New Greek migrant (dis)identifications in social media: Evidence from a discourse-centred online ethnographic study

The paper examines how new Greek migrants discursively construct their identities while participating in social media. It is motivated by two arguments: (1) migrant identities are distinctive, ambivalent, and constantly changing due to shifting requirements for social acceptance and recognition, while migration experiences are subjective and unique; (2) social media are significant outlets for identity construction and for asserting or eschewing belonging. Social media are broadly defined as platforms that enable interaction and sharing of multimodal discourse resources (e.g., blogs, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram). Building on prior work, the study conceptualizes migrants as digitally connected, able to coordinate transnational lives. Addressing a gap in nuanced qualitative research on new Greek migrants, the study draws on ethnographic data (social media content and interviews) from selected new Greek migrants settled in the UK and Germany to explore their self- and other-(dis)identifications online. The paper outlines the context, theoretical framework, methodology, and presents analyses of five cases, followed by conclusions and implications.

New Greek migration: Greece has experienced multiple migration waves: a first in the late 19th–early 20th century, a second after WWII (1950s–1970s) largely involving lower-educated, unskilled workers moving to Western Europe, the US, Canada, and Australia; the 1990s saw Greece become a migrant-receiving country. Following the 2010 economic crisis, Greece again became a country of emigration, termed ‘new’ Greek migration. This ‘new’ migration differs in that it is propelled by globalization, intra-European mobility, and crisis conditions; migrants are largely highly educated and skilled and digitally savvy. Drivers include monetary (unemployment, salary cuts, taxation) and non-monetary factors (lack of prospects, disappointment with political institutions, perceived erosion of rights, lack of meritocracy, poor working conditions), as well as aspirations for professional mobility, better life/future for children, and new experiences.

Theoretical and analytical orientations: The study adopts a social constructionist approach to identity (dynamic, contextual) and Brubaker and Cooper’s (2000) multidimensional framework: (1) identification (relational/categorical; self- vs other-identification; possibilities for disidentification and emotional identification), (2) self-understanding and social location (situated subjectivity), and (3) commonality, connectedness, and groupness (conditions for collective identity). This framework is suited to social media contexts where identity work is central and enacted through communication processes. The analysis focuses on discourse resources that construct and negotiate (dis)identifications: stance-taking (affective/epistemic; alignment/disalignment), intertextuality (e.g., reported speech, allusions), entextualization (de- and recontextualizing discourse across contexts), and coupling (relations across semiotic resources such as verbiage, images, hashtags) to reveal how identities are performed and made meaningful on social media.

Design: Discourse-centred online ethnography combining online ethnographic observation and discourse analysis, with both screen-based (longitudinal observation of social media discourse) and participant-based (in-depth interviews and mediated communications) dimensions.

Project and timeframe: Conducted within the project “Greek youth in crisis: Representations of skilled immigration in social media and pop culture.” Data collection spanned April 2018–August 2019, covering participants’ posts from just before their migration up to August 2019.

Sampling and participants: Purposive sampling of new Greek migrants meeting criteria: aged 25–35 at departure, BA plus MA/MSc, left Greece from 2010 onward, settled in the UK or Germany, social media savvy, residing in host country ≥1 year. Seven informants (four in the UK, three in Germany) were recruited via email with full information and consent. This paper presents data from five: Dimitris (UK), Antonia (UK), Thalia (UK), Rigas (Germany), Chrysoula (Germany). Some names retained with consent (bloggers); others pseudonymized.

Data sources: Public or semi-public social media content from participants’ blogs, Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram (profiles, posts/status updates, comments, links, photos). Access to private accounts was granted via friend/follow requests; private direct messages were excluded due to ethical considerations. Participant-based data include Skype interview excerpts (~1 hour each, in Greek), email and Facebook Messenger exchanges with the researcher, and field notes.

Analytical approach: Systematic observation of multimodal posts and comments; discourse analysis guided by Brubaker and Cooper’s framework and focusing on stance-taking, intertextuality, entextualization, and coupling of verbiage with visuals/hashtags. Comparative reading across platforms to identify patterns of self- and other-(dis)identification and the seeking/eschewing of commonality, connectedness, and groupness.

• Self-identifications: Participants constructed multiple migrant identities:

  • Economic migrant: Necessity-driven migration foregrounded (e.g., Dimitris’ tweet: “I was forced” to become an economic migrant; hashtags such as #idontreturntogreece, #1000yearsback indexing disillusionment).
  • Nostalgic migrant: Affective stances of longing/xenitiá; Rigas frames himself as “emigrant” with Greek cultural symbols (olive branch, sea, church, sun) on his blog.
  • Lifestyle migrant: Instagram posts visualizing leisure and family life in the host country (e.g., Chrysoula’s park walks in Munich; Dimitris’ pub still-life), constructing a ‘good life’ narrative without explicit assertions.
  • Transnational migrant: Dual affiliation to Greek and host cultures (e.g., Chrysoula promotes Greek customs like the March bracelet and embraces German practices like Schultüte), projecting interwoven identities.

