Integr Psych Behav (2017) 51:261–278

DOI 10.1007/s12124-017-9385-7
R E G U L A R A RT I C L E

Identity and Its Construal: Learning from Luxembourg

Elke Murdock 1

Published online: 7 March 2017

# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Abstract This article examines national identity construal processes within the case
study context of Luxembourg. Building on research highlighting the modalities of
generalization from case studies, I present the country case that is Luxembourg. This
social universe has a foreign population percentage of 47% and what is considered
majority and minority becomes increasingly fluid. The migration process itself is fluid,
ranging from daily migration, to medium-term stays, return visits and permanent
immigration including uptake of citizenship. Within such a fluid environment, where
national borders are permeable at the physical level of crossing borders and (national)
societies are nested within societies, culture contact is a permanent feature in daily life.
Nationality becomes a salient feature as culture contact tends to prompt reflection,
resulting in questioning and (re-)negotiation of national identity. This affects the native
population as well as the diverse immigrant population – with diversity going beyond
the level of country of origin. Many individuals are also of mixed nationality and some
examples for the construal process of national identity will be provided, illustrating
how national identity is negotiated at individual level. Like a periscope, this country let
s us adjust mirrors, permitting us to observe modes of identity construal which would
otherwise be obstructed from the field of view. The case study that is Luxembourg
allows us to look at the micro-setting of the construction, potentially of something new.

Keywords Case study . Identityconstrual . Luxembourg . National identity . Multicultural

context

BPeriscope: a tubular optical instrument containing lenses and mirrors by which

an observer obtains an otherwise obstructed field of view.^ Merriam-Webster
Dictionary

* Elke Murdock
elke.murdock@uni.lu

1
University of Luxembourg, Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg
262 Integr Psych Behav (2017) 51:261–278

Introduction

Luxembourg has undergone tremendous change. Within a relatively short timeframe,

Luxembourg changed from being a relatively poor agrarian country of emigration to
becoming a wealthy country and target for immigration. Luxembourg’s growth could
only be achieved by opening up to inward migration resulting in a foreign population
percentage of 47%, today. Valsiner (1997) points out that at a time of major socio-
political reorganization of the political and economic worlds, the question of Bnational^
and Bsupra-national^ identities come to the forefront of the social sciences. In multi-
cultural Luxembourg, a country that recorded the highest number of immigrants in
2011 (39 immigrants per 1000 persons) in Europe (Eurostat 2011) relative to the size of
the resident population, the question of (national) identity is also widely discussed.
Luxembourg thus provides an ideal case to study (national) identity construal processes
in a multicultural environment. Valsiner (1997) further noted the differentiation into
ontogenetic and context-oriented (local) investigative orientations. The fact that identity
models are often studied in a decontextualized manner was also observed by Arends-
Tóth and van de Vijver (2006). In a recent research project by Van de Vijver et al.
(2015) an ethnographic account of a super-diverse neighbourhood in Antwerp was
therefore an explicit part of the research and then combined with psychological
understanding of identity. These authors looked at a snapshot in time in a specific
neighbourhood. I will turn the periscope on Luxembourg providing first some contex-
tual information about time and space. I will start out by outlining some historical
facets, explain the role of language and different migration waves resulting in the
current demographic composition. I will then turn to identity construal processes within
this particular social context. Starting at the so-called native population, the question of
who is a Luxembourger will be addressed followed by the elaboration of possible mono
– and multicultural identification outcomes. The single case study that is Luxembourg
allows us to explore this wide spectrum of orientations.

Socio-Historical Context of Luxembourg

Luxembourg – the Birth of a Nation

In terms of physical size, Luxembourg may be described as small, spanning North-

South 82 km and East-West 57 km (Statec 2015a). With a population size of 576,249
inhabitants (Statec 2016), Luxembourg may also be described as small. Yet within its
current borders, Luxembourg has only existed since 1839. This young and small state
has experienced a remarkable trajectory in becoming a target country for immigration
and, not unconnected, the 2nd richest country in the world (after Qatar) with a GDP of
$115,000 per capita based on purchasing-power parity (PPP, International Monetary
Fund 2016). Before obtaining its independence Luxembourg lived under successive
Burgundian, Spanish, French, Austrian and Dutch sovereignty. For comprehensive
overviews see for example Trausch (2007) or Péporté (2011). The Duchy of
Luxembourg experienced three major divisions and the third and final territorial
division was stipulated at the Congress of London in 1839. According to the Treaty,
Luxembourg was to be split in two, the two halves largely following the linguistic line:
Integr Psych Behav (2017) 51:261–278 263

The francophone western part, which is today known as BProvince de Luxembourg^

was added to Belgium. The largely German speaking part became the Grand Duchy of
Luxembourg and remained under the sovereignty of the Dutch Orange-Nassau dynasty.
The Treaty of London of 1839 defined the borders of the Grand Duchy, which have not
changed since. At the time Luxembourg counted about 170,000 inhabitants. The
decisions taken by the great powers during the Congress of Vienna in 1815 and in
London were taken over the heads of the population. At that time, the thought of a truly
independent country overstrained the imagination of the majority of the population.
Yet, little by little the people grew accustomed to the idea of having their own country
and a feeling of national identity was Binvented^ (Péporté et al. 2010). BWhile a local
and provincial sense of identity was very much present under the Ancien Régime, a
national sentiment is but a 19th-century invention^ (Thewes 2008, p. 5). As Péporté
(2011) shows, the (re-) interpretation of history played a key role in this initial process
of national identity construal. A feeling of national identity was construed which
includes the creation and celebration of national symbols: BMir wëlle bleiwe wat mir
sin^ (BWe want to remain what we are^) was a song composed for the inauguration of
the first railway line in 1859. Even though this song did not become the national
anthem, the song provided from then on national motto. Luxembourg as a nation is still
being formed. Even today, national symbols are discussed and amended – a recent
example being a change in the celebration of the national of day. The answer to the
question wat sin mir? is still subject of debate, today. The search for the Luxembourg
identity continues as I have described elsewhere (Murdock 2014).

