Ethnic and Racial Studies

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rers20

From “inbetweeners” to ‘transcultural mediators’:

Turkish-German second-generation’s narratives of
‘return' migration, third spaces and re-invention of
the self

Nilay Kılınç, Allan M. Williams & Paul Hanna

To cite this article: Nilay Kılınç, Allan M. Williams & Paul Hanna (2022) From “inbetweeners” to
‘transcultural mediators’: Turkish-German second-generation’s narratives of ‘return' migration,
third spaces and re-invention of the self, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 45:14, 2726-2748, DOI:
10.1080/01419870.2022.2039400

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2022.2039400

Published online: 02 Mar 2022.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 8055

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rers20
ETHNIC AND RACIAL STUDIES
2022, VOL. 45, NO. 14, 2726–2748
https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2022.2039400

From “inbetweeners” to ‘transcultural mediators’:

Turkish-German second-generation’s narratives of
‘return’ migration, third spaces and re-invention of
the self
a b b
Nilay Kılınç , Allan M. Williams and Paul Hanna
a
Helsinki Institute of Urban and Regional Studies, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland;
b
School of Hospitality and Tourism Management, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK

ABSTRACT
The paper explores how second-generation Turkish-German ‘returnees’ benefit
from their “inbetweenness” in their ancestral homeland and initiate a process of
re-inventing themselves as ‘transcultural mediators’. A thematic-narrative
analysis was undertaken on 43 in-depth interviews with second-generation
Turkish-German ‘return’ migrants to Antalya who had acquired jobs in the
tourism sector. The paper unpacks how this tourism hub provides “third
spaces” distanced from prominent national and diasporic identities, and the
ways in which these liberating spaces encourage the lifestyle-oriented,
cosmopolitan second-generation ‘returnees’ to re-position themselves in their
translocal social fields. The findings illustrate how the second generation,
who formerly endured “being twice a stranger” in Germany and Turkey,
undertake a process of transculturation in Antalya, and utilize their
“transcultural capital” (i.e. bilingual skills, bi- multilingualism, translocal
habitus) to perform different aspects of their multiple and hybrid identities,
gain economic independence and build social relations.

ARTICLE HISTORY Received 7 October 2021; Accepted 20 January 2022

KEYWORDS Second generation; return migration; transcultural capital; transcultural mediators; third
space

Introduction
Transnational approaches have increasingly framed the second generation’s
lives as being led by multiple and constant interconnections across inter-
national borders, and their public identities as being configured in relation-
ships to more than one national state (Schiller, Basch, and Blanc-Szanton
1992). However, empirical accounts point towards the second generation’s
experiences of “inbetweenness” related to feeling “stuck” between the
inward-looking space of the diasporic community, and the wider but not

CONTACT Nilay Kılınç nilay.kilinc@helsinki.fi

© 2022 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
 ETHNIC AND RACIAL STUDIES 2727

fully accessible social spaces of the “host” society where they have grown up
(Euwals et al. 2010; Berry and Sabatier 2010).
This sense of “inbetweenness” can, at times, motivate the second gener-
ation to seek a fresh start in their ancestral homeland to secure a coherent
sense of self and home (Christou 2006). Yet, a common ‘return’ outcome
for the second generation is a sense of disappointment due to not experien-
cing a straightforward homecoming, which highlights the gap between their
‘return’ imaginings and realities (Tsuda 2003 on “myth of return”). However,
existing research offers limited insights about the second generation’s pro-
cesses of re-framing their social positions after ‘return’ by realizing their
potential arising from a repertoire of options drawn from across the spectrum
of oppositional discourses of diasporic communities on the one hand, and
cosmopolitan flows on the other (Castles 2002, 1158).
Thus, this paper focusses on the following question: How do second-gener-
ation Turkish-German ‘returnees’ realize and transform their sense of “inbet-
weenness”?1 To find answers, we explore their transculturation experiences,
mobility routes and lifestyle choices through a narrative-thematic analysis
of 43 in-depth interviews with ‘returnees’ who, after ‘return’ to the ancestral
homeland, chose to settle in a tourism city. We found that, the participants
firstly tried to build a life in their parents’ towns and villages or in big
cities, which intensified their sense of “inbetweenness”. In searching for
more liberating places where they could also achieve economic indepen-
dence, they decided to relocate to the Mediterranean tourism hub of Antalya.
The Turkish-German second generation have an advantageous position in
the power dynamics of Antalya vis-à-vis the German tourists/residents and
the co-ethnic/national locals whose work depends on the “transcultural
capital” of the Turkish returnees from Europe. This allows our participants
the possibility of going beyond their “inbetweenness” and further construct
their own positionalities. Subsequently, our findings suggest that character-
istics of the changing ‘return’-locales – in relation to job opportunities,
social spaces, and quality of life – contribute to the second generation’s
self-realization and re-invention of the self from being an “inbetweener” to
a ’transcultural mediator’.
The paper’s findings contribute to two literatures. First, we contribute to
return migration research by exploring the second generation’s post-‘return’
mobilities to find “third spaces” wherein they can express and utilize their
hybrid, transnational or cosmopolitan identities. This aspect of internal re-
mobilities after the second generation’s ‘return’ and its consequences have
been largely ignored by researchers (except Teerling 2011; Kılınç and King
2017). Furthermore, there is a lack of actor-oriented approaches in the literature
which focus on the second generations’ self-reflexive paths throughout the
‘return’ in relation to socio-spatial interconnections and activities/strategies
to transform their liminality into social and economic advantages.
2728 N. KILINÇ ET AL.

Second, the paper contributes to the study of the second generation’s

transnationalism by highlighting the nexus between identity-habitus-locale
in stimulating usage of “transcultural capital” (Meinhof and Triandafyllidou
2006). There is a significant gap in the literature with regards to how the
second generation activate their transcultural knowledge, skills, and networks
in their new places of residence after ‘return’ migration. Based on the first-
generation immigrants’ experiences, transcultural capital is argued to be
transferrable to everywhere; however, our findings suggest that, for the
second-generation ‘returnees’, transcultural capital has firstly to be realized
as a resource, and then unlocked through a conscious decision on where to
settle (i.e. place) and how to live (i.e. occupation, lifestyle).

Turkish-German second-generation “inbetweenness” and ‘return’

The transformation of Turkish “guestworkers” into a settled transnational
community in Germany, a process which started in the 1960s, epitomizes
several mobility paradoxes with direct consequences for the lives of the
next generations. Economic policy was primarily designed to rotate labour
migrants with fixed-term contracts and frequent returns supported by the
German government’s financial incentives, but in practice there was stable
settlement, family reunification and the birth of the second generation. The
second generation were expected to assimilate to their “host” societies
although, in reality, many experienced varying transnational orientations
and mobilities, mainly as a result of their parents’ persistent affective ties
to Turkey (cf. King and Christou 2011).
Macro-level structures also created an underprivileged situation for the
Turkish migrants. Germany’s Nationality Act was only revised in 2000,
finally giving the right of citizenship to migrants’ descendants who were
born in Germany and whose parents had resided legally in the country for
at least 8 years (Ehrkamp and Leitner 2003). Whilst guestworker groups
from Italy, Greece, Portugal, and Spain have increasingly gained rights after
their countries’ membership of the European Union, Turkish migrants
mainly remained de facto citizens and endured strong ethnic and religious
labelling through the exploitation of the “Turkish Question” in political dis-
courses (Sirkeci, Cohen, and Yazgan 2012).
Although the Turkish communities mobilized in the long run through dia-
spora organizations, ethnic-neighbourhoods, and Turkish government initiat-
ives (e.g. funding the migration of religious leaders, and schoolteachers), the
lack of clear perspective about a secure social, economic, and political future
in Germany has had a negative impact on the integration of the first
and second generations (Østergaard-Nielsen 2003). Many in the second gener-
ation inherited the experience of marginalization, non-recognition, and exclu-
sion as well as structural non-integration in German institutions (Faist 1993).
 ETHNIC AND RACIAL STUDIES 2729

