Perceptions of Diversity in the Bijlmer
Neighbourhood in Amsterdam
Master’s Thesis
Anthea Gick Student number: 11737476 anthea.gick@gmx.deSupervisor: Pamela Prickett
Second reader: Apostolos Andrikopoulos
MSc Sociology, Migration and Ethnic Studies Graduate School of Social Sciences, July 2018 University of Amsterdam
Acknowledgements
First and foremost, I would like to thank my supervisor Pamela Prickett, who has helped and guided me through the process of conducting this research that finally resulted in my master’s thesis. I would like to thank all the people that agreed to participate in this research, sharing their experiences and ideas with me.
Thanks also goes to my friends and study colleagues Annika, Renée, Kerem, Fernanda, Naiara and Johanna who inspired me and made this intensive time memorable. Finally, I want to acknowledge my second reader Apostolos Andrikopoulos.
Content
Summary ... 1
1. Introduction: How I got to know the Bijlmer ... 1
2. Theoretical Framework ... 4
2.1 Conceptualizing Diversity ... 4
2.2 Categorization and Normalization of ethnic Difference ... 6
2.3 Reflection of Power Structures in Perceptions of Diversity ... 7
3. The Bijlmer ... 10
3.1 Historical Development and Population ... 10
3.2 Urban Restructuring and Gentrification ... 10
4. Research Design and Methodology ... 12
4.1 Respondents ... 12 4.2 Conceptual Framework ... 13 4.3 Interviews ... 14 4.4 Analysis ... 14 4.5 Access ... 15 4.6 Analytic Approach ... 16
5. Analysis: Perception of Diversity ... 17
5.1 Enjoying ethnic Diversity ... 19
5.2 Focus on ‘own’ Ethnicity ... 26
5.3 Unity in Difference ... 31
6. Conclusion ... 39
7. Bibliography ... 43
Summary
The neighbourhood of the Bijlmer (or Bijlmermeer, officially referred to as Amsterdam Zuidoost) was designed as a neighbourhood of the future in the 1960’s and today is famous for its super-diversity (Wassenber 2006, Vertovec 2007), with a share of people with migration background of 71% in comparison to 48% in all Amsterdam (Van Heelsum 2007). In the context of this neighbourhood, this research is interested in how ethnic diversity is perceived by the residents and in how far the own positionality within the social context affects these perceptions, aimed at understanding and deconstructing the discursive power behind perceptions, which is necessary to acknowledge and work against structural inequality.
Studying peoples’ perception of diversity and ethnic difference, or more generally of the ‘Other’ is a first step towards a better understanding of existing narratives and the power structures behind. For this purpose, a qualitative research approach will be used to filter out individual ideas and perspectives to make them tangible and to include them in the discourse around Bijlmer. This research tries to give explanatory approaches and show a certain range of how people understand and make sense of their surrounding, which finally can contribute to a more holistic view on social processes in the context of neighbourhoods like the Bijlmer in Amsterdam.
1.
Introduction: How I got to know the Bijlmer
Already the first time I visited the neighbourhood of the Bijlmer made me curious. I had an appointment for a viewing of a room I was desperately in need for, just having moved to Amsterdam for my studies. Without informing myself about the place I was going, I got on the metro downtown with a mix of different people, but the further we got outside the centre I couldn’t help but notice that all white people had left except myself and more and more black people entered. Black and white segregation in the Netherlands?
I decided to take the room, even without meeting my new flatmates. Within the first few days I got to know them, all white girls from other European countries in their mid-twenties, working. After a while living together, they shared their feelings about the neighbourhood ranging from ‘there are a lot of black people, but they don’t do anything’ over ‘those black people always talk to you’ to ‘it’s dirty and everyone is black, I don’t feel safe’. None of them had any connection to the place or the people, knowing only the shopping mall, the metro station and our apartment.
These observations intrigued me, the level of social distance and disconnection, the coexistence of different ethnic groups with hardly any point of contact and the perception of my white flatmates, living in the seventh floor of a newly renovated high-rise building, literally looking down on the black population of the neighbourhood. Was Putnam (2007) right with his statement, that diversity reduces trust and solidarity in neighbourhoods? Or was it just the lack of intergroup contact (Allport 1954), that lead to the strong perception of difference of my flatmates? And what role plays the socio-economic situation in the perception of the ‘Other’?
With this research, I will try to present a more complete picture of the Bijlmer with a focus on its ethnic diversity and to get a more integrated understanding of social processes that take place in this neighbourhood. Understanding and deconstructing the discursive power behind perceptions of diversity is necessary to acknowledge and work against structural inequality. Studying peoples’ perception of diversity and ethnic difference, or more generally of the ‘Other’ is a first step towards a better understanding of existing narratives and the power structures behind. For this purpose, a qualitative research approach will help to filter out individual ideas and perspectives to make them tangible, in order to include them in the discourse around Bijlmer. This research tries to give explanatory approaches and show a certain range of how people understand and make sense of their surrounding, which finally can contribute to a more holistic view on social processes in the context of neighbourhoods like the Bijlmer in Amsterdam. Aiming at understanding the different ways of perceiving diversity and ethnicity within the diverse setting of the neighbourhood of the Bijlmer, I will ask the following research questions: How do residents perceive ethnic diversity in the Bijlmer neighbourhood in Amsterdam?
The objective of this research will be to get a grasp of how people perceive ethnic diversity and ethnic difference, how own positionalities in the ethno-social context influence these perceptions as well as the awareness of the meaning of power and privilege. With a better understanding of peoples meaning making in the context of ethnic diversity, as well as of the possible consequences of demographic change on perceptions of ethnicity, this research can also contribute to suggestions for neighbourhood policies.
First, I will give an overview of theoretical approaches that can help to understand the concept of diversity and ethnicity in todays society followed by an elaboration on why the study of perceptions is important to understand power structures. With theoretical support from Lamont et al. (2014) and Pascale (2008), the processes of categorization and normalization, as well as the power of common-sense knowledge will be used to explain the reproduction of
difference, which then will be illustrated by the example of Wessendorf’s (2013) study about perceptions of diversity in the Hackney neighbourhood in London. The chapter will be rounded up with a comparison of the ‘contact theory’ and the ‘conflict theory’ in the emancipation of the perception of difference.
In the following, I will use Wekker’s (2016) approach to Dutch self-imagination to contextualize the concept of dominant discourse which is reflected in people’s perceptions, in relation to the defensive attitude towards different ethnic influences and the phenomenon of cultural appropriation, as well as the post-racist narrative of today’s society.
After the theoretical input, I will give an introduction to the neighbourhood of the Bijlmer, as a famous and extraordinary example of a garden city from the 1960’s in the Netherlands, which was and still is subject of urban restructuring projects, gentrification and accompanying demographic changes.
