Abstract
Aims and objectives:
This study explores how three first-generation Chinese immigrants manipulated Chinese as a heritage language (CHL) as part of their transnational habitus and capital to defuse the impact of structural constrains on their economic wellbeing in Australia.
Methodology:
The paper is part of a larger research project which uses ethnographic case study within Bourdieu’s theory of practice to examine how transnational habitus and capital shaped the participants’ economic life trajectories.
Data and analysis:
Data were collected through semi-structured interviews to document the participants’ reflective discourses about their occupational trajectories. We use thematic analysis as the key method to analyze the audio-recorded and transcribed data.
Findings and conclusions:
The findings demonstrate the participants’ diverse adaptation trajectories as they manipulated CHL as transnational habitus in distinct but flexible ways to negotiate gainful work for socioeconomic mobility. Based on these stories, we make a case for viewing heritage languages (HLs) as mediating resources for immigrants’ transnational habitus and capital in response to the demand for social integration. We argue that HLs deserve more attention as part of the resources for first-generation immigrants’ economic integration. Also, we suggest a shift from a deep-seated monolingual habitus toward a multilingual habitus that engenders multidimensional local spaces where linguistic minority communities are encouraged to maintain their HLs and exert agency to use glocalized HL habitus and capital to pursue their economic futures.
Originality:
Deploying a qualitative approach, the study makes both theoretical and empirical contribution to existing scholarship by validating the economic significance of CHL in Australia.
Significance/implications:
This article introduces a fresh perspective to investigate language and migration studies. The findings provide insights for educators, students, and their parents to revamp the rationale for maintaining HLs and evidence for policymakers for viewing bilingualism as resource for migrants and the migrant society.
Keywords
Introduction
The unprecedented rate of transnational migration in a globalized world has made immigrant integration a hot topic for policy and research. Integration is generally understood as the dynamic interaction between immigrants and the receiving society at individual, institutional and social levels, taking into account socioeconomic, cultural and legal dimensions (Penninx, 2019). The present article prioritizes the socioeconomic dimension of integration through linguistic pathways, while also acknowledging the other aspects.
Transnational migrants often confront vulnerability and are inflicted by the “violence of uncertainty” (Grace et al., 2018) imposed by systematic and structural factors in the host society. On one hand, their prior resources and skills acquired in their countries of origin are usually devalued under such conditions. On the other hand, they often become disconnected from vital resources and services in the host society, injecting instability into their socioeconomic survival and wellbeing. The subordinate status of migrants is at least in part associated with the language hierarchy in the structured social fields that prioritizes the mainstream language(s) while undervaluing other languages including heritage languages (HLs). Nevertheless, HLs are found to be an integral element of the social structure of migrant societies, contributing to migrants’ linguistic repertoires and their socioeconomic and sociocultural lives. The distinct HL-based habitus and capital can add to the structure and volume of the host society’s economy either by increasing the demand for HL-specific goods and services or by creating new methods of production and reproduction (Grin, 2003). Examining connections between HLs and immigrants’ economic adaptation may enable critical understanding of the interactions between language practices and the underlying power relations within the host society. However, the value of HLs for migrants’ socioeconomic wellbeing has traditionally been underappreciated. Seeking to address this research gap, the present study focuses on immigrant integration from a sociolinguistic perspective and examines the role of Chinese as a heritage language (CHL) in immigrants’ socioeconomic adaptation in Australia.
As a typical migrant society with a complex linguistic demography, Australia provides a fertile ground for the present study. Over seven million people in Australia were born overseas, representing 27.6% of the population (Australian Bureau of Statistics [ABS], 2021). However, the Australian language hierarchy prioritizes English at the expense of HLs. For example, although Chinese (mainly Mandarin and Cantonese) is the most commonly spoken language other than English in Australia, representing 3.9% of the population (ABS, 2021), the dominance of the monolingual mind-set and the assimilationist orientation aggravate language inequality and devalue capital and habitus associated with CHL. In confronting systematic oppressions associated with language and other social structures, Chinese migrants, like migrants from other parts of the world, draw upon heterogenous resources to adapt to the host society. Given the demographic and socioeconomic significance of the Chinese diaspora, the economic value of CHL in Chinese migrants’ economic adjustment is worthy of academic scrutiny.
The current study adopts sociological and sociolinguistic approaches to investigate how Chinese Australians use CHL to navigate their adaptation trajectories, and how their adaptation experiences are shaped by prior capitals in a condition of unequal power relations within and beyond the linguistic domain. In addition, recognizing that transnational migrants tend to forge and sustain multiple social relations that link together their country of origin and settlement (Schiller et al., 1992), we consider transnationalism constituting a significant focus of the current study. The concept is employed to describe a social phenomenon where migrants establish and maintain interconnected social networks that transcend geographical, cultural, and political boundaries (Schiller et al., 1992). Drawing upon Bourdieu’s theory of practice that brings together capital, habitus, and field, we seek to establish HLs as essential elements in migrants’ transnational habitus and capital derived from their countries of origin and destination. The study uses three first-generation Chinese migrants as illustrative cases to probe into the economic role of CHL in shaping their post-migration socioeconomic adaptation trajectories. Two research questions are put forward to guide the study: (1) What are the Chinese migrants’ agentive practices of using CHL to mediate transnational habitus and capital contributing to their socioeconomic adaptation in Australia? (2) In what ways are these practices informed by their language ideologies in a hierarchical social structure?
