This article was downloaded by: [University of Newcastle (Australia)]On: 06 October 2014, At: 23:26Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift - Norwegian Journal ofGeographyPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/sgeo20

Making migration meaningful: Achievements throughseparation in MongoliaAnn Fenger Benwellaa Global Nutrition and Health, Department of Rehabilitation and Nutrition, MetropolitanUniversity College, Pustervig 8, DK-1126 Copenhagen K, Denmark E-mail: .Published online: 26 Sep 2013.

To cite this article: Ann Fenger Benwell (2013) Making migration meaningful: Achievements through separation in Mongolia,Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift - Norwegian Journal of Geography, 67:4, 239-248, DOI: 10.1080/00291951.2013.836722

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00291951.2013.836722

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Making migration meaningful: Achievements through separationin Mongolia

ANN FENGER BENWELL

Benwell, A.F. 2013. Making migration meaningful: Achievements through separation in Mongolia. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift�Norwegian Journal of Geography Vol. 67, 239�248. ISSN 0029-1951.

Mongolia has experienced two decades since the demise of the Soviet Union and has implemented strategies to strengthen its

economy and its democratic practices. Transitions from being a nomadic society to a Soviet satellite state and onwards to

liberal democracy have greatly impacted family life. The article focuses on changing patterns of mobility in the Mongolian ‘age

of the market’ and its effects on population groups. Internal and international migration has continually risen as individuals

and families have moved to places of opportunity. Connections are believed to be maintained during periods of absence by

migrant family members, as both men and women are culturally permitted to be separate from their families. Migration is

understood to contribute to prosperity, and separations contribute to generate growth and hishig (good fortune) for the good

of the family. However, such mobility is also a way to escape family patriarchy and conformity, and can contribute to loss,

hardship, and uncertainty for family members left behind. Further, mobility provides opportunities and a means to escape

the stigma of ‘laziness’ culturally associated with poverty and immobility. Postsocialist separation has inadvertently

contributed to the breakdown of the institutions of marriage and family � institutions that were supported by separations

in the pastoral economy.

Keywords: gender, migration, mobility, Mongolia, separation

Ann Fenger Benwell, Global Nutrition and Health, Department of Rehabilitation and Nutrition, Metropolitan University College,

Pustervig 8, DK-1126 Copenhagen K, Denmark E-mail: anfb@phmetropol.dk.

Introduction

Mongolia is a very large country, 1,565,000 km2 in area, and

in 2013 the population was estimated to be 3,179,997 (CIA

2013). In 2010 the population of the capital city, Ulaanbaa-

tar was 1,151,500 (NSO 2011). However, government

officials have speculated that the actual number may be

350,000 higher due to unregistered migrant families that

have settled in the city’s suburbs (study interviews conducted

in 2005). Approximately 30% of the population are herders,

who rely on family-run businesses of pastoral nomadism

(NSO 2011). Compared to other postsocialist and Asian

countries, Mongolia is unique: it was the first postsocialist

country to hold democratic elections, in June 1990; it has an

official literacy rate above 97%; and it is among the few

countries in the world to have reached a reasonable level of

gender equality (Social Watch 2012). These elective char-

acteristics hint at Mongolia’s unique position with a

combination of values recognized by the Western world

and a profound Soviet heritage. In Mongolia, pastoral

nomadism, Soviet socialism, and Western (economic) liberal-

ism meet. Through the 1990s and onwards, Mongolia

received massive international aid to boost the economy,

alleviate poverty, and strengthen democracy. The country

slid from a socialist ‘work and food for all’ ideology to a

democratic society with a market economy. However,

contrary to intentions, the transition (shiljilt) to a market

economy generated a classic ‘development country’ stratifi-

cation: a rich urban elite, an urban middle class, and a mass

of rural and urban poor, many of whom live in extreme

poverty. In this ‘age of the market’ (zah zeeliin uye), society is

characterized by Mongolians as difficult (hetsuu) yet also a

platform of opportunity.

In this article, I examine migration and separation of kin

in a gendered perspective, focusing on the cultural aspects of

the ongoing migration patterns both within the country and

abroad. I find these perspectives are related to traditional

practices of mobility and economic strategies in a pastoral

nomadic context. Hence, conclusions regarding present-day

Mongolian urban society are drawn on the basis of historical

and nomadic practices. The transitions from a nomadic

society to a Soviet satellite state and onwards to a liberal

democracy have had an impact on family life. Both men and

women seem to look at migration as a way to escape family

patriarchy and conformity, yet they may also point to a

different conception of the family.

I begin with a brief historical overview of movement and

separation in Mongolian pastoral nomadic society and how

this has affected households’ composition and tasks. I discuss

how kindred connections are maintained through family

members’ periods of absence and how separations cause

uncertainty and are believed to generate growth. The article

brings together historical, anthropological, and migration

studies with the objective to reveal more about the ambig-

uous nature of separation that seems to facilitate growth and

wealth by consenting to individual activities and providing

hishig (good fortune) for the collective good of the family.

It addresses mobility and separation, which, I argue, circum-

vents accusations of being immobile and lazy (zalhuu) and

inadvertently fuels the breakdown of marriage and family.

Thus, endeavours to improve life (amidral deeshuuleh) in

contemporary society also contribute to conceal the destruc-

tion of families, at least, as defined in Western discourse.

Empirically, the article draws on data from ethnographic

fieldwork carried out in 2005 and 2006 among in-migrants

and long-term residents in Ulaanbaatar, complemented by

Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift�Norwegian Journal of Geography 2013

Vol. 67, No. 4, 239�248, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00291951.2013.836722

# 2013 Norwegian Geographical Society

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 23:

26 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

interviews conducted in the period 2006�2008 with Mon-

golian migrants in Scandinavia, and data collected during a

three-year UN assignment in Ulaanbaatar and in the six

Gobi Desert provinces of Bayanhongor, Dornogobi, Dund-

gobi, Gobi Altai, Omnogobi, and Ovorhangai, where

members of c.300 nomadic families were interviewed in the

mid-1990s.

Migration

Migration studies gained new momentum after the collapse

of the Soviet Union and the following massive movement

of people in the early 1990s and onwards (George & Page

2004; Darieva n.d.). A ‘culture of migration’ has emerged

that identifies movement and migration as one of many

strategic moves developed in many regions and countries

(Cohen 2004), and it examines the often taken-for-granted

relationship between people, place, and culture (Gupta &

Ferguson 1997). Thus, migration studies include the move-

ment of not only people but also of ideas, information, and

capital, involving the practices and material culture of

everyday life (Gardner 1995; Creswell 2006; Hannam et al.

