Nathalia Pereira Vredeveld Master thesis
Course: Master Thesis Project (7354102004) Program: Master Human Geography Supervisor: Virginie Mamadouh Studentnumber: 5781930
E-mail: nathaliavredeveld@gmail.com Date: August 17, 2015
The Mixedness of Mixedness.
2 Table of contents
1. Introduction p. 4
2. A literature study of (territorial) identification in a superdiverse context p. 6
2.1 Territorial identification and superdiversity p. 6 2.2 Territorial identification of ethnic minorities in the city p. 10
2.3 Identity and identification p. 13
2.4 Conclusion p. 14
3. Methods p. 16
3.1 Explaining the research questions p. 16
3.2 Participant selection p. 17
3.3 Data collection p. 22
3.4 Analysis p. 25
3.5 Limitations p. 26
3.6 Ethical considerations p. 28
3.7 Presentation of the results p. 28
4. The discourse on multiculturalism in in the Netherlands and in Amsterdam p. 30
4.1 The discourse on multiculturalism in the Netherlands p. 30 4.2 The discourse on multiculturalism in Amsterdam p. 34 4.3 The Dutch discourse on people of mixed parentage p. 35
4.4 Conclusion p. 37
5. Identification with the Netherlands and with the other country in play p. 39
5.1 Identification with the Netherlands p. 39
5.2 Identification with the other country in play p. 48
5.3 Feeling mixed p. 56
5.4 Conclusion p. 60
6. Identification with Amsterdam p. 62
6.1 Identification of respondents who grew up in Amsterdam p. 62 6.2 Identification of respondents who grew up outside of Amsterdam p. 65
6.3.Conclusion p. 66
7. Characteristics playing a role in territorial identification p. 68
7.1 Individual characteristics p. 68
7.2 Family characteristics p. 76
3
7.4 Conclusion p. 87
8. Discussion p. 88
References p. 92
Appendix 1: Original quotations p. 96
Table 1: Respondents and their basic characteristics p. 20 Figure 1: Population of Amsterdam per ‘herkomstgroepering’ as of January 1, 2014 p. 31
Image on title page: Wassily Kandinsky - Circles in a Circle (1923). Retrieved from www.wassilykandinsky.net
4 1. Introduction
This research focuses on the territorial identification of young adults of mixed parentage living in Amsterdam with respectively the Netherlands, the other country where one of their parents was born, and Amsterdam. In this research, mixed parentage refers to a person with parents who were born in different countries. It is chosen for this research to only include the people of mixed parentage of whom one parent was born in the Netherlands.
Territorial identification of people of mixed parentage has not been studied yet. Research on the multicultural society and territorial identification has mainly revolved around ethnicity thus far, and more specifically the biggest ethnic groups within a certain society. As the ethnicities of people of mixed parentage are rather ambiguous, people of mixed parentage are not included in these types of researches.
Van der Welle (2011) has conducted research on the territorial identification of young adults living in Amsterdam by focusing on young adults of Dutch, Moroccan, Turkish and Surinamese descent. The young adults of non-Dutch descent that she included in her research were born in the Netherlands. The group that Van der Welle has studied approximates the group that I will be studying, but it cannot be assumed that the territorial identification of young adults of mixed parentage in Amsterdam equals that of young adults of Dutch, Moroccan, Turkish or Surinamese descent in Amsterdam. Young adults of mixed parentage in Amsterdam stand at the crossroads of being of Dutch origin and being of foreign origin, which might make the way in which they identify with the Netherlands and the other country in play different from that of other groups.
Amsterdam provides an interesting context for research on territorial identification of young adults of mixed parentage. At an event organized by LovingDay.NL, an Amsterdam based organization that is trying to raise awareness on the existence and experiences of people in mixed relationships and people of mixed parentage, it was mentioned that 18 percent of Amsterdam’s citizens are of mixed parentage. LovingDay.NL has requested the municipality of Amsterdam to research the numbers, as neither the municipality of Amsterdam nor the government of the Netherlands recognizes people of mixed parentage explicitly.
To research the territorial identification of young adults of mixed parentage living in Amsterdam, the following research question has been formulated:
How do young adults of mixed parentage in Amsterdam identify with the territorial units of
5
what characteristics play a role in this identification and how do these identifications relate to each other?
The sub-questions this research tries to answer are:
1. What is known so far about the (territorial) identification of people of mixed parentage (in the Netherlands and in Amsterdam)?
2. How do young adults of mixed parentage in Amsterdam identify with the Netherlands and with the other country in play and how do these ways of identifying relate to each other?
3. How do young adults of mixed parentage in Amsterdam identify with Amsterdam and how does this way of identifying relate to the ways in which they identify with the Netherlands and with the other country in play?
4. What characteristics play a role in the territorial identification of young adults of mixed parentage in Amsterdam?
The research question will be answered by first studying theories revolving around territorial identification and identities in chapter 2. Chapter 3 elaborates on the research methods used in this research. Afterwards, the discourses revolving around territorial identification in the Netherlands and in Amsterdam are explored in chapter 4. Chapter 5, 6 and 7 outline the results of the interviews, dealing with respectively respondents’ territorial identification with the Netherlands, with the other country in play and with Amsterdam. Finally, an answer to the research question is formulated in chapter 8.
6 2. A literature study of (territorial) identification in a superdiverse context
As outlined above, the Netherlands, when it comes to multiculturalism, has extensive terminology for signifying the ‘us’ and the ‘other’ in Dutch society, with which a certain image can be brought across of what the Netherlands stands for and what it means to be Dutch. In this chapter it is therefore tried to give a partial answer to the first research question;
‘What is known so far about the (territorial) identification of people of mixed parentage (in the Netherlands and in Amsterdam)?’
This chapter will try to do that by covering theories on territorial and ethnic identification and on cosmopolitanism.
In section 2.1, territorial identification is studied by engaging with Paasi’s (1996) theories on boundaries and othering as part of the nation-building process and by subsequently connecting Paasi’s theories to the concept of superdiversity, as explained by Vertovec (2007).
Hereafter, in section 2.2, I will outline different studies on territorial identification of ethnic minorities living in cities, in order to gain more knowledge on identification of this ‘group’ in
everyday life. Subsequently I will engage with theory on cosmopolitanism to go into further detail on the relevance of the city when researching territorial identification.
Finally, I will briefly touch upon identity in itself, identification, and specifically ethnic identification in section 2.3, in order to investigate the commonalities and differences between territorial identification, identities and identification per se and ethnic identities. This will give me an idea on how to go about researching the territorial identification of young adults of mixed parentage in Amsterdam.
Section 2.4 will conclude by trying to give a partial answer to the first research question, and by subsequently explaining how the knowledge that is gathered in this chapter will be used in this research.
