Introduction
This study consists of an empirical exploration of how integration and the experience of inclusion in the country of residence influences the sense of belonging amongst diasporic philanthropists, based on the case of Moroccan diasporans in the Netherlands. It was conducted according to a narrative approach, based on the following research question: ‘How does the experience of the country of residence by diasporic philanthropists influence their sense of belonging and practice of philanthropy?’.
The investigation in this study focuses specifically on the individual motives of Moroccan diasporans living in the Netherlands and performing philanthropy in Morocco. It addresses how being included in the country of residence shapes cultural identity, sense of belonging and philanthropy. When the latter is done by diaspora, the literature recommends taking along how diaspora is constituted, which consequences are involved for both the individual and the organizations (Faist, Reference Faist, Faist and Bauböck2010). Such knowledge could help to deepen existing understanding of the motives of diasporic philanthropists within the context of cross-border philanthropy. This is especially the case for philanthropy performed towards the philanthropist’s (imaginary) homeland (Safran, Reference Safran1991). Focussing on the Moroccan diaspora in the Netherlands, this study provides an in-depth empirical analysis of why cross-border diasporic philanthropists give, as viewed from the perspective of a sense of belonging (Rosenburg & McCullough, Reference Rosenberg and McCullough1981). This responds to earlier observations, stating that the act of giving could lead to a deeper understanding of individual motives, while highlighting important mechanisms that could strengthen this understanding (Appe & Oreg, Reference Appe and Oreg2021, p. 1212). This study contributes to knowledge concerning the motives of cross-border diasporic philanthropists by addressing their sense of belonging in two countries.
A focus on individual motives instead of mechanisms can help to explain how diasporic philanthropy (which is the result of individual philanthropic impulses) (Sidel, Reference Sidel2008) could be instrumental for the giver as well. As observed by Brinkerhoff (Reference Brinkerhoff2008) and Werbner (Reference Werbner2002), reasons for supporting the country of origin could include a sense of obligation to those left behind, based on the relatively high income or quality of life obtained in the new location. As a motivator, obligation overlaps with connections to shared identity, history, culture and language (Brinkerhoff, Reference Brinkerhoff2008). This sense of obligation can be manifested in acts of philanthropy, and it may be connected to other motivations, including an emotional longing for the homeland (Flanigan, Reference Flanigan2017). In this respect, philanthropy is regarded as an act of expressing diaspora identity (Flanigan, Reference Flanigan2017), which can be motivated by ethnic and national affinity and accountability (Liberatore, Reference Liberatore2017). It nevertheless remains unclear whether such an expression of identity is relevant to the acceptance of philanthropy by the receivers (the country of origin), by the givers (the country of residence) or by both. This study contributes to existing understandings by explaining relevant expressions of identity by focussing on the sense of belonging amongst individual diasporic philanthropists who feel motivated by bi-cultural identities while also expressing experiences of inclusion and integration in their country of residence. For them, the country of origin is the physical place in which diasporans express the extent to which they are included and integrated in another country.
The term diaspora refers to social groups of migrant origins maintaining and acting in countries other than the countries they originate from. While doing so, diaspora holds strong, material and emotional relations with their countries of origin–which is also referred to as homeland. (Sheffer Reference Sheffer1986, p. 3). Remittances (in the form of money sent directly to family or through intermediary organizations) have emerged as a significant part of international development and service delivery (Brinkerhoff, Reference Brinkerhoff2008).
Diasporic philanthropy is the act of sending private donations back to one’s homeland (Bar Nissim, Reference Bar Nissim2019; Newland et al., Reference Newland, Terrazas and Munster2010). Compared to remittances, diasporic philanthropy takes place in a relatively ‘organized’ manner aimed at a broader audience. Although remittances also take place between intermediary organizations, they are considered transfers from individuals (e.g. migrants) to their own environments in the homeland. Both remittances and diasporic philanthropy entail the transfer of services and resources, including money and knowledge (Flanigan, Reference Flanigan2017).
