1

NOTE: This paper was originally published in Swedish. The translation to English has not been edited.

Lundgren, M. (2014). Avlägsen tillhörighet: Om skapande och upprätthållande av platstillhörighet

bland georgiska internflyktingar från Abkhazien / Distant belongings: On the maintaining and

creation of place attachment among Georgian IDPs from Abkhazia. Nordisk Østforum, vol. 28: 3, ss.

215-237.

https://www.idunn.no/nof/2014/03/avlgsen_tillhrighet_-_om_skapande_och_upprtthaallande_av

Distant Belongings: on the maintaining and creation of place

attachment among Georgian IDPs from Abkhazia

Abstract

Today nearly 250 000 people are displaced within Georgia as a result of armed ethnic conflicts in

Abkhazia and South Ossetia in the 1990s and the Georgian-Russian war in 2008. During the time in

displacement bonds to places of temporary living are created and new generations are born. At least

one fifth of the internally displaced in Georgia are children and adolescents below 18 years of age.

Many of them have never seen the homes in Abkhazia and South Ossetia where they are expected,

by their parents and by the Georgian government, to return to if circumstances for return are

created. The purpose of this article is to explore attitudes on belonging among Georgian IDP youth

and their parents. How is attachment to a »native home» created and maintained over a protracted

period of time when this place in general is inaccessible? The study of intergenerational value

discrepancies among IDPs (internally displaced persons) in Georgia is based on individual and group

interviews with parents (n=19) and adolescents (n=39) living in the region bordering Abkhazia,

conducted in February 2012. Research on migrants is generally based on segregated age groups; with

its intergenerational scope, this study is therefore an important contribution to research on forcibly

displaced populations.

Keywords: internal displacement, Georgia, Abkhazia, belonging, youth, generation

2

Introduction In Georgia today close to 250,000 people are forcibly displaced throughout the territory. Most of

them have fled from Abkhazia, a former autonomous republic within the Georgian state. Abkhazia

officially declared independence in 1999. Ethnic tensions between Abkhaz and Georgians occurred

already during the 1980ies. After the demise of the Soviet Union and Georgian independence armed

conflicts erupted in 1992, and in September 1993 most ethnic Georgians had been forced to escape

from Abkhazia. The displaced persons were offered temporarily shelter in other parts of Georgia

while waiting for return. Many of them still live in these collective centers; buildings that initially

weren’t constructed for permanent living.

The main priority for the Georgian government has been to end displacement through the regain of

control over lost territories. Separate services and housing, difficulties in finding work, and thus a

lack of opportunities to socialize with the local population, along with the official as well as the

personal strive for return, has led to a large proportion of the IDPs living in isolation from the

surrounding community (Kabachnik et al. 2010; Mitchneck et al. 2009). Since 2006, however, the

government also works to create better conditions for local integration, until the IDPs can return

under dignified circumstances (MRA 2007). But a simultaneous strive to improve social inclusion and

maintain IDP’s motivation to return to their homes is a balance between the temporary and the long

term (Tarkhan-Mouravi et al. 2006). If large numbers of IDPs chose to stay in other parts of Georgia,

the government loses one of its’ main arguments in the process of peace and control over Abkhazia

(Svendsen 2005).

The purpose with this paper is to study how the displaced from Abkhazia themselves understand

their belonging after more than twenty years of displacement. How is attachment to a place

maintained, and in some cases created, over a protracted period of time, when this place is mostly

inaccessible? Despite the years that have passed since the first skirmishes and considering the large

number of displaced people, research on this group is limited. Published studies are mainly based on

interviews with adult respondents. (Kabachnik et al. 2010; Mitchneck et al. 2009; Tarkhan-Mouravi et

al. 2006; Weiss 2012). When young people and their experiences are included we have the possibility

to make intergenerational comparisons. A young generation born outside Abkhazia is an expression

for the time that has passed since the escape. And since nobody knows if or when these people can

return, the views of the younger generations are important, not only within the academic sphere, but

also for future policy making on people in protracted situations of displacement.

Background The Soviet Union constituted a federal hierarchy of union republics, autonomous republics,

autonomous districts (oblast') and autonomous areas (okrugs) with different levels of autonomy.

Once an area was awarded autonomy status this was perceived as an approval from Moscow that

the titular population had the "right" to exist as a nation (Jackson 2004). In Abkhazian ASSR the

Abkhaz nation had a the status of titular population which brought some benefits, such as

preferential rights to higher education and high bureaucratic positions (Kolstø et al. 2008; Pelkmans

2006; Trier et al. 2010; Wheatley 2010).

After the birth of Georgian independence the national minority in Abkhazia feared for their existence

and demanded greater autonomy. Armed clashes broke out in February 1992, and in September

1993, the overwhelming majority of ethnic Georgians were forced to escape. After the truce in 1994

3

some Georgians returned to the Gali district in southeastern Abkhazia, an area that was mainly

populated by Georgians and Mingrelians1 before the conflicts. The Georgian government has always

had as its main objective that the internally displaced should return to their homes; an important

element in the political effort to regain control over Abkhazia. But after both national and

international criticism, the government has since 2006 also a secondary objective to increase local

integration of IDPs in waiting for return (MRA 2007). In policy statements and action plans it is

repeatedly underlined that the IDPs are expected to want to return permanently.

