migration as freedom - umb...1 migration as freedom freedom has a thousand charms to show that...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Migration as Freedom
Freedom has a thousand charms to show
that slaves, how’ er contended, never know
William Cowper, 1782 “Table Talk”
2
3
Abstract This thesis explores the connections between migration, freedom and development
through the theoretical framework of the capability approach and the case study of four
female Polish migrants to Norway. The central questions I ask are -Can migration lead to
freedom? And -Can development be conceptualized as freedom? Capability scholar
Amartya Sen argues that development is freedom, a perspective with far-reaching
implications, which has yielded many interesting strands of critique. I scrutinize the
freedom migrants can achieve from five distinct areas of life: the migrants’ choice to
migrate; the properties of their work and their attachment to the legal work sphere; their
financial situation and the emphasis they put on money; their health and how it has been
affected by the migration; and finally how gender has influenced on their migratory
experience and their view of gender in a normative sense. I find that migration has indeed
enhanced their freedoms in various areas of life, and discuss the conceptualization of
development as freedom, drawing on Marxist perspectives to argue the centrality of
social structures and processes in development.
Acknowledgements Thanks to my supervisor Knut Nustad for good feedback and encouragement and to Poul
Wisborg at Noragric for reading my proposal and theory chapter and guiding me in the
right direction.
Great thanks to the Centre for Gender Research at the University of Oslo for
granting me a student seat; it has made all the difference during my thesis work! Thanks
to my co students and the other employees at the Centre for good discussions and
sociability throughout the period. I also wish to thank Yngvil and the rest of my family
for patience and support throughout my masters’ degree and thesis work especially.
Thanks to Aase and Axel who have read the thesis and made critical comments to it.
Last but not least thanks to my informants, who were welcoming and engaged
during our conversations, and who made many interesting comments and made the basis
for my analysis. All of them made substantial contributions.
4
5
Table of contents MIGRATION AS FREEDOM...........................................................................................................................1
ABSTRACT ..........................................................................................................................................................3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................................................3
TABLE OF CONTENTS ....................................................................................................................................5
INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................................8
LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................................................................12
MIGRATIONAL THEORY ...................................................................................................................................12 Transnationalism........................................................................................................................................14
GENDER IN MIGRATION ...................................................................................................................................15 Women in post-communist Poland............................................................................................................16 Feminism in Poland ...................................................................................................................................18
MORAL PHILOSOPHY........................................................................................................................................19 Utilitarianism .............................................................................................................................................20 John Rawls..................................................................................................................................................21 Summing up ................................................................................................................................................23
THEORY CHAPTER........................................................................................................................................24
THE CAPABILITY APPROACH...........................................................................................................................24 Development as Freedom ..........................................................................................................................27 Terms and definitions.................................................................................................................................31 Differences and similarities between Sen and Nussbaum .......................................................................33 Women and Human Development .............................................................................................................36 The question of the list ...............................................................................................................................38 The List of Central Human Functional Capabilities ...............................................................................40
CRITIQUE OF THE CAPABILITY APPROACH .....................................................................................................43 Operationalization .....................................................................................................................................43 The individualism critique .........................................................................................................................45 Marxist critique ..........................................................................................................................................46 In sum..........................................................................................................................................................49
METHODS CHAPTER ....................................................................................................................................50
OPERATIONALIZATION: THEMES .....................................................................................................................50 Choice .........................................................................................................................................................51 Work ............................................................................................................................................................52
6
Money..........................................................................................................................................................53 Health..........................................................................................................................................................53 Gender.........................................................................................................................................................54
CRITERIA FOR INFORMANTS ............................................................................................................................55 WHERE TO FIND THEM? ...................................................................................................................................57 ETHICS..............................................................................................................................................................58
Four interrelated areas of ethical concern...............................................................................................59 Depositing the data ....................................................................................................................................61
FOUR MIGRANTS’ STORIES.......................................................................................................................64
THE INFORMANTS.............................................................................................................................................64 THE COURSE OF THE INTERVIEWS ...................................................................................................................66
Helena .........................................................................................................................................................67 Beata ...........................................................................................................................................................68 Malgorzata..................................................................................................................................................69 Agnieszka ....................................................................................................................................................71
THE STRUCTURE: THEMES ...............................................................................................................................72 Methodologically distinguishing features of the themes..........................................................................74 Theme 1: Choice.........................................................................................................................................76 Theme 2: Work – The Fafo questionnaire ................................................................................................81 Theme 2: Work – The Informants’ own perceptions................................................................................84 Theme 3: Money .........................................................................................................................................89 Theme 4: Health .........................................................................................................................................95 Theme 5: Gender........................................................................................................................................97 Gendered activities.....................................................................................................................................99 Norwegian independence.........................................................................................................................101 Gendered work .........................................................................................................................................104 In sum........................................................................................................................................................108
CONCLUSION.................................................................................................................................................110
HOW HAS MIGRATION LED TO FREEDOM?.....................................................................................................111 CAN FREEDOM BE CONCEPTUALIZED AS DEVELOPMENT?............................................................................116 QUESTIONS ARISING FROM THIS RESEARCH..................................................................................................118
APPENDICES ..................................................................................................................................................122
APPENDIX 1: INTERVIEW GUIDES ..................................................................................................................122 English interview guide ...........................................................................................................................122 Norwegian interview guide......................................................................................................................124
7
APPENDIX 2: QUOTES FROM CHAPTER “FOUR MIGRANTS’ STORIES”, IN NORWEGIAN ..............................126 The informants..........................................................................................................................................126 Theme 1: Choice.......................................................................................................................................127 Theme 2: Work: The informants’ own perception .................................................................................128 Theme 3: Money .......................................................................................................................................130 Theme 4: Health .......................................................................................................................................131 Theme: Gender .........................................................................................................................................132 Norwegian independence.........................................................................................................................132 Gendered work .........................................................................................................................................134
REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................................136
8
Introduction What are the connections between migration, freedom and development? Much has been
written about the developmental effects of migration, the dynamics between migration,
remittances and development, or more often, lack of developmental effects from
remittances; and about the migrant as a developmental resource.
The goal of my research is to analyze migration from a freedom-centered
perspective, scrutinizing the idea that development can be conceptualized as expansion of
freedom; that development can be measured from what people are actually able to and be:
their capabilities. The overarching questions I wish to illuminate through my research are
thereby:
Can migration lead to freedom? Can development be conceptualized as freedom?
My question is whether the migrants I have interviewed, exercised freedom when
migrating; freedom of choice, freedom to move, freedom to live the life that they, on
reflection, found valuable; or whether it was the only option available; hence not a
choice, and hence not an expression of freedom, but of necessity.
This thesis offers an alternative understanding of the connection between
migration and development, and its freedom focus and individual approach differs from
much conventional migrational theory, which focuses on instrumental value of migration
and generally on societal and individual problems related to migration, such as brain
drain, dependence, forced migration and loss of identity and community, alternatively the
creation of new ones.
The argument of central capability approach scholar Amartya Sen is that this
freedom constitutes development and that freedom is the only viable conceptualization of
development. Other scholars within the field contest this insistence on freedom, holding
that it is not sufficient for all capabilities. The capability approach has been subjected to
several valuable criticisms, some of which I will present and use to add perspectives to
my data.
9
Also scholars adhering to completely different views of development have
contested the capability approach. Questions of brain drain are not easily dismissed, but
rather pose serious problems for many countries; it can hardly be called development
when students leave their third world home country when ready to join the professions, in
stead of using their sorely needed competence at home? Or can it? Also, the question of
democracy, civil and political rights as conducive to economic development, is highly
contested. Is it not of higher necessity to provide for economic and material needs, than
the right to vote? I will discuss these questions briefly, and present and discuss the
capability approach’s answers to three standardized critiques. I will limit the investigation
of contesting theories to two “background theories”: John Rawls’ theory of justice and
utilitarianism.
The cases I use to discuss the potential for liberation from migration are four
Polish women who have migrated to Oslo, Norway. The cases are very different from
each other, in terms of integration into the Norwegian society, the length of their stay in
Norway, and their perspective for the future. Helena is 23 years old, newlywed and works
as a nanny: “We saw no sense in staying when there were no job possibilities”. Beata is
43, and couldn’t bear the separation from her migrant husband, and the mounting
economic pressure at home: “But you know, I don’t dream of black job!” Malgorzata is a
forty something, successful business woman who ventured out from communist Poland in
her early twenties. Agnieszka has been in Norway for over thirty years, has a Norwegian
education on top of her Polish one, belongs to the intelligentsia and fled from the
suppressive communist regime: “Freedom has always been very important to me”.
I use five aspects of their migration and their lives in Norway, operationalized into
themes, to discuss their freedom and development, and the applicability of the capability
approach. I will argue that the “cases”, the people suffering from deprivation, or in my
case: the migrants, themselves must be at the centre stage when discussing and
concluding about empowerment, liberation and development.
The thesis consists of four major chapters: literature review, in which I will sketch
three relevant areas of research: migrational theory, gender and moral philosophy; theory
chapter; in which I will present the capability approach, discuss its usefulness in the
context of my thesis, and make substantial counterarguments; methods chapter, in which
10
I will give an outline of the data gathering process and ethical issues; and finally the data
chapter “Four migrants’ stories”; where I will present my findings and discuss them
with the tools of the capability approach. Finally I will conclude and make some policy
recommendations.
11
12
Literature review In this chapter I will give a brief overview of the bodies of existing academic literature
that I view to be especially relevant for my thesis. As I research female migrants in a
development context, applying the capability approach, I focus on three areas of extra
importance. There are many interesting frameworks for analysis of this type of data, and
many areas of research that would put my research in perspective. However, in the vast
field of research, I have chosen to sum up the field of earlier migrational theories, and
focus on one school of thought dominant in understanding migration in a multicultural
society: transnationalism.
Furthermore, I give a brief outline of gender in migration, looking also into
women’s position in Poland after communism.
Finally, I sketch the moral philosophical context in terms of looking into John
Rawls’ Theory of Justice and Utilitarianism, respectively, as they are theories that
Amartya Sen positions himself in relation to, and he pioneered the capability approach as
an answer to these frameworks, arguing that they were inadequate and focussing on the
means rather than the goals of development.
My thesis is thereby situated in the crossing point of migration, gender, freedom
and development, and applying the freedom-centered perspective on migration
contributes with a new perspective on development and freedom also.
Migrational theory During the past two decades, the academic literature and research on migration, and its
development generating effects, has turned away from a purely economic understanding,
to encompass other aspects that influence the migrant’s choice and behaviour, and the
effects of migration. In earlier thinking, the migrant was understood as a homo
13
oeconomicus, a rational actor maximizing his own gain1. Migration was understood as a
rational response to an imbalance in economic development in sending and receiving
countries, labelled push and pull factors. However, newer theories view economic
disparities as a necessary but not sufficient condition for migration (Massey et al, 1998).
Factors such as moral economy, household diversification of risk and the wish for a
better life have, to a varying degree, been included in the study of migration.
Anthropologists and ethnographers, sociologists and political scientists have entered the
field and challenged the economic hegemony and provided alternative perspective.
The understanding of the individual rational actor as the principal unit for
analysis was challenged by the so called New Economics of Migration, emerging in the
1980s (Massey et al, 2006).This school of thought, staying within the economic
paradigm, added the perspective of the household (and other culturally defined units) as
an important decision-making and productive unit, understanding migration as household
diversification of risk. During the 1990s, several studies were published showing the
importance of induced or demand-driven migration (Basch, Glick-Schiller and Blanc-
Szanton 1994) These studies tended to put less emphasis on the individual decision done
by potential migrants and on the push factors of the sending country, and rather focus on
what is seen as a built-in demand for foreign labour in the pull countries. These studies
draw on the so called Dual Labour Market Theory (Massey et al, 2006), which argues
that migration takes place first and foremost because of a constant demand for man power
in the capitalist economies of the so called developed world, and the labour market
dynamics between the developed and developing world. The developing world is in this
view reduced to a labour market reserve for the economies of countries in the North and
West. Yet other theories add alternative perspectives to migration, such as the Network
Theory, (Massey et al, 2006) focusing on the importance of an existing network of
migrants and institutions for the individual migrant, emphasizing that streams of migrants
often go from and to the same destinations. This is because, so the argument goes, it is
1 I write “his” because there was a male bias in conventional research, as female migrants were
assumed to migrate only to “accompany or to reunite with their breadwinner migrant husbands”
(Mahler and Pessar, 2006: 27).
14
easier to migrate to a place where you have family or a community than it is to break new
ground. Institutional Theory focuses on the increase in institutions that facilitate
migration, such as migration agencies transmitting contact between individual would-be
employees and employers in foreign countries or regions; official programs facilitating
exchange of human resources, as for example is the case in the Philippines with various
types of personnel, most notably nurses. The perpetual and increased migration seen on a
global scale is explained by these institutions functioning as engines; in them selves
inducing migration.
There is no clear hegemony in the field at present, rather the different theories,
and adaptations and versions of them, contribute to diversifying the field and open up to a
range of different explanatory models. One trend in newer migration theory is that focus
has shifted somewhat away from only explaining the reasons for migration, and now also
includes theories explaining migration as an ongoing, social process. The conventional
understanding focused on the economic aspects of migration, or rather on the financial
consequences migration had for the community that the migrant had left behind, rather
than focus on the lives of migrants in their “host” country. A range of frameworks for
understanding of migration and multiculturalism have been launched, one of which I will
now look into.
Transnationalism
Even though international migration has taken place for centuries, it is now more
commonplace than ever. Higher numbers of people live and work outside their countries
of birth now than during even the periods of high migration from the old world, Europe,
to the new world, America and Australia (Ibid, Smith and Guarnizo 1998). In the face of
this unprecedented scale of migration, researchers within fields of cultural and identity
studies, alongside with migration researchers, work to develop theories that can explain
how migrants conduct their lives in the new society, while keeping close the family,
community and culture of “home”. Taking the opposite position of the economistic
rational-actor view, the literature on transnationalism argues that it is more fruitful to
understand migration as a continuing process than as a cycle, structured by national and
15
immigration policies, class, gender, ethnicity and religion and by networks of kinship and
household. Ideas and theory formation about transnationalism emerged in the late 1980s,
to comprehend how migrants build and sustain ties with “home”, rather than to
comprehend their incorporation and assimilation into the new society, which had been the
perspective of generations of scholars prior to this time (Mahler and Pessar 2006).
Researchers within the school have focused on a wide range of issues related to
migration, spanning from international politics to individual identity formation.
Migration and the social practices of migrant groups have been viewed by some
as “a counternarrative to the nation” (Bhabha 1990:300), with embedded resistance
towards majority society, culture and state’s policies. This euphoric approach to
international migration has been contested by other scholars within the field, who point to
how migration is shaped within asymmetric power structures of family, race, class,
ethnicity and gender. Indeed, argue Smith and Guarnizo, “transnational practices
sometimes even perpetuate the asymmetry in which it is embedded” (1998: 6). Thus, the
result of migration might be that instead of creating a radically new ‘resistant’ and
liberating hybrid identity, the migrants idealize the culture and values of the homeland,
and become ‘more catholic than the Pope’. The group identity of an ethnic minority
group might then incorporate traditionalistic ideas that typically have very different
implications for men and women. Formation of identity is a highly gendered space, and
the expected characteristics, values and practices of, say, a Polish woman in Norway
might be different from the expectations towards a Polish woman in Poland. And they
would surely be different from the expectations towards men in either country.
Gender in Migration Gender was long an ignored factor in migrant studies (Mahler and Pessar 2006). In the
1970s, some researchers sought to make up for this skewed focus by including sex as one
of many variables into their quantitative research. In the following, I will argue that
research doesn’t become gendered just by adding a variable. Increasingly towards the
turn of the millennium, researchers have sought to incorporate gender by conceptualizing
it as relational and situational, meaning that the significance of sex is seen as dependent
16
on various societal structures, and that sex has influence on those structures in a
reciprocal way. In order to not just study men’s lives, it is necessary to appreciate that
gender has bearings on most aspects of the lives of women and men. The aim is to see
migrants and the structures shaping migration as gendered from the outset of the research,
not simply “add women and stir” (Peet 1999: 169).
Yet, despite this development, gender is not readily included in the vast majority
of research on migration, on the contrary, “gender has encountered resistance and
indifference in immigration scholarship” (Hondagneu-Sotelo and Cranford, 1999: 106).
These scholars argue that the background for this resistance can be found in multiple
sources of marginalization: disciplinary, methodological and ideological. One difficulty
with incorporating gender is that it is such a slippery concept, deeply embedded in all our
everyday practices and in our identities, and therefore, perhaps, difficult to distinguish.
Gender is dynamic, meaning it has different importance depending on the situation, and it
is “entwined with other structures of difference, such as race, class, generation and sexual
orientation” (Mahler and Pessar, 2006: 37). Thus gender cross-cuts other structures and
demands a specific approach and a central positioning.
One ideological challenge emerging in the later years is that virtually all research
labelled “gender” is only about women. There was a time when the all-male focus of
conventional research demanded a corrective, but those days are gone, argue Mahler and
Pessar. “Our points is that scholarship on gender has moved much beyond male versus
female analysis” (Ibid: 51), and thus the time has come to recognize men as gendered
objects, and subject the gendered structures shaping their migration to research.
This imbalance in the research body is part of the background for why my thesis
is about female migrants only: because the academic literature and frameworks are in one
sense adjusted to women’s realities, and not to men’s.
Women in post-communist Poland
In the study of post-communist societies, some have taken gender as their starting point
in analysing the transformatory processes in the new capitalist democracies of Eastern
Europe, scrutinizing gender as a shaping factor in the economies (Gal and Kligman
17
2000); and the difficulties experienced by women in particular after 1989, in terms of
unemployment and sinking real income rates (Ibid, World Bank 2004). Research has
been produced to document the backlash against women’s human rights in the post-
communist era (Ibid, Einhorn 2000, Coyle 2007).
This body of research is relevant to my thesis because it gives an understanding of
the structures shaping the lives of the informants and the contexts in which their choices
to migrate was made.
There can be little doubt that the pulling back of the communist welfare state has
affected women more severely than it has men. Women are harder hit by the crumbling
of systems such as maternity leave, health services for children and other care dependent
members of society, day care facilities, etc (Coyle 2007). In addition, it is generally
agreed (Gal and Kligman, 2000) that women were harder hit by unemployment and
financial insecurity after the societal structure ruptured than were men. This can partly be
explained by the highly gender segregated labour market of communist Poland, where
women and men held different types of jobs when working within the same sectors, and
statistically most men and women worked in sectors separate from each other. The
unemployment sky rocketed in the early 1990s till it reached 17% for women (14 %for
the total population) in 1993. Fluctuations were small during the 1990s, and in 1999 the
unemployment rate was at 11 %. It then soared to 20 % in the years between 2002 and
2004, but has been sinking since then, and has now sunk again and is currently at 11 %
(GUS 2008). The unemployment rate has in general been two to three percent higher for
women than for men in the post-communist era. The Central Statistical Office of Poland
states: “the economically inactive part of the population is highly feminized as over two
thirds of it constitutes women” (GUS 2008).
The gendered development of life in the post socialist society, has prepared the
ground for a mass emigration. While Polish women migrate to a great extent to Great
Britain and other European countries, the Polish migrants to Norway constitutes of
around 70% men (SSB 2005). This can be explained by the employment opportunities for
men being much better than for women, and recruitment agencies in male dominated
sectors such as construction work have been very active in inducing Polish Norwegian
migration over the last years.
18
Feminism in Poland
As I will analyze migration in a gendered perspective, discussing the gendered
experience of migration with the informants, and also their views on gender roles on a
normative level, a little background knowledge on current view of gender equity and
feminism in Poland is necessary. The development in post socialist Poland seen
exclusively through the lens of Western feminist discourse might fail to recognize aspects
of society that work for the advancement of women in Poland. Eastern European
feminism has its own set of historically shaping structures, which makes impossible a
direct “translation” from Western European feminism to Eastern European feminism (Gal
and Kligman, 2000).
Feminism is a whole range of ideas and ideologies, ranging from the
constructionist idea that “you are not born a woman, you become one” (de Beauvoir,
1949), to the eco-feminist essentialist idea “if women ruled the world, there would be no
war”, advocating that women are naturally more peaceful/caring/cooperative. This range
of different, and mutually opposing, ideas can be found within Western countries and
cultural sphere. The experience of state socialism in Eastern Europe, have resulted in a
different range of feminisms to manifest there, different from Western variants. The
dichotomies of public-private, individual-family and the concepts of hegemony and
resistance carry different meanings in Eastern Europe, where the experience of
totalitarianism is rather fresh.
For Western middle class women, gaining access to paid employment in the
1970s was the result of an empowering process and organized struggle; for Eastern
European women, it was a centrally made ideological decision forced upon them, when
paid work became compulsory in the 1930s (Gal and Kligman, 2000)2. In light of these
different experiences, it should not come as a surprise that organizations under the banner
of Feminism are rare in all formerly socialist Eastern European countries. However, this
2 There are many other examples, related to the public-private dichotomy and more. For further
reading, see Gal and Kligman 2000.
19
does not mean that there are not feminist undercurrents in the conservative wave washing
over Poland at the moment.
Moral philosophy The capability approach was developed in a certain academic context, in the field of
moral philosophy, and in the following I wish to give a short outline of this context,
looking at two distinct and in many ways opposing theories of justice: Utilitarianism,
pioneered by Jeremy Bentham in late 18th century Britain3, later modified and adapted;
and the liberal theory of John Rawls and his concept primary goods. The capability
approach to some extent draws on and relates to these two, and in part, Amartya Sen
developed the concept of capabilities (and eventually freedoms) as an answer and an
alternative to utilities and primary goods.
But how are theories of justice relevant to the development – migration aspect of
this thesis? Theories of justice can be, and currently are, used as justification for types of
development policies that the international society carries out, and different theories have
bearings on the kind of evaluation made of development schemes. In a sense, they are
grand theories, about what kind of society we should aim for, what is just, and what is
good. And, admittedly, this thesis will focus on philosophical sizes such as freedom and
choice, indeed, freedom is the centre point of the analysis of migration, as we shall see,
and therefore, a short introduction of this academic realm is necessary.
The theories I have chosen to look at, aim to explain and argue for a certain focus
in the evaluation of a good or just society (in many ways paralleling a developed society).
The issues evaluated when assessing society, the “informational basis”, in the words of
Sen (1999: 56), are quite different, and crucial to the evaluations and outcomes of the
theories. I shall present the theories and their properties briefly, but first stress the
grounds for their differences; the platform they stand on when judging society, and
incidentally, development. In the words of Sen:
3 J. Bentham 1789: An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, see also John
Stuart Mill, 1861: Utilitarianism.
20
[Utilitarianism and Rawlsian theory] go in different directions, largely driven by what information they respectively take as being central to judging the justice or acceptability of different social scenarios. The informational basis of normative theories in general, and theories of justice in particular, is of decisive significance, and can be the crucial point of focus on many debates on practical policies (…). (Sen 1999: 57).
In sum, the two theories hold radically different aspects to be important when evaluating
society, and this influences on what kind of society they recommend.
Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism has been a very influential ethical theory, and the dominant theory of
justice for much over a century, admits Sen, and is therefore substantial for anyone who
wishes to challenge hegemony on the area (which Sen indeed does). The informational
basis of Utilitarianism is utility. In its classical form, utility was understood as happiness,
pleasure or satisfaction (Troyer 2003). In modern variants, utility has been understood as
fulfilment of desire, or the results of a person’s choice behaviour; the focal point is the
person’s well-being. (REFEREANSE) The crucial point is thereby whether a certain
policy or choice or whatever the object of evaluation is, results in the greatest amount of
happiness or pleasure, or welfare, for the largest number of people. An unjust policy is
one which doesn’t amount to the greatest possible utility for the largest number of people.
All choices must be evaluated by the consequences, by the results that they
generate. This implies that no principle is inherently right, no principle (such as basic,
political or civil rights or liberties) has precedence; consequence is everything, and the
only important evaluative perspective is the result of these principles. This has a clear
opposite in libertarianism, where a smaller or (usually) larger number of rights are held to
have precedence no matter what the consequences are4. Rawls as we shall see, is not of
the most radical theorists, and is better placed in the liberal than libertarian category.
4 For a radical libertarian approach, see Robert Nozick 1974: Anarchy, State, and Utopia, Basic
Books
21
In addition to being result oriented, the results are judged from their contribution
to the well-being of people: arguably an attractive merit in the area of development.
Three problems are pressing with Utilitarianism, according to Sen (1999: 62); the
distributional indifference: that the sum total of utility is what is regarded to be
important, but that there is indifference to distribution of the utilities among the people.
Also with comparing utilities, when utilities are understood as are mental states of mind
(how to compare fulfilment of desire?). Furthermore, rights and freedoms are neglected:
we might as well be slaves, so long as we’re happy, argues Sen. Finally, resting the whole
evaluation on pleasure of fulfilment of desire, does not take into account that different
people desire very different things, and highly variable amounts of different things. If you
are born and raised in poverty and neglect, your desire will be shaped from that, Sen says.
It might not be just that poor people get less than rich people, even if all parties are
satisfied. Sen touches upon this with his principle of adaptive preferences, to which I will
return in the Theory chapter.
John Rawls
If Utilitarianism can be said to be a preference-based approach, holding people’s utilities
to be the ultimate measure of justice and goodness, then Rawls’ theory is arguably a
resource-based approach, in which goods (admittedly of both material and immaterial
nature) are the things by which we measure a just society. John Rawls’ paradigmatic
work A Theory of Justice5, where Rawls coined the term primary goods was published in
1971. These primary goods were the perspective in which equality should be measured
and aimed for, argued Rawls. In his 1979 lecture Equality of What? 6 Sen objected to this
resource-based view, and gave his argument for capabilities being the relevant and
primary site for measuring equality. I will explore the capability approach in the Theory 5 John Rawls, 1971. A Theory of Justice, Cambridge, Harvard University Press. A Theory of
Justice is arguably a very influential work within the rights literature, and an inspiration and
yardstick for both Sen and Nussbaum. 6 Amartya Sen, 1979. “Equality of What?” The Tanner Lecture on Human Values delivered at
Stanford University, US, 22. May, 1979
22
chapter. The primary goods include “rights, liberties and opportunities, income and
wealth, and the social bases of self-respect” (Rawls, 1971: 60), but priority is given to
basic rights and liberties.
Rawls’ theory is placed within the liberal theory, visible in his principle of the
priority of liberty, holding that there are certain basic civil and political rights, which
simply cannot be violated, and which have complete precedence over economic or social
demands or needs. If we contemplate this principle in the context of very poor countries,
where stark poverty cripples the lives of the inhabitants, then we need a strong
justification for saying that a starving woman cannot trade the freedom of speech for a
meal. She most likely would, given the chance, but that doesn’t make the trade-off just or
good, argues Rawls. Sen has a similar argumentation when defending political and civil
rights against attacks from so called Asian values, to which I shall return. The argument
is that the importance of these liberties for society, on a general plane, is much higher
than the importance that the individual would attach to these rights, in her personal
calculus of advantages. The liberties should have precedence due to their asymmetrical
importance for society.
Other prominent features of Rawls’ theory is the veil of ignorance, a proposed
inherent situation, in which the rules of society; for rights and distribution would be laid
down, in which we would not know the position we would hold in the society for which
we were making rules. Rawls’ proposal is that when sitting behind this veil, the rules laid
down would be just, and would be for the benefit of those who would come to be worst
off (the Difference Principle).
Sen has criticized the Rawlsian framework for incorporating “an element of
‘fetishism’, [as] Rawls takes primary goods as the embodiment of advantage, rather than
taking advantage to be the relationship between persons and goods.” (Sen 1979, in
Gooding and Pettit, 1997: 216) It is this focus on goods that Sen wishes to abandon, and
argues for focusing on capabilities in stead; people’s ability to use the goods in ways that
betters their lives; gives them freedom.
