Connecting the Dots: Conceptual Model

Abstract

After presenting a wealth of empirical material to illustrate the complexity of observed social reality, which often includes conflicting and puzzling elements, the question emerges: is there some unifying pattern that could produce an overall explanation, re-storying the data “into a framework that makes sense” (Creswell, 2007, p.56)? This chapter aspires to provide the “intellectual satisfaction” (Blaikie, 2010, p. 71), promised by qualitative research by presenting a lower-level abstraction conceptual model as a response to the main theoretical problem. On a conceptual level, my study tackles the creation of a nexus between voluntary return migration, citizenship, home, belonging and a set of specific ‘political’ emotions. When laying out the foundation for my contribution, I defined the theoretical problem; reviewed the existing literature(s) to examine how the relevant concepts have been explored previously; and I identified the research gaps. The research design of my study operates within the interpretivist paradigm, which requires the researcher not only to observe social reality, but to understand and interpret it. This chapter aims to deliver an empathetic understanding, the Weberian notion of Verstehen, by offering a solution to the central theoretical problem.

After presenting a wealth of empirical material to illustrate the complexity of observed social reality, which often includes conflicting and puzzling elements, the question emerges: is there some unifying pattern that could produce an overall explanation, re-storying the data “into a framework that makes sense” (Creswell, 2007, p.56)? This chapter aspires to provide the “intellectual satisfaction” (Blaikie, 2010, p. 71), promised by qualitative research by presenting a lower-level abstraction conceptual model as a response to the main theoretical problem. On a conceptual level, my study tackles the creation of a nexus between voluntary return migration, citizenship, home, belonging and a set of specific ‘political’ emotions. When laying out the foundation for my contribution, I defined the theoretical problem; reviewed the existing literature(s) to examine how the relevant concepts have been explored previously; and I identified the research gaps. The research design of my study operates within the interpretivist paradigm, which requires the researcher not only to observe social reality, but to understand and interpret it. This chapter aims to deliver an empathetic understanding, the Weberian notion of Verstehen, by offering a solution to the theoretical problem driving my book.

In this chapter I introduce feeling safe and secure as central to understanding how the key concepts are connected. To build the conceptual model, I first look at the difference between emotional and pragmatic citizenship. Second, I examine how the feeling of safety is associated with pragmatic citizenship, home and belonging. Feeling secure is associated with the second citizenship, obtained during residence abroad. Also, home and belonging co-occur with feeling safe. However, feeling safe/secure is not found to constitute the emotional dimension of BiH citizenship. There are two exceptions to this overall conclusion: “feeling at home” on the entire territory of the BiH state and civic belonging, both of which come with their own challenges. The final section presents the full conceptual model offering a solution to the theoretical problem of creating a nexus between voluntary return migration, citizenship, home, belonging and a set of specific and distinct ‘political’ emotions.

6.1 Building the Model: Citizenship, Emotions and Emotional Indifference

In my study, emotional citizenship, as a concept, is defined as occurring at the intersection of discussions of the daily experience of citizenship and expressions of emotional responses. Conversely, pragmatic citizenship is defined as the intersecting area between everyday citizenship experience and emotional indifference. What this means practically is that results of matrix queries revealed all coding units which were coded with both citizenship practices and an emotional response or emotional indifference. Usually, discussions of either emotional or pragmatic citizenship happened in response to the question of “What does being a BiH/foreign citizen make you feel? Which emotions do you feel?” and the corresponding probes either referring to emotionally charged events or phenomena of life in BiH, national symbols, such as the flag, coat of arms and national anthem or everyday citizenship practices, for example border crossings and tax payments. While most of the emotional responses are reserved for the BiH citizenship and the foreign citizenship is experienced with emotional indifference, alternative combinations are also possible. In other words, BiH citizenship is in some cases experienced with emotional indifference, while primarily security, but also gratitude are associated with the foreign citizenship. Figure 6.1 summarizes the relationship between emotions, emotional indifference and the differing understanding of citizenship: emotional and pragmatic.

