‘My life is not to be called a failure’: how family reputation in the origin affects return considerations among South Asian migrants in the Gulf

ABSTRACT

Families are an important factor to consider when trying to understand if and when labor migrants decide to return to the origin. Research has mainly focused on how families provide incentives to return. During the COVID-19 pandemic, however, stories about return migration decisions among male South Asian migrants in the Gulf reveal that families can exert substantial pressure on migrants to stay abroad, even during times of crisis. Using in-depth interviews with migrants in the UAE, returnees and family members between 2020 and 2022, we find that social expectations of migrants to maintain or build family reputation through actions abroad, in the context of broader communities of origin, is a key factor in deterring migrants from returning. Migrants and their families in the origin often seek to continue signaling a successful migration project, particularly by telling stories of entrepreneurial success or of being embedded in the destination through strong and resourceful networks. Returning early from a migration project, even during the pandemic, can be interpreted as a failure and risks negatively impacting the family's reputation. We observe that those who return early, despite family pressure to stay, face significant social sanctions from family and community.

KEYWORDS:

• Return migration
• labor migration
• reputation
• family
• izzat

Introduction

‘How [will we] face people? Our nose is cut because your son, he has failed. He [has] failed this test. Why he didn’t stay some more time and wait in [the] Gulf?’

Faisal, a migrant to the UAE from Pakistan, recounts a conversation between his aunt and father after he had lost his job and returned to Pakistan at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. Faisal continues:

‘[my aunt’s] daughter is about to get married next month and all her in-laws are talking about this family issue of ours. [My aunt] is shaking her head and my father is quiet, like totally not saying one word’.

Around the same time, Pranet, a migrant from Pakistan, tells a different story:

My time, it is up here, this year has been enough. My family is constantly saying we are waiting for you, come home. I am listening to their wishes and I am feeling I want to go to them now. I feel as if my body is here, but my mind is back home.

Faisal’s and Pranet’s accounts both exemplify the importance of transnational family ties and joint migration projects for understanding return migration decisions and their consequences. More so, however, they showcase that family expectations about return migration can differ substantially, even during times of crisis. This raises the question for whom and under which conditions transnational family ties incentivize or complicate a return.

While the role of family in the origin has been researched in return migration decision-making, the focus has largely been on how the presence and maintenance of family ties facilitate and motivate returns (e.g. Constant and Massey 2002; De Haas, Fokkema, and Fihri 2015; Gmelch 1980; Razum, Sahin-Hodoglugil, and Polit 2005; Şenyürekli and Menjívar 2012; Tezcan 2018). A smaller line of research, especially in the case of people who have been deported, has documented how migrants hesitate to return when it is not socially safe to do so, because of social repercussions in the family or community such as losing face, becoming a local mockery or being rejected due to disappointed expectations (e.g. Schuster and Majidi 2014). While research thus suggests that families can both motivate or complicate migrants’ returns, less is known about when families fill one or the other role. In this paper, we aim to explore why and under which conditions families, including the broader family, can push migrants to stay abroad or encourage a return and scrutinize the real and anticipated social consequences when migrants return against their family’s wishes.

We make use of a case that allows us to analyze how family expectations shape return migration decisions: The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on South Asian migrants in the Gulf. Migration from South Asia to the Gulf States forms one of the largest migration corridors worldwide (Azeez and Begum 2009; Oommen 2016), in which workers often migrate on behalf of their families, sending substantial amounts of money to the origin (Gardner 2011; Rahman 2011; Thieme and Wyss 2005). We focus on male labor migrants from South Asia as they represent the largest group of migrants in the Gulf. For many, seemingly successful trajectories abroad came to an abrupt halt with the COVID-19 pandemic (Rajan and Arcand 2023). This put labor migrants on short-term work visas, many of who had lost jobs or had reduced wages, into a position in which they had to make decisions about whether to stay or go outside of the normal rhythms of contract and visa end dates and renewals. In the UAE, economic incentives to stay minimized, while repatriation flights and visa schemes that prolonged short-term visas were implemented (Rajan and Arcand 2023; Tazyeen et al. 2022). While many did initially leave, a large number of migrants also stayed (Menon and Vadakepat 2020; Tazyeen et al. 2022). Using in-depth interviews primarily with nominally temporary, South Asian, male migrants in the UAE and supplemented with a few interviews from family members in origin contexts between 2020 and 2022, we explore these migration decisions. We outline anticipated and experienced consequences of staying in or returning from the UAE, tracing how motivations to return or stay unfold and evolve and how time and actions abroad impact expected conditions of return.

We show that migration can be tied to a desire to uphold or positively contribute to family reputation in the origin, often referred to as izzat in the South Asian context. Migrants aim to contribute to izzat by signaling success abroad. They do so by showcasing their ability to provide for the family, establish themselves abroad (even in the context of short-term visas) and extend useful resources for others at home, all closely related to signals of masculine status. Such symbols of success are transmitted transnationally and are used by the family to elevate or maintain reputation among members of a wider community throughout migrants’ time abroad, beyond just the migrant status itself and upon a return. Even with the option to remigrate, a perceived early return diminishes the ability to send such signals and can be interpreted as not being able to endure hardship, threatening family reputation. When these consequences are feared, families actively exert pressure and expect their family members abroad to stay put.