23
Summing up
In this chapter I have given an outline of the relevant academic areas for my thesis:
migrational theory, its development from a strictly economic discipline, through
diversifying processes where ideas of rational individualism was challenged, towards a
focus on migration as a ongoing, social process, opening up transnational arenas. I have
given a brief introduction to gender theory and questions connected to gender in
migration. I have also given some background information on Poland, the transition from
communism to capitalism, and the gendered aspects of this transition. Finally, I have
provided some background on the context which Amartya Sen has situated himself, and
the ideas of justice and goodness which he has contested. Although this may not be
developmental theory in the strictest sense, it provides a theoretical resource from which
to draw inspiration and valuable perspectives. Moral philosophy discusses what the
virtues of a good and just society should be, and to a certain extent, how we can work
towards such a society. The discussion of what justice and goodness is, is fundamental to
developmental thought and work.
24
Theory Chapter In this chapter I will give an outline of a theoretic approach highly relevant for my thesis;
the Capability Approach, and its two most prominent representatives (although there are
many others): Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum. The capability approach is “a broad
normative framework for the evaluation and assessment of individual well-being and
social arrangements, the design of policies, and proposals about social change in society”
(Robeyns, 2005: 94). It does not primarily explain poverty, but it is a tool and a
framework within which to conceptualize and analyze poverty and its consequences. I
will discuss the focus on people’s capabilities; what people are able to do and to be, and
the insistence on freedom as both the means and end to development, and how this is
relevant to my work on female, Polish migration to Norway. I will sketch the differences
between Sen and Nussbaum, and the ways in which Nussbaum adds to the gendered
perspective already present in Sen’s work, and contributes to politicizing it. Towards the
end of the chapter, I will deal with some of the most relevant criticisms to the approach,
and point to important shortcomings.
The Capability Approach Development has been understood to mean a range of different things through the ages,
but in the 20th century it became firmly linked to economic growth and technological
innovation. Though it is hard to argue that economic growth is irrelevant to development,
it is equally easy to argue that growth of the gross national product is a very limited
perspective in which to understand development.
Many alternative frameworks for assessing development has been suggested and
used by policy makers and others from around 1970, from traditions such as
anthropology, law and demography, to contrast the traditional economic approach. The
Indian economist Amartya Sen has pioneered what has come to be called “the Capability
Approach”, arguing for a broader perspective than utility or resources when talking about
what development is. This approach came as a response to the question about what is the
appropriate dimension to focus on when assessing human well being, rights and
25
development. In what respect, on what area is it important to be equal? Is it sufficient to
have access to the same amount and types of goods? “Equality of what?” asked Sen in his
1979 lecture at Stanford University, and argued for an extended focus on what people are
actually able to do and be, not on their resources (by ownership or access), as in Rawlsian
perspectives or on their “happiness”, as in utilitarian approaches.
The Capability Approach argues for an alternative focus: not on goods, but on
people’s capability to utilize these goods. In Sen’s mind, Rawls and his followers focus
on the means of development, in stead of the goals: they focus on money or goods, in
stead of whether or not these can be put to use. The approach has been criticized from a
Rawlsian perspective, arguing that society cannot take responsibility for what people do
with resources, and for being too broad, meaning that it is very difficult to ensure, and
measure, equality of capability. Equality of resources is a more operationalized concept,
it has been argued. These and other criticisms will be dealt with towards the end of this
chapter.
While Sen’s theory makes up the backbone of the approach, and he was the
pioneer theorist, US philosopher Martha Nussbaum has made substantial contributions to
it. Her aim is to develop a normative philosophical theory with practical, political value
(Nussbaum, 2000). Specifically, she has developed a list of 10 categories of capabilities
that she argues provides the approach with the necessary “bite” in respect to justice, in
that citizens can use it as a tool to justify their demands towards their governments. The
list has been much debated and I will return to it towards the end of this chapter.
However, I will presently give an overview of the basic features of Sen’s theory,
generally in relation to his argumentation for freedom as the goal of development and the
most appropriate conceptualization of development, more specifically the relationship
between two distinct aspects of freedom, as means and goal of development, the
interrelation between the different types of freedom and that they tend to enhance each
other, and on the importance of agency. Furthermore, what is the methodological link
between “freedom” and “capability”, two terms that are used in close relation to each
other in Sen’s work?
But before Sen is given full attention, one question is pressing: How is this related
and relevant to my research quest, understanding migration as liberation, as exercising
26
and searching for freedom? My question is whether the migrants I have interviewed,
exercised freedom when migrating; freedom of choice, freedom to move, freedom to live
the life that they, on reflection, found valuable, and that they had reason to value? My
aim is to investigate how their choices were made, to what degree they felt that this was
indeed a choice, and to what degree it was the only option available; hence not a choice.
The ability to choose, regardless of what the individual actually chooses, has crucial
importance in Sen’s thinking: “Indeed, “choosing” itself can be a valuable functioning,
and having an x when there is no alternative may be sensibly distinguished from choosing
x when substantial alternatives exist. Fasting is not the same thing as being forced to
starve.” (Sen, 1999: 76).
Also, my analysis will scrutinize the potential for freedom that life in Norway
holds for the four informants, specifically with regards to work, money, health and
gender questions.
Furthermore, it is my argument that contrary to one conventional idea within
migrational theory; that migration is conducive to development only with regard to the
remittances and their effects on economies and livelihoods ‘back home’; or that migration
should first and foremost be analyzed in a brain-drain perspective; I argue that migration
is development in that the migrant exercises freedom to live the life that he or she finds
reason to value. The migrants are exercising freedom in that they seize opportunities that
they have reason to value, and their migration can be conceptualized as freedom and
development without regard to the instrumental value, or lack thereof, of their migration.
This thesis offers an alternative understanding of the migrational-development
nexus, and its freedom focus and individual approach differs from much conventional
migrational theory, which focuses on remittances, and their effect (or lack thereof) on
development in the receiving country, and generally on societal and individual problems
related to migration (brain drain, dependence, induced/forced migration etc).
Furthermore, can it really be called development if people migrate because they
have to? Is it freedom when people migrate to work in the black economy, for example
cleaning houses when they hold university degrees? But before applying the Capability
Approach to my data and discussing it, a theoretical foundation is necessary.
27
Development as Freedom
The foundation of Sen’s theory of development is the freedom of each individual person.
It is the building block on which his entire idea about development rests. Freedom is
central for two reasons: the evaluative reason and the effectiveness reason. Sen argues
that freedom is the most suitable standard by which to evaluate development, because it
is the goal of development. The most sensible way to assess development is to take in the
whole concept of freedom, or put in other words: on what people are actually able to do
and to be, their capabilities. For these are two sides to the same coin: if we have
capabilities, we enjoy freedom from hunger, poverty, oppression, violence etc. Freedom
and capabilities are so tightly intertwined that they are one in Sen’s understanding: the
one presupposes the other. If you have the capability to read and write, you enjoy
freedom from illiteracy. If you have the capability to vote and speak your mind, you
enjoy freedom from oppression and invisibility. Capability is thereby a much broader
concept than rights or resources: simply having the right to vote, won’t ensure the
capability to vote: only if you can take time off from work and can afford to travel to the
polling station, have the time and means to learn about politics and make an informed
decision; then you have the capability to vote.
This understanding demands a positive definition of freedom, one that deviates
from the more conventional philosophical definition. Freedom can be defined as a set of
negative freedoms or rights; one that presupposes that authorities guarantees your
personal safety, civil and political rights, transactions and your private property rights.
But freedom can also be defined as a set of positive freedoms or rights, which is what Sen
does, where freedom is defined as the presence of a variety of factors: food, shelter,
clothing, health care and educational facilities, civil and political rights, employment and
the capability to enjoy cultural and religious or spiritual festivities. In short: the idea of
freedom is incompatible with capability deprivation. If you starve you are not free, for the
thought of food haunts you and you are unable to function properly, argues Sen.
Furthermore; the most appropriate and complete way to measure development, is
to look at people’s capabilities: what they are able to do and be: what freedoms they
have. It is highly limiting to focus only on the means of development; be it economic
growth, industrialization or technological advances. For these are only means, he argues;
28
we do not seek wealth for wealth it self, but because it allows us to lead more valuable
lives, it can give us safety, good health and the ability to read and learn, and many other
things that we have reason to value. Sen’s understanding of development is thereby a
democratic, egalitarian one: development has not been accomplished merely by increased
gross national product, even if distributed equally on the citizens in the country. The
evaluation of development should take its starting point in the concept of freedom.
The other reason why the concept of freedom should be given centre stage is the
effectiveness reason; that development is reached with more ease and efficiency by
individuals that are free and empowered (incidentally two aspects that are closely
interrelated, as we shall see). For freedoms not only make development more likely to
happen, freedoms of different kinds enhance each other. Sen argues that “expanding the
freedoms that we have reason to value not only makes our lives richer and more
unfettered, but also allows us to be fuller social persons, exercising our own volitions and
interacting with – and influencing – the world in which we live.” (Sen, 1999: 14). And
here we find the reciprocal character, the mutually enhancing quality of the concept of
freedom: when individuals enjoy the freedom to make their own choices, according to
what they have reason to value, they will also have the incentive, and the possibility, to
influence their surroundings in the direction that will further enhance their freedoms,
given that there is a free and democratic press. Social opportunities, like education and
access to the labour market help promote economic security; freedom from violence
enhances the freedom to move around, and take part in democratic organizations;
political freedoms can pressure public opinion and politicians to take their responsibilities
seriously; and freedom to speak, write and agitate can change economic redistribution
and thereby further enhance various freedoms.
Sen identifies five instrumental freedoms (…) “that contribute, directly or
indirectly, to the overall freedom people have to live the way they would like to live.”
(Sen, 1999: 38). These are: political freedoms, economic facilities, social opportunities,
transparency guarantees and protective security. Political freedoms include (…) “the
political entitlements associated with democracies in the broadest sense”(…) (Ibid), such
as dissent and critique in addition to basics such as voting and freedom of speech.
Economic facilities point to people’s possibilities to (…) “utilize economic resources for
29
the purpose of consumption, or production, or exchange.”(Ibid: 39). “Social opportunities
refer to the arrangements that society makes for education, health care and so on, which
influence the individual’s substantive freedom to live better.”(Ibid) Transparency
guarantees refer to the necessity of safety and predictability in the rules of contract and
exchange within society, and protective security focuses on the need for a social safety
net, be it unemployment benefits or famine relief. Sen’s lack of emphasis on the social
processes and political struggles that arguably will bring forth such instrumental
freedoms will be criticized in the Critique section of this chapter.
In relation to the mutually enhancing freedoms, Sen argues that in a democracy,
leaders must take action to ease the burdens of the voters, if they want to be re-elected,
whereas in a dictatorship, there is no reason for the elite to, for example fight poverty.
Hence Sen’s thesis “[N]o famine has ever taken place in the history of the world in a
functioning democracy” (…) (Ibid: 16). (Which he defines as a society where people
enjoy political and civil rights, and there is a free, functioning press). However, admits
Sen (even thought the famine thesis is disputed), the same cannot be said to apply to
poverty. India is an example of a democratic country, where a large proportion of the
population live in stark poverty and are constantly under-nourished, illiterate and die
prematurely.7
Sen argues his point by looking into relevant empirical connections, such as the
connection between political and civil rights, and poverty. He argues that poverty cannot
be alleviated without democracy, that freedom from political oppression and freedom
from poverty are mutually enforcing freedoms, which will strengthen each other. This
idea is disputed and opposed by among others officials from China and so called Asian
tiger countries; among them former prime minister of Singapore Lee Kuan Yew, who has
proposed what has been called the Lee thesis. It holds the message that “human
development (as the process of expanding education, health care and other conditions of
human life is often called) is really a kind of luxury that only richer countries can afford”
7 For further reading on the dynamics between democracy and famines, see Sen, A. 1987. Food
and freedom. Sir Crawford Memorial Lecture, October 29, 1987. Washington: CGIAR.
30
(Sen 1999: 41). But health care and education are relatively low cost sectors, argues Sen.
They are employment intensive, and in so called developing countries man power is not
costly. Also, basic health care and education are sectors that requires low input of
resources in the form of buildings, material and infrastructure, hence not a luxury at all,
and quite affordable even for poor countries.
Lee further claimed that democracy is incompatible with so called Asian values,
values that are apparently more in tune with hierarchy and respect for elders and
authorities. Here we touch upon two core values in the Capability Approach: the
argument for universalism and the argument for individualism. The argument and
discussion around individualism, and subsequent critique of the approach for being too
individualistic will be dealt with in the Critique section of this chapter. The argument for
universalism is strongly defended by Nussbaum especially, who opposes the idea that
human rights (political and civil, but also social, economic and cultural rights) somehow
clash with certain cultures, and she counters the well known criticism of human rights
that they are a western invention, inherently imperialistic in their so called universalism.
She argues that it is indeed possible to find a framework for capabilities that can
successfully be applied to all members of the human race, and she reveals the hidden
agenda often present when universal assessment of quality of life is criticized: of course it
is more convenient for the people holding the power in society if the citizens of their
realm abide by ideas of hierarchy and dismiss democracy as western imperialism.
But how can Sen claim that democratic and civil rights are conducive to economic
growth, when China is the fastest growing economy in the world? Isn’t it easier for the
state to be efficient and create economic growth without hindrance from democratic
institutions, which are arguably quite time consuming and inefficient? Sen argues that
China experiences economic growth in spite of their repressive regime, not because of it.
Also, one might point to the fact that economic growth can be so many things, not
necessarily benefiting the common man. Sen points to Japan and argues that their high
level of economic affluence came as a result of their early priority of basic education and
later health care for the entire population, and that “the so called East Asian miracle
31
involving other countries in East Asia was, to a great extent, based on similar causal
connections” (Ibid)8.
But surely, given the choice between food on the table and the right to vote, the
world’s poor masses would surely chose food? Must we no prioritize what is more
important? But the question holds a contradiction, argues Sen: if the people’s choice is
the ultimate argument, all the more reason to introduce democracy. His thesis on
enhancing freedoms argue that political and civil rights is development, and will lead to a
policy that puts food on the table.
Terms and definitions
I turn now to a short discussion and definitions that are important to Sen’s thesis, and
how they are interrelated and related to the overall concept of freedom. They are:
capabilities, functionings, conversion factors, means, ends, agency and well-being.
There is no reason, argues Sen, to only take into account the resources which the
person in question can access or has ownership to, or the ‘primary goods’ in the Rawlsian
terminology (Rawls 1971), if the point is to assess the “individual’s real opportunity to
pursue her objectives” (Sen 1999: 74). In order to understand that opportunity, we must
also include “the personal characteristics that govern the conversion of primary goods
into the person’s ability to promote her ends” (Ibid). For example, a disabled person
might have less freedom to lead the life she has reason to value than an able bodied
person, with the same or even more or better resources, because of her personal
characteristics. The concept of capability includes both these aspects: both available
resources (by access or ownership), and the person’s ability to make use of those
resources, and is thus more receptive to the differences between people and their
individuality, argues Sen.
8 On this see World Bank: “The East Asian Miracle: Economic Growth and Public Policy”
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993.
32
The concept of functionings reflects the various things a person may value doing
or being, from simple things like being adequately nourished, to more complex issues
such as being able to take part in community life or having self esteem.
“A person’s capability refers to the alternative combinations of functionings that
are feasible for her to achieve. Capability is thus a kind of freedom: the substantive
freedom to achieve alternative functioning combinations (or less formally put; the
freedom to achieve various lifestyles)” (Ibid). Robeyns clarifies it thus: “The distinction
between achieved functionings and capabilities is between the realized and the effectively
possible; in other words, between achievements on the one hand, and freedoms or
valuable options from which one can choose on the other.” (2005:95).
An important distinction in Sen’s work is means (that is goods and services, and
social institutions broadly defined, for example norms and traditions that form women’s
preferences), and the capability to use those means. A good has certain characteristics
that enable certain functionings. For example, a bicycle enables mobility. However, and
this is crucial to Sen’s thesis, there are several conversion factors that influence on the
functionings. In the bicycle example, conversion factors would typically be physical
shape, social and gender norms in society, and climate or topography. Disabled people
might not achieve the functioning of mobility from a bicycle. It is these conversion
factors that are absent from more conventional approaches to development: the
realization that having access or ownership to resources is not enough, we must also look
at the person’s ability to utilize the resource, if we want to assess their freedom.
Another important distinction is that of means and ends, or rather, how that
distinction is often blurred. For example, good health is an important means to achieve
employment and the capability to play and rest. But health is also an intrinsic end in
itself, as health will give the person a better life than ill health would allow.
The agency aspect has a strong standing in Sen’s theory. “With adequate social
opportunities, individuals can effectively shape their own destiny and help each other.”
(Sen 1999: 11), he argues. Free and sustainable agency is the engine of development, and
is in itself a constitutive part of development, and it contributes to promoting its various
aspects, such as economic growth and democracy. “Greater freedom enhance the ability
of people to help themselves (…)” (Ibid: 18), and the freedom of individuals to be the
33
driving force in their own life is valuable both because it will give good lives for the
individual, but also because outcomes, both for the person and for the society, is likely to
be better than if the same goals were sought accomplished by a top-down
implementation. But surely, agency operates within certain structures? The individual
does not act in a vacuum, but within structures that impose power and have strong
bearings on the outcomes of the individual’s agency. More on individualism and
structures under the heading Critique.
Sen uses the term well-being to mean quality of life, and stresses how well-being
to a large extent is dependent on agency. He exemplifies this by looking at the altered
focus of the women’s movement: the women’s movement increasingly see women as
agents of change, able to bring about change in their own situation, not as merely victims
or protégées. Indeed, it is now recognized, claims Sen, opposed to earlier, that women are
not only entities that have, or don’t have well-being, but that they act or refuse to act, and
if they don’t, they have the capacity to. I shall return to the concept of well-being shortly.
Differences and similarities between Sen and Nussbaum
Nussbaum differs from Sen in some respects, but they are in overall agreement on the
basic points of the Capability Approach. In the following I will give an outline of the
similarities and differences.
They both find that asking what people are actually able to be and to do;
evaluating their capabilities is the most relevant way to assess their quality of life. But
whereas Sen uses this insight to make comparisons about quality of life and about
equality and inequality, Nussbaum insists that the approach can be a political tool that
citizens can use to influence their chosen representatives to listen to their demands. In
addition, she has introduced the concept of a threshold level of capabilities, under which
truly human functioning is not possible. This threshold level enables political demands
with more ‘bite’ argue Nussbaum, claiming her focus on political and societal change is
essentially different from Sen’s comparative focus, where inequalities and the relative
distribution of capabilities holds the centre stage. Furthermore, Nussbaum distinguishes
between basic, internal and combined capabilities. Basic capabilities are abilities that we
34
are born with, innate abilities. “Internal capabilities are states of a person that enable
him/ her to exercise a specific capability, if the circumstances and constraints allow this
exercise. Combined capabilities are the internal capabilities together with the external
provisions that effectively enable the person to exercise the capability” (Robeyns, 2005:
104). For example, a new born child has the basic capability for speech and language, all
the child needs “[is] to hear it spoken enough during the critical period. More often
however, internal capabilities develop only with the support from the surrounding
environment, as when one learns to play with other, to love, to exercise political choice”
(Nussbaum, 2000a: 84). But even if children develop language and eventually become
quite eloquent, there are societal, religious and gendered structures that might hinder
them from “[f]unctioning in accordance with it. Finally, therefore, there are combined
capabilities” (Ibid). However, even though the definitions differ from each other, both
Nussbaum and Sen argue that the realm of politics should be combined functionings.
Furthermore, they agree on the importance of political and civil rights, and “both
argue strenuously that economic needs should not be met by denying liberty” (Ibid: 12).
On the notion of each person as an end, Nussbaum claims she is somewhat more explicit
than Sen, in articulating her principle of each person’s capability (Ibid), but holds that
they are in agreement about the importance of the individual, and that in asking how
nations are doing, development-wise, we should consider the capability of each citizen,
and not make other units, such as the household or family, the central ones.
Also, they both deliver strong arguments for the universal character of human
rights, and for the value and importance of a universal framework for human capabilities.
Nussbaum defends the universal framework for assessment of development against three
standardized attacks: the argument from culture (‘feminism/ individualism/ development
is a western invention, inherently imperialistic, and people from the South9 advocating it
are arguing against their own culture’); the argument from the good of diversity (‘we are
all different individuals and cannot agree on a single set of categories, or a single set of
9 By which I mean so called developing countries, often countries with colonial heritage, most
often situated in Africa, Asia or Latin America.
35
values’); and the argument from paternalism (‘if we tell people what is good for them, in
stead of letting them chose and make democratic decisions, we treat them like children’).
Nussbaum claims that the strong stance on universalism distinguishes her from
Sen, and that Sen has never “produced explicit arguments against relativism” (Ibid: 13),
when in fact, Sen delivers an equally strong argument for universalism in his book
Development as Freedom, referring to his 1997 paper “Human Rights and Asian Values”,
where he among other things argue against the so called Lee thesis (that democracy and
human development is incompatible with Asian values and economic growth in Asia),
against the idea that Asian values are more authoritarian and for the cross cultural quality
of schools of thought such as tolerance, scepticism, agnosticism. “Indeed, the overriding
value of freedom as the organizing principle of this work has this feature of a strong,
universalist presumption” (Sen, 1999: 244).
Furthermore, Nussbaum has been criticized for leaving too little room for agency,
because she does not endorse the agency - well-being distinction that Sen advocates but
argues that all important aspects can be captured by the capabilities - functioning
distinction. Well-being has strong utilitarian associations, and leads the thought towards
well- being that does not involve active doing and being, argues Nussbaum, who
therefore does not endorse this term.
But most importantly, Nussbaum differs from Sen in that she has set forth a list of
basic capabilities. The list and the dispute around it will be examined further under
heading “The List of Central Human Functioning Capabilities”, to which I shall shortly
return.
Finally, Nussbaum is concerned with poverty, inequality and development as
freedom in general, but her main focus is the inequalities that women experience because
they are women. Women face greater obstacles than men whether they are poor or
middleclass, black or white, high caste or low caste, she argues. They are “less well
nourished than men, less healthy, more vulnerable to physical violence and sexual abuse”
(Nussbaum 2000a: 1), face greater obstacles in the work place, and generally receive less
pay than men. In many countries they have poorer legal rights than men, be it property
rights, rights of association, mobility and religious liberty. They are more often burdened
with ‘double work’, combining paid employment with child rearing and housework, and
36
less likely to “enjoy rewarding types of love- especially when, as often happens, they are
married without choice in childhood and have no recourse from bad marriages” (Ibid).
Nussbaum’s cases are from India, a region where many women face particularly great
obstacles, but even admitting that gender inequality is strongly correlated with poverty,
“(…) there is no country that treats its women as well as its men (….)” (Ibid: 2), she
claims, referring to the UN Human Development Report of 1997. “Women, in short, lack
essential support for leading lives that are fully human. This lack of support are
frequently caused by their being women.” (Ibid: 4). Nussbaum’s perspective is basically
gendered: her theory is from the outset developed to respond to challenges particular for
women’s development and human rights. It thereby communicates well with my thesis,
which seeks to not only incorporate a gender component, but to employ a gendered
perspective on all the chosen areas of the informants’ lives, and their migration, as well
as include a section specifically devoted to gender roles and gender liberation.
Women and Human Development
In the following I will look into certain aspects of Nussbaum’s work that is relevant for
my thesis, and my work on migration, development and freedom. The underlying
reasoning for her principle of each person as an end, what she means by lives that are
“fully human”, her argument for universalism and her list of (basic) capabilities will be
scrutinized successively.
Nussbaum argues that the capabilities need to be pursued as goals for each and
every person, treating everyone as an end in their own right, and not a mere tool for
others. The principle of each person’s capability is thereby based on the principle of each
person as an end. This is an important specification with regard to women, who have
often been treated as “reproducers, caregivers, sexual outlets, agents of the family’s
general prosperity” (Ibid: 2) as undistinguished parts of the family in stead of as
independent individuals. For example, the family is not an appropriate unit for the
capability approach, argues Nussbaum, because that would allow the person(s) holding
the relative power in the household, to define other members out of the household
resource equation. The individual is the de facto unit of decision making, of experience
37
and of being, and although individuals coexist with other individuals, Nussbaum argues
for an ethical individualism, as “individuals are the units of moral concern” (Robeyns
2005: 107). I will elaborate on the individualistic stance in the capability approach, and
the critique it has been met with shortly.
Women in many places lead lives that are bereft of even the most central
capabilities, lives that are not really worthy of the dignity of human beings, argues
Nussbaum. And here we touch upon a central idea within Sen and Nussbaum’s thinking:
human beings have an inherent dignity which separates us from other living creatures,
and which legitimizes the demand for a standard of living in which truly human
functioning is possible. This idea “has a broad cross-cultural resonance and intuitive
power” (Nussbaum 2000a: 72), and can be found in many forms, some religious and
some secular. Nussbaum draws on important Western philosophers and thinkers: the
ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle, Immanuel Kant,10 and Karl Marx in establishing this
thinking as a core in her own philosophy. Nussbaum argues that certain functionings are
particularly central in human life, and that without the ability to perform these
functionings, we cannot talk of “human life”. Furthermore, there is an essential difference
in the way we do these functionings. “In Marx’s example, a starving person doesn’t use
food in a fully human way- by which I think he means infused by practical reasoning and
sociability. He or she just grabs at the food in order to survive, and the many rational and
social ingredients of human feeding can’t make their appearance.”(Ibid). It is fully
possible for the human senses to operate on an animal level, to survive, without the
material means to function on a fully human level. Without being literate and educated
and having the possibility for self expression and play, and many other capabilities, fully
human functioning is not achieved. “A life that is really human is one that is shaped
throughout by these human powers of practical reason and sociability.” (Ibid), argues
Nussbaum.
And from the idea that there are certain particularly central capabilities, without
which fully human life cannot be achieved, comes the specification; the list of “Central
Human Functional Capabilities”. Before turning to the actual list, I will address the
10 Particularly his “Critique of Practical Reason” from 1781
38
argument for it, as presented by Nussbaum herself, and briefly the discussion around it,
with special regard to the question of operationalization.
The question of the list
Nussbaum argues for the necessity of the list by pointing to a variety of factors. The list
provides the capability approach with the necessary “bite” with regard to justice, and it
“can be endorsed (…) as the moral basis for central constitutional guarantees, by people
who otherwise have very different views of what a complete good life for a human being
would be.” (Nussbaum, 2000a: 74). With the list in hand, citizens can make demands to
their governments, and it can thus be a political tool for change. In introducing the idea of
a threshold level for true human functioning, “such a list gives us the basis for
determining a decent social minimum in a variety of areas” (Ibid: 75), that will ensure
capability for truly human functioning, even if the list needs a fuller description of the
threshold level than it does in its present form, she admits. Furthermore, without the list,
one might argue that any capability is valuable, including the capability to misuse one’s
power, or consume so much that it harms others, she argues.
Nussbaum argues that the list has universal quality. It is the result of years of
cross cultural dialogue11; it represents an overlapping consensus and has multiple
realizability. By overlapping consensus, Nussbaum means that the list is so general in its
form that it is possible to agree to and to use for people from almost any culture or
religion, and she specifies:
By “overlapping consensus” I mean what John Rawls means: that people may sign on to this conception as a freestanding moral core of political conception, without accepting any particular metaphysical view of the world, any particular comprehensive ethical or religious view, or even any particular view of the person or of human nature (Ibid: 76)
11 For examples: see papers by R. Rekha Verma, Martha Chen, Nkiru Nzegwu in Nussbaum and
Glover, 1995.