The Role of Language

Within the Luxembourg context, language goes beyond language competence in

terms of speaking, reading and writing. Language and multilingualism play a
central role in the self-conception of Luxembourg. Since Luxembourg’s inception
as a country within its current border, language has taken on a symbolic function:
The third division of Luxembourg took place along linguistic lines. Even though
Luxembourg was reduced to the German-speaking part a conscious decision was
taken to keep French. The Law on Education of 1843 set down that learning
French was compulsory alongside German. Thus, by learning German and French
at school, Luxembourg would stay connected with both neighbouring countries.
Even though, German and French were taught at school, in everyday life, the
Moselle-Franconian dialect was spoken, which right up until the end of the
nineteenth century was referred to as Lëtzebuerger Däitsch (Luxembourgish
German) or Bour German.^ Lëtzebuergesch increasingly asserted itself as the
mother tongue rather than German. The use of Lëtzebuergesch was to become
the symbol of resistance and national cohesion during WWII. Increasingly, German
and French were viewed as foreign languages and Lëtzebuergesch as
Mammensprooch (mother tongue). This trend culminated in the 1984 Law, which
finally awarded Lëtzebuergesch the status of national language. Article 1 of the
Law reads: BLuxembourg’s national language is Luxembourgisch.^ However, the
simultaneous use of French and German was never called into question. Following
WWII Luxembourg also emerged as a leading force within Europe, gaining
strength from this newfound status. The rise in status of the country and the rise
264 Integr Psych Behav (2017) 51:261–278

in status of the Luxembourgish language are intertwined. Luxembourg is a trilin-

gual country, with the three languages being spoken throughout Luxembourg.
Today, the ability to speak Luxembourgish is perceived by many Luxembourg
people as the central, qualifying criterion for being Luxembourgish: BLuxemburger
ist, wer Luxemburgisch spricht^ (Those who speak Luxembourgish are
Luxembourgers, Scheffen, Telecran, 29.12.2013) The Luxembourgish language
has thus taken on a very strong identification function. Pride is also expressed at
the ability to communicate in (at least) three languages. The linguistic landscape is
still changing. Portuguese is already the second most frequently spoken language
and the importance of English is on the rise. As will be discussed in the next
section, Luxembourg’s economic success is closely tied to the influx of foreigners.

Immigration Waves

From 1870 onwards, large-scale steel works were erected in the southern part of
the country – the beginning of Luxembourg’s industrial revolution. The govern-
ment of the time stipulated that the steel would need to processed in Luxembourg.
The demand in labour was satisfied by internal migration within Luxembourg, but
also by recruiting workers from nearby Germany. Temporary workers were also
recruited from Italy. Following WWII, German immigration rapidly declined and
from the late 1950s onwards, the Italian seasonal workers started to bring their
families. The peak in Italian immigration in the 1970s and the subsequent decline
in Italian immigration coincided with the beginning of the immigration from
Portugal. The guest worker agreement with Portugal allowed immigrants to bring
their immediate family members. Today, Portuguese make up the largest part of
Luxembourg’s foreign population comprising 16.1% of the total population accord-
ing to the census of 2011 (Heinz et al. 2013). The structural crisis of the steel
industry also hit Luxembourg. Steel production declined over 50% between 1974
and 1992 (Thewes 2008). The tertiary sector was to take over from the steel
industry as locomotive for the Luxembourg economy. Today, Luxembourg is the
second largest investment fund centre in the world after the United States
(Luxembourg for Finance 2014). Luxembourg relies on neighbouring countries to
fill highly specialized positions in the sector, but attracts also workforce from other
EU countries and beyond. A large group of daily commuters (non-resident bor-
derers, approx. 169,000) come to Luxembourg to work on a daily basis (statec
2015a). Luxembourg is also home of several European institutions attracting a
workforce from all European member states. The majority of the European civil
servants come to Luxembourg for the length of a contract, thus are in Luxembourg
on a semi-permanent basis. The European civil servants are even officially cate-
gorized as ansässige Grenzgänger (resident borderers). Thus Luxembourg’s mi-
grants can be differentiated by their length of stay ranging from working day, to
the length of a contract and as well as permanent immigration. Given the interna-
tional crises, the number of involuntary migrants has also increased dramatically
over recent months (IMF Country Report 2016). The position these refugees find
themselves in can be described as transient as they wait for their applications to be
processed. Decisions about their futures are often beyond their control. The
complexity of their situation goes beyond what can be discussed in this article.
Integr Psych Behav (2017) 51:261–278 265

Demographic Composition

As described elsewhere (Murdock 2016), Luxembourg can be described as Bsuper-

diverse^ (Vertovec 2007): Recent arrivals, first, second and third generation immigrants
live side by side. Each set of immigrant groups brings with it its own integration issues,
aspirations and challenges. Immigrants have divergent labour market experiences and
discrete gender and age profiles. For the Luxembourg society the post-WWII influx
means that a largely homogeneous older generation lives alongside a multicultural
younger generation. Specific patterns of spatial distribution can also be observed within
the country. Settlement patterns and the concentration of foreigners vary across regions,
Cantons and at town level. Within the capital, home to a fifth of the country’s
population, the percentage of the foreign population now stands at nearly 70% coming
from 160 different countries (Etat de la Population 2015). The percentage of foreigners
differs between the capital’s 24 quartiers ranging from 48% to 84%. The influx of
foreigners means challenges for Luxembourg’s infrastructure/ transport, (affordable)
housing and especially the school system. Eurostat (2013) figures show, that
Luxembourg is the country with the highest proportion (40%) of 15 years olds at
school with immigration background in Europe. One consequence of the semi-
permanence described above is that some migrants may lead an Bexpatriate^ way of
life – with international schooling for the children and parents not necessarily learning
Luxembourg’s national languages. Whereas the majority of the early migrants came
from a small number of countries, Luxembourg’s population today represents a wide
range of nationalities. Figure 1 illustrates the growth in volume as well as the change in
composition over the last 34 years:
The total population rose from 364,600 in 1981 to 563,000 in 2015. This growth is
largely attributable to immigration. The foreign population made up 26% of the total
population in 1981 and this percentage has risen to 46% in 2015. Within the foreign
population, the share of the Portuguese immigrants has doubled whilst the Italian share
has halved. There is also a marked rise of French residents. Other major changes
include the rise of other-EU immigrants and especially the non-EU immigrants (now
14% of the foreign population). The immigration pattern has thus changed and is still
changing. Even though immigrants come from a wider range of countries, migrants of
French and Portuguese origin make up half of the European foreign residents. Together
with those of Italian, Belgian and German origin these five countries account for nearly
75% of the foreign population in Luxembourg which are positioned relatively close on
the Inglehart-Welzel map of the world (Inglehart and Welzel 2010). This map measures
cultural rather geographic proximity. The positioning on this map illustrates the relative

