10869220
Master’s Thesis Project in Urban Geography Advisor: Dr. Fenne Pinkster
Second Reader: Dr. Inge van der Welle University of Amsterdam
Abstract
This study aims to explore how feelings of belonging to Dutch society are connected to
processes of ethnic segregation amongst Moroccan and Turkish Dutch communities. Research is carried out in Amsterdam, specifically within the district of Nieuw West. Nieuw West boasts a large population of Moroccan and Turkish Dutch with disproportionate scatterings of white Dutch populations. Results indicate that Moroccan and Turkish Dutch living in Amsterdam Nieuw West experience a weak sense of belonging to the Netherlands but a strong sense of belonging to their neighborhood. This is in part due to occurrences of discrimination, leading these two minority populations to congregate in safe spaces where others share similar identities. In this way, the neighborhood acts as a buffer against experiences of discrimination while
simultaneously cultivating areas of inclusion and acceptance. This process influences the
configuration of the ethnically segregated neighborhood of Amsterdam Nieuw West. Notions of identity, discrimination, and scale play a large role in these findings.
Acknowledgments
My respondents deserve much of the credit for this study. They were so generous with their time and trust. The faith they put in me to adequately share their stories and experiences is truly humbling, and I cannot thank them enough for their contributions to this research. I would like to extend immense gratitude to my advisor, Dr. Fenne Pinkster. She guided me through this arduous research process, and I would not have a complete document without her thoughts, feedback, and encouragement. I would also like to thank Dr. Jeroen van der Veer, my internship advisor. He taught me much about the process of professional research, contributing his expert knowledge and valuable advice. I also include a special thank you to my wonderful friend, Asia King. Her unique insight and unmatched intelligence led me through the deeply critical analysis used in this study. Finally, I would like to thank my family: my mother, Gail Alcalay, and my father, Mark Goldstein, as well as my siblings, Rena Goldstein, Ruben Goldstein, and Silvi Goldstein. They never gave up on me, always believing I could accomplish whatever I set my mind to. I would be nowhere without their unwavering love and support.
Table of Contents
Chapter 1. Introduction 7
Chapter 2. Literature Review and Theoretical Framework 9
2.1 Introduction 9
2.2 Place Belongingness and the Politics of Belonging 10
2.3 Citizenship 11
2.4 Social Position and Identity 11
2.5 Race and Ethnicity 14
2.6 Geographies of Exclusion 17
Chapter 3. Methodology 19
3.1 Research Question and Sub Questions 19
3.2 Conceptual Model 20 3.3 Operationalization 22 3.3.1 Identity 22 3.3.2 Discrimination 23 3.3.3 Scale 23 3.4 Research Design 24 3.5 Research Population 25 3.6 Case Study 26
3.7 Data Collection and Sampling 30
3.8 Limitations, Positionality, and Reflection 33
3.9 Ethical Aspects 35
Chapter 4. Findings and Analysis 36
4.1 Introduction 36
4.2 Identity: “I see myself not like the Dutch people but also not the Moroccan people. I am just who I am” (Ahmed, 35-year-old man) 36
4.3 Difference: “If you keep the Dutch part away, you're really different” (Nadia, 16-year-old girl) 38
4.4 National Belonging: “People don't see you like a Dutch person...And when I go to
Morocco, it's the other way [around]” (Rachid, 20-year-old man) 41
4.5 Discrimination: “I'm also human. Why? Why would I have a bomb under my kandora?” (Nabil, 16-year-old boy) 43
4.6 Neighborhood Belonging: “I think the bond to your city is bigger than the bond to your country” (Kenza, mid-twenties woman) 49
4.7 Ethnic Segregation: “The first thing we would do is come together again and live together, like in the same neighborhood to get that feeling again” (Kenza, mid-twenties woman) 51
4.8 Summary 55
4.9 Return to the Research Sub Questions 56
4.9.1 Identity 56
4.9.2 Discrimination 57
4.9.3 Scale 58
Chapter 5. Conclusion 59
5.1 Answering the Research Question 59
5.2 Addition to Existing Literature 60
5.3 Future Recommendations 61
5.4 Limitations and Reflection 62
References 63
Appendices 68
Appendix 1 Interview Guide 68
Appendix 2 Letters of Endorsement 74
List of Figures
Figure 1 Conceptual Model 21
Figure 2 Concentration of Moroccans and Dutch with Moroccan Backgrounds Residing in
Amsterdam, 2016 27
Figure 3 Concentration of Turks and Dutch with Turkish Backgrounds Residing in
Amsterdam, 2016 28
Figure 4 Concentration of Dutch Residing in Amsterdam, 2016 29 Figure 5 The Netherlands Parliamentary Election 2017 – results per polling station in
Amsterdam 30
Figure 6 Revised Conceptual Model 61
List of Tables
Table 1 Operationalization Table 24
Chapter 1. Introduction
Who belongs where? What are the impacts of not belonging? How and why does someone ultimately belong in a specific space?
These questions help problematize the concept of belonging. Conversations on nationalism and immigration currently abound in Europe (Pazzanese 2017). What nationalities, ethnicities, and races belong where is a fiercely debated topic in Europe, specifically in the Netherlands (Essed &Trienekens 2008). This establishes the relevancy and importance of research on the politics of belonging.
In the Dutch language, sense of belonging is often translated to ‘feeling at home.’ In order to understand the concept of belonging within a Dutch context, it is important to recognize how people at meant to feel at home. Home does not necessarily need to refer to an actual dwelling where someone resides. Instead, home incorporates feelings of safety, confidence, familiarity, or contentment (hooks 2009) at varying scales (Antonsich 2010). Belonging, then, may occur across multiple scales, making the concept, and this research in particular, inherently geographic (Mee & Write 2009).
Feelings of belonging are deeply intertwined with identity (Dixon & Durrheim 2000). This study centers the experiences of Moroccan and Turkish Dutch living in Amsterdam, as they are in a unique position. Some are born in Morocco or Turkey and move to the Netherlands at a young age. Others are born in the Netherlands, and their parents are born abroad. Either way, they wrestle with multiple identities, deciding which identity to incorporate in which spaces. To feel in place or to belong in one space may require the prioritization of one identity over another. This negotiation of identity is heavily racialized. Moroccan and Turkish Dutch need to decide when and how to perform their white, Dutch identity and when to perform their Moroccan or Turkish identity and present themselves as a person of color. This study aims to use a racial paradigm in order to better understand how belonging is racailized within a Dutch context. A racial paradigm leaves room for discussion on personal and institutional discrimination,
specifically processes of racism. Discrimination and racism can have a deep affect on feelings of belonging.
This research is being carried out in Amsterdam, specifically within the district of Amsterdam Nieuw West. This district boasts a large contingent of Moroccan and Turkish Dutch, while at the same time a small proportion of white Dutch1
. Highlighting this neighborhood and its residents allows for the incorporation of ethnic segregation into discussions on belonging.
