Search

info:eu-repo/semantics/published

info:eu-repo/semantics/published

Relying on a quantitative survey (n = 1497) and semi-structured interviews (n = 30) conducted in the U.K., we explore British nationals’, Romanian and Turkish migrants’ attitudes of tolerance and the factors influencing them in the current socio-political context in the U.K. The quantitative data reveal the role of younger age, diverse networks, higher education, attachment to city/region and supranational identifications in more open attitudes towards diversity. The qualitative findings illustrate how diverse these three groups’ attitudes of tolerance can be and how they are affected by their position and status in the U.K. The British’ attitudes show their tolerance can reflect diverse forms of acceptance of ethnic and cultural differences but can also draw lines in terms of civic values opposing ‘those who contribute to society’ versus those who ‘live as parasites’. The Turks are in favour of diversity with the expectation of receiving more civic rights and facing less prejudice. The Romanians tend to have a more ambiguous relation to diversity given their position of stigmatised migrants in the U.K. Our analysis reveal how inclusive or exclusive people’s (sub- and supra-)national identities can be and how these frame their attitudes of tolerance.

This article explores differences among EU and non-EU migrants in accommodating to the Danish flexicurity labour and welfare regime during times of economic crisis. We build our findings on a quantitative survey followed by semi-structured qualitative interviews conducted with EU and non-EU migrants who moved to Denmark during the recession period (2008–2013). We argue that the lack of multicultural policies triggers individualised strategies of accommodation rather than ethnic or national group base integration, favouring a more homogenous group of high-skilled and educated group of workers and students of postgraduate/higher education, whom we describe as a ‘flexicurity diversity group’. Through patterns of conviviality, individual socialisation is based here on common interests, needs and lifestyles and not on pre-defined ethnic and/or cultural traits. The transition from diversity to conviviality that is initiated by this group remains however incomplete in light of the unequal opportunities and the differentiated scheme of rights that apply to EU and non-EU immigrants. Danish flexicurity has thus not had the desired inclusive effects but discriminates in terms of facilitating easy access to the labour market for all, and ‘securing’ social benefits and offering rights and protection only to the privileged group of EU migrants.

The article explores the narratives and memories of past diversity and current practices of conviviality to investigate how class, lifestyle and tastes affect the daily interactions between people belonging to different ethno-religious backgrounds. This chapter critiques ‘coexistence’ as a concept that postulates cohesion and conflict as rooted in ethnic and religious differences. It suggests ‘conviviality’ as the production of space, by arguing that hard times, tensions as well as sensorial pleasures produce a sense of belonging in a place, through shared ways of living. While memories of ‘coexistence’ emphasize the fragmentation of people into ethnic and religious groups as a consequence of the homogenization process in the post-Ottoman Turkish context, bitter sweet memories of conviviality create a sense of belonging to Burgaz.

This paper provides an understanding of changing diversity in Burgazadası within the post-Ottoman, homogenising context of Turkey. It critiques conceptualisations of ‘culture as difference’ within the multiculturalism discourse in Europe and of coexistence as the reduction of differences and identities to pre-existing categories of the Ottoman millet system. Instead, it presents post-Ottoman conviviality as a lived practice and grassroots representation of recognised and unrecognised diversities by contextualising the production of differences and changing discourses of pluralism. The article demonstrates that individuals belonging to different groups can come to share similar values based on longstanding attachment to place and everyday practices, thereby representing themselves, in this case, as ‘Burgazlı’.