Fig. 6.1

Pragmatic and emotional citizenship

Since most of the study participants are dual, and in some cases, triple citizens, the differences in emotional versus emotionally indifferent experiences of citizenship could be usefully compared and contrasted. Ervin is a dual BiH and U.S. citizen and he provides the standard view of the second citizenship as pragmatic. He is respectful of the host state’s citizenship, but also states his emotional indifference towards it.

Ervin::

Now, do I have any national pride [towards the U.S. citizenship] or not? The answer to this question is absolutely not. There is no national pride. This is purely pragmatic. I mean, I deeply respect this American component; the way they think and how their system is set up. I mean this in a sort of progressive, human sense. I mean that they [the U.S./Americans] are infinitely ahead of everybody else, particularly when it comes to being accepting of others.

Arif, a dual BiH and Norwegian citizen, besides being emotionally indifferent towards the host state’s citizenship, also expresses his emotional preference for the BiH citizenship, if forced to choose between the two.

Arif::

Realistically looking at it, this is a citizenship that one obtained. It was offered, and the offer was accepted. However, if I had to choose between one citizenship or the other. I would certainly give up the Norwegian one and keep my Bosnian citizenship.

Although not a typical response (see Štiks, 2011; Džankić, 2016), Hrvoje, a dual BiH and Croatia citizen, and ethnically a Bosnian Croat illustrates the pragmatic nature of the second citizenship, even with kin-states.

Hrvoje::

As far as the Croatian one is concerned, this is strictly professional. I mean there are no emotional attachments towards it or any kind of tax system connection. Nothing connects me to Croatia. This is purely professional, because the Croatian passport allows for easier, more relaxed travel and looking at it practically and pragmatically, you simply have no problems. That’s where the story ends.

When asked about their experience of the second citizenship, most respondents view it with emotional indifference, confirming expectations from previous scholarly discussions.

6.2 Building the Model: Feeling Safe/Secure Takes Center Stage

6.2.1 Pragmatic Citizenship Offers a Feeling of Security

Although most of the respondents are emotionally indifferent towards the second citizenship, the feeling returnees overwhelmingly associate with the host state’s citizenship is security. Confirming scholarly discussions of pragmatic citizenship, the host state’s citizenship provides security. Mehmed, a dual BiH, and Australian citizen,¹ strongly associates security with the second citizenship.

Mehmed::

Well, I don’t have any special feelings towards the Australian citizenship, except for security. It’s there as an alternative if, God forbid, we would need it in case of an illness or just to have that option. Also, when travelling, I have the option of using it.

The security returnees derive from their second citizenship is regarding the possibility of re-emigration and continued life in the host country, as illustrated by Elvis, a dual BiH and U.S. citizen.

Elvis::

America is a country where I found refuge; completed my education and where I gained my first professional experience, together with my family. This is the country where we, let’s say, regained some sort of normal life. There, we continued living and started standing on our own two feet again. I am thankful to that country for having their citizenship. My child is also a U.S. citizen, so this is another reason for my gratitude. The U.S. citizenship gives me security. Yes, that is what it gives me. It gives me security … it gives me the option to go back there and continue living a normal life. Those are some of the positive sides of being a U.S. citizen. Again, this security also needs to be re-examined, as even the U.S. is not as safe as it used to be. You know this yourself. New York is different from Vermont, but still, overall, and particularly when considering economic security, there you feel insured, normal and protected.

It is important to recognize that security is associated only with the second citizenship and not with BiH citizenship. Typically, the returnees do not associate any sort of security with the BiH citizenship. When I asked Elvis about whether he gets any feeling of security/safety from his BiH citizenship, he answered with no doubt and with full clarity: “Nothing. Nothing at all.” The key feeling of safety/security is missing from the emotional dimension of BiH citizenship. BiH citizenship does not make the citizens feel safe and secure. In case of dual citizens, the feeling of security is derived from the pragmatic (foreign) citizenship.

Added to the security of always keeping open the option of return to the host state and a continuation of “normal life,” the second citizenship provides greater security to the returnees even while living in BiH. In case of an emergency, without exception, the returnees would turn to the authorities of their second citizenship for protection and not to those of BiH. This is particularly true of Bosniak minority returnees to Republika Srpska, but also true in some cases of majority returnees to the Federation of BiH.

