The Lived Experience of the Lak People Immigrants from Kinship and Ethnic Connections (Case Study of Kouhdasht Immigrants Residing in Tehran)
Document Type : پژوهشی اصیل
Authors
1
M.A. and Teacher of social science
2
Department of Sociology, Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran
Abstract
The purpose of this research is to study the situation of kinship and ethnic connections of Lak immigrants living in Nezam-Abad neighborhood of Tehran using an interpretive phenomenology method. Data were collected through in-depth interviews with 21 participants and analyzed using Colaizzi seven-step method, resulting in nine sub-categories and one core category. The subcategories included a predominance of endogamy, generational difference, sense of social and place belonging, continuity of relationships with the birthplace, continuity of relationships with neighbors, simplification of communication, limited interactions, adherence to local ethnic customs, and maintenance of solidarity. The core category was "effort to maintain neighborhood and hometown connections". First-generation migrants, in particular, expressed a strong desire and emphasis on maintaining interactions and relationships with Laks residing in Nezamabad neighborhood and with relatives in Kuhdasht county. They demonstrated their sense of belonging to their birthplace in various ways. Given the tangible difference in the socialization experiences of first-generation and subsequent generations of migrants, traditional sources of identification may be subject to rethinking. Consequently, their connections and relationships with each other and with their homeland may change, and perhaps the actions and behaviors of subsequent generations will align more homogeny with the dominant culture of the host society. Their sense of belonging and commitment to the components of their ethnic origin culture may take on a more symbolic form.
Research Background
The extensive migration to Tehran has led to an increase in cultural and ethnic diversity and mixing within the city, highlighting the importance of researching the cultural identity of migrant groups. Among the migrants in Tehran, a significant number belong to the Lak ethnic group. In Iran, limited studies have been conducted on kinship networks and hometown associations in recent years. For instance, Ghasemi and Mahmoudian (2013) demonstrated that most migrants, prior to migration, had pre-existing social networks, particularly kinship, family, friendship, and neighborhood networks in their potential destinations. Rostamalizadeh (2015) also identified the main functions of hometown associations as maintaining connections among members, maintaining cultural identity, and assisting fellow townspeople both in Tehran and in their hometowns. Alimandgari and colleagues (2022) demonstrated that migration networks played a significant role in individuals' decisions to migrate. It can be said that few studies have specifically focused on the lived experiences of migrants (internal migration) from a particular ethnic group, particularly in terms of their kinship and ethnic relations.
Goals, questions, and assumptions
This study aims to determine if kinship and ethnic relationships among Lak migrants and with their ancestral homeland have been lost or if they continue to be a significant part of their identity, have evolved with new dimensions. However, the following research questions were raised:
1. What experience do first and second-generation migrants have of kinship and ethnic relations?
2. If these relationships have undergone rethinking and change, how do migrants perceive and interpret these changes?
Studying these cases can help understand the processes of collective identity change, acculturation, identification, and inform cultural and social policymaking.
Main discussion
After analyzing the data, nine sub-categories and one core category titled "Efforts to Maintain Neighborhood and Hometown connections" were identified. As social agents, migrants are compelled to interact with their new environment and gradually rethink some of their ethnic and cultural identity-forming resources. First-generation migrants, in particular, expressed a strong desire and emphasis on maintaining interactions and relationships with Lak residing in Nezamabad neighborhood and with relatives in Kuhdasht County. Current generations of migrants, despite their similarities with the host society, emphasize their differences from other ethnic groups, this emphasis does not necessarily imply a lack of commonalities with the host or other ethnic and cultural groups. Rather, they selectively highlight minor cultural features as 'symbols and signs of difference' to distinguish themselves from other ethnic and cultural groups. Due to the tangible differences in socialization experiences across generations, future generations may significantly reduce their interactions and kinship and ethnic connections with their fellow homeland residing in Tehran and their paternal birthplace. However, they might still maintain a sense of belonging to the Lak culture and their paternal homeland, expressing it through alternative, real or symbolic means, a phenomenon Gans (1979) called 'symbolic ethnicity'.
Conclusion
Immigrants cannot solely rely on traditional and ethnic components to survive in the multicultural environment of the host society. While rethinking their cultural-ethnic components, they still strive to maintain their kinship and ethnic relations. The depth and extent of Rethinking vary across different levels and components of ethnic identity. Moreover, this process does not necessarily imply a desire to assimilate into the host society's culture at all times. Given the tangible differences in socialization experiences across generations, traditional sources of identification may be subject to Rethinking. Consequently, their connections and relationships with each other and with their homeland may change, and perhaps the actions and behaviors of subsequent generations will align more homogeny with the dominant culture of the host society. Their sense of belonging and commitment to the components of their ethnic origin culture may take on a more symbolic form.
