The role of civil society in the EU "refugee crisis'

(1)

UNIVERSITEIT VAN AMSTERDAM

The Role of Civil Society

In the EU “Refugee Crisis”

Master Thesis: Conflict Resolution & Governance

30 June 2017

Olivia Rammel Schaub Student Number: 0328545 Supervisor: Dr. A.J. van Heelsum Second Reader: Dr. C.M. Roggeband

(2)

1

1 Introduction

The “European Refugee Crisis” reached its peak by 2016 when over 1.3 million refugees crossed the borders to EU countries. The host states struggled logistically to handle the large numbers of newcomers. The EU leaders became divisive in finding a solution to resettle the growing number of asylum seekers. The majority of asylum seekers in 2015-2016 arrived from Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq Pakistan, Nigeria, Iran and Eritrea. The largest number of requests was by far from Syria, with over 350,000 asylum requests (Eurostat 2017, BBC 2017). The EU member states eventually reached an agreement in the form of the “Turkey Deal” (Kingsley 2016). According to this deal, Turkey monitors the movement of migrants more closely and halt attempts to enter the EU. This deal, as well as many of the arguments conveyed on the international level were dominated by a certain approach: protecting the EU from the overflow of the “refugees”. It was about keeping Europe secure. How can we protect our borders from them? This attitude, the lack of cooperation and the turmoil that occurred among the member states reflects a crisis in governance (Doomernik 2016).

In the Netherlands, the number of applicants for asylum reached 43,093 in 2015 with the two highest countries of origin: Syria (18,677) and Eritrea (7,359). In 2016, the total number of requests decreased to 18,171. The majority of requests are still of Syrian origin (Vluchtelingen Werk 2017). The Refugee Crisis debate that we saw on the EU level also took place on a national and local level in the Netherlands. The political parties found themselves in heated debates about the subject and on a local level, communities showed growing unrest (Nu 2015). In this context two opposing views emerged.

On the one hand, groups formed to protest the opening of Asylum Seekers Centers (AZCs) in their neighborhoods (Bihikhie 2015, Remco 2016). This opposition originated from a lack of security in basic needs such as financial and social. The fading ties of social cohesion demonstrated in lack of trust in the government (Obbink 2016) and a diminishing social cohesion in the European society in general (Doomernik 2016) were factors in the growing unrest.

On the other hand, there was a rise in the number of civil society organizations (CSOs) addressing the “Refugee Crisis” and trying to cope with the challenges in the Netherlands. I continuously heard of initiatives starting up such as offering a home or a room for refugees or Facebook pages such as: ‘help statushouders amsterdam e.o.’. It appeared that these initiatives were offering practical solutions to practical problems of a larger issue, where the state was not as responsive .

On a later phase I came across statements concerning building a bridge in society such as the following: “… through work, refugees can blend with their society and build up a new meaningful life in the Netherlands” (The Refugee Company 2017) or, “… build inter-spaces between residents of the

(5)

4 AZCs and the surrounding community” (Ondertussen Onderweg 2017), and “we are working towards building a community and bridging the gap between outsiders and insiders” (Right2Education 2017). These examples show that there are local organizations who offer ways to address elements of the “Refugee Crisis” in the city of Amsterdam. So, as much as there was a prevailing sense of chaos and disagreement, an alternative response was also present.

The phenomenon of CSOs addressing the “Refugee Crisis” from below and their dynamics is what intrigues me most and is the topic I want to explore further in this project. As we can see above, in a complex reality where an ongoing war takes place in one region of the world, it echoes back in another. Zooming in to the Netherlands, we see there is a rise in opposing views and a sense of a growing gap in society, and civic action seems to be an absorber for such larger global issues.

Aim of the Research

This research aims to understand the role Dutch CSOs as a bottom-up approach towards structural change may fulfil in times of governmental crisis.. So far it seems that due to a lack of cohesion and bureaucratic character of the institutions on a national and global level, CSOs have a potential in addressing concrete social problems in a swift and a personal manner on a local level. In this thesis project I want to explore further the presence of civic engagement that occurred in a time of governance crisis, and local protest in other areas in the Netherlands. In this light the central research question that leads the project is: What role do civil society organizations in the Netherlands play in the European “Refugee Crisis” to date?

In order to understand the role of CSOs during the “Refugee Crisis” I will first outline theories concerning the concept of civil society, followed by a number of optional roles civil society may fulfil in a democratic society. Next, I will present the data collected by conducting an empirical ethnographic research using qualitative techniques in two CSOs in Amsterdam. I will provide an analysis of the empirical data in the light of the theoretical framework I chose as the focus of the research. Last, I will conclude with the insights I gained from this study.

Theoretical Relevance

The theoretical relevance of this study is to strengthen the existing body of knowledge around the civil society debate with additional examples of grassroots initiatives in a European city addressing large issues with a bottom-up approach. At the end of this research I hope to demonstrate an example that utilizes the latest theories around the subject of civil society, and that can provide additional discourse concerning local initiatives in a European city as a response to the “Refugee Crisis”.

(6)

5

Social Relevance

The social relevance of this research is to provide a platform for local foundations to share their practices and knowledge with other organizations, and across organizations, whether governmental or private. It is also a way for the foundations I engaged with to reflect internally on their opportunities as well as their challenges. Another social relevance is to discuss an example of local level solutions for global level issues. It provides insight to actors in the EU level who are actually seeking to promote bottom-up initiatives. In addition, recent events show developments of the role of local level governance and cooperation between local municipalities and the EU. An example is the Global Parliament of Mayors who address local challenges stemming from global issues. It is a governance body of mayors sharing their local knowledge across the globe (Global Parliament of Mayors 2017). CSOs aim at addressing social issues on a local level as well. In my opinion, the local, regional, national and global parties can learn from one another and cooperate in reaching up solutions for social issues. At this stage I want to clarify the term I use when I refer to individuals who applied for asylum in the Netherlands. Due to a growing discussion concerning the term “refugee” I refrain from using it in my writings. Instead, I use the term newcomers and by this term I refer to individuals who are either in the process of receiving their Residence Permit, have already received it or who were not granted a permit. In all cases, they have initially applied for a Residence Permit based on Refuge Seeking grounds. I return to the discussion concerning the discourse about “refugees” later in the research project.

