By: Alvaro Chiri Goto
Alvaro Chiri is a student at the University of Cologne pursuing a dual B.A. in Social Anthropology and English Literature & Linguistics. He is currently a visiting student at University College London, completing his degree. His academic interests include Postcolonial Studies, Anthropocene Studies, Sociolinguistics, and 20th-Century American Literature. He currently serves as the President of CologneMUN, the University of Cologne’s debate society, works as a junior editor for Gender Forum: A Journal for Gender Studies, and is a member of the Enactus Cologne network.
Abstract
This text examines how political concepts become depoliticized when they migrate into academic discourse, focusing on the case of “Relational Integration” in Migration Studies. To trace the evolution of the discourse, I draw on three key moments in its conceptual history: mainstream approaches that treat integration as a valid response to migration (such as Alba, Statham, and Foner); the postcolonial counter-response, exemplified by Schinkel, which rejects integration as a form of methodological nationalism; and, finally, Klarenbeek’s proposal of Relational Integration as an attempt to reconcile these opposing currents.
Building on Polynin’s reframing of Klarenbeek’s work, the paper questions whether the analytical “productivity” of such a concept justifies its continued use despite its colonial and racialized origins. As a comparative framework, I employ Tuck and Yang’s Decolonization is not a Metaphor, showing how very specific political concepts risk being diluted, neutralized, or repurposed when absorbed into institutions. I use this text as a framework to argue that efforts to “improve” or rescue contested terminology may unintentionally reproduce the very logics they aim to critique, ultimately allowing academic discourse to absorb and reshape political tools until their initial intent becomes unrecognizable. This comparison does not suggest equivalence between the cases. Rather, it aims to illuminate a common process of conceptual dilution that occurs when politically situated terms migrate into analytical and institutional frameworks.
The concept of Integration: the mainstream-postcolonial debate
A similar trajectory can be traced in migration studies with the concept of Integration[1]. Mainstream approaches, such as those by Alba, Sthatham, and Foner, tend to equate integration with assimilation—measured by migrants’ similarity to the White majority[2] (Polynin, 2024: 2, 5–7). Postcolonial critiques, however, reject integration as a colonial, racialized concept and call for a deconstructive approach (Polynin, 2024: 5), framing it as a form of “methodological nationalism” that should be interrogated under the question “Whom and into what are we supposed to integrate?” (Favell, cited in Polynin, 2024: 2). As a response to the tension between both countering approaches, Klarenbeek´s notion of relational integration emerges.
It is, however, important to denote the regional context of the discourse discussed throughout this essay. The postcolonial stream frames the concept of Integration as a mode of governance derived from colonial practices of population classification, later rearticulated within frameworks of nation-state regulation. National belonging, in this view, emerges from histories of racialization and colonization, in which the modern nation-state constructs itself through an imagined form of whiteness and the preservation of “Western” cultural norms. Accordingly, the discourse and theoretical approaches examined in this text refer specifically to Global South–to–Global North migration contexts, particularly those of “the EU, North America, Scandinavia, and the Western countries as a whole” (Polynin, 2024: 2). These are consolidated primarily through studies explicitly from Western Europe and North America (Polynin, 2024: 2). Additionally, they exemplify geographical locations (Global North) where the “majority” has a history of structural dominance over the one- to-integrate (Global South)[3].
Another report by the Economic Research Forum indicates that internal migration, in contrast, is seldom driven by educational reasons. Instead, Egyptian women primarily relocate to be with family and for marriage, and men relocate particularly for employment reasons. Despite education not being the primary motive for internal migration, it can, however, still impact educational opportunities for Egyptian children. Internal migration patterns in Egypt predominantly involve movement from rural to urban areas. The demographic most involved are adults. Notably, the children of individuals involved in rural-to-urban migration exhibit prolonged school attendance and a higher likelihood of completing secondary or advanced education compared to the children of those who stay in rural areas.
Relational Integration: a solution?
Klarenebeek argues against the notion that integration can only be seen as a purely assimilationist approach, and instead advocates looking at integration as bidirectional in its relational quality (Klarenbeek, 2019, cited in Polynin, 2024: 2). She also reframes the concept of methodological nationalism as “civic integrationism” (Klarenbeek, 2019: 2). Relational Integration can, therefore, be less a civic, ideological term—political in nature—and more “a way to describe hierarchical societal relations that originate from the socially negotiated and contested boundaries” (Polynin, 2024: 3).
