Professional Documents
Culture Documents
From "Inbetweeners" To 'Transcultural Mediators': Turkish-German Second-Generation's Narratives of 'Return' Migration, Third Spaces and Re-Invention of The Self
From "Inbetweeners" To 'Transcultural Mediators': Turkish-German Second-Generation's Narratives of 'Return' Migration, Third Spaces and Re-Invention of The Self
From "Inbetweeners" To 'Transcultural Mediators': Turkish-German Second-Generation's Narratives of 'Return' Migration, Third Spaces and Re-Invention of The Self
To cite this article: Nilay Kılınç, Allan M. Williams & Paul Hanna (2022) From “inbetweeners” to
‘transcultural mediators’: Turkish-German second-generation’s narratives of ‘return' migration,
third spaces and re-invention of the self, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 45:14, 2726-2748, DOI:
10.1080/01419870.2022.2039400
ABSTRACT
The paper explores how second-generation Turkish-German ‘returnees’ benefit
from their “inbetweenness” in their ancestral homeland and initiate a process of
re-inventing themselves as ‘transcultural mediators’. A thematic-narrative
analysis was undertaken on 43 in-depth interviews with second-generation
Turkish-German ‘return’ migrants to Antalya who had acquired jobs in the
tourism sector. The paper unpacks how this tourism hub provides “third
spaces” distanced from prominent national and diasporic identities, and the
ways in which these liberating spaces encourage the lifestyle-oriented,
cosmopolitan second-generation ‘returnees’ to re-position themselves in their
translocal social fields. The findings illustrate how the second generation,
who formerly endured “being twice a stranger” in Germany and Turkey,
undertake a process of transculturation in Antalya, and utilize their
“transcultural capital” (i.e. bilingual skills, bi- multilingualism, translocal
habitus) to perform different aspects of their multiple and hybrid identities,
gain economic independence and build social relations.
KEYWORDS Second generation; return migration; transcultural capital; transcultural mediators; third
space
Introduction
Transnational approaches have increasingly framed the second generation’s
lives as being led by multiple and constant interconnections across inter-
national borders, and their public identities as being configured in relation-
ships to more than one national state (Schiller, Basch, and Blanc-Szanton
1992). However, empirical accounts point towards the second generation’s
experiences of “inbetweenness” related to feeling “stuck” between the
inward-looking space of the diasporic community, and the wider but not
fully accessible social spaces of the “host” society where they have grown up
(Euwals et al. 2010; Berry and Sabatier 2010).
This sense of “inbetweenness” can, at times, motivate the second gener-
ation to seek a fresh start in their ancestral homeland to secure a coherent
sense of self and home (Christou 2006). Yet, a common ‘return’ outcome
for the second generation is a sense of disappointment due to not experien-
cing a straightforward homecoming, which highlights the gap between their
‘return’ imaginings and realities (Tsuda 2003 on “myth of return”). However,
existing research offers limited insights about the second generation’s pro-
cesses of re-framing their social positions after ‘return’ by realizing their
potential arising from a repertoire of options drawn from across the spectrum
of oppositional discourses of diasporic communities on the one hand, and
cosmopolitan flows on the other (Castles 2002, 1158).
Thus, this paper focusses on the following question: How do second-gener-
ation Turkish-German ‘returnees’ realize and transform their sense of “inbet-
weenness”?1 To find answers, we explore their transculturation experiences,
mobility routes and lifestyle choices through a narrative-thematic analysis
of 43 in-depth interviews with ‘returnees’ who, after ‘return’ to the ancestral
homeland, chose to settle in a tourism city. We found that, the participants
firstly tried to build a life in their parents’ towns and villages or in big
cities, which intensified their sense of “inbetweenness”. In searching for
more liberating places where they could also achieve economic indepen-
dence, they decided to relocate to the Mediterranean tourism hub of Antalya.
