Introduction

India’s internal rural-urban migrants experience social exclusion and discrimination that
might have significant identity and mental health implications. Besides, fertility and
mortality, migration has an important impact on changes in population distribution in India.
While rural-urban is a result of a desire for progressive lifestyles, better wages and
remittances; it also is a consequence of an urge to reunite with family or gaining
independence from the oppressive norms of the native villages or resulting from the aim to
enhance social status, social and economic empowerment and generations of marginalization.
Migrants often migrated in order to overcome social exclusion and oppressive social norms in
the origin space and feel empowered to exercise their freedom. Migration and India’s
economy is closely linked; migration as a process functions against poverty, towards
improving health, education, and social conflicts. Despite it being an integral part of India’s
fabric, studies show that the influx of migrants to the urban spaces frequently provokes
antagonism on the part of long-term residents, social categorization manifested in labor
market discrimination, stigmatization, political nativism and violence. Assuming the vast
territories of urban spaces to be inclusive of their requirements and desires, migrants often
move with the expectation of social inclusion and gaining an elevated social identity. The
discrepancy between their assumption of the destination space and their experience has a
negative impact on their mental health.
Migration is an aggregate phenomenon in both macroeconomic and social demographic
perspective. The state of Kerala do have issue of migrants in many dimensions such as social,
economic, legal, demographical and psychological. In recent years, a large population from
the north eastern state chose to migrate to Kerala. The high linguistic, social and cultural
differences with Kerala and the geographical distances make the migration similar to
international migration rather than inter-state migration. There are about 35 00 000 north, and
north-eastern migrants settled in the State (Kumar, 2016). Their psychological well-being is
very important as their mental disturbances can cause harmful manifestations in the society.
Therefore, a study on their psychological problems finds significance. It is also helpful for
taking policy decisions to provide better services to them.
Therefore, examining the interaction between the migrant community and the host
community (rural-urban populations) through the lens of social categorization and social
identity theories, this paper aims to understand the phenomenon of social exclusion along the
development of an in-group versus out-group ideology in urban spaces and it impact on the
well-being of rural-urban migrants.
Significance of the study
Migrant behavior is molded by various environmental, social, political and economic
stressors. Past few decades has witnessed migration behavior as an important development in
migration-psychology studies which mostly focuses on individual behavior with respect to
movement across spaces.
Need to explore internal migration
While a significant amount of conceptual work focus on the economic and political
consequences of immigration for both the migrant and the host community, very few focus
on the psychological consequences of social exclusion and categorization on the immigrant.
Interestingly, these perspectives have not been explored for internal migrants, who have made
up the greater part of population movements both historically and today in India. The existing
literature links immigration and well-being primarily through two social process — social
and economic inequality and acculturative stress — based on the concepts of race and ethnic
group identities. The social and economic inequality thesis argues that immigrants as ethnic
minorities suffer from economic disadvantage, racial harassment or discrimination, and
inequalities in access to health services, while the acculturation thesis focuses on the loss of
language and changes in attitudes, values, social structures and support net-works, which
forms one's ethnic identity (Nazroo & Iley, 2011, Ruiz et al., 2010). These theses can be
adapted to understand internal migration by contextualizing the discussion but the accuracy
of the findings would be unreliable as the socio-cultural factors and psychological factors
determining immigration strategies would be very different from that of internal migration.
This is indicative of the huge gap in existing migration literature especially in the context of
India.

Intensity of harm inflicted on the migrants due to stigmatization and discrimination