Return mobilities have been a persistent feature of the Turkish diasporas,

accelerating in numbers since the mid-1980s, and with the second gener-
ation’s growing interest in settling in Turkey (King and Kılınc 2014). Referring
to the second generation’s settlement in the parental homeland as ‘return’
migration induces an ontological paradox, but the second-generation
‘return’ also employs a counter-intuitive form of migration as they reverse
their labour migrant parents’ trajectory in pursuit of a range of motivations
including a quest for “reuniting with their roots”. This has been conceptual-
ized as “counter-diasporic migration” (King and Christou 2010), “ethnic/
ancestral return” (Tsuda 2003), and “roots migration” (Wessendorf 2007;
Levitt 2009).
Although “most literature of the genre sees transnationalism as a mainly
first-generation phenomenon” (King and Christou 2011, 454), contemporary
studies have highlighted the complex identities and belongings of the des-
cendants of Turkish migrants as they navigate between their multiple
worlds (Kaya 2007; Kılınç and King 2017). Recent studies on the second-gen-
eration Turkish-German ‘return’ migrants offer a more detailed picture of the
second generation’s diasporic upbringing in Germany, their transnational ties
to Turkey through childhood holidays, various anxieties, and tensions they
experience in Germany and Turkey related to not completely fitting in, and
their sense of “double exclusion” due to perceived stigmatization in both
countries (Fokkema 2011; King and Kılınc 2014; Kunuroglu et al. 2015).
Return migration theories which were initially based on the first gener-
ation’s return have shortcomings in capturing the second generation’s
diverse ‘return’ imaginings and experiences (Cassarino 2004). The second
generation is argued to acquire crucial opportunities to reflect on their
belongings and identities through their lives in “transnational social fields”,
hence they can realize mobility and settlement in richer ways (Levitt and
Schiller 2004). This “reflective ambiguity” of the second-generation ‘return’
is used as a lens to question the boundaries of certain dichotomies that
the second generation’s lives juxtapose; such as “indigenousness”-“foreign-
ness”, and “homeland”-“hostland” (King and Christou 2010, 168–170). With
these nuances in mind, Christou (2006, 57) describes the second generation’s
‘return’ migration as “the process of migrants’ return to the country/place of
origin, parental/ancestral extraction or to the ‘symbolic homeland’.”
Ethnographic studies increasingly evaluate the second generation ‘return’
as a migratory journey in its own right, rather than the reversal or end of
another one (Ley and Kobayashi 2005). Accordingly, the second generation’s
“inbetweenness” is argued to push them to become reflexive actors who can
craft their own “positioned belongings” vis-à-vis the two socio-cultural and
geographical components of their hyphenated identities (Brocket 2020).
Teerling’s research (2011) demonstrates that second generation ‘returnees’
go beyond their “inbetweenness” by creating “third-cultural spaces of
2730 N. KILINÇ ET AL.

belonging”. King and Kılınc (2014, 132) argue that the Turkish-German
second-generation ‘returnees’ construct their own “socio-cultural fourth
spaces” – positionings amongst the homeland, hostland, and migrant com-
munity – that emerge partly of their own making and are partly imposed
on them by exclusionary mechanisms.
Despite the growing interest in second generation ‘return’, there is little
research on those who undertake self-reflexive paths regarding where and
how to live which are integral to their re-mobilities after ‘return’. Here, we
bring to the fore these self-reflexive paths by providing an understanding
of them through the theoretical lens of transcultural capital and translocal
geographies.

“Transcultural capital” and translocal geographies of ‘return’

In order to understand how the second-generation Turkish-Germans make
sense of liminality vis-à-vis their ‘return’ experiences and activate a process
of strategic “inbetweenness” to gain social and economic advantages, we
build our theoretical framework by placing Meinhof and Triandafyllidou’s
(2006, 202) concept of “transcultural capital” into a dialogue with Anthias’
(2008, 5) concept of “translocational positionality”, that is, identity construc-
tions are understood in the light of the intersectionality of multiple identities
and specific locations.
The first concept is built on Bourdieu’s “cultural capital”, referring to the
accumulation of knowledge, skills and learning, the know-how that advan-
tages an individual in terms of achieving a higher status, prestige or authority
in a given social setting (Bourdieu 1990, 138). Meinhof and Triandafyllidou
(2006) use this notion to analyse Europe-based first-generation African immi-
grants’ strategic possibilities of strong local and transnational ties within and
across migrant communities (social capital), of widespread bi- or multilingu-
alism (cultural capital), and of retaining vibrant artistic roots in originating cul-
tures but blending these with new local and global influences (transcultural
capital combinations). The lens of “transcultural capital” seeks to supersede
diaspora nationalism and acknowledges the role of cosmopolitanism which
pays attention to migrants’ construction of individualized identities in a
world characterized by economic and socio-cultural globalization.
The latter concept is useful to scrutinize the localized aspects of their trans-
nationalism and understand the second generation’s “simultaneous situated-
ness” across spaces, places, and scales (Brickell and Datta 2011). With its focus
on local-to-local connections and identities across national boundaries, trans-
locality stresses dual social action in which the “here” and “there” continue to
exist and emotional ties persist; whilst transnationalism emphasizes simulta-
neity, persistence, and intensity of social, political, and economic activity
beyond national boundaries (Barkan 2004).
 ETHNIC AND RACIAL STUDIES 2731

The second generation’s translocal encounters, dwellings and learnings

influence their “habitus” (Bourdieu 1990) – the set of dispositions that struc-
ture interactions amongst people – making its transformation and adaptation
both possible and necessary (Nowicka 2015). Hence, they can realize and
benefit from their “transcultural capital” and develop – what we conceptual-
ize as – “translocal habitus”. Translocal habitus involves a set of dualistic dis-
positions and allows individuals, through their navigation across different
social field contexts, to successfully shift or adapt their dispositions to the
rules and regularities of the new field context.
Hence, by focusing on the second generation’s fluid and adaptive subjec-
tivities, i.e. “translocal habitus”, we can understand how, following re-
migration, they developed a “feel for the game” in Antalya’s tourism “field”
(in Bourdieusian analogy). Within this framework, we evaluate the group’s
self-actualization as a process of “transculturation” in which both parts of
the equation (i.e. cultures) are modified; cultures are perceived as hetero-
geneous, complex, overlapping, contradictory constellations while the self
and the world are no longer conceived in terms of binary identities and differ-
ences (Hannerz 1992).
In the process of transculturation and indicative of “translocational posi-
tionality”, we evaluate identities as temporary points of attachment to
subject positions constructed through discursive and performative practices
(Goffman 1990). Subsequently, we perceive the second-generation ‘retur-
nees’ as ‘agents of transculturation’ who reflexively face their own goals,
choices, limitations and misunderstandings, and roam through realms of
ambiguity and uncertainty, which simultaneously make room for strategic
action and creative adaptation. The empirical section further elaborates on
the translocal and reflexive character of this group’s habitus and proposes
the conceptualization of a ’transcultural mediator’, based on the participants’
experiences of ‘return’ migration and subsequent internal migration.