(7)

6

2 Theoretical Framework on the Roles of Civil Society

The theoretical lens I will apply in this research is the concept of civil society and its functions. The concept of civil society has been debated extensively by many scholars from different angles and contexts. In this section I will discuss three main sets of theories that conceptualize civil society: as the ‘associational life’ (Edwards 2004, 2011), as the ‘good society’ (Putnam 1993, Edwards 2004) and as the ‘public sphere’ (Edwards 2004, 2011; Cohen and Arato 1997). Next, I incorporate some of the aspects of each set of theories to one approach (Edwards 2004). Finally, I define three roles which I look into during fieldwork phase. First, a preliminary definition of the concept applies and a short description of the type of CSOs I focus on.

2.1 The Concept of Civil Society

Civil society organizations have a long history of debates concerning their function. Traditionally, three approaches were delineated as ways to overcome social and economic problems. The first are state based solutions, the second are market based solutions derived from individual decisions in the marketplace, and the third are through social mechanisms rooted in voluntary civic action. Through the 90s an additional approach was developed, emphasizing that a partnership between all three sectors; state, market, and civic is the best way to overcome social and economic challenges. Civil society as associational life became central to the workings of this project, and was “identified with building societies that are ‘civil’” (Edwards 2004: 11). Associational life refers here to CSOs and their interdependency between themselves and with other associations. Civil society is normally associated with organizations that are not for profit, their goals are normally philanthropic, membership is voluntary and the members themselves share a common goal, creating a sense of cohesion. The types of organizations may range from leisure sports clubs all the way to legal or social support of some kind to marginalized members of society.

In this research project I depart from Michael Walzer's definition of Civil Society, which is: “the sphere of uncoerced human association between the individual and the state, in which people undertake collective action for normative and substantive purposes, relatively independent of government and the market” (Ibid., 2).

There are different types of civil society organizations that might fall under the CSO category. The Oxford Handbook of Civil Society names a few: the nonprofit Sector, development NGOs, grassroots associations, social movements and global civil society (The Oxford Handbook of CSOs 2017). In this paper I focus on grassroots civil society organizations. Members of grassroots organizations are normally volunteers, they aim to improve or solve a problem or a concern together,

(8)

7 take action on a subject or interest they share. Furthermore, they are characterized “by more democratic and less hierarchical forms of governance and accountability, the predominance of volunteers as opposed to paid staff, and a local focus, factors which distinguish them from nonprofit, staff-driven organizations (Smith 2000 in Kunreuther 2011).

What follows is a deconstruction of three models of civil society, where each model emphasizes different traits of civil society. Michael Edwards suggests a holistic approach to understanding civil society as a concept and as a collective action. He encourages taking a more comprehensive view of civil society; and where one model lacks, complement it with the strengths of the other (Edwards 2004, 2011). The three models are: civil society as an ‘associational life’, as the ‘good society’ and third, as the ‘public sphere’. Thus, the concept of civil society can help in understanding the existing interpretations of the roles CSOs play in our society and in turn in the “Refugee Crisis”.

2.2 Civil Society as ‘Associational Life’

Placing civil society in the broader spectrum of society may have different interpretations. Civil society is commonly addressed as a ‘third sector’, a separate part of society. In this view, civil society contains diverse associations and networks that exist between the state and the family and is necessary in order to fill in a gap left by the state or the market (Desse 2012, Salomon 1997). However, I take a system view of civil society and see how the different CSOs interact with one another, with the state, and with the market like an ecosystem (Edwards 2004, 2011). In this view the boundaries between civic organizations and the state are inexplicit. The state provides the legal framework in which civil society needs to function, and in turn, civil society either exerts pressure for accountability on the elected government, keeping it on track; or ensures investments that are out of reach for the government. In addition, the differentiation between civil society and the market are also not clear cut (Edwards 2004: 24-25). It is very common for CSOs to receive financial support from private sector organizations or individuals. Thus, civil society is not, per se, a separated ‘third sector’.

In addition to that, by initiating and maintaining connections within groups and across organizations and sectors; associations can form strong networks and alliances that will allow them to reach social change and development in greater heights as well as ensure pluralism within civil society (Ibid., 32-33). Here Edwards draws on social capital theory (Coleman 1988, Bourdieu 1985, Putnam 1993 in Aldrich 2015; Granovetter 1983) and argues that there must be a balance between “bonding (connections within groups), bridging (connecting across them), and linking (connections between associations, governments, and the market” (Aldrich 2015 , Edwards 2004: 33). The ties of social capital is applicable between organizations and as Coleman put it:

(9)

8 ... social capital inheres in the structure of relations between actors and

among actors. It is not lodged either in the actors themselves or in physical implements of production. Because purposive organizations can be actors (“corporate actors”) just as persons can, relations among corporate actors can constitute social capital for them as well” (Coleman 1998: 98).

‘Social capital’ theory proves that ties within, between, and across entities are significant also in the context of civil society. Robert Putnam, like Edwards, stresses that there must be a collaborative relationship between CSOs and governmental bodies for them to address social problems effectively. They need one another and complement each other (Putnam 1993, Edwards 2004).

In short, civil society is seen as part of an ecosystem of associations who interact with one another and often have interdependent relationships rather than a separate ‘third sector’. As we will see later in the research project this is clearly evident between CSOs in the Amsterdam who address the “Refugee Crisis” on the local level.

In the next paragraph I elaborate further on civil society as the ‘good society’.

2.3 Civil Society as the ‘Good Society’

The second theory approaches civil society as the foundation for our norms and values and promote cooperation, trust, tolerance and non-violence (Edwards 2004: viii). Here civil society is idealized in terms of social characteristics that we should strive for. In Edwards’ words “civil society represents the institutionalization of civility as a different way of being and living in the world, or a different kind of society in which all institutions operate in ways that reinforce these positive social norms – in short a society that is ‘civil’” (Ibid., 39). Also Robert Putnam referred to the effects of positive norms. Putnam argues that internally, CSOs have the tendency to evoke more cooperative attitude among the individuals involved. Habits of cooperation, solidarity and public-spiritedness tend to be present. Externally, CSOs promote a cohesive network of associations that both carries out as well as contributes to an effective social collaboration (Putnam 1993: 90). This argument is also supported by the dual concern theory, the model shows that a ‘high concern for others’ as well as a ‘high concern for self’, indeed brings about cooperative approach. In the context of group cohesion – members share certain life experiences with one another, which affects group cohesiveness. This is especially evident among groups and organizations that identify themselves with a broader social movement (Pruitt 2004: 40).

