Experiencing Non-Sovereignty
A Case Study of People’s Experience of Non-Sovereignty on St. Eustatius in relation to intersecting social divisions, historicity and contentious governance
Master thesis Political Science
Specialisation Public Policy and Governance Author: Kayin Venner
Supervisor: Franca van Hooren Second reader: Liza Mügge Date of completion: 23-06-2017
Table of Contents
Experiencing Non-Sovereignty ... 1
Chapter 1: Introduction ... 3
Research Questions ... 4
Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework ... 4
Chapter 3: Research Design ... 15
Methods of Data Collection ...15
Methods of Analysis ...18
Chapter 4: Case Study Analysis ... 21
Contextualizing the Case ...21
An Intersectional Analysis of the Benefits and Drawbacks of Political Integration ...26
Political Dynamics ...38
Deep Stories and historicities ...42
Chapter 5: Conclusion, Discussion and Suggestions for Future Research ... 47
Conclusion ...47
Discussion and Suggestions for Future Research...49
List of references ... 50
Chapter 1: Introduction
In 2010, the Netherlands Antilles, a country within the kingdom of the Netherlands, was dissolved into two autonomous countries (St. Maarten and Curacao), and three smaller ‘public bodies’ that became part of the Netherlands. Consequently, St. Eustatius, belonging to the latter category, was constitutionally and politically integrated into the Netherlands (Veenendaal, 2016). This new form of governance created - and still creates - various tensions, which are poorly understood, among others because of a lack of political and policy related research on the islands (Veenendaal, 2015, p.15-16).
Opinion polls have shown that citizens of St. Eustatius have become increasingly pessimistic about their current non-sovereign status (Spies et al, 2015). According to the ‘SNJI hypothesis’, a theory that is widely supported by academics, communities of sub-national island jurisdictions (SNIJs) gain various economic, (geo-) political and social advantages by ‘opting’ for non-sovereignty (Veenendaal, 2016; Baldacchino, 2010; Nadarajah & Grydehøj, 2016; Oostindie, 2006). However, on average, the people of St. Eustatius perceive the overall situation on their island to be worse than before political integration (Spies et al, 2015). Moreover, inequality on the island has grown, as well as the call for autonomy (Spies et al., 2015, Veenendaal, 2016b). Opinion research conducted in 2016 confirms these findings (Veenendaal, 2016c).
Thus, the SNJI hypothesis, broadly supported in scholarly literature, does not overlap with the experiences of inhabitants of St. Eustatius, as depicted in opinion polls. How can we account for the discrepancy between scholarly literature (who overall tend to positively evaluate non-sovereignty) and people’s evaluation of non-sovereignty? Given, among other things, the various (historic) inequalities on the island, a potential explanation may be found by focusing on social divisions, historicity and political dynamics on SNIJs. Historicity will be understood as the way people attribute meaning to the present and future in relation to how they make sense of the past. Taking an ethnographic, community perspective, my research aims to find out how social divisions, historicity and political dynamics relate to people’s positive and/or negative evaluations of non-sovereignty.
Apart from the fact that no ethnographic research on this topic has been conducted among the people of St. Eustatius following the governance changes of 2010, my research will contribute to literature on autonomy and the debate about the SNIJ hypothesis in island studies literature. While some have argued that satisfying dissatisfied populations in non-sovereign settings may merely require: “protection from discrimination and preservation of cultural, linguistic, or other values from majority assault: (Hannum, 2011, p.5), my thesis sheds light on the reasons why this alone will not suffice in the case of St. Eustatius. Moreover, inspired by Androus and Greymorning (2016), I will argue that the SNJI hypothesis has overlooked local underlying inequalities and social divisions that are vital when assessing benefits and drawbacks to non-sovereignty. Currently, inhabitants of SNJI’s are conveniently thrown on a heap in academia when arguing, “opting for non-sovereign jurisdictional status may be a highly rational, strategic choice” (Baldacchino and Milne, 2006, p. 490). An important question remains unanswered in scholarly literature: who experiences non-sovereignty as something advantageous and whom does not? For whom is it strategic and rational, for whom is it not? And how do evaluations of non-sovereignty relate to social divisions, historicity and political dynamics?
I believe ethnographic research, characterised by in-depth interviews and participant observation, may hold the key for a better understanding of how people experience their non-sovereign status and how this relates to various social divisions on
the island. My research sheds light on the relative successes and failures of the process of political integration into the Netherlands. In addition, the outcome of my thesis may contribute to a better understanding of how the island should be governed according to its citizens, and what can be done to reduce the dissatisfaction among the population with regard to their current non-sovereign status.
Research Questions
The following research question has been drafted: How do citizens of St. Eustatius experience their non-sovereign status, and how does this relate to intersecting social divisions, political dynamics, and historicity?
In order to answer the main research question, the following sub-questions have been drafted:
Which disadvantages or negative experiences are referred to when talking about non-sovereignty/the current ‘special municipality status’?
Which advantages or positive experiences are referred to when talking about non-sovereignty/the current ‘special municipality status’?
To what extent are these advantages/disadvantages equally experienced among the island population?
To what extent do social divisions underlie negative and positive evaluations of non-sovereignty/the current ‘special municipality status’?
How do people’s historicities relate to their non-sovereign experience, and how does this shape their deep story?
How do political dynamics relate to people’s non-sovereign experience?
Structure
This thesis is structured as follows: firstly, the theoretical framework will be outlined, which is structured according to four themes: Benefits and Drawbacks to Non-Sovereignty, Social Divisions and Intersectionality, Political Dynamics and Historicity and Deep Story. Thereafter, the methodological section will follow, in which I will discuss my methods of data collection and methods of data analysis. This section will be followed by the case analysis, which is structured according to the four themes discussed in the theoretical framework, including a case contextualization. Lastly, the conclusion and discussion will follow, in which I will summarize my main findings, and critically discuss the limitations of these, followed by suggestions for future research. Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework
This chapter consists of four parts. Firstly, I will delve into the theoretical debate surrounding the SNIJ hypothesis, outlining theories on the benefits and drawbacks of non-sovereignty. Thereafter, I try to fill in a gap in the existing small island literature by elaborating on social divisions, especially language community and class, and intersectionality. It is, among other things, these dimensions that the SNIJ hypothesis has overlooked, whereas, I will argue, they are vital to better evaluate and understand differing experiences of non-sovereignty. Thirdly, the literature on political and social dynamics of small island communities will be discussed, e.g. by referring to partisan and personalistic politics; elements that should be taken into consideration when contextualizing the experiences on St. Eustatius. Lastly, I will elaborate on the influence of ‘historicity’, specifically regarding slavery and colonialism, in trying to make sense of contemporary experiences. Throughout my theoretical framework, I aim to position my
research in the existing academic literature discussed, and question its validity and relevance to my main research question (Knopf, 2006).
