Student Mobility and Narrative in Europe

The New Strangers

Elizabeth Murphy-Lejeune

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2003
• Topic: Social Sciences
• eBook ISBN:
  9781134506415
• Subtopic: Anthropology
• Index: Social Sciences

Bringing together case studies and theory, this book is the first in-depth qualitative study of student migration within Europe. Drawing on the theory of 'the stranger' as a sociological type, the author suggests that the travelling European students can be seen as a new migratory elite. The book presents the narratives of travelling students, explains their motivations, the effects of movement into a new social and cultural context, the problems of adaptation, and describes the construction of social networks, and the process of adaptation to new cultures.

1 The stranger’s template

Introduction: the conceptual lineage of the sociology of the stranger

Three texts define the sociological template or the formal characteristics of the stranger as a social type.¹ They are Simmel’s seminal essay (1908), developed by Park (1928) and the work of his colleagues in the Chicago school of sociology, and finally crowned with Schutz’s essay (1944). These texts provide the core of an attempt to analyse a more specific case of the sociology of the stranger, that of student mobility. They represent a rich conceptual framework, highlighting central characteristics of individuals in situations of social change arising out of migration or mobility.

A second set of texts includes the works of Wood (1934) and Stonequist (1937), together with Siu’s article on the sojourner (1952), which present various portraits of strangers in differing social contexts. Each text contributes to the analysis of the general social type of the stranger, following Simmel’s lineage, by exploring the distinctive set of features embodied in the particular type they describe. Park’s marginal/hybrid/cosmopolitan ‘citizen of the world’, Schütz’s newly arrived migrant, Wood’s newcomer, the marginal/international/cultural hybrid described by Stonequist, Siu’s sojourner, as well as Harman’s modern stranger (1988) represent as many variants of the kaleidoscope of the stranger. The mobile fragments forming the background are the general characteristics which, reflected in the mirror of reality, produce sets of images, variants of the social type described. Our hypothesis is that travelling European students represent another variant of the kaleidoscope and that contemporary student mobility may be conceived in this conceptual framework. The earlier sociological literature provides points of comparison and contrast for the analysis of a new sociological concept, the student traveller.

Simmel’s essay was the foundation stone of what became the sociology of the stranger, which aimed at an epistemological break from the existing body of knowledge on the subject. Simmel established the natural membership of the stranger to the group and introduced the stranger into sociology as a legitimate object of study.

The state of being a stranger is of course a completely positive relation; it is a specific form of interaction [...] The stranger is an element of the group itself, not unlike the poor and sundry ‘inner enemies’ - an element whose membership within the group involves both being outside it and confronting it.

(Simmel in Levine, 1971: 143-144)

Highlighting new forms of sociability, his description embraces other sundry ‘inner enemies’, from whom the stranger differs nevertheless because of previous membership to another language-culture. Cases of strangeness in which certain groups are disallowed the most general human characteristics, such as the relation of the Greeks to the Barbarians, are however excluded from the description since they no longer consider the stranger as an element of the group itself.

The concept of ‘the stranger’² occupies a special place in the sociological tradition. Dominated by the model Simmel constructed and illustrated later in the works of many researchers from the Chicago school of sociology, it took on diverse guises and was weakened as a result, according to Harman (op. cit.). In the German idealist tradition, the main problem lies with the stranger: how will individual actors deal with the experience of strangeness? Assimilated to the American context of the early twentieth century, it is the host culture that is problematised: what kind of impact will the new arrivals have on the community and what can be done to receive them? Two main research traditions emerged from this, the first focusing on the status of the stranger in the group, as a newcomer or as a marginal, the second exploring and expanding the notion of social distance. In the end, the fate of Simmel’s concept follows that of the individuals it depicts and becomes a creation without a history, evolving between those who seek to preserve its original form and those who seek to adapt it to new social conditions (Levine, 1977).

