Gatekeeping Belonging
Gatekeeping Belonging: An Investigation of Conceptions of Home
Lea Lassen
Abstract
The world in which we live is diverse and many communities and families reflect this diversity as well. Each of us has unique experiences that make us who we are. As a result, identity and belonging are dynamic processes that are hardly ever straightforward. This article will examine how belonging in Germany is burdened by structural features that both seek to integrate people but also mark them as inherently different. Structurally, the state has come to legally recognize and accommodate a diverse population; and yet, conservative segments of that population reject inclusion. Minoritized peoples find themselves rejected by conservative forces comprised of individuals who fear newcomers do not conform to their established set of beliefs.
The historical and contemporary movement of people throughout the world has resulted in the increased diversity of populations. As a result, the demographics of a given society are hardly ever uniform. For instance, Germany has been a place of cultural convergence for centuries. By 2021, one in every four individuals in the country had a migrant background (Statistisches Bundesamt Nr. 162). Such collective diversity is not fundamentally negative. Yet some oppose and seek to eradicate it. Institutionally, alternative forms of belonging have received legal recognition from the German government (Sanyal 51). However, this legal inclusion does not necessarily reflect the lived experiences of individuals, for instance that of migrants. Many find their identities invalidated by others because they do not reflect the often stereotypical beliefs that are held about them. Some vehemently veer away from accepting multiculturalism and thereby tear at the collective fabric of society out of fear. They seek safety in the form of an imagined homogeneity to shield themselves from the uncertainty and vulnerabilities that accompany any new relationship (Berlant 75–76). This fear is one that can be counteracted by individual experience with and acclimation to difference.
By 2020 the population of Berlin alone represented over 190 nationalities (Statistik Berlin Brandenburg). But this diversification is not a recent development. Looking at the Berlin region in particular, one finds that, already in the 17th century under Friedrich Wilhelm von Brandenburg many protestant religious refugees from France, Bohemia, the Netherlands and Switzerland came to live in Brandenburg-Prussia – which at the time was suffering from devastating population losses as a result of the Thirty Years’ War (1618–48) (Bade and Oltmer 66).
Germany’s historical diversity informed various political developments in the course of time. Some German institutions have come to recognize and accommodate this multiplicity by helping people find their home in Germany. But individuals marked by difference are still left at odds with the structural features underpinning their lived experiences in the country. For them, the 20th-century nationalist conception of Heimat (home), which is associated with stringent ideas about race and cultural destiny that favour a Eurocentric Christian sense of communality tied to geography (i.e., blood and soil rhetoric), remains out of reach.
In the 1970s, Germany’s reform government started to shift the narrative of Heimat until it came to be understood by many as “a subjective feeling closely linked to sensory impressions and memories” (Sanyal 52–53). Significant legal steps towards recognizing belonging as a fluid concept include the adaptation of the principle of jus soli (citizenship by birthplace) in 2000, as well as its 2014 dual-citizenship extension. Those with jus soli citizenship who grew up in Germany no longer have to decide between keeping their German or their parents’ citizenship (Sanyal 50; BMI). These adoptions have better aligned the state with the diverse and mixed origins of individuals in Germany. Nevertheless, some within society still reject such recognition and inclusion. New right-wing parties like the AfD (Alternative for Germany) advocate a different understanding of citizenship, namely for jus sanguinis (citizenship by bloodline). This version of citizenship dictates that citizenship should only be hereditary and not otherwise obtained. They have also drawn up new distinctions by labelling people as either “passport” or “bio-Germans” (Sanyal 51; Bennhold and Vancon). Here, passport Germans refer to those holding institutional belonging through citizenship, whereas bio-Germans refer to those who hereditarily fit into their narrowly defined and racialized ethnos of “the Volk” (the people).
Drawing on the work of Lauren Berlant, we can note that such distinctions create a “lack of fit between the personal and the structural standpoints from which the world is imagined and acted on” (76). Nationalistic sentiments such as Heimat have been used by many regimes as a tool to generate solidarity – to motivate and improve war efforts on the home front. In Germany, this is no longer the case. The country has embraced its post-war constitution as a liberal/representative democracy. Liberal democracies are characteristically pluralist and proceduralist (Wolkenstein 333). They uphold collective representation through equal participation in and access to elections and attempt to construct peace through institutions and laws (Abts and Rummens 410). It is no longer the institution’s role to manufacture belonging but to organize and accommodate differences.
Interacting is necessary in a society where we exist within and share the same spaces (Berlant 75, 100, 110). Moreover, we depend on these interactions to secure resources, thus taking substantial communal roles in our lives. The power that people have over each other is recognized by institutions as well. When expressing the importance of integration (through, for example, language learning) the German Federal Ministry of the Interior and Community stated that it “should ensure that immigrants have equal opportunities and the chance to participate in all areas” (Federal Ministry of the Interior and Community). Note that it says should and not does. This is because acceptance and equal opportunity are not guaranteed by others within society. The state has created a set of straightforward ways to obtain belonging through citizenship. However, in the everyday lives of individuals, this plays a more nuanced role towards belonging, where interactions shape our daily lives.
