Sustaining Social Integration After Development-Induced Resettlement: A Longitudinal Study of Three Gorges Migrants in Rural China

Abstract

Social sustainability has become a central concern in development-induced resettlement, yet little is known about how social integration and community relations are sustained over long time horizons. Drawing on a retrospective longitudinal ethnographic reconstruction spanning 21 years (2004–2025) of Three Gorges Dam resettlers relocated to rural Anhui, China, this paper examines the co-evolution of group boundaries, interaction strategies, and social networks between migrants and local residents. Using group boundary theory, we identify three sequential phases of interaction: initial boundary demarcation and social distancing, subsequent bridge-building through economic cooperation and relational ingratiation, and a later stage of pragmatic, transactional engagement. We show that the gradual erosion of migrant–local boundaries is driven by economic interdependence, cultural adaptation, individualization, and rural out-migration. Rather than resulting in deep social fusion, long-term integration stabilizes in a form of “thin integration,” characterized by low-density but sustainable social ties, institutionalized conflict resolution, and routine coexistence. This study conceptualizes social integration as a dynamic process of social sustainability, demonstrating how resettled communities maintain social order and functional cohesion amid structural change. The findings contribute to debates on sustainable rural development, forced migration, and the long-term governance of resettlement communities.

1. Introduction

Large-scale infrastructure projects, particularly hydropower dams, have profoundly reshaped physical and socioeconomic landscapes worldwide since the mid-20th century. The Three Gorges Dam (TGD) in China represents one of the most ambitious interventions of its kind, displacing approximately 1.4 million people between 1992 and 2009 [1]. Although physical relocation concluded over a decade ago, the social process of resettlement remains a prolonged, multigenerational phenomenon.

Successful resettlement extends beyond the restoration of economic livelihoods to encompass the reconstruction of disrupted social networks and community structures [2]. This challenge is particularly acute for long-distance migrants—those relocated across provincial boundaries into culturally distinct receiving areas. Unlike migrants resettled nearby who often retain partial ties to their original communities, long-distance migrants experience dual alienation: complete severance from their places of origin and initial exclusion in the host setting.

In the TGD project, more than 200,000 individuals from the submerged reservoir area were relocated to 11 provinces and municipalities, including Shanghai, Jiangsu, and Anhui. Upon arrival, these populations faced not only the loss of material assets but also severe disruption of social capital [3]. This raises two fundamental questions: How do displaced groups rebuild social networks in initially adversarial environments? How is the enduring insider–outsider boundary negotiated and potentially overcome across generations?

This study addresses these questions through a retrospective longitudinal ethnographic reconstruction spanning 21 years (2004–2025) of a single TGD resettlement village in Anhui Province, based primarily on fieldwork conducted in 2025 with retrospective narratives and archival review. Drawing on Group Boundary Theory, which views social boundaries as dynamic outcomes of ongoing boundary work, we examine the construction, maintenance, erosion, and potential dissolution of categorical distinctions between migrants and locals. The analysis is guided by two central research questions:

• What distinct phases have characterized the evolution of social interaction strategies among long-distance TGD migrants over the past two decades?
• What micro-level mechanisms drive changes in these strategies, and how do macro-level processes—such as urbanization, rural out-migration, and demographic decline—interact with local boundary dynamics?

2. Review and Theoretical Framework

2.1. Social Integration and Migrant Strategies

Social integration is widely understood as a multidimensional process that encompasses economic incorporation, social participation, cultural adaptation, and the formation of subjective identification with the host society [4]. Classic assimilation models assumed a linear, cumulative progression toward convergence with dominant societal norms. Rather than a linear process of assimilation, social integration in involuntary resettlement contexts unfolds as a strategic and relational reconfiguration of everyday interactions, shaped by institutional arrangements, livelihood uncertainty, and asymmetrical power relations [5,6]. For development-induced migrants, integration is less a matter of cultural convergence than of how social ties are selectively activated, restricted, or expanded under changing structural conditions [7].

Existing studies emphasize that migrants may rely on enclosed networks based on shared origin to secure emotional support and material assistance, while simultaneously cultivating selective bridging ties with local residents or institutional actors to access information, legitimacy, and resources [8,9]. Importantly, these strategies are situational and reversible, rather than fixed orientations. Contemporary studies highlight that these strategies are neither mutually exclusive nor static; instead, migrants often deploy them tactically and situationally [10]. Strong, inward-looking ties can coexist with selective weak ties to external actors, enabling migrants to navigate unfamiliar governance structures or mitigate conflict risks [11].

However, much of the literature treats such strategies descriptively or as static choices. What remains insufficiently examined is how and why migrants recalibrate their interactional strategies over time, especially in administratively constructed rural resettlement communities. This study approaches social integration not as an outcome variable, but as a process of strategic adjustment embedded in evolving boundary conditions.