The Turkish-German second generation have an advantageous position in
the power dynamics of Antalya vis-à-vis the German tourists/residents and
the co-ethnic/national locals whose work depends on the “transcultural
capital” of the Turkish returnees from Europe. This allows our participants
the possibility of going beyond their “inbetweenness” and further construct
their own positionalities. Subsequently, our findings suggest that character-
istics of the changing ‘return’-locales – in relation to job opportunities,
social spaces, and quality of life – contribute to the second generation’s
self-realization and re-invention of the self from being an “inbetweener” to
a ’transcultural mediator’.
The paper’s findings contribute to two literatures. First, we contribute to
return migration research by exploring the second generation’s post-‘return’
mobilities to find “third spaces” wherein they can express and utilize their
hybrid, transnational or cosmopolitan identities. This aspect of internal re-
mobilities after the second generation’s ‘return’ and its consequences have
been largely ignored by researchers (except Teerling 2011; Kılınç and King
2017). Furthermore, there is a lack of actor-oriented approaches in the literature
which focus on the second generations’ self-reflexive paths throughout the
‘return’ in relation to socio-spatial interconnections and activities/strategies
to transform their liminality into social and economic advantages.
2728 N. KILINÇ ET AL.
belonging”. King and Kılınc (2014, 132) argue that the Turkish-German
second-generation ‘returnees’ construct their own “socio-cultural fourth
spaces” – positionings amongst the homeland, hostland, and migrant com-
munity – that emerge partly of their own making and are partly imposed
on them by exclusionary mechanisms.
Despite the growing interest in second generation ‘return’, there is little
research on those who undertake self-reflexive paths regarding where and
how to live which are integral to their re-mobilities after ‘return’. Here, we
bring to the fore these self-reflexive paths by providing an understanding
of them through the theoretical lens of transcultural capital and translocal
geographies.
On the other hand, most of the participants expected to feel included in their
parents’ hometowns in Turkey but were made aware of their “outsider”
status. The locals and even their close relatives referred to them as
Almancı, meaning German-like. The term itself denotes “inbetweenness”, as
it is associated with working-class, rural-background Turkish guestworkers
and their descendants who had social upward mobility by living in
Germany. The Turkish locals would interact with these guestworkers whilst
they were on holidays in Turkey, bringing technological devices, wearing
Western brands, driving German cars. Until 1989, foreign products and cur-
rencies were prohibited in Turkey, and the guestworkers seemed to have
everything that was considered as “luxury”, “European” and “modern” by
Turkish standards. Hence, the locals seemed to label them as “upstarts”
and “wannabe-Germans” who had forgotten their roots.
The locals’ prejudices about the Turks from Germany resulted in a sense of
exclusion and, on top of that, many realized that they actually did not have a
deep knowledge about how social and business relations worked in Turkey.
In their early years of ‘return’, most participants developed reversed longings
towards Germany but, due to visa requirements or having established their
own families, they were unable return. These limitations created a turning
point for them to change their ‘return’ outcomes through further internal
migration. This finding on its own shows that return migration needs to be
evaluated as an ongoing journey and beyond a success-failure paradigm;
our participants assessed their options and settled in a city favoured
amongst German-speakers. They changed their career paths to tourism-
ETHNIC AND RACIAL STUDIES 2737
related work which they find mentally and emotionally more satisfying, even
though for some, it meant downsizing their income and status.
Giray’s narrative brings together these two points regarding the realization
that reuniting with his roots was a “myth”, and he needed to change his
location to explore who he really is. Giray, a trained mechanic in Germany,
has dual citizenship and had ‘returned’ to Turkey through his parents’
decision when he was 20 years old. He lived in Adana where his father
comes from, then married a local from Çorum (a small city) where he
worked in a tile factory. One summer he came to Antalya for holidays and rea-
lized that he could use his German language skills in the tourism sector, and
he then learned Russian, Persian, and Arabic, and extended his professional
networks. He works as a sale-person in a luxury bag store in Antalya.