1981 2015

100000
80000
60000
40000
20000
0
PT IT FR BE DE UK NL EU other
other
Fig. 1 Composition of Luxembourg’s foreign population, Source: Statec 2015a
266 Integr Psych Behav (2017) 51:261–278

cultural proximity of the majority of the foreign residents in Luxembourg. Another

change in the demographic composition, not reflected in Fig. 1, is the rise in numbers of
persons with dual nationality. Taking into consideration the demographic composition
of the country, the Luxembourg Government revised the Law on Luxembourg nation-
ality allowing persons to apply for Luxembourg citizenship, when certain conditions
are met. Since the Law came into force in 2009, over 4000 persons per year have
applied for Luxembourg citizenship. In 2015, over 5000 persons were granted citizen-
ship (statec 2015b). The reasoning behind the revision of the nationality law is
explained as follows: BMany foreigners, through the acquisition of the Luxembourg
nationality, wish to show their attachment to our country and their will to integrate,
whilst also, through their nationality of origin, wanting to maintain a link with the
homeland and culture of their ancestors. It is in this light that the principle of dual
nationality has been introduced into Luxembourg law (Ministry of Justice, Information
and Press Service of the Luxembourg Government 2008). Luxembourg nationality can
thus be acquired, and the simple question Who is a Luxembourger? is increasingly
difficult to answer.

Who Is a Luxembourger?

The nationality debate is often quite heated and part of the reason is the multifaceted
nature of the concept of nationality. At the first level, nationality establishes a legal link
between an individual and the state. Explicit criteria can be applied for the granting of
nationality in the legal sense such as lineage (ius sanguinis), birth place (ius soli), a
combination of both (i.e. double ius soli), marital status, length of residence etc. A
passport carries rights, i.e. voting rights or freedom of travel, and also duties, i.e. the
duty to vote or military service in some countries. When establishing the criteria for
nationality, not only the perspective of the immigrant has to be taken into consideration,
but also the intention of the state: for example, the state may want to increase its
electorate, strengthen recruits for military operations etc. An important issue however is
that a passport does not determine the feelings towards a country. The emotional bond
is more difficult to determine. Is it based on a social fact of attachment, a connection of
existence, interests and feelings? Criteria are difficult to determine and therefore open
to debate. At the legal level the criteria which have to be fulfilled are quite clear: a) A
residency requirement of seven years, b) standing of good repute c) attendance of at
least three citizenship classes and d) a Luxembourgish language test (oral comprehen-
sion and expression). This last requirement represents the biggest hurdle as the
language level tested is considered quite high, especially for those who have and
insufficient schooling or prior language training. So language again plays a key role
in determining who can become a Luxembourg citizen. Yet nationality is not an
exclusive category – as the law on dual nationality implies. It is also a question of
perspective –nationality can be self-assigned, (externally) ascribed or hoped for.

National Identity Construal

Gustav Jahoda, distinguished professor and pioneer in the field of cross-cultural

psychology cites the English nursery rhyme as a preface to his critical reflections on
some recent definitions of culture: BWhen I use a word, it just means what I choose it to
Integr Psych Behav (2017) 51:261–278 267

mean – neither more nor less^ (p. 289, 2012). He proceeds to identify, review and
contrast several commonly suggested Bdefinitions^ of culture but stresses, that culture
is not a Bthing.^ Culture is a social construct, vaguely referring to a vastly complex set
of phenomena. Even though the term is indispensable, attempting to define it in a
definite way are futile. Jahoda therefore recommends to simply use the term without
attempting to define it and to provide an explanation of the specific manner in which
the term culture is employed in a particular context. Following this example, I will
outline how national identity formation is understood in this article. As Watzlawik
(2012) noted, identity research tends to focus on facets or the process of identity
development. In this article, I focus on a facet, namely national identity development,
but more specifically the process of national identification within the Luxembourg
context. Thus the identity formation is addressed within the socio-historical ecocultural
embeddedness. The construal aspect of identity formation is emphasized by Weinreich
and Saunderson (2003) in the Identity Structure Analysis (ISA) framework. At the core
of ISA lies the person’s appraisal of the social world. Weinreich stresses the inter-
generational transmission aspect through kith and kin and the affective component in
this process. According to Weinreich et al. (2003) the terms Bethnic^ or Bnational^ can
be used interchangeable, if the terms refer to the fact that people are born into and
experience their childhood within a well-defined peoplehood with a shared socio-
cultural history, and the identity is then derived of that peoplehood. He thus derived
the following definition for ethnic/ national identity: BOne’s ethnic/ national identity is
defined as that part of the totality of one’s self-construal made up of those dimensions
that express the continuity between one’s construal of past ancestry and one’s future
aspirations in relation to ethnicity^ (Weinreich et al. 2003, p. 28). Watzlawik (2012)
observed that national, ethnic, and religious identities can be intertwined. Cultural and
national/regional identities can stand for the same concepts. She also refers to Schnell
(1990), who examined 80 indicators for cultural or ethnic identities, which in turn can
be condensed into 15 categories. However, as Watzlawik emphasizes, the process of
identity construal can never be separated from the sociocultural environment one lives
in. The macro-level context an individual lives in Binfluences every (italicized in the
original) facet of identity^ (p. 256). This is in turn is precisely one argument for looking
at the specific context Luxembourg provides – and its impact on national identity
construal in a demographically diverse context. Luxembourg’s linguistic diversity was
alluded to above – another key feature of living in Luxembourg is the opportunity for
culture contact.

