Reflecting on the Margins: Socio-spatial Stigmatisation among Adolescents in a Peripheralised Region


Refl ecting on the Margins: Socio-spatial Stigmatisation among 
Adolescents in a Peripheralised Region

Frank Meyer, Judith Miggelbrink, Tom Schwarzenberg

Abstract: Based on the project “Discourse and practices in shrinking regions”, we 
analyse the subjective relevance of derogative discourses using the example of 
the district of Altenburger Land (Germany). The article combines three aspects: 
First, it focuses on how young people’s representations of practices of social dif-
ferentiation are informed by regionalised discourses about and conditions of shrink-
age. Second, it identifi es two rhetoric strategies by which young people distance 
themselves from perceived deviance. Finally, it asks how perceptions and rhetoric 
strategies are connected to desires to out-migrate. We assume that stigmatisation 
is a powerful means of producing and circulating socio-spatial differentiation, es-
pecially under conditions of socio-economic crisis and deprivation. Our principal 
hypothesis is that socio-spatial stigmatisation is effective (and destructive) in terms 
of how people perceive themselves within their home region, in relation to other 
inhabitants and regarding their prospective future plans. In order to address this 
aspect methodologically, we compose an epistemological framework to grasp how 
socio-spatial stigmatisation is articulated and circulates in the light of specifi c socio-
economic conditions. Here, we conceptually draw from social psychology and so-
cial geography. Our empirical fi ndings, which stem from a series of focus groups, 
show that – while sharing some widely spread notions about the Altenburger Land 
– our respondents make use of two rhetoric strategies: They defl ect derogative 
stigmas by, fi rstly, further specifying these groups in order to distinguish them-
selves from the stigmatised groups, and, secondly, by localising deviant behaviour 
within almost uncontested socio-spatial boundaries. Additionally, they construct 
causal connections between these aspects in order to re-affi rm the validity of such 
stigmas.

Keywords: Shrinkage · Stigmatisation · Peripheralisation · Identity · Group-focused 
enmity

Comparative Population Studies
Vol. 41, 3-4 (2016): 285-320 (Date of release: 23.11.2016)

Federal Institute for Population Research 2016  URL: www.comparativepopulationstudies.de
       DOI: 10.12765/CPoS-2016-10en
       URN: urn:nbn:de:bib-cpos-2016-10en6
    



•    Frank Meyer, Judith Miggelbrink, Tom Schwarzenberg286

1 Situating stigmatisation geographically: Shrinking regions in 
Eastern Germany

Discursive phenomena with regard to peripheralisation have long been neglected 
and are still deliberately left out of relevant studies (e.g. Kühn 2015: 369). However, 
questions addressing entwinements of material and discursive phenomena have 
emerged in the wake of the recent rejuvenation of the debate about peripherali-
sation. In this context, several scholars advocated elucidating discursive dynam-
ics (e.g. Barlösius/Neu 2008), processes of labelling (Beetz 2008) and subjective 
perceptions and reactions in practice following spatial representations related, for 
example, to shrinkage (Meyer/Miggelbrink 2013, 2015).

Contemporary scholars have elaborated the presence of such territorial stigma-
tisation with regard to socio-economic marginality, peripheralisation or shrinkage. 
Moreover, some of the same have underlined the necessity to include this discursive 
dimension, such as place- and group-related labelling, into the research of marginal-
ity, peripheralisation or shrinkage (Beetz 2008; Meyer/Miggelbrink 2013) as labelling 
may infl ict – when exerted in derogative ways – considerable damage. Numerous 
studies (e.g. Wacquant 2007; Dando 2009; Bürk 2013; Wiest 2015) have emphasised 
that circulating stigmas fi nd their way into the lives and practices of individuals and 
groups within the addressed regions, cities and communities, eventually infl uenc-
ing the ways they make sense of their surroundings. In consequence, these percep-
tions can lead to several reactions such as opposition or resignation (Bürk 2013) and 
thus are able to catalyse or mitigate prevalent socio-economic precarity. Moreover, 
labels may also be incorporated into everyday communication within the respective 
region. They may be proliferated, intermediated and altered in complex and interac-
tive ways. The perception and refl ection of stigmatisation can thus lead to further 
social stigmatisation within the region addressed and fuel existing processes of 
negotiating identities, life courses and norms. In other words, stigmatisation is an 
effi cacious process exerting infl uence in several social contexts, guided by (biased) 
proliferation, (selective) perception and (subjective) interpretation. The empirical 
data available so far remains ambiguous regarding precise accounts at the subject 
level. Our focus lies on tracing the effects and the paths of the reproduction of so-
cio-spatial stigmatisation within those groups potentially affected by the respective 
stigmas. Arguing against any reductionist causal assumptions about socio-spatial 
stigmatisation determining people’s mentality, self-awareness and attitudes against 
others, we instead advocate using a conceptual focus that investigates the roles of 
socio-spatial representation within subjectively perceived everyday life.

Therefore, our own focus for understanding impacts of stigmatisation will be 
twofold. On the one hand, we address how existing socio-spatial stigmatisation 
in young people’s perceptions is related to denigrating attitudes, i.e. how territo-
rial stigmatisation coincides with derogative statements against other people or 
groups. On the other hand, we focus on possible impacts of stigmatisation on how 
young people imagine their own future in terms of leaving or staying in their home 
region, i.e. their potential migratory decisions. At fi rst glance, this might be consid-
ered two different questions. However, we will argue theoretically as well as prove 



Refl ecting on the Margins    • 287

empirically how both attitudes towards certain groups or people and consideration 
on future decisions concerning “staying or leaving” are intertwined in young peo-
ple’s refl ections on representations of their home region.

We want to pursue this aim through a discussion of a social-geographical ap-
proach towards young people’s perception of their hometown and region. The 
socio-geographical, socio-psychological and sociological embeddedness of our 
research are discussed in section 2. Our empirical data consists of 15 focus groups 
with pupils of secondary schools within the German district of Altenburger Land.1 

From 1998 to 2014, the population of this Thuringian district decreased from 117,000 
to roughly 98,000 people, a decline of more than 20 percent. Moreover, the popula-
tion between the ages of 15 and 18 dropped by more than 57 percent. The Thuring-
ian Statistical Offi ce projects that these developments will continue in similar ways 
at least until 2035.2 Based on the alleged everyday presence of these remarkable 
fi gures and the possibility that discussions may focus too much on them, we avoid-
ed mentioning the population development ourselves. Instead, our conversations 
aimed at gathering the adolescents’ orientations towards their home region and 
their future plans. However, it soon became apparent that these focus groups – de-
spite our original thematic intentions – revealed strong negative opinions about the 
district of Altenburger Land, reproducing derogatory representations about the re-
gion and its inhabitants. These fi ndings are discussed in section 3. The concluding 
section 4 summarises our main results and discusses them against the background 
of our theoretical and conceptual assumptions.

2 Theoretical perspectives on stigmatisation, disintegration and 
perceived devaluation

2.1 Spatial formation and the role of territorial stigmatisation

Social geographers have underlined the necessity to understand the formation of 
regions and cities as being relationally produced through a multitude of processes 
that neither originate from the respective place nor are immutable and stable (see 
Massey 1993; Paasi 2013). Amin (2004: 34), for instance, states that

”...cities and regions as spatial formations (...) must be summoned up as tem-
porary placements for ever moving material and immanent geographies, as 
‘hauntings’ of things that have moved but left their mark (as Thrift (1999) puts 
it), as situated moments in distanciated networks, as contoured products of 
the networks that cross a given place.”

1 The research was carried out under the auspices of the project “Discourse and practices in 
shrinking regions”, funded by the German Research Foundation (2013-2016, MI725/2-1).

2 All fi gures: Statistical Offi ce of Thuringia 2015: http://www.statistik.thueringen.de/.



•    Frank Meyer, Judith Miggelbrink, Tom Schwarzenberg288

“Temporary placements”, thus, not only emerge through physical structures and 
their remnants but also through circulating gossip, stories and memories. Place-
related images and stigmas, as Shields points out (1991), are always part of national 
and cultural systems of meaning. Hence, images and stigmas can be seen as gener-
ated within discursive frames based on what Weichhart et al. (2006: 98-99) describe 
as cognitive structures of place-related identity formations. These formations – en-
tangled at the intersection of both individual and group-related concepts of place 
and identity (Weichhart et al. 2006: 37) – serve to stabilise social systems by reduc-
ing social complexity as well as establishing consistency (Weichhart et al. 2006: 
61-63). Following this notion, spatial categories like regions and cities are not only 
discursively and thus temporarily identifi ed but also consistently identifi ed with. 
Such assumed constitutive interrelations between (socio-psychological) aspects of 
identity and (socio-geographical) concepts of space can be seen as crucial insights 
when looking at stigmatisation.

Coming from a sociologist’s perspective, Wacquant (2007) similarly conceptual-
ises territorial stigmatisation as part of “advanced marginality” meaning that group-
related stigmas associated with poverty, for example, may also entail a more general 
“blemish of place” (Wacquant 2007: 67). Spatial and social aspects of stigmatisation 
therefore need to be considered as inseparably intertwined (Cohen 2013: 116). Con-
sequently, focusing on socio-spatial stigmatisation calls for a perspective that is 
sensitive to the mediating role of space, i.e. a perspective that expands its analyti-
cal and empirical scope to encompass not only processes of social identifi cation of 
places, individuals and groups but, moreover, their mutual impacts.

Drawing on these foundations, Bürk has defi ned stigmatisation as an act of com-
munication-based construction (Bürk 2013: 171). Using the example of perceived 
“danger zones” or “spaces of fear” (Bürk 2012), he refers to “discursive formations” 
that scandalise specifi c locally signifi cant and negatively connoted issues like un-
employment, drug abuse or crime and utilise certain “iconic markers of urban de-
cay” (Bürk 2013: 171). Those “symbolic frames of stigmas” provide the stigmatised 
social group with a thematic spatial reference (Bürk 2013: 171). Hence, such frames 
can be understood as semantic fi elds that powerful actors make use of in order to 
infl uence the perception of groups and places through subtle processes of socio-
spatial labelling (Bürk 2012: 91). However, Schreiber acknowledges that spatially 
ascribed meanings have neither a causal effect, nor are invariable, but are rather the 
products of the discursive production of knowledge (Schreiber 2005: 86). Hence, 
stigmatisation can be regarded as outcomes of socially – and as such discursively 
– constructed derogative categories, distinguishing and demarcating spaces and 
groups of people.

Images and stigmas ascribed to places are often intimately linked to symbolic or-
ders and categorisations such as “high/low” or “central/marginal” (Shields 1991: 4) 
imposing productive as well as destructive capacities on people, practices and poli-
cies. However, this is, of course, not a relationship of cause-and-effect. In order to 
tackle the complexities of how (certain) people, practices and policies are affected 
by ascribed place-related images, stereotypes and stigmas and how they deal with 



Refl ecting on the Margins    • 289

them specifi cally in a non-deterministic way, we see the necessity to go beyond 
narrow disciplinary boundaries.

The foundation of this fi eld of research is inextricably linked to the American 
sociologist Erving Goffman who has generally defi ned a stigma as “[…] an attrib-
ute that is deeply discrediting […]” (Goffman 1974: 4). A stigma often – though not 
necessarily – takes bodily markers or physical characteristics as signifi ers by which 
people are identifi ed as belonging to a certain group, category or kind. According 
to Goffman, characteristics ascribed to a person or a group may constitute a “virtual 
social identity” (Goffman 1974: 3). Those ascribed characteristics often differ sig-
nifi cantly from a so-called “actual social identity” (Goffman 1974: 3).

Implicitly or explicitly emerging from social norms and a hegemonic understand-
ing of normality, such categories are based on deviance. With specifi c regard to 
stigmatisation, Hohmeier (1975: 11) points out the use of a deviant “other” as the 
foundation for constructing normality. This thought indicates a vast relativity of the 
concept of normality, since one person’s stigma can be another person’s normality 
and vice versa (Goffman 1974: 4). However, this conceptual ambiguity serves – as 
Klauer states – to simplify heuristics of perceiving and to assess the complexity of 
the social (Klauer 2008: 23-24). Bearing this mode of simplifi cation in mind, Hannem 
and Bruckert have highlighted the alluring nature of stigmas: “How can we, individu-
ally and collectively, resist stigma: resist the temptation to fall back on prevailing 
cultural stereotypes as shortcuts to interpreting the world around us?” (Hannem/
Bruckert 2012: 176). As we will show later on, we assume that although people often 
acknowledge the reifying and simplistic nature of stigmas (and often feel forced to 
defend them), they still work as shortcuts of the social world.