1
In this paper, I seek to understand the connection between ethnic segregation and experiences of belonging to Dutch society amongst Amsterdam’s Moroccan and Turkish Dutch communities living in Nieuw West. I will begin by introducing the pertinent academic literature in Chapter Two on the topics of place belongingness and the politics of belonging, citizenship, identity, race and ethnicity, and geographies of exclusion. Incorporated into this chapter is the relevant
theoretical framework that will guide the analysis of my findings. I will then describe the methodology used to conduct this research in Chapter Three. Here I will detail the research question and sub questions, introduce the conceptual model, and discuss how I operationalized the concepts of identity, discrimination, and scale. I will also include the research design and explain the research population, case study, and the data collection and sampling methods. Lastly, I will describe the limitations associated with the methodology, as well as reflect on my own positionality as a researcher. Chapter Four will present the findings and analysis of this study. They are presented in six different sections on identity, difference, national belonging, discrimination, neighborhood belonging, and ethnic segregation. The end of this chapter will provide a brief summary of the findings and answer the research sub questions. Finally, Chapter Five describes the conclusions of the research by answering the main research question and presenting the contribution being made to the existing literature in the field. I will provide future recommendations for further research, as well as detail the overall limitations of the entire study and reflecting on my part in the research process.
Chapter 2. Literature Review and Theoretical Framework 2.1 Introduction
Sense of belonging is a multifaceted concept that may morph its applicability to fit numerous social science disciplines. It is discussed in fields such as sociology, anthropology, political science, history, linguistics, communication, psychology, and geography (Antonsich 2010). Sense of belonging is most often referred to alongside notions of citizenship and identity and is frequently, and perhaps incorrectly, conflated with national or ethnic identity (Antonsich 2010). As this thesis research is conducted within the discipline of geography, the scope of the literature review and theoretical framework includes a critical examination of the geographies of
belonging. This term, and its inherently geographical connotation, is broad and far reaching. It may involve the sense of belonging of any particular identity group to a space or place at any scale of analysis, be it the home, neighborhood, city, region, nation, onward (Mee & Write 2009). This study specifically focuses on the scale of the neighborhood and the nation.
Sense of belonging may be grouped into two analytical frames of reference: place belongingness and the politics of place (Antonsich 2010; Yuval-Davis 2006). Place belongingness involves emotional and intimate feelings of attachment, often referencing ideas of home and what it means to feel at home. Politics of belonging involves larger systems of inclusion and exclusion and the processes used to construct, shape, and continue more formal modes of societal
membership (Antonsich 2010). The politics of belonging is the primary conceptual framework for this research, as an analysis of larger systems of inclusion and exclusion is useful in
discussions on power, privilege, and oppression. As this research focuses on race and ethnicity and its role in Dutch society as it relates to segregation and belonging, the politics of belonging offers a blue print for understanding such institutionalized systems of oppression and regimes of power. All are interconnected, and therefore necessary to address within a discussion on race and ethnicity. In the following sections, place belongingness will first be briefly described, with a longer discussion of the politics of belonging following thereafter. Next, themes of citizenship and boundary making will be considered in relation to the politics of belonging. Thoughts on social positioning within society will be generally reflected upon, and a more specific discussion on race and ethnicity will follow. Lastly, the geographies of exclusion will connect ethnic segregation to sense of belonging, establishing a solid foundation for the purpose and goal of this study.
2.2 Place Belongingness and the Politics of Belonging
Place belongingness involves feeling at home in a specific place (Antonsich 2010; Yuval-Davis 2006). Home in this context does not necessarily correspond to an actual house or dwelling but, instead, may include any place or environment where one experiences feelings of safety,
security, familiarity, or comfortability (hooks 2009) at various scale of analysis (Antonsich 2010). Place belongingness may be tightly connected to place attachment, feelings of
rootedness, and place identity. Constructions of the self and identity formation are thought to be closely linked to place belongingness as well (Antonsich 2010; Dixon & Durrheim 2000; hooks 2009). Experiencing place belongingness emphasizes personal emotions and feelings (Antonsich 2010), although larger notions of social inclusion and exclusion within society do play a role in informing such thoughts. This then involves the politics of belonging and illustrates ways in which the two concepts may complement and reinforce one another. Without place
belongingness, feelings of “loneliness, isolation, alienation, and displacement” may occur (Antonsich 2010). These feelings may, for example, be a product of social exclusion, in which case the politics of belonging helps to inform place belongingness (Antonsich 2010). Belonging may be defined as a “desire for becoming other” (Probyn 1996) or as “an act of self-identification or self-identification by others” (Yuval-Davis 2006). It is a socially constructed and fluid (Antonsich 2010; Mee & Write 2009; Yuval-Daivs 2006), always shifting and being shaped by political, economic, and social dynamics. This makes it extremely difficult for an individual or a group who posses difference in some way to truly reach and establish belonging in a “post-colonial world” (Probyn 1996). Belonging can grow, retreat, or shift over time depending upon the connection felt to a specific social group, location, or society.
As referenced previously, the two concepts of place belongingness and the politics of belonging are not mutually exclusive. If place belongingness is absent, there may be socio-spatial
exclusion at work, which may be conceptually understood through the politics of belonging framework. Specifically, if one is experiencing feelings of loneliness or alienation, it may be explained by or understood as a result of larger processes of exclusion, such as segregation, nationalism, or marginalization (Antonsich 2010).
However, this does not necessarily need to be the case. There may be discrimination on a national scale, while the city then becomes a refuge of safety and inclusion positively affecting sense of belonging (Slootman & Duyvendak 2015). Individuals are able to experience belonging at many different scales (Antonsich 2010; Mee & Write 2009), and often belonging, or the lack of belonging, at one scale influences belonging, or the lack of belonging, at another scale (Fenster 2005). In this way, scale becomes an important component of this research.
The politics of belonging is not only fluid in scale but must be performed in relation to others as well. Probyn goes as far to state that, “Belonging cannot be an isolated and individual affair”
(1996). It is an experience reliant on a group of people. It is here where belonging can merge with identity politics, as belonging to a place can often mean belonging to a community, religion, race or ethnicity, or additional grouping of people (Antonsich 2010). Membership to a group, alongside a sense of control or right to a place, makes up the foundation of the politics of belonging (Crowley 1999), and the presence and importance of place, as well as scale, within this concept highlights its intrinsically geographical nature (Mee & Write 2009; Trudeau 2006).
2.3 Citizenship
Citizenship makes up a substantial portion of literature on the politics of belonging with regards to race and ethnicity. Antonsich argues there are two sides to the politics of belonging: those who claim belonging for themself and those who have the power to grant it to others (2010). This is most often represented in the form of citizenship, thus influencing the mistaken
conflation of citizenship with politics of belonging (Antonsich 2010; Yuval-Davis 2006). Those able to claim belonging, often represented through the right to live and work in a given city or nation, do so through processes of citizenship or residence permits (Antonsich 2010). However, this concept becomes more complicated when those retaining such documentation still do not experience a sense of belonging (Yuval-Davis 2006). It is then also important to reconceptualize understandings of citizenship, and, indeed, many feminist and anti-racist scholars have done so (Yuval-Davis 2006).
