I. Introduction

2Previous empirical research has pointed to a diversification of family forms and shown how individuals “do” family (Morgan, 2013; discussed below) across distance and through space. Two main research strands’ foci can be identified: one focuses on dispersed or transnational families with an emphasis on key family practices like “care” and “mothering” (Baldassar/Merla, 2014; Baldassar et al., 2018; Bryceson, 2019; Bryceson/Vuorela, 2002; Kilkey/Palenga-Möllenbeck, 2016). The other focuses on multi-local families and includes research on divorced families, patchwork families or families that live apart together for employment-related or other reasons (Hilti, 2016; Holmes, 2010; Merla/Nobels, 2019; Schier, 2016). These two research strands reveal three main findings: first, they show the significance of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) – Madianou and Miller speak of a “polymedia environment” (Madianou/Miller, 2012; Madianou, 2016) – for doing family across distance and, as recent research indicates, to convey emotions and circulate affect in this context (Baldassar et al., 2016; Neves/Casimiro, 2018; Wilding, 2020). Second, they highlight inequalities and global asymmetries in access to and affordability of ICT as well as in “digital literacy” (Wilding, 2020). Finally, they show that familial ties as well as a sense of belonging and identity remain relevant despite multi-locality and mobility (Bryceson/Vuorela, 2002; Yeoh et al., 2018; Murray et al., 2019; Walsh, 2018).

3Building on these findings, my paper sets out to further explore the relationship between “doing” family, mobilities and space (Massey, 2005) through an empirical focus on expatriate families. This group has not been addressed explicitly so far (the largest relevant body of literature focuses on poor and labour migrants; Baldassar, 2016:24), yet it is of specific interest because of its de-territorialized features and the inherent contradictions between mobility and immobility: the families are (highly) mobile in practice, but rather immobile (or stable) on a conceptual level. Drawing on on-going, long-term fieldwork among expatriate families in a German community in an exclusive suburb in southern Tokyo, my paper addresses the following questions: how and where do these highly mobile individuals “do” family? What significance do specific places and spaces have for these individuals and their “doing” family? Are practices and/or notions of family changing, and, if so, how? How can “doing” family be mapped and situated?

4The paper is structured as follows: in section II (“setting the context”) I outline my theoretical perspective (section II.A) and review the literature on expatriate families, including a critical discussion of the term “expatriate (family)” (section II.B). I then elaborate on my methodological approach (section III). In section IV, I introduce the research field and my empirical data in three sub-sections that address mundane practices and gendered spa­ces (section IV.A), familial displays and (re)negotiations (section IV.B) as well as (un)changing conditions due to the COVID-19 pandemic (section IV.C). Finally, I present my findings and discuss the expatriates’ family practices as “doing family on a global stage”: I show that the expatriates constantly (re)negotiate their family practices in relation to and in distinction from their country of origin, the local German community, and the surrounding Japanese host country and, in so doing, produce conceptual, embodied and physical fixities on three levels.

II. Setting the context: mobile families and familial mobilities

A. Doing family’ in and through space

5“Doing family” derives from the concept of family practices (Morgan, 1996, 2011, 2013). It is based upon the assumptions that neither are families fixed structures, «sets of positions and statuses» centred around a physical place like a common household, nor does “the” family exist (Morgan, 2013: 3, 6). Rather, it acknowledges the diversity and fluidity of families and emphasizes the need to “do” them (Morgan, 2011). Families are therefore understood as a set of practices and social activities. This approach to “family” has been further developed and extended: Janet Finch, for example, argues that «families need to be “displayed” as well as “done”» (Finch, 2007:66). Through the concept of “display” she stresses «that the meaning of one’s actions has to be both conveyed to and understood by relevant others if those actions are to be effective as constituting “family practices”» (Ibid.).