In the following sections, we deal with a number of arguments from sociology, 
social psychology and social geography carving out two main lines of reasoning. 
One (2.2) focuses on subjects’ experiencing peripheralisation in terms of social, 
political and economic marginalisation (see PoSCoPP 2015). This presumably leads 
to (feelings of) disintegration and exclusion and, as a potential effect, brings about 
stigmatisation of other groups and places that are seen as being even “weaker”, 
“lower” or “more problematic” than one’s own peer group or one’s own place. Here, 
we draw especially on the work of German social scientist Heitmeyer and others on 
group-related enmity. The other line of reasoning (2.3) refers to literature mainly 
from social psychology and aims at tracing individual and group-related effects on 
existing and widely circulating stigmas and stereotypes that people feel subjected 
to, especially under conditions of socio-economic crisis. Both strands refer to the 
concept of stigma located at the intersection of anthropological, social psychologi-
cal and psychiatric studies of roles, expectations and deviant behaviour. In order 
to empirically investigate stigmatisations that are articulated during conversations 
with young people, we apply both strands of research: The fi rst one helps to un-
derstand why “feeling stigmatised” and “stigmatising others” often coincide under 
precarious conditions. The second one illuminates potential coping strategies.



•    Frank Meyer, Judith Miggelbrink, Tom Schwarzenberg290

2.2 Stigmatisation and devaluation as symptoms of disintegration

We will fi rst have a look at the literature on stigmatisation in the context of socio-
economic crisis. Conceptual groundwork concerning this context can be found in 
the analytical theory of disintegration by Wilhelm Heitmeyer and Reimund Anhut. 
They elaborated three distinct dimensions of social integration – namely individu-
al-functional system integration, communicative-interactive social integration and 
cultural-expressive social integration – each of which are connected to correspond-
ing integrative aims like participating in socially relevant subsystems, political and 
public institutions as well as socio-emotional relations (Anhut/Heitmeyer 2000: 48). 
Furthermore, following the notion of a distinct socio-spatial disparity concerning 
the accumulation of (dis)integration (Anhut/Heitmeyer 2000: 59), a fourth aspect 
– spatial integration – was subsequently pointed out, highlighting the possible infl u-
ence of socio-spatial conditions on individual attitudes and behaviours (Heitmeyer 
et al. 2009: 3-4). Thus, a disruption in one or more out of these dimensions, i.e. 
the failure to meet the corresponding aims of social integration (Anhut/Heitmeyer 
2000: 51-52), can be understood as disintegration in terms of a refused institutional 
and collective service to secure livelihood, social recognition and personal integrity 
(Anhut 2008: 381). Such disruptions tend to be intensifi ed by framing social pro-
cesses and phenomena of crises like polarisation, eroding solidarity or ambivalent 
individualisation, which can take on the form of social inequality, exclusion, feelings 
of injustice, lack of social support and/or social isolation (Anhut 2008: 381).

This conceptualisation of individual (dis-)integration is further used to illumi-
nate the formation of confl icts that are articulated through derogative processes. 
Depending on the steering infl uence of moderating variables like political culture, 
social networks, social climate, political control or intergroup relations (Anhut/Heit-
meyer 2000: 60), individual disintegration can indirectly nurture the desire to de-
fend oneself against and devaluate the deviant other (Anhut/Heitmeyer 2000: 63). 
Thereby, one’s own rejected institutional and collective perspectives on integration 
can likewise lead to withholding integration possibilities from weaker, marginal-
ised groups (Heitmeyer et al. 2009: 2). More precisely, experiences of disintegra-
tion may cause irritation, thus leading to compensatory behaviour (Mansel/Kaletta 
2009: 76-77). Empirical research has shown that this behaviour is often manifested 
as prejudices towards other groups (Mansel/Kaletta 2009: 76-77). Moreover, a lack 
of integration can coincide with an insuffi cient feeling of control, likewise inducing 
processes of devaluation (Mansel/Spaiser 2010: 51-53).

In sum, experiences and feelings of disintegration are considered breeding 
grounds for so-called ideologies of inequality (Mansel/Spaiser 2010: 74). “Ideolo-
gies of inequality” refers to the idea that humans are constantly differentiated in 
social groups and thereby implicitly evaluated through particular ascribed charac-
ter traits (Heitmeyer 2008: 37) whereas inequality often becomes evident through 
the devaluation of certain groups (Heitmeyer 2008: 38). In his long-term study 
“Deutsche Zustände” (German Conditions), Heitmeyer considered this concept a 
key to understanding group-focused enmity as a syndrome that combines different 
forms of sometimes subtle, sometimes obvious devaluation based on the discur-



Refl ecting on the Margins    • 291

sive legitimacy of inequality (see Heitmeyer 2006, 2012). Thus, it is necessary to dif-
ferentiate between (unchallenged) disparities – in the sense of socio-economically 
grounded and normalised distinctions – and unequal valuations as a result of the 
semantic categorisation of those disparities (Heitmeyer 2008: 39-40). Hence, socio-
economic disparities are often loaded with ascriptions and negotiated against the 
background of a specifi c understanding of normality (Heitmeyer 2008: 39-40). The 
particular groups addressed may vary but are equally targets of (de)valuating com-
municative practices with regard to the thematic interests of those in charge of de-
fi ning this label (Heitmeyer 2008: 39). This entails the phenomenon that in addition 
to “traditional” groups of victims, new stigmatised groups are continuously con-
structed on the basis of them not meeting expectations within societal discourse 
regimes (Heitmeyer 2008: 40).

Notwithstanding the fact that Heitmeyer did not employ the concept of “stigma-
tisation” in his investigation of group-focused enmity, his approach shows some 
parallels with fi ndings from research on stigmatisation. Experiences and fears of 
disintegration as breeding grounds for ideologies of inequality allegedly give way 
to processes of stigmatisation. There is evidence, for instance, of a correlation be-
tween disintegration, unemployment, poor economic performance and a bad public 
image coinciding in rural regions in Eastern Germany (Mansel/Kaletta 2009: 73-74).

Petzke et al. (2007), for instance, have found a signifi cant tendency towards 
group-focused enmity in rural areas of Eastern Germany struggling with severe out-
migration. In this regard, they point out a negative dynamic due to observed con-
formist behaviour (Petzke et al. 2007: 60) and peer-pressure in those areas (Petzke et 
al. 2007: 68). Furthermore, Hüpping and Reinecke revealed that residents of regions 
struggling with economic decline are more likely to report a general uncertainty and 
loss of orientation as a result of negative experiences and perceptions (Hüpping/
Reinecke 2007: 80), while especially fearing social decline (Hüpping/Reinecke 2007: 
95). These experiences and fears are understood as a structural basis for devaluat-
ing behaviour against other groups (Hüpping/Reinecke 2007: 95). They are further 
shown to be particularly strong among young people on the verge of their working 
life (Endrikat 2006: 108).

These predispositions are further served by what Wolf et al. (2006: 68) call “rela-
tive deprivation”, i.e. a perceived discrimination resulting from comparing one’s 
own situation with that of another person’s or group’s. These subjective compari-
sons are accompanied by compensatory devaluation of others (Wolf et al. 2006: 67). 
Therefore, individual deprivation is reinforced in the context of socio-economic cri-
ses, potentially resulting in an increased tendency towards misanthropic attitudes 
in the sense of group-focused enmity, as the authors of the study explicitly under-
line (Wolf et al. 2006: 82). Analogically, Decker et al. have shown that even the sole 
fear of becoming stigmatised and excluded due to economic deprivation (e.g. loss 
of employment) can nurture the willingness to devaluate marginal groups (Decker 
et al. 2009: 3).

In 2009, a study based on 500 telephone interviews carried out in the district of 
Altenburger Land proved how closely socio-economic peripheralisation, (dis)inte-
gration and group-related devaluation are related (Heitmeyer et al. 2009). Many of 



•    Frank Meyer, Judith Miggelbrink, Tom Schwarzenberg292

the local residents who feel strongly disintegrated in terms of labour market partici-
pation articulated fears of social and economic decline while expressing feelings of 
both individual and regional discrimination and deprivation (Heitmeyer et al. 2009: 
13) which analytically correlate with group-focused enmity (Heitmeyer et al. 2009: 
34). In addition, experiences of socio-emotional as well as spatial disintegration due 
to precarious employment opportunities have been documented (Heitmeyer et al. 
2009: 20), likewise reinforcing a tendency towards group-focused enmity (Heitmey-
er et al. 2009: 37). The study also diagnosed distinct individual disorientation and 
a perceived absence of local infl uence on the political level (Heitmeyer et al. 2009: 
16-19, 25) among the district’s residents – both potentially nurturing misanthropic 
attitudes as described above (Heitmeyer et al. 2009: 41).

In sum, socio-economic aspects of peripheralisation echo at the psychological 
level of the subject: Experiences and fears of disintegration, whether they are ar-
ticulated through a general uncertainty, a loss of orientation or a feeling of depriva-
tion, have been revealed as particular conditions – though by no means determining 
factors – that fuel group-focused enmity and thus derogative practices in the sense 
of (socio-spatial) stigmatisation. As such, these processes of devaluation are by no 
means a mere causal or determined result of socio-economic conditions, but are 
rather a structuring and constitutive element of the social (Attia 2013: 4-5). 

2.3 Sociological and socio-psychological approaches to understanding 
experienced stigmatisation and its potential effects

Stigmas are understood as easily becoming unchallenged, ultimately leading to a 
sense of social and spatial phenomena that matches one’s expectation and may 
resist empirical adjustment (Greitmeyer 2008: 80). Thereby, stigmatising represen-
tations contribute to the consolidation of the reality they symbolise (Howarth 2002: 
250) and become persistent. Using Goffman’s vocabulary, the gap between a virtual 
and actual social identity becomes increasingly hard to dissolve. Since those dis-
cursively sedimented practices of devaluation are intertwined with spatial labelling 
processes, the negative ascriptions concerning related places may likewise become 
persistent. Bürk underlines that once certain labels and frames fi nd their way into 
popular discursive regimes it is very diffi cult to replace them (Bürk 2012: 91). Very 
often then, stigmatised people are in fact not the bearers of the stigma anymore, but 
rather act as representatives of a stigmatised region (Bürk/Beißwenger 2013: 128). 
Wacquant (2007: 68) therefore concludes:

“Whether or not these areas are in fact dilapidated and dangerous, and their 
population composed essentially of poor people, minorities and foreigners, 
matters little in the end: the prejudicial belief that they are suffi ces to set off 
socially noxious consequences.”

However, as stigmas have been subject to different disciplines, understandings 
of how they allegedly affect people and places differ remarkably according to theo-
retical and methodological approaches to the social and the psychological. In its 
broadest understanding, a territorial stigma equals a poison permeating everything. 



Refl ecting on the Margins    • 293

In his seminal study of the American ghetto, Wacquant highlights the general pres-
ence of a “symbolic taint and territorial stigmatisation, contaminating every area of 
social endeavour, from friendship and housing to schooling and jobs” (Wacquant 
1997: 346). The potential of stigmas to reach a state of omnipresence is considered 
one of the “structural and strategic constraints that bear on the racialised enclaves 
of the city as on no other segment of America’s territory” (Wacquant 1997: 346). 
Analogically, in her study of adolescents in a stigmatised South London community 
Howarth underlines that

“(h)ow others recognize us has an impact on how we recognize ourselves. 
This is particularly true for the adolescent. […] For those from marginalized 
and stigmatized communities, the gaze of the other is all the more inescap-
able.” (Howarth 2002: 240)

However, not every stigma exerts such severe infl uence. Some stigmas may be 
ignored, some may not be perceived at all and some may be refl ected only within 
certain epistemic groups.

Coming back to socio-spatial stigmatisation, nevertheless, the omnipresence 
– and thus hegemonic nature – of a territorial stigma does not “simply” mean a 
communicative demarcation of the region, city or quarter in question but has real 
consequences for those who feel the stigmatising gaze settled on them, for example 
local residents. “When a child grows up in a stigmatised neighbourhood […], the 
socio psychological consequences of such neglect can be severe” (Howarth 2002: 
251). This mode of rejection may infl ict psychological strain and, thus, interfere with 
the (re)construction of identity (Howarth 2002: 249) up to the point where “for those 
stigmatised, questions of identity are painfully inescapable” (Howarth 2002: 246). 
In the same line of reasoning, Schooler et al. (2004) argue that a stigma can be-
come relevant for self-identifi cation when an individual imagines her or himself as 
a member of a stigmatised group. Membership, in turn, is based on preceding and 
repeatedly performed social categorisation and identifi cation. For instance, when it 
comes to impacts of idealised body images in mass media, “(a)s fellow members 
of a stigmatised group (Crocker/Major 1989), Black women may see other Black 
women as allies, not as competitors, and may therefore fi nd comparisons with other 
Black women, even with ideal media images, inspiring” (Schooler et al. 2004: 44). 
Feelings of belonging to a certain group might thus be based on ethnic, racial, age 
or gender-related signifi ers but could also refer to a shared socio-territorial abode. 
However, the fact that one considers oneself – sometimes subconsciously – part of 
the group addressed may lead to certain reactions.

