GERMANNESS OR RIGHTS? Second Generation Young Adults and Citizenship in

Contemporary Germany

Daniel Williams Sociology and Anthropology, Carleton College

ABSTRACT

Scholarship on citizenship—in its definition as nationality or formal member-ship in the state—has been both the basis for evaluating and comparingnational citizenships as “ethnocultural” or “civic,” and used to imply themeaning of citizenship to prospective citizens, particularly immigrants andnon-citizen residents. Doing so ignores a perspective on citizenship “frombelow,” and oversimplifies the multiplicity of meanings that individuals mayattach to citizenship. This article seeks to fill this gap in scholarship byexamining young adult second-generation descendants of immigrants inGermany. The second generation occupies a unique position for examiningthe meaning of citizenship, based on the fact that they were born and grewup in Germany, and are thus more likely than adult immigrants to be ableto become citizens as well as to claim national belonging to Germany.Among the varied meanings of citizenship are rights-based understandings,which are granted to some non-citizens and not others, as well as identitar-ian meanings which may depend on everyday cultural practices as well asnational origin. Importantly, these meanings of citizenship are not arbitraryamong the second generation; citizenship status and gender appear toinform understandings of citizenship, while national origin and transnationalties appear to be less significant for the meaning of citizenship.

KEYWORDS

citizenship; ethnicity; immigration; transnationalism; identity

Citizenship of Citizens

Scholarship on citizenship—defined as nationality or formal membershipin the state—has been largely state-centered.1 Such state-centered scholar-

German Politics and Society, Issue 107 Vol. 31, No. 2 (Summer 2013): 30–48doi:10.3167/gps.2013.310204 • ISSN 1045-0300 (Print) • ISSN 1558-5441 (Online)

ship has been the basis for evaluating and comparing national citizenshipsas “ethnocultural” or “civic,” by implying the meaning of citizenship toprospective citizens, particularly immigrants and non-citizen residents, andtheir supposed motives and reasons for becoming or not becoming citizens.Doing so eliminates a perspective of citizenship “from below,” and poten-tially oversimplifies multiple meanings of citizenship. Previous scholarshiphas shown that the meaning of citizenship to ordinary people can bothdiverge from the meanings articulated in state policies and by state actors,and that there are a wide range of meanings among ordinary people. AsCynthia Miller-Idriss finds, “…a nation-state’s legal policies for citizenshipand naturalization cannot be automatically extrapolated to the understand-ings of citizenship among ordinary citizens in their everyday lives.”2

Citizenship is fundamentally a status, which may be tied to both rightsand identities.3 In practice, this means that citizenship itself is not bynecessity tied to any particular right or identity; rather, it confers a givenright or identity only in specific times and places (e.g., the right to vote inGermany in the year 2000).4 State-centered scholarship points to these twodimensions of citizenship. Rogers Brubaker, in his well-known compari-son of France and Germany, showed that citizenship policies of the statecould in large part be explained by understandings of nationhood—a kindof “identity.”5 Put simply, the self-understanding of the nation informedwho was considered a member of the nation and who was entitled tomembership in the state. Citizenship is also often associated by both statesand citizens with rights.6 “Postnational” scholarship on citizenship empha-sizes the lack of rights associated with formal membership in the state, andwith it the notion that citizenship has lost its relevance.7 Yasemin Soysalhas illustrated that national states no longer are guarantors of social andeconomic rights: “… guestworkers without formal citizenship status havebeen incorporated into various aspects of the social and institutional orderof their host countries.”8 Similarly, David Jacobson finds that “[c]itizenshiphas been devalued in the host countries…citizens have felt no compellingneed to naturalize even when it is possible.”9 Tomas Hammar also pointsto the blurred citizen-foreigner distinction, emphasizing that there arenon-citizens who have “full access to the labour market, business, educa-tion, social welfare”—a group of persons he describes as “denizens.”10

Beyond this basic bifurcation of the meaning of citizenship, however, itis critical to consider that the second generation is not equally situated inrelation to German citizenship and potentially also national belonging or“Germanness.” This is both because of the range of rights and identitiesthat may be tied to citizenship, and that some may be more decisive and

••• 31 •••

Germanness or Rights?

important than others for different individuals. Non-citizens from Europeanmember states are entitled to dual citizenship and freedom of movementacross borders of European Union (EU) member states.11 In addition, indi-viduals of certain nationalities may be viewed as “less” German or lessassimilable than others on the basis of a supposed greater difference anddistance from an imagined Germanness. In light of this potential diversity,this article seeks to begin to answer the question of how ordinary people—specifically, second-generation descendants of immigrants—understandGerman citizenship. Do second generation immigrants frame their own cit-izenship or non-citizenship in terms of rights, national belonging, both, orneither? Do the meanings of citizenship vary among them, and if so, how?

