1 Introduction

Research on whether and how migrants’ artistic practices do affect the cultural and social structures of their societies of residence is currently in its nascent stage, posing empirical and theoretical challenges to understanding the relation to migration, arts and cultural change. Most often, cultural change is considered as a rather linear process, automatically leading to openness, blurred boundaries and more inclusion. However, this is not necessarily the case. The outcomes of these processes are somewhat manifold and diverse, as can be shown with the help of boundary approaches. By focusing on the processes of classification and categorisation, these approaches provide an analytical lens through which to study whether and how migrants’ musical practices lead to the (re)production or the transformation of cultural and social structures.

In recent years, the social sciences have lent more weight to the concepts of symbolic and social boundaries. Currently, the most prominent names associated with the boundary concept are Michèle Lamont and Andreas Wimmer. While Lamont mostly focuses on class-specific boundaries, Wimmer’s work is dedicated specifically to the analysis of ethnic boundaries (Mijić & Parzer, 2017; Wimmer, 2008a, b, 2009, 2013). In reference to work by Max Weber and Fredrik Barth, Wimmer highlights the socially constructed character – and the contingency – of ethnicity and points out that boundaries should not be regarded as the sum of any “objective” cultural differences but, rather, as a process within which specific characteristics are considered to be relevant by various actors. In other words, ethnic boundaries emerge from acts of social classification (dividing the social world into ‘us’ and ‘them’). According to Wimmer, these classifications also offer scripts of action that show “how to relate to individuals classified as ‘us’ and ‘them’ under given circumstances” (Wimmer, 2013, p. 9).

Applying this perspective to examine the impact of migrants’ artistic activities on cultural change shows promise for several reasons. First, cultural change entails the transformation of ethnic boundaries: it emphasises the processes of how individuals and social groups deal with given boundaries and how these boundaries are contested, transformed or reinforced over time. In other words, this entails how (collective or individual) actors relate to these boundaries, “by trying to change them or de-emphasize them and enforce new modes of categorization altogether” (Wimmer, 2013, p. 49). Second, applying a boundary approach makes it apparent that cultural change is not a linear process. Instead, it can have completely different outcomes, ranging from weakening a given boundary to strengthening it or from moving towards more inclusive modes of representation to reinforcing existing patterns of exclusion. Third, Wimmer’s concept emphasises the role of power in processes of boundary transformation: social categorisation is based on multiple actors’ endowments with discursive and symbolic resources and their access to goods, positions and social networks (Wimmer, 2013, pp. 63–65). Finally, the boundary approach also allows us to reflect upon the dialectical relationship between self-attribution and attribution by others or, as Richard Jenkins (2008, 2014) puts it, between the internal and the external definition of the self. This distinction is vitally important to our analysis of migrant artists, since the way in which they self-present and self-market in an artistic field is also always shaped by the perception and the expectations of others within the arrival society (Parzer & Kwok, 2013).

To date, several empirical studies have drawn on concepts of symbolic boundaries and/or the role of social categorisation in processes of migrants’ inclusion/exclusion in different artistic fields (Delhaye, 2008; Gebesmair, 2009; Gebesmair et al., 2014; Kasinitz, 2019; Lena & Cornfield, 2008; Sievers, 2008, 2017, 2018; Vandenberg et al., 2021). However, there have been few attempts to systematically review the opportunities as well as the limitations of an ethnic boundary approach to analysing cultural change. Pauwke Berkers was one of the first scholars to employ a boundary concept within the sociology of arts, where he comprehensively examined ethnic boundaries in American, Dutch and German literary fields between 1955 and 2005 (Berkers, 2009a, b; Berkers et al., 2014). In one empirical study, Berkers compares the classification of ethnic-minority fiction writers in literary anthologies and histories from the three countries and concludes that “ethnic boundaries are much stronger in Dutch and German textbooks than in their American counterparts” (Berkers, 2009b, p. 419). Another study, which Berkers published in 2014 with Susanne Janssen and Marc Verboord, focuses on how ethnic-minority authors are classified in newspaper reviews. Here, too, it becomes apparent that ethnic boundaries are of less importance in the American literary field than in the Netherlands – and particularly in Germany. A number of other highly relevant insights about the role of boundary work in the field of artistic production can be found in Ivana Rapošová’s (2019) research on multicultural festivals. By drawing on ethnographic fieldwork in Bratislava, she studied the festival organisers’ work to change existing symbolic boundaries between the ethnic majority and those who are considered as “others”: She identifies several different strategies for making symbolic boundaries more permeable but also points out that new boundaries can emerge simultaneously and unintentionally. Although these studies apply the concept of ethnic boundaries to analyse transformations in the artistic field, they do not systematically consider Andreas Wimmer’s ethnic boundary approach (which Wimmer only started to publish in 2008).