The following chapter will focus on the analysis of my research data that was gathered by interviewing 20 people living or working in the sub-areas of the K-zone and the G-zone. By comparing and structuring the insights of my respondents, I will try to comprehend how they perceive ethnicity in the Bijlmer, with the understanding of my data as a selection of single cases, that allow in-depth insights on subjective experiences, that will give a deeper understanding of the range of people’s perceptions. After the analysis of the data in connection to my theoretical framework the thesis will be rounded up by a conclusion.
2.
Theoretical Framework
2.1 Conceptualizing DiversityDiversity
The concept of diversity was traditionally used to describe the mere presence of multiple ethnicities, while the meaning of diversity in academic discourse shifted to a more encompassing understanding of the multiple layers of ethnic diversity. Due to the diversification of immigration in the last decades – especially to countries of the global north – the study of diversity also takes a range of different variables into account, such as the gender, legal status or the integration in a transnational social network. All these variables may affect the personal relation to the place of settlement and are therefore relevant to consider when studying the effects of diversity (Vertovec 2007). In this thesis this more encompassing understanding of ethnic diversity is acknowledged, however due to limited data it is not always possible to fully include the different layers into the analysis. Furthermore, when talking about diversity often the dominant or ‘native’ ethnic identity is exempted. For emancipating a more equal understanding of ethnicities, diversity must be understood as the coexistence of multiple ethnic groups, including the native – in this case – ‘white Dutch’ population. Deconstructing especially whiteness but also the Dutch nationality as the default status for people living in the Netherlands is a first step towards equality of ethnicities (Dyer 2000).
Ethnicity
The concept of ethnicity is a fluid term that can be used and interpreted in different ways, including geographical or cultural attributes, such as territorial origin and descent, religion or the concept of race. Its understanding however has shifted from a descriptive analysis of ‘cultures’ to a focus on ethnicity as a socially constructed concept of constantly renegotiated group identities along which inclusion and exclusion takes place (Malešević 2004).
It is furthermore important to mention, that categorization in terms of ethnic differentiation is never a neutral process, as categories are always also evaluated in respect to the social context. An example are the ethnic categories of ‘black’ and ‘white’, that can’t be understood apart from their historical meaning and the ‘enunciative power of those who are marking difference’ (Pascale 2008: 731). By assigning these concepts to individuals, a
differentiation is reinforced that is associated to a social order (Lamont et al. 2014). However not acknowledging the impact of these categories in social life, especially in the context of discriminatory practices, masks the fact that they are still relevant and must be addressed as such (Wekker 2016).
In this thesis the term ‘ethnicity’ will be used to describe the intersections of cultural identities, that – next to others – include national origin and descent, religious identity, as well as skin colour. The choice of these attributes is a strategic tool for the analysis of the concepts that appeared in the data. This research acknowledges that identity is a construct of dynamic cultural influences and opposes a static understanding of the concept of ‘culture’ or ‘ethnicity’ as an intrinsic part of a persons’ identity.
Ethnic minorities on the other hand are conceptualized as groups of people with the same ethnic background other than the ‘native’ white Dutch. Although it could be argued, that especially in the city of Amsterdam as a minority-majority city, where less than half of the population has a Dutch background (Savini et al. 2015) and also the latter strictly spoken represents an ethnic minority, the distinction will be made. This choice is justified by the understanding, that the positionality in society in terms of power and privilege – in this context with a focus on ethnicity – is relevant when analysing perceptions of social groups.
Why Perceptions of Diversity matter
Perceptions of diversity or ethnic difference indicate narratives and values that lie behind these phenomena. By uncovering the power structures they are based on, it is possible to understand how inequalities are reproduced in social practices. While perceptions reflect these power structures, they can also reproduce them when they are communicated or materialize in actions, as the example of the study of neighbourhood stigma by Sampson et al. (2004) illustrates, where perceived disorder that exceeds the actual state of the neighbourhood influences actions of decision makers as well as residents and other social actors. The perceptions reflect prejudiced imaginations of the neighbourhood and its population, that are highly influenced by the dominant narratives about race and get translated into actions which reify these exact narratives and power structures behind.
Furthermore, studying perceptions helps to get an idea of peoples’ attitudes towards certain issues, such as the meaning of skin colour in gentrification processes of a neighbourhood. With a better knowledge of these attitudes, it is easier to determine possible issues or tensions that might come as a consequence of gentrification policies and the current
demographic change in the neighbourhood, and which must be addressed. If we really want to work towards a fairer and more equal society, we can’t ignore prevailing fears and narratives that reproduce racist ideas. Instead, we have to acknowledge, understand and deconstruct them.
2.2 Categorization and Normalization of ethnic Difference
As explained above, the study of perceptions can give an insight on narratives and the social values and ideas that lie behind. The power of such narratives is especially visible in what they are taking for granted. Lamont et al. (2014) conceptualizes this mechanism in her description of cultural processes, where the repetition of certain logics and evaluation schemes reinforces and normalizes these logics. The use of ethnic categories for instance, as a logic way of differentiating between people is so much accepted and taken for granted, that the ethnic background seems to be a natural and intrinsic aspect of a persons’ character and reinforces social distance (Pascale 2008). The power of common sense is reflected in the understanding of ethnicity as a normal way of distinction, which ‘through its very obviousness, passes without notice’ (Pascale 2008: 725).
Categorizations like this furthermore are reinforced and naturalized by the process of forgetting their constructive character, when the created categories are used to justify differentiation, while the desire to differentiate is the reason for their creation (Lossau 2011). This can be illustrated by the understanding of space and cultural difference – e.g. people from Africa are different than people from Europe – where the distinction of ‘here’ and ‘there’, thus the categorization of space, is used to justify why people are different, while the distinction between ‘here’ and ‘there’ itself is the reason why difference even can be perceived. With the same understanding, Massey (2006) tries to uncover the constructed character of ideas about places, such as cities, states or continents in her theory of geographic imaginations, that through their normalization appear as objective markers of difference. Imaginations like these are one example of the reification of cultural-spatial categories, that are especially relevant in the perception of ethnicity in terms of ethno-spatial origin.
A good example of how the normalization of ethnic categories are used to mark difference can be found in Wessendorf’s (2013) study on the celebration of ethnic difference in the Hackney neighbourhood in London. The ethnicity or ethnic background of people is perceived as an important aspect of social life, either in form of the desire to mix with the distinguishable ‘Others’ in public sphere, or of the separation of ethnic groups in private life. The use of and distinction between ethnic categories is perceived as normal, as is the
understanding of cultural difference, which is seen as the reason for separation and grouping in the private sphere. Ethnic or cultural difference is taken for granted, which illustrates the power of this categorization (Pascale 2008).