• Other-identifications:

  • By friends: Facebook birthday posts label and normalize the ‘migrant’ identity (e.g., “beloved migrant”), express missing and support for a ‘better life.’
  • By broader social media audience: Readers commend migrants as skillful storytellers and altruistic helpers (e.g., Dimitris praised for aiding other Greeks abroad, filling gaps left by official communities/embassies).
  • By public discourses: Politicians/policies frame them as cosmopolitans/adventurers or “quitters,” and even deny their migrant status (e.g., “free movement” rhetoric; comments labeling departures as “betrayal”). Participants intertextually cite and reject these framings.

• Disidentifications:

  • From Greece: Negative stance toward state institutions and socio-political conditions, often via hashtags (e.g., #1000yearsback) contrasting UK efficiency (NHS) with perceived Greek inefficiency.
  • From host countries: Reservations about UK criminality/racism and German politics/far-right rise; carefully marked with epistemic hedging and hearsay evidentials.
  • From public discourses: Creative rebuttals of “betrayal” narratives (e.g., Antonia’s Facebook post coupling critical hashtags and an image text: “Before leaving I did everything to stay”).

• Commonality, connectedness, and groupness:

  • Seeking: Use of collective “we” to align with cohorts of young, educated Greek migrants “forced” to leave; creation of blog sections to inform and support compatriots (e.g., Dimitris’ “Working in the UK” and “Living in the UK”), fostering community.
  • Eschewing: Differentiation from other Greek migrants based on migration preparedness/conditions (skilled/lifestyle vs. unskilled) and cultural practices/values (e.g., distance from ‘bouzoukia’, overt nationalism), underscoring heterogeneity within the ‘new Greek migrants.’

• Discursive means and platform affordances:

  • Stance-taking (affective/epistemic), intertextuality (reported speech, cultural allusions), entextualization (recontextualizing images/messages), and multimodal coupling (verbiage, visuals, hashtags) were central resources.
  • Polymedia choices: Instagram favored lifestyle identity displays; blogs facilitated advisory/communal functions; Twitter/Facebook enabled stance and intertextual critique.

The findings demonstrate that new Greek migrants’ identity work on social media is hybrid, dynamic, and context-dependent, directly addressing the research aim of understanding how identities are discursively constructed online. Migrants oscillate between necessity-driven economic identities and lifestyle/self-realization narratives, and between attachment to Greek culture and incorporation into host-country practices. Social media affordances enable fine-grained performances: stance-laden hashtags, curated visuals, and intertextual references make alignment/disalignment visible to audiences. The analyses show that identities are negotiated not only through self-presentation but also through ascriptions by friends, broader audiences, and powerful public discourses, to which migrants respond, resist, or recalibrate via discursive strategies. The complementarity of social media data and interviews reveals aspects that are curated or suppressed in public posts but surface in interpersonal settings (e.g., critiques of host-country issues, emotional responses to stigmatizing public narratives). Overall, the study underscores the significance of social media as spaces for enacting transnational belonging, negotiating groupness, and contesting dominant framings of ‘new Greek migration,’ contributing nuanced, migrant-centered insights beyond economic/political accounts.

The study identifies four interconnected (dis)identification processes among new Greek migrants on social media: (1) self-identifications as economic, nostalgic, lifestyle, and transnational migrants; (2) other-identifications by friends, audiences, and public discourses; (3) disidentifications from home/host countries and stigmatizing public narratives; and (4) seeking or eschewing commonality, connectedness, and groupness with other migrants and Europeans. These processes are realized through stance-taking, intertextuality, entextualization, and multimodal coupling, tailored to platform affordances and audiences. The contribution lies in foregrounding migrants’ voices and multimodal practices, demonstrating the hybridity and complexity of identity work in digital diasporic contexts, and highlighting how curated polymediated performances differ from more spontaneous interview talk.

Future research should extend beyond the UK/Germany to non-European destinations, examine additional platforms and affordances (e.g., YouTube vlogs, Instagram Stories), and explore a wider range of discourse mechanisms and participant profiles to further capture the diversity of new Greek migration experiences.

• Sample size and scope: Small number of participants, with cases drawn only from the UK and Germany, limiting generalizability.
• Platform and data access: Analysis restricted to public/semi-public posts; private messaging excluded for ethical reasons, potentially omitting important interpersonal identity work.
• Curation effects: Social media posts are asynchronous and curated; some sensitive or negative aspects surfaced only in interviews, indicating platform/audience effects on self-presentation.
• Participant heterogeneity: Focus on highly educated/skilled migrants may underrepresent experiences of less-educated or older migrants and other subgroups.
• Temporal bounds: Data cover a defined 16-month window, which may not capture longer-term identity trajectories or shifts (e.g., post-Brexit developments).