An important strand of socio-psychological research to which we refer has tack-
led the question on how far experiences of belonging to a stigmatised group have 
an impact on a person’s self-esteem (e.g. Crocker/Major 1989; Crocker 1999; Camp 
et al. 2002; Major et al. 2003) and are related to objective self-awareness (e.g. Pinel/
Bosson 2013). Studies in this fi eld have underlined that there is no linear or causal 
relation between stigmatisation and low self-esteem as one would probably ex-
pect. Instead, Crocker and Major and, later on, others have argued that people who 
identify as members of a stigmatised group often feel uncertain whether a certain 



•    Frank Meyer, Judith Miggelbrink, Tom Schwarzenberg294

reaction to them is due to their individual abilities or behaviour or due to generalised 
expectations deriving from stigmatisation. This “attributional ambiguity” (Crocker/
Major 2003 refering to Crocker/ Major 1989) may cause positive as well as negative 
feedbacks in terms of self-esteem. Consequently, situational aspects and “stigma 
consciousness” (Pinel 1999) play a crucial role in this debate. Pinel and Bosson 
(2013: 56), for instance, emphasize that “stigma-relevant components of social iden-
tity may or may not attract one’s attention” depending on whether the respective 
component is scorned or esteemed in a certain situation (e.g. gay identifi cation in 
a homophobic environment versus gay identifi cation in the context of a Gay Pride 
event).

Thus, being stigmatised does not necessarily undermine self-esteem. Based on 
an observed lack of difference in the level of self-esteem between stigmatised and 
non-stigmatised groups, it has been discussed that blaming the stigma – i.e. at-
tributing negative outcomes to existing stigmas and stigmatisation – may serve as 
a protection for one’s self-esteem. “When prejudice is overt, people blame negative 
outcomes on discrimination rather than themselves, and their self-esteem is buff-
ered as a result of this discounting process” (Major et al. 2003: 229). Furthermore, 
self-esteem can be protected by “paradoxical contentment” (Crocker/Major 2003: 
233), i.e. “the tendency to make in-group social comparisons and the tendency to 
devaluate certain domains that one’s group doesn’t tend to succeed in might also 
protect self-esteem” (Crocker/Major 2003: 233). Thus, stigmatisation does not nec-
essarily have an impact on people in terms of lowering self-esteem or undermining 
self-awareness.

In addition, it has been observed that people who apply a stigmatising represen-
tation to themselves tend to play down or even negate their ties to the stigmatised 
group in question and thereby potentially devaluate elements of their social identity 
(e.g. Howarth 2002: 250). For instance, people living in a stigmatised area may claim 
to be different from the object of stigmatisation, invoking – in a defl ecting attitude 
– a certain social difference or distance between those “rightfully” stigmatised and 
themselves (Howarth 2002: 251). This in turn can paradoxically lead to further de-
valuating practices within the originally labelled region. Based on the arguments 
above, these acts can be interpreted as coping strategies in order to preserve self-
esteem.

In sum, we claim that studies from social psychology contradict popular notions 
of stigmas as externally introduced labels negatively affecting people – a notion 
that is nevertheless common within the fi elds of politics. Instead, stigmatisation 
has to be understood as a regime consisting of discursive and embodied practices 
of labelling an entity in potentially devaluating ways and thus affecting both the re-
lationship the person addressed builds to her or himself as well as relationships to 
others. This notion allows for the possibility of alterations – intentional or not – and 
acknowledges the dimension of social negotiation. As such, stigmatisation has to 
be seen as a highly complex, multi-lateral social phenomenon that is able to exert 
considerable infl uence on various aspects of human behaviour.



Refl ecting on the Margins    • 295

2.4 Socio-spatial stigmatisation and out-migration

This leads us to the question, if and to what extent the structuring power of stigma-
tisation materialises in (young) people’s decisions to out-migrate. Besides analysing 
the impact of stigmatisation on self-esteem and on devaluating attitudes against 
others, studies of coping with stigmatisation have also discussed the role of socio-
spatial stigmas in (young) people’s decisions to out-migrate. Though not assuming 
a determining, causal relationship, studies on peripheralised rural regions or rural 
regions under depopulation pressure in particular have repeatedly postulated close 
links between stigmatisation and out-migration (Wiest 2015; Wiest/Leibert 2013; 
Wiest 2015). Referring to Kühn and Weck (2013) and Beetz (2008), Wiest (2015: 2) 
writes, “the stigmatisation of areas due to the production of negative self and public 
images must be treated as an important aspect since negatively connoted seman-
tics not only have a descriptive character, but also produce relevant expectations 
that have an infl uence on human behaviour.” A regional narrative of out-migration 
has become so dominant that – as Wiest (2015: 2) assumes – the “fear of missing the 
boat and being left behind” leads to a situation in which “staying in a home region is 
no longer taken into a young person’s consideration”. If socio-spatial stigmatisation 
is both an outcome of social marginalisation and exclusion and can be seen as a 
medium through which marginalisation and exclusion are performed, out-migration 
could be regarded as a logical consequence that is already included in local narra-
tives.

Out-migration furthermore involves the negotiation of socio-spatial identities 
(Jones 1999). The cumulative and mutually boosting impacts of omnipresent as-
criptions, feelings of being identifi ed by stigmatisation in processes of social and 
discursive reproduction are conveyed by the term “culture of out-migration” (Wiest 
2015: 6). Although this notion of “culture” may have an essentialist undertone, it 
serves to point out a discursive regime as a subjectively shared socio-symbolic 
order of knowledge produced and reproduced through everyday actions, percep-
tions, emotions and decisions. We assume the (re-)production of regional images 
of out-migration to be a decisive element of how potential decisions to out-migrate 
are negotiated.

3 Socio-spatial stigmatisation among adolescents: Empirical fi ndings

3.1 Dissecting logics of stigmatisation: Methodological notes

To specify the methodological embedment of our empirical fi ndings it seems neces-
sary and useful to refl ect on the main reasons that we initially selected the Alten-
burger Land district as a case study region. For one thing, it mirrors a set of criteria 
applied to a sample of German districts that are characterised by persistent prob-
lematisations with regard to socio-economic parameters such as purchasing power, 
unemployment, out-migration and a signifi cant demographic shift towards an ag-
ing population (see e.g. BBSR 2015: 8). But more decisively – bearing in mind our 



•    Frank Meyer, Judith Miggelbrink, Tom Schwarzenberg296

epistemological focus on discursively negotiated (negative) representations – Al-
tenburger Land is constantly identifi ed as a “problem-region.” For instance, experts’ 
interest in its demographic development can be observed. The district has become 
the subject of political programmes aiming at countering population decline and 
marginalisation. Regarding media coverage, the case study region has persistently 
received bad results in so-called regional rankings (e.g. IWConsult 2014). Such rep-
resentations mainly focus on the aforementioned socio-economic criteria and draw 
on conditions of shrinkage, but – as stigmas – also involve further criteria of social 
deviance. This situation is, however, not specifi c for this district but applies to a 
number of other regions facing the same demographic and economic challenges 
both in Germany and beyond its borders. Based on focus groups with adolescents 
from Altenburger Land, we aim at witnessing how such conditions of stigmatisation 
inform adolescents’ modes of social differentiation.

Stigmatisations, as we have shown above, not only affect individuals in terms 
of self-awareness and may infl uence individual decisions widely regarded as “per-
sonal”, but also have further structuring effects on social and inter-group relations. 
Researching stigmatisation, thus, raises methodological issues concerning the full 
range of circumstances in which stigmatising moments as well as potential effects 
and the ways both are related through practices can be observed (see Miggelbrink/
Meyer 2015a). Hacking argues that external ascriptions, for example by institutions, 
experts or a general regime of knowledge (Tekin 2014: 240), are indeed perceived 
and refl ected by the respective person addressed and that, as a consequence, we 
may notice not only changes in the respective subject’s self-concepts but also be-
havioural changes known as looping effects (Hacking 1995). The “effects of stigma 
on the self”, as Crocker (1999: 91) more generally puts it, are negotiated, created, 
and acted upon in the situation. Although Hacking remained quite ambiguous about 
the precise subjective processes, conclusions have to be drawn for research on 
stigmatisation as socio-spatial phenomenon. We consequently have to involve not 
only representations, their respective sources and the subjective reactions, but 
should incorporate insights into the changing practices of the addressed subjects 
(see Meyer/Miggelbrink 2013). Moreover, we by necessity have to be sensitive to the 
ways these subjects constitute their actuality:

“However, thinking through what people do, it can be seen that these posi-
tionings are not necessarily articulated, nor even articulable. They are there-
fore better witnessed, better understood through the ways in which people 
produce or turn over places and spaces for their own uses.” (Pile 2008: 201)

Focusing on these subjective reactions in practice – and more specifi cally in the 
context of peripheralisation – undoubtedly entails an epistemological as well as 
methodological shift. Given that peripheralisation as social phenomenon can only 
be understood by incorporating socio-economic as well as discursive criteria (Beetz 
2008: 13), researchers have to take their own dual nature into consideration: (1) 
With regard to the fact that empirical social research often makes use of reactive 
methods (such as: interviews of varying nature, focus groups), methodologies have 
to be elaborated that aim at dissecting the traces of socio-spatial representations 



Refl ecting on the Margins    • 297

(such as stigmatisation) from the respondent’s statements (see Miggelbrink/Meyer 
2015a; Schwarzenberg 2016) and focus on the role of stigmatisation on the respec-
tive decision-making process – of whatever rational or irrational nature it may be. 
(2) Given that shrinkage-related topics are highly infl uenced by scientifi c knowl-
edge production (e.g. in the form of policy counselling), forming the basis for spa-
tial representations and supposedly co-informing stigmatisation, scientifi c observ-
ers should acknowledge their own impact on this fi eld of research and adjust their 
methodologies accordingly (see Miggelbrink/Meyer 2015b).

Drawing on the aforementioned conceptualisations of stigmatisation, group-
focused enmity, disintegration as well as subject theory, we conclude that socio-
spatial stigmas are collectively shared representations of groups and/or places. 
They are informed by assumptions about normality and deviance, of generalising 
and derogative nature and devaluate the ascribed entities. From a constructionist 
point of view, such deviance can, however, not be attributed to concrete behaviour, 
but refers to overlapping subjective and collective notions of what is regarded as 
normal. Furthermore, stigmatisation as an interactive process cannot be reduced 
to unilateral processes of labelling but instead has to be understood as socially ne-
gotiated fl oating semantics, potentially prone to perception, reproduction but also 
irrelevance. Those aspects may bear importance for those ascribed according to 
the respective subjective signifi cance.

Methodologically, we conducted 15 focus groups with pupils from intermediate 
and upper secondary schools as well as vocational schools in the district Altenburg-
er Land – most of them between the ages of 15 and 19. Under the supervision of 
one teacher, we talked about their perception of their home region and their future 
plans, with conversations lasting up to roughly 90 minutes. Afterwards, additional 
interviews with the respective teachers were conducted in order to contextualise 
the pupils’ statements. Given the respective school-related and organisational con-
straints, the focus groups consisted of 5 to 25 pupils. Therefore, usually two moder-
ators organised the discussion while the teachers remained in the background and 
were only occasionally active. After transcription and anonymisation, the conversa-
tions were codifi ed within the software MaxQDA in order to inductively elaborate 
central concepts.

However, stigmas were rarely precisely explicated. Remarkably, although many 
of our respondents highlighted the presence of certain stigmas and stressed their 
artifi cial nature, they still – when describing their own perception of the district 
Altenburger Land – tended to stick to those same logics. Moreover, our respond-
ents usually did not distinguish between collective representations (such as misfi t’s 
quarter), subjective perceptions (such as perceptions of drunk people) and statisti-
cal data (such as a high number of unemployed people within a given area). Only 
occasionally did some discussants mention that a place’s image may not entirely fi t 
their respective perception of it.

Consequentially, this had analytical implications for our study. For every quote 
and particular derogative ascription in relation to groups or places, we had to elabo-
rate whether specifi c collective representations were used, for example by search-
ing for generalising assumptions, claims about collective notions, etc. If, however, 



•    Frank Meyer, Judith Miggelbrink, Tom Schwarzenberg298

no indication of such direct adoptions of stigmas were present, we continued to 
look for statements that used specifi c descriptions in a similar manner, subsequent-
ly leading us to the conclusion of shared representations. During our focus groups, 
we usually left acts of stigmatisation uncommented. Occasionally, our respondents 
used paradoxical descriptions of the situation (e.g. when complaining about today’s 
youth, despite being that youth). Such incidents provided us with the opportunity to 
dig into the processes of negotiation, explicate implicit assumptions and problema-
tise the emergence and usage of stigmas.

