Syria, the Homeland. Feeling at Home in Rotterdam? The Multiple Feelings of Belonging of Resettled Syrian-BornYoungsters with a Refugee Background

Abstract

This article focuses on the multiple feelings of belonging that refugee-background youngsters experience toward their country of origin (Syria) and their city of resettlement (Rotterdam). The conceptual framework of Antonsich is used to examine how personal and social dimensions shape their belonging. Based on interviews and photo-elicitation with 19 young people, this study shows that the feeling of belonging toward Syria is presented as a natural given, whereas the feeling of belonging toward Rotterdam developed over time, shaped by increasing familiarity and normalcy. Although exclusion is experienced incidentally, this does not greatly hinder youngsters’ sense of belonging toward Rotterdam.

Keywords:

• Young people
• refugee background
• multiple feelings of belonging
• personal dimension
• inclusion and exclusion

Introduction

Being forced to flee their country of origin and leave their former life behind jeopardizes young people’s sense of belonging (Correa-Velez et al., 2010). This is worrying, as belonging can be seen as a basic human need (Baumeister & Leary, 1995) and a “precondition for quality of life” (Anthias, 2006, p. 20). A sense of belonging is particularly important for refugee-background youngsters as it contributes to their mental and physical health and well-being, and is known to foster resilience and their ability to adapt well to their new living environment (Caxaj & Berman, 2010; Chen & Schweitzer, 2019; Correa-Velez et al., 2010; Edge et al., 2014). After fleeing their motherland, resettlement in a safe country presents many challenges and at the same time may offer them new possibilities to belong (Correa-Velez et al., 2010).

This study sheds light on the feelings of belonging of Syrian-born youngsters between the ages of 13 and 17 with a refugee background. All have recently resettled with (part of) their family in Rotterdam, a highly ethnically diverse city in the Netherlands. Scholars broadly agree that belonging is multilocational: people can feel ‘at home’ at different locations simultaneously, so belonging is plural (Anthias, 2006; Antonsich, 2010; Davis et al., 2018; Yuval-Davis, 2006). Nevertheless, studies on young refugee-background people often focus solely on belonging in the country of resettlement (e.g. Caxaj & Berman, 2010; Huizinga & van Hoven, 2018; Osman et al., 2020; Spaaij, 2015; Valentine et al., 2009), probably because belonging is seen as an indicator of (affective) integration in the new country (Dandy & Pe-Pua, 2015; Gualda Caballero, 2011). It is plausible, however, that these youngsters’ emotional attachment to their country of origin was not severed when they left. Therefore, this article focuses on youngsters’ multiple senses of place-belongingness and their emotional attachment toward both the country of origin and the place of resettlement.

Using the conceptual framework of Antonsich (2010) as an analytical tool, this article distinguishes between belonging as an intimate, personal feeling (personal dimension) and the politics of belonging (social dimension), which pertain to the discourses and practices of inclusion and exclusion that influence whether someone is accepted and may claim belongingness (Yuval-Davis, 2006). As such, belonging has a dynamic and relational character; it is an individual emotion that is socially constructed and negotiated in interaction (Chen & Schweitzer, 2019; Ghorashi, 2017; Huizinga & van Hoven, 2018; Sirriyeh, 2008). Although belonging among young refugee-background people has been frequently studied, the emphasis has predominantly been on the politics of belonging, showing how experiences with inclusion and exclusion foster or impede their belonging (for example: Caxaj & Berman, 2010; Correa-Velez et al., 2010; Fejes & Dahlstedt, 2020; Osman et al., 2020, for exceptions see: Valentine et al., 2009; Ryan, 2014). Although it is insightful to study how these experiences influence belonging, they are just one part of the story (Antonsich, 2010). Incorporating the personal side of belonging as well, thereby including both agency and structure, captures the lived experiences of young people with a refugee background more comprehensively.

The central research question in this article is: How are feelings of belonging towards the country of origin and the place of resettlement shaped among recently resettled youngsters with a refugee background? Based on the method of photo-elicitation – consisting of youngsters choose photographs based on an assignment, to talk about their experiences (Johnson et al., 2012; Oh, 2012) – and interviews with eleven boys and eight girls from Syria, I aspire to unpack their multiple senses of belonging. As such, this study contributes to the existing literature on belonging in two ways. First, since it includes both belonging toward the country of origin and the place of resettlement, this study illustrates the plurality of belongings and examines whether and how both are negotiated and/or combined. Second, this article looks beyond youngsters’ experiences of inclusion and exclusion, and hence includes both its personal and social dimension which will be elaborated upon further in the theoretical framework.

Theoretical framework

Feelings of belonging toward a particular place are “about emotional attachment, about feeling ‘at home’ and […] about feeling ‘safe’” (Yuval-Davis, 2006, p. 197). A place that feels like ‘home’ should be understood in a symbolic sense as a place that is characterized by familiarity, comfort and safety (Antonsich, 2010). Familiarity means that one ‘knows’ the place, including its physical and sociocultural environment (Davis et al., 2018; Duyvendak, 2011; Wekker, 2020; Wernesjö, 2014), and comfort refers to feeling at ease there (Duyvendak, 2011). The living environment is than experienced “as normal, not in question” (Boccagni & Hondagneu-Sotelo, 2021, p. 5), which is an essential component for emotional attachment (Caxaj & Berman, 2010). Being safe in a place is crucial for belonging and resettlement offers people with a refugee background the hope of being safe and free from physical danger and harassment (Dromgold-Sermen, 2020; Sirriyeh, 2008).

