Derya BERRAK

St. Clements University UK

DOI : https://doi.org/10.58806/ijsshmr.2025.v4i4n18

Google Scholar Download Pdf
ABSTRACT

This study examines the phenomenon of migration and refugeedom within the context of Turkey, not solely through the lens of migrants' integration processes, but also by critically focusing on how the host society actively constructs and conditions these processes. In the current literature, migration is often conceptualized through one-dimensional frameworks that position the migrant as a passive subject expected to adapt. However, contemporary migration dynamics entail not merely individual adaptation, but multilayered processes of cultural, political, and symbolic negotiation and mutual transformation. In this regard, the study introduces the concept of the "Societal Void Zone" (SVZ) to describe the uncertain, negotiated, and often resistant space that emerges between migrants and host communities. The theoretical framework of the study is grounded in social identity theory, acculturation models, and the concept of liminality. The newly developed notions of displacement and place-giving are employed to conceptualize the two poles of this relational field. Displacement denotes the migrant's struggle to reconstruct spatial and identity-based belonging; place-giving refers to the host society's conditional and regulated forms of inclusion. The threshold space that arises between these poles embodies neither full exclusion nor full acceptance, and constitutes a critical terrain for rethinking migration sociology. The study is based on a mixed-method survey conducted with both migrant individuals and host community members. Data were collected using quantitative (Likert scale) and qualitative (open-ended) instruments and analyzed through the lenses of social exclusion, identity tension, and symbolic boundary production. Findings indicate that integration is not merely a matter of individual effort or institutional policy, but a complex and symbolic process of negotiation, recognition, and spatialized belonging. Taking the case of Turkey as a focal point, this article aims to offer a new conceptual vocabulary for migration studies, challenge linear discourses of integration, and reconceptualize migration as a site of encounter, friction, and transformation rather than as mere movement from one place to another.

KEYWORDS:

Belonging, Displacement, Identity, Integration, Liminality, Migration sociology, Mutual transformation, Place-giving, Societal Void Zone, Turkey

REFERENCES

1) Ager, A., & Strang, A. (2008). Understanding integration: A conceptual framework. Journal of Refugee Studies, 21(2), 166–191. https://doi.org/10.1093/jrs/fen016

2) Ai, A. L., Tice, T. N., Whitsett, D. D., Ishisaka, T., & Chim, M. (2003). Posttraumatic symptoms and growth of Kosovar war refugees: The influence of trauma exposure and perceived family support and the mediating effect of coping. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 16(5), 437–445. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025702624382

3) Bauder, H. (2008). Media discourse and the new German immigration law. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 34(1), 95–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691830701708783

4) Berry, J. W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation. Applied Psychology, 46(1), 5–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.1997.tb01087.x

5) Berry, J. W., Phinney, J. S., Sam, D. L., & Vedder, P. (2006). Immigrant youth: Acculturation, identity, and adaptation. Applied Psychology, 55(3), 303–332. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2006.00256.x

6) Bevelander, P., & Pendakur, R. (2014). The labour market integration of refugee and family reunion immigrants: A comparison of outcomes in Canada and Sweden. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 40(5), 689–709. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2013.849569

7) Bhabha, H. K. (1994). The location of culture. Routledge.

8) Bhambra, G. K. (2007). Rethinking modernity: Postcolonialism and the sociological imagination. Palgrave Macmillan.

9) Bleich, E., Bloemraad, I., & de Graauw, E. (2015). Migrants, minorities and the media: Information, representations and participation in the public sphere. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 41(6), 857–873. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2014.1002197

10) Brewer, M. B. (1999). The psychology of prejudice: Ingroup love and outgroup hate? Journal of Social Issues, 55(3), 429–444. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00126

11) Castles, S., de Haas, H., & Miller, M. J. (2013). The age of migration: International population movements in the modern world (5th ed.). Guilford Press.

12) Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 98(2), 310–357. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.98.2.310

13) Danış, D., & Parla, A. (2009). Nafile soydaşlık: Irak ve Bulgaristan Türkleri örneğinde "göçmen, soydaş, mülteci" söylemleri. Toplum ve Bilim, 114, 131–158.

14) De Genova, N. (2013). Spectacles of migrant “illegality”: The scene of exclusion, the obscene of inclusion. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 36(7), 1180–1198. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2013.783710

15) Docquier, F., & Rapoport, H. (2012). Globalization, brain drain, and development. Journal of Economic Literature, 50(3), 681–730. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.50.3.681

16) Erdoğan, M. M. (2019). Türkiye’nin göç politikaları ve Suriyelilerin istihdamı. Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi, 74(1), 1–27.

17) Esses, V. M., Medianu, S., & Lawson, A. S. (2010). Uncertainty, threat, and the role of the media in promoting the dehumanization of immigrants and refugees. Journal of Social Issues, 69(3), 518–536. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12027

18) Fazel, M., Wheeler, J., & Danesh, J. (2005). Prevalence of serious mental disorder in 7000 refugees resettled in Western countries: A systematic review. The Lancet, 365(9467), 1309–1314. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(05)61027-6

19) Gabor Maté. (2021). The myth of normal: Trauma, illness and healing in a toxic culture. Knopf Canada.

20) Gibson, J., & McKenzie, D. (2013). The economic consequences of “brain drain” of the best and brightest: Microeconomic evidence from five countries. Economic Journal, 122(560), 339–375. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0297.2012.02538.x

21) Glick Schiller, N., & Levitt, P. (2004). Conceptualizing simultaneity: A transnational social field perspective on society. International Migration Review, 38(3), 1002–1039.

22) İçduygu, A., & Şimşek, D. (2016). Syrian refugees in Turkey: Towards integration policies. Turkish Policy Quarterly, 15(3), 59–69.

23) Kaya, A., & Kıraç, A. (2016). Vulnerability assessment of Syrian refugees in Istanbul. Istanbul Bilgi University Press.

24) Keyder, Ç. (2005). Globalization and social exclusion in Istanbul. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 29(1), 124–134.

25) Kirişci, K. (2014). Syrian refugees and Turkey’s challenges: Going beyond hospitality. Brookings Institution.

26) Sayad, A. (1999). La double absence: Des illusions de l’émigré aux souffrances de l’immigré. Le Seuil.

27) Sigona, N. (2015). Seeing double? How the EU is struggling with the migrant crisis. OpenDemocracy.

28) Tekeli, İ. (2008). Modernite aşılırken kimlik ve siyaset: Yeni kentsel tahayyüller. Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları.

29) Turner, V. (1969). The ritual process: Structure and anti-structure. Aldine Publishing.

VOlUME 04 Issue 04 APRIL 2025