2.1 Territorial identification and superdiversity
The first topic that is covered here is territorial identification. This is done by combining work of Paasi (1996) on territorial identification per se and work of Vertovec (2007) on conducting research revolving around the dynamics of migration and integration, in order to get a comprehensive and up to date view on how territorial identification manifests itself in general and how to engage with it in the context of superdiversity.
7 Paasi (1996) analyzes the way in which boundaries are constructed as part of the nation-building process. He uses the term ‘spatial socialization’ to address the way in which individuals and groups are collectively socialized to identify with certain spatial entities (p. 8). Paasi hereafter addresses the way in which language has an influence on this process (p. 10). A place does not exist in itself, it is developed through the discourse its inhabitants employ (p. 11). Paasi emphasizes that the
communities that are formed through collective identities, as an effect of the use of certain discourses and vice versa, are all ‘imagined’. He therefore calls these communities ‘imagined communities’, after Hassner (1993) who in turn paraphrased Anderson (1983). He says that the belief in dichotomies is essential for the development of such communities, especially when they make a distinction between ‘us’ and ‘them’ and therefore promote othering (p. 12). According to other authors Paasi cites, the tendency to think in dichotomies is typically Western (Dalby, 1990, as referred to in Paasi, 1996: 12) or European (Harle, 1990, as referred to in Paasi, 1996: 12).
There are five dimensions through which dichotomization occurs: “naming, legitimation, myth making, sedimentation and ritual (p. 13).” The ‘other’ needs to be named and it needs to be
legitimized why they are the ‘other’ through myths, with which untrue and distorted beliefs that are presented as facts are meant. Sedimentation signifies the way in which these discourses are
subsequently embedded in society. Finally, reenactment of these myths (rituals) is required (p. 13). A spatial dimension is inherent to othering, as the other will have to be located in space. Paasi speaks of a ‘discourse of territorialization’. This is the way in which people claim their right to a certain space, which through the process of othering seems logical and therefore should be maintained. Paasi says that this process of territorialization is based on a dialectic between two languages; that of difference and that of integration. The language of territorialization is based on homogenizing the imagined communities, and the language of difference aims to show how the other does not belong to this homogenous community (p. 15).
Nation states and their spatial dimensions are nowadays seen as absolute entities, but with this discourse nuances are ignored and representations are distorted, while at the same time reinforcing the discourses. Representations have a big influence on what is regarded as the truth in a certain nation state, and harboring the truth is equal to being in power (p. 21).
Geography as an academic principle therefore stems from nationalism and colonialism, but other academic disciplines are also influenced by this discourse (p. 19-21). In political geography, frontiers and boundaries are among the most popular topics, where frontiers are “a zone of contact (p. 25)” and boundaries are lines of separation (p. 25). Boundaries as a social construct are therefore also
8 part of the discourse of othering. Besides dividing groups of people, however, boundaries also facilitate and regulate contact between groups (p. 28). Even though discourses have a huge impact, Paasi emphasizes that he does not see the world in a simplistic, reductionist manner, and recognizes that processes take place in different, organic ways, at the hands of people who still have agency. Nevertheless different positions in society imply “a different experience and consciousness (p. 29)” as ideologies are manifested by the people in power. Hegemony revolves around the prevailing ideologies. It “is never fully achieved, as it is always contested (p. 30).” People in less privileged positions always try to counter hegemony (p. 30). In this way people create territorialities, as space by itself is passive and humans give meaning to it (p. 32), in part through its institutions (p. 35). To understand better the process of nation building, it is important to investigate the relationships between structure and agency, and between collectives and individuals. People can be seen as the ‘glue’ of any social system, as they tend to internalize the discourses and ideologies of the particular territory they live in. Also, a reason for people ‘sticking’ together is that people are dependent on each other in society. However, people only internalize common discourses when they can identify with them. This does not have to be a direct, ‘real’, identification, but can also be influenced by discourses that they already adhere to. Societies therefore “not only produce space but they also produce scales (p. 44)” through their identification with space. Three scales are distinguished; “the scale of experience, the scale of ideology and the scale of reality (p. 45).” This differentiation helps to recognize the different scales through which nation building processes take place. It gives a more detailed view on how people relate to space, however concepts like these can never grasp the full extent of people’s identities and their identification with space (p. 45).
People’s identities overlap between different categories in everyday life. Nationalism has become an important marker for identity. It is difficult to separate people’s identities from space. Besides the nation, people also tend to identify with smaller spatial scales, such as the region, the city and the neighborhood. Nationalism is inherently a spatial phenomenon, although this is often ignored in research on nationalism from disciplines other than geography (p. 45-51). Whatever nationalism may be, “it is always concerned with a struggle over the control of land (p. 51).” It is a territorial form of ideology and creates feelings of belonging and produces and reproduces social order (p. 53). National identification is one of the goals of the socialization process, and education is the primary force in the socialization of people. When talking of national identity, it is easy to reduce it to stereotypes. National stereotypes are also used to socialize people, and they change over time and in different settings. Stereotypes are also used to distinguish one group from another, thus for the purpose of ‘othering’. Although stereotypes are simplistic and therefore unrealistic and sometimes
9 inappropriate ways of looking at identities, people still believe in them and they have a lot of
influence on processes of nation building. Stereotypes, therefore, should be taken seriously in the social sciences. (p. 54-61).
Because of “the complexity and openness of the daily lives of particular people in particular places (p. 64)”, geographers nowadays employ a sensitive ethnographic and interpretative approach towards geographical research, in which people are seen as “active, experiencing, feeling persons (p. 66)” and social representations, rather than just absolute truths, are taken into account (p. 71). When reading Paasi’s work, even though it is not often normative, a reader could assume that all simplistic discourses harbor a dislike for ‘the other’ and therefore do not value ethnic diversity in societies. While Paasi states that, even though influenced by dominant discourses, people are also “active, experiencing, feeling persons (p. 66)”, a lot of research that has engaged with othering in society has been conducted in a quantitative manner and by solely focusing on people’s ethnicities. Vertovec’s (2007) work on conducting research in superdiverse societies engages with the way in which social scientists typically engage with the issue of othering in relation to ethnic diversity in their work, and proposes a new framework with which we could work, in order to ensure a more realistic representation of the world through our work.
Vertovec (2007) states that “it is not enough to see diversity only in terms of ethnicity, as is regularly the case both in social science and the wider public sphere (p. 1025).” One should also look at “differential immigration statuses and their concomitant entitlements and restrictions of rights, divergent labour market experiences, discrete gender and age profiles, patterns of spatial distribution, and mixed local area responses by service providers and residents. Rarely are these factors described side by side. The interplay of these factors is what is meant here, in summary fashion, by the notion of ‘superdiversity’. (p. 1025).” He goes on by saying that looking at diversity from the standpoint of ethnicity is inadequate and inappropriate if one wants to gain insight into the needs, or understand the dynamics of in- and exclusion, of individual people (p. 1039). He says that quantitative research on superdiversity has contributed, but stresses that more and better
qualitative research should be done on the topic, as to not ignore the complexities of superdiversity (p. 1045). Vertovec poses some recommendations that can be used for this type of research. He says that the focus on ethnicity shapes, and may obscure, understanding of migrants’ relationships to their place of settlement and to other places in the world (p. 1049). In the same light, he mentions that in order to investigate the complexity of the multiethnic group context and the dimensions along which identities are expressed or represented it is important for social scientists to go beyond existing theoretical frameworks and methodologies (p. 1049-1050).