2.4 Social Position and Identity
Analyzing the politics of belonging using social position and identity as a framework provides a more critical, nuanced understanding of the concept. Social position relates to demographic or social groupings, such as gender, race, class, religion, or nationality, and the subsequent power relations correlated with each (Yuval-Davis 2006). These categories are constructed based off of difference, helping to establish a dominant and subservient group within each category (Gregory 2009). These social categories may also be described as one’s positionality within society. Different social categories may have different dimensions of power depending on the social, political, economic, and historical context (Yuval-Davis 2006). It is important to note that an individual is not solely a part of one social group but, instead, contains multiple intersecting identities (Carbado 2013 et.al.; Yuval-Davis 2006)
Intersectionality, a theory and methodology established from critical race theorists and black feminists (Carbado et.al. 2013), describes the crossroads an individual experiences between different identities (Price 2010; Valentine 2007). It acknowledges the ways in which race interacts with other forms of identity to produce multiple webs of discrimination and privilege.
Race is a main tenant of intersectionality, however, it may be replaced with any specific identity (Carbado et.al. 2013). This provides a space to examine the interrelation and connection of intersecting identities while simultaneously rejecting the notion that race, class, gender, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, ability, etc. are separate identity categories.
Intersectionality conveys the idea that one individual contains many different identities, and each identity changes and shapes how that person experiences exploitation, oppression, privilege, or discrimination.
Yuval-Davis outlines three points of intersectionality that are appropriate for and relevant to this study (2006). It is first important to note that identity is formed along “multiple axes of
difference,” helping to shape a social position contingent upon the crossroads of identity markers (Yuval-Davis 2006), and not solely on what one individual may strongly identify as. For
example, it is possible to identify strongly with only one social grouping, as a Muslim or as a woman, but this does not preclude membership to additional social groups for which one might be a part. The second point emphasizes the ability of any one identity to be informed by another (Yuval-Davis 2006). For example, not all disabled individuals experience life in the same way; A disabled woman experiences society differently than a disabled man, just as a disabled, working class individual experiences society differently than a disabled, upper class individual. Finally, Yuval’s third point of note is perhaps more controversial. It describes the possibility that one identity over another may be of more importance depending on the historical and social context (Yuval-Davis 2006). For example, for this study’s purposes, race, ethnicity, and religion are of critical importance, while sexual orientation or marital status are not. This may lead, however, to the potential devaluation of certain identities and contribute to a hierarchical understanding of identity and oppression (Valentine 2007).
It is important to understand intersectionality to fully grasp the connection between race and the politics of belonging. As stated previously, belonging to a place may often mean belonging to a community, religion, race or ethnicity, or additional grouping of people (Antonsich 2010). Acknowledging the intersection of different identities and how they shapes social positioning then helps to deconstruct more complex and nuanced processes of inclusion and exclusion throughout society. For example, a young, Moroccan, Muslim woman may feel a sense of belonging to her mosque or to a predominantly Moroccan neighborhood in which she grew up. These may be spaces of inclusion. She may not feel the same sense of belonging in a Catholic church down the road or in the predominantly white, Dutch neighborhood adjacent to her own. These may be spaces of exclusion where informal boundaries are established. In this way, her multiple identities, religion, race, and ethnicity in this case, intersect to inform processes of inclusion and exclusion, develop boundaries, and shape a sense of belonging.
The politics of belonging is heavily intertwined with boundary making (Crowley 1999; Mee & Write 2009). The broad definition of belonging consists of the dichotomous idea that those
within the boundary belong, and those outside do not; an us versus them mentality (Crowley 1999). What, then, does an individual, social group, or community need in order to belong to a host society? Social group, identity affiliation, ethics and morals, or social, economic, or political values are often determinants (Yuval-Davis 2006). If social grouping is a determinant of sense of belonging, belonging becomes much more difficult to achieve for those outside that specific grouping. This is because a social group based on race or gender cannot necessarily be easily altered (Yuval-Davis 2006). If identity affiliation, such as religion, language, or culture, is a determinant of belonging, it becomes more attainable through processes of assimilation and integration (Yuval-Davis 2006). Belonging becomes attainable if the determinants consist of broad value sets such as civil rights, equality, or freedom of speech (Yuval-Davis 2006). Boundaries created through race and ethnicity are of particular importance to this study. The state and systems of governance can play a role in intensifying these boundaries. They have a large influence over who legally belongs in a country and who does not, while also being involved in classification systems of identity through their census and statistics departments. Racial and ethnic boundaries can be perpetuated by the state through heavily racialized demographic classifications of allochtoon and autochtoon. The autochtoon label identifies traditional, white Dutch individuals, requiring both parents to have been born in the Netherlands. The allochtoon label describes all non-Dutch individuals if one or both parents are born outside of the Netherlands, whether or not they themselves were born in the country. Although the term allochtoon technically includes all non-Dutch and, in the case just described, some Dutch individuals as well, it is most often used politically in reference to nonwhite, non-westerners (Koning 2016). The groups most frequently categorized as allochtoon include those born in, or whose parents are born in, Morocco, Turkey, Suriname, and the Antilles, as well as places in Africa, Asia, South America, and Eastern Europe (Essed &Trienekens 2008; Koning 2016). This institutionalized boundary making can form racialized divisions that are then normalized through government approval (Essed &Trienekens 2008). Although the Dutch government allegedly stopped this classification system in November 2016, it still appears in the Amsterdam in Cijfers 2016: Onderzoek, Informatie en Statistiek. This is a 550 page book on reach,
information, and statistics of the city of Amsterdam created by the municipality of Amsterdam (Hylkema et.al. 2016). However, a concept such as allochtoon and autochtoon that has been socialized for decades will not end with a government approved shift in wording (Essed &Trienekens 2008). The socialization of such a division, where autochoon is ‘normal’ and allochtoon is other (Koning 2016), becomes ingrained as a mode of classification and separation. Allochtoon as other or outsider helps facilitate processes of assimilation. The label is often used derogatorily and thus obtains a stigmatized connotation (Essed &Trienekens 2008). The
autochtoon label is valued more in the Netherlands, but may only be obtained through genealogy (Essed &Trienekens 2008). This makes it almost impossible to acquire, so Moroccan and
Turkish Dutch individuals may only hope to pass as white Dutch through assimilation tactics (Essed &Trienekens 2008). This study seeks to understand if prioritizing Dutch culture while
simultaneously devaluing and dismissing nonwhite, nonwestern culture may heavily affect Moroccan and Turkish sense of belonging to Dutch society, as it is the continuation of an institutionalized processes of othering.
The relationship between inclusion and exclusion and the politics of belonging can be
understood through an examination of societal norms and values. To fully understand identity and the formation of identity, it is necessary to take into account how and why certain identities are valued (Yuval-Davis 2006), specifically in Dutch society.