In the following sections, we will dissect several stigmas that proved to be of im-
portance across most of our focus groups. Although our conversations took place 
all across the district, in different school types and also in different age groups, we 
were able to distinguish a number of narrative strategies – namely defl ective strate-
gies of specifi cation and localisation – involved in the reproduction of stigmas that 
are applied when young people talk about deviant behaviour, despised areas and 
about their own future prospects. Although they do represent adolescents’ sense-
making of their surroundings, they do not necessarily coincide with actuality. Yet, 
they do provide traces of stigmatisation prevalent in the region. Firstly, we aim at 
elaborating stigmas regarding their ascribed characteristics and the respective plac-
es associated with them as well as their connection to the socio-economic circum-
stances of the Altenburger Land district. In a second step, we assemble common 
patterns of localised social deviance and its emergence and then, in a third step, we 
illuminate the impact of such representations on migratory decision-making.3 Such 
a systematic account, however, runs the risk of reducing the communicative com-
plexity involved. The stigmas we identifi ed share common patterns and permeate 
each other to some extent. We decided to especially include those stigmas drawing 
(1) on a common notion of deviant behaviour and (2) on notions of a proper way of 
life under conditions of shrinkage. 

3.2 Dystopian representations: Narrative fragments on the city and 
district of Altenburg

During quite a number of group discussions, we were confronted with narrative 
fragments evoking the idea that either the whole district of Altenburg or the city of 
Altenburg or at least parts of it are highly problematic, disgusting places beyond 
what is going on elsewhere. In a longer discussion about “today’s youth”, a number 
or respondents – though themselves belonging to this age-group – draw a nega-
tive picture of young people in the city of Altenburg as smoking cigarettes and pot, 
drinking alcohol and consuming crystal meth (methamphetamine), even in front of 
the school. Later on, one of them shows that he is convinced these problems are 
specifi c for Altenburg:

3 The sources given for the statements relate to transcripts of the audiotaped conversations. 
The respective sources refer to focus groups (FG_x), for which the specifi c cipher and position 
within the transcript is given.



Refl ecting on the Margins    • 299

“There are too many prepubescent adolescents in the city of Altenburg who 
think they have to impress others. Of course, there are some cool people as 
well. [...] But there are also some folks that you wouldn’t want to meet again. 
[...] They behave in pretty disgusting ways. And if there is something they 
don’t like, they’ll totally freak out. That’s Altenburg; it’s not in every city.” 
(FG_ 21:455)4

Accordingly, a classmate expresses relief that “we don’t live in the city of Alten-
burg” (FG_16:466ff.), seconded by a third student who offers a clarifi cation for the 
moderator, “To put it this way: We think of ourselves as being relatively normal. But 
there are these others.” (FG_16:466ff.)

In a nutshell, these and similar quotes present narrative elements that were re-
peatedly used throughout our discussions. First, narratives frequently employ visu-
al arguments to illuminate the precarious conditions of the respective region, town 
or village. What is regarded as problematic materialises in people and places that 
exhibit the problem and, in turn, places and behaviour that are identifi ed as differ-
ing from normality and thus serve as an indicator of the bad condition of the whole 
socio-spatial entity. A second, more specifi c narrative topic unfolds around drugs 
and drug abuse. Although this topic is diffi cult to grasp and thus to validate using 
“offi cial” fi gures, almost all people we talked to during our research – including 
experts in the fi eld of drug prevention – assured us that the consumption of crystal 
meth is a rising problem in Altenburger Land. Drugs – alcohol and crystal meth were 
regularly mentioned – are the epitome of what is considered “problematic”, “bad” 
or “deviant” with regard to people and places here. Altenburg, in turn, is considered 
the epitome of drugs: 

“The stronghold of drugs! Just go anywhere, Leipzig or Gera: Where do you 
come from? The city of Altenburg! Altenburg is associated with drugs. People 
know what’s going on here.” (FG_ 23:441)

Although this perception is not devoid of any empirical evidence in terms of 
quantitative numbers (e.g. Härtel-Petri/Haupt 2014), pupils use the topic primarily to 
underline the rather dystopian nature of the city of Altenburg and even the whole re-
gion as the quote above demonstrates. Moreover, pupils feel they are perceived by 
outsiders through the lens of this widely known image of the region that is directed 
as stigma on them. One might ask if drugs are an arbitrary marker to both indicat-
ing the current situation and building the image of the region (e.g. Haegeler 2015), 
however, it was the marker used through almost all group discussions. Drug abuse 
was one of the recurrently applied markers of difference – despite the fact that few 
of our respondents were assumed to take drugs themselves, as teachers mentioned 
in feedback interviews. And drug abuse was one of the recurrently applied markers 
of the image of the region people from outside are assumed to have. Moreover, we 
found several strategies to somehow encircle the problematic elements and locate 

4 The quotes from the focus groups were translated by us. The German versions have been 
amended.



•    Frank Meyer, Judith Miggelbrink, Tom Schwarzenberg300

them elsewhere – both in terms of locating them at “another” place or associating 
them with “other” people and groups. In the following section, we concentrate on 
this strategy.

3.3 Encircling stigmas: Defl ective strategies of specifi cation and 
localisation

3.3.1 Students in intermediate secondary schools

Among those in upper secondary schools (Gymnasium), our respondents often ap-
plied a defl ective strategy of specifi cation, used to transform a very general pejora-
tive label for the regional population into a more specifi c stigma for the group of 
pupils on the intermediate level of secondary school education (in contrast to the 
upper secondary education: the Gymnasium):

A: And the Förderschulen [special schools] get closed so the Förderschüler 
learn with the Regelschüler [pupils in intermediate secondary education], 
and everything becomes even more catastrophic. […] Occasionally, we 
have physical education together – how they talk the teachers down!

Moderator: [...] So what’s the difference between Regelschule and Gymna-
sium? Talking teachers down?

B: That – at fi rst – and second, the Regelschule is really asocial. There are 
exceptions, but only a few. Most of them are really asocial, swearing at 
each other. There are fi ghts quite often. (FG_17:441ff.)

Widely shared notions of school type-specifi c deviance serve the practice of 
reinforcing social boundaries already introduced by the German school system. Be-
ing federally organised, the 16 different school systems in Germany (and the corre-
sponding terminology for the respective school types) usually distinguish between 
different levels of performance but are often seen as reproducing social inequalities 
to a certain extent (e.g. Schneider 2008). Evidence has been found of Germany-spe-
cifi c effects of tracking pupils too early on (Jürges/Schneider 2011); furthermore, 
boys seem to be affected the most by this (Jürges/Schneider 2011). Other studies 
have pointed out that a low socio-economic background as well as living in rural 
areas leads to a lower probability of being admitted to upper secondary educa-
tion (Schnepf 2002). Such inequalities are transposed into the system of vocational 
education and training and thus may have long-term career ramifi cations (Beicht/
Walden 2015).

In this regard, our respondents linked pupils in intermediate secondary schools 
with social decline. However, this differentiation also serves as the basis for a 
broader chain of association. Deviant behaviour from the “Regelschüler” is not only 
associated with a somewhat general notion of underperformance, staying behind 
(in the sense of not leaving the region) or a lack of determination regarding one’s 
self-fulfi lment. These pupils also seem to be associated with a variety of criminal 
behaviour (doing drugs), often socially stigmatised acts (drinking in public, yet not 
in restaurants) as well as socially stigmatised conditions (unemployed, welfare-



Refl ecting on the Margins    • 301

dependent). Occasionally, such relations are further specifi ed by distinguishing 
“Regelschüler” from those attending a Special School – i.e. pupils with (learning) 
disabilities. Of course, this generalisation is not always based on experiences but 
often is passed on as a visual association between different subjects and groups. 
This in turn serves feelings of relative deprivation such as when pupils from a Gym-
nasium complain about the local Regelschule being more technically advanced than 
their Gymnasium. Intermediate Secondary Schools – beyond mere performance in 
the context of school marks – can therefore be seen as a widely shared stigma, of-
ten used to distinguish oneself from lower-class groups. It is furthermore informed 
by conditions of scarcity and a prevalent regime of out-migration.

3.3.2 Identifying problems “elsewhere”: Shabby blocks and sweatpants in 
“a crap city”

Besides these attempts to draw clear and derogative distinctions between pupils 
from different schools, references to social misfi ts – a strategy of defl ective locali-
sation – became a common talking point after mentioning the northern parts of the 
city of Altenburg. Almost any kind of social problems were literally located in the 
city of Altenburg’s northern parts (“Altenburg-Nord”). Though we do not want to 
play off subjectively and collectively intelligible understandings against assumed 
objective realities, some additional information should be provided. Altenburg Nord 
is an urban district built during the 1980s for about 10,000 people. After re-unifi ca-
tion, it shared the fate of other modern urban quarters erected during GDR times. It 
faced strong out-migration followed by vacancy, decay, and – later on – by the raz-
ing of abandoned buildings and reconstruction of others. Mainly owned by a public 
housing company and a cooperative, it is still associated with downgrading and 
social deviance. In the following quote, the architectural quality of the environment 
was taken as a starting point to refl ect the “asocial” nature of the area; spatial and 
social ascriptions were combined:

Moderator:  What’s your impression of Altenburg and other places?

A:  Well, it’s kind of asocial, especially when looking at those housing blocks. 

B:  And take a look at those kids there, they ain’t good at anything.

A:  They are pretty shabby!

Moderator:  The building blocks?

A:  Yeah. It has gotten better. […]

C:  I think it’s because of all these foreigners living there. And others that re-
ceive less money than those who can afford stuff. Maybe, some don’t get 
the support to live in some nicer places, or to provide their kids with better 
education.

D:  Yeah, you often get to see some asocial kids, or youngsters walking around 
with bottles of beer. Just shabby.

E:  And the walls are full of graffi ti! (FG_ 24:630ff.)



•    Frank Meyer, Judith Miggelbrink, Tom Schwarzenberg302

The association between the architectural environment and the social composi-
tion of Altenburg’s north is seen as being structurally connected, though the con-
nection itself is not clearly specifi ed. Two dimensions of deviance are amalgamated 
by the participants: unpleasant architecture and (correspondingly) people that are 
ascribed negative characteristics, both converging within a particular part of the 
city of Altenburg. Interestingly, foreigners were in general quite rarely mentioned 
as an indicator for deviance and social decline. However, Altenburg’s north was the 
most frequently mentioned place in the district Altenburger Land during our discus-
sions and equally often described as being the worst one as well. At the same time, 
Altenburg-Nord epitomises and exemplifi es “the other” opposed to a good life, and 
assembles the respective most despised traits. Its usage often implies an unspeci-
fi ed causality.

However, Altenburg-Nord is just one example of localised stigmas that combine 
social and spatial characteristics. The whole city of Altenburg can also serve as the 
entity to blame, being – from the perspective of a pupil from a vocational school – a 
“Crap city! [...] Altenburg should know that it is a crap city, a dirt city” (FG_12:205ff.). 
Statements like this were frequent in our material; especially among those seeking 
more cultural and political diversity. Many of them felt attracted by the city of Leip-
zig, 50 kilometres away, a city of more than 500,000 inhabitants – in contrast to the 
33,000 inhabitants of Altenburg – that is regionally known for its abundant cultural 
offerings and believed to be politically left-leaning. Furthermore, adolescents from 
the small towns of Altenburger Land looked down on the city of Altenburg for pre-
senting their everyday problems in an aggravated dimension. However, the logic of 
despising “the other” – socially and spatially – is also echoed in statements about 
other small towns in our research area such as Gößnitz and its inhabitants – sug-
gesting that this is widespread rhetorical logic of establishing socio-spatial order:

“When we drive through Gößnitz, most people wear sweatpants, all day long, 
many are drunk. I don’t want to call them misfi ts, but – yeah – kind of. When 
driving through Gößnitz, it’s kind of a dirty city, as if – since twenty years 
ago – somebody has stopped taking care of it, as if Gößnitz – now – just veg-
etates.” (FG_ 20:302)

However singular the respective observation is, the label “Gößnitz” entailed nu-
merous ascriptions especially for adolescents from Schmölln, a small town near 
Gößnitz: an architectural environment perceived as particularly dull as well as the 
widespread description of social deviance in the Altenburger Land district that we 
heard quite often. The previous quote from a 16-year old is striking insofar as it 
presents a rather “standardised” and “sedimented” narrative about small towns that 
symbolises the social nature of negotiating such stigmas and includes elements 
beyond his own experience. 

However, although some respondents acknowledged that “prejudice” informs 
the narrative, the overall constructed nature does not surface. Paradoxically, the 
conditions in Gößnitz are not generally questioned but usually interpreted on the 
basis of singular – often not necessarily one’s own – observations or hear-say, again 
reproducing the lack of distinction between representation and perceived actuality. 