10
2.2 Territorial identification of ethnic minorities in the city
In this section I will outline studies on territorial identification of migrants in cities, with research questions approximating those of this research. The researches engage with territorial identification of ethnic minorities in cities, and therefore investigating the conclusions and the way in which the authors approached the topics will give me more insight into what territorial identification entails in this context and how it plays out, and thus how to go about my research.
Inge van der Welle (2011) has researched the way in which Dutch young adults of Surinamese, Moroccan and Turkish origin, and furthermore originally Dutch young adults, living in Amsterdam identify with respectively the city of Amsterdam, the Netherlands, and their parents’ country of origin, if applicable, and how these ways of identifying relate to each other. She chose to research four groups of Dutch young adults living in Amsterdam, namely young adults of whom both parents have been born in the Netherlands, young adults of whom both parents have been born in Morocco, young adults of whom both parents have been born in Turkey and young adults of whom both parents have been born in Surinam. These groups have been chosen on the basis of those being the ethnic groups containing the biggest percentages of young adults in Amsterdam. Van der Welle chose to do research on young adults, as a big part of the Moroccan, Turkish and Surinamese second generation migrants are growing up now.
The main conclusions of her research on territorial identification are that appearance, descent and religion are important factors when it comes to the way these young adults identify with Amsterdam and with the Netherlands. For the young adults of Turkish and Moroccan descent their parents’ country of origin and the Islam determine a big part of the way they identify, as people define them on the basis of those. For the young adults of Surinamese origin, appearance played a big role. Language and nationality do not play a big role, as most respondents have the Dutch nationality and speak the Dutch language fluently. Furthermore, the Amsterdam identity seems to fit most
respondents more than the Dutch identify; they identify more with Amsterdam than with the Netherlands. However, superdiversity in the urban context also results in the reaffirmation of boundaries between the different ethnic groups; the majority of the young adults still have an ethnically homogenous circle of friends (p. 261-262). Young adults of foreign descent tend not to identify with being Dutch, or only being Dutch, although they emphasize that they are Dutch. (p. 262).
When it comes to identification with the parents’ country of origin, people’s identifications are very diverse. Part of the conclusion is that it matters what country the parents are from. Furthermore,
11 the young adults can simultaneously identify with the parents’ country of origin and with the
Netherlands, and these identifications do not come at the expense of one another (p. 263). Van der Welle emphasizes, by citing Mlinar’s (1992) work, that the intersections between backgrounds matter more for identification than the individual places by themselves (p. 266). The distance and political and economic situation of the country matter a lot. Young adults of Turkish descent tend to identify with their parents’ country of origin more than people of Moroccan and Surinamese origin. For young adults of Moroccan descent the identification with Morocco is more emotional than anything else, and most young adults of Surinamese descent do not identify with Surinam at all. Creole young adults of Surinamese descent identify with Surinam more than other young adults of Surinamese descent, however. The lower degree of identification of young adults of Surinamese descent can in part be explained by the fact that Surinam is relatively far away and the costs when going there are high. Of all young adults, most seem to identify more with the Netherlands than with their parents’ countries of origin. Another interesting conclusion is that identification with the parents’ country of origin is influenced by encounters in the Netherlands (p. 266-267). Van der Welle’s (2011) idea on territorial identities is that people can have multiple territorial identities, which do not necessarily compete with each other. In other words; territorial
identification is not a zero-sum game. People can identify with multiple countries and cities, and the idea of a hierarchical relationship between territorial identifications, with the national identity being the primary identity, is outdated when talking about the superdiversity of big cities. Her research shows that urban identities can be an alternative for national identities in big cities (p. 262). This finding is similar to that of Simonsen and Koefoed (2011), who find that people of Pakistani descent living in Copenhagen identify more with the city than with the country of Denmark. When it comes to the nation, respondents typically have an ambivalent attitude towards it. The way they identify with the nation alternates between inclusion and exclusion, and distance and proximity (p. 350), which depend on how they identify themselves and how others identify them at a certain moment. The situation is somewhat different when it comes to identification with the city, as the city is ‘a world of strangers’ (p. 351). The following phrase captures the difference with identification with the nation perfectly: “They grow up in the Diasporas, in the ambivalence of identity, borderland positions and hybridity, and they identify with the city precisely because they see it as a multicultural place (p. 351).” Quite a few respondents identify strongly with the city (p. 352) and some also, and more so, with certain neighborhoods (p. 354) if there is some social cohesion. Respondents are, to sum up, oftentimes viewed as strangers, also in the city, but they can still identify with the city as they do not blame the city (p. 354) and neither do they idealize it (p. 355).
12 Simonsen and Koefoed’s (2011) approach to territorial identification differs from that of Van der Welle (2011) in that they see identification as a relational process; it is not static, but rather dynamic and fluid. People’s (territorial) identification changes over time and is different depending on the context, or the encounter. Territorial identification, in their research, alternates between inclusion and exclusion, and distance and proximity (p. 350). This way of identification depends on people’s sense of self at that moment and on the way others identify them and/or approach them.
Staeheli, Ehrkamp, Leitner and Nagel (2012) elaborate on Simonsen and Koefoed’s (2011) ideas of dynamic and fluid identifications by going into the notion of ‘ordinary citizenship’. Ordinary
citizenship points to the way in which law and other structures of citizenship intersect with daily life. Staeheli, Ehrkamp, Leitner and Nagel (2012) point out that the idea of formal, legal and institutional structures intersecting with daily life is not a new thought, and that “feminist, anti-racist, queer, postcolonial, and other critical theorists (p. 630)” have long argued this. “[I]ndividuals and social groups respond in diverse and complex ways that profoundly – but not necessarily predictably – shape the cities and societies in which we live (p. 630).” They proceed by stating that “[t]his
complexity may involve the formation of identities and the articulation of grievances that represent collective challenges through the performance of seemingly mundane acts or micropolitics (p. 630).” They further argue that in dominant discourses, citizenship is often regarded as being linked to the nation state, taking place on the national level. Because of globalization, however, “[i]nternational migration is linked with new binational, transnational, and even cosmopolitan or postnational conceptualizations of citizenship that reflect the ways in which migrants develop multiple
attachments to countries and that challenge assumptions about the linkage between citizenship and a single, territorially rooted nation state (p. 638).” Keith (2008) elaborates on this statement by stressing that the multicultural society is often regarded and addressed on the level of the state, while processes of assimilation and segregation usually play out on the local level, in the city and in the neighborhood.