To overcome the perception of difference and prejudiced views on different ethnic backgrounds, the ‘contact theory’ proposes interethnic contact. The context of the interactions is substantial however, as the pioneer work of Allport (1954) already argued: only under certain circumstances does contact between members of different ethnic groups contribute to better intergroup relations that can help to overcome prejudiced views. The outcome of such contact tends to be more positive, when there is a common goal, the same social status as well as shared interests (Allport 1954). Putnam (2007) challenges Allport’s ‘contact theory’ and uses the ‘conflict theory’ to argue that proximity to people with different ethnic backgrounds leads to the desire to separate and stay with the ‘own’ group. In this case, contact can reify the perception of difference and above all distrust and lower solidarity beyond the ‘own’ group (Putnam 2007), which – in the context of neighbourhood communities – correlates with less investment in participation and volunteering of residents (Dinesen et al. 2015). Either way it is clear, that the experiences individuals have made with people of different ethnic backgrounds provoke effects on the perception of these ‘ethnic groups’. Furthermore, the acceptance of groups is generally interrelated with how they are perceived to behave (Clark 2002).
2.3 Reflection of Power Structures in Perceptions of Diversity
As elaborated above, perceptions of diversity or ethnic difference reflect narratives and the power structures behind, which are reproduced when communicated and acted out. Analysing perceptions means uncovering the narratives and power structures behind, which enables an understanding of the generation and reproduction of inequalities.
Every narrative or discourse is positioned in the social structure, inheriting a certain power of the production of knowledge. Hegemonial discourse or narratives own the means of production of knowledge, defining how something is conceptualized. Dyer (2015) gives the example of the white dominated discourse about race, conceptualizing race and generally identify difference from the white point of view, where whiteness is set as default and only blackness is racialized. Therefore, every category within this discourse can’t be neutral as it always represents the power structure behind, in this case the dominant and privileged position of white people in society. Consequently, there is another side, as not everyone has the position
to be heard in this discourse, being marginalized due to belonging to ‘underrepresented or non-dominant societal groups’ (Buzzanell 2017).
As this research was conducted in the Dutch context, it is essential to be aware of the hegemonial discourse about ethnicity in the Netherlands, also to understand the self-imagination that is reflected in the perception of the ‘Other’, in this case ethnicities different than the white Dutch. Wekker (2016) describes Dutch identity as intensively shaped by the imperial past, where a small nation reached a powerful status due to the conquest and exploitation of colonies, while simultaneously promoting the notion of innocence, neglecting or rather conveniently forgetting the brutal realities of colonization. Today, the self-imagination of Dutch identity is defined by its understanding as progressive and tolerant towards the many different cultural and other lifestyles coexisting within the Netherlands. In this self-understanding, this tolerant culture must be preserved and protected against other influences, which leads to a defensive attitude e.g. in the example of the own liberal attitude towards LGBTQ1-rights, that must be protected against traditional religious values of the conservative Muslim population. Dutch tolerance ends where the self-imagination as innocent, progressive and tolerant is attacked (Wekker 2016). Of course, this conceptualization of ‘Dutch identity’ describes merely tendencies and can’t be understood as an objective ‘one-and-only’ truth.
The fear of too much cultural difference introduced by the multiple ethnic backgrounds of people living in the Netherlands can be explained by these tendencies however (Wekker 2016). Simultaneously, the self-imagination as a tolerant people allows or even demands an open attitude towards ethnic difference. As long as there is the notion of the own cultural privilege to judge when difference exceeds the tolerable, ethnic ‘Otherness’ is put in the position of a cultural resource, that is being ‘sanitised’ for the selective enjoyment. The theoretical term is ‘cultural appropriation’, which is conceptualized by De Oliver (2016) in the context of ethnically diverse and poorer neighbourhoods and their gentrification by more privileged middle-class. He argues that cultural diversity has been integrated in the neoliberal logic of consumerism and is used for marketing purposes of neighbourhoods, where ethnicity – or more precisely the ‘notions of kinship, mutual assistance and affection that are reflexively associated with cultural ‘Others’’ (De Oliver 2016: 1300) – can be selectively consumed by middle-class gentrifiers. By obscuring the context and origin, this process of cultural appropriation marginalizes and reduces the voice of ethnic minorities (Buzzanell 2017).
Another aspect in Dutch identity, which shapes (hegemonial) discourse on race and skin colour is the phenomenon of colour-blindness, arguing with the self-imagination as tolerant, that racism is over and skin colour no longer is a relevant category to differentiate between people. The inability to recognize that ‘even’ in the progressive culture of the Netherlands – to use the words of the dominant narrative – racist discrimination still is an issue fundamentally challenges and attacks the self-imagination outlined above (Wekker 2016). Hooks (1992) furthermore argues, that ‘the eagerness with which contemporary society does away with racism, replacing this recognition with evocations of pluralism and diversity that further mask reality, is a response to the terror’ (Hooks 1992: 345) of racist discrimination. It is an uncomfortable truth that is conveniently masked by the narrative of a tolerant, pluralistic society that appreciates diversity – a narrative in which talking about racist discrimination is made difficult and disagreement easily is interpreted as reversed racism (Hooks 1992). The internalization of this dominant narrative obscures prevailing discrimination and reinforces its power (Pascale 2008), while underlying evaluative schemes – such as the positivity of whiteness – continue to influence perceptions of skin colour. Opposing narratives, that express and acknowledge the terror of racist discrimination are not being heard (Hooks 1992). Understanding and deconstructing this discursive power is necessary to acknowledge and work against structural inequality. Studying peoples’ perception of ethnicity and skin colour, or more generally of the ‘Other’ is a first step towards a better understanding of existing narratives and the power structures behind.
3.
The Bijlmer
3.1 Historical Development and Population
The Bijlmer (or Bijlmermeer, officially referred to as Amsterdam Zuidoost) was planned as the ‘city of tomorrow’ as a carless garden city and was built in the 1960s and 1970s. It was originally directed for middle class families and was responding the housing shortage at the time, however when it as finished, the demand wasn’t the same anymore, as many families finally chose to move to single-family houses with gardens. This lead to a shift in the population and the image, as the dwellings lost in value and people that couldn’t afford housing elsewhere moved in and structural degradation and criminality started to be an issue (Wassenberg 2006). In the same period of the 1970’s Suriname became independent which resulted in a migration flow from the former colony to the Netherlands. Many of the newcomers from Suriname and the Antilles moved to the Bijlmer at this time, which make up the largest ethnic group in the Bijlmer until today (Van de Klundert 2014, Gemeente Amsterdam 2017).
In the context of Amsterdam, the Bijlmer is the neighbourhood with most people with a migration background with a share of 71% in comparison to 48% in all Amsterdam (Van Heelsum 2007). The city calls itself a minority-majority city, as there are more people living that have a non-Dutch background, than people that have a Dutch background. As the city continues to attract international labour, migrants keep on moving to Amsterdam, however there are less people from the largest ethnic minority groups – people with Surinamese and Moroccan background – immigrating today (Savini et al. 2016). This tendency also affects the Bijlmer, as more and more people with other migration backgrounds move into the neighbourhood, which diversifies its diversity, as Vertovec (2007) puts it. People with Surinamese background however still form the largest ethnic group, with a share of 29% of the population, which includes up to the third generation ‘migrants’ (Gemeente Amsterdam 2017).
