Migrant men in the nexus of space and (dis)empowerment

This special issue stems from an international workshop on ‘Men and Migration in contemporary Europe’, organized at the Centre for European Research at the University of Gothenburg (CERGU) in June 2016. Following fruitful contributions and debates during the workshop, this volume pivots on the previously pointed out paradox (Charsley & Wray, 2015) that migrant men are concurrently over-researched as ‘normative’ migrants, and yet persistently understudied due to the universalization and presupposed singularity of the male migrant experience. As a baseline, the works included in the collection agree that ‘women, men, and further genders are likely to experience migration, emigration and immigration in different ways’ (Hearn, 2015, p. 163), thus contributing to the research momentum of noting a multitude of migrant masculinities (see e.g. Charsley & Wray, 2015; Donaldson, Hibbins, Howson, & Pease, 2009; Hearn, 2015; Maher & Lafferty, 2014; Walsh, 2011; Ye, 2014).

In order to deconstruct the dichotomous relationship between mobility and masculinity in the research context, we argue for the conspicuous inclusion of the spatially intersectional perspective. The validity of studying the geographies of masculinities is two-fold. On the one hand, spatial belonging is an integral component of social embodiment and class status, providing also for a more holistic interpretation of gender hierarchies (Connell, 1998; Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005; Hearn, 2015; Hopkins, 2007). On the other hand, socio-spatial locations are tied to the ever-important notion of hegemonic masculinity (Connell, 1998), a category which continues to permeate male experiences described by the authors of the articles in this issue. The aforementioned geographies of masculinities are intersectionally entangled with the question of power. A continuum of spatial freedoms within the geographies of masculinities, assumes that the experiences of men are not only gendered but also diverse with respect of marginalization and privilege.

The new juxtaposition of mobility and gender has been greatly enabled by the shifts in migration research (e.g. Hondagneu-Sotelo, 2000; Levitt & Jaworsky, 2007; Pessar & Mahler, 2003). In re-conceptualizing migration through the critical lenses of space and mobility, scholars have long attempted to overcome the Aristotelian ‘sedentary bias’, which preordained the normativity of residential fixedness. Gravely consequential, the assumption about migration being universally ‘bad’ imbued the socio-political debates with an immanent inferiority of those ‘on the move’. The efforts evidencing a need for counter-sedentarism arguments in migration scholarship range from the pervasiveness of transnationalism (see e.g. Levitt & Jaworsky, 2007; Vertovec, 2009), to critiques of methodological nationalism (Schiller, Çaglar, & Guldbrandsen, 2006), to Castles’ argumentation (2010) on the need of a positive and transformative reintroduction of migration into wider social theory. Still, as we follow Nail’s (2015) kinopolitics, we argue that migration and movement are unfailingly linked with political power of expansion and expulsion. By this logic, the experiences of non-majority men may be expunged in general, while the biographies of men in power suggest overarching theme (expanse/representation) rather than true problematization (Hearn, 2004, p. 49).

Adjusting gendered experiences so that they take the spatial lens into account perennially intersects place and mobility with hierarchies of (male/hegemonic) power. In other words, migrant men are positioned on the continuum from a relatively unrestricted to a highly controlled spatial presence. It is a somewhat trivial assertion that different migrants in divergent spaces are prone to migration regimes which rely on gendered, legal, socio-spatial, ethic, racial and classed inclusion or exclusion (see e.g. Kilkey, Lutz, & Palenga-Möllenbeck, 2010). Factually, migration may, but not necessarily must, signify a downward or upward social mobility of men. Mobility effects are usually situated on the axis of the social status and its presumed loss, while they are also commonly linked to the production of new hegemonies between men (and men and women, men and other genders; Hearn, 2015, p. 168), as well as formulation of new groups or individuals who either benefit from the demarcation process, or are marginalized by it. Therefore, men are ‘differentially involved in policy-making and policy regulation, control, and implementation’ (Hearn, 2015, p. 163). While steering clear of universalism and agreeing that migration theories must always be contextual (Massey et al., 1994), we embark on devising a continuum of privilege and marginality on the grounds of what we call ‘gendered spatial freedom’. The arguments broadly reflect how the agency of mobile groups and individuals who seek to practice their ‘geographic habitus’ (Schmalzbauer, 2014) can be either constrained or enabled by the political and social structures (Bakewell, 2010) which they can have impact on. We see spatial freedom as an outcome of a relation between the social (geographic habitus) and the political (access to space). Further, spatial freedom – or a lack thereof – can contextualize the experiences of a ‘migrant as a political figure of our time’ (Nail, 2015).