As this research revolves around territorial identities in a superdiverse urban setting, it might be of interest to elaborate on the cosmopolitan conceptualizations of citizenship that Staeheli, Ehrkamp, Leitner and Nagel (2012) and Keith (2008) refer to. Tolia-Kelly (2008) does this by studying the notion of cosmopolitanism when investigating the discourses around the concepts of ‘native’ and ‘non-native’, supported by empirical data from the UK. She starts of by addressing the way in which transnational migrants and society are talked about in research. When researchers want to shine a more positive light on the multicultural society, they often embrace the concept ‘cosmopolitanism’ and see society in this light. This however gives a simplistic view of people in society, and often
13 adopts a Euro-centric, and privileged perspective, as cosmopolitanism is often regarded as a
universal experience in which people have no identification with any nation state. Tolia-Kelly emphasizes that the cosmopolitan experience is not universal, but very much particular. Every person has a different account of their cosmopolitanism and being cosmopolitan does not entail having no identification with a nationstate, but rather revolves around fluidity between
identifications. Cosmopolitanism, in Tolia-Kelly’s view, should therefore be viewed in a more organic way. It is therefore important to create a different, more inclusive and grounded understanding of cosmopolitanism. It is important for researchers focusing on transnationalism and cosmopolitanism to keep on emphasizing plurality rather than fixity, as transnational experiences are not simplistic and cannot be generalized.
2.3 Identity and identification
While studying the topics of territorial identification in the city and cosmopolitanism, it came to light that territorial identification can be fluid, and that it is therefore difficult to engage with territorial identification without engaging with identification per se. Therefore, in this section I will briefly touch upon identity and identification, and specifically ethnic identification.
Giampapa (2001), as also cited by Van der Welle (2011), adopts a post-modernist approach to ethnicities and identities. He emphasizes that ethnicities and identities are ‘everchanging,multiple, and always in negotiation (p. 281)’. While defining identity, Giampapa refers to several other academics engaging with the topic, which I will also refer to here. Norton Peirce (1993), says that social identity refers to “how a person understands his or her relationship to the social world, how that relationship is socially constructed across time and space, and how the person understands possibilities for the future (Norton Peirce, 1993, p. 9).” The process of identification is influenced by the specific circumstances a person encounters (Ryan, 1997, p. 42), like Simonsen and Koefoed (2011) also emphasize. When it comes to ethnic identity, however, it is not omnipresent, according to Heller (1987). It is only a small part of a person’s identity. Experiencing an ethnic identity is relevant in certain circumstances, but not all the time (p. 184). Heller is referring to ethnic identity being socially constructed. Ethnic identification exists because of practices aiming to separate people, either physically or socially, on the basis of ethnicity, and it is therefore only relevant when a person is consciously or subconsciously dealing with processes of in- or exclusion.
These dichotomist discourses can be broken down by putting emphasis on hybrid identities. The notion of hybrid identities revolves around identities in flux, rejecting boundedness to race, ethnicity, culture, nation, and other dimensions, and therefore rejecting the dichotomy of us and them.
14 Hybridity might therefore be used as a tool to limit the effects of exclusionary discourses aimed at creating inequality. Emphasizing hybrid identities breaks down stereotypical discourses and immaterial borders and therefore offers the possibility of developing more effective public policy that caters to a more diverse group of people. It is the ‘unfixed spaces in-between states and subject positions (p. 260)’ where resistance to dominant discourses takes place (Mitchell, 1997). Hybrid identities are relevant to this research, as the ethnicity of people of mixed parentage is literally situated in-between ethnicities. This could mean that identities of people of mixed parentage are ‘extra’ hybrid, as they are already in-between ethnicities. However, it could also be that people of mixed parentage identify with a certain ethnicity in a more fixed manner, be it an ethnicity that they biologically adhere to or not.
Jiménez (2010) elaborates on affiliative ethnic identity. Affiliative ethnic identity is an individual identity that is unrelated to a person’s objective ethnic origin, until a person regards themselves, or is regarded by others, as being part of that particular ethnic group. This type of ethnic identity does therefore not depend on claims of ancestry. Rather, it depends on knowledge of anything revolving the particular ethnic identity, in order to be able to employ it. In this manner, individuals are not confined to their own ethnic background to be able to form an ethnic identity. Jiménez is not referring to ethnic crossover; rather he is referring to people being able to fully embody a certain ethnic identity (pp. 1756-1757).
Although Jiménez does not refer to people of mixed parentage when describing affiliative ethnic identity, the concept can still be of interest when studying people of mixed parentage, as it suggests that being of mixed parentage does not necessarily pose a limit when it comes to ethnic
identification. People with mixed ethnic background can still embody a certain ethnic identity by immersing themselves in everything having to do with the specific identity.
2.4 Conclusion
What this study has clarified is that processes revolving around territorial identification develop in an organic way, like Paasi states, and that even though people are subject to dichotomous, exclusionary discourses, they still are still “active, experiencing, feeling persons (p. 66)”. People are in other words not necessarily subject to dominant discourses on territorial identification, as their identification can also be hybrid. This also became clear when researching the literature on territorial identification and the city. (Territorial) identities oftentimes manifest in a hybrid way in cities, and they are fluid and transient. The identities as referred to in the literature on everyday citizenship and
15 cosmopolitanism are also fluent and transient, but they were not defined as being territorial
identities.
Because ethnic, as well as other, identities are expected to play a role in the territorial identification of people of mixed parentage, and because after reviewing literature it has not become clear how ethnic identities, territorial identities, or identities in general interrelate, this research will approach territorial identification in an open manner, focusing on how the respondents identify, be it
16 3. Methods
This chapter revolves around the methods that are used in this research. In section 3.1 I will elaborate on the sub-questions this research tries to answer. Section 3.2 will revolve around participant selection, section 3.3 will go into detail on the way in which the data is collected, in section 3.4 the process of analysis is discussed, in section 3.5 I will go into depth about the
limitations of the research methods, in section 3.6 ethical considerations are briefly touched upon, and finally, section 3.7 will lay out the way in which this research is presented.
3.1 Explaining the research questions
In this section, the sub-questions that this research is trying to answer will be explained in further detail.
As mentioned in the introduction, the research question that this research will try to answer is the following:
How do young adults of mixed parentage in Amsterdam identify with the territorial units of
respectively the city of Amsterdam, the Netherlands and the country of origin of their ‘other’ parent, what characteristics play a role in this identification and how do these identifications relate to each other?
And the sub-questions this research tries to answer are:
1. What is known so far about the (territorial) identification of people of mixed parentage (in the Netherlands and in Amsterdam)?
2. How do young adults of mixed parentage in Amsterdam identify with the Netherlands and with the other country in play and how do these ways of identifying relate to each other?