Admir::

Well, I feel that somebody would take care of me if I were in some sort of danger. I don’t know. I feel that I could turn to the U.S. Embassy in case I needed to. And it’s not just that. You have greater privileges as a U.S. citizen. You can travel without any problems and so many more doors open. I feel secure and privileged. I have greater security and privilege than with just BiH citizenship.

Security associated with the second, pragmatic citizenship has been extensively studied in the literature (for example see Ong, 1999; Waters, 2003; Magat, 1999; Aguilar, 1999; Mavroudi, 2008; Skulte-Ouaiss, 2013) and has been confirmed in my study.

Besides feeling greater security as dual citizens, the returnees also feel increased freedom of movement and a sense of gratitude. Marija, a dual citizen of BiH and Croatia, speaks of the freedom of movement provided to her by her Croatian passport.

Marija::

Well, actually I am Bosnian, because I was born here. The Croatian citizenship just makes my life easier, since I never have to apply for any entry visas. My travel is more relaxed and my daily life is relieved.

Alija, a dual BiH and Dutch citizen, expresses his gratitude towards the host state for providing a place of refuge for him and his family.

Alija::

And about the Dutch citizenship and Holland as a country, I feel a great sense of gratitude. I feel grateful for being given the opportunity to go there in 1992, that my family and I could settle in this country and that we were provided with everything we needed to live a normal life and to succeed. I feel grateful for the opportunity to get an education. So, I have some emotions towards it. They are different, but I believe that gratitude is the most important one. What I mean is that I have a sense of gratitude for everything that this country gave to me and my family. This citizenship allowed me to develop as a human being.

Security as a key component of the second citizenship has been observed by previous scholars, with the closely related freedom of movement provided by the foreign passport. Gratitude is the result of the particular circumstances of acquiring the citizenship. The participants were expelled from their homes and found refuge in the host country, for which they feel gratitude towards the host state.

In addition to the general emotional indifference towards the second citizenship and the feelings of security, freedom and gratitude, the respondents have no negative feelings towards the second citizenship. A notable exception to this general observation is the case of Alija, who expresses anger, frustration and rage towards his Dutch citizenship regarding the Srebrenica genocide. Alija’s situation was such that his feelings were torn between two states in conflict over the Srebrenica genocide.

Alija::

Absolute rage. This was anger, rage, absolute rage. I could not understand why or how this could happen. I mean these people [the Dutch battalion stationed in Srebrenica in 1995] came to help, but they too were guilty. Holland was guilty together with the entire international community! I felt anger and rage!

Author::

How did you feel as a Dutch citizen in this case?

Alija::

Well, I don’t know how to explain this exactly. I was searching for some answers, some answers as to “why did this happen”? I, as a Dutch citizen, was angry at my country for what it did to my country Bosnia. I was looking for answers, I was trying to understand why did this happen? So, I was lost and angry, full of rage, but also shame because of being a Dutch citizen.

To properly understand Alija’s feelings towards his Dutch citizenship, a brief historical review is necessary (for further depth of historical context see Honig & Both, 1997; Nuhanović, 2007, Delpla et al., 2012; Nettelfield & Wagner, 2013). The Srebrenica genocide occurred in July 1995 when more than 8000 Bosniak men and boys from Srebrenica and the surrounding villages were massacred by units of the Bosnian Serb Army the VRS (Army of Republika Srpska) under command of General Ratko Mladić and the Scorpions, a paramilitary unit from Serbia. The besieged enclave of Srebrenica was declared a “safe area” under UN protection in April 1993, but UNPROFOR’s Dutchbat soldiers failed to prevent Srebrenica’s capture by the VRS and the ensuing slaughter of Bosniak civilians.² The Netherlands was found responsible for failing to prevent over 300 of the deaths, by a verdict of the Dutch Supreme Court and the Hague District Court in 2013 and 2014.³ Alija is the only returnee to express any negative emotion towards the second, host-state citizenship and only regarding this specific circumstance of the Dutch government’s involvement in the 1992–95 war in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Overall, the first citizenship is experienced emotionally while the second, or in some cases third, citizenship is primarily pragmatic. In all but two cases, the returnees’ first citizenship is BiH, and the relationship described above holds in each case. This relationship holds even with the respondent whose first citizenship is Argentinian. Siniša explains that he obtained BIH citizenship solely for “simplifying his life in Bosnia and Herzegovina,” while his emotional attachment lies with the Argentinian citizenship.