Since the end of the cold war the return policy has become an integral part of international

community refugee policy. This policy is largely based on the idea that people have a natural origin

linked to a specific place or area, and through return home the "natural" or "primordial" is restored

(Black 2002; Brun 2003; Stefansson 2006; Toft 2007; UNHCR 2004). Return is also considered an

important part of peace processes. That is, return is a part of the settling of the conflict that initially

caused the displacement (Stefansson 2006). The international community sees return of displaced

populations to their former homes in war-torn areas as a necessity for a sustainable peace. But in

many post-conflict zones, social relations are characterized by ethnic and social tensions not only

between different ethnic groups but also between those who left and those who remained during

the violent events (Bakke et al. 2009; Black 2002; Dahlman et al. 2005).

It is possible to compare the Georgian IDPs with other displaced populations living under similar

circumstances; i.e. close to their areas of origin during a protracted period of time. Two examples are

the Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, in Gaza and in the West Bank (Khalili 2004; Khamaisi 2008), or

the Greek Cypriots who fled the Turkish occupation of northern Cyprus (Zetter 1994, 1999). The wars

in the Balkans in the 1990s also generated many internally displaced persons. Experiences from

Bosnia demonstrate the hardship of return to a multiethnic society marked armed conflict, especially

when homes and houses may have been taken over by others. Rturn in many cases became

temporary; people who regained their dwellings often chose to sell the house or apartment and

settle in other parts of the country. The policy on restoration of individual homes is an example of

how the international community prioritized the "small home", i.e. individual homes, above the "big

home": policies and infrastructure that would allow better conditions for return to a multiethnic

society (Bakke et al. 2009; Black 2002; Black et al. 2006; Dahlman et al. 2005; Stefansson 2006). What

separates Abkhazia from these cases is that homes of Georgian IDPs particularly in the Gali district

have not taken over by others2.

1 The Mingrelians are considered ethnically closely related to the Georgians. In the first Soviet census in Abkhazia in 1926 Mingrelians were counted as Georgians. Mingrelians were also categorized as Georgians in the Soviet passports. The Mingrelian language is closely related to Georgian, even if languages are not mutually intelligible, and is spoken mainly in the Samegrelo region in Georgia and in the Gali district in Abkhazia (Broers, 2004; Trier et al., 2010). 2 According to the Soviet census from 1989, the Abkhazian population was 525 000. Out of those, 46 percent

were ethnic Georgians and 19 percent Abkhaz. Abkhazian sources states that Abkhazia today has around 240 000 inhabitants, out of whom 46 000 are ethnic Georgians (including Mingrelians). Close to 30 000 of them live in the Gali district (where they constitute 90 percent of the population), to compare with 79 000 inhabitants (75 000 of them Georgians) in Gali 1989 (Apsny Press, December 28, 2011; Trier et al., 2010).

4

Theoretical underpinnings The lives of internally displaced seems to be categorized within a spatial and temporal interval. They

are neither locals nor guests, and their existence is characterized by the temporary. This condition

requires that the concept of time is not described as a series of successive equal units, but as an

experience of events that are organized on an individual level (Bergadaà 2007). The temporary

condition is unstable, causes discomfort and lacks structure (Moshe 2009). The situation is

determined by waiting, as an interruption of action, a break between the past and future (Gasparini

1995). To escape from the temporary condition, with the conflicts that it entails, the displaced

person has to either return or decide to reside permanently elsewhere and give up the idea of

return, and thus also give up the place where one feels at home.

In the current world of spaces divided between nations, people are understood as belonging to a

specific place, and their identities are reflected in the place where they have their roots. Territorial

affiliation and the importance attached to spatial belonging is reflected in the language used for

migrants, particularly for those who are forced to flee because of violence and conflict. "Forcibly

displaced" and "rootless" are concepts that are part of a narrative in which every person has a

"natural" affinity to a place (Malkki 1992). An internally displaced person is an anomaly; “out of

place” (Brun 2003) and should return ”home” so that order can be restored (Black 2002). Internally

displaced persons are simultaneously insiders and outsiders. On the one hand, they are citizens in

their country of residence, but on the other hand they are temporary guests as long as they can’t

return to their areas of origin. As long as the possibility of return doesn’t exist the internally displaced

strive to adapt to new conditions and integrate, while maintaining a hope of return.

Apart from the lack of a specific place that has become an integral part of the displaced’s identity,

there is an additional lack of a materiality that is no longer accessible (Zetter 1999). The physical

place is often symbolized by a lost home. A home can be an apartment or a house, but also a

community or a country. Home cannot be reduced to being merely a "surface" or a "space"; it is a

multidimensional phenomenon that combines the spatial with cultural, social and psychological

aspects (Mallett 2004; Saunders et al. 1988). The house or apartment where we live constitutes the

lowest level of “home”, and it becomes significant only when it becomes a place of social relations,

ambitions and memories (Black 2002; Mallett 2004; Zetter 1999). In this sense, home has a central

role in people's lives. Social practices evolve in the house or apartment and in times of uncertainty

and risk home becomes a place where people seek for normalcy (Borell 2008).