The SNIJ hypothesis
In the 20th century a process of decolonization unfolded around the globe and many previously colonized territories became independent countries. Exceptionally, many small islands were reluctant to pursue independence, as they were heavily dependent on their previous colonizers and feared to lose the economic, social and political benefits that accompanied affiliation (Grydehøj, 2016). As a consequence, many islands ‘chose’ to maintain their non-sovereign status by becoming a ‘sub-national island jurisdiction’ – a political status in which an island remains constitutionally and politically affiliated with their previous colonizer (Grydehøj, 2016). As Baldacchino and Milne (2006, p.1) have observed, this status encompasses a power asymmetry; “sub-national island jurisdictions (SNIJs) manifest diverse expressions of governance within typically asymmetrical relationships with a much larger state” (Baldacchino and Milne, 2006, p.1). Given that St. Eustatius has been labelled “one of the smallest non-sovereign jurisdictions in the world” (Veenendaal, 2016b, p.4), this asymmetric relationship is very asymmetric indeed. Worldwide, there are more than 100 sub-national island jurisdictions and every SNIJ may enjoy a different extent of autonomy (Veenendaal, 2015, p.17). This makes it difficult to make comparisons between SNIJs. Central to Island Studies literature, however, is the discussion among scholars about the alleged benefits and drawbacks of non-sovereignty; are sub-national island jurisdictions (SNIJs) better off than their sovereign counterparts? In this discussion, many scholars have argued that opting for non-sovereignty, thus remaining politically affiliated with a larger metropolis, outweighs sovereignty because of social, political and economic benefits (Grydehøj, 2016; Androus and Greymorning, 2016, p. 452). Among others, military, economic, financial and social welfare assistance, as well as access to markets and contributions to law and order [and defense], have been mentioned as advantages of non-sovereignty (Veenendaal, 2016; Nadarajah & Grydehøj, 2016; Baldacchino and Milne, 2006; Oostindie, 2006; McElroy and Mahoney, 2000). Higher qualities of education and healthcare have also been observed as advantages of non-sovereignty (Baldacchino and Milne, 2006, p.489; McElroy and Mahoney, 2000).
One example depicting the advantageous side of non-sovereignty versus sovereignty for small islands jurisdictions is the observation that: “globally, citizens of SNIJs have a
per-capita income almost three times higher than those in small island developing states (SIDS)” (Baldacchino and Hepburn, 2012, p.562). With regard to Caribbean islands, it has also been argued that “sovereignty is a drawback for economic development, not only for the young micro-states of the region, but even for the largest states with a history of independence dating back one to two centuries” (Oostindie, 2006, p.610). Moreover, Oostindie (2006, p. 624) argues that the position of the Dutch Caribbean islands – ‘between the centers of drug production and drug consumption’ - complicates sovereignty as it would put a stress on their capacity to manage by themselves the corrupting force of the drug business.
In contrast to the above-mentioned advantages of non-sovereignty, important disadvantages of non-sovereignty mentioned in the scholarly literature include: dependency between the island and the metropolis, the democratic deficit, and
complications with identity formation (nation-building) and political emancipation (Oostindie, 2006; Veenendaal, 2016, p.153). The first expresses itself in having little to say in multiple policy areas, and policies and laws being largely implemented by the metropolis (Veenendaal, 2015, p.18). The second, with the exception of some countries like France, entails the lack of political representatives from the SNIJ in the institutions of the metropolis (Veenendaal, 2015, p.18). The last disadvantage is said to be especially paramount in colonial settings. The above disadvantages have been referred to as ‘ideational and intangible’ in nature (Veenendaal, 2016b), and in the context of the Dutch Caribbean, an obvious example would be the sentiment of ‘recolonization’ (Veenendaal, 2016, p.153)
Overall, given the many tangible advantages and intangible disadvantages, there seems to be a preference among scholars in favor of affiliation. In other words, despite the above-mentioned disadvantages many scholars seem to agree with the statement that: “Islands nowadays may therefore be wise to ignore the siren call of sovereignty and cut their arrangements more pragmatically and creatively” (Baldacchino and Milne, 2006, p.491). Androus and Greymorning (2016, p. 452) summarize the entire debate as follows: “The island studies literature shows broad support for the position that remaining politically affiliated with a former colonial power creates a set of economic and social benefits for small islands, offsetting the limits to economic and social development that they typically face”. Thus, all the above culminates into the SNIJ hypothesis; non-sovereignty is beneficial to sub-national island jurisdictions (Androus and Greymorning, 2016).
Veenendaal (2016b, p.262) has argued that: “In sum, the debate about the relative merits and disadvantages of nonsovereignty can largely be seen as a head versus heart dilemma, in which nonsovereignty can be regarded as a strategically pragmatic and rational, yet psychologically and ideologically unsatisfactory outcome.” I criticize this statement because it assumes island populations in favour of sovereignty are ‘irrational’, whereas they may have genuine material and emotional interests underpinning their desiring for sovereignty. Such a distinction – head versus heart – is too crude. It also raises the question: what is rational and pragmatic?
A note to make here is the difference between sovereignty, independence and autonomy. Full-sovereignty refers to state independence; ‘the fundamental authority of a state to exercise its power without being subservient to any outside authority’ (Hannum, 2011, p.15). Autonomy, then, can be understood as ‘the right to be different and to be left alone; to preserve, protect and promote values which are beyond the legitimate reach of the rest of society’ (Hannum, 2011, p.4). In general autonomy is achieved somewhere in between full non-sovereignty and full sovereignty. In many cases, satisfying the desire for autonomy among dissatisfied populations ‘may imply no more than protection from discriminiation and preservation of cultural, linguistic, or other values from majority assault. In many instances, adoption of a federal system or the devolution of meaningful power from the center to geogrpahic, linguistic, or ethnic based regions is sought” (Hannum, 2011, p.5). In other words, you can have a certain degree of sovereignty without being independent in the form of autonomy (Androus and Greymorning, 2016). In international law, three possible decolonization models for non-self governing territories exist; independence, incorporation in another state and free association
(Crawford, 2006, p.623-625). The difference between incorporation and free association rests, among other things, in the degree of autonomy (Crawford, 2006); in general, the latter option of free association grants more autonomy than incorporation.