Nevertheless, norms and values vary in different associations. What individuals consider to be of higher value in one association is different in other associations. There are many associations that indeed build up trust and cooperation within their own circle or community yet their vision is

(10)

9 destructive and nurtures violence. These are groups such as the Ku Klux Klan or the National Rifle Association (NRA). In this context the driving force behind volunteering is the enthusiasm or passion behind the organization, not necessarily the social cause. Another argument that shatters the idealistic view is that voluntary associations also contain personal ambition and power as much as they are providing a space for sacrifice and services (Edwards 2004: 43). Thus, civil society is not an ideal society we want to strive for and that operates alone in nurturing norms and values of cooperation, trust, tolerance and non-violence. Instead, we can see it as a part in a bigger construct. In this view the ‘good society’ is a synergy between the family, business and the government. In a ‘good society’ “norms of behavior are nurtured by the family and feed institutions with values-based energy and direction; a socially responsible business and a present political agenda that supports these values in polity” (Ibid., 40, 50).

In the next sub-section I discuss the third approach to civil society; namely, civil society as the ‘public sphere’.

2.4 Civil Society as the ‘Public Sphere’

Civil society explained in terms of the ‘public sphere’, is the space where citizens of a certain community, from local neighborhoods to the international domain, exercise ‘active citizenship’ by engaging in a rational debate, or a deliberation (Edwards 2004: viii, 2011; Cohen and Arato 1997, Kunreuther 2011). Here, I see deliberation as the process of individuals coming together face-to-face to address the issues of the day. In general, the ‘public sphere’ refers to those situations where people can share their ideas, are willing to see the ‘other’, and cooperate effectively, yet, feel safe to express opposite opinion. Examples of the ‘public sphere’ include voluntary associations such as CSOs, the press, critical literature, independent newspapers, cultural performances or TV shows that engage in a public debate, and more.

Traditionally, authors like Carl Schmidtt saw politics in terms of two polarities of the state and society, where the parliament mediates between the two (Cohen and Arato 1997: 201-210). Jürgen Habermas, however, challenged this view and extended the concept of the ‘public sphere’ to include a broader set of mediations between society and the state. He sees the role of the ‘public sphere’ as a new form of political dualism where a politically engaged society exercises control on the modern state (Ibid., 216). The strengths of such form of politics in opposition to the traditional form is demonstrated in two aspects. First, the political process of keeping the government under scrutiny is not limited to the citizens who already have a prior social autonomy, rather it is extended to all individuals in the community, whether they are eligible to vote or not. Second, its “authority emerges from the citizens' power produced communicatively in the praxis of self-legislation, and it finds its legitimation in the fact that it protects this praxis by institutionalizing public liberty” (Habermas 1996:

(11)

10 22). Thus, citizens can give form to the laws and regulations under which they live in, and in a broader sense, their public space.

Furthermore, Habermas theorized the existence of a ‘discursive public sphere’ that enabled citizens to talk about common concerns in conditions of freedom, equality and non-violent interaction (Edwards 2004: 57). The discourses Habermas refers to in his own words:

To be sure, discourses aiming at achieving self-understanding - discourses in which the participants want to get a clear understanding of themselves as members of a specific nation, as members of a locale or a state, as inhabitants of a region, and so on; in which they want to determine which traditions they will continue; in which they strive to determine how they will treat one another, and how they will treat minorities and marginal groups; in short, discourses in which they want to get clear about the kind of society they want to live in - such discourses are also an important part of politics (Habermas 1996: 24).

The notion that people can reconsider their views by engaging with one another non-violently in a discussion is critical for having a healthy democracy. The ability to join together in an open discussion promotes political consensus and it mitigates unequal power relations (Edwards 2004: 58).

In sum, civil society as the ‘public sphere’ can be explained as the realms in which the rich diversity of personas, cultures, social roles, nationalities or any type of identity are celebrated and receives a podium of self-representation. It is a space where debate and deliberation takes place, which is done non-violently and in turn it re-promotes multiplicity into society. The public sphere is also a counter balance to the government in power and can seek better governmental accountability.

2.5 How to Merge the Three Models?

Together, the three sections I outlined above create a rather complex, yet interesting lens to approach the study of civil society organizations. This approach takes three theories of civil society and combines them into one model. Through this model we can see that civil society organizations exist as part of a larger ecosystem. CSOs as the associational life, are voluntary associations that operate in interdependency and in continuous relationship with one another and with other associations on the level of the state and the market. This demonstrates characteristics of social capital as part of their strengths. Therefore CSOs cultivate a great deal of reciprocity and social cohesion in society. Yet, CSOs also build on the autonomous individuals whom norms and values are constructed by their families, and their structural environment. This environment may include: the legal system, the governmental support (or lack of), and business realm. Finally, CSOs are part of the ‘public sphere’,

(12)

11 which is characterized by promoting an open discussion and self-determination. It is a ‘discursive public sphere’ that enables citizens to talk about common concerns in conditions of freedom, equality and non-violent interaction. Without this freedom for deliberation and representation of diversity, associational life and the ‘good society’ would take a limited form towards social change. The figure below is a visual demonstration of the model I use as the theoretical framework for this research project (Edwards 2004: 72).

Figure 1: The three models of civil society merged into one. Author’s own interpretation.

Figure 1 represents three components that in essence, are a part of a complete ecosystem. The three components influence one another, complement one another and brings the other in movement. The success of each of the models depends on the interactions with the others. Seen as part of a larger ecosystem, CSOs rarely lead to clear cut predictable effects, since they are organic constantly evolving, social constructs mostly successful in deep relation to the given local environment in which they occur (Edwards 2011: 6). Finally, in conjunction with the theories above I look into the following three roles in this research: economic, social, and political roles.

(13)

12

2.6 The Roles of Civil Society

The Economic Role

The economic role of CSOs include to aspects. In the normative sense of the concept they provide a workplace. On a larger scale they act as service providers. Once measured in terms of GDP: CSOs were the 6th largest sector in 2005 providing jobs to nearly 56 million employees. Hence, CSOs are part of market economy and provide a workplace for the individuals who work there. Another function is that they act as service providers mainly: social, cultural, and welfare services, at times self-financed and at times in cooperation with the government (Desse 2012: 5, Salamon 2003). In this area, CSOs focus on “securing livelihoods and providing services where states and markets are weak, and nurturing the social values, networks and institutions that underpin successful market economics, including trust and cooperation” (Edwards 2004: 13).