Fieldwork context and sample characteristics

Our sample group’s place of settlement, Antalya, Turkey’s second most-
visited tourism city, is especially popular amongst German tourists and
retired “second-home owners” (Balkır and Kırkulak 2009). Scholars increas-
ingly associate Turkish coastlines with lifestyle migration epitomized by
“sunset lives” (King, Warnes, and Williams 2000) particularly for European
retirees, economically-driven Russians and Turkish retirees from Germany.
Since the mid-1990s, Antalya has attracted many Turkish returnees from
Germany primarily due to the availability of a range of job opportunities in
tourism. Nevertheless, the exact number of Turkish returnees in Antalya is
not known as those with German citizenship are counted as foreign-residents.
Moreover, studies of Turkish return migration give limited accounts of
2732 N. KILINÇ ET AL.

returnees’ lives and tourism-engagements in the Turkish coastline, even

though they are an integral part of the tourism workforce (except Kılınç and
King 2017).
Our sample consists of 43 life-story narratives collected by the first author
in 2015 (September-December) including 14 women and 29 men, all of whom
are second-generation Turkish-Germans who ‘returned’ to Turkey and sub-
sequently resettled in Antalya. We adopted Thomson and Crul’s (2007,
1038) definition of the second generation as our criteria of inclusion, hence
our participants were “born in the host country of one or more immigrant
parents or those who arrived before primary-school age.”
The research was initially designed to explore lifestyle-driven ‘return’
migration patterns, hence those individuals who work in tourism spaces
were prioritized. The interview questions were semi-structured, and an inter-
view guide was used during the interviews. Interviews conducted in Turkish
were translated to English, then coded and structured through the NVivo pro-
gramme. Interpretation and analysis were conducted through a theoretically-
informed version of thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke 2006). For this paper,
we focused on the themes related to realization and usage of transcultural
capital, and selected narratives which explicitly reflect experiences of actua-
lizing hybrid identities and growing into ‘transcultural mediators’. The
study was approved by the University Ethics Committee at the University
of Surrey. A summary of the participants’ profiles and ‘return’ reasons are pre-
sented in Tables 1 and 2.

Table 1. Profile of the participants.

Men
Women (Total:
(Total: 14) 29) Total: 43
Age Group 20–29 3 0 3
30–39 4 9 13
40–49 6 18 24
50–55 1 2 3
Birth Place Turkey 2 9 11
Germany 12 20 32
Educational Qualification (Germany or Secondary 7 18 25
Turkey) School
University 5 7 12
Drop-Outs 2 4 6
Citizenship Turkish 12 23 35
German 1 5 6
Dual 1 1 2
Return Period 1980–1989 5 3 8
1990–1999 2 11 13
2000–2009 5 8 13
2010–2015 2 7 9
Civil Status Single 1 7 8
Married 7 15 22
Partnership 1 2 3
Divorced 4 6 10
With Children 11 18 29
 ETHNIC AND RACIAL STUDIES 2733

Table 2. Reasons for ’Return’ to Turkey.

Family-driven 11 participants explained their ‘return’ was a family-decision when they were
teenagers. Most of the family return took place in the 1980s through the
German government’s financial support scheme for guestworkers. Their
‘return’ was somewhat involuntary and they had difficulties adapting to the
school system in Turkey.
Discrimination- Due to facing direct discrimination or experiencing intolerance in Germany, six
related participants decided to ‘return’ to Turkey. However, they continued
experiencing discrimination, this time based on social class and lifestyle.
Lifestyle-oriented 16 participants explained their decision to ‘return’ was based on their belief
that life in Turkey would suit them better, both culturally and in terms of
lifestyle, natural environment, and climate. Their ‘return’ was motivated by
themes such as “seeking adventure”, “escaping from the past” and “living a
fulfilling life”.
Deportation 10 male participants were deported from Germany due to criminal acts.
Narratives of deportation are strongly related to “re-inventing the self”
projects and reflexivity on morality.

Growing up in the Turkish-German translocal social fields

Although this paper is concerned with the second generation’s post-‘return’
experiences in Antalya, our participants’ prior relations with several Others in
Germany and Turkey constructed their “translocational positionality” within
contextual, spatial, temporal and hierarchical relations around the intersec-
tions of social divisions and identities (Anthias 2008, 8). Through reflecting
on their upbringing in Germany, they could trace their multiple, overlapping,
sometimes contradictory but always shifting roles. As this section will show,
our participants were already mediating between two significant others:
mainstream German society and diasporic Turkish community.
We adopt a broader concept of “second generation” and argue that this
generation is characterized by duality and “inbetweenness”, yet the individ-
uals in our sample have diverse family histories. Their parents come from
different regions of Turkey with distinct regional identities and ethnic/reli-
gious compositions such as Kurdish, Balkan and Alevi, and they had settled
in diverse places in Germany, from major cities to smaller industrial towns.
Most had spent their childhood and teenage years in Germany between
1965 and 1985, but we have younger participants who have experienced
life in Germany and ties with Turkey differently due to changing social, pol-
itical, economic dynamics and technologies.
Most participants had guestworker parents who had primary school edu-
cation and worked in factories in Germany. Although their families predomi-
nantly come from rural parts of Turkey, in a few cases the parents came from
urban areas and had higher education degrees. In most cases both parents
worked but mothers took breaks to give birth and raise their children.
Some families left factory work and opened service outlets such as restau-
rants, butchers, and grocery stores.
Although they predominantly graduated from vocational schools in
Germany, a small group had graduated from universities in Germany or in
2734 N. KILINÇ ET AL.

Turkey, mostly majoring in German language and translation. It is vital to

recognize these diverse backgrounds and routes amongst the second gener-
ation to better understand that, in the Turkish diasporic space, “multiple
subject positions and identities are proclaimed, juxtaposed, contested and
disavowed” (Brah 1996, 209). However, what unites our sample group –
and we suggest that this is related to their similar lifestyle choices, later
settling in Antalya to live independent and alternative lives – is their disturb-
ance about encountering the rigid boundaries of “us” and “them”. The
Turkish-German second-generation grew up in social spaces which
reflected “myriad processes of cultural fissure and fusion that underwrite con-
temporary forms of transcultural identities” (Brah 1996, 208), but the ethnic/
religious/national/diasporic and class-based boundaries imposed on them
resulted in an internalization of transcultural identities as “inbetweenness”.
Our participants learned to navigate between these physical and mental
boundaries at a young age and on their own, as their parents were mostly
too consumed by long shifts at their workplaces. Already, while still at
primary school, they were acting as translators and “para-phrasers”
between their parents and German-speakers (e.g. neighbours, teachers, land-
lords, doctors, civil servants etc.) Taking on these adult roles was unsettling
for most participants; Giray (M42) explains his designated mediator role
between two cultures: “I was trying to integrate myself as a child, and I
also had to teach my parents about the German culture and language.”
The second generation’s “bridging role” between their Turkish and
German spaces could also turn into experiences of alienation depending
on the hierarchies in particular social settings. For instance, our participants
commonly mentioned being one of the few Turkish students in their class-
room and being given the role of representing “the whole Turkish nation”.
Belkıs (F28) vocalized the experience of being given such an “ambassador”
role: “Teachers and classmates would ask me questions like why eating pork
isn’t allowed in your culture? As a child, I didn’t know why, so I had to ask
my parents.” Questions of this kind were reminders that they were
“different” so they put effort into learning about their native culture and reli-
gion, at least to be able to inform their German peers.
The second generation became active agents early on, started reflecting
on their identities, and learned to negotiate and navigate in different cultural
spaces, although they could struggle emotionally along the way (Kaya 2007).
The narratives show that, over time, they built changing degrees of associ-
ation with “Turkish” and “German” cultures. Culture itself is a constantly chan-
ging phenomenon in which sets of practices are transformed and redefined
within the continuum of time–space, resulting in complex patterns of cultural
hybridity (Hannerz 1992). For instance, our participants commonly reflected
on gender roles vis-à-vis Turkish and German spaces; their early understand-
ings were built upon their “Turkish” family spaces, which profoundly
 ETHNIC AND RACIAL STUDIES 2735

