that it is important to look at the way in which different social divisions inter-relate in terms of the production of social relations and in terms of peoples’ lives”. This intersection of person and society shapes identities, as identities are dependent on context, meaning and time. This notion rejects fixed categories and rather focuses on varying “social locations and processes” of one’s identity (Anthias, 2008:5).
Significance of Identities
Adams and Marshall (1996, in Schwartz et al., 2006:6) summarize various functions of identity: the structure for understanding who one is; meaning and direction through commitments, values and goals;
a sense of personal control; consistency, coherence and harmony between values, beliefs and commitments and; the ability to recognize potential in future possibilities and choices. Indeed, identity formation can develop and support continuity, self-esteem, self-efficacy and distinctiveness and consequently, promotes psychological well-being (Twigger-Ross & Uzzell, 1996). Identity can guide individuals through their life course, as a framework of meaning and values can help to make sense of the world and to organize experiences (Markus, 2010; Schwartz et al., 2006). Hence, it is a frame of reference for our thoughts, feelings and actions (Markus, 2010). Especially for migrants, it can provide
an ‘anchor’ during change in a new, stressful environment or when identity is shared, it can enable a sense of belonging, security and familiarity (Hall, 1995; Schwartz et al., 2006; Falicov, 2005).
McAdams (2001:110) argues that “identity is a product of choice”, which assumes that individuals actively frame their identity, considering the past, present and future. Identities are shaped by narratives about the self and other, cultural values and norms. These individual life stories or narratives in the life course shape one’s identity in a continuous ‘identity project’ (Anthias, 2008;
McAdams, 2001:117). Coherence in one’s identity is pivotal for psychological well-being; therefore, life stories or narratives should be structured in order to provide unity and purpose of the past, present and future (McAdams, 2001; Schwartz et al., 2006; Fuchs, 2007). For instance, causal coherence, “how one event caused, led to, transformed, or in some other ways is meaningfully related to other events in one’s life”, or biographical coherence, the identification of an “overarching theme, value or principle that integrates many different episodes in her life and conveys the gist of who she is and what her biography is all about” (McAdams, 2001:105).
Developing coherence and re-evaluating life stories concerns integrating a multiplicity of narratives and developing a story of how different identities intertwine (McAdams, 2001; Falicov, 2005).
This can be challenging for migrants, as contrasting expectations of the host- and home culture may create a ‘tug of war’ which can cause distress and uncertainty (Schwartz et al., 2006). Therefore, Hermans and Hermans-Konopka (2010) advocate for the necessity of dialogues within the self to incorporate multiple voices, however, there can be ‘identity confusion’ or an ‘asymmetry of voices’ in which a dialogue may transform into a monologue as one voice is in control. Indeed, if the author of the self-narrative is unable to reconcile multiple voices and to develop a coherent narrative and self- concept, “fragmentation of the narrative self” may be exhibited (Fuchs, 2007:381). This entails the inability to integrate both past and future, though which a feeling of inner emptiness and alienation can be prevalent. Furthermore, experiences cannot be placed within the historical coherence of an individual’s life and as such, may lose its meaning. Thus, a lack of self-concept clarity may be identified, as there is a lack of a “clear, well-defined, and stable perceptions of who one is on a day-to-day basis”, which affects self-esteem and overall well-being (Lodi-Smith et al., 2017:756).
3.3. Place and Diasporic Identities Place-bound Identities and Practices
Twigger-Ross and Uzzell (1996) highlight various ways in which place relates to identity. For instance, place can be a social category, which an individual may use as a social identification marker. Places can also function to support and construct aspects of identity; objects and places can distinguish one’s self from others (Proshansky et al., 1983). Thus, place can be utilized in “the maintenance of continuity of self and the use of place to create, symbolize and establish new selves” (Twigger-Ross & Uzzell,
1996:217). Similarly, Cuba and Hummon (1993) argue that individuals can affiliate the self with place, in which the environment can symbolize or situate identity. Spaces are transformed into meaningful places, which produce and reflect a sense of belonging and ‘being in place’ (Rowles & Watkins, 2003;
Cuba & Hummon, 1993). Rowles and Watkins (2003:79) infer that “[...] being part of the place and of the place being a part of the self, becomes part of our persona”.