With reference to gender, migration scholarship witnessed somewhat of ‘a double whammy’, as the lasting patriarchal exclusion of women’s voices resulted in the ultimate debarment and silencing of men’s voices (Charsley & Wray, 2015). This transpired despite the fact that ‘men consistently travel further than women’ (Transgen, 2007, p. 5). The situation has been slowly changing since the beginning of the twenty-first century, when a handful of researchers started conducting analyses of the specificity of migrant men’s experiences and their positioning in the destination countries (e.g. Batnizky, McDowall, & Dyer, 2009; Charsley, 2005; Donaldson et al., 2009; Osella & Osella, 2000; Pease, 2006; Sarti & Scrinzi, 2010). Nevertheless, to this day the research tackles only a limited array of issues, such as the role of migrant men in the destination state’s labor force, their absence as seen from the perspective of other family members/sending country, or the aspects of migrant men’s criminality. These three arenas arguably point to notions of deskilling, discrimination and inferiority in the employment realm, the dissolution of kinship structures and intimate relations for families, and breaking the law within the broader societal discourses. Notably, these negative aspects, revolving around criminality, sexism and patriarchy (Griffiths, 2015), present migrant men as instigators of social unrest. With the rise of dangerous foreign masculinity, men have been surmised to elicit problems such as domestic and sexual violence, youth delinquency or culturally specific crimes (honor murders, forced marriages). In turn, the overall research field vividly places migrant men as a rather homogeneous group causing or, in a pinch, dealing with similar challenges. Accounts that do not match the standard topical triad of migrant men’s work-kin-crime behaviors have been atypical. These men are rarely seen as part of a complex and diverse social category with their masculinities framed as intersectional and multidimensional social phenomena. Moreover, the majority of the analyses ‘have been limited to a single national, societal context – paradoxically, often with the unspoken nation in constructions of men and masculinities exemplifying a form of “methodological nationalism”’ (Hearn, 2015, p. 17), thus they steer clear of a dialogue with current migration debates. In the same vein, significantly less attention has been devoted to the experiences of male migrants in a wider, global and transnational context.

The proposed lens of gendered spatial freedom reflects on two aspects of migrant men’s positionalities. First, the spatial aspect addresses the connections and belonging that can be forged with the surroundings and place, which can be more localized (local) or rather global (Connell, 1998; Lusher & Robins, 2009), yet they are intrinsically referential of hegemonic masculinity (Stenbacka, 2011). Second, the freedom aspect concerns the level of rights to openly utilize the spatial environment (Leitner, 1997), while gender infuses it with expectations, norms and roles (Silvey, 2006). The authors in this issue present life complexities of very different men as gendered beings, as well as subjects of spatial regulations and agents of border-crossing. On the one end of the spectrum, Pierrette Hondagneu-Sotelo and Paul Scheibelhofer chronicle the lives of those on the fringes and beyond: the Latino men in the United States, and the refugees in Austria. Scheibelhofer’s account is more external and elucidates a momentous reinstatement of the Fortress Europe (Roos, 2013). In his discussion on the media discourse, Scheibelhofer analyzes the transformation of images of male refugees that had started with compassion and empathy and evolved toward the image of foreign and dangerous masculinity. According to the author, such developments enabled local politicians to restore border control and legitimize new restrictive asylum laws. In Scheibelhofer’s view, the notion of the dangerous foreign masculinity made it possible for the process of ‘othering’ to take hold in social imaginaries. Through this discursive method of describing certain types of difference (such as gender, race, social class and sexuality ), the migrant Muslim men have become distinctively alien and norm-transgressing. In this particular case, the norm is the local, European masculinity, the privileged gender notion, so ‘those who are “othered” are unequally positioned in relation to those who do the “othering”’ (Pickering, 2001, p. 73). In this sense, the extremely marginalized and near-voiceless male refugees described by Scheibelhofer illuminate how European national regimes reclaim a strategic use of the immigrant issue for political gains, yet inadvertently cause a rapture leading to new hegemonies, much in a way of legitimizing ‘angry white men’ (Kimmel, 2013).

Conversely, Hondagneu-Sotelo’s article demonstrates how perceptible and politically critical spatial restrictions limiting Latino men (see e.g. Golash-Boza & Hondagneu-Sotelo, 2013; Schmalzbauer, 2014) can be overcome when geographical habitus is transformed from aspiring to ‘national’ (political) to the ‘local’ level. In the context of cultivating land, migrant men not only alleviate the nostalgia for the lost past, but also strengthen a process of highly localized social anchoring (Bygnes & Erdal, 2017; Grzymala-Kazlowska, 2016). While their political power and agency are restricted, men are able to subtly conquer an area where their spatial freedoms are redressed and retained. The personal links to space may be built in opposition to the dominant discourses and it can be argued that locality and place can operate as subversive spaces of empowerment, as well as subdue dominant masculine discourses. The migrants interviewed by the author and her team can be placed in the nexus of both masculine privilege and social marginality. On the one hand, as men, they still possess certain types of privilege, not only in relation to the Latino women and other genders, but also in terms of spatial freedom as, according to the author, they can access certain part of LA parks without (too much) fear of being physically attacked. The interviewed men also intercept the boundary-evoking public/private division of gendered spaces, as the author introduces a somewhat liminal zone of semi-private space. On the other hand, in the hierarchy of masculinities introduced by Connell (Connell, 1995; Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005), the respondents still represent the marginalized type.