As suggested by Joseph and colleagues (Reference Joseph, Siu, Buff, Roy, Carter, Bates and Banerjee2012), it is important to avoid the temptation to apply the term diaspora to every different ethnic group in a host country. However, the need to belong to certain group, when being diasporic, is not race nor ethnicity dependent. On the contrary, it is determined by the amount of participation in activities organized by diaspora groups and the amount of self-identification. In other words, through the choice of participating, one belongs and becomes part of a community (Joseph et al. Reference Joseph, Siu, Buff, Roy, Carter, Bates and Banerjee2012, p. 143). Philanthropy towards the homeland is a form of diasporic participation in both the homeland and the country of residence. For some, this is the result of the experience of inclusion and a successful process of integration (Berry, Reference Berry2005). One primary contribution of the current study is that it enhances the general discussion on cross-border diasporic philanthropy (through donations of money and time). Its results broaden existing profiles of philanthropists (Compion et al., Reference Compion, Meijs and Cnaan2022; Handy et al., Reference Handy, Cnaan, Brudney, Ascoli, Meijs and Ranade2000).
This study looks at the Moroccan diaspora in the Netherlands to better understand the connection between the act of cross-border philanthropy and cultural identity. In the case of diasporic philanthropy, the former is often driven primarily by the latter. Existing understandings of cross-border philanthropists are also influenced by spiritual experiences and familial contexts. Due to the importance of migration taken into consideration, this study contributes to the field of migration studies, in that it adopts a contemporary perspective to examine notions of first-generation diaspora concerning whether to leave or to stay. The analysis further considers whether the result of staying continues to influence the sense of belonging amongst diasporans. This study suggests that it does, albeit from the experience of being included and integrated in the country of residence.
Finally, by contributing to the field of migration and identity studies, this study also contributes to civil society studies, with a specific focus on the global South. This is due to the motivations of diasporic philanthropists living in the Netherlands but performing their philanthropy in Morocco. This specific analysis of cross-border diasporic philanthropy could generate important insights concerning the effects of actors from the global North who are active in and feel connected to the global South.
Sociopolitical Engagement Through Philanthropy
Philanthropy has been defined as the private giving or donation of time, goods or valuables (money, security, property) for public purposes (Lehnert, Reference Lehnert1992). Specifically, regarding existing theory on the gift of time, existing theory argues that a new conceptual framework, in which complex and contradicting parts of departure are considered fundamental, is needed (Hustinx et al., Reference Hustinx, Cnaan and Handy2010). In this line of thought, volunteering is considered as a one-dimensional category with any complexity (Hustinx et al., Reference Hustinx, Cnaan and Handy2010). Despite their validity, dominant theories thus represent only one view (in many cases, a Western view). It is important to complement this dominant view with more process-oriented accounts and attempts to ‘de-familiarize’ and ‘enlighten’ the body of knowledge and to broaden the possible points of view by questioning conventional domain assumptions (Van Maanen et al., Reference Van Maanen, Sørensen and Mitchell2007). The current study contributes to this ongoing debate by offering a more diverse definition of philanthropy.
Sociological interest in the systematic study of philanthropy can be traced back to classic questions of social order and social solidarity. In other words, it can be traced to the degree of integration within a society (Durkheim, Reference Durkheim1893). It refers to the kinds of social ties that bind members within a society. The act of giving time is a prime expression of core human values, including altruism, compassion, concern for others, generosity, social responsibility and community spirit (Wuthnow, Reference Wuthnow1991). It is an expression of community, belonging, identity and could lead to valuable contribution of individual and collective integration (Hustinx et al., Reference Hustinx, Cnaan and Handy2010).
When studying the integration process, of both the individual and the collective, through which (ethnic and cultural) identity is formed within the Moroccan diaspora in Western Europe, this study argues that migration plays an important role in the formation process of identity.
