Redefining Home: Adaptive Transnationalism in the Migration of Tatar Women from Russia to Kazakhstan

Öz

This study explores the experiences of Tatar women who migrated to Almaty, Kazakhstan following Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Employing theoretical frameworks of transnationalism and intersectionality, we analyze these women's migration experiences, religious practices, and identity formation processes. Based on in-depth interviews with ten Tatar women migrants, the research reveals how they navigate multiple identities, maintain and transform transnational connections, and construct new forms of belonging in their host society. Our findings demonstrate that these women are not merely navigating between two worlds, but actively creating new, transnational ways of being. Their stories highlight how migrants creatively adapt to new environments, negotiate multiple identities, and form communities that transcend traditional national and ethnic boundaries. Drawing on these insights, we propose a new conceptual framework of "Adaptive Transnationalism," which captures the dynamic process through which migrants actively reshape their identities, practices, and social connections in response to new cultural contexts, while maintaining and transforming ties to their places of origin. This framework offers a fresh perspective on how migrants actively shape their experiences and identities across borders, providing a valuable tool for navigating the complexities of modern migration and fostering more inclusive and adaptive societies.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Tatar Women
• Migration
• Transnationalism
• Intersectionality
• Kazakhstan

Evi Yeniden Tanımlamak: Tatar Kadınların Rusya'dan Kazakistan'a Göçünde Uyarlanabilir Ulusötesicilik

Öz

Bu çalışma, 2022 Rusya-Ukrayna savaşı sonrasında Kazakistan'ın Almatı şehrine göç eden Tatar kadınların deneyimlerini incelemektedir. 10 katılımcıyla yapılan derinlemesine görüşmeler aracılığıyla, bu kadınların yeni bağlamlarında toplumsal cinsiyet, etnisite, din ve göçmen statüsü kesişimlerini nasıl yönettikleri araştırılmaktadır. Çalışma, kimlik oluşumu ve topluluk inşası süreçlerini analiz etmek için ulusötesicilik, kesişimsellik ve İslami feminizmi birleştiren teorik bir çerçeve kullanmaktadır. Bulgular, katılımcıların "uyarlanabilir ulusötesicilik" ile meşgul olduklarını, Tatar miraslarıyla bağlantılarını yaratıcı bir şekilde sürdürürken Kazak toplumuna entegre olduklarını göstermektedir. Birçok kadın, göç sonrası İslami inançlarının derinleştiğini, çoğunlukla yerinden edilmenin zorluklarına bir yanıt olarak bildirmektedir. Araştırma, katılımcıların Tatarlar, Müslümanlar, Rusça konuşanlar ve Kazak toplumunun yeni üyeleri olarak çoklu, bazen çatışan kimliklerle nasıl başa çıktıklarını vurgulamaktadır. Dil, entegrasyonda kritik bir faktör olarak ortaya çıkmakta, Kazakça öğrenme çabaları daha geniş sosyal kabul için kapılar açmaktadır. Ekonomik entegrasyon önemli zorluklar sunmakta, birçok kadın yeni bağlamlarında profesyonel kimliklerini yeniden inşa etmektedir. Genel olarak, çalışma göç, ulusötesi kimlikler ve diaspora topluluklarında dini uygulamaların toplumsal cinsiyet boyutları hakkındaki anlayışımıza katkıda bulunmaktadır. Tatar kadınların geleneksel ulusal ve etnik sınırları aşan yeni aidiyet biçimleri oluşturmadaki failliğini ve direncini vurgulamaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Tatar kadınları
• göç
• ulusötesicilik
• kesişimsellik
• Kazakistan

Kaynakça

1. American Anthropological Association. (2012). Statement on ethics: Principles of professional responsibility. Arlington, VA: American Anthropological Association.
2. Badran, M. (2009). Feminism in Islam: Secular and religious convergences. Oneworld Publications.
3. Bauder, H. (2003). "Brain abuse", or the devaluation of immigrant labour in Canada. Antipode, 35(4), 699-717. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1467-8330.2003.00346.x
4. Biernacki, P., & Waldorf, D. (1981). Snowball sampling: Problems and techniques of chain referral sampling. Sociological Methods & Research, 10(2), 141-163. https://doi.org/10.1177/004912418101000205
5. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
6. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Sage.
7. Clark, T. (2011). Gaining and maintaining access: Exploring the mechanisms that support and challenge the relationship between gatekeepers and researchers. Qualitative Social Work, 10(4), 485-502. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325009358228
8. Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989(1), 139-167.

9. Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241-1299. https://doi.org/10.2307/1229039
10. Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into Practice, 39(3), 124-130. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip3903_2
11. Deakin, H., & Wakefield, K. (2014). Skype interviewing: Reflections of two PhD researchers. Qualitative Research, 14(5), 603-616. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794113488126
12. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2011). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research. Sage.
13. England, K. V. (1994). Getting personal: Reflexivity, positionality, and feminist research. The Professional Geographer, 46(1), 80-89. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0033-0124.1994.00080.x
14. Finlay, L. (2002). "Outing" the researcher: The provenance, process, and practice of reflexivity. Qualitative Health Research, 12(4), 531-545. https://doi.org/10.1177/104973202129120052
15. Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. Basic Books.
16. Glick Schiller, N., Basch, L., & Blanc-Szanton, C. (1992). Transnationalism: A new analytic framework for understanding migration. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 645(1), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1992.tb33484.x
17. Glick Schiller, N., Çağlar, A., & Guldbrandsen, T. C. (2006). Beyond the ethnic lens: Locality, globality, and born-again incorporation. American Ethnologist, 33(4), 612-633. https://doi.org/10.1525/ae.2006.33.4.612
18. Göle, N. (2013). The voluntary adoption of Islamic stigma symbols. Social Research: An International Quarterly, 80(4), 1009-1030. https://doi.org/10.1353/sor.2003.0005
19. Graney, K. E. (2019). Russia, the former Soviet republics, and Europe since 1989: Transformation and tragedy. Oxford University Press.
20. Heckathorn, D. D. (2011). Comment: Snowball versus respondent-driven sampling. Sociological Methodology, 41(1), 355-366. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9531.2011.01244.x
21. Hondagneu-Sotelo, P. (2000). Feminism and migration. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 571(1), 107-120. https://doi.org/10.1177/000271620057100108
22. Israel, M., & Hay, I. (2006). Research ethics for social scientists. Sage.
23. Japanese Society of Cultural Anthropology. (2008). Nihon bunka jinrui gakkai rinri kouryou (The JASCA ethics code). Japanese Society of Cultural Anthropology.
24. Jouili, J. S. (2015). Pious practice and secular constraints: Women in the Islamic revival in Europe. Stanford University Press.
25. Koch, N. (2013). The 'heart' of Eurasia? Kazakhstan's centrally located capital city. Central Asian Survey, 32(2), 134-147. https://doi.org/10.1080/02634937.2013.802487
26. Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009). InterViews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing. Sage.
27. Laruelle, M. (2014). The three discursive paradigms of state identity in Kazakhstan. In M. Y. Omelicheva (Ed.), Nationalism and identity construction in Central Asia: Dimensions, dynamics, and directions (pp. 1-20). Lexington Books.
28. Levitt, P., & Glick Schiller, N. (2004). Conceptualizing simultaneity: A transnational social field perspective on society. International Migration Review, 38(3), 1002-1039. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-7379.2004.tb00227.x
29. Levitt, P., & Jaworsky, B. N. (2007). Transnational migration studies: Past developments and future trends. Annual Review of Sociology, 33, 129-156. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.33.040406.131816
30. Light, I., & Gold, S. J. (2000). Ethnic economies. Academic Press.
31. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.
32. Lo Iacono, V., Symonds, P., & Brown, D. H. (2016). Skype as a tool for qualitative research interviews. Sociological Research Online, 21(2), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.5153/sro.3952
33. Louw, M. E. (2007). Everyday Islam in Post-Soviet Central Asia. Routledge.
34. McCall, L. (2005). The complexity of intersectionality. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 30(3), 1771-1800. https://doi.org/10.1086/426800
35. Mir-Hosseini, Z. (2006). Muslim women's quest for equality: Between Islamic law and feminism. Critical Inquiry, 32(4), 629-645. https://doi.org/10.1086/508085
36. Mirza, H. S. (2013). 'A second skin': Embodied intersectionality, transnationalism and narratives of identity and belonging among Muslim women in Britain. Women's Studies International Forum, 36, 5-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wsif.2012.10.012
37. Norton, B. (2013). Identity and language learning: Extending the conversation. Multilingual Matters.
38. Noy, C. (2008). Sampling knowledge: The hermeneutics of snowball sampling in qualitative research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 11(4), 327-344. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645570701401305
39. Omelicheva, M. Y. (2011). Islam in Kazakhstan: A survey of contemporary trends and sources of securitization. Central Asian Survey, 30(2), 243-256. https://doi.org/10.1080/02634937.2011.567069
40. Omelicheva, M. Y. (2016). Islam and power legitimation: Instrumentalisation of religion in Central Asian States. Contemporary Politics, 22(2), 144-163. https://doi.org/10.1080/13569775.2016.1153287
41. Pessar, P. R., & Mahler, S. J. (2003). Transnational migration: Bringing gender in. International Migration Review, 37(3), 812-846. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-7379.2003.tb00159.x
42. Ro'i, Y., & Wainer, A. (2009). Muslim identity and Islamic practice in post-Soviet Central Asia. Central Asian Survey, 28(3), 303-322. https://doi.org/10.1080/02634930903421863
43. Sakurama, M. (2022). Tatarusutan kyouwakoku ni yoru diasupora seisaku to kakuchi no tataru komyuniti (Diaspora policy by the Republic of Tatarstan and Tatar communities in various regions). In Akashi, J. (Ed.) Iju roudou to diasupora seisaku: Kokkyou o koeru hito no idou o meguru soushutsukoku no pasupekutibu (pp. 260-283). Tsukuba daigaku shuppankai.
44. Sharafutdinova, G., & Turovsky, R. (2017). The politics of federal transfers in Putin's Russia: Regional competition, lobbying, and federal priorities. Post-Soviet Affairs, 33(2), 161-175. https://doi.org/10.1080/1060586X.2016.1163826
45. Vertovec, S. (2001). Transnationalism and identity. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 27(4), 573-582. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691830120090386
46. Vertovec, S. (2004). Religion and diaspora. In P. Antes, A. W. Geertz, & R. R. Warne (Eds.), New approaches to the study of religion (pp. 275-304). Walter de Gruyter.
47. Vertovec, S. (2009). Transnationalism. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203927083
48. Wertheim, S. (2012). Gender, nationalism, and the attempted reconfiguration of sociolinguistic norms. Gender & Language, 6(2), 261-289. https://doi.org/10.1558/genl.v6i2.261
49. Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods. Sage.