I consider ten second-generation young adults of immigrant backgroundof various national origins and citizenship statuses and the meanings theygive to German citizenship. I subsequently consider their self-identificationas German, as a way of testing the relationship between Germanness andcitizenship for these individuals. All of these young adults ranged in agebetween eighteen and twenty-three, and, with the exception of one, were insecondary school in Berlin and Munich. They were all eligible for Germancitizenship, whether they were citizens or non-citizens. In terms of age,social class, and citizenship status, therefore, they comprise a small andspecific sample of second-generation young adults. As second-generation“immigrants,” or individuals who were born in and/or have grown up inGermany, they represent the potentially wide range of meanings of citizen-ship and Germanness. On the one hand, by virtue of their long residenceand/or birth within the state, they may make a claim to territorial as well ascultural belonging more easily than most first generation immigrants. Theyare also more often eligible to become citizens. On the other hand, ethno-culturally defined citizenship and Germanness, transnational orientations,and racial formation may all constrain their tendency to both identify asGerman and become German citizens.12

Framing Citizenship: Germanness or Rights?

German citizenship has historically been marked by an ethnoculturalisttendency—or a privileging of descent over residence in conferring citizen-ship. It has often been contrasted with French and American territorial orcivic traditions, where place of birth has been more important to citizen-ship status.13 In 1999, however, with the passing of a new Citizenship Law,birthright citizenship (jus soli)—based on birth within the territory of the

••• 32 •••

Daniel Williams

state—was introduced for the first time in modern German history. Withthe same law, naturalization requirements were reduced. Though thesechanges in German citizenship were remarkable from the state-centeredand comparative perspective, they tell little about how individuals’ under-standings of citizenship, or tendencies to naturalize, changed. Using mea-sures such as naturalization rates to draw conclusions about “inclusion” or“identification” misses a critical aspect of citizenship: that its meaning canvary, even while always informing the decision to naturalize as well as notto naturalize. If a given individual identifies citizenship with nationalbelonging and Germanness but does not identify as German, they willmost likely decide not to become a citizen. In contrast, another individualwho also does not identify as German, but views citizenship in terms ofrights, would be likely to become a citizen. Thus, citizenship rates alonereflect nothing about why people become citizens, only that they do so.

Among the ten second generation individuals I consider below, threedifferent frames of citizenship were articulated. Two of these frames werebased on national belonging: an ethnocultural Germanness frame and acivic Germanness frame. A third frame was based on rights. These frameswere not only cognitive—in the sense of being orientations towards citizen-ship—but also practical, as I show. They were related to whether individu-als were or were not citizens.

Citizenship as Ethnocultural Germanness

The legacy of German citizenship has been its ethnoculturalist character—the refuting of being a citizen based on territorial or civic criteria. Implicitwithin the ethnocultural understanding of citizenship is the idea thatdescent confers culture and ethnicity, and that citizenship should be basedon such a descent-based ethnicity. These two assumptions of the ethnocul-tural frame are summarized clearly by Brubaker’s seminal work on citi-zenship and nationhood:

The ethnocultural inflection of German self-understanding and German citi-zenship law makes it difficult to reconcile—in the political imagination ofGermans and immigrants alike—the preservation of Turkish cultural identityand autonomy, for example, with the acquisition of German citizenship.14

Such an understanding was important for the way that two individuals ofimmigrant background made choices about citizenship. One Italian-Ger-man student, M., articulated the meaning of citizenship to him:

I: Have you ever thought about getting German citizenship?M: I don’t want to.I: Can you tell me more?

••• 33 •••

Germanness or Rights?

M: My parents are both Italian. Yes, I was born here, but when I was littlewas always in Italy for half a year or so. And then starting in Kindergarten Iwas really here, but always in Italy for vacation. I speak Italian at home. Idon’t want to be a German citizen.I: Why not?M: Because my parents are Italian. And I consider myself Italian. I don’twant to lose my roots.

(Italian/Italian)15

M. sees citizenship as a means to maintain his “roots,” and as reflective ofhis national belonging to Italy—rather than Germany. Another individual,G., who was born in Germany, and had the option of becoming a Germancitizen, described how his citizenship was tied to his being Turkish, whichhe wished to express through military service in Turkey:

I: What does citizenship mean for you? You said you will keep your Turk-ish passport. What does that mean for you?G: For me, first of all, I want to do my military service in Turkey, thoughit’s not clear if I will do just one month or the full 18 months. It depends.But that’s one of the most important reasons for me to keep my Turkish citi-zenship. I would be happy to serve my country and make my mother andfather proud by doing so.

(Turkish/Turkish)

Most clear in his statement is that “his country” is Turkey, not Germany.Both individuals chose to keep their respective non-German citizenship,and foresaw no change in their plans for the future. Their statements alsoshow that for them a conversation about citizenship was simultaneously aconversation about national belonging. They were not ambivalent aboutwhich citizenship they would choose or keep. Finally, they also made nomention of how they were perceived by others, or of any experiences thatmay have confirmed their sense of national belonging. In this way, theydiffered from most other interviewees that I consider below.