When people are forced to leave their homes, in the sense of an earlier house or apartment, they are

also forced to give up the result of many years of economic efforts (Stefansson 2006). In addition,

they have to give up home on a higher level; they also leave the surrounding community that

becomes unavailable to them. For those who have been forced to flee, home not only signifies the

physical location and relationships, it also constitutes a link to the past and a link to the future, where

the dream and the goal is to return home (Black 2002; Zetter 1999). Based on this argument, we can

distinguish between home as place, home as house and home as activity. Home as house

corresponds to the physical dwelling, and home as activity to the social relationships and everyday

life that we fill the home with. Home as place represent home at a higher level such as a village, a

community, a region or a country. This can be illustrated on the basis of the figure below (Figure 1)

where home making activities (home as activity) take place in the house or the building of residence,

and this building is located in an area or at a place where you feel that you belong.

5

Figure 1 Plats = Place, Hus = House, Aktivitet = Activity

But this hierarchical relationship does not necessarily mean that home as activity cannot take place

elsewhere than in the building in the place where people experience their belonging. Although

people are forced to escape and temporarily live in other buildings and at locations other than those

they call "home", they continue to exercise home making activities. They create routines and

relationships connected to the temporary dwelling in the temporary place. As long as strife and

unrest goes on, the temporary dwelling provides greater security than the home you had to leave.

Oral narratives during the time in exile, or trips to the homeland, to visit a former are other examples

of home making that can be performed on distance (Powers 2011).

Home, according to Mallet (2004) is a continuous process between the original, former home, and

the future ideal home, the place you endeavor towards. This is particularly relevant for forcibly

displaced populations, who were forced to flee their original homes and are living in unsafe

conditions striving to recreate a home, in the original location or in a new location. A return recreates

the continuity that halted during exile. Regain of a lost home is the symbol of resumption of

continuity, and it also constitutes the means to connect the past with the present and the future; to

link ancestors with future generations. Zetter (1999) uses the concepts of the past, the present and

the future to illustrate how Cypriot IDPs relate to integration and adaptation in relation to return.

Zetter argues that the present links the past to the future; and the present is the glue that makes

people experience continuity in their lives. This is illustrated by a triangular model, where the

intersections represent these temporal concepts.

6

Figure 2 Kontinuitet = Continuity, Nuet = the Present, Förflutet = the Past, Framtid = the Future

If one of the sides of the triangle breaks continuity is lost. The loss of continuity between the past

and the present is categorical for people who had to flee their homes. The past can be represented

by what has been lost, such as a home or memories of life in the home area. For those who lost their

homes, and are living in the temporary condition that represents the present, the future appears

uncertain. The most accessible means to maintain continuity is the mythologizing of home and return

and to uphold a belonging rooted in the past. But, while waiting people adapt to the current

situation. Policy, improved housing, support interventions and integration into local community can

influence how people think of their future. For the young generation that lacks own experience of a

past in the "original home", continuity can on the one hand be relatively unproblematic, since no

other life than the current one is known. But on the other hand, the young generation can also

adhere to collective narratives about the lost common past, and thus also envisage return as the only

way to restore continuity.

Return is a tangible goal that also includes the recreation of a past that was destroyed during war

and exile. Time is an important factor; a longer temporal distance contributes to the fading of

idealized pictures of a lost past in relation to current conditions (Black2002; Zetter 1999). When

home is distanced in time, collective processes become indicative. The joint loss (village, country,

etc.) is highlighted and collective cohesive memories are created (Ahmed 1999). Through common

narratives about places and events in the past those who don’t have memories of what is lost are

given an opportunity to identify with an origin. In this way "the myth of return" works as a cohesive

force within specific groups of refugees, but it also contributes to separation from the locals.

Mitchneck et al. (2009) has shown that IDPs from Abkhazia have very dense social networks in

relation to the local population. But these networks mostly consist of other IDPs, in many cases

people from the native village in Abkhazia. Social relations in this way maintain the link to the lost

home and a common past, and also contribute to feelings of security and safety. For those who were

born in displacement, these social collective processes are important components in the creation of

place attachment.

Method In this paper I use material from interviews conducted in February 2012 in the Zugdidi district.

Zugdidi is situated 20 minutes’ drive from the only official Abkhaz checkpoint between Georgia and

7

Abkhazia. Through local NGO’s contacts with people living in different collective centers in and

around Zugdidi were established. These people in their turn were helpful in showing around in the

area and make contacts with families with adolescents – the target group for the study. The

adolescents and their parents were informed about the purpose of the interview, that their

participation was voluntary and that their anonymity would be protected. 58 people were

interviewed individually or in groups (in total 31 interviews).

The respondents – all of them from Abkhazia with IDP status in Georgia – were invited to discuss

around a few open ended questions concerning their experiences of living in the border area, their

thoughts on home and homeland, and on return to Abkhazia. The discussions were carried out as

focus groups where the participants had good opportunity to influence on the orientation and

content (Morgan, 1996). Since individual interviews and focus groups were used interchangeably it

was possible to gradually develop the themes for discussion. Individual interviews with more in

depth thorough answers provided new angles for focus groups. And conversely comments during

focus groups inspired to new questions during the individual interviews.

