6 Discussion
In line with the theoretical framework introduced in Chapter 2, the findings displayed above are interpreted through a constructivist lens, alongside all theories mentioned in Chapter 2.
Here, I argue four main points, which are also helpful to answer the main research question and all sub-questions from the findings. First, that accessibility in Amsterdam still leaves something to be desired, especially when it comes to whose responsibility it is to control and enforce accessibility, despite having the inclusion projects in place. Second, that the
implementation of the inclusion policies seems to be inconsistent within the cultural sector.
Third, that there are many barriers that still need to be addressed, especially in regards to the feelings and emotions of those who are getting excluded now and that have been included before, which is something that the municipality of Amsterdam has not fully addressed.
Lastly, I raise the question of authenticity, and to what extent it matters. The artwork that is presented in museums is constantly changing, just like the structures around the canals and the waterlines. This artwork is preserved, and not necessarily “authentic.” The preservation of UNESCO Heritage is important and necessary, there is no denying that, nor of the hard work that preservationists do around these structures, and all around the city. Yet, where is the line between preserving something and not making it accessible? If the goal is for the heritage to be preserved now for the future, then what kind of future are we talking about? Where and when are disabled people considered and included? In the following sections, these four points are addressed.
priority due to the unprecedented effects that Covid-19 had on the cultural sector (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2021). This will be a priority for the municipality until 2022 (Gemeente
Amsterdam, 2021). Museums in Amsterdam have hired people dedicated to making their museums more accessible for anyone that desires to come, and have put accessibility teams that have been able to help people with disabilities during their visits. This is a big project, with years dedicated to its implementation, and that just started in 2018, so progress is
positive and ongoing (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2021). Museums that are part of the 2021-2024 Arts Plan also have a Diversity and Inclusion Plan, and a report should come out in 2022, on how they have been tackling this (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2021). The cultural sector has been prioritised by the municipality, and the results are already visible; for that, there is no denying that the municipality is actively trying to do its best with its inclusion agenda and that it is working.
However, not everything is positive, as there are accessibility issues, particularly in the culture sector, that have not been targeted yet. In the Findings section, “P3” mentioned that, as UNESCO Heritage site holders, they are not the ones responsible to deal with accessibility.
This in turn leaves private owners, volunteers, or organisations to tackle the accessibility of the Water Lines. For “P3,” their responsibility as the site holder is to protect the site, preserve it, and educate people about it. This shows then, that managing or enforcing the accessibility of UNESCO Heritage sites, is not something that falls on the site holder. This contrasts with Amsterdam’s inclusion agenda, which is attempting to tackle the lack of accessibility in the cultural sector with its 10-point agenda (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2020). So, who is responsible for ensuring that cultural sites in Amsterdam, which a part of the Water Lines is part of, are accessible? Who rules over each other? UNESCO preservation requirements, or the
municipality of Amsterdam? It is unclear to me, from my research, who gets to require accessibility from who, and who is in control of the enforcement and guaranteeing of
accessibility. While in Amsterdam there are requirements in place to make new buildings accessible for all, and with the inclusion agenda they have been trying to extend the inclusion, and thus, accessibility all around the city, I am unaware of accessibility
requirements specifically for the UNESCO Heritage sites. Since site holders are not able to make private owners of buildings or parts of the Heritage make these accessible, then who is supposed to ensure that these places are accessible? This is important because both the Canal Rings and the Water Lines are part of Amsterdam, and if it weren’t for the Inclusion Agenda that the municipality introduced, it is unknown how accessibility would be addressed in these sites. Who is in control of enforcing the accessibility in both of these sites is a glaring issue in ensuring that it is possible. If there is no one enforcing accessibility and inclusivity, how are they supposed to be implemented? While there is an accessibility handbook for architects that work within the municipality of Amsterdam, as explained by “P5,” and “P9,” there are no accessibility instructions for private owners of venues within the UNESCO Heritage sites and their buffer zones, to my knowledge, that explain accessibility and its requirements, from the municipality. While there are pressure groups that check the accessibility for new possible buildings and other features before they are built, like the ones that “P5,” “P8,” and “P9,” are a part of, there is no one that checks the efforts that private owners and private venues put in making accessibility happen, especially if they are privately owned. In other words, there are no specific rules that apply to everyone in Amsterdam that enforces accessibility in privately owned places nor that requires individuals to ensure accessibility of their sites at all, to the largest extent they can do so, or give them any hard requirements that have to be in place for a venue to work. So, if there are no rules that apply to everyone, then who is enforcing accessibility, and how can accessibility be possible? While the municipality can and does regulate public buildings, what about private ones? This relates to the uneven applications of accessibility around the city. Similarly, the entire section in Findings of ‘lack of inclusion,’
‘accessibility not considered,’ and ‘negative feelings’ highlight some of the remaining problems around the municipality that have not yet been addressed.
