Marco Legal

Before migration, the Bhutanese refugees used to live with their extended family in crowded refugee camps that generally included wife, husband, their children, husband’s parents, his siblings and their families. This close-knit network of extended family was the most influential factor in shaping their decision-making process related to migration. The following themes emerged when analysing the influence of family networks:

9.2.1Men as decision makers

Although migration decisions were strategized within the extended family unit, not all family members played an active and equal role in decision-making process. This finding is consistent with the previous studies that have suggested that men exercise more power and authority than women in migrant decision-making due to the prevailing patriarchal norms of their society (Chant, 1998; Grasmuck & Pessar, 1991; Hoang, 2011).

Participants in this study unequivocally stated that the male members of their

households (such as husband, father and father-in-law) were the principal arbiters in making decisions whether to immigrate to the western host country. Five respondents reported that there was a partial involvement of women in the context of decision making, whereas three of them stated that the decisions were solely made by men without much consultation with women. Regardless of the level of women’s participation in decision making, both men and women considered men as the legitimate decision makers who have the ability to make the right decisions for the entire family. Puja commented, “I don’t know what to say when they discuss about something. So I feel that my husband can make the better decision for us”.

In the case where migration was not the preference of all the members of the

household, women were found to be obliged to comply with the decisions made by men. That is to say, when male members of the households chose to migrate, women were

unquestionably required to adhere to this decision. Rama put it this way:

One day, my husband told his father that we should go to Australia. Father was not happy at first, but later they talked to the relatives who had already migrated here. Then, they decided to move. In fact, I was not happy to leave Nepal. But I could not argue against that.

Despite the fact that emigration from Nepal was an undesirable option for Rama, she did not resist the decision made by her husband and his father. In this respect, Rama’s “agency” (Giddens, 1984) to restrain the family from migrating was constrained by her unquestionable loyalty to the patriarch’s power in family decision-making.

9.2.2Reason for migration: For the family’s sake

Although the decision for family migration was primarily made by the male members, reasons for migrating were closely related to the benefit of the family as a whole. Bourdieu (1986) claims that the authorized delegation (such as a spokesperson or a household head) of a family unit not only exercises more power on behalf of the group but also commits for the “social capital” of the whole group (p. 251). In line with Bourdieu’s argument, participants in this study reported that they chose to emigrate to Australia not because of their aspirations for their own future, but because of their aspirations for their children’s economic and

educational attainments. Drona, a father of three children, commented:

We migrated from the underdeveloped-country to the developed-country. We hoped that the future of our children would be better here. We had spent half of our lives in the refugee camps, and we do not have any personal goals for ourselves. We are already too old. But we thought that our children would get better education and their English would be better. They would get good jobs. But that will be surely a benefit for the entire family as our children will take care of us in our old age.

Drona considered his children as the primary beneficiaries of migration because he believed that they had more potentiality to obtain educational, linguistic and financial capitals in this capital-rich country. Although Drona did not see himself as a chief beneficiary of migration due to his perceived age barrier, he hoped that the investment in his children’s future might eventually generate resources that could be of great use to the whole family. Drona’s view of the family centeredness can be understood with reference to Bourdieu’s (1986) social capital theory. This theory argues that the resources – such as social support, wealth and reputation – embedded within the network of family relationship can be

accessible to all of its members for the pursuit of collective advantage (p. 248). In this respect, Drona’s motives to enrich his children’s educational capital can be considered as an investment to the family capital as a whole.

Unlike Drona and other participants, Manju’s reason for migrating was closely associated with her parents’ health-related issues. Manju, a daughter of chronically-ill

parents, was inclined to emigrate to Australia when she learned from her migrant network that her parents would get better medical services. She stated, “Father and mother were sick. Everyone would say that if we go to Australia, they will get better medical treatment”. In this respect, the prevailing norm of collectivism deeply embedded in the Bhutanese society led Manju to prioritize her parents’ well-being over her personal preference in the process of migration decision-making.