2006). Urry (2003; 2010) points to the complexity of the

world and argues that despite the disorderliness and

unpredictability of global systems, anarchic chaos is not at

play. Rather, there are ineluctable patterns of relations,

dependencies, and systems. Urry describes the dialectic of

mooring and mobilities as interdependent and responsible

for the ordering in the ‘global fluid’, the world scene

challenging national society. In Mongolia, the patterns of

movement are considered random. Individuals move when

opportunities arise and to wherever it is possible move.

Movement with domestic animals is vital, and travel within

or outside the country is described as an obligation. More-

over, present-day human mobility is infused with cultural

meaning. Given their strong nomadic past, Mongolians

consider mobility to be ‘in their blood’. This sentiment is

reflected in my empirical data, where I recorded that a male

civil servant in Ulaanbaatar claimed that ‘to go abroad is the

wish of all Mongolians below [the age of] 50’, and many

people do so either regardless of their dependents or for the

sake of their dependents. In the Mongolian context,

sedentarism is equated with laziness and lack of achieve-

ment, unless ample material markers of wealth are in

evidence.

A history of mobility

Mongolian nomadic society requires mobility. Households

move their ger, a transportable felt-lined tent and home,

to the pastures where they graze their domestic animals.

Groups of up to c.10 nuclear or extended families live in ger

camps and move from pasture to pasture within an area

where they have user rights, in an annual cycle, with each

family returning to their winter shelter every year. The

pastoral moves take place within a homeland (nutag), which

often corresponds to the same geographical area as the

administrative district (sum).

Nomadic mobility is always bound by the need to find

pastures for various domestic animals, sometimes over large

distances. In Mongolia, this causes especially male camel

herders to be absent from their family and the family ger for

months at a time. The pastoral household and the loosely

joint group of families they move with (hot ail) all rely on

the skills and workability of each family member for

managing their livelihood. In cases of illness or the absence

of individuals, women and men have to be able to take over

the gendered tasks of domestic work and animal rearing

respectively. A herder’s mobility is limited by his or her

herding skills and responsibilities as well as by the need to

find pastures either close by or far away. Furthermore,

mobility has also been limited by the rules of those in power,

both before and during the socialist period (1924�1990).

Whilst the Halh, the main ethnic group in Mongolia,

historically have led mobile pastoral lives, their movements

have been within limits determined by the authorities at any

given time. Men were liable to conscription at any time,

training for warfare was long-term and often undertaken

far away from herders’ homelands, and warfare often

involved their movement into enemy areas located far

away (cf. Sneath 2007). Despite a long-standing image of a

nomadic free life of mobility, Mongol tribes were bound to a

particular place and even legitimate travel out of the area

controlled by a ruler had to be approved. The restrictions on

movement were forcefully introduced during the Manchu

Quing Dynasty (1644�1912) when Mongolia was divided

into administrative districts known as hoshuu or banners

(Humphrey & Sneath 1999).

From 1921, and in the 70 years of socialism that followed,

mobility continued to be controlled and was further limited

through the administrative structure of provinces (aimags)

and administrative districts (i.e. the above-mentioned sums),

where herders were organized and registered as workers in

collectives (negdels), which provided each household with a

minimum of income and a few privately owned domestic

animals. The negdels provided subsidized staple food and a

support system during natural calamities, as well as a

veterinary service and a free but compulsory school system.

The government restricted internal travel through a system

of travel permits (Sanders 1987), which applied to herders as

well as to urban and semi-urban residents � a restriction that

further limited the mobility of the whole population.

Mongolians could not move freely, choose where to live,

or find spouses outside their administrative district (Bulag

1998). Socialism was a period of industrialization, collecti-

vization, and transformation of Mongolia into a modern

industrial-agricultural society. Herding was still an economic

factor for the country and highly valued as the genuine

Mongolian way of life. Authorities, who were uneasy about

the practice of nomadic mobility, enforced restrictions on

travel. Their intention was to force mobile populations into

semi-sedentariness and, allowing for herding practices,

ensure the provision of mainly meat and dairy products

for the growing urban population of workers. During these

years, rural-to-urban migration was mainly limited to

students attending educational institutions in urban areas.

However, herders continued their livelihood practices, but

moved closer to infrastructure and urban centres.

240 A.F. Benwell NORSK GEOGRAFISK TIDSSKRIFT 67 (2013)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 23:

26 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Transition

Today, herders are facing multiple pressures on their

livelihoods. Nomadic pastoralism is challenged by climate

change, desertification, mining, new policies related to land,

and the lure of urban lifestyles. The number of pastoral

nomads is estimated to be close to 0% of the population

and the uncertainty regarding the numbers pertains to

the definition of a pastoral nomad. New practices of

employment as herders are developing, such as wage earners

or seasonal hired hands in livestock production. These

changes have been developing since 1990 when the country

moved from Soviet socialism to a multiparty system with a

new constitution in 1992. Endeavours to implement democ-

racy led to political chaos and new neoliberal strategies to

transform the economy (Bikales 2005). In the wake of the

neoliberal market that was advised by strong international

banks, corruption, environmental degradation, and new eco-

nomic dependence on China grew rapidly, as did unprece-

dented poverty. Poverty and opportunities, whether genuine

or imagined, fuel migration. Mongolia has experienced very

diverse migration flows. In the early 1990s, the nomadic

population subsisted on their animal produce, while the

urban population faced a severe lack of consumer goods as

both trade and infrastructure had collapsed. With no goods

available to buy, a surge of urban-to-rural migration took

place. This wave of migration was reversed in the mid-1990s

by an increasing wave of rural-to-urban migration, when

opportunities in urban centres seemed to outweigh the

hardship of life in the countryside. For those who had

economic means and access to loans and visas, international

migration was preferred to making a living in Mongolia.

For two decades, people’s movement out of their natal

area required no other forms of permission than visas

for international travel. The lift on travel restrictions is

perhaps one of the reasons why Mongolians move far

and wide.

The present migration flows in Mongolia are rural-to-

urban migration and international migration. Migration to

urban areas mostly involves migrant families, whereas

migration to new countries of destination is usually long-

term and individual. Rural-to-urban migration has increased

the population density in Ulaanbaatar, placing a further

strain on schooling, health care, pensions, and maternity

leave. Despite a growing middle class and a stronger

economy, 39% of the population is living below the official

poverty line (Government of Mongolia et al. 2011; NSO

2011).