2.5 Race and Ethnicity
The two social categories emphasized in this study are race and ethnicity. Both concepts are socially constructed by society, meaning they are not biologically imposed. The effects of such a classification, however, have very real consequences in reality (Gregory et.al. 2009). Ethnicity and race are two distinct but interrelated concepts. Ethnicity was first used in the 1940’s as a substitute for the word ‘race,’ which carried an association with World War II and the Holocaust at the time (Gregory et.al. 2009). Currently, however, ethnicity is described as the way people, or groups of people, “define their personal identity” (Gregory et.al. 2009). There is agency involved, allowing individuals the power to choose how they wish to identify. Race, in contrast to ethnicity, is an “imposed category” used by the dominant group to classify and categorize others (Gregory et.al. 2009). Race can shift into ethnicity when the group in question establishes community and gains a social awareness of themselves. In this way, “Racialization therefore facilitates the development of ethnic consciousness, which may be harnessed by minorities in their struggle against discrimination” (Gregory et.al. 2009). Race and ethnicity can thus be connected but can also stand solitary of each other.
Race is often not discussed politically or socially in Dutch society, with the majority of people preferring to use the term ethnicity to differentiate between races. The Dutch government reflects this position by knowingly avoiding race in public policy and in general public discourse (Alghasi, et.al. 2009). It is a typical trend amongst many Dutch individuals to present
themselves as colorblind, a euphemism meaning race “should not be taken into account when decisions are made, impressions are formed, and behaviors are enacted” (Apfelbaum et.al. 2012). This can be heavily problematic, as race is most certainly noticeable by humans (Bar-Haim et.al. 2006; Ito & Urland 2003). A study on the human brain’s response rate to race and gender, by Ito and Urland, concluded that race is observable in less than one-seventh of a second (2003). A study looking at six-month-old babies and their acknowledgement of race, by Bar-Haim, Ziv, Lamy, and Hodes, concluded that race is recognizable from six months of age onward (2006). The practice of colorblindness combined with the sheer blatant visibility of race establishes an awkward contradiction, fueling tension and sensitivity surrounding race as a concept (Apfelbaum et.al. 2012), particularly in a European context.
Performing colorblindness can come from a desire to avoid prejudice or bias but often has the reverse effect (Apfelbaum et.al. 2012). Overlooking racial differences may minimize and silence past and present experiences of racial inequality, while simultaneously hindering the
development of rhetoric used to discuss personal and institutional narratives of discrimination. According to Apfelbaum (2012), an ethos of colorblindness “may actually perpetuate existing racial inequality.” It can also fuel intuitional forms of discrimination (Andersen 2001). Ignoring race does not eliminate racial disparities.
For the purposes of this study, using a racial paradigm instead of an ethnic paradigm allows for the inclusion of critical race theory (CRT). CRT developed in the American legal field in the 1980s (Harris 2015). It provided scholars a platform to deconstruct the relationship between race, law, and society, while challenging racial power structures imbedded in American society (Crenshaw 1995). The predominant themes include: an emphasis and prioritization of
marginalized voices, highlighting their experiential and situated knowledge; a skepticism of social, political, and economic systems, specifically the function of government and policy, that often work to the disadvantage of marginalized groups; the integration of theories and discursive knowledge across disciplines to create a holistic understanding of race relations; rejection of a black/white binary through the inclusion of all people of color and their respective experiences of subordination and oppression; the inclusion of intersectioanlity to understand how multiple forms of identity may work together to create complex intersections of oppression; (Chaney & Robertson 2013; Harris 2015).
This study will argue that Dutch discourse is missing the racial rhetoric to fully discuss and understand racialized narratives. CRT is then important in helping bridge the gap between experiential and situated knowledge of race in the Netherlands and the discourse used to analyze it. It provides context to explore concepts such as white supremacy and white privilege, where “white supremacy refers to the racialized system and opportunity structure that endows white people with material and psychological benefits,” (Malsbary 2014). It also provides context to explore the racailzied effects of colonialism and imperialism and the racialized effects of capitalism. These concepts are not exclusive to the United States. CRT is gaining momentum internationally and is being incorporated into conversations on international human rights, international foreign policy, and international trade (Alghasi, et.al. 2009; Harris 2015). This study hopes to bring this movement one step further to include CRT outside of the United States and on a local, city-wide or neighborhood level. Using a racial paradigm instead of an ethnic paradigm as an analytical tool allows for the inclusion of the aforementioned concepts to deconstruct and analyze segregation and sense of belonging, providing a new dimension to thoughts on inequality.
Race within the Dutch context, however, is heavily debated amongst scholars (Siebers 2017). Hans Siebers (2017) presents arguments critiquing the use of critical race literature as it applies to the Netherlands. He argues that race and critical race literature in the Netherlands is
decontextualized, universalized, impractical, and holds no empirical bases in reality (Siebers 2017).
While race relations and histories in the Netherlands differ to that of America, there are similarities stemming from analogous histories of imperialism. The Dutch colonization of southeastern Asia, the northeastern coasts of South America, and small parts of Africa and subsequent participation in the slave trade began the influence, prioritization, and hierarchy of race relations (Essed & Hoving 2014). That deeply ingrained bias has held throughout the centuries and is currently present through national representations of people of color. This is illustrated through the case of Black Pete (Coenders & Chauvin 2017) and the policing and criminalization of colored bodies, such as Moroccan youth (Koning 2015). It can also be viewed in every day use of pejorative terms, such as the frequent use of the ‘N’ word. Example includes a headline from 2015 in the prominent, respectable newspaper, NRC (Dzodan 2017; Valk 2015) and the causal use of the well known Negerzoenen or ‘Negro Kiss’ cookie, despite the word’s subsequent banning in 2005 (Alghasi, et.al. 2009).
These examples are forms of racial discrimination, also known as racism. Two main forms of racial discrimination are discussed in this study: personal discrimination and institutional discrimination. Personal discrimination is discrimination on the scale of the individual. It is often covert and may involve derogatory remarks, street harassment, or hate crimes. Institutional discrimination “refers to social and structural policies that limit access to services, property, and opportunities” (Saleem & Lambert 2016) and can occur even without an instance of personal discrimination (Andersen 2001). It is discrimination that is built into the structure of a society and may be present at the scale of the city, region, nation, or globe. Racism is fluid. It changes throughout time and is based on historical conditions and current contexts (Knox & Pinch 2010). The aforementioned, explicit examples of discrimination within the Netherlands demonstrate the presence of race and racism, white privilege and white supremacy. Such examples need to be understood in a context of white normativity, where “whiteness defines the normal or accepted range of conduct and characteristics, and all other racial categories are contrasted with whiteness as deviations form the norm” (Morris 2016). White normativity can be a form of white privilege (Kendall 2006) and can manifest in a variety of ways. Examples may include small, everyday instances of Band-Aids matching white skin but never dark skin, or large, systemic instances of racial profiling where darker bodies, specifically Dutch Moroccan youth in the Netherlands, are synonymous with troublesome and problematic (Koning 2016). In this way, people of color are continuously othered, where ‘other’ constitutes those who are different from the dominant group, often including representations of abjection (Sibley 1995).