Family expectations to uphold family reputation through migration, however, are not present for all migrants. We find that being embedded in the destination (e.g. having mobilizable networks) and being autonomous in the labor market (e.g. being entrepreneurial) provide symbols of ‘making it’, often more likely achievable with increased time spent abroad. These mechanisms seem to depend on local differences in histories of migration in the origin and thus the meaning that migration and time abroad carry within local communities. Where migration as a means to become socially mobile has been normalized, family expectations about success abroad may become more pronounced.

In this paper, we center the migrant in relation to an extended transnational family throughout the migration project, from initial decision-making to contact throughout the project and subsequent decisions of whether and when to return. While previous research has shown that migrants can be confronted with expectations to maintain an image of migration as a successful endeavor during returns to the origin (e.g. in Ghana (Nieswand 2011)), we highlight the role of the extended family and its reputation in migration decisions. We contribute to research that focuses on the meaning of transnational family systems in remigration (Olivier-Mensah and Scholl-Schneider 2016) and underscore the mutual dependence and dynamic interaction of migrants’ actions abroad and families’ expectations in the origin. More broadly, we contribute to understanding structural and social factors that constrain return migration and thus mobility.

Theoretical framework

Migrants, especially lower-wage labor migrants on short-term visas, may engage in various forms of cyclical, stepwise or return moves, such as return visits between contracts or visa renewals, migration to other countries or returns to the origin that are presumed to be final. Understanding if and when migrants decide to return for longer periods or as a final move is particularly important in contexts that heavily depend on labor migrants, either to fill jobs in labor markets or provide economic remittances. While many factors impact migrants’ capabilities to return, such as having or lacking financial or social capital (e.g. the means or the ties to facilitate return) or political or environmental components that limit political rights or shape abilities to stay (Hagan and Wassink 2020; Schewel 2020), Faisal’s and Pranet’s experiences show that, additionally, family expectations can play a crucial role in such decisions.

Return migration can be a part of a broader migration project, planned not only by an individual but also by their nuclear and extended family (Piore 1979; Sinatti 2011). The family jointly enables a member to move abroad, remaining tied together through transnational practices such as sending remittances and return visits (Carling and Erdal 2014; Stark and Bloom 1985). Aiming to understand how families affect return migration in such projects, the New Economics of Labor Migration (NELM) posits that return migration is a calculated part of a goal-oriented family strategy in which the costs, risks and returns of migration are shared amongst linked family members (Stark 2019; Stark and Bloom 1985). Returning thus becomes more likely when jointly defined goals (e.g. financial goals) have been achieved. Closely related, theories on cross-border social ties and transnationalism theory highlight the roles of social spheres and links that connect migrants abroad to nuclear family members in the origin (Cassarino 2004; Levitt and Schiller 2004). Transnational practices maintain social ties between migrants and their families, incentivizing returns in the long run (Olivier-Mensah and Scholl-Schneider 2016).

Families also play a role in shaping the context of reception upon return, not just in maintaining ties that can increase the likelihood of return. Primarily shown in cases of irregular migrants or deportees, migrants may hesitate to return to the origin when they anticipate a negative social reception (Hagan and Wassink 2020; Kukreja 2021; Schuster and Majidi 2014). Thus, though families have mostly been considered as motivators to return, they may also push migrants to stay abroad.

Aiming to understand variations of the role of the family, we will show that maintaining or building family reputation, which is valuable for and sought after by the family, can be a parallel goal in labor migration. In the South Asian context that we observe, such reputation is frequently referred to as izzat (Lim and Basnyat 2016; Mandelbaum 1988). The most common translations are (family) honor, prestige or respectability (Sangar and Howe 2021). Izzat, as a form of reputation, is symbolic and is reliant on the validation of community members and is understood as socialized norms about what is appropriate behavior (Bourdieu 1966). It operates within a patriarchal social structure and impacts notions of ideal norms of behavior and familial obligations (Ballard 1982, 5). Accordingly, to maintain such reputation, the concerns of what others will say or how others will judge the individual and family shapes behaviors (Gill and Begum 2023). Out-migration has already been discussed as a form of familial obligation which is tied to izzat in out-migration contexts in parts of South Asia (Ballard 1982). Our case will show that izzat continuously plays a role throughout the migration project. When migration is framed as being particularly successful, a premature return, one that occurs before achieving the goals of the project (e.g. reaching a set out economic goal or raising family reputation), is at risk of being interpreted as a failure (Cerase 1974; Harris and Todaro 1970) by relevant community members, even in contexts where labor migration regimes largely tie migrants to short-term work visas, such as the UAE.

The idea of aiming to raise or maintain family reputation through migration is closely linked to notions of masculinity and being able to signal being able to assume the role of the provider of the family. In this context, migration is often framed as an act of masculinity whereby young men come into adulthood, displaying marriageability through their ability to serve as breadwinners, invest in origin communities and endure hardship (e.g. Bilecen 2022; Malla and Rosenbaum 2017; Monsutti 2007; Thompson 2017). Osella and Osella (1999) in a study of male labor migrants from Kerala, India, for example, find that how migrants consume and act with their money during returns serves to display social position, including maturity. While return migration has already been discussed as a gendered process (Girma 2017), we will show that – for young South Asian men abroad – the ability to signal a successful migration project while abroad affects the reputation of the extended family and thus complicates return migration during times of crisis and when migration goals have not yet been reached.