3. How do young adults of mixed parentage in Amsterdam identify with Amsterdam and how does this way of identifying relate to the ways in which they identify with the Netherlands and with the other country in play?
4. What characteristics play a role in the territorial identification of young adults of mixed parentage in Amsterdam?
It is chosen to address the (territorial) identification of people of mixed parentage both in a
theoretical chapter and in an empirical chapter. As mentioned, not a lot has been written about the matter so far and it seems as if there are no academic sources on people of mixed parentage that have been referenced a lot or have been taken up in a general discourse, especially not from a spatial perspective. In answering this sub-question I therefore draw from scientific literature, from
17 Dutch policies, from statistics on the Netherlands and from Amsterdam, and from my own
experiences as a young adult of mixed parentage in Amsterdam.
The division of territorial identifications in the second and third sub-question will provide more structure in answering the main research question. The second research question will focus on identifications with the national territories of the Netherlands and the other country in play, while the third sub-question focuses on the local territory of Amsterdam. This is done because when looking at the before mentioned research of Van der Welle (2011) and Simonsen and Koefoed (2011) research on territorial identification, it can be seen that national and local territorial identifications can exist next to each other, as opposed to being dependent on each other and existing in a hierarchical order. These respectively local and national territorial identifications have vastly different reasoning and feelings behind it for most respondents in those researches. With these sub-questions, it will be gauged how and if young adults of mixed parentage in Amsterdam identify with these territorial identifications, and if it is different from the territorial identification of people without mixed parentage.
The fourth sub-question will focus specifically on the different characteristics that play a role in territorial identifications of young adults of mixed parentage in Amsterdam. The characteristics that will be explored are individual characteristics, family characteristics and social geographical
characteristics.
3.2 Participant selection
This research will specifically look at territorial identification with respectively Amsterdam, the Netherlands and the other country in play, of young adults living in Amsterdam, who (partly) grew up in the Netherlands and speak Dutch, with one parent who grew up in the Netherlands of whom both parents grew up in the Netherlands as well, and one parent who grew up in another country, in which their parents also grew up. The research therefore does not include the whole realm of young adults with mixed parentage. It does not include young adults with two parents who grew up somewhere other than the Netherlands and young adults of whom one or both parents is/are a person of mixed parentage in the sense in which the term is used in this research. The latter exclusion also means that this research excludes some young adults of mixed race, as it can be that both of the parents of a person of mixed race grew up in the Netherlands. The reason that this research focuses on this selection is that people of mixed parentage make up such a big and diverse group that making a selection is inevitable for the results of the research to be relevant.
18 on territorial identification, and researching the territorial identification of all people of mixed race, albeit interesting, would therefore have to be done in another kind of research. The countries of Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten, although all part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, are also seen as ‘other’ countries in this research. A person with one parent from Aruba and one parent from the main land of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, is therefore seen as a person of mixed parentage in this research, as they are not regarded as Dutch in official statistics and popular discourse. I expect that dominant discourses on the multicultural society and territorial identification have a great influence over people’s identification and therefore assume that people with one parent from Aruba, Curaçao or Sint Maarten are of the same category as (other) people of mixed parentage. Whether or not respondents with one parent from Aruba, Curaçao or Sint Maarten agree with me is also of interest to me, as it shines more light on what it means and what it does not mean to be of mixed parentage.
Besides the relevance of studying territorial identifications of young adults of mixed parentage in the context of the Netherlands and Amsterdam, another reason for choosing Amsterdam as the
territorial unit in which I will do my research, is that I was born in the Netherlands, and have been living in Amsterdam for almost ten years. I feel that this is important, as it is important for a researcher to understand as much as possible of the local contexts.
This research focuses on young adults (participants ages range from 20 to 32 years old) in particular, although the biggest group of people of mixed parentage in Amsterdam consists of children between 1 and 12 years old (Sterckx, 2014). Interviewing children, however, can be tricky, as one has to pay extra attention to research ethics. Also, the questions one would normally ask about identification do not always apply. Children have probably not developed their identities enough, are not
autonomous enough, and have not yet had enough experiences to be able to partake in interviews about identification. Young adults can be an interesting group to look at because they have already had the chance to reflect on their experiences and think about the way they identify, but also have a lot ahead of them to aspire to, which might influence the way they identify, and might make them have stronger ideas on how they identify. Another reason for choosing young adults as the research group is that I myself am a young adult and I tend to understand and identify with other young adults most. This might benefit the research, as I have experience of what it is like to be of my generation and might therefore go more into depth when interviewing young adults as opposed to when interviewing someone from another age group, for example by referring to my own
experiences, or those of my friends. In addition, it can also be that respondents feel more
19 Although a selection is made, the group that is taken up in this research is still very diverse. It is comprised of people with vastly different origins, no distinction is made between ‘Western’ and ‘non-Western’ origin, for example. Furthermore, the relationship people have with the Netherlands and with the other country (if someone speaks the language of the other country, if someone visits there often, if someone has lived there, etc.) is not taken into account when selecting participants, just as the way a person looks, where in the Netherlands they were born, what relationship they have with their parents, what kind of friends they have, their educational level, etcetera. The
possible characteristics that are related to identifying in a specific manner are especially what will be explored here.
Respondents will be gathered through a snowball mechanism. Friends and acquaintances are asked if they know young adults of mixed parentage, and subsequently the respondents will be asked the same question. It is tried to interview a diverse group of people. The respondents differ when it comes to gender, educational background, ethnicities, the place in the Netherlands where they grew up, whether their father or mother is from another country, etcetera.
Table 1 shows the participants and their basic background characteristics. Names have been changed in order to ensure the privacy of the respondents.
I have interviewed four people of whom the ‘other’ parent’s origin lies in Europe (excluding the three respondents of whom the ‘other’ parent is from respectively Sint Maarten and Aruba) and, when including the three respondents of whom the ‘other’ parent’s origin lies in Japan and Indonesia, seven respondents are officially ‘Western allochtonen’, as opposed to thirteen respondents who are ‘non-Western allochtonen’. The term ‘allochtoon’ is oftentimes used in the Netherlands to talk about people with origins outside of the Netherlands. The concept is explained in detail in chapter 4. It can be that this disparity between ‘Western’ and ‘non-Western allochtonen’ is representative of the actual situation, and it can also be caused by coincidence. Besides that, it is probable that it is also caused by the biased ideas people, including myself, have on what it means to be of mixed parentage. For example, I know that one of the people who on my behalf approached her friends to join my research referred to my research as being about ‘halfbloedjes’ (‘halfbloods’), a term that I will elaborate on in chapter 4. Monika, who was approached by said person and whose mother is from Poland, at the beginning of the interview stated the following:
“[W]hen someone says the word ‘halfblood’ [(‘halfbloedje’)] I have to say I think of someone who is a little colored [(‘getint’)], or at least with a parent from another country than where mine is from, so maybe that’s why I wonder if I’ll able to help out with your research (Monika, June 11, 2015).”