Bourdieu’s habitus-field-capital framework
In Bourdieu’s social practice theory, habitus, capital and field are three inter-dependent and co-constructed “thinking tools” that provide a full account of social practice. For Bourdieu, social actors’ actions in a field are rooted in their dispositions (habitus), shaped by the capitals accessible to them, and informed by their understanding of the illusio of that field. The fundamental assumption in Bourdieu’s theoretical trilogy is based on capital movements and conversions through field (Friedman, 2015). The field is a structured social arena within which social practices take place; every field is governed by a particular illusio, meaning rules/mechanisms (Wacquant & Bourdieu, 1992) or “a set of power relations whereby social agents are imposed willy-nilly” (Yang, 2014, p. 1528). Capital exists in economic, social, cultural, and symbolic forms which are mutually convertible at different exchange rates (Bourdieu, 1986). Each type of capital functions to confer value and power (Huot, 2017). The volume and composition of capitals in an actor’s or a class of actors’ possession largely determine the specific chances of their succeeding in “the field of the possibilities” (Bourdieu, 1984, p. 110). The actors’ pre-reflexive aspirations and expectations, which collectively generate differentiated social practices, induce different forms of realization (Bourdieu, 1987, 1990) and thus define actors’ respective positions and actions in the field. Defined as a system of enduring and transposable schemes of perception, understanding and action (Wacquant, 2018), habitus is largely inculcated through a prolonged process of internalization of the social structure in terms of the illusio of the field. Habitus functions as both “structured structure” and “structuring structure” (Yang, 2014) to enable actors to act intentionally without intention (Bourdieu, 1990). However, as habitual practices are limited in diversity (Bourdieu, 1990) due to the historically and socially situated conditions of their production, a particular habitus may not be appreciated in all fields of practice. In addition, habitus intertwines with capital by reflecting “actors’ ways of being in a field that facilitate appreciation of the value of their capitals” (Joy et al., 2020, p. 2547) and, on some occasions, becomes a capital in the specific field where it is valued and recognized. The capability of habitus to self-transform into capital shapes the extent to which one’s dispositions of being, doing, and thinking are associated with the very habitus (Mu, 2013). Despite being criticized as structuralist determinism for (over)emphasizing the impact of structural constraints on actors’ agency (e.g., Faber, 2017; Threadgold, 2018), Bourdieu’s account also highlights the dynamic nature of social practices and acknowledges how new possibilities can be produced by the interaction between agency and structure. In Bourdieu’s framework, the three pillars and their relations are neither stable nor uncontested. One’s engagement in a field operating under its illusio shapes one’s habitus, capital, and thus practices, which in turn reproduce the field (Crossley, 2001). For instance, both habitus and capital have a situated nature, meaning that both the dispositional architecture and the value of capital are subject to change in a new context and experience (Bourdieu, 2000). In response to a potential habitus-field disjuncture in unfamiliar fields that devalue their capitals, actors may transform or renew their primary habitus (Oliver & O’Reilly, 2010) to augment their economic capital to reverse their disadvantage in the new structure. With respect to capital, a particular type of resources can be endowed with different values (Moore, 2008) and converted into capital at different rates depending upon whether and/or to what extent such resources are valued in specific fields.
Transnational habitus and capital as a response to integration requirements
The dynamic mechanism within Bourdieu’s theory provides a foundation for investigating how transnational migrants who often face adverse situations adjust their habitus and capital for economic wellbeing in the host society. Specifically, transnational migration engenders a multiplicity of transnational exchanges and entails transnational habitus and capital that link the societies of current residence and origin in economic, sociocultural and political fields to attenuate pressures posed by migration from one social order to another. Engaging with transnationalism can be productive, as it can capture the “the dialogic dimension of the migrants” transnational ways of being and belonging’ as well as “the various orientations within a local-cosmopolitan continuum in which local and global trends are strongly intertwined and overstep home- and host-countries’ horizons” (Nedelcu, 2012, p. 1353). Migration research has employed Bourdieusian concepts of habitus and capital from a transnational perspective to explain the ways in which migrants’ previously cultivated habitus and capital are downgraded in the host society but are utilized by migrants to accumulate and mobilize capitals. This research documents devaluation and deficiency of migrants’ prior habitus and capital, including their language repertoires in the host society (Zschomler, 2019). For example, Erel (2016) observed that gendered and racist stereotypes invalidated the embodied cultural capital of female migrants and hampered their opportunity to secure skilled employment and career advancement. However, Joy et al. (2020) proposed that engaging in transnational fields may mediate the value change of migrants’ capitals in positive ways, arguing that migrants’ capitals may be less devalued or even enhanced by engaging with transnational fields that facilitate migration-relevant capital accumulation and mobilization.
Language as capital and habitus mediated by power relations
For Bourdieu, language is an embodied cultural capital convertible to other forms of capital, thus a transubstantiated type of economic capital, and a representation of social power relations; its exchange rate to other capitals is embedded in the structure of the field or “linguistic markets” (Bourdieu, 1977). The hierarchies within a linguistic market form a hierarchical spectrum along which different languages are ascribed different values (Bourdieu, 1989). Depending upon the context, language serves either as a barrier or an enabler of occupational engagement (Huot et al., 2020). Combining these views, Bourdieu’s trilogy bridges dialectical relationships between language, economy and social structure. In migrant societies, language constitutes “a diaspora space of exclusion and an on-going site of struggle” (Creese, 2011, p. 33). Interacting with other factors such as race, the language hierarchy, in which HLs and the mainstream language are ascribed different linguistic capital values in the linguistic field, serves to diminish the economic power of migrants’ HLs endowing only sociocultural values to them. While fluency in the dominant language as a valuable form of linguistic capital facilitating migrants’ economic integration has been widely acknowledged (e.g., Chiswick & Miller, 2007; Grenier, 2021; Grin, 2003; Piller et al., 2024), the economic role of HLs in this process remains underexplored. The language hierarchy functions to legitimate, effectuate and reproduce an unequal division of power and resources between groups which are defined on the basis of their mother tongues (Skutnabb-Kangas, 1988). However, the unequal power relations between different languages are normalized so that it is rarely visible or perceptible to social agents (e.g., Wacquant & Bourdieu, 1992).
