Even though social sciences have been very effective in conceptualizing and researching individual and collective identities, the processes of identity construction of European exchange students has not been sufficiently dealt with (Coleman, 2014; Dervin, 2006; Murphy-Lejeune, 2001, 2012). Earlier studies do not seem to question what migrant identities might mean, how their construction proceeds, and how their dynamics influences various patterns of group and individual identification (Krzyzanowski & Wodak, 2007:97). Instead existing studies of
student mobility (as detailed above) are more often concerned with the conditions of the exchange (e.g., marginalization, cocooning) (see Papatsiba, 2003;2006) and evaluate exchange students’ experience in terms of acculturation, language acquisition, etc. (e.g., Isabelli-Garcia, 2004; Kinginger, 2012; Coleman, 2014) while the speakers’ discursive choices (except for Dervin, 2007), or the personal histories and their possible effect on the emerging discourses have not been taken into account. Also, the majority of earlier studies, including linguistic studies of migration (e.g. De Fina, 2003; De Fina et al., 2006), discourse and identity, have predominantly focused on long-term migration (Delanty et al., 2007; Jones & Krzyzanowski, 2007; La Barbera, 2015), rather than temporary/short term mobility, such as Erasmus student mobility.
Some scholars maintain that “student mobility” is a type of migration that has a greater effect on identity construction than regular travelling (Murphy-Lejeune 2003; King & Ruiz- Gelices 2003). As mobile students are away from their usual social and physical environment, they are more likely to be challenged to change (Schattle 2007). Free from the pressure and the responsibilities of their normal everyday life, mobile students tend to experiment with new belief systems, new ideas and elements of culture (Kaufmann, et al., 1992). Madison (2006) observes that as the students explore the new environment, they assess and question their own identities. Among the reasons why the question of identification becomes acute during the stay abroad is that Erasmus students encounter and have to deal with many different ”Other” (e.g., locals, other Europeans). As a result of mobility, they become aware of their own and others’ similarities and differences, which is one of the key elements of identity construction (Schlenker-Fischer, 2011). The “Other” can be the “Same” and belong to the same “in-group”, or an “Other” may be a part of another “out-group”. Erasmus students often strive to categorise (create representations based on national, ethnic, cultural affiliations), or “box” others, in order to make sense of differences or inconsistencies that they observe in others (Dervin, 2007). As
a result, Erasmus students have a tendency to liquify (recognise that a modern individual belongs to uncountable, at times temporary, communities) and solidify (ascribe delimited identities, form stereotypes based on national/ethnic/cultural identities) those they meet as well as themselves (Dervin, 2007). These concepts of solidity/liquidity guide the identity construction process in discourses of Erasmus students (Dervin, ibid.).
A number of scholars have questioned the correlation between student mobility and “European identity” (e.g., Feyen & Krzaklewska, 2013; Mitchell, 2012; 2014; Sigalas, 2009; Van Mol, 2014; ). The scholarly literature concerned with the issue of European identity is vast (e.g. Pearce & Wodak, 2010; Wodak, 2007a; Kryzanowski, 2010; Zappettini, 2016), yet it is not founded on a unified definition of the concept that is broadly recognised among the researchers (see van Mol, 2011; 2013). There are a number of on-going debates among academics, politicians, as well as in the media, questioning even the very existence of ‘European identity’ (Mitchell, 2012:491). However, some scholars have taken a more affirmative stance towards European identity, claiming that it has gradually emerged over the last decades and continues to evolve today, emphasising that more and more individuals have started to invoke ‘Europe’ into their understanding of identity (Bruter, 2005, Green, 2007, Risse, 2010).
Although, what exactly is meant by ‘European identity’ remains vague, the idea of unity associated with it, as Stråth (2002) explains, arises in a number of official EC (European Commission) documents, as they place an emphasis on European identity as a “cultural entity” with common values and culture.Such an understanding of European identity raises a number of questions with regard to the fact that modern Europeans differ greatly, as regards their ethnicity, languages that they speak, cultural practices they follow, political affiliation they have, etc. Thus, European identity cannot be understood as “a phenomenon in an essentialist sense” (Stråth, 2000:14) due to the tremendous diversity present in Europe, including:
different historical traditions, different nation-states with their respective histories, different cultures, different languages, different political, national, regional and local interests and traditional ideologies, different interest lobbies, different economic concepts, different organizations, etc.”
(Wodak, 2007:58)
Wodak emphasises the diversity present in many spheres of life, linking it not only to the immediate circumstances but also to the past (e.g., traditions accumulated through history; political history, shaping the nation-states). In fact, what is implied here is that Europeans live with multiple identities (e.g., regional, local, national and European), all of which are frequently negotiated, re-negotiated and co-constructed by different social groups in a range of daily practices.
As regards the student mobility scholars, some claim that there is likely to be a link between study abroad and the development of a ‘European identity’ (e.g. Favell, 2009; Fligstein, 2008). However, this assumption has not been sufficiently researched yet and the existing studies remain at odds.