Refl ecting on the Margins    • 303

Instead the adolescents insist that their descriptions do indeed match the respec-
tive situation. Paradoxically, they anticipate accusations of prejudice and instanta-
neously reject them:

“I am in Altenburg quite often. You’ll see folks, 16, 17 years old, running 
around with sweatpants and a 12-year old girlfriend. I just wouldn’t want to 
end up like that. There aren’t just a few of them. Just walk through the city. I 
don’t have any prejudices, but you can actually see such folks and tell your-
self: I don’t want to end up like this.” (FG_ 21:334)

Such localisations of social deviance often served as anchors for more general 
elaborations on alleged differences between cities and small villages. While the 
former were associated with noisiness, crimes, anonymity but also leisure activi-
ties, the latter was strongly seen to correspond to the need for order, courtesy, rest, 
a nice environment and family. The city of Altenburg in particular was despised by 
adolescents from small villages on the basis of more general differentiations be-
tween villages and cities:

A: In villages, parents help, it’s more about the family. In the city, it’s more 
like, you have your child, but it shouldn’t be there, I don’t care for it any-
more, therefore, it is forced to do everything on its own. Many people live 
like this, it’s getting more and more like that. […] It’s more often in the city, 
it is more concentrated. [...]

B: If you grow up in a village, you can actually let your child – at 15 or 16 – 
walk the streets after 9 pm without having to be afraid that it has to crawl 
back to you after being stabbed. (FG_ 31:655ff.)

Given its exaggerated nature, the latter statement in particular generated intense 
laughter during the respective discussion. While it was not taken as authentic rep-
resentation of everyday life in the city of Altenburg, it nevertheless draws on less 
infl ated assumptions about general differences between cities and villages. In sum, 
social deviance – as articulated in widely shared stigmas – is frequently connected 
to specifi c places; they are not only seen as the places where such behaviour hap-
pens. Instead, they persistently coalesce with such ascriptions and – as seen in the 
examples of Gößnitz and Schmölln – are able to retain those associations beyond 
a specifi c group or age band. Furthermore, stigmatised places inherit the proper-
ties of the stigma, which itself feeds on authentic and remote conveyed experi-
ences. These aspects, however, are only occasionally and partially refl ected by the 
adolescents. Again, “the drug problem” that was identifi ed as a main marker of 
“the outsider’s image” of Altenburg was actualised when the discussion turned to 
Altenburg-Nord, the place that was repeatedly identifi ed as the hive of drug users:

A:  That’s an area nobody wants to go to. [...] All these freaky kids [...] Folks 
who just blunder all day long.

B: There are druggies!

A:  Folks that destroy everything. Drugs and everything. That’s Nord; it’s the 
worst. 



•    Frank Meyer, Judith Miggelbrink, Tom Schwarzenberg304

B: People are getting killed there!

A: You can even hear gunshots at night. (FG_ 31:590ff.)

In the eyes of young people, Nord has become the (clearly) defi ned projection 
screen for what is going wrong with some of the youth. Yet, not everyone had au-
thentic experiences with Nord. Instead, discussants often relied on hearsay. How-
ever, some of our respondents identifi ed the whole city as “plagued by drugs and 
stuff” and thus in turn as a place where young people feel latently criminalised – just 
because they are visible in the streets:

A: And most people, especially the youth, suffer from this situation. For ex-
ample, if you drive through the streets on your mopeds at 11 pm – you will 
most often get stopped and searched.

Moderator:  By the police?

A: Yeah. They defi nitely get tough with that! And many have to suffer from it, 
many who don’t do drugs. (FG_ 31:608ff.)

Such incidents catalyse processes of projection, epitomising the inevitability of 
grappling with the ubiquitous presence of drugs in one’s everyday life. On the one 
hand, our respondents identify drug abuse and abusers in their everyday lives. On 
the other hand, they also feel the power of stigmatising representations on them-
selves. Drug abuse, as such, has become more than a localised narrative apart from 
social actuality; it becomes everyday reality. This, of course, involves assumptions 
about the mechanisms leading to drug abuse that in turn reveal prevalent stigmas:

“You have to demonstrate that – you know – it could make you die at a young-
er age, or that you lower yourself, that you aren’t able to make progress in life. 
[…] You know, I think that it’s especially the dumber people, who are not that 
intelligent.” (FG_ 23:655)

In this view, doing drugs means a lack of progress. Such attempts to make causal 
sense of what they know reveal logic of defl ection; the stigma of abusing drugs 
is seen to involve only specifi c groups. Characterising druggies against this back-
ground illuminates the associations involved in the social negotiation of causality 
related to drug abuse. Thus, not only what one does or represents is judged as 
being deviant, but also what one aspires to do – and this is understood as being 
closely linked to one’s abode. For instance, one of our respondents pointed to a 
close and almost causal relation between social deviance, drug abuse and specifi c 
– though not clearly named – places: 

“The unemployed parental home is the reason. It’s in those parts of the city 
where many welfare-dependent people live […] the under-privileged families 
with disadvantaged children slipping off into certain groups, and getting their 
infl uence from them.” (FG_ 23:675)

Here, deviant conditions are not only socially specifi ed but enclosed in specifi c 
areas. Furthermore, this narrative represents widely shared and articulated convic-



Refl ecting on the Margins    • 305

tions about alleged connections of cause and effect. Quite frequently, adolescents 
discussed the lack of leisure and job opportunities in the region, especially high-
lighting ever-present boredom and a lack of prospects for those living and staying 
in the region, contributing to a generally negative image of the situation in the Alten-
burger Land district: “You just have to smoke pot to bear all this here” (FG_16:997). 
However, it also mirrors hegemonic narratives about peripheralised regions lacking 
the ability to compete against – mostly – cities that are able to offer jobs and ac-
tivities satisfying a variety of interests and orientations. Narratives of boredom are 
thereby incorporated into intra-regional stigmas about specifi c groups of people 
and the places they are assumed to live.

3.3.3 “I didn’t know that.” Negotiating the dangerous Nord

As shown above, stigmatisation is a hierarchical condition; although there are a 
number of negative stigmas referring to the region and to the city of Altenburg, the 
northern part of the city serves as a projection screen for the most negative phe-
nomena. It is not only associated with drugs but also with crime in general reaching 
so far as to pose an everyday threat to anyone. Social and spatial characteristics 
both constitute the stigma and contribute to a – sometimes fuzzy – feeling of being 
threatened. Astoundingly, the following quote shows a rare but important contesta-
tion as nobody seems to agree on the everyday presence of knives in Nord:

A:  For example Altenburg-Nord. Everyone knows it. […] Many call it misfi t’s 
quarter, because in Nord really everyone carries knives.

Moderator:  Really? Everyone carries knives? 

A:  Well, no idea …

B:  I didn’t know that.

C:  Me neither!

A:  Well, for example a friend of mine was severely threatened with a knife 
and a weapon. And he lives there, and he often hears gunshots in the 
evening. (FG_ 24:588ff.)

While such a claim seems to be exaggerating singular hearsay, it follows a con-
sistently extreme perspective on Altenburg-Nord. Nevertheless, opposition to a 
manifest stigmatisation as in the quote above allows space not only for legitimising 
narratives but also provides insights into the mechanisms of negotiating stigmas. 
We occasionally encountered pupils debating whether or not the negative depiction 
of Altenburg-Nord fi tted their own experiences. However, they often ignored each 
other’s comments about “the North” as a general socio-spatial category. Instead, it 
has led them to re-entitise their comments – from a negative area to specifi c inhab-
itants – allegedly in order to create compatibility. Generally, there were numerous 
occasions where differing associations clashed but underwent re-interpretations 
using the aforementioned defl ective strategies of specifi cation and localisation. Of-
ten, such incidents had to be explicitly enforced by the moderator, encouraging 



•    Frank Meyer, Judith Miggelbrink, Tom Schwarzenberg306

the participants to discuss each other’s perspective. This way, a somewhat causal 
connection between social and spatial ascriptions was dissected. Nevertheless, it 
always seemed forced and provided just a temporary differentiation as shortly after 
both dimensions were often re-associated. Social negotiation in this sense doesn’t 
mean that people interact and deliberately argue with each other. Instead, the nego-
tiation of stigmas consists of repetitive statements, only occasionally taking note of 
each other if confl icting.

The logic of convergent narratives based on social as well as spatial topoi is not 
restricted to Altenburg-Nord but, instead, a general pattern that has been observed 
especially in declining neighbourhoods and towns (e.g. Howarth 2002). Once (and 
as long as) accepted as true, some of our respondents started to explain why de-
viant behaviour and social problems necessarily coincide in this place and how it 
is reproduced again and again. Assumed causal mechanisms working behind the 
scenes – as articulated by a female pupil from a rural intermediate secondary school 
with regard to Altenburg-Nord – are part of a narrative that legitimises socio-spatial 
stigmatisation:5

“Well, it is the upbringing, because, I think, the parents living there. I don’t 
want to claim that everybody’s that way in Nord, that everybody is violent and 
stuff, but if you grow up there, and the parents, I mean, are welfare depend-
ents and never leave for work, only yell at their child, or beat the child, then, I 
think, it will not become a really nice person like us.” (FG_ 31:623)

Negotiations of stigmas in such a way involve converging pejorative narratives 
that include a set of generalised negative social characteristics, a place to which 
these traits are attributed and sometimes diverging, yet frequently implied, as-
sumptions about possible explanations. Such self-consistent narratives seem to be 
remarkably persistent in their general logic. Apparently, the moderator’s occasional 
attempts to address its particular and paradoxical nature couldn’t break the logic of 
stigmatisation:

Moderator: This place doesn’t sound like I would want to go there! […]

A (quietly): But it is just another image!

Moderator: I’d like to hear that.

A:  Well, it is just another image. Because normal people do live there, in nor-
mal houses. It’s not that everyone is like that. [...]

Moderator: I assume that we can all agree that not everyone runs around in 
Altenburg-Nord carrying knives or a gun.

A (laughing): Right!

B:  [...] My granny lives in Nord.

5 For a discussion of corresponding perspectives on the impact of one’s upbringing for future 
orientations see Meyer/Miggelbrink 2015.



Refl ecting on the Margins    • 307

Moderator: Well, from a scientifi c perspective, let’s check: Has your granny 
got knives or a gun? [...]

B: No. (FG_ 24:601ff.)

While the moderator interrogated a discussant’s statement and pressed the 
group to differentiate such generalising statements, it didn’t have much impact. 
Although the topic changed further on – from weapons to deviance – the logics of 
defl ective specifi cation and localisation did not. The moderator’s provocation had 
led to attempts to re-validate aforementioned statements. Still, the association be-
tween generalised social ascriptions and the place proves to be hegemonic, only 
giving way to detailing the location regarding its architectural characteristics. Cor-
respondingly, the cause of the asocial nature of Nord is now attributed to the hous-
ing blocks. Apparently, the underlying conditions of stigmatisation are remarkably 
persistent in the face of contrasting views as – to our astonishment – such incidents 
did not induce refl ections about the validity of prevalent representations.

3.4 Stigmatisation and migratory decision-making

Given the ubiquitous negative ascriptions of the Altenburger Land district and some 
of its cities, it seems important to illuminate the everyday relevance of such dis-
courses: Considering the age of our respondents, the most urgent and inevitable 
decision emerging in their near future is related to the respective career path. While 
some mention their determination to stay in the district and take up a job or pursue 
an Abitur (equalling an “A-Level”), others are undecided and grapple with the deci-
sion. Some even present themselves stoically as logical beings, determined to walk 
their career path, regardless of what sacrifi ces might come. As heterogeneous such 
individual perspectives are, for those who are inclined to migrate elsewhere a re-
petitive association between leaving and self-fulfi lment can be observed:

“It is quite an easy decision: I always have the feeling that if I returned to this 
place, I would have failed a bit.” (FG_ 20:161)

Notwithstanding such pointed statements, it is by no means a simple but rather 
a highly complex decision with many career paths to choose from, and with re-
spect to how the decision-making process unfolds individually. Despite the above 
discussed negative representations of the district, we met adolescents who were 
not eager to leave their home, but were indeed determined to stay. However, these 
cases were often related to actual job-offers from local or regional companies, or to 
the emotions with regard to leaving their family, their friends or the environment the 
adolescents are used to. Staying, as it were, happens due to what satisfi es the per-
sonal needs of those on the verge of taking off into adulthood. And as mentioned 
before, a general sense about a preferred concept of life usually resonates:



•    Frank Meyer, Judith Miggelbrink, Tom Schwarzenberg308

“If you have no one, no friends and everything, but lots of money, what kind 
of life is that? Would you be happy if you had, for example, three cars there 
but no contact to your family and no friends? I don’t think so.” (FG_14: 497ff.)

The most interesting aspect of comparing (potential) stayers and leavers is that 
they all ponder their migratory considerations on similar aspects: family, friends, 
job, wages, perception of the Altenburger Land and perceptions of the respective 
place they consider relocating to. However, how they weigh these criteria in the 
face of migratory considerations remains highly subjective, yet ultimately decisive. 
For instance, most adolescents contemplating staying did indeed acknowledge the 
aforementioned negative depictions of the Altenburger Land. Yet, they decided to 
disregard them in favour of other factors (e.g. social ties, nature and quiet environ-
ment).