contrasted with those of German families. The following narrative depicts

their realization of being part of two distinct cultural spaces:
I wasn’t allowed to do things that my German friends did, like going to discos. I
didn’t understand why my friends were free to have fun, but I was restricted …
And these rules we had, somehow would only apply to girls, because my brother
could do whatever he wanted … (Belkıs, F28).

If identity is understood as an active process of conceptualizing “us” in an

ongoing dialogical relationship with the “others”, then these bilateral
dynamics of inclusion and exclusion become more complex and even contra-
dictory for the second generation. Women commonly reflected that they had
to go beyond their parents’ diasporic consciousness which was imperative for
boundary-making/maintenance between “us” (“Turkish”) and “them”
(“German”) (Brah 1996). When asked to obey their parents, and refrain from
activities associated with German culture – e.g. going out, bringing boy-
friends home – they self-reflected on where they stood in relation to these
rules and cultural codes, instead of having the more clear-cut guidelines to
life that their parents possessed.
Such reflections were possible because our participants could observe
there were different ways of living through simultaneously experiencing
the German cultural space. As Helin (F45) explains, “We’re raised amongst
the Germans, from the day we started speaking, we’re speaking two
languages, and we had two cultures around us.” Our participants stressed,
they had good relationships with their German neighbours; celebrated Christ-
mas and Easter at school, hosted their German friends and cooked Turkish
food for them. At the same time, most attended weekly Turkish schools,
had close relations with their Turkish relatives living in Germany, celebrated
religious festivals such as Ramadan, and visited Turkey at least once a year
with their families.
As the next section will demonstrate, the participants’ navigation in several
distinct socio-cultural fields and reflections on their transcultural and hybrid
repertoires constitutes the basis of their “translocal habitus”. These will later
help them re-invent themselves as ’transcultural mediators’; nevertheless,
they first had to find suitable places to overcome their anxieties and feelings
of unfamiliarity and alienation.

After the ‘return’: from “inbetweeners” to ’transcultural mediators’

Our participants’ narratives reveal the particularity of Antalya as their event-
ual choice of settlement upon ‘return’, as they had no prior social links and
kinship ties in this city. Approximately half of the sample group’s parents
and/or siblings are still residing in Germany and the remainder’s families
live in other parts of Turkey. Overall, we see that our participants had
2736 N. KILINÇ ET AL.

imagined individualistic ‘return’ paths, but they firstly experienced Turkey in

places where they had familial ties. Eventually, they found that they felt most
harmonious in Antalya’s tourism spaces, as these provide a “third space” – a
productive space that enables other positions to emerge; an ambivalent site
where cultural meaning and representation have no primordial unity or fixity
(Bhabha 1994).
Our participants wanted to experience life in the ancestral homeland while
they were also increasingly becoming aware that, despite their normative
integration to Germany, they would never be considered “German” by the
mainstream society. Adile’s narrative highlights this perceived stigmatization.
She left her medical career in Germany to move to Turkey with her Turkish-
German husband who used to be a hotel manager in Munich and their
daughter who holds German citizenship. The couple now work in a hotel in
Antalya.
Even if we lived our entire lives there [Germany], we’re treated like foreigners.
Doesn’t matter how good your German is, the moment they see your face, they
think you’re a foreigner … Let’s say I hop on the train and speak Turkish on the
phone, people would stare as if I was an alien (Adile, F38).

On the other hand, most of the participants expected to feel included in their
parents’ hometowns in Turkey but were made aware of their “outsider”
status. The locals and even their close relatives referred to them as
Almancı, meaning German-like. The term itself denotes “inbetweenness”, as
it is associated with working-class, rural-background Turkish guestworkers
and their descendants who had social upward mobility by living in
Germany. The Turkish locals would interact with these guestworkers whilst
they were on holidays in Turkey, bringing technological devices, wearing
Western brands, driving German cars. Until 1989, foreign products and cur-
rencies were prohibited in Turkey, and the guestworkers seemed to have
everything that was considered as “luxury”, “European” and “modern” by
Turkish standards. Hence, the locals seemed to label them as “upstarts”
and “wannabe-Germans” who had forgotten their roots.
The locals’ prejudices about the Turks from Germany resulted in a sense of
exclusion and, on top of that, many realized that they actually did not have a
deep knowledge about how social and business relations worked in Turkey.
In their early years of ‘return’, most participants developed reversed longings
towards Germany but, due to visa requirements or having established their
own families, they were unable return. These limitations created a turning
point for them to change their ‘return’ outcomes through further internal
migration. This finding on its own shows that return migration needs to be
evaluated as an ongoing journey and beyond a success-failure paradigm;
our participants assessed their options and settled in a city favoured
amongst German-speakers. They changed their career paths to tourism-
 ETHNIC AND RACIAL STUDIES 2737

related work which they find mentally and emotionally more satisfying, even
though for some, it meant downsizing their income and status.
Giray’s narrative brings together these two points regarding the realization
that reuniting with his roots was a “myth”, and he needed to change his
location to explore who he really is. Giray, a trained mechanic in Germany,
has dual citizenship and had ‘returned’ to Turkey through his parents’
decision when he was 20 years old. He lived in Adana where his father
comes from, then married a local from Çorum (a small city) where he
worked in a tile factory. One summer he came to Antalya for holidays and rea-
lized that he could use his German language skills in the tourism sector, and
he then learned Russian, Persian, and Arabic, and extended his professional
networks. He works as a sale-person in a luxury bag store in Antalya.
I had adaptation problems in Turkey because coming from Germany I was used
to having an international crowd around me, everything was decent, people
were modern. Adana and Çorum were conservative for my taste, and with
having the family around me it became even more boring. So, the moment I
came to Antalya I realised that the problem was not Turkey, I was just living
in the wrong places. In Antalya, I have a little Germany around me with all
the German tourists and other nationalities. And I started earning good
money. I hired an agent for myself who arranges tourism-related sales jobs,
so I travel often, and I have worked in Dubai, Tunisia, Kuwait so far. I also
spend five months in Casablanca each year. I enjoy being mobile and free,
carpe diem, understand? (Giray, M42).