Few previously colonized islands in the Caribbean are absolutely sovereign or absolutely non-sovereign; a myriad of arrangements exist between previously colonized islands and its colonizer, each enjoying a different extent of autonomy. The SNIJ hypothesis is based on a rather absolute distinction between sovereignty and non-sovereignty, but the more interesting question would be: which political arrangements between the metropolitan and previously colonized island are beneficial to the populations (!) of non-sovereign islands, and which are not? In the context of the Caribbean, it can be observed that: “For all practical purposes politicians in the non-sovereign Caribbean aspire to maintain the many material advantages of the postcolonial bond, while at the same time securing maximum autonomy” (Oostindie, 2006, p. 612-613).
In line with this tension, scholars have observed that people may want to achieve autonomy above full-sovereignty (Baldacchino and Hepburn, 2012). According to Baldacchino and Hepburn (2012, p.560) this is also partly due to the hollowing out of the state by decentralisation and globalisation, which have made statehood less attractive. Having said this, any pursuit for autonomy and more independence in the beginning of the 21st century may therefore slightly deviate from the independence movements of the 20th century, during which most actors still fought for full sovereignty (Baldacchino and Hepburn, 2012).
Over the past decades, it has become increasingly acceptable by scholars and nations alike to acknowledge that non-sovereign options by previously colonized peoples are also to be respected (Veenendaal, 2015, p.16). However, as some scholars have noted, it is questionable to what extent people have enjoyed a proper degree of freedom when making such a “choice”. Rightfully, some scholars have pointed out that the act of “choice” has been marginalised by a history of slavery and colonialism and that ‘choosing’ and ‘opting’ are therefore misguiding terms; ‘the very nature of a colonial, or even postcolonial, relationship precludes the possibility of choice on the part of the colonized people: they were forced into these relationships’ (Androus and Greymorning, 2016, p.458). Moreover, this seems even more palpable in the case of St. Eustatius, where the outcomes of multiple referenda have been disregarded in order to achieve the political status the island currently enjoys. Subsequently, Veenendaal (2015, p.21) has even noted that ‘it is therefore to a certain extent questionable whether the UN-established right to self-determination has been fully respected here”. Although I will not go into any legal ambiguity, it is important to note that the language and tone of the academic discussion is rather out of line in the context of St. Eustatius.
Another problem with the current debate is that scholars have been reasoning and basing their arguments from the perspective of the entire jurisdiction, and have thus not acknowledged that a non-sovereign status may work out differently for different groups of people. This is nicely depicted by the following phrase: ‘how much autonomy are non-sovereign island jurisdictions willing to compromise in return for the benefits associated with non-sovereignty?’ (Veenendaal, 2015, p.18). Obviously, an island cannot be ‘willing’, and these alleged benefits for the jurisdiction may not necessarily translate into benefits
for all its peoples, which people on SNIJs may be well aware off, especially when having been denied access to certain benefits all their lives. Rather, it is the variety of peoples of SNIJs whom are faced with a ‘postcolonial predicament’ (Oostindie, 2006, p. 624) that they never chose for and that is still a source of tense political debates (Veenendaal, 2015, p.18).
Another point to make here is that ‘we’ – as scholars – may evaluate sovereignty/non-sovereignty very differently on the basis of certain assumptions, e.g. that economic development is the ultimate goal worth striving for. As Androus and Greymorning (2016, p.457) have noted: “…Indigenous communities may defy the logic of economic rationality by preferring to manage landscapes in such a way that undeveloped seafronts are prioritised over high-density vacation units, or that low-intensity transhumance agriculture is prioritised over extractive industries”. As a consequence, indigenous populations and others may differently experience and prioritize, based on cultural and other factors, the importance of certain changes following non-sovereignty, in contrast to what scholars may assume.
Androus and Greymorning (2016, p. 460) argue that further testing of the SNIJ hypothesis is needed, as insufficient distinction has been made between indigenous populations and others when assessing the benefits and drawbacks to island non-sovereignty; they conclude that the SNIJ hypothesis remains unproven. I agree; yet, I would argue that solely making a distinction between indigenous populations and others does not suffice either. Rather, various kinds of social divisions and inequalities should be taken into account when assessing the benefits and drawbacks to SNIJs. Not only between indigenous populations and others, but also among the indigenous populations itself or, in the absence of an indigenous population, between ethnicity, religion, gender and other social divisions, which could account for how non-sovereignty is differently experienced.
Social divisions and intersectionality
In order to look into this, I will shed light on the importance of social divisions and intersectionality. A gap within the current literature is the lack of attention given to underlying social divisions and inequalities among island inhabitants that may account for differences in people’s evaluation of non-sovereignty. Whereas Androus and Greymorning (2016) have opened up the debate by arguing for the importance of making a distinction between native populations and others, other social divisions should also be accounted for if scholars want to more accurately grasp and understand the benefits and drawbacks to non-sovereignty according to its peoples.
Manza and Brooks (1999, p.1) have noted that the influence of social divisions on politics has been at the centre stage in the field of political sociology. According to Andersen and Heath (2002, p.301), social divisions, like class and gender, are influential in terms of how people vote and think about/evaluate particular issues. This idea is based on the premise that ‘differences in social position are associated with different concerns, that in turn encourage support for parties that represent these concerns’ (Andersen and Heath, 2002, p. 301). In comparative political science, scholars have looked at ‘cleavages’ to make sense of these differences in voting behaviour (Stoll, 2004). Many scholars have not accounted for the difference between social division and cleavage. According to Goldberg (2016, p. 14) ‘a social division is an essential and
intrinsic part of a cleavage, but the latter goes beyond the rather general category of division’. Goldberg (2016, p.14) has noted that cleavages are those divisions that can be characterized by three levels; socio-cultural, normative and organisational.
Given that it will not be the focus of analysis to analyse the extent to which different social divisions meet the prerequisite three levels mentioned above, I shall adhere to the more general concept of ‘social divisions’, which also enables one to look at the underlying powers and inequalities in society (Anthias, 2013). Based on the premise that ‘differences in social position are associated with different concerns’ (Andersen and Heath, 2002, p.301), the overall expectation is that social divisions may explain how non-sovereignty is differently, and unevenly, experienced and evaluated.
Payne (2013) has defined social division as ‘a substantial social difference between two or more categories of people’ and has observed that social inequalities are simultaneously a product and a part of social divisions. Best (2005, p.8) has argued that these categories ‘are not simply given, they have to be established and maintained’ and that ‘the process through which they appear is known as social division”. In other words, social division can be understood as a verb and a noun; a process and an (temporal) outcome. According to Anthias (2001, p. 843), ‘the term ‘social division’ is very broad and it is possible to include under its ambit all types of ‘difference’ such as age, health, religion, styles of life and so on’. Thus, the number of social divisions is theoretically extensive; given the social stratification of St. Eustatius derived from the literature (Van den Bor, 1979; Veenendaal, 2016), and based on fieldwork experience, I focus here on only a few social divisions; class and language community [as a proxy for ethnicity and immigration status].