I had adaptation problems in Turkey because coming from Germany I was used
to having an international crowd around me, everything was decent, people
were modern. Adana and Çorum were conservative for my taste, and with
having the family around me it became even more boring. So, the moment I
came to Antalya I realised that the problem was not Turkey, I was just living
in the wrong places. In Antalya, I have a little Germany around me with all
the German tourists and other nationalities. And I started earning good
money. I hired an agent for myself who arranges tourism-related sales jobs,
so I travel often, and I have worked in Dubai, Tunisia, Kuwait so far. I also
spend five months in Casablanca each year. I enjoy being mobile and free,
carpe diem, understand? (Giray, M42).
The narratives generally suggest that the liminality found in the tourism
spaces of Antalya enables our participants to overcome their perceived stig-
matization of “being twice a stranger”. In the following quote, Acun talks
about how he discovered his transcultural skills in Antalya and changed his
opinion about his “inbetweenness”. Acun was born and raised in Germany,
finished vocational school, and ‘returned’ to Turkey on his own – his family
still resides in Germany.
2738 N. KILINÇ ET AL.
Like Acun, other participants’ narratives also illustrate that they embrace a
distinct positionality towards the notions of “home” and “belonging”. In the
“roots migration” literature, return migrants mostly strive for a “stable”
home to secure a sense of self. In comparison, our participants mediate
between the experiences of home as fluid and flexible, and simultaneously
need certain patterns of security, stability, and control in places they
inhabit (Wessendorf 2007).
Süha’s narrative shows that this group feel a sense of purpose and have
overall socio-psychological satisfaction through being able to put them-
selves in changing contexts and expressing their “inside-outsider” position.
In that sense, their ‘return’ decision to Turkey marks the beginning of a
reflexive re-evaluation of their “inbetweenness”. Their settlement in
Antalya acts as a strategic move to re-define their positions in the power
dynamics with their Turkish and German Others. We continue with Süha’s
narrative which demonstrates how he re-positioned himself in Antalya’s
social fields and started thinking about his identities and life purposes in
more nuanced ways.
German is written on my ID but, after having lived here, I feel that I have qual-
ities of both … Turks love shortcuts, and there’s more talk than action. But you
can have a heart-to-heart connection with Turks. Also, Turks are more flexible, in
fact, here I learned to take life lightly … Germans are materialistic, and not as
sentimental. They worry too much, too many rules … I follow the Germans’
work discipline, but that’s it … This job’s like being under the spotlight, I inter-
act with strangers and learn new things every day … I realised that I enjoy living
freely and connecting with people based on higher values: my wife and I do
charity, we try to live sustainably. I think, these are more important things
than being German or Turkish … (Süha, M48) (Narrative extract integration
from Kilinc 2017, 245).
Like Süha, our sample group who were born and raised in the German social
order but kept symbolic ties with the ancestral homeland, had to go through
a learning process in Antalya about themselves, the “social order” (i.e. “game”)
and how they can unlock their “transcultural capital” (Kilinc 2017, 17). They
also had to reflect on the social differences and hierarchies which shape
their subjectivities in terms of their sense of place and behaviours of self-
exclusion/self-inclusion (Bourdieu 2011). Antalya as a “translocal field”
2740 N. KILINÇ ET AL.
We see a common trait amongst our sample group as Helin’s vignette hinted; a
tendency to seek escape from their diasporic/national identities, gender norms,
family/kinship ties and culturally-determined constraints/duties. Only in this
way, as Süha’s narrative also reflected, can they evaluate their life purposes
beyond the boundaries of given identities. Correspondingly, we argue that
this group’s ‘return’ migration trajectories are shaped by a “reflexive project
of the self” amongst other reasons (Giddens 1991). In Antalya, they were able
to build their own emotional links with the place based on a personal sense
of alignment. Hence, their belonging denotes an elective quality as they no
longer perceive their belonging as an attribute of being “born and bred” in a
place (Kilinc 2017, 56). Instead, belonging arises when their chosen place of resi-
dence is perceived as valuable due to its congruence with their lifestyle and life-
course requirements (Savage, Bagnall, and Longhurst 2005, 55).