Further, looking into the psychological consequences of the migration process, some of the
personal factors which impact the well-being of the migrants include coping with adversity
like cultural identity, social support networks in the destination, self-esteem and relational
factors like achievement, racism, social isolation and unemployment. The psychological well-
being of the migrant was also disturbed due to their experience of the very systemic
oppression, stigmatization and discrimination which they had hoped to have left behind in a
space they assumed to be inclusive. Bringing in the present context of COVID-19 pandemic
in the discussion, the insurmountable atrocities that have been undertaken by specific
communities towards other communities merely in response to the stigmatization against the
other. Social stigma towards certain marginalized groups like the homeless or the migrant
laborers have been witnessed. On returning home after months of being stranded in various
parts of the country, the workers and their families have been singled out, sneered at, and
harassed by the community members. According to public health experts, the social stigma
associated with being diagnosed is creating a fear among the public and is acting as a
deterrent to the effective management of the disease, particularly in the urban setup
(Bhattacharya, 2020). This calls for an immediate need to understand these categorizing
behavior of the host communities against the migrants. A nuanced understanding of the root
cause can be reached through applying the social categorization theory in relation with social
identity which states that “individuals not only segment, classify, and categorize the social
environment, but then use these categorizations as a basis of action” ( Dube- Simard, 1983).
This will be helpful in laying down comparatively useful and comprehensive interventions. In
the Kerala context, a study conducted by the Gulati Institute of Finance and Taxation (GIFT)
found that the migrant workers not only live in poor conditions but are also feeling insecure
as Kerala has seen many clashes between them and the local people (Narayana, 2013). Kerala
is having high literacy rates and better education facilities. High linguistic, social and cultural
differences with their states, makes the migrants to feel Kerala as an alien society. Cultural
differences increases the feeling of alienation experienced by the migrants (Kumar, 2016).
Therefore, it is important to not just look at psychological impact of migration on an
individual level but to also understand the structural and socio-cultural forces which play a
role in determining group dynamics and interpersonal relations.
Objectives
Rural-urban migration is largely driven by the purpose of availing better economic and social
opportunities. Yet, the migrants strive to assimilate into the new environment and desire for a
sense of belonging to the new space. On the other hand, the long-term residents segregate the
migrants into social categories which are different from theirs, widening the socio-cultural
gap between the hosts and the migrants, creating two distinct groups – in-group and out-
group. This paper aims to understand the behavioral motivations of both the out-group and
in-group to reinforce segregation and its impact on social identity and interpersonal
relationships among these groups. For the purpose of the study, the paper will be sectioned in
the following manner:
a. Evaluating the inherent discriminatory nature of migration through understanding
internalization of social categorization on an individual level.
b. Social categorization and social exclusion, an analysis of interpersonal relationships.
c. In-group versus out-group: impact on social identity