3.2 Urban Restructuring and Gentrification
It is an explicit goal of the municipality of Amsterdam to support and extend gentrification processes also in the peripheric areas of the city, such as the Bijlmer, in order to strengthen economic growth. Furthermore, professionals with an international background, often referred to as ‘expats’, are continuously moving to Amsterdam and require housing as well. This is intensified by the global competition between cities to attract foreign companies, which often have their headquarters in the metropolitan area of Amsterdam and require
international labour. The influx of these mostly high-skilled migrants puts additional pressure on the housing market and is recognized as a factor for gentrifying processes (Glick Schiller et al. 2009, Savini et al. 2016). This trend is expected to continue in the future, as the demand for housing will remain (Van Gent et al. 2016).
In order to promote gentrification in Amsterdam, the housing market was liberalized, and social housing dwellings were reduced, by destruction or renovation and subsequent sale as owner-occupied housing. In the Bijlmer, this policy resulted in the destruction of high-rise, which was replaced by low-rise houses, or renovation of the old high-rise (Savini et al. 2016). The Kleiburg building in the K-zone is one example for the latter strategy, that was formerly a social housing complex, and after its renovation now consists of owner-occupied apartments. The objective is to promote an upgrading of the neighbourhood and to attract more affluent residents (Smets et al. 2008), which is supposed to lead to more social equality as well as social mobility (Pinkster et al. 2009).
These restructuring plans and the objective to diversify the population were criticized by part of the population as ‘a means to remove poor (‘Black’) people and attract rich (‘White’) people’ (Semts et al. 2008: 1448). It is true, that the relocation of residents to other parts of the city due to the demolishing of high-rise buildings between 2001 and 2004, mostly affected socio-economically less privileged as well as less articulate migrants. The majority of relocated residents however could improve their housing situation (Wassenberg 2006). On the other hand, also black middle class is growing in the neighbourhood and most of the newly built housing units are occupied by people with ‘non-Western’, mostly Surinamese background, and not by white Dutch or white ‘expats’. while there is also a trend of the former group to move to dwellings with garden outside the city, that reduces their share simultaneously. The official plans now state that white and black middle class are desired to move to the neighbourhood (Smets et al. 2008).
4.
Research Design and Methodology
4.1 RespondentsMost of the respondents lived in the neighbourhood for at least one year, in two cases they worked there for a longer period, which allowed them to experience the social environment.
Table 1: Respondents
Name Age Gender Country of Birth Ethnicity
1 Ietje 23 F Netherlands White Dutch
2 Mariana 60 F Mozambique
(Portugal)
White Dutch and
3 Christel 61 F Netherlands White Dutch
4 Jack 23 M Netherlands Black/Arabic Dutch (Egyptian
parents)
5 Tom 28 M Netherlands White Dutch
6 Michael 28 M Poland White Polish
7 Joe 70 M South Africa Black South African and Dutch
8 Hank 55 M Netherlands White Dutch
9 Marcio 33 M Netherlands Black Dutch (Black Surinamese
parents)
10 Achojah - M Nigeria Black Nigerian and Dutch
11 Sofia 66 F Finland White Finnish
12 Chris 47 M Cameroon Black Cameroonian and Dutch
13 Irena 45 F Poland White Polish
14 Joseph 69 M Aruba
(Netherlands)
Black Dutch-Caribbean
15 Lea 72 F Netherlands White Dutch
16 Jake 49 M Suriname (Netherlands) Black/Indish Surinamese-Dutch 17 Nora 74 F Caribbean Netherlands White Dutch-Antillean 18 Sjareefa 58 F Suriname (Netherlands) Black/Indish Surinamese-Dutch
19 Eric 55 M Netherlands White Dutch
20 Claire - F Suriname Black Surinamese-Dutch
Of all 21 respondents, six were younger than 35, six were between 45 and 60 and seven were more than 60 years old. In total 12 males and 9 females participated in the research. Almost half were born in the European Netherlands, four in the Caribbean Netherlands, before the independence of Suriname and some of the Antilles. 12 of the respondents materialized as white and 9 as black, the latter category is used for strategic purposes, subsuming Indish-Surinamese and Arabic backgrounds in this research, while acknowledging that this categorization doesn’t do justice to the complexity of the issue (Dyer 2000).
4.2 Conceptual Framework
To be able to get a better understanding of the perception of diversity in the context of the diverse neighbourhood of the Bijlmer, semi-structured in-depth interviews were used to gather subjective insights from individuals living in the neighbourhood.
A qualitative approach was the most suitable for this purpose, as this enabled me as a researcher to investigate insider experiences of people living in the neighbourhood with diversity and thereby to get a sense of their perceptions on the issue (Golafshani 2003). The subjective ideas of the people and the way they are making sense of their surrounding and within their context were in focus of the research, which will be interpreted and combined in the analysis chapter. The objective was to get a more complete picture of the issue and move away from outsider judgments, that only represent one part or one side of reality (Hennink et al. 2011a). Furthermore, the qualitative approach allowed to keep the research open to unexpected findings that haven’t been thought of before, which equally contributes to a more complete picture.
As it is not possible however to cover the complete range of perspectives nor to have a sufficiently large ‘sample’, the findings cannot be understood as representative for the whole population of the neighbourhood. Furthermore, within this approach the defining role of the researcher is acknowledged, as every interaction that is necessary for the collection of data, but also the mind set of the researcher have an impact on the results. In qualitative research this positionality must be dealt with in a reflexive and transparent way, in order to ensure validity of the research (Golafshani 2003).
4.3 Interviews
For gathering data, the method of the semi-structured in-depth interview were applied. With this method it was possible to focus on individuals and their personal views and experiences in respect to the neighborhood. Their narrative and way of perception was of central interest, that is always linked to a specific context. To cover a certain range of perspectives, I conducted 20 interviews with people living or working in the K-zone and the G-zone of the Bijlmer.
During conducting in-depth interviews, there was time to build a rapport and a certain degree of trust with the participants, which facilitated them to speak more openly and extensively of their thoughts. Furthermore, the conducting of in-depth interviews helped the participants to feel, that their story was appreciated, and relevant. Therefore, an empathetic attitude was of major importance, not only to ensure a richer outcome but also for moral reasons, as it would be very rude to ask someone to open up and then judge this person’s ideas in a negative way (Hennink et al. 2011b; Hennink et al. 2011c).