This sense of connection to a certain place can provide stability and reinforce identity (Massey, 1994). Yet, it can also be problematic as places are often perceived as connected to a community, in which this community is rooted to a fixed, bounded space (Massey, 1994; Jones & Cloke, 2002). This notion is characterized as territoriality, as “humans develop an understanding that certain spaces
‘belong’ to particular people” (Holloway & Hubbard, 2001:96). As Hall (1995:268) describes: “we tend to ‘see’ it [cultural identity] in a place, in a setting, as part of an imaginary landscape or ‘scene’ “.
Consequently, as this identity is naturalized and perceived as rooted in the soil, it is recognized as widely shared, single, essential and bounded (Massey, 1994: Malkki, 1992). However, this territorialisation, often in discrete nations, should be seen as socially constructed, as they are build on distinctions between the self and others (Elder et al., 1998; Holloway & Hubbard, 2001; Malkki, 1992).
National Identity and Acculturation
As described by Holloway and Hubbard (2001:103), “national identity can be thought of as an attempt by certain groups of people to promote their sense of place as the ‘correct’ or ‘official’ version to which everyone should subscribe”. Indeed, acculturation policies and practices highlight perceptions of what constitutes national identity. These practices are influential in the process of acculturation, which can be defined as “the process of cultural change and adaptation that occurs when individuals from different cultures come into contact” (Schwartz et al., 2002:2). Indeed, Clifford (1997:324) argues “[…] dialogues between continuity and disruption, essence and positionality, homogeneity and differences (cross- cutting “us” and “them”) characterize diasporic articulations”. Hence, rather than considering this cultural change as static, migrants constantly negotiate their existing ideals, values, and behaviours with the expectations of the receiving country (Bhatia, 2002). These tensions between the host and home country and possible earlier traumatic experiences can enable acculturative stress, such as reduced health status, anxiety, depression, feelings of marginality and alienation, identity confusion and problems in daily life with family, work and school (Berry, 1992).
Regarding acculturation of Indo-Europeans in the Netherlands, assimilation was central, in which it was essential to completely replace own cultural identities with expected Dutch ideals (see also paragraph 2.3.) (Captain, 2014). According to Schwartz et al. (2006:6), the impacts of such policies should not be underestimated, as it has “clear implications for how immigrant people form, revise, and maintain their identity, either through imitation and identification or through exploration and
construction”. For example, more assimilated Indo-European families received more housing and job opportunities, while others were deemed “outside society” (Captain, 2014:62). Those who fail to adhere to assimilation demands may develop coping strategies to match ideals in place (Holloway & Hubbard, 2001). As such, social invisibility is demanded in exchange for tolerance or acceptance of the migrants’
presence in the host country (Pugh, 2017). Consequently, minority groups may develop a distinction between a “formal public identity” and a “private felt identity”, in order to reconcile both national and ethnic identity (Malhi et al., 2009:262). Indeed, Pattynama (2000) highlights how masquerading techniques were utilized in colonial and postcolonial times to adhere to expectations of what it means to be Dutch.
Everyday Geographies and Identities
Postcolonial theorists highlight that the local scale can provide an understanding of colonialism and its effects in larger contexts (Lester, 2003; Mains et al., 2013; Koh, 2015). “The extraordinary in the ordinary” can reveal “[…] everyday modes of behaviour and thought, conforming to taken-for-granted assumptions about the way that people should act towards members of their family and their neighbourhood, apparently without even questioning this” (Holloway & Hubbard, 2001:35-36). By studying these daily lives and ordinary spaces, taken-for-granted knowledge, relationships and practices that shape our world can be analysed (Staeheli et al., 2012). As Koh (2015:432) illustrates; “‘here’ and
‘there’ and ’past’ and ‘present’ are embodied in and borne by the figure of the migrant”.
Everyday life can be seen as the sites in which interaction, knowledge and routines can be observed (Benett, 2005). Hence, “places are performed on a daily basis through people living their everyday life” and through these mundane, daily performances and practices, individuals become familiarized and connected with places (Cresswell, 2004:34). Edward Soja relates place and practice in a thirdspace; rather than solely material or psychological, this refers to “place as lived, practised and inhabited space” (in Cresswell, 2004:38). Askins (2015) adds that within everyday spaces, social relations can develop and as such, shifts in perceptions of the self and other can occur.
