Conclusiones del análisis del repertorio y estilo performativo

distinct periods of the migratory movement. Consequently, two important generalizations can be

made about the two-decade history of Turkish immigration: In the first seven-year period, from

1968 until 1974, there was an impersonally organized migration which provided assisted

passages to Australia of selected Turkish migrants and their families. Then, in the following

period the flow was predominantly based on chain migration and family reunion. The sequence and characteristics of these two types of migration played an important and continuing role in the settlement process of migrants. In this section, an attempt is made to relate the mode of migration and the settlement characteristics of Turkish migrants in Melbourne’s physical setting. The term ‘settlement’ represents the residential position of migrants in the city which indicates the process of integration into the Australian society and/or the process of segregation from it. Although the sampling procedure of the survey in Melbourne took into account the general pattern of Turkish settlement in the city, the sample was somewhat biased towards Turks who were living in areas where there was a high Turkish concentration. This presumably affects some of the conclusions about the settlement characteristics and residential mobility of the migrants. An analysis of the census data, which focuses on the general pattern of Turkish settlement in Melbourne and its changing characteristics over time, provides valuable complementary information for the discussion in this chapter (see Section 4.4.2). However, in considering the nature of the population and the data sources upon which my arguments are constructed, one should be careful in generalizing about the entire settlement residential charcteristics of the Turkish population in Melbourne. This is particularly important when it is considered that there are a number of Turkish migrants living in areas of high Turkish dispersion. In addition the sample of this study, excluding the immigrants in more dispersed residential areas, does not provide us with a particular knowledge of how the settlement experiences and characteristics of these immigrants in the more dispersed areas are similar or different to those of immigrants in the concentration areas. Perhaps an important point which should be stressed here, is that the sample bias should be taken into account in evaluating the analyses and discussions, not only in this chapter, but throughout this study.

Since settlement is a continuing complex process which is a function of many different factors, the pattern and mode of migration by themselves are inadequate as an explanation of the dynamics of immigrant settlement The other factors, such as ethnic and social origins of migrants, the societal and environmental opportunities available, and the residential and occupational stratification of the host society are some of the basic elements which also affect the migrants’ initial settlement and the later stages of the resettlement process. Resettlement is

here taken to mean post-migration residential changes within the city. It can be argued that the mode of migration is of more importance with respect to a migrant’s initial settlement (Whitelaw and Humphreys, 1980:168-169), while the other factors are mostly crucial in their later residential mobility in the city environment, i.e. the resettlement process.

4.4.1. Initial Residential Characteristics

Whether or not migrants come alone or with their families, the finding of accommodation and making initial settlement in the ‘distant and foreign land’ can be very difficult if there are no friends or relatives living there. Indeed, new arrivals without well-established migration chains to draw on often have little choice over their initial settlement. The cheapest and first available accommodation is inevitably the first option. In the Australian case, since the government provided hostel accommodation on arrival, especially to assist in reception of the impersonally organized migrants, many first resided in one of the hostels when they arrived. This was the case of most of the Turkish immigrants coming in the earliest period of migration, the late 1960s and early 1970s. For them, however, neither selection of Melbourne in Australia as a destination nor the government hostel as a first accommodation was a conscious decision, as explained by a 52-year-old migrant respondent, Halil, who migrated to Australia in 1969:

/ was in one of the convoys of assisted migrants coming in February, 1969. I had heard just on the

plane that we were going to be landed in Melbourne. So coming to Melbourne was not our choice. We, all the people in the convoy, did not consider where, which city in Australia, we were going to...No one asked us about where we wanted to go... Anyway, if someone had asked about it we wouldn’t be able to m ake our choice, because at that time we didn’t have any information about the cities, Melbourne or Sydney...Coming to Australia was important for us, what city in Australia was out of the question...Then, after landing, we were met at the airport by a Turkish interpreter and taken to Broadmeadows Hostel...Since we had no relatives, no friends in Australia, and since we didn’t know any place to go and to stay the hostel was the only place to go... If we hadn’t been taken to the hostel, we would be in big trouble on our first day in this foreign !and...[R. No. 0201021].

While many of the earliest Turkish migrants who came in the assisted passage program had no clear perception of where they would go and settle in Australia, or in Melbourne, for most of the migrants who came during the later period of migration the reason behind selecting Melbourne as a place to settle was the relatives, family members or friends already residing there. In fact, those who had relatives or friends in Melbourne not only found themselves in a ‘home climate’in their first accommodation, but also got some crucial financial and emotional support for their

initial settlement. This can be illustrated in the words of Mahmut, a 39-year- old migrant who