Care ‘work’

Doing good for the neighborhood seemed self-evident for the women I interviewed. However, the fact that these women are in their own way doing good for the neighborhood can be understood as part of an increasing appeal from the municipality to local communities to deal with the challenges of the neighborhood in the Netherlands (De Wilde 2013; De Wilde & Duyvendak 2016). This is part of what she terms a ‘neo-communitarian citizenship ideal’ (de Wilde 2013: 49).

This citizenship ideal contains three values. Firstly, the ideal members of this community have the responsibility to feel connected to the community and contribute to it, as a result of feelings of loyalty (de Wilde 2013: 50). Secondly, ‘the desired community does not simply exist out there; as a delicate field of affect-laden relationships, it must be carefully designed, shaped and made (de Wilde & Duyvendak 2016: 974). With the goal to ignite feelings of community, connection and trust between those of different cultural, social and ethnic backgrounds. And lastly, it is through everyday and informal practices that the residents need to contribute to the neighborhood. These communities are built to participate rather than having actual political decision-making power.

According to de Wilde (2013) many activities that take place in public space such as activities for children ‘under the watchful eye of a volunteer’ are not just activities that are fun or gezellig, they are an enactment of this ‘neo-communitarian citizenship ideal’ (de Wilde 2013: 49). Such is the case in the Transvaalbuurt, which houses an above average number of vulnerable residents that are dealing with issues like poverty, loneliness and bad health (Gemeente Amsterdam 2021).

Moreover, the Transvaalbuurt is a very mixed area in terms of ethnicity and cultural background.

The municipality is increasingly looking to collaborate with active residents and entrepreneurs to

increase social cohesion and provide support to its vulnerable residents (Gemeente Amsterdam 2021). This expanding claim on local communities to deal with the problems of the neighborhood could be understood as part of the increasing delegation of care work from the welfare state to local communities (Power & Williams 2019: 7). This development is reflected in the work and stories of my informants among which the majority of them were in some form doing good for the neighborhood.

Such is the case with Oost Begroot, an initiative of the municipality in which residents and entrepreneurs are able to propose plans and initiatives in order to improve their neighborhood.

The initiative stems from the idea that residents know best what they themselves and their neighborhood need. The municipality serves here as a financial provider that assigns a budget for the plans that are most feasible and get the most support from fellow residents. In 2020, Sanne, in collaboration with her neighbors, filed a plan to improve the Krugerplein for Oost Begroot. Her plan was among the winning plans. The plan Sanne and her neighbors submitted is titled ‘A greener and gezelliger Krugerplein for more contact among neighbors’ with the goal to ‘transform the run-down Krugerplein into an attractive, safe and green square for recreation and contact among residents.’¹⁸ Their plan details the steps that need to be undertaken such as ‘placing lights in the trees around the square, replacing benches with flower box-bench combinations and repairing the leaking fountain.’¹⁹ In addition, Sanne told me in our interview that they also proposed more greenery as a way to make the square mooier all year round considering that the old trees on the square lose their leaves and become bare in wintertime. Filing a plan for more greenery not only performs greenery as a mooi that makes the square more attractive, but according to Sanne also contributes to feelings of safety and hence may lead to more gezelligheid in the form of increased contact between neighbors on the square. However even though the plan won and was assigned a budget, there had not been any changes made to the square yet. About this Sanne said:

It turns out to be challenging to really make big changes because of the costs and also because it [the square] should keep its open character for events and such and because the trees are quite vulnerable, so it is actually quite complex.

Here we see that even though the plan Sanne filed was accepted by the municipality, making the actual adjustments and adding more greenery turned out harder than anticipated. Moreover, it becomes clear that the municipality through Oost Begroot ignites a sense of caring about and

18 https://oostbegrootoudoost.amsterdam.nl/voortgang#ideaId-16567

responsibility for the neighborhood in residents. But the municipality remains the one who sets the conditions under which this caring about and responsibility in residents is practiced by deciding how the plans are executed in the end. This is visible in their adherence to the preservation of the open character, so the square remains flexible in use for activities and events. At the same time, adhering to the preservation of the open character of the square withholds making adjustments that may make the square more gezellig in a more permanent way, according to Sanne. Moreover, a lack of money and the fragility of the trees are factors that are in tension with implementing the plan initiated by Sanne and her neighbors. Here we see that in order for caring attempts to succeed various situated concerns need to be negotiated. So, whether caring attempts succeed depends on a whole network of actors and is not reducible to the efforts of an individual. In order for care to be successful various actors, such as materials, users, conflicting users and so on need to be mobilized in order for the care to work. This is illustrated in a success story told by Marijn, a former member of the resident group ‘Wij van de Wijk’:

I have done a whole lot on this square. Ehm because for a long time I was part of the resident group ‘Wij van de Wijk.’ And ehm we organized and it was set up to reconquer the square [from] the dealers and crooks. And at night it was a very unheimisch square. And ehm we started organizing things here with a group of residents. And it is really you know, when there are flags hanging then the dealers are gone, that does not mix (laughs). That does not have anything to do with one another, it is mutual.