In scholarly literature, especially in feminist theory, discussions have focused on the intersectionality of various inequalities and social divisions. Herein, scholars argue that analyzing and viewing social divisions and inequalities as separate categories would be erroneous and inadequate (Yuval-Davis, 2006; Anthias, 2013), given that they alone may not explain how certain social groups have been disadvantaged over others; people’s experiences may be differently understood as they belong to multiple overlapping social divisions. Therefore, I aim to follow an intersectional approach to social division in relation to the issue of non-sovereignty. In other words, I aim to make sense of the interconnections of social divisions on St. Eustatius in relation to the call for more autonomy and the experiences of non-sovereignty. According to Anthias (2013) ‘…intersectionality posits that social divisions interrelate in terms of the production of social relations and in terms of people’s lives. For example, gender is seen as inflected by other social divisions such as ‘race’ and class, and they are seen as mutually constitutive’ (p.4).
Various approaches to analyze intersectionality exist, many of them relatively complex (McCall, 2005). I aim to follow a categorical approach (McCall, 2005, p.1773), in which I will try to draw relations between the social divisions analyzed (instead of analyzing without or within categories), combining and borrowing elements of the (analytical) approaches proposed by Anthias (2013) and Bilge (2009). However, although I will be attentive to the interrelations of social divisions as much as possible, I aim not to make a thorough intersectional analysis as such, given its complexity and the fact that the analysis of the social divisions themselves in relation to non-sovereignty are also of
importance (instead of merely the points of intersection).
One of the social divisions that will be looked into in this thesis is based on ‘class’. Class has been described in a myriad of ways and - given the importance of a decrease in purchasing power following political integration - I will follow the Weberian definition of class, which is a rather narrow definition of class that focuses on economic position (e.g. based on income), as opposed to status and power, which are sometimes also included in the concept of (social) class (Jakopovich, 2014; Lynch and Kaplan, 2000). Weber theorized that unequal distribution of resources and skills was the consequence of a particular stratification of society along the lines of status, power and class (Lynch and Kaplan, 2000, p.15). Weber argued that class was an important marker in people’s ‘life chances’ (Lynch and Kaplan, 2015, p.16). A popular discussion in the social sciences, therefore, focuses on the extent to which class influences people’s life chances. Whereas many scholars have argued that the influence of class in determining one’s life chances is diminishing, others have argued against this (Jakopovich, 2014, p.2).
I will refrain from the popular scholarly debate on whether the influence of class is rising or diminishing and assume that people’s economic position influences one’s life’s chances and may thus influence people’s interests and define which problems they typically face, and consequently how they may experience non-sovereignty in different ways. Class often does not stand on itself; it is often related to other factors, such as level of education (Galobardes et. al, 2006; Lynch and Kaplan, 2000, p.22). Although I acknowledge the relationship class has with level of education, e.g. in terms of defining one’s life chances, I will follow the Weberian definition of class and will consequently derive people’s class position from people’s accounts of their job position.
According to Hale (2004, p.458-459) social scientists have recognized the importance of ethnicity in politics. In scholarly literature, a distinction is made between “primordialism” and “constructivism”, yet, according to Hale, both are not accurate to describe ethnicity in a well-defined manner (Hale, 2004, p.458-459). Primordialism sees groups and ethnicities as a rather fixed, as a given, whereas constructvisim argues that group identities, and ethnicities, change and evolve over time and that there are thus no presupposed walls between groups per se (Hale, 2004). Hale (2004) argues for a psychological approach to ethnicity, with reference to the psychological need people have to categorize society into groups and their place in it, thus containing both elements of primordialism and constructivism, which he concludes are therefore not very useful labels.
Among other things, ethnicity are therefore related to identity and group belonging (Hale, 2004, p.478-79). Accordingly, ethnicity is defined by Hale as: “a certain kind of social radar; […] a perceptual device through which people come to see where they stand in relation to the human environment” (Hale, 2004, p. 473). In line with what has been observed about class, it is argued that ethnicity impacts people’s life chances (Hale, 2004, p. 468). As a consequence, ethnicity may account for how people experience things differently as they navigate their (social) environments. In this thesis, following a more hybrid approach of primordialism and constructivism, I will derive people’s ethnicities from both their place of origin and their accounts of their identity and group belonging.
According to Nadarajah & Grydehøj (2016, p.443): ‘The challenge for island studies is to address the full range of island perspectives, to approach island decolonization in a manner that is both progressive and reflexive.” I believe an intersectional approach holds the key for accounting for this full range of island perspectives, taking into account, among other things, class and ethnicity. To conclude, I quote Anthias (2012, p.13-14), who has argued for being attentive to the intersections between social divisions and to not make assumptions herein: “One or other of the divisions does not always matter in particular contexts or some may matter more than others’.
Political dynamics on St. Eustatius
With regard to local political dynamics on the non-sovereign island of St. Eustatius, Veenendaal (2016; 2016b, p.260) has showed that personalistic and clientelist politics play a defining role. Personalistic politics is a kind of politics in which the political leaders and their personal and family connections are more central to the electorate than their political ideologies. Veenendaal (2016b, p.260) states that: “more direct and frequent contacts between citizens and politicians in small island societies entail that politics is very personal in nature, and that interpersonal relations influence political developments to a large extent”.
The smallness of the island and the personalistic dimension of politics also mean that the media is often not very critical and unable to effectively monitor and checkup on the local government (Veenendaal, 2016). Overall, the notion of ‘smallness’ is set to characterize the political dynamics of many non-sovereign island jurisdictions. On the one hand, smallness enables regular contact between citizens and politicians and usually leads to higher voter turnouts (Veenendaal, 2016, p. 168), which could be seen as something positive, on the other hand, smallness often encompasses a lack of resources (including human resources) and ineffective organization, which has a negative effect on the functioning of the media and civil society organizations, which as a consequence can often not hold politicians accountable (Veenendaal, 2016, p. 163).
Ratuva (2008, p.33) has noted that local political dynamics (on small islands) can often be understood as a “a reciprocal relationship where politicians are supposed to provide something tangible for the people in return for votes.” This has also been coined clientelist politics. With regard to this relationship, scholars have argued that kinship is also of importance (Ratuva, 2008, p.33) According to Veenendaal (2016, b, p.266): “politics on St. Eustatius is traditionally (1) very personal in nature; (2) strongly antagonistic and polarized; and (3) influenced to a significant extent by patron-client relationships between citizens and politicians.” Given the presence of polarization, personalism and patron-client relationships in politics, as well as the lack of a critical media landscape, Veenendaal (2016, p.154-155) questions whether citizens are able to form ‘robust opinions on the political status’.