Migrants’ experiences of language in the economic field can be presented as a stimulus or a vehicle for “(dis)embedding and in-group (un)belonging depending on the translocal context” (Huc-Hepher, 2021, p. 2). Following the transnationalism perspective on Bourdieu’s theory of social practice, we understand HLs as a source and mediator of transnational habitus and capital, and migrants’ socioeconomic practice as a process of navigating and transforming the dispositional architecture of habitus and mobilize diverse capitals to pursue socioeconomic goals in transnational fields. This integrated framework enables us to theorize migrants’ agentive efforts in manipulating HLs in the construction of transnational habitus and capital for their socioeconomic adaptation in the destination society.
The present study
Participant recruitment and data collection
Drawing upon a larger research project that engages ethnographic case study within the Bourdieusian paradigm to examine the economic significance of CHL in Australia, the present study examines how transnational habitus and capital shaped the participants’ economic life trajectories. Ethics approval for the project was obtained from the university Human Research Ethics Committee before embarking on data collection. Convenience and snowballing methods were used to recruit participants who were first-generation Chinese Australians born and raised in China. To approach potential participants with a wide range of demographic profiles, the first author, who is a Chinese (Mandarin) speaker, participated in diverse events organized by the Chinese community in the Australian city of Brisbane.
The data for the present article are drawn from three participants purposefully selected from a large sample based on three specific criteria: (a) the richness of their pre- and/or post-migration economic experiences; (b) the age range to represent their generations at least to some degree; and (c) the heterogeneity of their occupational backgrounds. Pseudonyms are used throughout the article to avoid identification. Table 1 outlines the brief demographic profiles and occupational experiences of the participants.
The participants’ demographic profiles and occupational experiences.
The two-round interviews conducted with each participant lasted 1.5 to 2 hours all together and were conducted in Mandarin based on their preferences. The interviews were semi-structured which focused on the interviewees’ narratives and reflective discourses about their pre- and post-migration life experiences, as well as their perceived value of CHL for their socioeconomic integration in Australia. As the configuration and transformation of the habitus and capital is embedded in their life experiences under specific social structures, a focus on the individuals’ experiences of language in their socioeconomic life has the potential to develop explanations for the practices and ideologies of CHL in creating and utilizing transnational habitus and capital. Instead of delving into detail-rich case study approach, we were more interested in addressing the underlying issues around language hierarchy that shaped the participants’ adaptation trajectories. During data collection and the data analysis process, we bear in mind the importance of recognizing researchers’ positionalities and their (personal) views of the world as well as being able to hear and interpret the reflections of the participants (Fields & Kafai, 2009). The authors are migrants in Australia, like the participants, although their countries of origin are different. As authors, we were able to alternate our roles as “insider” and “outsider” researchers to document and interpret the participants’ experiences with reference to their social biographies and the social structure in the Australian society.
Data analysis
Thematic analysis (TA) was adopted as the key method to analyze the audio-recorded and transcribed data. We mainly followed Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six-stage process of TA, which divides the analysis into familiarization, initial coding, reviewing the codes and identifying themes, reviewing themes, and defining and connecting themes. As authors, we closely collaborated on analyzing the data throughout the analysis process, the second author often taking the role of a critical outsider. After transcribing the data, we traveled back and forth between the data, the literature, and the theoretical framework to further calibrate and refine the analysis and explanation. As neither habitus nor capital is self-evident, we used theoretically informed inductive analysis to conceptualize the participants’ discourses to put forward our explanations. Going along with the conceptualization process, we identified three key themes together with sub-themes that addressed the research questions: (a) agency within structure in pursuing economic survival and advancement; (b) CHL and the formation of transnational habitus and capital; and (c) perceived value of CHL for economic integration. Before we illustrate and discuss these themes, we present brief narratives of the life and economic trajectories of the three participants.
Diverse trajectories of life and social integration
Migrating to Australia entailed varying degrees of capital loss for the participants, particularly the immediate loss of the linguistic capital and a drastic habitus-field disjuncture that created needs for different languages and patterns of communication (Piller et al. 2024). Facing systematic oppressions posed by the new social structure and the demand for socioeconomic adjustment to the host society, the interviewees were found to exert their agency in the form of establishing hybrid habitus and mobilize heterogenous resources (capitals) in distinct and flexible ways. Their narratives revealed different trajectories of socioeconomic adjustment, supported by transnational habitus and capitals.
Sam: Compromise or perish: “I need to eat (survive) first anyway!”
Sam had worked as a lecturer in a prestigious Chinese university for many years before migrating to Australia in the1990s, the so-called “migration craze” period. Driven by the prevailing discourse of “People who had the strength would go abroad, only those who have no choice would stay (in China),” he came to Australia as a doctoral student and later gained post-doctoral research experience. However, his research qualifications and achievements could not secure him a permanent position in academia. Under the pressure of survival, he switched to property management for a living which he continued at the time of the interview. At the same time, he also maintained his research interest by connecting with Chinese-speaking academics and institutions in Australia, China, and some Southeast Asian countries. He had published quite a few articles and some books (in Chinese) independently or collaboratively. He also contributed short articles to a Chinese microblog platform and produced YouTube videos about Chinese migrants’ life in Australia. Apparently, there are gaps between his higher ideals—imagined future life in the host country and the skeletal realities that he confronted in adapting to the host society. Reflecting on his decision to pursue a career unrelated to his academic background and expertise, he remarked: “
Lance: From ordinary to extraordinary: “It is cultural value-added service that makes our business outstanding!”