Consequences of Culture Contact

Given size, geographic position and demographic composition, it is impossible not to

have a form of culture contact when living in Luxembourg. Culture contact was
instrumental in forming Luxembourg’s national identity. The first railway work not
only physically connected Luxembourg to the outside world, but also triggered reflec-
tion regarding the inside world of who we are. As noted above, the song Feierwôn
composed for the inauguration of the railway took on a strong identification function,
asserting a national Luxembourg identity. When the first steel mills were erected and
more and more Bforeign^ workers entered the country the process of inward reflection
continued. As Pauly (2013) noted, BDieser verstärkte Austausch mit dem Ausland
268 Integr Psych Behav (2017) 51:261–278

weckte allerdings die Luxemburger aus ihrer Gleichgültigkeit^ (This increased expo-
sure with foreign countries awakened the Luxembourgers form their apathy). The
increased exposure to other cultures led to a process of reflection of their own
nationality. This effect of second culture exposure as a central catalyst for self-
reflection lies at the core of the acculturation complexity model (ACM) introduced
by Tadmor et al. (2006). These authors model the impact of second-culture exposure on
acculturation choice and on individual cognition and coping skills. They focus on the
differential effects second culture exposure can have on cognitive complexity of
sociocognitive functioning. Tadmor et al. (2006) suggested a five-step progression of
acculturation strategies. Exposure to another culture leads initially to an increased
attention scope. People may become sensitized to their own values and value conflicts
between their own and the other culture (Step 1). The type of accountability pressures
encountered shapes their subsequent choice of acculturation strategy (Step 2).
Accountability refers to the need to justify one’s thoughts and actions to significant
others. If accountability pressure (Step 3) is felt only towards a single culture, less
cognitive effort will need to be expended on solving dissonances between cultures
(Step 4a). In terms of acculturation orientation, this will lead to a more separated or
assimilated orientation (Step 5a). If accountability pressure is felt towards more than
one audience more cognitive effort is required to resolve it (Step 4b). Repeated
exposure to cultural conflicts leads to the gradual development of automatic coping
responses and relatively stable individual differences in integrative complexity (Step
5b). The authors describe this as bicultural orientation. The model suggests that people
who are in the process of becoming bicultural and feel accountable to two audiences
will experience more severe cultural dissonance during acculturation than those who
are becoming separated or assimilated. This happens because the mixed accountability
pressure facing biculturating individuals requires them to justify their conduct to
representative members of both cultural groups. By contrast, assimilating and
separating individuals are held accountable to a single cultural constituency and
experience less conflict. The ACM model works best, when the differences between
two cultures are large enough to be challenging, but not overwhelming. As Tadmor
et al. (2006) noted, there appears to be an inverted U-shaped relationship between the
size of the cultural differences experienced and the amount of cognitive change that
could be expected. At the extreme difference end, the differences may be too large to be
integrated. At the low difference end, even those with high trait complexity may be
underwhelmed by the subtle differences.
Another consequence of exposure to a diverse cultural context is that specific
identity dimensions may become salient. As McGuire et al. (1978) could show, salience
of ethnicity in the spontaneous self-concept is a function of one’s ethnic distinctiveness
in the social environment. McGuire et al. explain this effect with the distinctiveness
paradigm – a cognitive strategy people employ to deal with the problem that their
senses can take in more information than they can meaningfully deal with in perception
and memory. As was first suggested by Broadbent (1958), people essentially act like
information-processing machines, applying selective filters. According to the distinc-
tiveness postulate people selectively attend to and encode aspects that are most
distinctive, which is an efficient information processing strategy. We could show in
an empirical study (Murdock et al. 2014) that salience of national identity is indeed
heightened in the multicultural context of Luxembourg.
Integr Psych Behav (2017) 51:261–278 269

By turning the periscope on the socio-historical context of Luxembourg, several

facets have been highlighted so far: Physical borders may be determined by a treaty;
however the question how the peoplehood within these borders defines and constitutes
itself is an ongoing process. Luxembourg has also made a conscious decision to stay
connected linguistically with its neighbouring countries. Culture contact and the
resulting increase in attention scope are also important in this process. Accountability
pressure is a deciding factor in which acculturation option is chosen. Within
Luxembourg there is ample opportunity for culture contact and crucially, acculturation
is a process that not only affects those moving to a country, but also those living within
it. As noted above, Luxembourg’s foreign population is sizeable and diverse, but at the
same time relatively homogenous in terms of value structure. This composition facil-
itates the reflection and negotiation of cultural differences. The question of national
identity becomes more salient in a culturally diverse context, both for the resident as
well as the incoming population. Within the multicultural context of Luxembourg, a
range of national identity construal processes can be observed. I will first turn to
identity processes by the native population, before turning to facets of identity construal
among the migrant populations.

Identity Construal Processes

Local Communities

Before turning the periscope back on Luxembourg, I would like to draw

attention to research by Burholt et al. (2013) who investigated the identity
processes of older people in small-island, Irish communities. At first sight the
boundary of a small island seems impermeable, but the small islands may be
better described in terms of connectedness, as an external connectedness is
actually necessary for survival. As the authors explain migrational flows are
actually a characteristic of island communities and the authors postulate that
those who are born and raised on islands are likely to construct islander
identity differently form migrants who bring their different perspectives to
bear. The islander identity is in fact continually renegotiated in light of the
changing constituent members of the island community. In interviews with
older residents the authors explore the identity construal processes among
islanders. Burholt et al. (2013) coin the term Bweb of significance^ (p.8) which,
in the case of the island community, refers to knowledge of lineage – those
who have access to certain historical symbols and stories, which is of course
associated with length of stay on the islands. The authors also observe the
creation of Bcommunities of experience^ – that is meeting up with those who
have made similar life journeys. On investigation of the narratives regarding
who can claim the title of islanders, the authors present a hierarchy in de-
scending order of Bauthenticity^ (p.9):

1. Born and raised on the island (never left)

2. Born on the island, left, but returned.
3. Moved to the island as a young child with parents.
270 Integr Psych Behav (2017) 51:261–278

4. Moved to the island as adult before modernisation.

5. Moved to the island after modernisation as permanent migrants.
6. Moved to the island after modernisation as seasonal migrants.