We believe that Wimmer’s approach provides theoretical tools that can help to analyse and understand processes of cultural change in different artistic fields. For our contribution, we focus on the field of music. Like other forms of art, music serves as an important arena for permanently negotiating central categories of social life and questions of belonging. However, it is important to point out that these struggles are played out in different contexts: on the one hand, practices of categorisation are manifest in the ways that a specific piece of music is described, presented, perceived and, most importantly, evaluated by various (individual and corporate) actors. On the other hand, negotiations of identity and belonging are also inscribed into the music itself, as various sounds and rhythms are culturally coded, thereby contributing to meaning-making processes in music (Gidal, 2014). Therefore, we propose a broad understanding of music that encompasses not only the music itself but also the contexts into which it is embedded. We follow the definition by Kurt Blaukopf, who was a founding figure in the sociology of music and who has examined musical action as social action by referring to the term musical practice:

Rather than starting from music as a work of art, a phenomenon that appeared later in history, it takes as its point of departure music as a social activity, something older than notated music that eventually brought forth the ‘musical work of art’ at a given stage of socio-technological development. […] I would like to note again that the word practice should not be taken in the narrow sense of referring only to ‘what is actually heard’. It should be extended to include all musical acts and omissions, as well as observable behavior patterns. Theoretical reflection on this musical practice – that is, thought about music based on each practice and capable of influencing it – will also be considered part of this practice […] (Blaukopf, 1992, p. 21).

Our objective is to examine how Andreas Wimmer’s boundary approach can benefit the analysis of cultural change. By drawing on his typology, which describes different modes of boundary (un)making, we aim to provide a toolkit for analysing ethnic boundaries in the field of music and to contribute to the discussion about the challenges of researching migrants’ impact on the social and cultural transformation of contemporary societies.

Hence, we begin with an introduction to Andreas Wimmer’s ethnic boundary approach. Next, we discuss three ways of negotiating ethnic boundaries – boundary changing, boundary shifting and boundary crossing – in reference to examples from the musical field. Finally, our conclusion addresses the potentials and limitations of the applied theoretical tool.

2 The Ethnic Boundary Approach

As a leading researcher on ethnicity, Andreas Wimmer has undertaken numerous empirical, mostly comparative, analyses about the relevance of ethnicity in different social contexts. Notably, he has also developed a comprehensive multilevel process theory to understand and explain “The making and unmaking of ethnic boundaries” (2008a) by accounting for interactions between economic, political and cultural processes.Footnote 1

One of Wimmer’s theoretical starting points is Max Weber’s presumption that ethnicity is not an objectively given fact, but should rather be conceived as a “subjective belief in […] common descent” (Weber, 1978, p. 389) and therewith a common culture. The notion of the factual decoupling of culture and ethnicity and their ‘de-essentialisation’ is thus already present in the work by one of the founding fathers of sociology. However, it was actually the Norwegian cultural anthropologist, Fredrik Barth (1969), who helped to advance this theoretical notion.

According to Barth, ethnicity is neither determined by birth nor is a product of territorial isolation or cultural commonalities. Rather, it is created and maintained in social processes or chosen anew depending on the situation; it is a product of social interactions, a result of social classifications and categorisations, of self-perception and the perception of others. Ethnic units exist only insofar as they stand in relation to other ethnic units and what is regarded as a common culture is ultimately the result of these ethnic boundaries (Barth, 1969, p. 15). As a consequence, ethnicity is thus no longer merely explanans, i.e., an independent variable. Instead, it becomes an explanandum or “a variable outcome of specific processes to be analytically uncovered and empirically specified” (Wimmer, 2009, p. 244).

While Barth primarily devoted himself to understanding how ethnic boundaries are reproduced despite their principle changeability, Wimmer aims to uncover the logic of their transformation (Wimmer, 2013, p. 4). To this end, he also places himself in the tradition of Bourdieu and appreciates “ethnicity as the outcome of a political and symbolic struggle over the categorical division of society” (Wimmer, 2008a, p. 985). His work attempts to comprehend the logic of these struggles, by examining how they are influenced by the structure of the social field within which they unfold. Likewise, it analyses how these interactions, in turn, affect those structures and lead to the transformation or reproduction of ethnic division (Wimmer, 2013, pp. 4–5). For this purpose, Wimmer develops a process-oriented multilevel process theory to explain the emergence as well as the transformation of ethnic boundaries in various contexts (Wimmer, 2008a). Its comparative component lies at the heart of his theoretical approach and his concern with uncovering

…how and why ethnicity matters in certain societies and contexts but not in others, and why it is sometimes associated with inequality and exclusion, with political salience and public debate, and with enduring loyalty and thick identities, while, in other cases, ethnicity, race and nationhood do not structure the allocation of resources, invite little political passion, and represent only secondary aspects of individual identity. (Wimmer, 2013, p. 2)

In order to appropriately address this question, Wimmer conceives the boundary as a variable along the dimensions of political relevance, social closure, cultural differentiation and historical stability. In so doing, he also looks at the necessary conditions for interaction processes to achieve a common understanding of ethnic boundaries in spite of actors’ different interests (Wimmer, 2008a, pp. 997–1001).