The understanding of successful migration as an avenue to uphold or enhance family reputation is also closely linked to a culture of migration in communities, where migration is seen as a viable avenue for socio-economic gains, especially when other means of economic mobility are scarce (Cohen 2002; Gardner 2010; Mata-Codesal 2015). Resulting acts of migration within a community spur further migration through networks created by current and previous migrants in the destination and origin. This cumulative causation contributes to a shared understanding of the meaning of migration, aspirations and expectations (Massey 1990), contributing to migration being viewed as a rite of passage for young adult men, (Ali 2007; Malla and Rosenbaum 2017) and – as we will show – contributing to non-economic constraints to return migration because of emerging family expectations from the origin and pressure to stay abroad to continue to signal a successful migration project, even during times of crisis.

Research design

We collected qualitative data through in-depth interviews with 24 South Asian, male migrants and three family members who remained in migrants’ origin countries (see Table A1 in the Appendix) between July 2020 and December 2022. The sample includes migrants who decided to stay in the UAE at the time of the interview (n = 16) and migrants who had returned home, were about to leave (n = 7) or re-migrated to the Gulf (n = 1). Additionally, we interviewed three extended family members in the origin context (n = 3). The period of data collection allows us to capture the return migration decision-making of our sample, while the pandemic and its social and economic impacts evolved. At the time of their interviews, migrant respondents had been in the UAE between one to thirty years with a median of seven years. This reflects the broader landscape of short-term migration where many are temporary nominally, managing to stay longer through strategies such as renewing work contracts, finding new jobs or finding visa sponsorship if working independently (Valenta 2022). This is seen elsewhere where pathways to long-term visas or citizenship are restricted (Cook-Martín 2019).

Recruitment occurred through snowball sampling, with initial access gained through working relations with Saba Karim Khan, who referred other potential interviewees among their customers or professional network. We aimed to arrive at a sample reflecting different return decisions, regions of origin within South Asia and types of current or past employment. Snowball sampling primarily occurred among those working as drivers or food workers in the sample as Saba Karim Khan had key informants who then helped forge links with others in their professional network – networks they often use to refer clients to one another. We continued to collect interview data until new interviews were solely reconfirming insights from data analysis that was conducted as each new interview was added. We interviewed family members to confirm the emergent theme of family expectations from interviews with migrants and explore if and to what degrees migrants’ time in the UAE was perceived differently at home. These interviews were made possible through interviewees offering to connect the researchers with family and were a rare opportunity that emerged late in the interview process.

All interviews were conducted by Saba Karim Khan and while some were held face-to-face, others occurred through voice calls.¹ Interviews averaged 42 minutes (median 40 minutes) in length. They were carried out predominantly in a mix of English, Hindi and Urdu which is reflected in the quotes that we highlight throughout the paper. This mix of languages is common in the UAE as many migrants from South Asia interact with international clients daily.² We largely leave quotes unedited for the original meaning to be conveyed (Duneier 2001), and indicate where answers were given in Hindi or Urdu. The mixing of languages is common in the UAE, with a large population of migrants. We chose quotes in selective coding to represent common experiences across interviewees and underscore theoretical concepts that emerged from the data with these examples.

Topics in the semi-structured interviews ranged from the impact of the pandemic on respondents’ day-to-day lives and those of their peers to the emotional and financial stress of the pandemic, and the pandemic conditions in their communities of origin. They further explored why migrants initially came to the UAE, what it meant to be in the UAE before the pandemic, and decision-making around staying in the UAE, going back to their countries of origin or returning to the UAE.

15 respondents were citizens of Pakistan, 9 citizens of India and 3 citizens of Nepal. While South Asians in the UAE work in a range of occupations, we focus on male migrants who work in the services sector, as they were particularly impacted by the pandemic-related measures. Many in the services sector lost their jobs, due to the inability of their work to be carried out remotely, or due to a drop in demand as a result of measures to curb the spread of COVID-19. Of the 24 migrants interviewed, 9 were employees of companies and worked as taxi drivers, barbers, in cafes or at fast food restaurants. The other 15 were private drivers or chefs with independent businesses. The heterogeneity in return migration decisions during the pandemic – with uncertain prospects of being able to continue to accumulate and mobilize financial and social resources as none could work from home – and the differences in migrants’ job status allow us to better understand the complexities of why and how migrants come to their decisions to return or stay.

We gathered and analyzed our data, based on an abductive approach (Tavory and Timmermans 2014; Timmermans and Tavory 2012). Throughout the project, data collection and theorizing informed one another, whereby evidence was iteratively collected to verify and alter the emerging coding scheme and theoretical explanations and hypotheses that surfaced during the project. The coding scheme mainly focused on (1) own, family and community expectations regarding work and return behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic; (2) emotional and financial costs of staying and returning; (3) anticipated and experienced reactions upon return; (4) networks and peer influence and (5) pandemic-related labor market consequences.

Analysis

Economic hardship and weighing choices to return or stay

In March 2020, the UAE introduced the first measures to curb the spread of COVID-19. Among those working in the service sector, of which the vast majority are migrants, the consequences of strict and long-enduring travel restrictions and lockdowns were quickly noticeable. Self-employed drivers faced suffering businesses, and many barbers, cooks or fast-food workers were laid off, offered a fraction of their salaries or were sent into unpaid leave with loose promises of being able to return to their jobs.