Research Background
The extensive migration to Tehran has led to an increase in cultural and ethnic diversity and mixing within the city, highlighting the importance of researching the cultural identity of migrant groups. Among the migrants in Tehran, a significant number belong to the Lak ethnic group. In Iran, limited studies have been conducted on kinship networks and hometown associations in recent years. For instance, Ghasemi and Mahmoudian (2013) demonstrated that most migrants, prior to migration, had pre-existing social networks, particularly kinship, family, friendship, and neighborhood networks in their potential destinations. Rostamalizadeh (2015) also identified the main functions of hometown associations as maintaining connections among members, maintaining cultural identity, and assisting fellow townspeople both in Tehran and in their hometowns. Alimandgari and colleagues (2022) demonstrated that migration networks played a significant role in individuals' decisions to migrate. It can be said that few studies have specifically focused on the lived experiences of migrants (internal migration) from a particular ethnic group, particularly in terms of their kinship and ethnic relations.
Goals, questions, and assumptions
This study aims to determine if kinship and ethnic relationships among Lak migrants and with their ancestral homeland have been lost or if they continue to be a significant part of their identity, have evolved with new dimensions. However, the following research questions were raised:
1. What experience do first and second-generation migrants have of kinship and ethnic relations?
2. If these relationships have undergone rethinking and change, how do migrants perceive and interpret these changes?
Studying these cases can help understand the processes of collective identity change, acculturation, identification, and inform cultural and social policymaking.
Main discussion
After analyzing the data, nine sub-categories and one core category titled "Efforts to Maintain Neighborhood and Hometown connections" were identified. As social agents, migrants are compelled to interact with their new environment and gradually rethink some of their ethnic and cultural identity-forming resources. First-generation migrants, in particular, expressed a strong desire and emphasis on maintaining interactions and relationships with Lak residing in Nezamabad neighborhood and with relatives in Kuhdasht County. Current generations of migrants, despite their similarities with the host society, emphasize their differences from other ethnic groups, this emphasis does not necessarily imply a lack of commonalities with the host or other ethnic and cultural groups. Rather, they selectively highlight minor cultural features as 'symbols and signs of difference' to distinguish themselves from other ethnic and cultural groups. Due to the tangible differences in socialization experiences across generations, future generations may significantly reduce their interactions and kinship and ethnic connections with their fellow homeland residing in Tehran and their paternal birthplace. However, they might still maintain a sense of belonging to the Lak culture and their paternal homeland, expressing it through alternative, real or symbolic means, a phenomenon Gans (1979) called 'symbolic ethnicity'.
Conclusion
Immigrants cannot solely rely on traditional and ethnic components to survive in the multicultural environment of the host society. While rethinking their cultural-ethnic components, they still strive to maintain their kinship and ethnic relations. The depth and extent of Rethinking vary across different levels and components of ethnic identity. Moreover, this process does not necessarily imply a desire to assimilate into the host society's culture at all times. Given the tangible differences in socialization experiences across generations, traditional sources of identification may be subject to Rethinking. Consequently, their connections and relationships with each other and with their homeland may change, and perhaps the actions and behaviors of subsequent generations will align more homogeny with the dominant culture of the host society. Their sense of belonging and commitment to the components of their ethnic origin culture may take on a more symbolic form.
Keywords
Subjects
Aristova, N. (2016). Rethinking cultural identities in the context of globalization: linguistic landscape of Kazan, Russia, as an emerging global city. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 236, 153-160.
Benet-Martínez, V., Leu, J., Lee, F., & Morris, M. W. (2002). Negotiating biculturalism: Cultural frame switching in biculturals with oppositional versus compatible cultural identities. Journal of Cross-cultural psychology, 33(5), 492-516.
Berry, J. W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation. Applied psychology, 46(1), 5-34.
Bochner, S. (Ed.). (2013). Cultures in contact: Studies in cross-cultural interaction (Vol. 1). Elsevier.
Bryman, A. (2003). Quantity and quality in social research. Routledge.
Chaffee, D. (2012). Reflexive identities. In Routledge Handbook of Identity Studies (pp. 122-133). Routledge.
de Jong, P. W., & de Valk, H. A. (2023). Emigration of the Western European second generation: is having immigrant parents a predictor of international migration?. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 1-22.
Ebaugh, H. R., & Curry, M. (2000). Fictive kin as social capital in new immigrant communities. Sociological Perspectives, 43(2), 189-209.
Gans, H. J. (1979). Symbolic ethnicity: The future of ethnic groups and cultures in America. Ethnic and racial studies, 2(1), 1-20.
Garip, F. (2007). From migrant social capital to community development: A relational account of migration, remittances and inequality. Princeton University.
Garip, F. & M. Guo (2013). How Homophily and Consolidation Shape Cumulative Migration Dynamics from Mexico to the United States”. Presented in Session 86: International Migration in Population Association of America Annual Meeting.
Holliday, A. (2010). Complexity in cultural identity. Language and Intercultural Communication, 10(2), 165-177.