Transferred to the Luxembourg context a potential hierarchy could look like this:

1. Born and raised in Luxembourg to parents of Luxembourg origin. Speaks all three
languages fluently, but considers Luxembourgish to be the mother tongue.
2. As 1.) , but left Luxembourg and returned.
3. Born and raised in Luxembourg to one parent of Luxembourg origin and one of
non-Luxembourg origin. Speaks all three languages fluently, but considers
Luxembourgish to be the mother tongue.
4. Moved to the Luxembourg as a young child with parents, went through the Lux
school system and speaks Luxembourgish fluently.
5. Moved to Luxembourg to stay. Speaks Luxembourgish fluently. Intends to acquire
Luxembourgish nationality.
6. Moved to Luxembourg to stay. No fluency in Luxembourgish, but speaks German
or French fluently.
7. Lives in Luxembourg on a temporary contract. Children go through the
Luxembourg school system.
8. Lives in Luxembourg on a temporary contract. Children attend one of the alterna-
tive schools.
9. Transfronatliers – children don’t attend any Luxembourg-based schools.

This is a hypothetical hierarchy and would need to be tested in empirical research

and further permutations (i.e. role of length of stay and when the move to Luxembourg
took place, country of origin, labour market section, more detailed analysis of the role
of dual nationality, students) could be added. This hypothetical hierarchy serves to
illustrate several points: Firstly, the role of language within the Luxembourg context,
secondly the heterogeneity of foreign groups living in Luxembourg and thirdly,
different social institutions (i.e. schools) within the society which serve different groups
within the society that is Luxembourg. The role of lineage is still important as it
provides access to the local Bweb of significance.^ Within each migrant community
similar hierarchies may exist: Those who came with the first wave of migrants may be
considered Bpioneers^ such as the early Italian migrants, who thus have higher status
than more recent migrants. This may also be true within migrant groups, when for
example comparing the first wave of Portuguese migrants with more recent arrivals. EU
migrants may be perceived differently to non-EU migrants. As noted above, the
percentage of non-EU migrants is rising and here perception may be confounded with
religious affinity. Many factors will play a role including, gender, generational status,
education, social class etc. Within each migrant community different evaluation criteria
may be evoked – i.e. retention of mother tongue, participation in traditions etc.
Of course, the Luxembourg society is also made up of individuals with very
different aspirations, aptitudes, values, experiences etc. For the native Luxembourg
population I could for example show, that native Luxembourgers tend to self-identify as
monocultural, but multilingual – speaking at least three languages (Murdock 2014).
However, this does not mean, that there is the same preference for all three languages.
Integr Psych Behav (2017) 51:261–278 271

Furthermore the degree of internalization of the languages varies. For some native
Luxembourgers, languages were internalized to a degree that language served as a
cultural prime (Hong et al. 2000) for cultural frame switching. For those individuals,
the switch from one language to another is effortless. These individuals also perceive
the change in language as a change in culture. Yet for others, there is a clear preference
for Luxembourgish as mother tongue. The switch to other languages is considered
effortful. In daily life, when shopping, visiting restaurants or the hospital – the
likelihood is extremely high to be served or treated by persons who are not of
Luxembourg origin. To be forced to speak a language other than Luxembourgish is
resented by many. On the other hand, great pride is also expressed in the ability to
speak several languages. Some native Luxembourgers thrive on the multicultural
context, others prefer to lead a monocultural life. Despite Luxembourg’s demographic
composition, it is possible to lead a fairly monocultural life. Asked about the compo-
sition of their circle of friends, just over half of native Luxembourg participants in my
study stated to have Bfew^ friends with a different country of birth to themselves while
6% indicated to have Bno^ friends with a different country of birth. Just under a quarter
(23.5%) said that Babout half^ their friends had a different country of birth to them-
selves and 17.7% Bmany^ which includes the one person who had indicated Ball.^

Migrant Communities

It is also possible for migrants to lead a fairly monocultural life. The spatial concen-
tration for certain migrant groups was already mentioned above. In Larochette, for
example, just under half of the population (45.5%) are Portuguese (Heinz et al. 2013).
Portuguese immigrants have their own shops, bars and clubs – there is also an annual
BLuxembourg Miss Portugal^ selection. Young Portuguese living in Luxembourg, tend
to marry younger than the national average and also tend to marry amongst themselves
(Leduc and Villeret 2009). The online version of the largest national paper is available
in four different languages – and the content varies according to target group. Local
radio stations also offer programs in different languages. So-called Bexpats^ can send
their children to international schools and networks for the expatriate community such
as the American Women’s Club, with its mission Bto foster and encourage social,
educational, cultural and philanthropic activities among its members in Luxembourg
and to assist in furthering American-Luxembourg relations,^ the British Ladies Club, or
the Nordic Women’s Club (open to women who speak one of the Nordic languages)
exist to name but a few examples. In that way Bcommunities of experience^ are created
and perpetuated, meeting up with those who have made similar life journeys.
Luxembourg is home to many Bglobal nomads^ – people who have been born into
mixed-national families, been raised in different countries or have lived and worked in
a range of countries. These global nomads represent diverse nationalities within one
individual and unique specific journeys, these persons also share similar life experi-
ences in leading a nomadic life. There are different ways of leading a migrant life.
External factors influencing the choice of acculturation strategy include the length of
intended stay, type of job/ industry, closeness of the home country and resources,
referring to both financial resources as well as education including language capabil-
ities. Monocultural orientations are possible within the multicultural context, for both
Luxembourg nationals and migrants.
272 Integr Psych Behav (2017) 51:261–278

