Migration, Identity, and Belonging: Anthropological Perspectives on a Multidisciplinary Field of Research

Abstract

This chapter draws on papers presented at an interdisciplinary conference on migration, each of which showcases a thematic approach to this complex phenom-enon favoured in social and cultural anthropology. From an anthropological per-spective, the papers of this chapter address the dynamics of migration, identity and belonging. The theme of the panel – migration, identity, and belonging – was intentionally framed in a broad way. This allowed for anthropological contributions to the interdisciplinary field of migration studies to be discussed via aspects of migration processes that anthropologists regularly attend to. The contributors were invited to reflect upon and comparatively discuss their own research while critically referring to relevant theoretical paradigms (such as, e.g. transnationalism, integration, diaspora studies, citizenship studies, multicultur-alism, (super)diversity, cosmopolitanism, etc.) and, where possible, signposting relevant future trends in research and theory building. Although migration has not framed as a traditional focus of anthropological inquiry, social and cultural anthropologists have long been interested in migration processes, especially the dynamics of cultural and socio-economic transformations (see, e.g. Armbruster 2009). Anthropological contributions to this interdisciplinary field have naturally involved the application, integration and reassessment of different theoretical paradigms, such as modernisation theory, historical-structural approaches, gender-oriented approaches, citizenship theories and theories of eth-nicity, to name just a few. A crucial shift within the anthropological work on migration occurred with the framework of transnationalism at the beginning of the 1990s (e.g. Glick Schiller et al. 1992). This approach, which has received sustained levels of debate and criticism since then, attained the status of a paradigm in the anthropology of migration. The paradigm of transnationalism put the research M. Messer et al. (eds.), Migrations: Interdisciplinary Perspectives, DOI 10.1007/978-3-7091-0950-2_10, # Springer-Verlag Wien 2012 113 focus on migrants as active agents situated within socio-cultural transformations in multiple social, cultural and political contexts. Migrants as active agents became dynamic reference points for always-emergent identities, loyalities, and belongings – a research frame which potentially overcomes " methodological nationalism " (Wimmer and Glick Schiller 2002). The issues of identity and belonging – also dealt with by other disciplines such as, for example, psychology, sociology, gender studies or the interdisciplinary field of citizenship studies – are central to the anthropological approach to migration. At the risk of simplification, one can venture that anthropologists commonly focus on identity and belonging, not as pre-given categories but, rather, as contested pro-cesses, which are negotiated from the positions of multiple points of reference such as those of gender, ethnicity, nationality, age, social status, and transnational affiliations. These dimensions shape individual migration experiences, the ways identities are claimed or resisted, and the ways migrants act according to (often informal) commitments and feelings of belonging to different forms of (often imagined) collectives, ways of life, value systems, etc. (see, e.g. Strasser 2009). An important specificity of the anthropological approach is the ethnographic inquiry into everyday live and the dimensions of individual's experiences and agency – the processes by means of which identity and belonging are " lived " and negotiated, created and transformed by migrants as agents. Ethnographic fieldwork – often framed in terms of a multisited approach (Marcus 1998) – and different forms of qualitative methods allow for capturing these aspects and processes of migration. However, the anthropological perspective also takes into account the structural dimensions such as international legal regulations, the state, (global) civil society, the urban context and both global and local economic factors. The anthro-pological approach to migration – although focussing primarily on the micro-context of everyday agency, meanings and values of individuals, households, and groups – seeks to take into account the macro-level of different structures and scales which shape migration processes (e.g. Brettell and Hollifield 2000; Brettell 2000). The papers within this chapter apply the anthropological perspective in different ways, while each of them refers to and reassesses different theoretical paradigms. Starting from case studies – ranging from elite migration and so-called cosmopoli-tanism to labour migration, and new forms of transnational circular migration or forced migration and return – the papers explore the dialectics of structure and agency within a wide range of contemporary transformations and new constellations of diversity and mobility. In her paper, Janine Dahinden discusses three individual migration biographies and uses those as a starting point for critically reflection upon the shortcomings of the integration paradigm, which is currently the dominant European policy model for the " management " of migration and " social cohesion " . Dahinden criticises the lack of attention given to transnational forms of identification and belonging in favour of processes of incorporation into " host " societies. She also argues that the integration paradigm tends to foreground ethnicity at the expense of non-ethnic 114 J. Toši