Processes of othering include formations of boundaries and borders to order society and maintain privilege for those whom have historically held it (Sibley 1995). The specific privilege relevant to this study being white privilege. As mentioned early, boundary making is heavily intertwined
with the politics of belonging. For this research, borders and boundaries may be taken quite literally in the discussion of ethnic segregation, as well as abstractly in the discussion of sense of belonging with regards to race. Processes of racialized and classed othering and boundary making inform geographies of exclusion (Sibley 1995).
2.6 Geographies of Exclusion
To reiterate, the politics of belonging involve larger systems of inclusion and exclusion, and these can be spatialized through the geographies of exclusion (Mee & Write 2009; Trudeau 2006). Geographies of exclusion represent how othering is practiced in particular spaces. It is “the literal mappings of power relations and rejection” (Sibley 1995). This may be represented in a variety of ways, including ethnic segregation.
Segregation is the spatial separation of two or more groups (Gregory 2009). Ethnic segregation is the uneven distribution of minority groups across a neighborhood, city, region, or country (Knox & Pinch 2010). It often has a negative connotation, as it is associated with discriminatory practices and unequal access to resources (Gregory 2009). However, the spatial integration of minority groups via mixed neighborhoods does not necessarily raise quality of life (Musterd 2003). Ethnic segregation can have positive effects (Peach 1996), such as social cohesion or identity preservation (Knox & Pinch 2010). The phenomenon must be contextualized and not blanketed with a uniform outcome. Context specific segregation must also not slip into a binary of either good or bad. There can be negative effects existing alongside positive effects (Peach 1996).
Ethnic segregation as a spatial process “works to enforce and consolidate difference” (Gregory 2009). Segregation may manifest from a variety of interrelated causes. Institutional
mechanisms, such as government policy or the housing market, may interact processes of self-segregation to influence the formation of ethnic self-segregation (Knox & Pinch 2010) For example, institutional causes may be due in part to the rise in housing prices within Amsterdam, making the city center less affordable for lower-income populations. Because non-Western immigrants are disproportionately low-income (Bolt 2012) and are overrepresented in the social housing sector (Boterman & van Gent 2014; Musterd 2005), they may be more affected by changes in the Amsterdam housing market.
The municipality has imposed an income cap for social housing eligibility of no more than €35,000 annually marginalizing social housing renters to those of low-income, some struggling with poverty (Musterd 2014). Non-Western immigrants are frequently low-income, often living in inadequate dwellings (Bolt 2012). Moreover, the Amsterdam municipality allows rent prices to increase in social housing establishments in parts of the city that the market has deemed desirable (Musterd 2014). This translates to higher rent for social housing tenants in the center of
the city. While these polices are introduced, the municipality of Amsterdam encourages the construction of owner-occupied dwellings instead of supporting construction of social housing in the city center. As Amsterdam property value continues to increase, particularly in the center, buying a home becomes increasingly inaccessible for middle to lower income households. The municipality’s support of owner-occupied dwellings thus becomes support of middle to upper class residents while simultaneously marginalizing lower income residents, pushing them outside the city center. When social dwellings are privatized and moved to the private rental sector or owner occupied sector, it removes choice and deprives many minorities the amount of options previously available to them, especially if the dwellings rise in price (Bolt et.al. 2008). The unaffordable Amsterdam city center makes the surrounding areas more desirable for those of a lower income (van Ham et.al. 2016). As minorities are frequently of a lower income (Bolt 2012), this process can contribute to ethnic segregation, furthering geographies of exclusion. Self congregation, meaning the willingness of minority groups to live and work in similar spaces, works alongside institutional mechanisms to influence ethnic segregation (Knox & Pinch 2010). Non-western migrants are more likely to want to live amongst other non-western migrants and are less likely to move away from non-western neighborhoods than native Dutch individuals (Bolt et.al. 2008; van Gent & Musterd 2016). This may be in an effort to find a community where the sense of belonging is strong amongst nonwhite individuals in the context of a white dominated society. The conversation of voluntary congregation, however, is too often centered on migrants and nonwhite communities, while native populations have a stronger tendency to self-segregate (Bolt 2012). There is hesitancy among native populations to live amongst minorities (Bolt 2012), and this ‘white avoidance’ may be a contributor to ethnic segregation (van Gent & Musterd 2016).
Racism and discrimination can influence the need to voluntarily congregate (Knox & Pinch 2010). This congregation can be a response to discrimination and used as a defense mechanism, to facilitate community support, or used as a way to protect cultural practices (Knox & Pinch 2010). In this way, there are positive aspects to voluntary congregation; however, they may be born out of more negative institutionalized processes.
Sense of belonging then becomes of interest, as belonging may be heavily dependent on the presence of community, those sharing a likeness in some way, to promote feelings of
comfortability, familiarity, and acceptability. However, the presence of certain demographics is just as important to feelings of belonging as the absence of others (Dixon & Durrheim 2000). This may mean that the scale of the neighborhood may provide a greater sense of belonging to minority, nonwhite communities than the scale of the city or region. It is important to
understand how ethnic segregation affects sense of belonging to Dutch society in nonwhite, specifically Moroccan and Turkish, individuals.
Chapter 3. Methodology
3.1 Research Question and Sub Questions
This research study aims to understand feelings of belonging in Amsterdam’s Moroccan and Turkish communities residing in ethnically segregated neighborhoods. It is important to comprehend the effect of spatially and racially divided neighborhoods on ethnic minorities’ sense of belonging to Dutch society as an attempt to understand alternative forms of inequality that may not often be included in popular discourse. Therefore, the following research question is proposed:
How is living in an ethnically segregated neighborhood connected to experiences of belonging to Dutch society amongst Amsterdam’s Moroccan and Turkish Dutch populations?
This question highlights the concept of sense of belonging and centers the experience of people of color. Three sub themes will be explored in relation to sense of belonging that will better help understand the lived experience of residents residing in ethnically segregated neighborhoods. Experiences of identity, discrimination, and scale will act as filters to process sense of belonging Moroccan and Turkish communities experience to white, Dutch society. Sub questions include:
v How do Dutch residents with a Moroccan or Turkish background understand and view their racial and ethnic identity?
v What are the experiences of Dutch residents with a Moroccan or Turkish background with regards to individual and institutional discrimination?
v How is sense of belonging experienced at different spatial scales?
The first sub question references identity, “the view that people take of themselves” (Knox & Pinch 2010). This is important to discussions on belonging because belonging to a group or society is often contingent upon identity affiliation (Antonsich 2010). As mentioned previously, constructions of the self and identity formation are connected with place belongingness
(Antonsich 2010; Dixon & Durrheim 2000; hooks 2009), and the politics of belonging is formed through experiences of identity, inclusion and exclusion, and belonging to a community, religion, race, ethnicity, or additional grouping of people (Antonsich 2010). How respondents identify and their status as an insider or an outsider will help provide insight into where they feel like they belong.