The everyday geographies are shaped by one’s identity, as one uses daily places and practices (‘doing identity’) to highlight and re-enact ‘feeling’ and/or ‘being’ a particular identity (Malhi et al., 2009;
Benett, 2005). Identity contributes to how individuals and groups perceive and construct society, which norms and values are forged and how individuals behave within places. Hence, through certain practices, people participate, both consciously and automatically, in internalized attitudes and rituals of a group (Scholliers, 2001). A distinction can be made between ‘doing’, ‘being’ and ‘feeling’ identity (Malhi et al., 2009; Verkuyten & de Wolf, 2002). ‘Feeling’ a particular identity refers to an affective state in which one feels connected to a particular group, often based on internal psychological beliefs. ‘Being’
a member of a cultural group can be seen as a fixed characteristic due to an inevitable family
background. Verkuyten and de Wolf (2002) found that ‘feeling’ and ‘being’ were often contrasted, as the first referred to the ‘inner’ part of one’s self, while the latter referred to the ‘outer’ self.
Furthermore, identity can also be accounted on the possession of certain crucial or typical attributes of a culture, which is characterized as ‘doing’ identity (Malhi et al., 2009; Verkuyten & de Wolf, 2002).
Correspondingly, Cadge and Davidman (2006:23) distinguish between ascribed and achieved characteristics of identity; while the first is perceived as “fixed, immutable and inherited”, the latter is
“performed to be recognized”. With the achieved characteristic of identity, discursive or rhetorical devices can be utilized, both unintended and deliberate, such as “a repertoire of words, images, ideas and practices” (Malhi et al., 2009:260). To illustrate, Verkuyten and de Wolf (2002) found that among Chinese-Dutch youth, language was often presented as a central marker of identity.
The everyday has an important role in senses of belonging and citizenship; practices and interactions in daily life can lead to feelings of belonging, security and familiarity (Hall, 1995). Everyday belonging is re-enacted through daily practices and as such, has a strong spatial dimension. However, for diasporic communities, who do not live in their homeland, this link is not given but rather, an active decision to remain involved with the homeland (Dieckhoff, 2017; Hall, 1995). For instance, Mazumdar and Mazumdar (2016) highlight the importance of practices of cooking, food habits, taste and smell for migrants to rebuild connections and to experience a sense of continuity. Scholliers (2001) even argues that food habits often remain, while language or other cultural practices tend to be forgotten, as it is both a biological act and essential to one’s identity. These everyday geographies are constantly defined and redefined through increasing mobility and hybridization (Benett, 2005). As Johnson (2012:47) states, “a diasporic space, that incorporates the physical and metaphoric homeland, as well as some attributes of the new “host” society - a space replete with multiple identities”. These diasporic experiences highlight intersections and linkages across borders and identities and practices, which are characterized by movement, mixing and exchange (Oakes & Price, 2008; Hall, 1995: Gupta & Ferguson, 1997). It rejects traditional notions of culture, place and identity; as communities can exist without being in the same place and individuals can have multiple identities, homes and connections (Massey, 1994:
Cuba & Hummon, 1993). This simultaneous embeddedness requires a more fluid understanding of belonging and identity, which offers an alternative for conventional notions of settlement and national belonging (Anthias, 2008; Bartley, 2010).
3.4. Parenting and Cultural Transfer
Bartley and Spoonley (2008) use the notion of “intergenerational transnationalism” to highlight that parents’ migratory experiences and negotiations of transnationalism potentially re-shape experiences of later generations. For instance, Fouron and Glick Schiller (2002) found in their research on youth born in the USA of Haitian parents, that their identity is often shaped by transnational dynamics.
Furthermore, second-generations may, similar to their parents, face challenges in their daily lives with adaptation to society (Portes & Zhou, 1993). Bartley and Spoonley (2009) highlight that for second- generation migrants, these constant negotiations between themselves, their family and the host society may be challenging, in which a feeling of ’in-betweenness’ can arise. However, Emmambokus (2011) resists this claim and advocates that second-generations should rather be seen as ‘cultural navigators’, who are able to move within different cultural frames. Indeed, Captain (2014) argues that first- generation Indo-Europeans might not have experienced the freedom to develop a hybrid identity due to assimilation practices, while later generations experienced more social acceptance and a sense of pride to draw upon their heritage.