By referencing work by Lamont and Bail (2005), Zolberg and Woon (1999) and Horowitz (1975), Wimmer distinguishes five elementary strategies of ethnic boundary-making here: the first two strategies attempt to shift the location of existing boundaries, encompassing expansion and contraction. The remaining three strategies aim to change the boundary’s

meaning and implication by challenging the hierarchical ordering of ethnic categories (‘transvaluation’),Footnote 2 de-emphasising ethnicity and emphasising other social divisions (‘blurring’) or changing one’s own position vis-à-vis the boundary (‘positional moves’). (Wimmer, 2008b, p. 1031; 2013, p. 49)

Furthermore, actors’ opportunities for action are limited by the structures of the social field (Wimmer, 2008a, p. 973). Specifically, he mentions the institutional environment, which makes certain boundaries seem more probable and interesting (e.g., qua ethnicity, class, gender, religion, tribe); the prevailing distribution of power, which determines individual interests and thus also which level of ethnic differentiation seems the most meaningful; and the network of political alliances, which influences the boundary location (Wimmer, 2008a, pp. 990–997).

Drawing on Wimmer’s typology, we suggest distinguishing between three fundamental modes of how artistic and cultural activities in the musical field relate to boundaries: (1) Boundary changing, which includes boundary blurring and reinforcing; (2) boundary shifting, meaning the contraction and expansion of an ethnic boundary; and (3) boundary crossing, which corresponds to Wimmer’s ‘positional moves.’ In the musical field, ethnic boundaries are notably affected – either intentionally or unintentionally – by several actors: the musicians themselves, but also the cultural intermediaries and promoters, distributors, marketers and the media, as well as the audiences and consumers (and non-consumers, i.e., people who intentionally avoid consuming a certain kind of music). As we have maintained above, symbolic boundaries always emerge in processes of interaction, which are characterised by an interplay between self-identification and categorisation by others. When a discrepancy arises between (personal) identification and (external) categorisation, whose reality prevails becomes a question of power. Therefore, it is important to acknowledge the struggles over the legitimate means of categorisation and determine/question who has the power to implement, enforce and stabilise – or to contest and transform – certain categories.

The following sections elaborate upon the different modes theoretically and refer to findings from the interdisciplinary literature on music and migration. Some of these studies focus on the (migrant) musicians’ self-identification and their modes of boundary making, whereas others concentrate on how the host society categorises the (migrant) artists and/or music and the majority’s boundary work. In some studies, the power imbalance between musicians and the arrival society is explicitly reflected while, in others, it remains largely unexamined.

3 Boundary Changing: Blurring and Reinforcing

Boundary changing refers to processes that transform the characteristics and the meaning of boundaries. This can happen in two contrasting ways: boundary blurring and boundary reinforcing. Both strategies refer to transformations of the boundary itself (changing its characteristics like density, porousness or permeability), while the boundary’s topography is not affected at all.

3.1 Boundary Blurring

Following Wimmer, boundary blurring occurs when the importance of ethnicity as a principle of categorisation and social organisation is reduced by simultaneously emphasising non-ethnic dimensions of categorisation (Wimmer, 2013, p. 19). In the musical field, this happens when a certain musical activity is located in the realm of global, cosmopolitan, transcultural or transnational cultural production, where ethnic boundaries and references to any national culture are ostentatiously avoided – or are no longer of any significance.

An example of boundary blurring appears in Marco Martiniello’s (2018) analysis of local communities of artistic practice in Belgium (a hip-hop dance crew, a rapper and two urban parades). He shows how transnational networks of artistic production have transcended ethnic and racial boundaries by promoting a post-ethnic and post-racial perspective. This is also a result of ethnically and racially mixed networks of artistic cooperation that do not highlight their members’ ethnic origin but, rather, the cosmopolitan and multicultural character of their urban and artistic environment. Martiniello suggests considering these practices as an ongoing transformation in super-diverse cities, as a “[…] trend towards conviviality, everyday intercultural interaction and the development of new post-ethnic and racial identities and ways of life in super-diverse cities” (Martiniello, 2018, p. 1159).

In a similar vein, Parzer and Kwok (2013) examine the role of ethnicity in marketing strategies by musicians and other artists. They investigate how transculturality has become a strategy by which to escape the ethnic niche into which many migrant cultural entrepreneurs are pushed. By drawing on the Turkish-Austrian music group Coup de Bam, the authors illustrate how the term polyglot has been used to replace the label of ethno music. While often categorised as world music, the group members identify their work as international and global pop music by simultaneously criticising how migrant musicians are often seen as exotic without receiving any recognition for the quality of their music:

You as a Turk, a Kurd, an Afghan, whatever, you can at the best only have an exotic value. Music shall go a bit beyond that. I want [to be judged by] simply the music I make. Yes, regardless from where I come, whether I am Kurd, Turk, African, or anything. (Musician quoted in Parzer & Kwok, 2013, p. 271)