Overall, the state has benefited from (im)migration and although it may no longer propagate exclusion along the same lines as it did in the past, it does not assist in facilitating community on a societal level (Sanyal 57). The state and its institutions are in a position to foster feelings of belonging and encourage better cooperation among its citizens but have instead chosen to distance themselves from this role. In part, this can be attributed to the institution’s past authoritarian rule during World War II, where belonging and exclusion were employed in especially damaging ways. The desire to avoid overreaching into societal views of belonging is thus understandable. But this choice leaves a void that can be filled by different voices. A space which could be used to provide individuals with a broader sense of belonging to create a “unity in diversity” might, on the other hand, be filled with exclusionary ideas. An individual’s principles are guided by the laws and values of the state(s) they inhabit. In Germany, the legal system has constructed an inclusive framework, where one is able to choose which cultural values to adopt – within the limits of the state. But, the perceptions that people have surrounding identity, in light of institutional pullback, now come primarily from other individuals within society.
Fear is at the core of exclusion. The fear of letting go of a narrow picture of the community, accepting that the future will be different and that people have to share it with others. The reality is that a homogeneous community does not exist and has not for most of human history. Change and difference are not inherently negative; they can make us question and reevaluate which of our values (like societal and structural conceptions of belonging) still hold relevance (Sanyal 58). Still, some choose to fear change, destructively hyper-fixating upon specific individuals within society. Where (im)migrants are often a central point of attack, as to some, they signal an immediate threat to their way of life. The Kosovo War (1998–1999), the Syrian civil war since 2011, and the current Russian invasion of Ukraine, to name a few, have caused many to flee their country to find refuge elsewhere. Due to the proximity and resources of various European Union states, they are often destinations of choice. In 2015 and again in 2022, Germany saw an influx of over a million asylum seekers and refugees (Bennhold and Vancon; Statistisches Bundesamt Nr. N010). Devastating events have not only displaced many but have increased unease as well. During the height of the Syrian refugee crisis, some nations put up border fences or outright refused entry (UNHCR). As Berlant contends, “[w]hen things stop converging in the reliable patterns of social and material reproduction, they also threaten the conditions and the sense of belonging” (Berlant 95). Some distance themselves to create artificial environments of homogeneity that sustain their sense of normalcy, with which they feel their resources and power among the collective are more secure. Indeed, these feelings often emerge in political discourse via agendas of collective security, where some elevate homeland (Heimat) security above human rights, and deeper socio-political factors are reduced to simplistic solutions (Wodak 77; 95; 258). Security issues must be taken seriously, but should also not be oversimplified by directing fault to singular groups of individuals. It is also important to recognize that some, out of personal fear, attempt to emotionally charge such issues to push their one-size-fits-all agenda, such as heightened immigration restrictions.
Fears surrounding uncertainty and change have garnered the construction of the AfD political party to encompass them. And although groups like this speak of unity in terms of “us” and “we” it is a smoke screen obscuring their subconscious discomfort with confronting the unknown, the “other” – those who do not fit into their mould, and are deemed to be too different (Berlant 101). The establishment of a political party as such would and often does signal the will to accomplish a goal. However, their concept of hereditary belonging is about retaining and not attaining. It is not about productive discourse, rather it is an attempt to obtain lasting recognition of their ideas in the social domain – to reinvigorate their nativist sentiments, despite institutional adaptations to the cultural diversity of the country.
The delineation of belonging and identity by fear is tangible. It plays out in society through active discrimination that is calcified by bystander inaction (Salzmann 111). Many, as a result, find themselves pushed beyond the margins of society and made to question their sense of identity and belonging entirely. Some may seek and find community, possibly in others who have experienced a similar denial of belonging, but others may not. Much hinges on our interactions with one another – materially as well as emotionally. A rejection of who you believe you are can leave one feeling ashamed, despite not having done anything wrong other than having a different perception of belonging. Consequently, some may choose to forgo social relations altogether and throw themselves into a work metric that does not concern itself with well-being, rather appraising the individual as a commodity – a perilous fate (Harney and Moten). The bottom line is that people generally want to belong to places. One such example is the sheer number of individuals who have adopted Western names despite having different familial roots (Sanyal 57). Certain experiences push people to give their children Western names in order to extend to them the possibilities that they otherwise might not be able to access. Much is yielded in order to belong and have equal access to the same resources and opportunities.