The choice of language was made by the respondents. Several of the interviews were conducted in a

mix between Georgian (with interpretation) and Russian. The use of several languages and

translations can increase the risk for linguistic distortions and the loss of important nuances in what

is said (Temple et al. 2002). In order to decrease these problems as much as possible I had thorough

discussions with the interpreter around the questions and the translation of central concepts. The

importance that the translations corresponded as closely as possible to the statements of the

respondents was underlined. The interpreter was an IDP from Abkhazia with an academic degree in

languages and social sciences. As I carried out the transcription work I had continuous discussions

with people with good skills in both Russian and Georgian on how different linguistic concepts can be

interpreted and translated.

(Un)contested belongings In the beginning of each interview the respondents were asked to tell a few words about themselves.

A frequent, and perhaps not very surprising, answer (since all participants were informed about the

purpose of the study) was to talk about the belonging in Abkhazia. “I am IDP from Abkhazia”

(respondent 1A3). The notion of internally displaced person in itself denotes a belonging “elsewhere”,

the person is “displaced”, “out of place”, not in the “right place”, where he or she belongs. While

saying that you are from Abkhazia you indirectly say that you don’t originate from the place where

you are living now, there is a physical distance to the place where you belong. But this distance is

also temporal, since most of the IDPs left Abkhazia some twenty years ago.

To say that you come from Abkhazia is to say that once I was from Abkhazia, and now twenty years

later I am still from Abkhazia, even though I live somewhere else now. This implies an assertion of

attachment that hasn’t changed. But claiming a belonging to Abkhazia seems important also to those

who were born outside Abkhazia. “I am from Abkhazia, but I was born here” says a 16-year old girl

3 All respondents are coded with the number of each interview (1-31) and a letter (A, B or C). As a rule the youngest participant in each interview were coded as A, next person in age as B etc. In some cases the respondents’ ages at the time of the interview are accounted. If the age was unknown, respondents over 30 years of age are accounted as man/woman, and respondents below 30 as young man/young woman. Young man/young woman is also used for younger respondents in majority age (over 18).

8

(respondent 15A). But her father (15B) objects to her statement: “She doesn’t know anything about

Abkhazia, the war was in 1992.” Thus, to be from Abkhazia doesn’t have to mean to be born there. It

is a link to a previous situation, to something that already passed and that characterizes the present.

To be from Abkhazia is to be part of the national trauma that affected Georgia since the unrest broke

out in the early 1990s, regardless of whether the person who claims to be from Abkhazia was born

then or not.

Home as place

Home as place corresponds to the “large home”, for example a village, a community or a region.

The places that emerge as most important in the respondents’ lives are Zugdidi and Abkhazia.

Abkhazia here means the entire former autonomous republic along with specific places such as the

Gali district, Sukhumi or different villages. Many of the respondents maintained a contact with

Abkhazia through more or less regular visits to the Gali district. One woman (11B) talks about

memories of a beautiful fertile Abkhazia, a place that she hardly recognizes in the Abkhazia of today:

My daughter doesn’t have the same feeling for Abkhazia as I do. I carry this feeling

within, this love to Abkhazia and the thoughts on return. She doesn’t feel the same way.

I know how life was in Abkhazia, and what I left there. I know the beauty of Abkhazia,

and the beauty that is there today. I can remember Abkhazia as it was many years ago,

and how it is today. Today the houses are burned and destroyed. Villages are turned

into forests. It hurts to know how Abkhazia is today.

Memories from Abkhazia before the conflict symbolizes for some respondents “the real Abkhazia”,

and the terms that are used are often vivid and idealizing. On the one hand a mythologized image of

Abkhazia is withheld, but on the other hand this image risks weakening during the temporary visits.

Try to imagine. During those times everything was so good. It was amazing. During those times

there were so many cows. And there were jobs, lots of jobs. There were factories and

industries. Can you imagine how good this was? You could sell what you grew yourself. Life was

so much easier because there were so many opportunities, everybody had a job. (Woman, 18B)

The image of life in Abkhazia as it was before stands in stark contrast to the modest conditions this

woman is living in today. But her account is not only about Abkhazia as a geographical space, it is also

about Abkhazia during the Soviet era, with different economic and political conditions. To be

confronted with the current conditions entails a conflict between myth and reality. Abkhazia today is

characterized by conflict and lawlessness. Houses and villages in Gali are empty. There are ruins of

burned houses, and nature regains control of roads and fields. The land people dream about

returning to is not the same as the land they left.

What then is it that makes them continue thinking about return? “All people with IDP status are

waiting and waiting to return, and I really hope that we can return and continue our lives there. For

my own part, I think that my life stopped when we left Abkhazia” (girl, 17 years, 5A). Life in itself is

strongly connected to Abkhazia. Time spent outside Abkhazia is not living, but it is waiting. Return to

Abkhazia is a way to maintain continuity between the past and the future. The temporary situation is

characterized not only of dreams of return; after twenty years of waiting the possibility of permanent

9

return is considered more and more unreasonable and uncertain, especially since the Russian

military and economic presence in Abkhazia has increased.