Some were able to live off their savings at first, some found ways to reduce expenses, such as changing their living accommodations, and some went into debt, mostly by borrowing money from friends to tide themselves over. Due to the unprecedented unconditional extension of residency visas until the end of 2020, dismissed employees, just as those on unpaid leave or self-employed persons who pay for their residency visas, needed to weigh the costs and benefits of staying or returning to the origin outside of the normal rhythms of visa endings and renewals. The uncertainty of the pandemic appeared to make returns feel more weighted or permanent than typical return visits or returns with the plan to remigrate in the near future. Karan, an employee at a local branch of a fast-food chain, who migrated from Pakistan and has been in the UAE for 1.5 years, describes his experience as follows:

That night I am feeling very sad, I stayed up whole night, thinking what the best decision for me is. Should I go, should I stay? […] I list reasons of good things for staying here and going back home. And when I see the list, my only reason for staying in the Gulf is one reason: Salary. But now I don’t even know if my money will come. […] I saw more and more people getting fired, I started feeling very lonely, I am feeling empty from inside. […] My chest is feeling tight. How I can survive here like this? No friends, no connections, no pay? (Karan)

In weighing these costs and benefits, while some decided to return, most of our interviewees decided to endure the situation as long as possible and continue to look for alternatives, hoping they would be able to get by until the job market improved. Given the global pandemic, it was unlikely that returning would have meant regaining employment in the origin but staying in the Gulf for certain meant accepting comparatively high running costs for living and accommodation without a continuous or certain income. Surprisingly, interviewees who were offered repatriation flights and a continuation of their jobs once the labor market recovered, often declined to return. While economic costs and benefits played a role for some, most respondents described the decision for or against a return as more complex, highlighting considerations about friendship or client networks or (dis)satisfaction with current working conditions or prior employers. Almost every interviewee, however, explained that return migration decisions were made in consideration of family members in the origin. Those, who decided to return, oftentimes described telephone calls with family members, urging them to return. Surprisingly at first sight, however, migrants in our sample who decided not to return, likewise often explain that they decided to stay abroad because their family in the origin expects them to stay.

In the following sections, we showcase first how migrants experience family pressure to stay abroad and explain how such pressure can emerge because of a desire to uphold family reputation in the origin, often referred to as izzat. Second, we describe how under these circumstances’ returns can be interpreted as a failure. We showcase the anticipated and experienced negative consequences of migrants who returned against the wishes of their families. Lastly, we explore why some migrants did not experience family pressure whereas others did. Focusing on migrants themselves, we uncover how their actions abroad and transnational practices can contribute to signaling successful migration projects, raising the risk of a seemingly unplanned return being interpreted as a failure. Though we mostly focus on migrants in the destination countries, we describe how local cultures of migration tie migration projects to possibilities of social mobility, raising the importance of success abroad among families.

Family expectations, reputation and izzat

My mother she calls me, and she is saying […] your problems will be end soon, don’t worry, just stay patient. Don’t be in rush to come back. We are counting that you will bring our family success, you wait and see. (Bashir)

Bashir, a driver who has been in the UAE for 1.5 years recalls a conversation, during which his mother explicitly encourages him to stay, despite his company having told him to return home. Similarly phrased expectations to stay abroad frequently came up in phone conversations for migrants with their immediate family, no matter how long they had been in the UAE, even if it was clear that staying would mean an additional financial burden and insecure prospects.

Many migrants in our sample believe that they will have a chance to find work upon returning home. Some even explain that remittances were not necessary for the family’s welfare. They, however, often emphasize that they cannot return because of what others might say about their family. Prematurely returning threatens to evoke negative talk about the individual and family, impacting family reputation in the immediate social environment, in this context often referred to as izzat.

I cannot spoil our family izzat. You know in our community, like we are old fashioned, very traditional our thinking, izzat is everything. All relations, they are formed on izzat. If my mother is going in gathering, they will question her and so much gossip. They are all doing that, … why her son came back from such a good country in the foreign? Same for my father, if he goes to the sweet shop, all are talking and rumors. This is the same case for all my roommates, so that’s why nobody left. (Bashir)

Migrants, in our sample, often already describe initial migration to the Gulf as a community-related event. Dhanvi, the wife of Manish, a barber at a salon in Abu Dhabi, explains that their entire family dropped her husband off at the airport, posting pictures on social media and soliciting comments from extended family and neighbors. Dhanvi’s family would continue to post pictures to gain the respect of community members, who would see her husband as a ‘big man’. As these cases show, not only outmigration but every step of the migration project, including return migration, remains a community-related event, as migrants remain tied to the origin.