Approaching civil society with the framework I outlined above, CSOs fulfil an economic role providing members with work space as well as being an alternative for the state and the private sector by operating as service providers where needs were not met by the former two. Taken further, the economic role is seen as part of a broader interconnected network of civil society associations, governmental entities and private sector actors. In this network of organizations, members have an interdependent relationship, share knowledge, and connections with affiliated organizations. It is not without the energy given by the norms and values nurtured by the family and in the context of a public sphere which allows for deliberation and diversity in business.

The Social Role

In social terms, CSOs operate as a vehicle for social cohesion and community building. Together with the family and other spheres in society, civil society organizations promote values of cooperation, trust, tolerance and non-violence which are essential for a healthy democracy since it promotes a society which is ‘civil’. This is partly the result of their associational character as I showed above. CSOs carry out the features of ‘social capital’, creating strong ties within the organizations, between the organizations and across them with governmental as well as private sector (Salamon 2003, Edwards 2004, 2011). Involvement in associations instills norms of cooperation that carry over into political and economic life.

The example below reflects the importance of social ties on the local level during an environmental crisis, yet I find it also applicable in the context of the “Refugee Crisis”, where the vulnerable population is newcomers who applied for asylum in Europe. Furthermore, social ties are of

(14)

13 great importance in any context. In short, Daniel Aldrich, analyzed how ‘social capital’ influences post disaster recovery and he concludes:

Creating strong ties with neighbors, knowing the name of the block captain or local fire chief, and having experience working together with local NGOs could prove equally—if not more—important in crisis, and with rising economic inequality are vital to supporting vulnerable populations in disaster (Aldrich 2015: 263).

When integrating the three model framework above we can see that civil society is not the only one promoting the ‘good society’ and social capital. Rather it is a more complex synergy between associational life, family, a government that promotes these values by implementing policy which is complementing to civil society and a social responsible business.

The Political Role

The political role of civil society addresses balancing out power relationships in society. Balancing out power relationships can take different forms, for example in the form of contentious politics such as social movements or as advocacy CSOs, engaging with the authorities to influence policies (Salamon 2003: 20). In this research I focus on the political role drawing on the notion of ‘public sphere’. In this context the political role has two functions. First, internally, it provides a space for members of the organizations exercise democracy on a micro-level. Members have the space to discuss issues, express their opinions and come up with a solution in a democratic way. The second function is an external function. It allows citizens to become active citizens and take part in a larger political debate Again, like in the internal function, it is the space where individuals and communities engage in deliberation or discussion about social issues of the day, yet carry out their influence into the larger community. In both functions the element of deconstructing a dominant representations of the “other” is present.

2.7 Sub-questions

The central question leading this research was: What role do civil society organizations play in the European Refugee Crisis? The sub-questions that emerge from the theoretical background, which I outlined above are the following:

(15)

14 1. How do the CSOs selected for in this research reflect the economic role?

2. How do the CSOs selected for in this research reflect the social role? 3. How do the CSOs selected for in this research reflect the political role?

(16)

15

3 Methods

3.1 Design

The aim of this research is to gain a better understanding of the potential role civil society organizations in Amsterdam may fulfil in times of a greater political challenge, in addition it is an opportunity to get a glimpse into their internal dynamics.

I chose for qualitative methods and an in depth case study. As Hammersley & Atkinson shared when discussing the process of choosing a case study: “There are three major dimensions along which sampling within cases occurs: time, people and context” (Hammersley & Atkinson 2003: 46). The two main organizations I selected for the research are are: Ondertussen Onderweg (Ondertussen) an organization that provides spaces for contact between new and local citizens in Amsterdam. The second CSO is Right2Education, which helps young adults aged 18-28 to learn Dutch and engage with local citizens of the same age range. My choice for these two organizations is directly related to their characteristic of being initiated by local citizens of Amsterdam (people). Additionally, they both address challenges related to the “Refugee Crisis” (context).

Moreover, I incorporated data that I documented during the pre-fieldwork period. I conducted an unrecorded interview with a former member of The Refugee Company, which proved to be significant during fieldwork. Also, as a result of my involvement with Ondertussen and my interviews with Right2Education I ended up collecting data in other organizations and observing their dynamics. The locations are: Lola Lik and the Asylum Seekers Center (AZCs) the Bijlmerbajes, as well as the World-House. Volunteering at ASKV Refugee Support also proved relevant for this study.

3.2 Qualitative Techniques

I focused on qualitative methodologies for data collection in order to answer the sub-questions above. For each of my interactions with the different organizations I adapted the methods used based on the specific dynamic of the organization and the way I came in contact with the members of the group. I used ethnographic methods such as participant observation, face-to-face open ended interviews, and collected field notes of my informal interactions in the field. These techniques are beneficial in learning about the organizations’ vision and goals as well as their actual interactions and practice. As a result I gained deep insights into the three roles: economic, social and political that the particular organizations fulfill.

I departed from a reflexive model of science, in contrast to the positivist approach. A reflexive research means that the researcher does not treat the participants of the research as a

(17)

16 distant subject, and becomes a “fly on the wall”; nor does the researcher try to fully immerse in the setting of the research to sense the way the participants are experiencing their reality. Rather, the intention is to find the middle ground and most importantly remain aware of influence one has on his / her environment as a researcher (Hammersley and Atkinson 2003: 19). In sum, I have embraced engagement rather than detachment as the road to knowledge (Burawoy 1998: 5). Once I returned from fieldwork, I conclude that on the axis between participator and observer, I ended up much closer to the participatory end. I reflect on that in section 3.3 Reflexivity.

In the next sub-sections I elaborate on the techniques I used and their added value in the current research project.

