![]() Esra’s alternative preference was a university at a distance that allowed her to stay at home. This was so inconceivable that she knew better than to ask. Her father envisioned her to be a doctor, but also would not allow her to live by herself or attend a university of her choosing. At the same time, her parents were not involved in school and school choice in more practical ways. ![]() Esra recalls that her father once stood up for her education and challenged other Turkish fathers, who were more protective of their daughters and did not allow them to pursue higher education. Homework was prioritized over household tasks. Her parents placed high priority on education and their children’s development, which is why they moved to another neighborhood when the children entered primary school. Three categories of coethnic actors emerged from the stories about the participants’ childhoods: parents, a local coethnic community, and coethnic peers, including siblings.Īs we have seen in Esra’s story in Chap. This comparison sheds light on the relevance of ‘ethnicity’ as an interpretative frame for the ethnic-minority climbers. How do they reflect on their relations with social others? How do external demands and ascriptions influence feelings of belonging? How are these feelings of belonging related to their self-identification in specific contexts? I compare the participants’ stories to the stories of social climbers with ethnic-Dutch backgrounds in other studies (Brands 1992 Matthys 2010). ![]() Based on the in-depth interviews, this chapter explores the positioning of the second-generation climbers in various contexts. This chapter explores how the participants come to identify in certain ways in specific situations. However, when participants tell their life stories-when relating anecdotes and recounting situations-their identifications are far from static and autonomous, but are related to the context. 5 about the ethnic (and national) identifications of the higher-educated second-generation Moroccan Dutch and Turkish Dutch showed that the participants in some parts of the interview reflect on their identification as autonomous and static. Based on the interviews, a typology of ethnic options is developed. Here, the achieved social mobility functions as symbolic capital. They have various responses at their disposal. ![]() Although such labeling can be very coercive, individuals do not lack agency. Labeling minority individuals in ethnic terms is an act of exclusion, leading to categorization resistance, for various reasons. In interethnic fields, despite their social mobility, the interviewees sometimes faced an exclusionary labeling that conflicted with how they want to be seen, namely, as one of ‘us’ in that particular situation. In coethnic fields, participants were often confronted with behavioral expectations that ran counter to their own autonomous preferences. They negotiated this belonging both in coethnic contexts, such as the family, and in interethnic contexts, such as at school and in the workplace. The interviewees described that they yearned to belong in the various fields. How they identify-how they position themselves-depends on the social context. ![]() Individuals do not have fixed identifications. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |