Basic theoretical outlines of migration research

4. THEORETICAL AND CONCEPTUAL LAYERS: FROM LIFE

4.1 Basic theoretical outlines of migration research

Traditional migration theory depicts push-and-pull mechanisms of migration (see Kytö 1998, 34-40). Lee, for example, presents four factors that enter into the decision to migrate (Lee 1969, 285-288). Lee’s theory is based on the fact that in every area there are various factors which either hold or lure people to the area, or repel people from the area. He specifies these as:

“1. Factors associated with the area of origin.

2. Factors associated with the area of destination.

3. Intervening obstacles.

4. Personal factors.”

Lee’s theory is largely based on the notion that reasons for migration arise significantly from both the places/areas of origin and those of destination. Lee concentrates mostly on physical obstacles or such hindrances that are outside of the personal sphere of action, such as distance as a physical and economic obsta-cle and laws. He does mention personal factors, but his ideas are grounded merely on a personal turn of mind, rather than regarding the person as an active individual. These are the points in which Lee’s theory is not fully applicable in 45

46 the contemporary world, since migration theory should consist both of structural context and personal meanings and behavioural response (Kytö 1998, 33).

Other social scientists, e.g. Bogue (1969), have also formulated push-and-pull mechanisms of migration. Bogue’s model stresses that the individual is rooted to and identified with the region in which he/she has lived for a long period of time; and moving to the new and unfamiliar place is mentally distressing. Bogue’s model consists of more dimensional thinking than Lee’s model presented above. Bogue’s pushing factors are concentrated on features of location on the regional level, such as unemployment, poor possibilities for education and racial, political or religious discrimination. Pulling factors in his mechanism, in turn, reflect entirely on personal wishes and future orientations;

such as better opportunities for work, career, self-development and social activities for example with relatives living in the place of destination (Kytö 1989, 66; cit. Bogue 1969; 1977.) Bogue’s pulling factors thus pay some attention to the person planning to migrate, reflecting different aspects of reasons and consequences of the possible change of living environment; but his model is still rather strongly influenced by an “institutional framework” (Moon 1995, 507).

Moon recognises the problems that using an “institutional framework” have caused in migration studies, and argues that “a problem for migration research has been that people are assumed to make their migratory decisions as a reaction to the economic and social structure of the region”. He thus recommends

“moorings” as a fruitful way to conceptualise migratory decision-making. By

“moorings” he means those social expressions which allow the individual to de-velop physical, psychological and emotional well-being and to bind oneself to a particular place (Moon 1995, 514). Moon seems to have forgotten the interaction between different aspects of place and the potential migrant’s individual(istic) aims, life politics and future orientation.

While Bogue’s and Moon’s theories include some promising elements, they do not fully correspond with the viewpoint of this study. The existing view, or paradigm, which is closest to my own is that which says migration should be conceptualised on the basis of three main issues: “the multiple currents and practical consciousness of the potential migrant”, “complexity and multiplicity of reasons for migration” and lastly “a culturally and individually constructed discourse of migration” (Halfacree & Boyle 1993).

The multiple currents and practical consciousness of the potential migrant in this paradigm refer to the conceptualisation of migration as an action in time.

This action happens in a certain time and place, with some relation to individ-ual’s past and predicated future, as a part of a biography, not as a separate or random act and phenomenon (Halfacree & Boyle 1993, 337). Multiple currents hint that migration alacrity includes local opportunities, personal life politics and history, and also both local and personal future prospects. Practical con-sciousness of the potential migrant, in turn, suggests that personal experiences, together with variations in the local living environment and opportunity struc-ture, also have an effect on migration. It should also be remembered that varia-tions in personal feelings of sense of place add a certain unpredictable element to migration research (Kytö 1989, 6).

Complexity and multiplicity of reasons for migration, in turn, is promoting the idea that we should not look for just one or two “institutional frameworks” or

“self-evident reasons” for migration, such as economic or employment issues.

Instead we should expect to find several reasons – some well known and clearly formulated; others more obscure and undefined. Understanding the multiplicity and complexity of reasons for migration guides the researcher towards seeing migration as a culturally and individually constructed discourse which reveals the individual’s personality, values, attachments and world view, together with the person’s relation to the living place and migration alacrity. This and different local discourses, e.g. in relation to the future and young people, connect migra-tion to the everyday experience of the individual within local milieus and soci-ety. Understanding migration as a culturally and individually constructed dis-course connects geographical movement to social mobility, personal freedom, open possibilities and individualism; or, on the other hand, to immobility, resi-dential attachment, working-class habitus and perhaps a restricted opportunity structure (Halfacree & Boyle 1993, 339, 341, 342).

All these equip us to look at Lee’s (1969) push-and-pull mechanisms in a new way. It is possible to find up-to-date counterparts for his push and pull fac-tors. His factors associated with the area of origin and destination can be re-garded as a two sides of opportunity structure. Features connected to the area of origin can be regarded as a local opportunity structure and features associated with area of destination can be regarded as an open opportunity structure, to-wards which young people are possibly aiming. Open opportunity structure re-fers to the future which will be constructed individually by means of personal life politics in some favourable living environment. Intervening obstacles in Lee’s model can be seen in a contemporary society as a random element, which may be due to changes both in the personal sphere and goals, and in the present living place. Personal factors in Lee’s model take on a broader meaning when they are seen as a personal performance structure. Personal performance struc-ture refers to personal issues which may increase, or in some cases decrease, migration alacrity – e.g. money, motivation, values, personal wishes and cultural heritage, to name just a few such issues.

This evidently leads to the conclusion that migration can be seen, from an in-dividual viewpoint, as a gate opener; to the idea that different (geographical) locales offer different opportunity structures and thus very different options and levels of possible well-being. It is important to see that differences between places are more important than mechanisms which are traditionally regarded as the central reasons for migration (White & Woods 1980, 7). On the individual level this is significant point, because migration often includes individual gains and it can also be a matter of personal preference. For example a young person who is feeling deprived or dissatisfied with her living situation may see migra-tion as a means to improve her social or economic well-being (Hummon 1992, 272; Kultalahti 1990, 106-107).

A good example of this kind of thinking, which also fits into the approach of this study well, is the classification made by Viinamäki (1999, 118). She claims, in her dissertation about the formation of young adults’ lives, that there are three different orientations which structure young people’s decisions concerning

mi-48

gration. These are: an individualistic orientation, a family-centred orientation, and a compromise-based orientation²².

An individualistic orientation stresses the importance of individual aims in decision making. This means that the young person emphasises personal aspira-tions concerning education and work when making decisions about migration.

Such young people set their individual future orientation (educational and em-ployment objectives) as their primary motives and do not pay so much attention to other factors in their life situations when thinking about moving.

A young person who makes migration plans according to a family-centred orientation puts factors involving family relations, home and living environment ahead of educational and career aspirations. This indicates the importance of place attachment and locale in the process of planning migration. Locale is im-portant in this orientation for being “the settings in which social relations are constituted” (Agnew 1993, 263). Social relations may play a major role in mi-gration plans, because one may choose to move away from local educational and working opportunities, or to stay in the home region, only because that is more suitable or convenient for one’s spouse or for other family members. Relations to relatives or friends may also have such an impact on a person’s migration plans.

If a young person follows a compromise-based orientation, he makes deci-sions based on a combination of motives coming from both of the patterns de-scribed above. For this sort of young person, the living situation and local op-portunity structure right at the moment of decision making is crucial (Viinamäki 1999, 118).

It is worth noting that all three of the motivations for migration outlined by Viinamäki can be found among the respondents in this study, but migration alac-rity is still more a complex phenomenon than that. In outlining these patterns Viinamäki concentrates only on the impact of factors related to one’s career ori-entation and one’s family-based socialisation pattern on young people’s migra-tion tendencies. Thus her orientamigra-tion patterns do not give a holistic picture of young people’s migration culture. In a previous study I have argued that it is also necessary to take into account local realities and young people’s opinions about their home districts and living environments (Soininen 2002). In doing so, I found a fourth motivational orientation for migration: a negative future prospect-centred orientation. When a person is following this orientation, he/she tends to have pessimistic attitudes towards almost all aspects of their home district. The core idea of this orientation is that migration is partly a consequence of belief that person’s home district has no future. Moreover, an embedded factor in this orientation is the individual’s own future orientation and it’s relation to the local opportunity structure and future. The individual is reflecting on his/her own per-sonal future aspirations together with the future of the home district. A key factor which affects the decision making and migration plans here is the gap between young people’s notions of their own and the home region’s future prospects:

22 Translations of these migration orientation types are made by author. The Finnish counterparts are: Individualistinen opiskelu- ja työssäkäyntiorientaatio (individualistic orientation), familisti-nen opiskelu- ja työssäkäyntiorientaatio (family-centred orientation), kompromissiorientaatio (compromise-based orientation).

their own future is seen as positive, but the future of residential area is seen in a negative light (Soininen 2002; cf. Kaivola & Rikkinen 2003, 134).

We should also remember that though migration alacrity is strongly influ-enced by certain general factors mentioned above – such as education, work, personal goals, future prospects and the image one has of one’s home district – reasons for migration are still personal, and thus variable. Migration should be understood as a broader phenomenon of which education and work are but one aspect. Every individual young person has his or her own special combination of factors which cause that person either to migrate or to stay.

The main point in this study – and the seminal idea here in relation to the ba-sic pattern of migration research – is to stressing that migration is a holistic phe-nomenon, which has a background in both individual aspects, feelings and motives, and regional and societal factors as well. Migration is thus a complex phenomenon, which cannot be explained exhaustively in terms of traditional push-and-pull mechanisms (White & Woods 1980, 7; Kumpulainen 1993, 59).

The investigation of migration can be developed, firstly, by focussing on the individual as an active agent with a life plan and personal motives; and secondly, by regarding migration as a measure that can be used, and is used, in life plan-ning. Thirdly, in order to elaborate migration research it is reasonable to empha-sise its situatedness within everyday life, as well as its connections to individual representations of place and different components of place. Fourthly, it is vital to note that because of the vagueness of human action, migration includes a “ran-dom element” – people tend to act irrationally or unconsciously and plans tend to have open and uncertain outcomes (Halfacree & Boyle 1993, 334, 337-338).

In addition, when the intent of research is to offer a deeper level of informa-tion, it is necessary to take individual life choices into account, together with the fact that all of us give different meanings to space and place.²³ One’s living envi-ronment and home district have special and unique subjective meanings in one’s life. One’s residential area or home district possesses meanings from the past, and at the same time it represents the context of one’s future (Jukarainen 2000, 36-38); or in some cases the home district may even represent the lack of a fu-ture. For this reason it is vital to pay attention to young people’s attitudes to-wards their home district and residential area. In this sense, the concept of

“community satisfaction” can be useful. A term used by Hummon (1992, 254-255), “community satisfaction” refers to how people “evaluate the place in which they reside”. Spatial-social context and ecological factors have an impor-tant impact on community satisfaction. For example, the size and type of living place have an impact on community satisfaction, in the way that inhabitants of small and more rural places express significantly higher levels of satisfaction than inhabitants of larger, urban places.

Furthermore, it has to be noticed in the elaboration of migration research that places also possess different images. Images hold a central position in contempo-rary society, in the emergence, construction and interpretations of social

phe-23 The concepts of space and place refer to different aspects of spatial phenomena. Space is usu-ally used in abstract and general terms, whereas place can be seen as the individual relations and personal meanings given to one’s everyday environment. Personal experiences give implications to a place. Place may also refer to certain locations where, for example, something meaningful has happened or where certain phenomena occur (Jukarainen 2000, 37).

nomena. Images are not, however, very concrete; but rather immaterial, compa-rable with beliefs, for example (Äikäs 2004a, 33). In many cases the images of certain places are connected to certain lifestyles. In turn, lifestyles are strongly attached to specific locales or specific actions (Giddens 1991, 83). This is im-portant, since these images foster experiences and ideas that affect one’s choice of place to live. These images also guide life politics and the ways in which indi-viduals set their personal future orientations, draw their conclusions and make their decisions as to where they will live. For example, urbanism can be easily connected to a “youthful lifestyle” as a desirable way of life. This, in turn, may lead to migration plans if one’s present living environment is seen more as a place suitable for the sort of “settled life” that might possibly lie somewhere far in the future (Kugelberg 2000, 40).

4.2 Life politics

The uppermost layer of the triangle, the concept of life politics²⁴, is here the starting point of our journey towards understanding migration alacrity. This up-per layer is also the most general level of theoretical thinking in this research. It sets the frame and the base to help to understand individual action and decision making, both in everyday life situations and in decisions dealing with more fun-damental issues of life planning, such as plans that are to be actualised in the future. A fundamental feature in life politics – and arguably in migration alacrity as well – is trying to obtain happiness and well being (Roos 1998, 23, 30) and the ideal life (Tuhkunen 2002). For example, Giddens (1991, 5, 80-85, 214, 215, 243; 1994, 14-15) has defined life politics as making decisions concerning self, identity, self-reflection, well being and lifestyle; “the politics of self-actualisa-tion” and life decisions. For Giddens (1991, 73, 75-80) life politics is not just a case of easy decision making; he sees life politics as genuine negotiation and re-flexive thinking between different possibilities or options, with a possibility of risk. Decision making is an uneasy situation in which the person is “confronting a diversity of open possibilities” that have become available as a consequence of post-modernity and mediation (Giddens 1991, 73, 85). Giddens also stresses the significance of person’s private – and good – life (Roos 1998, 21; Hoikkala 1998, 157). More broadly, according to Giddens (1994, 91), life politics

con-24 Sometimes life politics is drawn as parallel, or very close, to the concept of life management (see, e.g., Kasurinen 1999, 18). In this research this analogy is not drawn. In this research indi-vidual is seen as an active agent, who makes decisions concerning one’s own life from one’s own starting points and on the grounds of one’s own wishes. For example a poor economic situation, unemployment or insufficient housing conditions are not seen here as a lack of life management, but rather as a part of human life and the local opportunity structure. Young people involved in this study are not seen as excluded persons with potentially poor life management skills; they are rather seen as active individuals with competence to choose on the grounds of their life situation and living environment. Considering young people as rational human beings and as both an ac-tive and influential group in our society is what Wennhall (1993) is proposing for youth re-searchers.

cerns many aspects on social life, such as ecological concerns, work and eco-nomic activity.

As we can see on the grounds of the above, life politics is not a static field, but rather a changing and demanding part of personal life. Different quarters and authorities in our society are demanding that a person has to guide his own life actively and autonomously (Hoikkala 1998, 161). As Giddens (1991, 5) puts it,

“individuals are forced to negotiate lifestyle choices among a diversity of op-tions.” This is done by giving high value to those who are actively seeking better and faster ways to develop themselves and their personal lives. At the same time lifestyle choice is labelled as an increasingly important part of daily activities and the process of constituting of self-identity. The person is also supposed to know how to arrange his/her own everyday life and make best of it. Choice be-comes a fundamental component of everyday life – individuals have no other choice than to choose (Giddens 1991, 5, 80-81).

Fundamentally, the goal of life politics is happiness, which in turn has impli-cations for the ideal life (cf. Heiskala 1998, 120). More broadly happiness, and the ideal life, can be defined as “a good and successful life”, which implies that the ideal life is usually defined by features of social class, such as wealth and profession. It can be argued that these days, in a post-modern society, the ideal or

In document Between Location and a Sense of Place - Observations Regarding Young People's Migration Alacrity in Northern Europe (sivua 45-53)