While it may be easy to assume that the nature of identity becomes heightened because of migration, potential large social and cultural differences between immigrant and native populations can manifest themselves in clear and strong boundaries (Heelsum & Koomen, Reference van Heelsum and Koomen2016). Due to an understanding of ‘groupness’ in society, migration has historically been regarded as one of the prime driving forces in the formation of ethnic groups (Weber, Reference Weber1978). However, definitions of ethnic identity demonstrate that the importance of migration contexts should not be overestimated (Heelsum and Koomen, Reference van Heelsum and Koomen2016). Any examination of ethnic identity should consider both the context in the country to which the group has migrated and that of the country from which they have migrated. Both countries of origin and of residence continue to play an important role in the analyses of diaspora ethnic identity. Especially when diaspora groups don’t cut ties with their country of origin (Ennaji, Reference Ennaji2018). However, in these analyses, the country of origin should not be treated as homogenous, as it offers a large amount of cultural diversity (Haleber, Reference Haleber1990). Yet, one does not become a migrant the moment the plane lands in the country in which one is planning to continue its life. It is therefore striking that only a few studies take the pre-migration period and the emotional baggage, that migrants carry with them to a new country, into consideration when studying migration and migrant groups (Tabor & Milfont, Reference Tabor and Milfont2011).
When examining any process of migration, it is important to consider why people leave their countries (along with their jobs and familiar surroundings), as well as how they experience their migration. It is important to consider the experiences of those performing the move between two (or more) countries, as well as those of their descendants (Tabor & Milfont, Reference Tabor and Milfont2011). Actual relocation from one country to another marks the end of the action stage, which is the final stage of the process by which migrants are physically separated from the country of origin. This stage is characterized by acculturation, a process that results from intercultural contact (Berry, Reference Berry2005; Tabor & Milfont, Reference Tabor and Milfont2011). The action stage has been more thoroughly researched by psychologists than other stages of migration have. The two most important aspects that migrants face in the process of acculturation are psychological adjustment and sociocultural adaptation (Ward and Kennedy, Reference Ward, Bochner and Furnham2001). Within the new cultural context, migrants make choices about how they will cope in a society that is different from their own. The choices involve a relative preference for maintaining their own culture and cultural identity (cultural maintenance) (Berry, Reference Berry1989, Reference Berry2005).
Berry’s theory of acculturation identifies four distinct acculturation strategies: integration, segregation, assimilation and marginalization. These strategies depend on the ways in which migrants relate to the culture of origin relative to the culture of settlement (Berry, Reference Berry1989, Reference Berry2005). In an early study involving a small sample of return migrants, Dashefsky and colleagues (Reference Dashefsky, DeAmicis, Laserwitz and Tabory1992) identify ‘cross-pressures’ for either staying or returning. The primary factors identified by their participants were family reunification (social networks) and adjustment problems on the part of family members (psychosocial adjustment). In general, a combination of social, psychological and economic factors apparently influences the decision to leave or stay (Constant & Massey, Reference Constant and Massey2003). To date, researchers have not systematically examined the processes and stages that migrants experience before departing the country of origin and after arriving in the new country of residence (Tabor & Milfont, Reference Tabor and Milfont2011), nor have they addressed the effects of a supposed positive experience of the country of residence on a migrant’s relationship with the country of origin. This constitutes an important gap in existing theory, as well as in the body of empirical literature, to which this study aims to contribute.
A Brief Demonstration of the Migration History in the Dutch–Moroccan Context
Europe’s need for cheap labour after the Second World War was an important driver of post-war migration from Morocco. Another decisive factor was the signing of a series of labour treaties between Morocco and European states during the 1950s and 1960s (Ouacha, Reference Ouacha, Ouacha and Meijs2021). It is also important to specify the regions from which diasporic groups primarily originate. Approximately 375,000 of the 400,000 Moroccan migrants in the Netherlands are originally from the Rif mountains (Bouras, Reference Bouras2012). Many first-generation migrants kept their initial plans of returning to the homeland alive. The socio-economic situation in Morocco remained unchanged, however, resulting in family reunification and second generations finding their way into daily life in Europe (Bouras, Reference Bouras2012).
An entire generation grew up in the European continent, while being told by their home base that plans remained in Morocco (Ouacha, Reference Ouacha, Ouacha and Meijs2021). These plans would never materialize. The sentiment was also kept alive in several ways within the private sphere. Examples include the dominant language spoken in the home (either Arabic or Amazigh), the social communities of which migrants and their children became part, annual family vacations to Morocco and various acts of giving by older generations, and later generations that followed (Ennaji, 20,218). These factors could have a major impact at both the individual and collective levels. They are thus likely to affect the ways in which Moroccan diasporic philanthropists in the Netherlands experience their identity as philanthropists, citizens of two cultures and the way they engage with these through their giving that is mostly inspired by parents and grandparents, thus, resulting in a sense of belonging that remains rooted in Morocco.