International migration

As a consequence of the strain on the urban areas, especially

Ulaanbaatar, and people’s temptation to leave to seek their

fortune elsewhere, currently c.120,000 Mongolians reside

abroad, most of them in neighbouring countries. However,

unofficial sources estimate this figure could be as high as

250,000 (International Organization for Migration 2011).

The number of emigrants to specific countries are highly

inaccurate, but are indicative of popular destinations and are

probably underestimated: 65,000 Mongolians in Kazakh-

stan, c.30,000 in the Republic of Korea, 10,000 in the USA,

and 1500�7000 in each of the following countries: the

Federal Republic of Germany, the Russian Federation,

Great Britain, Japan, the Czech Republic, China, and

Poland (Bolormaa Tsogtsaikhan 2008). International travel

mainly to South Korea is undertaken by men on three-year

work contracts negotiated through the Korean and Mon-

golian state. In South Korea, only one-third of Mongolian

emigrants are believed to live with their family members

(Jadambaa & Khuldorj 2005). Women tend to work in the

USA or in Europe, many of them as au pairs. Ideally, the

arrangement serves as a cultural living and learning

experience for young people below the age of 25 years, but

in practice it more often provides only domestic assistance

for the host family.

Most Mongolians who migrate abroad are individual

travellers who leave their spouse, children, and parents.

Many of the women left behind effectively become single

mothers, often living in poverty and either receiving random

remittances or none at all. Children constitute the group

most at risk in Mongolia, with an estimated 42% living in

poverty (UNICEF 2010), often with a single parent (UNI-

CEF 2009). Separations are known to cause hardship and

distress when fathers or mothers migrate and leave their

children in the care of one parent, grandparents, or other

relatives. Nevertheless, factors such as economic survival,

the desire for a better life, and the cultural practice of

separation all contribute to individuals’ decision to migrate

and the custom of leaving close family members behind.

Remittances are usually random, some of which are sent to

parents, spouses, or children at home, although migrants

keep much of their earnings in their destination country,

where it is readily accessible or saved to buy housing and

vehicles upon their return to Mongolia.

Although the current level of predominantly individual

and remittance-poor migration could be expected to place a

strain on families, migration is usually practised without

causing a formal break-up of marriages. My ethnographic

data revealed that migrant men often had become partners

with a Mongolian or other women from the host country

while their wife or common-law wife in Mongolia had kept

their official status. Moreover, the wives left in Mongolia

often entered into a relationship with a ‘secret’, yet widely

known about, lover (nuuts amrag), a type of ‘sugar daddy’.

Having a nuuts amrag provides less affluent women with

both status and economic assistance, and involves a more

committed and stable relationship than one with a lover or

mistress. A Mongolian woman aged 40 years questioned why

Mongolian women, even those with jobs and housing,

maintained a facade of marriage when their husbands had

new wives. She added that Mongolian women always had

some level of education, always found some type of job, had

some political knowledge, and in many cases preferred life

without a husband due to beatings, which in certain

circumstances both women and men find justified (SIGI

n.d.). In order to address my informant’s question, in the

next section I examine the meaning of separation and how

women’s and men’s status is achieved.

NORSK GEOGRAFISK TIDSSKRIFT 67 (2013) Making migration meaningful in Mongolia 241

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 23:

26 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Separation

A journalist and woman from the Omnogobi Province

capital, Dalanzadgad, elaborated on women’s obligation to

wait for their husband to return from their travels and

touched upon the issue of internal adoption, which is

common in most families: ‘We have always waited and

respected our husbands. Men will have other women, but

[laughing] we have other men . . .If we have children [with the

lover] . . . Oh my! . . .That is difficult, but we manage.’ The

quote reveals that absence and infidelity are not considered

social disasters to either women or men, and the informant

repeated what I had heard numerous times, namely that

children are necessary for populating the country. Tradi-

tionally, in pastoral households women experienced separa-

tion when they married and were required to settle in the ger

camp of their husband and his parents, thus separating the

women from their consanguine family. Women and children

were socialized to accept subordinate positions to men and

not to oppose any decision made by a male relative or their

husband. Women were also expected to suppress any

emotions of happiness, anger, irritation, or surprise. Rather,

they were expected to be indifferent and show no signs of

affection that could cause a man to be embarrassed: ‘a man

had to take special precautions to avoid seeming dominated

by his wife in case he be despised and criticised’ (Humphrey

1978, 101). Further, wives were not meant to argue or fight,

but to remain ‘quietly confident’ of their position in the

family (Humphrey 1992, 191), i.e. a position subordinate to

men and accepting long-term travel or nuuts amrag relation-

ships. Still, women were independent in terms of household

economy, ownership rights, and stating their points of view

in public. Thus, both men and women were able to manage

practical chores and decision-making when their spouse was

absent, and the separation of family members did not cause

household to lose their means of economic or social

survival. Women often managed the herding, household,

and economy in both the domestic sphere and public sphere,

skills that have come to influence their place in urban

settings and the management of the requirements of the

market economy.

Although travel was restricted in pastoral Mongolian

society and during socialism, it was necessary for individuals

at certain times. Travel-related separations were enforced,

long-term, and sometimes permanent. For example, histori-

cally, travel for warfare was enforced, while travel in order to

heard camels was necessary. Many boys were taken to

schools for lamas; in the early 20th century, one-third of

all men in Mongolia were lamas (cf. Sneath 2007). Further,

any able individual could be abducted into slavery, most

often on a permanent basis (cf. Onon 2001). Some travel was

‘voluntary’, as young Mongolian men were traditionally

urged by their families to travel when they were young. The

temporary separation of young men from their families

while they travelled around the world may have been driven

by the authority of patriarchal fathers, yet presented as a

voluntary separation.

Separations were still enforced during the time of Soviet

socialist influence in Mongolia. Families were expected to

accept necessary separations in order for girls and boys to

attend boarding schools, for young men to complete three-

year military service, and for young men and women to

pursue further education in urban centres and rural jobs.

Newly-wed couples moved in with the groom’s parents or

into their ger camp, causing young women to separate from

their families. All of the aforementioned separations and

activities were seen as necessary for the common good of the

people and workers. The most privileged youths took one-

year vocational training courses or university degrees in the

USSR or in other COMECON (Council for Mutual

Economic Assistance) countries, often leaving one or more

of their children with their relatives. There was familial

pressure not to reject such opportunities, and either no or

very little condemnation voiced when fathers or mothers left

their children and spouse for years in order to educate

themselves or work to gain skills, ultimately for the good of

their country and their families. The separation of family

members was thus taken further by the socialist system from

an early stage in life, being mainly compulsory and long-

term, while any private travel away from one’s district was

restricted and controlled.

