Section 2: Key concepts in the study of return migration

In this second section, we’ll be looking in more detail at the key concepts in the study of return migration, focusing on the following:

• The myth of return
• Home and homeland
• Exile ideology

2.1 What is the Myth of Return?

The concept of the “myth of return” was introduced by Muhammad Anwar to describe migrants’ often illusory aspiration to return to their homeland.^[1]

According to this idea, the likelihood of political or economic migrants eventually returning home is quite low.

Nevertheless, they maintain strong emotional ties to their place of origin.

Over time, the myth of return has often been revisited and deconstructed. However, it remains a valuable lens for understanding the mindset of forcibly displaced people, who perceive their exile as temporary.

As Roger Zetter suggests, this belief can help migrants cope with the psychological stress of displacement.^[2]

As specified by Madawi Al-Rasheed, the myth of return is an important element of strengthening social ties within the exile community.^[3]

It also serves as a unifying force, bringing people together through their shared connection to the homeland and their collective pledge to return one day.

The return is imagined not only as a desirable, but also a natural process with biological connotations (roots, mother’s milk, etc.).

2.2 How did the ‘myth of return’ manifest itself in the case of the Crimean Tatars?

During the early years of exile, many Crimean Tatars firmly believed that their deportation had been a mistake and that they would soon be allowed to return.

Their narratives from this period are filled with memories of their lost homeland and the expectation of an imminent return, which, in their view, was inevitable.

Upon arriving at the special settlements in 1944, they struggled to grasp the full scale of the tragedy. It seemed inconceivable that an entire people could be permanently stripped of their homeland.

A widespread belief persisted that an error had been made by Soviet authorities and that they would be sent back shortly – some even refrained from unpacking their belongings.

These hopes were ultimately shattered, as even Stalin’s death in 1956 failed to bring about the long-awaited return.

In the case of the Crimean Tatars, the concept of the myth of return is particularly significant, as it helps contextualize the hopes of an imminent return that emerged during the early years of exile and were closely tied to the experience of deportation.

Peter Gatrell claims that “displacement also entails a consideration of return journeys.”^[4]

Narratives of deportation, created during the exile, included memories of home, farewell to the homeland, and dreams of return.

Thus, the idea of the mandatory return of Crimean Tatars was ingrained in the deportation narratives since their emergence.

2.3 What role do the concepts Home and Homeland play in return migration?

Before we consider these two related concepts, here are two definitions which will help you gain a deeper understanding:

Migration studies devote considerable attention to the concept of place. This is understood both as:

• a homeland from which exiles were forcibly or semi-forcibly displaced;
• a home – both old and new.

Despite efforts to challenge the notion of cultural and identity rootedness in a fixed territory as an anachronistic sedentarism, the migration studies approach presupposes that place remains a critically important source of identity formation.^[5]

Migration scholars, drawing on social constructivism, emphasize the process by which migrants reinvent home in accordance with the image they have created in exile.

The way this domestic space is imagined becomes particularly significant, as it ceases to be merely a physical category and instead emerges as a combination of practices, ideas, and emotions.^[6]

Ilana Feldman refers to the system of homeland-related narratives (what people remember and say) and practices (what people do) as a ‘refrain’. According to Feldman, through repetition and articulation, this refrain can recreate a sense of home in exile and sustain a connection to the homeland.^[7]

Anastasia Christou proposes a research model in which the concepts of home, identity, and return are inseparable. She argues that reverse migrations – that is, returns – define and construct the notion of home and an individual’s place within it.^[8]

Place acquires meaning through the experience of displacement. Therefore, within migration studies, the concept of place is linked not only to forced migrations but also to return migrations.

2.4 How significant was the concept of homeland for the Crimean Tatars?

An analysis of the memories of deportation reveals that the loss of homeland became a crucial component of the trauma of exile. This trauma significantly impacted the identity of the Crimean Tatars and shaped their vision of the whole Crimea as a home.

It was the traumatic loss of their homeland that deepened their connection to it.

The idea of the temporality of exile developed around the image of an idealized home, as the rejection of their present place led to the idealization of their previous home.

Crimea served as a model of an idealized, better life.

In constructing their imagined homeland, Crimean Tatars sought out ordinary elements in exile that resembled those they had once seen, tasted, and experienced in Crimea.

The image of a lost homeland was a defining element of Crimean Tatar identity in exile.

Initially, Crimea was envisioned as a lost paradise or a promised land. This idealized portrayal played a crucial role not only for those who had personal memories of the peninsula and their former homes but also for new generations.

Facing discrimination, Crimean Tatars born in exile turned to the positive image of Crimea, shaped by their parents, as a foundation for their own identity – one that set them apart from the identity imposed by their surroundings.

Crimean Tatars born in exile learned about deportation and lost homeland, primarily in the family circle.

Thus, the extended Crimean Tatar families became memory communities in which knowledge about Crimea circulated.