Diaspora Mechanisms, Motivations and the Sense of Belonging
Existing literature on diaspora giving tends to focus on mechanisms that offer deeper insights in the transaction of philanthropic resources to the homeland and the motives behind these transfers (Appe & Oreg, Reference Appe and Oreg2021). Diasporan philanthropic organizations are described and referred to as intermediary organizations, which act as mechanisms for forms of diasporic philanthropy that involve ethnic and professional organizations. It also includes neighbourhood and regional associations, hometown associations, faith-based and other types of foundations (Brinkerhoff, Reference Brinkerhoff2008; Newland et al., Reference Newland, Terrazas and Munster2010; Sidel, Reference Sidel2008). In addition, diaspora philanthropic motives can emotional and pragmatic (Appe & Oreg, Reference Appe and Oreg2021).
Diaspora philanthropists can have religious motivations (Brinkerhoff, Reference Brinkerhoff2008; Liberatore, Reference Liberatore2017). Whereas the giving behaviour of older generations plays an important role for younger generations, similar motivation exists through the apprehension of religion and perception of faith in philanthropy (May, Reference May2013). Whereas the motivations noted above might be tied to emotional reasoning, previous studies have identified several pragmatic reasons for giving. One is that diasporans give to their homelands for reasons relating to status as both a good citizen and religious person (Sidel, Reference Sidel2008). They are likely to be recognized and praised for their acts of giving. Second, for professionals who give and make their donations public, such philanthropy might simply be ‘good for business’, as their giving allows them to garner trust in the community and generate further business opportunities (Ghorashi & Boersma, Reference Ghorashi and Boersma2009). A third group of motivations relate to the desire to transfer knowledge (Sidel, Reference Sidel2008), including a skillsets, cultural competencies and intermediary roles that diaspora communities often become with time (Brinkerhoff, Reference Brinkerhoff2008). A fourth group of motivations relate to the aim to be, and remain, a religious person who is both on the giving end (philanthropy organization, community, etc.) and on the receiving end (in the homeland) considered as pious (May, Reference May2013).
Through time, engagement of diaspora groups through philanthropy has become interrelated with community-building and sociopolitical engagement. Several forms of the latter emerged and created a visible influence in collective diaspora identity (Babis, Reference Babis2016). The latter process stems from the search for a collective sense of belonging, which can be understood according to several definitions. Proposed by Rosenberg and McCullough (Reference Rosenberg and McCullough1981), one definition refers to a general feeling of connectedness that is important or matters to others. To this understanding, the idea of belonging stemming from Maslow’s (Reference Maslow1968) hierarchy of needs, indicates belongingness which, in its essence, refers to the growth and existence of an individual within a community (Drezner & Pizomony, Reference Drezner and Pizmony-Levy2021).
To understand the sense of belonging within the context of diasporic and bi-cultural philanthropy, Strayhorn’s (Reference Strayhorn2008) notion explains that the feeling like one belongs, dwells on both cognitive and affective elements of an individual. The position or social role of the individual is examined in relation to the group which results in an emotional and behavioural response. The representation of the individual by that group implicates the position from which the individual may act, along with the motive it may have (Hall, Reference Hall2015). We can therefore approach the sense of belonging in diasporic and bi-cultural philanthropy as a diasporic motive and aim to achieve. However, belonging can be considered a place that is disrupted by physical movement (Brah, Reference Brah2005), which again highlights the importance of the historical process of migration and diasporic existence.
When adding up all conditions existing theory expose on diaspora philanthropy, there is a connection between migration histories, religion, intergenerational cultural norms and values in the context of giving, ethnic and cultural identity, and diaspora’ socialization in the country of residence. This study demonstrates how all these facets can merge resulting in a specific profile of the diaspora philanthropist.
