Skip to content
For the months, not the weekend
Globetrotter TalksFor the months, not the weekend

Settling In

The point at which a place stops feeling temporary is partly a decision

The shift from staying somewhere to living somewhere is rarely marked by an event, and people who wait for it to happen tend to wait longer than those who choose it.

By Arjun Nair3 min read

A student and teacher engage in an English lesson on a whiteboard. Indoor educational setting.
Photograph by Thirdman via Pexels
Editorial note. Independent reporting and analysis. Nothing here is sponsored or paid for. How we work.

A transition with no ceremony

There is no moment at which a country tells you that you now live there. Permissions are granted, cards arrive and years pass, and none of that produces the internal shift from being someone who is staying to being someone who lives there. That shift happens separately, and for many people it happens late or not at all.

The signs are small and cumulative. You stop translating prices. You have a mechanic. You give directions to a stranger. You are irritated by a local political argument in the way only a resident is. Somebody asks how long you have been here and the number surprises you.

None of these is the moment. Together they are the process. And because it is gradual, it can be missed entirely by somebody who is waiting for a feeling to arrive and declare itself.

The costs of staying provisional

Living in a state of permanent temporariness has real effects. People defer things — furniture, friendships, learning the language properly, joining anything — on the basis that they may not be here much longer, and then find that three years have passed in a flat they never furnished.

It also affects how the place responds to you. Investing in a neighbourhood, a language or a group of people tends to produce a return, and withholding that investment produces the thin experience that seems to confirm the original reluctance. The provisional stance is self-fulfilling.

And it is exhausting in a low-grade way. Keeping two lives notionally open — one here, one waiting to be resumed elsewhere — requires a constant small effort that people generally do not notice until they stop.

Choosing without committing forever

The useful move is not deciding to stay permanently, which almost nobody can honestly do, and which is not what the situation requires. It is deciding to live here properly for now — to behave as though this is where you live, while remaining entirely free to leave.

In practice that looks like buying the good chair, signing up for the course that runs for a year, joining the club, learning the language beyond transactional level, and building relationships without mentally discounting them for the possibility of departure.

It costs something if you leave in eight months, and less than people imagine. The chair can be sold, the course was worth doing anyway, and friendships made abroad survive distance about as well as any others do. What it buys is a considerably better eight months.

The point where the two homes swap places

For people who stay long enough, something else happens: home starts to mean where you live, and the country you came from becomes a place you visit. That transition is rarely comfortable and it is very common, and it usually announces itself on a trip back when you notice you are looking forward to going home and home means the other one.

It comes with a strange side effect that people rarely anticipate. You are now slightly foreign in both places — no longer current on the daily texture of the place you came from, and permanently identifiable as an outsider in the one you live in. That is a real loss and it is not usually experienced as regret.

Most long-term residents describe it as an expansion rather than a substitution. They do not have one home and they do not have none. It is a state without a good word for it in most languages.

Nobody has to make this permanent

It is worth saying that plenty of people stay somewhere for a couple of years, know throughout that they are leaving, and have an excellent time. Committing internally is not a requirement, and a defined stay with a known end is a perfectly coherent way to live abroad.

The distinction that matters is between a stay that is genuinely defined and one that is indefinite but treated as temporary. The first is a plan. The second is a way of postponing your own life, and it is the more common of the two.

If your stay has no end date, at some point it is worth simply deciding to live here. Not forever, and not irrevocably. Just for now, properly, with the furniture. Most people who have done it report that the decision itself changed more than any of the individual things that followed from it.

Common questions

How do I know if I should stay or go?

A useful test is whether you are staying because of what is here or because leaving would be an admission of something. Both answers are legitimate and only one of them is a reason. It is also a question worth asking in a good month rather than a difficult one.

Does becoming settled make it harder to leave?

Yes, in the practical sense that there is more to unwind, and in most accounts it is worth it anyway. A thin stay is easier to end and considerably less rewarding while it lasts.

Is it disloyal to start thinking of another country as home?

A great many long-term residents feel this way and describe it as an addition rather than a replacement. Attachment is not a finite resource, and it is entirely normal to belong partly in more than one place.

Settling Inbelongingsettlingidentitylong stay
Arjun Nair
Consumer editor, Globetrotter Talks

Arjun writes the explanatory pieces on arriving, visas & paperwork, money abroad and is unreasonably interested in the detail nobody else checks.