Social relations with the local population affect the experience of living in Zugdidi. “We are here as

guests” says a woman (11B), who earlier in the interview said that when she meets with locals she

has a feeling of “not belonging”. A guest is someone who belongs somewhere else and only

temporary in the place. Another woman (21C) talks about when she was applying for new documents

and was asked where she was living:

I answered that I live in Abkhazia. And the lady behind the counter said ‘What? You live in

Abkhazia?’ Then I added that presently I live in [village]. The lady became angry and exclaimed

‘Let’s forget about Abkhazia now. For eighteen years you only said “Abkhazia! Abkhazia!” and it

doesn’t matter any longer. Forget your Abkhazia now!’ I still remember how her voice became

so angry when I said Abkhazia.

This experience reflects a feeling the double belonging (or non-belonging) of IDPs. They are on the

one hand classified as IDPs, in this case as “those who actually belong in Abkhazia”, but they are on

the other hand encouraged to “forget about Abkhazia” and integrate into local communities. IDP

status is perceived as stigmatizing; for one woman (9B) there is an important difference between

living in Zugdidi and living in Abkhazia: “In Abkhazia no one made any difference, nobody told you

that you had this or that status or so, nobody said anything about any status. But on the other side

[Zugdidi] you have this status and it’s not very good.” Although the status entails people to certain

benefits, it inherently separates IDPs from locals. The woman’s niece (9A) talks about the hostility

she felt from the staff at the kindergarten where they temporarily resided: "The headmaster and

teachers asked us why we had not stayed in our house in Abkhazia. Why did we come to Zugdidi?

They asked all the time what we did here and tried to shut us out from the building." The experience

of separation enhances the feeling of non-belonging in the place where one lives. However, this is

not shared by all IDP youth. A girl (18A) explains that: "My homeland is in Abkhazia. But my home is

here. My homeland is Abkhazia because my parents come from there. They were born and grew up

there. But my home is here. Here I have my life and my friends, and I would not return to Abkhazia

without coercion." A social network that includes local people, and in some cases little or no personal

experience from Abkhazia, seems to reinforce the idea of belonging in the current place of residence.

In this example there is a discernable difference between the original home in Abkhazia and the

temporary home in Zugdidi created through relationships and lived experiences.

Home as house

Although the respondents fled from Abkhazia twenty years ago, it seems fairly unproblematic for

them to state Abkhazia as their home. How does this relate to home as house? A 19-year-old woman

(9A) whose family recently was offered alternative housing in a newly built area in the port town of

Poti says when she was asked about what she considers her home:

"I do not know. I can’t answer the question. It's like my brain can’t think about it. First, I was born in

Abkhazia. Then we moved here, to this place and I got used to living here. And now they say we have to

move to Poti. Therefore I can’t understand where my home is, or what I could possibly do about it.”

10

On the one hand, she states that she is from Abkhazia, but on the other hand, she experiences that

she lacks a home both in Abkhazia, in Zugdidi and in Poti. Neither the alternative housing in Poti

where her parents have moved, nor the room in the kindergarten that she shares with her younger

sister, her aunt, aunt's husband and their three children, represent a home. In this particular case the

differences between the home as place, house and activity are clear. The young woman marks a

belonging in the home as place - Abkhazia – that she doesn’t have access to. Abkhazia as place

constitutes a home. But a physical home that offers more than shelter, such as the one in Poti,

doesn’t exist in her life. Everyday life in the temporary dwellings is not enough to provide a feeling of

home because of an uncertain future and an emotional connection elsewhere. The woman's aunt

(9B) takes a different position: "I can actually say that I don’t have a home. My home was in Sukhumi.

But maybe ... Well, you can see the terrible situation we live in now… Well, maybe I could say that

this is my home." She concludes that the family's current home, even though the only room is

overcrowded, even though they lack kitchen and sanitary facilities, even though the windows are

covered with cardboard and Masonite, it is some kind of a home. The absence of other realistic

options may be a reason to call a house home.

However the lack of other options as reason to call a temporary dwelling home is not universal.

"Here I have no house, I have no home here. This is a house but it’s not a home. Everything that is

mine, it is Abkhazia. Everything that happens to me, it is Abkhazia. Everything that happens, home,

the earth, the sun, everything is for me Abkhazia“ says a middle aged woman (18B). This is another

representation of home, for this woman a house can’t be a home if it is not in Abkhazia. The

temporary dwelling in the collective centers is shelter, but nothing more. There is thus a clear

difference between the home as place and home as house. Home as place is more than a house, the

nature and familiar surroundings are part of the place. But it is not only the location in Abkhazia that

is crucial; the fact that you own your home also plays an important role. International aid agencies,

together with the Georgian government drafted a housing program to empty collective centers and

elevate the housing standards of IDP families. A woman (8C) who lives with her family in a small

private house with garden present her situation like this:

"At first it was difficult with this new house. But now it feels ok and I like it. I am happy and pleased. In the

past, I didn’t sleep at nights. After the terrible situation we had, I am so happy that we have our own

house. In Gali, we had a very big house and a huge garden. Now we have a very small house and a very

small garden here in Zugdidi. But it is somehow similar, because it's mine, it's mine. It is not a collective

center."