On the other hand, for those determined to leave the region, the widely shared 
negative impressions about the Altenburger Land district do seem to dominate mi-
gratory considerations:

“The whole environment [...] decays more and more. [...] There are so many 
folks not having any work. They belong to an underclass, the lowest level. 
And that is a level which – I think – is not something I would want to witness 
everyday on my way to work.” (FG_17:225).

There is, however, a multitude of criteria that seem to inform our respondents’ 
considerations. This manifold has been tackled by accounts of migration happening 
in a specifi c “social, economic and political context which is largely common to all 
members of the community” and that ultimately informs adolescent migration (see 
Carling 2002: 17). For our example, most of these criteria match the specifi cs of the 
main stigmas fl oating around in the region, such as unemployment, drugs, crime, 
asocial folks as well as the perception of architectural characteristics:

“You just have to walk through the town twice, and you’ve virtually seen it 
all. From then on, you can make up your own mind: Here, it is grey and dull; 
there, it is grey and dull. There are druggies everywhere. And that is why you 
just want to leave!” (FG_12:478)

Such negative statements and contrasting examples expressed elsewhere in the 
discussions exist in different shapes, often unconnected, leading to the assump-
tion that they are of different signifi cance to the adolescents. There is, however, a 
quite similar, repetitive logic of how decision-making is made intelligible: It does 
not seem to be crucial negative traits associated with specifi c places are weighted. 
Instead, perceptions and experiences, that have been continuously repeated, col-
lectively reinforced and thus became fi rmly established, quite frequently provided 
the grounds and the rationalisation for a particular decision (especially to out-mi-
grate). Migratory decisions, so it seems, are often closely tied to assumptions about 
a good life and depend on the subjective signifi cance of specifi c criteria that may 
or may not prove to be pivotal for the ultimate decision whether to migrate or not. 
Furthermore, they are in one way or another informed by general discourses related 



Refl ecting on the Margins    • 309

to their home region. These fi ndings mirror similar empirical accounts of migra-
tory decision-making under the impression of regional discourses about poverty 
(e.g. Carling 2002) or the expectation that students gain international experience by 
studying in certain countries (e.g. Collins et al. 2014).

4 Discussion and Conclusion

In sum, we conclude a widely shared practice of drawing mental boundaries in a 
region facing socio-economic decline and negative demographic prospects. Here, 
places and people are not only constructed as distinct and different but are, moreo-
ver, clearly defi ned as the deviant others that differ substantially from one’s own so-
cial and spatial normality. Specifi cally, this normality is strongly related to achieve-
ments that defy regional precarity. Three conclusions can be extrapolated from this: 

First, socio-economic circumstances inform regional processes of stigmatisa-
tion, ultimately leading to further devaluating processes. However theoretically 
grounded such a claim is, we found empirical evidence in defl ective strategies of 
specifi cation and localisation of deviance that correspond to the conceptual as-
sumptions elaborated on in section 2.2.

Second, these rhetoric strategies have to be understood as symptoms of attri-
butional ambiguity: Though young people felt “somehow” addressed by a negative 
image, they eagerly tried to – socially and spatially – identify the problems “else-
where.” Hence, these strategies are ways of transforming general pejorative labels 
for groups and people into intra-regionally assignable labels that specify and lo-
calise deviance and reassure belonging and non-belonging to the labelled entities.

Third, the practice of blaming the stigma is not always directly observable as the 
refl ection of stigmatisation has not reached the point of questioning the validity of 
its logic. However, the perceived – stigmatised – social condition did indeed play a 
role. Especially for adolescents, it is not about facts and fi gures when it comes to the 
decision whether to migrate or not. Rather, their family, their friends and acquaint-
ances constitutes a particular regime of knowledge. We cannot, however, conclude 
that socio-spatial stigmas determine the wish to migrate. As a hegemonic narra-
tive about assumed social conditions, stigmatisation has a potential effi cacy for 
the respective subjects. Stigmas may infl uence decisions, stigmas may be ignored 
and be irrelevant, but they may as well be identifi ed as not matching one’s individ-
ual perceptions. However, stigmas are part – although allegedly not the driver – of 
out-migration, entangled in such collective practice regimes. Furthermore, they are 
symptoms of peripheralisation as they draw on socio-economic criteria but simul-
taneously entail discursive concomitants (see Meyer/Miggelbrink 2013) – namely 
rhetorical logics, defl ective specifi cations and localisations.

Our fi ndings provide the grounds for stressing the need to consider the socio-
geographic and socio-psychological implications of peripherality. When integrating 
the economic, demographic as well as discursive aspects of regional precarity, the 
need to fathom its social ramifi cations – for example regarding social boundary 



•    Frank Meyer, Judith Miggelbrink, Tom Schwarzenberg310

making – becomes inevitable. Furthermore, knowledge about such regimes of stig-
matisation is able to illuminate the complex dynamics of migratory decision-making. 

Insofar, our fi ndings contribute to debates on territorial and socio-spatial stigma-
tisation, and, specifi cally, to research on the structural aspects of social boundary 
making accompanied by logics of inclusion and exclusion (see e.g. Bude 2008: 53). 
Moreover, we are able to elaborate further on the role of discursive phenomena in 
processes of peripheralisation (see e.g. Meyer/Miggelbrink 2013), a dimension that 
has not gotten much attention in debates on the relational making of place and re-
gions so far. Finally, in the wake of supplying further insights into the role of stigma-
tisation in migratory considerations, we are able to supplement existing empirical 
fi ndings in the debate on post-rational migration (e.g. Collins et al. 2014).

References

Amin, Ash 2004: Regions Unbound: Towards a new Politics of Place. In: Geografi ska 
Annaler: Series B – Human Geography 86,1: 33-44.

Anhut, Reimund 2008: Konfl ikttheorie der Desintegrationstheorie. In: Bonacker, Thors-
ten (Ed.): Sozialwissenschaftliche Konfl ikttheorien. Eine Einführung. Wiesbaden: 
Springer-VS: 381-408.

Anhut, Reimund; Heitmeyer, Wilhelm 2000: Desintegration, Konfl ikt und Ethnisierung. 
Eine Problemanalyse und theoretische Rahmenkonzeption. In: Heitmeyer, Wilhelm; 
Anhut, Reimund (Eds.): Bedrohte Stadtgesellschaft. Soziale Desintegrationsprozesse 
und ethnisch-kulturelle Konfl iktkonstellationen. Konfl ikt- und Gewaltforschung. Wein-
heim und München: Juventa: 17-75.

Attia, Iman 2013: Das Konzept der „gruppenbezogenen Menschenfeindlichkeit”. Einige 
kritische Anmerkungen. In: Soziologische Revue 36,1: 3-9 [doi: 10.1524/srsr.2013.0002].

Barlösius, Eva; Neu, Claudia 2008: Territoriale Ungleichheit: Eine spezifi sche Ausprä-
gung räumlicher Ungleichheit. In: Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissen-
schaften (BBAW) (Ed.): Peripherisierung – eine neue Form sozialer Ungleichheit? Ber-
lin: 17-24.

BBSR (Bundesinstitut für Bau-, Stadt- und Raumforschung) 2015: Wachsen oder 
schrumpfen? In: BBSR-Analysen Kompakt 12/2015 [URL: http://www.bbsr.bund.
de/BBSR /DE / Veroef fentlichungen/AnalysenKompak t /2015/DL _12_ 2015.pdf ?_ _
blob=publicationFile&v=3, 11.06.2016].

Beetz, Stephan 2008: Peripherisierung als räumliche Organisation sozialer Ungleichheit. 
In: Barlösius, Eva; Neu, Claudia (Eds.): Peripherisierung – eine neue Form sozialer 
Ungleichheit? Berlin: Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften: 7-16.

Beicht, Ursula; Walden, Günter 2015: How socially selective is the German system of 
initial vocational education and training? Transitions into initial vocational training and 
the infl uence of social background. In: Journal of Vocational Education & Training 67,2: 
235-255 [doi: 10.1080/13636820.2014.983955].

Bude, Heinz 2008: Die Ausgeschlossenen. Das Ende vom Traum einer gerechten Gesell-
schaft. München: Carl Hanser Verlag.

Bürk, Thomas 2012: Gefahrenzone, Angstraum, Feindesland: stadtkulturelle Erkundun-
gen zu Fremdenfeindlichkeit und Rechtsradikalismus in ostdeutschen Kleinstädten. 
Münster: Verlag Westfälisches Dampfboot.



Refl ecting on the Margins    • 311

Bürk, Thomas 2013: Voices from the Margin: The Stigmatization Process as an Effect 
of Socio-Spatial Peripheralization in Small-Town Germany. In: Fischer-Tahir, Andrea; 
Naumann, Matthias (Eds.): Peripheralization: The Making of Spatial Dependencies 
and Social Injustice. Wiesbaden: Springer-VS: 168-186.

Bürk, Thomas; Beißwenger, Sabine 2013: Stigmatisierung von Städten. In: Bernt, Mat-
thias; Liebmann, Heike (Eds.): Peripherisierung, Stigmatisierung, Abhängigkeit? Wies-
baden: Springer-VS: 125-145.

Camp, D.L; Finlay, W.M.L; Lyons, E. 2002: Is low self-esteem an inevitable consequence 
of stigma? An example from women with chronic mental health problems. In: Social 
Science & Medicine 55,5: 823-834 [doi: 10.1016/S0277-9536(01)00205-2].

Carling, Jørgen 2002: Migration in the age of involuntary immobility: Theoretical refl ec-
tions and Cape Verdean experiences. In: Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 28,1: 
5-42 [doi: 10.1080/13691830120103912].

Cohen, Nir 2013: Territorial stigma formation in the Israeli city of Bat Yam, 1950–1983: 
planning, people and practice. In: Journal of Historical Geography 39: 113-124 [doi: 
10.1016/j.jhg.2012.07.004].

Collins, Francis L. et al. 2014: Mobility and desire: International students and Asian re-
gionalism in aspirational Singapore. In: Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of 
Education 35,5: 661-676 [doi: 10.1080/01596306.2014.921996].

Crocker, Jennifer 1999: Social Stigma and Self-Esteem: Situational Construction of 
Self-Worth. In: Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 35,1: 89-107 [doi: 10.1006/
jesp.1998.1369].

Crocker, Jennifer; Major, Brenda 1989: Social stigma and self-esteem: The self-protec-
tive properties of stigma. In: Psychological Review 96,4: 608-630 [doi: 10.1037/0033-
295X.96.4.608].

Crocker, Jennifer; Major, Brenda 2003: The Self-Protective Properties of Stigma: 
Evolution of a Modern Classic. In: Psychological Inquiry 14,3-4: 232-237 [doi: 
10.1080/1047840X.2003.9682885].

Dando, Christina E. 2009: Deathscapes, topocide, domicide. The Plains in contemporary 
print media. In: Great Plains Quarterly 29, paper 1198: 94-119.

Decker, Oliver; Weißmann, Marliese; Rothe, Katharina 2009: „Hartz 4“ und Arbeitslosig-
keit in Gruppendiskussionen – Zwischen autoritärer Aggression und masochistischer 
Resignation. In: Psychoanalyse – Texte zur Sozialforschung 22,1: 45-70.

Endrikat, Kirsten 2006: Jüngere Menschen. Größere Ängste, geringere Feindseligkeit. 
In: Heitmeyer, Wilhelm (Ed.): Deutsche Zustände. Folge 4. Frankfurt am Main: Suhr-
kamp: 101-114.

Goffman, Erving 1974: Stigma. Notes on the management of spoiled identity. New York: 
J. Aronson.

Greitmeyer, Tobias 2008: Sich selbst erfüllende Prophezeiungen. In: Petersen, Lars-Eric 
(Ed.): Stereotype, Vorurteile und soziale Diskriminierung. Theorien, Befunde und In-
terventionen. Weinheim/Basel: Beltz, PVU: 80-87.

Hacking, Ian 1995: The looping effects of human kinds. In: Sperber, Dan; Premack, Da-
vid; Premack, Ann James (Eds.): Causal Cognition: A Multidisciplinary Debate. Ox-
ford: Clarendon Press: 351-383.

Haegeler, Thomas 2015: Polizei und Rathauschef nehmen Crystal-Schriftzug gelassen. 
In: Osterländer Volkszeitung, 17.04.2015.



•    Frank Meyer, Judith Miggelbrink, Tom Schwarzenberg312

Hannem, Stacey; Bruckert, Chris 2012: Concluding Thoughts. Academic Activism: A 
Call to Action. In: Bruckert, Chris; Hannem, Stacey (Eds.): Stigma revisited. Implica-
tions of the mark. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press: 176-182.

Härtel-Petri, Roland; Haupt, Heiko 2014: Crystal Meth: Wie eine Droge unser Land über-
schwemmt. München: Riva.