Antalya is depicted as a “cosmopolitan”, “liberal” and “European-like” city

with many foreign, especially German, tourists and residents, and this
environment helps participants like Giray who embrace mottos like “the
world is my oyster” and “carpe diem”. They highlighted that, via internal
migration to Antalya, they could simultaneously be in Germany whilst
living in Turkey and they could re-address the dichotomies of “home” and
“away”, “every-day” and “holiday”, “East” and “West”. Adile’s narrative also
summarizes how these different aspects interplay in their everyday lives in
Antalya and help them have a sense of familiarity in liminality.
My husband and I love living here, there’s a constant holiday feeling … Also, we
can keep some traditions from Germany. We celebrate Christmas here with
German and other returnee friends, and we can find some German products.
(Adile, F38)

The narratives generally suggest that the liminality found in the tourism
spaces of Antalya enables our participants to overcome their perceived stig-
matization of “being twice a stranger”. In the following quote, Acun talks
about how he discovered his transcultural skills in Antalya and changed his
opinion about his “inbetweenness”. Acun was born and raised in Germany,
finished vocational school, and ‘returned’ to Turkey on his own – his family
still resides in Germany.
2738 N. KILINÇ ET AL.

Being raised in Germany and seeing both countries … it gives me a good

vantage point … Though it makes me a contradictory person sometimes, I’ve
been telling you how happy I’m in Turkey, but I’ve also been mentioning all
the political problems … Then, I praise Germany but also say that I wouldn’t
live there. That’s why Antalya’s good for me. It’s not really Turkey, one can
forget all the problems here … I started a new page in Antalya, I got to know
myself better, because tourism work puts you in so many different situations
… (Acun, M41) (Narrative extract integrated from, Kilinc 2017, 216).

Like Acun, other participants’ narratives also illustrate that they embrace a
distinct positionality towards the notions of “home” and “belonging”. In the
“roots migration” literature, return migrants mostly strive for a “stable”
home to secure a sense of self. In comparison, our participants mediate
between the experiences of home as fluid and flexible, and simultaneously
need certain patterns of security, stability, and control in places they
inhabit (Wessendorf 2007).

Utilizing “inbetweenness” through tourism work

The participants’ early years of ‘return’ in other cities/towns/villages con-
tained a process of “enculturation”, involving decisions about which elements
of the ancestral homeland’s culture they embrace and which aspects they
negotiate (Kunuroglu et al. 2015). Adile and Acun’s narratives previously
revealed identity negotiation processes – mobilization in their new environ-
ments of their interaction competencies with social others to self-regulate,
that is to act in ways that facilitate present or future self-needs and wants
(Jenkins 2008).
However, our participants pointed towards a change in their perception
since their subsequent migration to Antalya, which we denote as entering
in a process of “transculturation”, accentuating the fluidity and performativity
of their subjectivities and practices. The difference stems from the partici-
pants’ self-awareness and the purpose of their negotiations in the interaction
order; in the tourism spaces of Antalya, they utilize the most beneficial iden-
tity/language/lifestyle trait, depending on the context, to establish meaning-
ful social/professional relationships. Thus their “performative identities” do
not necessarily provide, or take roots for action from, “belongingness”
(Goffman 1990).
Although the participants’ relocation to Antalya had an obvious economic
dimension, they considered the non-monetary satisfaction as being equally
important. Our participants’ occupations vary: hotel managers, translators,
tour guides, tourist shop owners, sales-people, hotel staff, and a small
group also work as German teachers and call centre workers. University
graduates usually work in or own translation offices, become teachers or
have managerial positions, although some opted for work-life balance by
downsizing. Süha is a German citizen who left his small mining town in
 ETHNIC AND RACIAL STUDIES 2739

Germany and moved to Switzerland as an engineer. During the summers,

Süha worked as a surfing coach in France and Spain. One summer, he
came to the southern coasts of Turkey and decided to live in his “mother-
land”. At first, he tried to pursue his scientific career and co-founded a chem-
istry lab close to Istanbul which burnt down. He took it as a sign to change his
lifestyle and career, so he moved to Antalya.
Here I live with my wife from Germany and our pets, we’re happy … I fix motor-
bikes, make jewellery, and sell package tours, I have a calm but social work life
… I couldn’t think of a better place. I love the nature and being close to the sea.
My wife and I travel in the Mediterranean coastline on motorbikes, we have an
organic garden … In Germany, fruits and vegetables were like plastic, but here
we can grow our own … Also, nobody intervenes in your life here … I’ve
worked in different parts of Antalya; I love working in tourism. Definitely
more exciting than spending 12 hours in the laboratory! (Süha, M48) (Narrative
extract integration from Kilinc 2017, 212).

Süha’s narrative shows that this group feel a sense of purpose and have
overall socio-psychological satisfaction through being able to put them-
selves in changing contexts and expressing their “inside-outsider” position.
In that sense, their ‘return’ decision to Turkey marks the beginning of a
reflexive re-evaluation of their “inbetweenness”. Their settlement in
Antalya acts as a strategic move to re-define their positions in the power
dynamics with their Turkish and German Others. We continue with Süha’s
narrative which demonstrates how he re-positioned himself in Antalya’s
social fields and started thinking about his identities and life purposes in
more nuanced ways.
German is written on my ID but, after having lived here, I feel that I have qual-
ities of both … Turks love shortcuts, and there’s more talk than action. But you
can have a heart-to-heart connection with Turks. Also, Turks are more flexible, in
fact, here I learned to take life lightly … Germans are materialistic, and not as
sentimental. They worry too much, too many rules … I follow the Germans’
work discipline, but that’s it … This job’s like being under the spotlight, I inter-
act with strangers and learn new things every day … I realised that I enjoy living
freely and connecting with people based on higher values: my wife and I do
charity, we try to live sustainably. I think, these are more important things
than being German or Turkish … (Süha, M48) (Narrative extract integration
from Kilinc 2017, 245).

Like Süha, our sample group who were born and raised in the German social
order but kept symbolic ties with the ancestral homeland, had to go through
a learning process in Antalya about themselves, the “social order” (i.e. “game”)
and how they can unlock their “transcultural capital” (Kilinc 2017, 17). They
also had to reflect on the social differences and hierarchies which shape
their subjectivities in terms of their sense of place and behaviours of self-
exclusion/self-inclusion (Bourdieu 2011). Antalya as a “translocal field”
2740 N. KILINÇ ET AL.

contains multidirectional and overlapping networks – created by migration

and tourism mobilities – that facilitate the circulation of resources, practices,
and ideas, with the capacity to transform the ‘returnees’ and the city itself
(Kilinc 2017, 18).
Working in tourism spaces requires flexible working times and a “thick
skin” – social dynamics can be complex and tiring – hence, it is more favoured
by men, and by women who are divorced or married to other returnees. Helin
works in sales for a tour company with her partner who is a Turkish-Dutch
‘returnee’. She had divorced her Turkish-local husband for trying to pressurize
her into living “more conservatively”. Helin’s further choices after ‘return’
embed her desire to cherish her hybridity and mediate between cultures:
Germans sit with us, drink tea, and ask our opinions on politics etc. They like it
when salespeople are sincere and friendly … I can chat with them forever,
because I understand their mentality, and that’s why my customers return to
me each year … I have a mixed group of friends here, one of my best friends
is a German woman, we’ve been friends since I’d moved here. Germans are
loyal but more individualistic. I relate to that. Turkish people are intrusive,
and families have too much say over you. People here build intense relation-
ships, but sometimes these can be fake. I’m happy to live in Antalya because,
in tourism, I don’t have to stick to one group (Helin, F45).