Property rights provide security for the future. This family doesn’t have to worry about where they

should go, or what will happen with a temporary housing such as in the collective center. Despite the

comparatively small size of the new dwelling the owners are not required to adapt to others, and the

garden offers opportunities to grow fruit and vegetables. But it is not only the parents’ generation

who are talking about ownership rights. For many of the youngsters a house in Abkhazia is an asset

not only from a material perspective, it also becomes a symbol of belonging and increases the desire

to return. "Now I have got used to live here. But when I'm in Abkhazia, I have this feeling that it's

mine. It's my house. Mine" says a young woman (28A). A young girl (5A) also describes the house as a

symbol for a continuous struggle against the idea that her family lost everything:

"I want to live in Abkhazia and I have my reasons why I want it. I can’t accept that my parents have

lost everything, and I want to take care of my father's house, his property. Yes, if we lived in Abkhazia

11

now, I would take care of necessary and important things. I would take care of the wealth I have. My

wealth is my land. My own land. I want to protect it and defend it."

Property is to be protected from Abkhazian authorities and various raiding groupings in the area.

People demonstrate resistance to the idea that Abkhazia would be lost through the struggle to

maintain ownership of houses and land.

Home as activity

Everyday life and social relations tie the respondents to the temporary locations and is thus an

important part of the homemaking processes. Many of the younger respondents testify that they

have their social lives in Zugdidi, they grew up there and have had the temporary dwellings as a

starting point in their lives.

"My parents may have nothing that keeps them here. But I was born and raised here. If we

were to return, I would miss my friends, the ones I know here today. I would miss my school, my

teachers and my classmates. I would not forget them easily. "(girl, 19 A)

Many young IDPs approach the age when their parents fled from Abkhazia. Parental images of

Abkhazia are characterized by memories of adolescence and youth relations. "I was born here, I grew

up here and I love this place. My friends are here, people I love are here, I cannot just leave it. This is

important. You love the place where you grow up and live" says an 18-year old boy (31A), who earlier

in the interview stated that his greatest dream is to return. Although Abkhazia is an important

marker of identity and belonging, he takes an ambivalent position on the issue of return. Another

young boy (28A) says that he would miss his friends and other acquaintances most if he would return

to Abkhazia. But he would definitely return if possible. He continues: “but if a return under dignified

conditions will not be possible, then you have to make a choice. Either you live in Georgia and

abandon your hope, or you cross the border and choose to become a part of ‘that’ Abkhazia.” The

decision to abandon your hope would in this sense be a homemaking activity, it’s a way to establish a

new home and work towards future in this home and nowhere else. In the same regard, the choice

to adapt to the Abkhazian de facto regime and recreate home and live in “that Abkhazia” is a way to

break with the past and the “Georgian Abkhazia”.

Adult interviewees have their own experiences from Abkhazia, and several parents emphasize that

their children must understand what once existed in order to love Abkhazia. By emphasizing the

good things and the relative wealth that the family had at that time, the contrast to the everyday life

in the collective centers is strengthened. Abkhazia is not only a lost territory; it also represents a life

in prosperity. A woman (11B) who was pregnant with her first child when she fled from Abkhazia

believes that:

"... It is our duty, our parental duty, to tell our children about our Abkhazia and about everything we

had. So that they can understand and love the Abkhazia that we come from. Almost everybody from the

older generation wants to return. Young people, they don’t love Abkhazia and then they

might not want to return."

Her daughter (11A) considers what her mother just said, and then tells: "sometimes I just want to cry

when I listen to my mother. I really can’t understand things the same way as her. Her feelings for her

home and for Abkhazia are stronger than mine." The daughter's image of Abkhazia is mainly based

on her parents' stories, and these are not sufficient to create a strong sense of belonging.

12

Another young woman, who was born in Sukhumi, but only a few months old when her parents fled,

says that it’s nevertheless possible to understand that life was different in Abkhazia when she sees

the traces of the life that once was: "Abkhazia is our heart. And of course we talk about it. My

parents had a good life there, but now we have nothing. So of course we remember the good things.

When you go back, you can see traces of it, the good life and the fine houses. And then you

understand that they really had a good life "(6A). This shows the importance of the collective

memory and the stories that are passed on from one generation to another, so that the generation

without own memories can talk about a "we" that remembers. The young woman's own life in an

abandoned industrial building with her husband and year old son appears in stark contrast to the

parents' stories about “the good life”, and experiences from the conflict-torn Abkhazia where this

“good life” still can be discerned.

But it is not only the adult generations’ stories that ensure that children's motivation to return to

Abkhazia is maintained. A last year pupil in the only segregated IDP-school that remains in Zugdidi

tells us: "We talk about it often. It's the only way. If we say one day that we don’t remember

Abkhazia, then we have no right to return. Our teachers from school help us to always remember"

(5A). One mother (11B) encourages her son to write about Abkhazia in school:

"My son was to write about his biggest dream in school. And then I explained to him that 'it would be

great if your dream would be the dream of your mom and your family - to return to Abkhazia.' And at the

end of the essay, he wrote: 'If I had a magic flower and I could wish for anything, I'd wish for peace, and

that we could return to Abkhazia."