6Against the backdrop of globalization and transnationalism and based upon the spatial turn and the (new) mobilities paradigm, new interdisciplinary approaches to “family” stress the temporal and spatial dimensions of families, while also pointing to a dependency on spatial and temporal con­texts (Morgan, 2013:61; Murray, 2019; Massey, 2005; Elliot/Urry, 2010). A central argument of these conceptual frameworks is that families are “always in motion”, both conceptually and in practice. Families are ebbing and «flowing through space and time», as Murray et al. (2019:2) advance. Transformations in family relations, including, for example, the imprisonment of members, divorce, re-marriage or migration are therefore not regarded as fragmentations or breaks, but rather as «rhythm, [as] process of change, adjustment and re-routing» (Ibid., 2019:2). At the same time, this research strand points to the intensifying necessity for families and individual family members to constantly (re)adjust to new and changing circumstances in the context of globalization and transnationalism. Finally, this research shows how «people’s mobilities often intersect with […] intimate issues such as family and [at the same time, how] transnational spaces and movements shape individuals’ intimacies» (Groes/Fernandes, 2018:1; Beck/Beck-Gernsheim, 2013; Elliot/Urry, 2010:85-111; Holmes, 2010; Murray et al., 2019; Walsh, 2018; Wilding, 2014). With regard to families, Wilding (2014) coins the term “floating ties” to describe the adaptation processes of families in this context; she uses the term as an allusion to «networks and connections that are flexible, adaptable and negotiable across national, cultural and social borders» and to highlight the fact that «ideas about family and family role are circulating across borders and space» (Ibid:17). It is noteworthy that this research strand (parallel to corresponding research in mobilities studies; McMorran, 2015:83-84; Meier/Frank, 2016:363) stresses fluidity and flow(s) on various levels, but, at the same time, points to its interrelation with immobility: not only the necessity for moorings, such as key family sites, is emphasized, but also the anchoring of family practices by «various institutional [and] cultural […] factors» (Wilding, 2014:168). In this context, the concept of family practices proves to be particularly insightful to capture mobile, (supposedly) de-territorialized families and their time-space dimension as Morgan (2013:74-89) outlines in Rethinking family practices.

B. Expatriate families

8There has been considerable research on expatriates starting with the «first boom in international management studies in the 1990s» (Farrer, 2018:197). Recent social science research since the turn of the century has taken a more critical, partly post-colonial perspective (Fechter/Walsh, 2010, 2012), increasingly focusing on the broader social context of expatriate migration and showing how factors like gender, race and economic and social privileges shape the lives, identities and experiences of expatriates (confer Farrer, 2010, 2018; Fechter, 2008; Nukaga, 2012; Trembath, 2018; Walsh, 2006/2007). These “critical expatriate studies” (Farrer, 2018) point to an increasing diversification of expatriate experiences and communities, elaborate on the interrelation of expatriate migration with other forms of migration, such as lifestyle- or marriage-migration (Igarashi, 2015), and discuss the relation of expatriates (and their communities) to the host country and vice versa. In this context, one research strand focuses on the global connectivity of a “placeless global or transnational class” (Trembath, 2018), another stresses the relevance of emplacement and locality for expatriate belonging, identities and practices (Meier, 2016; Farrer, 2010; Walsh, 2006, 2007, 2018); only a few works point to a «state of in-between-ness» and «multi-stranded ties» due to the fact that expatriates are «destined to return to their home country from the outset» (Nukaga, 2012:66-67).

9The body of literature also includes research on relationship and family issues. This includes research on heterosexual intimacy and gender roles (Coles/Fechter, 2008b; Walsh, 2007, 2018), educational strategies for the accompanying children (Moore, 2008; Igarashi, 2015; Nukaga, 2012), husbands’ involvement in family life and relationships abroad (Yasuike, 2011), the homemaking of trailing spouses (Kurotani, 2005; Hindmann, 2008) and social networks of diplomatic families (Coles, 2008). This research highlights that expatriate experiences are clearly structured by gender, especial­ly when dispatched with one’s partner and/or a family: expatriate families «both assume […] and reproduce […] the nuclear family» (Wilding, 2014:45) and can be described as an embodiment of a nuclear heterosexual family with a male breadwinner and a female homemaker, a circumstance I describe here as “immobile on a conceptual level”.

