The Identities of Second-Generation Indonesian Diaspora Communities


Indonesian emigrants and their descendants are important actors in developing Indonesia and their new home countries. These diaspora members have advantages such as intercultural and language skills as well as networks for economic activities. Digitalization increases and accelerates the bilateral influence of this group on personal networks, economic contributions, knowledge transfer, and political engagement. This article draws from social identity theory and the culture cycle to explore the sense of belonging of second-generation Indonesian diaspora members in Germany. The aim is to understand how the relationship of the Indonesian diaspora changes due to birth and socialization in Germany and cross-cultural parenting. The findings of this thesis suggest that members of the second-generation Indonesian diaspora have a strong sense of cultural belonging to Indonesia and tend to separate themselves culturally from Germany.

Keywords: social identity, diaspora, sense of belonging, model minority myth, culture and the self, Germany, Indonesia

[1] Kim H. Being ”Other” in Berlin: German Koreans, multiraciality, and diaspora. Journal of Citizenship and Globalisation Studies. 2018;2(1):63–74.

[2] Sauerland U, Yatsushiro K. Das mehrsprachige Klassenzimmer. Über die Mutter- sprachen unserer Schüler. Krifka M, Blaszczak J, Leßmöllmann A et al, editors. Berlin: Springer VS; 2014.

[3] Oktafiani I. The meaning of diasporic identity: A case of Indonesian community overseas. Journal of Indonesian Social Sciences and Humanities. 2019:9(2):147–156.

[4] Muhidin S, Utomo A. Global Indonesian diaspora: How many are there and where are they? Journal of ASEAN Studies. 2015;3:93.

[5] Rutherford J. Identity. Community, culture, difference. London: Lawrence & Wishart; 1990.

[6] Dixon J, Durrheim K. Displacing place-identity: A discursive approach to locating self and other. The British Journal of Social Psychology. 2000;39:27–44.

[7] Kohlmeier M, Torlak E. The impact of immigration on Europe’s societies. Nürnberg: Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge; 2005.

[8] Galinsky AD, Todd AR, Homan AC et al. Maximising the gains and minimising the pains of diversity: A policy perspective. Perspectives on Psychological Science: A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science. 2015;10(6):742–748.

[9] Ariely G. Globalisation, immigration and national identity: How the level of globalisation affects the relations between nationalism, constructive patriotism and attitudes toward immigrants? Group Processes & Intergroup Relations. 2012;15(4):539–557.

[10] Crul M, Lindo F. Culture, structure and beyond. Changing identities and social positions of immigrants and their children. Amsterdam: Het Spinhuis; 1999.

[11] Chen EW-C, Y GJ. Encyclopedia of Asian American issues today. Santa Barbara: Greenwood Press; 2010.

[12] Brubaker R, Cooper F. Beyond ”identity”. Theory and Society. 2000;29(1):1– 47.

[13] Cheryan S, Bodenhausen GV. When positive stereotypes threaten intellectual performance: The psychological hazards of ”model minority” status. Psychological Science. 2000:11(5):399– 402.

[14] Gupta A, Szymanski, DM, Leong, FTL. The ”model minority myth”: Internalised racialism of positive stereotypes as correlates of psychological distress, and attitudes toward help-seeking. Asian American Journal of Psychology. 2011:2(2):101–114.

[15] Kramer EM. Assimilation and the ”model minority”. Westport: Praeger; 2003.

[16] Wu ED. The color of success. Asian Americans and the origins of the model minority. New Jersey, United Stated of America. Course Book (Politics and Society in Twentieth-Century America); 2013.

[17] Gouda F. Dutch culture overseas. Colonial practice in the Netherlands Indies, 1900 - 1942. Sheffield, United Kingdom. Equinox ed; 2008.

[18] van Amersfoort H, van Niekerk M. Immigration as a colonial inheritance: Post-colonial immigrants in the Netherlands, 1945–2002. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies. 2006;32(3):323–346.

[19] Braun V, Clarke V. Successful qualitative research. A practical guide for beginners. Los Angeles, London: SAGE; 2013.

[20] Mayan MJ. Essentials of qualitative inquiry. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press; 2009.

[21] Cohen D, Kitayama S. Handbook of cultural psychology. 2nd ed. New York: Guilford Publications; 2018.

[22] Watson CW, Hendry J. An anthropology of indirect communication. London: Routledge; 2001.

[23] Korac-Kakabadse N, Kouzmin A, Korac-Kakabadse A, Savery L. Low- and high- context communication patterns: Towards mapping cross-cultural encounters. Cross Cultural Management. 2001;8(2):3–24.

[24] Tajfel H. Social identity and intergroup behaviour. Social Science Information. 1974;13(2):65–93.

[25] Tajfel H. Experiments in intergroup discrimination. Scientific American. 1970;223(5):96–102.

[26] Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (2004). The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup Behavior, Political psychology: Key readings, 276–293.

[27] Markus HR, Kitayama S. Cultures and selves: A cycle of mutual constitution. Per- spectives on Psychological Science: A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science. 2010;5(4):420–430.

[28] Markus HR, Kitayama S. Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review. 1991;98(2):224–253.

[29] Cohen D, Kitayama S. Handbook of cultural psychology. 2nd ed. New York: Guilford Publications; 2018.

[30] Butler, KD. Defining diaspora, refining a discourse.
Diaspora. 2001;10(2):189–219.

[31] Hofstede G. Dimensionalising cultures: The hofstede model in context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture. 2011;2(3-26). 0919.1014