Simmel defines the formal position of the stranger as constituting a specific type of social constellation which joins together various paradoxes and tensions, notably distance and proximity. His essay and the texts which followed delineate some major areas of inquiry in relation to strangers’ experience: position in space and in time, social and symbolic position, as well as identity issues. Spatially, strangers represent the unity between wandering and fixation, nomads caught in between places. In time, the stranger is defined as ‘the person who comes today and stays tomorrow’ (Simmel in Wolff, 1950: 402), a ‘potential wanderer’ accustomed to chronological discontinuities. Socially, as an intruder challenging established relations, the position assigned to him³ is ex-centric, on the margins of society, and his status is at best indeterminate, often devalued. As someone who is both outside and inside, he possesses a distinct type of objectivity which can be defined as freedom from prejudice and convention. In the absence of organic ties with members of the group, relations to strangers are more abstract and categorical. Finally, the spatial, temporal, social and symbolic disorientation experienced by strangers in their new environment may cause a personal crisis during which identity borders are disturbed and must be renegotiated. These characteristics signal the essential tensions which are the hallmark of the stranger’s template: wandering and fixation, present and future, proximity and distance, familiarity and strangeness, inclusion and exclusion.

The spatial position of the stranger

The first characteristic of strangers is their physical position in space, or what Wood calls their ‘attribute of mobility’. Strangers are mobile, having left a primary space and set foot in another space. Their spatial position is best expressed for Simmel by the synthesis of two conceptual opposites, wandering and fixation, nomadism and territorial attachment. As if suspended between two poles, this permanent tension inevitably introduces a to-and-fro movement into their destiny, a movement which may only be understood as the coexistence of places of belonging, as the to-and-fro of wanderers, and as the loosening of original affiliations.⁴

Mobility and dislocations in space

The physical or geographical move represents a minimal definition of strangers, that which distinguishes them from sedentary natives. By contrast, the attribute of established groups is stability of place and relationships among members.

It is he who comes among us, perhaps from the far ends of the earth, perhaps, if we are city-dwellers, from the apartment across the hall. In any event it is the stranger who comes and the group who receives. The group is, as it were, at home.

(Wood, op. cit.: 46)

The proximity inherent in the direct contact created by the arrival of strangers brings about a dynamic situation which calls for changes in the social environment. But physical proximity increases the intensity of reactions to the new intimacy initiated, demonstrating the fallacy of a conception of contacts as benevolent (Amir, 1969). Simmel, when he ascertains that spatial relations are not only the condition, but also the symbol of human relations, puts forward a spatial conception of human contact, highlighting the territorial basis of social contacts.

The stranger is ‘in between’ at least two geographical, linguistic, social, cultural, national spaces. As such, displacement induces duality and sometimes dislocation, in that a part joined to a contiguous whole may be disconnected from it, sometimes painfully, since that which one leaves buried in one’s native land troubles one’s memory for a long time: ‘the very decision to leave family, friends, and countrymen produces some premonitory pangs of homesickness’ (Stonequist, op. cit.: 84). Yet whatever the motives for leaving, breaking from one’s native roots, not only physically, but above all mentally, is a prerequisite for crossing over to the other group (ibid.). As a result, depending on factors such as duration and aims of the move, migration may end up generating a multiplicity of references. Then space opens up and becomes more complex. Ultimately, space, be it physical, personal, affective, social, cultural or mental, must be redefined.

Distance and proximity: the paradox of the stranger

Simmel formulates the defining paradox of ‘the stranger’ by saying that ‘in the relationship to him, distance means that he, who is close by, is far, and strangeness means that he, who also is far, is actually near’ (1950: 402).⁵ This communicates the essentially ambiguous position of strangers. Distance and proximity are experienced simultaneously in their case and frequently in a conflictual mode (Park, op. cit.). Obviously, the synthesis of nearness and remoteness must be understood beyond the spatial sense, embracing the psychological, social and symbolic dimensions as well.⁶

Conceived as a tension which evolves, it is a crucial feature of the experience of strangers because it relates to their membership orientation. Indeed, distance and proximity do not appear as rigid or fixed. Instead, they generate moving and fluid boundaries depending on the objective and personal circumstances which affect them. However, the very coexistence of closeness and remoteness is what makes the position of strangers problematic at all times:

When those who should be close, in any sense of the term, are actually close, and those who should be distant are distant, everyone is ‘in his place’. When those who should be distant are close, however, the inevitable result is a degree of tension and anxiety which necessitates some special kind of response.