The authors observe an increase in musical activities that are characterised by “their familiarity with the globalised cultural landscape arising from the encounter of diverse life forms and world-views” (Parzer & Kwok, 2013, pp. 271–272). By invoking transculturality, as suggested by Wolfgang Welsch (1999), they highlight the interconnectedness of diverse social and cultural groups and the erosion of symbolic boundaries along ethnic categories. Another example is provided by Parzer (2021) in his study on artists who fled from Syria to Austria. He shows how they deal with different pressures of external categorisation that highlight ethnic makers or refer to their refugee status. To escape this “double burden of representation,” some artists position their work in the realm of cosmopolitan cultural production. This enables them to refuse both ethnic labelling and categorisations that evoke refugeeness. One of the central questions, however, is under which conditions the rejection of external labels is possible. Who holds the power to reject these labels based on ethnic (or refugee) criteria? It seems that those who possess cultural, economic and social capital are more likely to occupy a transcultural or cosmopolitan position (Parzer, 2021; Parzer & Kwok, 2013; Parzer, 2021).

A further strategy of blurring ethnic boundaries reflects the hybridity of a certain musical production. Several studies show how hybrid musical forms elude ethnic categorisation and can contest and problematise existing categorisations and boundaries (Nederveen Pieterse, 2015, p. 101). For example, Ray Allen’s (2019) account of Harlem calypso and Brooklyn soca shows that hybrid musical forms can provide a space for cross-cultural dialogue and the (re)negotiation of symbolic boundaries (Allen, 2019, p. 880). A similar pattern is presented by Els Vanderwaeren (2014) in her study on Murga, a kind of street fanfare that emerged in Flanders in 2006 that brings people from different social and cultural backgrounds together. Vanderwaeren is optimistic about the effects of Murga on social cohesion:

When a shared cultural identity appears in the production (and consumption) of Murga, the contact between people in society is promoted. This is revolutionary and is cohesive. Different existing networks connect the local and translocal levels. In this way, through meeting each other, influences emerge. (Vanderwaeren, 2014, p. 71)

However, hybrid forms or an emphasis on hybridity can also help to strengthen ethnic boundaries. As Martin Stokes and other scholars point out, the presentation, marketing or perception of a form of music as hybrid often goes along with the assumption that the mixed elements were somehow “pure” before being mixed: “Purity of musical expression is not possible […], the building blocks of every mixed style are themselves hybrids” (Stokes, 2004, p. 60; see also Bodenheimer, 2010; Mendívil, 2012; Sutton, 2010).

A common characteristic of these different boundary-blurring strategies is that they refer to what Lamont and Bail (2005) have described as universalizing: instead of highlighting certain aspects of ethnic belonging, actors draw on the notion of universal categories that tend to include as many people as possible: “‘Universalizing’ means emphasizing general human morality as a basis for distinguishing between worthy and unworthy individuals” (Wimmer, 2013, p. 47). Conversely, particularising refers to a strategy by which ethnic boundaries are reinforced.

3.2 Boundary Reinforcing

Boundary reinforcingFootnote 3 takes place when ethnicity becomes the main principle of categorisation (and evaluation) in music. Ethnicity can become an essential marker when musicians and/or their music are categorised according to a geographical and cultural origin. This can happen, for instance, when migrant musicians highlight their ethnic belonging in their musical activities (internal definition) or are labelled as ‘ethnic’ by actors and institutions from the arrival society (external definition). The emphasis on ethnicity can be coded positively (as something specific/exotic or as means for creating belonging) or negatively (as something inferior or even threatening). As internal and external definitions are highly interdependent, even internal definitions can refer to notions of the ethnic majority’s cultural superiority. Reinforcing boundaries is an important strategy of creating a sense of belonging; however, it can also be considered as a reaction to marginalisation, discrimination and stigmatisation by individuals and institutions from the arrival society.

Dan Bendrups examines the role of ethnicity within Latin American music and musicians in Australia and New Zealand and argues that the portrayal of Latin music as “exotic entertainment” is perpetuated by the musicians themselves: “Their repertoire selection is a reflection of audience expectations in circumstances where ‘Latin’ is still considered a homogeneous entertainment music category” (Bendrups, 2011, p. 204).

The strengthening of ethnic boundaries can, however, also reproduce stigmatisation – especially when ethnic markers are associated with negative stereotypes. Sendroiu and Mogosanu (2019) examine the use of manele songs in Romania, which are a contemporary version of traditional Romani music. They show how both the producers of manele music and their listeners are stigmatised – regardless of the listeners’ ethnic belonging:

Manele audiences experience stigma spillover beyond the genre’s original association with the devalued Roma minority. This means, we would argue, that manele not only reflects symbolic ethnic boundaries, but through the consumption of manele, ethnic-based stigma is reinforced and even expanded. (Sendroiu & Mogosanu, 2019, p. 2060)

The authors state that these processes extend to a wider ‘moral panic’ that is rooted in the perception of manele as a threat to mainstream Romanian culture. Boundary work, then, might be used to defend the ethnic majority’s symbolic order. This shows once again how much boundary work is interwoven with the power structures of a society.