Unlike Sam, Lance experienced a smooth economic adaptation process, successfully making a living by pursuing his interest in Chinese culture. At the time of the interview, Lance owned and managed a couple of shops trading Chinese cultural products. He was also working with a friend with similar interests to offer Chinese cultural courses and produce weekly online storytelling. Lance first came to Australia in 2011 as a postgraduate student in business management. During his study, he kickstarted his career by working as a massagist based on his expertise in WUSHU (Martial arts) and related skills in Chinese style massage (especially his skills in curing sprained neck). Realizing that massage was a “habitual consumption” for Australians, he invested in the industry as an entrepreneur and earned the “first bucket of gold.” Building on this foundation and a “God-given” opportunity, Lance ventured into the retail industry, importing Chinese culture related goods from China and selling them in Australia. At the time of the interview, he was in a position to control this niche market, exerting significant influence in the industry and ensuring his higher position on the socioeconomic hierarchy in Australia. When asked to explain the secret of his success in the competitive market, he gave credit to his embodied cultural capital derived from his mastery of Chinese language and culture, saying “
Gloria: Accessibility with limited mobility: “We immigrants are more susceptible to career ceilings.”
Unlike Sam and Lance, Gloria was engaged in a mainstream Australian occupation as a marketing professional for a local university from where she had obtained her master’s degree. She reported having developed high-level of English proficiency before graduation. She attributed this to her years of studying in a good English environment where most students were from English-speaking backgrounds. Referred by a friend who was originally from China, she was admitted to a position at the university as a marketing professional, being initially responsible for the Greater China Region (Mainland China, Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan) and later expanded to Southeast Asia. However, despite her overall satisfaction with her career achievement, she shared her concerns about her career, saying “
Thematic analysis
Exerting agency within structure to pursue economic survival and advancement
In response to the first research question, this theme illustrates the ways in which the participants exerted their agency within structure by utilizing CHL to construct transnational habitus and capital for their socioeconomic wellbeing in Australia. We examine their engagement with CHL-mediated socioeconomic activities as evidence of the economic role of CHL in their lives. Their different economic life trajectories or forms of realization (Bourdieu, 1987, 1990) are outcomes of the complex interrelationships between structural forces and agentive strategies that transcended national borders. With their distinct habitus and capital that were devalued in the receiving society, the participants manipulated CHL to generate transnational habitus and capital in their pursuit of more economic capital. They simultaneously engaged with CHL-mediated resources in the host society without abandoning their economic ties with the country of their origin. Drawing upon their CHL resources, they negotiated their transnational identity, capital and habitus to adjust to the new environment, not just economically, but also socially, culturally, and linguistically. In this sense, their post-migration economic experiences demonstrated the interplay between CHL as a cultural capital, other forms of capitals, and the hybrid habitus derived from both the “exporting” country and the “importing” country. They used heterogeneous resources, which often transcended national borders, available to them in flexible ways to resist structural barriers and inequalities in pursuing sociocultural and socioeconomic wellbeing. In this regard, CHL practices were a multilayered performance negotiated through constructing and reconstructing meanings of the past and the present.
The participants experienced depreciation of their prior habitus and capital, including the immediate loss of CHL capital, upon crossing borders (Qureshi et al., 2013) to varying degrees. They were then found to exert their agency for economic and social survival. Their efforts were constructed based on their habitus, accessible capitals including linguistic capital (Mouzelis, 2008), and their understanding of the illusio or the structure of the transnational field. They endeavored to capitalize on their language repertoires, particularly CHL competency, and adjust their habitus to facilitate practices conforming with the logic and demand of the Australian social structure. The participants’ primary habitus and capital were found to be both depreciated and appreciated depending on their individual circumstances. Each of them made use of their CHL competency to strategically negotiate and mobilize transnational habitus and capital to best meet their socioeconomic needs in the host society.
The depreciation and appreciation of CHL habitus and capital
Informed by their pre-reflective aspirations and expectations (Bourdieu, 1987, 1990) and the recognition of the illusio—the devaluation of CHL-mediated cultural capital and the importance of English-mediated cultural capital in Australia, all participants adopted a capital accumulation habitus to acquire higher-level education qualifications as a way to accumulate locally recognized cultural capital, including English linguistic capital, whereby to make up for the loss of embodied and institutionalized cultural capital (Joy et al., 2020; Piller et al. 2024). However, it turned out that the cultural capital that they gained in Australia was not equally acknowledged or valued in the economic field, which in part led to different socioeconomic outcomes. All three participants’ economic experiences substantiated the situated nature of habitus and capital (Bourdieu, 2000); their CHL competency was endowed with differential values (Moore, 2008), being either depreciated or appreciated in specific occupations. Mirroring Zschomler’s (2019) argument, the devaluation and deficiency of Sam’s prior CHL habitus and capital in the Australian academia was evident. However, CHL-based habitus and capital was appreciated in Lance’s and Gloria’s career success.
At least partly due to his limited English deficiency, Sam’s locally obtained doctoral qualifications as an institutionalized cultural capital and his CHL competency as an embodied cultural capital were attenuated in the Australian society, holding him back from securing an academic position. Pressed by the increased economic pressure, Sam made an occupational compromise which was illustrated by his switching to property management for survival while also acting as a freelance academic for sustaining his research interest. In pursuing his academic ambition, Sam engaged in the transnational field where his academic expertise and CHL habitus and capital were appreciated, working with other Chinese scholars in Australia and China to publish books in Chinese and giving paid lectures for universities in China.