This kind of collective memory making, where Abkhazia is continually mentioned, may be interpreted

as an expression from an adult generation striving towards Abkhazia, both in the present and in the

future. The daily recreation of Abkhazia is a way to not give up the desire to return, and to ensure

that future generations continue striving.

Parallel homemaking and the quest for continuity The focus of this paper was to study how internally displaced youth and their parents understand

belonging and what strategies they use to create and maintain this belonging. A majority of

respondents indicate Abkhazia or a specific place in Abkhazia as their homeland. Only a few, and in

this case only young people, argue that they originate from the place where they reside today, and

they can also imagine a future outside Abkhazia. The temporary condition and the lack of space

cause people to recreate home on a distance; memories and family histories constitute the basis for

continued claims on places they no longer inhabit. In everyday life at the temporary place, people

encounter other IDPs and locals; they maintain and establish new relationships. For some IDPs it is

possible to visit their homes in Gali and meet family and friends there. This is an example of parallel

home making processes that differ depending on whether they occur at a distance or in a specific

place. Home as activity is hence something that isn’t necessarily performed in the home as house or

adjacent to the home as place. Home as activity can be performed in a temporary home, in a

temporary location, and aim towards both the temporary and the original homes.

Recalling Zetter’s (1999) triangular model of continuity we can discern differences in how IDPs

handle the broken connections between the future, the present and the past.

13

Figure 3 Kontinuitet = Continuity, Nuet = the Present, Förflutet = the Past, Framtid = the Future

The future seems uncertain for those whose link between the past and the present has been

damaged because of the escape. The dream might be to return and then re-create the link between

the past and the future. But for some, especially from the younger generation, whose connections

between the past and the present were never broken since they were born as IDPs, the aim might be

to end the temporary situation by connecting the present and the future and continue their lives in

the current place of residence.

The figures below illustrate two examples of how different groups of respondents understand and try

to restore continuity. The parental generation (and a not insignificant part of the youth generation)

focuses on re-creating the link between the past and the future (Figure 4). Their present takes place

in the "wrong place" and return is their means to create a future in the "right place". Figure 5

illustrates how some of the respondents in the younger generation to a higher extent are interested

in continuing their lives in the place where they now reside, and thus focus on the link between the

present and the future. For some of them neither the present, the past or the future is a problem. To

originate in Abkhazia can be a source of pride, or maybe a place they feel connected to, but that does

not imply that they want to "return" to Abkhazia.

Figure 4 Figure 5

This model is largely based on notions of continuity in relation to the places where people are

expected to consider themselves to originate from, where they want to live and wish to

return/continue to live. Home as activity in the present location can be regarded as a threat to the

14

possibility to return, since it can strengthen the connection to the temporary dwellings and weaken

the link to the past.

Earlier in this paper the IDPs from Abkhazia were compared with groups of IDPs and refugees from

Palestine, Cyprus and the Balkans. However, what separates the Georgian IDPs from these groups is

the existence of actual homes in the place of origin that several of the respondents have had access

to more or less regularly. And in the event that it would be possible, they could also return there.

Their homes have not been taken over, neither by other Georgians/Megrelians nor newcoming

Abkhaz. For these people the link between the past, the present and the future might be easier to

maintain, than for those who have lost everything in Abkhazia or who never or only occasionally have

been back. The existence of a physical building can make the dream of return appear more realistic,

or more important.

But on the other hand the more time that passes can increase the distance to the original home. The

young generation has a different connection to Abkhazia than their parents, and this connection is

mostly based on stories and political discourses. Meanwhile they form ties to the temporary home

on a daily basis. In some cases children and adolescents grow up in houses their families own, with

stable economic situations and adequate living conditions. Thus arises a situation where the

existence of, or lack of, material well-being interacts with the time in the rivalry between the past

and the present over the future.

15

References Ahmed, Sara (1999) Home and Away: Narratives of Migration and Estrangement. International

Journal of Cultural Studies 2 (3): 329–347.

Apsny Press (2011). Численность населения Абхазии составляет 240 705 человек. Apsny Press.

Sukhumi.

Bakke, Kristin. M., Xun Cao, John O'Loughlin & Michael D. Ward (2009) Social Distance in Bosnia-

Herzegovina and the North Caucasus Region of Russia: Inter and Intra-Ethnic Attitudes and Identities.

Nations and Nationalism 15 (2): 227–253.

Bergadaà, Michelle (2007) Temporal Frameworks and Individual Cultural Activities: Four Typical

Profiles. Time & Society 16 (2/3): 387–408.

Black, Richard (2002) Conceptions of »Home» and the Political Geography of Refugee Repatriation:

Between Assumption and Contested Reality in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Applied Geography 22 (2): 123–

138.

Black, Richard & Saskia Gent (2006) Sustainable Return in Post-Conflict Contexts. International

Migration 44 (3): 15–38.

Borell, Klas (2008) Terrorism and Everyday Life in Beirut 2005 – Mental Reconstructions, Precautions

and Normalization. Acta Sociologica 51 (1): 55–70.

Broers, Laurence (2004) Containing the Nation, Building the State: Coping with Nationalism,

Minorities and Conflict in Post-Soviet Georgia. Doctoral dissertation. London: University of London.