A sense of belonging can be experienced toward multiple places at the same time (multilocality). These places may be on different scales (multiscalarity), such as neighborhoods, cities or countries (Antonsich, 2010; Davis et al., 2018; Lähdesmäki et al., 2016; Wood & Waite, 2011; Yuval-Davis, 2006). These characteristics - multilocality and multiscalarity - feature prominently in this article as I examine feelings of belonging toward two localities which are on different scales: the country of origin and the city of resettlement. Furthermore, belonging is dynamic and situational (Caxaj & Berman, 2010; Davis et al., 2018; Lähdesmäki et al., 2016; Yuval-Davis, 2006). Therefore, it should not be seen as a fixed state, but rather as a process or journey that can change over time (Antonsich, 2010; Sirriyeh, 2008). It is experienced differently at different moments, shaped by personal and social aspects and negotiated within interaction.

This study builds further on the analytical framework of Antonsich (2010), which distinguishes between the personal and social dimension of place-belongingness. Both dimensions will now be discussed in more detail below. This study aims to contribute to this theoretical framework, by evaluating it applicability for understanding the experiences with belonging of youngsters with a refugee background and by showing possible elements that are yet missing.

Personal dimension of belonging

Antonsich (2010) differentiates five factors that can contribute to a personal, intimate feeling of being ‘at home’ in a particular place. First, autobiographical factors – consisting of childhood memories, the presence of family members, stories about ancestors, etcetera – are often of key importance for a person’s emotional attachment to a place. Second, relational factors, consisting of both emotionally dense relations with friends and relatives as well as weak ties to strangers in public space, are also relevant. Antonsich’s (2010) third factor relates to cultural factors, such as language, traditions and norms. Fourth are economic factors, because being embedded in an economy can contribute to stable material conditions and having “a stake in the future of the place where s/he lives” (Antonsich, 2010, p. 648) can foster a sense of belonging. The fifth factor pertains to legal factors, such as citizenship or residence permits, because these are essential for security and therefore contribute to belonging. In addition to these factors, Antonsich (2010) points to the importance of the length of residence for a sense of place-belongingness.

Regarding this personal dimension, it is possible to formulate a number of expectations for refugee-background youngsters’ belonging. The autobiographical factors for a population that spent part of its childhood in Syria and another part in Rotterdam may be complex and applied to both localities. Being incorporated into the educational system soon after arrival gives youngsters opportunities to encounter peers and come into contact with Dutch culture and the language (McBrien, 2005; Sedmak et al., 2021), which may influence cultural and relational elements of feelings of belonging toward Rotterdam. At the same time, transnational relational ties may foster their sense of belonging toward the country of origin. Although their length of residence in Rotterdam may be considered relatively short (two to five years), this is a substantial portion of these youngsters’ lives.

Social dimension of belonging

Besides the personal dimension, a sense of belonging is as well inherently social matter as it is shaped by the broader social environment (Anthias, 2006; Antonsich, 2010; Davis et al., 2018). Yuval-Davis coined the term politics of belonging, referring to practices and discourses of inclusion and exclusion that allow or hinder a person’s belonging and includes the boundary work that separates ‘us’ from ‘them’ (Yuval-Davis, 2006). A sense of belonging can only arise and exist when individuals who wish to belong are granted belonging by those in power to do so (Blachnicka-Ciacek et al., 2021; Huizinga & van Hoven, 2018; Spaaij, 2015; Yuval-Davis, 2006). Negotiations about who is eligible to belong are recurring, “which means that individuals who were seen as belonging may later be excluded and vice versa” (Wernesjö, 2014, p. 37). This emphasizes the dynamic and situational character of belonging, with the important remark that belonging is more contested for some people than for others (ibid.).

Several studies have concentrated on experiences of inclusion and exclusion among young people with a refugee background during resettlement, often focusing on their experiences at school (e.g. Hastings, 2012; Osman et al., 2020; Uptin et al., 2013; Valentine et al., 2009). It is argued, roughly, that these youngsters frequently encounter bullying and discrimination, which hinders their sense of belonging. Some studies stress that exclusion leads to a feeling of being ‘in-between’ cultures; youngsters do not belong in either the country of origin or the country of resettlement (Miled, 2020; Osman et al., 2020; Valentine et al., 2009). In their study on language classes for young asylum seekers in Sweden, however, Fejes and Dahlstedt (2020, p. 3) show that inclusion and exclusion should be “understood as a positioning on a continuum, which changes over time”, rather than a matter of either/or. They conclude that as school is a place where both inclusion and exclusion take place, it may have both a positive and negative influence on belonging simultaneously.

Methods

For this research, interviews were conducted with 19 Syrian-born youngsters who had resettled with their families in Rotterdam. Within this highly ethnically diverse city in the Netherlands, more than 50% of the population has a migration background (Municipality Rotterdam [Gemeente Rotterdam], 2022) and 9% of population consider themselves as Muslim (Smeets & Houben, 2023). All of these youngsters had been living in the Netherlands for between two and five years and had been given a temporary residence permit for five years, after which they can apply for permanent residency¹ (Government of the Netherlands, n.d.).

Participants

This study on belonging is part of the Bridge research project, a larger research project that evaluates the integration programme of a philanthropic foundation called Stichting Nieuw Thuis Rotterdam (SNTR, in English: New Home Rotterdam Foundation). Therefore, all of the youngsters in this study belong to families who were participating in this programme² and hence all live in Rotterdam. Two selection criteria were used in this study. First, youngsters should be between the ages of 13 to 17 years, meaning they are in a development stage of examining identity issues (Erikson, 1968) and hence questions of belonging. Second, youngster should have completed the international transition class (in Dutch: internationale schakelklassen (ISK)), a class for newcomers that prioritizes learning the Dutch language). This means that all youngsters were in mainstream education and thus encounter youngsters without a refugee background at school, making issues of where to belong more visible. Due to this criteria, all included young people had acquired sufficient Dutch language proficiency to be interviewed in Dutch.