Today, the survival and wealth of the urban family are not

ensured by the shared efforts involved in animal husbandry,

but rather through individual wage employment, which

carries the risk of disagreements regarding how income is

spent. Domestic conflicts between spouses or with members

of older generations may cause a couple or a family member

to move, which was more difficult before 1990 due to travel

restrictions and kinship practises. In the post-1990 urban

setting, the survival of urban families has become far easier,

due to opportunities for menial jobs, begging, and theft,

which had become common in the 1990s. Travel undertaken

by an individual in order ‘to improve life’ is almost fully

supported emotionally and financially by their family,

regardless of whether the travel is to urban or rural areas.

Separation is considered necessary, expected, and accepted

as part of life and a practice that does not break up herding

families economically or emotionally, as domestic animals

have to be cared for regardless of personal problems and

family composition. It is still common for a parent,

including mothers that are heads of household, to travel in

order to take advantage of opportunities (i.e. education or

jobs) abroad or in urban centres in Mongolia to improve

their livelihood. In accordance with cultural norms, indivi-

duals are not allowed to complain about separations that are

necessary for the survival of the family.

However, separations have become individualized and not

necessarily for the common family good. In contemporary

Mongolia, both women and men are expected to be wage

earners and in the urban setting women have come to

dominate higher education and many professions as a more

reliant workforce than men. Today, couples in Mongolia

tend to marry informally and break up easily, often due to

alcohol-related violence.1 In a survey of 5000 respondents,

The National Centre Against Violence reported that one in

three women in Mongolia were subject to some form of

domestic violence (National Centre Against Violence 2002).

This development is perhaps both common and global, but

it is seen to cause hardships and severe economic difficulties.

242 A.F. Benwell NORSK GEOGRAFISK TIDSSKRIFT 67 (2013)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 23:

26 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Women with very different socio-economic standings are

often relatively independent and capable of managing on

their own. With the new ways and opportunities of ‘the age

of the market’, separation offers new possibilities for them

to escape from violent or dissatisfying patriarchal relation-

ships. While many young women now reject formal

marriage, older women who married during the time of

socialism wish to maintain the traditional frame of a

household and the status and hope that this gives. Many

women prefer to live without male partners who are

alcoholic, violent, or do not work, and they can achieve

this through separation. In 2006, one informant told me

that her brother was in Europe, and in his absence it was

easier for her family and the absent brother’s wife to

pretend that he was doing well. All aspects of life had

become easier since he had left, and they did not have to

cope with his drinking problem and violent behaviour. His

migration had enabled the family to construct a non-

verifiable narrative about his achievements abroad and to

be safe (Benwell 2009).

Thus, separation is expected, and it brings hope,

prosperity, and hardship to individuals and families in

Mongolia. In the time of pastoral nomadism, families

accepted and were even expected to prosper as a con-

sequence of long separations between husbands and wives

and other family members. The development of new

markets and urban spaces has challenged the acceptance

of such separation. Today, informal marriages, mobility,

and the possibility for individuals to be independent in

economic terms all undermine the stability of marriage as

an institution. The ease with which Mongolians move and

separate may be influenced by the gender relations of

pastoral nomadic households and their decision-making

practices, as separations between spouses and other family

members are considered ‘natural’ and unavoidable, and

publicly referred to as ‘part of life’. Postsocialism brought

new freedom of movement from country to city, from city

to country, and abroad, and it fostered new waves of

mobility and separation without individuals having to ask

formal permission from state authorities. Much of this

mobility is seemingly driven by the search for a better

livelihood and facilitated by the practice and cultural value

of separation. In the following sections headed ‘Good

fortune’ and ‘Achievement’, I describe how separation is

internalized and valued as a cultural principle, and then, in

the subsequent sections headed ‘Gaining and maintaining

status’ and ‘Laziness’, I examine the practice of travel and

separation as a means to avoid conflict, social problems,

and poverty.

Good fortune

In Mongolia, separations are expected and lived with, and

not publicly viewed as unsettling or difficult. The value of

separation between family members is fundamental among

Mongolian herders and extends into other domains of life,

such as the spatial regulation of movement within each ger,

placing the members of different sexes and age groups into

defined spatial areas. Culturally, separation is important for

increasing household hishig, based on respectful relation-

ships with the spirits. However, to many Mongolians,

separations between kin are usual practices, and although

the concept of hishig is not well defined, the word is in

common usage. Most people are likely to have a vague

understanding that hishig means ‘what is right to do’ within

the frame of a family. The accepted meaning of hishig is

‘good-fortune’ or ‘prosperity’ and it may be seen as a part of

a larger whole, whereby one person’s gain or loss of hishig

will affect the whole of their household group (Chabros

1992).

In her work on Buriyat pastoralists, who share many

cultural traits with the largest ethnic group in Mongolia, the

Halh, anthropologist Rebecca Empson (2007b, 114) ad-

dresses separation and how people, animals, and ‘things’ are

contained:

Mongolians hold that, in order for certain relations to continue,

multiply and grow, people, animals, or things have to be separated

so that a necessary aspect of them can be contained and a liveable

version of a relationship becomes possible.

Empson suggests that the perpetuation of kinship is

achieved through the separation of bodies while leaving

something behind. By attracting and containing or harnes-

sing the hishig bestowed by spirits, a family will receive

benevolent material conditions for its continued prosperity

and fertility (Empson 2007a; 2007b; 2011).

The strength of separation is most clearly seen in the

expectations of life-cycle separations or the absence of

persons (such as a daughter who leaves her natal home after

marriage). In order to draw strength from an absent relative,

it is necessary for something belonging to that relative, or

something that reminds other family members of him or her,

to be left behind and stored, usually in a wooden chest. For

example, when a person leaves his or her natal home, items

are left behind to ensure that family relations can be

continued, but for those who remain and attends to such

items, the objects have a form of ‘agency’ in the sense that

their containment is seen to increase the life-potential of the

kin group. Thus, separation both allows and fertilizes growth

in a household and separation is eased through commem-

oration by means of objects such displayed photographic

montages of the departed person (like genealogies), items

crafted by them (e.g. embroidery), or objects hidden from

general view (e.g. in a wooden chest). Hidden objects enable

separated people to continue to have feelings about each

other when they are apart. In the case of newly married

daughters, separation is practised to reduce the closeness of

‘shared blood’, which is extremely strong between a mother

and her newborn child, and therefore the two need to be

parted when the daughter has grown up. Empson argues that

people who have this type of ‘shared blood’ relationship have

to be physically separated from each other and that things

kept hidden from view are not just reminders of past

relations, but ‘appear as a capacity or resource that maintains

links between people in their absence’ (Empson 2007a, 68).