Siniša::

Well, the emotions I have connected with Argentina have to do with my growing up there. I have beautiful memories…and they are relived any time I visit Buenos Aires.

Author::

How do you feel as an Argentinian citizen?

Siniša::

Yes, yes…hmmm…it’s as if something starts to move inside of me, because I grew up there. I have friends there, memories of childhood appear. All kinds of emotions show up. I believe this to be normal, natural. And then, when I realistically examine this document [BiH passport], I needed to acquire this document so that I could live and work here, to live here with my family and to develop our business. I believe that the more we develop our economic ties the more people will cooperate with each other, naturally respecting one another. This mutual respect is necessary for any kind of progress, I believe. If I were to sum up my feelings towards this passport [BiH passport], I don’t view it in the same way that I look at my Argentine passport, because I was born there [Argentina] and then there is Argentine football and I am a huge fan of our [Argentinian] national team!

Siniša reserves emotional attachment for his first citizenship, while the second citizenship is viewed as a contractual relation with the state, including rights and obligations.

Author::

BiH citizenship is your second citizenship, not your home state citizenship?

Siniša::

Yes, exactly. I see it as a formality, as necessary for life in this country. It also implies paying taxes and obeying the laws. Of course, these are things I respect. This is what I mean by calling it [BiH citizenship] a formality, I don’t have some strong connection leading back 1000 years. I mean, you know how it is?! This is a new country and so many things here are very new.

Author::

How do you feel when you see the BiH flag or hear the national anthem?

Siniša::

Honestly, I have no feelings about any of that. No emotions.

Author::

Do you ever use the BiH passport when travelling?

Siniša::

Always. I don’t have it with me now, but you should see it. It’s full of stamps and I need to get a new one issued.

Author::

How do you feel when you use the BiH passport at the border control?

Siniša::

OK, but I have no particular emotion. Nothing whatsoever.

Siniša’s case illustrates the premise of first citizenship as emotional, yet his case also sheds light on the case of dual, BiH and kin-state citizenship.

To complicate his situation even further, Siniša also holds a Serbian passport. In fact, the way he acquired BiH citizenship is through his Serbian citizenship, because of the bilateral agreement between Serbia and BiH.

Siniša::

Yes, yes, I got Serbian citizenship at one point because of my roots. Well, since there is an agreement between these two states,⁴ you can have dual citizenship. This was voted and we have this law. Well, I obtained BiH citizenship through my Serbian citizenship. It is paradoxical, since we can look at how much Serbia is against BiH and BiH against Serbia, but this Serbian citizenship made it possible for me to get BiH citizenship. Thanks to this law, I was enabled to grow my business in BiH and to develop the BiH economy.

As Siniša’s home state is Argentina, the theoretical expectation has been satisfied. The first citizenship has the strong emotional dimension, while the second/third, in his case, BiH, citizenship is pragmatic. As was explained previously, BiH has bilateral agreements on dual citizenship signed with the neighboring states of Serbia and Croatia and with Sweden. In addition, the case of triple Argentina-Serbia-BiH citizenship, points to a wider observation of ethnic particularity when expressing emotional indifference towards BiH citizenship.

Emotional indifference in the everyday experience of BiH citizenship is noticeably stronger with respondents who have declared themselves as ethnically either Croat or Serb, than it is with those who are expressly Bosniak or Bosnian-Herzegovinian. Vlado is an ethnic Serb from Trebinje, who grew up in Switzerland and identifies with Yugoslavs, mainly because of how this boundary has been established abroad.

Vlado::

Well, I don’t know Bosnia as Bosnia and me as a Bosnian….I mean, I was born in Yugoslavia, so that, I mean…Bosnia for me, is well….I don’t know…It is nothing. I mean this is something I cannot identify with. I have absolutely nothing to do with it. Aaah, all of that sort of comes in one package, so that I didn’t even get the passport issued. That is how disgusted I feel with the whole thing. I mean, I know the integration efforts I underwent there [Switzerland]. Over there, whenever you mention you are from some part of the former Yugoslavia, you are immediately thrown into a package. Here, I cannot identify with any of it. I just live here. I feel as if I am living in a circus, and…I simply can’t take anything seriously.