In a similar vein, Carstensen-Egwuom (2011) examines the performance of ‘foreignness’ as a means of integration by focusing on an intercultural festival in Chemnitz:

[…] integration does not happen in such a way that they are no more recognizable as foreigners. Rather, to integrate and to become a recognized part of the city’s population, they celebrate and even increase their foreignness by making a performance to fit: In this case, they used an African music and dance performance, the Ajegule dance that celebrates unity in a situation of ethnic diversity in its context of origin. In the context of the intercultural festival, it changes to emphasize the otherness, the Africanness of the performers. […] Cultural difference thus becomes an important aspect of incorporation. (Carstensen-Egwuom, 2011, p. 131)

Carstensen-Egwuom’s example fittingly illustrates what Jenkins (2014) calls the internal and the external moments of the dialectic of identification: in this case, demonstrating how musicians position themselves as ‘exotic’ to live up to the arrival society’s expectations. The power of external categorisation also becomes visible when musicians want to break out of the ethnic niche but continue to be referred to along ethnic lines by others. This occurs when musicians from the former Yugoslavia in Austria and Germany are expected to represent their home countries and perform ‘Balkan music’ regardless of the music they actually want to play (Brunner & Parzer, 2011).

The effectiveness of external categorisations is also the focus of Anja Brunner’s (2022) study of musicians in Germany and Austria who have migrated from Syria. Based on her ethnomusicological research, she traces the extent to which the so-called “Welcome Culture” that emerged after 2015 caused a powerful fixation on the refugee label, from which the musicians could only escape by withdrawing from public appearances (at least for a while) and/or completely changing their musical strategies.

However, boundary reinforcing is not only a reaction to the arrival society’s expectations but also a means of creating and reproducing belonging, strengthening identity and providing empowerment. In her study on music in the Ethiopian-American diaspora, Kay Kaufman Shelemay (2009) shows that “[…] music fulfills important roles in the construction of community and delineation of social boundaries, both among Ethiopians and between Ethiopians and others” (Shelemay, 2009, p. 1153). Likewise, Ozan Aksoy highlights the importance of music in processes of Alevi identity formation in his ethnographic study on Alevi communities in Cologne. He argues that music provided in certain religious and secular spaces is a highly effective means to connect Alevis to their cultures and communities (Aksoy, 2019, p. 935). Negotiating belonging is the main issue in Hannah Lewis’ study on recently arrived refugees in Great Britain. She points out the significance of music and dance as strategies to cope with experiences of flight and marginalisation, as a tool to constitute “safe spaces” (Lewis, 2015, p. 52). Music might help to prevent “culture shock” among immigrants (Lena & Cornfield, 2008, pp. 158–159) and to provide shelter and feelings of security and “being at home” (Parzer & Kwok, 2013).

Furthermore, the reinforcement of ethnic boundaries can be considered to be a response to discriminatory and stigmatising experiences: music that highlights similar belongings can compensate for experiences of exclusion, as well as provide recognition that is denied in other areas of everyday life. This kind of boundary-strengthening may be accompanied by what Wimmer refers to as transvaluation, explaining “[t]ransvaluation strategies try to change the normative principles of stratified ethnic systems – the ‘revaluation of values’” (Wimmer, 2013, p. 57). Although they ultimately rely on the idea of equalisation, we can also observe what Wimmer calls “normative inversion” in the field of music, wherein “the symbolic hierarchy is put on its head so that the category of the excluded and despised comes to designate a chosen people, morally, intellectually, and culturally superior to the dominant group” (Wimmer, 2013, p. 57).

Normative inversion takes place when, for instance, a migrant rap group explicitly uses ethnicity as a tool of empowerment and anti-racist engagement. In his study on “the aesthetics of diaspora,” Ayhan Kaya (2002, p. 44) argues that “the celebration of ‘authenticity’ becomes a revolt against the hegemony of the prevailing nation-state.” EsRAP, an Austrian rap duo who emphasise their parents’ Turkish origin, further represent this normative inversion. By ostentatiously using and playing with the common stereotypes faced by Turkish migrants and their descendants, EsRAP go beyond contesting xenophobic resentments by also providing narratives of empowerment that can ultimately delegitimise the ethnic majority’s symbolic order. This becomes the most obvious in their track “Der Tschusch ist da” (The Tschusch is here), based on the reappropriation and satirical inversion of the swear word ‘Tschusch’, which is used to stigmatise migrants from Turkey and former Yugoslavia. Thus, music can serve as an effective tool to cope with the arrival society’s expectations and categorisations. By exaggerating ethnic markers and satirising dominant stereotypes, the music transvaluates the existing symbolic order and symbolic boundaries become contested by being strategically reinforced. Put differently, even if such performances strengthen ethnic boundaries and highlight the relevance of ethnicity, their ability to re-evaluate dominant stereotypes, contest existing hierarchies and provide empowering tools to stigmatised individuals and groups shows their potential for providing narratives and discursive strategies that might have an impact on symbolic boundaries and cultural change.