39
The list can thereby be applied in any society, by people who disagree on many of life’s
central issues, says Nussbaum.12 Furthermore, “part of the idea of the list is its multiple
realizability” (Ibid: 76), meaning that it can be adapted to any society, and made more
specific so that it will not conflict with local traditions or beliefs. Nussbaum stresses that
the members of society are the one’s who must adapt the list to the local specifics, noting:
“I also envisage a role for international agencies and international human rights law in
impending these capabilities; but on grounds of accountability, the nation state remains
the basic unit” (Ibid: 75).
Indeed, the list may be argued to ensure the capability approach with a degree of
operationalization which is lacking in Sen’s version of it. Without specifying what
capabilities to select, it becomes impossible to use the approach in the real world, to hold
the approach as a yardstick against people’s lives. What exactly are we looking for or
measuring when applying the capability approach to specific societies and real life
situations? How do we use the capability approach? This critique of the approach is
substantial, and will be investigated further under the heading Critique, following shortly.
But identifying specific important capabilities is not the task of the theorist, Sen argues;
the process should be democratic, and carried out in the specific societies. (Sen, 2004)
Furthermore, it is impossible to make a complete list, as the lists would be used for
different purposes, and in different contexts, and this would, and should, influence the
selection of capabilities. Writes Robeyns (2005):
“For example, the founders of the Human Development Report decided to operationalize [the capability approach] by including in their index those dimensions that they thought was appropriate for the purpose at hand, namely, universal, basic capabilities for inter-country comparisons.”
Both Sen and Nussbaum’s suggestions for methods of selection of capabilities have
democratic problems, says Robeyns. The processes of public debate and reasoning that
according to Sen will result in local specifications of capabilities are not at all clear in his
work, she argues, and he has no developed framework to ensure that these processes are
12 With the important specification that the list is intended for “the modern world, rather than
[being] timeless” (Ibid: 77)
40
democratic and that representation in the process is fair. The problem with Nussbaum’s
list is that it is so general, that undemocratic local decision-making can lead to highly
problematic lists, argue Robeyns, who thereby points to the danger of misuse by
undemocratic local forces, without specifying this further. However, the danger of
reactionary forces using rights rhetoric or trying to gain credibility by invoking ideas of
“empowerment” and “capabilities” is present, and becomes pressing without further
specification, so the argument runs. For further read on conservatory, powerful
institutions taking on a coat of progressivism, see Shanmugaratnam 2001. This is also
briefly mentioned in the Critique chapter.
So why then, am I at all printing the list in this thesis? My main argument for
doing so is the principle of operationalization. Without specification, the capability
approach becomes little more than a nice idea, and an academic exercise. The argument
that further specification is needed does not challenge the principal necessity which this
list represents. Some have argued that the question of how to specify the list get too much
attention, and that the list should be taken as a useful guide and an inspiration for further
developmental and theoretical work. (Qizilbash 2002).However, I agree with Robeyns
that further operationalization is necessary. More on this under the section on
operationalization critique.
The List of Central Human Functional Capabilities
1. Life. Being able to live to the end of a human life of normal length; not die
prematurely, or before one’s life is so reduced as to be not worth living.
2. Bodily Health. Being able to have good health, including reproductive health; to be
adequately nourished; to have adequate shelter.
3. Bodily Integrity. Being able to move freely from place to place; having one’s bodily
boundaries treated as sovereign, i.e being able to be secure against assault, including
sexual assault, child sexual abuse, and domestic violence; having opportunities for
sexual satisfaction and for choice in matters of reproduction.
41
4. Senses, Imagination, and Thought. Being able to use the senses, to imagine, think
and reason- and to do these things in a “truly human” way, a way informed and
cultivated by an adequate education including, but by no means limited to, literacy
and basic mathematical and scientific training. Being able to use imagination and
thought in connection with experience and producing self expressing works and
events of one’s own choice, religious, literary, musical and so forth. Being able to use
one’s mind in ways protected by guarantees of freedom of expression with respect to
both physical and artistic speech, and freedom of religious exercise. Being able to
search for the ultimate meaning of life in one’s own way. Being able to have
pleasurable experiences, and avoid non-necessary pain.
5. Emotions. Being able to have attachments to things and people outside ourselves; to
love those who love and care for us, to grieve at their absence; in general, to love, to
grieve, to experience longing, gratitude and justified anger. Not having one’s
emotional development blighted by overwhelming fear and anxiety, or by traumatic
events of abuse or neglect. (Supporting this capability means supporting forms of
human association that can be shown to be crucial in their development.)
6. Practical Reason. Being able to form a conception of the good and to engage in
critical reflection about the planning of one’s life. (This entails protection for the
liberty of conscience.)
7. Affiliation. A. Being able to live with and toward others, to recognize and show
concern for other human beings, to engage in various forms of social interaction; to
be able to imagine the situation of another and have compassion for that situation; to
have the capability for both justice and friendship. (Protecting this capability means
protecting institutions that constitute and nourish such forms of affiliation, and also
protecting the freedom of assembly and of political speech.)
B. Having the social bases for self-respect and non-humiliation; being able to be
treated as a dignified being whose worth is equal to that of others. This entails, at a
42
minimum, protection against discrimination on the basis of race, sex, sexual
orientation, religion, caste, ethnicity or national origin. In work, being able to work as
a human being, exercising practical reason and entering into meaningful relationships
of mutual recognition with other workers.
8. Other species. Being able to live in concern for and in relation to animals, plants, and
the world of nature.
9. Play. Being able to laugh, to play, to enjoy recreational activities.
10. Control over one’s environment. A. Political. Being able to participate effectively
in choices that govern one’s life; having the right of political participation,
protections of free speech and associations.
B. Material. Being able to hold property (both land and moveable goods), not just
formally but in terms of real opportunity; and having property rights on an equal basis
with others; having the right to seek employment on an equal basis with others;
having the freedom from unwarranted search and seizure.
The list consists of separate components of distinct quality which are not inter-
replaceable, so that “We cannot satisfy the need for one of them by giving people a larger
amount of another one.” (Nussbaum, 2000b: 233). This makes it difficult to justify any
trade-off, for example increased wealth for political rights, and “(…) limits the
applicability of quantitative cost-benefit analysis.” (Ibid).
However, the items are related to one another, as we have touched upon before:
freedoms enhance each other. “One of the most effective way to promoter women’s
control over their environment, (…) is to promote women’s literacy” (Ibid).
Also, two of the capabilities on the list stand out and are especially important:
practical reason and affiliation, since they organize and override all the others; in that
these two make the other capabilities truly human in their pursuit. Practical reason is
what organizes the senses in human beings, and not using reason would be to behave in
an incomplete human way. At the same time, to reason without regard for other people’s
43
circumstances and needs, is also to behave in an incomplete human way, Nussbaum
claims (Ibid). These considerations around individualism and social environment run
parallel to Robeyns’ distinction between ethical and ontological individualism, to which I
shall return shortly.
Critique of the Capability Approach Several criticisms have been presented against the Capability Approach, among which I
view the operationalization critique and the individualism critique to be important, in
addition to the Marxist critique, pointing to Sen’s the lacking emphasis on social and
political processes. In the following I will present the concern for operationalization and
questions connected to Nussbaum’s work on the list of capabilities, before briefly
summarizing the individualism critique, distinguishing between ethical individualism and
ontological individualism. Finally I will present the Marxist critique which points to the
missing link in Sen’s argument for the five instrumental freedoms.
Operationalization
Many have argued for the necessity of developing the approach further and increasing its
operational potential, so that it can be applied to real life situations. On work still to be
done, Robeyns (2005) says:
“(…) at present not enough work seems to have been carried out on the kind of democratic institutions that the ‘capability approach in practice’ would require, nor on methodologies to guide social scientists who want to empirically assess capability or functioning levels.”
In order to make the approach more operational, argue economists van Staveren and
Gasper (2002), it is necessary to move away from the increased emphasis on freedom
which is present in Sen’s later work, such as Development as Freedom (1999). Freedom
is not the most adequate conceptualization of capabilities, they argue, stressing that “(…)
some important values, such as those associated with friendship, respect and care, cannot
44
be adequately understood in terms of individual freedom” (p. 19). They argue it is
necessary to recognize the importance of these values, as well as the importance of
democracy, when we aim to assess development, and it is necessary to be specific and
“(…) argue for concrete human capabilities, addressing not only individualistic needs,
but also social and interpersonal ones.” (p. 13). Nussbaum’s distinction between internal,
basic and combined capabilities contributes to theorizing capabilities not only as
opportunities, but also as skills and traits, and helps us (…) “in building as more
structured picture of personhood and agency.” (p. 12). This distinction, her emphasis on
threshold levels and the list together pull the focus away from freedom and “(…) makes
her approach less abstract than Sen’s and closer to the texture of daily life.” (p. 12). With
this, van Staveren and Gasper support the need for the list of central human functional
capabilities.
Nussbaum addresses the operationalization question very briefly: “The capability
approach seems to have one disadvantage, (…): it seems difficult to measure human
capabilities.” she admits. However, though admitting limitations“(…) we are at least
working in the right place and looking at the right thing (…). (Nussbaum, 2000b: 241-
242). Other approaches, such as Rawlsian primary goods and utilitarian approaches alike
(resource- based and preference based approaches), have simply substituted what we
should be measuring for what’s easy to measure: “a heap of stuff for the richness of
human functioning” (Ibid: 242), argues Nussbaum.
However, she offers no clues as to the process of operationalization except for
pointing to the local and democratic processes that must be applied in the process, and
stress the importance of listening to the people in question, to avoid top-down
implementation and elitist interpretations. “We need to rely on the ingenuity of those who
suffer from deprivation: they will help us find ways to describe, and even to quantify,
their predicament” (Ibid). This recommendation can be seen in relation to the principle of
adaptive preference formation and in the argument for analyzing both subjective and
objective measures when assessing the potential for freedom in the case of my
informants. More on this in the chapter “Four migrants’ stories”, under headings
“Methodologically distinguishing features of the themes” and “Theme 2: Work: The Fafo
questionnaire”.
45
Sen’s stance in the question of operationalization is that it is not the task for
theorists, but rather for democratic processes in the actual societies (Sen, 2004). This has
been explained epistemologically (Patnaik 1998), in that Sen’s academic realm is that of
moral philosophy, and in this discipline social processes are external. I will return to
aspects of this in the Marxist critique.
The individualism critique
The Capability Approach has been criticized for being too individualistic, for not paying
(sufficient) attention to groups and social structures, but viewing individuals as atoms,
ignoring their social environment.
Robeyns (2005) argue that this critique holds no truth, but that in order to clarify
the Capability Approach’s stance on individualism, a distinction between ethical
individualism and ontological individualism is necessary, because the approach applies
one, but not the other, she argues. Ethical individualism is concerned with the question of
who should make decisions and evaluations, and argues that the individual is the only
valid “unit of moral concern” (Robeyns, 2005: 107). (Sen and Nussbaum have both
argued strenuously against making the household the unit for evaluation and assessment
in developmental policies.13) Ontological issues are concerned with the nature of social
entities, hence ontological individualism holds individuals and their properties to be the
only existing entities, and society to be built up from individuals, and that all social
entities can be explained by reducing them to individuals and their properties. Groups and
social structures are not entities as such; they are seen as constructs of individuals.
But applying ethical individualism does not conflict with an ontology that
recognizes the importance of social structures, which indeed the Capability Approach
does. This becomes clear with Nussbaum’s distinction between internal, basic and
combined capabilities. The individual might have the basic and internal capability for a
specific something, but will hardly enjoy combined capabilities if the societal structures
are hostile to the certain capability she seeks. Also, Sen’s conversion factors specify how
13 For Sen’s analysis of households as sites for cooperative conflict, see Sen 1990.
46
important society and structures are for the freedom of the individual. Even if owning a
bicycle, an Afghan woman would probably not have the capability of mobility and the
other valuable freedoms that might come with cycling, because of safety concerns, fear of
landmines and societal codes for women’s conduct. I include a quote to clarify the
thorough concern with structures and society that lies in the Capability Approach:
The [capability] approach used in this study is much concerned with the opportunities that people have to improve the quality of their lives. It is essentially a ‘people-centered’ approach, which puts human agency (rather than organizations such as markets or governments) at the centre of the stage. The crucial role of social opportunities is to expand the realm of human agency and freedom, both as an end in itself and as a means of further expansion of freedom. The word ‘social’ in the expression ‘social opportunity’ (…) is a useful reminder not to view individuals and their opportunities in isolated terms. The options that a person has depend greatly on relations with others and on what the state and other institutions do. We shall be particularly concerned with those opportunities that are strongly influenced by social circumstances and public policy (…) (Drèze and Sen, 2002:6) (Emphasis added)
Thus, the capability approach stresses structures as important contexts for individual’s
agency, noting their importance in assessing freedom. By employing the distinction
between ethical and ontological individualism, this point becomes clear.
Marxist critique
The Marxist critique against Sen runs along two lines: Sen is criticised for not putting
sufficient emphasis on political processes and social movements when analyzing
development, and for being too enthusiastic with regard to the capitalist market
mechanism. I will deal with these two strands of critique in turn. In Sen (1999) the
lacking perspective of political process becomes apparent when Sen is listing the five
instrumental freedoms: “Social opportunities refer to the arrangements that society makes
for education, health care and so on, which influence the individual’s substantive freedom
to live better.”(p. 39) Society as such won’t make arrangements; social arrangements
must be achieved through political struggle, typically carried out by civil society and the
labour movement in particular, so the argument runs. If we look empirically at European
47
social democratic systems where such social arrangements are satisfactorily established,
we find evidence that the “Capability expansion in these societies was largely a direct and
indirect outcome of political campaigns and struggles, which led to state interventions to
regulate the market economy, institutionalize democratic rights and to ensure social
security by extending public entitlements.” (Shanmugaratnam, 2001: 280) Likewise when
Sen exemplifies how conducive to development these five instrumental freedoms are,
pointing to East Asian economies, especially Japan: “These economies went
comparatively early for massive expansion of education, and later also of health care”
(…) (emphasis added) (Sen 1999: 41). While focussing on the importance of social rights
and opportunities, Sen does not include in his analysis the process that will bring forth
these opportunities and the forces at work in granting these rights. Is it sufficient to say
that the economies went for education and health care for all, or would the capability
approach benefit from a more specific, political conceptualization? Shanmugaratnam’s
answer is a clear Yes, especially since these instruments are not present in most societies
in the third world, just where development is of the highest necessity, and Sen offers no
answer as to how these instruments may be achieved. However, this may for the same
reason as Sen refuses to endorse Nussbaum’s list of capabilities: because he views it to be
a task for local, democratic processes, not the task of a theorist. Shanmugaratnam (2001:
280) phrases the critique thus:
“However, the freedoms [Sen] advocates as means and the human emancipation he envisions as end have to be rooted in the social and political processes in which people play their roles as agents of change to institutionalize the means to expand their capabilities.”
The other strand of critique against Sen is about him being too enthusiastic with regard to
the capitalist system and the ability of the market to promote freedoms of different kinds.
Although Sen stresses the need for the market mechanism to be (…) “supplemented by
the creation of basic social opportunities for social equity and justice.” (Sen 1999: 143),
and holds that the success of development is dependent on the spread of capabilities to
everyone, not just to the elite; he doesn’t stress the necessity of controlling and limiting
the scope of the market mechanism. It is important that “the powerful [do not] capitalize
48
on their asymmetric advantage” (Ibid: 142), he argues, but makes no reference to social
processes in this context (though stresses the need to focus on all institutions: the media,
the market, the democratic system). He does praise the liberating potential of a free
market, and it may seem that he doesn’t appreciate that the market mechanism can limit
freedom as well as enhance it. A more balanced view is necessary, argues
Shanmugaratnam, stressing that the “Market does not have any innate power to transform
entrenched repressive structures of economic relations” (Shanmugaratnam 2001: 278),
arguing that the market may be best avoided in some situations:
“However, the market is a part of the means of development and whether it should be free, regulated or avoided has to be seen with reference to how best it can serve along with other means the goal of promoting human capabilities. Freedom of exchange is a basic freedom indeed, but so is the freedom from the harsh consequences of market uncertainties.” (Ibid: 277)
Furthermore, it is necessary to incorporate the international financial institutions into the
framework. If this is not done, so the argument runs, the approach is in danger of being
co-opted by neo liberal policy makers proliferating US dominance in the third world.
Writes Shanmugaratnam: “However, in practice, elements of Sen’s pragmatism may be
used by technocrats to give a more acceptable form to neo liberal policy.” (Ibid: 274). It
is further argued that while Sen enjoyed some influence in the World Bank around the
turn of the millennium, evident in the World Development Report 2000-2001, where
many ideas recognizable from the capability approach are present, neo liberal forces, with
the US Treasury in front, re-gained hegemony shortly after when succeeding in reversing
much of the rhetoric on “empowering the impoverished” (Ibid) in the report.
Furthermore, when dealing with the World Bank, the power structure of which it is a part
must be recognized, and the power structures influencing on and perpetuated by the Bank
cannot be ignored. The World Bank is in effect part of the US world hegemony, writes
Shanmugaratnam, quoting Wade, 2001: “The Bank has been an especially useful
instrument for projecting American influence in developing countries, and one over
which the US maintains discreet but firm institutional control” (Wade 2001: 217).
49
In sum
In this chapter I have given an outline of the main features of the capability approach, as
presented by Sen and Nussbaum. Development can be conceptualized as freedoms or as
capabilities, and this perspective allows us to focus on what people can do and be, and
not primarily on their resources or utilities. However, there are serious shortcomings to
the approach. I have presented critiques against the approach, pointed to shortcomings
and suggestions made for improvements. One of the most important shortcomings with
regard to my thesis is the difficulties attached to operationalization. Ideally, Nussbaum’s
list could have been used as a check list against the findings of the data material, and I
could conclude on the freedom enjoyed by the informants on various areas of their lives.
In reality, that is a task too demanding for the present thesis, as methodological work
would have to be carried out before I could apply the list to my data. Furthermore,
concluding on someone else’s freedom is not in line with the capability approach. In
order to map the freedoms enjoyed by the informants, it would be necessary to cooperate
closely with them, because it is their understanding of the freedom they do or don’t enjoy
that has to be in focus. In the words of Shanmugaratnam (2001: 284): “The
[informational base to evaluate individual well-being] should also include a person’s self-
evaluation of well-being.”
So how is the data connected to the theory? I view it to be fully possible and
meaningful, to analyze the informant’s migration and their lives in Norway from the
perspective of freedom and capabilities, even if the approach is not fully operationalized
for this purpose.
50
Methods chapter In this chapter I will present the research questions lying at the core of my research, and
discuss operationalization of the research questions. To this end, I will present the five
themes I have identified to be central in answering the research question. The discussion
of operationalization is, as shown, central in the capability literature.
The methods chapter also deals with the concerns relevant when choosing
informants, and the dangers of using one’s own network when collecting informants, as I
have done. The last section is devoted to ethical issues connected to gathering sensitive
information about identifiable people, and the relationship between interviewer and
interviewee. Here I have focused on four interrelated ethical concerns.
Operationalization: themes The research questions of this thesis are:
Can migration lead to freedom? Can freedom be conceptualized as development?
Research questions need to be researchable and therefore distinct and interconnected
(Bryman 2001). In order to create a framework for later analysis, I have chosen to
categorize my research questions into themes; clusters of related questions. The themes
are as follows: Choice, Work, Money, Health and Gender. These themes capture different
aspects of life that I view to be central to empowerment and liberation. They are
methodically different from each other. The first theme ‘Choice’ encompasses the act of
choosing to migrate, thoughts on freedom and empowerment and what meaning these
ideas hold for the informant. This theme is highly subjective, and dependent on the
informant’s perception and her ability to reflect around her own experiences. The other
themes are more related to objective measures, meaning I can learn about factors in their
lives, and draw some conclusions about their empowerment or liberation based on that.
The distinction between subjective and objective measures and the operationalization
difficulties is particularly visible and will be discussed in relation to the theme Work in
the next chapter, “Four migrants’ stories”. For further discussion on problems with
51
operationalization of the capability approach, see Critique of the Capability Approach in
the Theory chapter. The question -how to measure capabilities? has been raised by
scholars within many fields, as we have seen, and the answers vary. However, the
capability approach is agency oriented and aims to avoid top-down implementation and
treating people as “(…) passive recipients of the fruits of cunning developments
programs.” (Sen, 1999:53). Several scholars have therefore developed frameworks for
combining the ideas of capabilities with so called participatory methods; many others
have pointed to the necessity of further work for developing fully operationalized
frameworks within the capability approach (Robeyns 2005). This is an area I will not go
further into in this thesis, not because it is not interesting and could potentially contribute
substantially to the thesis, but because of limitations in available time and space.14
Not all the themes are covered with all the informants. Since the interviews were
in-depth and unstructured, it follows that they took different directions with the different
informants.
For the purpose of the Methods chapter, I have made a brief outline of what was
the purpose behind the different themes, and what types of questions we touched upon
within the different themes. I have already given some of my thoughts on the first theme,
but will elaborate in the following.
Choice
The idea is that the ability to make the choice of migrating, and accomplishing it, in itself
can yield a feeling of empowerment or freedom. Does making the choice of migrating
yield a feeling of empowerment? In order to answer this question, I will need to map out
the extent to which the choice was taken by the informant alone, or whether she was
encouraged or pressured into leaving. To this end, I will ask her to describe the decision-
making process in detail. The informant might wish to describe the process as initiated by
her, and might wish to hide the fact that she was not autonomous in the decision making 14 For further reading on this see for example Robert Chambers (1997) Whose reality counts?
Putting the first last. Longman Publishing. He deals with participatory methods, in particular
Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA).
52
process. However, I am at the mercy of my informants, and in the end I must trust that
what they tell me is correct for them. Asking about the process in detail; who she
discussed the idea with and about what factor was the most important one in deciding to
migrate, hopefully gives me a broad picture of the context of the choice.
Her perception of the other available alternatives to migration is equally
important. She might not have been either pressured or encouraged to leave, but if she
didn’t see any other alternatives in order to reach her goals, then the concept of a free
choice is somewhat compromised.
Work
Does the informant’s work in Norway empower her and serve to liberate her? In order to
answer these questions I need to map out two types of perspectives: the informant’s own
perception of her work. Does she see it as rewarding? Does she enjoy it? What about her
job(s) are valuable to her? Is it her tasks, or her colleagues, or something else? Does her
work have value in it self, or is it merely an instrument for making money? I will start off
with open-ended questions, allowing the informant to establish an understanding of
“work” that is correct for her. From the way she describes her work, and from questions
like –What are the benefits/ problems in your job? I will be able to form a good
impression of whether she experiences work as an empowering experience or as a
degrading means to financial ends.
The other perspective is related to objective measures that I view to be decisive
concerning the informant’s liberation, specifically questions concerning the informant’s
attachment to the legal work sphere in Norway. A research project carried out by
migrational researchers at the Norwegian research institute Fafo in 2007 have identified
six indicators of legal attachment to the work sphere, which I employ. This quantitative
research project scrutinized the working and living conditions for Polish people in Oslo,
especially the extent to which they were integrated into the official economy, and in what
degree they enjoyed the rights and protection ensured workers in the official sector of
Norwegian work sphere. By asking the informants to fill out a questionnaire based on the
indicators identified by Fafo, I can compare my findings with the findings done by Fafo.
53
These indicators cover taxes and official registrations such as social security
number; the manner in which the informants get their salary; whether they have a
contract, etc. The answers to these questions will allow me to form an idea about the
informant’s security as an employee, and from that, her overall security as a migrant in
Norway. Her security is important in analyzing the degree of liberation that she can
possibly experience.
Money
Does making money generate freedom for the individual, or for the family? Or both? Is
there a conflict between freedom for the individual and freedom for the family, or will
these freedoms enhance each other? What is the connection between the informant’s
economic standing and her perceived freedom and her capabilities to make the choices
that she finds valuable? Has her financial situation improved? What consequences has
that lead to in other areas of her life?
In order to answer these questions, I will ask the informant about what
consequences her income has for her self, her family and her relationship with her partner
(if she has one). What is she able to do for herself and her family now as compared to
before? Is there increased intra household conflict about spending and financial decisions
now compared to before, or less?
It is necessary to ask questions about her financial situation and (un)employment
before coming to Norway, in order to make comparisons between pre- and post-
migratory situation. One might envision a situation where the informant was employed
and earned a good income in Poland, but experiences either unemployment or a loss of
income since coming to Norway. In such a case, migration might yield a feeling of
worsening her capabilities instead of enhancing them. Lastly, what importance does she
attach to money, and does she endorse my idea of money’s liberating potential?
Health
What is the connection between health and freedom? Most people would agree that being
healthy is inherently a good thing, and that it enables many valuable activities and
54
functionings. Has migration affected the informant’s health in any way? Has she
experienced an improvement in her overall situation, or been cured from specific
illnesses or pains. Or has her health deteriorated since coming to Norway? What are the
connections between health, migration, gender and economy? In order to answer these
questions I will ask the informants whether their physical and, if the interview situation
allows it, mental health has been affected by migrating. Have they experienced stress in
arriving and settling here? Does the climate and culture agree with them, or do they feel
estranged or uncomfortable being in a new country? Do they feel that their life quality
has improved or worsened, and how has this affected their health situation?
Gender
Are gender roles different in Norway compared to Poland? Are there differences between
Polish women in Norway and Polish women in Poland? Are the demands on how they
manage their gender identities different here than there? What happens to the relationship
when a couple moves to Norway? Is it stressed, and if so, how? Do they break up, and if
so why? Related to this theme I will try to map out changes in gender roles in the
informants life or relationship that has occurred as a result of the migration. In order to
answer these questions I will continue on the theme of values and religion from the last
theme, and ask questions about the Polish population in Norway in general. To get
answers about the informants’ attitudes towards gender equality and feminism, I will ask
about her “ideal” way to organize a family and about gender roles. I’ll ask about the
difference between Polish and Norwegian women, men and families. Hopefully, I will
also be able to ask personal questions about the informant’s perception of the change in
her own gender role, or lack thereof, and her reflections about her own role. Is she
different here than at home? If so, how? And why?
The themes are highly interrelated, and there is no clear division between them.
However, organizing the material into these themes will help me structure the interviews
and the data analysis afterwards, and make the chapter “Four migrants’ stories” more
interesting than analyzing each informant separately.
55
Criteria for informants When I began searching for informants, I evaluated a certain set of criteria. These criteria
were as follows: gender, duration of stay in Norway, attachment to the legal work sphere
in Norway (these two factors are often closely related), and educational background. I
considered the criteria ‘background’ also with regards to rural/ urban origins, but found it
unfeasible, both because almost all the informants I found reported to come from cities,
and because it proved difficult to judge what should be perceived as “urban/ rural
background”: would it be where you were born? Where you had lived for the longest
period of time?
I had decided to interview only women, because I wanted to analyze women’s
liberation through migration. By including men, I would have been able to do an
interesting analysis of the meaning of gender in migratory processes, and compare men
and women, but this too, I found unfeasible, for two reasons. Firstly, because of limited
time and space in a master thesis, but primarily because the academic body of literature
analyzing men as gendered actors and the gendered structures impacting on men in
migration, as indeed on all of life’s areas, is very limited, compared to the body of
literature analyzing gender with regards to women.
I wanted to talk both to women who had just arrived in Norway, and women who
had been here for many years. The reason for this is that a number of changes occur over
a time span in a migratory process. Newly arrived migrants tend to be less integrated into
the work sphere, and often work in less secure and satisfying jobs, and often in the black
economy, or in the shady outskirts of the white economy. I view integration into the legal
work sphere to be critical for the experience of migration as liberating. Without a job that
is secure, in the sense that you earn vital welfare goods, such as insurance in case of
illness, etc, and without a job that feels meaningful to the employee, it seems unlikely
that the migrants experience liberation or freedom. However, there are situations where
an insecure job in the black economy could contribute to empowerment and freedom, for
example for a young and able bodied person, working for a limited period of time to save
money for investment or other. A person in such a situation might not want to pay taxes
or prioritize welfare goods and arrangements. Their salary and relative standard of living
in the host country is obviously also important.