With help of SNTR, a list was made of 39 youngsters who met the selection criteria for this study. With the assistance of an Arabic-speaking interpreter, the purpose of the study was explained to one of the parents over the phone. If the parent was positive about the study, an appointment was made to explain it to both the child and the parent(s) during a home visit or – during the COVID-19 pandemic – a video call. An information video with visuals and an Arabic voiceover was used to inform parents and youngsters and ensure that everyone understood the study. Eleven boys and eight girls were willing to participate and both children and parent(s) gave their verbal and written consent. Most of the youngsters who did not wish to participate said that they were too busy with their schoolwork or simply did not wish to do so. This study has been approved by the ethics committee of Erasmus University Rotterdam³.

Interviews with photo-elicitation

The fieldwork took place between February and September 2020. The interviews were conducted in Dutch and in most cases, participants could express themselves well in this language. No interpreters were present during the interviews, since there was no need to as participants had finished their language classes and were living in Rotterdam for a couple of years already. I choose deliberately to take all youngsters’ Dutch proficiency serious and aim to give them confidence they are capable to speak with me. Including an interpreter might give them the idea that their proficiency is not good-enough, while this was not the case. For three youngsters, speaking Dutch was a bit more difficult and they sometimes looked up translations for specific words they did not know.

Interviews are always partly shaped by the interaction and power balance between the participant and the researcher (Eastmond, 2007; Kohli, 2006) and hence it is important to reflect on the researchers positionality. As the interviewer (and author) of this study is a woman of Dutch decent, who is also perceived by others as such, it may be that youngsters were hesitant to be critical of ‘the Dutch’. However, I had the impression that participants felt comfortable during the interviews and were sufficiently at ease to be critical. Although social desirability in the answers can never be completely ruled out, I attempted to minimize this by taking the time to get to know each other and build a rapport (see also: Van der Ent, 2023).

The initial plan was to interview all participants three times at a location of their choice for 1) an introductory interview 2) an interview about their feelings of belonging and 3) an interview about dealing with cultural differences between Syria and the Netherlands⁴. However, after eight face-to-face interviews, COVID-19 policy measures forced me to switch to online communication and the other interviews were conducted via video calls. At times, this was challenging when unstable internet connections hampered the conversation. However, online interviewing also had important advantages. For example, it was easier for participants to find a quiet place to talk to me where no one could hear them and they would not be distracted by their parents or siblings (see also: Gallagher, 2012). Furthermore, I noticed that youngsters were very familiar with video calls – as they use this with family, friends, and school – and had more time to be interviewed during the lockdowns, as school and sporting activities had been suspended. Although I was concerned beforehand whether it would be possible to create a sufficient rapport in online interviews, I am positive about the degree of openness during the interviews and the insights they gave me into the respondents’ lived experiences.

This article mainly features the interviews on young people’s feelings of belonging and includes some parts from other interviews when participants brought up the topic. During the interviews, the photo-elicitation method was used, whereby participants were asked to take or find photographs prior to the interviews, based on an assignment (Johnson et al., 2012; Oh, 2012). For the interviews on belonging, the assignment was to send three photographs of places where the youngster likes to be, and three photographs of people they like to spend time with. These photographs were sent to the researcher beforehand and formed the starting point of each interview, when respondents were asked what the photo depicted and why they had chosen thatparticular photo, i.e., the significance for them (Kim et al., 2015; Oh, 2012). Youngsters interpreted the assignment in various ways and showed photos of, for example, private places (their bedroom), city landmarks (the Erasmus bridge in Rotterdam), their city of birth or places they would love to visit (Venice). Some participants were unable to take photos themselves because of pandemic policy measures and found pictures on the Internet. Because of the diverse interpretations and barriers that made it difficult for youngsters to take photos themselves, I chose not to analyze the images as visual data but to use them to elicit responses during the interviews. This method enabled young people to prepare for the interview and gave them more control over what they wanted to share with the researcher (Didkowsky et al., 2010), while giving the researcher insights into these youngsters’ personal subjective experiences (Oh, 2012).

Interviews unfolded further primarily based on the photos and supplemented with a semi-structured topic list that included questions about the first time someone had felt at home, why it was at that particular moment and whether they ever felt they did not belong. Instead of questioning all factors from the Antonsich (2010) framework, the young people mainly steered the conversation and brought up topics that they found relevant to their belonging.

Two points are worth noting with regard to the content of the interviews. First, when questioning the youngsters, I mainly used the phrase ‘feeling at home’ (in Dutch: thuisvoelen) and also asked about identification to grasp the topic of belonging. Terms such as ‘emotional attachment’ or ‘belonging’ are difficult to translate into the Dutch language. I do use these words in this article for reasons of variety and readability, although these exact terms were not used in the interviews. Second, this study examines belonging toward two localities and these places are on different scales - the country of origin and the city of resettlement - because this resonates with how most youngsters talk about their belonging in the interviews. Although there were some exceptions, most participants mentioned belonging to Syria as their nation, and to the city level as the site of their daily interactions and encounters (see also: Van Liempt & Staring, 2021).

Analysis

For all interviews, the audio was recorded, transcribed, and then coded using Atlas.ti software. During the initial coding phase, coding was open and detailed, contributing to the understanding of the transcripts. Subsequently, in the phase of focused coding, I used Antonsich’s (2010) conceptual framework as an analytical tool and analyzed how feelings of belonging were shaped by the social and personal dimensions and specific elements thereof (inclusion, exclusion, autobiographic, relational, cultural, economic, legal, time of residence). While considering both sets of codes, adjustments were made to the code book and some were combined, removed or changed based on empirical or theoretical insights. Thus, analyzing was an iterative process in which I continuously shifted between data and theory (Bryman, 2008). During the full process of analysis, memos were written in order to document my thoughts and insights (Silverman, 2010). Possible variations between the participants – such as sex/gender and age – were examined and all quotations are accompanied by boy or girl (b/g) and age between brackets⁵.