Citizenship as Civic Germanness

The ethnocultural frame expressed above, though historically part of theGerman tradition, nonetheless represents only one way in which German-ness was framed. National belonging and “nationness” do not necessarilymean belonging in a descent-based, or even ethnic, sense. Two otheryoung adults saw citizenship as civic Germanness in which citizenshipconferred belonging, regardless of whether they gained rights, or felt Ger-man culturally. These individuals saw their citizenship as a means bywhich to claim Germanness. B., who was of Pakistani descent, articulatedthis sense of citizenship:

••• 34 •••

Daniel Williams

I: And what does it mean for you to have a German passport? Or Ger-man citizenship?B: On the one hand, it...identifies me. It says you are part German. Andwhen I have a passport, I have something. I have security. No one can kickme out of the country or something. And I’m German for them actually. Ijust don’t look German, but generally on the inside and in terms of my char-acter, how I talk, I am. It gives me identity, on the one hand, and securityon the other.

(Pakistani/German)

Importantly, she makes a distinction between being a German citizen andbeing “really” German. At the same time, she both recognizes that shemay not “look” German, but that that is offset by her “official” German-ness as a citizen. Another student, S., made this distinction as well:

I: What does citizenship mean for you? Not the laws from the govern-ment, but for you, what does it mean to have a German passport?S: Not that much. But I think, when you have a German passport you feelrecognized. You have the feeling you are accepted by the country and that isan assurance, that really guarantees and confirms that you are, and are rec-ognized as, German.

(Afghan/German)

Importantly for both of these individuals, citizenship confers a sense ofGermanness.

Beyond this sense of German citizenship as recognition and accep-tance, both of these individuals also felt that they were German in a cul-tural sense. B., for instance, articulated her sense of cultural belonging,though she emphasizes that this falls short of making her a “real” German:

I: Can you say that you feel German in any way?B: Well, somehow yes, I do say I am German because you have to realizeI live here. And I speak the language. I know what makes people tick here,and it’s the same as what makes me tick. But at the same time, I have myown culture. That’s the thing. I say I’m not really German, not a real Ger-man ... but that I have some part of me that is German.

S. also talked about her cultural belonging in Germany:

S: I do [feel German]. I don’t think of it in terms of ‘I would rather be thisthan that’ ... I am [culturally] half Afghani, half German. But I was bornhere, I am integrated, I feel at home here. I don’t have a problem with Ger-man culture or whatever. I accept both cultures.I: So you feel like you are Afghani also?S: Exactly. It just depends. For example, when I go to an Afghani event,then I conform to Afghan culture ... I try to speak Afghani to people, etcetera, and when I am at a German event, I do the same with German. It alldepends on the situation.

••• 35 •••

Germanness or Rights?

These two young adults claimed a cultural Germanness through residence,language, and place-based familiarity. Yet, importantly, they did not iden-tify as only German, but rather as German in a hybrid or situational sense.B.’s statement in particular shows ambivalences and contradictions throughher first asserting that she is the same as Germans in a deeply culturalsense, but then qualifying it by saying she is not “really” German. S. callsherself Afghani and German, choosing to identify with each situationally.

Citizenship as Rights

For all other second generation interviewees, having German citizenshipmeant having particular rights. The majority of second generation youngadults, in fact, framed citizenship in this way rather than in terms of Ger-manness. Bearing in mind the postnational critique of national citizenshipas decoupled from rights, the fact that a majority of young adults viewedrights as the primary meaning of citizenship is significant. Most social andeconomic rights in Germany are accessible with residence without citizen-ship, as postnationalists argue. Under the current citizenship policies, citi-zenship confers only two national rights: the right to vote, and the right towork in civil service, or public sector occupations. Still, even though fewrights are conferred by citizenship, rights remained not only the dominantassociation with citizenship, but also were important enough for mostinterviewees to prefer German over other citizenships.

While focusing on the role of supranational institutions in guaranteeingparticular rights, the postnational critique tends to de-emphasize and missthe way in which certain rights are conferred by supranational citizen-ships, in which national citizenship is “nested.”16 In the case of Germancitizenship, the European Union is critical in this respect. Citizens of Euro-pean Union member states share common rights denied to non-EU citi-zens. In some Länder, EU citizens who are not German citizens havevoting rights in local elections. EU citizens are also allowed to have dualcitizenship.17 Finally, EU citizens have the right of free movement acrossborders of other EU member states. These rights are neither universal norguaranteed to citizens of non-EU member states.

Among the rights associated with citizenship by interviewees, travelwas nearly universally mentioned. D., a Gymnasium student who becamea citizen in her teens, talked about travel through the difficulties of nothaving a German passport:

I: And what does it mean for you to have a German passport?D: To be honest, on the one hand, not much. Because it’s not very impor-tant to me what is on a piece of paper, if I am German, Turkish ... I don’t

••• 36 •••

Daniel Williams

place much value on that. But I’d say, it’s not totally unimportant. Becauseyou won’t get very far if you don’t... for example if I had a Turkish passport,I’d have more problems. And based on that I can’t say it’s totally unimpor-tant. But ... if I have a German passport, for example, if I want to go to theUSA later, it’s easier, I think, when you apply for a visa.