We see a common trait amongst our sample group as Helin’s vignette hinted; a
tendency to seek escape from their diasporic/national identities, gender norms,
family/kinship ties and culturally-determined constraints/duties. Only in this
way, as Süha’s narrative also reflected, can they evaluate their life purposes
beyond the boundaries of given identities. Correspondingly, we argue that
this group’s ‘return’ migration trajectories are shaped by a “reflexive project
of the self” amongst other reasons (Giddens 1991). In Antalya, they were able
to build their own emotional links with the place based on a personal sense
of alignment. Hence, their belonging denotes an elective quality as they no
longer perceive their belonging as an attribute of being “born and bred” in a
place (Kilinc 2017, 56). Instead, belonging arises when their chosen place of resi-
dence is perceived as valuable due to its congruence with their lifestyle and life-
course requirements (Savage, Bagnall, and Longhurst 2005, 55).
Their process of transculturation involves a constant modification of both
parts of their identities, leaving room for new, original, and independent
expressions of belonging to a hybrid space of their own. Belkıs lived in
France and Spain, like Süha, and she also speaks French and Spanish
fluently. For them Antalya is a unique place because they can live with Euro-
pean standards and Mediterranean nature/climate, whilst following flexible
career options.
People ask me, “which one do you like more, Germany or Turkey?” For me it’s
like asking if I love my mother or father more! (laughing) … Antalya became my
home because I can have a decent life here. I lived in France and Spain before,
 ETHNIC AND RACIAL STUDIES 2741

they also have the Mediterranean vibe, but it’s different here, because the
culture here is also mine, I can relate to Turkish culture in so many ways … I
guess, in Antalya I can have it all, and I also contribute to it. I’m working as a
translator in tourism and I’m teaching at a private school, so my daughter
can get a European style education with lower fees. I work as a German
teacher, but I’m trying to teach my students everything I’ve learned in
German schools, they experience a German way of classroom through me.
(Belkıs, F28).

The above narratives reflect dynamic processes of identity construction and

belongingness which occur in everyday life in social spaces, forming a
component of the inter-activeness of thought, action, and experience
(Christou 2006). Participants, like Belkıs, who have kids act as ’transcultural
mediators’ within their families as well, teaching German language and
culture to their children, in case they consider Germany for higher edu-
cation in future.
The participants’ development of “translocational positionality” shows
that, “habitus” is not fixed or permanent, but shifts through constant learning
and in relation to the specific contexts of various fields in Antalya (Wacquant
2005, 316). Learning new languages and adapting to Antalya’s changing
tourism trends are almost essential for those who work in the service
sector. Furthermore, we suggest that our participants acquire a “translocal
habitus”, which accentuates the ability of navigation and strategic alignment
with multiple spaces beyond structural limitations (Brickell and Datta 2011).
For instance, among those participants who had lower education levels
and conservative parents in Germany, a feeling of “hopelessness” used to
dominate their lives. Because of their ethnicity and working-class back-
ground, they felt they could never be successful in Germany. Nedim, who
has such a background came to Antalya to “change his scenery” after
having spent time in jail in Germany, and he managed to transform himself
into a successful businessperson.
When I arrived at Antalya, I instantly loved the place. I decided to stay, though I
didn’t know anyone. I joined a jewellery store’s sales course, but I hated it,
because if the product is 1.000 liras, you sell it for 10.000, you need to lie …
So, I used my savings to open a silver store. I earned so much money! I was
shocked, I thought, “Why didn’t I come to Turkey a long time ago?” but it
was because I didn’t know that Turkey had opportunities like this. I was associ-
ating Turkey with my parents and their village – with backwardness … In a few
years, I made good networks, I’ve realised that German customers liked and
trusted me. Then I started a real-estate office, I mainly work with Germans
who want to invest here … I surprised myself, I didn’t know I’d make a good
businessman … I had a fresh start here, not only because I escaped from the
drug environments of Germany, bad friendships, and depressing family life,
but because I learned so much about myself. And now, people respect me
here, both my customers and locals. (Nedim, M47) (Narrative extract integrated
from Kilinc 2017, 243).
2742 N. KILINÇ ET AL.

Nedim’s integrity and no-cheating principle worked for him in the long run, as
he was able to establish his own businesses. Nedim’s narrative highlights that
gaining “trust” and “respect” reflect the importance of having symbolic
capital, and this gives him a sense of accomplishment compared to his pre-
vious life in Germany. As Belkıs and Nedim’s narratives indicate, Antalya as
a “third space” provides familiarity and sense of “home” because it is still in
Turkey (but without the limiting kinship ties) and offers everyday interactions
and close relations with Germans (without having to assimilate to their
cultures).
In Antalya, our participants’ translocal habitus can flourish without being
stuck to previous labels of being a “migrant”, “working-class”, “unintegrated”
“Almancı”. This allows them to develop coping strategies in their places of
contact with their “repertoire and mobilisation of skills and expertise that
require the forging of noneconomic, social and cultural allegiances”
(Kothari 2008, 501). Their “habitats of meaning” are constantly re-shaped
both through tourism mobilities in relation to their encounters with
different spaces e.g. tourism, family, leisure. It was reflected in Nedim’s narra-
tive that his negative perception of Turkey changed when he experienced life
in Antalya. This “fit” between our participants’ translocal habitus and Anta-
lya’s “third spaces” opens up many possibilities for personal growth.

Re-inventing the self as a ’transcultural mediator’

The development of “translocal habitus” – the ability to move easily between
and within different national and international cultural spheres – is the core
step towards re-inventing the self as a ’transcultural mediator’. Our partici-
pants no longer perceive their “inbetweenness” as an obstacle but a resource
which supports their mediation between sedentary and rooted understand-
ing of self, identity, belonging and more reflexive, fluid and context-specific
expressions of these notions.
As a result, these new experiences in Antalya help them acquire a deeper
understanding of themselves and to formulate new strategies to live in
accordance with their aspirations and goals. In the domain of self-knowl-
edge, it was illustrated that our participants have “made peace” with their
condition of having plural, contradicting and fluid identities. They have rea-
lized that they could utilize their “transcultural capital” and “translocal
habitus” for building careers in tourism, gain new skills and re-assess their
immediate conditions from different angles to make decisions which
accord with their self-interests (Kilinc 2017, 259). The narratives reflected
such acceptance of the “ancestral homeland” with its pros and cons, and
focusing on finding places, people, and connections within it that resonate
with them.
Embracing their “inbetweenness” is the best example of this. They reas-
sessed this quality as an advantage in working in tourism, so they assigned
 ETHNIC AND RACIAL STUDIES 2743

themselves the role of ’transcultural mediators’ between the Turkish residents

and international locals/tourists/expats in Antalya. Nusret’s narrative below
illustrates such transformation. He worked as a car repairer in Germany and
had difficulties both in his family-life and German society. His identity
struggles led him to decide to ‘return’ to Turkey and eventually settle in
Antalya. He now lives in a luxurious house, has a happy family, and
became the go-to-person in the Old Bazaar area.
I’ve been working in this same shop for 20 years! I’d learned in Germany that it’s
better to work in the same place for a long time because you become the most
trustable person … 20 years ago, only rich tourists came here. We were selling
expensive jewellery like candy. I still have customers from those years, if they
come to Antalya, they shop from me … Everybody knows me here and the
business depends on me – tourists only buy jewellery if you know how to con-
vince them. I use my communication skills and of course I come from the
German system, I speak their language! (Nusret, M46) (Narrative extract inte-
grated from Kilinc 2017, 242)

