Immigrants and home in the making: thresholds of domesticity, commonality and publicness

Abstract

The search for home as a material and symbolic space is an increasingly salient social question across contemporary multiethnic cities. The boundaries between what is public, communal and domestic are increasingly contested and yet remain a crucial issue, especially for minority groups such as immigrant and ethnic communities. The domestication of everyday living spaces carried out by immigrant and ethnic groups entails a variety of ways of 'cultivating home'. In a context characterized by transnational mobility, ethnic segregation and social marginality, domesticity-understood as the potential to enact a domestic dimension in meaningful places-is an important asset to resist present hardships, cultivate memory and lay out projects for the future. In this Editorial, we seek to untangle the multiple stakes entailed by the practices of 'making home' and 'feeling at home'. We invite scholars to observe how, even in minute and mundane details, dwelling places and the built environment come to be imbued with social and cultural meanings, which are pivotal to survival and social recognition. The articulation of domesticity, commonality and publicness can be fruitfully mapped through the concept of 'thresholds', which brings together the case studies that follow. By doing so, this Special Issue as a whole lays out a new research agenda at the intersection of housing, urban and migration studies.

The Neighbourhood in Pieces: The Fragmentation of Local Public Space in a Swedish Housing Area

“…We studied everyday life, especially in the spring and autumn of 2014, noting the variety, extent and duration of different activities. These studies also included the attendance of the largest neighbourhood event, the annual Fäladskalaset, in and 2015. (cf.…”

“…They play an important part in the production of private and public space. The territorial borders between public and private are always multiple and dependent on the situation; public spaces might, for example, be domesticated to become appropriated and part of home‐making (Koch and Latham, ; Boccagni and Brighenti, ; Mandich and Cuzzocrea, 2016); homes might be stigmatized and seen as a matter of concern for people outside the home, and so on. Taking a territorial perspective of space, one soon realizes that all spaces are full of different kinds of territorial productions; there are multiple associations, appropriations, strategies and tactics at play.…”

Roma, Adequate Housing, and the Home

“…The direct involvement of individuals in this process thus creates an attachment to the broader context that enables them to engage within the broader community (Brun 2015;Cancellieri 2017). Contemporary works within the field of sociology stress the link between the creation of bonds within the familiar private space and the level of engagement within the communal and public spheres (Thévenot 2015;Boccagni and Brighenti 2017). Furthermore, the house can become a space of resistance for oppressed groups that do not have a voice within the public space (bell hooks 1990).…”

La casa di chi? Da territorialità esclusive verso territorialità inclusive: rileggere il lavoro di comunità in contesti di nuova immigrazione

“…Chiedersi dove ci sente a casa, rispetto a qualsiasi spazio pubblico o privato, vuol dire investigare come si gestisce la tensione dialettica tra gli spazi e i confini di ciò che è privato, pubblico e comune, con le rispettive soglie di passaggio e di accessibilità (Boccagni, Brighenti, 2017): da quelle più visibili e tangibili (muri, cancelli, divieti di accesso, orari di accesso) a quelle immateriali, non immediatamente percepibili ma spesso altrettanto cogenti (come la percezione diffusa di certi spazi come più adatti e appropriati per alcune pratiche che per altre, o per alcuni profili di utenti più che di altri, anche a seconda dei momenti della giornata).…”