Anastasija is an ethnic Serb from Mostar and a dual citizen of Serbia and BiH. She is indifferent towards the BiH citizenship and explains this indifference through a nostalgic sense of belonging to Yugoslavia.

Anastasija::

And this, this BiH citizenship thing. It doesn’t mean absolutely anything to me, because I always was and will remain a Yugoslav. That has always been my identification and the only country, which I consider to be my own. That is the only flag [the Yugoslav flag] which I consider to be mine and with which I can identify. I mean, this is about love, loyalty, and a sense of belonging. This is about one entire life. Simply this is about the meaning of life. That is what the Yugoslav flag is to me.

Marija is an ethnic Croat and a dual citizen of Croatia and BiH. She expresses emotional indifference towards BiH citizenship, with similar pragmatism towards her Croatian citizenship.

Marija::

I don’t feel anything. I mean, I don’t have any kind of attachment or aversion towards this [BiH] citizenship.

Author::

What kind of emotions do you have when you see the BiH flag?

Marija::

This is the flag of the country in which I live and I completely accept it.

Author::

You don’t have any special feelings?

Marija::

None.

Author::

What do you feel when you hear the national anthem?

Marija::

Well, it’s a pity. It’s a pity that it doesn’t have any lyrics. But, it seems to me that it became rather recognizable in the meantime.

Author::

How do you feel when you use the BiH passport? If you use it?

Marija::

I must admit that I don’t use it at all. I have a Croatian passport and it’s much easier to travel with it.

Based on findings of an IPSOS Survey⁵ conducted in 2011, Džankić (2016) makes a similar argument about the relative emotional indifference felt towards the BiH citizenship by Bosnian Croats and Bosnian Serbs, concluding that both Serbs and Croats are “more affiliated to their ethnic kin, or the kin-state, than to Bosnia and Herzegovina” (p. 16). However, although BiH citizenship is primarily experienced emotionally, there are exceptions even within the Bosniaks and those who declared themselves as Bosnian-Herzegovinian, particularly towards national symbols, such as the flag and national anthem.

Emotional indifference is expressed towards BiH state symbols across different ethnicities because of the nature of these symbols. Alma declares herself as a Bosnian-Herzegovinian, but expresses her indifference towards state symbols, because these have been imposed by the international community.

Author::

What do you feel when you see the BiH flag?

Alma::

Nothing. I simply don’t feel anything, because I feel that this flag is completely abstract and that it does not represent Bosnia and Herzegovina at all! I mean these stars, the colors blue and yellow on the flag–there is nothing characteristic on this flag. We used to have a flag with which I identified, the golden fleur-de-lis and we don’t have it anymore. The lilies used to be a symbol of all of Bosnia and Herzegovina and over time they too became politicized and symbolizing the Bosniaks only, which really has no connection at all. So, it is really difficult.

Author::

How do you feel when you hear the national anthem?

Alma::

Well, what can you feel? Very abstract. I don’t know really and would like to know what is it that you feel? How can anybody feel anything for that anthem?!? I mean I cannot identify with that anthem because there is nothing Bosnian about it, nor is there any sort of emotion there. It is completely abstract, just like the flag. I often ask myself whether this is a random coincidence that we have such abstract national symbols or is it that the foreigners imposed them on us with a purpose?

As was previously described, the present BiH state flag was imposed by the then High Representative, Carlos Westendorp, intending to find a compromise with BiH state symbols that would be acceptable to all three ethnic groups. Even though there was a conscious effort made at finding unifying symbols, the current BiH state flag can be seen widely displayed only in Bosniak-dominated parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina, while Croat and Serb ethnic flags continue to be used in other areas (see Bougarel et al., 2007; Jansen, 2015 or Palmberger, 2016). Alma has difficulties identifying with the BiH flag not because of an alternative with which to identify, as is often the case with the Serbs and Croats in BiH, but because the current BiH flag has no autochthonous significance. An analogous analysis can be made for the BiH national anthem.