Methodology
Although the individual was central in the collection of data, the study also addresses the diasporic philanthropy organizations from which individuals are active in the homeland. These organizations were included in the study through the individual diasporic philanthropists whose motives were analysed. Qualitative data were collected through in-depth, semi-structured interviews and observations conducted between April 2021 and April 2022. The interviews were held with 30 philanthropists (18 women and 12 men) who are active in several diasporic philanthropy organizations. Four of these philanthropists were interviewed twice, due to their leading roles within their organizations and philanthropic projects.
An interval of two months elapsed between the first and second interviews. The sample used in this study is a sub-sample of a larger database including information from 150 diasporic philanthropists living in the Netherlands and performing their philanthropy in Morocco. The larger dataset was collected by the first author, through prior research of seven years to obtain the degree of doctor (PhD). The sub-sample used in this study consists of participants indicating overall positive references to the Netherlands as the country of residence, as well as some extent of inclusion. The experiences of 40 other participants from the larger dataset who did not report feeling such inclusion are addressed in a separate study. This is because including negative experiences in a separate study emphasizes that diasporic philanthropy does not universally lead to home-country identity acculturation.
These philanthropists were active both online and offline. Due to the COVID-19 restrictions in the Netherlands, 75% of the interviews were held online through ZOOM, and 25% were held in person, taking social distancing rules into account. The overall group of participants can be divided in two groups: second-generation and third-generation diasporans. More specifically, second-generation respondents were born in the Netherlands to parents who had migrated from Morocco in the 1970s or 1980s. Third-generation respondents were also born in the Netherlands, but it was their grandparents who had migrated from Morocco. The parents of the latter group had either been born in Morocco and migrated at a young age or had been born in the Netherlands to parents who had migrated before the 1970s. As discussed in the results section, however, neither generation nor gender had much influence on the experience of searching for a sense of belonging.
Given that all participants were members of a diaspora, they were also asked about their long-term philanthropic aims and goals. This was done by addressing future generations and whether they would promote the act of philanthropy as an important value. All interviews were recorded, transcribed and analysed. Interviews were conducted in Dutch, Arabic and Tamazight. And the transcriptions were translated into English. Given that the interviewees had also participated in our previous studies, a certain level of familiarity existed, which resulted in sustained participation in this study. Such stable relationships enhance the quality of the data collected, despite the limitations imposed on social scientific research during the pandemic (Bania & Dubey, Reference Bania and Dubey2020).
The youngest participant was 25 years old, and the oldest was 45. All participants had roots in the Rif Mountains, which are in the northern part of Morocco, and all performed their philanthropy in addition to full-time or part-time employment in several fields (e.g. financial services, academia, governance, art), with the exception of a few participants who were unemployed.
The following are several examples of questions posed to the participants. ‘What leads you to give to a certain recipient in Morocco?’ ‘If applicable, what leads you not to give to recipients in the Netherlands?’ ‘How do you feel after completing such a transaction, or when participating in a collective action to support the homeland (Morocco)?’.
After transcribing all interviews, the first author coded the interviews, using literary codes to organize the categories, which were based on terms or dictions frequently used by the participants (e.g. motivation, grateful, inclusion). It is at this point that the narrative approach becomes clearer.
When asked about their main motives for giving to Morocco, participants often cited faith-based, Islamic reasons. Regarding the ends to which they intended their philanthropy to lead—aside from a continuous connection to the homeland—participants’ answers could be coded into one of two sub-motives: inclusion or change.
When change was given as a second motive (i.e. as a sub-motive to the main motive), participants were asked to indicate the type of change they wished to achieve. In their answers, they mentioned many examples within the social context of the homeland (e.g. better education; equal rights for men and women and between urban and rural areas; local/regional economic growth). These sub-motives were therefore framed within the over-arching category of ‘(realizing) social change’.
It is important to note that, during the process of conducting and analysing the interviews, it became clear that both the main motives and sub-motives were always situated in the country of origin (i.e. Morocco), even if the Netherlands or another location in Western Europe was mentioned as an example of how equality or equity should be realized.
In the following section, I elaborate further on how these layers form the theoretical base for a deeper understanding of the emergence of a sense of belonging in the cross-border philanthropy of diasporans.
Results
The central question of this study concerns how the experience of being included in the country of residence engages with diasporic philanthropy and the sense of belonging amongst diasporic philanthropists.