Findings

The following section discusses the findings from the analysis and is structured as follows. It starts with belonging as a personal feeling, first toward Syria and then toward Rotterdam. Subsequently, the importance of family is discussed in relation to belonging to both localities. The focus then switches to the politics of belonging to consider experiences with inclusion and exclusion. Lastly, taking both the personal and social dimension into account, I reflect upon two young people who can be seen as deviant cases and attempt to explain these exceptions.

Memories of the motherland

All of the boys and girls interviewed felt an emotional attachment to their country of origin. Most often, they said that they belonged to Syria because they were born and partly raised there. They see Syria as their motherland and talked about the Syrian blood flowing through their veins. Belonging to their country of origin was discussed as a form of attachment that is taken for granted; they did not need time to reflect on it as they sometimes did when talking about Rotterdam. Instead, it was conveyed as a natural given, as their life had started out in Syria.

In explaining their belonging to Syria, youngsters often discussed their personal life history in the country. Lina (g16) says: “I grew up there for 14 years. And together with my parents, my family, my old friends, school…Yes, I did a lot there.” For Leyla (g16), her early memories attach her to Syria: “I was born there and […] I also have a lot of memories that I cannot bring here.” A feeling of melancholy resounds in their stories about their childhood memories (see also: Chen & Schweitzer, 2019; Sirriyeh, 2008). They were nostalgic when describing their houses, recalling the liveliness of Damascus or Aleppo or the beautiful scenery of their home village with its pomegranate and olive trees, or when reminiscing about the exuberant celebrations of Eid-al-Fitr. These religious festivities, described by the interviewees as being part of Syrian culture, are still important now that they are living in Rotterdam. However, celebration nowadays cannot be compared to the celebrations in Syria, which were – in their words – major public holidays that were celebrated by all Syrians and accompanied by street festivities everywhere.

Relevant is that the youngsters feel a sense of place-belongingness toward a Syria that no longer exists. In a sense, belonging to Syria has an imaginary character (Chen & Schweitzer, 2019; Ghorashi, 2004; Sirriyeh, 2008). The participants are not longing for Syria as it is nowadays, which they characterize as an unsafe place to live. It has been questioned in the literature whether a sense of belonging can be attached to a place from which people have been forced to flee because unsafety makes belonging difficult (Ghorashi, 2017; Malkki, 1995). In this light, it is interesting to observe that the young respondents connect their belongingness to better and safer times before their flight that evoke good memories.

Though all were born in Syria and – in terms of Antonsich (2010) – their biography started there, the period that the interviewees had spent in Syria varies and affects their memories and sense of belonging. Youssef (b15) explains that he left Syria when he was 13 years old and thus has extensive memories. He expects that his little brother, who is still a toddler, will feel exclusively Dutch as he has no memories of Syria. The interviews show that age should be considered as a subjectively, personally experienced feature rather than an objective characteristic. Contrasting the experiences of Anas (b17) and Ibrahim (b17) – both arrived as 12-year-olds and were both aged 17 at the time of the interview – illustrates this subjectiveness. Anas sees 12 as being “the most difficult age to arrive” since he had already learned all about Syrian history, culture and language, and then needed to start over again in the Netherlands. Ibrahim, however, reasoned that he was very young at the age of 12, saying: “I didn’t live in Syria for long enough to get to know everything there […] I know the Netherlands better than Syria. Because I was 12-years-old, yes, I think that is very young.” Hence, the age of refuge and arrival – and more specifically how this age is subjectively experienced – play a role in youngsters’ personal sense of belonging.

Getting used to rotterdam

Whereas a sense of place-belongingness to Syria was explained as a self-evident matter, a sense of belonging to Rotterdam was described as something that had been absent in the beginning as everything was new to them. The majority of the youngsters − 17 out of 19 interviewees – said that they now felt at home in Rotterdam and explained that this feeling of belonging had developed as they became more familiar with the city and began to experience an increased sense of normality. The analysis reveals three aspects that the youngsters had to become familiar with; the language, the culture and the public space. Furthermore, it shows three elements that fostered their sense of normalcy; having a house where they are safe, having friends and attending school. These themes will be discussed in the following paragraphs.

To start with, the youngsters explained that learning the Dutch language was an important aspect of emerging feelings of belonging, as it helped them navigate their new place or residence. None of the interviewed youngsters were proficient in Dutch on arrival, and this made the first period after resettlement challenging (see also: Osman et al., 2020). Nour (g16) explains that she did not feel at home in Rotterdam at the beginning: “Everything was different and I could not speak Dutch. I really had a hard time in the beginning.” Caxaj and Berman (2010) argue that a lack of fluency in the dominant language can contribute to feelings of alienation and isolation, and this is confirmed by the analysis of the interviews. When the interviewed youngsters became more familiar with the Dutch language and were able to communicate with other citizens, their emotional attachment to Rotterdam increased.

Besides mastering the Dutch language, youngsters discussed another cultural element: becoming familiar with ‘the rules’ that apply in the Netherlands. Ibrahim (b17) relates his sense of belonging to this and explains: “Nowadays, if someone says: ‘Hey, are you coming back to Syria?’, I say ‘Bro, are you crazy? I live here, I know the rules, I’m staying here’.” The rules that the young people referred to are cultural codes that define how people interact and live together. For example, Leyla (g16) told how she had to learn that it is more common to pay with your card than to use cash. Afran (b16) elaborated specifically on how he had learned that looking someone in the eyes is seen as a sign of respect in the Netherlands, while this is considered disrespectful in Syrian culture. In the beginning, this led to misunderstandings when interacting with teachers. Therefore he decided to practice eye contact with a Syrian friend until they were both familiar with this rule. He explained how it can be challenging to switch back and forth between cultural codes: “When family members visit us, I try not to look them in the eye. But that is difficult, as I am now used to making eyecontact.” The interviews show that a sense of belonging toward Rotterdam does not require full cultural assimilation. Girls, in particular, mentioned that they prefer some Syrian cultural elements related to their religion, such as wearing a headscarf and modest interaction with boys. However, they reported that being familiar with ‘the rules’ and obeying them to some extent contributed to their sense of belonging in Rotterdam.

Lastly, being familiar with the physical environment has been identified as relevant for belonging (Davis et al., 2018; Duyvendak, 2011). Syrian-born youngsters discussed they needed to get used to the public space of Rotterdam. This included gaining knowledge about their neighborhood, the broader city and facilities such as shopping malls, sports clubs and schools. Bicycle lanes were a novelty to them and understanding the public transport system was a challenge to be overcome, especially for youngsters from smaller villages in Syria. The photo assignment brought up photos about iconic sites in Rotterdam or places – like parks, squares, and shopping centers – where youngsters spend time as part of their everyday activities. With these photos and the accompanying stories, they showed how parts of Rotterdam have become familiar to them and form the settings for their everyday lives (see also: Van Liempt & Staring, 2021). Ibrahim (b17) enthusiastically explains he truly ‘knows’ the city: “I can go everywhere without a map. […] If someone says a street or a postal code, I know where it is.”

Whereas these three elements that young people had to become familiar with refer to learning new things, place-belongingness also requires that people experience their life in a particular place as being ‘normal’ (Boccagni & Hondagneu-Sotelo, 2021; Caxaj & Berman, 2010). Although no questions about normalcy were posed in the interviews, this term was frequently brought up by the participants and hence emerged from the data (see also: Ryan, 2011). This focus on normalcy should be understood in light of their experiences in previous years – during the war, flight and in the asylum procedure – that can be considered as the opposite: abnormal. While they experienced an increasing sense of normalcy, they became evenly more embedded in the city.

The interviews show that this sense of normalcy was not present shortly after resettlement, but needed time to develop. First, to live a ‘normal’ life, youngsters must be able to live safely together with their family in a house. This resonates with the materiality of belonging, implying that the material environment in which people settle – including the house itself – is essential to feeling at home (Boccagni & Hondagneu-Sotelo, 2021; Lähdesmäki et al., 2016). For example, Afran (b16) explained that he feels at home in Rotterdam because “Here, I have a house where I can live with my family.” Also, Wassim (b14) said “I feel at home here in Rotterdam, just because it is safe.” In the years before resettlement, being safe and living in a house together with family members was not something that these youngsters could take for granted. After turbulent times, experiencing normalized life circumstances and having a home that feels safe, increases their feelings of being at home in the city.

Contact with peers is particularly important for young people. It is an essential element of leading a ‘normal’ life and vital for their well-being and development (Correa-Velez et al., 2010; Fazel et al., 2005). Although some discussed having friends in Syria or other countries, all of the interviewed youngsters talked enthusiastically about having friends in the Netherlands, and how this relational factor contributes to their sense of belonging (see also: Chen & Schweitzer, 2019, Ryan, 2023). Bilal (b15) explained that he felt at home in Rotterdam from the moment he made friends: “When we had a house and I could play football again, yes, that’s when I felt really at home in Rotterdam. Because I could make friends. Because when I was in that asylum seeker center, we had to move every three months, so you don’t have friends. But now, I have friends forever.” This quotation stresses the importance of stable peer contact, as Bilal now has the certainty he does not have to move again and therefore can initiate friendships. Contrary to Bilal, Anas (b17) and Ahmed (b17) did formed close friendship when living in asylum seeker centers in different parts of the Netherlands. Both explained how they feel more emotionally attached to these cities, because of their friends there. They found it challenging to develop a sense of belonging toward Rotterdam as they missed their friends, and felt resistance toward building a new social network yet again. Unfortunately, it is common in the Netherlands for asylum seekers to have to move between centres several times and then to move again once they have received a residence permit. Previous studies (Goosen et al., 2014; Nielsen et al., 2008) have stressed that this is particularly detrimental for the well-being and mental health of young people as it disrupts the social relations that they have so recently initiated. The experiences of Ahmed and Anas show that these disruptions also influence the youngsters’ sense of place-belongingness.

The final element that promotes a sense of normalcy in life is attending school. Being included in the educational system gives young people a new routine (Fejes & Dahlstedt, 2020; McBrien, 2005) and makes life more normal, as going to school is what youngsters usually do (Sirriyeh, 2008). When discussing why young Syrians felt at home in Rotterdam, they frequently mentioned that it is the place where they attend school. Take Imane (g14), who said: “I feel at home in Rotterdam because it is beautiful and because my school is here.” School is mostly experienced as a pleasant daily activity that gives meaning to their lives and therefore fosters a sense of belonging to the city. Furthermore, attending school is related to the other elements, as school contributes to increasing familiarity with the Dutch language and culture as well as being a place to meet friends (see also: Van der Ent et al., 2020).