56
Furthermore, migrants that are well integrated into the work sphere and have been
in the receiving country for many years will have gained perspective on their own
migration, and have a longer experience to learn from. I therefore find it necessary to talk
to both newly arrived migrants and more experienced ones.
With regards to educational level, it was my expectation that migrants with a high
educational level might be more articulate than those without higher education. My
expectation was that I would be able to have a discussion on a somewhat more interesting
and specific level with the educated ones, because they, through their education, would
be trained in analyzing processes and phenomena, such as migration. This proved to be
correct for one informant, but the other informant with a high education level.
It is the same thought that lies behind the age span in the informants. I wanted
both grown women who have more life experience, and who has seen the transformation
of a communist society into a capitalist one, and I wanted the younger generation’s
perspective. Younger women might not have experienced as much, but their perspective
reflects that they have most of their lives, and many of life’s important decisions ahead of
them: whether or not to have children, who with, whether to aim for a career or not, etc.
My initial thought was that they might be more in touch with, and inclined to share, their
hopes and dreams with me than the more mature woman.
Initially, I had planned to interview six informants, because I viewed this number
to be the highest possible to combine with a thorough, in-depth analysis of the data.
However, in the course of collecting data, I decided to limit my number of informants to
four. Once I had interviewed four women, transcribed the conversations and started to
analyze the contents, I found that the material was very rich, and that if I spent sufficient
time with it, I could uncover several layers of meaning in each interview. I thereby chose
to go deeply into each informant’s story, rather than select many stories. Because my aim
was to uncover feelings of liberation and freedom, or the opposite, and the importance of
the exercise of choice, and because of the subtle nature of these themes,
I found it appropriate to have longer, more in depth conversations with few informants,
than more superficial conversations with many.
57
Where to find them? In the process of finding informants, I chose to use my own personal network of family,
friends and acquaintances. I found that in order to find informants, it was an advantage to
have a social connection, and easier to gain access and ask for their time when we had
common acquaintances. In addition to using personal network, I also took direct contact
with two of the informants; I introduced myself and the project and achieved interviews
with them both. I found them through internet research and hearsay from acquaintances.
Finding informants proved to be easy, it seems Norwegian society is full of Polish
women interested in contributing to my research. Because my research has a case study
design and is not generalizable, I saw no reason not to find informants in this accessible
way.
Of course, there are several dangers in applying this method. Firstly, I could risk
getting only people employed as household cleaners by my friends or family. This would
put the informants in a position where it would be difficult for them to be frank about
their working conditions, their relationship to their employer, their salary, etc. I could end
up with a more positive impression of these conditions than how they were actually
experienced by the informants. However, I have secured what I see to be a sufficient
distance between myself, and my friends / family on the one hand and the informant on
the other hand. Hopefully, the distance is great enough for the informant not to feel
obligated to give me “nice” answers. For example, one informant is a tenant in the house
of a friend of a friend of mine. Another works as nanny for the children of some friends
of friends, of friends of mine.
In addition to the risk of interviewing someone who works for your friend, an
equally great flaw would be to interview only people who work in the black economy.
People in this category seemed to make out the majority of the informants I got through
my own network, as these people mostly were employed in some way, by my family or
friends. However, I found that the informants employed by people in my network, did not
only have attachment to black market, but that several were in the process of ‘climbing
the career ladder’, but held on to the cleaning job because, as informant Beata said, “its
good money”.
58
Ethics In the course of getting in touch with informants, I was concerned with informing them
about the project to such an extent that they could make a decision about participating or
not. With most of them, I gave only the most rudimentary information; that I’m a student
of development studies and that I am looking for interviewees among Polish women, that
I want to learn about their experiences with migration, and that I wish to analyze
migration in relation to liberation and empowerment. Some of the informants did ask for
more information than others, one wanted the questions e-mailed in advance, a demand
that I abided by. One informant didn’t want almost any information, but liked the sound
of being interviewed. After giving a varying degree of information over the phone (and in
one case via e-mail), I started each interview by informing about the project, introducing
my self and my role again, and opening for questions. I let the informant understand that I
wanted a conversation, and that I was interested in their opinion, their experience, and
that they could define the topics we would delve into. The principle of informed consent
stresses that “prospective research participants should be given as much information as
might be needed to make an informed decision about whether or not they wish to
participate in a study” (Bryman 2004: 511). Furthermore, The British Social Research
Association’s ethical guidelines emphasize the importance of informants receiving
enough information to make a rational choice on whether or not to participate. The SRA
also point out the importance of informants knowing that it is absolutely voluntary to
participate (and even in cases where it is somehow compulsory, it should be as informed
as possible), and that they are free to withdraw at any time (SRA Ethical Guidelines
2003: 50, 51).
But several questions arise from these guidelines. How much information is
enough to make an informed choice? One answer to this question that seems to be in line
with the general policy on openness, is that the informant herself should be given the
opportunity to choose how much information she wants, and the more information she is
given, the better. But of course, it’s difficult, if at all feasible, to provide the informant
with all the information about the project. That would include what the chosen focus, or
topic, is, explaining the rationale behind including and excluding different factors, the
theory that might confirm or challenge the researcher’s own ideas or theories. It would
59
also mean ensuring that the potential informant has understood the information correctly,
and that she has understood the same as the other informants.
In my research, I have operated from a need-to-know principle: I have tried to
give an outline of my intentions with the project, but as it is a process not yet finished, I
have found it difficult to be absolute about the angle and the focus of the thesis. I have
also opened up for questions and comments before, during and after the interview.
Four interrelated areas of ethical concern
Bryman (2004) refers to four main areas of ethical concern: harm to participants,
invasion of privacy and deception, in addition to the already mentioned importance of
informed consent. These concerns may seem radical, in the sense that apparently they are
only applicable under extreme research conditions, such as different forms of covert
research, but Bryman stresses the need to take ethical concerns into consideration also in
“ordinary” research. He criticizes what he sees as a trend of talking ethics just in
connection with spectacular or different types of covert research.
Most people and researchers will find research that causes harm to participants,
unacceptable. But what is ‘harm’? This term can mean anything from physical harm, to
psychological harm, loss of self esteem or stress. While it is easy to agree that researchers
should not cause physical harm to informants or other participants, it is more difficult to
abide by the demand of not causing them stress. Should the researcher really take sole
responsibility for the informant’s stress levels? If for example, a person agrees to be
interviewed, but once engaged in the interview finds it difficult to answer the questions,
and responds to this by becoming stressed, has the researcher then shown poor ethical
judgement? People get stressed over different things, and the informant’s response might
be hard to predict. Also, questions that are seen as inappropriate by some might be
acceptable to others. This becomes particularly applicable in inter-cultural research,
where cultural codes of conduct might be different from the researcher to the subject.
However, by applying an ethical ideal that no one should get stressed, one might stand
the risk of asking only unobtrusive questions, and thereby not researching issues that are
taboo or that people find it difficult to talk about.
60
During my research, informants occasionally declined to answer questions,
simply saying “I don’t want to talk about that”. I had encouraged them to be open about
what they wanted to talk about, and let them define how to deal with the issues I brought
to the fore. I experienced these declinations as un-dramatic, and the informants proceeded
with the conversation in a pleasant manner, like before, but I cannot guarantee that they
did not feel stressed. The SRA state that researchers
(…)“should try to minimise disturbance both to subjects themselves and to the subjects’ relationships with their environment. Social researchers should help subjects to protect their own interests by giving them prior information about the consequences of participating.” (SRA Ethical Guidelines, 2003: 35)
This quote shows the interconnectedness between the four identified areas of ethical
concern. By ensuring informed consent, that is, ensuring that the informant knows what
the research aim is, what the employed methods are, etc, harm to participants can be
avoided.
Other important facets of the concern over harm to participants are what the SRA
calls maintaining confidentiality and preventing disclosure of identities. These two issues
are also closely linked to the invasion of privacy- concern. Confidentiality demands that
people contributing to research should be made anonymous. This is especially
challenging for the researcher if interviewing people with very particular features. If they
can be identified from the published research, aspects of their private lives would be on
display for all to see. The display would be the same, but when details can be linked to an
identified individual, his or her privacy is no longer protected. For example, in my
research I have interviewed Polish women living in and around Oslo. This is a relatively
small group of people, in which many people know each other. Two of my informants
are, if not public figures, at least easily recognizable from a number of facts about their
lives. This made it difficult to transcribe the interviews because there were many details
about their jobs, their personal history etc that I could not disclose. Many of the finer
points of these interviews must therefore be thoroughly disguised before use in the thesis,
to ensure that the anonymity of the informant is maintained. More on this in the chapter
“Four migrants’ stories”.
61
The last of the ethical concerns identified here is deception. “Deception occurs
when researchers represent their research as something other than what it is” (Bryman
2004: 514). It is most obviously linked to covert research, where the researcher does not
disclose his or her true identity or motivation for being in the situation. This type of
research is highly controversial, but can in some cases give valuable information about
closed institutions or social phenomena. However, deception is closely linked to the
concern for informed consent. If the researcher does not give proper information to the
informant, and the informant gets the wrong idea about the research, the researcher might
be accused of deception.
In my research, I have given a varying degree of information to the different
informants. I have given them information that I wish to learn about their views on
gender roles and liberation, but I have been careful not to come across as a (radical)
feminist (which I am in many respects), because I have reason to believe that informants
might not want to meet with me, or might be hostile and give demonstrative answers if I
had given all the information about my views on matters of women’s liberation and
empowerment. Have I deceived them?
I have given them enough information about the project and the aim of the
research for them to make an informed choice about whether or not they wished to
participate or not. I told them that I want to learn about their migratory process, and how
it had affected their lives, and whether it had given them freedom and liberty, compared
to their lives in Poland. I have given them space to define these terms for themselves. I
have not entered into a discussion with them on my views on these issues, because I
wanted their views to enter the space between us unhindered by potential disagreement
between us.
Depositing the data
Safe storing of the data is in important issue when collecting sensitive information about
identifiable private persons. The interviews were recorded by microphone on a minidisk
player, and completely transcribed afterwards. The discs have been kept in a deposit
62
locker in my office, to which I have the only key. The transcriptions have been stored on
my home area in the University of Oslo data system, which only I can access.
63
64
Four migrants’ stories This chapter is organized according to the themes introduced in the Methods chapter. I
will first introduce the four informants, and various methodological concerns and issues
connected to the categorization process. The themes Choice, Work, Money, Health and
Gender are all analyzed from their relation and contribution to freedom and to enhancing
the informant’s capabilities. In this chapter the voices of the goal of this chapter is to
scrutinize the extent to which migration and life in Norway had contributed to, or
decreased, their freedom. It is my aim that the voices of the four informants should be
central in what follows. I have called them Helena, Beata, Malgorzata and Agnieszka.
The informants Here follows a short introduction of the four women that have contributed to my research
by being informants, what they have in common and what characterizes the sessions I
had with them. The informant’s personality traits such as names, addresses, employers
name or name of company etc are altered so that they will not be recognized, and their
confidentiality is protected. In addition, other facts such as the number and sex of their
children, the nature of their jobs and other distinct features of their lives, are left out, to
ensure that the informants’ identity cannot be exposed, if any reader should make an
effort to do so. This confidentiality measure has some less fortunate implications, such as
sentences like this one, from the introduction of the second informant: “Beata is in her
early forties, is married and has more than one child.” It might seem as if neither she nor I
are certain about how many children she has, but I chose this phrasing because it is the
one which protects her identity most. It means she could have two, or three or any
number of children. The following quote from Malgorzata has also been anonymized to
an extent that might seem exaggerated:
M: .. I see possibilities everywhere, if I go to (Asian country) I start (business); if I go to (Latin American country) I can start a little hotel with school or something, so.. there is really nowhere I could go and not succeed.
65
Read more about informed consent and ethical issues concerning informants and
confidentiality in the Methods chapter.
The four informants were interviewed in November and December 2007. The
interviews took place in various locations: in a café, in the informant’s office or in her
home, according to the wishes of the informant and what was convenient for her. The
length of the interviews varied from one hour to two and half hours. All the interviews
were recorded by microphone on a minidisk player.
All the informants live in or near by Oslo. Their age ranges from 23 to 58. They
all come from large or relatively large cities in Poland; none of them are from rural areas.
Their education level ranges from university level to more vocational training, but they
all have higher education beyond the compulsory level. The length and quality of their
work experiences are highly differentiated, as they are of different age and have worked
in different sectors. Their economic situations also vary, from a comfortable lifestyle
involving a lot of travelling and other expensive activities, to cramped housing and
budget spending and saving. None of them are extreme in either direction, but there is
considerable span.
Their ability to speak Norwegian is highly differentiated. The interview with
Helena was done in English, with a “language helper” who functioned as a translator of a
kind, and the others were done in Norwegian. With two of the informants I was able to
speak Norwegian unhindered; that is, use the words that would come to me, and not use
simpler words or explain what I meant. In the third interview done in Norwegian, I would
facilitate more, ask simple questions, and use phrasing that was not academic or
sophisticated. This interview was still very valuable, and together the informant and I
were able to reach an agreement, an understanding. Still, there is a certain probability that
nuances and more subtle meanings were not communicated in this interview.
The quotes in the following pages are all translated from Norwegian, except those
of Helena. This is problematic, because meaningful nuances might be lost, and an extra
interpretation is added to the data. However, the original quotes in Norwegian are
enclosed in the appendix, so that it is possible for the reader (who reads Norwegian) to
66
learn their actual phrasing. Helena’s quotes are not enclosed, as they can be read in their
original form in the text itself.
The translation is extra problematic because it comes in addition to the informants
not speaking their mother tongue, and thereby perhaps not using the exact adequate
words to describe what they really mean.
The length of their time in Norway varies from one year to more than 30 years,
though all but one have been here for less than seven years. Their plans about how long
they whish to stay ranges from two to three years to indefinitely.
In the following pages, there will be several examples of transcripts from the
interviews I did with the four informants. Only the first letter of our names will indicate
who utters the sentence.
The course of the interviews The interviews started out by my informing about my project, my thesis and my
background, and opening up for questions. The informants frequently had some questions
about anonymity, about the language barrier, about the length of the interview or about
the recording equipment. I asked them to tell me if they couldn’t understand what I
meant, or disagreed with the premises of my questions. The interviews took the form of
relatively relaxed conversation, where I introduced the themes: choice, work, money,
health and gender, and let the informant contribute in determining exactly what about the
theme that she found interesting or relevant to talk about. The informants were given
leeway to define the conversation, but I still asked many follow up questions, to steer the
interview in the direction that I wanted. I wanted to talk about more or less the same
themes with all the informants, but found it difficult to cover some themes in certain
interviews. Especially the theme “Choice”, and related issues like freedom and
empowerment, was difficult to discuss with some of the informants, for various reasons.
With Helena, the first informant, I tried asking if she felt empowered by migrating, or
more specifically, by making so much more money now than she did at home in Poland.
This transcription from our conversation exemplifies how my questions were not fully
67
operationalized at this point, and how the informant didn’t grasp the meaning of my
question:
K: Uhm, yeah, money. You make five times as much here as you did in your (name of previous job) H: Yeah. K: So that’s a good.. (laughing) That’s a good salary! H: Yeah! (laughing) K: What do you think that earning this money enables you to do, what do you do with the money? (H does not understand, turns to C for interpretation) C: (Interpreting for H) –What do we do with the money? K: I don’t wanna know what your buy, I’m interested in if the money gives you power. H: (laughing) Yeah, I can feel it! (laughing and making grasping, supposedly greedy, movements with her hands)
So I experienced that asking people if they are empowered or free, will usually give no
meaningful answer.
With Malgorzata, it was sometimes difficult to obtain an answer to my question,
particularly about the time and nature of her move from Poland. The process of migrating
had not been a clean cut decision for her, but had evolved gradually. I experienced that
my own conceptions about decision making processes and the nature of migration,
clashed with Malgorzata’s experience, and caused me to misunderstand her responses in
an initial phase. More on this shortly.
All the informants were interested and engaged in our conversation; they asked
questions and went out of their way to understand what I was asking, and to make me
understand what they were answering.
Helena
Helena was the first informant that I met, and she was interviewed the 6th of November in
a noisy café close to her home in Oslo. It was her suggestion that we meet there, and she
met me accompanied by her husband. Though this was not what I had planned, I chose to
go through with the interview, even though the husband took an active part in it. He
contributed with opinions of his own, and it became a conversation between the three of
68
us, rather than between Helena and me. The conversation would probably have been very
different if it had been just the two of us, even though the husband was not dominant in
the conversation, rather an equal party to it.
I heard about Helena through friends of mine, who knew of her through other
friends. Helena had been babysitting for these other friends on a few occasions. I thereby
deemed her to be not too close to my private sphere, so that she would not be restricted
by loyalty qualms to her employer when talking about work etc. Read more about these
issues in the Methods chapter.
Helena and I spoke in English, and she frequently had to stop and search for the
right words, or ask her husband what this or that word in Polish was in English. She is 23
years old, comes from a large Polish city; in comparison larger than Oslo. She finished
her studies in Poland, and worked for a short period as a shop assistant before coming to
Norway a little over a year ago. She came together with her husband, and she works as a
nanny in a private household in Oslo, a job with which she is very satisfied. She has a
contract, a good salary and likes her work. She has no children of her own. Her
perspective is to stay in Norway for a few years, but they seem open to settle here more
permanently too, if that feels right.
Helena laughs a lot, and although she initially tells me she’s nervous, she soon
starts to enjoy the situation, and by the end of the interview, she won’t accept that we’re
finished, but asks me to ask her more questions.
Beata
I met Beata in her home in a suburb to Oslo. It was her preference that we meet there. I
heard of Beata through my friend, as Beata’s landlady is a friend of my friend. The
landlady and I have only met briefly once or twice. As living conditions is not a theme I
wished to discuss, (and the relation between the landlady and Beata are allegedly good) I
deemed that the relation was not too close, and that Beata could potentially speak
unrestricted to me.
Beata and I spoke in Norwegian, but her knowledge of the language was
restricted, and that put restrictions on our conversation as well, as I had to phrase my
69
questions in simple words and facilitate the communication. Even so, our conversation
was meaningful and interesting, although some meaning might have been lost.
Beata is in her early forties, is married and has more than one child. Her husband
came to Norway first, and she decided to move to Norway too, together with their
youngest child, because she wanted the family to be together, and because opportunities
are better here than in Poland. Her perspective is to stay in Norway for at least ten years.
She comes from a big city, where she has worked as a clerk and as a manager in various
businesses, both in private and public sector. She has several jobs in Norway: cleaning
private houses, in technical production and in a care profession. She describes her jobs as
climbing a ladder:
B: (…) but you know, first I must learn Norwegian, then, after, when I know good Norwegian, maybe I can have other type of work, maybe in an office. Because I… all my life I have worked in an office. I like that!
Malgorzata
Malgorzata and I met in her office. She has been in Norway for seven years, is self
employed and is well established in the Norwegian society. She is the one of the two
informants that I found through other channels than my own private network. The other
one is Agnieszka, to whom we shall shortly return. Malgorzata speaks Norwegian very
well, and I could speak with her almost like I would speak with a native. However, our
communication is not entirely smooth, as I failed to receive answers to some of my
questions, even after probing. One such question was age, but my guess is that she is in
her late thirties or early forties. In comparison, the conversation with her was the one
where I felt least able to steer the conversation, to attain answers to my primary themes,
and to establish a good atmosphere. This might be because our views especially on
gender issues are opposites, and this somehow did shine through in the interview
situation. Although I was careful not to ‘reveal’ myself as a feminist, my questioning the
hegemony would make it somewhat apparent where my opinion lies. One example of this
was when Malgorzata excused her views:
70
M: And, here, if you have a car, you have to do everything yourself, in Poland, if you have a car, and you have a man: done deal, very simple! (Laughing) Then you can complain to the husband: the car is shitty, the car is such and such, it’s his responsibility, so, yeah.. So they have to be a little more macho, they have to go out into the world and fight the obstacles, but here.. the man retreats a little, I think.. Maybe I have a bad opinion, but it’s my opinion! K: The most important thing is your opinion, not my.. what I think of your opinion. That is irrelevant. (The informants interrupts and starts talking about gender roles in Latin America)
Malgorzata has lived in other countries before coming to Norway, and does not entirely
dismiss the idea that she might not stay in Norway indefinitely, but move to another
country, or maybe travel back and forth between countries. She does however dismiss the
idea of settling in Poland again, as she has too many friends here in Norway. On several
occasions during the interview, we touch upon issues of belonging, the notion of “home”,
and the feeling of being “in-between”, feeling neither Norwegian, nor Polish; issues that
would benefit from analysis through a transnational framework:
M: Eh, yeah, like I said, I’ve moved from country to country, I don’t really feel Polish. K: Okey? M: I feel European! (…) M: What annoys me.. I mean, I’m Polish, so I won’t.. I’m not Polish and not Norwegian, that’s how I want to put it, I’m in between..
Malgorzata has many years of higher education, has experience from various sectors in
private enterprise, and is successful in her business. She is also more affluent than the
other informants, and might be the one informant with the strongest economic standing.
She came to Norway alone, is settled here with a boyfriend, and has no children.
71
Agnieszka
Agnieszka also chose to meet me in her office. She is the informant who has been here
for the longest period of time; over 30 years, and thereby has long experience as a
migrant. She has lived here for most of her life, got married and had children here. She
speaks Norwegian like a native; the only way to detect her foreign origin is a very slight
accent. Like Malgorzata, she speaks of the importance of integration, and exemplifies
how she went about to become a part of the Norwegian society:
A: So I got myself an education, a Norwegian education, which gave me the admission ticket to Norwegian work force on the level I felt was right for me.. and like I said earlier, I told myself very early on, I decided.. I have to pretend I’m not an immigrant, I need to keep the same level of ambition as if I had never left my country.. or else it’s a failure, I can’t lower the threshold consciously, because I can’t say to myself I’m an immigrant, so I can’t, in a way, try to reach as high as everyone else. No! I’ll try, and if I don’t succeed, it won’t be for lack of trying. And I succeeded.
Agnieszka’s process of coming to Norway is different from the other informants’, as she
became an adult under the communist regime, and suffered from the restrictions that were
put on her freedom under this regime. She describes the political situation in Poland at
the time as the primary reason for migrating, while the others point to reasons such as
economic necessity, a sense of adventure and the family’s unity. She is different from the
other informants in that she has spent much time contemplating questions of choice,
freedom and gender, and in a sense her answers are already analyzed, whereas the other
informants supply me with “raw data”. She even comments on this, noting how she is not
a good person to interview, since she belongs to the intelligentsia, and to some extent
sees the society from outside:
A: (…) You know, I am not a rewarding person to interview, because I belong to the intelligentsia group, and.. All I say is based on.. But I try to observe, in other layers of society.. (…)
72
The structure: themes The four informants have contributed with very much information about diverse aspects
of their lives, loosely categorized in the themes choice, work, money, health and gender.
In the following, I will analyze the data categorized in the themes already
mentioned. I will take as my starting point how they relate to freedom. The question that I
wish to illuminate is: Has their migration enhanced their freedom, on various areas of
their lives? And if so, how? If not, why?
Has their migration contributed to development in the Sen’ian understanding, to
development as freedom? Freedom is thereby the central term, and the different themes
are analyzed from their relation to, and their contribution to the migrant’s freedom.
In order to investigate the effects of migration on their freedom, I chose to look
more closely at certain aspects of the informants’ lives, namely the distinct features of
their jobs and their economic situation, their health, and their gendered lives; all of which
I assume to represent their freedom, of be marked by the lack of freedom. By
categorizing in this way, I have isolated different aspects of their lives, and will be able to
analyze the degree to which they enjoy freedom, or not, in these various areas. This
figure illustrates the relation between the themes and the overriding idea of freedom:
The questions relevant to the different themes are thereby: did the process of
choosing to migrate give the informant a feeling of decision making power, and did it
give her actual power to change the course of her life? Did making the choice strengthen
73
her freedom? When asking this it is crucial to remember the distinction between the
function choosing, and the instrumental value, the outcome of the choice. Under this
theme I am primarily concerned with the function, what factors influenced the informant
in the time of her choice, and her perception of the process. To what extent it was a
choice between different alternatives, and not the only option?
To what extent has her work and financial situation changed since coming to
Norway, and how has this change contributed to, or diminished, her freedom? Has
migration meant safer employment, a more interesting or rewarding job, a better salary?
Or the opposite; has she become employed in the black economy, prone to harassment
and exploitation?
How has the migration affected her physical and psychological health?
And how has the migration changed her life as a woman? Are societal structures
and expectations to women different in Norway than in Poland? Has the migration
changed power relations within the family? Has the informant experienced a sense of
liberation since moving?
A more thorough introduction to the themes and how they relate to freedom, and
how they will be analyzed will be given in the introduction to each theme.
Although I will analyze the themes categorically and present the data relevant to
each theme successively, it is impossible to treat them as isolated entities. They are
highly interrelated, and do not make up complete and mutually exclusive categories.
Rather they are intertwined in more ways than not. For example, the themes of money
and work, and how they relate to freedom, overlap each other: work provides income
(money), but has many other qualities: it can be rewarding or interesting or tiresome or
abusive. If you receive a high salary, but you are isolated or harassed at work; which is
more important in relation to freedom? Money is a category which is seemingly
uncomplicated, but in fact, making money does not tell us anything about the person’s
ability to utilize the money in ways that she sees fit, or her possibility to become
empowered from them. By incorporating the individual’s ability to achieve certain
functionings from given resources, and not focusing on ownership or access to the
resources, the capability approach is distinguished from resource focused theories, such
as Rawls’ primary goods.
74
Methodologically distinguishing features of the themes
The themes are methodologically different, and this has implications for how they are
applied in the analysis of data material.
Choice is distinguished from the other themes (work, money, health and gender)
by several qualities, firstly the moment in time to which they apply: while the first theme
is relevant in the pre-migratory situation, the remaining themes are relevant and describe
the situation for the migrants when in their “new” country. I talked with the migrants
about their work, their financial situation, their health and their views and opinions about
gender roles and the importance of gender for their migratory experience and for their
lives in general, and in these conversations, we discussed primarily their lives in Norway,
not the lives they had when in Poland. (This is also a problematic distinction, as many
aspects of their lives will obviously be the same; however the migration is viewed to be
an important distinction in the informants’ lives, and will be treated as such.)
Furthermore, they are methodologically different with regards to their
operationalizing mode: the three themes work, money and health are in one sense the
most fully operationalized in my quest to analyze the informant’s freedom. This means I
can learn about factors in their lives, related to the three themes, and draw conclusions
about, not the experienced or actual empowerment and liberation, but the potential for it.
Especially in the theme Work I can identify relatively objective measures (see chapter
Theme 2: Work - The Fafo questionnaire) from which I can conclude on the potential for
freedom and empowerment in the informant’s work situation.
In addition I have asked them about their own experience, their subjective
interpretation of their situation with regards to work, money and health. Their experience
is the most important measure in understanding the potential for development from their
migration. The capability is a people-centered approach (Sen), in which the individual
agency is paramount to development, and to evaluation of development processes. It is
necessary when dealing with objective measures to be aware that Sen explicitly argues
against expert development schemes, where people are empowered by forces outside
75
their own control. “(…) this freedom-centered understanding of economics and of the
process of development is very much an agent oriented view. (Sen 1999: 11).
However, it is necessary to look at objective measures as well. This is also an
important point in Sen’s theory, that even if people say they are happy or content with a
certain arrangement, that does not mean that they don’t suffer from deprivation. This is
the principle of adaptive preference formation, meaning that even though people may be
subjected to exploiting activities, or experience poverty, harassment or capability
deprivation, they may not find that fact upsetting, simply because they can’t imagine the
alternative: equality, power and freedom, or because they believe that their deprivation is
rightful, either justified by religion or by an overwhelmingly hegemonic societal
structure.