Although both boundary blurring and reinforcement can take place at an individual level (e.g., when musicians refer to their country of origin), they may be restricted by the opportunities and expectations of the arrival society (e.g., when a musician wants to but is not able to escape external ethnic categorisation because of the dominance of prevalent ethnic boundaries/different power relations between migrants and the arrival society). The same holds true for processes of boundary shifting.

4 Boundary Shifting: Expansion vs Contraction

As clearly shown above, boundary changing transforms the qualities of a boundary, while the boundary’s topography is not affected at all. In contrast, boundary shifting refers to a relocation of boundaries, while their characteristics remain unaffected. Wimmer (2013, p. 50) distinguishes between expansion (“shifting an existing boundary to a more inclusive level”) and contraction (“shifting an existing boundary to a more exclusive level”). Expansion in the musical field refers to processes of broadening the ethnic category into which a certain musical genre or musician is placed. This can be either through fusion with an existing category (e.g., when migrant music in Austria is depicted as Austrian music) or by referring to a superordinate-level categorisation (e.g., when migrant music in Austria is referred to as European music).

Alternately, boundary contraction occurs through fission by adding a new category (e.g., when a genre previously labelled “Austrian” is re-classified as “Burgenland-Croatian”) or by referring to a subordinate level of categorisation (e.g., by re-classifying “Balkan” music as “Serbian”, “Croatian” or “Bosnian”).

4.1 Boundary Expansion

Various processes of fusion appear in the musical field; for example, when migrant music becomes so common or actively endorsed that it is seen, performed and perceived as part of the arrival country. It is then no longer considered a threatening or enriching element to/of the dominant culture but a part of it (Terkessidis, 2010). For example, Alex Rotas (2012) illustrates boundary expansion in his examination of how works by artists from refugee populations have been curated and labelled during the first decade of the twenty-first century. He shows

[…] that looking at work that previously might have been viewed as ‘exotic’ or ‘foreign’ but that is now classed as British forces viewers to reassess and renegotiate their understanding of the nature of ‘Britishness’ and indeed of place-Britain. […] The work of artists from refugee populations, shown now as ‘British art’, becomes a dynamic part of this process and a means by which new elements are transferred and added to an ever-changing British cultural fabric. (Rotas, 2012, p. 211)

Rotas later emphasises the potential of boundary expansion for cultural change:

Taking the opportunity presented by new definitions of ‘British art’, my focus is on the cultural transfer that contemporary and recent refugees are making to Britain through their art and the ways that this art is coming to be positioned by curators for viewers – not as ‘foreign’ or as ‘exotic’ but as ‘British.’ (Rotas, 2012, p. 216)

Similar processes appear in the musical field, when certain previously marginalised or ethnicised music becomes included into the mainstream of national music production. For example, Brazilian music had long been considered exotic by the Austrian majority population through its promotion under the label of “world music.” In recent decades, many artists from this genre have ended up performing at Vienna’s Wiener Konzerthaus, which is considered the heart of Austria’s (classical) musical heritage. This shift from the ‘ethnic other’ to a ‘part of the national mainstream’ can also be interpreted as boundary expansion.

Hence, boundary expansion becomes the most visible at an institutional level, where migrants’ musical activities are located either at the centre or on the periphery of cultural production. In the case of the latter location, boundary contraction may also occur, which “means drawing narrower boundaries and thus disidentifying with the category one is assigned to by outsiders” (Wimmer, 2013, p. 55).

4.2 Boundary Contraction

Boundary contraction is characterised by shifting an existing boundary to a more exclusive level, either by referring to a subordinate level of categorisation or by adding a new category (Wimmer, 2013, p. 50). Regarding the first strategy, we find an illuminating example in Le Menestrel’s (2007) study “The color of music. Social boundaries and stereotypes in Southwest Louisiana French music”. She focuses on Southwest Louisianan musical traditions known as ‘Cajun’ and ‘zydeco’ and that are shaped by Acadians (descendants of French settlers who migrated to the USA from present-day Maritime Canada) and French Creoles. Interestingly, until the 1960s, these musical traditions were considered “musique française” or “French music” “without systematically assigning it to a specific ethnic group or music subgenre. The French versus American musical distinction was the significant factor” (Le Menestrel, 2007, p. 88). However, this convention has changed in recent decades, when ethnic and racial distinctions in music became meaningful: Southwest Louisiana’s music was no longer considered French music and, instead, was referred to as either ‘Cajun’ or ‘zydeco’ along ethnic and racial categories. As Le Menestrel explains, “[t]he distinctions between these categories shape and are shaped by social stereotypes, while discussions of musical hybridization, or creolization, tend to mask persistent tensions along social boundaries” (2007, p. 88).

