Migrants, Minorities, Belongings and Citizenship. Glocalization and ...

Fig. 14 illustrates the most important predictors of the second (mis)alignment dimension
that we uncovered – (mis)alignment in national/essentialized versus glocal spaces. The
situation also here is the same: changes in one predictor will lead to elimination of one
misalignment and reification of another simultaneously. For example, increasing “mobility
of mind between all references of identification” and decreasing “political belonging”
simultaneously will increase alignment in glocal spaces, but this will also increase
misalignments in national and essentialized spaces.
To reduce/eliminate certain misalignments, one of the three models that were tested can
be utilized. The belonging model requires changing the multidimensional belongings of
citizens and residents. The mobility model requires changing the psychic and spatial
mobility patterns of citizens and residents. However, pertaining to both belonging and
mobility models, such measures may raise ethical questions, as any choice will imply
giving priority to certain “modes of being”. The participation model, on the other hand,
requires strengthening and/or designing and establishment of the types of public spaces
that residents and citizens need for voicing, articulating, and representing their
preferences emanating from their belongings and other interests without having to
change themselves.
2. Advancing the state of the art
The Glocalmig’s contribution to the existing state of the art in the field of citizenship
studies is primarily its diversity perspective and its research tools, which extend the
ontological and conceptual array of the thinking in the field. Secondarily, its contribution
to the state of the art is the new knowledge produced by the use of these research tools.
The presentation in this section addresses both aspects simultaneously.
We would first like to mention the impact of the diversity perspective on our research. To
what we stated in the beginning about the diversity perspective, we can add its
normative orientation. The diversity perspective is not about designing policies, politics or
political systems that can effectively manage diversity; but to discover the modes of
being, the types of individuals, and the prototypes of the public spaces of diversity that
can manage politics. In other words, it is about empowering diverse societies to manage
politics. Therefore, all the research activities of the Glocalmig-project sought the types of
individuals and public spaces who make diversity into a mode of being (cf. also the
notion of co-other in the beginning). This is the reason why we focused on the “glocal
spaces”, which we regard as the potential prototypes of future diverse societies that
effectively manage politics. The “glocal public spaces” that we did fieldwork in
accommodate various individuals and groups with highly diverse belongings. Our finding
103