(Levine, 1977: 22)

Simmel also draws attention to the fact that the stranger is no ‘owner of soil’, not only in the physical sense, but also metaphorically ‘as a vital substance which is fixed, if not in space, then at least in an ideal position within the social environment’ (in Levine, 1971: 144). Strangers have traditionally been denied ownership rights and the social or civic rights which accompany them. Besides, as long as in the eyes of others they remain strangers, they will not have access to native rights, nor to their history or cultural heritage. This legal and symbolical status explains why, as a supernumerary, their designated functions in the group are the circulation of economic and cultural goods or the social roles of mediators or intermediaries.

European mobility: a new way of thinking about space

Historically, wandering and mobility are part of the construction of Europe. Land of immigration as well as of migration, Europe evolved through a constant mix of populations, a permanent ethnic and cultural melting-pot (Delouche et al., 1992). Traditionally, pull and push factors led citizens to varying degrees of mobility within the European space. Notwithstanding this, as mentioned earlier, most citizens of the EU are, by and large, not travellers who have acquired the freedom of moving from one location to another and staying there for a while. Will trans-European mobility be sufficient to transform non-migratory habits? At a time when border-crossing is officially sanctioned, it seems fit to examine the possible passages from one status to another, and their effect on the mobile individual. For example, within the EU, how are statutes negotiated between nationals and non-nationals?

Beyond the European context, relations between geographic mobility, virtual globalisation and the home are being transformed. Spatial membership is put to the test. The globalisation of information via the internet is breaking down the barriers of geographical space. Time may become a substitute for space as the basis for social relations (Meyer, 1951). The main hypothesis, particularly in the literature on migrants, is that lasting mobility, whether voluntary or not, induces a trauma caused by the loss of origin and the need to rebuild a place, sometimes a homeland. The new social situation requires settling in a place: ‘those who do not take root somewhere have no landmarks, the soil is moving under their feet, they have no place any more’ (Fisher, 1981: 14, our trans.). ‘Home’ is here defined mainly as the place where affective roots, family or friends, are located. Consequently, narratives of ‘homesickness’ and ‘homecoming’ chronicle migrants’ memories of the past, the heartache of those who are cut off from their primary location, their link with childhood (Hoffman, 1989). Similarly, analysts of modernity call attention to the growing sense of alienation resulting from life in societies where strangeness has replaced the old familiarity (Harman, op. cit.). To what extent can we transcend a dramatic approach to mobility as uprooting so as to account for the trajectories of those who participate in a space perceived more positively as a place where circulation and exchanges are fostered?

Indeed, the migratory nature of modern experience presents individuals with several possible biographies. ‘Life careers’ are no longer fixed. But the other side of this biographical expansion may be what Berger et al. (1973) call the ‘metaphysical loss of self’, which generates a nostalgia of ‘being at home in society, with self, and eventually in the universe’ (ibid.: 82).

As a result, the experience of mobility calls for a rethinking of space. Space used to be synonymous with a place of genetic or territorial ancestry, given, native, associated with heredity and origins (Wollen, 1994). In this approach to space, fixation, as understood by Simmel, was paramount. From the perspective of mobility, the traveller’s space appears more hazardous, constantly reformulated, ‘as the expression of a trajectory, as accumulated through space and over time. It can be seen as displaced, diasporic, nomadic, multiple or hybrid’ (ibid.: 189). Then, wandering becomes a more legitimate way of living. Traditional definitions of home are challenged. What meanings does ‘place’ take on for the European mobile person? Is home what one leaves behind, moves to or carries along?