In one way or another we all encounter uncertainty, and amidst unfamiliarity, this uncertainty can be heightened. But, when we allow fear to assume control we close ourselves off from the possibility to create a stronger community that everyone strives to be a part of. One often finds that communities of diverse individuals, who know the vulnerability and hurt of having their belonging invalidated, are stronger. They “know about the power of alliances” and are thus less likely to exclude others on the basis of imposed beliefs and more likely to be there for one another (Salzmann 113). The first step should be to create a social “commons” where no consensus about belonging has to be reached (Berlant). Where, instead of attempting to suppress individual cultural identities to find comfort and cohesion in similarity, we are able to find unity in an understanding of shared difference. Each of us comes with unique experiences that shape our identities that inform where we find belonging. The institution may have adapted to become more legally inclusive of these different dynamics, but it is up to all of us within society to help realize belonging; to recognize that change should not be feared and that belonging should not be denied. As contradictory to community building as it might seem, it is crucial that we first venture out as individuals to experience diversity. To get comfortable with it, so that when we come back together we have the experience required for change and difference not to phase us. It is also a step towards understanding that we each, despite our intent, play into and give normative force to division through terms like “native-speaker” and questions like “Where are you from?” For, it is our “patterns, habits, norms and scenes of assemblage and use” that make up our collective infrastructure (Berlant 95).
Lea Lassen is a student at the University of British Columbia pursuing a major in International Relations. Her research interests include understanding how various cultural perspectives have evolved, what roles they have within their respective societies, and how they influence inter- and cross-cultural communication.
Works Cited
Abts, Koen, and Rummens, Stefan. “Populism Versus Democracy.” Political Studies, vol. 55, no. 2, 2007, pp. 405-424. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2007.00657.x.
Bade, Klaus J. and Oltmer, Jochen. “Germany.” The Encyclopedia of European Migration and Minorities: From the Seventeenth Century to the Present. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, 2012, pp. 65–82 https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511781841.
Bennhold, Katrin, and Vancon, Laetitia. “Germany Has Been Unified for 30 Years. Its Identity Still Is Not.” The New York Times, Nov. 2019. Accessed February 20, 2023. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/08/world/europe/germany-identity.html.
Berlant, Lauren. “The Commons: Infrastructures for Troubling Times.” On the Inconvenience of Other People. Duke University Press, United States, 2022, pp. 75-116. https://doi.org/10.1215/9781478023050.
Bundesministerium des Innern und für Heimat (BMI) “Staatsangehörigkeitsrecht.” Accessed February 18, 2023. https://www.bmi.bund.de/DE/themen/verfassung/staatsangehoerigkeit/staatsangehoerigkeitsrecht/staatsangehoerigkeitsrecht-node.html.
Federal Ministry of the Interior and Community. “Integration” Accessed February 18, 2023. https://www.bmi.bund.de/EN/topics/community-and-integration/integration/integration.html;jsessionid=48BC9CA2F381449ED3C609120B9C6B48.1_cid322?nn=9385968.
Harney, Stefano and Moten, Fred. “Against Management: Watermelon Mannishness” All Incomplete. Minor Compositions, 2021, pp. 89-112. https://monoskop.org/images/d/df/Harney_Stefano_Moten_Fred_All_Incomplete_2021.pdf.
Salzmann, Sasha Marianna. “Visible” Transit: A Journal of Travel, Migration, and Multiculturalism in the German-speaking World, trans. Lou Silhol-Macher, vol. 12, no. 2, 2020, pp. 108-113. https://doi.org/10.5070/T7122047478.
Sanyal, Mithu. “Home” Transit: A Journal of Travel, Migration, and Multiculturalism in the German-speaking World, trans. Didem Uca, 2021 pp. 50-59. https://doi.org/10.5070/T70055565.
Statistik Berlin Brandenburg. “2020 Bevölkerungsrückgang in Berlin.” https://www.statistik-berlin-brandenburg.de/137-2021.
Statistisches Bundesamt. “Pressemitteilung Nr. 162.” Destatis, April 2022. https://www.destatis.de/DE/Presse/Pressemitteilungen/2022/04/PD22_162_125.html.
Statistisches Bundesamt. “Pressemitteilung Nr. N010” Destatis, February 2023 https://www.destatis.de/DE/Presse/Pressemitteilungen/2023/02/PD23_N010_12411.html.
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) “Denied Entry and Pushed Back: Syrian Refugees Trying to Reach the EU.” UNHCR, The UN Refugee Agency, 2013. https://www.unhcr.org/news/briefing/2013/11/528618159/denied-entry-pushed-syrian-refugees-trying-reach-eu.html
Wodak, Ruth. The Politics of Fear: The Shameless Normalization of Far-Right Discourse. 2nd ed. Sage, 2021.
Wolkenstein, Fabio. “Populism, Liberal Democracy and the Ethics of Peoplehood.” European Journal of Political Theory, vol. 18, no. 3, 2019, pp. 330-348. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474885116677901
Picture: Photo 1 by Zoe on Unsplash. https://unsplash.com/photos/SnZ7BmuzGPk.