The second sub question points to experiences of discrimination, both institutional and
individual, in the hopes of distinguishing ways in which spatial and social inequality may affect sense of belonging. This study expects to find that the more discrimination is experienced, the less likely it is to establish a sense of belonging. Therefore, acknowledging experiences of discrimination helps to provide an understanding of why a respondent may feel like they do or do not belong in a particular space and how they are made to feel different.
The third sub question features the politics of belonging and the potential for scalar fluctuation. An ethnically segregated neighborhood can provide social and material opportunities for
communities of color (Knox & Pinch 2010). This study will attempt to discover if such opportunities contribute to a deeper sense of belonging among residents of color on a neighborhood scale. A citywide, regional, or national scale may significantly differ in this regard.
These three sub questions, featuring identity, discrimination and scale as pertinent subthemes, will help provide a coherent framework of analysis. They highlight connections between identity politics, processes of discrimination and racism, and scalar fluidity and their relation to sense of belonging. As such, they will help illuminate the connection between sense of belonging and ethnic segregation.
3.2 Conceptual Model
Sense of belonging is the dependent variable in this study and will be considered at two scales of analysis: the scale of the nation and the scale of the neighborhood. Identity, discrimination, and ethnic segregation are the independent variables. Figure 1 is a visual illustration of the concepts relevant to this study and their relationship to one another. All independent variables are linked to the dependent variable, and arrows signify a causal relationship. These relationships are explained below:
Identity is closely tied to belonging (Yuval-Davis 2006). As identity is performed (Butler 1993; Fortier 1999) and intersectional (Yuval-Davis 2006), it is possible to shift identity in varying spaces in order to strengthen a sense of belonging (Hall 1996; Yuval-Davis 2006). In this way, identity is fluid (Yuval-Davis 2006). This study will attempt to understand the context specific connection between performed identity and sense of belonging in Moroccan and Turkish Dutch communities living in Nieuw West. The relationship between identity and belonging is
designated in Figure 1 with a blue arrow.
Being made to feel different provides a link between identity and discrimination. Difference is the basis for social classifications and groupings, helping to establish a dominant and subservient
position within the categories of race and ethnicity (Gregory 2009). Difference can often be experienced as deviating from the norm. This study expects to find the more different one feels, the more scarce feelings of belonging become. Understanding how respondents navigate their different identities will help illuminate experiences of discrimination. With experiences of discrimination more explicit, sense of belonging can become more transparent.
Discrimination is understood on a personal and institutional level. As mentioned in section 3.1, this study expects to find that greater experiences of discrimination decrease the likelihood of feelings of belonging. This may be a result of low feelings of acceptance, contributing to low feelings of comfort. The relationship between discrimination and belonging is designated in Figure 1 with a blue arrow.
Ethnic segregation is linked to identity, as segregation is formed based on one’s ethnic and racial identity. Segregation is the separation of space between two distinct groups (Gregory 2009), and identity is what defines these groups. The relationship between ethnic segregation and identity is designated with a blue arrow in Figure 1. The connection between segregation and belonging, however, is what this study will aim to uncover. This relationship is illustrated in Figure 1 through a blue arrow with red highlights.
3.3 Operationalization
As the sub questions presented in section 3.1 allude to, sense of belonging is measured through three main concepts: identity, discrimination, and scale. The definition of these concepts is imperative to understanding the complex relationships between them, how they are measured during interviews and focus groups, and ultimately the findings of this research. This is illustrated in Table 1. The three concepts are outlined in detail below.
3.3.1 Identity
Identity is how people define themselves (Knox & Pinch 2010). It is a complex concept because its fluidity guarantees changes over time (Hall 1996). Identity must be situated in historical contexts and present economic, political, and social situations (Hall 1996), and it can also be a component of place attachment (Antonsich 2010; Dixon & Durrheim 2000; hooks 2009). However, inherent to the relationship between identity, place attachment, and the politics of belonging is inclusion and exclusion (Hall 1996). As Hall notes, in order to have an identity, by definition, it must lie in contrast to others who do not have it (1996). In this way, power,
privilege, and exclusion play a large role in identity formation (Hall 1996).
Identity is also performed, and performativity is situational (Butler 1993; Fortier 1999). The intersectionality of identity (Yuval-Davis 2006) allows for its multiplicity. This gives space for identities to be performed differently in different spaces (Yuval-Davis 2006), helping to mitigate processes of exclusion. A respondent may perform one identity in a certain space in order to feel included and belong, while performing another identity in an alternative space. In this way, identity is central to belonging.
The identity of respondents is discovered through questions regarding family, culture and heritage, and daily activities. Respondents are asked about their background and their family’s background. They are encouraged to talk about what it means to them to be Moroccan Dutch or Turkish Dutch and what traditions or habits they follow that are specifically Dutch or specifically Moroccan or Turkish. They are also asked questions regarding how they view themselves and why they believe that to be important.
3.3.2 Discrimination
Discrimination can be categorized into institutional discrimination and personal discrimination. Institutional discrimination consists of discriminatory practices that have become normalized by large governing or organizational bodies, corporations and businesses, political processes, and society in general (OED Online 2017). They become entrenched in ordinary life, making them difficult to distinguish and abolish, and can be intentionally or unintentional. Intent, however, is not a prerequisite for discrimination (Pulido 2000). Personal discrimination is discrimination perpetrated by one individual onto another. It is most often what is thought of when the word discrimination is referenced. This study is expecting to find that experiencing both types of discrimination can reduce feelings of belonging to society.
Experiences of discrimination are brought up through questions on inclusion and exclusion and stereotypes. Respondents are asked how they believe others perceive their identity and if this affects any relationships they have with family, friends, classmates, or colleagues. Questions about racial stereotypes are asked and what affect these stereotypes have on respondents. Finally, respondents are asked if they have had any experiences with personal or institutional discrimination and how this makes them feel.
3.3.3. Scale
There are many definitions of scale, however, for this research scale is used to describe the different spatial levels of data collection and analysis (Gregory 2009; Knox & Pinch 2010). It can begin with the micro scale of the body and end with the macro scale of the globe (Gregory 2009). Scales can be interconnected (Knox & Pinch 2010), continually intersecting and building off one another (Gregory 2009). This study is concerned with the scale of the neighborhood and the nation, as this is where the variable of belonging is aggregated. The scale of the individual and thoughts on identity formation and affiliation is used to help determine belonging at these different spatial scales. In this way, the scales of the individual, neighborhood, and nation are interconnected and dependent on one another.
Belonging at the scale of the nation and the neighborhood are revealed through questions on comfort and acceptance. To understand belonging at the scale of the nation, respondents are asked if they feel like they are going home when visiting Morocco, Turkey, or the Netherlands. They are encouraged to speak about their experiences feeling in place or out of place in the different countries. When understanding belonging at the scale of the neighborhood, respondents are asked is if they would prefer to stay or leave their neighborhood and what positive or
negative consequences the neighborhood provides. The material operationalization of these concepts can be viewed in the interview guide Appendix 1.