Polynin reframes Klarenbeek’s Relational Integration for his theoretical framework, in which he argues that individuals cannot simply enter or integrate themselves into society, but that it is their identities, drawing from his previous incorporations of the frameworks of social identity, that are ultimately negotiated in society (Polynin, 2024: 3–4). In this sense, the theoretical reframing of integration can not only help bridge the mainstream and postcolonial approaches, rescuing it as a tool for analysis, but it can also be a way in which we comprehend the construction and negotiation of the identities of the Others. Basically, if one discards the concept of Integration entirely, one loses a “heuristic tool” (Polynin, 2024: 3) through which one can further analyze hierarchies and identities.
I argue against framing the “productivity” of a concept as a sufficient reason for its continued analytical use, since such reasoning assumes that to deconstruct a term is to “waste” its supposed utility. By productivity, in the sense of utility previously mentioned, I mean the instrumentalization of terms and words within academic discourse on the basis of their capacity to generate further research despite the history and context of their origins. In this regard, I draw on Polynin’s critique of the postcolonial stream, from which it can be inferred—though he does not state it explicitly— that he considers its approach more radical than necessary (Polynin, 2024: 5). While Polynin seeks to ameliorate the concept by rendering it analytically productive through a relational lens, I question the logic of this productivity through this migratory neutralizing process. Additionally, I also want to uncover the paradoxical nature of this process, in which terms and concepts are debated and arranged, later adopted by the institutions it aimed to criticize in the first place.
The report further suggests that intentions to migrate are influenced by several key factors. For example, a majority of men expressed a desire to migrate, whereas only 24.4% of women shared this aspiration. Marital status also influenced migration intentions, as single individuals exhibited a greater inclination to migrate compared to their married or engaged counterparts. Moreover, the level of education emerged as a crucial determinant, with a clear correlation between higher education levels and a heightened inclination to migrate. This relationship can be attributed to the economic constraints faced by individuals with lower levels of education, which limits their resources in order to migrate abroad as well as the limited job prospects for those with advanced education, as evidenced by the high unemployment rates among recent university graduates in Egypt according to the International Organization for Migration’s report. Furthermore, a substantial majority of potential male migrants indicated independent decision-making, while a significant percentage of potential female migrants expressed shared decision-making. All of these variables demonstrate the correlation between gender, education, and migration and their impacts on decision making when embarking in migratory journeys abroad. However, further studies are needed within the Egyptian context to acquire additional gender-disaggregated migration data to develop a better understanding of this subfield.
Decolonization as a comparative case
Due to the expected length of this essay and the limitations that arise thereby, I will mainly build my short critique on the discourse of Integration in Migration Studies through the text Decolonization is not a Metaphor by Tuck and Wayne Yang. Published in 2012 for the journal Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society, the text tackles a slightly similar issue in relation to the rising rhetoric of “decolonizing the schools”, a phrase that reverberates through academia like a track from a malfunctioning loudspeaker: so loud the lyrics are no longer discernible. Although the text refers directly to Decolonization, acknowledging other — often — purposeful and useful theoretical projects, I find this text to perfectly encapsulate some of my appreciations on the mentioned discourse—although there are many texts—as well as other individual frustrations that naturally arise navigating academic environments, particularly in the very early stages of this steering. I must state beforehand, however, that I aim in no way to equate the case proposed here to that of Decolonization and settler colonialism.
Briefly mentioning Eve Tuck and K. Wayne Yang, their text can contribute to this analysis by highlighting how the term Decolonization[4] is often used in academic discourse even while “a startling number of these discussions make no mention of Indigenous peoples, our/their struggles for the recognition of our/their sovereignty, or the contributions of Indigenous intellectuals and activists to theories and frameworks of decolonization” (Tuck and Yang, 2012: 2–3). Another key insight is the problematic nature of the use of Decolonization as metaphor: the recentering of whiteness and the oppressive systems it aims to liberate itself from through the dilution of its radical meaning (Tuck and Yang, 2012: 3–6). The goal here is not to merely frame social justice projects as hypocritical, but to warn explicitly against the disruptiveness of equating “decolonize” or “decolonization” (Tuck and Yang, 2012: 3) interchangeably with the concept of social justice: “Decolonize (a verb) and decolonization (a noun) cannot easily be grafted onto pre-existing discourses/frameworks, even if they are critical, even if they are anti-racist, even if they are justice frameworks” (Tuck and Yang, 2012: 3).
Decolonization, as Tuck and Yang (2012) argue, is a distinct project from civil- and human-rights- based social justice movements, yet it is too often subsumed into their directives, stripped of its specificity and urgency. In this sense, the reference to Decolonization is striking for its proximity to postcolonial critique, which similarly relies on a deconstructive approach while also exposing its paradoxical limitations, as discussed previously. Diverging from this case, considering the specificity of its context, I want to showcase how the contexts themselves impact the terms that are taken up for analytical purposes, often becoming “watered down” through the migrating process I have (somewhat obnoxiously and repeatedly) referred to.