III. Methods and data: the German community in southern Tokyo

11There has been a long and on-going discussion in social science research on how to examine mobile families; several research projects call for and/or use innovative, “mobile” or “multi-sited” methodological approaches (Elliott, 2014; Meier/Frank, 2016:368; Schier, 2016). In contrast, this research project is based on a classic long-term and on-going ethnographic study at a nodal point of a highly mobile demographic: the German community in southern Tokyo. Overall, the methodology that I employed can best be described as «“whole-hearted” research methodology» (Walsh, 2017:512) or, inspired by Günel, Varma and Watanabe (2020), as “multi method patchwork ethnography” with a focus on daily practices as recounted in narrati­ves and as seen in actions. I relied on a variety of qualitative methods like informal group discussions, daily encounters and conversations with members of the community, in-depth, semi-structured interviews with peers and external “experts” like real estate agents, participant observations (overt and covert) at a variety of private and formal (school) events and joint mobilities like commuting and travelling. Furthermore, the data includes autoethnographic accounts (see below). In order to contextualize my findings, I also used statistical data provided by the local district administration office (ba­sed on statistics of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communication; Jū­min kihon daichō genkyō hōkokusho) as well as the global survey Expats Insider (InterNations, 2019). In terms of analysis, I followed an inductive, theory-generating approach: based on my interest in spatial and mobile di­mensions of “family” (see section II), I employed several basic and partly intertwined steps of initial, focused and theoretical coding (Meagher, 2020) to elicit relevant codes and key themes inherent in my data. While Morgan (2009, 2013), Finch (2007) and, for example, Walsh (2006) discuss various concrete family practices and displays, I intentionally approached my data as openly as possible, but based on my theoretical perspective and inspired by previous work. Key practices, as discussed in sections IV and V, include a variety of mundane practices (of belonging), (performative) familial displays, homemaking and maintaining as well as travel and visits.

12This research is part of a larger research project on lifestyles abroad and originated in some initial puzzles my family and I encountered upon moving to southern Tokyo in September 2018. After I made the conscious decision to systematize my experiences and write about them, I started to talk openly about my academic interest in the community and expatriate life. However, the boundaries between academic interest and private life were and are blurring. This is not unusual for research on expatriates and expatriate communities; quite a few researchers have been personally involved in different forms of privileged migration (Coles, 2008:127-128; Co­les/Fechter, 2008a:4). While the respective research is clearly influenced by personal experiences or an “inside” perspective, none of them are classic autoethnographies in the sense of «highly personalized accounts that draw upon the experience of the author/researcher for the purpose of extending sociological understanding» (Sparkes in Wall, 2008:39). The same is true of my research: I am conducting this research not only as a researcher, but also as a kind of expatriate and acquaintance or friend to some interlocutors myself. While living in the neighbourhood clearly gives me an “insider” status, this status is contested by various factors like, for example, our family’s “reversed” gender roles and our economic background. This specific position is inextricably linked with my experiences, perceptions and perspectives, my access to certain field sites and my exclusion from others. Furthermore, being a kind of expatriate and living in the neighbourhood clearly changed my own experiences, embodied performances and familial practices (Walsh, 2007:512). This specific but changing position in a rather small field raises various ethical questions (Ellis et al., 2011:6, 7), particularly with regard to the production and usage of “data” (especially in the context of (un)consciously covert participation) and protection of the interlocutors’ privacy and safety. In awareness of these problems, I applied different strategies like talking as openly as possible/necessary about my research (interests) and altering as many identifying circumstances as possible. This sometimes also included avoiding direct quotations, modifying specific situations or amalgamating narrations.