Multicultural Orientation

As briefly noted above, Luxembourg has played and continues to play a key role in the
European unification process following WWII. Luxembourg is host to several
European institutions and the first European School (Ecole Européenne, EE) was
established in Luxembourg in 1953. The European school system was created Bto
bring into being a united and thriving Europe^ by educating students Bside by side,
untroubled from infancy by divisive prejudices, acquainted with all that is great and
good in the different cultures … without ceasing to look to their own lands with love
and pride^ (Schola Europaea n.d.). The founding fathers of Europe hoped that students
will grow up Bfeeling that they belong together and become in mind Europeans.^
European schools are divided into different language sections, representing the member
states of the European Union. The EE thus represents a European microcosm within the
multicultural context of Luxembourg. Students attending the EE are exposed to
different forms of culture contact – from birth by having parents from different
countries of origins, by having lived in different countries and by being surrounded
by pupils from different countries at school and of course by living in multicultural
Luxembourg. The salience of nationality in EE students’ self-concept was shown in an
empirical study by Murdock et al. (2014). In a different study we wanted to explore
how students self-define in terms of nationality. We simply asked students how they
answer the question concerning their nationality. For a full description of the study I
would like to refer to Murdock and Ferring (2014) and concentrate here on some
results. A total of 204 students with an average age of 15 participated in this study and
about half of the students were born in Luxembourg to non-Luxembourgish parents.
For only one child both parents were born in Luxembourg. Half of the students had
mixed national parents. One key finding was that children of mono-national parents
tended to self-define in a mono-national way (BI am Greek^ or BI am Czech^).
However, not all children of mono-national parents did so: There was a small group
of students who mentioned their country of origin and their current country of residence
in the form of a Bbut statement^ (BI am form Malta, but I live in Luxembourg^ or BI am
from Ireland, but I live in Luxembourg^). Contrary to some of their mono-parental
peers, these students acknowledge the culture contact situation. However, as evidenced
by some other measures in the study, this group of students was more conflicted than
any of the other student groups. This finding could be explained within the accultur-
ation complexity framework outlined above: The culture contact situation has triggered
self-reflection, accompanied by a phase of stress and dissonance. These students could
be on their way to a bicultural orientation as expressed by one BNat but student^:
BAlthough I live in a foreign country, I still feel connected to my country of origin, but I
consider Luxembourg as a big part of who I am and have become^ or possibly more of
a monocultural orientation: BIt is an advantage to be born/ live in Luxembourg and
experience many different cultures and be able to speak different languages, but I think
of myself as Irish.^
One student commented: BI found that this survey was a bit pointless for someone
who only has one nationality and the questions concerning culture were a bit strange,
because I've never really thought that much about it and am still unsure what it really is
and also found it puzzling about how nationality would be affecting or affected by
culture.^ Another student commented: BIch habe keinen Brichtigen" Bezug zu einem
Integr Psych Behav (2017) 51:261–278 273

Land, sondern wohl eher zu einer Sprache oder Menschen, die ich dort kenne. Ich
empfinde den Kontakt zu verschiedenen Kulturen als eine Bereicherung, die Einfluss
auf meine Persönlichkeit hat. Ich bin stolz darauf, auf eine europäische Schule zu
gehen, weil es einem "viel^ mitgibt und durch die Vielfältigkeit an Sprachen immer
Neues zu entdecken gibt. Man muss auch mehr nachdenken und sich anpassen können
an verschiedene Gruppen, um sich verständigen zu können.B.1
These two students attend the same school and are of roughly the same age, but
culture contact is experienced completely differently. The first quote originates from a
student of mono-national parents. For this student, the culture contact situation is
seemingly not a salient issue. For other students with mono-national parents, in partic-
ular the BNat but Lux^ group, the culture contact experience triggered reflection. In this
research project we could observe that children of mono-national parents may react very
differently to the culture contact situation. Further research is required to investigate
which individual difference factors or context variables trigger reflection – leading some
students to embrace the culture contact experience, whilst others remain mono-national
within the multicultural environment. Students were also invited to provide open
comments. Quite a few of the mono-parental students underlined that they are of one
nationality. Capital letters and exclamation marks virtually shout this opinion to the
reader. The implied assumption in the minds of these students is that having parents of
mixed nationality is the necessary condition to qualify as a Bbicultural^ student. Living
in a different country is not a sufficient condition for self-labelling in a pluricultural way.
Growing up in a mixed-national family is the necessary condition to be considered
bicultural. The majority of children growing up with mixed national parents gave
bicultural self-descriptions as a matter of course. They added their nationalities (BI am
French and Danish^), provided percentages (B50% French, 50% Italian^ or B2/4
Luxembourgish, 1/4 German, 1/4 Italian^) or stroke identities (BPortuguese-Korean^;
BFranconéerlandaise^). A small number of students provided broader self-definitions
(BAfro-European who feels American^). It also worth noting that the vast majority of EE
students participating in the study expressed a positive attitude towards living in a
plurally composed society. Many students also go beyond a self-identification in terms
of a single national category. These students go beyond mono-national self-expressions
and provide reflected bicultural self-definitions. The students show that it is possible to
identify with more than one nationality. Some of these students resent being forced into
one category and demonstrate that Bold^ models of nationality don’t suffice in today’s
globalized world. The students incorporate different nationalities and experiences in
their sense of self. They integrate complexity – it is for the others to adjust, as
exemplified by another quote by a 14 year old student: BMy mother is German, my
father is British, I was born in England and I grew up in Luxembourg. You decide! (PS.
If all these don’t work for you, then Luxembourgish.)^
We conducted a similar study at a Luxembourg comprehensive school which also
has a student intake coming from a wide range of countries. In this study 224 students
participated. Only a fifth of the students was born in Luxembourg to Luxembourg-born
1
I don’t have a „realB relationship with a country, but rather with a language or with people whom I know
there. I experience the contact to different cultures as an enrichment, which influences my personality. I am
proud to go to a BEuropean school^ because you can learn a lot and the multitude of languages always offer
the opportunity to discover something new. One has to reflect more and to be able to adapt to different groups
to get along.
274 Integr Psych Behav (2017) 51:261–278

parents. A quarter of the students had parents with different countries of birth but only
12% of the students provided a bicultural self-definition. However the structure of those
was very similar to those given by the EE students. The majority added nationalities
(BLuxembourgeoise et Italienne^), followed by hyphenated identities (BFrancais/
Portugais^) or percentages (half Luxembourgish, half Belgian). Two students made a
reference to the country of origin (BLuxembourgish with Italian roots;^
BLuxembourgish of Capverdian origin^). Even though none of the students in the
study was actually born in Italy, references to Italy featured strongly in the bicultural
self-labels. As outlined above the Italians were the early immigrants to Luxembourg –
potentially pride is felt in the association with this group of pioneers, a lot of whom are
now well established in Luxembourg.
These studies can only be considered as a very first step into national identity
construal within a multicultural context. However, they serve to illustrate the complex-
ity involved and invite further research. For example, do the self-labels provided by the
adolescent participants represent actual self-categorizations or do they reflect ascrip-
tion? Are forms of identity denial taking place? What role do parent expectations, peers
or the school context play? In terms of bicultural definitions – to what extent do
students alternate or switch between cultures or are the cultures experienced as
blended? How important or central is the self-categorization for the sense of self and
well-being? These are just a few examples for further research questions concerning
national identity construal in Luxembourg.