Heitmeyer, Wilhelm 2006: Gruppenbezogene Menschenfeindlichkeit. Gesellschaftliche 
Zustände und Reaktionen in der Bevölkerung aus 2002 bis 2005. In: Heitmeyer, Wil-
helm (Ed.): Deutsche Zustände. Folge 4. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp: 15-36.

Heitmeyer, Wilhelm 2008: Die Ideologie der Ungleichwertigkeit. Der Kern der gruppen-
bezogenen Menschenfeindlichkeit. In: Heitmeyer, Wilhelm (Ed.): Deutsche Zustände. 
Folge 6. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp: 36-43.

Heitmeyer, Wilhelm 2012: Gruppenbezogene Menschenfeindlichkeit in einem entsicher-
ten Jahrzehnt. In: Heitmeyer, Wilhelm (Ed.): Deutsche Zustände. Folge 10. Frankfurt 
am Main: Suhrkamp: 15-40.

Heitmeyer, Wilhelm; Anhut, Reimund 2000: Desintegration, Konfl ikt und Ethnisierung. 
Eine Problemanalyse und theoretische Rahmenkonzeption. In: Heitmeyer, Wilhelm; 
Anhut, Reimund (Eds.): Bedrohte Stadtgesellschaft. Soziale Desintegrationsprozesse 
und ethnisch-kulturelle Konfl iktkonstellationen. Konfl ikt- und Gewaltforschung. Wein-
heim: Juventa: 17-75.

Heitmeyer, Wilhelm et al. 2009: Gruppenbezogene Menschenfeindlichkeit und bürger-
schaftliches Engagement gegen den Rechtsextremismus in der Stadt Altenburg. Sozi-
alraumanalysen zum Zusammenleben vor Ort. Bielefeld.

Hohmeier, Jürgen 1975: Stigmatisierung als sozialer Defi nitionsprozess. In: Brusten, 
Manfred; Hohmeier, Jürgen (Eds.): Stigmatisierung. Zur Produktion gesellschaftlicher 
Randgruppen. Kritische Texte: Sozialarbeit, Sozialpädagogik, soziale Probleme. Neu-
wied: Luchterhand: 5-24.

Howarth, Caroline 2002: `So, you‘re from Brixton?‘: The struggle for recogni-
tion and esteem in a stigmatized community. In: Ethnicities 2,2: 237-260 [doi: 
10.1177/1468796802002002658].

Hüpping, Sandra; Reinecke, Jost 2007: Abwärtsdriftende Regionen. Die Bedeutung 
sozioökonomischer Entwicklungen für Orientierungslosigkeit und Gruppenbezoge-
ne Menschenfeindlichkeit. In: Heitmeyer, Wilhelm (Ed.): Deutsche Zustände. Folge 5. 
Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp: 77-101.

IWConsult (Institut der deutschen Wirtschaft Köln Consult GmbH) 2014: ”Regionalrank-
ing 2014” [URL: http://www.iwconsult.de/regional/, 29.01.2016].

Jones, Gill 1999: `The Same People in the Same Places’? Socio-Spatial Identities and 
Migration in Youth. In: Sociology 33,1: 1-22 [doi: 10.1177/S0038038599000012].

Jürges, Hendrik; Schneider, Kerstin 2011: Why Young Boys Stumble: Early Tracking, Age 
and Gender Bias in the German School System. In: German Economic Review 12,4: 
371-394 [doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0475.2011.00533.x].

Kaiser, Cheryl R.; Miller, Carol T. 2003: Derogating the Victim: The Interpersonal Con-
sequences of Blaming Events on Discrimination. In: Group Processes & Intergroup 
Relations 6,3: 227-237 [doi: 10.1177/13684302030063001].

Klauer, Karl Christoph 2008: Soziale Kategorisierung und Stereotypisierung. In: Peter-
sen, Lars-Eric (Ed.): Stereotype, Vorurteile und soziale Diskriminierung. Theorien, Be-
funde und Interventionen. Weinheim/Basel: Beltz, PVU: 23-32.



Refl ecting on the Margins    • 313

Kühn, Manfred 2015: Peripheralization: Theoretical Concepts Explaining Socio-
Spatial Inequalities. In: European Planning Studies 23,2: 367-378 [doi: 
10.1080/09654313.2013.862518].

Kühn, Manfred; Weck,  Sabine 2013: Peripherisierung – ein Erklärungsansatz zur Entste-
hung von Peripherien. In: Bernt, Matthias; Liebmann, Heike (Eds.): Peripherisierung, 
Stigmatisierung, Abhängigkeit? Wiesbaden: Springer VS: 24-46.

Major, Brenda; Quinton, Wendy J.; Schmader, Toni 2003: Attributions to discrimination 
and self-esteem: Impact of group identifi cation and situational ambiguity. In: Journal of 
Experimental Social Psychology 39,3: 220-231 [doi: 10.1016/S0022-1031(02)00547-4].

Mansel, Jürgen; Kaletta, Barbara 2009: Desintegrationsprozesse, Anerkennungsproble-
me und Gruppenbezogene Menschenfeindlichkeit. Ein Ost-West Vergleich. In: Heitmey-
er, Wilhelm (Ed.): Deutsche Zustände. Folge 7. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp: 73-92.

Mansel, Jürgen; Spaiser, Viktoria 2010: Ängste und Kontrollverluste. Zusammenhänge 
mit Gruppenbezogener Menschenfeindlichkeit. In: Heitmeyer, Wilhelm (Ed.): Deut-
sche Zustände. Folge 8. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp: 49-71.

Massey, Doreen 1993: Power-geometry and a progressive sense of place. In: Bird, Jon 
et al. (Eds.): Mapping the futures. London: Routledge: 59-69.

Meyer, Frank; Miggelbrink, Judith 2013: The Subject and the Periphery: About Discours-
es, Loopings and Ascriptions. In: Fischer-Tahir, Andrea; Naumann, Matthias (Eds.): 
Peripheralization. Wiesbaden: Springer-VS: 207-223.

Meyer, Frank; Miggelbrink, Judith 2015: Subjektivität und Kausalität in der 
Migration(sforschung) – Annäherungen an Rationalisierungen von Migrationsent-
scheidungen in schrumpfenden Regionen. In: Raumforschung und Raumordnung 
73,1: 17-30 [doi: 10.1007/s13147-014-0319-2].

Miggelbrink, Judith; Meyer, Frank 2015a: Spuren medialer räumlicher Repräsentationen 
in den Wahrnehmungen von Subjekten – Ansatzpunkte zur Analyse. In: Geographi-
sche Zeitschrift 103,4: 202-216 [in press].

Miggelbrink, Judith; Meyer, Frank 2015b: Lost in complexity? Researching the role of 
socio-spatial ascriptions in the process of peripheralization. In: Lang, Thilo et al. (Eds.): 
Understanding Geographies of Polarization and Peripheralization: Perspectives from 
Central and Eastern Europe and Beyond. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan: 62-79.

Paasi, Anssi 2013: Regional Planning and the Mobilization of ‘Regional Identity’: From 
Bounded Spaces to Relational Complexity. In: Regional Studies 47,8: 1206-1219 [doi: 
10.1080/00343404.2012.661410].

Petzke, Martin; Endrikat, Kirsten; Kühnel; Steffen M. 2007: Risikofaktor Konformität. So-
ziale Gruppenprozesse im kommunalen Kontext. In: Heitmeyer, Wilhelm (Ed.): Deut-
sche Zustände. Folge 5. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp: 52-76.

Pile, Steve 2008: Where is the Subject? Geographical Imaginations and Spatializing Sub-
jectivity. In: Subjectivity 23,1: 206-218 [doi: 10.1057/sub.2008.9].

Pinel, Elizabeth C. 1999: Stigma consciousness: The psychological legacy of social 
stereotypes. In: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 76,1: 114-128 [doi: 
10.1037/0022-3514.76.1.114].

Pinel, Elizabeth C.; Bosson, Jennifer K. 2013: Turning Our Attention to Stigma: An Objec-
tive Self-Awareness Analysis of Stigma and Its Consequences. In: Basic and Applied 
Social Psychology 35,1: 55-63 [doi: 10.1080/01973533.2012.746593].



•    Frank Meyer, Judith Miggelbrink, Tom Schwarzenberg314

PoSCoPP (collective authors) 2015: Understanding New Geographies of Central and 
Eastern Europe. In: Lang, Thilo; Henn, Sebastian et al. (Eds.): New Geographies of 
Central and Eastern Europe. Socio-Spatial Polarization and Peripheralization in a Rap-
idly Changing Region. Houndsmill, Basinstoke: Palgrave: 1-21. [collective authors: Ko-
rnelia Ehrlich, Sebastian Henn, Kathrin Hörschelmann, Thilo Lang, Judith Miggelbrink, 
Wladimir Sgibnev].

Schneider, Torsten 2008: Social Inequality in Educational Participation in the German 
School System in a Longitudinal Perspective: Pathways into and out of the most Pres-
tigious School Track. In: European Sociological Review 24,4: 511-526 [doi: 10.1093/
esr/jcn017].

Schnepf, Sylke 2002: A Sorting Hat that Fails? The transition from primary to secondary 
school in Germany. Florence: UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre.

Schooler, Deborah et al. 2004: Who’s That Girl: Television’s Role In The Body Image 
Development Of Young White And Black Women. In: Psychology of Women Quarterly 
28,1: 38-47 [doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.2004.00121.x].

Schreiber, Verena 2005: Regionalisierungen von Unsicherheit in der Kommunalen Krimi-
nalprävention. In: Glasze, Georg; Rolfes, Manfred; Pütz, Robert (Eds.): Diskurs – Stadt 
– Kriminalität. Städtische (Un-)Sicherheiten aus der Perspektive von Stadtforschung 
und Kritischer Kriminalgeographie. Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag: 59-104.

Schwarzenberg, Tom 2016: Jugendliche Lebenswelten in peripherisierten Regionen. 
Ein subjektorientierter Zugang durch Gruppendiskussionen und qualitative Inhalts-
analyse. In: Wintzer, Jeannine (Ed.): Qualitative Methoden in der Sozialforschung. 
Forschungsbeispiele von  Studierenden für Studierende. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer 
Spektrum: 117-126.

Shields, Rob 1991: Places on the Margins. Alternative geographies of modernity. Lon-
don/New York: Routledge.

Tekin, Serife 2014: The Missing Self in Hacking’s Looping Effects. In: Kincaid, Harold; 
Sullivan, Jacqueline A. (Eds.): Classifying psychopathology. Mental kinds and natural 
kinds. Philosophical psychopathology. Cambridge/London: The MIT Press: 227-256.

Thrift, Nigel 1999: Steps to an ecology of place. In: Massey, Doreen; Allen, John; Sarre, 
Philip (Eds.): Human Geography Today. Cambridge: Polity Press: 295-321.

Wacquant, Loic 2007: Territorial Stigmatization in the Age of Advanced Marginality. In: 
Thesis Eleven 91,1: 66-77 [doi: 10.1177/0725513607082003].

Wacquant, Loic 1997: Three Pernicious Premises in the Study of the American Ghetto. In: 
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 21,2: 341-353 [doi: 10.1111/1468-
2427.00076].

Weichhart, Peter; Weiske, Christine; Werlen, Benno 2006: Place Identity und Images. 
Das Beispiel Eisenhüttenstadt. Wien: Institut für Geographie und Regionalforschung 
der Universität Wien.

Wiest, Karin 2015: Migration and everyday discourses: Peripheralisation in rural Sax-
ony-Anhalt from a gender perspective. In: Journal of Rural Studies [doi: 10.1016/j.
jrurstud.2015.03.003].

Wiest, Karin; Leibert, Tim 2013: Wanderungsmuster junger Frauen im ländlichen Sach-
sen-Anhalt – Implikationen für zielgruppenorientierte Regionalentwicklungsstrategi-
en. In: Raumforschung und Raumordnung 71,6: 455-469 [doi: 10.1007/s13147-013-
0257-4].

Wolf, Karina; Schlüter, Elmar; Schmidt, Peter 2006: Relative Deprivation. Riskante Ver-
gleiche treffen schwache Gruppen. In: Heitmeyer, Wilhelm (Ed.): Deutsche Zustände. 
Folge 4. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp: 67-85.



Refl ecting on the Margins    • 315

Zimmerbauer, Kaj; Paasi, Anssi 2013: When old and new regionalism collide: Deinsti-
tutionalization of regions and resistance identity in municipality amalgamations. In: 
Journal of Rural Studies 30: 31-40 [doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2012.11.004].