When emotional indifference toward the home citizenship is stated, citizenship is viewed as either a set of benefits or a set of institutions. Lejla says she is Muslim by faith and Bosniak by ethnicity with very few feelings towards BiH as a state. As a student of yoga, she considers her spiritual home to be in India. For her, citizenship is solely a source of benefits based on residence. I asked her whether she would ever renounce her BiH citizenship if this were required for dual citizenship status.

Lejla::

Well, this depends on where I would want to live. That would be my only concern. So, if I want to live here, then I would take that into consideration. My current life is here [BiH], so I don’t think I would be giving it [BiH citizenship] up. Because, in my opinion, the only important thing for me regarding citizenship is whether you live in that country. We reap the benefits of citizenship if we live in that country.

Senad, who considers himself to be primarily a BiH citizen and an atheist, also views BiH citizenship with emotional indifference as he considers citizenship to be simply an expression of state institutions.

Senad::

In our daily life, citizenship of this country or any other country is just the same. This is a state, just as any other state. Well, we have our problems….I mean we are not exactly France, but still… I think we are very similar to Serbia and Croatia. Our constitutional organization is not similar to theirs, but I guess ordinary people do not concern themselves too much with the Constitution on a daily basis. When you go out to get some administrative matter sorted out, 90% of this work is at the municipal level, a little on the cantonal and almost nothing at the state level, except for identification cards and passports, which one does every few years. This procedure is just like any other. That’s right. All around the world, there are states with some vices and virtues. I mean Pakistan is also a state. It’s great that we look up to Germany and France and that we want to be like them, but Pakistan is also a state and we are like the EU compared to them.

Both Lejla and Senad are single citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina and ethnically they are neither Serb nor Croat. Lejla declares herself as a Bosniak, while Senad rejects ethnic categories and identifies as a Bosnian and Herzegovinian. In both cases, citizenship is viewed in pragmatic terms, however, unlike the pragmatism associated with the second citizenship of dual citizens, neither of them associate security with the BiH citizenship in the way that dual citizens relate a feeling of security/safety to their foreign citizenship.

The findings of my study on emotional and pragmatic citizenship are largely consistent with those conducted with Lebanese (Skulte-Ouaiss, 2013) and Palestinian (Mavroudi, 2008) diasporas, where, overwhelmingly, the first citizenship offers national belonging and emotional attachment, while the second, and perhaps more alien, citizenship offers security. My findings are also consistent with Kastoryano (2000), who places the home and host state interaction in a transnational space, where the home state is a source of identity, the host state a source of rights and the resulting transnational space “a space of political action combining two or more countries” (p. 309). In some ways it could be paradoxical, but holding a second and more secure citizenship promotes return to the less secure home state. As Carling et al. (2015) point out:

A secure status abroad creates the opportunities for return. The uncertainty of return migration makes irrevocable return an intimidating prospect. Having the possibility to reconsider makes return much more appealing. For this reason, the ultimate form of structural integration in the destination–acquiring citizenship–can facilitate return to the country of origin. (p. 18)

Thus, once full legal integration in the host state has occurred, and the person has gained citizenship can the risk-taking of return migration take place. Having the security implied in holding a second citizenship promotes return to the home state.

6.2.2 “Feeling at Home” and Place-Belongingness Means Feeling Safe

The returnees are a group of people with a highly complex understanding of home, with feeling safe and secure as the emotion defining what “being at home” means. They have been forcefully expelled or have left their original homes to establish new homes in host countries. They have now returned to the home state attempting both to re-build their actual homes and their emotional understanding of home as a concept. The feeling of “being at home” comprises specific emotions, which are found in the family, in specific time periods, and in particular places. Almost all the study participants discussed feeling safe and secure as making up their feeling of “being at home,” but perhaps the most telling example of this is Badema, a young Bosniak woman returnee to Srebrenica. It was a sunny summer day, and we were having coffee in front of her family house, located only a couple of kilometers away from the Potočari memorial cemetery, commemorating the Srebrenica genocide. I asked her whether she feels at home here and what this feeling means to her.