Table 1. Operationalization Table
Concept Definition Indication
1. Identity The way one views themselves, with specific regard to race and ethnicity. Identity incorporates intersectionality and performativity.
How respondents view themselves and their family, culture and heritage, daily activities, and traditions or habits.
2. Discrimination Unequal treatment of others, with specific regard to race and ethnicity.
Discrimination can be personal or institutional. Experiences of inclusion and exclusion, stereotypes, and personal and institutional discrimination. 3. Scale Different spatial levels of data collection
and analysis ranging from the micro scale of the body to the macro scale of the globe. Experiences of comfort and acceptance at the scale of the neighborhood and the nation. 3.4 Research Design
This study applies an inductive framework to represent the relationship between research and theory. The data collected is analyzed to produce associations to potential theories that may help to explain the phenomena observed. This is in direct contrast to a deductive framework that begins the research process with a theory, which helps to guide the study (Bryman 2012). An inductive approach is better suited to this study, as the observations collected help to inform understandings of political and social processes, which in turn contribute to the development of theories used to analyze these processes. Specifically, this study explores the connection between ethnic segregation and Amsterdam’s Moroccan and Turkish Dutch residents’ sense of belonging to Dutch society. From these findings, theories may be extrapolated to critically dissect relationships between individuals and relationships between institutions and individuals, which will provide deeper insight into how society is structured: inclusivity and exclusivity, power and privilege, winners and losers.
This research is grounded in theory to avoid empirical generalizations that do not contribute to greater understandings of inequality (Bryman 2012). Emphasizing grounded theory as a critical aspect to the analysis of data helps develop the potential for this research to contribute to greater understandings of systems of oppression, a redirection in policy initiatives, and ultimately societal change.
The epistemology employed is anti-positivist at its core. It utilizes an interpretative phenomenological stance to understand the production of knowledge. An interpretative phenomenological epistemology highlights the understanding of society as opposed to its explanation. It emphasizes the interpretation of social action and the elucidation of human behavior, stressing the importance of point of view and perspective in understanding the social world (Bryman 2012). This study is centered on human narrative as its main means of data collection, believing that the production of knowledge in the social sciences first comes from human experience. This belief brings the value placed on human behavior and point of view and redirects it towards marginalized communities and overlooked narratives of people of color. The ontology applied throughout this study centers constructionism as the main means of
understanding society and the greater workings of the world. Constructionism details how social phenomena are socially constructed, stressing the fluctuating and fluid nature of social
progressions. It refutes notions of predetermined processes, siting the influence social actors have over the social phenomena. This includes the researcher’s influence over the researched (Bryman 2012). Positionality is closely linked to these concepts. Constructionism is vital to this study, as notions such as race and ethnicity cannot be fully understood without grasping when, how, and why these categories were constructed. Inherent within that history are structures of power and privilege, inequality and oppression, inclusion and exclusion, and agency and voice. These concepts are critical to the analysis of this study.
3.5 Research Population
This study aims to understand ethnic segregation and its connection to sense of belonging. Racial minorities who experience segregation and are not Dutch autochtoon are then the ideal
communities to learn from. Dutch communities of Moroccan and Turkish backgrounds are chosen for this study because they are two of the four largest minority groups in the Netherlands. They also score higher on the segregation index than do the other two large minority populations, Surinamese and Antilleans (Bolt et.al. 2008; Musterd & Deurloo 2002). In 2006, first generation and second generation migrants made up almost 50% of the total population of Amsterdam and 19% of the Netherlands (Crul & Heering 2008). In 2011, Moroccans specifically made up 9% of the total population of Amsterdam and Turks make up 5% (Slootman & Duyvendak 2015). First
generation Moroccans and Turkish predominantly consist of thirty-year-olds and above and are more numerous than second generation Moroccans and Turkish Dutch, which predominantly consist of twenty-year-olds and below (Crul & Heering 2008).
There is a discourse in the Netherlands surrounding the intense need for Moroccan and Turkish integration, and the lack there of is seen as threatening and anxiety provoking (Slootman & Duyvendak 2015). These communities are othered in Dutch society, being perpetually stereotyped by the media and blamed for societal problems (Koning 2016). In this way, Moroccan and Turkish Dutch communities become heavily politicized. In popular discourse, these groups become synonymous with allochtoon, even though, as previously mentioned, allochtoon technically refers to any individual not from the Netherlands or who has one or more parents not from the Netherlands. Allochtoon can also be viewed as tantamount to Black, and thus Moroccan and Turkish Dutch are viewed as people of color (Koning 2016). The
politicization of Moroccan and Turkish Dutch communities makes it especially relevant to try and understand the sense of belonging experienced by these communities and how living location plays a role.
The Netherlands experienced a mass migration of Moroccans and Turks during the economic boom following World War II (Crul & Heering 2008). There was a shortage of willing white Dutch to hold low skilled, low wage jobs, and this provided the bases for migration from Morocco and Turkey, among other southern European countries, during the 1960’s (Crul & Heering 2008; Smits & Ultee 2013). These workers were considered temporary, both by the Dutch government, as well as by many of the immigrants themselves. Immigrants migrated alone as single-family members with expectations of returning home eventually, and thus were labeled as guest workers (Crul & Heering 2008). Moroccan and Turkish arrivals often worked in manual, blue-collar industries, such as textiles and construction (Crul & Heering 2008;
Gokdemir & Dumludag 2012). The percentage of Moroccan and Turkish immigrants continued to grow through the 1970’s and 1980’s, during which it became clear that these new arrivals were not migrating back to their home countries, but instead were encouraging their families to join them in the Netherlands. In the early 1980’s, the Dutch government passed legislation that made it extremely difficult for low-skilled migrants to enter the country, instead focusing on attracting more high-skilled labor. This substantially curbed migration numbers from Morocco and Turkey. Numbers rose again in the late 1980’s as more families reunited, to then drop again in the 1990’s (Crul & Heering 2008).
Subsequently, many Dutch families with Moroccan and Turkish backgrounds have established themselves and raise children in the Netherlands. Second generation Moroccan and Turkish Dutch born and raised in the Netherlands, however, are still labeled allochtoon. This is because the requirement to classify as an autochtoon consists of having both parents born in the
citizenship under the Nationality Act of 2003. Although this process is less arduous than the citizenship process for immigrants who have migrated to the Netherlands from other countries, it still requires an “investigation of public order,” as well as a payment (Crul & Heering 2008). Bonjour and Duyvendak assert that 2007 to 2010 was the high point of parliamentary discussion regarding immigration policy targeting poor countries of color (2017). Restrictions and more complex integration requirements were imposed on “migrants with poor prospects” mainly targeting Moroccan and Turkish communities (Bonjour and Duyvendak 2017).