“The deprived people tend to come to terms with their deprivation because of the sheer necessity of survival, and they may, as a result, lack the courage to demand any radical change, and may even adjust their desires and expectations to what they unambitiously see as feasible” (Sen 1999: 63).
Against this background, the necessity of mapping out factors independent of the
informants’ perceptions becomes visible.
Is that to say that the informants don’t know what is best for them? That their
analysis of deprivation; how to conceptualize it, understand it, explain it and what
remedy to apply to it, is somehow less interesting? If they themselves don’t know if they
have capabilities and freedom, who does? These are questions related to
operationalization, and I will scrutinize these questions further in relation to the theme
where the distinction between subjective and objective measures is most visible: Theme
2: Work - “The Fafo questionnaire”.
Lastly, the theme gender is methodologically distinguished from the others,
because it is not a clearly identified area of the informant’s life; such as work, money and
health, quite the contrary. It is a concept that cross cuts all the others, in that it impacts on
choice, work, money, and freedom, and on how migration works in relation to these
areas.
76
Theme 1: Choice
The idea behind giving “choice” such a central role in the understanding of the
migrational process of my informants is that choice is the crux of freedom: if there is no
room for making informed choices between different actions or alternatives, we cannot
say that the actor enjoys freedom in that given situation. Choice is thereby the epicentre
to freedom: you cannot have one without the other. It was therefore crucial for me to
appreciate the informant’s own understanding of the situation she was in when making
the decision (choosing) to migrate: to what extent was it a choice between equally good
alternatives? Did she find that she had other relevant alternatives, or did necessity,
economic or other, push her to migrate against her own will?
I found that my inherent understanding of the decision-making process was
relevant for three of the four informants: I understood it to be a clean cut decision a la “I
will move (to Norway) for a (specific or uncertain) period of time”. As already
mentioned, this understanding was a disadvantage in my meeting with Malgorzata, as her
experience with migration had been governed by other principles. It has not been a clean
cut decision, quite the contrary: she had moved for some months when she was still in her
teens, but had come back, then moved again. For a period of time she did commute: stay
in a certain European country for three weeks and in Poland for one week. Eventually,
she moved to Norway and stayed for longer and longer periods here, and now she feels
that this is “home”. This migrational experience communicates well with the
transnational framework which I touched upon briefly in the Literature review chapter.
The theme of choice is relevant to the migrants’ situation before migrating, as it is
the choice to migrate, not the choice to stay which is looked into here. This is an
important distinction, as the other themes relate to their situation once in Norway, and
how their new situation impacts on their freedom on life’s different areas. Different
factors motivated the informants to move: money, adventure, family, and politics; but in
most of the cases it was a combination of these elements. Two of the informants are
rather specific about economy being the key motivating factor in their decision, at least
indirectly.
77
Helena describes a situation where economy and job possibilities were the main
motivating factor when she and her husband (C) decided to migrate, and where the choice
fell on Norway almost accidentally:
C: Yeah.. It was like we was choosing some country to go H: Yeah, [our parents] know [that we were going to leave] C: .. to make a discovery K: So you were going anyway? C: Yeah, we were thinking about some country where we can go, just open the map and.. (C stabs imaginary map with index finger) K: Right C: This one or this one K: Right H: We don’t see any sense stay in Poland, because we can’t find any good job. K: Mm H: Yeah. That’s why we came here.
They had jobs in Poland after they finished their education, but couldn’t see any sense in
staying, when by moving they could obtain jobs where the salary is much higher. They
describe their plans to save money in order to start up a business in Poland upon their
return.
Earning money was important because it would enable them to create a future
together, to start their own business and become self employed, to become a “real
couple”, and start a family. Helena estimates that if they had stayed in Poland, they would
have to wait for five years before they could get married, because they would not have
been able to afford to move into their own apartment, and pay for their own living
expenses. They felt that without migration, their future would be postponed, but by
moving, they could make things they yearned for happen sooner:
C: So, we’re looking for something like, saving some money, have like.. okay, we have a contract, like full time contract, or something like this, and then okay, it’s gonna be like better and better and better, and we are sure of that, then we can just get married and live like a couple. A real couple. H: Yeah. (laughing)
78
Beata also describes the economy as the single most important factor in her decision, but
indirectly. She chose to come here because her husband (S) was already here. He was
here because of the economic situation and the lack of good jobs in Poland. She came
after him because she didn’t want to be separated from him, and because she wanted to
live like a family with her husband and youngest child. She had been together with her
husband since her teens, and they had never been separated. She described the separation
from him as intolerable:
B: We talk on internet, on Skype K: Mhm B: But it is no good, because I long for.. Always we were together, always! Because 23 years, S go out only once K: Mhm B: for three months K: Yeah? (…) B: And it was very difficult for me, I came to visit, only visit, (…) and I say, “S, you must finish here, you must come home, because this is impossible..”
Her other child(ren) had already moved out from the parental home when the decision to
migrate was made. Her husband migrated because he was unemployed, and unable to
find a good job in Poland. Also, they had a loan in the bank which they were not able to
handle, even though Beata worked very hard. In this situation, she had no time for her
family, and her health was declining. Her youngest child (M) also had some unidentified
learning disabilities, which I didn’t catch the specifics of, that had an impact on the
decision making process Beata was going through:
B: When I live in Poland, I think only that I must live with my husband.. K: Yes? B: And that I need new job, with better salary K: Mhm B: And I think about M K: mhm B: And (his/her) problems..
The two other informants do not mention economic factors specifically when explaining
their choice to migrate. Malgorzata emphasizes her own open personality, her parents and
79
their strong interest in travelling, and how this influenced her, and her gift for learning
languages.
She describes how she relates to the world as an adventure, an open space where she can
easily venture out. She has never primarily thought of Poland as the boundaries for her
life, when she might just as easily move to another country as to another city within
Poland:
M: We can talk about moving from Bergen to Oslo or from Oslo to Thailand, and it is all the same for me. It doesn’t matter if it’s Poland, or if it’s Norway or Germany, ehm.. Its just like, do you have a better job? Fine! Do you have a better environment? Fine! That is enough to move. Do you have better friends? That is enough to move! Ehm.. so, there was no particular reason why I moved..
However, there is reason to conclude that the communist economic structure was
determining as a background factor for her choice to leave, even though she stresses the
lack of freedom to travel as a key issue. For an entrepreneur, a socialist economy is an
absolute restriction, as it would be impossible to start a business under that regime.
Malgorzata is a business woman, and during our conversation she emphasizes her ability
to see possibilities in the market, and to succeed business wise:
K: Did you feel that there were good alternatives for you in Poland, or did you feel that the best alternatives lay abroad? M: mhm. Yes. Then the better alternatives were abroad. Now I think there is nowhere I couldn’t succeed. I have a very good education and I speak languages and I am very open towards different jobs, and I also have.. I see possibilities everywhere, if I go to (Asian country) I start (business), if I go to (Latin American country) I can start a little hotel with school or something, so.. there is really nowhere I could go and not succeed.
Agnieszka describes her choice to move from Poland in distinctly different terms. She
does not mention economy or job opportunities as motivating factors, but points to the
inherent lack of democratic rights in the Polish socialist society, such as freedom of
speech, freedom of assembly, freedom to oppose the regime politically. She is explicit
about it being a political choice, dependent on her individual character as a freedom
seeking person who could not flourish in a socialist society:
80
A: I felt that in a way, the choice was either I stay here, in a country I love more than anything, but I don’t develop as a person; in a sense I sacrifice myself, or I leave and learn to live without the country, or at least distanced from it, but I win as an individual. So that was the choice I made. So I.. it was in a way.. the first great liberation, that was then.
So in order to live a full and free life, she left, even though it was difficult. When asked
about alternative actions she might have taken, alternatives to leaving, she answers that of
course there were alternatives, of course she could have stayed, but in order to create a
meaningful existence for herself, she felt she had to leave. She also points to the
importance of individual difference, exemplified by her own sibling, who chose to stay in
Poland, and did not have any problems conforming to the socialist society and the
political suppression that Agnieszka describes as so crippling for her own happiness.
K: You said that you had no choice, was that how it felt, or was it.. how should I put it? Was that how it felt or was that the way it was (laughing), bad phrasing, but.. A: That’s how it felt. It wasn’t de facto, of course one could have stayed, many people stayed, many people lived almost normal lives, but I think we are so different as individuals, I have a (sibling) who thrived, had no problem, even considered joining the Party to get extra benefits; an apartment outside the queue, pretty opportune, in a way.. right? that type.. of person in the same family, so I think it had a lot to do with the individual, the personality. K: Mhm A: Freedom has always been very important to me
That she came to Norway was incidental, because she met a Norwegian man whom she
married, and that enabled her to leave Poland and settle in Norway. Agnieszka has many
thoughts on how Norwegian “state-feminism” has influenced her life, and how she has
been allowed a more liberated life in Norway than she would have in many other
European countries, including Poland. More on this under the theme “Gender”.
81
Theme 2: Work – The Fafo questionnaire
The question that I wished to illuminate in this theme is: Does the informant’s work in
Norway empower her and serve to liberate her? Is her freedom enhanced by her
participation in the work sphere in Norway? In order to answer these questions, I made a
methodological distinction between two perspectives: the informant’s own perception of
her work illustrated by questions like the ones above; attached to her own experience and
perception of her work situation; and an adaptation of the research institute Fafo’s
research on Polish people in Oslo. The reason behind this distinction is related to the
principle of adaptive preference formation, as explained under the heading
“Methodologically distinguishing features of the themes”, and based on the necessity of
objective measures in analyzing the potential for freedom for the migrants, in addition to
their own perception of the situation. I might see radically different things in their work
situation than what they themselves see or feel or experience, but both our perceptions
are important in order to create a truthful image of the situation. The difference between
the objective measures and the informant’s perception is potentially quite large, as
migrants from countries with lower salaries, less security and less formalized rights in the
professional life, might accept conditions in Norway far below the lawful standard,
because even still the conditions would be better than in their own home country.
Several questions arise from this: Will full integration in the legal work sphere in
Norway necessarily lay the basis for freedom for the informants? Of course not, my
guiding idea is simply that if the informant enjoys job security, social security with
regard to health and unemployment following this integration, the probability for freedom
is greater than if she is fully submerged into the black economy, which has less security.
However, some might experience more freedom from working in the black sector: for
example a young, unattached and able bodied person might want to prioritize working
and earning as much as possible, not paying taxes, but rather save or invest the money for
later benefit. Furthermore, it might seem that my insistence on objective measures
somehow lessen the importance of the informants’ analysis of the situation. Notice,
however, that I wish the Fafo measure to complement the subjective perception of the
informants. I also wish to stress Sen’s emphasis on agency;
82
“The people have to be seen, in this [capability] perspective, as being actively involved – given the opportunity – in shaping their own destiny, and not just as passive recipients of the fruits of cunning development programs.” (Sen, 1999: 53).
I find it reasonable to assume that Sen views the people in question to be very well
equipped in evaluating their own capabilities and freedom: “The objective of
development relates to the valuation of the actual freedoms enjoyed by the people
involved” (Ibid). I might also remind the reader of Nussbaum’s answer to critique related
to operationalization: “We need to rely on the ingenuity of those who suffer from
deprivation: they will help us to find ways to describe, and even to quantify, their
predicament.” (Nussbaum, 2000b: 242). Read more about this in the Theory chapter.
The Fafo report is a quantitative study in which 510 individuals were interviewed,
419 men and 91 women. In this research several indicators of legal attachment to the
work sphere are identified, and employed to research the integration of Polish people into
the Norwegian work force. These indicators are related to whether or not the informants
have tax cards and pay taxes, whether they have a social security number in Norway,
whether they have a written contract with their employer, if they are registered with the
police, and the manner in which they receive their salary, in cash or more formal
transmission. These indicators are thought to be important in assessing the safety and
rights regime of Polish workers in Norway, whether they have the same legal rights in
relation to sick leave, unemployment, work related injuries, etc, and general protection
against exploitation as (Norwegian) workers in the official economy. It is my assumption
that if these basic conditions are met, the informant’s work in Norway has potential to
enhance her freedom. In contrast, if the informants are employed in the black economy, if
they have weak or no attachment to the legal work sphere, if they lack basic job security
and rights in case of unemployment etc, the work might be said not to have potential for
enhancing her freedom. However, as already specified, these are my assumptions; I
recognize that there are situations where a job in the illegal work sphere could enhance an
individual’s freedom. During our meetings, the informants filled out a questionnaire
concerning their attachment to the work sphere as described by these indicators.
83
In the following, I will first present the findings of the Fafo research project, then
the results of the questionnaires, and make a comparison between the quantitative data
and my own, qualitative findings. In the next chapter I’ll look at the informants’ own
perceptions of their work situation.
The Fafo research shows that 63% of the Polish women in Oslo work as cleaners,
both in the official (“white”) and un-official (“black”) economic sector. Of these cleaners,
only 17 % answer “yes” to all the questions concerning legal attachment to the work
sphere, while an astonishing 70% answer “No” to four or more of the six questions, and
are thereby characterized as “illegal” workers with poor attachment to the legal work
sphere, and thereby vulnerable workers with few rights. The remaining 13% are
somewhere in between, in a legal grey area, where they have some rights, but not enough
to be characterized as legal workers. Only one in four cleaners pays taxes to either
country.
When comparing these findings to the findings of my questionnaire, we see that
Helena, Beata, Malgorzata and Agnieszka are decisively better off than the average
Polish woman in Oslo.
The questionnaire consists of six questions, to which the informant was asked to
tick one of two boxes, either “Yes” or “No”. Not all of the questions are instantly
recognized as yes/no questions, but only one of the informants, Malgorzata, commented
on this. For Beata, I translated the questions, as she does not speak English well enough
to fill it out herself. Helena and Agnieszka filled out the questionnaire without comment.
The six questions in the questionnaire are phrased as follows:
- I pay taxes to Norway or Poland
- I have a Norwegian tax card
- I have a social security number in Norway
- I have a written contract with my employer or my own registered company
- I am registered with the police
- I get my salary into my bank account or by check
84
All the informants ticked the “yes” box for every question, except Beata, who has six
jobs, out of which four are in the informal economy, and for which she doesn’t have a
contract, and doesn’t get paid through official channels, but receives payment cash.
However, her two other jobs are legitimate, and for those jobs, she could answer “yes” to
all the questions. This indicates that all the informants have a good attachment to the
work sphere; they have social security in case of illness or unemployment, they are
relatively protected from harassment and exploitation in comparison to the workers in the
informal sector. This is an indication that basic conditions for their work as a freedom-
enhancing factor are met. Obviously, the informants could very well be harassed or
subjected to degrading treatment etc in a job within the white work sphere. I have simply
stated that the formal features of their work seem to facilitate their capabilities better than
the features of jobs in the informal economy.
What does it mean that my findings deviate substantially from those of the Fafo
team? Are my informants highly unrepresentative? Are they atypical? If so, what
valuable lessons are there to be learnt from studying them? Firstly, my informants are not
representative for the population of Polish women in Oslo, and they were never meant to
be. I have selected them using my own personal network; hence the findings are not
necessarily generalizable. They are atypical in that two of them have been here for
several years, and are well established in the Norwegian society. The knowledge we can
generate from this research cannot be weighed and measured, but we can find support for
assumptions about migration and its effect on liberation, freedom and empowerment. My
research is qualitative, and by definition the data are not generalizable. For more on
criteria for informants and methodological issues, see Methods chapter.
Theme 2: Work – The Informants’ own perceptions
The informants are content and even happy with their place in the job market. They
experience that they are respected by their superiors and co workers, that their jobs are
meaningful and interesting, and that they learn important new things through their jobs.
Their jobs range from successfully running her own company (Malgorzata), to holding a
leading position in the sector where she is experienced and educated (Agnieszka), to
85
employed in a low paid, low status domestic job as nanny (Helena), to holding four
illegitimate cleaning jobs and two low paid, low status jobs in the industry and in the care
professions, respectively (Beata).
Helena and Beata and Agnieszka all describe their participation in the work
sphere (at various points in time) as climbing the ladder, meaning working their way up,
through less interesting and less paid jobs, towards a job with better salary, more rights
and closer to their own area of interest. This is understood by the informants as a sensible
development: first they need to learn the language and become confident in using it in
work situations; then they can search for jobs that are more interesting to them.
Agnieszka describes how she took jobs that gave her knowledge about the Norwegian
society, and where she had to practice more and more Norwegian:
A: (…) So that was the road I had to travel, but I climbed the ladder, of course I climbed the ladder. I had no chance of getting a job adequate to my education (…)
Beata describes that she is about to take the next step on the ladder:
B: (…) I talked to (name of superior), and she said that because my work is good, she thinks it’s possible that when my temporary position is finished, I can get a permanent position. Yeah.. K: Oh? Is that full time, or every other weekend, or..? B: Yes, full time K: Aha! That’s amazing! B: It is the next phase of my life K: So then you’ll work only there, or both [jobs]? B: Now I can work here and.. Both, but I.. After I think that one place, one workplace is better for me, but you know, first I must learn Norwegian, then after, once I know it well, maybe I can get other type of job, maybe in an office. Because I.. all my life I’ve worked in an office. I like that.
Helena describes the same experience; that she started out by cleaning in private homes,
and has moved on to a job that she enjoys doing, but that she still wishes to climb the
ladder:
H: Nice job. (laughing)
86
K: So you’re happy with this job? H: Yeah, I’m happy, but maybe in the future I want to work in the barnehage. Yeah. I start Norwegian course. I finish first level, but I can’t speak Norwegian. (Laughing) (…) H: ehm.. My first job it was cleaning, it was black, yeah, and then I find in the FINN some family, they need dagmamma, I worked there three months, because the girl.. eh.. go to the kindergarten, and they give me the phone to (current employers), and that’s why I came there, yeah..
She likes her job very much, she has “two lovely (children)”, and she describes how she
enjoys taking care of them, taking them out and playing with them, that she has access to
internet in her workplace, that it is rewarding and easy, and that the family she works for
treats her with kindness and respect:
K: Are there any downsides to it; is there anything that you don’t like, anything that’s negative with the job? H: No, it’s perfect. (laughing) (…) K: [the family] sound like nice people? H: Yeah, very nice, really. They are like friend, for example my mum comes here, she will come on Thursday, yeah visit us, (employer) want very much to meet her (...) (laughing)
Beata says similar things about her own job situation, she describes how she learns new
things every time she works at her job in the technical production unit, that she meets
people and cares for them in her job in the care profession, and that the families she
cleans for all treat her with respect, ask about her family, and in general are very
sympathetic towards her. Like Helena, she can think of no disadvantages to her jobs,
except that she is a little tired sometimes. Her main concern is that she wants to be fully
integrated into the legal work sphere, because she needs to earn pension points for her
economic security in old age, and she needs to have rights and benefits that come with a
legal job:
87
B: (…) But you know, I don’t dream of black job K: No (laughing) B: I dream only of normal, legal job, because I didn’t come to Norway for three months, I want to live here, stay here for a long time..
Malgorzata describes herself as a “workaholic”, who has trouble finding time to sleep.
She has many projects, she runs her business, she writes two books, and has several other
time consuming projects. Though we talk little about her actual tasks and responsibilities
at work, she describes the consequences of her job in exclusively positive terms: she has
a lot of freedom to chose when she wants to work and when she wants to take time off,
this allows her to travel and do other things that are valuable to her. She makes good
money, something which she emphasizes as an important aspect of her life on several
occasions during the interview. When talking about previous jobs and job offers she has
received, the salary is the element of the job which she mentions first, before other
qualities. Her economic standing allows her to cultivate material aspects that are
important to her: she mentions her car, which she loves, the monetary value of her
apartments, her new flat screen television (even though she isn’t interested in watching it,
only the boyfriend is), and how she prefers to buy quality products in stead of quantity.
More on this under the section Money.
This understanding of the relation between work and money is distinctly different
from that of Agnieszka, who claims that money is not even close to being the most
important aspect of a job:
A: Oh yes, I even prefer an interesting job with a lower salary, than a job that gives a lot of money, I could never imagine working in real estate, or (swearing) stock broker! K: No (Laughing)
Agnieszka describes her choice of profession as a political choice, based on her
background in a totalitarian society. She already had a University degree when coming to
Norway, but in order to get a job that would feel right for her she chose to complete a
new education in Norway. The value of work is intrinsic to Agnieszka, a central part of
her identity:
88
A: So, I didn’t want to be unhappy in this country, I did have a child, and I wanted to be happy as a human being, or at least feel that I function on the level that I need to function on in order to stay here, so in a way that was the condition; that I got a profession I was happy with… To stay here and be integrated and feel that I am a part of this society, and not just some alien.. alien element that could just disappear without anyone noticing, you know?
She changed jobs a while back, but has held on to her profession. She enjoys her job, and
describes it as an interesting challenge, somewhat different from earlier jobs she has had,
and a healthy development for her carrier. Both Helena and Beata deny that they would
quit working if that was an economic option, and so does Malgorzata, but not directly.
Though she labels herself a workaholic, and through her description of her high energy
level and how she has many projects running at the same time, it seems unlikely that she
would quit working even if it was economically feasible. Work seem to have high value
and importance in all their lives. Beata phrases the relation between work, money and
what she values in life this way:
K: If you didn’t need the money, would you quit working? B: No, because.. (speaks Polish) Can you repeat? I didn’t understand everything. K: If you had a lot of money.. B: Oh, now I know.. ehm.. I know that I don’t have a lot of money (laughing), but if I did.. No, because I have a lot of energy, I can’t sit in one place, or go travelling, I have to do something, but you know if I had a lot of money, I would work in a foundation, but that is also work! K: That is also work. Ehm.. we’ve talked about.. B: In Poland we say: everybody needs some money, but people say “Oh, I don’t have enough”, but I need a hundred kroner, you need a thousand kroner. But some people, they need millions! (laughing) K: Yes (laughing) B: I don’t need a lot of money, I just need a normal life. I want a house.. Later maybe we can buy a house in Norway, but I don’t know. Now it’s out of the question. I just want normal job, normal life, twice a year I want to go on vacation. You know, family is very important to me. If I didn’t have credit in the bank, the loan from the bank, I might not have come to Norway, but I don’t know. We have (speaking Polish) strong connection, in the family, you know, my mother came to visit, my (child) came to visit, my sister, my brother, you know, we have a strong relation. (…)
89
The theme work has illustrated questions of operationalization in terms of the objective
and subjective measures of freedom in the work sphere. The informants are content with
their jobs for many different reasons that have to do with income, relationship to
colleagues and employers, and the professional qualities of the job. They all attach severe
importance to their jobs, valuing their intrinsic value, in contributing to their happiness as
“a human being” (Agnieszka) and their instrumental value in generating money and
thereby allowing them to lead the life that they choose (Malgorzata).
Theme 3: Money
Money is included as a theme because it is a central means to development and to
freedom. Freedom is defined by choice, as I wrote in the chapter Choice, but freedom is
also conditioned, at least in the context for my investigation; in the modern Norwegian
society; freedom is conditioned by money. Without money, the individual is not free
from insecurity, poverty, hunger and want, but suffers from these. In Sen’s theory,
development is conceptualized as freedom from hunger, illiteracy, violence, etc. Freedom
and money are closely related: in order to make choices and live the life that one has
reason to value, money is an absolute necessity, and as we touched upon in the Theory
chapter; not only having ownership or access to money, but actually be able to utilize it.
In Sen’s theory, this distinction is crucial, and is of major importance in distinguishing
Sen from utilitarian scholars.
Sen argues for replacing the conventional economic understanding of poverty as
lowness of income with an understanding of poverty as capability deprivation. Because
the relative level of income of an individual or a family is only instrumentally significant,
whereas the consequences of lowness of income are deprivation in the person’s
capabilities, what she is actually able to do or to be; are matters of intrinsic importance.
We must acknowledge, writes Sen, that lowness of income is “a strong predisposing
condition for an impoverished life” (Sen 1999: 87), however, measuring income is only
an instrument, and shouldn’t be used in isolation; rather we must look into the
consequences in form of the capabilities that the people in question have.
90
In this chapter, I will present the informants’ views on the importance and
significance of money; their perception of their own economic standing, and the
connections that they make between their money and their capabilities.
Incidentally, money is here not primarily understood in relation to making the
choice to migrate, but in relation to the migrant’s life in Norway. How has her economic
situation changed since coming to Norway, and what consequences have that had in other
areas of her life?
Helena experiences the ability to choose from several options, as a result of her new
economic situation:
K: I’m interested in.. Could you point to something that is different in your life now that you make money? H: Yeah? K: As compared to when you made very little money back in Poland? What is different? Except that you of course you can go to the movies H: Eh.. I think it’s better, because.. It’s better; we can live like normal people, yeah! In Poland I had some job, C had some job, but the salary was almost the same.. C: Yeah, we had to pay for college, because it was private school.. H: We spent a lot of money to pay for school. C: Now it’s like, more like.. We can do whatever we want. H: Yeah! C: Next year we can go on holiday. So now we just like.. Next year we’re gonna have feriepenger, so we can go to warm place C: It’s a big difference H: Yeah
A very important change in the lives of Helena and her husband is that they have gotten
married since moving to Norway. We touched upon this as a motivating factor for their
migration: that without earning more money, they couldn’t get married, and their life as a
“real couple” would have to be postponed. Since their migration, marriage became
possible for them. The following transcript shows the intertwined character of the themes
choice, money and freedom (in this case freedom to choose the actions that one has
reason to find valuable; marriage):
91
K: Did you feel that you had other good alternatives than moving out? Or did you feel that that was the only alternative? C: Not like the only one, but uh, we was thinking that we have to do something fast. H: Yeah C: Not stop, Not doing like slowly, slowly H: Yeah. Probably, if we stay in the Poland we can marry uh.. take marriage, C: Make marriage? K: get married C: get married, exactly, sorry (laughing) H: Uh, I think maybe.. C: after five years (laughing) H: Yeah, something like that. Yeah, really! And if we want to have a family.. K: Why is that? Why is that? Would you have to wait five years to get married if you stayed in Poland? H: No maybe, C: It’s because of money, still, H: Yeah, only money. The reason is the money. K: Okay, so in order to get married you would have to have better jobs? H: Yes C: Yeah K: Right. I don’t know what the system is like in Poland, so I ask silly questions. H: Okay C: No, it’s like.. If we get married, so then what? We’re gonna live? We’re gonna rent some apartment. Yeah, but we have to pay for this apartment, and.. H: Yeah, we eat.. We need some food.
Migration and the economic situation resulting from that has enabled Helena live a life
where she can choose what she wants to do, and to get married and live together with her
husband.
After moving to Norway, Beata and her family experience that they have more
economic security and that their overall situation has changed for the better. They have
more flexibility to make the choices that are valuable to them. She talks about how she
doesn’t need a lot of money, like some people, she doesn’t have ambitions of becoming
rich, but is content with a “normal life”:
92
K: Do you fell that your economy, or the family’s economy is better now than in Poland? B: No! Now? K: Yes B: Yes.. K: Now it’s better? B: Yes K: That’s what I thought, but.. B: Yes, but (speaks Polish). There are some things I can’t afford, but we don’t need (speaks Polish) a lot.. I can wait for other things. But in Poland, I needed money to live a normal life, you know. K: I see. Would you say you have more money between your hands now than in Poland? It’s difficult but.. B: Yes, but for me, Norway is better. But for my daughter, she has very good job, and good money, and very nice boss, he thinks about his employees, that’s a good boss. I think for my daughter, Poland is better.
(…) K: I thought we could talk about money.. Are you happy with your salary? B: No. But I understand that I have small salary in Norway, that is no good, because.. I know that my work is good.. K: Yes B: .. But because I must learn, I must work a lot you know, I did send money..