As the Netherlands was a new country for the young people in this study, it took some time for them to become familiar with it and to regain a sense of normalcy in their lives. Over time, they became more embedded in a physical sense (living a in a house), in a social sense (having friends) and in an institutional sense (attending school). Consequently, their feelings of belonging toward Rotterdam also developed over time, stressing the dynamic character of belonging. In Lina’s (g16) explanation of her personal sense of belonging, this element of time was stressed in addition to several of the aspects described above. She said: “The first year, […] I really didn’t like that I couldn’t speak the language. That I didn’t know anybody. I was really new and I was looking around, going ‘Where am I?’ But now, it feels very normal, just like Damascus. Yes, [Rotterdam] feels like my city now.” Some expect this feeling of belonging to increase in the future, when they are more proficient in Dutch and are even more used to their new living situation in Rotterdam.

The presence of family

Since all interviewed youngsters were living together with one or both parents and siblings, the importance of their nuclear family members was frequently emphasized. Stories about them were filled with love and appreciation. Earlier studies on unaccompanied youngsters stress that belonging is challenging when family members are absent (Sirriyeh, 2008; Wernesjö, 2014), and this study confirms how important living together with family is for young people’s belonging. Besides the significance of nuclear family members, the interviews reveal that the relevance of extended family members also influences belonging. Memories of family residing in the same Syrian street, living together with aunts and uncles, and cousins being their best friends underline that family connections can be very close. Based on the interviews, three different extended family situations can be distinguished that play a part in belonging toward both Syria and Rotterdam.

First, some youngsters do not have an extended family in the Netherlands as their relatives are living in Syria or in other countries. This situation makes them sad, as they miss them. The fact that the family is incomplete is particularly tough during festivities, such as weddings or religious holidays. Ahmed (b17) described how important his cousin is to him: “My cousin is living in Turkey and I haven’t seen him for 10 years. That’s a very long time and [I’m finding it] difficult because we were best friends. Back in Syria, we were always together. Almost every day, because he lived next door to me.” In the past, Ahmed’s feelings of home were connected to the presence of his cousin, but nowadays they are living far apart. On the one hand, this absence of extended family members seems to limit feelings of belonging toward Rotterdam, as this is such a great loss. On the other hand, the presence of family in other parts of the world evokes a certain sense of belonging toward these countries. Nour (g16) feels emotionally attached to Turkey because her grandmother, aunts and uncles live there – suggesting that feeling at home is to some extent linked to where one’s family members are located.

Second, other young people have several extended family members who have also resettled in the Netherlands. Some even have relatives living in Rotterdam, which means that they can easily continue to share their lives with each other. They reported that going through the process of resettlement together and maintaining continuity in their social network – as the people who were important to them in Syria still are present in their lives – contributes to their sense of belonging in Rotterdam.

Lastly, two boys described having family members that had been living in the Netherlands for a long time, and who had helped them to rebuild their lives in their new country. Although they had never been in the Netherlands before, they were able to rely on family members who know how things work here. Anas (b17) explained how his niece, who was born in the Netherlands, took him to visit beautiful places in the country, helped him to get used to the Netherlands and became one of his most important friends. Eymen (b17) argues that having relatives here had fostered his belonging to his new country and says: “We have a lot of family here, more than in Syria! I have three uncles, who have lived here for more than 25 years. I have six cousins, I have aunts […]. This has helped us to feel at home here more quickly. We have our family around us.” The situation of these two boys shows that being included in a network of relatives who are accustomed to the resettlement country is experienced as being very helpful for the resettlement process in general and for a sense of belonging in particular (see also: Ryan, 2023).

Inclusion and exclusion

Besides the personal dimension of belonging (Antonsich, 2010), the social dimension – or the politics of belonging – that shapes who is granted belonging and who is not (Antonsich, 2010; Yuval-Davis, 2006) needs to be considered to understand how belonging is experienced. With regard to Syria, I did not discuss inclusionary or exclusionary experiences for ethical reasons; as the youngsters did not bring up their experiences during the war themselves, I decided to let this topic rest in order not to reawaken possibly traumatic memories. Nevertheless, having to flee one’s country because of war can be seen as a very raw form of exclusion as it was unsafe to be included within the borders of Syria.

In discussing inclusion and exclusion in Rotterdam and its relation to feelings of belonging, half of the youngsters mentioned they had not encountered exclusion but felt welcome and accepted. The other half of the interviewees had faced exclusionary encounters in different settings, such as school, sports clubs or the street. For boys, these encounters mainly focus on their ‘being a refugee’ who should go back to Syria as they are not wanted here. Anas (b17) says: “People [were] shouting at me to ‘go back to your country’” and Youssef (b15) elaborated:“They say: ‘don’t think that you’re in Syria, that everything is like that over here’. And then I feel they don’t want me, but I am still here anyway. They would rather see me leave than talk to them.”

For girls, experiences with exclusion predominantly focus on their Islamic faith and the headscarves they are wearing. Nour (g16) explained: “One time, there was a man in the city center. I was just waiting, and he started yelling at me ‘You’re Muslim, you’re wearing a headscarf, why are you here?’ […] I found this situation difficult. Why, why are you behaving like that? I didn’t do anything to you.” Such encounters arouse intense emotions in both the boys and girls; they mentioned feeling angry or sad and frustrated, because these people seem to be unaware that it is impossible for them to ‘go back to their own country’ as this would mean returning to a terrible situation.

