lived experiences of returnees in
Armenia*
*Based on Lietaert, I., Broekaert, E., & Derluyn, I. (accepted). Time Heals? A multi-sited, longitudinal case study on the lived experiences of returnees in Armenia. In Z., Vathi & R.
King (Eds.), Return Migration and Psychosocial Wellbeing: Discourses, Policy-Making and Outcomes for Migrants and their Families. Routledge.
189
Abstract
This article explores the dynamics of returnees’ experiences and wellbeing from a longitudinal perspective. Analyses of interviews with four migrants returning with governmental support from Belgium to Armenia during the initial two years after their return illustrated the changing meaning they attach to places, return and migration. Their evaluation of the return experiences mainly depended on their post-return situation and wellbeing, contesting the idea that a higher willingness to return automatically eases a return. Further, the mutual, though diverse, influence between return migration and wellbeing confirmed the need for a holistic approach and to include temporal dimensions to understand the multiplicity of returnees’ experiences and wellbeing.
191
7.1 Introduction
In recent decades, return migration has received increased attention in migration policy and research (Black & Gent, 2006; Cassarino, 2004; Matrix Insight, 2012).
Despite previous approaches to return migration as an ‘easy’, ‘natural’ or
‘unproblematic’ homecoming, it is now well-recognized that return migration is a multi-phased, multi-layered, long-lasting and complex process and experience, which is sometimes even experienced as more difficult than the initial migration (Black et al., 2004; Ghanem, 2003; Markowitz & Stefansson, 2004).
Migrants’ post-return experiences seem being influenced by different elements. At first, Cassarino (2004, 2008) has largely elaborated on how differences in post-return experiences can be explained by migrants’ ‘post-return preparedness’. The author defines this concept of ‘return preparedness’ as, firstly, the free choice of migrants to return (willingness to return), and, secondly, the readiness to return, particularly the abilities and possibilities to collect those resources that are needed to return. Both elements are, according to Cassarino, strongly influenced by circumstances in both host and home country.
With respect to the first element, the ‘willingness’ of migrants to return, it is widely recognized that the voluntary or forced nature of migration (in general, not only related to return migration) may influence migrants’ psychosocial wellbeing (Bhugra, 2004). With regards to return migration in particular, different authors have stressed the importance and centrality of migrants’ motives to return, and their agency in the decision-making process whether to return or not – thus their
‘voluntariness’ to return, since this may influence returnees’ possibilities and their rate of success after return (Cassarino, 2004), their possibilities to embed in the society of the country of origin (Ruben, Van Houte, & Davids, 2009), the perception of their return process (Cassarino, 2008), and their possibilities to create feelings of belonging post-return (De Bree, Davids, & De Haas, 2010). Yet, researchers have also indicated that there is no strict distinction between forced and voluntary migration; the decision to migrate, or to return, is often ‘mixed’, and a response to a complex set of factors of both compulsion and choice (Turton, 2003; Van Hear, Brubaker, & Bessa, 2009). Therefore, it is a false assumption that voluntary migration would be a ‘safe’ form of migration in terms of its consequences for migrants’ psychosocial wellbeing (Vathi & Duci, 2016).
The second element in Cassarino’s model, migrants’ ‘readiness to return’, is said to be dependent on migrants’ possibilities to collect, or their possession of, capital and resources to support this return process. This factors has received support in different studies as being influential in returnees’ evaluation of the return
192
experiences and migrants’ living conditions after return (Bhugra, 2004; Van Meeteren et al., 2014).
Next to this focus on returnees’ pre-return situation as elaborated by Cassarino, other scholars have pointed at the impact of the entire migration experience on how returnees’ experience their return, since migrants’ evaluation of this return experience may depend on their initial migration motives (Constant & Massey, 2002), or, as Van Houte and Davids (2008) indicate, understanding migrants’
post-return experiences demands a holistic approach whereby the experiences and living conditions during previous migration phases are considered. Similarly, Gualda and Escriva (2014) stress that previous experiences affect returnees’ post-return possiblities, resources, and perceptions and evaluations of their living situation.
Thirdly, returnees’ experiences of their return are also influenced by how they manage to reintegrate or readjust in different life domains (Ruben et al., 2009).
Yet, this reintegration process is strongly influenced by the specific context in the country of origin, and migrants’ personal capital and access to resources (Pedersen, 2003; Van Meeteren et al., 2014). Various interrelated and dynamic impacting factors may be identified here, whereby individual returnees evaluate these factors differently (Gualda & Escriva, 2014; Pedersen, 2003). First, the ability to establish a secure material base for living is considered a central element in the return experience (Pedersen, 2003). Second, migrants’ social networks, and their reintegration herein may be important resources to receive emotional support and support to solve problems in the return process, and for an overall greater wellbeing (Ruben et al., 2009). However, the supportive effect of social networks seems to be higher for migrants from privileged socio-economic backgrounds (Pedersen, 2003), and the inability to meet familial expectations related to the migration process may also hinder a positive return experience (Van Meeteren et al., 2014). Finally, returnees’ sense of belonging to or, in contrast, their sense of disconnection towards the country of origin may affect their return experience and wellbeing (Pedersen, 2003; Vathi & Duci, 2016).