Beata’s focus is not on her economic situation, or on her possibilities for making money,
but rather on all the consequences that their new economy has had on other areas of life,
especially her improved health since coming to Norway, which I will elaborate on under
the chapter Health. However, health and money are closely connected, as Beata describes
how impending poverty, a big loan on the house, her husband’s unemployment and
subsequent absence from the family, in that he migrated to Norway; how this all
weighted down on her, and caused her health to decline rapidly to a level where she was
diagnosed with cancer. More on the money-health-freedom connection under Theme 4:
Health.
Malgorzata is the informant that seems most interested or focused on money: she
uses it as a measure for success, happiness and freedom more articulately than the others.
She is the most affluent, and she is very satisfied with her lifestyle. Under the sub chapter
93
Work: the informant’s own perception, I wrote that Malgorzata emphasizes making good
money as an important aspect of her life, and that it allows her to choose actions that are
valuable to her. At first, she does seem more materialistic: she is more interested in
expensive things and activities, and she expresses herself distinctly differently from
Beata, who is outspokenly uninterested in making a lot of money. When comparing to
Agnieszka, Malgorzata seems strikingly materialistic as opposed to the philosophical and
politically oriented Agnieszka. And maybe Malgorzata is more materialistic than the
other informants, it might even be probable.
However, money and materialism are areas of life that are laced with moral
claims: being openly materialistic like Malgorzata would probably not be accepted in
Agnieszka’s group of friends, but that does not mean that Agnieszka doesn’t appreciate
high quality products just as much as Malgorzata, or that she wouldn’t choose the job
with the highest salary if given the choice. Isn’t it inherently snobbish to give the illusion
that one is completely oblivious to money? Isn’t that a distinctly upper class thing to do,
to pretend that money isn’t important, and frown at those who don’t have the decency to
hide their riches? The point is just that even though Malgorzata is openly very happy
about her fortune, and talks a lot about money, and Agnieszka doesn’t, their dependence
and attitude towards money might not be as different as first impressions let on.
This is how Malgorzata describes her economic situation:
M: I have no economic problems. At all! I am very happy. K: You can choose to do what you want? M: I.. Yes. For example, now I leave for Stockholm, from Stockholm to Poland for five days to enjoy ourselves a little bit, and then we leave for a whole month for (exotic destination) together with boyfriend. So I think I have enough money. I can afford whatever I want.
Agnieszka doesn’t mention money uninvited, like Malgorzata, and seemingly doesn’t
attach any importance to money, something that I see as an indicator that she has enough
of it, or at least does not suffer from want of more money. When we talked about work,
she stressed that she would rather have a more interesting job even if it meant earning
less (“I could never imagine working in real estate, or (swearing) stock broker!”). She is
content, but not thrilled about her salary, and tells me that she will ask for a raise at first
94
chance. However, it became clear, as shown in the transcript below, that she sees money
as a condition for freedom, thereby tremendously important:
K: Ehm.. the reason I am asking about money is that without money you can’t be free! A: Yes K: That is my fundamental thought, so.. A: Without your own money, you can’t be free! K: Exactly. If you don’t earn your own money, you can’t be free. A: Exactly. Then we agree.
It is symptomatic that when I introduced the topic of money, the conversation
immediately turned to questions of freedom and gender:
K: Do you think that you have a higher income now than you would have if you’d lived in Poland, and worked in Poland? A: Oh, yes. Higher income, but would I have had higher purchasing power? Probably! Because, income.. obviously the income is much higher, but purchasing power is what counts, right? K: yes, relative to the costs, obviously. A: Maybe. It is very difficult to know, you see. You say: “had I lived in Poland?” I don’t know how free I would have been as a woman living in Poland. K: No A: If I would have been allowed to work as I have worked, and I had a husband who never, I am divorced from him now, but he never stopped me in developing my carrier, there was never pressure at home, that I should stay at home, that I should take care of anything, that I should facilitate, it was always messy at home and terribly.. because I was out working (…), and he never said a word. K: Mhm A: So I was allowed, I was allowed to develop, and get the salary I have, and I don’t know if I had been allowed, I had most likely insisted on it, but I don’t know if I could have done it in Poland, I don’t know (…).
I will return to the gendered aspects of money, work and ties to the work sphere under the
chapter Gender. In sum it is safe to say that both Helena and Beata have experienced a
better economic situation after coming to Norway, and that they point to the connection
between making money and the capability to choose actions they have reason to find
valuable. Malgorzata and Agnieszka are in distinctly different positions, as they make
95
much more money and thus find themselves safely in the middle class strata of society.
However, Malgorzata in particular ties life quality to money, and values material things
more than Agnieszka, while Agnieszka ties quality of life and freedom to access to the
work sphere and having her own profession, although she holds that freedom presupposes
making your own money.
Theme 4: Health
Being healthy is a valuable asset, most people would agree. Being healthy can be seen as
being free from illness, pain or injury. It is thereby important both as an end in itself, and
as means to capability on other areas of life, such as the ability to work and rest. Health is
closely connected to other freedoms: freedom from unemployment, poverty and
dependence. In the following section, I will present the informants’ views on the
interconnections between migration, health and gender aspects. Beata links her health
improvement to economy and Agnieszka links health to gender in a more general
perspective. Helena doesn’t talk about health at all, except for noting that Norwegian
women exercise more than Polish women, and are more active, something which
communicates well with Agnieszka’s statement about the health of her Polish friends, to
which I shall return shortly. Malgorzata does not talk about health at all, except that she
mentions that she works out. Beata talks at length about health, and how her health
situation has improved tremendously since coming to Norway, due to her improved
economic situation, and release from heavy familial care responsibilities:
K: (…) when you decided to come to Norway.. B: Yes K: Did you feel that you had any other alternatives in Poland? B: No! I didn’t. I had big health problem in Poland. But now I know the problem was all in my head. Every day I must work, I think of money, I have to learn, my children, my mother was very ill, she had cancer, she had.. what’s the name? Amputation. She lost her breast, after that she had (speaks Polish).. infection in all organisms, my mother.. She couldn’t walk and not eat alone, [I] had to take care of my mother, I slept by her side, and.. They were difficult years, and I had a problem with my eye, because.. It was stress. K: But now that you are in Norway..
96
B: I came to Norway, and I had no problem, you know? I just use one medicine, earlier I used five, six different kinds. (Speaking Polish) (…) The doctor thought I had cancer too, first in my eye, then in my back, but now.. K: But you haven’t? B: I have no problem! When I visited Poland, I did all kinds of tests, blood, urine, all kinds (speaking Polish) I don’t know what they are called in Norwegian, all tests, and everything is okay! Yes! K: (laughing) That’s unbelievable! B: Yes! I had big rheumatological problem. (…) I couldn’t raise my hand, I had great problems walking, in the stairs or normally on the road, but now I have no problems. K: It’s incredible! B: I don’t have so much stress; there are other problems (…)
Beata blames her health problems on stress due to her mother’s illness and her great
responsibilities as a bread winner for the family, the impending economic problems, her
husband’s unemployment, etc, problems which were all (except her mother’s illness)
solved by migrating to Norway and becoming employed here.
Agnieszka also talk about health issues, and how she is more fit, and has better
health than her old friends in Poland, because of the Norwegian culture of walking and
hiking, and because of differences in the gendered expectation, that Polish women are not
as active, that they don’t have their own projects in life, and that their gendered lives have
caused them to have more health problems than she has, due to her (gendered) life in
Norway.
A: I see that my girlfriends, I have very good friends, I have stayed in touch the whole time, I see that they are more defined by the fact that they’re women than I am. K: How is that? A: They have poorer health, they are not very aware of their rights, they have no big plans for the future when they are in that age, they think mostly of grandchildren, they travel very little: they are just less active! They have their jobs and homes, they do very little.. I mean, this ends when you’re forty, forty five, you don’t actively do something anymore. K: That’s strange, you should think that by then you’re finished having small children, and a new phase opens up? A: Yes, but possibly they are tired. They have poorer health, obviously much poorer health than I have, they sit a lot, walk very little. That is something I have learnt in Norway, to walk, to be physically active.
97
K: Yes (laughing) A: Healthy food, there are certain things you get in the kind of country Norway is. K: Can you say more about what you mean by them being defined by the fact that they are women? A: Ehm.. yes. They define themselves very much in relation to a man, or the lack of a man, what decides your self image is tied to having, not necessarily a man, but a friend, ehm.. Its about activity level, women don’t have to be active, you can be with a man who bicycles all the time, but you don’t do that yourself, you know? It’s.. in a way its not as natural that the woman is as physically active as the man. It’s about well-being, that you can do things alone, go to the theatre alone, go to the cinema alone, or with girlfriends, when the women, friends, meet, no matter their educational level, they chatter about children, grand children, such insignificant matters, there are few important conversations about societal questions. I feel that they define themselves as women to a great extent.
Beata’s story illustrates well how migration can lead to enhancement of freedoms; she
has experienced an extreme improvement of her health since migrating. Agnieszka points
to connections between gender roles and health and freedom, arguing that the assigned
gender role is inhibiting the freedom of her Polish friends, and that this has direct
influence on their health. By her migration, she has escaped this fate, as she has been
exposed to ideals about walking and healthy food, which she acclaims “the kind of
country Norway is” for.
Theme 5: Gender
Gender is included as one of the themes because it is arguably one of the most defining
aspects of human life; gender cross cuts other categories such as nationality or ethnicity,
educational or professional characteristics, or economic standing. Gender influences on
the other categories I’ve analyzed so far: the societal structure that choices are made in is
different for men and women; women’s attachment to the work sphere or to professional
life tends to compete with family responsibility and household chores to a greater extent
than for most men; women typically choose different types of jobs than men, and they
generally earn less. These are valid generalizations for both Norway and Poland.
98
In a developmental context, gender represents a striking inequality, which leads to
women far more often than men being denied central human capabilities.15 Women are
less well nourished than men, and are less likely to be literate. They face greater obstacles
in the work sphere, where discrimination and harassment happen to them more often than
to men, and they more often do the hazardous and badly paid jobs. The same structures
and obstacles that prevent equal participation in the work sphere hinder them from
participating fully in political life. The double work load of full responsibility at home
and employment outside the home for many women prevent “opportunities for play and
for the cultivation of their imaginative and cognitive faculties. (…) In all these ways
unequal social and political circumstances give women unequal human capabilities.”
(Nussbaum, 2000a: 1) Also in migrational theory, gender is a decisive factor. Women and
men’s migration are governed by the same differentiating structures and inequalities as
their lives in their home countries are; women’s motivation for migration differs
somewhat, and female migrants face other challenges than men. For a more thorough
argumentation for the necessity of a gendered perspective, see the Theory chapter.
In mapping out the gendered aspects of the informants’ migration, many diverse
discourses came up. Most of the informants were quite opinionated about gender issues,
on a normative level. They all had opinions about what roles men and women should fill,
and what the challenges for modern women, men and families are the most pressing in
Polish and Norwegian society. Interestingly, their opinions on how gender questions
should be solved, and what women ought to choose and do, deviates in important ways
from how they conduct their own lives; what they choose and what they value.
In the following, I shall present findings on gender differences between the
Norwegian and Polish society, as seen by the four informants, and point to the differences
between their normative ideas and their actual lives and choices. Furthermore, I will
investigate the interrelations between migration, gender and freedom by analyzing the
gendered societal structures impacting on the informants’ lives. Have the informants
experienced liberation from gender norms and their designated gender role by migrating?
Are gender roles different in Norway than in Poland? Do women here conduct their
15 In the following I paraphrase Nussbaum 2000:1.
99
womanhood in a different manner than women there? If societal structures are
substantially different, how does that affect the informants’ opportunities for truly human
functioning, in the words of Martha Nussbaum? One important aspect of womanhood,
which defines women’s lives and might limit her freedom, is motherhood. However,
although this is highly interesting, it is not included here, mainly because the discourse
around motherhood and family is extensive, and I wished to focus on themes were the
informant had greater opportunity for autonomous functioning. This choice is debateable;
however, I found this to be a rational place to draw a line.
Gendered activities
Agnieszka puts health into a gendered perspective in the previous chapter, noting how her
female Polish friends lead less active lives; they have fewer hobbies, spare time activities
and don’t do sports to the same degree as Norwegian women, she argued. For Helena,
gender was an unfamiliar category, and understanding society or her own life from a
gendered perspective, was new to her. She seemed unaware of the skewed gender balance
in financial standing and formal power in Poland and Norway, and didn’t grasp the
concept of gender roles as a social construction during our conversation. However, she
did make an observation about one difference between Norwegian and Polish women that
corresponds with Agnieszka’s experience:
K: (…) Do you think there is a difference between Norwegian women and Polish women? H: Yes. I think the Norwegian women are more active K: In what way? H: About.. for example the sports C: gym (points to a commercial for work-out studio) K: Oh? H: Yeah. Something like that. Because, I think that Polish women, they.. when they.. C: Lazy? H: No, maybe not lazy, but when they come to home, they take care of child, they cook dinner, and go sleep. I see here that the Norwegian women come home, eat dinner, and go to the squash or.. C: jogging or something H: Yeah, they make something. I think.. I like it! (laughing)
100
Leading a life where there is room for activity, for sports or play, can not only give health
benefits, as described by Agnieszka, but also creates a recreational room for the person
where she can be social and fulfil herself as an end. Both Agnieszka and Helena describe
a cultural difference between the two countries regarding what women they observe do,
how they use their spare time on activities that they themselves benefit from, in contrast
to working in the home or devoting spare time to family. Also Beata notes this when
commenting that in Poland, spare time is family time, but here in Norway, adults seem to
use spare time for individual activities. This communicates directly with Nussbaum’s list
of central human capabilities, where she argues that without room for play, fully human
functioning cannot be achieved. It is the distinction between instrumental functioning, as
a means to others; such as working in the home and taking care of husband and children,
and functioning as an end, that is, doing activities for one’s own pleasure or benefit,
which becomes visible here.
One might object to this by arguing that taking care of family is indeed fulfilling
for many women, and is not perceived by them merely as “instrumental functioning”.
However, though being the primary caregiver for your own family is undoubtedly highly
meaningful, if the scale runs from functioning as a means for others versus as an end in
one self, one could argue that it is more logical to place care-giving closer to the
instrumental end of the scale than close to the self fulfilling end of the scale. But, as Sen
also notes, because the distinction between means and ends is not a perfect dichotomy, it
is highly possible for care giving to be both a means for family health and happiness, and
fulfilling for the person giving the care. All the same, it is my argument that someone
who lives exclusively to take care of others, and has no rooms of her own16 (social
relations or individual activities) would probably after some time feel like an instrument
in the lives of the others, and that this functioning was at the expense of her functioning
as an end in her own right.
16 I am paraphrasing Virginia Wolf’s famous essay “A room of one’s own” (1929), a feminist text of great
importance.
101
Norwegian independence
Most of the informants feel that Norwegian women are very independent and take part in
traditionally male activities, while Poland is more traditional than Norway with regards to
gender roles and gender equality. Helena phrases it thus:
H: (…) [Norwegian woman] want make everything herself, for example.. K: What do you mean? H: For example, eh, they.. If someone asks her -Do you need some help? [She says:] No, no, I manage, I can do myself! (laughing) Like paint the door or something like this, the man’s stuff in Poland K: So you think Poland is more traditional than Norway? H: Yeah, yeah! I think
Beata:
K: (…) But I was wondering if you think, or feel that there is a difference between Polish and Norwegian women? B: Yes! K: What is the difference? B: Norwegian women are.. (speaks Polish and flips open the Polish- Norwegian dictionary) Very good word and very important word… Ehm.. Inde.. independent? K: Independent! B: Yes
Malgorzata:
K: (…) Do you think there is a difference between Polish and Norwegian women? And what is the difference? M: Yes, okay. Polish women appreciate family, they are.. they appreciate the home and family relation, they are sure to take care of husband and children, they are like Norwegian women were in the 70s, I’d say. K: Mhm M: Nowadays everybody has to work, but still it is women who take care of most things at home, we make the food, we like to cook at home, we like to meet friends, we are more open than Norwegians. Norwegian women, I’d say they are incredibly independent, so independent that I sometimes wonder whether it’s a man or a woman.
102
Malgorzata’s statement deviates distinctly from Helena and Beata’s admiration for the
independence they see in Norwegian women. Beata holds independence to be a “very
good word and very important word”, while Malgorzata sees independence as a
personality trait that is not compatible with being a woman in the correct way. Norwegian
women are so independent that they are hard to distinguish from men. She compares
Polish women, who conduct their womanhood more in correspondence with her ideals, to
the way Norwegian women were prior to the movement for women’s liberation, which
gathered strength towards the end of the 1970s. As we shall see, Malgorzata is in favour
of a complementary gender structure, where the man has his designated responsibilities
and stereo-typical masculine properties, while the woman has other, stereo-typically
feminine responsibilities and properties, which complement his so that they together
make a whole.
Helena and Beata are not as outspoken about their ideal gender structure, but it
becomes obvious during our conversations that they are in favour of equality between
husband and wife and between men and women in society, and in favour of societal
changes which would enhance women’s participation and fair treatment in the work
sphere etc. They are thereby in alignment with my underlying opinion and assumption:
that gender equality is good, and that we should strive to enhance liberation from gender
norms and roles. Agnieszka also brings in the women’s liberation movement and the
“generation of ‘68” when comparing women and womanhood in Poland and Norway:
A: I think maybe that women [in Norway] are more interested in getting an education, and maybe less than in Poland preoccupied by.. well, all women want to get married, to meet the one, true love, all people, not women, all people have that as their main project in life, right, that’s the dream, but I think that Norwegian women have that from their mothers, right, the generation of ’68, that they should get an education, get established with a job, and then one can start thinking about children, husband and so on. I think that in Poland it’s still getting married that is project number one. (…) And I think that the wives [of Polish work migrants to Norway] are typically home makers, he’s gone out, he brings the money home, his main task is to be a breadwinner, her main task is to take care of him. And then I think that also young [Polish] women see that as their main project. K: Hm. Do you think that that is the main idea in Poland, a kind of a complementary gender system, where they supplement each other in a way?
103
A: To a greater degree than here, yes. That means that you cannot be an individual as a woman to the same degree as here. Here you can sometimes forget that you are a woman. I think it’s a luxury, I can be a woman when I want to, and when I don’t want to I am a kind of a neuter gender, a being that thinks and writes and forget that I am a woman. (…)
Agnieszka comments on the cultural difference in the dominant perception on gender
roles and distribution of household chores; later she gives Norwegian “state-feminism”
credit for having grounded an inherently feminist approach to family politics, the work
sphere etc, while the good of gender equality is more disputed in Poland.
Her statement towards the end of the quote, that she can sometimes forget that she
is a woman, seems to hold being a woman up against thinking and writing, seemingly
presuming that you can’t think and write and be a woman at the same time. In order to
appreciate this statement fully, it’s necessary to ask what she means by “being a woman”.
Obviously people with the physical characteristics of women can, and frequently do,
think and write. What Agnieszka refers to, is I believe of the same nature as what
Malgorzata touched upon when describing Norwegian women as easily mistaken for
men, due to their independence. Both their statements are based on an idea of how correct
womanhood is conducted, that is, what it implies to be a woman, and that the borders for
accepted female behaviour is quite narrow. For Agnieszka, thinking and writing are not
typically female activities, and she feels that being a woman, relating to the cultural and
societal boundaries and expectations to women, to correct female behaviour, is limiting
her individuality. She talked about this when describing how her Polish friends are
defined by their gender.
The difference between Agnieszka and Malgorzata is that Agnieszka is inherently
feminist, and wants to break free from the traditional female gender role, while
Malgorzata idealizes the traditional gender roles and the division of household chores.
She holds up a specific Latin American country as an ideal:
M: The best men and women I think are in (Latin American country)! Men are incredibly nice to women, they show incredibly much love towards women, not just the wife and children, but in general, they are great gentlemen, and.. At the same time, they are very strong, so they help.. I mean, the woman is a goddess! That’s the way it is in (Latin American
104
country)! Woman is really woman; she goes to the hairdresser, she has her nails done, she gets a massage, she takes care of children, she decorates the house, he takes care of everything else! If they go swimming, he brings her towel, she is like his little girl, it is so nice to see! At the same time he is strong, he speaks strong with other men, he speaks strong to the employees, he is a man!
Malgorzata here touches upon an aspect of gender identity, and what it means to be a
woman, which Agnieszka also relates to. The ideal woman in Malgorzata’s view is
beautiful, caring, and dependent on her husband. The ideal man is strong, caring and
responsible for “everything else”. If these aspects are central in the understanding of what
womanhood implies, then deviating activities such as thinking and writing might be
easier to undertake as a “neuter gender”.
While Malgorzata entertains one idea about the ideal gender balance, her own life
is distinctly different from this ideal. She herself is a professional business woman, in her
own words a “workaholic”, who has many projects, and who seems to be very interested
in taking part in community work, in realizing her own carrier, and who on an economic
level is very independent. We did not touch upon this discrepancy during our
conversation, but I get the feeling that she is talking about someone else when describing
what women should be like; that what she says doesn’t apply to her personally, even
though she uses the term “we” when talking about Polish women. The ideal woman
seems to be an abstract Latin American figure, whose life and choices are very different
from Malgorzata’s. Motherhood is central in her understanding of womanhood, and the
words woman and mother are used interchangeably when she speaks normatively about
gender roles. It is possible that she escapes her own ideal gender role because she is not a
mother. However, as already mentioned; motherhood is not included among the topics in
the gender section because of the need for limitations, due to space.
Gendered work
In the following, I will look into how the informants view the balance between work in
the home and work outside the home, gender and responsibility in Norway and Poland.
Although acknowledging that women today also work outside the home, Malgorzata’s
105
phrasing is “nowadays everybody has to work”; she doesn’t necessarily see this as a
positive societal change, or see work as a means to a better life for women. She notes that
women still are responsible for the chores, good atmosphere and food in the home, but
doesn’t see that this will inevitably lead to a substantial double burden for the working
mother. In the eyes of Malgorzata, the traditional division of roles and chores is in the
woman’s favour, as she doesn’t have to take responsibility for “everything” and do a lot
of heavy and boring work, such as moving furniture around, fixing the car etc:
M: And, here, if you have a car, you have to do everything yourself, in Poland, if you have a car, and you have a man: done deal, very simple! (Laughing) Then you can complain to the husband: the car is shitty, the car is such and such, it’s his responsibility, so, yeah.. (…)
Helena, Agnieszka and Beata all make statements that show that the gendered division
and skewed balance of household chores are an inherent part of their understanding of
gender. Helena talks about how she is in contact with her family every day, usually when
making dinner or working in the kitchen; chores which she does every day, despite the
fact that both she and her husband works full time. Agnieszka says that people her age in
Poland “actually expect the woman to be responsible for the cosiness in the home”. Beata
shares the experience of the housework being the woman’s responsibility, when she
commends her husband for contributing with household chores:
B: You know, he is a very sympathetic man; he helps me a lot, cooks, cleans, and helps with the children.
It is difficult to say whether these statements and attitudes had been much different if the
women interviewed had been Norwegian, but statistical data frequently show that women
do a great deal more than 50% of the housework in the average Norwegian family, and
that the division of chores is still quite traditional.17 What is interesting is that neither
Helena nor Beata, who through the interview voiced various feminist ideas, comment on
the gap between their ideals and their personal lives, and furthermore they don’t question
17 Statistics Norway (SSB, 2000)
106
the fact that responsibility for housework and children lies with them, though in Beata’s
case she has been lucky with a helpful husband. Might it be that Norwegian women
would relate more to the dominant discourse on gender in Norway; that gender equality is
good, and that the ideal is an equal share of the household chores? Would Beata’s words
have been given an ironic ring if uttered by a Norwegian woman? Even if the Norwegian
woman did take the overall responsibility for housework and children, would she not
judge the idea of the husband “helping” her with household chores as somewhat
antiquated, and somehow be more aware that she does not live up to the dominant
discourse and ideal on equal division of household chores?
One important question is whether the informants’ participation in the work
sphere in Norway has led to liberation from gender norms. We touched upon this under
the chapter Work, where the informants generally were very happy with their job
situations, and felt empowered as employees. However, when talking about differences
between the two countries related to gender issues, and especially related to being a
mature working woman, Agnieszka points to advantages she enjoys in Norway as a
woman:
A: (…) I think the greatest advantage for me as a woman in Norway, that I moved to Norway, not Italy, as a woman I have gained a lot from that, that I came to Norway, and not some other country. The greatest difference I started noticing from the time I turned forty, from forty and up, when you’re.. The childbearing phase is over, your status is different and the children move out and you’re.. Especially because you’re divorced, a single woman: I think it would have been much, much worse in another country than Norway. K: How? What would have been worse? A: Ehm.. worse in that.. I see myself as a completely normal person, average person. K: Mhm A: I don’t regard myself to be different from others. I don’t see myself as substantially different from those who are married, I don’t think they have any greater safety than I have and that they don’t see me as something strange or weird
This statement came directly after we had discussed the development of her carrier and
her economic standing, and how it would have been difficult to become as successful in
107
Poland, because of repressive gender structures. Especially, she argues, it is difficult to be
a mature woman in a professional context, because as you get older you are subjected to
new forms of repressive structures that hinder you from climbing to the top of the ladder.
In Norway she gets to be “a normal person” (is this parallel to the “neuter gender”?), she
is free to spend her time as she pleases, and this freedom is possible because society
allows it to a greater extent in Norway than in Poland, she argues.
Beata makes a somewhat similar observation when comparing the situation for
herself, as a woman in her early forties, on the job market in Norway and Poland
respectively:
B: (…) You know, in Poland we have problems when we become 35, 40 years old, we have problems finding a new job. K: Why is that you think? B: Discrimination! I work.. But employer wants young girl, pretty girl, with experience. It’s impossible. K: Yes B: Also, women in Poland get smaller salary than men K: For the same work? B: Yes, and sometimes the woman has high education, but smaller salary, because the employer thinks, “Hmm, maybe she will have a child soon”, and that is not good for business. K: Hm. Are there laws that enforce women’s rights? B: (Makes a waving hand movement to indicate that there isn’t) K: Okay (laughing). It doesn’t work? B: No. Unfortunately.
This statement came directly after we had discussed her improved economic standing
since coming to Norway, and Beata notes how Poland is better for her young daughter
than for her, because it is easier for younger women to succeed in the job market, even
though they are also subjected to discrimination, especially related to promotions and
child bearing.
Has their migration led to liberation from suppressive gender norms? For
Agnieszka and Beata, their statements are rather unequivocal; they feel that the
expectations and structures impacting on their lives and roles as employees are more
woman-friendly in Norway than in Poland. Malgorzata makes no such comparison, quite
the contrary, she holds that “there is nowhere she could go and not succeed”, and that
108
Poland would be a good place for business at the moment. When talking about gendered
structures and challenges that only women and not men meet, Malgorzata has a
normative and general approach; she doesn’t really tie her views on gender issues to her
own life, and doesn’t see herself as a gendered actor per se. Helena seems not to have
reflected very much about herself as a gendered actor either, but relates inequality in a
gender perspective to the underdeveloped rural areas of Poland, where Catholicism has a
stronger standing, and the gender roles are more traditional. In the city however, women
do not meet discriminatory structures, but competes for jobs and success on equal footing
as men:
H: [Village women] like everything that’s shiny (…) Maybe its too general, but I think it’s like that, they wanna be like.. C: Stars H: Yeah, like the stars, maybe they have some complex? C: Yeah H: Yeah, or something like that, because they live in the village. And the woman from the big city, I think they know what they want, they can be the boss in some company, and they can.. They can everything, and they know this. I think the woman from the village they don’t know what they want.. (…) what they can.
In Helena’s mind, suppressive gender structures is something that inhibits rural women,
because they have low self esteem, they don’t know what they want or what they can be,
whereas urban women are aware of their own ability, and they can be whatever they
want. This idea is radically different from the experience of the more mature women, and
arguably shows that Helena hasn’t reflected on these matters a great deal.