All participants in this study had been raised to regard the performance of philanthropy as a faith-based, Islamic value. The data reveal no significant differences in the ways diasporic male and female philanthropists performed philanthropy. Gender was therefore excluded as a variable. All participants, male and female, regarded it as ‘normal’ that their parents and grandparents had advanced the same religious, Islamic perspective. Participants often described this collective inheritance from the home base as a part of their upbringing, regardless of the generation to which they belonged. Throughout the data, participants constantly linked faith-based giving to philanthropy. Regardless of age or generation, participants consistently referred to their religious upbringing within the private sphere as a motive for their philanthropy.
Faith-based Philanthropy in a Place of Worship
As remarked by R01, a female second-generation diasporan who had been active in both Morocco and the Netherlands for five years:
I remember collecting money in the mosque after Friday prayer as a teenager. I was expected by my parents and the local community in general to join my mother. I often did this when I didn’t have class on Friday afternoon. The lady who takes care of our side of the mosque [where women pray separately from men] always gave me this plastic bag. I was asked to stand next to the door and ask women who were leaving the mosque to donate money. I don’t remember anyone not throwing some coins in the bag, and the money was for the widows in our village in Morocco.
Another participant (male, second generation), R04, referred to the Quran and added his interpretation to a specific phrase:
In phrase 215 of Study two ‘Al-Baqarah – The Cow’, God told the prophet Muhammed: ‘When they ask you as to what they should spend, say: “whatever good you spend should be for parents, close ones [e.g. relatives], kinsmen, orphans, the needy and the wayfarer; and whatever good you do, God is all-aware of it”’. I think God refers to close ones as the ones close to us who are really struggling. And if I must decide who those people are, I automatically think of people I know in our village in Morocco.
He continued:
I support [financially] my parents, together with my siblings. This phrase also speaks about parents, or the ones who raised you. And I really think that’s important. It is because of them that we get to live here and know little struggle. Life would have been different if they hadn’t migrated, so we owe that to them. But we also owe it to them to embody the way they raised us. So, I give zakat every few months, and sometimes I just give the money to my mother and tell her to send it to people who need it. I consider the latter as zakat too.
Intergeneration philanthropy: the same lineage, the same motive?
Both R01 and R04 stated that their philanthropy was rooted in remittances made by first-generation migrants. To draw the line forward into the present, however, we also examined motives other than the inspiration gained through the act of giving by the first generations. During one interview, R05 (female, third generation) remained very transparent regarding this issue. Her grandparents had been amongst the very first Moroccan migrants to arrive in the Netherlands in the late 1950s.
When my little brother passed away four years ago, right after my divorce, it really forced me to reflect upon life and what I want to contribute to humanity. I didn’t know who I was anymore. One of my friends was volunteering in this organization, so I was able to join her on a trip to Morocco. I spoke with a few of the women working in an atelier, and it made me aware of my privileges here in Europe. But because they were Moroccan too, I really felt a connection. This led me join the organization and now, years later, to lead the project.
When I asked R08 (female, second generation) if joining the organization had also led her to question her personal identity, she replied:
No, but I think I need more time for that. Yes, I feel a bond because they’re Moroccan, but I do feel like I also belong in the Netherlands. A Moroccan-Dutchie, as they say. I don’t think I belong in any [geographic] place. Maybe I belong in two. I don’t know; time will tell. For now, the Netherlands is my home.
A younger male participant (third generation), R04, responded:
I’m Moroccan, but I’m also very proud to have a Dutch passport and dual citizenship. Sure, it can be difficult sometimes, because you can feel the force of having to choose between the two countries. But I wouldn’t be able to do that. I do believe I have a responsibility towards Morocco and its development. Because my father didn’t leave without reason. As a medical doctor, I feel this urge to help the country improve its healthcare system, and I hope to do that by continuing my medical aid as a philanthropist.