3.2.1. Face-to-Face Open Ended Interviews

First, in order to learn how CSOs see and interpret their role as an organization I conducted recorded interviews with the members of the organizations I studied. In the case of the CSO Right2Education I conducted a group interview with the aim of having an informal discussion, though recorded. Conducting interviews to learn about the process of setting up the project allowed me to generate information that I cannot obtain in another way, such as the historical evolution of the project from the perspective of the people who were involved in it. In addition, I gained insights into the organizations discursive strategies (Hammersley & Atkinson 2003: 131) which provided a better understanding of the organizations roles and goals. Conducting interviews enabled me to ask questions concerning the background of the organization. I learned about the nature of their relationships with other organizations and I could ask questions regarding concepts that were not clear at first sight. Furthermore, I could check the data I collected via interviews with the data I collected by doing participant observation.

3.2.2. Participant Observation

I became a volunteer in the organization Ondertussen Onderweg. This allowed me to conduct informal conversations, as well as formal, and make observations of the interactions between the different actors, and at times the interactions between the members of the organization with their surroundings. Using participant observation I collected actual accounts that I have observed and experienced. This technique highlighted the discrepancies between what people say they do (for instance as expressed in an interview), and what they really do (Burawoy 1998: 5). This helped me look into my data in two ways, and thus check my interpretation of what I have been told. In addition, due to the techniques’ character of obtaining information from within, I gained access to the

(18)

17 meanings that guide peoples’ behavior which showed several behavioral patterns (Hammersley and Atkinson 2003: 8). This aspect proved valuable when I learned about the influence of family life on actors norms and values. In addition, I gained insight to the ‘social capital’ of the organization which showed me the nature of interactions they have with other organizations and individuals in their surroundings. As I mentioned above, by becoming involved in the organization from within, I gained access and insight, albeit limited, to other organizations such as: The Bijlmerbajes, Lola Lik, and the World-House.

3.2.3. Informal Conversations

I conducted informal conversations with board members, volunteers: locals and newcomers with whom I came in contact during the fieldwork period. Newcomers were not the focus of my study, yet it became a natural development in the research process since we ended up being colleagues. I found informal conversations to be more suitable since it creates a more comfortable atmosphere for an open and honest conversation with the individuals I interacted with. The challenge is to recall the exact wording of the respondents later on when writing down the field notes.

3.3 Reflexivity / Ethics

Engaging in an ethnographic research requires a great deal of reflexivity from the researcher. As researchers we must keep ourselves aware of the influence we have on our surrounding, what we say, how we dress or how we move. On the one hand it can help in building rapport. At other times it might work the complete opposite, where respondents feel uncomfortable interacting with us. In addition, in this type of research it is important to be aware of time and space. Not only the general context of the research, but also the context of the conversations, interviews and observations (Hammersley and Atkinson 2003, Burawoy 1998).

Due to the type of research and the methods I utilized, my role during fieldwork was threefold. As a researcher, I engaged in participant observation where I joined in as part of the team, conducted interviews and kept a diary where I would write my notes at the end of the day. In my role as a volunteer: to acquire the experience from within and as a person interested in the activities of the organization. My role as a volunteer proved effective since I engaged in internal tasks, including: being present on location and act as a hostess ant the story-shop, join team meetings, brainstorm together with a team of Dutch and Syrian ladies working towards a project. In these occasions my basic knowledge of Arabic seemed to be accommodating in creating a casual sphere. Sometimes I could support the communication as also validated by one of the coordinators at Ondertussen. My

(19)

18 third role was a neighborhood resident, which means I am also a target group for the activities done by the organization. On an axis where ‘participant’ lies on one end and ‘observer’ lies on the other end, I position myself closer to the ‘Participant’ end. I experienced it as both enriching and limiting. Enriching, due to the in depth data I collected and the fact that it led me to come in contact with other locations and individuals. It was limiting, because I ended up having a rich bundle of data from one organization and a somewhat thinner amount of data from the other. In addition, I collected a lot more data than was needed within the scope of my study. This is valuable though in case I want to pursue further research.

3.4 Fieldwork

During fieldwork, I conducted two interviews with the members of Right2Education, one recorded group interview with three members and one introductory conversation. I also consulted their website for some general input. In the case of Ondertussen, I engaged in participant observation volunteering for the organization. In the course of doing fieldwork, I conducted interviews and informal conversations with nine members of the organization: the initiators, the coordinators, and the other volunteers who include both locals as well as newcomers. For privacy considerations, I either use pseudonyms or the roles of the members. I also participated in team meetings. Initially, I did not aim to interview newcomers since I focused on the organizations members as the primal target group for the research. In addition, I did not wish to pry in the personal situation of those individuals. Eventually, as a result of my volunteering work with Ondertussen I built a trusting relationship with the members and I have either, engaged in personal conversations with all of them or witnessed personal and honest conversations with others. Out of the nine interviews I have five recorded conversations and two non-recorded interviews. The non-recorded interviews included two to three speakers. As one of them mentioned: “I might change my opinion later on”. Of course I respected their preference and kept our conversations unrecorded. In addition to the interviews I kept a field note diary where I made notes of my observations and some of my conversations with the members of the team.

(20)

19

4 Findings

In this chapter I outline the results of my research. In sub-section 4.1 I introduce the organizations I selected. In section 4.2 I describe the findings that relate to the economic role of CSOs, in sub-section 4.3 I describe the social role CSOs play, finally, sub-section 4.4 is dedicated to the political role the CSOs play in the context of the “Refugee Crisis”.

4.1. Introduction to the CSOs Selected

The two cases I used for this study are Ondertusen Onderweg and Right2Education. In the following two sub-sections I provide a short description of their history, goals, and visions.

4.1.1 Ondertussen Onderweg

Ondertussen Onderweg, the Dutch phrase for “meanwhile on the way”, was initiated on February 2016. The board members of Ondertussen have a long history of working in the context of asylum seeking environment, some up to 35 years. The idea behind the name Ondertussen is derived from the members’ observations, that the residents of the AZC are trapped in limbo. Receiving their formal Residence Permit can take up to a year, and in that period they cannot work nor study. All they can officially do is wait. The lack of space to do something that feels productive, beneficial, or simply the idea of expressing oneself creatively led the board members to start the foundation. The group creates inter-spaces in the city of Amsterdam where newcomers have the opportunity to be part of society and foster a sense of empowerment. It is also a space that brings local city residents and newcomers in contact. In the words of Ondertussen’s board member:

I always try to build network organizations which are inclusive and in which everybody can take his own responsibility and feels ownership of what he is doing. I work a lot with stories, art, craft things because those things give space to communicate in a different way… It is already for 5-6 years that I stared with the idea of inter-spaces, that we should try and build new practices in hosting people who are still in the asylum procedure because now they are isolated from society which is a waste for both parties. It is a waste for the person involved, and the surrounding society. Being born means you have the right to be a part of society and you are a shared owner of public spaces, so people have to be able to work and share, be part of

(21)

20 society and this is a right. We should give form to that as .... citizens all

around (Ondertussen board member 2017, pers.comm., 7 April).