To find out about the participants’ perceptions of diversity, the research interest was translated into concrete every day situations and concepts the participants could reply to in the interview guide (see Appendix) (Hennink et al. 2011c). During the interview important ideas or observations were noted, however only as far as this didn’t distract the interviewing process, as it was more important to focus on what the interviewee said to be able to react. In order not to lose the detailed information given within the interview, it was audio recorded and then transcribed (Brymann 2012). During the process of transcription and later of the analysis, the notes helped to recreate the interview situation and facilitates a more authentic interpretation of the data.
The choice to conduct a semi-structured interview was based on the usefulness of an interview guide as a mental aid, while staying flexible to respond to what the interviewees said. The focus was on what the interviewee had to say and not the own premade ideas about how reality probably looks like, as this could have prevented from learning about everything beyond (Bryman 2012).
4.4 Analysis
The interview was transcribed word-for-word with addition to a description of the way things were said when considered relevant for the understanding, such as when irony or other
expressions played a role. In the following, the data was coded which helped to get an overview on the range of issues discussed, which then again facilitated the analysis (Hennink et al. 2011d).
The transcribed interviews were coded in a first turn of initial coding, followed by a second turn of focused coding. The initial coding approach uses a technique of line by line coding, to avoid a biased analysis of the data and instead forces the researcher to be sensible for every detail that might turn out to be relevant (Charmaz 2014). The many codes that were created by initial coding were analysed and narrowed down to three main topics, that helped to reduce from up to 150 initial codes per interview, to an average of around 30 focused codes per interview. In the following, these codes were organized in sub-groups or sub-topics that helped to compare content of the different interviews with each other. For the comparison, but also for a more exhaustive understanding of the data, the technique of informal memo-writing was applied, using quotes that best captured the range of each sub-topic as starting points. The memo-writing helped to organize the data in re-emerging concepts as well as to analyze and interpret the meaning and relation of these concepts (Charmaz 2006). It was clear however, that the quotes alone couldn’t represent the range of the data, which was taken into consideration when writing the analysis.
Again, it is important to acknowledge that the process of transcribing and coding was heavily influenced by the researchers’ perception und subjective interpretation (Bird 2005; Jefferson 2004).
4.5 Access
To get access to the researched population, I attended neighbourhood meetings and visited cultural and community places within the neighbourhood, as I noticed quickly that approaching people on the street wasn’t very successful. The same outcome brought talking to shop owners, of whom most felt uncomfortable, saying they had no time, they didn’t feel suitable for being interviewed or their English skills weren’t sufficient. Consequently, I decided to focus on getting contact to potential gatekeepers and visiting community places, where it was significantly easier to get peoples’ interest and trust.
The community bar of the Kleiburg building that opens once a week had a casual and friendly atmosphere and it was easy to get to talk to different people, who could help me connecting to potential respondents. As the visitors of this place belonged to a certain group of people (around 50 years old and white), I decided to visit the daily breakfast at the community
centre of the ‘Bonte Kraai’. Speaking to different people there, I got passed on to a potential respondent. All in all, it was not as easy however to find volunteers there, also due to a lack of trust and interest.
When I went to a participatory event organized by the municipality that took place in the ‘Bonte Kraai’ and informed the residents about a building project, I could talk to a number of people that were willing to volunteer as participants in my research. People were more interested than at the public breakfast, which was probably because they were a sample of active residents, that were open for participating in research. Some had already announced, that they could help introduce me to other potential respondents, which succeeded in two cases.
In general, I noticed, that the strategy of snowball sampling and in some cases getting contact via gatekeepers was most promising, due to the personal reference (Hennink et al. 2011b). One of my respondents for instance introduced me to the coordinator of a community centre ‘Huiskamer’ I didn’t know before, who then asked people if they were interested, which lead to three more interviews. Furthermore, attending more private meetings or activities, like an informational discussion evening of the local organization ‘Hart voor de K-Buurt’ or the ‘sewing café’ of the ‘Bonte Kraai’, lead to more openness of the people towards my research interest. In the latter, the coordinator additionally introduced me and was also very helpful directing me to different participants of the class.
4.6 Analytic Approach
In this research, the logic of a deductive and inductive approach will alternate, as Hennink at al. (2011e) propose. For the conception of this research, theories and existing research were used to define the frame and structure, which could be understood as a deductive process. With the process of gathering data and its analysis however, the collected insights stand for themselves and only when corresponding to existing research, the latter was integrated in explanations (Hennink et al. 2011e).
With the choice of a qualitative approach and of semi-structured in-depth interviews as the research method, it was possible to keep the research open to unexpected findings that haven’t been thought of before, which was most suitable for my analytic approach.
5.
Analysis: Perception of Diversity
Loosely borrowing from the idea to divide respondents in social milieus (Bynner 2017), four different groups of respondents could be distinguished in relation to specific demographic characteristics, that were chosen in connection to the respondents’ positionality within the ethnically diverse environment. Within these groups, some main perspectives on ethnic diversity were shared and others contested. Therefore, it is merely possible to talk of trends as no group represents a completely homogeneous perspective. The different perceptions could be subsumed into three ways of relating to ethnicity, that will serve as a structure for the following chapter and could be narrowed down to the concepts of ‘enjoying ethnic diversity’, ‘focus on ‘own’ ethnicity’ and ‘unity in difference’.
The resulting groups of respondents distinguish between the ethnic background and position of the respondents, as well as the duration of their stay in the neighbourhood. The group of the ‘new white wave’ for instance is composed of people that moved to the neighbourhood in the last 10 years, all of them are white and all but one are Dutch. Most of the respondents chose to move to the neighbourhood due to the affordability of the housing, one got access to social housing.
The group of ‘ethnic minorities’ consists of respondents that all moved to the Netherlands from Caribbean and African countries, most of them in the last 15 years. Some of them came without documents and got ‘naturalized’ later. Most belong to the main ethnicities living in the neighbourhood, namely the Surinamese, Dutch-Antillean and Nigerian – only people of Cameroonian descent aren’t represented as much (Van Heelsum 2007). All but one materialize as black2.
The group of the ‘Bijlmer believers’ is made up of people that all live in the neighbourhood for at least 23 years, some of them have a white Dutch background, the remaining moved to the Netherlands from South Africa, Suriname, Poland and Finland, all but two materialize as white. When they moved to the Bijlmer it was due to the availability of the apartments, but also because the prices where reasonable at the time compared to other places in Amsterdam.
2 In this context, for simplicities sake the concept of ‘blackness’ is used subsuming all identifications that are
opposed to ‘whiteness’, being aware that it doesn’t do justice to the complexity of the issue (Dyer 2000). In some cases, respondents emphasized their different status amongst black people due to their Indish heritage for instance, in others this difference wasn’t relevant. Also, the ‘Arabic’ heritage of one respondent was included in the concept of ‘blackness’. In this context, ‘blackness’ is understood as the belonging to a minority group in a country (the Netherlands) where white dominated structures hold a hegemonic position.