In these narratives an important place is given to the image of the lost homeland: Crimea was imagined as a place to return to.

According to Juliana Hammer, the image of the homeland can cause a desire to return to where a person has never been.^[10] The image of a distant and fairy-tale country was formed from the stories of adults and influenced by family narratives.

In the narratives of the second generation, Crimea appears as an imagined homeland shaped by their parents – a fairy-tale place, where life flows in perfect harmony.

The desire to return was deeply rooted in this idealized vision.

The fact that the second generation longed to return to a place they had never seen – an imaginary homeland – was a direct result of the image of home constructed by their parents.

In exile, the older generation of Crimean Tatars depicted their lost homeland as a land of breathtaking landscapes and abundance.

The second generation, born in exile, inherited this vision, reinterpreting it through popular vivid imagery of palm trees and cypresses, which infused it with an almost mythical allure.

2.5 What role did home play?

Home is not merely a physical space but a fusion of practices, ideas, and emotions. In exile, the routines of past life in Crimea took on heightened significance.

These distinctive ‘practices of the homeland’ functioned much like family narratives, transmitting knowledge about the native land and shaping the identity of the second generation of Crimean Tatars born in exile.

As one interviewee put it, “Crimean practices” became so deeply embedded in daily life that it felt as if deportation had never happened: “We stayed in Crimea in our thoughts.”^[12]

This set of practices, which embodied past experiences, not only helped those born in Crimea preserve their sense of home but also played a crucial role in shaping the identity of the next generation.

In summarizing this section on home and homeland, we can say that:

• The memories of deportation, the idealization of Crimea, and the practices maintained in exile all played a crucial role in shaping Crimean Tatar identity across generations.
• The traumatic loss of their homeland not only deepened their emotional connection to Crimea but also reinforced the belief in the temporality of exile.
• The older generation constructed an image of Crimea as a paradise lost, passing it down to their children, who embraced it as part of their own identity despite never having seen their homeland.
• This image of Crimea was not just a place of nostalgia but a powerful unifying force, shaping daily practices, narratives, and traditions that sustained a sense of belonging.
• Through everyday rituals, such as drinking coffee, and through the stories they told, Crimean Tatars preserved their homeland in exile.
• The intention to return was shaped in exile, driven by the image of Crimea as an ideal place to live.
• The lost homeland was envisioned as a land of abundance, diversity, and prosperity, often mirroring the feminine image of a nurturing mother.

2.6 What is meant by exile ideology?

Before we look at this topic in more detail, here are some key definitions:

The migration studies approach suggests that exile creates a complex system of narratives and practices centered on the notion of a lost home. This system serves to either maintain ties with the homeland or facilitate a return.

Mark Israel views exile as a social construct within which exile ideologies are formulated. He argues that multiple ideologies may emerge, one of which is the ideology of return.^[14]

In the case of the Crimean Tatars, exile ideology not only gave meaning to their displacement but also fueled the desire to return.

The belief in the temporality of exile, reinforced through narratives, traditions, and cultural practices, became a driving force in shaping both individual and collective identity.

The foundations of exile ideology were rooted in narratives of the homeland and everyday practices preserved within Crimean Tatar families.

As memory communities, these families served as spaces where recollections of the lost homeland and deportation were safeguarded, transmitted, and reinforced.

Collective memories shared within the family played a crucial role in shaping the second generation’s understanding of the past and their perception of Crimea as a distant yet ever-present homeland.

The desire to return was further strengthened by the idealized image of Crimea as not only a place of origin but also a desirable home worth reclaiming.

The topos of inevitability took shape – the idea that return was destined to happen despite all obstacles.

Madawi Al-Rasheed describes the idea of return as a “severe and deeply rooted obsession, which can paralyze a person’s ability to engage in activities and daily life.”^[16]

Crimean Tatars often speak of return in terms of obsession, framing it as an idea that cannot be dismissed.

The image of Crimea, whether individual or inherited, became a powerful call to abandon everything and return, even illegally.

This desire to return carried a biological connotation, as Crimean Tatars viewed themselves as an intrinsic part of their homeland, deeply rooted in it, and exile was seen as disrupting this connection

Greta Uehling notes that some members of the second generation held a metaphysical belief that the molecules of Crimean fruits and vegetables their parents had consumed became part of their bodies.^[18]

The idea of return, therefore, must be seen as an ideology that emerged among the deported Crimean Tatars, shaped by hopes, dreams, and fantasies about going back.

Mark Israel suggests that exile is not a natural condition for refugees and migrants. He argues that the desire to return, and later the decision to return, are rooted in exile ideologies.^[20]

The role of the exile ideology is to make sense of the community’s displacement.

In the case of the Crimean Tatars the exile ideology centered on the aspiration to return to their homeland.

This notion evolved into a more deeply ingrained belief, as the Crimean Tatars came to feel they were ‘programmed’ to return to their homeland.

2.7 Review