IV. Doing family on a global stage: empirical findings

A. Mundane practices and gendered spaces

15The wish to connect with other like-minded families in a foreign country was – alongside the availability of real estate offers and the school bus route – the most commonly cited reason why families choose to live in the neighbourhood. «It’s so easy to make first contacts. You meet other women at the bus stop, at the international kindergarten or in your compound. Contacts then multiply quickly», many women told me. Men also named this reason, although in a different way: «I thought about my wife and my kids; I want them to feel comfortable». Or, as another husband put it laughingly: «you know: happy wife, happy life!» Moving to the neighbourhood itself may therefore be described as a family practice: it is highly probable that schoolmates of the children live in the area or that women find like-minded people – often wives of the husbands’ colleagues – to socialize with (on weekends with “accompanying husbands”) and to get assistance in various realms like shopping, doctor recommendations, education or cultural activities. Women who have been living in the area for a longer time offer their help and advice to new arrivals. Women (and a few men) also constantly exchange tips and ideas through a constantly growing WhatsApp group that is also used in times of emergency. Offline, there are various distinctive but partly overlapping groups and circles as well as singular events like break­fast parties or Japanese cooking and art classes that women socialize in depending on personal preferences, interests, children’s age, the husbands’ work, the family’s history, the nationality or current activities like working part-time or not. Although some of the women, most of whom have a good education and some of whom have been professionally successful themsel­ves, work part-time (and very seldom full-time), most of them are full-time housewives, just «like many Japanese women as well». Although «enjoying one’s time abroad» was a common thread in women’s narrations, most women distanced themselves actively from «the common prejudice that we don’t do anything here, that we just play around and are busy with hair and cosmetic appointments», as one woman put it rather angrily. This topic, however, also leads to inter-familial misunderstandings:

Wife: I always worked full-time in Germany, and I was afraid to stop. But it was no problem, it’s not boring at all. I’m really busy here…

Husband: … bleep, bleep, bleep… All that has to be deleted [from the audio file] (laughingly)

Son: … laughing … They always fight about that.

16With respect to the responsibility for caring for the children and the husband, as well as to the “homemaking” (Baxter/Brickel, 2014) – in most ca­ses together with one of the Philippine housekeepers who are recommended and passed on by the families over the years – another woman, told me: «The best moment of the week is Monday morning when I finally sit down on our terrace with a cup of coffee. Weekends are so terribly busy, exhausting with the children and the husband around. That’s when we really work». The subsequent emergence of gendered spheres, mobilities and temporalities is clearly noticed by many: «it’s sometimes hard to keep the other person in the loop …», «life-worlds are so different» and «sometimes I have the feeling I’m in Germany [due to the German community] while my husband’s in Japan [due to working with Japanese colleagues] and in the world [due to frequent travel]».

B. Displaying family and (re)negotiating family practices

17(Mundane) family practices varied significantly between the families and ranged from phone calls, a regular exchange of messages, baking German bread or joint meals on certain days of the week to travelling together, often to locations that are well known and regularly frequented by members of the German or the transnational community. Although there were gender segregated activities on weekends and holidays as well – sailing with colleagues in the case of men or travelling to a resort with the children in the case of women – most families reported on joint activities and openly shar­ed pictures depicting the children, the couple or beautiful landscapes. Such and similar “displays” (Finch, 2007) seemed to be essential for the families themselves but also for maintaining bonds with the grandparents and friends abroad as well as positioning oneself and one’s family in the community. The wish and need to position oneself in the constantly changing community was also expressed by children, as one boy (11) explained:

Usually my family does not do the same things during holidays as the other families here; more like things we did back in Germany. But finally, we went to the same place as all my friends. Look [he shows pictures of a resort hotel on his smartphone]!

18“Displaying family” also took place through belongings and fixed resources, like accessories, cars or houses (Walsh, 2006). Which family mo­ved into which house and drove what kind of car were certainly not unimportant in an area that is famous for generous estates and expensive, impor­ted cars – among the expat community as well as the Japanese neighbours. One man stated: «We love our house, but actually, my wife was ashamed of it for quite a while. Other families have far more prestigious houses … so it took some time until she started inviting other families over». Overall, not only “homemaking” but also “home-maintaining” can be identified as a key family practice: almost all families owned and maintained a fully furnished apartment or house that was overseen by a paid housekeeper (for insurance reasons) in Germany or, though rarely, in a third country. Others, who didn’t already own a second home, intended to do so. Having a place in Germany was associated with (mental) security, linked with having “roots”, imagined as a future anchoring point or referred to as a second or holiday “home” (sometimes as “the real home”). It not only provided wives and children the possibility of avoiding humid Japanese summers, but also of spending up to two months in Germany to (re)connect with family and friends; husbands usually only joined them for short summer vacations.