Their process of transculturation involves a constant modification of both
parts of their identities, leaving room for new, original, and independent
expressions of belonging to a hybrid space of their own. Belkıs lived in
France and Spain, like Süha, and she also speaks French and Spanish
fluently. For them Antalya is a unique place because they can live with Euro-
pean standards and Mediterranean nature/climate, whilst following flexible
career options.
People ask me, “which one do you like more, Germany or Turkey?” For me it’s
like asking if I love my mother or father more! (laughing) … Antalya became my
home because I can have a decent life here. I lived in France and Spain before,
ETHNIC AND RACIAL STUDIES 2741
they also have the Mediterranean vibe, but it’s different here, because the
culture here is also mine, I can relate to Turkish culture in so many ways … I
guess, in Antalya I can have it all, and I also contribute to it. I’m working as a
translator in tourism and I’m teaching at a private school, so my daughter
can get a European style education with lower fees. I work as a German
teacher, but I’m trying to teach my students everything I’ve learned in
German schools, they experience a German way of classroom through me.
(Belkıs, F28).
Nedim’s integrity and no-cheating principle worked for him in the long run, as
he was able to establish his own businesses. Nedim’s narrative highlights that
gaining “trust” and “respect” reflect the importance of having symbolic
capital, and this gives him a sense of accomplishment compared to his pre-
vious life in Germany. As Belkıs and Nedim’s narratives indicate, Antalya as
a “third space” provides familiarity and sense of “home” because it is still in
Turkey (but without the limiting kinship ties) and offers everyday interactions
and close relations with Germans (without having to assimilate to their
cultures).
In Antalya, our participants’ translocal habitus can flourish without being
stuck to previous labels of being a “migrant”, “working-class”, “unintegrated”
“Almancı”. This allows them to develop coping strategies in their places of
contact with their “repertoire and mobilisation of skills and expertise that
require the forging of noneconomic, social and cultural allegiances”
(Kothari 2008, 501). Their “habitats of meaning” are constantly re-shaped
both through tourism mobilities in relation to their encounters with
different spaces e.g. tourism, family, leisure. It was reflected in Nedim’s narra-
tive that his negative perception of Turkey changed when he experienced life
in Antalya. This “fit” between our participants’ translocal habitus and Anta-
lya’s “third spaces” opens up many possibilities for personal growth.
Like Nusret, instead of searching for a coherent sense of self, our participants
have learned to benefit from “performing identities”. In Goffman’s (1990, 148)
words, they realized the power of “go-between” to establish good business
and social relations with their several “Others”, and to act as buffers
between groups while maintaining the tensions that provide the dynamics
of their actions. As Nusret’s narrative hints, there is a level of self-assurance
in becoming the important or go-to person in the area which has a positive
impact on self-esteem.
The participants tend to adhere to certain principles, such as warning their
colleagues if they mistreat international customers, hence showing loyalties
to “German Others”, and becoming “gatekeepers” of the workplace culture
in tourism spaces. Additionally, having witnessed the decline of tourists to
the area due to the political and economic instability in Turkey since the
late 2000s, our participants feel responsible for presenting a positive
picture of Turkey to international visitors, thereby encouraging return. As
Nedim and Nusret’s narratives showed, their roles as ’transcultural mediators’
involved building good business relationships both with locals and interna-
tionals. However, beyond that, they valued using their transcultural qualities
and skills to inform people about Antalya, whether it’s about where to dine, or
practical issues such as how to buy property.
The following quote from Jülide shows that being a ’transcultural
mediator’ also functions at an intimate level, through building friendships.