Some studies, having surveyed the students from British universities (King & Ruiz- Gelices, 2003), found that Erasmus students were more pro-European and identified with Europe more than the students who did not study abroad. Van Mol (2011; 2014) too has surveyed outgoing European students, as well as “future mobile students”, “potential mobile students”, and “non-mobile European students” with a focus on their identification with Europe. His study concluded that mobile students were attached to Europe the most, while the non-mobile students expressed their attachment to Europe the least. Both, King & Ruiz- Gelices’ and Van Mol’s studies suggest that as a result of study abroad experience, Erasmus students were encouraged to become aware of their attachment and identify with Europe.
However, Sigalas (2010) and Wilson (2011) hold a contrary view. Sigalas (2010) studied British mobile students in Europe, as well as the Europeans studying in Britain, and a number of British students who did not study abroad, in order to investigate whether studying abroad had an impact on students’ identification with Europe. He concluded that study abroad
had virtually no impact on the European identity of young people in his study. Wilson (2011) in a study of British Erasmus students in France as well as French Erasmus students in the UK and an equal number of non-mobile students in the UK was unable to confirm the link between European student mobility and “European identity” either.
Kuhn (2012) presents an alternative view, claiming that the Erasmus programme is “preaching to the converted” (Kuhn, 2012:995). Having analysed Eurobarometer surveys, Kuhn (2012) asserts that those who embark on Erasmus exchange are already more likely to “feel European” as well as to be open to interaction across borders. Kuhn (2012) considers the young age and the high level of education of Erasmus students to be the most likely factors influencing their identification with Europe. Therefore, due to “a ceiling effect”, exchange with fellow Europeans is unlikely to make any difference with regard to mobile students’ European identities (ibid.).
However, due to the limitations of the earlier studies, there seems to be insufficient evidence to dismiss the correlation between Erasmus and European identity completely. For instance, both Wilson (2011) and Kuhn (2012) were criticised for the unreliability of their findings (Mitchell, 2015) because of their methodological choices (i.e., using ‘Moreno questions’). Also, Sigalas’ (2010) choice of the respondents (non-mobile British students, from one university in the UK) have been criticised for lacking reliability (Bergmann, 2015). Besides, earlier studies investigating the correlation between Erasmus mobility and European identity have been criticised for their limited national scope, based predominantly on surveys of British students or students studying in the UK (Mitchell, 2015). This is precarious, due to the nature of the European exchange programme and a long and deep-rooted tradition of Euroscepticism in the UK.
Summary
This chapter provided the context for the present study, having traced the European student mobility from its Medieval origins to the global phenomenon it has become today. The chapter has also sketched the current state of the ERASMUS programme, its aims and impact on European youths by drawing on institutional, media and scholarly sources. While it appears that institutional data is abundant in statistics relating to concrete aspects of student mobility, it is the media that has given insight into the life of Erasmus students and popularised the experience of “Erasmus generation”, making it a recognisable phenomenon.
Erasmus students stand apart from other types of migrants that exist today, as they “travel lightly”, free from commitment of adult expats or burdens and struggles of long- term/permanent migrants or refugees. Erasmus is the generation of young people brought up in the times of liquid modernity (Bauman, 2007), where nothing is permanent, but fleeting, changing and transforming continuously. Compared to previous generations of youths, this is the generation of young people with a different understanding of distance and proximity, different understanding of time, space and social relationships, shaped by modern technology and perpetual virtual and physical mobility.
Erasmus students appear to have become a recognisable group of youths present in many European universities. They move within the framework of the EU-funded exchange programme and represent the EU vision of united Europe, closely linked with the illusive, yet much hoped-for outcome of “European identity”. Having been brought together outside the comfort of their home countries to study abroad, these young people learn to communicate and work efficiently with the fellow Europeans. Due to the characteristic setting of the Erasmus exchange, where mobile students are mostly isolated from the local community, speaking lingua franca English, being continuously together (i.e., in classes specially organised for Erasmus students; in shared student accommodation; social activities organised for Erasmus
students), they develop a sense of belonging to Erasmus student community and lead “a double life” (Tsoukalas, 2008), significantly different from that at home. Their experience has been described as exhilarating, yet emotionally demanding due to its brevity and intensity of the life European students tend to lead while abroad.
Even though the numbers of Erasmus students are increasing, and more funding has been allocated to allow more Europeans to experience student mobility, study abroad remains relatively unexplored, especially in applied linguistics, with the exception of language acquisition research. The majority of existing studies in the field of European student mobility are quantitative in nature, revealing general trends and measurable outcomes of study abroad, rarely looking into what exactly motivated this or that outcome, reaction or representation in response to what experiences or encounters. It seems that European student mobility research lacks extensive qualitative studies to allow for better understanding of individual experiences and emerging identities in the context of study abroad. It is this lack of qualitative research that this thesis is attempting to address.
The following chapter provides a review of the most prominent theories of “identity” and its construction in discourse, in order to develop a theoretical framework for the analysis of the data gathered in this study.