Hutnik, N. (1991). Ethnic minority identity: A social psychological perspective. Clarendon Press/Oxford University Press.
Lawson, B. (2007). Language of space. Routledge.
Massey, D. S., & Espinosa, K. E. (1997). What's driving Mexico-US migration? A theoretical, empirical, and policy analysis. American journal of sociology, 102(4), 939-999.
Mooney, L., Knox, D., & Schacht, C. (2014). Understanding social problems. Nelson Education.
Matsumoto, D. (2003). The discrepancy between consensual-level culture and individual-level culture. Culture & Psychology, 9(1), 89-95.
Moran, A. (2011). Identity, race and ethnicity. Routledge Handbook of Identity Studies. London and New York: Routledge, 170-185.
Phinney, J. S., Horenczyk, G., Liebkind, K., & Vedder, P. (2001). Ethnic identity, immigration, and well‐being: An interactional perspective. Journal of social issues, 57(3), 493-510.
Sarkisian, N., & Gerstel, N. (2004). Kin support among Blacks and Whites: Race and family organization. American Sociological Review, 69(6), 812-837.
Schwartz, S. J., Pantin, H., Sullivan, S., Prado, G., & Szapocznik, J. (2006). Nativity and years in the receiving culture as markers of acculturation in ethnic enclaves. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37(3), 345-353.
Van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience. Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy. New York: State University of New York.
Verkuyten, M. (2005). The social psychology of ethnic identity. Routledge.
Yon, D. A. (2000). Elusive Culture: Schooling, Race, and Identity in Global Times. SUNY Series, Identities in the Classroom. State University of New York Press, c/o Cup Services, PO Box 6525, Ithaca, NY 14851.
Benet-Martínez, V., Leu, J., Lee, F., & Morris, M. W. (2002). Negotiating biculturalism: Cultural frame switching in biculturals with oppositional versus compatible cultural identities. Journal of Cross-cultural psychology, 33(5), 492-516.
Berry, J. W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation. Applied psychology, 46(1), 5-34.
Bochner, S. (Ed.). (2013). Cultures in contact: Studies in cross-cultural interaction (Vol. 1). Elsevier.
Bryman, A. (2003). Quantity and quality in social research. Routledge.
Chaffee, D. (2012). Reflexive identities. In Routledge Handbook of Identity Studies (pp. 122-133). Routledge.
de Jong, P. W., & de Valk, H. A. (2023). Emigration of the Western European second generation: is having immigrant parents a predictor of international migration?. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 1-22.
Ebaugh, H. R., & Curry, M. (2000). Fictive kin as social capital in new immigrant communities. Sociological Perspectives, 43(2), 189-209.
Gans, H. J. (1979). Symbolic ethnicity: The future of ethnic groups and cultures in America. Ethnic and racial studies, 2(1), 1-20.
Garip, F. (2007). From migrant social capital to community development: A relational account of migration, remittances and inequality. Princeton University.
Garip, F. & M. Guo (2013). How Homophily and Consolidation Shape Cumulative Migration Dynamics from Mexico to the United States”. Presented in Session 86: International Migration in Population Association of America Annual Meeting.
Holliday, A. (2010). Complexity in cultural identity. Language and Intercultural Communication, 10(2), 165-177.
Hutnik, N. (1991). Ethnic minority identity: A social psychological perspective. Clarendon Press/Oxford University Press.
Lawson, B. (2007). Language of space. Routledge.
Massey, D. S., & Espinosa, K. E. (1997). What's driving Mexico-US migration? A theoretical, empirical, and policy analysis. American journal of sociology, 102(4), 939-999.
Mooney, L., Knox, D., & Schacht, C. (2014). Understanding social problems. Nelson Education.
Matsumoto, D. (2003). The discrepancy between consensual-level culture and individual-level culture. Culture & Psychology, 9(1), 89-95.
Moran, A. (2011). Identity, race and ethnicity. Routledge Handbook of Identity Studies. London and New York: Routledge, 170-185.
Phinney, J. S., Horenczyk, G., Liebkind, K., & Vedder, P. (2001). Ethnic identity, immigration, and well‐being: An interactional perspective. Journal of social issues, 57(3), 493-510.
Sarkisian, N., & Gerstel, N. (2004). Kin support among Blacks and Whites: Race and family organization. American Sociological Review, 69(6), 812-837.
Schwartz, S. J., Pantin, H., Sullivan, S., Prado, G., & Szapocznik, J. (2006). Nativity and years in the receiving culture as markers of acculturation in ethnic enclaves. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37(3), 345-353.
Van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience. Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy. New York: State University of New York.
Verkuyten, M. (2005). The social psychology of ethnic identity. Routledge.
Yon, D. A. (2000). Elusive Culture: Schooling, Race, and Identity in Global Times. SUNY Series, Identities in the Classroom. State University of New York Press, c/o Cup Services, PO Box 6525, Ithaca, NY 14851.