Like Nusret, instead of searching for a coherent sense of self, our participants
have learned to benefit from “performing identities”. In Goffman’s (1990, 148)
words, they realized the power of “go-between” to establish good business
and social relations with their several “Others”, and to act as buffers
between groups while maintaining the tensions that provide the dynamics
of their actions. As Nusret’s narrative hints, there is a level of self-assurance
in becoming the important or go-to person in the area which has a positive
impact on self-esteem.
The participants tend to adhere to certain principles, such as warning their
colleagues if they mistreat international customers, hence showing loyalties
to “German Others”, and becoming “gatekeepers” of the workplace culture
in tourism spaces. Additionally, having witnessed the decline of tourists to
the area due to the political and economic instability in Turkey since the
late 2000s, our participants feel responsible for presenting a positive
picture of Turkey to international visitors, thereby encouraging return. As
Nedim and Nusret’s narratives showed, their roles as ’transcultural mediators’
involved building good business relationships both with locals and interna-
tionals. However, beyond that, they valued using their transcultural qualities
and skills to inform people about Antalya, whether it’s about where to dine, or
practical issues such as how to buy property.
The following quote from Jülide shows that being a ’transcultural
mediator’ also functions at an intimate level, through building friendships.
Jülide ‘returned’ to Turkey with her family, got married and settled in her
parents’ town. However, after the death of her husband, she felt her life
had become more restricted by her family, relatives, and the conservative
atmosphere of their town. In her words, she remigrated, “escaping” to
Antalya with her daughter and working in a tourism agency.
2744 N. KILINÇ ET AL.

My close German friend often visits and stays with me. Once I asked her, “Every-
body says that Eastern Turkey’s dangerous, but would you like to discover that
region with me?” So, I arranged everything, she brought another German friend,
and we went on a 2000-km journey, I even showed them my village. They loved
it so much that they spread the word to dozens of people in Germany. I think
this kind of publicity is what Turkey needs, people discovering different parts of
Turkey with locals and having positive experiences … And I feel like I’m doing
my part. (Jülide, F46)

Jülide’s narrative shows, she has come to consider herself a “local” and a
“gatekeeper” to the Turkish culture, but at the same time she is still in
the process of learning about Turkey. Following our participants’ common
depiction of themselves as “cosmopolitan locals” of Antalya, we find paral-
lels with Hannerz’s work on hybrid cultures and cosmopolitanism. Hannerz
(1992, 252) writes, “there can be no cosmopolitans without locals, represen-
tatives of more circumscribed cultures.” As we consider our sample as cos-
mopolitans, they are also – in a sense – transformers, and mediators
between the local and transnational. Hannerz (1992, 258–259) suggests cos-
mopolitans are cultural brokers, interpreters, and guardians of local culture,
and “they are likely to argue for its preservation or revitalisation rather than
its destruction.”
Our participants’ narratives reflected these perspectives; transculturation
and self-reflexivity allowed them to perceive their locale as a meeting point
of cultures and their role as mediating between different social Others. Ded-
icating themselves to tourism-related businesses and acting as agents who
positively transform the city and its dwellers serves to make their post-
‘return’ lives meaningful.

Conclusion
The paper brings new insights to research on second generation ‘return’
migration by exploring this group’s individualistic and lifestyle-oriented
motivations, and evaluating their post-‘return’ lives beyond a simple
success-failure paradigm. Our interviewees utilized their “transcultural
capital” and “translocal habitus” to take risks during an unknown journey,
prioritized their personal goals and dealt with the disillusions/disappoint-
ments of their initial ‘return’ places within Turkey by undertaking further
migration to Antalya (Kilinc 2017, 263).
Our findings showed that Antalya’s vibrant tourism environments pro-
vided the second-generation ‘returnees’ with “third spaces” which allowed
them to go beyond interpreting “ancestral homeland” as a monolithic repre-
sentative of national, ethnic and religious identities. Acquiring or developing
tourism-related businesses and being part of Turkish-German-international
hybrid communities helped them to accept and utilize their “inbetweenness”.
 ETHNIC AND RACIAL STUDIES 2745

Experiencing their identities as performative and positional without facing

stigmatization allowed transition from their old positions, unlocking their
creative potential and eventually re-inventing themselves as ’transcultural
mediators’.
As we focused on a city popular amongst European lifestyle migrants
and tourists, our paper highlighted the importance of contrasting how
“self” is constructed, sought, and actualized in the lives of Turkish-
German second-generation in relation to Western subjects, to understand
diasporic individuals’ agencies beyond national borders and ethnic group-
ism/boundaries (Kilinc 2017, 13). If processes of identity formation and
individuals’ roles in societies are unclear in the twenty-first century, and
late-modern life is characterized by “a project of self-realisation”
(Giddens 1991), why can this approach not be applied to diasporic indi-
viduals as well? By focusing on lifestyle aspirations and themes such as
“re-inventing the self”, our paper called attention to the second gener-
ation’s more individualistic stories of ‘return’ mobilities and trajectories
of “the self” inspired by global lifestyle trends or affected by tourism
mobilities.
The paper has limitations in not having the space to explore some issues,
e.g. gendered differences, inter-generational relations, and transnational ties
to Germany. Moreover, we could not discuss the effects of some of Antalya’s
changing dynamics on our participants’ lives e.g. increase in non-European
tourists, settlement of Syrian refugees, and economic crises. We may ask if
Antalya was an ideal “third space” for the Turkish-German ‘returnees’ only
between the 1990s and 2015; and whether, the impact of the Covid-19 pan-
demic on their socio-cultural and economic advantages will be short or long
term? Another question is, what these ‘returnees’ consider to be alternative
places to settle in Turkey or elsewhere? These considerations lead us to con-
clude that return migration research needs to acknowledge the increasing
diversification of the second generation’s ‘return’ characteristics and motiv-
ations, their life-stages, and the directionality of their movement in relation
to the Zeitgeist, translocal connections and meanings they attach to
specific locales.

Note
1. This paper’s conceptual framework and findings are based on the first author’s
PhD dissertation, completed at the University of Surrey (Kilinc 2017), under the
supervision of Professor Allan M. Williams and Dr Paul Hanna.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
2746 N. KILINÇ ET AL.

ORCID
Nilay Kılınç http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1273-6034
Allan M. Williams http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6134-3611
Paul Hanna http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0461-1485

