Peaje blando

As Terkenli mentioned, “home regions are culturally constructed and geographically and historically contingent” (1995:324). Time is one of crucial elements for home- making, which plays a key role as a vertical strand to bond the past, the present and the future together, through memories represented in the form of home place and daily practices of continuity and familiarity creating a feeling of ”being-at-home” (Dovey, 1985: 43-44). Home-making is thus an ongoing dynamic process; home” cannot be produced at once; it has its time and dimension continuum and it is a gradual product of the dweller’s adaptation to the world” (Pallasmaa, 1995: 133). Home essentially shows dynamic, fluid and varying relationships between people and place, which combines changes, stability, repetition and rhythm, linking the past to the future (Werner et al, 1985: 6). Therefore, including ‘time’ in the discussion of this conceptual framework allows grasping how ‘time’ is entwined with formulating, strengthening, amending or reconstructing Shan’s perceptions of home and relationships with home places in various historical encounters.

Flynn (2007) claims that time and place are both significant elements to develop a sense of safety, wholeness of life, entrenched pre-existing networks and bonds and roots. All of the above may develop over generations, which contribute to a sense of home in a specific spatial area, and simultaneously create a deeper sense of belonging to a wider homeland. In the present day context lived locality may become ‘home’ through interaction of physical and social aspects of the place, thus linking the sense of home to socio-cultural and economic belonging and attachment. Participation within the socio-economic structures of the locality facilitated people to develop social relations, which contributed to a sense of belonging in the region, as did personal friendships and family networks. Therefore, the locality was considered an extension of the immediate home, so that the individual felt at home. This can be attributed to familiarity with the geographical setting, along with the experience of a secure sense of spatial identity (469-470).

also as human and socio-cultural requirements, referred as material and symbolic characteristics for those who experience them (Terkenli, 1995: 324). These cannot be only seen in individual life histories (Paasi, 1991: 249); instead, they shape the ‘identity’ in a given spatial and temporal context (Antonsich, 2010b:124). In this vein, home region can also be a cluster of overlapping and ever-transforming personal and collective relationships. This concept supports the basic notion discussed by Altman and Gauvain “that homes reflect the dialectic interplay of individuality and society”, especially their temporal dimension (1981:283).

Besides, the past or existing social ties reduce a sense of estrange and maintain continuity of experiences. According to Flynn (2007), family and friendship networks were the major support structure for majority of migrants. While travelling, migrants often moved or chose an area of resettlement along with the company of family and friends; they also relied on their support in the process. Moreover, mutual experiences of the past and shared experiences of displacement obviously made development of these wider migrant networks easier. Migration created some possibilities of employment and dwelling, and also provided an easier setting to rebuild their social support networks and friendships that had been disrupted or destroyed during displacement. The social ties offered a space where feelings of security and belonging were reconstructed amongst people with a ‘similar’ background. Rodger’s (2008) research corresponds with Flynn’s findings; in this study when some refugees crossed the border in to South Africa, the Mozambican men who were already working in South Africa began establishing networks of patronage by supporting newly arrived friends and relatives to enter the labour market (2008: 387). These bonds facilitated feelings of familiarity, security and belonging; moreover, they allowed connections with the past and offered a base for the future.

Furthermore, Hammond (1999) focuses on the Ethiopian refugees in a Sudanese camp, who resettled in Ada Bai, a different part of Ethiopia. She found shared experiences of refugee’s life played an influential role in reconstruction of their neighbourhood networks during their repatriation. Through mutual experience of staying together in a

refugee camp for a long time their networks were fortified by the sentiments of being closely knit. These extensive ‘kin networks’ were re-interpreted as being far more intimate than to prior displacement, in particular during the absence of close relatives. As such, the new redefined kinship and social networks provided returnees some familiarity with their new ‘kin’ who had shared experiences; therefore, it was not necessary to return to their home places of origin. It is clearly evident that the ties between ‘kin’ and ‘home’ were alternatively defined by revising the connections between social relationships and physical place (238-239).

Hammond’s findings mirror those of Nast and Pile’s observations; in particular, networks can be understood to be “multiple, dynamic and productive of the always changing continuities that make up the proxemics of everyday life” (1998). Networks can also be seen as changing trajectories, mobilities and sites of interaction, rather than simply grids of power or just “fixed coordinates on a social map” (1998: 409). Furthermore, the extent of networks from any locality out to other regions using the vivid term ‘hairy’ gives the sense of entanglement(s) of networks where either the individuals feel at the centre of their world or they are not welcomed; in other words, being “in place” or “out of place” (Cresswell, 1996). However, these network entanglements may also provide a space for them to negotiate these relationships and further construct new places.