2.2. Group Boundary Theory: A Framework for Understanding Intergroup Dynamics

Group boundary theory provides a robust conceptual framework for analyzing processes of differentiation, conflict, and negotiation between social groups [12]. Originating from Barth’s seminal proposition that boundaries—not cultural content—constitute the essence of groupness [13], the theory has since been elaborated by scholars such as Lamont, Molnár [14], and Wimmer [15]. It posits that boundaries are socially constructed distinctions that categorize people and practices into meaningful groupings, thereby shaping perceptions of similarity, difference, and belonging [16]. Three core propositions of boundary theory are particularly relevant for this study:

• Boundaries are institutionally produced and interactionally reproduced: The state initially manufactures a clear “migrant–local” categorical boundary through administrative labeling, spatial segregation, differentiated subsidy policies, etc. [17]. Subsequent interactional practices (competition, avoidance, collective contention) further reinforce the boundary’s salience and rigidity.
• Boundaries vary in permeability and salience over time: Through processes such as economic interdependence, cultural learning, and relational investment, boundaries may gradually weaken, blur, or even become marginal in everyday life, thereby altering the cost–benefit calculation of cross-boundary interaction and shifting strategies from defensive separation to relational bridging and eventually instrumental coexistence [18].
• Boundary salience directly shapes interaction strategies: Thick, rigid, and highly institutionalized boundaries encourage inward cohesion, avoidance, and collective mobilization [19]; more permeable boundaries facilitate relational investment, symbolic deference, and individualized pragmatic engagement.

2.3. Gaps in the Literature and This Study’s Contribution

Research on the Three Gorges resettlement has yielded important insights into economic livelihood reconstruction, psychological resilience, and policy effectiveness. Existing scholarship also documents incidences of social tension, conflicts over land or resources, and the institutional arrangements governing resettlement schemes. Nevertheless, several critical gaps persist.

First, few studies adopt a longitudinal, process-oriented perspective capable of revealing how migrant–local relations evolve over extended periods. Most empirical analyses provide cross-sectional snapshots or emphasize immediate post-relocation adaptation, overlooking the temporal dynamics through which social strategies are recalibrated. Second, the literature rarely situates migrants’ everyday social actions within a coherent theoretical framework explaining why certain strategies emerge at specific junctures. Interactional patterns are often described but insufficiently theorized. Third, current research insufficiently links micro-level interpersonal behaviors with broader structural transformations in rural China, such as demographic hollowing-out, the decline of collective institutions, or the rise in individualized livelihood strategies.

To address these gaps, this study contributes in three ways:

• It provides a retrospective longitudinal ethnographic reconstruction analysis tracing the evolution of social strategies among resettled migrants over multiple phases of community formation.
• It employs group boundary theory to explicate the mechanisms through which boundaries shape, constrain, or enable migrant strategies, thereby advancing a theory-driven account rather than a purely descriptive narrative.
• It connects micro-level processes to macro-level socio-institutional changes, demonstrating how shifting structural conditions—such as rural governance reforms, demographic transitions, and evolving state–society relations—reconfigure the logic of boundary-making and strategy adoption.

Through these contributions, the study enriches theoretical understandings of involuntary migration, boundary dynamics, and rural social transformation in contemporary China.

3. Methodology

3.1. Research Design and Case Selection

This study employs an intrinsic, longitudinal qualitative case study design to investigate the dynamic evolution of migrant–local interaction strategies. The unit of analysis is the resettled community of Three Gorges long-distance migrants in L Village, a site selected through theoretical sampling due to its strong potential for analytical generalization.

Several considerations justify L Village as a critical case. First, it represents the concentrated resettlement model, whereby thirty households from the same origin location (Wushan County, Chongqing Municipality) were transplanted into an already established host village. Unlike dispersed resettlement, this model facilitates clear observation of intra-group cohesion, the formation of collective identities, and the development of shared behavioral strategies toward the host community. Second, the relocation took place in 2004, providing more than two decades of temporal depth. This long time horizon allows for the examination of strategy shifts and boundary transformations across multiple stages of community incorporation. Third, the village is located in a peri-urban transitional zone characterized by agricultural restructuring, rural–urban integration, and increasing mobility. This context enables the analysis of how broader structural transformations intersect with migrant-specific dynamics. Together, these features render L Village an analytically rich setting for examining long-term boundary evolution and strategic adaptation.

This study follows the logic of analytical generalization rather than statistical representativeness. The case was selected not to achieve empirical representativeness of all Three Gorges resettlement villages, but because its characteristics make it theoretically revelatory for examining how migrant–local boundaries evolve under a concentrated, long-distance resettlement model. This case is intended to refine and extend group boundary theory in the context of state-organized resettlement, by capturing a sequence of boundary–strategy interactions that may operate in similar structural settings. It does not aim to predict the exact timing, intensity, or outcome of integration across all resettlement sites, but rather to offer a conceptual framework for understanding how institutional categorization, livelihood interdependence, and macro-social change jointly shape long-term integration pathways.

3.2. Data Collection

Although the analysis covers a 21-year period from the initial resettlement in 2004 to 2025, the study does not rely on continuous longitudinal ethnographic fieldwork. Instead, it employs a retrospective longitudinal reconstruction design anchored in intensive fieldwork conducted in early 2025, supplemented by retrospective narratives, documentary materials, and accumulated contextual familiarity with the research site.

The primary empirical data were collected during 28 days of immersive fieldwork conducted in January and February 2025. This period coincided with the Chinese New Year, when many out-migrated workers and second-generation migrants temporarily returned, allowing access to a more diverse respondent pool and observation of intergenerational and translocal interactions. Data collection during this phase included semi-structured interviews, participant observation, and documentary review.

In addition to the 2025 fieldwork, the corresponding author maintained intermittent informal contact with the site since approximately 2009 through occasional visits and policy-related research activities. While these encounters did not involve systematic data collection, they provided long-term contextual familiarity that informed the interpretation of interview narratives and supported temporal reconstruction.