Author::

Would you say that you are at home now?

Badema::

Yes! I am definitely at home now. This is where I belong.

Author::

How do you feel here?

Badema::

Somehow peaceful, calm….I feel at home…This means that I feel protected. There is a sense of security. I feel safe here.

Badema is fully aware of the events of July 1995 in Srebrenica and together with her family she attends the annual funerals of victims of the Srebrenica genocide, whose remains were found during that given year in mass grave sites surrounding the neighboring hills and valleys. She is not in denial of historical facts, but the place where she feels safe, where she feels “at home” is in her garden and family home, surrounded by loving family members and pets. When she uses the word “home” it refers only to this place and does not extend to other parts of Srebrenica, Republika Srpska or even Sarajevo, where Badema studies and works.

Connected and often conflated with feeling secure, the emotions constituting “being at home” are feeling comfortable and satisfied. Ema discusses the emotions that give meaning to “feeling at home” for her, with particular emphasis on feeling secure and comfortable.

Ema::

Aaahm….the emotions of home are feeling relaxed, smiling, security, feeling safe, the coziness.⁶ How do we say it in Bosnian? Comfort. Safety. Yes, those are the emotions that I connect to feeling at home, to belonging.

Upon returning from the U.S., Senad got married and moved away from his parents into a new apartment. For Senad, “being at home” brings a sense of satisfaction and safety.

Senad::

I would say satisfaction and safety. I feel satisfied because I live in an apartment now, which I used to want and couldn’t really have. Something like that.

Hrvoje discusses “being at home” as a feeling of satisfaction with life in general, connecting it to daily habits and relational belonging.

Hrvoje::

There is one good old word: ‘rahatluk⁷’ (laughter).

Author::

What does this ‘rahatluk’ mean to you?

Hrvoje::

For me, this is the first morning espresso with my friends; talking to them in our language and spending time with people who are emotionally and genetically very similar to us. That is all about been satisfied with life, with being safe.

Feeling “at home” for Ema, Senad and Hrvoje mean either feeling comfortable and satisfied, both of which can and often are directly conflated with feeling safe and secure.

Feeling secure is also a defining dimension of home as a concept discussed in the relevant scholarly literature. Boccagni (2017) is clear when stating:

In my view, the most basic attribute of the home experience is that of (1) Security: a sense of personal protection and integrity which is attached to a place of one’s own, where outsiders should not have free access and one’s identity–whatever that means–is not in question (p.7).

For Boccagni (2017) home is firstly characterized by security. Similarly, Hagemann (2015) agrees with several authors who look at home as a “sense of place,” which often designates such personal and intimate bonds that encompass feelings of being secure and at peace (Blunt & Dowling, 2006; Fenster, 2004; Tuan, 2001; Hagemann, 2015). According to Lam and Yeoh (2004) and Jackson (2016), home refers to an “affective core (Rapoport, 1995, p 27), representing an emotional connection to a secure, ‘stable physical centre of the universe’ (Rapport, 1997, p. 73) from which an individual is formed together with connections to a particular community. Home interacts with belonging and identity to produce an emotional, physical and symbolic security (Howes & Hammett, 2016).

Antonsich (2010) defines place-belongingness to be characterized by feeling safe, feeling at home, where “place is felt as home” (p. 646). The five aspects identified as key to understanding place-belongingness, as feeling at home are: “auto-biographical, relational, cultural, economic and legal” (p. 647). The auto-biographical aspect is most directly expressed as childhood memories, with the premise that the place of birth and growing up retains a dominant and formative position for adult life. Social ties to a place whether strong bonds to family and friends or less emotionally intense relations with fellow-countrymen comprise the relational element. Among the cultural aspects, Antonsich (2010) view language to be the most important, as it “resonates with one’s auto-biographical sphere, and, as such, contributes to generate a sense of feeling at home” (p. 648). A sense of “economic embeddedness” (p. 648) is shown to have an important effect on place-belongingness and is achieved by an individual building a professional career in a specific place. Finally, the legal aspect, such as gaining citizenship or a residence permit, is crucial for an individual to feel safe. “Where you belong is where you are safe; and where you are safe is where you belong.” (Ignatieff, 1994, p. 25). Antonsich (2010) sums up the discussion of the various elements of place-belonging by re-emphasizing the importance of “feeling safe.”