The group of the ‘Bijlmer children’ includes two respondents that both were born and grew up in the Bijlmer and are now in their twenties and thirties. Both have parents that were born abroad and moved to the Netherlands from Egypt and Suriname respectively, both materialize as black. Some of the respondents could also be placed in other groups, however for reasons of their perspectives on ethnicity and to summarize the main tendencies they were included in their respective group.
Table 2: Groups of respondents Groups of respondents Respondents Perception of diversity/ethnicity Choice to move to Bijlmer Enjoying ethnic diversity ‘New white wave’ White Dutch, 1st generation white migrant Ietje, Tom, Phil, Michael, Mariana, Hank, (Eric*) *Only working in neighbourhood Enjoying presence of different ethnicities, selectively ‘consuming’ diversity, positive vs. critical views on change Affordability, social housing Focus on ‘own’ ethnicity Ethnic minorities 1st generation
black & white migrants Chris, Joseph, Claire, Jake, Achojah, Nora Enjoying own cultural community and supply, positive vs. critical views on change Migrants community Unity in difference Bijlmer believers Residents for >23 years, white Dutch, 1st generation
black & white migrants Christel, Lea, Joe, Irena, Sofia, Sjareefa Perception of ethnic differences but solidarity, rather positive view on change Availability, affordability, friends Bijlmer children 2nd generation black migrants
Jack, Marcio Different ethnicities as normal, critical view on change
Born and raised in Bijlmer
5.1 Enjoying ethnic Diversity
‘New white wave’
Enjoying Presence of different Ethnicities
Several of the respondents belonging to the ‘new white wave’ described a positive feeling towards the population of the neighbourhood and the general atmosphere. As described in the example of the diverse neighbourhood of Hackney in London (Wessendorf 2013), the diverse setting of the neighbourhood is celebrated or enjoyed by its residents. Mostly people talked about the positive atmosphere and the open way of interacting with each other, that was put into relation with the cultural influences of the people with African and Caribbean background.
For Hank for instance the sense of community in the neighbourhood that differs for him from what he calls the ‘more individualistic Dutch culture’ has a great value. He describes the neighbourhood as a ‘warm blanket’ or ‘one big embrace’, appreciating the assistance and help from neighbours in times of need as well as giving back and investing his energy for the people. Also, for Mariana there is a personal connection to the people of the neighbourhood, although she only moved there two years ago. She reasons that growing up in Mozambique and Brazil as a daughter of two white Dutch parents, makes her feel comfortable living with people from Suriname, but also from different African countries. Because of that, she feels a sense of belonging to the residents of the neighbourhood but acknowledges that they might not feel the same way because of her whiteness.
Other respondents emphasized the value of experiencing different cultures and broadening the own horizon. Phil for instance describes the neighbourhood as the ‘place to be’ when you like to discover and are curious about different cultures and ethnic backgrounds. He enjoys the possibility to learn about different cultures without having to travel somewhere else and sees the ethnic diversity of the population in the neighbourhood as a great value. Besides the specificity of the neighbourhood in the Dutch context, Phil also sees a connection to other famous diverse neighbourhoods in London and New York.
‘It’s like the Brixton feeling, the Brooklyn feeling, like this melting pot of cultures and outdoor activities and a lot happening on the street when you go outside on a sunny day, a lot of music around, it’s a very vivid area.’
He describes the Bijlmer as a place with a dynamic street life and the feeling of creativity, a life style neighbourhood that defines itself through its extraordinary image and history, which he celebrates and enjoys.
In a similar way Tom, who experienced the neighbourhood in the years 2009 and 2010, living in a flat that has been renovated now but at the time was described as one of the ‘worst’ places in the neighbourhood, describes the neighbourhood as a ‘fun’ and ‘cozy’ place to be. He liked trying out things like food he didn’t know, interacting with people on the street when playing soccer or doing barbecues and observing customs he wasn’t used to, like people walking around and ‘showing off their birds’ in public space. While enjoying the influence of other cultures than the Dutch one, he feels like there needs to be a certain balance however.
‘Melting pot is good, but it shouldn’t be like going on a holiday in your own country, I guess. You should recognize some typical Dutch things.’
Feeling foreign within the Netherlands, where he was born doesn’t seem like a positive experience for Tom, however enjoying aspects of different cultures he describes as fun. While appreciating different ethnic influences that are convenient to him, he puts himself in the position to judge, when it is too much and not agreeable anymore, which he justifies as a ‘native’ person living in his ‘native’ country and thus having the privilege of cultural superiority. This notion of foreigners intruding the own homogeneous identity conveniently forgets about the imperial past and in the case of the Netherlands is paired with a defensive attitude to protect the imagination of the innocent and tolerant self (Wekker 2016). Not only does this selective acceptance of difference reflect dominant discourse, it also illustrates how the diversity of the neighbourhood has become a life-style amenity for white middle-class, consuming ethnic ‘Otherness’ and by dislocating it from its context and origin, appropriate its voice (De Oliver 2016).
Not being aware of the meaning or consequences of their choice, Mariana, Phil and Tom all moved to the neighbourhood due to the affordability of the apartments but also because they were attracted by its diverse ’flair’. All the respondents perceive it as interesting and exciting to experience cultural difference, as long as it is not too much difference, or to put it in De Oliver’s (2016) words, they enjoy the ‘sanitized’ version of the ethnic ‘Other’.
Either way, the perception of cultural difference between ethnic groups is very strong among the respondents belonging to the ‘new white wave’, which also shows in the way they described neighbours or other residents – always mentioning ethnicity in terms of national background or skin colour. While the findings of Wessendorf (2013) suggest that not only
ethnicity, but also aspects like class and education were perceived to affect social connectedness, the respondents of this research usually emphasized ethnic difference as the main reason for the social separation into different religious as well as housing communities.
‘If you look at how many churches we have, the different kinds of churches. And not only churches, the different (…) mosques. You have the Indian mosque, the Arabic mosque (…). And all separated by nationality, ethnic background.’
Phil sees a connection between peoples’ ethnicity and their religious group, where they separate to practice their specific religion. For him this is a materialization of the tendency to gather in groups of the own cultural background instead of mixing, which most respondents understood as a normal process. Accordingly, for instance Michael only has contact with his neighbours from the Kleiburg complex – all new arrivals and predominantly white like himself. He perceives the other buildings around as occupied by people from Suriname and Africa and feels that they also ‘create their own society’, that is separate from his social environment.
Similar like in the example of Hackney in London, where this separation is evaluated as normal of the majority of the population, as long as there is a willingness to mix in public space (Wessendorf 2013), a large part of the respondents of this research didn’t see this process as problematic. The common-sense way of reasoning however, that cultural difference creates social distance and that the separation into different social groups only is a logic consequence, represents the power of the perception of normality (Lamont et al. 2014, Pascale 2008). By doing so, all of the respondents belonging to the ‘new white wave’ reified existing conceptions of ethnic difference, that again strengthened their position as part of their own group, not needing to involve with the rest of the population of the neighbourhood.