Characterized as ‘overlapping space’, Emmambokus (2011) argues that second-generation migrant children may develop affiliations with both their homeland and that of their parents. Within this overlapping space, their cultural identity is dynamic, as cultural elements are constantly (re)negotiated. This is done through practices of enculturation, which refers to “the learning of one’s own cultural group’s characteristics” (Emmambokus, 2011:85). Children are exposed to certain cultural influences from, for example, their parents, peers and the larger societal context, which they ultimately negotiate in their cultural identities. According to Buitelaar (2013a), this is an agentic act, in which the realization of personal goals needs to be balanced with communion and loyalty to family and roots.
Growing up requires biographical work, which refers to “the process of self-reflective thinking or talking about the personal past that involves forming links between elements of one’s life and the self in an attempt to relate one’s past and present” (Buitelaar, 2013a:242). Hence, this should be seen as a self- constructing process, in which children actively interpret, select and modify their parents’ actions (Grusec, 2001). However, parental styles influence how second-generation migrants develop continuity or discontinuity of parental views and practices (Buitelaar, 2013a). Authoritarian and authoritative parental styles can be distinguished; the first refers to strict parenting with a low degree of support. Due to hierarchical parent-child relations, communication is one-directional and hence, minimizes dialogue.
Contrastingly, authoritative parenting can be characterized by support, warmth and a productive relationship, in which children are allowed and enabled to develop their own position and voice (Buitelaar, 2013a).
Grusec (2001) suggests that within intergenerational transmission the impact of mothers is greater than that of fathers, possibly, due to different gender roles within families. Mothers are often seen as ‘gate-keepers of culture’, who actively share intergenerational belonging (Kempny-Mazur, 2017). For instance, Reynolds (2005) found in her research on Caribbean mothers and cultural identity in the UK, that memory is often employed to share cultural identities and belonging. Indeed, “the attachment to the ancestral land and culture is not personal, but rather, mediated by the relationship to parents and grandparents, thus based on borrowed memories and imagination” (Falicov, 2005:401).
Parent-child talks on memory shape values and beliefs and thus, children’s attachments are mediated through those of their parents. Furthermore, the home environment may reflect transnational belonging and possessions may serve as mechanisms for remembering. Tolia-Kelly (2004:314) coins the term re-memory, which is a “conceptualisation of encounters with memories, stimulated through scents, sounds and textures in the everyday”. Re-memory does not always reflect actual experience, as parents’ memories and accounts often involve idealized accounts (Tolia-Kelly, 2004; Falicov, 2005). Next to this nostalgia, memory can also be a practice of forgetting, surrounded by silences (De Mul, 2010;
Tajuddin & Stern, 2015).
3.5. Engagements with Memories Nostalgic Longing and Silences
Hua (2006) highlights how collective memory, myths, trauma and visions of the homeland are involved in diaspora. Diasporic communities share forms of longing, memory and identification, and “strive to keep alive a sense of home outside the geographical boundaries of their culture” (Bhatia, 2002:57).
Through memory and connections to fellow diasporic individuals, connections to the homeland and culture are invented in the absence of a physical presence. This transnational imagination may offer some degree of certainty in the host county (Malkki, 1992). Especially as estrangement to one’s origins may be an obstacle to forging new routes in life (Prins, 2006). Hua (2006:192) refers to the act of quilting2 to analyse how diasporic communities construct their life narrative through putting together various “bits and pieces of fabric and thread, a quilt that has its own history and presents the quilter’s aesthetic understanding in ways that resonate with her life”. Hence, through an understanding and continuity of life events and experiences, a personal history and a “sense of being in time” is created and maintained (Rowles & Watkins, 2003:78). However, it should be noted that memory is a construction of the past; it is an act of transfer through which identities are performed and constructed (Hua, 2006). One should pay attention to, among others, absences, nostalgias and forgetting, as memory is “distorted by needs, desires, interests and fantasies” (Hua, 2006:198). Indeed, Hall (1990:226) argues “the past continues to speak to us”, however, not as a factual past but rather shaped by memory, fantasy, narrative and myth.
The way in which decolonization processes are imagined shape how postcolonial migrants perceive themselves and their culture (Pattynama, 2012). French sociologist Halbwachs argued that memory is a social activity, in which it is shaped by the needs and interests of people in the present.
Through the notion of “memory community”, he argued that a shared past is necessary for a collective
2 A quilt is a multi-layered textile created from a patchwork of smaller fabrics, often used as a bedcover. A patchwork quilt can be characterized as “a gathering of disjointed elements. Each patch is a separate and unique element, but patches can be combined to form a whole” (Koelsch, 2012:823).