In sum
In this chapter I have analyzed the stories of four migrants, with special regard to the five
themes, to evaluate and exemplify the potential for freedom and development from
migration. The themes are: their choice to migrate; the properties of the migrants’ work
and their attachment to the legal work sphere; their financial situation and the emphasis
they put on money; their health and how it has been affected by the migration; and finally
how gender has influenced on their migratory experience and their view of gender in a
109
normative sense. I have shown how migration has led to freedom on a number of areas
for the migrants. In what follows I will sum up my findings to see how they correspond
with my research question. For a conclusion and discussion of the research question, I
now turn to the final chapter.
110
Conclusion
The questions I set out to answer in this thesis were:
Can migration lead to freedom? Can freedom be conceptualized as development?
In order to answer this question, I have briefly considered migration theory, gender issues
and moral philosophy, the latter in order to provide background knowledge and a good
context for the main theoretical framework used in the thesis: the capability approach. I
have discussed the properties of this approach, and presented some of the important
criticisms to it. Finally, I have interviewed four Polish migrants about how migration has
affected their lives; their capabilities and their freedom.
From the findings, to which we shall shortly return, my conclusion must be yes:
migration can lead to freedom, and has done so on a number of areas for the four
migrants I have interviewed, and yes: freedom can be conceptualized as development.
However, while the first question has yielded a rather unequivocal answer, the answer to
the second question is given with more reservation. In the following, I will look into the
reasons for the positive answer to the first question: why do I conclude that migration has
led to freedom for Helena, Beata, Malgorzata and Agnieszka, on some of the five given
areas of their lives? In this section I will sum up the findings which support this
conclusion.
Regarding the second question, I will also discuss the arguments I have presented
for conceptualizing freedom as development, and look into counter arguments. Is
freedom the most sensible frame in which to understand development, or capabilities, or
are there other frames which are more adequate? Is it better to understand development
first and foremost as an individual process, which Sen arguably does, than as a societal
process? I will take the individual – society dichotomy as my starting point in criticising
the idea of development as freedom, and in criticising my own conclusion on the second
question. Valid questions are -What about the development of Poland? -What about
changing the social structures and processes in Poland, making it a better country to live
111
in? How to achieve that development? To what extent does the capability approach open
up for the societal, structural perspective?
How has migration led to freedom? In the following I will go through my findings in each of the five themes; Choice, Work,
Money, Health and Gender, for the four informants respectively. I will argue that
migration has enhanced their freedom to a varying degree on some of the five areas of
life.
The informants made their choices to migrate in distinctly different settings; some
say that they had a choice to a larger degree than others. The informants talk about the
decision-making process and the choice to a varying extent: some have a lot to say about
it, others do not. All of them talk more about the result of making the choice, of
migrating, rather than the choosing itself. However, all of them describe the decision as
an autonomous decision they made themselves, without pressure from family members or
others. When talking about the alternatives they had, they all felt that leaving was the best
alternative, obviously, but they to a varying degree felt that there were other good
alternatives. Malgorzata stands out as the one who seems to have had the best options to
stay in Poland, as she describes leaving as not a necessity, rather an adventure. The three
others seem to have felt that they had to leave, or suffer substantially in different ways.
Helena and Beata talk about economic necessities as the most important
background for making the choice to migrate, and that a better economy would allow
them to live the way they wanted. For Helena’s part, she could live with her husband and
be “a real couple”; without substantially better earning, they would have had to postpone
moving out from their parent’s homes and getting married, in a sense, putting their whole
lives on hold. By migrating, they were able to take control of their futures, and realize
their wish of living together. For Beata, the choice to migrate was also set against an
economic imperative; her husband had already migrated due to unemployment in Poland,
but still the burden of financial troubles weighed heavily on her shoulders, as did the
separation from her husband. As several factors of her life deteriorated, the gains from
migration heavily outweighed the losses. Malgorzata and Agnieszka do not mention
112
economic motivation, but rather a sense of adventure and ignorance concerning
geographical boundaries in the case of the former, and political necessity in the case of
the latter. Malgorzata, it seems, saw no reason not to leave, as moving from Bergen to
Oslo or from Oslo to Thailand was not that different for her. For Agnieszka, it was urgent
to get away; she could not stand the restrictions put her in communist Poland, and staying
would mean “in a sense sacrificing myself.” Hence, the choice was made against a
background of necessity for three of the four informants. Making the choice to migrate
was thereby strenuous in the sense that they lost aspects of life that were important to
them by leaving, but still a liberating choice in that they could take control of their
futures, and hopefully improve it, by leaving. Even Malgorzata, who is the one who
seems to have felt this necessity to leave least of all the informants, emphasizes the
openness, freedom and sense of adventure and self realization she felt in travelling, and
eventually migrating on a more permanent basis; settling in Norway.
The second theme, Work inquires the extent to which their work in Norway
enhances their freedom, and here I looked at two factors: their own evaluation of their
work situation, and a more objective evaluation drawing on Fafo’s research. They are all
content with their jobs, and find them meaningful and fulfilling, even if Helena and Beata
refer to the ladder they are climbing, and that they hope to reach higher than their current
step. Helena is a nanny; a relatively low status, low income job, but she enjoys taking
care of the “two lovely (children)”, she is treated with respect, and she has a contract and
good working conditions. Beata had just taken an important step on the ladder when I
interviewed her; she had just started working in the care professions, and had been
promised a full time job shortly. She is the only informant who still has a connection to
the black labour market; she has four cleaning jobs. However, though she worries about
her social security and her old age pension, she enjoys all her jobs, and likes cleaning in
private houses, claiming she learns new things from all her jobs. Malgorzata is content
with being her own boss; it gives her the freedom she values, and ensures her a good
earning, which again secures her high standard of living. Agnieszka took an additional
education when coming to Norway, and has a profession which allows her to be “happy
as a human being”. Though their jobs are very different, they are all happy with their
jobs; Agnieszka and to some extent Malgorzata for the qualities of the job itself, Beata
113
and Helena for the salary, for their properties as steps on the ladder, and for the
opportunity to learn Norwegian language. The questionnaire drawing on Fafo’s research
reveals that their attachment to the legal work sphere is good, contrary to the majority of
Polish people in Oslo. I view this attachment to be important for the possibility to
experience the work as empowering and liberating. For these reasons, the informants’
work in Norway in different ways enhances their freedom. On the other hand, if Helena
and Beata fail to climb the ladder, and remain if not on the bottom of the work hierarchy,
but certainly in the lower parts of it, this would yield frustration and leave them
discontent with their work. They would probably not see it as rewarding and enhancing
their freedom if still in the same jobs once they have learned the language and gained
experience enough to move ahead.
With regard to the third theme, Money: money has potential to enhance freedom
in that it enables the holder to make the choices she sees as right, good or just. All the
migrants have improved their economic standing since migrating. However, since
migration took place a long time ago for Malgorzata and Agnieszka, the comparison
between pre- and post-migration might not be as valid, which I shall shortly look into.
Helena and Beata make more money now than they did when living in Poland. For
Helena’s part, the increased income has allowed her to make important changes in her
life: she is married and lives like “a real couple”; she can “do whatever she wants” and
gets to “live like normal people”. The impact that more money has made on her life is
overwhelming. “It’s a big difference”, she concludes. Beata describes the financial strain
she experienced when living in Poland as crippling, something that caused severe stress,
reduced life quality and serious health problems. Since earning more, her life has
improved accordingly, even though she does not earn a lot, but is rather on a tight budget.
The comparison between before (in Poland) and now (in Norway), is not as easily
undertaken for Malgorzata and Agnieszka as for the two others, as Malgorzata and
Agnieszka migrated many years ago, before they had as much education and experience
as they do now. Malgorzata believes that she could succeed anywhere; and certainly in
Poland the way Polish society functions today. She has succeeded to a great extent in
Norway, and makes a lot of money, and that gives her valuable freedom. “I have no
economic problems. At all! I am very happy”, she states. Agnieszka thinks that she is in a
114
better economic situation here than she would have been in Poland, due to Norwegian
“state feminism” and high degree of gender equality in Norwegian society and work
sphere. She doubts that she could have succeeded in developing her carrier and achieving
the same salary in Poland as she has done in Norway: “You say “had I lived in Poland” I
don’t know how free I would have been as a woman living in Poland”, she says, and
concludes that it would have been much more difficult to obtain the freedom to make the
choices she has made there than in Norway.
With regard to the fourth theme, Health, only Beata and Agnieszka talk about it.
They are both certain that migrating to and living in Norway, respectively, has improved
their health. Health is held to be of crucial importance to freedom, by central capability
thinkers, both because it is a valuable functioning to be healthy, but also because of its
instrumental value: being healthy allows you to work, play and rest. Beata has
experienced a dramatic improvement in her health since migrating to Norway, and she
argues that there is a causal connection between the two; her good health is a result of
migration. She describes the overwhelming responsibilities, financially and for her sick
mother, and the health problems she herself experienced from all that stress. But then: “I
came to Norway, and I had no problem, you know? I just use one medicine, earlier I used
five, six different kinds. The doctor thought I had cancer too, first in my eye, then in my
back, but now I have no problem!” Undoubtedly, Beata has experienced a radical
improvement in life quality since migrating, although this improvement seems almost too
good to be true. Read more on possible explanations for Beata’s perception under
heading “Problems related to my methods and findings”. Agnieszka believes she has
better health than her Polish friends because she lives in Norway. This is connected both
to what she holds to be culturally conditioned values about physical activity in Norway,
“walking and eating healthy food, there are certain things you get in the kind of country
Norway is”, and connected to the higher degree of gender equality in Norway compared
to Poland. She holds that Polish women define themselves from their relation, or lack of
such, to a man, and that they are less active, have less plans for the future and are less in
control of their own lives than she is, due to the fact that in Norway, it is possible to be
treated as a “normal person”, even for women over forty.
115
The final theme is gender, and the relevant question in this context is: Has
migration led to liberation from gender norms and contributed to widening the migrants’
role as gendered actors; opened up new rooms in their understandings and doings,
respectively, of womanhood? The distinction between awareness and action corresponds
to what I touched upon earlier: the discrepancy between normative ideas about gender
roles and gender regimes, and how they conduct their own womanhoods; their own lives.
All of the informants have become aware of a somewhat different regime of womanhood
in Norway than in Poland, and they like what they see, all except Malgorzata.
Helena and Beata express an increased awareness of gender questions: they both
see differences in the Polish and Norwegian gender regimes, and argue that there is
greater equality between the sexes and more possibilities for women both in the work
sphere and in private life in Norway than in Poland. Helena noted that Norwegian women
do “the man’s stuff in Poland”, such as fixing up the house: “painting the door”; thereby
moving into the man’s traditional areas of responsibility. At the same time Helena sees
Norwegian women as more active (in that they go to the gym) and more independent than
Polish women. Both Helena and Beata admire this independence, and see it as an ideal on
a normative level. I couldn’t find that they had changed their own conduct of
womanhood; that they had in any way demanded a more equal division of household
chores for example, but they seemed to have gained awareness about other possible
gender regimes. This awareness can be seen as the first step towards liberation from
inhibiting and limiting gender norms. Whether Helena and Beata are interested in taking
the next step; changing their doing of womanhood, is unknown. Malgorzata also sees the
differences between Poland and Norway, and makes the comparison of Polish gender
roles today with Norwegian gender roles pre- women’s liberation movement. However,
she does not admire female independence, on the contrary: this independence blurs the
natural division of properties and capacities between men and women, and leads to a
number of problems and to confusion over who has responsibility for what, both in
family life and in professional life, she holds. She brings in the concern for families and
the disintegration of traditional roles and values, and blames women’s liberation for
various problems in the Norwegian society today, especially loneliness and the high
number of single persons. Agnieszka is the one informant who is most aware of gender
116
questions, and who is outspoken about her feminist sympathies. She acclaims her living
in Norway, in addition to her own individual properties, for her high level of freedom,
and being allowed to live as a “normal person, no different from others”, and the
opportunity to be a “neuter gender” who thinks and writes. Her opinion is that she has
benefited especially from migrating to Norway as opposed to another European country,
such as Italy, in that Norwegian state feminism has made society more gender equal and
opened opportunities for her that she wouldn’t have had in countries with other gender
regimes.
Can freedom be conceptualized as development? The next question is whether the freedom experienced by these migrants can be
understood as development. I have argued that enhancing each individual’s capabilities,
ensuring the individual freedom from necessity in central areas of life, can be sensibly
understood as development. I have argued that development can be conceptualized as
freedom from economic need and uncertainty; freedom from unemployment; freedom
from political suppression; freedom to make the choices and live the life that the
individual finds valuable. I have discussed the individual stance in the capability
approach; that the individual is the only viable entity when measuring development, and
have argued in line with this stance. If families, or households, are the unit of evaluation,
one runs the risk of not capturing the intra household imbalance of power, and thereby
the unequal capabilities for the individual members of the household. If communities or
whole nation states are the unit for evaluation of development, the risk of neglecting
internal inequalities may even increase to involve inequalities stemming from ethnicity,
class or sexual identity. But this ethical individualism is not to be understood as a neglect
of societal structures or processes it has been argued (Robeyns, 2005). Amartya Sen’s
version of the capability approach is very in tuned with the force and necessity of societal
structures; indeed, without development of society as whole, increased capabilities for the
individual is impossible. The five instrumental freedoms (political freedoms, economic
facilities, social opportunities, transparency guarantees and protective security) are my
starting point in this structural criticism. They illustrate this point: political freedoms; the
117
right to speak and vote, economic facilities; a functioning market, social opportunities;
such as school and health services, transparency guarantees; so that contracts and
agreements are respected, and a state of law is respected, and protective security; welfare
systems which hinder ill health or unemployment to render people destitute, are all
important, societal structures in the quest for development.
Thus, it is not, as some critics have claimed, an ontological individualism
hallmarking the capability approach, viewing only individuals and their properties as
viable entities in society. On the contrary, there is considerable concern and interest in
societal structures. There is firm stance on ethical individualism; meaning simply that the
individual is the unit of moral concern, and an emphasis on the principle of each person
as an end, ensuring that no one can succumb to an existence functioning as a mere tool
for others, within the morals of the capability approach.
However, there is another strand of criticism against the approach which is more
relevant to my second research question, and that is the nature of the process bringing the
development (as freedom) about. The five instrumental freedoms are of intrinsic
importance in ensuring capability expansion for individuals, argues Sen. I find no reason
to question the emphasis on these freedoms, however, the weakness of Sen’s framework
becomes visible when inquiring how these freedoms shall be ensured. The instrumental
freedoms will undoubtedly be conducive to capability expansion, but in many of the
countries where development is most needed, these freedoms are still unrealized, and
Sen’s trust that the market mechanism will ensure public health care and education seems
overly optimistic. Sen argues that these services are cheap in countries where labour is
cheap and goods are expensive, i.e. most so-called developing countries, and thereby the
mechanics of moral capitalism will see to the realization of these services. However, as
pointed out by Shanmugaratnam (2001), in countries where these freedoms are realized
for the whole population, like the welfare states of Western Europe, they have been
struggled into being by social forces such as the labour movement. There is an
“intriguing” neglect of social structures and processes in Sen’s capability approach, to
which I shall shortly return.
Social structures and institutions are included in the capability approach in that
they are recognized as influencing the means of the capabilities, thereby institutions and
118
structures are determining in the expansion of capabilities. Besides agency, the structures
surrounding us are what allow us to make choices that we find meaningful, or inhibit us
from the same. It is crucially important that institutions and structures are just, for them
to produce just opportunities for freedoms and capability expansion, argue Sen.
But how can social structures and institutions be changed? Robeyns (2005: 110)
answers: the capability approach is not yet equipped to account for the procedural aspects
of justice and freedom, just the opportunity aspects. “In other words, institutions and
structures need to be also procedurally just, apart from the outcomes they generate. For
example, global trade agreements should not benefit primarily the most powerful nations,
or people should not be discriminated on the labour market based on irrelevant
characteristics.” (Ibid) Indeed, I find no reason to argue that institutions and structures
should not be just, but the question remains: How can they become just? This question is
not answered by Sen. His insistence on political rights and democracy, and his argument
for public action through these channels in order to demand a more just society, with
protective security and social opportunities, seems to be missing the crucial link: social
processes and organized political struggle. In the words of Shanmugaratnam (2001):
“[Sen’s] discussions on the importance of political freedoms leave the role of struggles
implicit. But his concept of capability should compel one to recognize more explicitly the
role of political actions aimed at expanding rights and security.” As mentioned in the
section on Marxist critique, this “intriguing” lack of emphasis on social processes has
been explained epistemologically, in that Sen’s academic realm is moral philosophy, to
which social processes are external. Nussbaum’s list of central human functioning
capabilities is a principally important suggestion working towards a more politicized and
more operationalized variant of the approach, but there are several challenges connected
to it as well. Unfortunately, a full investigation into application of the list to my data
material was out of reach within the boundaries of this thesis.
Questions arising from this research The findings of this thesis are almost alarmingly positive. It is really this liberating to
migrate, or are there methodological explanations to why the findings confirm my initial
119
idea: that migration can lead to freedom? Could my informants have told anything but a
success story? Would it be possible for an informant to tell me a failure story without
feeling the shame connected to failure? In understanding and constructing one self as a
migrant it is probably difficult to tell a story of failure. Indeed, isn’t it necessary to
construct success stories in order to justify the migration and feel good about the choices
you made? Because if the migration wasn’t successful, how come you haven’t gone
back? Would it not be easier for an informant who actually felt that migration had been a
mistake, to change that story so that it fit in to the ideal of success? These are important
questions, which are very difficult to answer on the basis of my current material. I will
never know if the informants felt compelled to give me a sunshine story in stead of the
“real”, true story. I will never know I they lie to themselves, telling themselves that they
are happy in Norway, enjoying doing jobs at the low end of the status scale. If they do lie
to themselves, they will certainly lie to me.
However, the very positive findings I did in interviewing especially Helena and
Beata must be seen in the light of these questions. They were very content with their jobs,
despite the fact that they were low paid and low status jobs. This must be seen in
connection with the informants’ short period in Norway, and that they still compare
salaries and possibly other aspects of their jobs with Polish salaries and jobs. They are, if
not at the bottom of the Norwegian labour hierarchy, certainly in the lower sections of it.
Although Helena and Beata stress the kindness and respect they are treated with by
employers; might not the experience of being lower working class here in Norway
somehow give a bitter taste to the migration experience? As time goes by, won’t decent
behaviour from the employers seize yielding gratefulness, but rather be expected by
Helena and Beata? One possibility is that they have not yet understood that they are at the
bottom, or do they position themselves as better than other immigrants, such as Somalis
or Iraqis, which may arguably be worse off. Yet another reason for the success stories
they told me is that they allow some time to pass before they expect to be on the same
welfare level as the natives. If this expectation (of reaching the same standard of living as
Norwegians) should fail, however, the notion of migration as a success story will be less
convincing. They might be less positive about their migration if they are still in the same
jobs five years from now; if they failed to climb the ladder they so often refer to.
120
Another, psychological perspective of migration is that suddenly one is a stranger,
without the unconscious knowledge about expected social conduct and how society
works. These are dimensions to being a migrant which the newly arrived migrants
possibly have not yet realized.
One aspect of migration which I did not touch upon in the interviews, but which is
very important for the freedom to be achieved from migration, is their network, or rather,
lack of network in Norway. Their family and friends are in Poland; does that not make
them very vulnerable, in case of marital problems, domestic violence, economic problems
and a range of other possible dangers? And what about migration’s effect on loneliness
and isolation? Are these aspects of migration also conducive to development?
These questions are not as pressing in the cases of Malgorzata and Agnieszka, as
they are very well integrated into the Norwegians society and do make comparable
livings with Norwegians. But the need and expectation of successful migration will also
affect their understandings of themselves as migrants and the stories they tell.
This thesis shows the applicability of the capability approach, and discusses some
of its lacking aspects. It also poses new questions. One group of questions are connected
to operationalization; how can we measure capabilities in relation to migration, and how
can we incorporate social structures and political processes in a more holistic way into
the framework? In relation to this thesis specifically, it would be interesting to scrutinize
the potential for freedom from migration once again, keeping awareness on the
impending probability for success-stories. Another interesting variant would be to
incorporate a class dimension, in order to ensure that not only the educated middle class
is portrayed, and their experience is made universal.
121
122
Appendices
Appendix 1: Interview guides
English interview guide
This interview guide was used in the first interview, with Helena, the only one done in
English.
INTERVIEW GUIDE -Turn on the recording device -Introducing myself and the project -Open for questions -Inform about the structure of our interview -Background: Where do you come from? Rural or urban? Education? Previous work experience? Family? Did you come alone or with a family member? Age? Choice: -Can you describe the decision making process. When did you first get the idea of leaving Poland? -Who did you talk to in the process of deciding? -What did your family say? Were they positive or negative? -Did you experience any pressure to leave? -What were your other alternatives? -Were they equally good? -If you should point to one thing? What was the most important thing that made you decide? -What would have made you stay in Poland? -Do you remember what you hoped for about coming to Norway before you went? What did you imagine? -How does your experience correspond with that? Features of life in Norway: Work: -Do you work for salary? -Please describe your work. (Starts with very open-ended question) - Full time? -Is it the type of job you would do in Poland? -Does it correspond to your education? -What are the benefits of working except the money? PROBE -What is the greatest problem in your job? -How do you experience interaction with your coworkers, your clients and your boss? Attachment to legal work sphere:
123
Introduce the FAFO research: on Polish people’s working conditions, six indicators on attachment to the work sphere. Please fill out form! Don’t write your name! Money: -Are you satisfied with your salary? -Do you earn more now than when you lived in Poland? -What is different now that you earn (more) money? For yourself? For your family? -Can you do other things now that you earn (more) money, than you could before, when you didn’t earn (as much) money? -Do you feel that you have money to spend, or are you on a tight budget? -Do you save money? -For what? -If you didn’t need the money, would you choose not to work? Why? PROBE Norway: -Do you like Norway? Why, why not? -What should change in Norway for your life to be better here? -Can you compare your life in Poland to your life here? Poland: -What do you like about Poland? -What do you dislike? -Do you miss it? What do you miss? -Is Poland a better place to live after 1989? What is better? And worse? -What about after the Kaczynski twins came to power. How would you describe the development in society? -What do you think of the new Prime Minister? What will change, do you think? -What are the major societal problems and challenges in Poland today? -Can you compare Poland to Norway? What are the benefits of the two countries? Church: -What role would you say the Church plays in the Poland? -What are the benefits or the harm of the Church playing this role? -What role do religion and the Church play in your life? -Would you describe it as something that lifts you up, or something that puts you down? Men and women -Is there a difference between Polish and Norwegian women? What is it? And men? -Are there any typical characteristics for Norwegian and Polish women? -Are expectations to women different here? -Many have told me that Poland is more traditional than Norway. What do you think? Why? -Is there a difference between Polish and Norwegian families? What is it? -What about the extended family, parents, cousins, etc? Are there differences? In how people interact? -What happens to the husband and wife when a family comes to Norway? -Are there problems? Conflicts? Divorce? Why? -Is it different to grow up in Poland than in Norway? What is different? -Do you think that coming to Norway has changed you? (or will it change you?) How? Why? -How are you different here compared to there?
124
-In Norway most children go to kindergarten, and both women and men usually have paid jobs. What do you think about that? -Do you think it is an ideal way to organize life? -What is ideal for you? LA OPPTAKET GÅ ETTER AT INTERVJUET ER AVSLUTTET!
Norwegian interview guide
The following interview guide was used in the three interviews that were done in
Norwegian, but the last point about freedom was not added until the last interview, with
Agnieszka.
INTERVJU GUIDE - Skru på opptakeren - Introdusere meg selv og prosjektet - Har du noen spørsmål? Bakgrunn Hvor kommer du fra? Landsby eller by? Utdannelse? Arbeidserfaring? Familie? Kom du alene eller sammen med noen? Alder? Valg
- Kan du beskrive hvordan du tok valget om å dra? Når fikk du først ideen om å reise? - Hvem snakket du med da du lurte på om du skulle dra? - Hva sa familien? Var de positive eller negative? - Opplevde du noe press fra noen om å dra? - Hva slags andre alternativer hadde du? - Var de like gode? Hvorfor valgte du ikke dem? - Hvis du skal peke på en ting? Hva var det viktigste som fikk deg til å dra? - Hva måtte vært annerledes for at du skulle blitt i Polen? - Husker du hva du håpte på før du kom til Norge? Hva forestilte du deg? - Stemmer det virkelige Norge overens med det?
Livet i Norge Arbeid:
- Kan du beskrive jobben din? - Er det full tid? - Er det samme type jobb som du ville hatt i Polen? - Passer det med utdannelsen din? - Hva er fordelene ved jobben hvis du ser bort fra pengene? GRAV! - Hva er det største problemet i jobben din? - Hvordan opplever du samarbeidet med sjefen, oppdragsgivere, kunder, kolleger osv?
Tilknytning til arbeidsmarkedet:
125
Introdusere FAFO forskning: undersøkelse på polakkers levekår i Norge, de har utarbeidet seks indikatorer på tilknytning til arbeidslivet. Vennligst fyll ut skjema! Ikke skriv navnet ditt! Penger:
- Er du fornøyd med lønna di? - Tjener du mer nå enn da du bodde i Polen? - Hva er annerledes nå som du tjener (mer) penger? For deg personlig? For familien? - Kan du gjøre andre ting nå, som du tjener penger, enn du kunne før, da du ikke
tjente (så mye) penger? - Føler du at du kan bruke penger, eller har du stramt budsjett/ dårlig råd? - Sparer du (i banken)? - Sparer du til noe spesielt? - Hvis du ikke trengte pengene, ville du velge ikke å jobbe? Hvorfor? GRAV!
Menn og kvinner:
- Er det forskjell på polske og norske kvinner? Hva er forskjellen? - Er det forskjell på mennene? - Hva er typisk for norske og polske kvinner? - Er forventningene til kvinner annerledes her i Norge? - Mange sier at Polen er mer tradisjonelt. Hva mener du? Hvorfor? - Er det noen forskjell mellom polske og norske familier? Hva er det? - Hva med storfamilien? Foreldre, kusiner osv? Er det forskjeller? På hvordan folk er
sammen? - Hva skjer med mann og kone når familien kommer til Norge? - Blir det problemer? Konflikter? Krangling? Skilsmisse? Hvorfor? - Er det annerledes å vokse opp i Norge? Hva er annerledes? - Tror du at å komme til Norge har forandret deg? (Eller kommer du til å forandre deg?)
Hvordan? Hvorfor? - Hvordan er du annerledes her sammenlignet med der? - I Norge går de fleste barn i barnehage, og både kvinner og menn har jobber utenfor huset.
Hva mener du om det? - Syns du det er den beste måten å ordne livet på? - Hva ville vært ideelt for deg?
Frihet: hva er frihet for deg? Hva betyr det å være fri? Har migrasjonen ført til frihet for deg personlig? Selve handlingen å dra, og resultatet; livet i Norge. Har en (eller begge) av disse tingene gitt deg frihet? LA OPPTAKET GÅ ETTER AT INTERVJUET ER AVSLUTTET!