Brun, Cathrine (2003) Local Citizens or Internally Displaced Persons? Dilemmas of Long Term

Displacement in Sri Lanka. Journal of Refugee Studies 16 (4): 376–397.

Dahlman, Carl & Gearóid Ó Tuathail (2005) Broken Bosnia: The Localized Geopolitics of Displacement

and Return in Two Bosnian Places. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 95 (3): 644–

662.

Gasparini, Giovanni (1995) On Waiting. Time & Society 4 (1): 29–45.

Jackson, Paul (2004) Ethnicity, Decentralisation and the Fissile State in Georgia. Public Administration

and Development 24 (1): 75–86.

Kabachnik, Peter, Joanna Regulska & Beth Mitchneck (2010) Where and When is Home? The Double

Displacement of Georgian IDPs from Abkhazia. Journal of Refugee Studies 23 (3): 315–336.

Khalili, Laleh (2004) Grass-Roots Commemorations: Remembering the Land in the Camps of Lebanon.

Journal of Palestine Studies 34 (1): 6–22.

Khamaisi, Rassem (2008) From Imposed Ceasefire Line to International Border: The Issue of the

Green Line Between Palestine and Israel. Journal of Borderlands Studies 23 (1): 85–102.

Kolstø, Pål & Helge Blakkisrud (2008) Living with Non-Recognition: State- and Nation-Building in

South Caucasian Quasi-States. Europe-Asia Studies 60 (3): 483–509.

16

Malkki, Liisa (1992) National Geographic: The Rooting of Peoples and the Territorialization of

National Identity Among Scholars and Refugees. Cultural Anthropology 7 (1): 24–44.

Mallett, Shelley (2004) Understanding Home: A Critical Review of the Literature. Sociological Review

52 (1): 62–89.

Matsuzato, Kimitaka (2011) Transnational Minorities Challenging the Interstate System: Mingrelians,

Armenians, and Muslims in and Around Abkhazia. Nationalities Papers 39 (5): 811–831.

Mitchneck, Beth, Olga V. Mayorova & Joanna Regulska (2009) »Post»-Conflict Displacement: Isolation

and Integration in Georgia. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 99(5): 1022–1032.

Morgan, David L. (1996) Focus Groups. Annual Review of Sociology 22 (1): 29–52.

Moshe, Mira (2009) Resarch Note Temporary versus Permanent: Time Framing in the Israeli Political

Arena. Time & Society 18 (1): 154–171.

MRA (2007) State Strategy for Internally Displaced Persons – Persecuted. Tbilisi: Ministry of Refugees

and Accomodation, Republic of Georgia.

Pelkmans, Mathijs (2006) Defending the Border: Identity, Religion, and Modernity in the Republic of

Georgia. New York, NY: Cornell University Press.

Powers, Jullian L. (2011) Reimaging the Imagined Community: Homeland Tourism and the Role of

Place. American Behavioral Scientist 55 (10): 1362–1378.

Saunders, Peter & Peter Williams (1988) The Constitution of the Home: Towards a Research Agenda.

Housing Studies 3 (2): 81–93.

Stefansson, Anders H. (2006) Homes in the Making: Property Restitution, Refugee Return, and Senses

of Belonging in a Post-War Bosnian Town. International Migration 44 (3): 115–139.

Svendsen, Inger Christine (2005) Prospects for Return of Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) to

Abkhazia in Georgia. Tbilisi: Norwegian Refugee Council.

Tarkhan-Mouravi, George & Nana Sumbadze (2006) The Abkhazian-Georgian Conflict and the Issue of

Internally Displaced Persons. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research 19 (3):

283–302.

Temple, Bogusia & Rosalind Edwards (2002) Interpreters/Translators and Cross-Language Research:

Reflexivity and Border Crossings. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 1 (2): 1–12.

Toft, Monica Duffy (2007) The Myth of the Borderless World: Refugees and Repatriation Policy.

Conflict Management and Peace Science 24 (2): 139–157.

Trier, Tom, Hedvig Lohm & David Szakonyi (2010) Under Siege: Inter-Ethnic Relations in Abkhazia.

New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

UNHCR (2004) Handbook for Repatriation and Reintegration Activities. Geneva: UNHCR.

17

Weiss, Andrea (2012) »Crossing Conflicting State Boundaries: The Georgian-Abkhazian Ceasefire

Line» i Bettina Bruns & Judith Miggelbrink (red.) Subverting Borders: Doing Research on Smuggling

and Small-Scale Trade. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften (213–232).

Wheatley, Jonathan (2010) »Managing ethnic diversity in Georgia: One Step Forward, Two Steps

Back» i Stephen. F. Jones (red.) War and Revolution in the Caucasus: Georgia Ablaze. London & New

York, NY: Routledge.

Zetter, Roger (1994) The Greek-Cypriot Refugees: Perceptions of Return under Conditions of

Protracted Exile. International Migration Review 28 (2): 307–322.

Zetter, Roger (1999) Reconceptualizing the Myth of Return: Continiuty and Transition amongst the

Greek-Cypriot Refugees of 1974. Journal of Refugee Studies 12 (1): 1–22.