Participants were recruited through village committee introductions followed by snowball sampling among migrant households. A small number of potential participants declined due to time constraints or reluctance to discuss past conflicts. “Second-generation” participants were identified based on age at relocation or birth after resettlement and completion of most compulsory education in the host locality. The interview sample consists exclusively of resettled migrants; no systematic interviews were conducted with local residents or village/township cadres. Accordingly, local residents’ attitudes and behaviors are primarily represented through migrants’ narratives, participant observation, and limited documentary sources (

Table 1. Characteristics of Interview Participants.

Characteristic	Category	Number	Percentage (%)
Gender	Male	15	50
	Female	15	50
Age Group (at time of interview, 2025)	28–40 years (second generation/young adults)	8	27
	41–55 years (middle-aged, relocated as adults)	12	40
	56–75 years (first generation/elderly)	10	33
Primary Occupation/Livelihood	Agriculture/tea cultivation	9	30
	Wage labor (construction, local enterprises)	8	27
	Migrant work (urban out-migration)	7	23
	Retired/household-focused	6	20
Family Migration Status	Household primarily village-based	18	60
	Household with active out-migrants	12	40
Role in Intergroup Relations (self-reported/observed)	Active bridgers (e.g., ritual kinship, economic cooperation)	11	37
	Selective/pragmatic engagers	13	43
	More inward-oriented/distanced	6	20

). Data collection followed a multi-method qualitative strategy, including:

• Semi-Structured In-Depth Interviews. A total of 30 adult migrants (aged 28–75) were interviewed using purposive and maximum variation sampling to capture heterogeneity across gender, occupation, migration history, and family arrangements. Interviews lasted between 60 and 120 min and elicited (1) life-history trajectories; (2) detailed accounts of interactional episodes involving locals; (3) interpretations of key conflicts or cooperation; (4) reflections on perceived changes over time in intergroup boundaries.
• Participant Observation. The research team engaged in routine village life and participated in local activities, such as tea-picking, marketplace interactions, household gatherings, and a village wedding. Attention was paid to nonverbal cues, spatial layouts (including the symbolic significance of initially segregated housing arrangements), and the practical enactment of boundaries in daily life. Field notes documented informal conversations and thick descriptions of observed interactions.
• Documentary and Archival Research. Village committee records (when accessible), township policy bulletins, resettlement documentation, and local media reports were reviewed to construct a historical timeline and triangulate interview narratives. These sources provided institutional context and identified changes in local governance practices, land-use patterns, and public discourse regarding migrant integration.

3.3. Data Analysis

All interviews were audio-recorded (with consent), transcribed verbatim, and managed using NVivo 14 to ensure systematic coding. Analysis followed a hybrid inductive–deductive thematic approach. Phase boundaries were inferred through iterative comparison of interview narratives, focusing on shifts in dominant interaction patterns between migrants and locals. Key empirical indicators included changes in everyday contact intensity, conflict resolution channels (e.g., informal mediation versus institutional intervention), forms of labor cooperation, and the salience of “migrant versus local” framing in respondents’ accounts. A phase shift was identified when multiple indicators showed a relatively consistent reconfiguration across a majority of narratives, rather than based on any single event or calendar year.

• Inductive (Open) Coding: Transcripts and fieldnotes were initially coded without predefined categories to identify emergent patterns in migrants’ accounts of interaction, conflict, cooperation, and symbolic distancing. This process revealed three analytically distinct phases of strategic behavior over the two-decade period.
• Theoretical (Focused) Coding: In the second stage, group boundary theory provided the interpretive framework. Data were re-coded according to mechanisms of boundary work, including (1) differentiation processes (e.g., “us vs. them” narratives); (2) boundary enforcement or negotiation (e.g., collective activities, marriage patterns, avoidance); (3) institutional and symbolic mechanisms (e.g., labeling, stigma, spatial zoning). This stage facilitated linking empirical strategic shifts to changes in boundary permeability, salience, and institutional embeddedness.

All coding was conducted by a single researcher. To enhance analytical credibility, the analysis incorporated sustained memo-writing, maintenance of an explicit audit trail documenting coding decisions and category revisions, and systematic attention to divergent or negative cases that did not conform to the dominant phase patterns. Preliminary interpretations were also discussed through informal peer debriefing with colleagues familiar with qualitative and migration research.

3.4. Ethical Considerations and Positionality

All participants provided informed consent and were assured anonymity, confidentiality, and the right to withdraw at any stage. Pseudonyms and coded identifiers are used throughout the analysis. The research was conducted in accordance with standard ethical guidelines for qualitative research involving human subjects.

The researchers disclosed their academic affiliations and research objectives to community members. As outsiders to both the migrant group and the host population, the research team occupied a “stranger” positionality, which, according to classical fieldwork literature, may facilitate candid discussion on sensitive intergroup issues. At the same time, we acknowledge that retrospective accounts of events occurring nearly two decades earlier involve elements of memory reconstruction and narrative framing. Reflexive field memos were maintained to document how the researchers’ presence might shape interactions, interpretations, or access to certain social spaces.

4. Findings: The Three-Phase Evolution of Interaction Strategies

Empirical findings indicate that the social interaction strategies adopted by Three Gorges Displacement (TGD) migrants in L Village did not follow a linear path toward assimilation. Instead, these strategies evolved through three distinct phases, each characterized by a specific configuration of boundary salience, perceived group vulnerability, and institutional opportunities. The boundaries between phases were inferred through iterative comparison of interview narratives rather than predetermined time points. Phase shifts were identified when multiple empirical indicators—such as dominant forms of everyday interaction, conflict resolution channels, patterns of labor cooperation, and the salience of “migrant versus local” framing in respondents’ accounts—showed a relatively consistent reconfiguration across a majority of cases. This progression reflects an adaptive, relational process wherein migrants continuously recalibrated their strategies in response to shifting intergroup dynamics and socio-institutional environments (

Table 2. Overview of primary data sources by analytical period.