19The need to adapt and (re)negotiate family practices is already inherent in the statements above. This was, however, also explicitly formulated. When asked «what has changed the most for you and your family in moving abroad?», the majority answered: «we have got much closer», «we are a better team» or «we have all grown individually». Interestingly, this increase in emotional closeness was often contrasted with a decrease in actual time spent together: in most cases, the families reported an increase in working hours «due to the Japanese working culture» and husbands were mostly absent during the week (Walsh, 2018). Familial (dis)connections were also described with regard to kin abroad. Depending on the relationship, some interlocutors referred to a state of “ubiquitous connectivity” (Baldassar et al., 2016). Others, however, discussed several problems despite unlimited access to the latest ICT, mostly concerning the time difference: «my daughter [18 years] studies in Germany. We stay in close contact. But it’s difficult. I might be sleeping when she really needs me …». A boy (12), in turn, told me: «we gave my grandmother an iPad to keep in touch. But I often have to talk to her nostrils; she just doesn’t understand how to use it (laughs)».

C. (Un)changing conditions and future perspectives

20The on-going COVID-19 pandemic that has disrupted human lives in myriad ways across the globe has had a fundamental impact on the above-mentioned family practices, too. The German school closing, husbands working from home and severe travel restrictions made it impossible to do family as they used to. Forced renegotiations of family practices “at home” in Japan led to ambivalent reactions: many families enjoyed the opportunity to spend more time together and reported on significant changes and new arrangements in the domestic division of labour. However, being together full time and unmet expectations also led to frictions, as one woman reported:

I thought that he’d get more engaged in our family life and help me with the home schooling. But he’s sitting in his room all day, taking phone calls. I really feel exhausted with the two small kids around me all the time.

21Marital problems or difficulties with children that were often overplayed or hidden before the pandemic became accentuated and more obvious. Similar ambivalences and frictions may be seen with regard to the community and the host-country: many families heavily relied on the community during the pandemic, kept on meeting with select families and let their children continue playing in the nearby parks with their peers. Others, however, refrained from leaving the house at all. These different ways of handling the situation and an overall insecurity led to obvious frictions (that had pre-COVID origins) within the community and, especially, between certain families. Ambiguities were also formulated with regard to the host-country: being in Japan during the pandemic was primarily seen positively due to high hygiene standards, a feeling of safety and a lax state of emergency: «Overall, we are still able to leave the house», «the kids can play outside [and] I can go for a walk when my husband starts driving me crazy». However, children playing outside led to frictions with Japanese neighbours who collectively expressed their concerns at a local police station, a common way of handling such situations in Japan. A policeman then approached one of the few fathers who speaks Japanese and «kindly asked to stop the children from cycling in the park and other wild activities», as the father communicated to the respective parents via WhatsApp. Such frictions, perceiv­ed resentment towards foreigners and the re-entry ban to Japan for all foreigners regardless of their visa status were severely criticized, as one man summarized: «Japan’s shown its ugly face». Even though connections with kin in Germany could be maintained via ICT, key family practices like frequent travel and mutual long-term visits became impossible, depriving the group of some of their central attributes and privileges. Minor, but nevertheless noteworthy problems arose due to postal service interruption over several months and the impossibility of receiving packages from grandparents with schoolbooks, satchels, stationery or food.