The absence of people and how members of their family

remember them through items they have left behind creates

other relations, and it is therefore possible for a person

to leave and yet maintain close relations with members of

NORSK GEOGRAFISK TIDSSKRIFT 67 (2013) Making migration meaningful in Mongolia 243

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 23:

26 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

their family because their bodily presence is not needed

to maintain relations between kin. It can be argued that

physical absence may strengthen a person’s social presence in

their family and appear to enhance the good fortune of the

family. With this in mind, separation for warfare, military

training, and education have been easier to accept, and the

same applies in the case of voluntary travel or migration.

Even compulsory or forced separations during the 1950s and

1960s, and until postsocialism in 1990, may have been

burdensome for individuals but considered as necessary

and good undertakings that were supported by family

members and society ‘for the common good’.

Achievement

Although travel by individuals and their separation from

their family is culturally accepted and even encouraged, it

also entails distress. Separation from family does not always

represent an individual’s wish to experience the world or

improve livelihood. A person’s decision to leave their family

in order to set out on an uncertain voyage to the West is not

necessarily always ‘voluntary’. They may perceive their

migration as a duty and not just undertaken for pleasure,

and hence they may experience a form of social pressure that

is similar to the pressure experienced when someone is sent

to boarding school or to do military service. Most often,

travel appears to be undertaken voluntarily and the traveller

is viewed as displaying direction, drive, and agency. A

traveller is expected to enhance his or her livelihood and

eventually also the livelihood of their family, and hence they

need to act upon and take advantage of any opportunities.

Authorities, whether in the form of parents or the state,

provide direction and have expectations.

Employment in ‘ordinary’ low-paid jobs or staying at

home are not considered adequate ‘for life’; such practices

are not acknowledged as seizing opportunities and actively

improving a family’s livelihood, but rather as failing to

achieve. Thus, the current willingness of individuals to travel

and separate from their nuclear family and possibly from

middle-class life becomes far easier to understand, as the

parting of a spouse or an adolescent is considered beneficial

or even necessary for the common good of the family.

Separation of family members for extended travel thus

provides value by increasing hishig, the good fortune of

the family, and any individual sense of loss is alleviated by

the collective gains in terms of the family’s status. In this

sense, the cultural acceptance of mobility and long-term

separation of family members, and even the value of

separation as a cultural principle, are regarded as helpful

in enabling many families to survive the transition to the

market economy and fulfilling the wishes of individuals to

travel to see the world. However, mobility and separation

have also increasingly added to a sense of nuptial chaos and

fuelled the weakening of long-term steady nuptial relation-

ships, and hence family cohesion and fortune; separations

intended to increase hishig can thus decrease fortune in some

cases.

Gaining and maintaining status

My ethnographic data revealed that migration and the

separation of spouses and nuclear families may sustain

images of the families doing well. Nevertheless, they also

serve to conceal the fact that women are managing on their

own in difficult economic circumstances. In the mid-1990s,

the women I worked with in the Gobi claimed that men who

had affairs or a secret lover (nuuts amrag) were nevertheless

committed to and present in their official families. With

regard to the urban setting and the practice of international

migration, almost all of the women I interviewed, who

spanned three generations, claimed that women do not know

whether their husbands will return and they seldom received

remittances from them.

One man who returned to his family was Ulzii (aged

34 years in 2000). Although the cultural acceptance and

expectation of travel may have ‘allowed’ Ulzii to travel, he

explained that the personal sense of freedom and achieve-

ment he had experienced as a result of travelling were

contributory factors in his decision to migrate abroad. Ulzii

was married, with three children aged between 5 and

12 years and he worked as a driver for a reputable bank.

His travels to Denmark, Sweden, and Norway had turned

out to be an economic burden for him, his parents, and his

wife and children, despite being an experience that he, and

to some extent his family, would not have missed. After

years spent in asylum centres, where he was restlessness and

bored, he was almost happy when he was sent back to

Ulaanbaatar. Ulzii was back where he had started, only now

deeper in debt, yet still very pleased with his achievement in

having become a world traveller. According to his wife, he

was the centre of attention in gatherings of family and

friends, and was able to participate with personal anecdotes

when he met his friends. His wife appeared genuinely happy

despite his lack of success.

By contrast, Ganbold, who was in his mid-thirties and the

father of four children, did not return to his wife. For more

than 10 years, he and his formal wife pretended that he was a

migrant worker in Europe. Although he did not intend to

return, he had not discussed the matter with his wife, who

was aware of his new life and family in Europe. In 2002, after

four years of separation, his wife’s status was a ‘lucky’

woman who had a migrant husband, whereas in reality she

was a single mother and received only a few random

remittances. Everyone who knew the family was aware of

the situation, but did not mention it. Numerous narratives

of similar cases of women married before transition indicate

that migration of a spouse is made meaningful by hiding the

loss and the devastating aspects of the separation. Regard-

less of whether they have a high or low salary and regardless

of strong social networks, women tend not to divorce

even when the separation from their spouse is ostensibly

permanent.