(Turkish/German)

By stating that citizenship “isn’t important to her,” D. suggests that citizen-ship does not say very much about who she is—in contrast to the youngadults who viewed citizenship in ethnocultural and civic national terms.When asked to elaborate on the “problems” encountered when one doesnot have German citizenship, she explains that not only is it easier totravel with a German passport, but it is easier to travel to her parents’country of origin—Turkey:

I: And that’s what you mean by problems? You just mentioned problems ...D: Yes, exactly. If I go to Turkey, with the embassies, on the border. That’sjust been my experience. They used to always make us wait longer. Theylook for problems. Make endless calls to Germany, how it is in Turkey orsomething ... so, yeah it’s pretty bad.

D.’s rights-oriented citizenship was also expressed in her lack of interest indual citizenship. As she articulated, having Turkish citizenship in factmade her ability to travel to Turkey more rather than less difficult.

For F., who was a German citizen of Palestinian background, rightswere also important, and the only benefit or meaning of citizenship:

I: So what does this passport mean for you? F: It’s just a piece of paper. For me, it’s good. ... if you have a Palestinianpassport, you can’t go to Palestine, Jordan, the USA, you can’t go anywhere.With a German passport you can go everywhere! It’s positive. But it’s just apiece of paper that lets you travel everywhere.

(Palestinian/German)

Another student, K., who was not yet a citizen but intended to naturalize,articulated a strict difference between German citizenship and being Ger-man while describing how citizenship was only useful to him in terms ofthe rights he would gain:

K: I have more advantages with a German passport. For example, thissummer I’m going to Canada for three weeks, but it’s really difficult with myBosnian passport because of the visa, etc. With a German passport I get avisa immediately and there are no problems. And things are just easier witha German passport.I: What does citizenship, and having a passport mean for you?K: Well, I wouldn’t attach anything emotional to it. I wouldn’t say ‘wow,I’m a citizen,’ I would just say, ‘great, advantage for my career, and I can’t bedeported. I’ll only have more advantages with the [German] passport here.

(Bosnian/German)

••• 37 •••

Germanness or Rights?

One of the provisions of the new Citizenship Law of 2000 was that it wasmade retroactive to persons born starting in 1990. These same individualscould be dual citizens up until the age of twenty-three. O., a Gymnasiumstudent who was part of this first generation of jus soli citizens describedhis reason for choosing German over Turkish citizenship:

I: How did it happen? Did the German authorities notify you and say“you have to give up one of your two citizenships,” or ...?O: We got a letter in the mail saying I was at the age where I shoulddecide. I talked about it with my parents and it was clear right away, Ger-man [citizenship]. As I was saying, traveling in and out is just easier with aEuropean passport.I: Did you talk about which citizenship you would choose? Or was itpretty clear you would take the German one? Did you discuss it at home?O: Well, I have to say. Until recently, it wasn’t really an issue for us. Myfather told me he thought I should take German citizenship, I asked himwhy. And he named the advantages, for the future, for travelling abroad.And then I asked my mother. German is probably better, she said. Whenyou get older, or retire, or spend the last years of your life, whether in Ger-many or Turkey, you can change it again, she said.

(Turkish/German)

Here again, travel is mentioned first and foremost as a reason for choosingone citizenship over another. But, just as importantly, O. associates thisright with a “European” passport, rather than a German passport specifi-cally, implicitly referencing the nested nature of national citizenship.

Others framed citizenship as rights, but found the rights attached to citi-zenship not to be important enough to actually become a citizen. E., aclerical worker in her early twenties in a Turkish organization, who wasborn and grew up in Germany, and was married to a German citizen ofTurkish descent, found citizenship largely unimportant for her:

I: Have you thought about getting German citizenship?E: No, not at all. I never even thought about it. I: What does the passport mean to you? Is it important?E: Not that important. Regardless of whether I have a German ID or aTurkish passport, it doesn’t matter. Mainly you can travel with a GermanID. That’s the only thing it matters for. Otherwise it’s not important.

(Turkish/Turkish)

The relative unimportance of her citizenship was reinforced when she wasasked about whether she would like to have dual citizenship:

I: Would anything be different if you could have dual citizenship? E: I don’t know what advantages I’d have, if I applied for German citizen-ship. My husband has it, but he needed it to study overseas. So he has thatadvantage. I just don’t know what advantages I’d have.

(Turkish/Turkish)

••• 38 •••

Daniel Williams

E. articulates that if she in fact would become a citizen, it would be for therights that citizenship would afford her. Her lack of “need” for German cit-izenship, however, may also be partly explained by her marital status andgender: her husband does have German citizenship since he travels, whileshe made no mention of travel, or traveling to Turkey. She apparentlydoes not need German citizenship for her work or in her everyday life, oris unaware of how it would help her.