The postcolonial (deconstructive) approach—now explicitly addressing the case of Relational Integration—seeks to acknowledge the environment through which the term conceives itself, the critique of its lack of a definitional forefront, and the instrumentalization of the term within larger institutional projects. This can be exhibited in Polynin’s description of the postcolonial assessments by Schinkell and Favell as “the most radical and notable criticism” (Polynin, 2024: 2), as well as the coinage of the term “methodological nationalism” by the Postcolonial stream to refer to integration. The latter, ultimately, serves to unmask how discourse has been deployed for national policies as a kind of disguise (Polynin, 2024: 2).
The problem of Relational Integration
Polynin distances himself from the postcolonial current on migration, particularly Schinkel, noting that “one of my key profound disagreements with Schinkel’s positions on the concept of Immigrant Integration resides in the challenge of having a constructive debate with someone who would rather see the entire field of Migration Studies dismantled” (Polynin, 2024: 4). For Polynin, such radical dismantling makes dialogue impossible, as it impedes the possibility of repairing or reconstructing flawed concepts. Instead, he endorses Klarenbeek’s approach of Relational Integration, arguing that “relational integration empowers a researcher by providing tools to analyze current asymmetries or inegalitarian relations between the majority and minorities, while establishing a firm normative foundation” (Polynin, 2024: 3).
However, the defense of Relational Integration raises its own problems, that mostly rely on the reframing of the word “integration” altogether, as well as the recursive and self-referential nature of its usage in Migration Studies. By rejecting the “radicality” of postcolonial critique, his project risks neutralizing precisely those tensions that make critique politically disruptive in the first place—which might be exactly the aim. His appeal to “constructive improvements” could be potentially read as a sanitizing gesture, and one should warn against it, aligning Integration discourse with the logic of academic productivity — keeping the term alive for its heuristic usefulness — rather than interrogating whether such usefulness simply reinscribes the institutional frameworks that postcolonial scholars caution against. In other words, Polynin critiques postcolonialism for being too radical, but perhaps the danger lies in his own account being not radical enough.
In no way do I intend to demonize the field of Migration Studies (after all, it is precisely within the classroom of Migration Studies that these ideas sprouted and took root). However, it is only fair of me to acknowledge the reflexive dimension of this text: it emerges from the very real discourse (classroom) that it critiques, a discourse that risks being fully co-opted by further institutionalization. I must ask myself, then, will there be a point at which these terms and categorization lose all their inherent political intent—when the very notion of Integration integrates itself so completely that it forgets itself entirely?
Author’s Bio:
Alvaro Chiri is a student at the University of Cologne pursuing a dual B.A. in Social Anthropology and English Literature & Linguistics. He is currently a visiting student at University College London, completing his degree. His academic interests include Postcolonial Studies, Anthropocene Studies, Sociolinguistics, and 20th-Century American Literature. He currently serves as the President of CologneMUN, the University of Cologne’s debate society, works as a junior editor for Gender Forum: A Journal for Gender Studies, and is a member of the Enactus Cologne network.
Footnote
1: References to Alba et al. are drawn from the secondary synthesis provided by Polynin (2024), who reconstructs the development of the concept of integration through key mainstream theorists. The discussion here relies on this source’s comparative framing rather than direct engagement with the original texts.
2: Scholars such as Alba, Statham, Foner, Schinkel, and Klarenbeek all analyze migration toward Global North nation-states whose dominant populations are historically constructed as White majorities.
3: All cases of migration are individual and subjective; however, the regional cases referenced here share specific similarities in their governance structures. South–South migration, by contrast, is not implied in these debates and remains outside the scope of this essay.
4: Although the term decolonization is not capitalized in the original text, in this essay I will use the capitalized form (Decolonization) when referring to the specific definition advanced by the cited work.
References
Klarenbeek, L.M. (2019). Relational integration: A response to Willem Schinkel. Comparative Migration Studies, 7, p. 20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40878-019-0126-6
Nash, J.C. (2008). Re-thinking intersectionality. Feminist Review, 89, pp. 1–15. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40663957 (Accessed: 10 August 2025).
Polynin, I. (2024). Relational integration/assimilation? A critical dialog with postcolonial and mainstream perspectives. Frontiers in Political Science, 6, article 1493637. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpos.2024.149363
Schinkel, W. (2018). Against ‘immigrant integration’: For an end to neocolonial knowledge production. Comparative Migration Studies, 6, article 31. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40878-018-0095-1
Tuck, E. and Yang, K.W. (2012). Decolonization is not a metaphor. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society, 1(1), pp. 1–40.