Difficult separations do not just exist between spouses. In

2006, I happened to see a grandmother and granddaughter

in an Internet cafe talking on Skype, an Internet phone,

message, and visual call system that is a very common way

for migrants to stay in touch. For example, parents may stay

in touch with children left in the care of relatives while

244 A.F. Benwell NORSK GEOGRAFISK TIDSSKRIFT 67 (2013)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 23:

26 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

working abroad. The grandmother and granddaughter were

‘meeting up’ with a woman in her earlies thirties, called

Galaa. Later, I learned though the Mongolian social net-

work that in 2003 she had left her job at a TV station in

Mongolia and entered a Schengen country on an illegal visa

to follow her husband, Batbold, a telephone electrician. The

couple had two children who lived with Batbold’s parents in

Ulaanbaatar, and it was the grandmother and the oldest

child that I had seen in the Internet cafe. Batbold and Galaa

lived in Stockholm as illegal immigrants, where they did

menial jobs in the hope of saving enough money for an

apartment in the city centre and a car. Batbold had never

seen his youngest child in person as he had left Mongolia

when Galaa was pregnant, and she in turn left the country

after six months of breastfeeding. When I met Galaa in

Sweden in 2007, she told me that she had not seen her

children for five years and that life was difficult (hetsuu), but

added, ‘We can’t go home until we’re able to live well in

Mongolia.’ She claimed that their ‘temporary’ leave was

necessary for the future of their children and that she and

Batbold appeared to be doing well in the eyes of those at

home, although people at home were aware that life as an

illegal immigrant was probably a struggle and that it was

most likely that the couple were not wealthy. While they were

illegal immigrants, they could not take annual visits to

Mongolia and there had therefore tried to overcome the loss

of being separated from their closest kin by maintaining

contact daily by telephone and the Internet. Galaa felt that

the costs of separation were high as she had missed

experiencing her children’ early childhood. In 2011, she

and Batbold were granted permanent residency in Sweden

and were able to visit Mongolia legally and eventually their

children would be able to join them in Sweden.

During long separations, the social presence of the

traveller is maintained by objects they have left behind

with their family, through use of the Internet, and sometimes

by sending remittances, as well as through the cultural

principle of increasing hishig through the separation of kin.

Ulzii, who had spent many years in asylum centres in

Scandinavia, wished for autonomy and fortune, and his

family supported his absence and made his migration

meaningful; he retuned poorer, but with the status of an

achiever. Galaa’s sacrifice of being with her children paid off

when she and her husband became legal immigrants. In

Mongolia, keeping up appearances that one’s family is

progressing and prospering is important and Galaa felt

that she had status and was actively doing something to

improve her life and the lives of her children. Ganbold’s wife

stayed in Ulaanbaatar and received very few remittances

although she had tried to signal otherwise. She maintained

her status as married until her migrant husband needed legal

documents to certify their divorce. Marriage holds less status

for the generations that have grown up during postsocialism,

whereas wealth is regarded as important by all Mongolians.

In all three cases cited above, mobility and separation were

used to generate not only wealth but also status of the

travellers as active agents striving to improve their liveli-

hood. In the following section, I consider how travel and

separation are a means to escape from expectations regard-

ing achievement, and I discuss immobility and the stigma of

laziness in relation to wealth and status.

Laziness

In development reports, migration from Mongolia is ex-

plained as being rooted in poverty (e.g. UNICEF 2009),

which is an economic term for the lack of sufficient money

to live at a standard considered comfortable or normal in a

society. In-migration is explained as being caused by zud,

weather conditions that cause animals to die and nomads to

lose their livelihood and migrate to urban centres, whereas

international migration is due to severe poverty and lack

of faith in being able to prosper in Mongolia. The very

poor have no possibilities to practise international migra-

tion. Nevertheless, most Mongolians are unlikely to consider

themselves as ‘very poor’; the poor have options, possibilities

to find work, and they have social networks. Accusing

people of poverty points to their lack of material means for

life, but adds a moral dimension of wrongdoing.

In the 1990s, several herders told me that the expected

pattern of behaviour, i.e. the social norms of Mongolians

herders, is to care for their animals relentlessly. Laziness can

cause animals to starve and families to suffer and become a

burden to other families in the area. In everyday language,

the common-most cause of economic poverty is expressed

with great contempt as ‘laziness’. Being poor or losing one’s

livelihood on the grounds of what is within one’s control

does not trigger acts of solidarity. In her analysis of

solidarity and collectivity in the Hangai Mountains (steppe)

region, Lindskog (2011) explains how there is nothing to

suggest that bonds of solidarity are actualized when loss is

due to ‘neglect, lack of knowledge, breach of rule (yos) or

being conceived as a family without fortune (hishiggui) or

simply ‘‘bad’’ (muu)’ (Lindskog 2011, 102). When a Mon-

golian’s loss is their own fault, such as when it is due to

laziness or to moral failure to respect cultural values and is

thus a breech of the codes of conduct (yos) that cause

poverty, then no acts of solidarity are offered. To behave

correctly is to respect yos, which are ‘commonly accepted

rules of order, reason and custom’ (Humphrey 1997, 25).

The rules of conduct continue to be observed and although

times and customs change, a person is valued according to

his or her ability and effort to behave in the right way.

The term yaduu (poor) means to be poor in economic

terms, but also to the recognition of failure to behave

according to yos. By abiding to yos, a Mongolian also

accepts the strict hierarchies that permeate all social

relations and interaction and require men to be heads of

households and women to be hardworking and independent

yet humble to men, seniors, and high-ranking individuals.

In this context of status and achievement, an educated

person cannot be poor, as he or she will have opportunities

through education. Further, people without any handicaps

or restrictions will always have opportunities, and therefore

if they experience any poverty it is understood as being due

to their laziness. In the opinion of Mongolians in general,

poor become poor when they do not try hard enough to find

work, find better work, or do something to gain wealth.

NORSK GEOGRAFISK TIDSSKRIFT 67 (2013) Making migration meaningful in Mongolia 245

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 23:

26 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

In Mongolia, laziness is given as the primary explanation

for any lack of wealth or success, regardless of whether

someone is male or female, or has social networks, educa-

tion, or a job. However, if a person is wealthy, he or she is

unlikely be labelled lazy, regardless of how their wealth has

been achieved, whether by heritance, theft, cleverness, or

hard work. Laziness and poverty are said to go hand-in-

hand, whereas activity and wealth are not mutually inter-

linked. Herders are believed to have options, and poor

herders are therefore not considered poor without also being

blamed for being lazy. Lindskog (2011) shows how local

herders help each other in times of need and will repay and

provide assistance whenever possible. Such help requires a

‘moral economy’, that assistance will only be provided in

cases of dire need and not in cases when someone should be

able to manage on their own (Lindskog 2011). A person will

not be accused of laziness if, for example, they either have a

physical or severe mental disability that prevents them from

herding and managing their household or if they have a rich

lover from a neighbouring ger camp who provides the family

with ample material goods and food. Despite being the

target of gossip, which sometimes is malicious, wealthy

women and men will have a high status, regardless of how

their wealth was achieved.

