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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
territories. This is an alignment between national territorial belongings and the “European territorial” belonging. As Figure 5 illustrates, the respondents with high degrees of European-territorial belonging are those who belong to majority populations, historical-native minorities, imperial new minorities, and second country nationals. Regarding imperial new minorities, their European-territorial identification can be understood on the background of the inclusion policies that came as a consequence of their residence countries’ European integration (e.g. Russians in Estonia). Third country nationals and co-ethnics (extra-territorials) residing in the six countries have a low degree of European-territorial identification. Concerning extra-territorials, the issue is that the European citizenship structure excludes them from European citizenship and does not explicitly support their residence countries’ favorable treatment of them. Concerning third country nationals, the majority of them have a high degree of mobility of mind concerning their territorial belongings. On the other hand, those who state to have a territorial identity refer simultaneously to the cities they resided in before migration and the cities of their present residence – rather than countries of residence or birth. Figure 5. European-Territorial Belonging by Respondents’ Category 0,60 0,40 0,20 0,00 -0,20 -0,40 -0,60 Majority Historical Native Imperial new minority Imperial historical minority Category Second Country Third Country Extraterritorial Without going into further details at this stage, the result from this data set is that European belonging relates differently to other belongings in different modes of multiple belongings. The three dimensions (3, 4 and 5 in Table 6), where European and national belongings relate positively to each other, explain together 35,67% of the total variance. The two dimensions (1 and 2) where the European and national identities relate 73
Page 1 and 2:
EU RESEARCH ON SOCIAL SCIENCES AND
Page 3 and 4:
EUROPEAN COMMISSION EU RESEARCH ON
Page 5 and 6:
Preface Within the Fifth Community
Page 7 and 8:
Table of contents Preface v Aknowle
Page 9 and 10:
Aknowledgements On behalf of the Un
Page 11 and 12:
The above statement should be regar
Page 13 and 14:
meticulously addressing the citizen
Page 15 and 16:
contexts. Policy responses to socia
Page 17 and 18:
findings could only include certain
Page 19 and 20:
the one hand and between participat
Page 21 and 22: collected during the country studie
Page 23 and 24: ● which existing national and int
Page 25 and 26: Table 1. The Countries and Groups u
Page 27 and 28: III. SCIENTIFIC DESCRIPTION OF PROJ
Page 29 and 30: The designs of the three research t
Page 31 and 32: diverse society. In other words, th
Page 33 and 34: citizenships (e.g. new problems, ne
Page 35 and 36: enefits in the state. 1 A claim of
Page 37 and 38: These anomalies require supplement
Page 39 and 40: Table 2. Notions of the Citizen in
Page 41 and 42: The dimensions that Glocalmig focus
Page 43 and 44: spheres of interaction, meaning, an
Page 45 and 46: Residence, Permanent Residence, Mat
Page 47 and 48: The major objection to a comparison
Page 49 and 50: Table 3. Measurement and Scaling Mo
Page 51 and 52: and individuals within the new cont
Page 53 and 54: the future. In this sense, the data
Page 55 and 56: 3) Acceptance, cooperation, and sym
Page 57 and 58: integration and intercultural learn
Page 59 and 60: Medborgerhuset can be translated in
Page 61 and 62: It seems that a lot of the explanat
Page 63 and 64: The absence of some categories in s
Page 65 and 66: In order to provide a conceptual st
Page 67 and 68: 2.2.4. Multidimensional belongings
Page 69 and 70: 1. Variable Principal Normalization
Page 71: Dimension 5: European-territorial b
Page 75 and 76: voice and influence - national spac
Page 77 and 78: Figure 7. Participation in Essentia
Page 79 and 80: Figure 9. Respondents’ Geographic
Page 81 and 82: 2.2.7. Mobility of Minds - Psychic/
Page 83 and 84: section is whether the degree of ge
Page 85 and 86: On the other hand, increased “cro
Page 87 and 88: Table 12. Alignments/Misalignments
Page 89 and 90: extra-territorials are the most con
Page 91 and 92: characteristics (belonging, partici
Page 93 and 94: Concerning “alignments and misali
Page 95 and 96: 2.3.3. Spatial and mental mobility
Page 97 and 98: Table 16. Explanatory Powers of the
Page 99 and 100: Figure 12. Three Predictive Models
Page 101 and 102: separates between essentialized spa
Page 103 and 104: Fig. 14 illustrates the most import
Page 105 and 106: country methods, especially in the
Page 107 and 108: language skills, and organizational
Page 109 and 110: is being created in these sites. Th
Page 111 and 112: V. DISSEMINATION AND EXPLOITATION O
Page 113 and 114: York-based publisher, Edwin Mellen
Page 115 and 116: 2003 Radical Transnationalism and T
Page 117 and 118: Scientific report submitted to the
Page 119 and 120: 2. Dissemination by the Austrian Ac
Page 121 and 122: Towards a political theory of migra
Page 123 and 124:
Teaching 2004 summer term: Course a
Page 125 and 126:
4. Dissemination by the Estonian In
Page 127 and 128:
6. Dissemination by the Central Eur
Page 129 and 130:
VI. REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY 1.
Page 131 and 132:
Calhoun, Craig 1997, Nationalism. B
Page 133 and 134:
Horowitz, Donald L. 1985, Ethnic Gr
Page 135 and 136:
Ragin, Charles 1991, “The Problem
Page 137 and 138:
Taylor, Charles 1992, “Multicultu
Page 139:
European Commission EUR 23143 — E
Page 142:
KI-NA-23143-EN-N
show all

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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?