This observation is in line with the observations of other scholars. According to Druckman et al. (2013, p.1): “elite polarization dramatically changes the way in which citizens form opinions” and “elite polarization prompts citizens to make decisions of significantly lower quality”. Druckman et al (2013) explains this by stating that in polarized environments less attention is paid to the actual substance or merit of a particular issue, and instead prompts partisan motivated thinking. Moreover, Druckman et al. (2013, p.27) observe that in these polarized environments people may hold
stronger opinions; they will regard their own opinion as being more valuable, which means a change of opinion is unlikely to arise except if the party, or - given the personalistic nature of politics on St. Eustatius - leading politicians, changes its/their opinion.
Moreover, scholars have observed that politicians can have an effect on how people perceive certain issues; in other words, politicians can influence citizens’ emotions and opinions (Brader et al., 2004, p.1; Verhoeven and Duyvendak, 2015, p.2). Political discourses, performances and the frames, including the use of ‘emotional appeals’, politicians uphold, are important herein. Especially given the lack of a critical media landscape on St. Eustatius, and thus the lack of potential accountability, the extent to which politicians can influence the public may be more extensive. In other words, the lack of a critical media landscape may be conducive to political influence in shaping citizen’s emotions and forming opinions on certain topics.
In order to make sense of the dynamical and tense relationship between the Statian government and the Netherlands, I will adhere to the concept ‘contentious governance’. This concept has been proposed by Verhoeven and Broer (2015, p.3), and acknowledges that the government is not a coherent entity, or actor, but is rather composed of a set of competing governmental actors, on various governance levels, meaning that one governmental actor can be the initiators of certain claims that go against the claims made by other governmental actors. In other words, there may be disagreement between and among governmental players (Verhoeven and Broer, 2015, p.1), as opposed to the idea that ‘the government’ is always in unified alliance. In contentious governance, governmental actors can behave as social movement like actors (Verhoeven and Broer, 2015), for instance when they try to mobilize citizen support in their claims making, e.g. when arguing against the non-sovereign status. This process of claims making will be analysed by the concept ‘contentious performances’, as defined by Tilly and Tarrow (2007, p.4): “relatively familiar ways […] in which one set of political actors makes collective claims on some other set of political actors”.
Historicity and Deep Story; Slavery and Colonialism
In this section of the theoretical framework I will draw upon the concept ‘historicity’, refer to postcolonial and decolonial thought, and elaborate upon why historicity, in contrast to history, is an important dynamical factor to take into account when making sense of contemporary experiences of non-sovereignty. Although I will merely touch upon the historicities of the people of St. Eustatius in my thesis, I do adhere to this concept here because it acknowledges that past, present and future cannot be understood by treating them as existing separately from one another. In other words, it is argued here that the way people make sense of their past defines how they experience the present, as well as the other way around, and that this determines to a considerable degree how people make sense of their (desired) futures [e.g. whether they would like to remain politically integrated within the Netherlands, or not].
According to Hirsch and Stewart (2005, p.262): ‘historicity […] is the manner in which persons operating under the constraints of social ideologies make sense of the past, while anticipating the future’. In other words, the notion historicity, in contrast to ‘history’, relates to how people experience, and make sense of the past in relation to the present and future. The concept acknowledges that the present, past and future are
interconnected and fused. Rather than treating history as something that is isolated in the past and thus does not affect our present and future, it argues that past, present and future are subject to constant social production (Hirsch and Stewart, 2005, p.262). The concept opposes historicism, a Western notion that has treated the past as existing independently from the present, which has too often led to the implicit assumptions that; ‘history is over and done with—gone forever’ (Hirsch and Stewart, 2005, p.263). In line with this idea, and with regard to the observed sensation of recolonization mentioned in the first section, I follow the views of Baldacchino (2010) and Nadarajah & Grydehøj (2016), whom regard colonialism and decolonization as on-going processes. For instance, Nadarajah & Grydehøj (2016, p.439) note that ‘it is [often] popularly felt that the colonial status persists long after the island has been granted substantial autonomy and/or formally integrated into and theoretically made an equal part of its parent state”. With regard to the historicities of the people of St. Eustatius, and given the topic at question, taking into account this (anti)colonial sentiment among previously colonized peoples will be paramount when trying to understand how people experience non-sovereignty; how people experience the past in relation to the present and future. Some scholars have questioned the ‘post’ in post-colonialism (Baldacchino, 2010, p.190), as this would suggest colonialism is ‘over’, whereas various forms of colonialism and neocolonial supremacy, not excluding subtle forms of colonialism, are still very much a reality to this day. Baldacchino (2010, p. 196) argues: “The relationship between colonial and postcolonial is not a neatly dialectical one. The postcolonial need not imply the anticolonial, and not even the post colonial’. Nadarajah & Grydehøj (2016) concur as they argue decolonialism should be understood as a process, rather than an event that can be simply be demarcated. In the words of Nadarajah & Grydehøj (2016, p.439): “the task of decolonization remains unfinished, and is perhaps unfinishable.”
Especially also since social divisions and inequalities are understood as (the outcome of) a process, it is important to take into account ‘historicity’ (Anthias, 2013, p.12). After all, both social divisions and inequalities, as well as ideas and sentiments of ‘re-colonization’, are constructed over time. In order to ‘unpack’ this, I aim to take into account people’s accounts of the colonial historicity of St. Eustatius; how do they refer and make sense of the past, and how does that shape their idea of the present and future? It can be observed that there is a certain distrust toward the previous colonizer, or ‘metropolis’, by people in the Caribbean: “[the metropolis] started out in the region as a crass colonial power populating its plantation colonies with African slaves […] Their descendants are as keenly aware of this historical background as of the fact that the metropolitan appreciation of said background is usually very limited” (Oostindie, 2006, p. 612-613).
Correspondingly, according to Quik-Schuijt and Broekhuijse (2016, p.61): “two particular related and recurring causes that have created emotionally deep relationship wounds within the Kingdom are colonialism and unfruitful decisions regarding the colonial and post-colonial administration”. To make sense of these emotional wounds and the effect these may have on people’s non-sovereign experience, I will borrow Hochschild (2016) concepts of a ‘deep-story’ and ‘emotional-self interest’, and connect it to the concept of ‘historicity’. Apart from actual differing economic outcomes in relation to the shift toward non-sovereignty, the phenomenon ‘emotional self-interest’ described by
Hochschild (2016) may shed light on why people prefer an autonomous country status, and experience the current status as unbeneficial to them, even though any other status might go against their economic self-interest. These concepts could therefore account for the gap between the SNJI hypothesis and the dissatisfaction among citizens.