Discussion
Internalization of social categorization
On settling down in the new culture, their cultural identity is likely to change and that
encourages a degree of belonging; they also attempt to settle down by either assimilation or
biculturalism (Bhugra, 2004). Initially, the migrants aim to integrate with the host group and
try to adopt and embrace their social identity in response to systematic categorization by
others, which eventually reinforces their segregation. Turner (1987) conversely, has argued
that people may actively try to bring external perceptions of self in line with internalized self-
categorizations, by behaving in terms of norms that are prototypical for the group that
constitutes an important part of their self-definition. While external categorizations do not
necessarily elicit internal motivations to follow group norms, they are associated with group-
based expectations as to how one should behave. Lack of compliance with these norms is
perceived to reflect negatively upon the self and hence constitutes an important threat to
social acceptance. Situations that foster behavioral control by others create normative
pressures that may lead group members to endorse group norms even when they are not
privately inclined to do so. Therefore, individuals often assume that other perceive the self as
a group member and consequently may elicit group normative behavior either because
aligning with the group may yield individually attractive outcomes (e.g., high group status,
interpersonal respect), or because it may help avoid social disapproval or exclusion. This
further fosters the internalization of the segregated social categories and dictate a migrant’s
social identity in light of the dominant group’s identity. It was observed that 82.5% of the
migrants in Kerala experienced medium level of alienation and 7.5% experienced high level
of alienation. Only 10% had low level of alienation. 19.5% of the migrant laborers
experienced high level of alienation from the ‘Malayalee society’ (Kumar, 2016). The
significant factors affecting the prevalence of alienation were the constant dismissal of the
migrant population by the dominant community on the grounds of cultural differences and
caste hierarchies, migrants experienced diminished sense of belonging to the space of
residence because of the social exclusion in public spaces as well as restrictions on economic
opportunities. The migrants were often seen as encroachers of the job opportunities for locals
and were in constant conflict with them, sometimes resulting in violent outbreaks too.
Subsequently, it was observed that migrants started perceiving their personal capabilities as
limited in accordance with their external perception.
Social categorization and social exclusion
Theorists believe that clear social categories and threat to identity play an important role in
deterring the effectiveness of intergroup communication. The process of social categorization
is linked very closely to that of social identity that is, those aspects of an individual’s self-
image that derive from the social categories to which they perceive themselves as belonging.
Of the demographical or sociological characteristics one can associate with, ethnic or national
attribute is one of the more fundamental, and ethnic identity has always been an important
issue. But major psychological approaches to intergroup relations do not easily incorporate
the concept of ethnic or group identity and, consistent with the general social philosophy of
assimilation, leave little room for increasing the emotional salience of group boundaries,
promoting the use of desirable stereotypes and generally regarding ethnic or national identity
as a constructive social force (Taylor & Simard, 1979). Giles, Bourhis & Taylor (1977) have
compiled a taxonomy of socio structural factors susceptible to influence ‘that which makes a
group likely to behave as a distinctive and active collective entity in intergroup situations.’
Three structural factors identified by the study which becomes a threat to group identity are
the status of a language in a community, demographic representation and the institutional
support pertaining to this demography. Note that, it will be the perception of threat, more than
the objective threats, which will affect intergroup behavior. This threat to the group identity
can result in performance of social exclusion by the native population against the migrants to
deter the feeling of threat. Largely, three dimensions of social exclusion for rural-urban
migrant workers can be identified: economic exclusion, community exclusion, and
psychological exclusion. Economic exclusion refers to the limitation of rural-urban migrants’
opportunities for and access to social welfare and services, employment and education.
Community social exclusion refers to the lack of opportunities in social interaction and
participation and the experiences of stigma and discrimination. Psychological exclusion
refers to migrants experiencing conflicts in identity and sense of belonging. Migrant workers
in Kerala face social exclusion in all the above-mentioned forms. It was observed that
married and widowed migrant workers experiences significantly high depression (Kumar,
2016) due to social negligence, inability to provide a better lifestyle for their family and lack
of respect from the community they reside in. The feeling of longing their homeland was
positively correlated to higher levels of depression, which suggests that detachment or an
absence of sense of belonging has direct impact on their psychological health. Interestingly,
Migrant laborers living together with workers from the same state do have significantly low
level of depression when compared to workers living in heterogeneous groups, indicating the
prevalence of sense of belonging within these spaces.
In-group versus out-group: impact on social identity
Individuals do not necessarily endorse identities that are externally ascribed to them, and that
as consequence displays of group allegiance cannot simply be derived from the knowledge
that people satisfy certain external criteria for category inclusion. Social identification
constitutes a subjective process through which externally assigned category distinctions are
accepted and in-group characteristics are adopted to help define the self. But this definition of
the self is not necessarily corresponding to the way one is perceived by others. This
discrepancy can constitute a categorization threat to self on an individual level but also create
the distinct categories of ‘us’ and ‘them’ on the structural level. McKirnan & Hamayan
(1983) offer an interesting approach to the study of in-group/out-group distinctions by
integrating the concept of norms with social categorization. Social norms are defined as
stable, shared cognitions that dictate expectancies of others and provide rules for one’s own
behavior within a given context and, as such, function to organize experience. McKiman &
Hamayan hypothesize that social group membership is associated with a network of shared
beliefs that both underlies group members’ social identity and serves as a “natural line of
fracture between members and non-members” (McKirnan, Smith & Hamayan, 1983).
Therefore, in context of Kerala, the north-eastern migrants share very little social norms (with
reference to the definition used here) with the natives, which also creates a space of divide
and a gap in understanding the context of one another, giving rise to an uncomfortable space
for both the communities to coexist. Since social identity is derived from membership in a
group, a positive identity arises out of favorable comparisons that can be made between the
in-group and some relevant outgroup (Tajfel, 1978).
According to a field study conducted by Simard (1981), revealed that forming new
acquaintances outside of one’s in-group is a difficult process, especially with cross-cultural
acquaintances (Simard, 1981). First, an outgroup member is required to be more similar to
the person initiating the encounter on a variety of dimensions in order to qualify as potential
friend. Second, a strong reliance of external circumstances to initiate intergroup contacts was
evidenced which also throws light on the influence of fostering circumstances for
interpersonal relationships between groups to thrive. Interpersonal accommodation also plays
a significant role in communication strategies. Giles, Taylor & Bourhis (1973) proposed a
social psychological model which examines motivation for speech modification—
interpersonal accommodation – where a speaker makes certain linguistic adjustments in the
direction of his partner as a means of facilitating social attraction. The implication of
attribution theory to the present context is that a listener can attribute either accommodation
or non-accommodation in a variety of ways: lack of ability or appropriate repertoire range,
the existence of external pressure to maintain a native speech style, or a lack of effort to
reduce dissimilarities between them. At the same time, this fluidity in expression also leave
areas for misinterpretation leading to confusion and misunderstanding between communities.
For example, the linguistic difference between the migrants and the native residents in Kerala
is drastic, which makes it even more difficult for warm and welcoming conversations to take
place. Often, the listener misinterprets the body language or the tone of the speaker and
relates it to ill intentions rather than understanding the mere difficulty of communication due
to different dialects. This misunderstanding can lead to further differences between the in-
group and out-group.
Conclusion
As criteria for group membership remains ambiguous, divergent categorizations should be
fostered, leading way to acceptance of multiple social identities rather than one dominant
social identity. This provides a wider space for cultures to interact and increases the capacity
of understanding between members belonging to different group identities. Understanding the
concepts of social exclusion, categorization and identity in relation with the prevalent
discriminatory behavioral patterns in migration studies will help policy makers to understand
the root cause of the problem between migrant populations and native residents and therefore,
formulate policies which is directed to these root cause rather than superficial conflicts. For
example, understanding the feeling of threat faced by the residents on the arrival of migrants
will help formulate intervention which can target this feeling of threat and help relief it in the
resident population.
Further to give meaning to the concept of social exclusion, social epidemiology needs to be
integrated with close-up, street-level ethnographic data on the daily experience of being a
migrant in the contemporary mega-city. Such interdisciplinary research is not only necessary
to understand the complexities of the relationship between migration and psychological well-
being in the mega-cities of developing countries – for instance the ways in which migration
may be experienced by young people as a liberation from the constraints of village life and an
opportunity to experiment with life forms, or the ways in which urban residents and migrants
understand and respond differently to their experiences of the city and make use of different
forms of support to manage them. Given that mental health services for migrants are minimal
in many cities that are rapidly expanding by rural-to-urban migration, such research may have
important policy implications, for example in the development of new surveying instruments
to map the relations between migration, urban living, and mental health that can provide a
nuanced understanding of a variety of urban stressors related to different dimensions of
exclusion. Another area of research can examine the factors which impact interpersonal
relationships between members belonging to various group identities and how the
understanding of multiple social identities can help bridge the gap between these groups.
References
Barreto, M., & Ellemers, N. (2003). The effects of being categorised: The interplay between
internal and external social identities. European Review of Social Psychology, 14, 139–
170. doi:10.1080/10463280340000045 
Bhattacharya, P., Banerjee, D., & Rao, T. S. (2020). The “Untold” Side of COVID-19: Social
Stigma and Its Consequences in India. Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine,
025371762093557. doi:10.1177/025371762093557

