CHAPTER 7: AFRICAN MIGRANTS’ NETWORKS WITH SOUTH AFRICANS
7.7. Discussion of findings and conclusion
This chapter highlighted the demographic profile of the Nigerian migrants that participated in the study in terms of age, educational qualifications, class and gender. In terms of age, the majority (34 of the 36 respondents) were above 30 years with the remaining two below 30. In terms of educational qualifications, the majority (16 out of 18) of the middle class migrants had tertiary education while only three of the working class migrants had tertiary qualifications. Turning to gender, a good number (seven out of nine) of the working class females were unemployed, in contrast to their middle class female counterparts who were all employed. All in all, there was a link between educational qualifications and the class of migrants and these cut across both genders.
The chapter also examined the drivers of Nigerians’ migration to South Africa. These include political crises in Nigeria, and the desire to study or join a spouse, and seeking employment.
The findings show that the majority of the migrants were driven by economic factors. The
153
formation and nature of networks from the perspective of the migrants were also explored.
The findings show that different types of relationship ties exist between Nigerian migrants and South Africans resident in Empangeni and that most migrants interacted with South Africans across various sites in their everyday lives. These include workplaces, places of worship and neighbourhoods.
The findings also show that the Nigerian migrants exhibit self-exclusion, assimilation and entanglement in their responses. Contact between Nigerians and South Africans paradoxically produced conviviality and entanglement, and hostility and exclusion, which invariably shaped the nature of the migrants’ social networks. The factors identified in the study that fostered conviviality include pan-Africanism (cooperation towards a common goal), assimilation (due to the equal status of intergroup contact), and frequent intimate intergroup contacts. On the other hand, irrespective of contact, South Africans were hostile to the Nigerian migrants. The response of hostility and prejudice is consistent with the commonly held belief that relationships between South Africans and African migrants are essentially hostile and xenophobic. However, alongside xenophobia, there is also acceptance, hospitality, financial support, emotional support, mentorship and love. Gsir (2014) explains that relationships and interactions between migrants and members of the host society can occur in private and public contexts, although strong ties usually grow within the private context of migrants. He explains that the private context “is the place for strong bonds of a family type, for friendship or even professional relations” (Gsir 2014: 3). This argument supports the findings of the current study as the migrants had spaces which were supportive of the formation of convivial relationships which can promote integration. However, this does not imply that there were no bumps on the road to integration as migrants from both the middle and working classes experienced hostility and exclusion in some of their interactions at their workplaces and neighbourhoods. Interactions in their work environments showed a mix of friendliness and hostility across both genders. Although there were other types of interactions outside their workplaces that may impact on this, the working class group experienced more hostility than the middle class group. For those that were unemployed, class also impacted on their economic integration. Nineteen per cent of the migrants that were unemployed felt that they could not get jobs due to the immigration policies which are in a way characterized as differential, exclusive policies because they encourage the migration of skilled migrants and exclude those that are unskilled. This supports Haupt’s
154
(2010) argument that skilled migrants are perceived as cosmopolitans while unskilled ones are seen as transnationals who should be excluded.
Another finding of the study is the presence of state ties within the majority of the migrants’
networks. The egos had state ties with South Africans which were friendship and kinship ties.
More than half (53%) of the migrants sampled had more friendships with South Africans than with any other nationality. The various reasons include the higher frequency of interaction with South Africans and the value of the relationship in enabling them to integrate socially and economically into the host community. Thirty-six per cent of the respondents had South Africans as friends but had more Nigerian than South African friends. They stated that this was because South Africans do not trust them. There were also a few (11%) who had no South African friends, with the reasons including cultural differences and South Africans’
stereotypes of Nigerians and vice versa, which hindered the formation of friendship ties.
In terms of gender, as shown in Table 7.3, female migrants had more friendship ties with South Africans within their personal networks than their male counterparts. This finding is consistent with Miguel and Tranmer’s (2009) argument that female immigrants are more disposed to have host members within their personal networks due to the kinds of activities they engage in and the people they meet through such activities. This study also showed that migrants had very few kinship ties with South Africans and that these were mainly within the personal networks of males. For example, they were prevalent amongst males who married South African women. It could thus be inferred that females are less likely to develop kinship ties through marriage than males. This is the case because female migrants are more likely to migrate for marital reasons and would thus already be married. Indeed, as Balan (1981: 228) explains, women are usually secondary movers who are motivated by primary movers. As shown in this study, in most cases, the primary movers were male spouses. In the cases of males married to South Africans, marriage was a bridging social capital in blurring differences between them and some of their South African relatives by marriage. Kantarevic (2004) describes this as exogamy which has social implications for the migrants and their host community (cited in Gsir 2014: 6). As shown in this study, one of these implications is the integration of migrants through kinship ties and hybrid children that also help to blur social boundaries between Nigerians and South Africans. In respect to these egos with
155
kinship ties with South Africans, the study revealed that they responded differently in terms of the cultural implications of having hybrid children. Three of the four did not mind hybridity. However, one, Osayi, did not like the fact that his children were not being raised in his culture.
The nature of the linkages identified in the migrants’ networks was mostly supportive. The study uncovered the various forms of support provided by South Africans to the egos within their personal networks which also aided their integration into the host community. The types of support the egos gained from their alters depended on the type of tie. For example, those with state ties received both emotional and financial support but the former was more prominent. This is the case because of the affective and informal nature of the tie. In all cases of those who had ties with South Africans, the support they gained from these ties was instrumental in their integration into the host society. This concurs with Berry’s (1997) argument that for migrants to integrate successfully into their host community, they need support from people not only within their homogenous group, but from the host community.
The study revealed that through the migrants’ ties with South Africans; they were able to build bridges to foster both social and economic integration, as shown in Joke and Wale’s cases.
Finally, the study investigated the most important relationship with a South African within the migrants’ personal networks. It revealed that the most important dyadic tie identified by the migrants was different kinds of state ties which include relationships with spouse/partners, friends, colleagues and clergy. It was important to examine these dyadic ties as this revealed the nature of the relationships, that is, whether they were symmetrical or asymmetrical ties. Ties with spouses/partners were mainly emotional ties and the kinds of support the migrants gained were mostly affective in the form of advice, affection and financial assistance. Migrants that identified their most important relationships as those with work colleagues and clergy received different types of support such as information and resources. These alters offered the egos different types of support, including financial resources, employment and advice. However, not all the migrants identified an important tie with a South African. This group argued that South Africans were not friendly towards them and they preferred to relate to people of their own nationality. They were not only recipients
156
of exclusion but also adopted self-exclusion as a response to members of the host community. It could be inferred that those that had a greater South African presence in their personal networks and a South African as their most important tie, irrespective of the type of tie, showed a higher level of integration into the host community than those that did not.
Homophily is a likely characteristic of migrant networks, but, as Berry’s (1997) study shows, having alters that cut across diversity has the added advantage of the ego’s integration into the host community. The current study revealed that through the migrants’ ties with South Africans, they were able to build bridges which enabled their social and economic integration. While not all migrants have South Africans within their networks, most do and these South Africans have in many ways enabled their integration into the host community.
157