Phase	Main Data Sources	Nature of Data	Contribution to Reconstruction
Demarcation & Distancing	Retrospective life-history interviews; village committee records (limited); early policy documents	Retrospective narratives; some archival	Reconstruction of initial conflicts, avoidance, collective petitioning
Bridge-Building & Ingratiation	In-depth interviews (esp. middle-aged respondents); participant observation of current practices; retrospective accounts	Retrospective + partial contemporaneous	Emergence of economic cooperation, ritual kinship, early conflict privatization
Pragmatic Engagement	In-depth interviews (all cohorts); extensive participant observation (2025); current village committee records; direct observation of institutional dispute resolution	Largely contemporaneous + recent retrospective	Current pragmatic interactions, institutionalization, network attenuation

).

4.1. Phase 1: Boundary Demarcation and Distancing

The immediate post-resettlement period was characterized by pronounced uncertainty, perceived insecurity, and heightened sensitivity to intergroup comparison. Experiencing the new environment as socially opaque and institutionally unpredictable, migrants adopted strategies focused on boundary reinforcement and risk minimization, prioritizing group cohesion and autonomy over early integration.

4.1.1. Cautious Avoidance and Reluctant Engagement

Migrants engaged in systematic avoidance of local residents, limiting interactions to brief, transactional exchanges required for daily subsistence. Government-organized initiatives, such as employment fairs and agricultural assistance programs, were often met with skepticism; many migrants questioned their underlying intentions and feared potential exploitation or unequal treatment. Social spaces—including markets, workshops, and communal pathways—were used strategically to minimize contact with locals, reflecting an effort to maintain both physical and symbolic distance. Intermarriage was widely deemed unacceptable, with most families continuing to arrange marriages within their original kinship networks in Chongqing, thereby reinforcing an inward-looking support system.

4.1.2. Collective Mobilization for Defensive Resource Claims

The perception of unequal treatment—particularly concerning the allocation of land with poorer quality—activated a strong sense of group-based entitlement and collective agency. Migrants interpreted this disparity as a breach of state promises, prompting unified mobilization to petition for redress. This effort culminated in a tense, two-month period of sustained petitioning to township offices, which heightened intergroup suspicion. The episode served as a critical juncture: it solidified group boundaries, reinforced internal solidarity, and crystallized a shared narrative of collective grievance.

A significant institutional outcome of this phase was the successful establishment of a migrant representative position within the village committee. Although vested with limited formal authority, this role functioned as an institutionalized mechanism for boundary maintenance, affording migrants a formal channel for voice in local governance and mitigating perceived procedural vulnerabilities. This development underscores a core strategic logic of the phase: rather than pursuing integration, migrants sought to buffer against potential discrimination through collective autonomy and strategic institutional embeddedness.

4.2. Phase 2: Bridge-Building and Strategic Ingratiation

As economic stabilization and long-term settlement emerged as central concerns, the limitations of a purely defensive distancing strategy became apparent. Migrants recognized that sustained exclusion from local networks constrained access to employment opportunities, information flows, and institutional support. This prompted a strategic shift toward ingratiation and selective bridge-building, characterized by a pragmatic openness to interpersonal engagement and the cultivation of relational capital to facilitate everyday cooperation.

4.2.1. Initiating Contact Through Economic Interdependence

The transition was catalyzed by agricultural labor dynamics. Local tea plantations periodically faced labor shortages, while migrant women possessed relevant skills from their pre-relocation livelihoods. This convergence created a neutral, interest-driven contact zone where interactions could unfold with reduced symbolic risk. Early adopters, primarily older and middle-aged migrant women, entered the tea fields, initiating sustained face-to-face cooperation with local women. These encounters generated nascent “weak ties,” which proved instrumental beyond the immediate work context. Male migrants later leveraged the social familiarity established by their spouses to access construction-related labor markets historically dominated by local kinship networks. Thus, economic interdependence served not only as a material incentive but also as a structural opportunity for cross-boundary tie formation.

4.2.2. Cultivating Ritualized Affiliation and Accepting Relational Asymmetry

To consolidate these emerging ties, migrants engaged in ritualized strategies of affiliation, such as adopting fictive–kin relationships (e.g., ritual godparenthood). Such practices symbolically embedded selected locals into migrants’ social worlds, reframing asymmetrical relationships as morally grounded and mutually beneficial. In contexts of economic competition, such as bidding for carpentry or masonry contracts, migrants often adopted a posture of deference, strategically underbidding or yielding to better-connected local competitors. While involving short-term economic sacrifice, this served a longer-term relational purpose: preserving fragile intergroup bridges and preventing the reactivation of antagonistic boundaries. Ingratiation thus functioned as a calibrated strategy to manage asymmetries in power, information, and local embeddedness.