It seems logical that these encounters impede feelings of belonging toward Rotterdam, as the comments are explicit in declaring the non-belongingness of the youngsters. Yara (g16) indeed explained that in general she feels that she belongs but does not feel at home in Rotterdam “[w]hen I meet unkind people […] They give me such strange looks. They also say strange things about my headscarf, about my religion.” She stresses, however, that situations like these only affect her feelings of belonging at that particular moment or shortly thereafter: “I only feel [not at home] at that moment, but afterwards no.” Hence, she stresses the context-dependency and temporality of her (non-)belonging (Antonsich, 2010; Lähdesmäki et al., 2016; Yuval-Davis, 2006). Other youngsters who had experienced exclusion said that this has not shaped their feelings of belonging toward Rotterdam and two reasons can be distinguished here. First, they stressed that most of their encounters in Rotterdam are of a positive character and thus acceptance and inclusion are more prevalent than exclusion. For the youngsters interviewed, exclusion was not seen as a structural phenomenon, but something that happened incidentally. Considering inclusion and exclusion on a continuum, instead of on an either/or basis (Fejes & Dahlstedt, 2020), clarifies that having many inclusionary encounters may form a buffer to help deal with some exclusionary situations.

The second reason pertains to the perpetrators and whether – according to the interviewees – these people are in a position to grant or deny belonging to others. Several young people disqualified them as ‘crazy’ people, or people whose comments cannot be taken seriously. Furthermore, when exclusion was caused by peers, participants often emphasized the fact these perpetrators also had a migration background. Therefore, they feel that these peers are not in a position to decide upon their belonging. Youssef (b16) explains:“If I had wanted to respond, I could have said that they are not Dutch either, that it isn’t their country as well.” Also Leyla (g16) reflected upon negative encounters with peers she qualifies as non-Dutch because their parents were born abroad. She says: “We are also human beings. We just want to live as well, have a good future. But they say: ‘You want to take over our country’. But why are they here, they are also not Dutch! Why do they talk about Syrians?”

At the same time, Leyla (g16) argued that negative experiences motivated her to prove the contrary and made her even more eager to contribute to Dutch society. Eymen (b17) clarified how exclusionary encounters had stimulated him to become proficient in the Dutch language, so that he could respond to the perpetrators. He explained: “In the beginning, I had to deal with discrimination and phrases like ‘refugees, go back to your country’. These children are bullies, you know. But after a while, after I had learned Dutch, I could defend myself, I felt at home. […] Actually, these children motivated me to learn Dutch.” As such, Leyla and Eymen gave a positive twist to their negative experiences, and this indirectly fostered their emotional attachment to Rotterdam.

Not feeling at home in Rotterdam

Although most of the interviewed young people expressed a sense of belonging toward Rotterdam, two youngers stated they do not feel at home in Rotterdam. Although all of the above also applies to them – they were accustomed to their lives in Rotterdam, speak the language, live together with their family in a house and feel safe, have a social network of friends, attend school, and do not feel excluded from Rotterdam – they did not describe their situation as belonging. Yassir (b15), who had been living in Rotterdam for three years, said that he does not feel at home, but has “normal feelings, it’s not more than a city. I live here, but it’s too early to call it home.” Although Yassir had not been living in Rotterdam for any less time than the other youngsters, his experience of time is different and emotional attachment may take more time for him.

Zeynep (g16) also did not feel at home in Rotterdam, and only associates belonging with Syria: “I cannot feel at home anywhere in the world. Only in my country, I think.” Contrary to Yassir, Zeynep did not expect her sense of belonging to Rotterdam to increase in the future. She does not consider belonging an important topic: “No, I just have to live, survive, where I am. I don’t have any other choice. I think I am used to Rotterdam but feeling at home is not important to me. I’m just here to continue my life.” The cases of Yassir and Zeynep are intriguing because of their divergence from the other participants, and their non-belonging cannot be explained by what was discussed during the interviews. It illustrates that belonging is not just a matter of ticking boxes like housing, language, friends etcetera, but remains in part a personal affair that can vary from person to person.

Conclusion and discussion

Based on interviews with young, recently-resettled Syrian-born people in Rotterdam, this study elaborates on the question of how a sense of belonging to the country of origin and the place of resettlement is shaped among youngsters with a refugee background. To start with, this study shows that multiple feelings of belonging can exist simultaneously as these youngsters feel emotionally attached to both Syria and Rotterdam. Within their lived experience, belonging is certainly plural (Antonsich, 2010; Davis et al., 2018; Yuval-Davis, 2006). Whereas earlier studies describe how refugee-background youngsters can have a sense of in-betweenness whereby they feel that they belong neither to the place of origin nor the place of resettlement (Miled, 2020; Osman et al., 2020; Valentine et al., 2009), the youngsters in this study articulated their experiences differently and in more positive terms. They described their sense of belonging to both localities as a combination, like Lina (g16) who said: “Actually, I just see it as a mix.”

Regarding youngsters’ personal dimension of their feeling of belonging toward Syria, emotional attachment is mainly described in terms of autobiographical factors; it is the place where they were born and partly raised. Participants based their belonging on a Syria that was safe and existed in their childhood memories. Since safety currently is lacking in Syria, their belonging has an imaginary character (Chen & Schweitzer, 2019; Ghorashi, 2004). Whereas a sense of belonging toward Syria is presented almost as something to be taken for granted, belonging in Rotterdam is a feeling that most participants developed during their first years of resettlement. This belonging is shaped by an increased familiarity with Rotterdam – more specifically with its language, culture and public space – and a restored sense of normalcy fostered by living safely in a house with their family, having friends and attending school. The absence or presence of extended family members can affect feelings of belonging toward Rotterdam, Syria or other places. Being imbedded in a broader family network in the Netherlands, can make an important difference to a youngster’s sense of belonging in Rotterdam (see also: Ryan, 2023). It is important to realize that the above mentioned elements – familiarity, normalcy, family network – are all impacted by immigration-, education and housing policies, and thus policy makers and societal organizations can play a important role ininfluencing youngsters’ feelings of belonging toward their place of residence (see also: Van der Ent, 2023).