Discontinuities in time

The stranger’s position in time is marked by a break with chronological linearity and by the discovery of the precariousness of his situation. His movements in time display distinctive signs punctuating the three diachronic forms of time. Departure disconnects from the past: the stranger becomes ‘a man without a history’ (Schütz, 1971a: 97). ‘Potential wanderer’ with an indecisive itinerary, he experiences the present as inflated, excessively dilated. Finally, the future for him is a permanent question mark, pressing on the issue of the length of the stay and of a potential return. The stranger, the metaphorical figure of precariousness, must then learn to manage the discontinuities inherent to his path. His reaction depends largely on whether the adventure is the result of a lasting desire etched in a personal life story or the unwanted outcome of an unbearable situation imposed by external circumstances.

Wandering and fixation: the potential wanderer

The stranger’s position in time is essentially situated between today and tomorrow: he is ‘the person who comes today and stays tomorrow. He is, so to speak, the potential wanderer’ (Simmel, 1950: 402). The potential wanderer is defined by the chronology of his movements: arriving today and staying on for a certain time, he may equally leave tomorrow. Today for the stranger is shaped by his arrival in a foreign land. The future lies entirely in the indeterminacy of the duration of his stay. To stay or to go? The question might have been more critical in the past when travellers were either in transit with no desire to stay or conversely aspiring to permanent residence. Today’s modern stranger may be closer to the potential wanderer who, if he settles in a new destination, maintains the freedom of leaving it.

Several figures of strangers illustrate this itinerant wandering which the post-modern discourse on nomadism has revitalized (Maffesoli, 1997).The cosmopolitan ‘citizen of the world’ who crosses borders with ease and lives in several worlds without settling in any one place is one such example. In her/his case, the process of identification is transcultural, mixed and supranational, not ‘in between’, but ‘above’ (Friedman, 1995): ‘he lives on the surface of life, becomes blase and easily bored, and restlessly moves about looking for new thrills’ (Stonequist, op. cit.: 179). Her/his presence depends on spatial proximity, but s/he is absent socially and culturally. Such a position suits individuals wishing to observe the global away from local allegiances, settled in continuous otherness, navigators of space (Park, op. cit.). The sojourner described by Siu (op. cit.) is another variant of the modern wanderer, albeit a frustrated one since s/he did not cut off links from her/his primary attachments. S/he has acquired the freedom of going, but not of leaving. The expatriate who establishes roots for a certain time in a new place, mainly for professional reasons, but with no desire for permanency, is another figure of the potential wanderer. However, her/his membership of an original place is not questioned. S/he remains ethnocentred and her/his freedom of coming and going is still restricted.

The student traveller represents a special case of potential wandering, temporarily settled like the cosmopolitan and the expatriate, but for whom the stakes are uncertain. The uncertainties of youth open up her/his horizon. The duration of the stay may well be fixed institutionally, but it is not definite. The student stay abr...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half Title Page
• Series Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Contents
• Tables
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction
• 1 The stranger's template
• 2 Narratives of student travellers
• 3 Mobility capital: a taste for living abroad
• 4 An adventure into another time-space
• 5 The arrival: a rite of passage
• 6 Redefining culture shock in a European context
• 7 New spaces, new places
• 8 The new social setting
• 9 The creation of a new social fabric
• 10 Adaptation: chameleon or clam
• Conclusion
• Annexe 1. The experience of strangers crossing borders: general properties
• Annexe 2. Study abroad questio6nnaire
• Annexe 3. The interview schedule
• Annexe 4. Interviewee profiles
• Annexe 5. Nationality of interviewees
• Annexe 6. Students with mixed families
• Annexe 7. Previous experiences abroad
• Annexe 8. Motivations of some Erasmus students
• Annexe 9. Motivations of some EAP students
• Annexe 10. Forms of accommodation selected by the students
• Notes
• Bibliography
• Index