6.3 Conclusion

The main theoretical argument of my study is summarized in the conceptual model (see Fig. 6.2), which assigns feeling safe and secure as the central concept. The conceptual model is built on two premises:

• 1. Emotional citizenship is defined as the co-occurrence of citizenship practices and emotional responses, while pragmatic citizenship is the area where citizenship practices intersect with emotional indifference (see Fig. 6.1); and

• 2. Feeling safe/secure is strongly associated with pragmatic citizenship, home, and place-belongingness (see Fig. 6.2).

The first citizenship, which is dominantly the citizenship of Bosnia and Herzegovina for my study participants, is experienced emotionally. However, the emotional dimension of BiH citizenship does not co-occur with feeling safe and secure. Pragmatic citizenship does co-occur with feeling safe and it mostly refers to the host state’s citizenship, acquired during time spent abroad. The feeling of safety is associated with home, found in family, different places, and across various time periods. Similarly, belonging, or more specifically place-belongingness, whether relational, ethnic, religious, landscape, linguistic, or economic is strongly associated with feeling safe and secure.

Fig. 6.2

Conceptual model

Given their emotionally motivated “decided” (Cassarino, 2004) return and their dual citizenship, the study participants present a unique opportunity to study the emotional dimension of the home state citizenship. Emotional citizenship is defined as the co-occurrence of emotional responses and various citizenship practices and the daily experiences of citizenship (see Fig. 6.1). Qualitative data analysis revealed a set of historically rooted and context-dependent ‘political’ emotions constituting the returnees’ conceptualization of BiH citizenship. These emotions range from rage, anger, frustration to fear, guilt, denial, disgust, shame, disappointment, pity and empathy, to nostalgia and powerlessness. The opposite side of the emotional spectrum includes: patriotic love, pride, defiance, joy, happiness and hope. My argument is that the specific emotions constituting the citizenship of Bosnia and Herzegovina for the returnees are rooted in BiH’s recent history and the state’s structure, engrained in the Dayton Peace Agreement, a treaty that successfully stopped direct warfare, but continuously fails to produce the conditions for long-term peace and prosperity. The BiH citizenship is not a source of feeling safe and secure for the returnees and thus unlike previous studies creating this link (Ho, 2009; Jackson, 2016), the emotional dimension of BiH citizenship is not conceptualized as home and belonging for the returnees. There are two exceptions to this general conclusion:

• 1. “Feeling at home” for all citizens of BiH on the entire territory of the state of BiH; and

• 2. Civic belonging, which denotes prioritizing one’s citizenship status, being a citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina, over other types of belonging.

There is a weak association with feeling safe/secure; “feeling at home” on the entire territory of the state; and civic belonging. Data analysis reveals that the notion of “feeling at home” on the entire territory of the BiH state is challenged by direct and indirect consequences of the 1992–95 war. Similarly, civic belonging is contested by the disintegrating pull mainly of ethnic and religious place-belongingness, as well as the exclusionary politics of belonging inherent to BiH’s state structure ingrained in the Dayton Peace Agreement.

The arguments advanced above are supported by qualitative data analysis of 35 in-depth interviews comprising inductive and deductive thematic coding and iterative procedures of pattern seeking, assisted by the technical functionality of NVIVO 11. Seeking patterns based on co-occurrence of codes within coding units was the main tool to: identify associations; put forward propositions and formulate explanations. Matrix query results together with the analytic memos, form the main structure around which a “theorized storyline” (Golden-Biddle & Locke, 2007) was built in Chaps. 3, 4, and 5. Finally, putting everything together resulted in a conceptual model, which captures most of the dataset and “re-stories” the interviews “into a framework that makes sense” (Creswell, 2007, p.56). The conceptual model is supported by matrices used for Chaps. 3, 4, and 5 and represents a summation of data patterns, as they were revealed throughout data analysis. A detailed account of the exact methods used to reach this conclusion together with a description of an audit trail tracing each conclusion to raw data is provided in Sect. 1.6–Research Methodology.