While there seems to be quite an extensive knowledge on possible factors impacting returnees’ post-return living, most studies use a cross-sectional approach, studying this group at a particular moment in their return process and there is a paucity of longitudinal studies on returnees’ living situations. Further, next to the paucity of studies incorporating the dynamic character of return migration, there are little studies that try to capture the complexity of these migration processes (Wright, 2011), since most focus on only one or a couple of impact factors. Thirdly, most studies look at returnees’ living situations in terms of their economic situation, while less attention is paid to returnees’ subjective
193 experiences about their return situation and about their entire migration process (King et al., 2014; Wright, 2011).
Looking at the return process as a ‘situated concept’, that is framed in particular events and experiences, and that reflects a particular social, personal and country-specific context, whereby its meaning is framed in the returning individuals’
experiences and points of view (Long & Oxfeld, 2004), we use this contextualized approach to examine returning migrants’ lived experiences and wellbeing from a longitudinal perspective. Through an in-depth longitudinal follow-up of the return migration trajectories of four returnees, we aim at capturing the complex interplay between different material, perceptual and relational dimensions of return processes, and at getting insight into returnees’ lived realities and their subjective experiences of wellbeing throughout the return process (Van Houte &
Davids, 2008; Wright, 2011). Hereby, we put particular emphasis on including a diversity of grades of ‘voluntariness’ in people’s return-decisions in our study, given the emphasis this has gained throughout previous studies.
7.2 Methods
7.2.1 Study participants
In order to explore how migrants experience their return trajectories and how their wellbeing is shaped throughout the return migration process, this study examined the first two years in the return process of four migrants who were returning from Belgium to Armenia.1 The respondents were selected out of a larger study, in which we conducted a longitudinal follow-up of 65 migrants who were returning to Georgia and Armenia with support from the Belgian assisted voluntary return and reintegration (AVRR) programme as provided by the NGO Caritas International. For this study, we chose to select a homogeneous group in terms of country their of origin (i.e., migrants returning to Armenia), in order to reduce the heterogeneity in terms of the returning country context (Black et al., 2004; Cassarino, 2004).
194
Table 7.1: Summarized overview of respondents’ stories
GRIGOR
Grigor migrated alone to Belgium in order to work and applied for asylum. His wife and children stayed in Armenia. After 19 months in Belgium, he applied for AVRR and wanted to start an internet café with the support that was allocated to him. At that time, his asylum application was rejected, he was living with friends and earned some money by doing small jobs for friends.
After return, Grigor rejoined his wife and children and lived in the house of his parents in law in the capital. In the first year after his return, he used his AVRR budget to join the internet café of his friend. In the second year after return, he had divorced his wife and lived in a rented house. He started his own internet café.
DAVIT
Davit moved to Belgium with his wife and two children, after a rejection of his asylum application in Austria. They asked asylum in Belgium upon arrival, though left the asylum centre to live with a friend, as the living conditions in the centre were too difficult for the family. After 15 months in Belgium, they applied for AVRR and wanted to buy cattle with the support that was allocated to them. At that time, their asylum claim was rejected, they could no longer stay with their friend and the family had no income.
The family returned to their private house in a village. In the first year after his return, Davit used his AVRR budget to start cattle breeding. He tried to regain his previous professional position as sports trainer and was training different children, but was not able yet to join the national federation. In the second year after return, the family lived at the same place. Davit’s cattle breeding activity failed and he had no income from his training activities.
NAREK
Narek migrated with his wife and daughter to Belgium to find better living conditions and applied for asylum. At the moment their asylum application was rejected and they had to leave the reception structure, after 19 months in Belgium, the family applied for AVRR.
Narek wanted to buy a car with the support that was allocated to them.
The family returned to a smaller city near to the capital and could inhabit a floor of the house of Narek’s father, though the place needed renovation. In the first year after his return, Narek started to work in distribution with the car he purchased with the AVRR budget. In the second year after return, the renovation at their living place had progressed and Narek continued his work in distribution, added with the manufacturing of figures and vases.
LILIT
Lilit migrated to Belgium for medical treatment, her husband followed five years later.
After their reunion, they both applied for asylum. Two years after this asylum application, they received a negative answer on their request. For a short period, they were given shelter by acquaintances though were asked to leave the house. At that time, after Lilit and