In her study on boundary work among the Laz of Turkey, Ayşe Serdar (2019) shows how actors (who position themselves as being Laz) apply strategies of boundary contraction as a reaction to the Turkish state’s top-down assimilationist policies. According to Serdar, many use Laz music as a tool with which to redraw the boundaries of Lazness:

Ethnic identity may be felt by many urban Laz, who cannot speak Lazuri, as something that enriches their personal life, something that is different from generic Turkish culture. It is not a thick, politicized ethnic boundary, so it can be combined with Turkishness without a boundary conflict. […] The evidence indicates that, at present, Laz music, and other cultural repertoires such as food or some ethnic symbols […] engender new repertoires for performing ethnicity without cost especially among younger generations (Serdar, 2019, p. 352).

Another example of boundary contraction is provided by Dave Wilson (2020) in his ethnography of Macedonian “ethno bands.” While it would seem obvious and strategically beneficial to subsume their music under the popular ‘Balkan’ label, these musicians avoid this term due to its associations with ‘backwardness’ (Mijić, 2020, pp. 1083–1084). Instead, their representation strategy is based on their Macedonian roots as well as their cosmopolitanism. By referring to Macedonian heritage and tradition, ethnic boundaries are contracted, while they simultaneously try to blur existing boundaries by drawing on additional dimensions of cosmopolitanism. This example is interesting for two reasons: first, it shows how refusing a (dominant) categorisation can have negative consequences in terms of visibility and economic success, since avoiding the ‘Balkan’ label prevents these Macedonian musicians from participating in world music markets and related festival networks. Second, this example illustrates how various strategies of boundary (un)making are intertwined: in the case of Macedonian ethno bands, we can observe a mix of boundary contraction and boundary blurring.

5 Boundary Crossing

Boundary crossing happens when an individual shifts sides and crosses a given boundary by changing his/her position – through either reclassification or assimilation (Wimmer, 2013, p. 59). With music, examples of this repositioning strategy appear when migrant musicians present themselves and/or their music as part of the arrival country or when they start performing what is considered to be that country’s music. In these cases of individual boundary crossing, the boundary itself might not be affected. The musical field provides manifold examples of the strategy of repositioning; for instance, Japanese, Korean, Chinese and Taiwanese musicians in Austria (mainly students at music universities) who play in orchestras dedicated to the tradition of Austrian classical music (mainly First or Second Viennese School). Another example is Bill Ramsey, who was born in the USA and went to Germany in the 1950s, where he became famous performing German “Schlager”. While Bill Ramsey could easily conceal his origin, this is not the case for Taekeo Ischi, who was born and raised in Tokyo and moved to Switzerland – and later Germany – where he started a career as a Japanese singer specialising in Alpine yodelling, a vocal technique highly connotated with Austrian, Swiss and Bavarian folk culture.

Thus, boundary crossing does not change or shift an existing boundary but may reinforce “its empirical significance and normative legitimacy: It shows to those who move and those who stay that there is no ‘in-between’ and that the social world is indeed structured along hierarchical lines” (Wimmer, 2013, p. 59). The categorisation itself only becomes meaningless if frequent crossings take place and the boundary disappears. However, as Wimmer notes, “it may later be rediscovered and filled with new meaning” (Wimmer, 2013, p. 60).

A special case of boundary crossing with an impact on cultural repertoires is provided by Kasinitz (2019) in his study on the impact of migrants on American Broadway theatre. Looking at the period between 1920 and 1950, as well as contemporary creative activities, he shows how immigrant and second-generation artists who worked/work in Broadway theatres did/do not only contribute to revitalising the musical theatre but also reimagine and reinvent ‘American’ traditions. Ironically, this is not by promoting their own cultural traditions but by assimilating into the American mainstream, as Kasinitz illustrates: “The children of immigrants, with feet in both their immigrant parents’ communities and the larger society, occupy a liminal space that, whatever its discomforts, is often an advantage in fostering cultural creativity” (Kasinitz, 2019, p. 897).

6 Conclusion

Whether and how migration is transforming social as well as cultural elements of contemporary societies has become one of the most pressing questions in recent (and partly controversial) debates on the impact of migrants in their receiving countries (Castles, 2010; Jiménez, 2017; Portes, 2010). Regarding the role of artistic practices in these processes, we follow Wiebke Sievers, who points out in the introduction to this volume that there “is a strong belief that arts and cultural activities have the power to initiate such a change” (Chap. 1, p. 6). However, analysing art’s impact on cultural change faces several theoretical and methodological challenges.