Compared with Sam, Lance’s and Gloria’s CHL habitus and capital were much less devalued or even appreciated in their occupational trajectories. For them, it was more like a selective positioning habitus (Joy et al., 2020) that they embraced. When he had limited economic capital, Lance worked as a massagist that required only limited English proficiency and valued his distinct massage skills learned in China. After earning the “first bucket of gold” that afforded his higher-level occupation as an entrepreneur in mainly CHL-mediated business where his transnational CHL habitus and capital were highly valued. Drawing upon CHL capital, Lance searched diverse economic resources across the origin and receiving countries to seek economic prosperity. While Lance considered the perfect match between his expertise in Chinese language and culture and his field of endeavor as “God-given,” the appreciation of his CHL mediated transnational habitus and capital can also be linked to his agency in selecting the “right” occupational field that valued his prior habitus and capital.
The appreciation of CHL habitus and capital was also evident in Gloria’s career development. As she acknowledged, she was “so lucky” to have a friend working in the university as her referee for the job, which was an example of the conversion of HL-based social capital into economic capital. Although her English proficiency was indispensable for the position, she acknowledged that her CHL competency added vital value not only in her recruitment but also in her upward career mobility. English and CHL were complementary resources that she drew upon to advance her career development: The main reason I have been promoted to be in charge of the Greater China market is because of my Chinese proficiency in Chinese and my Chinese be able to get the position and be promoted. If I were not a native speaker (of Chinese), I absolutely would not be able to get the position and be promoted.
The analysis of the interview data showed that the participants made constant reference to transnational economic practices in which CHL was appreciated rather than depreciated. They strategically used their CHL competency and social capital mediated by CHL to navigate occupational practices to accumulate economic capital. As part of the participants’ prior habitus and capital gained in China, CHL proficiency functioned as a vital source configurating transnational habitus and capital and informing their “position taking” (Wacquant & Bourdieu, 1992) in the transnational field. Although their primary CHL habitus and capital were depreciated in the mainstream market dominated by English, they were appreciated in transnational fields mediated mainly by CHL. CHL acted as a fundamental source facilitating the formation of their transnational habitus and capital contributing to the accumulation of economic capital. The participants’ transnational ties, particularly with the country of origin, highlighted the necessity of introducing transnational perspectives on migrants’ experiences of language in their socioeconomic life. This resonated with Joy et al.’s (2020) proposition that migrants may evaluate the relative value of their capitals with reference to not only the fields in the host society but also to those in the country of origin.
CHL facilitating transnational habitus and capital in transnational fields
The practices and relative positions of the participants in the economic field were largely determined by the volume and composition of their capitals (Bourdieu, 1984) and the reproduction of their habitus in the field. However, despite noticeable differences in their economic trajectories, some commonalities were observed. For example, all participants engaged in transnational fields that engendered transnational habitus and capital. Second, CHL constituted an integral part of their occupational engagement as they capitalized on diverse resources to develop or augment their economic capital. Their experiences of accumulating economic capital in transnational fields substantiated Joy et al.’s (2020) observation that the value of migrant capitals may be enhanced by engaging in transnational fields that facilitate the accumulation of migration-relevant capital.
Sam, with his cultural capital, including CHL capital, and habitus being devalued, was turned away from academia. In response, he performed partial exit from the academic field and relevant habitus (Joy et al., 2020) to occupy positions supported by his CHL capital and habitus. Being aware of the illusio that migrants whose first language was not English could find it difficult to enter local academia, he manipulated CHL capital and developed hybrid habitus that transcended national borders for the dual purposes of earning a living and pursuing academic ambition. Specifically, he shuttled between different countries to maintain his dual presence in the non-academic field in Australia and the academic field beyond Australia. Although he engaged in English literature to inform his academic work, all his research outputs were in Chinese and were published by Chinese institutions. The paid lectures that he delivered were also in Chinese. For Sam, doing the real-estate business was nothing but a means of generating income, while research was the space attached to his true passion. What he obtained from these CHL academic activities across nations was not just monetary income; it was more a sense of satisfaction generated by his being recognized as a valued scholar. Aligning with Joy et al.’s (2020) observation, Sam’s experience of creating transitional habitus illustrated his way of being and doing in a transnational field that facilitated the appreciation of the value of his capitals, especially his CHL capital, to make up for the devaluation of his prior capital and habitus.
As Lance’s impressive venture of earning his “first bucket of gold” and his business in Chinese cultural goods and services were associated with CHL and/or China, the significance of CHL habitus and capital for his economic achievement in Australia was self-evident. Lance drew upon his mastery of Chinese culture and knowledge of Chinese cultural goods as rewardable habitus and capital that facilitated his economic success. By way of an example, he noted that his customers were more willing to buy the same goods from him even at a higher price than buying them at a cheaper price from his competitors. He believed that this was achieved by his provision of value-added services derived from his mastery of Chinese culture: [Lance]: Selling the same item, he (another retailer) cannot sell it even for 10 dollars, but I can make it for 100 dollars, and the costumer is still happy. This is the difference between marketing and sales promotion . . . For marketing, you need to provide your customers with additional value, not just the product itself. You must find the right customers for your product, gain their trust, and make them believe that they can obtain a lot of added value by purchasing this item. [The interviewer]: How do you make that happen? I mean providing added value. [Lance]: Well, I may have a more in-depth conversation with potential customers to discuss the cultural elements behind the product . . . I would not dare to put any product in my shop unless I have known it thoroughly. As (Chinese) culture is such a comprehensive field, I dare not to boast that I know everything (in this field). What I can assure you is that I am able to tell the cultural heritage behind each product for sale in my shops.