Perceptions of laziness and the concept of poverty may

help to explain why separations are readily accepted despite

the hardships experienced by the traveller, those who remain

behind, and the uncertain outcomes of migration. Laziness

is given as the prime reason for lack of material wealth in

Mongolia and is, as I have shown, believed to be due to lack

of activity and failure to achieve, or not taking advantage of

any opportunities that arise. Poverty has a moral dimension

and is not just measured in economic terms: to be poor is

not only to lack sufficient material means for life but also

to lack a moral sense of obligation and disrespect yos

(the moral codes of conduct). I found that in order to

improve livelihood and avoid the stigmas of laziness and

poverty, Mongolians embark on migration on risky eco-

nomic and legal terms. The separation that this entails is an

activity to improve life and fulfils a moral obligation that

also reflects on their family.

Domestic cohesion

Thus far, I have discussed the practices and cultural

characteristics of migration, separation, and achievement

in Mongolia, with the aim of gaining a better understanding

of how mobility has changed and how this has influenced

the practices of escaping or maintaining family patriarchy

and conformity. Through travel, men may enhance their

position as the head of their household and at the same time

avoid the conformity of everyday life. By contrast, women

manage households, retain the outward appearance of being

married, and linger in the uncertainty of their nuptial status.

I have shown that efforts to improve life through migration

contribute to conceal the destruction of families and, as

I have argued, circumvent accusations of individuals being

lazy and immobile. The scale of migration is high and the

social problems related to migration in development terms

point to female-headed households as the largest group at

risk of poverty. Younger couples divorce, marry informally,

separate, and remarry. The growing prevalence of individu-

alism and more fluid marital arrangements has been

responded to in legislation � in the law ‘Child Welfare and

Monetary Assistance for Families and Children’, enacted in

2006 (UNICEF 2009, 7). This law was supposed to curb the

flux of current marriage and cohabitation practices and

offered newly-wed couples a cash grant of MNT 500,000

(USD 430 in 2006), which was an enormous amount for

most Mongolians.

Regardless of marriage arrangements, many who take the

opportunity to travel, leave their spouse (usually women)

and children for an indefinite period of time. Consequently,

many dependents are left to provide for themselves, often

without a job or remittances. In pastoral society and

Mongolian cultural practices, women are not expected to

complain about the absence of their husband and are

expected to manage their household on their own. The

pastoral practices and values seep into urban Mongolia,

where women continue to leave when opportunities arise or,

more often, accept the separation from their husband and

await their return or pretend to do so. I have shown that

Mongolians perceive that such women are not genuinely

poor (yaduu). Rather, they struggle to cope with their

situation by finding menial jobs. Consequently, they are

not entitled to acts of solidarity unless they are in dire need.

In cases of those who are not kin, solidarity is shown to

people with whom ‘certain bonds of belonging and collec-

tivity’ are shared (Lindskog 2011, 111). It is an act of

personal ethics and judgement that a family in need deserves

help; such solidarity is not shown to neglectful or lazy

families (Lindskog 2011). In this perspective, poor female

single-headed households or families living with the un-

certainty of being abandoned are not fully entitled to social

solidarity.

During long-term or even permanent migration, women

who remain in Mongolia may be deserted or may fear

desertion, but still tend to uphold an image of being in a

married relationship, such as pretending they are married

and showing signs of wealth and material goods that

could (but may not) have been purchased with remittances.

Apparently, a Mongolian family member’s decision to

separate is supported by their family’s hope of regular and

necessary remittances and the upholding close bonds.

However, separation is also due confidence that it will

benefit the household through an increase in hishig.

Often, women’s sense of loss following separation is not

voiced due to their still quite common obligation to suppress

their emotions and always respect the decisions made by

their husband, father, brothers, uncles, and older women, in

strict hierarchical order. Hishig and historical-cultural

practices of separations help to explain what encourages

migration and drives even middle-class Mongolians to

endure circumstances that may not lead to material im-

provements. The mere act of travel generates status. The loss

based on the separation of nuclear families is strongest for

those who remain behind � most often women, who carry

the burden of providing for their family, securing an income,

and living in uncertainty. Still, the members of family who

246 A.F. Benwell NORSK GEOGRAFISK TIDSSKRIFT 67 (2013)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 23:

26 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

are left behind are compensated for their loss by the

awareness that their absent relative is ‘acting’ for the

common good of the extended family. In the case of

husbands that have migrated and settled with a new family

abroad, their wife in Mongolia remains acknowledged as a

wife within the frame of their family, regardless of her legal

nuptial status. This is the ‘traditional’ or official interpreta-

tion of individual migration. Separations are accepted by

pragmatic attitudes to old practices and yos and the mean-

ings attached to the separations. To leave Mongolia with a

chance to experience the world and even increase the hishig

of the family is thus sensible. Travel and separation are not

seen to destroy families, but rather expressed as strengthen-

ing the family.

Conclusions: separation as a gender issue

For more than two decades, since the early 1990s, ‘the age of

the market’ has generated an economically stratified society

with a poverty rate of 35% and a small but very wealthy elite.

Flows of migrants, mainly families, seek opportunities in

urban centres and individuals migrate internationally. This

process of movement is supported by two factors: first, the

cultural and historical practices of men, women, and

children separating from their families for herding, warfare,

schooling, further education, and work; and second, the

confidence that separation of a person, even a breadwinner,

from his or her family will increase the good fortune (hishig)

of the family left behind. Absence of the family member is

dealt with pragmatically, as a fact of life. Both sexes are

expected to be able to manage the gendered tasks of

practical chores and decision-making when a spouse is

absent, and in many cases women express that they are

relieved not to have to share daily life with husbands who are

alcoholic and/or violent.

I have shown that spatial and social mobility are linked.

In contemporary urban society, and regardless of the costs

and outcome, migration and separation provides value by

means of increasing hishig, the fortune of the family. The

traveller escapes the conformity of everyday life and gains

status merely by travelling, and hence their extended

family gains status too. However, in the process, many

women are left behind with some status or hope of status,

yet often materially poor and in an uncertain state that

was not voiced in pastoral society or during socialism.

Mainly children and female-headed households suffer the

consequences of the absence of a family member in terms

of the loss and deeper state of poverty generated by

separation. The cultural acceptance of long-term separa-

tion of family members has helped many families survive

the transition to the market economy, and has fulfilled

individual’s wish to travel and see the world. However, in

the analysis presented in this article, I have shown that

hardworking or struggling men and women who have few

animals or low-waged jobs are not conceived as achieving

and are often face condemnation and accusations of being

lazy and immobile, whereas those who travel gain status.

Ironically, the praised mobility and separation inadver-

tently triggers poverty and uncertainty, and fuels the

breakdown of the institution of marriage and family

life � precisely the institutions it is meant to support

through increasing hishig, the collective fortune of the

Mongolian family.