Ondertussen currently operates in two locations in Amsterdam: the first one is Ondertussen Onderweg in de Kweekschool, located on Plantage Middenlaan 27. The second is Ondertussen in de Spaarndammerbuurt, which is also referred to as the ‘story-shop’ (in Dutch: de verhalenwinkel) located on Knollendamstraat 7. Locals can come by the story-shop for a cup of coffee or tea, buy a birthday present from the art items in the shop (created by newcomers or people from the neighborhood). The latter location is where I volunteered and spent most of my field work period.

There are six board members in Ondertussen, among others the two individuals I interviewed. There are two coordinators and seven volunteers. The volunteers include myself and two other ladies who live in the neighborhood, and four newcomers all from Syrian origin. The members: Myself, Mira Sterk, Maria Hart, Munir Lail who lives around the corner, Ahmed Sadiq who recently received his permit, Abu-Ward, who lives in an AZC in Zaandam, and Rabee who is awaiting the authorities decision concerning his case. There are four paid positions in the project, filled by two board members and the two coordinators.

The goals of the foundation are:

The project Ondertussen in the Spaarndammerbuurt captures stories and makes art. In this way we create meetings between old and new residents, entrepreneurs and artists in the Spaarndammerbuurt. We especially welcome the future residents of the asylum seekers center in Amsterdam Houthaven (Ondertussen 2016, author’s free translation from Dutch).

Primarily, the organization aims at creating a bridge between the local community of the neighborhood and the new residents of the future AZC in Houthaven, which will launch in 2019. As stated in an e-mail from one of the board members: “The goal is to create inter-spaces where both the residents of the AZC and the environment (neighborhood/local community) benefit from it. The tools to reach this goals include: work, being independent and entrepreneurial and the actual physical space” (Authors’ translation from Dutch, E-mail Board Member to Olivia Rammel, May 1st 2017). This is supposed to be done by providing the inter-space, the location on Knollendamstraat 7-9, as a space where a newcomer and a local person can engage in an art, craft or any other entrepreneurial project together. The inter-space is meant as a useful facility both for the newcomer and the local.

Secondly, Ondertussen aims to minimize the gap between the older residents of the neighborhood and the new ones. The gap is often explained in terms of social class. Hence, a split

(22)

21 between the “natives”, often recognized as the less advantageous members of the community, and the new ones who are often seen as the middle-class young professionals with well paid jobs.

The nature of the work in the organization is principally by trial-and-error. As also explained by one of the members during our interview:

[…] and this is also Ondertussen, to do together [...] and we start with a theme because he is eager to do something, and then in his way, and depart from a shared theme, and we will see where it brings us. There is no must, it does not have to end up in a product eventually. Simply... something will come out eventually. The way the board member probably has sketched for you we do not go from point A to point B with a straight line, rather it is an ongoing process. We do it, trial-friendly (Ondertussen member 2017, pers.comm., 10 April).

The board members of the organization refer to their way of working as based on the ‘Buurman & Buurman concept (In English: Neighbor and Neighbor ). It is the animated series Pat & Mat (Pat & Mat 2017) created in Czech Republic in 1976. The main characters are two inventive handymen that find solutions to their endeavors by trying one thing or another until something succeeds. They are very clumsy though creative. The board members refer to the show as a concrete example for part of their vision: “what fascinates me always is that it’s about how they always do it together, they take each other seriously, they listen to each other and try to find out a solution together” (Ondertussen Board

Member, interview April 7th, 2017). Thus, two neighbors who use art, craft or any other project as a

tool to find solutions for their problems together. Above all, they handle each other with respect and with dignity.

An interesting feature of Ondertussen is the wish to become self-sustained and free from governmental or private subsidies. The board members see financial independence as a way towards experiencing ownership and self-empowerment. It means that the location is really owned by the participants who work and volunteer there. This is initially meant for the members who live in the AZC and are waiting for their permit. However, the idea of ownership is extended to any of the other members of the organization and the community.

It is worthwhile to note that the period I engaged with Ondertussen they were in the middle of a transitional phase. As of March 2016 there is a new coordinator to set up the project and revive the atmosphere in the story-shop. Finding Ondertussen in a transitional phase meant that the main activities involve starting weekly programming, finding volunteers who will keep the story-shop section open from 14:00 – 18:00, and other administrative organizational tasks.

(23)

22 Currently, AZC Houthaven is still in the planning phase, which means that there are not many newcomers who live in the neighborhood who use the facilities offered by Ondertussen. Yet members of the organization visit the AZC in Bijlmerbajes (South Amsterdam) to learn what are some of the actual needs of the AZC residents. As a result of the visits members of Ondertussen come in contact with newcomers and offer them the space in Spaarndammerbuurt as a place to create, work and engage with the local community.

4.1.2 Right2Education

Right2Education was initiated by two students from the Amsterdam University College (AUC). While one of the founders volunteered in Calais camp in 2015 she was driven to take action. As she mentioned during our introductory conversation: “I need to do something”! Coming back from the refugee camps, the two students got together and tried to think creatively of what they can do in the context of the refugee crisis, from a local perspective. Living in The Netherlands, and studying at the AUC, they came up with the idea of starting the foundation Right2Education, which provides Dutch lessons and events to newcomers who already received a Residence Permit.

My friend went to the Croatian-Serbian border in October 2015 and she was like, well what can we do, as an educational institution? From the very start she started a discussion with the faculty management and administration here. She started with the idea of providing Dutch lessons for the newly arrived refugees to the Netherlands. I wanted to be involved, we started with a team of five people who spent winter break in developing the initiative. We launched on January 2016 with 30 guest students (R2E Board Members 2017, pers.comm., 5 April).