4.2.3. Privatized and Relational Conflict Resolution

The collective, confrontational tactics characteristic of the first phase diminished substantially. Conflicts—ranging from land-boundary disputes to everyday frictions—were increasingly reframed as private, relational matters rather than group-based confrontations. Mediation commonly occurred through shared acquaintances, affinal ties, or newly established fictive kin, typically involving individuals occupying cross-boundary positions. This shift reflects not only a softening of group boundaries but also the decentralization of migrant collective solidarity: individual households increasingly prioritized their own network-building trajectories over unified group action. Effectively, the migrant bloc began to dissolve into differentiated relational strategies, each contingent upon the specific opportunities and constraints within emerging personal networks.

4.3. Phase 3: Rationalization and Pragmatic Engagement

With the consolidation of basic socio-economic acceptance and stability, migrant–local interactions entered a third stage, characterized by rationalization, pragmatic cooperation, and increasingly individualized engagement strategies. In this phase, actors navigated village life less through dense relational ties and more via calculated, interest-oriented considerations.

4.3.1. Instrumental Cooperation and the Decoupling of Social Obligation

Cooperative behavior became governed primarily by instrumental rationality. Social interactions were increasingly subject to cost–benefit evaluations, with a pronounced emphasis on contractual clarity and the minimization of emotional ambiguity. Joint undertakings, such as construction projects, agricultural shareholding, or temporary labor exchanges, were pursued foremost for mutual economic gain. As one migrant noted, “Working together is easier when responsibilities are clear; ‘closeness’ only complicates things.” The symbolic weight of intermarriage also diminished, now viewed as an ordinary demographic outcome, especially among younger generations who had grown up locally and identified more closely with the host village’s social milieu.

4.3.2. Superficial Harmony, Selective Sociability, and Network Attenuation

While everyday relations remained polite and non-confrontational, both groups showed a growing reluctance to cultivate emotionally dense or interdependent friendships. This reflected shifting norms of sociability and an increased awareness of relational risks, such as gossip or vulnerability in disputes. Notably, many of the ritualized and fictive kinship ties established in Phase 2 weakened or dissolved, revealing their transitional, strategically adaptive nature often sustained only under conditions of frequent interaction. As more migrant households relocated to nearby towns for work or education, the intensity, frequency, and necessity of village-based social exchanges diminished, leading to a gradual thinning of the local interactional field.

4.3.3. Institutionalized Channels and the Formalization of Conflict Resolution

Conflict management shifted decisively from relational to institutional modes. Disputes—over land use, resources, or interpersonal issues—were increasingly mediated through formal channels such as the village committee, township mediation offices, or legal procedures. This turn toward impersonal governance reflected not only growing trust in institutional authority but also alignment with state-led efforts to promote rule-based rural governance. Crucially, the migrant–local dichotomy ceased to be the primary axis of conflict. Disagreements were instead framed within universalized categories of rights, responsibilities, and procedural fairness, signaling the partial erosion of earlier identity-based boundaries.

To distinguish “thin integration” from “deep social fusion,” we identify several observable operational features within the L Village context. While deep social fusion implies dense, emotionally laden, and multi-dimensional networks that erase group distinctions, thin integration is characterized by low-density but highly functional cross-boundary ties. In this state, cooperation is governed by instrumental rationality rather than social obligation, allowing for routine coexistence without the necessity of shared identity. A critical indicator is the shift from relational to institutional reliance; social order is maintained not through deep interpersonal embeddedness but through formalized dispute resolution and a “superficial harmony” that minimizes the risks of emotional friction.

Overall, Phase 3 marks a transition from relational embeddedness to pragmatic alignment, where actors selectively engage the village social order based on calculative rationality, institutional trust, and individualized life trajectories. This shift suggests that long-term integration does not necessarily culminate in deeper social fusion; rather, it may stabilize in a mode of “thin integration,” sustained by mutual instrumentalism and the routinization of formal governance.

5. Analysis: The Co-Evolution of Strategies and Group Boundaries

The three empirical phases detailed above are not merely descriptive; they constitute a dynamic process through which migrant–local boundaries are produced, reproduced, and transformed. Each strategic orientation corresponds to shifts in the perceived permeability of the boundary, its categorical salience, and the anticipated costs and benefits of cross-boundary interaction [20]. In this sense, actor strategies and boundary dynamics are mutually constitutive, evolving in tandem with changing structural conditions and social meanings.

5.1. Boundary Emergence and the Foundations of Distancing

In the initial stage, the migrant–local boundary was institutionally produced and symbolically amplified. State-led resettlement policies created a formal legal-administrative category, marked by clear material signifiers such as spatially segregated housing clusters, differentiated subsidy schemes, and targeted welfare programs [21]. These institutional markers provided strong categorical cues that were rapidly naturalized into the everyday classificatory practices of both groups.

Building upon this institutional differentiation, migrants and locals engaged in complementary processes of self-categorization and out-group construction. Salient cultural markers including dialect, food practices, agricultural techniques, and embodied interaction styles served as readily available heuristics for mapping the administrative category onto social perception [22]. The rapid solidification of these symbolic boundaries stemmed not only from cultural unfamiliarity but also from perceived material competition. Concerns over scarce resources, such as land allocation, access to village decision-making, and the distribution of state benefits, heightened the boundary’s salience and fostered a climate of mutual vigilance.

Under these conditions, migrants adopted strategies of collective self-protection and inward-oriented boundary reinforcement. Social distancing—minimizing interaction, clustering in designated settlements, and relying on intra-group support networks—functioned as a rational response to perceived uncertainty and vulnerability. Concurrently, contentious collective actions, such as coordinated petitions, were mobilized to defend perceived group interests. Crucially, these tactical responses were not merely reactive; they actively contributed to the ongoing construction of the boundary itself. By presenting migrants as a unified bloc, these strategies inadvertently reinforced local residents’ perception of them as a cohesive and potentially threatening out-group.