126
Appendix 2: Quotes from chapter “Four migrants’
stories”, in Norwegian
The informants
M: jeg ser muligheter overalt, reiser jeg til (Asiatisk land) starter jeg (forretning), reiser jeg til (Latin Amerikansk land) så kan jeg starte jeg en liten hotell med skole eller sånn, så det er egentlig ikke noe sted jeg ikke kunne reise og lykkes. B: (…) men du vet, først jeg må lære norsk, etterpå, når jeg skal kjenne bra norsk, kanskje jeg kan fikk andre type arbeid, kanskje på kontor. Fordi jeg.. hele liv jeg arbeidet på kontor, jeg liker det. M: Også, her, har du bil så må du gjøre alt selv, i Polen: har du bil, har du mann, ferdig med saken, det er veldig enkelt! Hehehe Da kan du klage til mannen, bilen er skitten, bilen er det og det, det er hans ansvar, så ja.. så da må de være litt mer macho, de må gå ut i verden og kjempe mot vanskeligheter, mens han.. mannen trekker seg litt bak, syns jeg, jeg har kanskje dårlig mening, men det er jo min mening. K: Det viktigste er din mening, ikke hva jeg syns om din mening! Det er helt irrelevant. (Ikke transkribering: jeg beskriver hva jeg er interessert i. Informanten bryter av og fortsetter å snakke om kjønnsroller.) M: Eh, ja, som jeg sa jeg flyttet litt fra et land til ett land, jeg føler meg ikke så veldig Polsk, K: Okey? M: Jeg føler meg europeisk M: Det som irriterer meg, altså jeg er jo polsk, så jeg skal ikke.. Jeg er ikke norsk jeg er ikke polsk. Jeg vil si det sånn, jeg er i mellom (…) A: Så jeg skaffet meg (utdannelse) som ga meg norsk utdannelse, som ga meg inngangsbillett til norske yrkeslivet på det nivå, jeg mente var riktig for meg, og da som jeg sa tilbake til det jeg begynte med, jeg sa til meg selv veldig tidlig, bestemte meg, jeg må late som jeg ikke er innvandrer, jeg må ha samme høye ambisjoner som jeg ikke hadde forlatt mitt land, ellers er det fallitt, jeg kan ikke få terskelen ned bevisst, fordi jeg kan ikke si til meg selv du er innvandrere så du kan ikke på en måte prøve å nå så høyt som de andre, Nei! Jeg prøver, hvis det ikke går så går det ikke på grunn av at jeg ikke har prøvd. Og det gikk.
127
A: (…) du vet jeg er ikke sånn veldig takknemlig intervjuobjekt, for jeg tilhører intelligentsia gruppen, jeg, alt jeg ser alt jeg sier er ut fra, men jeg prøver å observere, i andre samfunnslag (…)
Theme 1: Choice
B: Vi snakker på Internett, på Skype K: Mhm B: men det er ikke bra, fordi jeg lengter etter.. Alltid vi ble sammen, alltid. Fordi 23 år, S går ut bare en gang K: Mhm B: på tre måneder, K: Ja? B: Og 23 år, vi ble sammen. K: Ja. Hehe B: det var veldig vanskelig for meg, jeg kom på besøk, bare på besøk, i Norge i påske, i 2006 K: Mhm B: Og.. etterpå, tre dager, jeg sa: Hm, kanskje S, jeg kom i Norge, fordi når jeg kom i Norge på besøk, jeg sa S du må avslutte jobb her, du må tilbake hjem, fordi det er umulig, eh.. B: når jeg bor i Polen, jeg tenker bare om det at jeg må bo sammen med min mann, K: Ja B: og jeg trenger ny jobb, og bedre lønn, K: mhm B: jeg tenkte mye om M K: mhm B: og hans/hennes problemer. M: Vi kan snakke om å flytte fra Bergen til Oslo eller fra Oslo til (Asiatisk land), og det er alt det samme for meg. Det spiller ingen rolle om det er Polen, eller om det er Norge eller Tyskland, eh, det er bare snakk om har du bedre jobb? Greit! Har du bedre miljø? Greit! Det er nok for å flytte! Har du bedre venner? Det er nok for å flytte. Ehm, altså, det var ikke særlig grunn jeg bare reiste.. K: Følte du at du hadde like gode alternativer i Polen eller følte du at de beste alternativene lå i utlandet? M: mhm. Ja. Da var det sånn at bedre alternativer var i utlandet. Nå er det sånn at jeg syns at det er egentlig ikke et sted jeg ikke kunne lykkes. Jeg har veldig god utdannelse og jeg kan språk og jeg er veldig åpen mot forskjellige oppdrag, og jeg har også, jeg ser muligheter overalt, reiser jeg til (Asiatisk land) starter jeg (forretning), reiser jeg til (Latin
128
Amerikansk land) så kan jeg starte jeg en liten hotell med skole eller sånn, så det er egentlig ikke noe sted jeg ikke kunne reise og lykkes. A: (…) Jeg følte altså på en måte, valget var enten så blir jeg her, i et land jeg elsker over alt, men jeg utvikler meg ikke som individ, på en måte ofrer meg selv, eller så reiser jeg ut og lærer meg å leve uten landet, uten språket, eller i hvert fall på avstand, men vinner som individ. Og det var de valget jeg foretok. Så jeg.. det var på en måte.. den første store frigjøringen, det var da. K: Du sa at du ikke hadde noe valg, var det sånn det føltes, eller var det.. holdt på å si, var det sånn det føltes eller var det sånn det var, hehe, det var dårlig spørsmål, men.. A: Det føltes, kjentes slik. Det var ikke de facto, klart man kunne bli der, mange mennesker ble der, mange mennesker levde tilnærmet normalt liv, men jeg tror at vi er så forskjellige som individer, jeg har jo (et søsken) som trivdes, hadde ikke noe problem, til og med vurderte å melde seg inn i partiet for å få ekstra materielle goder, og få en leilighet utenfor køen, ganske opportun, og på en måte.. ikke sant, den typen.. person i samme familie, så jeg tror det gikk veldig på det individuelle, på personligheten, K: Mhm A: Friheten har alltid vært for meg veldig viktig (…)
Theme 2: Work: The informants’ own perception
A: Så det var på en måte den veien jeg gikk, men jeg gikk stigen, klart jeg gikk stigen. Jeg hadde ingen sjanse til å få en jobb som var tilsvarende min utdannelse B: Men du forstår, hva mener jeg. Jeg snakket med (navnet på lederen) og hun sa fordi min jobb er bra, hun synes at jeg det er mulig at når jeg slutter vikariat jeg får fast jobb der. Ja. K: Åh? Er det full tid, eller annenhver helg, eller? B: Ja, full tid. K: Aha! Det er jo helt utrolig! B: Det er neste etappe i livet min. K: Så da vil du bare jobbe der, eller begge deler? B: Nå kan jeg jobber her og.. begge to, men jeg.. etterpå jeg synes at ett sted, arbeidssted, er bedre til meg, men du vet, først jeg må lære norsk, etterpå, når jeg skal kjenne bra norsk, kanskje jeg kan fikk andre type arbeid, kanskje på kontor. Fordi jeg.. hele liv jeg arbeidet på kontor, jeg liker det. B: (…) Men, du vet, jeg drømmer ikke om svart jobb K: Nei, hehe B: jeg drømmer bare om normal, legal jobb, fordi jeg kom i Norge ikke på tre måneder, men jeg vil leve, bor her over lengre tid.
129
K: Hvis du ikke trengte penger, ville du slutte å jobbe? B: Nei, fordi.. (snakker polsk) kan du gjenta, en gang til, fordi jeg forstår ikke alt? K: Hvis du hadde masse penger.. B: Ah, nå jeg vet.. hem, jeg vet at jeg har ikke masse penger, hehe, men hvis jeg har.. nei, fordi jeg har masse energi, jeg kan ikke bare sitte på ett sted, eller være på reise, jeg må gjøre noen ting, men du vet hvis jeg har masse penger jeg kan arbeide på foundation, du vet, men det er også arbeide. A: Jada, jeg foretrekker til og med spennende jobb med lavere lønn, enn jobb som gir masse lønn, jeg kunne aldri tenkt meg å være eiendomsmegler, eller, fy f.. aksjemegler. K: Nei, hehe. A: Så jeg ville ikke være ulykkelig her i landet, jeg hadde jo et barn, og jeg ville være lykkelig som menneske, eller i hvert fall føler at jeg fungerer som menneske på det nivået jeg trenger å fungere fordi kunne bli boende her, så det var på en måte betingelsen at jeg fikk en profesjon som jeg trivdes med. For å kunne fortsette å bo her og bli integrert og føle at jeg er en del av dette samfunnet og ikke bare en sånn fremmed.. fremmedelement som kan bare forsvinne og ingen merker, ikke sant? K: Hvis du ikke trengte penger, ville du slutte å jobbe? B: Nei, fordi.. (snakker polsk) kan du gjenta, en gang til, fordi jeg forstår ikke alt? K: Hvis du hadde masse penger.. B: Ah, nå jeg vet.. hem, jeg vet at jeg har ikke masse penger, hehe, men hvis jeg har.. nei, fordi jeg har masse energi, jeg kan ikke bare sitte på ett sted, eller være på reise, jeg må gjøre noen ting, men du vet hvis jeg har masse penger jeg kan arbeide på foundation, du vet, men det er også arbeide. K: Det er også arbeide. Ehm.. vi har snakket om.. B: I polen vi sa.. Hver menneske har noen penger, men hver menneske sier å jeg har ikke nok, men jeg trenger hundre kroner, du trenger tusen kroner. Men andre trenger millioner kroner, det er (klapper), hehe. K: ja, hehe B: Jeg trenger ikke masse penger, jeg trenger bare normalt liv, jeg skal ha hus.. etterpå kanskje vi kan kjøpe hus i Norge, men jeg vet ikke. Nå er ikke aktuelt, jeg vil bare ha normal arbeid, normalt liv, to ganger i året vil jeg reise to uker på sommerferie. Du vet, familien min er veldig viktig for meg, jeg trenger ikke.. Hvis jeg har ikke kreditt i bank, lånet fra bank, jeg kanskje jeg kom ikke i Norge, men jeg vet ikke. Vi har (snakker polsk) strong connection mellom familien, du vet, mora mi kom på besøk, (barnet) kom på besøk, søstra mi, og broren min, du vet vi har strong relasjon. K: Ja, sterk samhold? B: Ja!
130
Theme 3: Money
K: Føler du at økonomien din, eller familiens økonomi er bedre nå enn i Polen? B: Nei! Nå? K: Ja B: Ja.. K: Nå er den bedre? B: Ja K: Det var det jeg trodde, men.. B: Ja, men.. (Ikke transkribert: tegner opp et slags regnskap for Norge, Polen og snakker om utgifter og inntekter) B: Jeg har ikke råd til noen ting, men vi trenger ikke (snakker polsk) veldig,.. jeg kan vente på andre ting. Men i Polen, jeg trenger penger bare til normalt liv, du vet. K: Skjønner. Vil du si at du har bedre eller dårligere råd i Norge enn i Polen? Det er vanskelig men.. B: Ja, men til meg, Norge er bedre. Men til dattera mi, de har veldig bra jobb, og god penger, og veldig bra sjef, han tenker om arbeidstaker, det er god sjef. Jeg syns at til min datter er bedre i Polen. K: Jeg tenkte at vi kunne snakke om penger.. er du fornøyd med lønna di? B: Nei. Men jeg forstår at jeg har minst lønn i Norge, det er ikke bra fordi.. jeg vet at min jobb er bra.. K: ja B: ..men fordi jeg må lære, jeg må arbeide mye du vet, jeg sendte penger.. M: Jeg har ikke noe økonomiske problemer. I det hele tatt. Jeg har det veldig bra. K: Du kan velge å gjøre hva du vil gjøre? M: Jeg.. Ja. For eksempel nå reiser jeg til Stockholm, fra Stockholm til Polen for fem dager for å kose oss litt, og så reiser vi hele måned til Karibien sammen med kjæreste. Så jeg tror at jeg har god råd. God råd til det jeg vil. K: Ehm, grunnen til at jeg spør om penger er at uten penger kan du ikke være fri. A: Ja K: Det er min grunnleggende tanke, så.. A: Uten egne penger, kan du ikke være fri. K: Nettopp. Hvis du ikke tjener dine egne penger så kan du ikke være fri A: Nettopp. Da tenker vi helt likt. K: Tror du at du har høyere inntekt nå enn det du ville hatt hvis du bodde i Polen, og jobbet i Polen? A: Å ja. Høyere inntekt, men om jeg hatt høyere kjøpekraft? Sannsynligvis! (Kristin sier noe uhørbart) For inntekt er jo helt klart at inntekt er jo mye høyere, men kjøpekraften det er jo det som teller ikke sant?
131
K: Ja, relativt til utgiftene. Åpenbart. A: Kan hende. For det er jo veldig vanskelig å si, skjønner du. Du sier ”hadde jeg bodd i Polen”. Jeg vet jo ikke hvor fri jeg hadde vært hvis jeg hadde bodd i Polen som kvinne. K: Nei A: Om jeg kunne få lov å jobbe som jeg har jobbet, om jeg hadde en mann, som aldri, jeg er jo skilt fra ham, men han har aldri stoppet meg i min karriereutvikling, det var aldri noe press hjemme, at jeg skulle være hjemme, at jeg skulle ta meg av noe, at jeg skulle tilrettelegge, det var bestandig rot hjemme og forferdelig, for jeg var jo ute og jobbet (i yrket), det var aldri sagt ett ord. K: Mhm
Theme 4: Health
K: Da du bestemte deg for.. eller du, ja, da du bestemte deg for å komme til Norge, B: Ja K: følte du at du hadde noen andre alternativer i Polen? B: Nei! Jeg har ikke! Jeg har stort problem med helse i Polen. Men nå jeg vet problem ligger i hodet, hver dag jeg må jobbe, jeg tenke penger, jeg må lære, barna mine, mora mi var veldig syk, hun har kreft, hun har, hva heter, amputasjon, mistet brystet, etterpå hun har (snakker polsk) infeksjon i alle organisme, min mora.. hun kan ikke gå og ikke spise alene, må passe på mora mi, sover ved siden av hun ,og.. det er veldig vanskelig år, og jeg har problem med øyet, fordi.. det er sammen med stress K: men nå når du er i Norge..? B: jeg kom i Norge, jeg har ikke problem, du vet? Jeg bruker bare ett medisin, tidligere jeg bruker fem, seks slags.. typer, (snakker polsk).. serious? K: Alvorlig? B: alvorlig, legen synes at jeg har kreft også, ja, i øyet, etterpå i ryggen, men nå.. K: Men det har du ikke? B: Jeg har ikke problem! Når jeg kommer på besøk i Polen, jeg gjør alt prøve, prøve blod, prøve urin, alle (snakker polsk), jeg vet ikke hva heter på norsk, alle prøver, og alt er OK! Ja! K: hehe. Det er jo helt utrolig! B: Ja! Jeg har stort revmatologisk problem. Hver bytte jeg kan ikke ta hånd opp, og jeg har problemer med å gå , på trappa eller normalt på veien, men nå jeg har ikke problemer! K: Det er helt utrolig! B: Jeg har ikke mye stress, det er andre problemer (…) A: Ja jeg ser jo på mine venninner, jeg har veldig gode venninner, jeg har holdt kontakten hele tiden, og ser at de er mer definert av det å være kvinner enn det jeg er K: Hvordan da? A: De har dårligere helse, de er ikke bevisst så veldig sine rettigheter, de har ingen store planer for fremtiden når de er i den alderen, de tenker stort sett bare på barnebarn, de
132
reiser stort sett lite: de er mindre aktive. De har jobb og hjem, de driver veldig lite med.. altså, dette slutter når du er førti, førtifem, du driver ikke med noe aktivt K: Det er jo litt rart, man skulle jo tro at da er man ferdig med å ha små barn og at en ny fase åpnet seg? A: Ja, men det er mulig de er slitne. De har dårligere helse, det er helt opplagt de har dårligere helse enn jeg har, de sitter mye, de går lite. Det er noe jeg har lært i Norge, å gå, være fysisk aktiv. K: Ja, hehe A: sunn mat, det er en del ting man får i et land som er sånn som Norge er. K: Kan du si litt mer om hva du mener med at de definert av at de er kvinner? A: eh.. ja de definerer seg veldig i forhold til mann, eller mangel på mann, det avgjørende selvbildet går på enten å ha, ikke nødvendigvis mann, men en venn, eh, det går nettopp på aktivitetsnivå, kvinner behøver ikke å være aktive, du kan være sammen med en mann som sykler hele tiden, men du gjør det ikke selv, ikke sant. Det er på en måte, det er ikke helt naturlig at kvinnen er like aktiv fysisk. Det er det å kunne trives, at man kan gjøre ting alene, gå på teater alene, gå på kino alene, eller sammen med venninner, det er sånn når venninner møtes, uansett utdannelse så pjatter de om barn, barnebarn, det er sånn uvesentlige ting, det er veldig lite viktige samtaler om samfunnsspørsmål. Jeg føler at de definerer seg selv som kvinner i veldig stor grad.
Theme: Gender
Norwegian independence K: (…) Men jeg lurer på om du mener, eller syns at det er forskjell på polske og norske kvinner? B: Ja! K: Hva er forskjellen? B: Norske kvinner er.. (snakker polsk, og leter i ordboken). Veldig bra ord og veldig viktig.. Ehm.. Uavhengig? K: Uavhengig! B: Ja K: (…) Syns du det er det forskjell på polske og norske kvinner? Og hva er forskjellen? M: Ja vel, ja. Polske kvinner setter pris på familie, de er de setter pris på hjem og familiehygge, de sikkert tar vare på mann og barn, de er som norske kvinner i 70-tallet, vil jeg si. K: Mhm M: Tida er sånn at alle må jobbe, men fortsatt er det sånn at kvinner tar seg av fleste ting hjemme, vi lager mat hjemme, vi liker å lage mat, vi liker å møte venner, vi er mer åpen enn nordmenn. Norske kvinner vil jeg si er utrolig uavhengige, så uavhengige at noen ganger lurer jeg på om det er en mann eller en kvinne.
133
A: Jeg tror at kanskje kvinner er mye mer opptatt av å ta seg utdannelse, og kanskje mindre enn i Polen opptatt av.. jo alle kvinner er opptatt av å bli gift, åh, treffe, møte den store kjærligheten, alle mennesker, ikke alle kvinner, alle mennesker har det som hovedprosjektet i livet, ikke sant det er drømmen, men jeg tror at norske kvinner har fått det med sine mødre, sekstiåttergenerasjonen, ikke sant, at man skal ta utdannelse, man skal etablere seg i jobb, også skal man satse på eventuelt å få barn, og mann og så videre. Jeg tror at i Polen er det fortsatt slik at det med å gifte seg er på en måte prosjekt nummer en (…) og jeg tror at [polske arbeidsinnvandrere i Norge sine] koner er typisk sånn som steller hjemme, han er reist ut, han kommer med penger, hans hovedoppgave er å bringe penger hjem, og hennes hovedoppgave er å ta vare på ham. Og da tror jeg også at unge [polske] kvinner ser det som sitt hovedprosjekt. K: Hm. Tror du det er det som er den polske hovedideen, et sånn komplementært kjønnssystem, hvor de skal på en måte utfylle hverandre? A: I mye større grad enn her, ja. Det vil si at du får ikke være i samme grad individ som kvinne, som du er her. Her kan du glemme av og til at du er kvinne. Jeg syns det er helt luksus, jeg kan være kvinne når jeg vil, og de gangene jeg ikke vil er jeg et sånn intet kjønn, et eller annet vesen som tenker og skriver og glemmer at jeg er kvinne. (…) K: I stad så sa du.. du dro en sammenligning med 70-tallet, M: Mhm K: at i Polen så er det på en måte litt sånn som det var her på 70-tallet, ehm.. også sa du samtidig at nå er det sånn i Polen at både mann og kvinne må jobbe for at det skal gå rundt, men hvis dama skal jobbe ute, og gjøre alt hjemme, utenom å henge opp bilder og skifte lyspærer, blir ikke det veldig mye dobbeltarbeid for henne da? M: Jammen, hun henger ikke opp bilder eller sånn, hun lager mat, hun sitter med barna og gjør lekser.. K: Vasker klær, og? M: Vasker klær, ja, og sånn. Det er det hun gjør, og han tar seg av huset, av bilen, av reparasjoner, og oppussing, å handle og flytte tunge ting, så hun kommer ikke og henger bildet, han skal komme hjem og henge bilde! B: Du vet, han er veldig sympatisk mann, han hjelper meg veldig mye, lager mat, rydder, også hjelper med barna. M: De beste menn og kvinner syns jeg er i (Latin Amerikansk land)! Menn er utrolig snille mot kvinner, de viser utrolig mye kjærlighet mot kvinner, ikke bare kona og barn, men generelt, de er veldig store gentelmen, og.. samtidig er de veldig sterke, så de hjelper.. altså kvinner er som gudinne! Og det er sånn i (Latin Amerikansk land)! Kvinne er virkelig kvinne, hun går til frisør, hun pynter negler, hun tar seg massasje, hun tar seg av barn, hun pynter huset, han tar seg av alt annet, går de og så bader kommer han med håndkle til henne, hun er som lita jenta hans, det er så fint å se! Samtidig er han sterk, han snakker sterk med andre menn, han snakker sterk med ansatte, han er en mann!
134
Gendered work A: (…) jeg tror den største fordelen ved at jeg er kvinne og bor i Norge, flyttet til Norge, ikke til Italia, som kvinne tror jeg jeg har tjent veldig mye på det, at jeg flyttet nettopp til Norge, den største forskjellen begynte jeg å merke rundt førti års alderen, fra førti år og oppover, når du er på en måte.. den fruktbare fasen er unnagjort, status er annerledes og barn flytter fra deg og du er.. særlig fordi du er skilt, enslig kvinne: jeg tror det hadde vært mye, mye verre i et annet land enn Norge. K: Hvordan da? Hva hadde vært verre? A: Eh, verre altså. Jeg opplever meg selv som et helt normalt menneske, gjennomsnittelig menneske K: Mhm A: Jeg ser ikke at jeg er særlig forskjellig fra andre. Jeg opplever ikke meg selv som forskjellig fra de som er gift, jeg opplever ikke at de har større trygghet enn jeg har, og at ikke jeg oppfattes av dem som noe sært B: (…) Du vet i Polen vi har problem når vi har 35, 40 år, vi har problem med eh.. finne ny arbeid. K: Hvorfor det tror du? B: Diskriminasjon. Jeg arbeider, mye arbeidsgiver ønsker ung jente, pen jente, med experience, det er umulig. K: Ja B: Også, kvinner i Polen har mindre lønn om mann K: For samme arbeid? B: Ja, og noen ganger kvinne har høy utdannelse, og har mindre lønn, ja, fordi arbeidsgiver tenker, hmm, kanskje snart hun skal ha barn, det er ikke bra til firma. K: Hm. Er det noe fins det noe lovverk som passer på rettighetene til damer? B: (gjør viftende håndbevegelse for å indikere at det ikke fungerer) K: Okey, hehe, det fungerer ikke? B: Nei. Dessverre.
135
136
References Basch, Glick-Schiller and Blanc-Szanton, 1994. Nations Unbound: Transnational Projects, Postcolonial Predicaments and Deterritorialized Nation States, Routledge, London and New York. Bhabha, H.K 1990 (Ed). Nation and Narration. Routledge, London and New York. Bryman, A. 2001. Social Research Methods, Oxford University Press. The British Research Association, 2003. “Ethical Guidelines”. Accessed and downloaded from www.the-sra.org.uk (Accessed 10.12.2007.) Coyle, A. 2007. “Resistance, Regulation and Rights, The Changing Status of Polish Women’s Migration and Work in the ‘New’ Europe”, in European Journal of Women’s Studies, Vol. 14 (1): 37-50. De Beauvoir, S. and Moi, T. 2000. Det Annet Kjønn. Pax, Oslo. Einhorn, B. 2000: “Gender and Citizenship in the Context of Democratisation and Economic Reform in East Central Europe”, in: Shirin M. Rai (ed.), International Perspectives on Gender and Democratisation, Basingstoke: Macmillan; New York: St. Martin's Press, pp. 103-124 Friberg J. and G. Tyldum (Eds), 2007. “Polonia i Oslo. En studie av arbeids- og levekår blant polakker i hovedstadsområdet”, Fafo-rapport 2007:27 Gal, S. and Kligman, G, 2000. The Politics of Gender after Socialism, Princeton University Press. GUS: Central Statistical Office, Poland http://www.stat.gov.pl/gus/45_1532_ENG_HTML.htm (Accessed 31.01.08) Hondagneu-Sotelo, P. and Cranford, C 1999. “Gender and Migration” in Handbook of the Sociology of Gender. Ed J.S Chafetz. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers Pp. 105-126. Massey et al, 1998. Worlds in Motion, Understanding International Migration at the end of the Millennium, Oxford University Press Massey et al, 2006. “Theories of international Migraion: A Review and Appraisal”, in Messina A. and G. Lahav (Eds): The Migration Reader: Exploring Politics and Policies, London: Boulder (28 p) Mahler, S.J and Pessar, P.R, 2006. “Gender Matters: Ethnographers Bring Gender from the Periphery toward the Core of Migration Studies”. In International Migration Review Volume 40 Number 1 (Spring 2006): 27-63.
137
Nussbaum, M. and J. Glover (Eds), 1995. Women, Culture and Development, Clarendon Press, Oxford. Nussbaum, M. 2000a. Women and Human Development. The Capability Approach, Cambridge University Press. Nussbaum, M. 2000b. “Women’s Capabilities and Social Justice”, in Journal of Human Development, 1: 2, 219 – 247. Peet, R. with Hartwick, E, 1999. Theories of Development, The Guilford Press, New York. Qizilbash, M. 2002. “Development, common foes and shared values”, Review of Political Economy 14: 4, 463 – 480 Rawls, J. 1971. A Theory of Justice, Harvard University Press Robeyns, I. 2005. “The Capability Approach: a theoretical survey”, in Journal of Human Development, 6: 1, 93 – 117. Sen, A. “Equality of What?” 1979 in R. Goodin and P. Pettit (Eds), 1997. Contemporary Political Philosophy. An Anthology, Blackwell Publishsing. Sen, A. 1987. Food and freedom. Sir Crawford Memorial Lecture, October 29, 1987. Washington: CGIAR. Sen, A. 1990. “Gender and cooperative conflicts”, in I. Tinker (Ed) Persistent Inequalitites, Oxford University Press, New York. Sen, A. 1999. Development as Freedom, Oxford University Press. Sen, A. 2004. “Capabilities, lists and public reason: continuing the conversation”, in Feminist Economics 10: 1, 77 - 80. Shanmugaratnam, N. 2001. “On the Meaning of Development: An exploration of the Capability Approach” in Forum for Development Studies, NUPI, 2-2001, pp. 263-288 Smith, M.P and Guarnizo, L.E, (Eds) 1998. Transnationalism from Below. Comparative Urban and Community Research, Volume Six. Transaction Publishers, New Jersey SSB, Statistisk Sentralbyrå. Statistic Norway. Statistisk Sentralbyrås Tidsbruksundersøkelsen 2000/01. (Accessed 2.4.08) http://www.ssb.no/vis/emner/00/02/20/tidsbruk/art-2002-05-13-02.html
138
SSB, Statistisk Sentralbyrå. Statistic Norway. ”Befolkning: flere folk – færre unge” (Accessed 11.4.08) http://www.ssb.no/vis/samfunnsspeilet/utg/200504/03/art-2005-09-27-01.html Troyer, J. (Ed) 2003. The Classical Utilitarians: Bentham and Mill, Hackett Publishing Van Staveren, I. and D. Gasper, 2002. “Development as Freedom – Contributions and Shortcomings of Amartya Sen’s Development Philosophy for Feminist Economics”, Working Paper 365, Institute for Social Studies, Den Hague. Wade, R. 2001. “Showdown at the World Bank”, New Left review 7, Jan- Feb. World Bank, 2004. “Gender and Economic opportunities in Poland: Has Transition Left Women Behind?” Report No 29205. URL: http://go.worldbank.org/CLVDV04L40 World Bank, 1993 “The East Asian Miracle: Economic Growth and Public Policy” Oxford: Oxford University Press. Report no 12351. URL: http://go.worldbank.org/ROBOV1M6I0