To understand why migration in these cases is associated with family reputation and why returning can be perceived as a threat to reputation, migration decisions and actions abroad need to be interpreted as a form of signaling that provides visible information about the migrants’ ability to endure hardship and care for the family financially, even while at separated from family. Being able to build a successful life abroad and send home remittances or create and maintain valuable networks all contribute to and signal the ability to provide and the prospect of social mobility in the origin. Throughout the migration project, information about its success is sent through transnational practices, such as phone calls or return visits and further amplified by the family, sharing success stories or pictures of their sons abroad. These signals help members of the community evaluate an individual’s ability to provide and the likelihood of their family's future success, increasing family reputation, oftentimes a goal of the migration project. As Malik, who worked as a private taxi driver in the UAE, explains:

They see you as you are building for your family’s future, you are securing them, you have a naam (name or reputation) and you are seen as a support system for the extended family also. Like 10-15 people are sustained back home because of you. It showed people that this guy can get somewhere in life, now and in the future, that’s what going to the Gulf means. People are thinking, we must be associated with him, move around with him, be seen with him because our name will also rise then. (Malik)

The importance of signaling family prosperity and success is exemplified by the effect that returning early can have on family members’ positions in the marriage market and thus greater access to a wider range of social and economic resources (Ali 2007). Yazeed, a florist who has been in the UAE for five years, recalls a conversation with his mother:

We are so well-respected in our community, we are always holding head high, everyone is so impressed with my son. Our good time had come, you know Maria (Yazeed’s sister) got so many rishtas (proposals) they are all coming to see her and saying her brother is in Gulf, her father is businessman, they are wanting to marry in our family. (Yazeed)

The positive interpretation of being successful in the Gulf is closely linked to norms of masculinity in which the sons of families need to signal to be able to provide for their family members (Ali 2007; Ballard 1982).

Return as a failure

When migration is used to signal success, a return before achieving the desired goals, often building up enough savings to finance a house, build a business, or obtain family reputation in the origin, may be interpreted as a failure by the community in the origin. Even during a global crisis, a premature return may signal an inability to endure difficult times. It thus induces insecurity about the ability to care for the family and maintain family standing. As Nitesh, a driver, who migrated from Pakistan 2.5 years ago explains:

If I am going back, it is a kind of failure you know like we were buzdil (cowardly), that is the impression it is in my hometown. Face saving it is everything in my community, if a man he has not taken proper care of his people, he is not like managing burden well, he is not proper man. It is like shak (doubt) on our mardaangi (manliness). (Nitesh)

A return that is interpreted as a failure may result in the loss of family reputation, often described as the family ‘losing face’ or its name ‘going to dirt’.

An early return may also be considered a failure, because the family’s and the community’s perception of everyday life of migrants in the Gulf may be biased. Migrants may avoid stories of hardship and struggle and emphasize the possibilities that migration brings. While Bashir mentions the difficult situation in the UAE and the constant stress during the lockdown (see Bashir’s quote in the section above), his mother was told a more optimistic version of the situation and describes her son’s situation as follows:

COVID, when it started I was very worried […]. But still everyday he is calling to me and telling me that he is fine and that nothing to worry. That he has a lot of savings and that is why he is saving for a bad day like this. And he has so many friends there, you know they are also from Kerala. They cook together and take care of each other, he is not alone. So he also made me talk to them and they all said he is all fine. […] I don’t think he is facing any serious trouble. That country it is looking after its people, not like here. (Azra, Bashir’s mother)

Family expectations and pressure play a strong role in return decisions, because migrants expect negative consequences for the family and for themselves. Those who decided to prematurely return – either because they were forced to leave or because they underestimated the consequences – in our cases, often face strong negative reactions and sanctions from family members at home, such as exclusion from social life, and are pressured to leave again.

Faisal, who had been in the UAE for seven years and whose experience upon return we described at the beginning of the paper, was dismissed as an employee at a fast-food chain early in the pandemic. He tried to stay as long as he could, borrowing money from friends, but eventually decided to return to Pakistan after four months of lockdown without a job and increasing debts. Like others who experienced continuous social sanctions upon return and pressure to migrate again, Faisal decided to remigrate to the Gulf as soon as possible, despite anticipated difficulties, to restore his family’s name and start over.

After three weeks my father is finally talking to me because my mother is telling him how much upset I am. Few words he is talking, but it is not feeling very normal. But after all this, like it is so much drama, and so much difficult for my family, even my own sister she is to be getting married soon, we need money, we need good family name of ours. I thought many many nights. A lot I thought. Now, finally I am deciding I will contact some friends I am having there in Gulf and see if I can try to go again. Even if Saudi, I will take any job, but I must go. Maybe Saudi is easier, it is more difficult life, but maybe I can get job more easy there. Maybe if I go and I will wait it out this time, I will not give up. I must go for my family name only then my father will be okay to me. (Faisal)

Not all lives abroad affect izzat

How to signal success and its interdependency with family reputation

Not everybody who thought about returning anticipates or experiences family sanctions. In contrast to the previously described cases, Karan, who had been in the UAE for 1.5 years, reports that his family urged him to return after the emergence of COVID-19:

Now my family is saying just leave everything, this is not the right time to put more money in a new business or job in foreign. My father spoke to me on the video, he said to me that listen, there is no benefit in the job you are doing. No commission, only paycheck, no status. (Karan)

Because some migrants had not (yet) accumulated stronger signals of success, they expected a return to affect their family’s izzat less negatively than others and decided to leave the UAE quickly after the onset of the pandemic. In our sample, two concepts emerged to be particularly important for building strong signals and increasing family reputation in the origin: autonomy in work (e.g. through higher independence in migrants’ jobs) and stronger embeddedness in the destination (e.g. through large client networks) (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. Positive impact on family reputation based on autonomy and embeddedness of family members abroad.