Note

1 See under the heading ‘Discriminatory Family Code’ on http://genderindex.

org/country/mongolia (accessed 19 June 2013).

Manuscript submitted 2 September 2012; accepted 4 April 2013

References

Benwell, A.F. 2009. Keeping Up Appearances: Gender and Ideal Womanhood in

Postsocialist Mongolia. PhD thesis, No. 55. University of Copenhagen,

Copenhagen.

Bikales, B. 2005. Modern Mongolia: A Review [review M. Rossabi’s book titled

Modern Mongolia]. http://www.mongolia-web.com/22-modern-mongolia-

review (accessed 16 March 2013).

Bolormaa Tsogtsaikhan. 2008. Demographic Change and Labor Migration

in Mongolia. http://www.pecc.org/resources/doc_view/681-demographic-

changes-and-labor-migration-in-mongolia (accessed 19 June 2013).

Bulag, U.E. 1998. Nationalism and Hybridity in Mongolia. Clarendon Press,

Oxford.

Chabros, K. 1992. Beckoning Fortune: A Study of the Mongol Dalalya Ritual.

Asiatische Forschungen, Bd. 117. Otto Harassowitz, Wiesbaden.

CIA. 2013. The World Factbook: Mongolia. [click ‘People and society’.]

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/mg.html

(accessed 16 March 2013).

Cohen, J. H. 2004. The Culture of Migration in Southern Mexico. University of

Texas Press, Austin, TX.

Cresswell, T. 2006. On the Move: Mobility in the Modern Western World.

Routledge, London.

Darieva, T. n.d. Recruiting for the Nation: Post-Soviet Transnational Migrants

in Germany and Kazakhstan. http://www.siberian-studies.org/publications/

PDF/ridarieva.pdf (accessed 19 June 2013).

Empson, R. 2007a. Enlivened memories: Recalling absence and loss in

Mongolia. Carstens, J. (ed.) Ghosts of Memory: Essays of Remembrance

and Relatedness, 58�82. Blackwell, Oxford.

Empson, R. 2007b. Separating and containing people and things in Mongolia.

Henare, A. Holbraad, M. & Wastell, S. (eds.) Thinking Through Things:

Theorising Artefacts Ethnographically, 113�140. Routledge, London.

Empson, R. 2011. Harnessing Fortune: Personhood, Memory and Place in

Mongolia. British Academy Postdoctoral Fellowship Monograph Series.

Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Gardner, K. 1995. Global Migrants, Local Lives: Travel and Transformation in

Rural Bangladesh. Clarendon Press, Oxford.

SIGI (Social Institutions and Gender Index). n.d. Mongolia: Discriminatory

Family Code. http://genderindex.org/country/mongolia (accessed 16 March

2013).

George V. & Page R.M. (eds.) 2004. Global Social Problems. Polity Press,

Cambridge.

Gupta, A. & Ferguson, J. 1997. Culture, Power, Place: Explorations in Critical

Anthropology. Duke University Press, Durham.

Hannam, K., Sheller, M. & Urry, J. 2006. Editorial: Mobilities, immobilities

and moorings. Mobilities 1, 1�22.

Humphrey, C. 1978. Women, taboo and the suppression of attention. Ardener

S. (ed.) Defining Females: The Nature of Women in Society, 89�108. Croom

Helm, London.

Humphrey, C. 1992. Women and ideology in hierarchical societies in East

Asia. Ardener, S. (ed.) Persons and Powers of Women in Diverse Cultures,

173�192. Berg, Oxford.

Humphrey, C. 1997. Exemplars and rules: Aspects of the discourse

of moralities in Mongolia. Howell S. (ed.) The Ethnography of Moralities,

25�47. Routledge, London.

NORSK GEOGRAFISK TIDSSKRIFT 67 (2013) Making migration meaningful in Mongolia 247

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 23:

26 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Humphrey, C. & Sneath, D. 1999. The End of Nomadism? Society, State, and

the Environment in Inner Asia. Duke University Press, Durham.

International Organization for Migration. 2011. Mongolia. Overview. http://

www.iom.int/cms/en/sites/iom/home/where-we-work/asia-and-the-pacific/

mongolia.html (accessed 13 March 2013).

Jadambaa, R. & Khuldorj, B. (eds.) 2005. The Status and Consequences of

Mongolian Citizens’ Working Abroad: Survey Report. Ministry of Social

Welfare and Labour, United Nations Population Fund, Mongolian

Population and Development Association, Ulaanbaatar.

Lindskog, B.V. 2011. Collectivity in the Making: Homeland, Belonging and

Ritual Worship among Halh Herders in Central Mongolia. PhD thesis.

University of Oslo, Oslo.

National Centre Against Violence, National CEDAW Watch Network

Centre, Centre for Human Rights and Development & UNIFEM Trust

Fund. 2002. Violence against Women and Legal Framework in Mongolia.

CEDAW Watch, Ulaanbaatar.

NSO. 2011. Mongolian Statistical Yearbook 2010. National Statistical Office

of Mongolia, Ulaanbaatar.

Onon, U. 2001. The Secret History of the Mongols. RoutledgeCurzon, London.

Sanders, A.J.K. 1987. Mongolia: Politics, Economics and Society. Marxist

Regimes Series. Francis Pinter, London.

Sneath, D. 2007. The Headless State: Aristocratic Orders, Kinship Society, &

Misrepresentations of Nomadic Inner Asia. Columbia University Press, New

York.

Social Watch. 2012. Mongolia Has the Best Level of Gender Equality in East

Asia, Says Watchdog Organization. http://www.socialwatch.org/node/14578

(accessed 13 March 2013).

Government of Mongolia, UNDP Mongolia & SIDA (Swedish International

Development Cooperation Agency). 2011. Mongolian Human Development

Report 2011. From Vulnerability to Sustainability: Environmental and

Human Development. UNDP, Ulaanbaatar.

UNICEF. 2009. Situation Analysis of Children and Women in Mongolia.

UNICEF, Ulaanbaatar.

UNICEF. 2010. Country Office Annual Report: Mongolia. UNICEF, [place of

publication not given].

Urry, J. 2003. Social networks, travel and talk. British Journal of Sociology 54,

155�175.

Urry, J. 2010. Mobile sociology. British Journal of Sociology 61, 347�366.

248 A.F. Benwell NORSK GEOGRAFISK TIDSSKRIFT 67 (2013)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 23:

26 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014