N., a student in Munich whose parents came from Serbia to work inGermany thirty years earlier, had no immediate intention of becoming acitizen, but thought that he would soon. He emphasized that citizenshiphad little to do with “who he was:”

I: So as of now you have a Serbian passport. What will you do? Do youthink you will become a citizen?N: Well, I don’t see any problem with that. It’s kind of too bad, I have tosay. But if it does something for me, you know, I know who I am, a piece ofpaper doesn’t say anything. I’m not going to change my name or somethingto “Hans Dieter:” It’s just citizenship, no big thing.

(Serbian/Serbian)

Rights-Based Citizenship and Germanness

The individuals above all frame citizenship in terms of rights. Though citi-zenship is often linked to national belonging by the state and state actors—through citizenship policies which attempt to ensure the Germanness,however defined, of those of immigrant background—national belongingappears to play no role in the decision to become or not become a citizenfor this group. I now consider whether these young adults saw themselvesas German, as well as how they defined Germanness.

D., a German citizen who spoke of the easing of border crossing intoTurkey, whose parents were from Turkey but were ethnically Persian,emphasized her cultural and territorial Germanness as a basis for identify-ing as German:

I: Would you say that you feel German in any way?D: Of course. I was born here. I live here and I’d like to keep living here. Ihave German friends, I am integrated here. I don’t know, sometimes I say Iam “German with migration background.” That I have Persian roots, Ispeak two other languages plus German … somehow it’s a part of me … itjust is. I belong to many cultures, and I’m also part of the German onesomehow. I’m a mix.

E., who was not a citizen described how she would rather live in Ger-many, though she was of Turkish descent and still had a Turkish passport:

I: Do you feel German in any way?

••• 39 •••

Germanness or Rights?

E: Well, let’s put it in a way that Turks say: “when we’re in Turkey, we arecalled German, and when we are here, we’re called foreigner.” Of course it’sthat way. If someone asks me whether I’d rather live here or in Turkey, I’dchoose here, because I’ve also grown up here. I don’t know if I could spendthe rest of my life in Turkey, because where you are born and grow up is themost important thing, I’d say.

Importantly, E. articulates a common narrative of being “always a for-eigner.” Rather than talking about Germanness, she shifts her answer totalk about where she would rather live. Her sense of belonging is territor-ial, based on where she was born and grew up—Germany.

One distinction among all second generation young adults was betweenthose who understood Germanness as a self-asserted identity, and otherswho saw it as an externally-imposed ascribed identity.18 D.’s self-identifica-tion with a hybrid Germanness resembles the self-identification of B. andS., who viewed their own Germanness in hybrid, cultural and territorialterms. In contrast, those who framed citizenship in ethnocultural terms(M. and G.), not only kept their respective non-German citizenships, butalso talked about their lack of Germanness in an asserted sense—theybelieved that they were fundamentally different from “Germans,” and thatthis difference had little or nothing to do with how they were perceived ortreated by others in everyday life in Germany. For others who framedGermanness in terms of rights, however, Germanness was an externallyascribed category which was imposed on them regardless of not only theirGerman citizenship, but even of their own self-understanding and identifi-cation as German. F., who was Palestinian-German, described the fact thatshe would never be German to others, regardless of what she would do:

I: Do you feel German in any way?F: Hm ... no. Actually not at all. Maybe a little bit... what does ‘German’even mean? I mean... I feel Arab, not German. German is just what is on thepiece of paper. How I really feel is Arab. Not even a little German! (laughs)I: Is there any special reason why? F: Ok, for example. I just know a few Germans. I know nice Germans andnot so nice ones. I live in Treptow, which is a German neighborhood. Andwhen you go to East [Berlin], Köpenick or places like that, people look atyou strangely, it’s not very nice. For instance, when a German comes to ourcountry, we look at them nicely. But here you notice, that people don’t likehaving you here. So you really feel like a foreigner. I can’t feel Germanbecause I’m not shown that I am German, that’s it.

She expanded on this externally-defined Germanness by pointing to othermarkers of difference that she experienced:

I: Why do you think people see you immediately as a foreigner?

••• 40 •••

Daniel Williams

F: (Pointing to head scarf) The way I look. But even so my friend, who hasblack hair but dresses normally, they still say “oh look at that foreigner.”Why? Because she has black hair, that’s it. It’s really too bad.

Importantly, she states that it is not only the head scarf—as a marker of being“non-German” along differences of religion, ethnicity, and national origin—which excludes someone from Germanness, but race, as elicited throughhow one “looks” and phenotype. Many others described this racialized Ger-manness. O., for instance, talked about how he did not feel “that Turks andGermans were as different as everyone thinks.” Yet, he described his inabil-ity to become German as based on his not “looking” German:

O: I mean, we are foreigners here. That doesn’t change with a passport.Just like you can’t change skin color or other things ... religion for example.You can’t cash it in. In the end you don’t belong 100 percent to this country.You aren’t Germanic or really German. Yeah you have the German pass-port, formally, German. Maybe you feel (German) culturally a little. But,you are not really German. At the very least in an argument with a Germansuddenly he will say “what do you want you stupid foreigner?” So you getback into that situation and say “ok I don’t completely belong here.” I: And why not? Why do you say you can’t be completely Germanic?O: The problem is simple. When you see me, I don’t look very German,as people imagine German to be.