Two Cultural Identities, One-Dimensional Gift
The personal search for an answer to the question of belonging was mentioned in every interview conducted for this study, and all participants reported experiencing biculturalism. They nevertheless differed in terms of how they used biculturalism as a motive for their philanthropy. More specifically, respondents who expressed a desire to realize social change followed up with the perspectives held by people in the country of origin, often with positive reference to the country of residence. For example, the friend to whom R05 referred in the quotation above, R13 (female, second generation) explained:
I perform philanthropy in Morocco because there are people who really need it. And I just didn’t see the same type of poverty elsewhere in the world as I have seen in Morocco. I can’t enjoy my time there [during family vacations] if I know that, somewhere close by, some people are struggling to survive. So, by giving them what they need, I hope to make life easier for them. Because my life is easy in the Netherlands as well.
Another respondent, R17 (male, second generation), added:
The best way to help people, is to teach them how to fish. Instead of constantly feeding them. […] That is our responsibility [as diasporans].
When asked whether he felt that his philanthropy contributed to his sense of belonging, R17 (male, second generation) added:
Yes, but in a bi-cultural way. I belong here [in the Netherlands], but I also hold a feeling of social responsibility there [in Morocco]. We should share our knowledge on how to improve society with the ones in that same field [of improvement] there [in Morocco].
The quotations included above reflect slight differences. Second-generation and third-generation recipients reported experiencing life in the Netherlands as ‘home’, ‘wealthy’ and ‘privileged’. They also seemed to regard the Netherlands as one end of a two-ended imagination of a place of belonging, with the homeland at the other end. The country of residence is described as a space in which one can reflect on the quality of life. At the same time, the participants recognized a desire for social change in the homeland, again based on their positive experiences about the country of residence. Together, these positive experiences and the desire for a positive collective outcome for the recipients in the homeland might reflect a constant search for belonging.
Discussion
As argued by Lehner and colleagues (Reference Lehner, Mattes and van Breugel2021), rather than being forced to cope with all their contemporaries, diaspora philanthropists describe a process of choosing the ‘bubbles’ to which they aim to belong. This element of choice and the companionship of belonging is an important process that philanthropists have described in previous studies, as they did in this study. Diaspora philanthropists have reported feeling free to make their own choices, strengthened by their cross-border giving. More specifically, they regard their philanthropy as their own deliberate decision, as well as an outcome and further extension of their freedom.
As demonstrated in the result section, our participants stated the opposite, in case of the latter, however, pointing to the important recurring example of first-generation migrants. Not donating, giving, gifting or being involved in any other form of philanthropy was simply out of question nor was there desire not to give. Even though none of the respondents explicitly referred to any obligation (to perform philanthropy) emerging from their parents, this assumption was shared by all participants and was explicitly mentioned in every interview. It would be fair to conclude that this reflects a lack of freedom, which stands in direct contrast to the freedom observed by Lehner and colleagues (Reference Lehner, Mattes and van Breugel2021). If philanthropy is performed from the assumption that it is something that should be done, it would be logical to question whether diasporic philanthropists would perform this act independently if the assumption turned out to be false.
Returning to the previously mentioned model developed by Berry (Reference Berry1989), which specifies four distinct acculturation strategies (i.e. integration, segregation, assimilation and marginalization), the relationship of individual migrants with their culture of origin and the culture of their country of residence influences the acculturation strategies that they will embody (Berry, Reference Berry1989, Reference Berry2005). This is especially the case when these strategies are embodied within the context of diaspora organizations that bring together social, cultural and spiritual environments. Such processes of acculturation could have the effect of strengthening and therefore further shaping collective identity (Senkman, Reference Senkman, Roniger and Sznajder1988). This study specifically focuses on the first acculturation strategy (i.e. integration), as the process towards the act of migration, and migration itself, can lead to enormous challenges of identity and requirements of evaluation of the basis and the definition, both for recent and long-term migrants (Babis, Reference Babis2016). This is why diaspora organizations serve as a physical place for the construction of such identity-definition and fundaments. This is done through festivals, cultural customs and norms from the country of origin (Babis, Reference Babis2016). Diasporic philanthropic organizations serve a similar function for individuals. It is a place where one seeks and finds both a collective and individual diaspora identity.