Dutch ‘post-racist’ Discourse and the Perception of Difference
Most respondents belonging to the ‘new white wave’ referred to the Bijlmer as a ‘black neighbourhood’ where blackness is the norm and part of the image. Consequently, the notion of feeling different as a white person in this context appeared several times. Tom for instance describes how he felt like part of the white pioneers when moving to the neighbourhood eight years ago, starting a new trend. Similarly, Phil is very much aware of his whiteness within a predominantly black social context. He describes however, that he lost this awareness over time while getting used to the beforehand different environment and adjusting what he perceives as ‘normal’, which is also connected to him feeling more at home.
The sensation of not only feeling different, but also of being perceived as different was equally present among the white respondents. Mariana for instance feels irritated when people treat her differently, due to her skin colour.
‘Not everybody looks at you, because some people I think they are not used to be greeted by white people, so they just look the other way.’
For her the default skin colour in the neighbourhood seems to be black, as she only specifies the skin colour of ‘white people’ – which are perceived as different. This feeling of being the ‘other’ even turns into discomfort in another situation, when she went to a community centre in the neighbourhood, where she was invited by a friend. She felt uncomfortable with the idea of not knowing what the normal way of greeting was and imagined an awkward situation amongst Surinamese people. Therefore, when she went there she chose to greet just by saying ‘hi’ and felt embarrassed when she observed other visitors – she describes as Surinamese without having talked to them – greeting by handshake. The main reasons for her discomfort seemed to be her perception of her own difference in colour in this unknown environment, using the skin colour as indicator of difference. In a similar way, Ietje described her discomfort with the idea to move to a ‘black neighbourhood’ as a ‘blond Dutch girl’. Living there for four years, she doesn’t see any problem with that anymore. Both example illustrate, how the unknown ‘Other’ is perceived as threatening until personal encounters and experiences shape a more differentiated understanding (Allport 1954). Beyond these experiences however, perception of ethnic difference prevails.
Not only Mariana, but also other respondents of this group used the term ‘Surinamese’ to describe ‘black people’ trying to avoid or felt uncomfortable to name skin colour, which became obvious for instance when differentiating between ‘white Dutch’ and ‘Surinamese Dutch'. While this matches the discursive tradition in the Netherlands to avoid categorizing skin colour in order to not reify difference, it really rather helps to cover up the fact that skin colour still is a reason for discrimination in Dutch society, than actually promoting equality (Wekker 2016, Hooks 1992).
While most respondents belonging to the ‘new white wave’ were aware of their skin colour in terms of feeling different, Eric claims it is irrelevant for him and that he doesn’t perceive colour in general and his whiteness specifically as an issue in his working place as a social worker and leader of a social centre of the neighbourhood.
‘The colour of my skin is no issue. People don’t see it and I don’t see that colour. We are we, and they know whatever they need (…) they can ask me or approach me.’
Only in some situations he notices that he is the only white person, but he stresses that there is no differentiation between black or white people in this specific social context. For him this is obvious as people know that they can approach him for whatever issue they have. As in the previous example, Eric avoids the recognition of skin colour as relevant, although not due to the feeling of discomfort but rather due to having internalized the ‘post-racist’ narrative. As already explained above, this way of neglecting difference is meant in a positive way, trying not to reify racist categories while ignoring the fact that they still matter, as long as discrimination due to skin colour is happening (Wekker 2016, Hooks 1992).
In contrast to this, Hank is much more aware of this issue and sees a great disparity in connection to skin colour, which he describes as a ‘cultural dominance’ of the white population. Especially in participatory meetings of the neighbourhood he observed the tendency of black people to stand behind others in the second row. Hank reasons this attitude comes from a lack of confidence to speak out for the own interests, also in the context of perceived dominance of white people in such meetings. Both ways of behaving in such situations are culturally learned, which makes skin colour a very relevant aspect for him, that shouldn’t be ignored. Also, Phil observed some situation where white people made comments in a top-down attitude towards the black youngsters he works with as a youth worker. Hank and Phil observe and dislike how unaware other white residents are about their behaviour and its meaning in connection to their skin colour and reflect to a certain point about their own position, however Hank more than Phil.
Whereas for some of the white respondents, the sensation of feeling different in a black social context was exceptional, this feeling even turned into discomfort in some cases connected to prejudiced ideas about the black population in the Bijlmer. Over time however, some of the respondents described that they either got less aware of the difference in skin colour, or that the actual contact with the population replaced their prejudiced ideas with own positive experiences (Allport 1954, Wessendorf 2013).
While one of the white respondents stressed, that skin colour didn’t matter at all in his environment of experience – with him being the leader of a community place, and often the only white person – another respondent contested this idea describing the dominance of white towards black people. Ironically, the first respondent doesn’t see his position in connection to
his skin colour. Indeed, most of the respondents belonging to the ‘new white wave’ – except Hank and to a certain extend Phil – didn’t reflect on their skin colour in connection to their presence in the neighbourhood, besides their notion of feeling different, which allows an estimation of the low level of awareness of the general significance and power of skin colour among this group (Wekker 2016).
Demographic change and gentrification
All the respondents belonging to the ‘new white wave’ had a generally positive attitude towards the gentrifying processes making the neighbourhood more attractive. Also, the arrival of people with different, often more privileged social backgrounds was perceived as a gain to the social environment, bringing a new dynamic into the area. While rarely explicitly named, the variable of ethnicity always plays a role in the perceptions of the respondents, as most of the new arrivals are perceived to be white. Therefore, every statement must also be evaluated in connection to the ethnic background of the people talked about. When Phil articulates his hope for instance, that the new arrivals can broaden the perspectives especially of the less privileged youth – where many have a limited idea of what they are going to do with their life, beyond becoming a rapper, football player or drug dealer – he implicitly talks about more privileged and mostly white people, serving as better examples for the black youth of the neighbourhood.
Only few respondents reflected critically upon gentrification and their own positionality in the process like Ietje for instance, who was especially concerned with the ousting of what she calls the ‘original people’ she defines as ‘migrants’ by the new arrivals she perceives to be mostly white Dutch like herself. Interestingly, five of the respondents belonging to the ‘new white wave’ could be categorized as part of the gentrifiers, whereof four didn’t remark any concern about this process or their position in terms of socio-economic status as well as ethnicity in the neighbourhood.
Two of the respondents noticed that many of the new arrivals have a top-down attitude towards the population of the neighbourhood, paired with ignorance of the local conditions. Hank especially sees the level of unawareness of privilege of the new arrivals, he conceptualizes as mostly white:
‘I think the people in Kleiburg have no idea, how many children here don’t get breakfast in my flat, just because they can’t afford it.’