20
Table 1: Respondents and their basic characteristics. Name Age Gender ‘Other’
country
‘Other’ parent
Place where they grew up
Ayumi 27 Female Japan Mother Tokyo and Amsterdam (in total 13 years in Amsterdam)
Jan 29 Male Peru Mother Amsterdam
Laura 26 Female Uganda Father Amsterdam
Denise 28 Female Switzerland Mother Noordbroek, Groningen (2 years in Amsterdam)
Fabienne 28 Female France Father Banlieu of Paris (3 years in Amsterdam, before that 5 years in Rotterdam) Benjamin 22 Male Sint Maarten Mother Amsterdam
Paul 28 Male Sint Maarten Mother Amsterdam
Alexander 25 Male Aruba Father Alkmaar, Noord-Holland (3,5 years in Amsterdam)
Hana 25 Female Japan Mother Amsterdam
Chasca 20 Female Ecuador Father Amsterdam
Stephanie 20 Female Gambia Father Amsterdam
Jasper 27 Male Morocco Father Amsterdam
Monika 26 Female Poland Mother Bovenkarspel, Noord-Holland (2 years in Amsterdam)
Caroline 20 Female Russia Mother Vriezenveen, Overijssel and Amsterdam (7 years in Amsterdam)
Jaaja 20 Female Gambia Father Amsterdam
Marian 20 Female Tanzania Father Amsterdam
Aaron 29 Male Israel Father Purmerend, Noord-Holland (9 years in Amsterdam)
Elias 28 Male Israel Father Amsterdam
Giovanni 32 Male Italy Father Amsterdam
Roeland 27 Male Indonesia Father Amsterdam
Monika refers to the idea of ‘halfbloedjes’ in popular discourse being people with an ‘exotic’ appearance. This idea is not foreign to me, and I, at the beginning of the research process, assumed
21 that there are more ‘non-Western’ people of mixed parentage than ‘Western’ people of mixed parentage in Amsterdam, and thus was also not on the lookout for people of mixed parentage with a ‘Western’ background.
Nine respondents are male, as opposed to eleven respondents being female. Furthermore, for twelve out of twenty respondents, the father is from the ‘other’ country, as opposed to the mother being from the ‘other’ country for eight out of twenty respondents. I consider this a reasonable balance. The four respondents with one parent from Sub-Saharan Africa, however, are all women, and the father is the ‘other’ parent in each case. These respondents have somewhat similar experiences, and therefore it would have been interesting to also have included men with a parent from Sub-Saharan Africa and people with a mother from Sub-Saharan Africa.
As for the distribution when it comes to age, I have interviewed young adults between the ages of 20 and 32 years old. I have not been able to find young adults of 18 and 19 years old. Furthermore, l only interviewed one respondent between the ages of 21 and 24, and all of the respondents of 20 years of age are female and are predominantly women with a father from Sub-Saharan Africa. This also means that the female respondents are on average younger than the male respondents. When it comes to the places where respondents grew up, seven respondents (partly) grew up outside of Amsterdam and thirteen respondents grew up in Amsterdam. For the respondents who grew up outside of Amsterdam, three grew up in the province of Noord-Holland, two (partly) grew up in other areas of the country, and two (partly) grew up outside of the Netherlands. The time that respondents have been living in Amsterdam differs between two years, and their whole lives. A dimension that I have not recorded, nor asked about specifically is class. The reason for this is that class is not defined and regarded in the Netherlands as it is for example in the United Kingdom, and therefore difficult to study, especially when it comes to young adults.
Of course there are many more relevant dimensions that could have been included in table 1, however, the table would become too complex and hard to read, and furthermore, the purpose of this research partly is to investigate which dimensions play a role in territorial identification. It therefore would not make sense to include more dimensions in the table, as it would defeat the purpose of the research and as this research is not quantitative in nature.
As can be seen, many intersections can be made between dimensions, and on the basis of those the group of respondents is less varied than when looking at the dimensions separately. However, it would have been practically impossible and unnecessary to gather respondents on the basis of these
22 intersections, also because at the beginning of the research process I did not know which dimensions and intersections would be relevant.
3.3 Data collection
The data that is used in this research is gathered by performing a literature study to gain more insight into the topics this research deals with, by researching policies, statistics and newspaper articles in order to investigate the Dutch context and the context of Amsterdam and finally by conducting interviews with young adults of mixed parentage in Amsterdam.
When it comes to the interviews, it is chosen to use only highly inductive, qualitative methods as it is tried to challenge existing discourses on superdiversity and territorial identification by introducing new, more embodied, narratives. It is tried to leave the research as open as possible, keeping at a minimum predefined categorizations or hypotheses, and conducting interviews with an open character to minimalize the influence of my own position, and to give the respondent as much space as she or he needs to talk about what they deem important.
The practical reasoning for doing research in a highly inductive manner is that it is almost impossible to do quantitative research on people of mixed parentage, as the group is so ‘messy’ in terms of background and characteristics, and thus its people difficult to categorize (and to find). Following Smith’s (2010) theories, elaborated upon below, it can be expected that intersections of
characteristics play a role in the identification of people of mixed parentage, rather than the characteristics individually. It is extra important that this research has an exploratory character because research on the territorial identification of people of mixed parentage has not been done yet. A certain categorization can therefore not be substantiated. Also, like Vertovec (2007) emphasizes, people cannot be categorized only on the basis of their ethnicity anymore in these superdiverse societies, as it is not always clear what ethnicity someone has, and because it is not to only relevant dimension. And if people would have to be categorized on the basis of the country of origin of the ‘other’ parent, this would also mean that the groups that would be researched would be too small for the research to result in relevant findings.
Other, and more substantive reasons for doing research with a highly inductive, qualitative character can be found in post-positivist literature. Reed (2010) emphasizes that two contexts are in play when doing research in social sciences in a post-positivist era; the experiences and perceptions of the researcher, and those of the subjects of the study. The theory that could be induced from a study lies at the crossroads of these two contexts. Reed therefore warns against deductivism in social sciences, as when having clear hypotheses and focusing on developing a theory, one oftentimes
23 finds what they are looking for and when evidence that does not correspond with said theory
emerges it is hard to acknowledge that and modify it (p. 27-28).
Agnew’s (2006) essay on the ‘habits’ of doing research derives from the same idea; some
longstanding ‘truths’ that are hard to deconstruct are “the product of the beliefs of the privileged white males who proposed it (p. 3).” He proposes, therefore, that academics acknowledge that all knowledge is space and time dependent. We can do this by not expecting certain truths, but being surprised about ‘what the world throws up’ (p. 4).