Consequently, the emergent boundary became both structurally embedded and experientially salient. An initial administrative distinction was thus translated into a lived social reality—one characterized by mutual suspicion, heightened symbolic contrast, and a boundary increasingly perceived as rigid, consequential, and affectively charged.

5.2. Boundary Reinforcement Through Symbolic Work and the Persistence of Distance

During the initial stage of coexistence, the migrant–local boundary was not passively received but actively reproduced through symbolic work conducted by both groups. These practices hardened categorical distinctions, infused them with moral significance, and legitimized strategies of avoidance and collective defense.

5.2.1. Narrative Stigmatization and Moral Coding

Circulating narratives were central to shaping intergroup perceptions. Migrants recounted tales depicting locals as unreliable, parochial, or collusive with arbitrary officials, while locals shared anecdotes framing migrants as aggressive, untrustworthy, or opportunistic. More than reflections of isolated events, these narratives functioned as moral coding devices, ascribing stable negative traits to the out-group and thereby rationalizing preemptive distrust. Through repeated telling, they crystallized into collectively endorsed stereotypes, operating as symbolic boundary markers that reinforced a sense of in-group virtue and out-group deviance.

5.2.2. Comparative Differentiation and the Production of Hierarchies

Beyond narrative work, both groups engaged in comparative processes that transformed cultural differences into evaluative hierarchies. Initially neutral markers—such as dialect, marriage rituals, or hospitality styles became invested with normative meaning [23]. Migrants often emphasized the “refinement” or “authenticity” of their Chongqing customs while dismissing local practices as unsophisticated. Conversely, locals framed migrant behaviors as ostentatious or culturally incongruent. These evaluative comparisons subtly reproduced status hierarchies, elevating in-group traditions while devaluing those of the out-group, thereby justifying social distance.

The combined effect of narrative stigmatization and comparative differentiation was the emotional thickening of the boundary. Administrative and cultural distinctions became moralized and affectively charged, rendering cross-group interactions fraught with uncertainty. This emotional weight explains the intensity of early confrontations and the pervasiveness of defensive strategies—collective petitions, group mobilization, and systematic avoidance. Thus, symbolic boundary work did not merely reflect intergroup tensions; it amplified and institutionalized them, creating a durable cycle in which distrust justified distance, and distance, in turn, reinforced the boundary’s salience.

5.3. Boundary Weakening and the Logic of Ingratiation

The initial climate of mutual suspicion gradually receded as practical livelihood concerns and the imperatives of long-term settlement came to the fore, leading to the erosion of the once-rigid group boundary. This transition was not fortuitous but driven by identifiable structural and relational mechanisms that reconfigured both the perceived utility and the affective salience of the boundary.

5.3.1. Structural Embeddedness and Functional Interdependence

The first mechanism pertains to migrants’ deepening embeddedness within the local economic structure. Their integration into sectors such as tea cultivation and carpentry incorporated them into existing local production chains [24]. This integration generated mutual dependencies, rendering sustained social distancing increasingly costly. Unlike the symbolic antagonisms that characterized the earlier phase, economic collaboration introduced tangible incentives to reduce friction and enhance predictability in daily interactions. As migrants assumed indispensable roles within the local labor market, both groups developed pragmatic motivations to soften previously hostile boundaries—a finding consistent with scholarship positing that material interdependence fosters boundary permeability by altering the strategic calculus of cooperation.

5.3.2. Cultural Acculturation and the Expansion of Bridging Networks

A second mechanism involves cultural adaptation and the progressive expansion of cross-group social ties. Sustained contact in shared workplaces and residential spaces afforded migrants opportunities to adopt local norms, including streamlined ritual practices, adjusted social etiquette, and, critically, the acquisition of the local dialect—a potent symbolic resource for bridging divides [25]. More consequentially, migrants cultivated bridging social capital through practices such as ritual godparenthood, everyday reciprocity, and eventual intermarriage. These ties generated cross-cutting loyalties that directly undermined the earlier categorical opposition, transforming the social landscape from a binary divide into one characterized by overlapping networks. As these relational linkages deepened, the boundary lost salience, became more porous, and was progressively decoupled from expectations of intergroup hostility.

Within this evolving context, the strategic shift toward ingratiation represents a purposeful recalibration of migrant behavior in response to changing boundary conditions. Gestures such as demonstrative goodwill, deference to local precedence in contested economic spheres, or the absorption of short-term losses functioned not merely as signals of subordination but as calculated investments [26]. They were aimed at securing future access to the social and economic capital embedded within local networks. By signaling cooperative intent and mitigating perceived threat, ingratiation enabled migrants to reposition themselves within the broader community, thereby accelerating the erosion of the boundary’s symbolic and emotional weight.

In summary, these mechanisms elucidate how boundary weakening emerges from the interplay of structural integration and relational bridging. This process ultimately fosters a more pragmatic mode of coexistence, one that systematically reconfigures the incentives and normative expectations governing cross-group interaction.

5.4. Boundary Blurring and the Rise in Pragmatism

In the most recent stage of community evolution, broader macro-societal transformations have accelerated the blurring and in certain domains, the effective dissolution of the migrant–local boundary. As profound structural and demographic shifts reconfigure the social ecology of L Village, group membership has become an increasingly weak predictor of social behavior, yielding to a more individualized and instrumental logic of action.