K., who was born in Bosnia but had lived in Germany since age threeand was planning to get his German citizenship in the next year articu-lated his non-Germanness also in terms of being excluded by others, how-ever he also described his non-Germanness in an asserted sense, based onhis “ethnicity” which he defined in racial and cultural terms:

I: Do you feel German in any way?K: Not at all. I’m not German.I: Why not?K: Because I’m not German ethnically.I: What do you mean ethnically?K: If I have a German passport, I’m only a member, according to my defi-nition, of the Federal Republic of Germany. I belong to this state but not tothe population.I: Why not? Can you tell me more about this ethnic ...K: I can’t identify with Germans. I don’t have blond hair, I’m not Christ-ian, nor is German my native language. And I have a completely differentculture. That’s the point. I don’t feel German at all. And I’m also not seen asGerman by the Germans.I: Have you experienced that?K: Mm hm ... when I go anywhere here, they say, “where are you from?”When I say Kreuzberg, Berlin, then they say, “No, what country are youfrom originally?” ... they never mean what part of Berlin are you from. It

••• 41 •••

Germanness or Rights?

doesn’t matter if you were born there or have lived here for three genera-tions, like most Turks, they only ask what country you are from.

Similarly, N., who was ambivalent about becoming a citizen, also sawhimself as “not German:”

I: And, do you feel German in any way?N: Well, it’s kind of strange. Here in Germany you’re basically labeled Ser-bian; but over there in Serbia you are basically “the German.” I personallyfeel Serbian. During the Eurocup, I was a fan for Serbia. (laughter) Well, notexactly labeled. But no one would say I’m German or something like that.I: Why not?N: I don’t really look like it, first of all ... and I don’t consider myself Ger-man. I feel more Serbian, and more identify that way than as German.

Among those who framed citizenship as rights there were strong simi-larities. The particular emphasis on travel and access to other EU countriesis critical and clearly contradicts the importance of citizenship as access torights within the state; these individuals said little or nothing about rightswithin Germany, even in a future hypothetical sense. That travel was themost important of rights is quite significant and revealing of the impor-tance of national origin and citizenship options of these young adults whowere all of non-EU descent. If their countries of origin were member statesof the European Union, they would already possess the travel rights thatthey seek with German citizenship. Many of those in the rights-basedgroup also appeared to be quite casual about citizenship and the rightsthey attach to it. Though somewhat conjectural, both the casualness oftheir statements and the almost singular emphasis on travel may be effectsof age. The two rights still clearly tied to German citizenship—voting rightsand the right to work in civil service occupations—could quite conceivablybecome more important with age and as these young adults leave schooland enter the labor force.

Perhaps most interestingly, these young adults talked about how theywere excluded from Germanness, largely based on phenotype and not“looking” German, more clearly and emphatically than all of the others.Though this was not true for all individuals who viewed citizenship asrights, it was true for four of the six. Finally, most of these individuals werecitizens, and two expressed an openness or intention to become a Germancitizen. This suggests that the rights they seek, however trivially they arearticulated, outweigh reasons for choosing non-German citizenship.

••• 42 •••

Daniel Williams

Comparing Citizenship and Germanness Across Groups

The second generation individuals considered here are clearly differenti-ated by understandings of citizenship and Germanness, but they also differby national origin and gender. At the same time, they share commonexperiences across these differences as second generation individuals,many of which are often hypothesized as being significant for citizenshipas well as national belonging. I now briefly consider whether or not differ-ences of national origin or gender were patterned in any way acrossunderstandings of citizenship and Germanness. I then turn to two emer-gent “variables”—transnational ties and family and parental influence—which were commonly mentioned by interviewees, to see whether theywere related to particular understandings of citizenship and Germanness.

National Origin and Gender

Perhaps surprisingly, the particular national origins of these young adultsseemed to matter little to how they viewed citizenship, though the verysmall sample size limits the conclusiveness of this statement, as does theoverrepresentation of some nationalities. For instance, not “looking” Ger-man was not confined to Turkish-Germans, or non-Europeans, nor was ittrue that all persons of Turkish descent articulated this narrative of exclu-sion from Germanness (e.g., D., E., G.). Nevertheless, that such racial nar-ratives about exclusion and “looks” would apply to individuals ofnon-European national origin as a group suggest a pattern. A more inclu-sive sample with different European-origin individuals represented mightbear this out.

In contrast, an observable pattern gleaned from this small set of inter-views is the way in which the gender of interviewees was correlated toparticular frames of citizenship and Germanness. Though the sample wasdivided evenly between male and female individuals, no male identifiedcitizenship as a path to German identity through either an ethnoculturalframe or a civic Germanness frame. On the other hand, three of the fournarratives about racialized exclusion were articulated by young men,while the two “civic Germanness” interviewees, who also self-identifiedas culturally German in a hybrid sense, were both women. Recent schol-arship on gender and nation has suggested that immigrant, Muslim, and“foreign” men in particular occupy an important and stigmatized posi-tion in relation to German national identity, by which some men mayfeel or be equally or more excluded from national membership than“foreign” women.19

••• 43 •••

Germanness or Rights?

