Host perspectives

Navigating differences[i]

On numerous occasions throughout this research project people that decided to welcome individuals and families from Ukraine into their homes wondered if some of the practices, behaviours and expectations of those staying with them were ‘characteristically Ukrainian’, or if they were simply a matter of ‘one’s persona’. Equally, people from Ukraine had clear ideas of the ‘British way of being’. Drawing from both parts of research, as explained in an introduction to everyday co-living,  in this section we explore how practices and expectations of those inhabiting the households through the Homes for Ukraine scheme were shaped not only by ‘individuals’ characters’, or their familiar ways of being – usually seen by our research participants as ‘British culture’ or ‘Ukrainian culture’ – but also by specific geopolitical events. In other words, the fact that there was a war in Ukraine and peace in the UK shaped practices and emotions, aspirations and expectations of all those involved. And while they were inhabiting the same space (household) and at the same time, occasionally it might have felt like they were not (because of their experiences shaped by specific historical moments). Sometimes this resulted in household tensions that required delicate ways to navigate a variety of emotions, from feelings of joy and contentment to those of guilt and frustration.  Both ‘guests’ and ‘hosts’ told us it necessitated particular type of openness and opportunities for meaningful communication.

We have mentioned elsewhere that sometimes people felt some discomfort with taking part in a scheme at felt rather unequal. People further shared that once they began hosting, they noticed the vast support people from Ukraine received in comparison to people escaping wars from other places. This at times felt ‘unfair’ and in fact, in the eyes of some, very ‘un-British’; not the fact that people from Ukraine got support but because that kind of support existed for one group of people was absent for all the other groups of people escaping wars and persecution. Moreover, some of our research participants shared that they were not sure if the families and individuals they welcomed into their homes recognised this. This was not because they wanted or expected gratitude but rather because they felt that people from Ukraine were not necessarily aware that they were receiving ‘unique treatment’.

In addition to feeling some level of guilt for taking part in a scheme that did not feel equal, some people we conversed with showed signs of frustration when they tried to support their new household members to settle into their lives in the UK (for example with finding work, with learning English, with supporting all sorts of activities, with advice, and so on), and their efforts were not welcome, or altogether ignored. In order to try to understand the frustration we can look at the experience of Paul and Louise, a couple in their 60s, both recently retired, who have been hosting Inna.

They shared with us that they felt they spent a lot of time trying to support Inna ‘integrate into society’. They drew from their personal experience of what worked for them, many years ago, when they were newcomers to a city they still lived in. Paul told us that the first step he took was joining various clubs (such as rugby, dance), establishing social contact, so that ‘in case crisis happened’, he had people to help him. They were hoping that something similar might work for Inna too, so they encouraged her to engage in various activities, both work and non-work related. They thought this would help her ‘integrate better,’ feel more settled, and understand differences deriving from different ‘cultural’ ways of being. In Paul’s view ‘welcome is about being part of the community. [for]Some people it is a church, [for] some people it is football, or whatever. Having that as signpost to how to integrate, one has to be an important part of some system because [otherwise] how on earth are they going to do it? …[and as hosts] we tried to help [with that] … but it hasn't worked.’

When they first communicated with Inna, she was hoping to be involved in many activities. She also thought that Paul and Louise’s lifestyle was wonderful and aspired to live that way. However, they felt she did not put any of her aspirations into practice. Throughout our conversation they shared many examples of how they tried to help her achieve what they thought she might want, based on what Inna shared about herself. In addition to regularly suggesting what kind of things she could do locally, such as walking or dancing, they took her to many places to show her around. Furthermore, through their contacts they found a potential job for Inna, as well as a few job advertisements she could apply for. But they felt that none of their efforts resulted in some form of action on Inna’s part. This was a source of frustration for them.

We found the theory of ‘The Gift’, by French anthropologist Marcel Mauss (1990), to be helpful when thinking about the frustration some hosts such as Paul and Louise shared with us. In his well-known essay Mauss identified three ‘obligations’ associated with gift exchange that shape social relationships: 1. giving, which he sees as the first step in building a social relationship. He argued that ‘to make a gift of something, is to make a present of some part of oneself’ (Mauss 1990: 16); 2. receiving, which signifies acceptance of the social relationship; and 3. reciprocating, which demonstrates the recipient’s integrity. If gifts are refused or unreciprocated, social relationships can be threatened. We can see Paul and Louise’s practices of hospitality, which included welcome into their most intimate and inner spaces, their home, as well as sharing of local knowledge and support in getting immersed in the life in the UK, as the practice of ‘gifting’ parts of themselves. If this ‘gifting’ – continuous efforts to provide support and help - was refused, it created some tensions in relationships.