Autonomy, for example, achieved through the types of jobs that migrants have, strongly shapes the perception of success among members in the origin. Across narratives around family expectations, a unifying pattern that emerged is the importance of running one’s own business and being seen as entrepreneurial, in relaying izzat-building signals. Accordingly, migrants who established their own businesses, for example, as private drivers or chefs, were particularly reluctant to return home not necessarily because they feared losing their client network, but because of the respect they had gained at home:

First when I came here, my father he is saying like why you are going for same job type, like why you are working like slave for someone else, you can do job in Pakistan also. Only go abroad if you are thinking to do some big business, it will be like a lottery, he is always saying like this to me. Business is business. […] And when I started the driver business here that is when he is taking me seriously, thinking okay my son he is worth something, that is a matter of izzat for him, not like [working at a] moving company, there is no pride in that. […] We should be our own boss, like that it is in our society. (Atheel)

Karan, who had worked as a fast-food worker before returning, explains that:

people with their own small business or commission job here, they are having this invisible value, we cannot see this like money with our eyes, but it is of big value in the market, their names, their clients, all are solid. They are better than us because we fast food type people, we are naukars (servants) and have no freedom to make our own decisions.

Again, the positive signal of having one’s own business is amplified by the family in the origin. Nihar, who had been in the UAE for nine years and had been working as a private driver, shares that his father puts his business cards in his wallet and ‘is always showing everyone when they visit our house that, see, my son does karobar (business) in Gulf’.

Embeddedness abroad, with regards to various types of personal networks, represents the second axis along which the contribution to family reputation is differentiated, and which impacts the way migrants think about the consequences of their potential return. Respondents frequently describe family members conveying images of their sons knowing important people by posting images with clients, CEOs, Bollywood actors, or sports personalities on social media, or showing pictures around. As Sunit, a cook who had been in the UAE for about 1.5 years, explains:

Because I am the eldest and I am shouldering burden of whole family. Now they can always say, our son in Gulf, he knows this one and that one, you know it is not only about me … my family are really getting more and more respect. (Manish)

While visible connections to others signal social capital, becoming a broker for members of the home community further signals useful embeddedness and evokes status gains. As Sai, a fast-food worker from India, who has been in the UAE for nine years explains:

So once I am close to my boss, then I also called my cousins to come work here and they are all getting jobs. So their families are so much happy with my family and like they are thanking and giving mithai (sweets) because it is a big honor for their sons to be outside and working here. So my mother is so happy that see, after some time I have made such strong connections over these years that I can support others now. These are things that matter in our India. (Sai)

Autonomy and embeddedness are often associated with the amount of time abroad. Most people we interviewed who had been in the UAE for longer decided to stay as long as their financial situations would allow. Accordingly, izzat plays less of a role in the narratives of those who had only been in the UAE for a short period and who had not invested as much in their own businesses or social networks. They more easily decided to return. Counterintuitively, the more economically successful migrants thus perceive less agency with regard to their return migration decision-making. They had the most to lose in terms of how successful they and their families were able to portray themselves as being, and thus their family’s reputation.

Culture of migration and alternative pathways to social mobility

Gaining autonomy and building networks abroad signal success and make it more difficult to return, even during times of crisis, as returning puts maintaining family reputation at stake. In some cases, however, returning does not seem to alter migrants’ individual or family reputation even if their success abroad would have suggested so. In these cases, there seems to be a general lack of family pressure that is rooted in the expectations of what migration can bring to the wider community. Viraj, a driver from India, who worked in the UAE, explains the differences in reactions among the returns of his friends to India.

Three of them went back to a small village in Kerala […] Now one of them is working in a small online business back home and the other is in a rural fruits and vegetables business. One is in a small real estate business. They used the gratuity that their company gave and decided to start their own business. Their families didn’t have a problem because they returned home. In this part of India where they come from, some of it is agrarian, so there’s a lot of opportunity to grow your own produce and sell it. (Viraj)

It seems that migrants who returned and were able to start businesses at home did not face the same negative consequences as other returnees in our sample. Viraj, however, links the lack of sanctions for having returned less to them having been able to start a business, but rather to the community they are from. Others in Viraj’s friendship network, who returned to different communities in the state of Kerala, experienced reputational loss and sanctions upon return, highlighting differences in community-specific norms that may influence why someone is or is not sanctioned upon return.

[T]he part of Kerala these two are from, like those people, they are seeing these sons as ATM machines. But see let me explain, it’s two things, it’s not just about the money, the money is a zarya (means) to an end. What is most important here in these neighborhoods is family name, that these families can show off, they can use the money to do publicity in India, throw big parties, make a reputation for themselves. And at those parties they host, they will tell everyone what a bara aadmi (big man) their son has become in the UAE and people will be jealous, put nazar (evil eye), but they will also be in awe of the success story. […] So obviously, when they went back, their families were not happy at all, word got around that the boys had returned and been kicked out of their jobs from Abu Dhabi and it was a huge disgrace in their mohalla (neighborhood). (Viraj)

Local norms that link migration decisions and behavior to family reputation are the central elements that shape how migrants interpret their choices and what reactions they anticipate and experience upon a return. As previously shown for other contexts, some communities develop a culture of migration, in which working abroad becomes normalized behavior and is considered a viable pathway to gain social status, which may be difficult to achieve through local labor (Ali 2007; Cohen 2002; Massey et al. 1993). Accordingly, in communities that offer alternative local pathways to social and economic mobility, including other means to become successful, families put less weight on the need to migrate and the threat of losing izzat through returning becomes less pronounced. As Nasir explains, how families may gain izzat become broader in communities that develop alternative pathways over time:

Previously those people going to foreign to work, like Dubai or Saudi, they had a lot of izzat. But now pardesi (foreign workers) don’t have so much izzat back home. People like us who are normal labor, not some hi-fi, rich pardesis, we don’t have as much value – because now even in Pakistan people have luxury and jobs in my area. You can do your own business or farming. (Nasir)

Thus, working abroad does not improve the reputation or outcomes for everyone, but is specific to the cultural context of the home community, with reputation being dependent on the interpretations of others. Our interviews also reveal that there are additional ways to uphold family reputation such as through having material goods, running businesses, owning land, or obtaining higher education. While these pathways to invest in and gain reputation can be independent of a culture of migration, they may also interact with migrating to gain social status, for example when obtaining an educational degree or owning a business abroad may signal higher success and more strongly contribute to izzat.

Conclusion

Families in the origin play an important role in decisions to return among labor migrants. So far, research on return migration decisions has mostly highlighted how families incentivize returns, for example, because of family obligations or the wish to reunify (e.g. Fresnoza-Flot 2018). Return migration, however, can also carry the risk of social repercussions when it is not socially safe to return (Schuster and Majidi 2014), suggesting that families may also push migrants to stay abroad. So far, little is known about when families assume one role or the other and in particular why families may push their family members to stay abroad even during times of hardship: a phenomenon that we observed among South Asian male migrants in the Gulf during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In-depth qualitative interviews with male South Asian migrants in the UAE reveal that social expectations of migrants to maintain or build family reputation in the context of broader communities of origin are a key factor in deterring them from returning. This is because migrants and their families in the origin often seek to signal a successful migration project abroad, particularly by telling stories of success as autonomous entrepreneurs, or of being embedded in the destination through strong and resourceful (client) networks. A premature return, even during the pandemic, carries the risk of having a negative impact on the family's izzat, (i.e. reputation). Further, we find that migrants’ actions abroad shape and change expectations of the potential of the migration project. The more successful a migration project appears (e.g. because migrants are able to work autonomously or because they are embedded in the destination society and showcase resourceful connections to others), the higher the impact on extended families’ reputation in the origin, and the more likely a premature return imposes a risk to family reputation. Because migrants’ are supported by and support extended family members in the origin through financial remittances, going beyond the nuclear family highlights the further extent of familial obligations. Research on the role of family ties in migration has largely focused on the nuclear family or the household (for exceptions, see Nguyen-Akbar 2014 and Tezcan 2018). By focusing on family and social constraints on labor migrants’ return migration decisions, our study provides several theoretical insights for understanding return migration, particularly labor migration in the South Asian context, but, as we will argue, with the potential for theoretical contributions more broadly:

First, we show that constraints to return migration go beyond economic, political, or legal concerns to deeper family concerns about gaining or maintaining respect. The importance of family reputation is a motivation for going abroad (Gardner 2011), and we show that it persists throughout the migration project as migrants remain connected to families transnationally, affecting migrants’ lives abroad and upon returns.

Second, our findings contribute to the understanding of how destination and origin factors interdependently contribute to return migration constraints, impacting return migration decisions. The meaning of migration itself (i.e. migration as a means to enhance family reputation), actions abroad that signal a successful migration project, and actions in the origin country (i.e. families sharing success stories) combine to shape the goals of the migration project and determine whether families exert pressure on migrants to stay abroad or encourage returning. Migrants’ actions abroad interact with family expectations of what migration can and should bring in terms of reputation: expectations are dynamic. We extend literature on family reputational impacts of migration, by considering how differences in actions abroad impact family reputation in the origin.

Third, we highlight that the timing of return migration is important. Longer stays abroad allow for the accumulation of signals of success and may raise expectations at home. Those who are perceived as successful but decide to return early, despite family pressure to stay, face sanctions. Counterintuitively, this means that a more successful migration project leads to less agency in times of crisis, when returning might economically or otherwise make sense.

Finally, we emphasize that the role of family reputation in return migration is closely linked to communities with a culture of migration, where migration is a way of signaling one's ability to assume the role of family provider and, more broadly, to norms of masculinity.

While we focus on South Asian labor migrants in the Gulf, the concepts of community expectations, family reputation, or saving face in the context of migration may also apply to other contexts. Expectations of migration to enhance masculine status as a breadwinner (e.g. Broughton 2008) or as a rite of passage for young men have been shown in other contexts (e.g. Monsutti 2007). Likewise, the concept of local cultures of migration and their role in shaping the expectations of migration projects have been highlighted in other contexts such as Mexico (Kandel and Massey 2002). Furthermore, our findings might not only be relevant for understanding male return migration. Suksomboon (2008), for example, shows that during home visits or through communication, Thai migrant women in the Netherlands focus on successful livelihoods and economic achievements abroad to save face and adhere to family norms. Many of the aspects that are important in shaping the role of family in South Asian migrants’ return migration decisions are thus present in other contexts.