Jülide ‘returned’ to Turkey with her family, got married and settled in her
parents’ town. However, after the death of her husband, she felt her life
had become more restricted by her family, relatives, and the conservative
atmosphere of their town. In her words, she remigrated, “escaping” to
Antalya with her daughter and working in a tourism agency.
2744 N. KILINÇ ET AL.
My close German friend often visits and stays with me. Once I asked her, “Every-
body says that Eastern Turkey’s dangerous, but would you like to discover that
region with me?” So, I arranged everything, she brought another German friend,
and we went on a 2000-km journey, I even showed them my village. They loved
it so much that they spread the word to dozens of people in Germany. I think
this kind of publicity is what Turkey needs, people discovering different parts of
Turkey with locals and having positive experiences … And I feel like I’m doing
my part. (Jülide, F46)
Jülide’s narrative shows, she has come to consider herself a “local” and a
“gatekeeper” to the Turkish culture, but at the same time she is still in
the process of learning about Turkey. Following our participants’ common
depiction of themselves as “cosmopolitan locals” of Antalya, we find paral-
lels with Hannerz’s work on hybrid cultures and cosmopolitanism. Hannerz
(1992, 252) writes, “there can be no cosmopolitans without locals, represen-
tatives of more circumscribed cultures.” As we consider our sample as cos-
mopolitans, they are also – in a sense – transformers, and mediators
between the local and transnational. Hannerz (1992, 258–259) suggests cos-
mopolitans are cultural brokers, interpreters, and guardians of local culture,
and “they are likely to argue for its preservation or revitalisation rather than
its destruction.”
Our participants’ narratives reflected these perspectives; transculturation
and self-reflexivity allowed them to perceive their locale as a meeting point
of cultures and their role as mediating between different social Others. Ded-
icating themselves to tourism-related businesses and acting as agents who
positively transform the city and its dwellers serves to make their post-
‘return’ lives meaningful.
Conclusion
The paper brings new insights to research on second generation ‘return’
migration by exploring this group’s individualistic and lifestyle-oriented
motivations, and evaluating their post-‘return’ lives beyond a simple
success-failure paradigm. Our interviewees utilized their “transcultural
capital” and “translocal habitus” to take risks during an unknown journey,
prioritized their personal goals and dealt with the disillusions/disappoint-
ments of their initial ‘return’ places within Turkey by undertaking further
migration to Antalya (Kilinc 2017, 263).
Our findings showed that Antalya’s vibrant tourism environments pro-
vided the second-generation ‘returnees’ with “third spaces” which allowed
them to go beyond interpreting “ancestral homeland” as a monolithic repre-
sentative of national, ethnic and religious identities. Acquiring or developing
tourism-related businesses and being part of Turkish-German-international
hybrid communities helped them to accept and utilize their “inbetweenness”.
ETHNIC AND RACIAL STUDIES 2745
Note
1. This paper’s conceptual framework and findings are based on the first author’s
PhD dissertation, completed at the University of Surrey (Kilinc 2017), under the
supervision of Professor Allan M. Williams and Dr Paul Hanna.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
2746 N. KILINÇ ET AL.
ORCID
Nilay Kılınç http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1273-6034
Allan M. Williams http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6134-3611
Paul Hanna http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0461-1485
References
Anthias, Floya. 2008. “Thinking Through the Lens of Translocational Positionality: An
Intersectionality Frame for Understanding Identity and Belonging.” Translocations:
Migration and Social Change 4 (1): 5–20.
Balkır, Canan, and Berna Kırkulak. 2009. “Turkey, the New Destination for International
Retirement Migration.” In Migration and Mobility in Europe: Trends, Patterns and
Control, edited by Heinz Fassmann, Maz Haller, and David Lane, 23–43.
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Barkan, Elliott R. 2004. “America in the Hand, Homeland in the Heart: Transnational
and Translocal Immigrant Experiences in the American West.” The Western
Historical Quarterly 35 (3): 331–354.