Transnational Ties and Being “At Home” in Germany

Nearly all second-generation young adults had the experience of visitingtheir parents’ country of origin, usually annually and often for visits of sev-eral weeks or longer during the school breaks. As several intervieweesattested, the nearly universal experience during such visits was of beingcalled “German” or “the German.” But importantly, this particular experi-ence had no clear impact on the tendency to view citizenship in one wayor another, nor to identify as German in any particular way. Among thosewho mentioned or talked about travelling back to their parents’ countriesof origin were at least one individual from each group. The more univer-sal impact of such an experience on most was to confirm that they wouldprefer or choose to live in Germany, as N. and E., who framed citizenshipas rights, stated. Moreover, the value placed on ease of travel was not usu-ally about ease of travel back to their parents’ countries of origin (thoughin one case, it was), rather, it was about travelling to other countries withinEurope or farther abroad. For some others, the experience solidified boththeir choice to live in Germany and a sense of belonging and being athome there, as for B.:

I felt much, much better [when I came back to Germany]. I thought I’mreally at home now. While I was in Pakistan, I really thought a lot about it,and I realized how attached I am to Germany, and my home—Berlin … Iwould say my home is now Germany-Berlin. Just that I’m of Pakistanidescent … somehow I can’t say that I’m a German and I also can’t say I’mPakistani. I’m an in-between person.

The sense of familiarity with life in Germany also extended to those whodid not identify as German. In spite of this narrative about exclusion fromGermanness, K., for instance, saw his future in Germany and not inBosnia, articulating his sense of place in Germany through an analogy toAfrican-Americans:

I do have a relationship to this country. It’s my home, I can definitely say.I’m from another country originally, but I am happy here. And I want tospend the rest of my life here. So, it’s my state... I just don’t feel connectedto the people. Maybe you can compare it to the usa. Because African-Amer-icans don’t feel connected to White Americans either.

Family Influences

Notably, several individuals (M., G., O.) also talked about the involve-ment of parents and families in their decisions about citizenship. One ofthe arguments utilized by political parties in favor of dual citizenship inthe citizenship debates of the late 1990s was that forcing the second gener-ation to choose one citizenship (presumably German) over another would

••• 44 •••

Daniel Williams

lead to an emotional disconnection and distress with their parents.20 Thismay be the case for the two ethnoculturally oriented respondents, but it isnotable that the third respondent, O., described how both of his parentsurged him to choose German citizenship, and that it was “clear rightaway” that he should do so. The larger implication of such a response isthat families and parents have different expectations for their childrenrelated to citizenship.

Conclusion: Multivocal Citizenship and Germanness

Though state-centered scholarship on citizenship has been used as a basisfor making claims about both the rights and the identity dimensions of citi-zenship, doing so has eliminated the perspective of citizenship “frombelow.” Given the very small sample size considered here, broad conclu-sions about the second generation’s understandings and meanings of citizen-ship and Germanness are limited. The statements of these interviewees doillustrate, however, that a wide variety of understandings of both citizenshipand Germanness exist among second generation young adults of immigrantbackground. The meaning of citizenship among second generation youngadults included both rights-based and identitarian understandings. Thatthere is a diversity of understandings points out that citizenship and Ger-manness are not univocal even among a specific and small subset of individ-uals of the same generation, education, and urban residence/location.

Most second-generation individuals saw German citizenship in terms ofrights, specifically the right to travel. Four individuals viewed citizenshipin identitarian terms. Of these, two viewed their citizenship and nationalbelonging as synonymous—those who framed citizenship ethnoculturally—with each individual choosing to keep their non-German citizenship. Twoother individuals saw citizenship as a recognition and confirmation oftheir national belonging; they believed that they would be viewed asbelonging to the nation based on their membership in the state.

Understandings of Germanness also varied among second generationyoung adults. Interestingly, differences in understandings of citizenship (asethnocultural, civic cultural, and rights) did correlate with particularunderstandings of, and self-identification as, German. For the ethnocul-tural group, there was no distinction between their sense of nationalbelonging and their citizenship. They also did not mention any distinctionor tension between their own sense of national belonging and how othersviewed them. They viewed being German as clearly distinct from being

••• 45 •••

Germanness or Rights?

some other nationality, both culturally and in terms of citizenship. In con-trast, those who saw citizenship as “civic Germanness,” each claimed acultural Germanness as well, while also viewing Germanness in hybrid orsituational terms. They articulated some tension between how they viewedthemselves and how they believed others viewed them. Finally, those whoviewed citizenship as rights predominantly viewed themselves as excludedfrom Germanness.

