Social Mobility and Neighbourhood Choice

Living for the neighbourhood: marginalization and belonging for the second-generation in Berlin and Paris

“…Some of the respondents (23 out of 41) have moved out of these inner-city districts into more middle-class areas, predominantly in the Western parts of Berlin. The one major reason for such a move was not dissatisfaction with the previous neighborhood, but a concern about local educational facilities (Barwick 2016).…”

“…Thus, "while multiple belongings in the context of identity are recognized as postmodern normalcy, there is at least in Germany still the criterion of a unilateral decision regarding national, ethnic and cultural belonging, which reflects the idea of assimilation as vision of successful integration" (Foroutan, 2010, p. 11). Turkish immigrants and their descendants are among the most stigmatized ethnic groups in Germany, not only due to their ethnic background but also to their assumed religious background (Barwick, 2016;Ehrkamp, 2005;Korteweg & Yurdakul, 2014;Ramm, 2010). Just as in France, Islam is often thought as being incompatible with 'European values' , such as the separation between church and state or equality between men and women (Adida, Laitin, & Valfort, 2016;Joppke, 2015).…”

“…Enginalp and other respondents' practical and symbolic neighborhood use is directed to other places in the city, mostly ethnically diverse neighborhoods. Ferda has moved from the ethnically diverse inner-city area of Kreuzberg to a residential area in Berlin's South-West, to find a better school for her children (Barwick, 2016). She never really warmed up to the new neighborhood and neighbors, and spends much of her free-time in her old neighborhood, where she wants to move back to as soon as her youngest child leaves primary school.…”

Transnationalism and intra‐European mobility among Europe's second generation: review and research agenda

“…We can thus expect socialization to influence significantly the second generation's ways of being and belonging. At the same time, the majority society often discriminates against and stigmatizes immigrants and their descendants because of their ethnic and (assumed) religious background, and excludes them from sharing a collective identity as, for instance, German, French, Dutch or European (Barwick 2016;Beaman 2015;Duyvendak 2011;Joppke 2015;Ramm 2010). Physical proximity may be insufficient for a shared sense of belonging, and the structuralist model of collective identity might work differently for ethnic and religious minorities than for native Europeans.…”

Gewohnt ist nicht normal. Jugendalltag in zwei Kreuzberger Kiezen

“…Und nicht alle Erfahrungen von Verschlossenheit der Stadt sind direkte Erfahrungen von auf individuelle Personen gerichtetem Rassismus. Wie andere Studien bereits belegt haben(Barwick 2016), verschließen subtile Praktiken von BerlinerInnen aus der weißen Mittelschicht Institutionen und Orte in der Stadt für BerlinerInnen mit Migrationshintergrund und Menschen aus niedrigen sozialen Schichten. Dies zeigen etwa Praktiken der Schulwahl(Giustozzi et al 2016: 53-56) und insbesondere die Eltern-Initiativen im Kindergarten.…”