R2E members referred to the unified character of their school to explain how their initiative evolved. They mentioned that the students at the AUC “have a lot of agency, students take a lot of initiative”. Out of all the University colleges in the Netherlands the AUC is the biggest one and it only comprises of 900 students. It is a special setting with great group cohesion and where ideas come together “we study CSOs and we can become one” (Pre-field notes, conversation with Right2Education member, 15 March 2017). The goal of the organization is clarified in the following quote:

Right2Education is an opportunity for refugees to access an education in which they are able to learn Dutch and English at various levels (A1, A2 and B1). In the environment of Amsterdam University College, they are no longer refugees but

(24)

23 guests, which is why we like to refer to them as guest students. As with any

education, we think it’s important to have a balance between the academics and social activities which is why we also organize social events such as potlucks, ice skating and movie nights (Right2Education 2017).

R2E aim at providing Dutch and English courses to newcomers and thereby also offer opportunities to come in contact with the AUC students. They use a buddy-system where students meet one on one and also join group events and activities. As a result, individuals bridge cultural gaps and get acquainted on an individual basis. Additionally, R2E recently started Arabic courses provided by the Syrian newcomers.

So far, we can see that the organizations selected for the study coincide with the definition of grassroots organizations: they are voluntary organizations, initiated by citizens of the city of Amsterdam, who were concerned with a social issue in the city. In this case, it is a social problem that is manifested worldwide, yet approached locally.

In the following three sub-sections I show how the organizations reflect the economic, social and political roles of civil society.

4.2 The Economic role

In this sub-section I attempt to answer the first sub-question of the research, namely: how do the CSOs I chose to investigate reflect a social role? I will do that by drawing on elements I mentioned in the theoretical framework. The elements include CSOs as a workplace and second, as service providers filling up a gap left by the state and the government.

4.2.1 Workplace

One example of the economic role is when the organization is providing paid positions to its members, as presented above in Desse’s writing when analyzing civil society organizations as a ‘third sector’ between the family and the state (2012). Out of the three organizations selected I can only determine with certainty that Ondertussen is officially providing paid positions. From my conversations with the members I learned that the organization allocated a certain amount of FTEs per week for the project. However, they work overtime and are dedicated to setting up the organization also outside of working hours and in weekends, which in a way makes them partially volunteers as well (Field notes April 19, 2017).

(25)

24 Currently, Ondertussen relies on subsidies from organizations such as: ‘Sociale Helden West’, ‘Stichting Doen’ and the ‘Post code Lotterij’. They specifically do not take subsidies from the ‘Amsterdamse Aanpak due to the fact that they would then have to adapt to the goals set by that approach. Ondertussen members have emphasized the need to become financially independent from subsidies. They see that as the next step in their development and efficiency and the progress of civil society organizations at large:

I think the more organizations as those (cultural organizations) become sustainable on their own; not only by their way of thinking and principles , their added value for society but also financially. With the quality they bring, they gain a different position so they can really develop (Ondertussen board member 2017, pers.comm., 7 April).

Many civil society organizations rely on funding and subsidies from the government. Ondertussen members view it as creating a dependency as well as limiting for social initiatives such as their organization. The project becomes limited in terms of time-span and dependency on the funding. The organization must show the results of its activities within an agreed time-span, whereas structural change takes time, and happens in an organic manner. The limitation in terms of funding is that once the money is gone, the project stops. Thus, it is a lot more sustainable to become self-sufficient in the long term. In the process of becoming self-sustained, and in line with their goal of providing individuals with a space where they can feel empowered, the organization is offering its space to individuals to use it for their own benefit. Initiatives for projects must correlate with the core values of the organization and be beneficial both for the local community and newcomers. People can use the space for workshops, art installations and expositions, or any other entrepreneurial initiative (Recorded Interview with Ondertussen board member, April 7th 2017 and field notes).

In this sense the organization provides workplace in two ways: first, by simply providing work to paid members as I mentioned above. Second by providing the actual space for newcomers or locals to use in their journey for financial independence, and while doing that, the organization as a group becomes independent from subsidies.

4.2.2 Service Providers

Another way in which the economic role emerges in the fieldwork is when the organizations operate as service providers to fill a gap where needs were not met by the private sector or the state (Desse 2012: 5, Salamon 2003, Edwards 2004: 13). In the context of the “Refugee Crisis” in the Netherlands

(26)

25 this kind of economic role is adjacent to the political role CSOs fulfil, since they are directly reacting to the national policy. However, I recognize the activities I outline in the following paragraphs under service delivery for two reasons. First, the organizations clearly see newcomers as part of the community, a sub-group in the Dutch society whose basic needs are being undercut. As one of the members mentioned: “Refugees don't exist, because when you take a journey crossing seas and borders you are searching for refuge, but the moment you are here you are part of society, simple”. The second reason is that their role as service providers stems from their critique towards the lack of service provision by the government and Centraal Orgaan Opvang Asielzoekers (COA), in English: Central Agency for the Reception of Asylum Seekers. COA is a quasi-autonomous governmental organization and falls under the political responsibility of the Secretary of State for Security and Justice (Mr. K.H.D.M. Dijkhoff). As an independent governing body, COA is performing a political assignment. Their tasks are laid down in the Central Organ Care asylum seekers Act (COA 2017). The concern that CSOs have in regards to the service provision by COA and the government is reflected in the following pre-fieldwork note I documented, as expressed by a former member of the Refugee Company:

She found it perplexing that the Dutch officials were not able to handle the issue of refugees. That their solutions for receiving refugees are so inhumane. That the places they get to live in are “kaal” (shabby) and not comfortable. The whole system seems to be stuck, like there is a tunnel vision of how “we handle refugees”, that is so backwards. How is it possible that these are the solutions? What is wrong with the system? Why is it such a problem to get things done? She mentioned that she spoke to people from the COA company who told her that they are trained in such a way that they make it such a horrible experience for refugees so they will be thinking: “I rather go back home than be treated this way”. She called it “pesten” the Dutch word for bullying (Pre-fieldwork field notes, former member of the Refugee Companyer 2016, pers.comm., 15 June).

Thus, in practice, COA executes national policy and when doing that, as expressed by the respondent, it is supposed to make the Netherlands look unattractive. In turn it ensures that a rumor spreads among potential immigrants that the Netherlands is not an attractive destination.

However, Ahmed, one of the volunteers at Ondertussen who applied for asylum had a mixed experience with COA and sums it up as follows:

My experience with COA employees was both friendly and formal. Some of the employees had a personal attitude towards us and friendly, having a normal

(27)

26 conversation. Other employees kept it formal, some did not even look at us!