In our study, we focus on migrants on short-term visas, or migrants who returned and quickly remigrated. While being a particular subpopulation of labor migrants, the increased prevalence of temporary work schemes, not only in the UAE (Martin, Abella, and Kuptsch 2014; Cook-Martín 2019), renders analyses of temporary migrants’ decisions important. While a return among nominally temporary migrants, who often engage in circular migration (Valenta 2022), may have different implications compared to migrants on longer-term visas, our results showcase that the interpretation of a return as a failure is tied to long-term goals of the migration project.

Our study takes place during the COVID-19 pandemic. The specificity of the period may raise the question of whether external forces (i.e. lockdowns) may have altered the interpretation of a return, by migrants and their families, compared to earlier or later periods, limiting the generalizability of our findings. We do not have data to compare the expected and experienced consequences of return migration before or after the COVID-19 pandemic, which is a limitation of the study. Nevertheless, even during a global crisis of (at the time) unknown severity and length, in many cases returning was still viewed as a failure by community members in the place of origin, underscoring that the mechanisms may not only be more general (i.e. time-independent) for the population we study, but also strong enough that external forces do not seem to alter their importance. The experiences of South Asian migrants in the Gulf during the COVID-19 pandemic thus reveal an important factor to consider when examining return migration decisions: family pressure to stay abroad that emerges because returns without having achieved migration goals can be a threat to family reputation in the origin.

Ethical considerations

All necessary ethical approvals for the data collection and analysis of this study have been granted by the NYUAD Institutional Review Board.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank members of the NYUAD Social Research and Public Policy writing group, especially Kinga Makovi, Anju Paul, Elisabeth Anderson, and Zeynep Ozgen for feedback in early stages of the project. Phi Hong Su and David Cook-Martín also shared valuable insights. We thank the participants of the workshop “Social Inequalities in the Gulf and Beyond” who thoughtfully shared feedback. We are grateful to the participants of this study who generously shared their insights. We are additionally grateful to the insightful and helpful comments of the anonymous reviewers.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Correction Statement

This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Notes

1 Gender and class may have hindered the degree of opening up and building trust towards the interviewer, with class and gender differences apparent. Furthermore, norms may dictate a limited degree of interaction between genders and there often is a degree of formality (which some may interpret as respect) in the way that men may engage with women. However, respondents did not seem spare concrete details about topics such as masculinity, family expectations, or other potentially sensitive topics. The author had built rapport with many of the respondents through already existing and regular client relationships. The client-customer relationship did not have an obvious impact on what the interviewees spoke about as sharing life updates and stories about their families back home is not uncommon. Some respondents later revealed positive sentiment about the interviews to the author, highlighting the ability to share their stories and center themselves. Saba Karim Khan’s South Asian origin and their understanding of the context helped minimize some of the potential impact of gender and class differences.

2 Some interviewees also spoke Malayalam. Pakistani respondents were all fluent in Urdu and although they also spoke Pashto, the interviews were mostly conducted in a mix of Urdu and English. The use of Hindi and Urdu (which overlap) together with some English is common in the UAE, such that respondents were used to switching from one language to the other and intermixing languages, especially as they might not be fully proficient in either.

Appendix

Table A1. Interview timings and interviewee characteristics.

Interviewee (alias)	Nationality	Occupation/Job type	Month/Year of interview	Decided to stay or leave the Gulf (at the time of interview)	Years in the Gulf (at the time of interview)
Kabeer	India	Private driver	7/2020	Stayed	8
Saahib	Pakistan	Private driver	7/2020	Stayed	30
Dinesh	India	Private driver	8/2020	Stayed	9
Rajan	India	Private driver	9/2020	Stayed	7
Vikram	Pakistan	Private driver	9/2020	Stayed	30
Yazeed	Pakistan	Fast food employee and property business employee turned florist	9/2020	Left	5
Karan	Pakistan	Fast food employee	10/2020	About to leave	1.5
Pranet	Pakistan	Moving company worker	10/2020	About to leave	1
Nitesh	Pakistan	Private driver	11/2020	Stayed	2.5
Dalir	Pakistan	Cafe worker	11/2020	Stayed	8
Bashir	India	Driver	11/2020	Stayed	1.25
Azra	India	Mother of Bashir	11/2020	-	-
Gohar	Pakistan	Fast food employee	12/2020	Stayed	1
Aroofa	Pakistan	Mother of Gohar	12/2020	-	-
Manish	Nepal	Salon worker	12/2020	Stayed	7
Dhanvi	Nepal	Wife of Manish	12/2020	-	-
Faisal	Pakistan	Fast food employee	12/2020	Left	7
Atheel	Pakistan	Private driver	3/2021	Stayed	13
Sai	India	Fast food worker	3/2021	Stayed	9
Sunit	Nepal	Private cook	4/2021	Left	1.5
Nihar	India	Private driver	4/2021	Left	9
Jairaj	Pakistan	Sandwich shop worker turned cafe worker. Private driver upon return to the Gulf	2/2022	Left and returned	7.5
Viraj	India	Private driver	3/2022	Stayed	12
Malik	Pakistan	Private driver	3/2022	Stayed	15
Nasir	Pakistan	Taxi driver	3/2022	Left	1.5
Farhad	India	Private driver	12/2022	Stayed	*
Aslam	Pakistan	Private driver	12/2022	Stayed	*

* unknown, as not part of the interview.