Apparently, Lance claimed his expertise in Chinese culture and used it to legitimize the quality of his goods and services, which endowed him with symbolic capital as well. The extract below demonstrates the discursive means deployed by Lance to claim his influence within the Chinese cultural goods retail and his expert knowledge in ensuring the augmentation of economic capital: [Lance]: 百货应百客 (A wide variety of goods are needed to meet the needs of a wide range of customers). As there are far more than thousands of kinds of goods, we have to first have the knowledge of each kind in terms of its cultural heritage, its varieties and materials. Then find out all the sources of these goods, only doing this can you be able to reduce the price. You also need to take into account many issues associated with international importation, such as transportation and tariff issue. All of these is little by little to figure out.
Throughout Lance’s economic trajectory, he was advantaged by his skills and knowledge of Chinese traditional cultural goods, which were scarce resources in the Australian market. It was the scarcity of such knowledge and skills that legitimated and augmented his CHL capital in the Chinese ethnic market. Highlighting the strategic use of sociolinguistic and sociocultural capital associated with CHL, he displayed a high exchange rate of CHL as a cultural capital convertible to economic capital. Apparently, this is evidence of the development and use of his transnational habitus, and of agency within structure. However, his economic success could not compensate for his feeling of alienation from the mainstream society.
As the only participant who reported being quite fluent in English and the only one who accessed employment in the mainstream sector (a university), Gloria expressed a sense of pride and superiority. She was also aware of the role of CHL competency which was equally important for her as English. As she articulated, CHL proficiency was an integral factor that brought her the occupational opportunity because most of her potential clients were those who speak Chinese. She spoke frankly that she generally used CHL for communication with her clients and used English only occasionally when someone could not understand Chinese. Even if she felt that there was no problem for her to communicate in English, she admitted that she definitely preferred Chinese. For her, speaking Chinese is something that was “engraved into my genes”: “While facing faces like us, I often try to confirm whether they speak Chinese. If yes, I will shift to Chinese right away.”
Gloria’s perception of CHL as an ingredient of her “genes” as well as her way of dealing with her customers were good examples of her CHL habitus which also reflected the durability of her primary habitus. However, access to professional or entrepreneurial roles does not necessarily mean migrants can go on to successfully acculturate into elite circles. In fact, they may continue to face barriers and encounter career ceilings. For example, English proficiency and her access to the mainstream occupation did not free Gloria from the feeling of inferiority typically associated with linguistic minority communities. She recognized that her capacity to accumulate sociocultural capital was much weaker than her privileged peers who were from English language backgrounds. She used the word ceiling to suggest her concerns about her upward mobility within her occupational pathway: [Gloria]: Many, probably all, migrants’ (career) ceilings are defined by language capacity. This is true for me too. [The interviewer]: Is it so? I mean even if your English is so good? [Gloria]: Yes, no doubt. This is because there is an ever forever difference between native speakers and second language speakers (of one language). There is no doubt about that . . . This is not about language but also culture. I feel like I have hit the (career) ceiling. Hard for me to move upwards. To my knowledge, there are not many Chinese migrants who can reach a high position. Peter is the one I know who reaches the highest position, the vice president of a university, but he is different—he was born here. He counts as a native speaker but with a Chinese face.
It can be seen that language may constitute an ongoing space of struggles for migrants regardless of the level of their English proficiency. The structure of language repertoire and habitus may help fathom some of the underlying reasons of her ambivalent perceptions about her career in terms of her satisfaction with her occupation against her feeling of powerlessness or insecurity.
The accounts provided by Lance and Gloria demonstrate the subtle ways in which CHL functioned as cultural capital and transnational habitus to shape their socioeconomic experiences and their perceptions of intellectual or cultural capacity. They also suggest that HL-related cultural capital and habitus which are deep-rooted in specific languages are as hard to acquire as they are to abandon. For them, CHL and CHL habitus might not necessarily be a conscious choice, but, often, a natural orientation or reaction and, thus, an essential part of self.
Hybrid transnational habitus and capital contributing to individual resilience
The interview data demonstrated the cross-cultural effects, meaning the interactions between English and CHL, shaping the transformation of migrants’ habitus and capital and thus their economic trajectories. Lance and Gloria typically articulated the distance between English habitus and CHL habitus in the economic field: [Lance]: Underlying Chinese and English are two distinct systems of thinking and doing, which, in some respects, are incompatible from the root . . . Chinese represents an introverted and restrained patterns of thinking and doing, while English culture has a more outgoing nature . . . In our traditional way of doing business, we believe that 酒香不怕巷子深 (A Chinese proverb meaning fragrant wine fears no dark alley, meaning quality goods need no advertising), while the English culture emphasizes the importance of self-marketing. [Gloria]: Our culture is all about humility, you do it, you do it (without spreading it around), but the general work environment in Australia is that if you do something, you are supposed to let everyone know you did it, which actually places more emphasis on “selling yourself out . . .”
In recognition of the disjuncture between CHL habitus and the economic field in the destination society, they deliberately adjusted their primary habitus to adapt to the new environment. They transformed their primary habitus, although they did not necessarily abandon it to “sell themselves out” in pursuing more economic capital. Lance promoted his products in a variety of ways, such as conducting live-streaming storytelling, posting ads on social media platforms, and organizing special offline promotional events. Gloria, however, forced herself to join some of her colleagues’ social activities and deliberately claimed recognition of her hard work from her superior and colleagues: Nowadays I also take credit for something, telling them that I’m busy every day and that I work 7*24. However, since I’m paying for my own life, I consider serving my clients part of my job and I don’t mind (to serve them 7*24).