Some of the above findings are part of the Antonsich (2010) framework, as the cultural (language, culture) and relational factors (friends) of personal belonging are clearly identifiable. Others do not fit the framework well and require its adjustment. For example, Antonsich (2010) understands the importance of school as an economic factor, because it prepares pupils for labor market participation and fulfilling future aspirations. This study shows, however, that attending school has a greater significance as it provides young people with a routine that structures life and makes it more meaningful. Furthermore, the importance of youngsters’ living in a house and knowing the physical environment well emphasizes the importance of materiality of belonging (see also: Boccagni & Hondagneu-Sotelo, 2021; Lähdesmäki et al., 2016). Adding a spatial factor would therefore improve the completeness of Antonsich’s framework.

Besides the personal dimension, this study included the social dimension of belonging to examine how belonging is negotiated within the broader societal structure (Antonsich, 2010; Davis et al., 2018; Wernesjö, 2014; Yuval-Davis, 2006). Approaching inclusion and exclusion as a continuum (Fejes & Dahlstedt, 2020) increases the understanding of their lived experiences and the consequences for belonging. Although half of the young people discussed incidents of exclusion, it seems that these negative encounters are outweighed by inclusionary experiences. Whereas previous studies have stressed that exclusion heavily hinders young people’s sense of belonging (e.g. Caxaj & Berman, 2010; Uptin et al., 2013; Valentine et al., 2009), the youngsters in this study bring nuance to this image, stressing that exclusionary encounters only have a temporary impact on their feelings of belonging and therefore underline its context-dependency (Lähdesmäki et al., 2016). Furthermore, a striking finding of this study is that some of the youngsters interviewed were critical of peers who excluded them and refused to grant them belonging, because – in their view – they do not have the power to do so. They qualify these peers as non-Dutch because of their parents’ migration background, and therefore argue they are not eligible to decide who may belong. In other words, in negotiating their belonging, the young people with a refugee background claim their belonging toward Rotterdam regardless of peers who refuse to grant them belonging.

Since this study illustrates that feelings of belonging are dynamic – emotional attachment to Rotterdam has developed, can sometimes be impeded and may change in the future – it is useful if research could further contribute to the understanding of this dynamic, for example by longitudinally studying belonging. Additionally, the divergence experiences of Zeynep and Yassir, who do not feel belonging toward Rotterdam, have emphasized that belonging is not something that develops automatically once certain (personal and social) requirements have been fulfilled. Although an unsatisfying explanation may be that belonging will always have an inexplicable personal element, additional research that unpacks belonging further could make an important contribution to the literature. It may be considered as a limitation that this study focussed on a specific population in a particular city, and therefore questions on the broader applicability of the findings are valid. Although this qualitative study does not make claims on including a representative group of youngsters, I do expect that especially the findings on the personal dimension of belonging – i.e. increasing familiarity, gaining a sense of normalcy and presence of family - are relevant to other groups and contexts as well. It is likely that the specific context of the highly diverse city of Rotterdam has influenced these youngsters’ sense of belonging. It is puzzling, however, whether this influence is positive (e.g. because a high level of ethnic diversity may make them feel less different) or negative (e.g. as they reported exclusion by peers with a migration background, who are in greater numbers in the city) or both. A comparative study on belonging in various cities and smaller towns could provide more insights into this. Another possible limitation of this study is that for a few participants, an interpreter could have helped in adding depth to their answers. Although I have deliberately chosen to interview youngsters without an interpreter and am convinced this worked well for most of them, a few youngsters might felt limited in communicating complexities in their belonging.

Overall, this study reveals a rather positive story: a few years after resettlement, all of the youngsters were still feeling emotionally attached to Syria and almost all had developed a sense of belonging toward Rotterdam. As such, it underlines their resiliency after finding refuge in the Netherlands and shows how they became accustomed to their new city and regained a sense of normalcy in life that fostered their belonging. This is important since belonging is crucial for their adjustment to the new situation, and also a basic human need that is essential for well-being and a good quality of life.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Correction Statement

This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Notes

1 A five-year residence permit is the common residence permit for people with a refugee status in the Netherlands. After this period expires, permit holders can apply for permanent residency provided that their country of origin is still unsafe and they have not committed any criminal offenses (Government of the Netherlands, n.d.). The youngsters in my study did show worries about whether their temporary residence permit would be converted in a permanent residence permit, as the war in Syria and the unsafe circumstances still continue.

2 This integration program of SNTR aimed to facilitate the integration of Syrian families with intensive guidance, predominantly focused on adults. It might be suggested that this makes the studied population of young people quite specific. However, the evaluation research of the Bridge research project analyzed several integration indicators and found no significant differences in integration between people who participated in the STNR programme and people who did not (Dagevos & Van der Linden, 2021). In other words, participation in SNTR programme has not led to ‘better’ integration or to more feeling of belonging. Furthermore, the SNTR programme for young people was relatively limited. For youngsters, participation in education can be seen as the most influential ‘intervention’ (McBrien, 2005; Sedmak et al., 2021) and this condition is equal for youngsters in families that participated in the SNTR programme and families that did not. For these reasons, my expectation is that the findings in this paper are not only valid for Syrian-born young people who were part of the SNTR programme but are more widely applicable.

3 The research proposal was submitted to and approved by the ethics committee of the Department of Public Administration and Sociology of the Erasmus School of Social and Behavioural Sciences at Erasmus University Rotterdam.

4 These interviews were used for other publications as well. In addition to this article, the collected data is used for other academic publications and are part of the author’s dissertation (Van der Ent, 2023).

5 All participants are anonymized, and pseudonyms are used in this paper. Some of the interviewed youngsters had a Kurdish or Christian background and a corresponding name that was recognizable as such. However, for reasons of anonymity, it was decided to give all participants frequently occurring Syrian (and thus Arabic) names.