At this point I would like to argue that people’s historicities could be understood as being part and parcel of their ‘deep story’; a ‘feels-as-if’ story encompassing how people feel, as opposed to what factually is (Hochschild, 2016, p.135). The emotional wounds of colonialism and slavery will undoubtedly play out in people’s deep stories. Inspired by Hochschild (2016), I would argue that people’s deep story shapes their emotional self-interests and thus explains why people would prefer a political leader, or status preference, even though it might go against their economic self-interest. To some on the island, emotional self-interest may be dominant over economic self-interest in voting for sovereignty over non-sovereignty. The emotional, I would argue, is constructed by historicities; past experiences. To me, the concept of historicity and people’s deep story fit like a puzzle; the subjective experience of the past in relation to the present and future shape people’s deep story.
Conclusion
In island studies literature, SNIJs are often internationally compared to quantitatively assess whether non-sovereignty is beneficial. In general, scholars tend to positively assess non-sovereignty, based on certain tangible benefits. At this point, it can be concluded that scholars discussing the SNIJ hypothesis often do not take into account social divisions and inequalities in island societies, whereas these can account for how benefits and drawbacks of non-sovereignty are experienced. Moreover, the SNIJ hypothesis does not account for the variety of political arrangements within non-sovereignty, whereas this may influence how SNIJs are evaluated. Scholars have paid little attention to the range of political arrangements out there and the different extent of sovereignty vs. non-sovereignty SNIJs are subject to.
The point is made that it is likely significant inequalities exist in how benefits and drawbacks are allocated among the population. The emphasis is made that the intersections of social divisions need to be looked into to fully understand how some people may be more disadvantaged by others by a non-sovereign status. Apart from the tangible inequality in the distribution of benefits vs. drawbacks, people’s historicities and deep stories may account for how people’s status preferences are not congruent with the SNIJ hypothesis; emotional self-interest may be dominant over certain economic self-interests, depending, among other things, on the specific ways people make sense of the past in relation to the present and future.
Experiences of non-sovereignty and status preferences evolve in a context of political polarization and contentious governance, which can be characterized by contentious performances. Due to a lack of critical media landscape, little opportunity may be present to counter political claims. This may influence people’s experience and status preference to a significant degree. In this theoretical framework, I have moved away from a mere quantitative assessment of non-sovereignty. I have argued in favour of assessing islands as non-coherent and heterogeneous arenas, as opposed to homogenous and coherent entities or jurisdictions. Moreover, I have argued for the
importance of taking into account intersectionality, historicity and political dynamics when assessing the experienced benefits and drawbacks to non-sovereignty.
Chapter 3: Research Design
My thesis encompasses literature research, ethnographic fieldwork and a case study analysis. To make sense of experiences of non-sovereignty, recent literature on sub-national island jurisdictions, social divisions, intersectionality, historicity and contentious governance have been discussed. My analysis is positioned in the interpretative tradition; I am deeply interested in the ways in which people attribute meaning to non-sovereignty, contentious governance and the past in relation to the present.
Methods of Data Collection
My main research method has been ethnography; I have combined participant observations with qualitative interviews. Ethnographic fieldwork has been conducted between the 5th of April and the 8th of May 2017. During my 5-week stay, CNSI - the Caribbean Netherlands Science Institute - became my home away from home. I volunteered at the single largest supermarket and department store on the island, called Duggins, which allowed me to participate among, as well as observe and talk to many people of the community. Three to four days a week I volunteered at Duggins, mostly working in the supermarket on the ground floor, as opposed to the department store on the first floor. I chose this setting because I imagined that this would be a place where I would encounter everyday citizens of St. Eustatius, as opposed to merely tourists or any other specific social group.
On my first full day on St. Eustatius, I went to the Historical Foundation to learn about the history of St. Eustatius; it was here that I obtained the name of the owner of Duggins during one of my conversation about the political status on the island (Field notes, 06-04-2014). Knowing whom to ask for, I decided to approach the owner the following day, and luckily she allowed me to do volunteering; I could start the following Monday. I worked closely together with Lola*, a woman from the Dominican Republic who had been living in St. Eustatius for many years†. My work at Duggins entailed stocking the shelves, pricing foodstuffs, packing of vegetables and fish, throwing away the garbage, carrying boxes, helping customers, and more. When helping customers, I would tell them about my research and ask them about the political status of the island and the changes following 10-10-10. My colleagues introduced me to many customers, which made it easier for me to start up a conversation. On the days I did not work at Duggins, I arranged and conducted my interviews, wrote memos and explored the island.
With regard to sampling, I adopted a combination of snowball sampling and opportunistic sampling (Bryman, 2012, p.419-424). Snowball sampling turned out to be the most useful sampling method for me; the people I got to know, conversed with and/or interviewed, introduced me to their acquaintances in the community. Through snowball sampling, I aimed at conducting approximately 15-20 interviews. However, during fieldwork, I discovered that many people were not very enthusiastic about the idea of an interview, whereas, for example, they were most willing to talk to me for half
* Pseudonym
an hour or more. I noticed that as soon as I dropped the word ‘interview’, many people got hesitant and reluctant to participate. Consequently, I decided to change my strategy and use the opportunities I got to talk to people, as opposed to ask them for an interview. At this note, I would like to point out that any quotes of the non-recorded interviews and field notes may me somewhat rephrased.
In the end, I conducted eight interviews in the months of April and May 2017 and had more than 30 conversations with people on the street, in the supermarket and elsewhere. The interviews were conducted in English and Dutch, mostly at people’s workplace, and lasted approximately 20 to 180 minutes. Five out of 8 conversations were recorded, the other three were not. Once, on the first day of my stay on St. Eustatius, the interview appointment occurred spontaneously so that I did not bring my recording device. The other two times I decided not to ask to record the interview, because the interviewees in question were hesitant to participate at first. Whenever I did not record the interviews, I worked out my notes as soon as I got the opportunity, but always on the same day. The 30+ conversations took place in English, Dutch and Spanish and nearly all lasted approximately 5 minutes to 90 minutes; in the supermarket, in a bar, on the street, at a birthday party, at the barbershop and elsewhere. Given the above, the difference between interviews and conversations are not so clear-cut. For both the interviews and the conversations, most questions asked were open-ended, in order to limit the researcher’s influence. I conducted unstructured, open interviews, in which I discussed a theme and then listened and responded to whatever came up.
