Alienation of the Outsider: The Plight of Migrants
| Author | Ĉiǧdem Kaǧitĉibasi |
| Published date | 01 June 1987 |
| Date | 01 June 1987 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2435.1987.tb00580.x |
Alienation
of
the Outsider:
The Plight
of
Migrants
CI€DEM KA€ITCIBASI'
INTRODUCTION
The phenomenon of uprooted populations is a most important and widespread social
problem in the world, involving large-scale mobility of people. Two main types of
migration make up this phenomenon, namely, rural to urban migration and international
migration. As a case of international migration, the phenomenon
of
migrant labodmi-
grant populations in Europe will be examined in this paper, focusing mainly on its effects
upon the immigrant family and the second generation. For comparison of the plight of
international migrants with those from rural to urban areas, Turkish immigrants into
Europe and into Turkish metropolitan centers will be considered. This allows for com-
paring migrant groups with the same point of origin in terms of national, ethnic, cultural,
religious and social class characteristics, as well as the same traditional family culture.
Issues relating to international labor into Europe will be examined first. The back-
ground and nature of international migration will
be
reviewed briefly to understand the
extent of alienation involved in it. Rural to urban migration will then be dealt with,
focusing on the Turkish experience for comparison with international migration. Finally
there will be a discussion of alienation and the significance
of
the 'culture of related-
ness'.
INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION
As a highly complex phenomenon of immense proportions, the issue of immigrant
populations in Europe can be examined from various perspectives. Indeed voluminous
research literature has accumulated on this issue up to date which would be impossible to
cover here. Rather, the approach here will be selective, focusing on the problems of
alienation and marginality. Some recent overviews include, among others, Abadan-Unat
(1986);
a special issue of
Current
Sociology,
1984;
a voluminous annotated bibliography
prepared by Abadan-Unat and Kemiksiz
(1986)
and another one in preparation by U.
Boos-Niinning at Essen University; BaSgoz and Furniss
(1985);
Korte (1
982).
The main factors underlying immigration into Europe have been economic, specifically
the unfavorable economic conditions in the sending countries and the shortage of labor in
Western Europe. On the receiving country side, importing labor has satisfied the
man-
*
Professor
of
Social Psychology, Bogazi~ University,
Istanbul,
Turkey.
195
power requirements of economic growth. It maintained the planned speed of production,
kept wages low
(or
at least stabilized them) by means of additional labor supply, and held
prices down, thus producing a counter-inflationary effect, promoting sustained growth
and increasing capital accumulation through exports. Finally it has meant readily avai-
lable labor, the majority of whom have been willing to take up the most laborious tasks,
those least sought after by indigenous workers
;
a non-demanding, unorganized labor force
which can be dispersed in case of depression (Uca, 1980; Paine, 1974); and a new lower
social class moving the indigenous workers upward on the social ladder (Skutnabb-
Kangas, 1980; Kagitcibasi, 1985a; Abadan-Unat, 1982, 1986; Gitmez, 1983).
From the point of view ofthe sending country, exporting labor has also meant economic
benefits
-
mainly providing employment for the unemployed and the underemployed.
Surveys conducted among Turkish workers, for example, found that 75 to 8 1
%
of workers
who emigrated did
so
in order to have better paid jobs (Uca, 1980); similarly, the unfa-
vorable ration of wages between Greece and Germany and worse working conditions in
Greece, together with unemployment, are seen as the main ‘push’ factors (Siampos and
Moussourou,
1980). Exporting labor has also meant availability of substantial amounts of
scarce foreign exchange.
Labor migration, which has been endorsed by both the receiving and the sending
countries because it fulfills the above-mentioned functions, has nevertheless meant mar-
ginalization for the migrant labor. His unclear identity is further shadowed by his tem-
porary ‘guest’ status and his different socio-cultural, political, religious and linguistic
background. Thus, immigration which appeared, especially at the outset, to be an eco-
nomically beneficial temporary measure for all concerned, has turned out to be a highly
complex human phenomenon of far reaching socio-cultural, political and psychological
consequences.
Effects of Immigration on the Immigrant Family:
The migrant worker and his family often become marginal to both the country of origin
and the country ofsojourn (Wilpert, 1980; Kiray, 1986; Nauck, 1987; Kagitcibasi, 1985a;
Savelsberg, 1982). Cultural assimilation has not been an aim of the migrant,
or
the sending
country
or
the initial immigration policy of most receiving countries (Siampos and
Moussourou, 1980; Mehrlander, 1976; Abadan-Unat, 1982; Wilpert, 1984). However,
retaining one’s cultural identity often means being noticeably different and thus inferior.
The immigrant’s own resistance to the half-hearted attempts at cultural assimilation have
further contributed to the marginalization of the ‘guest’ worker.
There has been a slow shift in policy, especially in the Federal Republic of Germany
since 1973, towards the consolidation of the foreign work force into the community. This
has been due to various factors such as increased duration of residence of foreign workers,
family reunions, the growing number of marriages between foreigners and nationals and
the desire of many foreigners to take up permanent residence in Europe (Mehrlander,
1976; Abadan-Unat, 1986). The average length of stay has increased (Swamy, 1981). Still,
however, much ambiguity, resentment and controversy exist both at the level of policy
and at that of social and individual sentiments about the status ofthe ‘foreigners’. Return
migration which is being encouraged has further complicated the picture. Such a situation
helps perpetuate the discrimination the migrant family faces; prejudice and rejection by
the dominant culture is the rule.
The migrant family has to
be
quite flexible in dividing
or
reconstituting itself in various
ways to accommodate time, space and money requirements and to protect ties with the
home country requiring intensive geographical mobility, all resulting in structural insta-
bility and even fragmentation (Kiray, 1976; Korte, 1982; Savelsberg, 1982). Further
196
To continue reading
Request your trial