A much higher degree of gendered spatial freedoms characterizes men in Justyna Bell and Paula Pustułka’s paper. Polish men became symbols of the ‘desirable’ labor migrants: white, European, presumably hard working (see e.g. Grabowska, 2016) and generally seen as non-threatening. As far as immigrants go, their masculinity is the opposite of the ‘dangerous foreigner’ concept used by Scheibelhofer. Polish migrants in the European Union boast unrestricted spatial freedom guaranteed under the premise of their EU citizenship and non-registered intra-EU mobility (Drinkwater et al., 2009; Grabowska, 2016). However, the fact that they are ‘non-threatening’ as migrants to the local majority populations cannot be equated with their masculinity being unproblematic. In this paper, masculinities thus appear as delocalized, since neither ‘here’ nor ‘there’ can Polish men uphold the prescriptions of social or spatial dominance. In fact, their desirability as workers grants them no welcomed access to space, while their absence from local spaces in Poland obscures their spatial belonging in the country of origin. It their case, migration causes a peculiar ambivalence of privilege. Their status as EU citizens conveys spatial privileges through Eurocentrism, which involves convictions about (especially white) Europeans being superior to non-Europeans (Pease, 2010, p. 43). Nevertheless, though this is still a pivotal force, Europe is not a monolith and therefore some European identities are valued more than others. One key example is that Eastern Europe is still perceived as lower in rank (Ciupijus, 2011). Migration ‘labels’ can come to the fore once again, as scholars debate the increasingly hierarchical categorizations of migration agents (Leinonen, 2012). Notably, different powers are ascribed to desirable expatriates (expats): the cosmopolitan commuters who tend to be ‘Western’ and professional ‘Eurostars’ (Favell, 2008, 2011) vis-à-vis the less desirable ‘labor migrants’, with a figure of a ‘Polish plumber’ at the helm of this group. With such ambivalent positions, migrant men have to navigate multiple areas of their life within the constraints of both sending and receiving countries.

Finally, spatial accounts presented by Agnieszka Trąbka and Katarzyna Wojnicka evoke the notions of utmost spatial freedoms, mobility and cosmopolitanism within what the authors deem a transnational space. In their paper they present three case studies of high-skilled young men who belong to the group called third culture kids. The analyses are based on biographical narrative interviews with serial migrants of different nationalities who have migrated in childhood and in their adult lives. The authors not only present the process of (hybrid) masculinity construction but also show that certain groups of migrants belong to a privileged group. They epitomize ‘Eurostars’ (Favell, 2011), and their mobility influences their status in a positive way. However, as the main characteristic of privilege is its invisibility, presented narrations rarely refer to any type of inequalities in terms of different positioning in the global migration order. Therefore, the analysis through the lenses of privilege/marginalization in a transnational dimension is crucial as ‘the privileges associated with their own geo-political location are not named and interrogated. Much of the recognition of privilege and oppression is framed within a taken-for-granted, geographically bordered sovereign state’ and still ‘(…) little consideration given to the way in which privilege within those geographical boundaries is likely to impact on those outside of them’ (Pease, 2010, p. 40). Consequently, even in these stories of presumably powerful global male professionals, spaces of masculinities can be contested, and the geographical habitus can be too intangible to harness spatial belonging.

The final article in this volume provides an overarching review of existing studies pertaining to transnational fatherhood. In ‘Where Have All the Fathers Gone? Remarks on Feminist Research on Transnational Fatherhood’, Adéla Souralová and Hana Fialová focus on the presentation and evaluation of the theoretical contribution to the scholarship on migration and parenting as it relates to men. The paper provides an analysis of the concept of transnational fatherhood, but also transnational parenthood in general, thus complementing the vast research on migrant motherhood (see e.g. Erel, 2012; Hondagneu-Sotelo & Avila, 1997; Pustulka, 2016; Reynolds, 2005). It shows how gendered norms and stereotypes can affect research on migrant men and women, which in turn signifies sustaining dominant gender orders. Thus, the nexus of space and disempowerment is also present on a meta-level in this theoretical paper. According to the authors, the transnational (space of) scholarship on fatherhood is still marginalized in feminist studies on gender, ethnicity, mobility and parenthood.

The diverse backgrounds and expertise of the contributors to this special issue reflect the importance of ongoing and interdisciplinary inquiry into migration, men and masculinities. It demonstrates how research in Europe and beyond can both assess and respond to the challenges faced by migrant men across different spatial contexts of freedom and constraints. As editors, we would like to thank all authors for their perseverance throughout the writing and editing process, which, in our opinion, has produced a valuable resource for various audiences. We hope that the volume can spark further recognition of the complementarity needed in researching gender and migration from a spatial and intersectional perspective.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributor

Katarzyna Wojnicka earned a PhD in Sociology from Jagiellonian University in Poland. She is a Postdoctoral Researcher at the Centre for European Research at the University of Gothenburg, Sweden. Katarzyna has extensively published on the nexus of critical men and masculinities studies and European studies. She is author of the scientific blog Dr. K & the men.

Paula Pustulka earned a PhD in Sociology from Bangor University in Wales. She is a Postdoctoral Researcher and Lecturer at the SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities in Warsaw. Paula has extensively published on the nexus of gender and migration, focusing particularly on Polish migrant motherhood.

Additional information

Funding

The workshop was funded by Riksbankens Jubileumsfond.