I sought to interview and talk to a variety of people, especially in terms of the various social divisions under analysis, as this would give me a more balanced and representative idea of the experience of citizens on St. Eustatius in terms of non-sovereignty. I managed to get in touch with many people from the Dominican and Statian community, but I could have talked to more Dutch and Asian people living on the island. This limitation is more elaborately discussed in the discussion. I have interviewed 6 men and 2 women, from approximately 30 to 80 years. All interviewees had Statian ancestry and belonged to the same ethnic group. This is partly compensated by the fact that many people I talked to in the supermarket and elsewhere belonged to the Dominican community. This has to do with the fact that I worked closely together with Lola, who introduced me to Spanish acquaintances in the supermarket and invited me to birthday parties, lunch appointments, a dinner at a friend’s house and other events. Although most of the interviewees were men, the majority of the people I talked to in the supermarket and elsewhere were women. As a consequence, the limitation of interviewing more men than women is partly resolved.
I took both descriptive and reflective field notes (notes of what I saw, heard and experienced, versus field notes of how I felt and what I thought) throughout my stay. I worked out my field notes every day/evening, in order not to forget minor, yet potentially important, details (Stainback & Stainback, 1984). I always brought with me a
pen and a notebook. Whenever I wasn’t able to make notes during a conversation, I would take some time immediately after to write down the conversation I had just had. Of course this isn’t ideal, and I reflect upon this practice in my discussion. Lastly, I wrote a few integrative memos, in which I reflected on insights during fieldwork and tried to link ideas and categories to one another.
The identified social divisions in my research proposal, derived from the literature, were: class, religion and kinship (Ayisi, p.1992; Van den Bor, 1979, Veenendaal, 2016). Based on fieldwork experience I noticed that not all social divisions were equally relevant in understanding the difference in experiences of non-sovereignty. Accordingly, I changed my focus to class and ethnicity, as these, based on fieldwork experience, seemed most prominently influencing people’s experiences of non-sovereignty. This change in focus reflects my partly grounded theory approach.
Apart from ethnographic fieldwork data, secondary data has been collected through the Internet and through email contact with interviewees. Although not the focus of analysis, secondary data will also be analysed, such as data from the evaluation report of the Committee Spies (2015). Among other things, this has been done to analyse to what extent my findings overlap with other data available.
With regard to reflexivity, It has been observed that studying small islands ‘invokes and academic colonial gaze – the outsider, ‘the expert’, looking in’ (King, 2009, p. 55). In an effort to decolonize research, the concept ‘nissology’ developed, which emphasised the importance of studying islands ‘on their own terms’ in a manner that is sensitive to a more ethical researcher-island relationship by, among others, enabling island populations to define the research agenda (McCall, 1996). This concept, or way of research, has faced criticism in two ways. Firstly, it has been argued by King (2009, p.56-57) that certain academic practices and strategies may go beyond the view of the island populations. Secondly, King (2009, p.56-57) has argued that ‘the division between islanders and non-islanders, insiders and outsiders, is not so clear-cut. Given islands’ long histories of migration, both in and out, who is an islander? What, therefore, is meant by “on their own terms”? The latter, then, quite strikingly, also captures my critique on the SNIJ hypothesis, as it does not presuppose island communities as coherent entities, but instead acknowledges differentiation on the basis of, among others, ethnicity and migration status. My research design therefore does not adhere to nissology; instead, I will take a community perspective by centralizing people’s experiences, as opposed to expert views, and discuss my own role as a white Dutch male as a limitation in the discussion.
At this point, with regard to reflexivity, I would like to note that being a white Dutch young man has influenced my data collection. My appearance and origin shaped whom I talked to - and whom I did not talk to! - and shaped the answers I received. When advising me on how to collect my data, one research participant remarked: ‘The colour of your skin is a problem, you understand” (Field notes, 18-04-2017). My origin and appearance has most probably stimulated some to be more hesitant in talking with me than others, and may have, for example, led to more careful responses when discussing the Anti-Dutch sentiment; a limitation that will be touched upon in the discussion. Answers like: ‘I don’t mean to offend you, but …’ (Field notes, 06-04-2017) suggest a certain carefulness when talking about these sensitive issues.
As time went by (and I had proven myself worthy), I noticed that people got less suspicious and were less hesitant in talking with me. Especially in the beginning people had to get used to my presence in the supermarket. For instance, they made jokes, like: ‘He is moving on up’ and ‘We are getting white now’ (Field notes, 10-04-2017). When I asked Lola why people had to laugh and made jokes about me, she said: ‘You know why! You are white and from
Holland, it’s the first time a white boy is working here. They think you crazy for doing this voluntario, it’s considered a bad job; Dutch people can get any job they like’ (Field notes, 10-04-2017). Another consequence of being an odd sight in that particular setting may have been that it encouraged a reporter to write a news item about my research project in the Daily Herald; the leading news paper of the North East Caribbean. The publication of the news item (See Appendix A) allowed me to arrange an interview and moreover led to multiple conversations in the supermarket. As one research participant noted when she saw me stocking the shelves: ‘I saw you in the newspaper! Hey [to husband], here is the guy from the newspaper!’ (Field notes, 26-04-2017). Although it might have influenced my data collection to some extent, the vast majority of conversations with research participants occurred without a relation to the news item.
Methods of Analysis
I coded my field notes and interviews following a hybrid approach of inductive coding and deductive coding, using the coding software MAXQDA. This indicative and deductive hybridity, similar to the what Bernard describes (Bernard, 2011, p.430), relates to the ideas and themes I already had in mind - based on my fieldwork experience, integrative memos and research proposal - when coding my data, although simultaneously being open for new themes to arise. Based on my integrative memos, fieldwork experience and research proposal, I started out more deductively with the following categories in mind: 1) Benefits and Drawbacks to Non-Sovereignty 2) Social divisions 3) Historicity and 4) Political dynamics. Then, in a process of (semi) open coding, I read through the transcribed data very thoroughly to identify and label certain remarks, concepts or ideas that came back regularly. This has been more of an inductive process. I do not assume that open coding has been fully inductive, however, given the fact that I already had some categories in mind.