Though some individuals identified as culturally German—througheveryday life, language, and feeling “at home” in Germany, none identi-fied as only German and nothing else. Those who did identify as Germanqualified their identities, stating they were not “real” Germans. German-ness, then, appears to have multiple dimensions—one cultural and achiev-able, and another ethnoracial and ascribed. Without both, or perhaps onlythe latter, it still appears to be difficult for the second generation to imag-ine a Germanness without descent.

Table 1: Interviewees

National Identity- Identity-Interviewee Origin Citizenship Gender Ethnic Civic Rights

M. Italian Italian M xG. Turkish Turkish M xB. Pakistani German F xS. Afghani German F xD. Turkish German F xF. Palestinian German F xK. Bosnian Bosnian* M xO. Turkish German M xE. Turkish Turkish F xN. Serbian Serbian M x

* intends to naturalize

Finally, what remains ambiguous from these second generation individu-als is the extent to which the meanings they give to citizenship and German-ness, respectively, are framed nationally, postnationally, or transnationally.In regards to citizenship, few individuals preferred or chose their citizenshipthrough consideration of one nation-state. Arguably, only the two youngadults who viewed citizenship as civic Germanness did so. Those whoviewed citizenship as instrumental for rights referenced the experience ofcrossing borders, and the limitations of holding a non-EU citizenship. Thosewho chose non-German citizenships based on their national origin thoughthey lived in Germany clearly were making a transnational choice.

••• 46 •••

Daniel Williams

The same variations can be seen when considering Germanness. Onthe one hand, the ethnocultural, hybrid, and racialized senses of German-ness, seem to be framed in diverse ways. Those who described a racializedexclusion from Germanness referenced experiences within Germany. Thiswas in stark contrast to the ethnocultural group, who made no mention ofexperiences of exclusion, but showed their transnational orientations byhighlighting their commitments to or experiences in the countries theyidentified with. Finally, those who identified in hybrid terms articulatedclearly transnational narratives of national belonging.

DANIEL WILLIAMS is Visiting Assistant Professor in the Department ofSociology and Anthropology at Carleton College. In addition to citizen-ship and immigration in contemporary Germany, he also does researchon and teaches in the areas of comparative ethnic studies, gender, religion,and popular culture, in both Europe and the U.S.

Notes

1. See Rogers Brubaker, Citizenship and Nationhood in France and Germany (Cambridge,1992); Yasemin Soysal, The Limits of Citizenship (Chicago, 1994).

2. Cynthia Miller-Idriss, “Everyday Understandings of Citizenship in Germany,” Citizen-ship Studies, 10 (2006): 542.

3. Christian Joppke, “Transformation of Citizenship: Status, Rights, Identity,” CitizenshipStudies, 11 (2007): 37-48.

4. Christian Joppke, “Citizenship Between De- and Re-ethnicization,” in Migration, Citizen-ship, Ethnos, eds., Y. Michal Bodemann and Gökçe Yurdakul (Houndmills, 2006), 63-91.

5. Brubaker (see note 1). 6. See Claudia Diehl and Michael Blohm, “Rights or Identity? Naturalization Processes

among ‘Labor Migrants’ in Germany,” International Migration Review, 37 (2003): 133-162.

7. Tomas Hammar, Democracy and the Nation-State: Aliens, Citizens and Denizens in a World ofInternational Migration (Aldershot, 1990); Soysal (see note 1)

8. Soysal (see note 1), 2.9. David Jacobson, Rights Across Borders: Immigration and the Decline of Citizenship (Balti-

more, 1997), 9.10. Hammar (see note 7), 13.11. Simon Green, “Between Ideology and Pragmatism: The Politics of Dual Nationality in

Germany,” International Migration Review 39 (2005): 921-952.12. See Steven Vertovec, “Conceiving and Researching Transnationalism,” Ethnic and Racial

Studies, 22 (1999): 447-462; Stephen Castles and Mark J. Miller, “The Migratory Processand the Formation of Ethnic Minorities,” in The Age of Migration: International PopulationMovements in the Modern World, Stephen Castles and Mark J. Miller (New York, 2009),19-47.

••• 47 •••

Germanness or Rights?

13. Simon Green, “Beyond Ethnoculturalism: German Citizenship in the New Millen-nium,” German Politics 9 (2000): 105-124.

14. Brubaker (see note 1), 178.15. Notation for Interviewees: (National Origin/Citizenship).16. Peter Kivisto and Thomas Faist, Beyond a Border (Thousand Oaks, 2010), 245.17. See Green (see note 11).18. See Stephen Cornell and Douglas Hartmann, Ethnicity and Race: Making Identities in a

Changing World, 2nd ed. (Thousand Oaks, 2007), on the ascribed/asserted distinction.19. Katherine Ewing, Stolen Honor: Stigmatizing Muslim Men in Berlin, (Palo Alto, 2008), 5.20. Green (see note 13).

••• 48 •••

Daniel Williams

Copyright of German Politics & Society is the property of Berghahn Books and its contentmay not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyrightholder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles forindividual use.