(Ahmed Sadiq 2017, pers.comm., 30 April).

In addition to his experience with the COA employees he shared more information about living in the AZC:

The time in the camp in Zaandam was not easy. There were a lot of young guys there from different places, so occasionally there were fights. For instance between Iranian and Arabs. This is a sensitive issue because the Iranian government supports the Assad regime. There was tension but no hate […] the food was horrible, we did not get any money, and for some of the young guys that was difficult. For me I had a little bit of money with me. There was a lot of waiting for paper work. But COA did not make any changes about the issues above, I did talk to the employees but they could not do anything about it, it is the COA policy from above (Ahmed Sadiq 2017, pers.comm., 1 May).

The above quotes show the views of the two individuals I interviewed. One was active in a CSO addressing the “Refugee Crisis”, the other is a person who actually lived in the AZC. Their description of COA do not sound far off from one another. The common thread is that the facilities and services provided by COA were lacking. This explains the drive of some of the active CSOs in Amsterdam to address these specific issues and provide improved services.

Another way the governmental services are lacking, stems from the asylum seeking policy. Currently, newcomers in the process of requesting asylum in the Netherlands cannot work without a work permit. A work permit is granted only if the procedure of requesting Residence Permit has already passed six months1 (Rijksoverheid 2017). All individuals I spoke to during pre-fieldwork as well as fieldwork mentioned the challenges this policy holds. Individuals end up having to wait for months and months, having no option of working and coming in contact with locals. In a way they end up being excluded from society and run the risk of becoming frustrated and sometimes even enter a depression period. The following quote, taken from pre-fieldwork period shows this conclusion as mentioned by the same former member of the Refugee Company:

The point is that instead of having them sitting in the ‘waiting room’ waiting to receive a status in the Netherlands, instead of that they can make use of their

1

“An asylum seeker may work in the Netherlands for 24 weeks a year. Asylum seekers who act as an artist may work for 14 weeks a year. Working can only be done with a work permit (TWV).” …“A TWV is a document that shows that an asylum seeker may work. The

Employment Office (UWV) provides the TWV to the employer of the asylum seeker. This happens if an asylum application is in progress for at least 6 months. The first half of the year, therefore, an asylum seeker cannot work. The UWV also checks whether the employer pays enough wages. An asylum seeker is entitled to the same salary as the Dutch” (Rijksoverheid 2017)

(28)

27 skills. They retain their dignity and they don’t fall into possible depressions etc.

which is also good for the Dutch society / economy. Instead of only investing money in refugees, it is possible to discover their talents and skills and help them get to work. Most of this is done informally and the foundation found a way to define the activities of the refugees as ‘art’ and the time they spend in the atelier as a ‘daytime activities’ (Pre-fieldwork notes, June 15 2016).

In this context, I find that Ondertussen taps into the service provision element of the economic role by aiming at creating, what they call “new practices”. Their service in this sense is the space they provide for locals and newcomers to work together as well as invest in their self-development. They explain their vision as creating new practices in society that will be beneficial in the near future. It will be beneficial in times of a much bigger “immigration crisis will take place, due to climate change” for example (Recorded Interview with Ondertussen board member, April 7th 2017).

The view of Ondertussen members regarding developing new practices is better explained in their own words:

… I think Inter-spaces is... what we are trying to do with Ondertussen, is learning, building a different practice, which we are going to need in the end. We will need it as cities, because more and more people will be here, even temporarily. So how do you adapt to a system which is not... fixed, but moving. This world is going to move more than it has in the last 50 or 100 years. So how do you, how do you then build your cities to be able to adapt to that movement, and same is, how do we organize ourselves? And the same issue on how do we work together? How do we communicate? How do we do it economically, in money, but also in changing balance, it is changing value. So those things are all connected: space, economic, social, and on all those levels they have to become more anti-fragile, more agile (Ondertussen Board Member 2017, pers.comm., 7 April).

In sum, the way they put it, Ondertussen creates an alternative way of working and communicating in society at large, and in times of a migration crisis in particular. In their view societies need to adapt to a new way of interaction; at work, in the neighborhood, in the city, or at any other social space.

Right2Education fulfils an economic role in a different sense. They carry a model of course work combined with cultural exchange. All the members of R2E are involved voluntarily and they combine providing Dutch lessons with a buddy system which creates a dual cultural exchange. One of the members of the organization describes the following on their website:

(29)

28 I think Right2Education has a really positive, hands-on outlook on the refugee

‘crisis’. In the past six months, this organization, with help from both student and official AUC teachers, has taught Dutch to over a hundred students, at levels ranging from A1 to B1.1. Through the buddy system and the events we organized, the students became really part of the AUC student body, which I think makes this project unique (Right2Education 2017).

By providing Dutch lessons to newcomers the R2E team provides a service to newcomers where they receive Dutch classes for free and simultaneously become part of the AUC community.

Summarizing the economic role of civil society organizations in the European “Refugee Crisis”, based on the data I collected to date and presented above, the two aspects of the economic role mentioned in the theoretical framework are also reflected in practice. CSOs do provide a workplace to newcomers and locals. However, this element proved to be less dominant. CSOs can be seen as service providers mainly: social and cultural. The organizations provide services in the normative sense of the definition as I outlined above. However, their services are clearly intertwined with aspects that are expressed in a political sense, mainly the idea that newcomers are part of society and have the right to practice and be active citizens. I will elaborate on that in section 4.4. First, I turn to the social role CSOs fulfil in the context of the European “Refugee Crisis”.

4.3 The Social Role

In the following paragraphs I attempt to answer the second sub question: How these specific CSOs reflect the social role? I will do that by referring to the three aspects of social capital: bonding, bridging, and linking. By initiating and maintaining connections within groups and across organizations and sectors, associations can form strong networks and alliances that will allow them to achieve social change. These connections also promote norms and values such as: cooperation, trust, tolerance and non-violence. In addition to CSOs promoting norms and values, other institutions do so, in particular family life (Salamon 2003; Edwards 2004, 2011; Putnam 1993: 90; ). The sub-section ends with a space for a discussion about the findings from fieldwork.

4.3.1 Internal Function of the Social Role

The individuals who volunteer and work in Ondertussen generally share a cooperative attitude to one another. Overall, the impression is that everyone is there to build something together. While active

The role of civil society in the EU "refugee crisis'