Our article argues that Wimmer’s boundary approach provides several theoretical tools with which to grasp the heterogeneity as well as the dynamics of cultural change in migration societies. By referring to the field of music (and, in particular, research on migration and music), we explored various modes of boundary work in multiple geographical, social and cultural contexts. Building on Wimmer, we distinguished three main modes of how music broadly relates to existing ethnic boundaries: boundary changing refers to boundary work that attempts to transform their characteristics and meaning. We speak of boundary blurring when ethnicity is de-emphasised and non-ethnic principles of categorisation dominate – e.g., when actors in the musical field draw on categories that focus on the global, cosmopolitan, transnational or transcultural dimension of cultural production. However, we can also observe its opposite direction: the reinforcement of ethnic boundaries. These latter become salient by emphasising ethnic markers as the principal component of categorisation – e.g., when musicians highlight their ethnic belonging in their musical activities or are labelled as ‘ethnic’ by actors and institutions from the arrival society. Reinforcing boundaries is an important strategy for creating a sense of belonging; however, it can also reflect reactions to marginalisation and stigmatisation. Wimmer’s notion of transvaluation – the transformation of normative principles and hierarchies in a given field – serves as a subtype of boundary reinforcing. While strategies of boundary changing aim to transform the characteristics of an existing boundary, strategies of boundary shifting try to modify the boundary’s topography. In reference to Wimmer, we can distinguish between boundary expansion (broadening an existing category) and boundary contraction (narrowing an existing category). Besides ‘boundary changing’ and ‘boundary shifting’, we also take into account what Wimmer calls boundary crossing, which occurs when individual musical actors switch sides and cross a given boundary by changing their position without affecting the boundary itself.

Wimmer’s typology serves as a fruitful heuristic with which to analyse cultural change from migration by shedding light on: a) cultural change as a transformation of ethnic boundaries, b) the manifold modes of boundary making and unmaking, c) the role of power in these processes, as well as d) the non-linear dynamics of cultural change. This reveals that migrants’ musical practices might affect boundaries in various ways – given boundaries can be weakened but also strengthened, leading to different outcomes regarding inclusion or exclusion.

As a next step, it would be highly promising to link the assorted actors’ strategies in the musical field to ongoing processes at the macro level. This raises the following questions: How do symbolic boundaries transform into social boundaries (Lamont & Molnár, 2002)? Under what circumstances and in which contexts do processes of boundary changing, shifting and crossing lead to structural changes in the arrival society?

Following Wimmer’s approach, we examined the strategies employed by actors who use, apply, impose or reproduce categories, as well as those who challenge and contest them or create new ones. Whether these endeavours actually lead to change and whether these symbolic struggles over legitimate ways of classification have an impact on the status quo is not only a theoretically challenging question but also a methodologically and empirically demanding one: how can we measure the impact of symbolic shifts (that mainly take place on a local level or only in specific realms) on structural changes, given that such changes do not emerge from a single source but, rather, are the outcome of manifold different processes, with symbolic aspects being only one contributing factor. However, as our examples have shown, categorisation in music shapes the cultural repertoires of society, challenges taken-for-granted assumptions and contributes to the creation of (new) narratives and discourses that, altogether, can have structural impacts in multiple ways.

However, one quality deserves attention in this regard. Wimmer asserts that

it is theoretically fruitful to see individuals […] as strategically competent actors who aim to enhance their own moral recognition, prestige, power and command over resources […]. To see individuals as unconscious inhabitants and reproducers of a categorical grid into which ‘society’ has squeezed them seems, in my eyes […] to be rather too structuralist. (Wimmer, 2014, p. 840)

This assumption is rooted in how Wimmer’s multilevel model conceptually stands in the tradition of methodologic individualism, where collective phenomena are attributed to the utility-maximising behaviour of individual actors. This paradigm has been criticised in particular by proponents of cultural sociology; Lamont (2014, pp. 816–817), for instance, argues that

individuals do not aim to consciously deploy one system of symbolic boundaries over another, as they are rarely conscious that they inhabit categorization systems. Instead, they tend to use schemas that are largely taken for granted and made available by the national cultural repertoires that surround them […] [W]e move from a focus on discrete, instrumental actions aimed at monopolizing material and non-material resources, to a focus on a range of ongoing, routine relationships that enable and constrain social action […].

In the musical field, this becomes the most visible when considering that actors are not necessarily aware of how their music-related practices shape boundaries – or that their practices do not affect them at all. Boundaries even change as an unintended consequence and, vice versa, probably do not change even when it is the actors’ primary aim. This can be observed particularly clearly where artistic practices are intended to weaken or even shift ethnic boundaries but when, at the same time and unintentionally, new boundaries become salient (Rapošová, 2019).

For the purpose of our chapter, whether people act strategically or not is of subordinate importance. However, if the macro level is to be considered, a social-theoretical clarification is required to properly ask how the connection between agency and structure, between individual and society, can be imagined in processes of change (for a first attempt, see Chap. 2 in this volume based on Bourdieu’s field theory). For this reason, it is necessary to address whether we assume that people are strategic and utility-maximising actors or actors who typically make use of established interpretive schemes that they internalise in the course of ongoing socialisation processes. This would then also have an impact on the choice of research method.