Bhugra, D. (2004). Migration and Mental Health. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica,109, 243–
258.

Bourhis, R. Y., Giles, H. and Tajfel, H. (1973) Language as determinant of Welsh identity.
European Journal of Social Psychology, 3, 447-60.

Dubé-Simard, L. (1983). Genesis of Social Categorisation, Threat To Identity and Perception

of Social Injustice: Their Role in Intergroup Communication. Journal of Language and
Social Psychology, 2(2-3-4), 183–205. doi:10.1177/0261927x8300200207 

Giles, H., Bourhis, R. Y., and Taylor, D. M. (1977) Towards a theory of language in ethnic
group relations. In H. Giles (ed.), Language, Ethnicity and Intergroup Relations.
London and New York: Academic Press.

Kumar, S., & Choudhury, S. (2021). Migrant workers and human rights: A critical study on
India’s COVID-19 lockdown policy. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 3(1),
100130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2021.100130

Kumar, S., & S.K, P. (2016). Psychological Problems of Migrant Labourers in Kerala: A
Study in Thiruvananthapuram and Ernakulam Districts.

Li, J., & Rose, N. (2017). Urban social exclusion and mental health of China's rural-urban
migrants – A review and call for research. Health & Place, 48, 20–30.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2017.08.009

McKirnan, D. J., Smith, C., and Hamayan, E. U. (1983) A sociolinguistic approach to the
belief-similarity model of racial attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology.
(in press).

Mucci, N., Traversini, V., Giorgi, G., Tommasi, E., De Sio, S., & Arcangeli, G. (2020).
Migrant Workers and Psychological Health: A Systematic Review. Sustainability ,
12(120). https://doi.org/doi:10.3390/su12010120
Narayana, D. & Venkiteswaran, C. S. (2013). Domestic migrant labour in Kerala.
Thiruvananthapuram: Gulati Institute of Finance and Taxation.

Nazroo and Iley, (2011). Ethnicity, migration and mental health: the role of social and
economic inequalities. Migr. Ment. Health, pp. 79-97

P. Ruiz, I.C. Maggi, A. Yusim. (2010). The impact of acculturative stress on the mental health

of migrants. Cambridge University Press 

Panda, S. S., & Mishra, N. R. (2018, May 24). Factors affecting temporary labour migration
for seasonal work: a review. Management Research Review.
https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/MRR-04-2017-0104/full/html.

Reynolds, K. J., Turner, J. C., & Haslam, S. A. (n.d.). Social Identity And Self-Categorization
Theories’ Contribution To Understanding Identification, Salience And Diversity In
Teams And Organizations. Identity Issues in Groups, 279–304. doi:10.1016/s1534-
0856(02)05011-9 

Simard, L. M. (1981) Cross-cultural interaction: Potential invisible barriers. The Journal of

Social Psychology, 113, 171-92.

Tajfel, H. (1978). Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of
intergroup relations. New York: Academic Press.

Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories. New York: Cambridge University
Press.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G.

Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33 –
47). Monterey, CA: Brooks Cole.

Taylor, D. M., & McKirnan, D. J. (1984). A five-stage model of intergroup relations. British
Journal of Psychology, 54, 101 – 114.

Taylor, D. M., and Simard, L. M. (1972) The role of bilingualism in cross-cultural

communication. Journal of Cross-Cultu