Conclusion

Zittoun (2016) explores the modalities of generalization through the single case studies.
The objective of this paper was to highlight Luxembourg’s potential as a case study for
analysing identity construal in a multicultural context. Following Valsiner (2003), I
have summarized the single case that is Luxembourg in Fig. 2.
Luxembourg society (CL) provides the context for this study. There is the physical
territory that is Luxembourg, which is also characterized by its connectedness to the
outside. Luxembourg also sets the rules or legislative framework within which to
operate. The revision of the Law on Luxembourg Nationality allowing for dual
nationality was mentioned as one example, recognizing the current demographic
composition: As represented by the grey boxes in Fig. 2, Luxembourg is home to
several societies within the Luxembourg society (CnS). These societies vary in size,
demographic composition and many other factors, but importantly also in terms of
connectedness within themselves, across groups and to the Luxembourg society.
Society members will be in contact with different social institutions (In) within
Luxembourg. As emphasized by Zittoun (2016), institutions play a key role guiding
human conduct and individuals (individual persons, Cp) strongly differ in how they
react to this guidance. In that sense, institutions are instrumental in shaping the
individual experiences of society. Following Zittoun’s example, the case that is
Luxembourg could be summarized in the formula: G = Δ(CL, CnS, In, Cp, T), whereas
G stands for generalization, and Δ refers to the process of abduction based on the
Luxembourg context (CL), various societies within it (CnS), a number of institutions
(In), individual persons (Cp) and existing theoretical assumptions (T). Conceptual
Integr Psych Behav (2017) 51:261–278 275

Fig. 2 Generalization based on structurally situated cases within the Luxembourg society

structures emerge from the flow of everyday interaction between persons, between
persons and their sociocultural environment, guided by social institutions (Valsiner
2003). As noted above, individuals with different life journeys and experiences all live
within close proximity, providing a specific constellation where cultural meaning
systems are constantly challenged and negotiated, allowing us to observe emerging
phenomena of cultural construction. Within the EE student population, for example, we
could identify very different and unexpected patterns of national identity construal. The
native Luxembourg population, exposed to culture contact and challenged with minor-
ity status is engaged in a dynamic identity (re-)negotiation process. Within this diverse
society, Bnational^ culture and its transfer becomes a salient issue and cultural transfer –
in terms of content and process is negotiated – within individuals, within and across
groups, institutions and (national) societies. The inter-generational transfer of cultural
meaning systems is important for the survival of society. However, the culture transfer
includes transformations of what is being transferred. This is precisely the argument for
generalization through the case that is Luxembourg: the abduction or creative synthesis
of trajectories of individual people, living in their particular societies with particular
histories, memories and traditions who are in turn in engaged with and transformed by
different institutions. As Zittoun et al. (2013) note individuals are migrants through
time, space and reality through imagination. People and society mutually constitute
each other, yet individual people take very different approaches in how they engage
276 Integr Psych Behav (2017) 51:261–278

with or within the diverse society. Among the migrant population, for example, some
appear to be more passive recipients of received messages and not very engaged in the
culture contact situation. In contrast, some bicultural students provided reflected and
novel self-identifications. These students can be described as actively engaged in the
multi-directional process of transforming cultural messages. In short, the case study that
is Luxembourg allows us to look at the micro-setting of the construction, potentially of
something new.

Compliance with Ethical Standards Rules and procedures were followed as set out by the Ethics Review
Panel of the University of Luxembourg (ERP). Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants
included in the study. For studies involving minors, parent consent forms were distributed well ahead of the
studies. Parents received a detailed written study description and had the chance to ask for further clarification
or express any concerns they may have. All participants were informed about the voluntariness of their
participation and debriefing sessions about the study findings were offered at the end of the research projects.
All data was made anonymous.

Conflict of Interest I am the sole author of this article and I declare that I have no conflict of interest.

Funding This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or
not-for-profit sectors.

References

Arends-Tóth, J. V., & Van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2006). Issues in conceptualization and assessment of
acculturation. In M. H. Bornstein & L. R. Cote (Eds.), Acculturation and parent-child relationships:
Measurement and development (pp. 33–62). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Broadbent, D. E. (1958). Perception and communication. London: Pergamon Press.
Burholt, V., Scharf, T., & Walsh, K. (2013). Imagery and imaginary of islander identity: Older people and
migration in Irish small-island communities. Journal of Rural Studies, 31, 1–12. doi:10.1016/j.
jrurstud.2013.01.007.
Etat de la Population (2015). Ville de Luxembourg. Statistique sur la Ville de Luxembourg. http://www.vdl.
lu/vdl_multimedia/Publications/La+ville/Etat+de+la+population+2015.pdf
Schola Europaea (n.d.) School homepage. Available at: http://www.eursc.eu/index.php?id=132. Accessed 29
Apr 2013.
Eurostat (2011). Migrants in Europe. A statistical portrait of the first and second generation. Eurostat statistical
books (2011 ed.). Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. doi:10.2785/5318
Eurostat (2013). Migration and migrant population statistics - Statistics Explained (2013/9/1) http://epp.
eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Migration_and_migrant_population_statistics
Heinz, A., Peltier, F., & Thill, G. (2013). Les Portugais au Luxembourg - Portugiesen in Luxemburg, RP 2011
- Premiers résultats N°18. In S. Allegreza, D. Ferring, H. Willems, & P. Zahlen (Eds.), La Recensement de
la Population 2011. Statec: Luxembourg.
Hong, Y., Morris, M. W., Chiu, C., & Benet-Martínez, V. (2000). Multicultural minds: A dynamic construc-
tivist approach to culture and cognition. American Psychologist, 55(7), 709–720. doi:10.1037/0003-066
X.55.7.709.
Inglehart, R., & Welzel, C. (2010). Changing mass priorities: The link between modernization and democracy.
Perspectives on Politics, 8(2), 551–567.
International Monetary Fund (2016). IMF Data Mapper, World Economic Outlook. accessed 13.09. 2016.
http://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/index.php.
Jahoda, G. (2012). Critical reflections on some recent definitions of Bculture^. Culture & Psychology, 18(3),
289–303. doi:10.1177/1354067X12446229.
Leduc, K., & Villeret, (2009). Regard croisé sur la vie familiale selon l'origine. Collection - Vivre au
Luxembourg n°57, CEPS/Instead.
Luxembourg for Finance (2014). https://www.luxembourgforfinance.lu/why-luxembourg. Downloaded
06.03.2014.
Integr Psych Behav (2017) 51:261–278 277