Here, questions about spatial justice and parity of participation arise. With the recent inclusion agenda that the municipality of Amsterdam has introduced, their main goal has to guarantee parity of participation for everyone. As the name says: “Everyone participates.”
Fraser argued that parity of participation was “social arrangements that permit all members to participate in social interaction on a par with one another,” and that these could be affirmative or transformative (Fraser, 1996). The municipality of Amsterdam is doing transformative changes to the structure of its city, by creating these inclusion initiatives that demand that each part of living in Amsterdam changes- be it in its housing, transportation, or the cultural sector, among multiple other things (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2021). Only transformative changes achieve real shifts, as Pineda explained, and the progress on these changes in the city can be found in the updated document of the ‘Everyone Participates’ agenda (Pineda, 2020), (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2021) Actual, visible changes in the city are happening, transforming the entire municipality of Amsterdam to be more inclusive and accessible, which means that it is also getting closer to ensuring the parity of participation for all Amsterdarmmers. But, until the project is over and all 10 agenda points are tackled, aside from the ones for this research, then this parity of participation won’t fully occur, and there will still be some discrepancies on who is able to participate in Amsterdam, and who is not. This resonates with Sheller’s theory of mobility justice. Mobility justice takes a capabilities approach to analyse the uneven patterns of mobility that people have, and more importantly, it brings out the
“socio-technical” infrastructures to the social and political foregrounds” (Sheller, 2018).
What this means in this context, is that who is able to participate in Amsterdam and who is not is because of uneven mobilities, which lead to uneven experiences in regards to access to
buildings, uneven quality of experiences, and uneven events due to the uneven access to structures and social inclusion (Sheller, 2018). Being unable to fully enter a cultural building or UNESCO site or fully experience the site because of a lack of accessibility within the building/site creates uneven mobilities between those who are able-bodied and those who have a disability, leading to these uneven experiences and uneven inclusion. This also highlights the daily social practices where delays, exclusions, disruptions, and blocks are common for those who struggle to access inaccessible venues, while the problem is getting tackled now in Amsterdam, it was not always the case (Sheller, 2018). And going even beyond museums, theaters, and other cultural and leisure sites, streets, housing, and
bathrooms were (and to an extent, still are) some of these structures were daily barriers that people with disabilities had to navigate around in Amsterdam, just to be able to experience the city (Geemente Amsterdam, 2020, 2021). The connection is clear: the municipality of Amsterdam is working really hard to grant parity of participation to anyone within it and is trying to tackle uneven mobilities with their inclusion policies, but it is not done yet, so these are still there and unevenly spread around the city. The municipality has the political power to increase accessibility and mobility for people with disability, to become more inclusive, and create a more accessible and inclusive culture for everyone, with people with disabilities included, which is what Sheller and Fraser’s theories argue for.
Similarly, the municipality is seemingly also fighting for spatial justice in cultural venues with its inclusion agenda. Since they are aiming to include everyone, so that everyone can participate and have access to all the same resources, regardless of if you are disabled or not, the goal is that everyone can share the space and resources justly, which is similar to Soja’s theory of spatial justice. The equal distribution of space that Soja talks about, in this case, is the equal access to the entire municipality of Amsterdam, and more specifically, to cultural venues like museums, theaters, and restaurants. The fact that Soja argues that spaces are
socially constructed also applies here, as the municipality of Amsterdam is constructing these places, literally and figuratively, with the inclusion agenda. They are attempting to be more inclusive and boost social inclusion by the fact that anyone should be able to participate all around every neighborhood in Amsterdam (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2021). With being able to navigate the entire city and particularly cultural sites like museums, then social inclusion happens, since by creating physically inclusive (accessible) sites, then there is a space for everyone to come together and participate in the same experiences. Physical changes are done by the municipality and workers, but behaviors and cultural shifts are done by people, which are both social constructions. People are able “to create a fair and equitable distribution of space and socially valued resources” by physical constructions or changes within them, which is happening now in cultural venues all around Amsterdam (Soja, 2009). Since these spaces are being modified to create an equal distribution for everyone to experience and enjoy, Soja’s spatial justice theory can be seen in Amsterdam’s cultural sector, since they are working towards a completely accessible space for everyone to participate, including disabled people. When this project is done, I presume that in these sites spatial justice will be achieved because the spaces will then be evenly shared between everyone and accessible for everyone.
But there needs to be a clear mark on who gets to enforce accessibility in the city, who rules over each other, and who checks for these accessibility and inclusion projects to occur.