The second step of analysis entailed a process of axial coding; I established relations between and among the identified open codes and categories by re-reading the transcribed and labeled data. In other words, I drew ‘connections between themes and categories that emerged from open coding’ (Bilge, 2009, p.5). Both steps have been iterative processes; while reading through my data, I altered my coding scheme several times in order for the codes to fit the data and theory. The coding scheme below is the result of this process of deductive and inductive coding:
Category Open code Axial codes
Drawbacks to
Non-sovereignty
Bad Roads Autonomy
Status preference Netherlands Antilles Status preference Public Body
Intersecting social divisions Mingling
Discrimination and racism Figurative language Contentious media performances People’s participation in these dynamics New Laws High Taxes Little autonomy Low Social benefits Better Education Better Healthcare Social
Divisions Lower Class Higher Class Dominicans Statians
European Dutch Historicity Comment on Slavery
Comment on Colonialism Political
Dynamics
Local government and politicians
Dutch government and politicians
Relationship between Statia and Holland
With regard to analyzing intersecting social divisions in relation to experiences of non-sovereignty, I have been inspired by the questions in Bilge’s ‘generic intersectionality template’ (2009, p.7). This part of the analysis also encompassed a more deductive element of the analysis; when re-reading the open codes, I kept in mind questions like: How does class inform this individual account; how does ethnicity inform this individual account? and lastly, how does ethnicity intersect with class in this individual account? (Bilge, 2009, p.7). If an intersectional relationship between open codes was identified, I coded it with the axial code; ‘intersecting social division’.
Following a partly grounded theory approach, my fieldwork experience in St. Eustatius resulted in new theoretical ideas to evolve; ideas which were previously not discussed in my research proposal. My research proposal entailed a theoretical framework that could be understood as a conceptual framework of sensitizing topics (Bowen, 2006, p. 3). It discussed the SNIJ hypothesis and its critique, among others by referring to social divisions and intersectionality. Whereas I already touched upon the concept of historicity in my research proposal, my fieldwork experienced inspired me to give the concept of historicity a more prominent place in this final analysis, including new references to concepts such as ‘deep story’ and ‘emotional-self-interest’. What is also new is the local political dynamics section, which I decided to include in the theoretical framework in response to my fieldwork findings. As I have mentioned, I have primarily focused on ethnicity and class.
With regard to the analysis of ethnicity, ethnicity has been derived from people’s accounts of place of origin and (indirect) accounts of group belonging. For example, a
Statian man argued: “I see the people here as African descendants of the Diaspora” (Interview, 19-04-2017). In contrast, when asking two women from the Dominican Republic if they felt Statian, they indignantly stated: ‘No […]! We are Dominicanas; Dominican women’ (Field notes, 10-04-2017). In contrast to Statians, Dominicans are mostly from mixed European and African decent (Montinaro et al, 2015), which is, among others, expressed by lighter skin tones and a different cultural heritage. For the ease of analysis, the myriad of ethnicities present on St. Eustatius is demarcated to three ethnic groups: European Dutch, Dominicans and Statians of African decent (which I hereafter refer to simply as ‘Statian’). Immigrants other than Dominicans, who have been living on Statia for a long time, and have (indirectly) demonstrated a Statian group belonging (e.g. by means of ‘we’), will also be considered ‘Statian’. In the words of a Statian woman: ‘if you live here for 5 years you are part of the community and we consider you a Statian’ (Field notes, 06-04-2017).
With regard to class, I follow its Weberian definition. In other words, people’s class position in this thesis will be derived from observations of people’s job position and/or people’s accounts of their job position. Additionally, the influence of class in experiencing non-sovereignty will be derived from more indirect accounts. To ensure anonymity, people’s exact profession is not given, although an indication of which class they belong to is often provided if possible and relevant.
With regard to the analysis of the impact of political dynamics on non-sovereign experiences, I analyse people’s accounts on the effect of claims making by the local and national government, and place this in a broader theoretical context of contentious governance and social movement like behaviour by governmental players. In addition to - and partly by means of - analysing contentious performances, which has been defined in the theoretical framework, I aim to find out how the Statian government is mobilizing its citizens in favour and against the non-sovereign political status of the island.
Lastly, apart from social divisions, intersectionality and political dynamics, I will look into people’s historicity. According to Hirsch and Stewart (2005, p.262): “historicity is a dynamic social situation open to ethnographic investigation”. I have analysed people’s historicities, by observing when and how people refer to the past in relation to the present, in addition to explicitly asking about people’s thoughts on the relationship between slavery/colonialism and the current tension with regard to non-sovereignty. As I have outlined in my theoretical framework, I regard the concepts of deep story and historicity to be related. Hochschild (2016) does not extensively elaborate upon how she comes to these deep stories. Given that a deep story is a story of feeling as opposed to fact, and given that it has been observed that figurative language can be understood as the conveyors of emotion (Gibbs et al., 2004), I aim to analyse figurative language in people’s accounts of non-sovereignty to construct deep stories. Specifically, I aim to focus on metaphors, which are considered to be ‘indirect references to emotions’, given that ‘the essence of metaphors is ‘understanding and experiencing one kind of thing in terms of another’’ (Verhoeven and Duyvendak, 2015, p.5). Similarly, other figurative language can also be interpreted as the vehicles of emotions. Gibbs et al. (2004, p.144) have identified that rhetorical questions convey strong negative emotions and that ‘similes’, just like metaphors, often entail an emotional component. Given all the above, I
aim to construct and derive parts of people’s deep stories by, besides listening to their stories, analysing metaphors, similes and rhetorical questions.
Now that I have elaborated on methods of data collection and methods of analysis, the case analysis will follow.
Chapter 4: Case Study Analysis
This chapter consists of 5 parts. Firstly, I will contextualize the case, by shortly touching upon Statia’s geography, demography, economy, colonial history and culture. In addition, I will elaborate upon the process of political integration, discussing, among others, legal and fiscal changes implemented after 10-10-10. After contextualizing the case, I will discuss the more or less tangible benefits and drawbacks to non-sovereignty, by outlining how research participants experienced these theme by theme. Thereafter, I will do the same for more ideational issues. Throughout the analysis, I will try to be explicit in relation to how people belonging to different social divisions, based on ethnicity and class, experience the material and ideational benefits and drawbacks to non-sovereignty. The points of intersection will also be analysed. After having discussed social divisions and intersectionality in relation to non-sovereignty, an analysis of how people perceive the political dynamics in relation to non-sovereignty will follow. Lastly, three deep stories in relation to the changes of non-sovereignty have been composed, which will be made sense of in relation to historicities and ‘emotional self-interest’. Contextualizing the Case
St. Eustatius is an island located in the (North) Eastern part of the Caribbean with a surface area of approximately 21km2 (Van den Bor, 1979, p.8).
Figure 1: Map of former Netherlands Antilles (from Van den Bor, 1979, p.9)
Roughly 3200 people live on Statia (Central Bureau for Statistics, 2016), and according to fieldwork data, the Spanish-speaking community, primarily Dominicans, make up
