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

all boundaries, including also the European boundaries, through the window of their
ethnically – and to a lesser extent also religiously – oriented diasporic belongings. Those
who score low here are the glocalists, who look beyond all conventional boundaries and
turn to non-essentialized, new, boundary-breaking and extended modes of belonging –
such as the global, transnational, and European belongings. The high-scorers regard their
diasporic belongings as more relevant in this context. The low-scorers, on the other
hand, consider their borderless belongings as more relevant; and, in this context,
“European belonging”, “global belonging”, “individual belongings”, and “political
belonging” are all more acceptable for them than “transnational belongings”. For the
former four belongings break with essentialized national or diasporic belongings whereas
“transnational belonging” builds on diasporas, ethnic groups, religions or national
territories. In this sense, this dimension is not exclusively about “European belonging”
but about how the boundaries should relate to individuals’ belongings – transnationalism
or globalism. Those respondents who have moderate scores on this dimension can be
interpreted as relating finely to the existing belonging boundaries.
In type-3 multidimensional belonging model (dimension 3), European belonging relates
positively to almost all belongings except territorial, gender, and sexual belongings.
Similar to the second dimension, also this dimension is not exclusively about “European
belonging”. “European belonging” clusters with the other “non-collective” belonging
modes – i.e. global, transnational, etc – because it is seen by the respondents who score
high as more cosmopolitan than “collective” and territory-based belongings.
In type-4 multidimensional belonging model, the European belonging loads barely on
dimension 4, however it relates positively to religious and national belongings. Therefore,
this multidimensional mode of belonging is primarily about the degree of respondents’
political belonging. Here, “political belonging” clusters with ethnic, gender, and sexual
belongings, which are themes of political relevance in the Western world. In this sense,
this dimension has nothing to do with “European belonging”.
“European belonging” loads strongest on dimension 5. In type-5 multidimensional
belonging pattern, European belonging relates positively to national, territorial and
religious belongings. Amongst the five dimensions that we uncovered in this CATPCAanalysis,
this is the only dimension where there is a clear alignment between
respondents’ territorial belongings and their senses of “being European”. Therefore, we
looked into our fieldwork reports and notes in order to see how the high scorers on this
dimension relate their territorial belonging to Europe. The connection they make is that
they regard the territory of their own country as Europe. Therefore, this territorial-
European identity refers to the “territory of Europe” rather than member states’
72