The Kleiburg complex is one of the newly renovated buildings where apartments were sold only four years ago – to mostly white people – while the children he talks about live in one of the older towers. Furthermore, Hank notices that the new arrivals tend to act dominant in their terms of what’s right and wrong, imposing their values on the whole society as they have also the vocal power to do so. As an example, he describes how some of the new arrivals complain about the noise, in a manner of ‘the way I live – ten o’clock it should be quiet at night – is the way everybody should live’. He feels like there should be more understanding and respect of the normality in the neighbourhood by the people that just moved there.
It is remarkable, that all of the respondents belonging to the ‘new white wave’, of whom most are part of the gentrifying process, have a very positive attitude towards the enhancement of the neighbourhood. Only some are critical about their own position in terms of socio-economic status as well as ethnicity or the consequences for the local population, and even fewer think about the responsibility of privilege in the context of demographic change. Furthermore, it should be noted that none of the white respondents explicitly included the concept of skin colour in reflections on gentrification, which again confirms Wekker’s (2016) statement about the avoidance of its use in the Dutch context, especially so in connection to issues of power. The luxury of unawareness is part of the privilege of this group.
5.2 Focus on ‘own’ Ethnicity
Ethnic minorities
Enjoying ‘own’ cultural Community
A clear trend among respondents that were part of ethnic minorities but also first-generation migrants from different parts of the Caribbean and Africa was their appreciation of living with people of a similar ethnic background – reflected in Clark’s (2002) finding about ‘own-group preference’ in the choice of a neighbourhood – which was a reason for most to enjoy living in this area. Chris for instance describes an ‘African’ feeling of life and his feeling of belonging within the neighbourhood, being able to connect to people and culture that remind him of his own Cameroonian background, where he lived until he moved to the Netherlands 14 years ago.
‘Here is like Africa, Suriname or Morocco. It has nothing to do with Dutch, really. Some Dutch people try to integrate into this society, but it’s really, it’s home. You have African food, African supermarkets, fried African food, Surinamese fried food, everything made, everything. This is really Africa, it’s a small Africa.’
Especially the food seems to have a great importance for him connecting to the neighbourhood. As a chef, he often goes to markets and groceries stores in the neighbourhood to compare prizes and look at the range of goods. Also, for Nora, the supply of products from the Caribbean is a great value in this neighbourhood. Furthermore, she is very happy to be able to live with people from the same cultural background as her. Although she also enjoys the presence of other cultures, being born in Bonaire, she admits having a better connection to people from Africa, the Caribbean and South America, appreciating their – how she describes it – ‘jolly’ way of being.
‘I like where I’m living, because I’m living in an apartment, that is our culture, you know, our people, all of the Caribbean, there I’m living. And we speak our language, our language is Papiamentu.’
The diversity of the neighbourhood gives her not only the opportunity to interact with people of different backgrounds, but also to live and surround herself with people from ‘her own’ culture.
On a more private level, Achojah describes that his circle of friends also consists of people from the same social or cultural background, which means for him eating the same food, speaking the same language, but also being ‘black’. He describes the kinship relation between people that are black as ‘brothers’ in contrast to ‘you people’, meaning white people who don’t bond with each other the same way. Some of the black respondents mentioned, that living in a neighbourhood where most people are black was something positive.
In this respect, and although also having black skin, Jake felt a bit different, mentioning to be looked at as not belonging due to his Indish-Surinamese background. Possibly also due to this experience, he appreciates practicing religious traditions within the safe space of his ‘own’ Hindu community, which he perceives as being respectful towards other customs and to not impose the own culture on others. In this sense, he divides between the sphere of the own religious or ethnic community and the public space where everyone meets and where respecting every other cultural habit is crucial, to strengthen the encompassing neighbourhood community.
Living with and being surrounded by people of the same ethnic background was a great value for all of the respondents with ethnic minority backgrounds, and reason to move to the neighbourhood (Clark 2002). Main reasons for connecting were the general, familiar atmosphere, the food supply, speaking the same language, being black or practicing the same religion, that gave the respondents a sense of belonging within the Netherlands, but also within the ethnically diverse context of the Bijlmer neighbourhood. It even comes close to the notion of a safe space for some of the respondents, that helps people connect to the place. Like the respondents of the ‘new white wave’, by celebrating what they understand to be their ‘own’ culture, this group also perceives and reproduces ethnic difference.
Demographic Change, Gentrification and Skin Colour
In contrast to the respondents of the ‘new white wave’, people that belonged to the group of ‘ethnic minorities’ automatically connected skin colour to the current demographic change as well as the issue of gentrification. The main topics were the influx of white people, that are starting to get interested in living in the neighbourhood, but also disparities and power differences in connection to skin colour.
For Claire and Chris the reason for the trend of white people moving in was clearly, because the neighbourhood has improved in the last years. For Claire, this is especially due to
the decrease of criminality and issues that came with the different cultures living together as she reasons, although not specifying what issues she means.
‘20 years ago, people don’t want to live in this neighbourhood. Too many things happened here, shooting, everything. Because you have different cultures here. And that’s why the white people think, ‘no, I don’t want to live here’. But the last few years it changed very much, and that’s nice.’
She and Chris reason that the aspect of more security reassures these white people to not be afraid anymore, while they don’t apply this logic for black people. By reasoning like this, they reproduce the stigma around the black population of the Bijlmer as criminal, as well as the image of white people as righteous. Reifying this logic, Chris talks about his view on the responsibility of ‘the black man (…) to show a good character in this country, so the white man can trust him’. The only thing ‘the white man’ must do in his opinion is not to be afraid of ‘the black man’. He furthermore conceptualizes ‘blackness as a problem’ instead of ‘racism as a problem’ in another part of the interview. While he feels the injustice, he chose to cope with it strategically. Just like Joseph, he doesn’t want to make a difference between people due to their skin colour and stresses that he feels like everyone is the same. Both are aware however, that others judge upon it. The extend to which Chris internalized and reproduces the hegemonial (thus white) discourse around colour, putting black people in the responsibility to prove themselves in order to be accepted in a white dominated society, illustrates the power of this narrative rooted in colonial times until today, where whiteness – opposed to blackness – is created as a synonym for goodness (Pascale 2008, Hooks 1992).
When talking about the demographic change of the neighbourhood, Chris furthermore describes the arrival of white people in the neighbourhood as beautiful and even ‘enlightening’ for the former population, as they get confronted with difference, which will make them more tolerant and culturally flexible, as he reasons. His selection of the word ‘enlightening’ again matches the construction of whiteness as the good and positive (Hooks 1992) and makes his message appear as if the residents of the neighbourhood depended on the white people to move there to become more tolerant. The illusion that the concepts of race or skin-colour no longer matter in the Dutch society (or in any other) is fundamentally disrupted when acknowledging how powerfully racist narratives still affect peoples perception of skin-colour and ethnicity (Wekker 2016).
In a more critical way, Joseph and Achojah perceive a strong difference in privilege due to skin colour. Both describe white people as rich people, that are able to buy apartments