Firstly, we see here that Marijn and other volunteers are presented with a difficult situation: the square is unheimisch and mostly used by dealers and crooks. To improve the situation there are various actors mobilized in order to ‘reconquer’ the square. It is by placing temporary material interventions such as flags on the square that work to imply something festive is going on, thereby warding off those dealers and crooks who do not mix with flags. It is interesting that Marijn uses the term reconquering because this implies that the square at one point was no longer hers to use.

This experience was shared by Anneke who argued that the resident group ‘Wij van de Wijk’ really worked hard to reconquer the Krugerplein from ‘bad’ users. Anneke and Marijn both recall that through organizing these activities they were able to slowly reconquer the square. In the example of Marijn, various actors are mobilized in reconquering an area in public space by performing desirable use versus undesirable use. The square can be used for festivities, and it can have flags but it cannot have dealers and crooks hanging around. Later, Marijn says:

Well yeah it also had a purpose for the neighborhood: to educate the children a little bit here. Ehm especially the, ehm, the, the migrant children to call them like that. Ehm it does not matter what generation they were. That was here, they were very, they could not just participate, they always needed to ruin, destroy. Balloons were destroyed, everything, you know.

This segment illustrates that in order for the square to ‘work’ for her in a desirable way, the people partaking in the activity should not take part in conflicting uses such as ruining or busting balloons.

Moreover, the activity that she organized was not just for fun, it also had a purpose that is ‘to educate the children a little bit.’ This implies once again that Marijn strongly adheres to using the square in a ‘good’ way and that that ‘good’ way can also be taught. In order to ward off these conflicting uses she found out that it worked to involve these children in the activities. She explained:

Those children, at a certain moment we just started involving them and that turned out to be the golden key. Ehm because then we were like, we also had buttons when you were helping us you would get one. Oh and they liked that! A button that said contributor. We also had a plant market and even the smallest ones were carrying bags and if other children from another area, another neighborhood, came here, they were like: No this is our party, our party!...Really like that: our party!

Here we see that by involving these children and giving them a contributor button, they started collaborating to make the activity work and started warding off other possible conflicting users by demarcating the activity as their activity. Through this, they also became the dominant users during that activity since they could tell other users that this was now their party. This is an interesting example as it shows a central element of care practices that is negotiating and aligning tension between various uses and users. We see here that multiple actors were mobilized in reconquering the square temporarily, there were the material interventions such as flags and buttons that worked in demarcating the square as temporarily theirs as well as demarcating the appropriate or desired behavior on the square during that time. In addition, Marijn and the others were able to ‘educate’

and involve the previously conflicting users in order to together enjoy a ‘good’ use of the square.

Anneke and Marijn both recall that the work of ‘Wij van de Wijk’ did a lot for the usability of the square by ‘reconquering’ the square for the residents of the Transvaalbuurt and improving

the overall social cohesion. However, there were also difficulties and sometimes caring attempts did not succeed. Reliance on the municipalities’ approval as well as restricted access to amenities made caring sometimes difficult. Those who organized activities on the Krugerplein obviously relied on amenities on the square in order to do their work well. However, these amenities were not always accessible or working accordingly. Such was the case with the transformator house on the square that should provide access to water and electricity. Anneke argued she had a hard time accessing the water and electricity when organizing activities. She said:

There is one. That is one of the things that should be well taken care of. There is a well there with electricity and water...Well, you should if you have an activity be able to access it but the municipality...The well should just be cleaned and maintained and it should work, there is no water! That well should just be able to open. You should be able to access it. Well it is really... You have to nag [the municipality] to make sure it is working. That just makes it really frustrating!

Anneke shares here that she thinks the well should just be accessible to users organizing activities on the square. She is frustrated both by the fact that she has to ‘nag’ the municipality for access as well as that the well is not always working. Later, she adds: ‘People here are very willing to do one thing or another to help around here’ implying that the municipality is making it too hard for people to help or do things for the neighborhood. Anneke highlights a crucial point here, namely, that the municipality is increasingly invoking local neighbors and communities to take care of public space but these neighbors and communities are not always given the access and responsibility that enables them to do so. Temporary material interventions like theatre lighting need electricity as well as other amenities to function. It is through very practical matters such as not having access to the electricity and water well in the transformator house that one is not able to take care or organize something.

Moreover, increasing rules and regulations make organizing activities less accessible.

Anneke and Marijn both recall times where they as volunteers could more easily organize activities for the neighborhood but due to increasing rules and regulations it was becoming harder to just

‘do one thing or another to help here.’ Marijn argued that it became way too expensive to organize activities:

The rules changed. Right now if you want to organize, ehm, you have to pay for an activity that lasts one day as if you organize a festival... if you use a little part of

Amsterdam and organize something there, you are treated like you are a festival.

But those are commercial, and even though we also sometimes sold things like snacks made by Turkish women from the neighborhood that is just an activity it is not...we never make money from it. It is all done from a subsidy.

Here we see how smaller initiatives by neighbors are treated the same way as if they are commercial initiatives. Obtaining permits and money to organize activities as well as the access to amenities needed for temporary material interventions were seemingly the prime challenges for most of my interlocutors who organized. I will delve into this deeper through the example of Karima’s caravan that served free coffee and tea and was put on the square to alleviate loneliness and isolation as the result of strict corona regulations.