Meanwhile, they believed that CHL habitus had been affecting their social practices, as can be noted from the following extract from Gloria: Even the ancient poetry we read from childhood is subconsciously influencing the way we deal with the world in a subtle way. In my experience, I think some attributes built from Chinese culture, such as resilience, perseverance, and staunchness have been influencing in a positive way for my professional development.
In addition, Gloria and Lance referred to 吃苦耐劳 (A Chinese idiom representing hard work and the capacity of bearing hardships) ethic and took comfort in considering it as an appreciated personal quality derived from Chinese culture that contributed to their economic achievement in Australia. Typically, Gloria said, Some widely touted qualities like tenacity, perseverance, and strength which I believed I have established as I grew up (in China) increase my resilience in the face of difficulties.
Sam also confirmed that this ethic was part of Chinese migrants’ habitus, although he also argued that it was something “forced by the reality.” Such discursive construction of themselves as hardworking reflected, to some extent, the homogeneous nature of the CHL habitus possessed by the participants. In analyzing such discourses, it is of particular relevance to trace back to Confucian ethics that holds hard work in high esteem. Under the influence of Confucianism, the participants considered their economic survival and prosperity in Australia a cultural rather than a structural phenomenon. This is an example of the embeddedness of both individual and group habitus as well as the imprint of sociocultural elements in their socialization practices in terms of not only language use but also distinct ways of being and doing.
The participants’ views revealed that they were transforming their habitus across cultures. On one hand, the ingrained imprint of their primary habitus produced by the social structure of the “exporting” society maintained its importance among migrants. On the other hand, the intention to adjust their habitus according to the social conditions in the “importing” society was observed in their reflective discourses related to their identity construction and economic resilience. The participants’ career trajectories demonstrated that CHL habitus and capital formed and operated in the transnational field increased their social resilience as linguistic minorities. Such resilience is context-specific and capital-dependent as it is most likely to be attached to migrants who often experience capital loss and thus social inferiority and vulnerability due to their relocation to a new linguistic and cultural environment.
Perceived value of CHL habitus and capital for occupational engagement
The analysis of the interview data showed connections between experiences of language and language beliefs, which is the focus of the second research question. It also revealed that structural inequalities in Australia were projected onto individuals’ language ideologies in terms of their understanding of the illusio in the economic field, which were reflected by the uneven value they assigned to English and CHL.
Despite the overall agreement on the sociocultural value of CHL, divergences emerged when it came to their perceived economic significance of CHL in Australia. Both Lance and Gloria acknowledged the role of their linguistic repertoires in shaping their sociolinguistic and socioeconomic practices. For example, Lance appreciated the role of CHL for his economic advancement in the transnational field: There is no doubt that Chinese plays a vital role in my economic development. My business is all about Chinese language and culture . . .
Gloria was also explicit about the economic significance of CHL for her career development. For her, CHL competency facilitated in expanding her customer base among Chinese people and Chinese speakers in Southeast Asian countries: Chinese language and culture help in my career development . . . This is for sure! Because I came from China, I have a deeper understanding of the whole Chinese market. My cultural background has determined that my brain is mainly shaped by Chinese thinking. This is quite important as it enables me to act as a link for Chinese students to understand Australia better and to understand some of the things that our universities can offer . . .
Although Sam considered his linguistic repertoire as a factor influencing his career development, he tended to attach more importance to the prevailing social environment and occupational needs somewhat underrating the economic significance of language in shaping his economic life: The fact that I didn’t enter this field of career development (related to my own research) was not entirely related to language, but to the social environment and career needs at the time. A person with the same background as me, who came from a local background, had a very good language, but he didn’t find (an academic position) either . . . Some people from my age had very poor English, but because there was a demand for his major at that time, then he probably could have found a good job . . . (So) this question remains unsettled, it varies by person.
Aligning with Mu’s (2013) observation that the capacity of habitus to become capital shapes one’s perception and practice associated with the very habitus, the participants’ responses about their beliefs about the economic value of CHL habitus and capital might be largely determined by the extent to which it was transformed into economic capital in their own situation. Their language ideologies, in turn, functioned as a mediator of the interactions between social practices of language and social structures (Cavanaugh, 2020).
Despite the absence of acknowledgment of their previous capital, especially cultural capital, and being excluded from certain sectors of the Australia society, all participants viewed devaluation of their capital and social division as “natural.” All of them endorsed the prevalent superiority of English and perceived it as natural because “Australia is an English-speaking country!” (Sam, Lance, and Gloria). This naturalization of the language hierarchy indicated that the social conditions and conditioning in the “importing” society tend to produce and internalize institutional hierarchy and inscribe it in the bodies and beliefs of migrants. This internalization or naturalization of English superiority laid the foundation for their understanding of the illusio in the Australian economic field and shaped their economic choices informed by the transformation of their habitus and capital associated with language.
Discussion
Inhabited in a transnational social space, the participants negotiated their linguistic repertoires for transnational habitus and capital and mobilized them in the transnational field to economically adjust to the new environment. They drew upon their habitual CHL practices embedded in their everyday socialization patterns as a resource supporting their socioeconomic adaptation. The flexible utilization and manipulation of CHL linguistic habitus and capitals in transnational fields constituted an important part of the participants’ economic experiences. The heterogeneity of capital they possessed and agentive strategies they deployed played a role in shaping their socioeconomic adjustment in Australia. The individualized economic experiences were informed by their transnational habitus, evaluation of their capitals, and their understanding of the illusio in the transnational field. CHL as an integral element of the previous social structure continued to influence their social practices in terms of their ways of thinking, doing and being. Facing devaluation, CHL reclaimed its importance for the migrants in subtle forms by informing and (re)producing transnational habitus and capital. In this way, it counteracted the devaluation of their primary capital and habitus through the formation of transnational CHL habitus and capital appreciated in transnational fields.