5.4.1. Individualization and the Declining Salience of Group Identity

This shift aligns with theories of individualization, which posit the erosion of traditional collective anchors, such as kinship, locality, and ascribed community as primary determinants of identity and social action. Individuals are increasingly compelled to construct their own biographical trajectories, navigating social relations through personal preference and strategic calculation rather than inherited group loyalties [27]. In L Village, this is evidenced by a marked decline in collective consciousness among both migrants and locals. Social ties are predominantly evaluated through an individualized cost–benefit lens. The atrophy of ritualized kinship bonds established in earlier phases, coupled with a widespread preference for transparent, contractual relations over affectively demanding friendships, exemplifies this turn toward personalized pragmatism. Consequently, the group boundary, once a central organizer of social expectations, now plays only a marginal role in structuring everyday interactions.

5.4.2. The Hollowing out of Rural Sociality and the Spatio-Temporal Disruption of Community

Concurrently, the large-scale out-migration of working-age adults has fundamentally altered the temporal and spatial fabric of village life. For much of the year, L Village functions as a semi-empty settlement, with residents from both groups primarily engaged in urban-based employment. As the village ceases to be the primary site of sustained intergroup contact, the opportunity structures that historically reinforced boundary salience regular interaction, conflict, and social comparison have significantly diminished [28]. Sociality has become episodic and fragmented. In this attenuated environment, conflicts are increasingly framed as interpersonal or household-level disputes rather than expressions of collective antagonism. Correspondingly, individuals and families increasingly turn to formal, impersonal institutions such as village committees, township mediation offices, and legal avenues for dispute resolution. This institutional reliance underscores the declining relevance of group-based identities and the normalization of bureaucratic governance in everyday life [29].

Together, these processes reflect the consolidation of a rationalized mode of engagement wherein market logic, individualized interests, and mobile social networks supersede the once-dominant migrant–local dichotomy. The pragmatic orientation characterizing this phase is not a mere extension of prior strategies but represents a qualitatively distinct approach to social life, one predicated on flexible, transactional relationships rather than on categorical boundaries or collective sentiment. Thus, the dissolution of the group boundary is both a driver and an outcome of broader societal transformations that privilege mobility, individual autonomy, and institutional mediation over locality-based group affiliation.

6. Discussion and Implications

6.1. Theoretical Contributions

This study contributes to migration and social boundary scholarship in several significant ways. First, it offers an empirically grounded, temporally sensitive model of the co-evolution between group boundary dynamics and micro-level interaction strategies. We conceptualize “thin integration” as a distinct model of resettlement outcome. This concept aligns with, yet extends, discussions on “weak tie incorporation” and “pragmatic coexistence” [30]. We argue that thin integration functions as an “institutional substitution for embeddedness”. In the context of rural hollowing and high mobility, deep social capital is often difficult to sustain; however, social order remains robust through the rationalization of interactions and the decoupling of social cooperation from group identity. This provides a more realistic and sustainable conceptualization of integration for mobile, individualized societies where categorical dissolution, rather than cultural merger, becomes the primary pathway to social stability. In contrast to classical assimilation theories that emphasize value convergence and dense interpersonal ties, and to communitarian perspectives that associate integration with strong bonding social capital [31], the concept of thin integration resonates more closely with recent discussions on pragmatic coexistence, weak-tie incorporation, and institutionalized interaction.

Second, the study advances the theoretical understanding of group boundary formation in the context of intra-national, development-induced rural migration—an understudied area in boundary research. Our findings foreground the state as a primary boundary-maker: through administrative categorization, spatial segregation, and differential resource allocation, the state embeds categorical distinctions into the material and institutional fabric of local life. The analysis further shows how these externally imposed boundaries are subsequently interpreted, negotiated, and at times subverted by migrants and locals. This reveals the multi-level interplay between state policy, community dynamics, and everyday social practice in rural China.

Third, the study situates migrant adaptation strategies within the broader trajectory of contemporary Chinese social transformation, particularly the forces of individualization and rural hollowing. These macro-level processes reshape the opportunity structures for interaction and exert long-term effects that ultimately eclipse the specific intergroup dynamics generated by the dam resettlement. In doing so, we identify a form of “integration through categorical dissolution” where in boundary erosion is driven not by social harmony but by structural reconfiguration and the declining salience of locality-based identities in an increasingly mobile and individualized society.

6.2. Policy Implications

6.2.1. Phased and Adaptive Intervention

Governance strategies should be calibrated to the distinct challenges of each interactional phase. During the initial boundary-solidification phase, timely conflict mediation, transparent resource allocation, and stereotype-prevention measures (e.g., facilitated intergroup contact) are crucial to prevent entrenched antagonism. In the bridge-building phase, policy should foster platforms for economic collaboration and cooperative community projects that enable structured interdependence. In the later pragmatic phase, ensuring equal access to legal recourse, impartial dispute resolution mechanisms, and institutional resources becomes paramount, especially as personalized networks wane.

6.2.2. Beyond Interpersonal Connections as a Panacea

While personal networks and pseudo-kinship ties serve as important adaptive tools, they are often instrumental, fragile, and contingent on short-term mutual benefit [32]. Policymakers should avoid over-romanticizing relational governance. Our evidence underscores the need to strengthen formal institutions—transparent markets, impartial adjudication, and accountable local governance—as these provide more durable and equitable foundations for long-term coexistence than personalized, and potentially exclusionary, social capital.