Berry, John W., and Colette Sabatier. 2010. “Acculturation, Discrimination, and
Adaptation among Second Generation Immigrant Youth in Montreal and Paris.”
International Journal of Intercultural Relations 34 (3): 191–207.
Bhabha, Homi K. 1994. The Location of Culture. London: Routledge.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1990. The Logic of Practice. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 2011. “The Forms of Capital.” In Cultural Theory: An Anthology, edited
by Imre Szeman, and Timothy Kaposy, 81–94. Oxford: John Wiley & Sons.
Brah, Avtar. 1996. Cartographies of Diaspora: Contesting Identities. London: Routledge.
Braun, Virginia, and Victoria Clarke. 2006. “Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology.”
Qualitative Research in Psychology 3 (2): 77–101.
Brickell, Katherine, and Ayona Datta. 2011. “Introduction: Translocal Geographies.” In
Translocal Geographies: Spaces, Place, Connection, edited by Katherine Brickell, and
Ayona Datta, 3–23. Farnham: Ashgate.
Brocket, Tom. 2020. “From ‘In-betweenness’ to ‘Positioned Belongings’: Second-
Generation Palestinian-Americans Negotiate the Tensions of Assimilation and
Transnationalism.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 43 (16): 135–154.
Cassarino, Jean-Pierre. 2004. “Theorising Return Migration: The Conceptual Approach
to Return Migrants Revisited.” International Journal on Multicultural Societies 6 (2):
253–279.
Castles, Stephen. 2002. “Migration and Community Formation Under Conditions of
Globalization.” International Migration Review 36 (4): 1143–1168.
Christou, Anastasia. 2006. Narratives of Place, Culture and Identity: Second-generation
Greek-Americans Return ‘Home’. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Ehrkamp, Patricia, and Helga Leitner. 2003. “Beyond National Citizenship: Turkish
Immigrants and the (re-) Construction of Citizenship in Germany.” Urban
Geography 24 (2): 127–146.
Euwals, Rob, Jaco Dagevos, Mérove Gijsberts, and Hans Roodenburg. 2010.
“Citizenship and Labour Market Position: Turkish Immigrants in Germany and the
Netherlands.” International Migration Review 44 (3): 513–538.
Faist, Thomas. 1993. “From School to Work: Public Policy and Underclass Formation
among Young Turks in Germany During the 1980s.” International Migration
Review 27 (2): 306–331.
ETHNIC AND RACIAL STUDIES 2747
Schiller, Nina Glick, Linda Basch, and Cristina Blanc-Szanton. 1992. “Transnationalism:
A New Analytic Framework for Understanding Migration.” Annals of the New York
Academy of Sciences 645 (1): 1–24.
Sirkeci, Ibrahim, Jeffrey H. Cohen, and Pinar Yazgan. 2012. “Turkish Culture of
Migration: Flows Between Turkey and Germany, Socio-economic Development
and Conflict.” Migration Letters 9 (1): 33–46.
Teerling, Janine. 2011. “The Development of New ‘Third-Cultural Spaces of Belonging’:
British-Born Cypriot ‘Return’ Migrants in Cyprus.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration
Studies 37 (7): 1079–1099.
Thomson, Mark, and Maurice Crul. 2007. “The Second Generation in Europe and the
United States: How is the Transatlantic Debate Relevant for Further Research on
the European Second Generation?” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 33 (7):
1025–1041.
Tsuda, Takeyuki. 2003. Strangers in the Ethnic Homeland: Japanese Brazilian Return
Migration in Transnational Perspective. New York: Columbia University Press.
Wacquant, Loic. 2005. “Habitus.” In International Encyclopaedia of Economic Sociology,
edited by Jens Becket, and Milan Zafirovski, 315–319. London: Routledge.
Wessendorf, Susanne. 2007. “Roots Migrants’: Transnationalism and ‘Return’ among
Second-generation Italians in Switzerland.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies
33 (7): 1083–1102.