2. Return migration and reintegration
2.6. Return migration and the ‘(re)integration framework’
Some of the diverse challenges in establishing an all-encompassing framework to analyse the reintegration experience of returnees are its multi-dimensional nature and the multiple aspects that influence it. While a few authors have attempted to contribute to the development of models (see Kuschminder’s Reintegration Strategies 2017), a systemic approach to the study of reintegration is not yet established. This thesis will attempt to contribute to the development of a framework that helps to better understand the reintegration experience of returnees.
In order to study the reintegration experience of Mexican returnees, I will use a framework adapted from other integration models proposed previously. This framework is based on the study of the multiple dimensions of the integration process (structural, social, cultural, civic and political). Additionally, within this framework two key aspects that may influence the reintegration process of returnees will be considered: (i) contexts of return, including socio- economic characteristics of the place of return, governmental policies and norms, structural constraints, as well as ii) returnees’ gendered life course, education and occupation; and (iii) pre-return and return aspects (motivations and/or pressures to migrate and return, life in the host country, as well as the type and place of return).
40 Anderson (2015) in her article describes how, during their periodic breaks, a crowd of young
people gathers outside of a US-based transnational call centre located in the historic city centre of Mexico City. A mixture of English and Spanish (Spanglish) can be heard, though a particularly bold English of street and youth cultures predominates. Indeed, a handful of those gathered look and sound like any Latino migrant from the streets of Los Angeles or Chicago.
Regarding the definition of the reintegration dimensions proposed in this framework, the structural aspect considers returnees’ access to services and participation in local institutions (e.g. access to livelihoods, education and health services). The social dimension considers aspects related to the interactions of individuals in the society and private spheres (e.g. family, friendships and marriages), with a particular focus on the reestablishment and/or development of returnees’ social bonds and bridges. The cultural dimension refers to the cognitive, behavioural, attitudinal and life-style changes of returnees and how these changes influence their cultural identification and orientation. The civic and political participation dimension explores the community and political involvement of returnees (Ager and Strang 2008; Erdal and Oeppen 2013; Etzinger 2000; Heckmann 2006; Spencer and Charsley 2016). Researchers who study integration usually incorporate an identity dimension which encompasses the processes through which individuals develop (to a certain extent) a shared identity and sense of belonging with the communities, localities and people amongst whom they live. In this research, I argue that the sense of belonging is an important element of a person’s psychosocial wellbeing. In other words, it is an outcome of the individual, subjective assessment of the whole reintegration experience (with its key aspects and dimensions) and it will therefore be analysed separately.
This categorisation (as any other) is, to a certain extent, exploratory. Additionally, this framework acknowledges that the various dimensions of reintegration are interdependent and the boundaries between them are less evident in some cases than others. In other words, there is a dynamic interaction between these various categories; progress in one may positively or negatively affect another. For example, if a returnee is unable to obtain education certificates from the host country, he/she may not be able to access university education in the country of origin (structural dimension). Consequently, the returnee might activate his/her transnational social networks (social dimension) in order to establish a business. This whole situation may reinforce his/her cultural identification as more American than Mexican (cultural dimension). Recognising this dynamism is useful and helps us to view the reintegration process (in addition to the return) not as an ‘end-state’, but rather an ever- evolving process. Therefore, the results of this thesis will portray a snapshot of Mexican returnees’ current reality, which is ever-changing (Spencer and Charsley 2016:5).
Moreover, this framework proposes that, in order to gain a deeper understanding of returnees’ reintegration experiences, it is necessary to look beyond labels imposed by external parties (e.g. successful/unsuccessful, sustainable/unsustainable) and focus on
returnees’ own evaluations of their migration projects and wellbeing (Erdal and Oeppen 2017; Wright 2012).
For her study of Peruvian migrants, Wright proposed the use of the concept of human wellbeing which considers the interplay between material (objective), perceptual (psychosocial) and relational domains (2012:9). According to Wright, the first is to do with welfare, access to public services, and standards of living, encompassing areas such as income, employment and housing, and people’s subjective assessments of them. The second, the perceptual domain, covers aspects such as life enjoyment, personal safety, sense of belonging, autonomy41 and social status42 as well as culturally embedded meanings and understandings of norms and values for example of what is a “good life” or “good return” (King and Collyer 2016:179). The third, the relational domain, covers personal (kinship) and social relations with human wellbeing framed as a state of ‘being’ with others43. This author proposes that rather than material, perceptual and relational wellbeing operating as separate categories, the interest lies precisely in a holistic understanding and the interplay that exists between them (Wright 2012b:470). Therefore, based on Wright’s work, I will be analysing returnees’ human wellbeing, taking into account that wellbeing is contextual, situationally specific and subject to change (Bendixsen and Lidén 2017). Furthermore, this framework proposes that human wellbeing will influence returnees’ future aspirations including intenstions to re-migrate (see Figure 2).
While one of the main strengths of the reintegration concept is that it recognises the interactive process between the individual and their return contexts, and considers a large number of variables (key individual aspects, pre-return, return and post-return experiences, and the human wellbeing dimensions), the strength of this concept is also its main weakness as it is often impossible to analyse all the relevant aspects in a single study. With this in mind, the use of the proposed framework for the analysis of the Mexican case will hopefully improve our understanding of the wide variety of returnees’ reintegration experiences upon their arrival from the USA.
41 According to Doyal and Gough (1992) personal autonomy is what is necessary to make informed
choices about what should be done and how to go about doing it in a given societal context.
42 Particularly in the Mexican society the reputation arising from achieving economic success in the
USA is highly valued within the communities of origin.
43 This dimension is intrinsically linked to the need of relatedness which is the universal desire to
Figure 2. '(Re)integration framework’
Source: Author’s model based on Ager and Strang 2008; Erdal and Oeppen 2013; Heckmann 2006; Spencer and Charsley 2016; Vathi 2017; Wright 2012
In order to have a more accurate terminology I am proposing to use the term ‘(re)integration’ in this study. In order to best reflect reality, I have decided to make use of a parenthesis to indicate that the process can be experienced in different ways: as an integration process for returnees to whom Mexico feels so alien that return is experienced as coming to a new ‘host’ country, and as a (re)integration process for those migrants who experience the return as coming back to their ‘home’ country, or for those whose lives are caught in an ‘in between’ situation making them feel ‘ni de aqui, ni de alla’ (neither from here, nor from there) or in some cases, ‘de aqui y de allá’ (from here and from there).
Context of return - socio-economic
aspects, governmental policies and norms Structural dimension - access to institutions and constraints Human wellbeing T im e Individual aspects: gendered life course, education and occupation +
Pre-return, return and post-return experiences Cultural dimension - cultural orientation and identification Social dimension- development of social bonds and
bridges Civic and political participation dimension Future aspirations