6.2.3. Planning for Mobility in Resettlement Governance

Conventional resettlement models often assume a sedentary population [33]. Our findings, however, indicate that long-term integration is partly achieved through outward mobility, with many households developing dual or translocal livelihoods. This challenges place-bound approaches to integration assessment. Effective resettlement planning must therefore account for labor migration, multi-sited belonging, and the possibility that “integration” unfolds as a spatially dispersed and temporally extended process.

6.3. Limitations and Future Research Directions

The insights of this study are shaped by its focus on a single case of concentrated resettlement, which may limit generalizability. Future research could employ a comparative design to examine whether similar boundary dynamics emerge in dispersed resettlement contexts, where migrants lack the critical mass for collective action. Longitudinal, mixed-methods approaches—integrating social network analysis, attitudinal surveys, and panel data—could systematically test the phased model proposed here and identify conditions under which boundary transitions accelerate, stall, or reverse.

First, the experiences of the second generation—those who grew up entirely at the resettlement site or primarily identify with urban spaces due to labor migration—constitute a critical avenue for future inquiry. This cohort may inhabit a fundamentally different social landscape, where the migrant–local distinction holds limited salience. Investigating how they navigate identity, belonging, and mobility will yield valuable insights into the long-term outcomes of development-induced migration and the evolving contours of rural society in China.

Second, while the mechanisms identified here may inform the interpretation of migrant–local dynamics in other long-distance resettlement settings, their empirical manifestation is likely to vary across contexts. Factors such as the scale and concentration of resettlement, the capacity and responsiveness of local governance institutions, and the structure of local labor markets condition both the salience of group boundaries and the strategic options available to migrants and host communities. Accordingly, the proposed model should be understood as analytically portable but empirically contingent. It is most applicable to settings characterized by sustained co-residence, routine intergroup contact, and a minimum level of institutional mediation. By contrast, in contexts marked by highly fragmented resettlement, weak governance capacity, or persistent resource scarcity, boundary dynamics and interaction strategies may follow different trajectories. The model therefore offers a conceptual framework for comparative analysis rather than a predictive template, with its applicability shaped by institutional, economic, and demographic conditions.

Third, as the analysis relies on life history narratives spanning nearly two decades, it is subject to issues of memory reconstruction and narrative rationalization. While retrospective accounts provide insight into how migrants interpret past interactions, specific dates and sequences may be selectively emphasized or retrospectively aligned with present understandings. To strengthen the temporal plausibility of the analysis, key timeline elements—such as relocation periods, major policy adjustments, and institutional changes—were cross-checked against documentary and archival materials, including village records, policy documents, and local gazetteers. However, fine-grained interpersonal dynamics and informal interactions could not always be independently corroborated and are therefore interpreted as narrative representations rather than precise chronological records. Furthermore, this study did not systematically interview local residents, characterizations of host community attitudes and behaviors are primarily based on migrants’ perceptions and accounts. Future research could usefully incorporate bilateral interviews to further validate the intergroup dynamics as a two-sided process.

7. Conclusions

The trajectory of the Three Gorges resettlement migrants in L Village provides a revealing microcosm of the broader processes of social transformation in contemporary rural China. Over more than two decades, their evolution from a bounded, defensive collective to a pragmatically engaged and increasingly individualized community demonstrates how state policies, economic restructuring, and shifting social norms jointly reconfigure intergroup relations. Through the analytic lens of group boundary theory, this study has illustrated that migrant behavioral strategies—from initial distancing, through relational ingratiation, to final pragmatic engagement—constituted structured, adaptive responses to evolving boundary conditions rather than ad hoc reactions.

These boundaries were initially imposed through institutional categorization and spatial segregation, subsequently hardened through mutual stereotyping and material competition, and later softened by economic interdependence, cultural learning, and network bridging. In the most recent phase, macro-structural forces—marketization, heightened mobility, and the individualization of social life—have progressively eroded the salience of the original migrant–local distinction as an organizing principle of daily life. The outcome is not “integration” in the normative sense of harmonious merger, but rather integration through categorical dissolution—a process wherein coexistence is achieved as the once-defining social boundaries lose their relevance.

This case underscores that integration must be conceptualized as a dynamic, negotiated, and multi-layered process, not as a linear progression toward assimilation [34]. Effective policy should therefore be temporally attuned, aligning interventions with the shifting salience of boundaries and the corresponding strategic logics of the populations involved. More fundamentally, the findings suggest that sustainably managing migrant–local relations may depend less on engineering social cohesion and more on fostering institutional environments wherein the boundaries that once structured conflict gradually lose their functional and symbolic significance.

In this sense, the experience of L Village migrants illuminates a broader sociological problem: how groups navigate coexistence amid historically embedded differences. Their adaptive journey—shaped by the interplay of state action, local interaction, and macro-social change—highlights both the resilience of social boundaries and the conditions under which they can fade. As China continues to undergo large-scale resettlement, rural transformation, and unprecedented mobility, understanding these co-evolutionary dynamics is essential for designing policies that promote equitable and durable forms of social incorporation [35].

As a single-case study, the findings are intended to support analytical rather than statistical generalization. Specifically, the interactional logic identified here—namely, the dynamic interplay between boundary salience and livelihood interdependence in shaping migrant–local strategies—is likely to travel across resettlement contexts characterized by sustained intergroup contact. By contrast, elements such as the scale and concentration of resettlement, local governance capacity, and labor market structure are more context dependent and may condition how thin integration is realized in practice.