Date of submission: 31.01.2016  Date of acceptance: 05.09.2016

Frank Meyer (), Dr. Judith Miggelbrink, Tom Schwarzenberg. Leibniz Institute for 
Regional Geography. Leipzig, Germany. E-mail: F_Meyer@ifl -leipzig.de, 
E-mail: J_Miggelbrink@ifl -leipzig.de, E-mail: T_Schwarzenberg@ifl -leipzig.de
URL: https://www.ifl -leipzig.de/de/das-ifl /mitarbeiter/meyer-frank.html
URL: https://www.ifl -leipzig.de/de/das-ifl /mitarbeiter/miggelbrink-judith.html
URL: https://www.ifl -leipzig.de/de/das-ifl /mitarbeiter/schwarzenberg-tom.html



•    Frank Meyer, Judith Miggelbrink, Tom Schwarzenberg316

Appendix: German original quotes

Chapter 3.2

FG_21:455

In Altenburg sind einfach viel zu viele vorpubertäre oder pubertäre Jugendli-
che, die meinen sie müssen sich zeigen. Da gibt es natürlich coole Leute […] 
Und dann gibt es aber auch welche, die willst du einfach nicht wiedersehen. 
[…] Die sind von der Art ekelhaft und die sind, wenn, weiß ich nicht, wenn 
denen etwas nicht passt, dann sind die total kirre und drehen frei. Also in 
Altenburg- Das ist nicht in jeder Stadt so.

FG_16:466ff.

A: Wir wohnen aber nicht in Altenburg. 

B: Ich sag aber mal, also wir sehen uns noch halbwegs als die normale 
Schicht. Da gibt es aber noch die anderen.

FG_23:441

Drogenhochburg. Geh irgendwo nach Leipzig […] Gera. Wo kommst du her? 
Altenburg. Und dann wird halt Altenburg auch ein bisschen so in die Rich-
tung Drogen gedrängt. Also man weiß schon, was hier drinnen abgeht.

Chapter 3.3.1

FG_17:441ff.

A: Und dann werden auch die Förderschulen zugemacht, da sind dann die 
Förderschüler mit bei den Regelschülern und dann ist das dort noch kata-
strophaler. […] Also manchmal haben die mit uns Sportunterricht und wie 
die dann die Lehrer runtermachen …

Moderator: […] Was ist da der Unterschied, zwischen Regelschule und Gym-
nasium hier? Wie die Lehrer runtergemacht werden?

B: Erstens das und zweitens ist Regelschule sehr sehr asozial. Also es gibt 
Ausnahmen, aber das sind ganz wenige. Der Großteil ist wirklich sehr 
asozial und pöbelt sich gegenseitig an. Da gibt es auch schon öfters mal 
Prügeleien.



Refl ecting on the Margins    • 317

Chapter 3.3.2

FG_24:630ff.

Moderator: Was ist denn so euer Eindruck von Altenburg oder von anderen 
Orten?

A: Naja, es ist teilweise asozial, wenn man da manchmal die Wohnblöcke 
halt auch sieht.

B: Wenn du die Kinder siehst, die haben doch auch nix drauf.

A: Wie die übelst heruntergekommen sind.

Moderator: Die Wohnblöcke?

A: Ja. Das ist schon ein bisschen besser geworden.

C: Naja, ich bin der Meinung es liegt halt eher daran, dass da viele Ausländer 
leben. Auch viele, die nicht so viel Geld haben wie vielleicht manch ande-
re, die sich das leisten können. Vielleicht kriegen manche auch nicht so 
die Unterstützung für irgendetwas, dass sie halt besser wohnen können, 
oder dass die Kinder vielleicht bessere schulische Ausbildung haben.

D: Naja da sieht man halt auch öfter mal naja eher so asoziale Kinder, oder 
dann laufen die kleineren mit einer Bierfl asche rum. Oder- das ist halt ein-
fach heruntergekommen.

E: Ich fi nde halt auch, das ist angesprayt, die Hauswände und alles.

FG_12:205ff.

Kackstadt halt. […] Das kann Altenburg so wissen, dass es eine Kackstadt ist. 
Es ist eine Drecksstadt.

FG_20:302

… wenn wir so durchfahren, also die meisten Leute haben irgendwelche Jog-
ginghosen an, den ganzen Tag, und viele sind betrunken. Ich will jetzt nicht 
Assis sagen, aber so ein bisschen doch schon. Wenn man da durchfährt, es 
ist irgendwie so eine dreckige Stadt, es ist als ob vor zwanzig Jahren da je-
mand aufgehört hat sich darum zu kümmern, als ob die jetzt einfach vor sich 
hinvegetiert.

FG_21:334

Also ich bin jetzt auch viel in Altenburg und wenn man da so Leute sieht, 
so 16, 17 und die rennen mit Jogginghosen herum mit einer zwölfjährigen 
Freundin. Ich will einfach nur nicht so enden. Da gibt es wirklich nicht weni-
ge. Und man muss einfach nur durch den Ort laufen. Also ohne jetzt irgend-
wie Vorurteile zu haben, aber du siehst Leute, da sagst du dir einfach, so 
willst du nicht enden.



•    Frank Meyer, Judith Miggelbrink, Tom Schwarzenberg318

FG_31:655ff.

A: Auf dem Dorf, da ist man mehr, die Eltern helfen mit und so, mehr familiär. 
Aber in der Stadt ist es mehr zum Beispiel so, man hat halt das Kind, aber 
es sollte ja nicht da sein, ich kümmere mich nicht darum, dann muss es 
halt alleine machen. Und das ist halt bei vielen so und das häuft sich dann 
mehr und mehr. […]es gibt halt in der Stadt, ist es mehr so weit konzent-
riert. […]

B: Wenn wenn man jetzt zum Beispiel auf dem Dorf aufwächst, dann kannst 
du halt mal dein Kind nach 21 Uhr, wenn es so 15, 16 ist, auch mal auf die 
Straße lassen, ohne dass du halt Angst haben musst, dass es hier halb 
abgestochen wieder zurückkriecht.

FG_31:590ff.

A:  Na das ist so ein Gebiet, wo eigentlich keiner hin will. […] Da rennen die 
ganzen behinderten Kinder rum. […] Na es sind halt die, die den ganzen 
Tag nur scheiße machen.

B: Und Drogenopfer sind da!

A: Die alles kaputt machen, vor allen Dingen Drogen und alles möglich. Da 
ist Nord halt das, was gerade am schlimmsten betroffen ist. 

B: Da werden auch welche umgebracht auf der Straße.

A: Da hörst du auch schon mal schnell paar Schüsse oder so nachts.

FG_31:608ff.

A: Und die Meisten, halt gerade so jugendmäßig, haben halt darunter zu lei-
den. Also gerade wenn du mit den Kumpels halt so nach 23:00 Uhr halt 
mit den Mopeds noch rumfährst, wirst du eigentlich immer angehalten 
und dann halt durchsucht.

Moderator: Von der Polizei?

A: Ja. Die gehen halt da sehr scharf. Und da haben halt viele darunter zu 
leiden, die da eigentlich gar nicht beteiligt sind.

FG_23:655

…halt zeigen, dass man da, was weiß ich, schneller stirbt beziehungsweise 
total runterkommt, dass man nichts erreicht im Leben. […] Weil ich denke mal 
jetzt, dass eher so die ich sage mal dumme Bevölkerung, die nicht so schlau 
sind



Refl ecting on the Margins    • 319

FG_23:675

Das arbeitslose Elternhaus sehe ich als Grund. Das sind halt die Stadtbezirke, 
wo man weiß, da sind viele Hartzer […] die sozial schwachen Familien, wo die 
Kinder ziemlich benachteiligt sind, in bestimmte Gruppen abrutschen und da 
von dort halt auch den Einfl uss bekommen

FG_16:997

Da kannst du bloß noch Kiffen, dass du hier halbwegs alles verträgst.

Chapter 3.3.3

FG_24:588ff.

A: Na zum Beispiel Altenburg Nord, also das Viertel da, das kennt man ja 
auch. […] Viele nennen es halt auch schon Assiviertel, weil da rennt halt 
auch wirklich jeder mit irgendeinem Messer rum da.

Moderator: Da rennt jeder mit einem Messer rum?

A: Naja, keine Ahnung.

B: Das wusste ich nicht.

C: Das wusste ich auch nicht, nein.

A: Naja, zum Beispiel ein Freund von mir wurde da auch schon mal sehr 
stark bedroht mit einem Messer und einer Waffe und- Der wohnt da in der 
Nähe, der hört auch abends öfter mal Schüsse.

FG_31:623

Ja, na auch die Erziehung, weil wenn ich, denke ich mal, jetzt so die Eltern 
halt mit dort wohnen- Ich will jetzt nicht sagen, dass dort alle so sind, das 
die halt übelst gewalttätig sind und alles, aber wenn man dort halt jetzt auf-
wächst und die Eltern halt so, sag ich mal, Hartz 4-Empfänger sind und dann 
halt nie arbeiten gehen, die ganze Zeit nur ihr Kind anbrüllen beziehungswei-
se schlagen, dann denke ich mal auch, dass das nicht so ein wirklich netter 
Mensch wie wir jetzt werden wird.

FG_24:601ff.

Moderator: Das hört sich nach einem Ort an, wo ich nicht gern hingehen 
würde. […]

A: ((leise)) Das ist auch bloß nur ein Image.

Moderator: Das würde ich gerne hören! 

A: Na das ist auch bloß nur ein Image, weil da wohnen auch normale Leute 
in normalen Häusern, das ist nicht so, dass jeder da so rumrennt. […]



•    Frank Meyer, Judith Miggelbrink, Tom Schwarzenberg320

Moderator: Also ich gehe davon aus, dass wir uns alle einig sind, dass nicht 
jeder in Altenburg Nord mit einem Messer oder einer Waffe im 
Anschlag rumrennt.

A: ((belustigt)) Richtig!

B: […] Meine Oma wohnt da.

Moderator: Okay, und dann müssten wir jetzt aus wissenschaftlicher Sicht 
testen, hat deine Oma ein Messer oder eine Waffe? […]

B: Nein.

Chapter 3.4

FG_20:161

Und ich habe immer so das Gefühl, wenn ich später mal wieder hier bin, dass 
ich dann irgendwie so ein bisschen gescheitert bin.

FG_14: 497ff.

Aber wenn du niemanden hast, keine Freunde und alles und hast aber übelst 
viel Geld, was hast du denn dann für ein Leben? Bist du dann glücklich, wenn 
du dort, was weiß ich, drei Autos hast und hast aber zu deiner Familie keinen 
Kontakt und hast keine Freunde? Glaub ich nicht unbedingt.

FG_17:225

Die ganze Umgebung hier […] verfällt immer mehr. […] Weil es gibt mittler-
weile so viele, die gehen hier einfach nicht arbeiten. Die fallen wirklich mehr 
in die untere Schicht rein und in die untere Schiene und das ist dann ein 
Niveau, wo ich mir denke, dass muss ich mir nicht tagtäglich auf einer Arbeit 
hier irgendwo ansehen.

FG_12:478

Hier gehst du zweimal durch und dann hast du da im Prinzip schon alles 
gesehen, weil du kannst dir dann eigentlich denken, ja, dort ist es grau und 
eintönig, dort ist es grau und eintönig, es rennen überall Drogenleute rum. 
Und da will man einfach nur weg.



Published by
Prof. Dr. Norbert F. Schneider

Federal Institute for Population Research 
D-65180 Wiesbaden / Germany

 2016 

Managing Editor 
Frank Swiaczny

Assistant Managing Editor
Katrin Schiefer

Copy Editor 
(Selected Articles in German) 
Dr. Evelyn Grünheid

Layout
Beatriz Feiler-Fuchs

E-mail: cpos@bib.bund.de

Scientifi c Advisory Board
Paul Gans (Mannheim) 
Karsten Hank (Köln)
Johannes Huinink (Bremen) 
Michaela Kreyenfeld (Rostock)
Marc Luy (Wien) 
Notburga Ott (Bochum) 
Peter Preisendörfer (Mainz)
Nikola Sander (Groningen)
Zsolt Spéder (Budapest)

Comparative Population Studies

www.comparativepopulationstudies.de

ISSN: 1869-8980 (Print) – 1869-8999 (Internet)

Board of Reviewers
Martin Abraham (Erlangen)
Laura Bernardi (Lausanne)
Hansjörg Bucher (Bonn)
Claudia Diehl (Konstanz)
Andreas Diekmann (Zürich)
Gabriele Doblhammer-Reiter (Rostock)
Jürgen Dorbritz (Wiesbaden)
Anette Eva Fasang (Berlin)
E.-Jürgen Flöthmann (Bielefeld)
Alexia Fürnkranz-Prskawetz (Wien)
Beat Fux (Salzburg)
Joshua Goldstein (Berkeley)
Sonja Haug (Regensburg)
Hill Kulu (Liverpool)
Aart C. Liefbroer (Den Haag)
Kurt Lüscher (Konstanz)
Emma Lundholm (Umeå)
Nadja Milewski (Rostock)
Dimiter Philipov (Wien)
Roland Rau (Rostock)
Tomáš Sobotka (Wien)
Jeroen Spijker (Barcelona)
Olivier Thévenon (Paris)
Helga de Valk (Brussel)
Heike Trappe (Rostock)
Michael Wagner (Köln)