References
Anthias, Floya. 2008. “Thinking Through the Lens of Translocational Positionality: An
Intersectionality Frame for Understanding Identity and Belonging.” Translocations:
Migration and Social Change 4 (1): 5–20.
Balkır, Canan, and Berna Kırkulak. 2009. “Turkey, the New Destination for International
Retirement Migration.” In Migration and Mobility in Europe: Trends, Patterns and
Control, edited by Heinz Fassmann, Maz Haller, and David Lane, 23–43.
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Barkan, Elliott R. 2004. “America in the Hand, Homeland in the Heart: Transnational
and Translocal Immigrant Experiences in the American West.” The Western
Historical Quarterly 35 (3): 331–354.
Berry, John W., and Colette Sabatier. 2010. “Acculturation, Discrimination, and
Adaptation among Second Generation Immigrant Youth in Montreal and Paris.”
International Journal of Intercultural Relations 34 (3): 191–207.
Bhabha, Homi K. 1994. The Location of Culture. London: Routledge.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1990. The Logic of Practice. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 2011. “The Forms of Capital.” In Cultural Theory: An Anthology, edited
by Imre Szeman, and Timothy Kaposy, 81–94. Oxford: John Wiley & Sons.
Brah, Avtar. 1996. Cartographies of Diaspora: Contesting Identities. London: Routledge.
Braun, Virginia, and Victoria Clarke. 2006. “Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology.”
Qualitative Research in Psychology 3 (2): 77–101.
Brickell, Katherine, and Ayona Datta. 2011. “Introduction: Translocal Geographies.” In
Translocal Geographies: Spaces, Place, Connection, edited by Katherine Brickell, and
Ayona Datta, 3–23. Farnham: Ashgate.
Brocket, Tom. 2020. “From ‘In-betweenness’ to ‘Positioned Belongings’: Second-
Generation Palestinian-Americans Negotiate the Tensions of Assimilation and
Transnationalism.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 43 (16): 135–154.
Cassarino, Jean-Pierre. 2004. “Theorising Return Migration: The Conceptual Approach
to Return Migrants Revisited.” International Journal on Multicultural Societies 6 (2):
253–279.
Castles, Stephen. 2002. “Migration and Community Formation Under Conditions of
Globalization.” International Migration Review 36 (4): 1143–1168.
Christou, Anastasia. 2006. Narratives of Place, Culture and Identity: Second-generation
Greek-Americans Return ‘Home’. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Ehrkamp, Patricia, and Helga Leitner. 2003. “Beyond National Citizenship: Turkish
Immigrants and the (re-) Construction of Citizenship in Germany.” Urban
Geography 24 (2): 127–146.
Euwals, Rob, Jaco Dagevos, Mérove Gijsberts, and Hans Roodenburg. 2010.
“Citizenship and Labour Market Position: Turkish Immigrants in Germany and the
Netherlands.” International Migration Review 44 (3): 513–538.
Faist, Thomas. 1993. “From School to Work: Public Policy and Underclass Formation
among Young Turks in Germany During the 1980s.” International Migration
Review 27 (2): 306–331.
 ETHNIC AND RACIAL STUDIES 2747

Fokkema, Tineke. 2011. “‘Return’ Migration Intentions among Second-generation

Turks in Europe: The Effect of Integration and Transnationalism in a Cross-
National Perspective.” Journal of Mediterranean Studies 20 (2): 365–388.
Giddens, Anthony. 1991. Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern
Age. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Goffman, Erving. 1990. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. London: Penguin Books.
Hannerz, Ulf. 1992. Cultural Complexity: Studies in the Social Organization of Meaning.
New York: Columbia University Press.
Jenkins, Richard. 2008. Social Identity: Key Ideas. 3rd ed. New York: Routledge.
Kaya, Ayhan. 2007. “German-Turkish Transnational Space: A Separate Space of Their
Own.” German Studies Review 30 (3): 483–502.
Kilinc, Nilay. 2017. “Lifestyle Returnees at ‘Home’: The Second-Generation Turkish
Germans’ Search for Self in Antalya.” Doctoral diss., University of Surrey.
King, Russell, and Anastasia Christou. 2010. “Cultural Geographies of Counter-diaspo-
ric Migration: Perspectives from the Study of Second-generation ‘Returnees’ to
Greece.” Population, Space and Place 16 (2): 103–119.
King, Russell, and Anastasia Christou. 2011. “Of Counter-diaspora and Reverse
Transnationalism: Return Mobilities to and from the Ancestral Homeland.”
Mobilities 6 (4): 451–466.
King, Russell, and Nilay Kılınc. 2014. “Routes to Roots: Second-Generation Turks from
Germany ‘Return’ to Turkey.” Nordic Journal of Migration Research 4 (3): 126–133.
King, Russell, Tony Warnes, and Allan Williams. 2000. Sunset Lives: British Retirement
Migration to the Mediterranean. Oxford: Berg.
Kılınç, Nilay, and Russell King. 2017. “The Quest for a ‘Better Life’ Second-generation
Turkish-Germans ‘Return’ to ‘Paradise’.” Demographic Research 36: 1491–1514.
Kothari, Uma. 2008. “Global Peddlers and Local Networks: Migrant Cosmopolitanisms.”
Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 26 (3): 500–516.
Kunuroglu, Filiz, Kutlay Yagmur, Fons J. R. van de Vijver, and Sjaak Kroon. 2015.
“Consequences of Turkish Return Migration from Western Europe.” International
Journal of Intercultural Relations 49: 198–211.
Levitt, Peggy. 2009. “Roots and Routes: Understanding the Lives of the Second
Generation Transnationally.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 35 (7): 1225–
1242.
Levitt, Peggy, and Nina Glick Schiller. 2004. “Conceptualizing Simultaneity: A
Transnational Social Field Perspective on Society.” International Migration Review
38 (3): 1002–1039.
Ley, David, and Audrey Kobayashi. 2005. “Back to Hong Kong: Return Migration or
Transnational Sojourn?” Global Networks 5 (2): 111–127.
Meinhof, Ulrike Hanna, and Anna Triandafyllidou. 2006. “Beyond the Diaspora:
Transnational Practices as Transcultural Capital.” In Transcultural Europe: Cultural
Policy in a Changing, Europe, edited by Ulrike Hanna Meinhof, and Anna
Triandafyllidou, 200–222. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Nowicka, Magdalena. 2015. “Habitus: Its Transformation and Transfer Through Cultural
Encounters in Migration.” In Bourdieu, Habitus and Social Research: The Art of
Application, edited by Cristina Costa, and Mark Murphy, 93–110. Houndmills:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Østergaard-Nielsen, Eva. 2003. Transnational Politics: The Case of Turks and Kurds in
Germany. London: Routledge.
Savage, Mike, Gaynor Bagnall, and Brian J. Longhurst. 2005. Globalization and
Belonging. London: Sage Publications.
2748 N. KILINÇ ET AL.

Schiller, Nina Glick, Linda Basch, and Cristina Blanc-Szanton. 1992. “Transnationalism:
A New Analytic Framework for Understanding Migration.” Annals of the New York
Academy of Sciences 645 (1): 1–24.
Sirkeci, Ibrahim, Jeffrey H. Cohen, and Pinar Yazgan. 2012. “Turkish Culture of
Migration: Flows Between Turkey and Germany, Socio-economic Development
and Conflict.” Migration Letters 9 (1): 33–46.
Teerling, Janine. 2011. “The Development of New ‘Third-Cultural Spaces of Belonging’:
British-Born Cypriot ‘Return’ Migrants in Cyprus.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration
Studies 37 (7): 1079–1099.
Thomson, Mark, and Maurice Crul. 2007. “The Second Generation in Europe and the
United States: How is the Transatlantic Debate Relevant for Further Research on
the European Second Generation?” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 33 (7):
1025–1041.
Tsuda, Takeyuki. 2003. Strangers in the Ethnic Homeland: Japanese Brazilian Return
Migration in Transnational Perspective. New York: Columbia University Press.
Wacquant, Loic. 2005. “Habitus.” In International Encyclopaedia of Economic Sociology,
edited by Jens Becket, and Milan Zafirovski, 315–319. London: Routledge.
Wessendorf, Susanne. 2007. “Roots Migrants’: Transnationalism and ‘Return’ among
Second-generation Italians in Switzerland.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies
33 (7): 1083–1102.