However, based on our research with people from Ukraine we have gained insight that if support and help were not ‘accepted’ it was not done so necessarily because they were not wanted or needed. Rather, at a particular moment in time and place, there was no capacity to accept them, and ‘help’ was imagined very differently, depending on one’s perspective. For example, Hanna, a woman who moved to Yorkshire and Humber from Ukraine together with her family, talked about different ways of imagining help. In a conversation with us she shared various insights she had from being part of the Homes for Ukraine scheme:

‘Hosts need to know that welcoming strangers into their home is difficult. You have to be ready for it, it is not just [about] “I'm so cool, I will help now!”. These are people [we are talking about] and they have their own feelings, they have their own backgrounds, they had their own lives and they were masters in their own houses. Hosts should understand that coming to stay with someone else, be themselves, is not easy. Many people want to help, but to help the way they imagine it. They think “I will do so and so, and it will help them.” But the person on the other end [‘guest’] thinks differently. Then [it feels that] you impose your help, and the ‘guest’ thinks “I don't want this, this is not help.” On the contrary, this will be annoying. So, it is very important to help, but hosts need to ask: “How can I help?”, “Would you like my help in this regard?”’

‘I have discussed this with Nancy [the woman Hanna was staying with], because of a situation in another family. At Christmas, we made wreaths in the church and there was a woman … who also hosts a Ukrainian woman about the same age as me. Nancy spoke with her, and I spoke with the Ukrainian woman. As Nancy and I drove home, we began to discuss what we had heard. It turned out that these people [hosts and guests] have problems. The Ukrainian woman does not know English at a sufficient level. The English woman wants to help her and is looking for language courses and a job for her. But none of this is necessary for the Ukrainian woman, because she misses home, because her husband is there. The English woman [‘host’] has one understanding of help, and the Ukrainian woman [‘guest’] has another, and they cannot find a mutual understanding. The Ukrainian woman feels that she is being pressured and all she needs is to be told simply “I support you.” Nancy and I then agreed that people imagine help in different ways.’

It may be too simplistic to attribute the different perceptions of help to different ‘cultural norms.’ In this example, as retold by Hanna, it seems that dissimilar ways of imagining help were shaped by different circumstances in which two individuals found themselves at a given moment in time: one person fleeing her home, and another person offering support. These different circumstances were defined by the broader geopolitical situation rather than by ‘cultural differences.’ Thus, it is important to recognise how these circumstances also shaped social interactions in the household; it was not only one’s personal or social values that mattered, but also one’s own position of being a ‘guest’ (suggesting they escaped a war), or a ‘host’ (suggesting provision of support).

One way to try and prevent tensions from happening was an open and honest conversations. That was clearly working for Hanna and Nancy, and many other research participants that shared their experiences with us. In fact, when Hannah talked about advice she would give someone new arriving in the UK through the Hosts for Ukraine scheme, she talked about the importance of discussing things:   

‘I think we need to discuss things [with the hosts]. Do not keep it to yourself but discuss if there are any issues. It was very important for our family and for the hosts that everyone could talk to each other. Maybe some things should be discussed in advance. Not when something has already happened, but in advance.’

Other research participants that also talked about the importance of being able to communicate shared with us some of their ways to do. For instance, some told us that in order to keep the communication flowing they had prearranged monthly or weekly meetings whose main purpose was to share and express how one felt, what worked well, and what needed changing. Rachel, for example, told us that after the first week of the arrival of the family staying with them, they sat around a table, inviting an open conversation around how they envisaged sharing of the household. Together, they agreed on practices that made sense to everyone. Or Julia, a woman in her 60s who hosted Polina and who we mention elsewhere, talked about the usefulness of regular monthly ‘reviews.’ According to Julia, these meetings were ‘an acknowledgement … that this is an arrangement… it is a contract for her [Polina] to have a place and for me to offer a place for a function, in a sense. And Polina responds well to the review meeting.’ Julia further shared what worked well with her and Polina during those ‘review meetings,’ especially since they did not have a shared language. Namely, early on she gave Polina a list of ‘feeling words:’

‘I translated them, and it was quite interesting because she said, “Oh, we don’t do this in Ukraine.” Okay that’s fine… [but then] she was up and down. I said, “It’s okay. Can you maybe look at one of these words, one that best describes how you’re feeling?” … she got used to it … I can say, “Hey Polina, are you okay? Let’s have a look at the list”. And that was really helpful. And she began to learn that … she can actually say, “Yeah, I am feeling proactive, or I am worried about my mother, or the sirens have gone off my phone,” or you know, whatever. So, I think that has been the greatest manifestation of the age gap [Julia being in her 60s and Polina in her 20s] … she has acknowledged that I have something sensible to contribute to her condition, whatever it is. And, therefore, these review meetings have been helpful to her to see that next little bit’.

As we have shown in this brief piece it was different circumstances of ‘hosts’ and ‘guests,’ as defined by the broader geopolitical situation, that shaped their priorities: while the ‘hosts’ through regular practices of different forms of ‘gifting’ wanted to help support their new household members to get on with their life, ‘guests’ did not always want or need that, or simply did not have the capacity to accept it. At times it felt that even though they spoke of the same issues (such as employment, or the need to learn the English language), they were embedded in different places because of one group leaving their whole world behind. Various conversations with ‘hosts’ and ‘guests’ alike suggest that meaningful and open communication, ideally from early on, is crucial for understanding the feelings, needs, wants, aspirations and expectations of all those sharing the household and can help mitigate unwanted emotions, such as frustration.