22The COVID-19 pandemic also led to future anxieties and changes of plans: some families had to move back to Germany earlier than expected, others had to stay in Japan instead of moving to a third country as previously planned. Generally speaking, the decision to (not) move as well as the decision for the next destination was usually based on spousal or, depending on the age of the child(ren), interfamilial discussions and considerations like the age of the (grand)parents or the child(ren)’s education. Nevertheless, regardless of the pandemic, «ultimately, it’s always work that deci­des», as many men summed up the situation. Sudden global relocations, the termination of contracts, or returns to Germany due to job offers were already standard before the pandemic and sometimes led to temporary transnational, multi-local living arrangements for families. Not only did the pandemic thwart many plans, it also increased the harsh competition for prestigious and well-paid jobs on a global level. «The air is getting thinner and thinner, now more than ever, of course», as one man explained. A woman, in turn, admitted during a small farewell party:

Obviously, nobody talks about it, but companies have to lower costs and employees are asked to “voluntarily” give up a part of their wages. We are all privileged, but still, all families are affected in one way or another.

23Privileges and the process of «learning to be an expatriate» (Farrer, 2018:197) might be the main reasons many families tried to extend their stay in Tokyo or applied for a position in another country instead of returning to the home country as originally planned: «The hardest part [of being an expatriate] is returning home; for the whole family», as one woman explained, referring to the “stickiness” of the expatriate lifestyle.

V. Discussion: Producing fixities in a highly mobile family life

24In this paper, I have focused on the family practices of highly mobile, privileged families in a transnational but nevertheless local setting in order to contribute a new perspective to the literature on the interrelation of doing family, mobility and space. I addressed the following questions: how and where do these highly mobile individuals “do” family? What significance do specific (non-)places and spaces have for these individuals and their “doing” family? Are practices and/or notions of family changing and if so, how? How can “doing” family be mapped and situated?

25It’s become obvious that approaches to doing family as well as the ensuing practices are diverse and dependent on various factors such as the family’s history of living abroad, the family structure and personal interests. Nevertheless, two key practices became evident: “making and maintaining two houses/homes” and “travel and visits”. These practices connecting the families’ lives in Japan with their lives in Germany clearly differentiate expatriate families from other, less privileged transnational families (although variations can be seen there as well); mobilities – in the sense of “elite mobilities” (Birtchnell/Caletrío, 2014) – are a precondition and privilege at the same time. As has been shown above, not only doing but also “displaying family” turned out to be essential in the context of this research. In the case of the German expatriate families, this display addresses at least three groups – namely, the host country, the community and friends and kin in the country of origin – albeit in different ways and with varying intensity. Because of these factors it seems more adequate to speak of “displays” or “layers of displays”. These displays not only have the purpose of conveying and confirming familial practices (Finch, 2007:73; see section II), rather, I argue, they also have a performative character (both face-to-face and virtual/hybrid) for their various audiences. Dependent on the audience and the “stage”, families seek to display (and do – through concrete practices) the “happy”, the “caring”, the “successful”, “the perfect”, the “global” or the “German” family; this obviously includes an “over-performance” to conceal friction, or even fissures, in the perfect picture – as has been highlighted by the pandemic.

27In sum, in the process of expatriates (and other mobile, elite individuals) doing family, transnational spaces – spaces in-between home and host country – are emerging and being created. However, as spaces always «constitute the sphere of the possibility of the existence of multiplicity» (emphasis in original; Hubbard, 2018:1297), these spaces comprise ambivalences and ambiguities: they are, among others, spaces of togetherness and distinction, of belonging and longing as well as of mobilities and fixities. Mobilities and fixities are, however, not opposites, as this study confirms. Rather, they «collapse on one another and become inseparable», as McMorran (2015:97), elaborates on. Inextricably interwoven with various mobilities, the expatriate families produce embodied, conceptual and geographical fixities and (re)negotiate their family practices in relation to and in distinction from their country of origin, the local German community, and the surrounding Japanese host country. Therefore, this paper argues, it is important to contextualize and situate the doing family of these individuals both in the specific context of the German community in a global city in Japan and the broader context of the global stage with its stickiness. These findings show the need for place-, space- and context-sensitive analyses even among a group of highly mobile families.