Unsettled power of HL habitus and capital
Transnational migration drives people away from a relatively certain and familiar environment into an uncertain and unfamiliar one (Piller et al. 2024). The dramatic structural transformation unsettled the power of the participants’ habitus and capital in subtle ways. Switching to a new environment, the durability and capability of their primary habitus acquired in their country of origin is put to the test under structural barriers in the receiving country. Contrary to the often-argued position that migrants’ primary linguistic habitus and capital would be devalued in the host society, the analysis of the respondents’ discourses indicated the dialectical nature of the CHL habitus and capital after migration. On one hand, their primary habitus and capital inherently bounded with CHL were disparaged by the mainstream society where a monolingual mind-set prevails (Piller et al. 2024). The resulting lack of acknowledgment of their previous habitus and capital, especially cultural capital, tended to exclude them from certain sectors of the society. On the other hand, it seemed that they were more appreciated within the ethnolinguistic group mediated by CHL. As a result, all respondents were found to take advantage of their transnational habitus and capital derived from CHL competency to survive and prosper. In this sense, HLs, being highly relevant to business and cultural exchanges in the era of globalization, can function as a cultural capital with its potential conversion into economic capital for migrants.
Mixed potential of CHL in immigrants’ economic adjustment
The data analysis indicated the mixed and complex roles that CHL plays in migrants’ economic integration. Echoing Huot et al.’s (2020) argument, the study revealed that CHL habitus and capital functioned to restrict or enable migrants’ access to and mobility within certain occupations in the host nation. On the negative side, the ingrained CHL habitus and capital might be a marker of foreignness to estrange them from the mainstream and hamper their economic adaptation. On the positive side, as a symbol of identity to reaffirm their membership to Chinese community, the habitus and capital can pull migrants close to their ethnic networks and relevant economic resources and thus contributing to their socioeconomic resilience and overall wellbeing. The positive role of CHL was observed in the ethnic economy (Lance), the mainstream economy (Gloria), and the economy in-between (Sam). In all three cases, CHL proficiency functioned as an embodied source formatting transnational capital and habitus incorporating the past and the present experiences and shaping their future life. Transnational habitus and capital built upon CHL proficiency alleviated structural constraints associated with migration of the first-generation Chinese Australians and broadened the scope and capacity of their agency in the socioeconomic field in the receiving society. The participants’ migratory trajectories indicated the continuing influence of structure of the “exporting” society in terms of HL-mediated dispositions and resources in their socioeconomic life in the “importing” country.
Conclusion
By analyzing the post-migration career trajectories of three Chinese migrants with a focus on the role of CHL, we have demonstrated how CHL functioned as a mediator of transnational habitus and capital in transnational fields to serve for these migrants’ economic and social integration. The participants were found to combine heterogeneous resources inherited from their original and destination nations by physically or virtually traveling across national borders. They constructed their agency in and through differentiated language repertoires, which went beyond the country of settlement and constantly involved the ethnic community and the nation of their origin which were mediated by CHL. Giving prominence to the transnationalization of migrants’ habitus and capital as well as the essential role of HLs in facilitating migrants’ economic survival and prosperity as a response to integration demand, the study contributes to the emerging dialogues about the role of language in mediating migrants’ occupational engagement for their economic integration. It also sheds light on actors’ agency within structure as the participants turned ethnic resources, including CHL habitus, into capital and converted different forms of capital for their socioeconomic adaptation.
However, we are also mindful of the limitations of the study in challenging the traditional perspectives on attaching economic value to societal languages while attaching only sociocultural value to HLs. First, as only qualitative data may not be persuasive enough to ascribe economic value to HLs, compensatory quantitative study may be needed. Second, the precise process of capital conversion is difficult to capture (Savage et al., 2013), particularly from cultural and social capital into economic capital (Friedman, 2015). Third, the subjective accounts of Chinese immigrants about their life experiences might be somewhat exaggerated, coloring our claims about the economic importance of CHL for migrants’ economic adjustment and social integration.
Despite such limitations, as HLs are part of the multilingual resources in migrant societies in particular, the findings of the study provide instrumental rationale for such languages—in addition to viewing these languages as cultural and sociocultural resources to considering them as resources for social and economic prosperity and wellbeing of the migrant communities. Such arguments may enhance the prestige of HLs in the social linguistic hierarchy which places the mainstream language (English) at the top and sustain the monolingual habitus. Educators, students, and their parents may utilize the insights in revamping the rationale for heritage languages. From a policy perspective, the findings may provide evidence for viewing bilingualism as resource (Callahan & Gandara, 2014)—although under certain conditions—not only for migrants but also the migrant society. At the same time, we are aware that the process of habitus transformation and capital conversion is not just a matter of HLs and individual agency but is subject to much wider social and historical divergences. As opposed to the dominant monolingual discourse that often disparages HLs, we claim a greater appreciation of CHL not only for its sociocultural value but also its greater contribution to migrants’ economic wellbeing. We would suggest a shift from a deep-seated monolingual habitus toward a multilingual habitus that engenders multidimensional local spaces where linguistic minority communities are encouraged to maintain their HLs and exert agency to use glocalized HL habitus and capital to pursue their economic futures. The study offers innovative insights into the economics of heritage languages by engaging in a grounded examination of the economic significance of HLs for migrants’ wellbeing.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
We gratefully acknowledge the participants who were committed to the project and the financial support of The International Research Foundation for English Language Education (TIRF).
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The author(s) received financial support for the research from The International Research Foundation (TIRF) for English Language Education.