Smith’s (2010) feminist theory builds on these ideas. She vies for bottom up research, and proposes a framework for feminist ‘refigurings’ of Geopolitics (p. 215). Although her theory revolves around geopolitics, it can also be applied to social sciences in general. Smith says that there is a tendency to focus on discourse, numbers and ‘élite actions’, instead of on real people and their experiences. Therefore, dominant discourses overpower the narratives deployed by the grassroots, and give an incorrect, or at least incomplete, vision on the world. Smith says that there are three steps with which geopolitics (or social sciences in general) can be refigured. First, it is important to bring more embodied narratives to the fore. Up until now, social scientists have mostly centered their work on dominant discourses, with which earlier proposed truths will always be reintroduced, similar to what Agnew (2006) emphasizes. It is important to be aware of this, but being aware is not enough to change paradigms. Smith addresses the work of critical geopolitics, by saying that it only addresses power relations, but by doing so still reinforces dominant theories, as nothing new is proposed (p. 216). The second way with which this status quo can be refigured is therefore by considering the experiences of and reactions to the dominant discourses of marginalized and radicalized people. The emphasis herein lies on ‘embodied experiences’, pointing towards making the personal matter (p. 216). The third way in which discourses can be refigured is by changing the agenda. Feminist theory thus not only vies for the inclusion of ‘other’ voices into the existing framework, but for changing the framework altogether by introducing new themes (p. 217). In the case of the theme of this research, it seems that Vertovec (2007) and others emphasizing the need for a focus on superdiversity are doing this. They introduced a new topic, in order to not fall into the pitfalls of old discourses (e.g. the characterization of people on the basis of their ethnicity).
Another way of doing geography is by engaging with emotional geography, a sub-topic of human geography stemming from feminist theories, in which feelings stand at the forefront. Emotional geography deals with the integration of feelings into geographical research and the presentation of findings revolving around feelings. This oftentimes leads to researchers basing their researches solely on themselves as a respondent, as this provides them with the opportunity to continuously
24 investigate feelings by engaging in conversations with themselves throughout the research process, documenting every nuance and change in their feelings (Bondi, 2005). Unfortunately it is not in my scope as of yet to engage more with emotional geography, as I do not have sufficient experience with it.
The way in which it is tried to bring to the fore these more embodied narratives is by conducting semi-structured interviews, in which a few open questions are asked, after which the respondent is encouraged to tell more and to go deeper into narrating their experiences. When the topics the respondent introduces are fully covered, certain topics that are not mentioned yet are introduced. However, since the respondent has not mentioned these topics themselves, less weight is given to these topics when analyzing the interviews. Preceding the interviews it is tried to not have fixed ideas about what the outcomes should or could be, and it is tried not to develop hypotheses. This type of research is addressed by Hegelund (2005), who in his work on ethnographic research writes: “We find the view that any attempts to define in advance the structures, hypotheses, theories, and so on should be avoided at all costs (p. 651).” This is in his view a radical way of doing research, and Strauss & Corbin (1998, in Hegelund, 2005) agree. “They argued that the golden mean is to be open minded enough that new, surprising discoveries will not be ignored but, on the other hand, also focused enough that the researcher avoids drowning in a virtual data flood (p. 652).” Hegelund emphasizes that when one chooses to do research in a very open manner, it has an effect on the research process, as the data gathering process starts off in a highly unfocused way (p. 651). As this is quite an exploratory research, with the target group being a diverse group of people with diverse backgrounds, it is expected that this will indeed be the case. Therefore, it is chosen to keep on evaluating and analyzing in between interviews, so that a more focused approach, by having defined different recurring topics, can be introduced after the first few interviews.
In addition to the influence my own position has, like Reed (2010) emphasizes, how different people relate to me also has an influence on the research. It is inescapable that my background, my
appearance and the way I carry myself will have an influence on the way in which my respondents engage with me, as Van der Welle (2011) also emphasized. While she was also a young adult woman at the time of her research, she did not have the same cultural background, or experiences, as most of her respondents. She stressed that this influenced the way her respondents related to her, and the (subconscious) choices they made about what to say and what not to say. Van der Welle felt that she was clearly part of the group ‘you Dutch people’ (‘jullie Hollanders’) with her blue eyes and blonde hair (p. 11).
25 While I am part of the group I am trying to research, my presence will not have had less of an
influence than that of Van der Welle, albeit maybe a different one, depending on the respondent. I am a young adult woman of mixed parentage. My mother is from Brazil. I seem to have quite an ambiguous appearance, and although most people would say I am white, people never know what my origin is. A lot of people also think I am, or see me as, ‘fully’ Dutch (‘helemaal Nederlands’). I have been living in Amsterdam for the past eight years, but I am originally from Doetinchem, which is situated in De Achterhoek; a region in the east of the Netherlands that has a rural and backward image. Some people say they can hear where I am from in my accent, and other people say they cannot. It therefore really depends on the person how they relate to me and how I relate to them, as is the case with all interactions. When asking people to participate in my research and again at the beginning of my interviews, I introduced my research topic and my personal affinity with the topic, but I did not specify what my origin is. Some respondents ask me, but most do not.
The interviews were conducted in different locales depending on the preferences of the respondent. Some interviews were conducted at the respondents’ home, some were conducted at my home, some were conducted in a café, and one interview was conducted in a park. It was tried to be alone with the respondent as much as possible, although on two occasions someone else was present during the interview. These were people who the respondent was highly comfortable with on both occasions. Interviews lasted for about an hour on average, with the shortest interview lasting about half an hour, and the longest interview lasting about two hours.
3.4 Analysis
During the fieldwork, I have kept a journal in which I made notes on what surprised me and what stood out per respondent. After each interview, I have written down the main points that respondents stressed, what my thoughts were on how their experiences compared to other
experiences I had heard so far, and what characteristics played a role in their identification. What is interesting is that when I transcribed the audio-recordings I oftentimes heard nuances that I had not heard before, and sometimes even interpreted the respondents’ answers in a different manner than how I had interpreted them before. It is important to highlight this observation, as it is not only an integral part of doing research to be surprised again and again by the same data, but it also shows how delicate of a practice analyzing qualitative data is, especially data on feelings and experiences, as it is very vulnerable to interpretation. I do not feel that one interpretation is more accurate than the other, though. Either way, it has become apparent that just like territorial identification itself, analyzing the data on territorial identification is also a fluid process.
26 After having conducted and transcribed all of the interviews and having written down all of my observations, I have reviewed my research questions. All research questions still seemed relevant, however as territorial identification is fluid, after a while the process of analysis did not focus on dividing respondents into different groups based on their degree of identification with the territories anymore, but rather on instances when respondents do or do not feel a sense of identification with a certain territory, and furthermore instances when respondents identify as mixed. Based on the theories on territorial identification and identification in general, as referred to in chapter 2, I chose to analyze the data with a specific focus on how respondents feel, and how respondents mention that they identify. I therefore did not count a comment as being about identification when a respondent mentioned that they are of a certain ethnicity, for example, or that they have affinity with a certain territorial unit. Furthermore, feeling at home is also not regarded as revolving around identification, based on different respondents making the distinction between identification and
feeling at home.