McGuire, W. J., McGuire, C. V., Child, P., & Fujioka, T. (1978). Salience of ethnicity in the spontaneous self-
concept as a function of one's ethnic distinctiveness in the social environment. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 36(5), 511.
Ministry of Justice – The Luxembourg Nationality Law of 23 (October 2008). Information and Press Service
(SIP) of the Luxembourg Government. http://www.mj.public.lu/legislation/nationalite/droit_
nationalite_2009_3.pdf.
Murdock, E. (2014). Multiculturalism within the Luxembourg context. In A study of individual difference
variables influencing the attitude towards the plural composition of society. University of Luxembourg:
Luxembourg. Unpublished Dissertation.
Murdock, E. (2016). Multiculturalism, identity and difference. Experiences of Culture Contact. Palgrave
Macmillan UK.
Murdock, E., & Ferring, D. (2014). On being bicultural in a multicultural society. European Association for
Research on adolescences (EARA) newsletter. May, 2014, 9–12.
Murdock, E., Hirt, F. S., & Ferring, D. (2014). Salience of nationality in students‘ spontaneous self-concept: A
comparative study of a nationally homogeneous and a heterogeneous school context. Journal of Research
in International Education, 13(2), 119–134. doi: 10.1177/1475240914539797.
Pauly, M. (2013). Der Weg ist das Ziel. Historische Vortragsreihe an der Uni Luxemburg: “ En neie Bléck op
d’Lëtzebuerger Geschicht“ reported in: Tageblatt Luxembourg (16.01.2013).
Péporté, P. (2011). Constructing the middle ages: Historiography, collective memory and nation-building in
Luxembourg (3). Leiden: Brill.
Péporté, P., Kmec, S., Majerus, B., & Margue, M. (2010). Inventing Luxembourg. Representations of the past,
space and language from the nineteenth to the twenty-first century. Leiden: Brill.
Scheffen, J. L. (2013). Auf der Suche nach der Identität. Typisch luxemburgisch? Telecran, 29.12.2013, p. 27.
Schnell, R. (1990). Dimensionen ethnischer Identität. [Dimensions of ethnic identity].In H. Esser, & J.
Friedrichs (Eds.), Generation und Identität: Theoretische und empirische Beiträge zur
Migrationssoziologie [Generation and identity: Theoretical and empirical contributions to the sociology
of migration] (pp. 25–42). Opladen, Germany: Westdeutscher Verlag.
Statec (2015a). Luxembourg in Figures. Luxembourg: Institut national de la statistique et des études
économiques (statec).
Statec (2015b). Naturalizations per year. Accessed 14 Sept 2016. http://www.statistiques.public.
lu/stat/TableViewer/tableView.aspx?sCS_ChosenLang=en&ReportId=12910.
Statec (2016). Total population as of 1st January 2016. http://www.statistiques.public.
lu/stat/TableViewer/tableView.aspx?ReportId=12857&IF_Language=eng&MainTheme=2
&FldrName=1.
Tadmor, Carmit, T., Tetlock, & Philip, E. (2006). Biculturalism: A model of the effects of second-culture
exposure on acculturation and integrative complexity. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37(2), 173–
190. doi:10.1177/0022022105284495.
Thewes, G. (2008). About… History of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg. Luxembourg: Information and Press
Service (SIP) of the Luxembourg Government/ www.gouvernement.lu).
Trausch, G. (2007). Le Luxembourg, Emergence d’un Etat et d’une nation. Esch/Alzette: Edition Schortgen.
Valsiner, J. (1997). Constructing identity: A theoretical problem for social sciences. Presentation at the
workshop Identitätsdiskussionen in der Psychologie in the framework of the Graduiertenkollegs
Identitätsforschung of Martin-Luther-Universität Halle an der Saale, Germany, April 18, 1997.
Valsiner, J. (2003). Culture and its transfer : Ways of creating general knowledge through the study of cultural
particulars. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1). doi:10.9707/2307-0919-1013.
Van de Vijver, F. J., Blommaert, J., Gkoumasi, G., & Stogianni, M. (2015). On the need to broaden the concept
of ethnic identity. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 46, 36–46. doi:10.1016/j.
ijintrel.2015.03.021.
Vertovec, S. (2007). Super-diversity and its implications. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 30(6), 1024–1054.
doi:10.1080/01419870701599465.
Watzlawik, M. (2012). Cultural identity markers and identity as a whole: Some alternative solutions. Culture
& Psychology, 18(2), 253–260. doi:10.1177/1354067X11434843.
Weinreich, P., & Saunderson, W. (Eds.). (2003). Analysing identity: Cross-cultural, societal and clinical
contexts. Hove: Routledge.
Weinreich, P., Bacova, V., & Rougier, N. (2003). Basic primordialism in ethnic and national identity. In P.
Weinreich, P., & W. Saunderson, (Eds.). Analysing identity: Cross-cultural, societal and clinical contexts
(pp. 115–171). Hove: Routledge.
Zittoun, T. (2016). Modalities of generalization through single case studies. Presentation at INSIDE seminar,
University of Luxembourg, Luxembourg, 24–25.02.2016.
278 Integr Psych Behav (2017) 51:261–278

Zittoun, T., Valsiner, J., Vederler, D., Salgado, J.,Gonçalves, Ferring D. (2013). Human development in the life
course. Melodies of Living. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Dr. Elke Murdock is a Research Associate at the Integrative Research Unit on Social and Individual
Development (INSIDE) at the University of Luxembourg. A cross-cultural psychologist by training, she has
lived, studied and worked in Germany, Scotland, the USA, England and now Luxembourg. Her research
interest focuses on identity construal processes in multicultural contexts. Her PhD thesis addressed
BMulticulturalism within the Luxembourg Context^ and her book BMulticulturalism, Identity and Difference.
Experiences of Culture Contact^ was published in 2016.