International Students’ Self-Identity Abroad

I was invited to the 2017 European Researchers’ Night, funded by Marie Skłodowska-Curie actions (European Commission’s Horizon 2020). The event took place at the “Think Corner” (University of Helsinki). You can watch the Unitube video (I was the first one of the evening). Let me share the gist of the talk. It’s a preliminary interpretative attempt. 

I believe the decision to go abroad is influenced by a “push-pull” factor: something is attracting and something is pushing away from “home”. One of the activating question for the audience was: “Nobody knows you in the host country: new colleagues at work, new friends, new sentimental relationship. How do you present yourself?”. A) Exactly in the same old way: I want to be 110% who I am back at home. B) I change something: I do not want to be exactly the same person. C) I change everything: I want to be a totally different person. 

Once abroad, the Self is separated from the confirming and confining matrix of “home”, it is no longer an emplaced self. In this situation the “actor” is forced and allowed at the same time to present him/herself in a slightly different way. It’s a new stage with a different underpinning story: you cannot play exactly by the same old script. At the same time the young traveller is not socialized to a leading narrative of/for Finland. Thus, in Helsinki you have both the freedom and the possibility (because it’s a well-ordered and functional society) to express yourself. Finland is a mysterious place where you can partially build a new Self-image and play it on the city everyday life stage. A Nordic Self? Of course, I need to think more about this idea.

#MSCAnight #tiedekulma @TutkijoidenYo

Pierluca Birindelli's research explores processes of identity-building in another culture. #MSCAnight #tiedekulma @TutkijoidenYo pic.twitter.com/pYlUAB3V1s

— Helsinki University (@helsinkiuni) September 29, 2017

Methodological and Theoretical Pluralism

Before and after the ESA conference in Athens I presented preliminary findings in two seminars:

– Travel and Cultural Experience: Narratives from North and South Europe, University of Helsinki, Department of Social Research, 23/08/2017.

– From the Grand Tour to the Study Tour: International Students’ Narratives. TCuPS (University of Tampere Research Group for Cultural and Political Sociology), 19/09/2017.

In both occasions I gave an overview of the research path and shared possible theoretical interpretations. I received very interesting and conflicting feedbacks. My guess is that the contrast  stems from  different approaches or paradigms.

A plurality of paradigms has always occupied the field of social science, and at times one paradigm partially prevailed others. When the heuristic potential of a paradigm seemed to supersede others, we assisted to “turns,” whether linguistic, cultural, narrative, etc. Are we facing another turn in the field of social sciences? Alternatively, is it time for the end of all “turns”? Wouldn’t it be more useful, and probably scientifically adequate, to contemplate a pluralism of paradigms? We can take into consideration different objections to theoretical pluralism. The strongest one is “monism”.  The monist objection in its rough version could be so summarized: one of the contending positions is valid and all the rest are wrong, misleading, or unimportant. In a more sophisticated way: alternative approaches are historically valid but currently outmoded, as necessary but transient stages in the evolution of current true belief, or as partially valid positions which need to be incorporated in a more embracing theoretical synthesis. The heart of methodological and theoretical pluralism is instead the belief that two or more divergent positions may be entirely acceptable. Georg Simmel created the first major body of argumentation to support theoretical pluralism in the social sciences. The essence of Simmel’s metatheory consists in his refusal of a definitive synthesis.

“There can be no unification based on objective content, but only one achieved by a subject who can regard both positions. By sensing the reverberations of spiritual existence in the distance opened up by these opposites, the soul grows, despite, indeed, because of, the fact that it does not decide in favor of one of the parties” (Simmel, 1907/1991, 181).

Simmel, G.  (1907/1991) Schopenhauer and Nietzsche. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.

Italian President Sergio Mattarella visits Finland

Italian President Sergio Mattarella (photo by Francesco Ammendola)

The President of the Italian Republic Sergio Mattarella was in Helsinki for a three-day official state visit to Finland. On Tuesday, September 26, I was invited by the Italian Ambassador Gabriele Altana and Mrs Alessandra Magalotti to a reception hosted at  the official residence of the Italian Ambassador. Here, as a representative of the Italian community in Finland, I had the great honour to meet our President Sergio Mattarella. 

The state visit was hosted by Sauli Niinistö, President of the Republic of Finland. The agenda included a bilateral discussion between the presidents. Sergio Mattarella expressed his pleasure of making a state visit to Finland when the country is celebrating its 100 years of independence. Themes of the discussion included migration, security policies and climate issues.

Italian President Sergio Mattarella and Ambassador Gabriele Altana

Our President spoke about the broad convergence of Finland and Italy on global issues and highlighted the longstanding cultural relations between the two countries, which constitute a bond of deep friendship between Finnish and Italian people. You can find here the video. During his visit, President Mattarella met also the Speaker of the Finnish Parliament Maria Lohela and Prime Minister Juha Sipilä. Themes of the meetings included political and economic relations between Finland and Italy and other current international questions.