When it comes to the characteristics that are of relevance for territorial identification of the respondentsfluidity is also kept in mind. Therefore, three broad categories of characteristics have been identified on the basis of the theories dealing with ‘territorial identification and the city’ that have been studied. The three categories are individual characteristics, family characteristics and
social geographical characteristics. These categories and their specific characteristics are expected
to intersect, and this, accompanied by the fluid character of identification, is the reason that a direct causal relationship between specific characteristics and territorial identification is not expected to be found.
3.5 Limitations
As my research is about identification, it very much revolves around feelings. When I asked
respondents how they identify, I asked them about how they feel, rather than about what they are. The intangibleness of feelings, however, posed difficulties I was not prepared for. I did expect fluidity to be an integral aspect that flows through all of the stages of my research, and I did expect that formulating how they identify could be difficult for people of mixed parentage, especially for young people. However, I did not keep in mind that my respondents, next to being of mixed parentage and young, are above all human, and that human beings oftentimes have a troubled relationship with feelings in general, and especially with their own feelings. There are three steps that precede communicating a feeling. One first needs to be aware of the presence of a feeling (1), before they can identify (2) and finally verbalize (3) said feeling (Petrova, 2008). Any person can have difficulties with any of the steps described. This means that, while most of my respondents were very articulate,
27 some respondents might not have been fully capable to ‘truthfully’ answer my questions. By
referring to the truth in the latter sentence, I pose the next limitation of this research. When a person cannot identify a certain feeling and therefore says it is not there, is this then not the truth? Does a feeling still exist when a person cannot identify it? And when my respondent absentmindedly says that they feel a certain way, and later on in the interview passionately and adamantly stress that they do not, which happened on several occasions, what do I write down? It is not in my scope as a human geographer to decide for my respondents what they feel, and neither is it respectful and ethical. For human geographers to be able to adequately integrate feelings into their research we therefore either need to engage in interdisciplinary research by collaborating with psychologists, or we need to increase the scope of human geography and human geographers by redefining the discipline in a way that increases the recognition and appreciation of feelings as integral and
essential for understanding geographical concepts and processes. We, in other words, need to bring back the ‘human’ in human geography. Doing this, however, poses another challenge, namely that of presentation. It proved to be very hard to present my findings adequately, as by analyzing data and grouping respondents, one automatically interferes with the data.
The fluidity of feelings in itself can also be viewed as a limit of this research. As I only spoke with my respondents for a maximum of two hours, they will almost certainly not have conveyed their verbalized feelings in a comprehensive manner. Naturally, this research therefore does not show how the respondents identify in a comprehensive manner either, but as this research is explorative in nature this is also not the aim of this research. Even though territorial identification will always remain fluid, focus groups could be a useful manner with which to increase the comprehension of observed trends and the role that different characteristics play in territorial identification of young adults of mixed parentage in Amsterdam, as the way respondents feel about their initial storylines and answers can be explored in this way. It was however not in my scope to conduct focus groups at this time.
Another limit of this research is that people who are not interested in talking about their mixedness, because they do not find it relevant or because they do not acknowledge it, for example, could not be reached. Other people who could be of interest to this research are people who left Amsterdam to go and live in another part of the Netherlands, or people who left Amsterdam for a country other than the Netherlands, be it their other country in play or someplace else. It is expected that these people identify differently with respectively Amsterdam and the Netherlands, and it would be interesting to investigate this, so that the identifications of both groups could be compared. Another comparison that would have been interesting to make for this research is that of the territorial
28 identifications of young adults of mixed parentage living in Amsterdam with those of young adults of mixed parentage living outside of Amsterdam. As for comparing my findings in order to position them, I do have Van der Welle’s (2011) research on territorial identification of young adults in Amsterdam, which does not include young adults of mixed parentage, to compare my findings to, but as the methods of both researches are different, this can only be done in a limited way.
3.6 Ethical considerations
As the interviews are about the identities of the respondents, it can be that the interviews will result in some respondents thinking about their identity more after the interview, or being slightly
confused. This does not necessarily have to be a problem, however, and can even be of benefit to the respondents.
Even though names have been changed to increase the privacy of the respondents, respondents can still be recognized by the people who know them, as their backgrounds and the stories that they tell are very unique, and furthermore, because names are relevant for this research, the names have been changed in such a way that they resemble the original name of the respondents. The fact that the respondents are somewhat recognizable is communicated to them when presenting them with this research, so that they can make an informed choice on whether or not they are going to share the research with the people around them.
3.7 Presentation of the results
The results are therefore presented in a fashion that corresponds with the qualitative methods of the research. As feelings are highly fluid and transient, it is impossible to present findings revolving around them in a representational manner. In the presentation of the results, it is therefore tried to reflect the stories of the respondents as much as possible. I do not elaborate on how many
respondents stated something, or how many respondents belong to a certain group. I thus do not use numbers when presenting my findings. The reason for this is both that territorial identification is very fluid, making it difficult and inappropriate to divide the respondents and put them in certain boxes, and because this research does not aim to distinguish between more common and less common answers, or more relevant and less relevant answers. This research is based on the idea that experiences are relevant simply because they exist. The results are therefore presented in an integral fashion, extensively describing respondents’ experiences. This is done by including lengthy quotations in which it is tried to have the complexity of and nuances in respondents experiences come to the fore as much as possible. It is tried to engage with the experiences of all respondents as this is necessary to bring across the vast array of experiences. The interviews have been conducted
29 in Dutch, and as this research is presented in English, I have translated the used quotations to
30 4. The discourse on multiculturalism in in the Netherlands and in Amsterdam
In this chapter it is tried to formulate a partial answer to the first sub-question of the research, namely;
‘What is known so far about the (territorial) identification of people of mixed parentage (in the Netherlands and in Amsterdam)?’
It is tried to partly answer this research question by looking at the discourse on multiculturalism and mixed parentage in the Netherlands and in Amsterdam, to see how the topic of mixed parentage is framed in The Netherlands and in Amsterdam, as this is expected to have an influence on the territorial identification of young adults of mixed parentage. This is done by first, in section 4.1, elaborating on the discourse on multiculturalism in the Netherlands, where after the discourse on multiculturalism in Amsterdam is touched upon in section 4.2. Finally, the discourse on people of mixed parentage in the Netherlands and in Amsterdam is explored in section 4.3. In section 4.4 the conclusions of this chapter are presented.
4.1 The discourse on multiculturalism in the Netherlands
Amsterdam is a city that harbors many different ‘ethnic groups’. In the municipality’s official
statistics on the ethnic origin (‘herkomstgroepering’) of Amsterdam’s population on January 1st, 2014 (Figure 1), it can be seen that in 2014 more than half of Amsterdam’s population is originally of foreign descent. For the Netherlands in general, this percentage lies much lower (again in 2014), at about twenty percent (CBS, 2014).