3.6 Case Study
The case study for this research is carried out in Amsterdam Nieuw West. The borough or district of Amsterdam Nieuw West comprises the neighborhoods of Geuzenveld-Slotermeer, Osdorp, and Slotervaart. This district was chosen based off of the number of residents that identify as Moroccan or Turkish Dutch living in the area. As Figure 2 illustrates, Moroccan Dutch can make up between 17% – 56% concentration within the district depending on the specific area. Figure 3 portrays a concentration of Turkish Dutch of 11% - 46% depending on the specific area. These are large percentages because, as mentioned in section 3.4, Moroccan Dutch make up only 9% of the total population of Amsterdam and Turkish Dutch only 5%. Figure 2.
Source: Regiomonitor, 2016 – own adaptation
Figure 3.
Source: Regiomonitor, 2016 – own adaptation
The segregation within Amsterdam becomes stark when compared with living areas of white Dutch. They are predominantly concentrated within the Amsterdam City Center, making up 63% - 100% concentration in some areas. This is compared with a sparse scattering in the district of Amsterdam Nieuw West, as displayed in Figure 4.
Examining the voting results of the Netherlands 2017 national parliamentary elections also strengthens the choice of case study. Amsterdam Nieuw West possesses overwhelming support for the DENK party, as seen in Figure 5. The DENK party, meaning ‘think’ in English, is a political party led by people of color, many of them migrants, who work towards racial equality in the Netherlands2
(DENK 2017). The founding members of the party are Turkish, but are committed to better serving all migrants and people of color (DENK 2017). The party’s success in Amsterdam Nieuw West can be perceived as highlighting the strong Moroccan and Turkish
2 There is controversy surrounding the DENK party. As their founding members are Turkish and a large contingent of Turkish Dutch support DENK, many people view the party itself as
supporting the President of Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, widely presumed to be a dictator (Telegraaf 2017).
Dutch presence in the neighborhood. It is in direct contrast to the lack of support in other neighborhoods without a majority Moroccan or Turkish population.
Figure 4.
Source: Regiomonitor, 2016 – own adaptation
Most interviews are conducted in Geuzenveld, with one in Osdorp and several in Amsterdam City Center. Aggregation at the scale of the district is done purposefully, as different Moroccan and Turkish community centers are spread across Amsterdam Nieuw West and are not secluded within one neighborhood. Because the Moroccan and Turkish population in Amsterdam Nieuw West is difficult to access for reasons to be explained below, it is advantageous to include a wide spatial area for which to approach respondents.
Figure 5.
Source: Municipality of Amsterdam, 2017 – own adaptation
3.7 Data Collection and Sampling
This empirical, exploratory research employs qualitative methodology to explore sense of belonging among Dutch minorities at different spatial scales. It allows for the communication and incorporation of seldom-heard narratives into the greater body of academic literature on ethnic segregation.
The research question guiding this study references the research population explicitly, so the selection of respondents is strategic and precious (Bryman 2012). This study is concerned with the experiences of people of color, and therefore aims to gather knowledge from nonwhite
populations, specifically from Moroccan and Turkish Dutch communities. Ethnicity, race, and to some extent religion are the specific characteristics that determine the units of analysis. Apart from these, it is important to gather respondents of diverse age, gender, socioeconomic status, ability, immigration status, and length of residence. Snowball sampling from gatekeeper organizations is used to approach respondents. This type of sampling tends to lead to
respondents of a similar identity, and thus may hinder respondent diversification. This problem presented itself throughout the research, and thus interview respondents may be slightly skewed towards younger, second generation, male Moroccan Dutch.
Methods include interviews and focus groups with Moroccan and Turkish Dutch living or working in Amsterdam Nieuw West, as well as expert interviews with organizations working in the neighborhood. In total, five open, in depth interviews are conducted, with one of these interviews conducted with two respondents; one focus group is facilitated with eight respondents; and three expert interviews are conducted with organizations working in the neighborhood. This is a total of fourteen respondents and three experts.
Amsterdamse Federatie van Woningcorporaties (AFWC), the umbrella organization consisting of all social housing associations in Amsterdam, provide access to specific gatekeeper
organizations. These gatekeeper organizations work within the district of Amsterdam Nieuw West. They simultaneously act as expert interviews, while also providing an avenue to approach potential respondents. In total, three gatekeeper organizations are interviewed. In order to maintain the anonymity of all respondents and experts, the organizations will not be named and respondents are given pseudonyms. More on the ethics of applying pseudonyms and the power associated with such is discussed in section 3.9.
Of the fourteen interviews with respondents, ten are organized with Moroccan Dutch and four with Turkish Dutch. The three expert interviews are conducted with representatives from
organizations, and all experts are white Dutch. A detailed breakdown of respondents and experts is illustrated in Table 2.
The interviews and focus group aim to gather life course perspectives. Life course perspective is an interview objective that helps to reveal life experiences and stories of the past, the present, or what is believed to be upon the respondent in the future. These experiences are with regards to their neighborhood, city, and national sense of belonging. This perspective is preferred to other interview styles because it reveals narratives from different generations with “distinct social and historical changes…and cannot be understood apart from this social and historical context” (Cohler & Hostetler 2013). The histories of migration, systems of oppression, and power and control are paramount to contextualizing stories of discrimination. Such narratives are then instrumental in affecting sense of belonging. The life story approach helps to uncover “interpretations of the self, others and events, which both explains the past and guides future action and intent” (Cohler & Hostetler 2013).
The individual interviews yield slightly different outcomes than the focus group. The focus group of eight respondents consists mostly of young, second-generation Moroccan and Turkish Dutch youth. They are all participants in the same youth program, and thus are very familiar with each other. They share very personal experiences using the group as a support system. Many of the youth have experienced similar events and encourage each other to share in the group. This allows them to discuss intimate thoughts and experiences. Many individual
interviewees are able to discuss personal experiences as well, however, it seems they are less comfortable than their focus group counterparts. This may be because there is no support network or system of validation like is present in the focus group. The individual interviews, however, are much more extensive in the topics covered. There is more time and space to discuss multiple topics, while also going in depth into specific subjects.
Table 2. Table of Respondents Name* or Organization Interview, Focus Group, or Expert
Ethnicity Age Gender Birth Country
Current Living or
Working Location 1 Omar Interview Moroccan
Dutch
65 Male Morocco Geuzenveld
2 Ahmed Interview Moroccan Dutch
35 Male Morocco Geuzenveld-Slotermeer 3 Tuba Interview Turkish
Dutch
Middle- aged
Female Turkey Geuzenveld
4 Rachid Interview with Mustafa Moroccan Dutch 20 Male The Netherlands Osdorp 5 Mustafa Interview with Rachid Turkish Dutch
21 Male Turkey Osdorp
6 Dilay Interview Turkish Dutch 27 Female The Netherlands Osdorp 7 Yusuf Focus Group Turkish Dutch 16 Male The Netherlands Osdorp 8 Kenza Focus Group Moroccan Dutch Middle-twenties Female x x 9 Nadia Focus Group Moroccan Dutch 16 Female The Netherlands Slotermeer 10 Mehdi Focus Group Moroccan Dutch 16 Male The Netherlands Osdorp 11 Nabil Focus Group Moroccan Dutch 16 Male The Netherlands Slotermeer