The observations above may suggest a new profile of a cross-border diasporic philanthropist who is driven by faith (Islam), who seeks a sense of spiritual (or other form of) belonging through philanthropy and who has the aim to create social change in the country of origin from a position of integration and a sense of political inclusion in the country of residence. The latter is considered as the proper example of a civil, inclusive, society. This profile of cross-border philanthropists follows Compion and colleagues (Reference Compion, Meijs and Cnaan2022), who state that motives for performing philanthropy can be divided into three parts: (1) a desire to do good for the community (altruistic motive), (2) a desire to gain work-related experience to enhance a résumé (utilitarian motive) and (3) the desire to meet new people (social motive) (Compion et al., Reference Compion, Meijs and Cnaan2022; McCabe et al., Reference McCabe, White and Obst2007; Smith et al., Reference Smith, Holmes, Haski-Leventhal, Cnaan, Handy and Brudney2010). This study suggests a fourth motive to add to this list: (4) an identity performance, as an act of what it means to be a ‘good’ Dutch–Moroccan individual. This performance is done to show and let others identify one’s cultural identity and philanthropic motive created by such.
In addition to faith-based motives related to a sense of belonging, diasporic philanthropists are driven by a bi-valent strategy. More specifically, the strategy applied to achieve the intended objective can be recognized in two ways. Diasporic philanthropists may realize their objectives either through a faith-based approach or from a sense of belonging, albeit from a place of inclusion. For these philanthropists, the second objective is to deepen their experience of inclusion in Dutch society and to send a positive message about life in the Netherlands. Considering these findings, the experience of giving from a place of segregation and exclusion—which is the opposite to the central experience addressed in this study—could ostensibly be regarded as another possible motive in diaspora philanthropy.
The popular motive expressed by participants in this study highlights the constant influence of first-generation migrants on their philanthropy along the lines of what Appe and Oreg (Reference Appe and Oreg2021) describe as the importance of ‘home’ within the context of diasporic philanthropy. For diaspora, the saying ‘charity begins at home’ and ‘home’ are metaphorical places and causes that help understand why people give internationally (Appe & Oreg, Reference Appe and Oreg2021). This might also have been the case in the current study (i.e. why diasporic philanthropists give to the homeland/country of origin). ‘Home’ embodies a symbol for sorts of cases and identities; personal, emotional, ideological and spiritual (Appe & Oreg, Reference Appe and Oreg2021). The paradoxical link between the habit of giving that started at home and that is also performed towards the homeland raises questions concerning who is serving whom. This calls for further research.
Finally, most participants in this study admitted that their biculturalism had created a collective question concerning to where and to whom diasporans belong. Such questions demand further research on the importance of geography and identity. The current study lays a foundation for such research by explaining how the act of cross-border philanthropy can provide a platform within which members of a diaspora continue to grapple with this question.
Conclusion
This study provides an empirical analysis of the motives of second-generation and third-generation diasporic philanthropists. More specifically, it analyses how these motives influence the sense of belonging amongst these philanthropists. The results reveal a double-layered motive: to achieve social change in the country of origin (from a place of inclusion) while also expressing the extent of integration in the country of residence. When further analysing the causes and effects of such motives, the results of this study suggest that researchers should take the regional history of the diasporans’ country of origin into consideration. In the case addressed in this study, the wide geographic diversity and historical events of Morocco have influenced patterns of migration and processes of integration (De Haas, Reference De Haas2003). Interviews indicate a possible relationship between the political experiences of individuals in the country of residence, their sense of belonging and the objective of their philanthropy. In this study, the context of migration is narrowed to that of migration between Morocco and the Netherlands in the 1950s and 1960s.
The conclusions of this study are contrary to those reported by Ley and Kobayashi (Reference Ley and Kobayashi2005), who state that the experience of marginalization can confront migrants with an ongoing choice of whether to stay or return. This choice can persist, even in the absence of any explicit choice to stay. As noted by De Haas (Reference De Haas2003), the choice not to return to Morocco became a remarkable event as more and more families joined their spouses and parents in the Netherlands. Because these choices were also made with the temporary intention of eventually returning to Morocco, many diasporic philanthropists developed a critical shared soul-searching journey. This journey was reflected in their philanthropy and the causes they were supporting, while simultaneously honouring the place from which they performed their philanthropy.
Declarations
Conflict of interest
All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by the first author. The first draft of the manuscript was written by the first and the second author, and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Open access
